[James Boon]

Its been a while since I started a thread, or had the time to pull one of my architecture books from the shelf to get the brain thinking about schools of golf course design... 


However, I've always had a soft spot for the 10th at Royal Dornoch that is currently getting a bit of a bashing on another thread, and it got me thinking, are par 3s, especially mid to short length ones, essentially penal by their very nature. In other words you either pull the shot off to hit the green or you dont?


You dont have a chance to strategically plot your way, through different length or angles of approach, to the green as you can on a par 4 or par 5. Sure on a long par 3 you may choose to bail out from the green hoping for a chip and a putt, but is that strategic? And if you've a mid or short iron in hand, how many of us are clever enough to try it on a par 3? I suspect some wily old (or not so old) mid to high handicappers will do, but then they've possibly got a shot to play with, so in essence its playing as a par 4, no call it a bogey 4, for them?


Most of us on here seem to love good strategic design, so if a par 3 green is very difficult to hit, say in certain conditions, is it a bad hole if there isnt a clear bail out option, or just a good example of penal design?


That's as far as my brain has got on this one so far, and I suspect someone will shoot me down for not quite having the right definition of strategic and penal, but I'd be interested to know what others think?


Cheers,


James

[Tom_Doak]

James:


I have wrestled with this question a lot over the years.  Certainly, a lot of the par-3 holes that are greatly admired are of the "shot-testing" variety, where there is no real option for a different spot to play to ... holes like the Postage Stamp or the 17th at Sand Hills.  And I have always had some objection to those holes on that basis.


But I don't understand your question about bailing out on a long par-3 not being strategic?


Some golfers insist there is no alternative, but there is.  The green doesn't have to be defended 100%.  My own best very short hole is the little par-3 7th at Barnbougle, which is extremely demanding, but there is a pretty big bail-out at the front right if you want to take it and be comfortable making 4 (and maybe 3) on a 120-yard hole.


There is nothing wrong with having a penal [or "shot-testing" hole] as part of a course.  Nearly all of the best courses in the world have a healthy mix of these, alongside the more purely strategic holes.  It just bothers me when some players insist that a good par-3 HAS TO BE 100% defended ... in other words, a penal hole.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think Ross wrote that par 3 holes could be a little more difficult.  I also think they can, because you can control the distance of the shot with multiple tees so the yardage is appropriate to the various levels of players skill set.


I would say MacDonald thought they were good for "concept shots" like the Redan, Biarritz, etc., although the short is certainly all or nothing.  I tend to agree, since half the strategy of a shot should be tied to the previous shot, which isn't the case on a par 3.


For some unknown reason, I recall watching TV golf as a kid interested in architecture and whoever the announcer was back then often referred to par 3 holes as "straightforward."  Generally, it was describing a green mostly surrounded by bunkers as you suggest.  So, maybe for a time in architecture, the idea was that a par 3 should just be an accuracy test?  Don't recall the exact holes that I recall, but if you figure they were playing Wilson or RTJ courses back then, maybe they were?  Does anyone recall a strategic par 3 from those guys?


As to bail out shots, yes, its strategy, but I always think of "what part of the green" and "what is the best shot pattern?" a better strategic question than "do I or don't I?" I guess bailing out to the wide, unguarded edge of the green is a classic strategic question, vs. going closer to the pin, but not baling out short and wide of the green.  However, there was a tread about greens falling away from the bail out that hits a few good points.

[John Kavanaugh]

I regularly play a par three where the default nuclear option is left into the water hazard. As bad as that may seem it is one stroke better than a lost ball to the right. Dropping on the green and putting for par is one hell of a better result than a re-tee and add two.

[Peter Pallotta]

And yet, as a mid-handicapper against a scratch golfer (without strokes given) I'd take my chance at winning the hole on *any* Par 3 rather than on a Par 4 or Par 5.  The 'without strokes given' is I think relevant here, because I mean to suggest that my chances would be in absolute rather than relative terms, i.e. based more on the nature of the hole/Par 3 itself than on the differing skills sets between me and the scratch. 
Peter

[Niall C]

James

I've also got a soft spot for Dornoch 10th, and it's about 200 yards to the east of where the hole is currently located 

Now, having got the Dornoch jibe out the way, the beauty of the Postage Stamp is that pretty well most standard of golfers have the ability to hit a lofted club onto that green and hold it. All they need is accuracy.......and bottle. It's a true hit or bust with no real bailout unless you consider the front bunker a bailout which I don't.

Can you claim the 10th at Dornoch as being strategic as Rich does ? I think you possibly can if you think playing short and going for the up and down has a better chance of getting you a score. However I tend to think anyone taking this "option" do so out of necessity. It's certainly not a hole that entices you, at least I don't think. A straight shot with no angles. Somehow it just lacks charm IMO.

Niall 

[Ira Fishman]

James,


I think that short and medium 3 Pars tend to be and should be more penal. “Tend to be” because even on Original Golden Age and Current Golden Age Courses, the architect feels more comfortable protecting the front as well as sides. “Should be” because playing off tee on level ground. This is in contrast to a short/medium 4 Par where one should be rewarded with an easier shot if he or she has navigated the strategy dictated for the tee shot.


Ira

[Adrian_Stiff]

James

I've also got a soft spot for Dornoch 10th, and it's about 200 yards to the east of where the hole is currently located 

Now, having got the Dornoch jibe out the way, the beauty of the Postage Stamp is that pretty well most standard of golfers have the ability to hit a lofted club onto that green and hold it. All they need is accuracy.......and bottle. It's a true hit or bust with no real bailout unless you consider the front bunker a bailout which I don't.

Can you claim the 10th at Dornoch as being strategic as Rich does ? I think you possibly can if you think playing short and going for the up and down has a better chance of getting you a score. However I tend to think anyone taking this "option" do so out of necessity. It's certainly not a hole that entices you, at least I don't think. A straight shot with no angles. Somehow it just lacks charm IMO.

Niall

I think  you can have strategic par 3 holes but there are obvious limitations. I guess holes like the 16th at Augusta you don't miss left, for pro's/very good players they have a further strategic level where (with fast greens) they would to miss in a preferred place. Some par 3s that are more old fashioned (ground game) have gathering sides or repelling sides so I guess you would have to call that strategic in that you don't play directly for the hole. Mainly par 3 holes are penal or even heroic though.

[James Boon]

Thanks all,

James:


I have wrestled with this question a lot over the years. 


But I don't understand your question about bailing out on a long par-3 not being strategic?

Tom,


Its something I'm only just getting my head around this, hence the interest in knowing what others think. And I'm not saying that a bail out on a par 3 isnt strategic, I'm just curious if people considered that it can be as I wasn't sure?


And I think perhaps what I'm also wondering is whether strategy is based upon plotting your way to the green in regulation ie in two shots on a par 4 (or if you get a shot, 3 shots), and therefore if you dont have a shot on a par 3, is a bail out strategic or an acceptance that you dont have what it takes to make the required shot and therefore damage limitation (which I suppose could be considered strategic???)


Cheers,


James

[Tom_Doak]

Damage limitation is the essence of strategy. 


Well, that vs. hubris !

[Peter Pallotta]

Damage limitation is the essence of strategy

You know, of course, that this will soon become a tag line/signature for countless architecture nerds. Someone may even print it on a tee-shirt! 

[Tom_Doak]

Damage limitation is the essence of strategy

You know, of course, that this will soon become a tag line/signature for countless architecture nerds. Someone may even print it on a tee-shirt! 

I will happily share the credit with James, and split the proceeds.

[Steve Lang]

    No, not penal.


Well, there is the left, right and middle of the tee to help a little with perspective and one can curve the ball and use more or less club to foster getting to the pin, or even hit it high or low or straight!  One might ask what's so penal about that or why isn't accuracy or perhaps "efficiency in getting it on the green," the essence of it all?  It's a common or shared approach shot amongst the players, put it on the green, take 1-2 putts and move on...   

[Adam_Messix]

James


Interesting thread. 


I have had more than one architect tell me that they tend, "to use the most severe ground for the par 3 holes."  I will be interested to hear Tom Doak''s take on this thought but to me it makes sense and it might give the architect a chance to use or get out of a corner of a piece of property.  Given that the player has the ball on a tee I can understand making the margin of error a little less so I agree with your general premise.


This thread reminds me of a conversation I had with Tom Paul many years ago regarding courses being designed from the inside to out (choosing the 18 best greensites and designing from there) versus outside to in (thinking about ingress/egress points, water source, clubhouse, severe land for short holes) and the thought process behind the placing of holes and where to make things strategic versus penal.

[Tom_Doak]

I have had more than one architect tell me that they tend, "to use the most severe ground for the par 3 holes."  I will be interested to hear Tom Doak''s take on this thought but to me it makes sense and it might give the architect a chance to use or get out of a corner of a piece of property.  Given that the player has the ball on a tee I can understand making the margin of error a little less so I agree with your general premise.

Adam:


The benefit of a par-3 is that you only have to build tees and a relatively small green site, so if you are dealing with a really difficult stretch of ground, including a par-3 in the middle of it can be part of the solution.  Building a fairway [which has to accept shots over a 100-yard length and 60 yards of width] requires much more work and is much harder to tie in.


Of course, you can also use a golf cart to traverse some or most of that same space, put in a couple of tees, and let golfers hit their drives back onto the better land, and save the par-3's for picturesque spots, or where there's a severe hazard next to a green site that you want to be in play.

[Thomas Dai]

A couple of comments -
Many par-3’s seem to be connector holes.
Also, few par-3’s have no bunkers or water hazards.
Relative to other holes par-3’s seem to generally have smaller greens.
Many par-3’s are forced carries.
Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

As my earlier post about competing straight-up again a scratch golfer on Par 3s (and only par 3s) suggests, I think I understand such penal-strategic discussions -- but I admit that I feel less & less interest in framing gca questions in that way. Even though architects like Tom and others still use that language, I've come to think of it as antiquated and outdated.

From photos only (of course), the 7th at Streamsong Blue seems a perfect (and perfectly fitting, given the site) short-to-mid-length Par 3. I have no idea how to 'jam' that golf hole into a penal-strategic framework, but since it seems to me a very fine and appealing golf hole, it makes me think that we should jettison forever the penal-strategic dichotomy if there is even the smallest chance that golf holes such as that one are not built (or are redesigned later) because of it. 

As the saying goes, a little bit of (architectural) knowledge is a dangerous thing - especially in the hands of middling golfers like me, who, un-checked (and if they have any clout whatsoever) would be quite happy to disparage a golf hole as 'penal' if it wasn't to their particular liking.

I've started simply buying cheaper golf balls; it takes some of the sting out of losing them to the (very occasional these days) watery grave...and so I'm less likely to step off the green with dark mutterings about 'penal architecture'   

[Jim Nugent]

As Peter's posts point out, par 3s as a group are easier for average golfers.  The strategy there (which they can only minimally take advantage of anyway) doesn't matter so much: they only have to hit one full shot to reach the green.  That's why they are typically the easiest among the handicap holes, while par 5s are usually among the hardest.  For pro's it's the exact opposite, at least against par: par 3s are the hardest and par 5s are the easiest. 

Once again, if you want to make courses more playable for bogey golfers, yet still challenge the world's best: build more par 3s than par 5s.   

[Thomas Dai]

Once again, if you want to make courses more playable for bogey golfers, yet still challenge the world's best: build more par 3s than par 5s.

More par-3’s, yes please. Plus other benefits as well like less land, less water use, quicker rounds etc.
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

Agreed with the comments concerning average golfers and Par 3s.  I almost always look forward to them as:


1)  You get a flat lie from the short stuff that you can hand select or tee up.
2)  Rarely much longer than 175 from the whites
3)  Even if you don't hit the green, you can usually get it somewhere close and have a chance at par with an easy bogey opportunity.
4)  Less shots to screw up before reaching the green.


But I will disagree on the Par 5s.  Shortish par 5's, 525 and less allow the average joe to recover and still save par/easy bogey.


Its the long par 4s, 400+, that murder the average joe...

[Jon Wiggett]

James,


a par three does not need to be penal in nature i.e. a do or die shot. Take Dornoch's  four examples (sorry for bringing them up).


The second demands you hit the green if you go for it or face a really tough recovery shot. It allows the player to fly it all the way or land the tee shot short and run it up. It therefore offers alternative ways to achieve the required result.


The sixth does exactly the same as two does with a similar punishment for failure but the same alternatives in order to achieve.


Thirteen really requires you to hit the putting surface on the fly though it is possible to land or bounce the ball between the fronting bunkers though it is more luck than judgement. The green however is big enough and of a shape to retain the ball on its surface regardless of the weather or ground conditions. Hitting the green is straight forward.


The tenth is similar to the thirteenth except the putting surface does not retain the shot though neither does it throw it off. Like the second if you go for the green and fail you will be left with a very difficult recovery shot. The only easy recovery shot is from the from bunker or short of it.


Now for the majority of the time as has been pointed out it is quite playable much of the time but when the green is firm and the a stiff breeze is behind it can be all but impossible to hit and hold the green. This means the player is left with a choice of either pulling of a miracle shot or laying up on a par three with a wedge.


This is pretty similar to Redan where with a stiff breeze behind it is really unlikely you will hold the green but the hole takes advantage of this fact by allowing the player who choses to hit the ball deliberately long an easy chip back to the green if the ball is in the right place. Redan offers an easy-ish alternative.


The tenth at Dornoch does not. If the back half of the green sloped away from the player it would be harder to hold the green but make a recovery from the back easier and so a better hole.


Any decent golf hole will penalise if the ball is hit in the wrong place but it is the severity of the punishment compared to the difficulty of the shot.


Jon

[Sean_A]

Short to mid-length 3s I think by nature will tend to be more of the penal type....golfers expect this....and I think are disappointed by not facing trouble either in the front or to both sides of greens.  Part of this design expectation is due to 3s covering more abrupt land so many are downhill..thus a perfect time to bling a hole up with sand etc when all is on display for maximum intimidation.  To me, the uphill 3s and long 3s are the best opportunities to get more strategic...though I am quite partial to short 3s which might require a bounce in shot due to the green moving away from play or at the base/top of an incline/decline.  Good examples of this are Kington's 5th 9th...both quite exciting holes once played. 




I am quite partial to the 3rd at Formby Ladies...the green runs away so the hole looks rather blah...not the sort of thing most moderns golfers appreciate.  Though to be honest, this is a penal hole because of the left/right bunkering, but its not necessary nor is the hole better for sand on either side.  I think in some ways this is an example of ideal design.  Good players can demonstrate ball flight and spin control while beginners can kick the can and hope for the best.


Longer holes offer more opportunities for strategy though.  Take the 13th at Cavendish as an example.  One can whip a low hook up the right or go full frontal assault or just play short right and go for the chip and putt.  To me this is another example of ideal design.




That said, there are few things more thrilling than pulling off very difficult demand shot...though to me this sort is far more satisfying if a miss doesn't spell doom, but an interesting and likely very difficult recovery such as at B&B Channel #8.




Jon

I would call Dornoch's 2nd penal because it plays between bunkers...that is a classic definition of the term.  That said, as at Formby Ladies, the bunkers are not necessary and I would argue at least one could go.

Ciao

[mike_malone]

Flynn angles greens usually which creates strategy even on the short par three.
Number 16 at Rolling Green was originally 130 yards. Since the regular tee is covered for the winter we are playing that tee.


The angle is back right to front left with a huge bunker angled across the front, a small opening front left, then a left bunker.


I love the half shot challenge. A pin back right requires a club that could fly the green if pulled left. A left front pin drops a shot slightly right into the huge bunker.


The smart shot is center of the green. Who does that?

[Tim Martin]

Flynn angles greens usually which creates strategy even on the short par three.
Number 16 at Rolling Green was originally 130 yards. Since the regular tee is covered for the winter we are playing that tee.


The angle is back right to front left with a huge bunker angled across the front, a small opening front left, then a left bunker.


I love the half shot challenge. A pin back right requires a club that could fly the green if pulled left. A left front pin drops a shot slightly right into the huge bunker.


The smart shot is center of the green. Who does that?

Mike-Flynn was amazing at creating superb par three connector holes fraught with danger. Kittansett # 3, Manufacturers # 8 and Shinnecock # 11 all fit the bill.

[Tom_Doak]

Just a note that par 3 holes are not inherently more difficult for pros because it's one shot - they are more difficult because they are nearly always the longest approach shots the long hitter will have to play over 18 holes.  The occasional 450+ par four will also factor in there; but the 420-yard era feature a shorter approach than even the shortest par-3's.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()