"By my math par-3s require..."

[Howard Riefs]

Bill Coore promotes par 3 courses and Bandon Preserve in the current issue of Sports Illustrated, and writes:

"By my math par-3s require about one quarter of the time of a regulation course with 90% or more of the fun."

Is Coore right?


http://www.golf.com/courses-and-travel/new-par-3-course-bandon-dunes-may-represent-games-hope-future

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2012/5/10/by-my-math-par-3s-require-about-one-quarter-of-the-time-of-a.html

[John McCarthy]

Close.  Cracking a big drive is 25% of the fun of a birdie.

[John Kavanaugh]

A game where par is 2/3rds putting does not interest me.

[BVince]

A game where par is 2/3rds putting does not interest me.

It is only 2/3rds putting if you manage to hit every green in regulation.

[Mark Saltzman]

More like 20%.

[John Kavanaugh]

If you really believe that approaching every green from a perfectly level lie with your ball hand placed on a tee is fun then have at it.

[Jim Nugent]

A game where par is 2/3rds putting does not interest me.

It is only 2/3rds putting if you manage to hit every green in regulation.

John is basically 100% right.  Par on 3-shot holes is 2/3rds putting, unless you manage to hole a shot from off the green. 

I think Coore may be right about the fun factor, or at least in the right neighborhood, if he's talking about bogey golfers.  They have their best shot at par on those holes. 

Do par 3 courses really take only one-fourth the time, though?  My guess would have been 2/3rds or so. 

[Alex Miller]

Sorry, even if you assume (generously) that it only takes 5 minutes to play a par 3 hole compared to a 4.5 hour round (again, generously slow), then a par 3 course is only 1/3 of the time AT BEST.

As for the 90% of the fun, well... I tend to disagree. It's not that I just like cracking the driver, but the diversity of lies that one gets to hit full shots from, not to mention the increased strategic options afforded from 2+ shot holes are things that I miss. Short game is a huge part of the game, and green complexes are a vital part of course design, but they aren't everything.

So, is Coore right? Well, in my opinion no. But I do believe he is being hyperbolic to make a point. And that point is probably that par 3 courses provide greater fun in relation to size, time, and cost of a regulation course.

[Keith Doleshel]

I like (make that love) par 3 courses as much as anyone.  That being said, I do enjoy busting a drive, hitting a wedge, and making a putt as much as anyone.  But all things being said, there is a place for alternative (non 18 hole) courses.  Perhaps my biggest issue with the Preserve is the price tag.  Sending $100 seems a bit much, even with the surroundings.  Maybe if the Preserve was $50, I would get it.  But that seems a bit excessive.  I hope its a hit, and I plan on playing it when I make my maiden voyage to the Oregon coast later this year.  But still, a Benjamin for less than a regulation course, Gulp!

[Jim Colton]

Where Coore succeeded at Bandon Preserve is that it's probably twice as fun as a typical regulation golf course. An average par 3 course has little to no appeal to me. But looking at that recent photo tour has me itching to go back out to Bandon.

[Sean_A]

Par 3 courses are alright to bring the kids out or have a few swipes at the ball, but they would never be ideal for a weekly game if one is a hard core player.  The fun factor stays high if you don't play par 3 course too often.  I would be much more inclined to play a short course if it were 18 tees and 5000 yards.  Now we are talking a lot of decision-making off the tee as to be aggressive or not. 

Ciao  

[Adrian_Stiff]

We have three golf course: Our main course takes 4 hours 32 minutes to play for standard play, our 9 hole time is is 2.16 ie an 09.00 1st tee time automatically rserves the 11.16 time...that works pretty good as the template. We have a 5500 yarder with 7 short holes and thats about 3.15 for 18 holes, though if its not busy two balls scoot round in not much more than 2.15 hours.
We have a 9 hole par 3 course and it takes about 50 minutes to play...

So an 18 hole par 3 course, if it has some longer par 3 holes, bunkers, tough greens is about 2 hours. So its a lot nearer 50% than 25%.

The walking time for a course is relatively insignificant. Add 10 minutes for every 1000 yards as a rough calculation.

[jeffwarne]

Bill Coore promotes par 3 courses and Bandon Preserve in the current issue of Sports Illustrated, and writes:

"By my math par-3s require about one quarter of the time of a regulation course with 90% or more of the fun."

Is Coore right?


http://www.golf.com/courses-and-travel/new-par-3-course-bandon-dunes-may-represent-games-hope-future

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2012/5/10/by-my-math-par-3s-require-about-one-quarter-of-the-time-of-a.html

Two quibbles
No chance it takes 1/4 of the time to play a par a three hole vs. a par 4/5.
(assuming he must be comparing 13 par 3's vs. 18 holes)

Are the starting areas for the holes sloped for various sidehill lies? (i.e. no tees allowed)
That would be cool

[Scott Sander]

jeffwarne -
You hit on something that my young son and I have adopted/adapted to stave off the boredom of seeing the same shot every time we go out. 

We go "off the grid" a few times a round.

We'll scope out "scrambling tees" - a good-sized patch of uneven, unkempt, scrub-addled land - perhaps not far from a tree stand. 

Before the round, we decide how many times during the round we have to scramble.  For me, it might be 10 times. For him it might be 2.
 
At the appropriate tee, we have to toss our ball to the zone from some distance away and deal with the consequences.

Actually planning and incorporating such areas -"Scrambling Tees"?- into a course could be a cool feature

[Tom_Doak]

Are the starting areas for the holes sloped for various sidehill lies? (i.e. no tees allowed)
That would be cool

I haven't seen the course yet, so I don't know the answer to your question.  I'll be out there next week.

It would be cool, but that course is going to get so much play that there would be no grass left in short order, if they didn't get people to put the ball on a tee (or even better, a mat) to hit their first shots.

As for my own math, driving the ball is not a huge part of the fun of golf, but it's more than 10%.  But what I think Bill and everyone here has left out, is that the strategic interest of golf is all based on two-shot or three-shot holes.  It's hard to get much of that in a par-3 course, and for me that is a big part of the fun of golf ... having to hit a more difficult approach shot because you didn't drive it in the right place.  Just going and dropping a ball over there doesn't do it for me.

[Brad Isaacs]

What this par 3 course does confirm is the marketing genius of Mike Kaiser. He gets me to go back to Bandon for the umpteenth time to see a nice side attraction. I would never travel for just a par three course, not even to AN or PV.

[Rich Goodale]

Who is Keiser going to get to design the Miniature Golf course (Bandon Windmills?) and how much is he going to charge for a round?  When will "Virtual Bandon" (a phalanx of simulators down in the Bunker Bar) open and how much will it cost to play?  When will real golf get in the way of the Bandon Experience?

[Jason Thurman]

A game where par is 2/3rds putting does not interest me.

+1

Assuming putting on the carpet of the hotel room is free, it's hard to imagine ever plunking down $100 for a par 3 course.