Is par 3 length variation a smaller deal than it appears...

[Tim Gavrich]

...on championship courses, specifically?

Especially when people get up-in-arms about par 4s and 5s playing so short these days, doesn't it make the course a better test to have par 3s that require long iron or fairway wood shots from the tee?  Par 3s, on the average, seem to defend par better than par 4s and (obviously) par 5s.  So if the par 4s on modern championship courses are all Driver-wedge for the pros, why not make the four (or five, or six?!?!) par 3s the holes where you make the big boys hit long irons and woods.  In short, I don't think having long par 3s is necessarily bad on a course that is being set up to defend par against the world's best.

Note that I am not defending having a set of par 3s that is one-dimensional in terms of the shape of shots required (e.g. the water-on-one-side-or-the-other thing at AAC).  But I am saying that having four par threes in the 200-250 yard range is okay.  And Luke Donald, normally a cool-headed chap, is wrong about a hole like 15 "that...essentially takes the skill out of it when a hole is playing that long," according to an article I just read on PGATour.com.

[kurt bowman]

Tim,

Ideally I'd like 4 par threes (if not five) with a range of 145-175-205-240. I personally like a really long par 3 and really short par 4's. In essence you have 2 par 3.5's one called a par four and the other called a par 3. I have no issue with someone having to occasionally hit a fairway wood into a par 3. 16 at Cypress Point has done ok, and no doubt it would have been a wood for nearly all players when it was conceived. Even today a layup short of the green would be a wise choice for many amateurs. I just finished a par 3 in Puerto Vallarta, MX that's approx 240 yards, but does allow for a run up and a bail out right. If you bail out right your in a collection area about 4 feet below the green with the green draining away from your pitch.

Having said that what your seeing at AAC seems more than a bit penal with water right and short of the green and approach. I'd be surprised if the PGA uses that tee more than one day, but I could be wrong. I watched a few of the press conferences today, and heard the pro's belly-aching. It reminds me if a story when I walked with Pete Dye one day when he was designing Hampton Point in SC. At that time I worked for JN and was walking with Pete to soak in whatever bit of genius I could. We were at a green complex where he had several greenside bunkers located 10-30 feet or more away from the green itself. He looked at me and said "JN wouldn't put the bunkers that far away from the green would he"? I said not typically as he usually keeps them nearer to the green with just enough room for the greens mowers to turn around. He said "do you know why"? I said no sir. He said because JN is a golf pro and all pro golfers are pu**ies!

Kurt

[Jeff_Brauer]

Like a lot of architectural concepts, we could set up the old high school debate and take one side in the morning and one side in the afternoon. 

The only real premise I disagree with is to focus on championship courses and championship players as the basis.  When considering what average golfers want, and how much they like Par 3 holes for their relative ease (or percieved ease) I could also argue that they should all be 140-160 from the middle tees, if the criteria was fun for them.

[Matthew Rose]

I don't mind hitting a 3 wood or hybrid to a par-three.

I don't really like having to do it four times in a round, though.

[Tim Gavrich]

Kurt--

Thanks for the response; classic story about Pete Dye, too.  I'm envious of anyone who's spent time around him.

But is your 145-175-205-240 model pretty universal?  I ask because there have to be be some times when a golfer hits a bunch of 145 or 175 yard approaches on the par 4s and probably very few 205 or 240 yard approaches.  So, in such cases, having a 145 yard par 3 or a 175 yarder is just kind of a redundancy in the total approach shot variation on the golf course, right?

I love great short par 3s as much as anyone, but if I've hit a bunch of 9I and PW (my 150 and 140 clubs) on the par 4s, why do I need to play a 145 yard par 3 as well?  I'd rather double up on the long par 3--something like a scheme of 170-200-230-245 instead.

Sedgefield CC in Greensboro, NC has two awesome long par 3s at the 7th (225) and 12th (245).  It doesn't need a 130-145 yard hole (the other two par 3s are 176 and 165) because plenty of approach shots on the par 4s are in that general, shorter range.

Jeff--

I agree with you completely re: the "average golfer."  I was more reacting to Luke Donald's complaint about #15 at AAC being too long and "taking the skill out of it," a sentiment which I don't understand in the slightest.  I admit that it's a totally different ballgame for the majority of golfers.

I should also say that I don't think your and Larry Nelson's Wild Wing course in Myrtle Beach does not suffer from a lack of a short par 3 (5 is 183, 8 is 176, 12 is 227, and 17 is 196) because there are a few par 4s where the approach is made with a short iron or wedge, with holes 9 and 14 (a true drivable par 4 on the Grand Strand!) being the standouts among them.

Basically, all I'm saying is that we need to stress variety for all 18 approach shots more than we need to stress variety among the par 3s.

[kurt bowman]

Tim,

As much in life I guess it all personal preference. I played golf with a former Ryder Cup captain recently who works in golf design a bit and his preference would to now have a par 3 over 175 yards. I don't think you can build a par 3 that you wouldn't have a similar distance during your round on par 4's or 5's. Also the fact that you can tee it up makes it different. What I like about both long 3's and short 4's is that yardage between say 220-330 yards is often not used in golf course design. I can understand your reasoning for 2 long 3's over 220 for the reason I just mentioned.

Kurt

[JNC Lyon]

Tim,

Par threes need variation in both the length and the type of shot required.  I would definitely like to see more par threes that require fairway woods for even the best players.  That's why I love holes like 10 at Rolling Green, 8 at Inniscrone, and 17 at Mountain Ridge.  However, as Matthew says, I don't want to do it four times in one round.

Think about this though: even if a par three is 150 yards, it is probably one of the longest approach shots a top player will have during any given round.  I'd rather see par threes test 4 (or 5, or 6) types of shots rather than be four bruisers.

The best par three variation I have seen is at Inniscrone: 5 is a drop shot that requires a little wedge, 8 is a long Redan over a ravine requiring a fairway wood (or, in my case, driver), 11 is an uphill mid-iron, and 14 is a downhill long iron.  4 very different clubs, 4 different looks and types of shots.  Fantastic!  Dismal River had four vastly different looks in its par threes, but they are very close together in terms of length.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

I hear you on the overall variety. I recall the Chicago school going for "perfect par rotation of 4-5-4-3-4-5-4-3-4 and some even were formulaic on 4 being a long par 3 and 8 being the short one, while the 7th was a short par 4.  Thus, on many courses, holes 6-8 were all short approach shots, albeit on different par holes, which I found counter productive.  I always liked that Thompson variety chart as a double check on approach shot variety, and have seen even better variations that show the wind direction on the approaches, as well.  Wind direction may be a better predictor of shot variety than even basic length. I call it "effective length" and of course, wind direction helps shape shots.

As to WW, the 8th was meant to be shorter, but the owner came in one day and asked for more "fru fru" and the crazy 8th tee - which I like - was born, but it added back tee length.

BTW, if I was doing 12 today, I am not sure it wouldn't be over 250 from the tips, and not 227.  I did a 295 tips par 3 once and the better players told me it wasn't "fair" because it was "between clubs."  Somewhere around 260 may be the max back tee par 3 now.  Even the shortest back tee players can use driver, and most are solidly in 3-4 metal range.

I can understand the idea that a combo of a long hole and tight hazards may create a shot that doesn't sufficiently reward skill.

[Garland Bayley]

... I could also argue that they should all be 140-160 from the middle tees, if the criteria was fun for them.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Z


 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

While I personally see your point, it proves my point that you really have to know your players when you design, and NOT just rely on this site.  As oft mentioned, we are not really the mass audience of retail golfers and local courses.  Most of those guys/gals would rather see a pleasant hole that gives them some chance of par over and over rather than some classic of golf design with perfect variety. 

That said, I have moved from all mid length to wide distance variety on my par 3 holes. I think I described why in my interview on this site.  No one will complain about the shortest 3 holes, but many will complain about the length (even from the mid tees) of the long one that requires the 3W.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I've been a highcapper for most of my playing days, and most of my regular friends I play with are worse than me....and I've never heard one complaint about a long par 3.  However there are some basic criteria that should be adhered to on par 3s that are 180 and longer from the middle tees:

Its best to leave the openings of them fairly open so they can run something up into them and/or is receptive to a hyrbrid/long iron.  Additionally its best not to put ponds right in front of them, or surround the green with bunkers, or have OB anywhere near the green. It may also be good to save severe undulating greens for short par 3s or par 4s that can be attacked with a wedge.

Give us a little space, and let us miss without being unduly punished.  Even us hacks love the thrill of sticking a 3 iron on the green, even if we fail to pull it off most of the time.  And if we don't, a bogey on the card doesn't bother us one bit.

[Tom Kelly]

...on championship courses, specifically?

Especially when people get up-in-arms about par 4s and 5s playing so short these days, doesn't it make the course a better test to have par 3s that require long iron or fairway wood shots from the tee?  Par 3s, on the average, seem to defend par better than par 4s and (obviously) par 5s.  So if the par 4s on modern championship courses are all Driver-wedge for the pros, why not make the four (or five, or six?!?!) par 3s the holes where you make the big boys hit long irons and woods.  In short, I don't think having long par 3s is necessarily bad on a course that is being set up to defend par against the world's best.

Note that I am not defending having a set of par 3s that is one-dimensional in terms of the shape of shots required (e.g. the water-on-one-side-or-the-other thing at AAC).  But I am saying that having four par threes in the 200-250 yard range is okay.  And Luke Donald, normally a cool-headed chap, is wrong about a hole like 15 "that...essentially takes the skill out of it when a hole is playing that long," according to an article I just read on PGATour.com.

When you look at the whole quote from Luke I think he has a fair point...

“I think some of the world's greatest par 3s are very short,” Donald said. “The seventh at Pebble, 12th at Augusta, Postage Stamp, you can keep naming quite a few that are short and at the same time quite tricky.

“Today off the back tee, I hit a rescue,” Donald added. “Just seems like you take a little bit of the skill out of it when it's that long a hole. But it is the same for everyone, and I'm going to have to learn to try and love it for this week. There's not too many really long par 3s that are very memorable that I can think of, the only one really being Cypress, 16th hole. Again, I've never really been a fan of long par 3s. I think par 3s should be a little bit more shorter and more interesting.”

How many truly world class long par 3's can you name that are really memorable for anything other than their sheer distance?

I understand some saying that a lot of 9I and PW are hit on par 4's but they are not to targets that are defended as well as on short par 3's such as The Postage Stamp or 12 at Augusta. I love playing the little par 3's and find a course with all the par 3's in the range considered 'long' as very boring. Maybe one 220+ is fair but 260 is getting ridiculous and giving the longer hitters a massive advantage over the likes of Donald. When you hit it long enough to reach the green with a 4-iron it gives you a massive advantage over the guy hitting 3-wood, were as say 6-iron over 4-iron is not the same advantage imo and is a far better test of skill.

[Ken Moum]

Garland,

While I personally see your point, it proves my point that you really have to know your players when you design, and NOT just rely on this site.  As oft mentioned, we are not really the mass audience of retail golfers and local courses.  Most of those guys/gals would rather see a pleasant hole that gives them some chance of par over and over rather than some classic of golf design with perfect variety. 

That said, I have moved from all mid length to wide distance variety on my par 3 holes. I think I described why in my interview on this site.  No one will complain about the shortest 3 holes, but many will complain about the length (even from the mid tees) of the long one that requires the 3W.

The reason the average golfer doesn't support wide vatiety of par threes is because the A) have never seen it, and B) Don't think about golf that way.  Because I have fairly recently seen the light, i have preached the gospel of length variation to a number of my friends and you can usually see the light go on, but it's just not something they'd have thought about without prompting.

After I played Sugarloaf Mountain with threes of 91, 137, 157 and 198, and fours ranging from 252 to 455, it dawned on me that such variety was a HUGE key to me enjoying a round on golf course, especially if I had a game going.

I've been called "the shortest 10-handicap I've ever seen," so a steady diet of 150- to 170-yard par threes, and 370- to 390-yard par fours is a killer. OTOH, I can compete with longer hitters (with similar handicaps) at the short yardages, and I can compete at the longer ones too.

My home course, a 1920s Ross, has threes of 131, 167, 175, and 208, which is a nice mix.

BTW, from the forward tees at Sugarloaf, the shortest par four is three yards shorter than the longest par three.  But one is uphill and the other is downhill.

If I were building from scratch, I'd tell my architect that I'd like to see two par 3 1/2 holes that were virtually the same length, one par four and one par three.

K

[George Pazin]

Note that I am not defending having a set of par 3s that is one-dimensional in terms of the shape of shots required (e.g. the water-on-one-side-or-the-other thing at AAC).  But I am saying that having four par threes in the 200-250 yard range is okay.  And Luke Donald, normally a cool-headed chap, is wrong about a hole like 15 "that...essentially takes the skill out of it when a hole is playing that long," according to an article I just read on PGATour.com.

I like your idea - but I'd stop at 3, I'd have at least one tricky short par 3. But I'd have no problem with 3 over 200. Nice out-of-the-box thinking, Tim.