What if a golf course had no par 3s?

[Ian Mackenzie]

On a cold night in Chicago, I was swatting golf balls into a 10' simulator screen in "driving range" mode. Trying to hit that red and white target from about 150 yards. Got me thinking about par 3s....


....and the shot values of a par 3 that are also present on (theoretically)every par 4 and 5.


So, why have par 3 holes at all?


Every par 4 will have an approach shot (second shot) of perhaps between 75 and 225 yards. Unless the green is drivable. Between skill levels, age, and distance of all players, there will inevitably be a diverse set of second shot yardages especially if a course is designed from the start with no par 3s


Same would apply to par 5s where second or third shots into a green could certainly be similar to a three par tee shot of similar yardages as above.


Not withstanding available land, what would you think of a golf course that had twelve par 4s and six par 5s?

[Connor Dougherty]

It's an interesting proposition. In practical use there are issues of space, landscape, and surely the public outcry over a course consisting of a par of 78 (!)


That being said, I think the greatest value a par 3 can possess is that it is really the only point in a round where the approach into the green is taken from the same spot, and thus, provides an element which is missing from good par 4's/5's.

[Anthony Gholz]

Ian:


It would be very sad!


I remember as a kid the par-3's were the most fun because I had a chance to keep up with Dad.  Not sure I would have been hooked as quickly if I had to just play the "big" holes. 


Architecturally of course the par-3 allows the architect (and the super) to pick the shot precisely.  And hopefully find at least 4 fun places for one shotters.  Three of them downhill if possible with maybe one uphill brute i.e. #17 at Forest lake in Michigan. A reverse Redan uphill an 200 yards.  very memorable at that point in the round.


As an adult when I look at the card of a new course and see 5 par-3s (even with 5 par 5's) I smile a little. 
Anthony

[Tom_Doak]

It would take some real bravery to build a course like that.  It probably wouldn't make sense in rugged land [where you sometimes have to build a par-3 hole to bridge the gaps because there is too long a stretch without a reasonable fairway area], but on gentler land, why not?


That said, I've seen 1,500 courses in my travels and only once that I can recall have I seen a course with as few as two par-3 holes ... and that singular exception is The Old Course at St. Andrews!

[David_Tepper]

The death of the hole-in-one! Very sad.

[Tom_Doak]

The death of the hole-in-one! Very sad.

If you made an ace on one of the short par-4's it would be more meaningful !

[mike_beene]

I am not suggesting it, and it would screw up the double greens and probably get me banned ....but I have always thought that if 15 or 16 at TOC were a par 3, preferably 15, it would make both holes more interesting instead of two that have a run together feel. By the same token, there could be a par 3 break in the first four holes and some of the blind drives that took me a lot of rounds to remember would not seem as repetitive.

[David_Tepper]

"If you made an ace on one of the short par-4's it would be more meaningful !"

Tom Doak -

How many par-4's have you driven lately?

DT

[Pete_Pittock]

john daly consulted on sevilano links on I-5 abou redding,ca. it is a par 72, but can stretched to a par 90.


if there were no par 3s in golf it would be very unpopular imo. I know I wouldn't have kept at it for 60+ years

[Thomas Dai]

Interesting idea, the more so if a restricted ball were in operation.
One aspect to note - sadly as you get older what were once reachable long par-3's become effectively par-4's.
Atb

[Sean_A]

The main reason I can think of for par 3s (and I prefer 5!) is that its awfully difficult to build 18 good 2 and 3 shotters.  I think nearly all archies nearly all of the time would fail to make a course like this better than one with par 3s.  The two really good courses I can think of with only two 3s would probably be better for at least one more par 3.  There are 4s which are not stellar that could be flipped. 


Ciao

[Ian Mackenzie]

The death of the hole-in-one! Very sad.

So true, DT!!
Had not thought of that.

[Jim Nugent]

Average players would score a lot worse, relative to par, on a course with no par 3s: they have to hit more full shots, and that gives them more chances to screw up.  Pro's and elite players would score better, relative to par: they always do, overall, on par 4s and par 5s, than par 3s. 

So: this would make courses harder for average players, but easier for real good ones.   

[Peter Pallotta]

Yet again, The Old Course is the answer (or at least a sign post pointing to the answer) to every question ever asked on gca.com. The Par 4 is the backbone and the heart and soul of golf, both the game and the architecture. Everything else is a concession -- the Par 3 a concession to poor/non links sites, the Par 5 a concession to the ego and dull-wittedness of golfer and architect alike. Limit both those concessions to two a piece, maximum,  and you have a better and truer game, and -- all else being equal --a more interesting and engaging golf course/design.

[Sean_A]

Its difficult to imagine that a simple set piece such as this has no place in golf....what a sad day indeed if that were the case.


Ciao

[Joe Schackman]

Doesn't really answer the question but I heard Michael Breed on Shane's Bacon podcast and he was talking about distance and its value for scoring. He basically said how he talks to his students about how golf is a game of Par 3's.

What he meant by that was that a par 4 is really a drive + a par 3 (Whether played from the rough or the fairway). So his point about distance being important was that if you consistently play shorter par 3's than your opponent you are hard to beat.

Roundabout tie-in to this thread is that maybe EVERY hole is a par 3...

Deep. I know.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,


Would agree that all par 3 holes would be better than all par 5. Having a decent length approach shot is really the thrill of golf.....except for smashing a drive, which should save the par 4's.


Had a client once who proposed (but never funded and built) a concept called "second shot golf" where it was a 9 hole, par 3 course, but no tees, just a big patch of fairway or rough with different conditions (including one where you played out of a bunker) to be used as a learning course.  If you played twice, you might hit from the left then right side, or different lie, etc. to teach you where to place tee shots, and the differences in angle, etc.  Of course, shorter courses or tee sets where you have reasonable yardages left to greens after an average tee shot would accomplish much the same thing.


In any case, put me in the "keep the par 3's" camp.  All the reasons are logical, but mine is intuitive - I like playing par 3 holes, and figure many golfers are with me.  But, one more logical reason is golf is trying to reduce its turf footprint in the name of water conservation, so adding 2-4 more par 5 holes as suggested in the OP is exactly the opposite of what is needed.


Lastly, I agree the par 4 is the back bone of golf....the tee shot sets up a better/worse approach, and the approach shot is key.  The middle shot on a par 5 is usually blah and does less to thrill or affect score than the other two, so why have it, unless two holes to possibly reach in 2 shots.....


I can't recall from any of the books how the 5 and 3 came to be? Fit the land?  Simply for some variety?  Probably some combo of both.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Doesn't really answer the question but I heard Michael Breed on Shane's Bacon podcast and he was talking about distance and its value for scoring. He basically said how he talks to his students about how golf is a game of Par 3's.

What he meant by that was that a par 4 is really a drive + a par 3 (Whether played from the rough or the fairway). So his point about distance being important was that if you consistently play shorter par 3's than your opponent you are hard to beat.

Roundabout tie-in to this thread is that maybe EVERY hole is a par 3...

Deep. I know.

Joe - that was EXACTLY my thought as well!


And while I see Sean's point, I can also see that shot (in his photo) presenting itself on myriad other holes (perhaps).
But, instead of one set tee box, there could be unlimited shot options depending on tee shot - either purposeful or serendipitous.

[Mike Schott]

As a high handicap golfer, I love par 3 holes. First of all they add variety to a course. Golf would be a bore if all the holes were long.


Interesting green sites on 2 and 3 shot holes are great strategically only if you have a properly placed tee shot. That is the bane of my golf existence. Par 3 holes allow me to use a more accurate club most of the time and to actually aim for a part of the green, not just trying to reach the green or hope for a good miss. Plus par 3 holes tend to be on interesting ground. Think of 18 at Pasatiempo. Make that a 400 yard par 4 and for many of us it leaves a long approach. For me that green would be impossible to hit in 2 shots leading to a big score. I suppose one could lay up to allow for a wedge 3rd shot but what fun is that?

[Ian Mackenzie]

As a high handicap golfer, I love par 3 holes. First of all they add variety to a course. Golf would be a bore if all the holes were long.


Interesting green sites on 2 and 3 shot holes are great strategically only if you have a properly placed tee shot. That is the bane of my golf existence. Par 3 holes allow me to use a more accurate club most of the time and to actually aim for a part of the green, not just trying to reach the green or hope for a good miss. Plus par 3 holes tend to be on interesting ground. Think of 18 at Pasatiempo. Make that a 400 yard par 4 and for many of us it leaves a long approach. For me that green would be impossible to hit in 2 shots leading to a big score. I suppose one could lay up to allow for a wedge 3rd shot but what fun is that?

Not the best example, but I see your point. The 18th at Pasatiempo requires an all-carry shot over a ravine. If your tee shot on , say, a Par 4 like that did not allow you to hit the green (on your second) with a ravine/hazard in front, then you would have to lay-up and hit a shorter iron in. Lots of discussions around here about "defending par" and the obsession over it.


If your game is as you say, then I would imagine that you would hit that 18th at PT about 25% of the time. Deep bunkers left and short. What fund is that....?...;-)....

[Bob Montle]

Or conversely,  why not have 60 yard par 2's and 800 yd par 6's?

[BCowan]

Or conversely,  why not have 60 yard par 2's and 800 yd par 6's?

A 60 yard par 2 is a great concept.  Would love to play one, one day. 

[Ian Andrew]

It would make far more sense to remove the par fives ...
It's a better answer for acreage requirements, addresses technology problems and even improves routing opportunities.
As a player is puts breaking 70, 80, 90 or a 100 more in play.


I've always thought the brave answer for the future is an architect and developer willing to build a great par 68.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Or conversely,  why not have 60 yard par 2's and 800 yd par 6's?

A 60 yard par 2 is a great concept.  Would love to play one, one day.

I have played two in the past year.


The third at Chicago Golf Club and the sixth at Shoreacres.


Oh...wait a minute...they are both Biarritz par 3s, but when I hit the green, I had 60 yard putts!! Two-putted for my "Par 2".

[Mike Schott]

As a high handicap golfer, I love par 3 holes. First of all they add variety to a course. Golf would be a bore if all the holes were long.


Interesting green sites on 2 and 3 shot holes are great strategically only if you have a properly placed tee shot. That is the bane of my golf existence. Par 3 holes allow me to use a more accurate club most of the time and to actually aim for a part of the green, not just trying to reach the green or hope for a good miss. Plus par 3 holes tend to be on interesting ground. Think of 18 at Pasatiempo. Make that a 400 yard par 4 and for many of us it leaves a long approach. For me that green would be impossible to hit in 2 shots leading to a big score. I suppose one could lay up to allow for a wedge 3rd shot but what fun is that?

Not the best example, but I see your point. The 18th at Pasatiempo requires an all-carry shot over a ravine. If your tee shot on , say, a Par 4 like that did not allow you to hit the green (on your second) with a ravine/hazard in front, then you would have to lay-up and hit a shorter iron in. Lots of discussions around here about "defending par" and the obsession over it.


If your game is as you say, then I would imagine that you would hit that 18th at PT about 25% of the time. Deep bunkers left and short. What fund is that....?...;-)....

I'm not quite that helpless.    The one time I did play Pasa I hit the green and parred the hole but my game was much stronger then. I did go OB on both 16 and 17  .