Par 3s All The Same Distance

[David Whitmer]

Last week I was up in Chicago and had the pleasure of playing Skokie CC and Butler National GC. Regarding Butler National...I really enjoyed it, and thought it was a very good golf course. However, while replaying the round after we finished, I realized that I hit the exact same club into all four of the par 3s.

The fifth hole plays 179 yards (according to the scorecard), and I hit a 5-iron. The eighth hole plays 179 yards, and I hit a 5-iron. The eleventh hole plays 176 yards, and I hit a 5-iron. Finally, the thirteenth hole plays 170 yards, and to a back hole location I hit a 5-iron.

I thought all four were good solid golf holes. I guess my question is: does the fact that they all played about the same yardage detract from the golf course if they are good golf holes? Do the elite, terrific golf courses have a disparity of yardages in their par 3s? I don't know how I feel about it, to be honest with you. I didn't realize it during the round, so in that sense it didn't jump out at me.

[Jed Peters]

Yes.

It takes away from the golf course as a whole.

At my home Club, all the par 3s play relatively the same.

This takes away from the course as a whole.

[Niall C]

David

I recall playing Craigielaw, a relatively new course in East Lothian which has 5 par 3's. I used the club on every single hole. Given that it is a seaside course and therefore has wind, and that the par 3's play in various directions, I couldn't make up my mind whether it was a freak result or because the greenkeeper hadn't given any thought in picking the tee/pin positions. As it happened my combined score on the par 3's was 2 under so unsurprisingly I didn't mind too much playing the same club.

Niall

[Scott Warren]

I reckon they'd want to all be bloody good holes, and the land would have to steadfastly dictate that they all played that length. If there is room to lengthen or shorten one or two and that hadn't been done, it might suggest it was deliberate, which would be a worry, IMO.

[tlavin]

It's obvious that they didn't use their best judgment in setting up the golf course that day.  I've never had that experience at Butler, because the tee boxes are large enough to provide a definite difference in distance.  The one criticism one can't wield on the par 3's at Butler is that they all look the same, because they are quite different in appearance.  

[David Stamm]

This is a bit of a peeve of mine. A course that comes to mind is Pauma Valley. Both par 3's on the front are the same distance and club and both on the back are the same. They are not bad holes, they just lack variety, which I think is essential for a course to be truly great. Mission Viejo, same thing, every one of them for me was a 5 iron. I think alot of present day architects are afraid of very strategic, precise short par 3's. You rarely see this in modern courses. I think a solid set of par 3's should require a long shot, 200-225 yds, a couple of mid shots, ranging from 160-185, and one short one that requires a 125-150 yds. This is of course if the property allows for it and should not be attempted if it is a force fit. The natural flow of the property should never be altered to achieve a formula, but if it can provide a wide range of distances to give the golfer a more complete examination, it only adds to the interest of the course.

[John_Conley]

My only knock against Golden Valley.

[Dan King]

Reminds me of the story of Christy O'Connor himself. He was playing in a pro-am, and on a par-3 the amateur asked him what club he hit. O'Connor hit a bigger club than the amateur making the amateur feel real good about his game. O'Connor proceeded to his the par-3 with every club in his bag.

There is no rule saying you have to use specific clubs for specific distances. If you used the same club all four times that was because of a choice you made. While imagination is no longer popular in golf, it isn't against the rules yet, is it?

Cheers,
Dan King

The World Cup was founded to generate international goodwill through golf. Friendship and conviviality are therefore supposed to be essential ingredients of the tournament and Christy O'Connor had a powerful talent for friendship and conviviality. Indeed many good judges are convinced that O'Connor's genius for hitting a golf ball would have won him several Open Championships if only nature had endowed him less liberally with the conviviality.
 --Peter Dobereiner

[Wade Whitehead]

My home course has five par threes.  Four of the five (and sometimes all five) require the same shot from the member tee.

However, from the back tee, all five play very differently.

Depending, they either come across as terrible or great.

Could tee placement, not design, have contributed to your experience?

WW

[Jason McNamara]

David, any chance the course was set up for winds that didn't materialize that day?  I know it's been gusty there lately with the early cool front and storms that have come through.

[Jaeger Kovich]

I had the same complaint about Ballyowen, a course that is supposed to be one of NJ's premier public courses. I hit my 3-iron hybrid, over water on each of them.

I think it is a huge oversight on part of the architect or just poor judgement to think that this is what creates fun, exciting golf holes. Everyone who has ever read a book on the subject reads something like this "Variety is the spice of life. And like life, great golf courses provide a different test on every hole."

[Steve Kline]

I think the short par 3 has been somewhat abandoned because it shortens the distance on the scorecard and is not deemed suitable for a championship course. However, I think a short par 3 like the 11th at Camargo, the 10th at PV or the Postage Stamp at Troon are very terrifying holes. I don't think any were more than a 9 iron for me, which meant I would come away very frustrated if I didn't make a par. But, pars were hard, and birdies very difficult to come by, because of the fear of screwing up such an "easy shot." Length on any hole is overrated. Too many courses that I have played have all the par 3s in the 180-200 yard range. Boring!

[C. Squier]

Reminds me of the story of Christy O'Connor himself. He was playing in a pro-am, and on a par-3 the amateur asked him what club he hit. O'Connor hit a bigger club than the amateur making the amateur feel real good about his game. O'Connor proceeded to his the par-3 with every club in his bag.

There is no rule saying you have to use specific clubs for specific distances. If you used the same club all four times that was because of a choice you made. While imagination is no longer popular in golf, it isn't against the rules yet, is it?

So the original poster should have feathered a 3 wood in once and hooded a 9 iron just to make the FOUR par 3's playing from 170-179 more interesting?  I must be missing your point.  3 of Butler's par 3's have water directly in front of the green and the other is completely fronted with bunkers, except a 10 foot sliver on the left side of the green.  If my memory is correct, that sliver doesn't feed the ball well over to the right either.  So what was found at Butler that day is poor daily setup at best and poor design at worst. 

I think part of what makes Pine Valley's par 3's so great is not only do you never hit the same club on any of them, but that you don't even hit neighboring clubs in your bag.  Tremendous variation that I can't remember ever doing anywhere else. 

[Cristian]

Would these holes still be played with the same club in the prevailing wind(s) for that area?

[Dan King]

Clint Squier writes:
So the original poster should have feathered a 3 wood in once and hooded a 9 iron just to make the FOUR par 3's playing from 170-179 more interesting?

Doesn't that solve the problem that he claimed was with the course?

I must be missing your point.

I don't think you are. Seems you understand my point. Why blame the course for your own lack of imagination?

I'm not saying the design is ideal or anything, but there is nothing in the design that says you have to play a specific club. Many of you lug 14 options around with you on the course. Have some fun with those 14 options.

Cheers,
Dan King

The hardest shot in golf is a mashie at 90 yards from the green, where the ball has to be played against an oak tree, bounces back into a sandtrap, hits a stone, bounces on the green and then rolls into the cup. That shot is so difficult I have made it only once.
 --Zeppo Marx

[C. Squier]

Clint Squier writes:
So the original poster should have feathered a 3 wood in once and hooded a 9 iron just to make the FOUR par 3's playing from 170-179 more interesting?

Doesn't that solve the problem that he claimed was with the course?

I must be missing your point.

I don't think you are. Seems you understand my point. Why blame the course for your own lack of imagination?

I'm not saying the design is ideal or anything, but there is nothing in the design that says you have to play a specific club. Many of you lug 14 options around with you on the course. Have some fun with those 14 options.

Cheers,
Dan King

Dan, in nearly everyone's world the idea of the game is to get the ball in the hole as quickly as possible.  On 4 holes with fronting hazards such as the par 3's at Butler (again 3 water, one w/ very large bunkers), it is very disingenuous of you to suggest that anything but an aerial shot will do.  Furthermore, they all have water behind the greens as well.  On some courses, the fantasy of using 1 of 14 clubs may be possible.  Not here.  The design is overwhelmingly towards aerial that one would be a fool to choose any other path.  We haven't even begun to discuss the green speeds and the difficulty of holding anything but a full, spinning shot.

[Carl Rogers]

Riverfront ... Depending on the wind and setup (yes a real setup flaw) off the white tees and some flag locations, the par 3's at 2, 4 & 13 could and has been for 3 six irons.  A setup problem only that occurs very rarely ...  usually it should be a four iron or hybrid at 2, seven or eight iron at 4, nine iron or pw at 11, five or six iron at 13.

[Dan King]

Clint Squier writes:
Dan, in nearly everyone's world the idea of the game is to get the ball in the hole as quickly as possible.

Not in my world. I give heavy style points. The freakin' Romanian judge always screws me on my points, so we have gone to tossing out the high and low scores.

In our modified Vidal point system, If you feather in that 3-wood, miss the green, hit a good chip with your driver, and two putt with your wedge and your 8-iron, you get to subtract 1.65 style points for a grand total of a 2.35 on the hole. Your opponent hits a full six-iron and two putts with his putter he gets no style points and therefore only gets a 3.00. In my world 2.35 strokes is better than 3.00 strokes every time. (If your opponent used one of those long putters he would have lost .40 style points. Even if he made a birdie with a long putter, your 2.35 would have beaten his 2.40.)

 The design is overwhelmingly towards aerial that one would be a fool to choose any other path.

Who ya callin' fool, fool?

Cheers,
Dan King

Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn.
 --Gore Vidal

[Damon Groves]

I think it greatly takes away from the quality of the course. Having different length par 3s make you use the different clubs in the bag. If possible it is nice to have a long par 3 and a short with the other two of varied lengths. It simply keeps you interested and makes you more a complete player. Further, didn't someone say each hole should be able to stand on its own? If that is true, and I believe it is, then having the par 3s certainly takes away from that thought.

There have been a few courses I have played with the same length par 3s and quite simply it got boring.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Dan
I know a course where you could probably shoot a 45

Sounds like the bigger problem at Butler is the sameness of the holes.

[Richard Choi]

I think if the par 3s were designed so that even if they are similar yardages, but require different types of shots (i.e. hazard in the front that requires an air attack, another with an open approach with back position that requires a punch or feathered 3 wood, etc.), I think that would be fine.

However, I doubt that mmost courses with 4 similar par 3s have that kind of variety.

Just shaping shots for shaping sakes and not for strategic advantage is kind of a waste in my opinion.

[Dan King]

Richard Choi writes:
Just shaping shots for shaping sakes and not for strategic advantage is kind of a waste in my opinion.

No style points for Richard!

Mike Nuzzo writes:
I know a course where you could probably shoot a 45

I think you would be shocked to know how many course records I now own. The number has gone up in the last few years since I stopped playing golf in the real world and only play in my head. The judges have really rewarded my style the last few years.

Cheers,
Dan King

P.S. rarely have I found a more appropriate quote than the one below:

To do a dull thing with style-now THAT'S what I call art.
 --Charles Bukowski

[David Whitmer]

Like Clint originally said...why should I hood a shorter iron or open up the clubface and swing easier on a longer iron just so I can say the course gave me a disparity? In that sense, I could play a course with 4 reachable par 5s, play one of them with a 6-iron the whole way, then claim that the course had one unreachable par 5. A golfer should always play a shot based on what the course gives you, and in this instance the course gave me four par 3s that were all within 9 yards of each other, with three of them over water.

Perhaps Christy O'Connor would have played a variety of clubs to each hole, but I'm not that good. I chose a club that, when struck solidly, would go the required distance. They happened to all be 5-irons.

wwhitehead:

To be honest, I don't know if tee placement contributed or not. It was my first and only round there, and I did not specifically look at teeing grounds. Perhaps someone who has played there more often would be able to answer that.

Jason:

It was actually quite windy that day. All four par 3s run either to the west or southwest, so the wind was into us totally or partially on every shot. Hitting to the back-left hole location on #13 was one scary shot, let me tell you!

[Tim Gerrish]

All four played in the same direction, at roughly the same distance and had the same play characteristics?  Yikes, I can't imagine that level of stale design on par 3's with a modern course. 

Par 3's are the easiest to "find" when routing a course to varying yardages (especially scorecard yardages) is relatively easy as long as you are not pushing for total card length. 

Maybe there was severe environmental, budget or construction restrictions that left the designer no options?

[Steve Wilson]

In May of 2000, I played at Royal Dornoch and hit six iron into 2, 6, 10, and 13.  To anticipate and forestall any snide suggestions that I had simply erred in club suggestion, I managed to hit each green and two putt for four pars.   

While the tee was set back on 10 and there is a longer tee available on 13, I don't think there's much variety in the length of the par threes at Dornoch. And while I'm sure windy conditions can provide a wide change of club choices there, the longest club I ever took on any of my six rounds at Dornoch was a five iron into thirteen from the back tee and the shortest a seven iron on two or three occasions into 10.

Granted, there is considerable variety to the challenges and the appearance of these similar length holes, and that variety may be more essential than variation in length.  In an ideal world I suppose we would have a short iron, a mid iron, a long iron/hybrid, and a hybrid/fairway metal into our par threes, but truth be told Dornoch is as close to an ideal world as I've played in and the par threes there are just fine with me.   

To criticize Dornoch on the basis of the similarity in length of its short holes would be akin to criticizing Audrey Hepburn's face by saying her eyebrows were too bushy, her eyes too large, her mouth too wide and her chin too sharp.  But when it's put all together it's distinctive and magnificent and near perfect.