Creating long par 3/short par 4 & long par 4/short par 5

[Rees Milikin]

What thought process or formula does an architect use when creating a course that has holes that could be either a long par 3 or a short par 4 (also a long par 4 or short par 5)?  Every time I encounter this while playing, I can't help but wonder if it was to achieve a certain number of par 3's, 4's, or 5's, or to achieve a par of 70/72, or if the architect wants to impose a more strategic thought process on the player?

(I searched to see if this has been covered and could not find anything, but if has, please direct me to the thread)

[Tom_Doak]

Rees:

Certainly a lot of times the decision is driven by the scorecard and by the other holes you've already found.  If you've already got a couple of good short par-4's in that nine holes, and you don't have two par-3's, the decision is pretty obvious.  Other times it might be driven more by the green site:  if it's big and open, you'd tend to go with the long 3, if it's a tight spot, maybe the short 4.

Sometimes the client will have an opinion, too.  Pat Mucci loves to cite the 18th at Sebonack, where Mr. Pascucci preferred a par-5 to a par-4; that sort of discussion happens on many projects, probably as often as not.  If you're in Asia, whatever makes the course a par-72 is what the client will ask for.

One I wrestled with recently was the routing for our new project in New Zealand, Tara-Iti.  The 7th hole there comes back underneath the clubhouse, and in the original layout it was a 200-yard par-3, though there was some room to push the green site back to 250-275 yards.  [The tee site was fixed by some dunes.]

After a couple of versions of the back nine routing, we settled on a plan with three short holes on the back [10th, 15th, 17th], so the 7th was going to make five par-3 holes, unless we went for the very short par-4.  The green site further back connected quite well to the 8th tee, so we decided to give it a go.  

The hole will be only 260-270 yards from the normal tee, though we did find a small tee hanging out off the dunes so the big hitters can play it at around 300 yards.  The green is quite small with a bit of apron at the right front, but it will take a great shot to be putting for a two.  The hole was just seeded last week and I will be excited to get back and play it next winter.

[Adrian_Stiff]

What thought process or formula does an architect use when creating a course that has holes that could be either a long par 3 or a short par 4 (also a long par 4 or short par 5)?  Every time I encounter this while playing, I can't help but wonder if it was to achieve a certain number of par 3's, 4's, or 5's, or to achieve a par of 70/72, or if the architect wants to impose a more strategic thought process on the player?

(I searched to see if this has been covered and could not find anything, but if has, please direct me to the thread)

I think you might find a fair bit of variation in the answer to your question. For me it just depends on what golf course I am trying to create and the end game. As a architect that deals at the budget commercial end I am thinking of entertaining the golfer rather than making it hell for him. In that regard I try and make holes short 4s or 5s rather than long 3s and 4s. It might need some stronger holes but 6500 yard par 72 courses are primarily shortish. There is a balance to be found and too easy has commercial problems too, but in general an easy hole(s) will yield more for your dollar. You will also attract more players with flatter greens and less long rough (wider playing corridor).
It is possible that in the early routing ideas holes could be either/ or  and the final call will be made up of other factors in balancing the nines or sequencing.

[Ben Stephens]

Rees:

Certainly a lot of times the decision is driven by the scorecard and by the other holes you've already found.  If you've already got a couple of good short par-4's in that nine holes, and you don't have two par-3's, the decision is pretty obvious.  Other times it might be driven more by the green site:  if it's big and open, you'd tend to go with the long 3, if it's a tight spot, maybe the short 4.

Sometimes the client will have an opinion, too.  Pat Mucci loves to cite the 18th at Sebonack, where Mr. Pascucci preferred a par-5 to a par-4; that sort of discussion happens on many projects, probably as often as not.  If you're in Asia, whatever makes the course a par-72 is what the client will ask for.

One I wrestled with recently was the routing for our new project in New Zealand, Tara-Iti.  The 7th hole there comes back underneath the clubhouse, and in the original layout it was a 200-yard par-3, though there was some room to push the green site back to 250-275 yards.  [The tee site was fixed by some dunes.]

After a couple of versions of the back nine routing, we settled on a plan with three short holes on the back [10th, 15th, 17th], so the 7th was going to make five par-3 holes, unless we went for the very short par-4.  The green site further back connected quite well to the 8th tee, so we decided to give it a go.  

The hole will be only 260-270 yards from the normal tee, though we did find a small tee hanging out off the dunes so the big hitters can play it at around 300 yards.  The green is quite small with a bit of apron at the right front, but it will take a great shot to be putting for a two.  The hole was just seeded last week and I will be excited to get back and play it next winter.

Tom I have been in a similar situation with the 3rd hole at Rutland Water. I initially had it as a long par 3 followed by a short par 3 4th until my father suggested by putting the tee in the trees to create a short par 4 which actually made the hole and layout better in terms of ebb and flow. I have had a eagle as well as a triple bogey on this hole over the years. Variety is the spice of life and it is good to have easy, medium and hard holes in certain areas rather than be repetitive.