If you had to choose between one of these hypothetical courses...

[Joe Bausch]

A course with 18 good par 4's.

Or a course with 9 good par 3's and 9 good par 5's.

Which and why?


Or does the par value for a hole mean little to you?

[jeffwarne]

c.

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe -

for me there is no question at all: it would be the 18 Par 4s.
First, because Par 4s are "golf" in its essence, i.e. a long shot, and approach shot, a recovery/lag putt, and a short putt, all in one neat package.
Second, because in being the essence of golf, I think architects instinctively know how to design Par 4s well -- and understand how to take advantage of/leverage the "main variable" amongst golfers of different ages and skill levels (i.e. distance off the tee) so as to make such holes engaging/challenging for a range of golfers.
Third, because Par 5s -- especially excellent Par 5s -- are much harder to find/create, not least because of the "multiple variables" inherent in holes of such length; and 
Fourth, because a course with 18 Par 4s also gives me, potentially, the experience of 18 Par 3s at the same time; on each Par 4 I have the chance to have a short/mid/long iron in my hand (for my second shot) and to take dead aim at the green/pin, which is what Par 3s are all about. 

In short, with an all Par 4 lineup, I get all the good bits about golf (and quality gca) with none of the potentially boring bits (e.g. the 2nd shot "layup" of the Par 5s)

Peter

Peter   

[John Kavanaugh]

People who roll the ball in the fairway and take pictures love par 3's. Where else can you get a perfect lie and take a picture of an entire hole all in one shot? I really hope this new age of the par 3 ends quickly.

[Jim_Kennedy]

for me there is no question at all: it would be the 18 Par 4s.

Same here - and you'd have a chance to play a 'par 5' anyway, the occasional muffed tee shot would see to that.

Playing nine par threes from a mostly static position, the tee box, would get repetitive after time.   

[David Ober]

A course with 18 good par 4's.

Or a course with 9 good par 3's and 9 good par 5's.

Which and why?


Or does the par value for a hole mean little to you?

Definitely 18 par 4's because of what Peter said: They are the essence of golf.

[Bill_McBride]

There is a wonderful, exciting, challenging course in Scotland at Elie.  It has 16 par 4s and two par 3s, one a 200+ yard hole and one a short iron hard on the Firth of Forth. 


The genius of the course is the diversity of the par 4s, which range from 256 yards 😀 to 450 yards.   I'm a short hitter and have driven that short par 4 both times I've played there, how exciting is that!  Diversity is key, no two holes are remotely alike. 


So yes, I would prefer 18 par 4s, so much opportunity to create myriad challenges.

[Garland Bayley]

Very few par 3s have strategic options of note. The Redan is the most obvious example of a par 3 that has strategic options.


Par 5 strategies are not so definite as par 4s.


This is why par 4s have become the "soul of golf".


However, for the less skilled, the mushy nature of strategy for par 5s can make them enjoyable to play. A missed shot can cause a recalculation, and possibly a good result.


My preference would be for 18 par 4s because the 9 par 3s would diminish the pleasure of the other choice.

[Phil Young]

For me its B...

The question is to choose a course with "good" holes, not GREAT holes mixed with lesser ones. I believe that the average good par-5 offers more risk/reward opportunities than good par-4s and that is why I chose this. For example, I'm sure that among the "good" par-5s will be several that might offer the possibility to reach the green in two with others that are true "three-shotters." Also, I would expect the "good" par-3s to have a mixture of holes ranging from the very short to the very long one-shotters, some of which might even be akin to drivable par-4s for the average player.

As a result I see this type of course to offer far more opportunities at a greater variety of potential shot choices, angles of play and risk/reward opportunities which is my definition of the true "essence" of golf, than a course made up of 18 "good" par-4s... 

[Joe Bausch]

Really have enjoyed the responses thus far.  Hoping for even more participation!

[Phil McDade]

Joe:


18 par 4s for me. I disagree a bit w/ Phil Young's premise -- for me, most par 5s have a tee shot that tends to emphasize length vs. strategic positioning, and it's the second shot (on a good par 5) that brings in elements of risk/reward more often, usually in the form of: going for the green in two, or laying up strategically for the easiest third shot into the green.


A good 18 par 4's course for me would have elements of both strategic play off the tee, as well as holes where length is the primary goal. And again, a good course of 18 par 4s would have its share of half-par holes on the hard side, bringing in the strategic element of going for the green vs. laying up so often found on par 5s.

[Sam Andrews]

I agree 18 4s is best because of the variation — a near par 5 like the 16th at Littlestone or an often drivable par 4 like the 9th at Rye that you feel you ought to get a 3 at — but may it be more fun if you did away with individual pars altogether and had an overall score? 

[John Sabino]

I would chose the 3's and 5's in a second. When I look back on memorable holes I have played, more tend to be 3s and 5s than 4s. I think too many par 4s would get old in a hurry. Case in point Western Gailes, starts off with five par 4s and you can't wait for a hole of a different variety. Same thing on the stretch of holes from 8-12. Better to alternate short and long.

[Mike Bowen]

Based on the responses, I wonder why Coore & Crenshaw decided to go with six of each at Cabot Cliffs?

[Joe Hancock]

Based on the responses, I wonder why Coore & Crenshaw decided to go with six of each at Cabot Cliffs?

They might know more than us?
 

[Peter Pallotta]

Based on the responses, I wonder why Coore & Crenshaw decided to go with six of each at Cabot Cliffs?

They might know more than us?

Speak for yourself! 

But seriously - I've wondered about this myself. Now, based on their reputation we can assume that the 6 3s and 6 5s was what the site best offered and provided for; and based on the early but unanimous acclaim we can assume that C&C pulled it off brilliantly. I hope, and assume, that I will one day be very pleasantly surprised. But until then, all I can think of is that only one in every three holes is a Par 4!

Yes, I know: what does it profit a man to gain 14 Par 4s and lose a golf course -- but for 6 Par 5s?!   

[Joe Hancock]

Based on the responses, I wonder why Coore & Crenshaw decided to go with six of each at Cabot Cliffs?

They might know more than us?

Speak for yourself! 

But seriously - I've wondered about this myself. Now, based on their reputation we can assume that the 6 3s and 6 5s was what the site best offered and provided for; and based on the early but unanimous acclaim we can assume that C&C pulled it off brilliantly. I hope, and assume, that I will one day be very pleasantly surprised. But until then, all I can think of is that only one in every three holes is a Par 4!

Yes, I know: what does it profit a man to gain 14 Par 4s and lose a golf course -- but for 6 Par 5s?!

I think what we have to remember is that, in the golf world, "we" are the weird ones. I wonder if most resort golfers know what the scorecard looks like before or after the round, apart from the final number of strokes they took?

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe - I wonder too, and because of your experience and insights I'd probably end up agreeing with whatever you came to conclude about that. I'd like to think (and I do indeed assume/believe from all I've read) that C&C found/created the best course they could there - and so that must include 6 5s and 6 3s. Also, I can't defend my bias, which like any bias is at least in part "unthinking" - but that bias is that I can't imagine two wonderful par 5s on any course, let alone four of them, or six.  But again, well-travelled golfers/golf writers (all of whom have seen and played more fine courses than I can even dream about) have already said that the Cliffs is one of the best courses in North America and perhaps even the world -- and I'm not so foolish to think that they are wrong and that me and my biases are right, sight unseen.
Peter
 

[Chris DeNigris]

Oh this is too easy- the par 4 course in the morning and the 3-5 course in the afternoon. 

[RJ_Daley]

I think a more complete round of golf would ask the golfer to generally use a driver or 3 metal 12 to 14 times off a tee, perhaps if only it has become a general standard of the game.   I think that requires the approach or strategy of 12 to 14 holes to consider shape shot and ideal of ball placement and choices onto a second shot desirable location down the fw that takes all the elements into consideration from firm and fast fw to width, wind and contour to a greater extent than 9 par 3 generally one shotters.

[David Mulle]

There is a wonderful, exciting, challenging course in Scotland at Elie.  It has 16 par 4s and two par 3s, one a 200+ yard hole and one a short iron hard on the Firth of Forth. 


The genius of the course is the diversity of the par 4s, which range from 256 yards 😀 to 450 yards.   I'm a short hitter and have driven that short par 4 both times I've played there, how exciting is that!  Diversity is key, no two holes are remotely alike. 


So yes, I would prefer 18 par 4s, so much opportunity to create myriad challenges.

Interesting question.  Elie is exactly the course that came to my mind as well, Bill.  That is an excellent example of how well designed par 4s can offer a diverse and exciting group of holes.  There are so many good tee shots and different approaches into greens that it never feels repetitive.  I need to get back there because the one time I played it I was coming down with the flu and could barely walk up the 18th hole.  And I still love that course!


So that is a long-winded way of saying, if it is similar to Elie - sign me up for the par 4 course.


[size=78%]  [/size]

[Sean_A]

Based on the responses, I wonder why Coore & Crenshaw decided to go with six of each at Cabot Cliffs?

Mike


Perhaps it is one way to differentiate the two courses.  I bet C&C also made some of the par 5s essentially long 4s in the right weather and for a reasonable standard of golfer. 


As to Joe's question...I hope my the remainder of my golfing days doesn't come down to the choice he presents. It would be absolute guess work as to which I would rather play unless I first played the courses.   


Ciao