[Ben Sims]

I have read several threads lately dealing with par 3's as either the first or last hole in a layout.  They mostly seem to center around which courses have a one shotter that fits the description.

I wanted to ask the collective, why a particular course has a one shot hole to begin or finish?  I think a better question to tie into that would be, why is it generally regarded as a bad idea to start or finish a course with a par 3.

It seems to me that it could restrict creativity and imagination in routing by holding to this "rule".

[Ken Moum]

Personally, if I ever built a course, I would try to find a routing that opened with a good par three.

One of my pet peeves is courses that puch golfers onto the course every 7 minutes, only to have them pile up on the first par three. On a course with a par three to open the golfers would have to be spaced out from the beginning, dramatically reducing the probability of backups thereafter.

Ken

[Adrian_Stiff]

I have read several threads lately dealing with par 3's as either the first or last hole in a layout.  They mostly seem to center around which courses have a one shotter that fits the description.

I wanted to ask the collective, why a particular course has a one shot hole to begin or finish?  I think a better question to tie into that would be, why is it generally regarded as a bad idea to start or finish a course with a par 3.

It seems to me that it could restrict creativity and imagination in routing by holding to this "rule".

Ben I dont really think any architect would design the first hole as a par 3 unless his parcel of land really dictated. You really reduce the amount of people you can get onto a golf course so unless you actually want a very uncrowded course it is commercial disaster, remember most courses WANT players. Start times flow nicely at about 8 minutes, a 200 yarder might take 12 minutes. As playing a starting hole, its not a bad idea to ease people into a round, so a 205 yard 3 iron is quite a tough first shot, in some respects a 240 yarder could make more sense as most will hit a driver or wooden club. There dont seem many sub 150 yarders as the first hole. As for the 18th being a par 3, I dont think this is a bad idea if the land or hole is sufficently interesting, if the land is less restrictive I think most architects would look for a fairly strong hole so probably a longish four.

[Ben Sims]

Adrian,

In reality Adrian, I can think of many clubhouse locations that would allow--even beg for--a quality one shot hole instead of the usual mundane par 4.  Your pace of play argument makes a ton of sense, for courses seeing a large volume of play.  But a course that sees 4000-10000 rounds a year?  I think a par 3 opener would be just fine.  As to a par 3 opener being too exacting; isn't a 160 yard 6 iron from the tee just as exacting as a 160 yard 6 iron from the fairway? 

By the way, the best conclusion to a round I've seen this year was at Pasa.  The 18th there seemed like an ultra-appropriate way to close out the shotmaking that it requires.  The green isn't nearly as contoured as some of the others out there, and the look off the tee is pretty dang good.

[Adam Clayman]

Ben, Foggily recalling from the dark ages of gca.com  Almost any design rule can be broken. BUT, if they are, it should be infrequently, and, if it's a gamble taken, it better pay off.

Otherwise, IMO, It's only become formulaic since golf became something that needed to be maximized on a revenue front.  There's plenty of examples of older courses (Like Pasa) that violate this perceived rule.

The local course here starts with them on both sides, and so did my old home course, PG. The big difference is the lengths of the starters. Here in Windy Nebraska, they are longer than PG's and can be just horrible ways to start the day. (Especially High School tourneys) At PG they seemed less horrible because they were shorter and the majority of golfers were better on the Monterey Peninsula. FWIW, At this years H.S Districts we moved the back tees to the White Box and it helped pace immeasurably. But it didn't change the horrible reality of having a par 3 start with OB on both sides directly into the prevailing south wind.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian,

In reality Adrian, I can think of many clubhouse locations that would allow--even beg for--a quality one shot hole instead of the usual mundane par 4.  Your pace of play argument makes a ton of sense, for courses seeing a large volume of play.  But a course that sees 4000-10000 rounds a year?  I think a par 3 opener would be just fine.  As to a par 3 opener being too exacting; isn't a 160 yard 6 iron from the tee just as exacting as a 160 yard 6 iron from the fairway? 

By the way, the best conclusion to a round I've seen this year was at Pasa.  The 18th there seemed like an ultra-appropriate way to close out the shotmaking that it requires.  The green isn't nearly as contoured as some of the others out there, and the look off the tee is pretty dang good.

Ben - I agree a par 3 18th if the land is right. Remember most projects we have to make the land interesting, the great natural sites are very rare, and courses that just want to do 4-10,000 rounds are equally as rare. Yes a 6 iron start from the tee is fine if things dont have to be commercial sense.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()