"Par 4s are the meat of golf"

[George Pazin]

What makes any par 3 not "ho-hum"? Par 4s are the meat of golf. They have strategy and execution. Most par 3s only have execution.

A very interesting thought from the Drop Shot Par 3s thread, I thought it was deserving of its own thread. The poster can out himself if he wishes.

Any thoughts? I gotta do some quick art, but I'll share mine shortly.

[Michael Huber]

Par 3's can be the most visually appealing holes, but yes, it's hard to disagree that the par 4 is the backbone of the golf course.   

Where do par 5's fit into this discussion?

[Patrick_Mucci]

What makes any par 3 not "ho-hum"? Par 4s are the meat of golf. They have strategy and execution. Most par 3s only have execution.

A very interesting thought from the Drop Shot Par 3s thread, I thought it was deserving of its own thread. The poster can out himself if he wishes.

Any thoughts? I gotta do some quick art, but I'll share mine shortly.

George,

If that's the case, how would you judge the back nine at Pacific Dunes ?

[Jim Franklin]

This is why Rock Creek is so good. The par 4s there are superb. Strategy, execution from top to bottom. Great quote though George, very well said.

[Martin Toal]

I think that is fair comment. It doesn't mean that par-3s or 5s aren't important or great holes, but on almost every course, there will be more par-4s and they can offer greater variety and often define the test and appeal of the course. A course is unlikely to be a great course if its par-4s are weak.

[Jim Franklin]

What makes any par 3 not "ho-hum"? Par 4s are the meat of golf. They have strategy and execution. Most par 3s only have execution.

A very interesting thought from the Drop Shot Par 3s thread, I thought it was deserving of its own thread. The poster can out himself if he wishes.

Any thoughts? I gotta do some quick art, but I'll share mine shortly.

George,

If that's the case, how would you judge the back nine at Pacific Dunes ?

You judge the course in its entirety not just the back nine.

[Peter Pallotta]

I wouldn't disagree, George, and for this reason: if an individual golf hole is a microcosm of a round of golf (like a single round of golf is a microcosm of the game itself), then that individual golf hole should ideally manifest the qualities/elements/demands of the game itself, which game is characterized by both mental choices/decisions and physical skill/execution -- and the kinds of choices it asks for and skills it demands include those for a tee shot and those for an approach shot and those for a recovery shot and those for a putting stroke...all of which are asked for in a Par 4 (in my case though, 2 recovery shots at least and then a few chances to practice my putting stroke).  Par 4 also have, in absolute terms, the most potential 'variability' of any of the Pars, i.e. they can reasonably range from 280 yards up to 480 yards...a very meaningful difference of 200 yards that neither par 3s nor Par 5s can match.  

Peter

[Michael Dugger]

Mucci

Without an apt description of par 3s and 5s, we have no frame of reference to comment on the back nine of Pacific Dunes.

Perhaps I might offer that Par 5s are potatoes, and par 3s dessert.

 

[George Pazin]

George,

If that's the case, how would you judge the back nine at Pacific Dunes ?

The back nine at Pac Dunes is unplayable for me. Literally. It is on the other side of the country, I can't afford the time or money for the trip! Thankfully, I don't believe that will always be the case.

In thinking a bit more about the comment, particularly in regard to par 5s: Par 5s also place more emphasis on execution, because for most golfers, it's tough to string together 3 shots as planned. Weird.

TOC only has 2 par 3s and 2 par 5s!

George Thomas had an affinity for par 3s, however, at least he said so in his writings.

[Michael Dugger]

I wouldn't disagree, George, and for this reason: if an individual golf hole is a microcosm of a round of golf (like a single round of golf is a microcosm of the game itself), then that individual golf hole should ideally manifest the qualities/elements/demands of the game itself, which game is characterized by both mental choices/decisions and physical skill/execution -- and the kinds of choices it asks for and skills it demands include those for a tee shot and those for an approach shot and those for a recovery shot and those for a putting stroke...all of which are asked for in a Par 4 (in my case though, 2 recovery shots at least and then a few chances to practice my putting stroke).  Par 4 also have, in absolute terms, the most potential 'variability' of any of the Pars, i.e. they can reasonably range from 280 yards up to 480 yards...a very meaningful difference of 200 yards that neither par 3s nor Par 5s can match.  

Peter

Indeed this range is possible, but you don't often see it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Franklin,

You would have us ignore the quality of individual holes or a collection of holes (Amen Corner) or a nine and only judge the entire 18 ?

That's ridiculous.

The back nine at Essex County West was always judged as one of the best in NJ, where those judging the back nine out of order ?

[Michael Dugger]

The notion of par 4's being the meat of a golf course, at least to me anyways, has to do with stringing shots together.

Par 3s can often be had with one solid shot, or even a lucky bounce, a worm burner that somehow rolls up and holds the green, etc...

Par 5's often allow for a shot to be wasted.  Hit a decent drive, top one 30 yds, hit a good third and get up and down for par.

These types of holes have more room for error....and can impact your score with one swipe of the club.

But the par 4 rarely allows for such antics.  You must hit a decent drive and you must get up near the green to have any chance of par, this side of a miraculous shot.

There is little opportunity for wasting a shot, and one perfect shot....one great swipe of the club, is not going to ensure a par.

Hit a great drive, well, you still have to hit a solid approach shot.

Hit a great approach shot, well, you still needed to hit a solid drive to get yourself in that position.

The par 4's require good shots being strung together, whereas I don't think the same demands are generally required on par 3s and 5s.

[Chris Buie]

The par 4's require good shots being strung together

You sure about that?  I'm not trying to pick on you but you can make a par on a par-4 with a bad stroke.  That is what the recovery shot and/or the short game are about. 
But the substance of the statement is probably correct.  Par-4's are the backbone.  There needs to be variety, of course. 
I don't agree that par-3's are ho-hum.  They can be if the arch isn't clever or not allowed to be clever.  There are plenty of extremely intriguing par-3's.

[Garland Bayley]

How often do you discuss strategy on a par 3? Usually only when it is a Redan or has some features of a Redan. Which leads to my standard joke about GCA gatherings. They aren't official GCA gatherings until someone mentions Redan.

[George Pazin]

Since Garland has joined the fray, I feel compelled to point out the original remark is his.

Gotta print...

[Michael Blake]

Garland,

I think about strategy everytime I tee one up on a par-3.
The 'execution' part is a different story, however.

[Steve Kline]

I'd say the Eden has strategy. The Biarritz can have strategy (try to hit it on or play short and get up and down). You do not need two shots in a row to create strategy.

[Garland Bayley]

I'd say the Eden has strategy. The Biarritz can have strategy (try to hit it on or play short and get up and down). You do not need two shots in a row to create strategy.

Agreed about the two shots in a row, that's why I mentioned Redan.

[Jim Franklin]

Jim Franklin,

You would have us ignore the quality of individual holes or a collection of holes (Amen Corner) or a nine and only judge the entire 18 ?

That's ridiculous.

The back nine at Essex County West was always judged as one of the best in NJ, where those judging the back nine out of order ?

So I am to assume Essex is the #1 course in Jersey? I guess not because you are judging an entire course of 18 holes and Pine Valley wins hands down. You can judge whatever you want. In judging the entirety at Pac Dunes you have a wonderdul course. If you judge the back nine, you have two stellar par 4s with other outstanding holes. If you do not have a stout lineup of par 4s, I do not think you have a top course.

[Bill_Yates]

George and Original Poster,

I would agree, and so have millions of players over the centuries.   The Old Course has only two par 3's and two par 5's.

[Tim Pitner]

What makes any par 3 not "ho-hum"? Par 4s are the meat of golf. They have strategy and execution. Most par 3s only have execution.

A very interesting thought from the Drop Shot Par 3s thread, I thought it was deserving of its own thread. The poster can out himself if he wishes.

Any thoughts? I gotta do some quick art, but I'll share mine shortly.

George,

If that's the case, how would you judge the back nine at Pacific Dunes ?

As inferior to the front. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Franklin,

You would have us ignore the quality of individual holes or a collection of holes (Amen Corner) or a nine and only judge the entire 18 ?

That's ridiculous.

The back nine at Essex County West was always judged as one of the best in NJ, where those judging the back nine out of order ?

So I am to assume Essex is the #1 course in Jersey?

Jim, ECCC is amongst the best courses in NJ.
The front nine is good, but the back nine is terrific.

I guess not because you are judging an entire course of 18 holes and Pine Valley wins hands down.

The cache carried by PV is hard to overcome, but, "hands down",  I'm not so sure.
Have you ever played ECCC ?

You can judge whatever you want. In judging the entirety at Pac Dunes you have a wonderdul course. If you judge the back nine, you have two stellar par 4s with other outstanding holes.

You can't have it both ways.
If a great nine can't carry an entire 18 how can the front nine at PD carry all 18 ?

Put another way, if a nine is deemed "flawed" by some, how can the other nine overcome those flaws to produce a great 18 ?

If you do not have a stout lineup of par 4s, I do not think you have a top course.

Do you think the 1st, 2nd, 14th, 16th and 17th at NGLA are "stout" par 4's ?

The 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 11th, 14th and 17th at Oakmont are "stout" ?

[Jim Franklin]

I never said the back nine at Pac Dunes wasn't any good.

I have never played Essex.

I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing. NGLA and Oakmont are loaded with fantastic par 4s. Maybe "stout" is not the right word. Forgive me.

[Peter Galea]

I must be a vegan.

A set of good par 3's make the golf course for me.
Name a great course with weak or mediocre par 3's.

Par 4's are "eventually" par 3's of varying distance, stance and lie.
And they are generally not the same day to day.

Chicken and fish only...I like par 5's too.

[Adam Clayman]

George. To make the original posit true, the numeric value of par would have a greater relevancy than I believe it does. The meat of the course is its routing, imo.