Are 5 par Threes better than 4?

[mike_malone]

If shots to the green are the main focus of the architectural interest, isn't better to have an extra par three?
    I often find my evalution of my enjoyment of the course centering on the par threes.An example would be Glen Mills here in Eastern PA.There are 2 long par threes--one uphill with several tiers---one steeply downhill with a trapazoidal green that has a ridge that runs from front to back.The shorter 3's have one with a huge bunker that blinds the front of the green;one over water;and one reverse redan slighty uphill.
   Each of these presents a fun approach.I think there are 5 3's in an effort  to handle the lack of size to the property.

[Jeff Shelman]

Well, as someone who  has never had a hole-in-one, I'm in favor of a course with five par 3s. After growing up on a course with three 3s and three 5s, I'm now a member at a club with 5 3s and 5 5s.

Personally,  I find that more interesting as a golfer.

[Michael Dugger]

If they fit the land best and contribute to the best routing, definately!

[Paul Richards]

At my Home Course, Beverly CC, there are 5 par threes - each at a different distance and each in a different direction.  It definately works here due to Ross' superior routing.

[Tom_Doak]

I think I've built five par threes on four or five of my courses, including both courses at Stonewall and Pacific Dunes.

I don't think it's better than four, or worse ... it just depends on what fits best.  But I certainly don't look for five short holes at the start.

There are only three par-3 holes on Kingston Heath and Royal Melbourne (Composite) and The National.  And there's only two on one famous course ... it takes a minute to think of it, but you should all know that one.

[Mark_F]

If courses were built with an extra par three, wouldn't the driver manufacturers immediately launch a class action because the developer/architect was attempting to diminish use of their goods?

Tom Doak:

Surely the course you're thinking of only has one par three?

If you had the choice, at, say, St Andrews Beach or Barnbougle Dunes between a brilliant 5th par three and a really good short par four, what would you choose?

[Sean_A]

If shots to the green are the main focus of the architectural interest, isn't better to have an extra par three?
    I often find my evalution of my enjoyment of the course centering on the par threes.An example would be Glen Mills here in Eastern PA.There are 2 long par threes--one uphill with several tiers---one steeply downhill with a trapazoidal green that has a ridge that runs from front to back.The shorter 3's have one with a huge bunker that blinds the front of the green;one over water;and one reverse redan slighty uphill.
   Each of these presents a fun approach.I think there are 5 3's in an effort  to handle the lack of size to the property.

Mike

Generally, I would agree with you - thats assuming of course that all 5 have a reason to exist!  However, it isn't the set piece aspect which attracts me to 5 par 3s (though it is helpful), its more the idea of keeping overall yardage and par down which I believe encourages a more intimate routing.  Plus, some rather harsh land can often better be utilized as a par 3 or perhaps even used a linker hole to get to more wild land.  It almost goes without saying that I have linksy/a bit hilly land in mind while writing this.

Thinking of it though, I can only think of two of my very favourite courses which have 5 par 3s - Pennard & St Enodoc.  On the other hand, I can only think of one course which has only 3 par 3s, but that course has 3 driveable par 4s - Prestwick. 


Ciao 

[James Bennett]

There are only three par-3 holes on Kingston Heath and Royal Melbourne (Composite) and The National.  

And,... Royal Adelaide!  Eisenhower Cup being played here in a month's time!

James B

[Terry Thornton]

And,... Royal Adelaide!  Eisenhower Cup being played here in a month's time!

James B

in a weeks time, finals 18 & 19 Oct

[Mark Pearce]

Only 2 at Elie and I don't think it loses out on approach shots.

[Anthony Gray]

   Has there ever been a major on a course with 5 par 3's?  Would 5 par 3's eliminate a course from major consideration?

[Jim Nugent]

   Has there ever been a major on a course with 5 par 3's?  Would 5 par 3's eliminate a course from major consideration?

St. Louis CC held the 1947 U.S. Open.  The course has 5 par 3's. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think 4x 3s and 4 x5s is the perfect plan you start with, but just let the land dictate. Probably the more 3s the more fun.

[mike_malone]

 I'm glad I still agree with something I said 5 years ago; I guess I can't run for President!

   The main point is that par threes seem to engage the whole range of golfing ability more often. Plus the chance for a hole in one captivates us all.

[Jerry Kluger]

My recollection is that Friar's Head has 5 par 3s as does Blackstone in Arizona.

The biggest problem I see with 5 pars 3s is avoiding repetition - I have played a number of courses where it seems that many of the par 3s are the same top of shot - usually a drop shot.  That is not a problem with the two I mentioned above.

[mike_malone]

 Jerry,

   The 5 at Glen Mills are one 150-170 yard downhill with a huge bunker that blinds 3/4 of the entrance; the next is 190-200+ uphill with four tiers; the next is 200 downhill to a huge intriguing green and a forced carry over gunk; then there is the redanish 145 yard slightly uphill; the last is over angled water 145 yards. Great variety is experienced throughout.

   I also play at a course with five par 3's. The last thing that enters my mind is boredom.

[Bill Brightly]

I sort of disagree. I look at it this way: a par 3 is an approach shot to a green complex where you have been "handed" the desired tee ball that a Par 4 contemplates. The designer has placed you where he expects you to be, and you did not have the challenge of hitting a driver (or other club) to get to this spot.

Since we both just played Beechtree, I'll use the 17th hole as an example.
This hole would play nicely as a 140-160 par 3: there is certainly enough interest with the high front-right bunker guarding the green, and the green itself has a lot going on; it definitely requires accuracy to have a legitimate birdie attempt. But the tee shot adds so much more to the hole: bunkers guard the left side, and Doak gives you a wide open right side, which just happens to be a poor angle to the green. So I say par 4's, by definition, have an inherit advantage over par 3's from an interest standpoint.

[Jerry Kluger]

Bill: Perhaps one might argue then that in some respects more par 5s are desirable as they can demand even more quality shots.  Where I would agree with the original question is that too often there is a forumula that is followed without consideration of the benefits of a variance.  Par 3s can often be used to deal with a situation that the architect is faced with but he is pleased with 4 par 3s he has already routed in and is hesitant of a fifth.

[Bill Brightly]

The easy answer is that the land should dictate the type of hole.

While I love par 5 holes, I think the wide variety of lengths that players hit the ball break down the architect's ability to "set up" a ceratin approach shot on par 5's. The 3rd shot on  par 5 will be any where from a wedge to a 3-wood based on the players' length, so by definition, the more challenging the green complex, the more difficult the hole becomes for higher handicaps and shorter hitters. Thats why I think par 4's present the best blend of interest and architectural intent.

[James Bennett]

   I also play at a course with five par 3's. The last thing that enters my mind is boredom.

Absolutely Mayday.  a short #3, an moderate #6, a loonnnggggggg #10, a daunting long #14 and an intriguing middle-length #16.  Three of the holes traverse gullies (IIRC).  None are boring.  Always memorable Mr Flynn.

James B

[JohnV]

   Has there ever been a major on a course with 5 par 3's?  Would 5 par 3's eliminate a course from major consideration?

Pumpkin Ridge - Witch Hollow - 1 US Am, 1 US Women's Am and 2 Women's Opens.