Fairways on par 3's - why so much?

[John Connolly]

The par 3 14th at Bay Hill has a lot of fairway short of the green - nearly 40 yards. I can understand some up near the green as a way to offer up a different mode of play for missed tee shots. But why so much? Is it aesthetics? It would seem to drive up cost.

[Tom_Doak]

I did not watch the tournament at Bay Hill, but I have wondered the same thing about other par-3 holes in recent years.  Often, nowadays, you will see a patch of fairway on even the shortest of par-3's.  Sometimes, on water holes, it offers less carry over the water, but otherwise it would be even harder to hit and hold than the green would be.  I guess it would be identified as an "option," but stupid options that no one should take shouldn't count.

[Joe Hancock]

My Grandfather played until he was in his mid-90's. I'd hate to see courses maintain heights of cut only based on the elite player. Hitting out of rough all day isn't a fun game of golf.

[Mark_Fine]

Higher handicappers like this and if it helps playability for the golfer that only hits the ball 80-100 yards in the air (my point is there are lots of golfers that don't carry it too far) why not have fairway there?  I personally like options that help the higher handicapper but don't diminish the challenge and interest for the better golfer - win win for all.

[Steve Salmen]

Didn't Dr. Mackenzie prefer golf holes that could be played exclusively with a putter? Or was he specifically referring to 11 at TOC?

[John Connolly]

Fair points. But while I can understand some fairway to accommodate missed shots and short hitters it just seems excessive at times. Certainly playing from the forward tees is in order if tee shots can at most travel 80-100 yards. A divot count at the near side of par-3 fairways would be potentially interesting although from such short distances, perhaps not much turf would be taken up.

[Tom_Doak]

Higher handicappers like this and if it helps playability for the golfer that only hits the ball 80-100 yards in the air (my point is there are lots of golfers that don't carry it too far) why not have fairway there?  I personally like options that help the higher handicapper but don't diminish the challenge and interest for the better golfer - win win for all.

I think my work would indicate that I understand this ... hell, I built the 7th at Barnbougle, which is probably the shortest par-3 in the world where golfers might deliberately lay up.


But, I just think it's gotten to the point of political correctness now, where everyone thinks they have to build a fairway even if they've got six sets of forward tees and everyone is supposed to hit the green.


Look at the great courses for a moment.  There's no fairway in front of the 8th green at The Old Course.  No fairway on #3 or #10 or #14 at Pine Valley.  No fairway at #3 or #9 or #13 at Merion.  No fairway on #7 at Pebble Beach, or #15 at Cypress Point.  Somehow those holes are all acceptable, or even iconic.


I realized this when I was working on the North course at Stonewall, and it just didn't make sense to me to put any fairway in front of the green on the short 9th hole there.  I love how it turned out.  Yes, it's tougher for some short hitters.  I just think it's okay to do that, once in a great while.

[Thomas Dai]

Fair points. But while I can understand some fairway to accommodate missed shots and short hitters it just seems excessive at times. Certainly playing from the forward tees is in order if tee shots can at most travel 80-100 yards. A divot count at the near side of par-3 fairways would be potentially interesting although from such short distances, perhaps not much turf would be taken up.

It's not just the carry distance John, it's also having the strength to hit out of longer grass, not just a hack out of gunchy thick stuff, but pretty much any length grass in excess of fairway length.


 Folk might be surprised how much more difficult it becomes to dig a ball out and keep the clubface at the angle you pre-set it as ones strength diminishes with age etc. The more so for female golfers I'd imagine. And lessoning  the number of more senior amateur/leisure golfers from the game would reduce taken-up tee-time slots and thus effect income streams etc.


I suggest this issue of short grass amongst longer stuff might have sometime to do with visual appearances, photogenic contrasts and looking nice on TV.


Atb

[Sean_A]

The first hole which came to mind was Castle Stuart's 11th.  I can see both sides of the coin regarding fairway. On raised green/windy holes its probably not a bad idea to give golfers a break.  Looking at the pic below, it would be quite harsh if the fairway right didn't exist..even on this short hole.


 


Ciao

[jeffwarne]

The irony is that anyone would think a higher handicapper would prefer to hit a wedge off a modern course fairway height over light rough

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean
that is a great example. Maybe the extra fairway helps (though see Jeff's point) but without it that hole looks timeless, a golden age great; with the fairway, it looks like everything else built in the last 20 years.
Peter
PS - For the 'par doesn't matter' crowd, take away the fairway and just call it a Par 4.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
But they don’t have to use a wedge, they can now use a putter if they choose

Peter,
Lots of holes would look timeless without grass cut at 1/4 inch

Tom,
Of course, you know this, but I don’t think it is about political correctness.  A big part of it is about making the game more fun especially for those who need it. 

Frankly I am surprised there is much debate about this topic.  Of course not every par three hole needs (or can) accommodate fairway in front of the green.  But there are many situations where it can be added and makes a lot of sense.  And it really does make the game a little easier and more enjoyable for the higher handicapper, so why not do it? 

I am working on an amazing 18 hole par three course called Turtle Hill (Tom you just saw it not too long ago).  I spent five days there this past week and one of the days was touring the course talking about changes with the Director of Golf, the Superintendent and the Resort’s Owner.  One of the things we discussed was the lack of fairway on a number of the holes.  We were discussing that many golfers can’t reach some of the greens (even on the down hill shots) and their ball gets stuck in the Bermuda rough.  We are adding some tees, but also, by extending back the fairway from the green, we will help these golfers have a lot more fun and it doesn’t change the difficultly for the better players.  There are other holes where we will be removing a bunker or two and/or adding closely mown areas that actually make the game harder and more thought provoking for a better player but easier for a higher handicapper, however, this is a whole different topic  

[Tim Gavrich]

The "greatest par 3 in the world" - #16 at Cypress Point - wouldn't be so great without its fairway, would it?


I personally find 40 yards of fairway short of a par-3 green much less silly than 80 yards of primly maintained rough surrounding it.

[Joe Hancock]

PS - For the 'par doesn't matter' crowd, take away the fairway and just call it a Par 4.

Peter,

Fair enough, except my contention with too much rough is the squelching of fun, and nothing to do with making a "par". Of course it all has to do with heights of cut, as Jeff W. points out that too tight of a fairway is no easier than 3 inches of rough for the less accomplished.

Tom D.,

Your work at The Loop....I don't remember if any of the par 3's have anything but fairway cut between the golfer and the green. Maybe there were some narrow areas of native left in place? Otherwise....all fairway height, and I love it. Would you clarify please, as I think it is certainly germane to the discussion.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,
But they don’t have to use a wedge, they can now use a putter if they choose

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
I am going to beg to differ about short grass reducing options.  Watch people (even the Pros) play Pinehurst #2 and you will see all kinds of creativity around the greens playing from the short grass.  High rough (or most any kind of rough that is a few inches long) leaves very few options.  Short grass actually makes better golfers think (and that is a good thing for architects).  It also makes the game more enjoyable for others not quite as talented with their short games.  Good for them 

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,

Jeff's point is there is short grass, and there is impossibly short grass. Pro's don't count here.

[JC Jones]

Tom D.,

Your work at The Loop....I don't remember if any of the par 3's have anything but fairway cut between the golfer and the green. Maybe there were some narrow areas of native left in place? Otherwise....all fairway height, and I love it. Would you clarify please, as I think it is certainly germane to the discussion.

The picture of the 15th at Tara Iti also comes to mind as a par 3 with fairway from the tee to the green.

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
Sorry if I intrepreted that wrong.  All I know is that short grass creates options that challenge better golfers as it leaves them options and makes them think (vs long rough or a grass hollow or a bunker where they pretty much know the kind of shot they have to play).  And for higher handicappers, they love short grass as they can knock the ball along the ground and it makes the game earlier for them. 

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,
I am going to beg to differ about short grass reducing options.  Watch people (even the Pros) play Pinehurst #2 and you will see all kinds of creativity around the greens playing from the short grass.  High rough (or most any kind of rough that is a few inches long) leaves very few options.  Short grass actually makes better golfers think (and that is a good thing for architects).  It also makes the game more enjoyable for others not quite as talented with their short games.  Good for them 

Mark,
 I get it- I understand the options short grass can provide.
However, when the attention goes from shotmaking creativity and visualization to trembling fear for the most skilled of players, the options and fun can be greatly reduced.
Once upon a time the bunkers were the hazards and the fairways were where you wanted to be.

[Peter Pallotta]

It's the (almost unthinking) regard for conventional wisdom and consensus opinion that I am reacting against and objecting to, i.e. this constant refrain of "we should help the high handicapper while not diminishing the challenge/interest for better golfers" -- the defense that's been used to excuse more banal and boring architecture over the years than any other (and indeed, has probably been the cause of more banal and boring architecture than any other.) Why don't we just go ahead and add 30 yards of fairway to the Postage Stamp and call it the Dinner Plate instead? 

[Rich Goodale]

The "greatest par 3 in the world" - #16 at Cypress Point - wouldn't be so great without its fairway, would it?


I personally find 40 yards of fairway short of a par-3 green much less silly than 80 yards of primly maintained rough surrounding it.

Playing down the left hand side of Cypress 16 is like kissing your sister.  At the very least, try the carry, and if unsuccessful, walk down the fairway to a spot where you think you can make the carry and try it once or twice.  If still unsuccessful, drop a ball 20yards short of the green and see if you can get up and down.

After all, as the late great Magnus Magnusson once said, "It's Only a Bloody Game!!!!"

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D.,

Your work at The Loop....I don't remember if any of the par 3's have anything but fairway cut between the golfer and the green. Maybe there were some narrow areas of native left in place? Otherwise....all fairway height, and I love it. Would you clarify please, as I think it is certainly germane to the discussion.

Joe:


All the grass we planted at The Loop will be mowed at fairway height ... as at Tara Iti, Sebonack, and several other courses I've done.  That's a style, and a maintenance decision, more than a choice about playability on every single hole.


However, the two shortest par-3's -- #6 when playing counter-clockwise, and #8 when playing clockwise -- both have native rough and bunkers right up close to the apron of the green, so you wouldn't try to bounce the ball onto the green.  Mitigating factors:  both holes are 125-130 yards from the back and less than 90 from the forward tee, and both DO have a lot of fairway behind the green if you don't hold it ... because that's the fairway for a par-4 coming in from the other direction!


There is so much short grass at The Loop because of the reversible routing, that I thought it was important to break up the turf with native grass a couple of times.  The approach to the 8th [counter-clockwise] also requires a carry over a bank of native grass, though there is still 40 yards of short grass from there to the green.

[Carl Rogers]

I thought it was a well accepted idea to intentionally have a single mowing height through out the course.

Memory tells me Mid Pines has very little with what might be called "rough" anywhere.

[Don Mahaffey]

These kinds of threads drive me a little batty, but I'll chalk that up to my own closed mind rather than hammer back on any of the responses.

IMO, sometimes the ground between the tee and the green isn't all that and the smartest and easiest way to build a practical golf hole is to just smooth it a bit and cut the grass. Sometimes, it just makes more sense to just cut the grass than start spending stupid amounts of money building something"natural" and trying to maintain it like it's always been there. And sometimes you just have to get around the golf course and those pieces of head scratching grass are really just circulation avenues for players and equipment, instead of more concrete.  But most of all, it's different at every course and every site. What difference would it be at Bay Hill if the grass was cut at a different height? Is the hole any better or worse? Just cut the grass.