[Sean_A]

Kenneth:

Most architects would design around the chosen par, as you describe.  I might make the same mistake, but I would try to resist it. 

On a 300-yard hole, I would likely leave a bit of the green open in front, no matter whether it was a par-4 or a par-5 ... I don't see the point of building a 300-yard par-4 where you have no chance to reach the green other than flying it on.  And I would likely put a fair amount of contour into the green (whether the green was small or large), because I would know that most people were going to be approaching it with a short second shot, no matter what the par says, and they could handle the contour in that case.

As Sean says, most golfers are happier when you give an extra shot for "par" in case of doubt, but there are always a few who downgrade a course for having holes that are "too easy" in relation to par.

Tom

I have never understood the concept of easy or difficult in relation to par.  If someone says that to me I would ask is the hole good or not.  The par of a hole has no bearing on quality.  IMO, easy or difficult in relation to par is bizarre way to look at things and I don't have much time for the "concept".   

Ciao

Ciao

[Andy Troeger]

I don't really think the yardage matters as much as the variety of shots required. If every hole is a 7-iron then that often gets a little boring. I played back-to-back par threes on a course where the yardage was one yard off and I hit 8 iron and 6 iron because of elevation differences. Only bad thing was that I hit 7 and 4 iron on the other two, but the holes themselves played pretty differently even given that. Ideally it would be nice to have a shorty, a long one, and two different mid-range holes, but if they are good holes and offer variety of requirements in some sense then that's good enough for me.

[Carl Rogers]

If I was in the field I would try to get more than 4 par 3's designed for a course.  I think the shorter holes are an equalizer for the long handicapper.
I do emphatically believe that the longer par 3 must allow the ground game. 

Riverfront no.2 is a good example.  The solid straight shot always plays for a 3.

[Forrest Richardson]

Back to par-3s...

As I have quoted Mr. John Low here before:

"The short hole should not be long."

[Jon Spaulding]

So long as they're varied, I could care less. Far too many places where you hit the same club on multiple par 3's. A 30-35 yard split seems to be the best balance from personal experience.

[Bruce Leland]

I just played a scenic little course in South Eastern Minnesota where this question became real for me during the round.  The 15th hole had a tee added at 254 yards.  To me, it seemed contrived to add length to the card.

The existing tees maxed out at 210 yards, the hole played downhill to an adequately sized green with a front right bunker and a stream running behind the hole.  There was a bail out area to the left of the green and you could run the ball onto the left side of the green so in most cases I wouldn't think the added yardage missed the mark.  The problem was the shot corridor from 254 was impinged by overhanging trees such that it was all but impossible to force a shot through the foliage.

One of my favorite "long" one shotters is the 8th hole at Northland CC in Duluth.  It plays 235 yards and fits very well with a strong 3 hole stretch to wrap up the front side.

[Steve Lang]

 

It depends which club's accuracy needs to be tested at that point in the routing...

[Scott Szabo]

I like a mix of shorts.

One short short, two medium shorts and one long short.

For the long short,  230 is probably the longest I want to encounter, dependent on conditions of course.  That's a well struck 3-wood or choke-down driver for me. 205-215 (5-wood) is probably more comfortable. (I don't play the back tees...)

The 15th at We-Ko-Pa Saguaro was fun - 233 from the 2nd tee, but downhill.

I dislike the shorter courses that add to their overall length by having four long par 3's.

Well put Tom and I couldn't agree more.  I have played a few of the newer "championship" courses here in Colorado that have four par threes playing at approximately the same length - about 210 or 220 each.  No varitery whatsoever.  Courses that immediately come to mind are Ptarmigan and Pelican Lakes, both in Windsor Colorado.

[Matthew Rose]

Ideally, four different directions and I'd hit four different clubs. I suppose the length doesn't necessarily dictate by itself when wind gets involved.

I lived on a course which was 190, 196, 190, and 218 and the three shorter holes all played in exactly the same direction. Wasn't terribly interesting and I sure didn't like hitting 3/4 iron. It was not uncommon for me to bogey all four of them, even in an otherwise decent round.

Hitting a wood doesn't bother me, as long as there's room. I've played some dumb muni courses with 240 yard par-3s where the green was 20 yards deep and wide, elevated three feet all around, and sloped four feet from back to front. And there were two holes like this.

Wanna make me hit driver... okay, but give me a runway.

I find 100 yarders just as thrilling. The muni that I grew up on had a 108 yarder with a big oak tree blocking the left half of the green.... if the pin was on the left third, you had to fly it over. It was fun because the tree was tall enough that the woman and junior player could go underneath it.

[Forrest Richardson]

Matt — I am curious, do you feel entitled to be able to always reach a par-3 green in one stroke? If not, what percentage (reaching the green) would seem right for a 10-handicap player?

[Steve Lang]

 

that there should even be a question of entitlement to reach a par three green

this speaks to how things are screwed up.. in gca design and player egos

the one-shotter is dead.. long live the one-shotter

[Forrest Richardson]

Then No. 8 at Oakmont is not OK? Even before Tom Marzolf/Fazio retooled it, it was a beefy distance and, at least in 1952, was seldom reached by most players from the back tees. Lew Worsham commented to Jack Snyder (then greenkeeper) that it was a "25% proposition to be putting," and that came from a fairly decent player.

What about Cypress No. 16?

If it fits the course and land, then I say a mostly* non-reachable par-3 is fair game.

*1/3 of players expected with a decent play from the regular-to-back teeing area

[Matt_Ward]

Forrest:

For what it's worth -- short bunters will always bitch and moan about long par-3's -- that's why so many of them wax poetic about the short holes because they are within their comfort / skill levels.

The long par-3 is part and parcel in making players hit the longer shots that far too often you don't get much on many courses. Nothing wrong with the drive or 3-metal or long iron coming ouf of the bag.

I'm not advocate for all or nearly all such holes playing long -- see Paa-Ko-Ridge in NM as an example where, with just one exception, the par-3's are extremely long albeit at a high altitude.

The issue really boils down to using what the land provides and to have all of the par-3 holes play to a different direction as a first priority in order to make sure the wind pattern is not easily replicated on any given day.

[Forrest Richardson]

I agree. Ideally the 3s play differently. And, to my taste, there are five of them. Why? I like par-3s.

[Tim Nugent]

My 2cents worth.  1 225 plus, 1 145 or less and the rest in between.  For the most part, par3's give the architect a chance to insert a club selection that is missing on the 4's and 5's.  Hence, I don't look at the actual yardage per say but rather the club needed.  With the advances of club/ball technology, the long par three is needed to test long iron play (although hybrid's or making that shot easier).  Another reason that the wind direction is critical to the equation.
I think the problem we have with those who are "critical" is that they are playing from tees that don't fit their game only their ego.  If you are going to step on the back tees, you loose all right to bitch - just cowboy up.
I also like some variety in the settings for par 3's with some being dry and some including water (pond or stream).  Not a big fan of the "off the edge of the cliff" drop shot -too great an element of luck of the proper guess for club selection.
While I don't particularly like uphill par 3's (I like to see the putting surface contours for shot placement/shape) I do have a soft spot for the short, plateau  (NGL, BCC - 5 farms) green.

[Dan King]

Matt Ward writes:
For what it's worth -- short bunters will always bitch and moan about long par-3's -- that's why so many of them wax poetic about the short holes because they are within their comfort / skill levels.

Similar to how players with weak mental attitudes will bitch and moan about short par-3s.

Cheers,
Dan King

But I winna' speak o' gowf, oh no. I can only tell ye about my teacher, for 'twas he ha showed me the way. 'Twas he taught me a' the graces o' the geeme, to hold my temper when retreatin' from par or bogey, to use the inner eye to make the game a very prayer.
 --Evan Tyree (Golf in the Kingdom)

[Matthew Rose]

Matt — I am curious, do you feel entitled to be able to always reach a par-3 green in one stroke? If not, what percentage (reaching the green) would seem right for a 10-handicap player?

No, I'm not "entitled" to anything.

I think though that if I've got a driver in my hand that I should at least have a bigger margin of error.

[Dan King]

Matt Rose writes:
I think though that if I've got a driver in my hand that I should at least have a bigger margin of error.

You must be playing some other game where you are forced to hit certain clubs. In golf, you have options. The USGA R&A rules even give you a maximum of 14 choices. What is this game that forces you to hit driver?

Cheers,
Dan King

The golfer has more enemies than any other athlete. He has 14 clubs in his bag, all of them different; 18 holes to play, all of them different every week; and all around him are sand, trees, grass, water, wind, and 143 other players. In addition, the game is 50 percent mental, so his biggest enemy is himself.
 --Dan Jenkins

[Jeff_Brauer]

I should probably know this, but what do the rules actually say about par?  Is the distance guideline of 250-470 just that?  I know the USGA exceeds both 250 for par 3's and 470 for par 4's in its event.  I believe that a heavily treed dogleg of 249 yards could be called a par 4 by a club if there was no way a golfer could reach the green for his/her attempt at a "standard 2 putt" par, no?

Overall, I don't think its unreasonable to assume that, barring exceptional wind, a golfer can reach a hole in "regulation figures", actual rule or not, with two good shots.

[Forrest Richardson]

http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/sections/section_16.html

However, the exceptionally uphill, into-the-wind or otherwise difficult 450-yard hole can indeed be deemed a par-5. The regular tees for this hole are about 445-yards.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()