REALLY short par 3's

« **Reply #25 on:** February 14, 2002, 08:03:22 AM »

Here's some obscure ones no one's probably played before. Shepard Hills CC in Waverly, NY has two par 3's around that distance, one is extremely uphill and I remember hitting 7-irons into it in high school matches.

Towanda (PA) CC has one 101 yards uphill.

« **Reply #26 on:** February 14, 2002, 08:08:30 AM »

   # 9 at Myopia Hunt may qualify as a really short really great hole. Hitting to this well bunkered green that is only 10 yards wide certainly gets your attention.

  Evan,

#12 at Leatherstocking fits the bill. Although it measures a little longer than this thread would allow it plays a mere wedge. My first time playing this hole I went the other way from you and hit it into the museum parking lot.

   Paul

« **Reply #27 on:** February 14, 2002, 08:11:36 AM »

Chipout asked:
"The Caledonia Golf and Fish aerial got me thinking about really short par 3's - 110 yards or less. Are they truly credible golf holes or are they just squeezed in to a tight space by necessity?"

Yes.

One example at my humble home club, Carmel in Charlotte. The North course was redesigned a couple years ago, with three holes added on a newly acquired parcel. A 100 yard par 3 was squeezed in at the end of the property, with the boundary against the left side and behind the green.

I like it -- it is slightly uphill with most of the green hidden; well-bunkered but allows a shot to be bounced in; the green has a hidden finger; hard to tell where the hole is; very deceiving undulations; difficult but not impossible recovery shots.

It's not world-class, but a hole with merit IMHO. Not just your normal drop shot.

KC

« **Reply #28 on:** February 14, 2002, 08:32:16 AM »

Tom Huckaby

I've praised Pebble #3 on another thread. I think it's underrated although they could toughen up the approach from the right side even more.

Yes, I remember the pro's missing left on #7 in '92 - including Tom Kite! As the saying goes, "you know what happened to him".

To all

So I'm the only one who thinks these dinky little critters are annoyances (except for Pebble #7 on a windy day).

Can't we make them more penal if the property requires that they exist??

« **Reply #29 on:** February 14, 2002, 08:49:43 AM »

PaulP,

As I remember it (and I played Leatherstocking back in the summer of 1990), there was no real way to judge just how far to hit your shot. Now, I've played downhill holes before, but NOTHING like that one! Talk about elevation change, and because the hole is so short to begin with, it makes that change downright nutty!

It's really just a knockdown wedge shot of some sort, but airmailing that green would be quite easy, as you made it out to be. Next time, let's just combine our shots, and we'd both be pin high, center of the green, right?

« **Reply #30 on:** February 14, 2002, 08:51:23 AM »

Most good 100 yd holes are not a wedge shot...they are a knocked down 8 iron...give you guys who hate length a short hole and you even screw that up...I just love it.

« **Reply #31 on:** February 14, 2002, 09:22:49 AM »

Chip;

Not all that certain why you want to make these little holes so much more penal if they're to be allowed to exist but that sure is possible in some new construction themes if you think that discussion is worthwhile!

Most of the little ones we've mentioned certainly are very short and most have smallish greens so if a golfer hits them they may be considered nonpenal or even easy but it's probably more useful to consider what happens on many of them when you DON'T HIT THEM instead of when you do!

But if you're looking for some concepts for new ones, the best and most fun thing to do is to imagine how parts and pieces of holes and greens can be recycled into new little short ones!

Imagine, for instance, coming into a par 3 with a green like #8 Pine Valley from straight right of it from 100yds!!

Imagine coming into NGLA's #1 green from 100yds from any height and any angle!!

Imagine coming into Philly C.C's #1 green from directly behind it from 100yds!

How would you like to come into even Gulph Mills little #4 from directly behind it and 20ft above it. Just move the bunkering back there so you'd be facing it, with a severe downslope at the green front and the quarry staring at you behind the green! That would be quite interesting as to degrees of penal from even a shot that would likely play less than 100yds and the whole thing might have even experienced golfers crying foul!

Is that what you have in mind?

« **Reply #32 on:** February 14, 2002, 10:26:32 AM »

Chip: we are just discussing the GOOD ONES here. Believe me, I've played plenty that I hated. In fact, I am completely with you in that I am against these holes as a concept. The good ones work great but to me are outweighed by the stupid ones that indeed do just fill in space.

TH

« **Reply #33 on:** February 14, 2002, 10:42:05 AM »

Certainly we should understand, and honest architects will tell us that par 3s are often used as "connectors" and also "separators" in a routing context, and that does include short little ones! Think about it and you can hardly help but agree!

It's one thing to discuss holes, their concepts and all they're about in an isolated sense, but we have to admit that in most cases and particularly on sites that are interesting in a natural and topographical way which mostly makes those sites complex that any hole should be looked at in how it relates to the others--to the entire course.

« **Reply #34 on:** February 14, 2002, 02:53:50 PM »

Tom Paul

By "more penal" I mean just what you suspected - greater disaster if you miss the green.

So answer my original question - why not more ultra short par 3's with green complexes a la Pine Valley #8, Riviera #10 or Cypress #8??

« **Reply #35 on:** February 14, 2002, 04:09:12 PM »

Chip;

I can't answer your question. I don't know why. If I were to guess I might just say because if they were more penal they would be unpopular for the usual reasons. But I would like to see more like that!

« **Reply #36 on:** February 14, 2002, 04:14:20 PM »

Maybe a good example of what I'm guessing at would be Gil Hanse's #5 Inniscrone. It's quite penal if you miss the green--although I've seen plenty of short ones that are more penal to missing. Gil's is certainly contoversial as all get out (although I like it) but more because it's so damn hard to hit it consistently and it's no more than less than a full sand wedge!!

« **Reply #37 on:** February 14, 2002, 08:20:30 PM »

Great Ontario Examples:
Scarborough #11 (tillinghaust), 110 yards
Lakeview #17 (strong), 97 yards
Rosedale #16 (ross), 110 yards

All holes have similar features, they involve an "all or nothing" shot to a tiny green. I could play each of them every day.

We have done a 100-110 yarder at Copper Creek (opening this year). Uphill, tight target, deep bunkers.

« **Reply #38 on:** February 15, 2002, 09:58:45 PM »

Ever heard of a 107yd. Redan? No. 16, Shaker Hts. CC, outside of Cleveland, OH, is a DJ Ross sporting hole circa 1916. Uphill twenty feet to a 3500 sq. ft. green carved into a hillside sloping hard right to left, over a bunker front right. Hazards surround including bunkers right, left and beyond with OB right and a slope hard left down to a creek.

A fun blind pitch hole which challenges golfers of all skill level. The green is sufficiently severe, making birdie putts as callenging as the tee shot.

« **Reply #39 on:** February 15, 2002, 10:39:34 PM »

Les,

Ok, you know that hole very well and I've never seen it. But I have to ask the question: playing so short, how can it function like a prototypical redan hole which is usually much longer and asks for a shot that can carom off of a landform that feeds the shot toward the green? Is it that the only way to hold the green is to play for the slope, a sort of backboard effect? Otherwise, the higher trajectory of a pitching or sand wedge would make it behave very differently from a true redan, wouldn't it?

It sounds like an interesting concept, so maybe you can give a more detailed description.

« **Reply #40 on:** February 15, 2002, 11:21:49 PM »

Neal, fancy meeting you here.

Good question. The green although very small, is very severely contoured sloping hard right to left. The front right quater of the green is tucked behind the carry bunker and is slightly domed. Shots carrying the bunker release to the back of the green and to the flatter left side. Shots barely carrying the bunker can kick violently off the down slope, or with some luck end up close to the hole. The back right portion of the green is the most treacherous quadrent w/ a premium on uphill putts.

The key elements to the hole are the front right carry bunker, and the slope of the green, which follow the basic diagram of a redan. The shot being blind and uphill also help, but the firm character of the green is the most vital Redan ingredient.

Shaker has many greens (#11, 12, 16, 17) which release right to left / front to back following the redan principle, although 11, 12, & 16 play downhill. Unfortunately, with modern turf varieties, we can't build greens with suffiecient pitch to adeqautely provide such simple yet facinating challenges.
Watching slope and gravity have its effect on the ball is half the mystery of golf.

« **Reply #41 on:** February 15, 2002, 11:44:24 PM »

Neal,

I tried to send you an aerial off Mapquest of #16. Awesome baby. You can't sense the topo, but kind of interesting none the less.

Haven't checked my mail in a while, but I have to. My be headed up your way soon. Clue: may have the whole track to myself, and the fog to boot.

gotta check out so I can go to Riviera in the AM. The ultimate think tank!

« **Reply #42 on:** February 19, 2002, 07:24:11 AM »

Atlantic City Country Club, which would be an interesting course for discussion, had a neat 110-120 yard par par three (#4) that was really superb. However like most par threes on relatively busy courses, it got beat up because the green was
really small (2700 sq. ft. ??) Architecturally, without spacing tees dramatically its hard to build tees to fit a short, short three par, and you really need the tee space.

« **Reply #43 on:** February 19, 2002, 03:05:40 PM »

Chip:

You're going to get in trouble bringing up that idea again for Merion #13!

« **Reply #44 on:** March 13, 2002, 05:19:47 AM »

The Links at Crowbush Cove's 17th is around 115 from the tips. If I remember correctly, none of the four PGA players hit this green when they played the Skins game there. These guys are good?

Wasn't the 16th hole at ANCC in this category at one time?

« **Reply #45 on:** March 13, 2002, 05:56:59 AM »

c_pike:

Original #16 at ANGC (I assume that's what you meant) wasn't quite that short - 140-150 was about the mileage.

All:

Maybe I'm just too arrogant with a wedge or 9 iron in my hand and the ball on a peg, but unless I'm a little frightened of missing the green on a hole that short, I just don't see the point.

I acknowledge that it would seem odd if such a hole was radically different from the other 17, but I believe there needs to be aesthetic concessions made to degree of difficulty.

If only the wind would blow hard on Pebble #7 EVERY day.

« **Reply #46 on:** March 13, 2002, 07:38:06 AM »

Don't hate me for adding a Fazio-designed hole to this list, but the 107-yard 3rd at Ventana Canyon (Mountain) is one of my favorites. Not only is it a visually stunning hole, but with trouble surrounding the green, it is intimidating as well.

News:

Scott_Burroughs

Paul Perrella

Ken_Cotner

ChipOat

Evan Fleisher

JakaB

TEPaul

THuckaby2

TEPaul

ChipOat

TEPaul

TEPaul

ian andrew (Guest)

Leslie_Claytor

Neal_Meagher

Leslie_Claytor

Leslie_Claytor

archie struthers

vonhayek

c_pike

ChipOat

Allan Long

An Error Has Occurred!