"Short" Holes: Why aren't more of these built ?

[Ed Oden]

I would respectfully disqualify all of these more than 135...9 of the holes measure more than 140 yards.  Short to me means short!!  Even today, with either cool weather or wind in my face, I might hit 8 iron from 135 (normally a 9 for me.)  Obviously, my perspective is my own, but I absolutely distinguish between a pitch (9 iron or less) and an 8 7 and 6 iron shot hole.

Ronald, your definition would exclude #6 at NGLA (the original CBM "short") which, as of 3 years ago, measured 141 yards.  Seriously, with current equipment, isn't a 160 yard hole today the equivalent of a 125 yard hole in the golden age?

[Ronald Montesano]

Darn you, Ed!  All right, I'll raise my bid to 141, but not a yard longer.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Jeff,

Some of the "shorts" I've played

11    Westhampton
 6    The Knoll
 7    4th nine Montclair
       Forsgate
17  The Creek
17 ? Piping Rock
3     Morris County

[Ed Oden]

Darn you, Ed!  All right, I'll raise my bid to 141, but not a yard longer.

Got it...except that #8 at The Old Course is 166 yds.  

[Pete Lavallee]

I'm not sure I necessarily agree that short par 3s are a dying breed.  Seems to me many of the most acclaimed designs of recent years have them.  For example:

Bandon Trails #5 - 133 yds
Bandon Dunes #6 - 161 yds
Bandon Dunes #15 - 163 yds
Pacific Dunes #11 - 148 yds
Pacific Dunes #14 - 145 yds
Friars Head #17 - approx. 145 yds
Sand Hills #17 - 150 yds
Atlantic #11 - 128 yds
Whistling Straits #12 - 166 yds
Ballyneal #3 - 133 yds
Ballyneal #5 - 165 yds
Wade Hampton #6 - 158 yds

Ed,

 Do you see a trend here? 9 out of your 12 holes are by architects who don't care if their course yardage don't total over 7000 yards. Unfortunately they are the only ones with enough prestige to demand this.

[Bill_McBride]

Darn you, Ed!  All right, I'll raise my bid to 141, but not a yard longer.

Got it...except that #8 at The Old Course is 166 yds.  

From the times I've played that hole, it generally is from a tee about 145 yards.  There is a back tee that is way back there that could be 166 yards.

[Ed Oden]

Pete, I am sure that is a factor.  But a quick check of a few recent unheralded Charlotte area designs reveals similar results:

Verdict Ridge #13 - 159 yds (Schweitzer 1996)
Birkdale #2 - 158 yds (Palmer 1997)
The Tradition #8 - 147 yds (Cassell 1996)
Waterford #8 - 149 yds (Irwin 1997)
Springfield #13 -163 yds (Johnston 2001)
Ballantyne Resort #10 - 160 yds (Land Design 1997)

So I don't think this is strictly a Doak/C&C phenomenon.

Ed

[David Kelly]

Saint Louis CC's "Shorty" Hole 7 - 154 yds.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I came accross this quote on an old thread.

Scotland's Gift (p.154), CBM says of his "Short" template, "Similar 5th Brancaster with tee raised so player can see where the pin enters the hole." 


From memory the 8th TOC is nearly blind accross the whole green and you can't see the bunker form the tee?  This blindness being the principle difference between the two?  I also don't recall large movements on either causing areas to be 'greens within greens'.  Rather it's jsut their size that cuases 3 putts from careless golfers like myself.

[Bill_McBride]

I came accross this quote on an old thread.

Scotland's Gift (p.154), CBM says of his "Short" template, "Similar 5th Brancaster with tee raised so player can see where the pin enters the hole." 


From memory the 8th TOC is nearly blind accross the whole green and you can't see the bunker form the tee?  This blindness being the principle difference between the two?  I also don't recall large movements on either causing areas to be 'greens within greens'.  Rather it's jsut their size that cuases 3 putts from careless golfers like myself.

Tony, you can see the bunker from the tee, but when the pin is behind the bunker, you can't see the bottom of the pin because of the raised rear lip.

I've always read or heard that the challenge posed by the Short hole is accuracy with the short iron.  The hole looks so easy on the scorecard that walking to the next tee with a bogey is a rankling experience.

[Phil McDade]

One of the issues with "short" holes is a perception that they do not present a great enough challenge. During the restoration at my club, we created a new par three. Many of the members thought the best way to "toughen up" the course was to create a long par 3. The club chose to go with the architect's advice and create what I believe to be a excellent "short" hole. The green has three distinct sections and only a precise short iron will leave a reasonable try for a birdie.

http://www.flossmoorcc.org/features/content_page/index.cfm?page=hole_13


 

Kevin,  Good call on the short hole at Flossmoor-tough little shot. Good to see you on the GCA team! Will have to get out and play when the weather eventually breaks.         Jack

Here's the 13th at Flossmoor and some of the write-up from my visit to the course this summer (distances are from the tips/blues/member whites):

No. 13 (par 3, 135/122/106)
A completely new hole built by architect Raymond Hearn as part of the course renovation...Hearn designed a hole with a three-level green, ample chipping areas front and left, and bunkers right and back. A fairly large green by Flossmoor standards, but one with significant slopes, it can be easy to hit and hard to putt.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Kevin,

To answer your question, I believe that "short" par 3's went out of vogue, with the long, back breaking par 3 taking their place.

On a number of modern courses I've played, 210-230 par 3's are far more prevalent than short, 120-140 par 3's

Perhaps, with TV, Palmer, Nicklaus, Weiskopf and other long hitters, short par 3's were viewed as an insufficient challenge, hence the trend veered
toward longer holes

[Kalen Braley]

South Mountain golf club here in the SLC area has 2 interesting holes that have "short" characteristics and all play less than 150 from the tips.

3rd:



11th:

[JESII]

I thought a key feature of the "Short" was the abrupt drop-off all the way around the green...usually into bunkers, but probably not mandatory...

[David Kelly]

I would not consider the two holes Kalen posted as being "Short" holes. Despite their being short holes I don't see anything else to recommend them as "shorts.".

[Tom Birkert]

Can't believe it slipped my mind... 7 at Pebble Beach!

[JESII]

All are variations on a theme of a well protected green (by bunkers / dropoffs etc) plus a green divided into areas. The targets weren't overly small which was interesting on a hole of such a length. Significant back to front slopes were also common.

Tom,

I'm no student of these things, but the definition Kevin stated here in the opening post seems to fit my understanding of the concept.

Pebble #7 doesn't really have any of these characteristics, does it?

[Tom Birkert]

Jim,

I admit I didn't read all the requirements to qualify from the opening post.

While the green is relatively flat it does have bunkers around it and the small green could be considered another facet to the hole rather than a bigger green split into areas. Almost a sub-category as such?

[JESII]

Definitely a challenging hole...are there others comparable? 



How about Pine Valley #10 as a Short?  The surrounds certainly qualify, the green has at least two, I would argue three sections...has it ever been considered?

[Tom Birkert]

Jim - I mentioned the 10th at PV on the first page!!

The Postage Stamp at Royal Troon might fit in the same category as 7 at Pebble Beach...

[Ronald Montesano]

The thread has united two elements of one-shot holes...the "Short" template hole of CB MacDonald/Seth Raynor and short holes in general.  It is true that many of the holes do not fit (nor were they designed in the image of) the "Short" template hole.  What happened along the way is, some of us pined for the lost pitch hole, focusing as much on (lack of) distance as styling.  It is probably important, scholarly body that we are, that we maintain the distinction between the two strands of the thread.

without wax

[Chris Ord]

the 8th at rustic canyon: 100-125 yards, a small green divided into sections, with steep drop-offs (especially over the green).  i usually put up a big number, but i love the challenge.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I love to build a short par-3 on my courses, and have even built a couple in the general image of the Macdonald-Raynor holes.

That said, I think there have been two reasons for their decline.  I've pointed both out in long-ago threads but here they are again:

(1)  Variety.  A wedge-shot par-3 was a great addition in the old days, when the average player hit long irons and fairway woods into a lot of par-4 holes.  Now that better players drive it a mile and hit wedges into the majority of par-4 holes, having a par-3 with another wedge approach does not add to variety.  Many architects have resorted to building longer par-3 holes, because they are the ONLY holes where we control the length of the approach shot.

(2)  Pressure from clients.  I've only had two clients out of 25 who were fine with me building a par-3 just as short as I wanted to.  Most of the rest have felt obliged to ask me to put in another tee at 150+ yards; something about a really short par-3 just makes them uncomfortable.  Sometimes it's been an issue of the course's total length, sometimes just that they feel a 130-yard hole is silly by today's standards.  I thoroughly disagree, but we often wind up building the extra tee, anyway.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It would seem that if you are going to build a short par 3, it should be really short.  At 150 yards, its a full shot and it would be trickier as a partial length shot testing distance control, whereas on longer holes, presumably the golfer can lay up to full shot range if they so choose.

[Cristian]

How many people are realistically going to aim for anywhere else but the middle of the green on a 150-160 yds medium sized green with drop-offs and bunkering or other trouble all around, even if the wind isn't blowing?

I wonder how many of the short holes on classic courses that now measure 140-160 yds used to be really short holes of 100-120 but were lengthened past the idea of compensating for technology change by club committees over the years, wanting to add even extra length to keep up with newer courses yardage-wise, however effectively thus ruining the principle of such a hole.