Best Combination of 3s, 4s and 5s

[Simon Holt]

The Old Course has two par 3s, some courses have 3, most have 4, some have 7!!

What is your preference?  Do Par 3s 'have to be cancelled out' by Par 5s?  Is there such a phrase as 'have to' in GCA?

This is more based on par 3s but might lead to further debate.  An example might be a Par 71 with three Par 3s, two par 5s and the rest 4s.

Essentially what do you feel is the best balance?  Can you have too many par 3s?  What number is too many for an 18 holer?  Examples of irregular combinations to make up a regular 18 hole par 71, 72 or 73??

Go get 'em!!

[Ally Mcintosh]

Hi Simon,

We had similar discussion lately in the "Par-5" thread - why we need 4 of them when they are so difficult to design etc...

Some architects / clients put large emphasis on par-72 with 10-4-4 as you know - (preconceived ideas of all parties including the golfers who provide the revenue) -  Others put less... It is of course, all site dependent... BUT given NO site constraints whatsoever (i.e. completely hypothetical situation), I have a fondness for a Par-70 with five par-3s and three par-5s...

I think I understand why you are asking this question... Nonetheless, it's a good one for open discussion...

[James Boon]

Simon,

I'm sure many people are going to be thinking this, but it shouldn't really be about a formula, but what fits best to the land.

Having said that, most of the courses I grew up playing in Derbyshire were over some pretty wild terrain so there was no end of interesting par 3s and short par 4s, as these can probably cope with the difficulties of the existing land. Now whether its for that reason or some other, but I actually like to see plenty of par 3s (even though two of my favourite courses of Hollinwell and Deal, both only have 3). And as has been suggested from some of the par 5 discussions recently, they can be tricky to fit in or design well, so this woul hint at fewer of them if possible.

One of the Derbyshire courses that is still a big favourite of mine is MacKenzie's Cavendish which has five par 3s and one par 5 to give a par of 68. That sits pretty well for me. I suppose its also worth mentioning The Berkshire Red with its 6, 6, 6 combination, though it should be pointed out that at least four of the par 5s are more like long par 4s by todays standards, which would again give it a par of 68.

Bearing all those in mind, if it fitted with the land I suppose I'd quite like the five par 3s and three par 5s that Ally mentions.

Lastly, I've never really understood the par 72 obsession? Other than it allowing Alliss to mention how someone is doing in relation to "level fours" where did the obsession come from?

Cheers,

James

[Simon Holt]

James,

Totally agree with the 72 thing.  To be honest I like the variety and lack of symmetry with courses that are 71s or 73s.  I suppose having grown up on a 71 that has something to do with it.  I just dislike turning up to a course and not being surprised- with a 72 you know you will get 5 fours either side a couple of 5s and 3s.  BORING!!!  I like looking down the card and seeing where a single 3 will come from, or how 3 par 5s will fit into 1 nine.

At CPC I found it pretty unusual to have back to back 5s (5 and 6) and then back to back 3s (15 and 16) but it was refreshing.  North Berwick has back to back 5s and I always see it as a real chance to make a move on the field in a medal.

Ally,

The penny has just dropped at what you are alluding to but this actually came about from playing at Crail (Balcomie).  I really enjoyed it, obviously there are lots of 3s there, but it didnt seem like there was one every other hole, even though that wasnt far from the truth with one every 3 on average.  That got me thinking that perhaps a course can be in the mid to low 6000 just with killer par 3s.  I think I understand that 4s are seen as a better test as you theoretically need more good shots to score welll relative to that hole.

Thoughts?

[Scott Warren]

Simon, the other great thing at Crail is the way that back nine plays out 4-5-5-3-3-4-3-4-3, with the 15th a par 3.5 and the 17th a par 4.5.

For me, par threes are often the king, so I am happy to play 5 or 6 in a round if they are good holes (such as at Berkshire Red, Swinley, Rye, New Zealand).

[Michael Whitaker]

Simon,

One of the courses in our area, Cateechee Golf Club, offers the following lineup on the front nine:

5 - 3 - 5 - 4 - 5 - 3 - 4 - 4 - 4 = 37

Only one par 4 in the first six holes!

I love it!!!

I remember reading a Tom Doak comment on this site about the fact that very few of the top ranked courses are par 72. I'll do a search and try to find it.

[Jud_T]

Whatever the land dictates...But given a preference, anything other than the standard 10-4-4 configuration that has more 3s than 5s....

[Matthew Petersen]

Simon,

One of the courses in our area, Cateechee Golf Club, offers the following lineup on the front nine:

5 - 3 - 5 - 4 - 5 - 3 - 4 - 4 - 4 = 37

Only one par 4 in the first six holes!

I love it!!!

I remember reading a Tom Doak comment on this site about the fact that very few of the top ranked courses are par 72. I'll do a search and try to find it.

This makes a certain amount of sense in that a great course would go with the land and let things come out as they may.

On the other hand, many of the top ranked courses play to different pars for members than they do in tournaments.

[Sean_A]

I have always been one to believe that it is easier to build good par 3s than 5s so I am always suspicious when I note four par 5s on a course.  It is sort of like when I see a guy pulling driver out for fairway shots several times in a round when I knpw the lie for such q shoy comes but once or twice in a game.  It usually pans out where the designer had no business sticking in four 5s.  On the other hand, I like to see five or even six par 3s, but few courses pull this off well.  It just happens that some of my favourites do pull it off.  I particularly like short holes because they create dissonance between accepted par standards and difficulty of teh course.  Courses are also usually shorter and therefore often quicker to play. 

Ciao

[Tim Gavrich]

On a lot of my favorite golf courses, the par 4s and 5s may be the backbone, but the par 3s are the soul.  I wouldn't mind seeing a course with six par 3s and four or five par 5s, just as long as there's good variety.  I don't think I've played such a course.

I like good, strong par 70 or 69 golf courses.  And I tend to play better on them in tournaments because as a shorter hitter, I don't demolish par 5s like some guys do.  I just make a lot of pars on long par 4s and par 3s.