Is the Extremely Long Par 3 the Solution?

[Mike Hendren]

In Bob Crosby's thread on The Perfect Swing he writes:  "If long/medium iron play separates the boys from the men, the choices are stark if you care about a competitive Tour on which the cream will continue to rise to the top: either build 8000 yard courses or roll-back the ball. Those are the only two ways to make the pros hit medium and long iron approaches."

Isn't a third solution to make the one shot holes extremely long?   The cognoscenti have long touted the attractiveness of varying yardage among the one-shotters and have been particularly enamored with the short par three.  However, given the distances even high handicappers drive the ball today, not to mention the multiple teeing options aren't most players given plenty of opportunities on the two and three shot holes to play short irons and pitches? 

Rather than 500+ yards par fours and 650+ yard par fives doesn't it make sense to have the par threes range from 225 to 275 yards from the tips?  Ross' Hill Course at French Lick comes to mind where three of the four par threes tip out at 240, 249 and 252 yards.  The resulting dynamic would be short approaches on longer holes (par 4's and 5's) and longer approaches on shorter holes (par 3's).

Nuts?   

[David Mulle]

I don't think it is nuts at all.  One of the reasons I like them so much is that it becomes easier to present similar challenges to golfers who are playing different tees.  It is much easier to set up a long par 3 so that players on both the back and middle tees are hitting long irons approaches than it is to set up a par 4 so that players off of both tees are hitting similar approaches into the green.

[Jeb Bearer]

What about a combination of that, and par 68/72 courses with 500 yard par 4/5s and 300 yard par 3/4s?

[Lester George]

I love this idea.  I will give it some thought and get back to you.  Way to go Bogey.

Lester

[Greg Tallman]

Isn't a third solution to make the one shot holes extremely long?   The cognoscenti have long touted the attractiveness of varying yardage among the one-shotters and have been particularly enamored with the short par three.  However, given the distances even high handicappers drive the ball today, not to mention the multiple teeing options aren't most players given plenty of opportunities on the two and three shot holes to play short irons and pitches? 

No, the better players get the resulting shport shots from playable areas far more often. The short par three insures a variety of skill levels have the same oportunity from a relatively short distance and thus levels the playing field more.

if you are talking about only tour level players then perhpas but how boring. Nothing more exciting that watching a 130-40 yards hole be played in scores of 2 to 5 by the best in the world or 2s and 3s by the average guys who happen to pull off a good short iron.

[Tom_Doak]

Bogey:

Lots of architects have been making their par-3's longer and longer over the past 15-20 years ... Mr. Dye was starting to do it even before that, when I worked for him.  The 6th hole at PGA West Stadium course was 255 yards from the black tees [with water around 2/3 of it], and the 13th hole was about 220.  But, Pete was thinking about the Tour pros more than anyone else did.

The problem is in designing really good holes of this length.  Imagine if you designed a 225-yard par-3 that played like the approach to the 13th at Augusta -- I think that's your goal, but I've only ever seen a couple of par-3's that were anywhere near that severe.  Most times, when somebody builds a really long par-3 they build a giant green to go with it and softer hazards at the margins, and everybody just makes 3 or 4 and moves on.

[BCrosby]

Bogey -

You could build more 240 yd par 3's. And you'd get more long iron play. But how many 240 yd par 3's do you want on a 7000 yd course? The better approach is to take seriously how short a modern Tour venue of 7000 yds really is (at least on an apples to apple historic basis). If you want more long iron play on more holes, modern Tour venues need to be seriously lengthened.

As noted on another thread, if you want a modern Tour venue to play like a 6500 yard course did circa 1925 (where pros hit lots of long irons) the modern equivalent course would need to be something like 8200 yds. That's what the math tells you. The dearth of  long iron play is symptomatic of that fact. .

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

Bogey -

You could build more 240 yd par 3's. And you'd get more long iron play. But how many 240 yd par 3's do you want on a 7000 yd course? The better approach is to take seriously how short a modern Tour venue of 7000 yds really is (at least on an apples to apple historic basis). If you want more long iron play on more holes, modern Tour venues need to be seriously lengthened.

As noted on another thread, if you want a modern Tour venue to play like a 6500 yard course did circa 1925 (where pros hit lots of long irons) the modern equivalent course would need to be something like 8200 yds. That's what the math tells you. The dearth of  long iron play is symptomatic of that fact. .

Yes, but

(a)  There's no room to lengthen courses to 8200 yards, Erin Hills aside, and

(b)  If we are going to 8,200 yard courses, I am just going to shoot myself in the head.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Bogey -

You could build more 240 yd par 3's. And you'd get more long iron play. But how many 240 yd par 3's do you want on a 7000 yd course? The better approach is to take seriously how short a modern Tour venue of 7000 yds really is (at least on an apples to apple historic basis). If you want more long iron play on more holes, modern Tour venues need to be seriously lengthened.

As noted on another thread, if you want a modern Tour venue to play like a 6500 yard course did circa 1925 (where pros hit lots of long irons) the modern equivalent course would need to be something like 8200 yds. That's what the math tells you. The dearth of  long iron play is symptomatic of that fact. .

Bob

Yes but,

The tour pros play a totally different game to that played by the rest of us - even by scratch amateurs. An 8200 yard course would be an unplayable soul-destroying trudge for 99% of all golfers - and simply having tournament tees 100 yards or so further back for the pros on a 7000 yard course doesn't wash because that assumes that all the bunkers etc are in the right place to be in play.

Other sports - motor racing for instance - continually tweak the rules for elite professional competitors so that technological advances are tempered to allow participation on existing and traditional layouts. I can pay to drive a car round Silverstone with some friends - but it won't be the same spec car as that driven by Jenson Button!

The key surely, is the ball. Introduce a tournamant ball for professional events that simply won't travel as far. Allow the rest of us to use Pro V's or whatever we want.  That way we can all play the same courses.

[Tim_Weiman]

Duncan,

It wasn't that long ago I argued that the golf technology arms race was leading us to 8,000 yard courses. More than a few people here responded by suggesting that I was exaggerating the threat of ball technology. But, now we have some people actually suggesting 8,000 yard courses make sense (to properly test elite, professional golfers).

As you suggest, introducing a tournament ball is the logical and most economical way to achieve the necessary balance between the playing field, player skill and equipment technology.

Mike,

I have some sympathy for your proposal, but beyond thinking a tournament ball is really the best option, I suspect Tom D is correct that building super long par 3s that are also good holes isn't that easy.

[Jim Nugent]

You could build more 240 yd par 3's. And you'd get more long iron play. But how many 240 yd par 3's do you want on a 7000 yd course?

Bob, I made this point on your Perfect Swing thread, but let me add to it.  We can build 6700 yard courses that greatly challenge the pros -- that force them to hit lots of mid and long iron approaches -- by building more par 3s. 

For PGA tour events, the course can have six par 3s.  I think the longest should be in the 280 to 300 range.  Today's pro's would then have to play driver/3 wood into some par 3s -- just like they often did 70-80 years ago. 

The course should also include some short par 3s.  But with 4 in the 200 to 280 range, the top players in the world already must hit a fair number of long-iron shots. 

The course should have 4 par 5s.  One could be a true three-shot hole.  The others could give the players the chance to get home in two.  So now we have three more mid to long iron approaches, plus a long-iron second on the 3-shot hole.   

At least one of the par 4s could require a long-iron approach.  Bringing the total number of mid-long iron shots to eight or nine. 

This course could measure in at around 6700 yards, par 70.  The pro's could find it real tough: the par 3s would probably play well over par.  Another set of tees would make it playable for the average golfer.  We could even turn some of the ultra-long par 3s into par 4s for the shorter hitter.  One way to do that would be to build a tee behind the pro tees.  i.e. the pros play a 260 yard par 3, but bogey plays a 275 yard par 4.

The long-ball hitting pro still has an advantage on this course.  But nowhere near as much as on the 7500 yard monster courses they sometimes play today.  Those par 3s are the key.  They play long for pros, but short for average golfers.  By including more, we can keep the courses shorter, while still posing a challenge to great players and average. 

[Matthew Mollica]

Bogey,

The issue of the long par three arose on an Australian forum several years ago, and I posted this (back in November 2010) -

it's got to be about variety too doesn't it. I am saddened when I go to a new course, and see 4 par 3s of 150m or greater. That shows no imagination.

I love short 3s more that long ones. The really short ones which demand accuracy are more to my liking. Holes like Barnbougle Dunes 7, 16 at 13th Beach (Beach) Kingston Heath 10 and others like that are great fun. So too Spring Valley 10.

Yet holes like RMW 16, Spring Valley 14, Royal Queensland 17 and RME 4 are really cool holes too.
Victoria 16 is a touch shorter but could be considered in this discussion too.

I never find any of them dull. They are all exacting shots to hit, good looking shots which provide a buzz when executed well. They surely have their place in a round. None of those is a slog. They demand a well struck long club, allowing an opportunity for better players to demonstrate their worth.

If such holes are incorporated into a round, they may then negate the need for longer par 4s which ask the same approach shot question of low markers, while posing an unanswerable slog of a question to those less talented.


IMHO, a great long three should provide a safe bail for the less skilled golfer unable to make the green, or unable to consistently hit a long club accurately. A well-thought out green shape, contour, and adjacent bunkering, which provides several pins, which in turn sees variation in the line and trajectory of the shot required, as well as the fluctuating difficulty of the hole from day to day. An open green front so as to allow a running approach is also a plus.

Specifically in relation to Spring Valley 14, the hole possesses all these qualities. Dare I say it, the hole even possesses inherent strategy for high handicappers. 

And, like all holes on the margin of par, a long par 3 (or short 4) makes for interesting match play.

MM

[Matthew Mollica]

And this from several years ago

There is no hole more reviled by most players than the very long par-3 ... it is not at all flattering to most golfers.

[Sean_A]

No, I don't think its the solution.  Long par 3s are best when the land calls for them.  Holes like Calamity Corner and Addington's 13th are good examples of what I mean.  Otherwise, I think its best to mess with par.  Let the flat bellies have their 220-250 par 3 while other get a 270 par 4.  If there are a few of this sort per course than the handicap man will get his opportunity for long iron shots as lay-ups.  Of course, many will recognize they aren't good at this and will choose to bang driver.  Bottom line, you can't force guys to hit long irons.  Usually, tehre are ways to avoid hitting them.

Ciao

[BCrosby]

Bogey -

You could build more 240 yd par 3's. And you'd get more long iron play. But how many 240 yd par 3's do you want on a 7000 yd course? The better approach is to take seriously how short a modern Tour venue of 7000 yds really is (at least on an apples to apple historic basis). If you want more long iron play on more holes, modern Tour venues need to be seriously lengthened.

As noted on another thread, if you want a modern Tour venue to play like a 6500 yard course did circa 1925 (where pros hit lots of long irons) the modern equivalent course would need to be something like 8200 yds. That's what the math tells you. The dearth of  long iron play is symptomatic of that fact. .

Yes, but

(a)  There's no room to lengthen courses to 8200 yards, Erin Hills aside, and

(b)  If we are going to 8,200 yard courses, I am just going to shoot myself in the head.

Which is my real point. The math says courses need to be 8200 yds to play like "long" courses did in the 1920's. That simple fact ought to bring home how ridiculously long modern pros are and how short, relative to historic norms, are the courses they play on. To match historic apples to historic apples you'd need to build courses that are much longer than they are currently. Much longer. (With the added cost of architects like Tom Doak shooting themselves in the head. Which would add to health care costs and be very messy. )

All which ought to make people see more graphically the extent of the problem. The pro game is badly out of balance with the courses on which its competitions are held. (It's as if outfield fences in baseball had been drawn in 75 feet.) Lengthening courses by six or seven hundred yards is the hardest possible way to solve the problem. There is an easier way. Roll back the freakin' ball. It's become a cliche, but it really is the only solution.

Bob
   

[V. Kmetz]

No, I don't think its the solution.  Long par 3s are best when the land calls for them.  Holes like Calamity Corner and Addington's 13th are good examples of what I mean.  Otherwise, I think its best to mess with par.  Let the flat bellies have their 220-250 par 3 while other get a 270 par 4.  If there are a few of this sort per course than the handicap man will get his opportunity for long iron shots as lay-ups.  Of course, many will recognize they aren't good at this and will choose to bang driver.  Bottom line, you can't force guys to hit long irons.  Usually, tehre are ways to avoid hitting them.

Ciao

Why list a par to start with?  Nothing changes, except "psychology" of a number, right?

No pars on any holes, let any tournament committee make its own card for their event.

cheers
vk

[Jason Topp]

Coore/Cresnshaw courses have a long par three "template" that I think manages to be quite strategic and playable.  250 yards or so with a big bunker left and a mound on the right so that if you bailout on the safe side and get it pin high you have a very difficult time making par.  I know I have seen such holes at We Ko Pa Saguaro and Bandon Trails.

For us mortals it is a driver or a three wood hole and I think it works best at that distance.  The hole loses some interest when played from a forward tee.  To make the hole work in a similar fashion for tour pros I think it would need to be closer to 280-300 yards.

[Cliff Walston]

Bogey:

 Imagine if you designed a 225-yard par-3 that played like the approach to the 13th at Augusta --

I would LOVE to see that hole in tournament play.  Can you imagine the psychological effect that would have on a PGA tour pro if he chose to lay up on a par 3 ala Zach Johnson who laid up on every par 5 in his Masters victory?  Other than the 16th at Cypress, are there any other really good par 3s that decent players really contemplate laying up on?

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - Devil's Advocate here:

There is no need of a solution as there is no problem, none at least that the vast majority of us need to concern ourselves about.

That the fools and egomaniacs at many old, inland, prestigious and private American courses are willing to sell their birthrights and disfigure their history for a pocketful of promises, or that they're eager to engage in tawdry calculations regarding how much architecture they are willing to lose in return for a USGA championship and the higher profile and membership fees they hope will come with it, is their business, not mine. And if even smart and highly regarded USGA officials like Mike Davies continues (for all his so-called innovative thinking) to be tied to an even par winning score as the ideal outcome for such championships, then again, that's his business (and personal growth curve), not mine. Meanwhile, quality golf courses (both old and modern) on windy sites and with firm fairways continue to challenge even the very best golfers in the world playing with the very latest technology just fine.

Peter

[Bob_Huntley]

What is the longest ace achieved by any of our august members?

Bob

[BCrosby]

Peter -

I take your point. For you and me current course lengths are plenty long enough.

The issue of length came up here in the context of how you best test world class players. People think the best way to separate the wheat from the chaff is with long iron play. But - because courses play so short for modern pros - pros don't need to hit many long irons. So you get a less interesting pro game centered on hitting shorter irons and making shorter putts.

I think giving up on testing the long iron play of the pros is a shame. As noted, there are two ways to remedy the situation. One is hard (stretch courses) and the other is easy (fix ball). Et alors, my guess is that neither remedy will be adopted.

Bob    

[Evan Louden]

(It's as if outfield fences in baseball had been drawn in 75 feet.)  

I think a better analogy is, it's as if baseball allowed double-walled aluminum bats. Rendering classic ballparks obsolete.

I fall into the camp that par for the pros is overrated. I don't enjoy watching the pros more or less depending on how far under/over par they are.

If long/mid iron play is essential to determining winners then I guess Billy Casper and Zach Johnson need to return some hardware.

~Evan

[Mike Hendren]

Dumb statement of the day:  All yardage is not created equal.  Which of the following options would you choose for: 1) your game; and 2) the professional game, ceteris paribus?

1.  440 yards par four followed by 180 yards par three.  620 total yards.  Professional drives the ball 300 yards.  Respective approaches are 9-iron and 6-iron.

2.  Same 620 yards:  350 yards par four and 270 yards par three.  Respective approaches are sand wedge and 3-wood.

3.  Same 620 yards:  490 yards par four and 130 yards par three.  Respective approaches are 5-iron and pitching wedge.  

I gotta go with 2 since it features two half-par holes.

Finally, we all talk about the 500 yards par four, but in reality the 270 yards par three is the equivalent of a 570 yards par four.

[Garland Bayley]

...

(b)  If we are going to 8,200 yard courses, I am just going to shoot myself in the head.

Strongest argument I've seen yet for the USGA to rein in equipment, especially the ball.

[Doug Siebert]

What is the longest ace achieved by any of our august members?

Bob

Bob,

While I'm sure there are some among our number who have aced a par 4, I probably have one of the longer ones on a par 3.  My first ace was at Carnoustie's 16th back in 1991, playing 235 yards that day.  The tees were back as far as they go, with the pin in the front third on the left side.  I believe that hole can stretch to as long as 260 when the pin is way back.

I imagine this is exactly the type of par 3 people are talking about (well, maybe without the firm ground that allowed me to play a 4 iron from 235 that I typically carried 210 at best back then)  That's a fine hole, but you can really only have one of those on a course.  Trying to have three or four of them in the name of protecting par is just stupid.

The problem is the ball, fix the ball.