Long Par 3s

[Tom Culley]

At my home club we have 3 par three's over the 200 yard mark, and due to minimal tee options, the holes play to their full length most of the time. The course is overall very short, and because of this the majority of our members are seniors and women with handicaps over 20.

The first of these long par 3 holes is 204 yards, and requires the ball to be carried around 180 yards over a hazard for it to be able to reach the putting surface. For a large percentage of our members, this hole plays as a par 4, and the ball is driven safely left of the hazard, to the fairway, and then a pitch is played to the green. The stroke index of the hole is 5/6 so most players receive at least 1 stroke, making it a par 4 for them.

Two further par 3's are out of reach for lots of the members, but when played sensibly, a net par is easily achieved.

I guess what i am asking is, are these holes weak because par is too big an ask for a lot of the players playing the course?

[Josh Tarble]

I was just thinking about this recently...I just played a course that all par 3s were at least 200 yds and as 4 handicap...really challenging as well. My complaint was I hit the same club into 3 of them, and similar shot type into the 4th.

I could be completely wrong, but I think it may be easier to design a challenging long par 3 and most golfers think a short par3 must have water to be hard.  So in my opinion, I personally find having 3 or 4 similar length long par3s is an "easy" way out.

[Jason Thurman]

It sounds like it's the golfers that are weak...

I love long par 3s, but three over 200 yards might be a bit much. Variation is important too. I like to think par doesn't matter though. It sounds like the one with water has a few different strategies to play it and the shorter hitter can find an alternate route. If distance isn't one of your strengths, I think you have to accept that par will be difficult to achieve on holes which require it. No hole owes you par, it does owe you an opportunity to finish while playing by the rules.

[Wayne_Kozun]

No, I would say that par is too much of an ask on many holes for the same type of player who isn't a long hitter.  The same players would likely also struggle on any par 4 longer than about 350.

We have three longish par 3s that are over 200, although two of them are fairly severly downhill so they don't play the full distance.  The other par 3 is 110 yards but it is surrounded by bunkers on all four sides.  The same people that struggle on the long par 3s will also struggle here as they don't hit the ball hard enough to put in up high and have it land softly.

[Tom Culley]

The hazard that i mentioned isn't a great lake as you might be imagining, it is a small pond, with a large amount of trees around it.

The course is actually owned by my parents, and provides a stern test to players of all abilities. Im going to write a course profile for this site soon. In the mean time, for the purpose of the post, have a look at the second hole on our website, i admit the photos are not brilliant, but you should understand what i mean - http://ivinghoegolfclub.co.uk/the-course/

[Mike Hendren]

The long par three is steeped in the Golden Age tradition.  Ross' Hill Course at French Lick is a perfect example.  There are fewer things more rewarding on a golf course than hitting a green with a driver.

Bogey

[Wayne_Kozun]

And thing of how much longer these holes played when you were using a brassie and a balata ball rather than a 460cc driver with a Pro V1.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Is the amount of tee square footage inadequate or just the variance?
Either way I'd build additional tees.
Give your average member a shorter forced carry.
Cheers

[Tom Culley]

Mike, there is only one tee box on each hole due to space issues.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I know most average golfers don't like long par 3 holes.  Hitting a 3-4 wood to a green isn't much fun.  However, the good players need one long one, as it may be the best way to challenge the long iron game now.  Golf course raters tell me they look for variety in length, wind, and club selection on par 3 holes.

Overall, I agree with Mike N - add some tees on all of them, and maybe remove the back tees on at least one, add a way back back tee on another.  From the typical tees, one par 3 over 200 yards is probably enough, although two would be acceptable. 

Three just seems boring.  Presuming you don't care what the total course length is, this may be a good example of how you can make a better course by shortening it.

[Phil McDade]

Jeff:

I'm worse than average, and I really enjoy the challenge of a long par 3. But -- I don't like them if they are overly penal. One that comes to mind that I really enjoy is the 10th at Lawsonia, which can play 230+ from the tips, but is over level ground and has an enormous green. I much prefer that to a 185-yard par 3 with a pond fronting the green. Oakmont's 8th is also a well-regarded long par 3.

[Tom Culley]

If i tell you all of our hole length's does this change the opinion on whether we need the long par 3s?

1. 257 yards Par 4
2. 204 yards Par 3
3. 384 yards Par 4
4. 149 yards Par 3
5. 231 yards Par 3
6. 263 yards Par 4
7. 293 yards Par 4
8. 106 yards Par 3
9. 219 yards Par 3 (4 for women).

For low handicappers, all of the par 4s are good birdie chances. However if the greens are missed in the par 3s, par is a very good score.

The course record is only -3 (59).

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

I agree, even if most don't.  In some ways, hitting the driver or 3 wood off the tee is certainly easier than nitting it off the deck, so its a nice challenge.  One of my favorite par 3 designs is the 4th at the Quarry - 261 from the back tees, and a fairly small green, but open in front, bunkered at the back.  I can get it there, but I have to hit it straight.

[Jason Thurman]

Does the answer change if the course also has multiple par 4s under 300 yards? I visited the website, and as Tom mentioned, it's a short course overall with several 260-ish yard par 4s. Obviously space is a concern too. At some point, you've compromised all the course's tough holes.

I think there are enough half-par par 4s and enough of a lack of space on this course to support one teeing ground with some tough par 3s balanced by some fairly easy par 4s. I agree though, that on a typical course, you'd probably want some alternate tees just for variation.

* Looks like Tom beat me to the punch on this a bit, but I agree with the premise.

[Tom Ferrell]

Several years ago, I was down in Phoenix to do a magazine piece on PGA TOUR player Jonathan Kaye.  During a round at Silverleaf, we approached the tee of the fifth hole, a 256-yard par-3.  There, sitting in a cart awaiting us, is course designer Tom Weiskopf.  Anyone who follows golf knows that Kaye and Weiskopf share a few characteristics, both in the quality of their games and in their attitudes (let me also say that the 'easy' call on their personalities is not necessarily fair or accurate, but...).

So we go up to the tee.  I hit a very satisfying hybrid 2-iron that scoots to within 15 feet of the hole and earns kudos from Weiskopf.  

Johnny Kaye hits a baby-cut 4-wood that bounds just over the back of the green.  As we walk past Weiskopf, Kaye mutters, "what kind of &$^# would design a par-3 where a TOUR player has to hit a wood?"

Without missing a beat, Weiskopf replies, "what kind of &$^# would try to play the TOUR if he has to hit a wood into a par-3."

Weiskopf proceeded to follow us around the entire course, taking notes on how we played it, conditioning, etc.  Great day, and needless to say, that was a story that practically wrote itself.  

[Wayne_Kozun]

It can be really hard to make a hole suitable to all types of players.  The 15th at my club Scarboro is an example.  It is a short 282 yd par 4.  The fairway has two tiers - the upper tier is reached with a driver of about 170 and leaves you 110 in to the green which is severely uphill on another tier and the green is guarded by a large bunker in the front.

For the men this is an easy hole - hit something like a 3I hybrid to leave yourself 90-100 in to the very small green and hit a sand wedge.  It isn't quite a par 3 1/2 as the green isn['t really drivable but it is not a hard hole.
 
It is a much tougher hole for women and seniors as they often cannot get to the upper fairway tier, even from the forward tee.  This means that they have a shot of 140-150 severly uphill to a green guarded by a bunker.  So they lay up in front of the bunker witht heir second shot and pitch up to the green, effectively making it a par 5.

The only way to fix this is to have a very forward tee but often the players will refuse to play from that tee.  And even then, given the elevation changes, they still can't play the hole as it was meant to be played.

[Phil McDade]

I'd also add this:

As always in these sorts of discussions (and I'll keep it to 18-hole courses just for the sake of argument here), I think it's important that the hole in question not be taken out of the context of the overall course. William Langford often wrote about designing courses with the intent of asking players to hit a range of shots into greens -- short, medium, long. And that could be accomplished in any number of ways -- a short par 5 might be designed to ask/tempt the player into hitting a longer approach into the green. The easiest way to do this, of course, is on par 3s -- as they are the one set of holes in which the architect can dictate the length of the shot required, as opposed to par 4s and 5s, where the approach shot is dictated by a player's ability off the tee. so Langford was always keen on designing a set of par 3s that required a variety of shots off the tee.

[Tom_Doak]

There is a preponderance of long par-3's at many newer courses, because the par-3's are the only hole where the architect can require the young and strong player to hit a long approach shot into a green.  Even the longest par-4's can be driver-wedge for some players, and if you are building a course where those guys are playing, it's only fair to have two or three "short" holes where they have to hit 6-iron, 4-iron, or even more club than that.

However, not many courses should really be thinking about that kind of player.

Dismal River has two fairly long par-3's, and both of them tend to play into the wind.  I was surprised that the par-3 fifth didn't get much attention on the thread about its best holes, but many golfers are just intimidated by such a long hole, and will never like it until they hit a good shot onto the green.

[Brian Colbert]

My home club has a par 3 which at 260 yards gives me fits. Unfortunately, that is right in between a 3-wood and a driver for me!

That said, I think a long par 3 like that can be a good hole if it is done correctly. The hole in particular which I am talking about has an open run up approach to the green and there is almost nowhere you can miss where you can't get the ball up and down. Number 8 at Oakmont CC is another example of a great par-3 which requires the player to use a wood or perhaps even a driver. However, there is an open avenue to the green and I remember thinking when I played it that it was perfectly reasonable.

In my opinion we're getting to a point where from the back tees 200 yards is a medium-length par 3 on a new course and 230 yards is reasonable. Players who are qualified to play the back tees will most likely be able to reach these greens with hybrids or long irons. What disappoints me about these new courses is the lack of variety in these par 3s. It seems like many of the great courses have par-3s of varying lengths and shot requirements. Take Pine Valley for example. 3 is about a 6-7-iron, 5 is about a 2-3 iron, 10 is a 9-iron, and 14 is a 4-5 iron. It's unlikely that you would use the same club on any of the par 3s.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brian,

On my long par 3's, I hear of them being "between clubs" all the time, as you describe.  I don't really get that.  Can you not just choke down a half inch?

I did a long Biarritz (may 280 from the back tees) and spent a lot of time in construction discussing whether the run up ought to slope down to the green so a three wood would roll out more, making it the perfect club.  I just cannot concieve that everyone hits a 3 wood just that length as to design around that shot.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I vaguely know Ivinghoe, it was designed by a chap called Reg Garrard who just built his own little 9 hole on a small parcel of land. I would say its fine as it is, you got two short short holes so the longer threes act as the more difficult par holes. Ivinghoe is never going set the world alight but it fills a much needed gap, the negative bit is anyone any good will move on to the 18 holers in the area. I hope Ivinghoe can turn a profit in this tough climate.

[Brian Colbert]

Jeff,

I agree that you can't design a par 3 with a specific yardage and club in mind as what you want the player to hit on the hole. The yardage of this particular hole is just a bad number for me. Many of my friends that play the course have no trouble getting a 3-wood all the way to the back position. As far as choking down on a driver, a long miss is probably the most severely penalized on the hole. I can hit my driver as far as 300-320 yards but I am not overly long with the rest of my clubs because I don't want to be. Dialing one back to get to a 265 yard back pin is a tremendously difficult shot for me. Into the wind I can do it but if the hole is downwind I am better off just trying to bust a 3-wood (or even a 2-iron if it's dry).

I'd love to hear Bobby Weed's take on the hole (he designed the course I'm talking about). The back tee is all the way at the edge of the property and I wonder if he would have made it longer if he had the real estate to do so. As it is though, I just don't have the right club to hit to a middle-back pin on this hole. Guess it's time to get a RBZ 3-wood!

[David Harshbarger]

The long par three is steeped in the Golden Age tradition.  Ross' Hill Course at French Lick is a perfect example.  There are fewer things more rewarding on a golf course than hitting a green with a driver.

Bogey

That's very true.  My tween son drove the 170 yard incarnation of our long par-3 and was ecstatic.  I later drove it with a Brassie in it's 210 yard incarnation, and was likewise ecstatic.  The hole is not penal at all, open in front, so many ball trajectories successful.  On a 9 hole course, it's a treat to have to play a 210 yard par 3.  Most play-it-forward type tee boxes would put a high handicapper much closer in on a 210 yard par 3 from the back tees. 

[Tom Yost]

If i tell you all of our hole length's does this change the opinion on whether we need the long par 3s?

1. 257 yards Par 4
2. 204 yards Par 3
3. 384 yards Par 4
4. 149 yards Par 3
5. 231 yards Par 3
6. 263 yards Par 4
7. 293 yards Par 4
8. 106 yards Par 3
9. 219 yards Par 3 (4 for women).

For low handicappers, all of the par 4s are good birdie chances. However if the greens are missed in the par 3s, par is a very good score.

The course record is only -3 (59).

With the par 31 and short par 4's, it's like an Executive course, but three par 3's greater than 200 yds in 9 holes  ??  Not sure what to make of such a mix.   

Normally, I like a long par 3, but only one in an 18 hole course and combined with a mix of three other shorter par 3's.

I often think courses with total yardages on the shorter side sometimes stretch the par 3's just to bump the total and I usually find that a bit annoying. 

But Tom's course is curious.

[Tom Culley]

If i tell you all of our hole length's does this change the opinion on whether we need the long par 3s?

1. 257 yards Par 4
2. 204 yards Par 3
3. 384 yards Par 4
4. 149 yards Par 3
5. 231 yards Par 3
6. 263 yards Par 4
7. 293 yards Par 4
8. 106 yards Par 3
9. 219 yards Par 3 (4 for women).

For low handicappers, all of the par 4s are good birdie chances. However if the greens are missed in the par 3s, par is a very good score.

The course record is only -3 (59).

With the par 31 and short par 4's, it's like an Executive course, but three par 3's greater than 200 yds in 9 holes  ??  Not sure what to make of such a mix.   

Normally, I like a long par 3, but only one in an 18 hole course and combined with a mix of three other shorter par 3's.

I often think courses with total yardages on the shorter side sometimes stretch the par 3's just to bump the total and I usually find that a bit annoying. 

But Tom's course is curious.

Just to help you understanding of the holes:
The 2nd hole is flat but requires a fade to reach the green, and depending on wind plays anything from 5 iron to a strong hybrid. The 5th plays downhill and can require between a 5 and 3 wood to reach the green. The 9th hole plays uphill and requires a draw to 'knock it on', the can be anything from 4 iron to 3 wood.