[Scott Stearns]

my first new topic in maybe 5 years.  here goes.

the par threes at my home course are as follows:

2=163 yards

8=155 yards

11=142 yards, uphill, plays 155

13=178 yards (downhill) plays 170 yards

16=222 yards

this array makes me mental---i think that all par threes should play to VERY different yardages.  the fact that the first three could in fact put the same club in my hand is insane. 

why?  and what do you think?

[JNC Lyon]

Frankly, I'm not sure there is any excuse for building par threes of the same length like that.  Maybe some architects feel that golfers would rather hit middle irons into par threes instead of woods and wedges, but I've never really heard anyone complain about that.  The one situation where an architect can get away with building par threes of different lengths is a course where wind is a major factor.  Then, par threes at the same yardage will play vastly different lengths.

I rather liked Inniscrone's set of 4 par threes, where I hit, in order, PW, Driver, 7 Iron, 4 iron.  Ultimate variety! If an architect wants to stretch out the variety, he will max out 250 and go as low as 105 on threes.  From there, a wide range of options are available.  Also, avoid threes in the 160-170 range, which are comfortable for the good player and very difficult for the weaker player.

I don't think I have ever played a golf course where I have been fully impressed with the 3s.  They seem to be very penal as a type of hole and possess limited options.  Even in the MRB courses I've played, there is always a clunker in the set.  Par three design has not even come close to its full potential.

[Jim Eder]

I am with you assuming the sizes of the greens do not allow for much variety otherwise hopefully pin placements each day can create variety.  I like when each par 3 is very different in the type of club used (and if different shots are required for each even better). A nice short one, 2 middle ones maybe 2 or 3 clubs apart than a long one (230 or so). Topography and prevailing winds need to be considered so your point about what they play to is very important.  

I know not everyone agrees but ideally I like every club in the bag tested at least once and hopefully twice a round as well as all the diffferent types of shots one can hit (draws, fades, high, low).

[Tony_Chapman]

I grew up on a par-70 course that has six par-3s, eight par-4s and four par-5s. We have some interesting par-3s that do some cool stuff to your ball in the Nebraska wind.

#2 is 210 and into the wind. It's almost always a 3-wood for me if the wind is blowing.

#4 is 205 with a right-to-left crosswind and maybe slightly helping. Generally a 3 or 4-hybrid.

#6 is 165, but downhill, downwind. Most days can be no more than a 9-iron or 8.

#11 is 180 with the wind from left to right and a bit into. Usually a 4-hybrid or 5.

#14 is 165, but uphill and downwind. Generally two clubs more than #6.

#16 is a nightmare with a left to right and into wind but it's about a two story drop with a pond on the left and the biggest green on the course. Depending on the wind it can be four different clubs.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Scott,

Well, you made your topic posting comeback a great one!

I relayed the story in my recent interview about having designed courses with mid length par 3's for a long time.  The reasoning was that golfers find the 150-170 par 3 holes fun.  130 doesn't usually have much kick (although it can) and not many like hitting 3 woods to greens anywhere, although with a ball on the tee, it might be easier.

One of my courses just missed a Golf Digest best new ranking, and it was clear from panelist comments it was because of that.  As a result, I changed my thinking a little, and added a new target of 130-170-210-250 yards for the four par 3 holes on my new courses.  If I can, I put the 130 and 250 on the same nine for maximum differential, thinking no one will confuse the 12th with the 16th, or whatever.

Of course, the 250 yard plus par 3 is one of the few chances to guarantee a long hitter will have to hit a long iron or fw metal to a green, other than if going for a par 5 in two, so that's is a plus, along with the fact that we can design forward tees to whatever yardage we need to, to keep it fun for lesser players.

So, I think most seem to agree with you that some kind of variety is a good thing for par 3 hole length.

[Jim Eder]

Jeff,

Can you accomplish both fun and diversity on the same course via the tees? For example, the back tees have the diversity plan you mention (a short, the mids and the long one) but the blue tees have a bit more fun and the whites have all the fun you originally put into your golf course you mention? Do the raters look at all the tees or just one set of tees? Thanks, very intersting post, very interesting to see how aware you are of this!!

[Wade Whitehead]

My old home course had five par threes that required five different clubs from the back tee.  From the "member" tee, however, four of them often required the same club and, on occasion, all five did.  I often wondered if the architect (Ellis Maples) ever intended that or if it was simply a product of bad setup, which evolved over time.  Probably the latter, considering the variety that persisted from the longest tee.

Ballyhack's par three play from wildly different yardages.  It's one of my favorite things about the place.

WW

[Jim Eder]

Wade,

In the past I would have leaned towards a similar conclusion as you do that it is a bad set-up but after reading Jeff's post, I wonder (and reading and thinking about Mark Saltzman's "Is no strategy a strategy" thoughts).  Maybe he (Maples) had in mind the diversity challenge for the tournament players and the fun idea for the members (or was Maples doing architecture before things like this were really thought of?). In the past I would default to just bad set-up, lack of funds, lack of effort etc but these posts and knowing the quality of the architects on this site I wonder if most everything was done consciously. A lot to think about for me.

[Sean_A]

In a way, the par 3s are the most important set of holes because it gives the archie the opportunity to set the same stage everybody.  However, so much of what the par 3s should be depends on what the remainder of the course is like not only in hole conceptions, but in terrain, weather patterns and indeed even the number of 3s which will be on the course.  It is said that Colt would find his 3s and work his course around them as a feature of sorts.  I don't know if this is completely true, but generally speaking Colt's 3s are certainly something to look forward to even when you don't know the course because its almost a certain guarantee that a few will be doozies.  I mention this because so far as I can tell, Colt didn't seem to be overly influenced with marked differences in yardage for his 3s.  Sometimes they are a good spread and sometimes they aren't.  Often taken as Colt's best set, Swinley Forest's 3s layout as 171, 141, 195, 167 and 170.  Three holes are essentially identical in yardage, but in comparing them is there anybody who would complain about the quality and diversity of #s 4, 13 and 17?  We must never lose sight that yardage is only a number and that for almost all of us, golf is not a numbers game.

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Sean,

Great point on Swinley.

While 4, 13 and 17 are essentially the same yardage and you might even have the same clubs into two of them or even all of them, you are going to be hitting three different shots to very different greens.

I'm not sure I'm so fussed on the exact club being different as I am wit the shots and challenges being different.

Colt and Simpson both built sensational par threes. When choosing favourite sets of one-shotters, it's hard to look past Swinley, Burnham & Berrow, County Louth and Hardelot (Les Pins). Silloth's aren't too shabby either .

[Brian Potash]

Scott,

I have always thought the par 3s were the weakest part of our home course.  However, the super has a good deal of latitude in determining the yardages based on the tee/pin setup for each day on 11,13, and 16.  Not so much on 2 and 8 which I  think are the weakest 2 holes on the course from the white tees, as you are almost always hitting exactly the same shot.

For the 11th hole for instance, the white tees can vary from 155 yards to 195 yards and for the 16th hole 175 yds to 225 yards.  11 (which is my favorite of the par 3s) is a particularly good example as there is an upper and lower tee and a 2 tiered green from which to choose locations from.  When the architect gives the super these varying distances possibilities, how much is it the responsibility of the super to mixup the actual distances in determining each days setup?

In reference to the holes below, I hit anywhere from -

2=163 yards (8 iron, always seems to play exact same length!!)

8=155 yards (7-9 iron depending on actual distance)

11=142 yards, uphill, plays 155 (4-9 iron depending on actual distance)

13=178 yards (downhill) plays 170 yards (5-9 depending on actual distance)

16=222 yards (hybrid to 7 iron depending on actual distance)

Brian

[Tom ORourke]

I think part of it is the lack of good really short par 3s. If you don't build one of those, and don't want too many really long ones you end up bunched at 145 - 170. There are a lot of really good par 3s under 145 yards. Having a wedge to a par 3 is not a crime, especially with a small, well-trapped green. And if that green slopes from front to back then you have something. My last time on my home course I hit AW, 4 hybrid, 6 iron, 8 iron. And we have a number of tees so they could play very different the next time. I used to be a member at a course where all of the par 3s were at least a 4 iron and that was not fun. Give me the 7th at PB, the 13th at Merion, the 10th at PV.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I dont think it makes much difference what length the holes are in relation to each other. More important the holes are different, if they all come out the same scorecard length, with wind and elevation change there will be some twist. More important to concentrate and use the best land rather than be dictated to by numerals and theoretical poo poo, dont you think?

Ours from the very back tees are 172;240;225;195;185
from the normal white competition they are 172;162;175;173;156 <they play to 3 different compass points>
from the front members tees they are 130; 144; 155; 148; 135 < would play 6 iron to 9 iron for me)

We could mix the tees up to get a couple longer but it would not be popular.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adrian,

I agree that "effective shot length" is always more important than scorecard length, although I trust prevailing winds to blow consistently about as much as I trust a stranger when gambling.....actual length, adjusted for factors you mention, is a good place to start, but never to end design.  They have to be good holes first, and variety is always a nice bonus.

As to really good short par 3's. I will nominate a template used frequently by Bob Cupp and also former protege John Fought - the elevated green with one frontal bunker and fall away fw slopes all around.  That combo can make 140 yards or less seem pretty fearsome, even more than surrounding the short hole with bunkers.

[Tom_Doak]

I think you would find that, on older courses, the yardages tend to bunch together over time -- the shorter par-3's get length added to them, while the longer ones don't.  This is also apparent in input from my clients; many don't like the idea of having a par-3 that is "too short" or "too long".

As with all other "musts" for design, I feel this aspect is a bit overrated.  If you have a really good course on your hands, you will be taking the par-3 holes in stride in the context of the par-4's and par-5's, and shouldn't even notice whether you are hitting a 6-iron on #12 when you hit a 6-iron on #5.  It's just an easy thing for amateur designers to criticize when they look at the scorecard.  Nothing on the scorecard should make nearly as much difference as how it feels when you play it.

P.S.  Would any of you really move the green site of the previous hole 20-30 yards and make that hole worse, in order to give your par-3 hole a different length?  That is the trade-off you are really talking about.

[Simon Holt]

North Berwick's par-3s are pretty much all the same length.  They play completely differently.  If they were set in a flat field maybe, but surely the topo and wind will dictate the playing yardage rather than what is on the card.

[Tom ORourke]

Jeff - I am impressed with your knowledge. My comment of "wedge to a par 3 is not a crime, especially with a small, well-trapped green. And if that green slopes from front to back" was referenced by your comment of"template used frequently by Bob Cupp". I was describing a hole on my home course that is a Bob Cupp design, Woodside Plantation in Aiken, SC. Very good. He also has a hole of 150 with no bunkers but fallaway areas on all sides. We also have a second course by Rees Jones where the 17th is a drop hole that is usually a wedge so both courses have a good, short, par 3. They are fun holes where you should make a 3, but the greens are very sloping and quick so you need to hit a good shot. I like that.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Doak,

I have the same impression. Some of the RB Harris proteges used the "perfect par rotation" pretty often (4-5-4-3-4-5-4-3-4), even tending towards the long par 3 at 4, and shorter one at 8, etc.  If you took the par 5 sixth, and the (usually) short par 4 7th in the rotation, followed by the short 3 at the eigth, the net result was a stretch of holes from 6-8 where the approach was a wedge, despite all being different pars. 

Perhaps the Stanley Thompson distance chart is a better diagnostic tool than perfect par rotation.

And I agree that two 175 yard par threes can be completely different distance wise. Not only that, but even if they play the same length effectively, it might be a nice parallel to have them similar, but reversed, with one favoring a fade and the other a draw.

[Greg Tallman]

Club selection or repetition can be completely irrelevant.

Case in point - wonderful course, 5 really good par 3's... well 4 + 1.

2nd - play from around 210 - 4-5 iron
5th - play from around 160 - 5-7 iron
7th - play from around 250 - 3 iron - 4 wood 
11th - play from around 180 - 5-6 iron
16th - play from around 140 - 4-9 iron


Cour easily play 4 iron, 5 iron, 3 iron, 5 iron, 5 iron and never feel as though I were playing anything that resembled a similar shot.

[Jim Eder]

Greg,

The 16th hole seems really interesting. Would you be willing to give more info on why it can play so differently (4 iron - 9 iron)? I would guess the wind has a significant influence but maybe you could shed light on the hole. Thanks a lot.

On your scenario of hitting a lot of 5 irons while still being interesting, how do the shots differ? Is it mainly high shots and low shots, cut into the wind, draw into the wind? Thanks a lot.

[paul cowley]

Greg says:

"Club selection or repetition can be completely irrelevant.

Case in point - wonderful course, 5 really good par 3's... well 4 + 1.

2nd - play from around 210 - 4-5 iron
5th - play from around 160 - 5-7 iron
7th - play from around 250 - 3 iron - 4 wood  
11th - play from around 180 - 5-6 iron
16th - play from around 140 - 4-9 iron


Cour easily play 4 iron, 5 iron, 3 iron, 5 iron, 5 iron and never feel as though I were playing anything that resembled a similar shot. "

...and I agree!.

But with the occasional SE winds of fall, blowing around 20 MPH, the club selection could easily be:

#2  4 wood
#5  9 iron
#7  driver  
#11  3 wood
#16  sand wedge


In addition, the two par fives...#6 and 14...would play driver, 8 iron...and the par 4's  #9 and 10...would play driver, 3 wood, 8 iron...and driver, 3 wood, 5 iron.

The course in mention is located in Cabo San Lucas and it's name is the spanish word for diamond.

Thanks Greg ...hope all es bueno my friend! Have you met a Justin Dow of late?


 

[Jim Eder]

WOW, it looks AMAZING!!!!

[paul cowley]

Thanks Jim.

Greg its interesting how we differ on #7....for me its the hole I most look forward to playing of all the par 3's...and I think you would just as soon skip it! I like that...the diverse opinions that a good course can arouse in different players.

[Jordan Wall]

I don't necessarily dislike the fact that I might have the same club in my hand on par-3's.  It just depends on the type of shots the par-3's on a given course require you to hit.

For instance, you could have two par-3's of virtually the same yardage that require two very different shots, or you could have par-3's of different lengths that require the use of the same club but still require you to hit very different shots.

At Riviera, I hit the same club on 6 and 14, but the shots required for success were completely different.
At Pebble, I also hit the same club on 5 and 12, but I have to hit completely different shots to get to the hole on both instances.

I don't disgree that it's nice to hit a variety of clubs on a set of par-3's for a given course, but I think the most important aspect of a course's par-3's that make them good/great is the requirement to hit a variety of shots.

[Mark Smolens]

At this weekend's Mashie, I hit the following clubs into the par-3s:

4:  3 wood all 4 times

7:  6 iron 3x and 7 iron the other

10:  driver all four times (to 8' in the alternate shot on Sun am!)

12:  5 hybrid, 5 iron, 6 iron draw, 6 iron cut -- on green all 4 times, but each shot drastically different each time

14:  7 iron all 4 times

There may be no disappointment in the set of par-3s at Lawsonia. . .

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()