Hi Pat,
As I have already said, I'll go with you that the longer a hole, the more it opens itself up for the golfer to make strategic decisions, but saying that par threes are "pure target golf" is overstating and oversimplifying it.
I'll see if I can work through your comments and maybe we can find a little middle ground.
Pat M, re: 5th at Pine Valley:
For me it is if I want to avoid making a 5, 6 or worse, but, the hole remains target golf and the shot the golfer faces from the tee is mandated, he has little if any discretion. Short of the approach he's dead, long he's dead, left and right he's dead.
He (or her on Sundays
) can play to the 35-yard-long area of fairway short of the green that requires only a 180-yard carry from the back tee, akin to laying up on the short par four you admitted you thought the hole was when you first stood on the tee.
Here is what you said in
this thread:
Playing short and making a 4 is NOT a bad score.
Is a 235-yard hole for a player capable of driving it 190 not the same assignment as a 320-yard hole for a player capable of driving it 275?
Par does not govern strategy, nor does it determine whether a shot is simply a matter of excecution.
Pat M, re: players laying up on a par three in US Open at Oakmont:
I don't recall that. What hole are you referencing ?
I am referncing the 8th holePat M, after referencing 16 @ CPC as a "target golf hole" from the correct tee:
The underlying assumption is that the golfer's goal is a par.
I thought the underlying assumption was that a golfer is looking to complete each hole in the fewest shots possible? In any case, this has nothing to do with the discussion. Par can be made by laying up and then one-putting on any hole, or even chipping in. Making par is not dependent on hitting the green in regulation.
Pat M:
Could you name 10 par 3's where the golfer, playing from the appropriate tee wouldn't aim for the green ?
I'll probably settle for 5.
The old Pat Mucci "name 10 holes where..." game!
Here are 10 par three holes where a golfer would reasonably play short of or to the side of the green. "Appropriate tees" is a subjective term. If Corey Pavin is playing with Bubba Watson should he move up a set? Talent and length are not inextricably linked.
1. 12th, Royal Dornoch (Struie)
2. 16th hole, Cypress Point (From Ian Andrew's blog: "The only time Dad and I played the hole was into a howling wind. We both lay up and Dad promptly made the putt for par. He said it that was more satisfying than making the carry would have been.")
3. 5th hole, Pine Valley (by your own admission)
4. 6th hole, West Sussex (have done so myself)
5. 13th hole, The Addington (have done so myself)
6. 2nd hole, Woking
7. 14th hole, Deal (have done so myself 5-10 times)
8. 8th hole, Oakmont
9. 10th hole, Penrith (have done so myself 20+ times)
10. 5th hole, Anstruther (The club captain in Today's Golfer magazine: “If you come off it with a par, you’ve done well, very well. Only the really good, brave or daft actually go for the green.")
To my claim that par four or five Redan holes were not as effective as par three Redans because the approach shot was not from a prescribed position, you said:
Could you name 5 par 4 and/or par 5 redans where that's the case?
The 1st hole at The Creek and the 12th at Fisher's Island come to mind.
Could you explain how the approach on those holes is played from well out of position for which those holes were designed?
I'm not sure I can name five, but both the 7th at Royal Sydney and the 10th at Chart Hills come immediately to mind.
A Redan-inspired green sets up to a particular approach. It's certainly very playable from other approach points, but there are also approaches where what makes Redan such a great template and concept is diminished.
I'll have to pass on the Fishers Island and The Creek examples as I'm not familiar with either yet.
My main point, Pat, is that absolutes in golf design very rarely exist. Every player is different and every day dawns bringing a new set of conditions both on the ground and in the air.