Are par 3s by their very nature penal?

[Mark_Fine]

James,
I am not sure I would use the phrase “more penal” to describe par threes.  It was Ross (as Jeff eluded to) who said that an architect has more freedom with the greensites with par threes because he or she can dictate where the approach shot to these greens will be played from.  There is no uncertainty as the architect dictates the teeing grounds and angles of play.  Whether that makes them “more penal” or not is very subjective but one thing for sure is that par threes are generally the easiest holes to design where as par fives are usually the hardest. 


Getting back to using the description “more penal”, I am not sure about that?  I generally define a penal hole (or a penal shot) as one where the architect has said to the player, “you execute the shot or you are in big trouble (almost do or die)".  Some people take the penal definition to an extreme and in those situations you could call almost any hole/shot with hazards that are in play - penal.  Take the 15th and 16th holes at Cypress Point.  Both are “par threes” on the scorecard.  One is about 130 yards (all carry to a green surrounded by hazards and the other is 240 yards with a 220 yard forced carry (often into the wind) and it is also surrounded by hazards including water, bunkers and ice plant  .   There is a “bailout” to the left on #16 (if you elect to hit two shorter shots instead of attempting to make that carry).  Which hole is the “penal” one or are both     


Pebble Beach #7 is 80-100 yards.  Everyone knows this hole.  Would you describe it as “penal”?  There is no bailout.  You either hit that green or you are in some kind of hazard (hopefully a playable one).  Maybe  that is what defines a penal hole - fear of a lost ball?  Again this is very subjective.


Going back to the first point made by Ross; par three holes give the architect more creative freedom because they know where the golfer will be playing from.  Sometimes he or she will provide options (this usually depends on the length of the hole) and sometimes they won’t.  Any par three standing on its own can be great but variety and balance is the secret to a collectively great set of par threes on any one course.  If Cypress Point, for example, had four par threes like #16, we probably wouldn’t think so highly of those holes or the course in general.  No different then the 17th at the TPC at Sawgrass.  One hole like that is fine (especially where it is located in the hole sequence).  It probably plays on most golfers minds from early on in their rounds as they know they have no choice but to eventually play that hole and hit an aerial shot onto that green.  However, if there were two or three island greens on that golf course it would likely get old and feel tricked up fast.  By the way, the 17th at Sawgrass is only 120-140 yards to an 8000+ square foot green.  Is it a penal hole or not? 
Mark

[Jim Nugent]

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.

Tom, I think par 4s typically have to stretch to over 500 yards to force pro's to hit long irons into the green.  Even that may not do the trick. 

I heard the longest club DJ had to hit into a par 4 all year one recent season was 6 or 7 iron. 

[Thomas Dai]

Up-n-downs are usually more difficult on par-3’s than on p4’s and p5’s. P3’s normally have more hazards around the greens and the greens are often smaller.
Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Up-n-downs are usually more difficult on par-3’s than on p4’s and p5’s. P3’s normally have more hazards around the greens and the greens are often smaller.
Atb

Smaller or tighter?

[Jon Wiggett]

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

I am not sure about the definition but for me penal is where the hole gives you no other option other than to take on the hazard/obstruction. As such 2 & 6 both allow the player to lay up and run in without having to take on an obstacle. The 13th is in essence penal but the green offer a generous enough target that most players have a decent chance of success in any playable conditions. The tenth requires you to play over the hazard and with certain conditions it is very difficult for most to pull off the required shot. Having said that it comes down to format as the 10th would be a great matchplay hole in such conditions.

[Thomas Dai]

Up-n-downs are usually more difficult on par-3’s than on p4’s and p5’s. P3’s normally have more hazards around the greens and the greens are often smaller.
Atb

Smaller or tighter?

Bit of both Jon, bit of both!


As to the Dornoch p3’s variously quoted, I recall the 2nd, 6th and 10th as generally presenting a more difficult/challenging up-n-down opportunity than the 13th. Would that be a fair assessment?


Atb

[Mark Pearce]

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

I am not sure about the definition but for me penal is where the hole gives you no other option other than to take on the hazard/obstruction. As such 2 & 6 both allow the player to lay up and run in without having to take on an obstacle. The 13th is in essence penal but the green offer a generous enough target that most players have a decent chance of success in any playable conditions. The tenth requires you to play over the hazard and with certain conditions it is very difficult for most to pull off the required shot. Having said that it comes down to format as the 10th would be a great matchplay hole in such conditions.

Completely agree.  In fact I was going to use the 2nd at Dornoch as a great example of a strategic par 3.  I'm sure the smart play for most handicap golfers is to hit short of the green off the tee and try to chip and putt, pretty much guaranteeing 4 but giving a chance of 3, whereas going for the green may put 2 in play and give a better chance of 3 but also puts the chance of tearing up your card on the second hole of the round very much into play.

[Jon Wiggett]

Up-n-downs are usually more difficult on par-3’s than on p4’s and p5’s. P3’s normally have more hazards around the greens and the greens are often smaller.
Atb

Smaller or tighter?

Bit of both Jon, bit of both!


As to the Dornoch p3’s variously quoted, I recall the 2nd, 6th and 10th as generally presenting a more difficult/challenging up-n-down opportunity than the 13th. Would that be a fair assessment?


Atb

Yes, a fair assessment.


Mark,


I think if I were playing the 2nd in strokeplay I would lay up too.

[Thomas Dai]

Out of curiosity I looked up the men’s SI’s of the par-3’s at Royal Dornoch. They are -


2nd hole.......SI 6
6th hole ........SI 8
10th hole ......SI 11
13th hole .....SI 15


Unusual for a single figure hcp player to receive a stroke on 2 par-3’s. Perhaps RDGC is unusual in having a more realistic than normal approach to SI allocation?


Atb

[Wade Whitehead]

A good player once told me he loves par threes because you only have to hit one good shot to make a birdie.

WW

[Sean_A]

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

I am not sure about the definition but for me penal is where the hole gives you no other option other than to take on the hazard/obstruction. As such 2 & 6 both allow the player to lay up and run in without having to take on an obstacle. The 13th is in essence penal but the green offer a generous enough target that most players have a decent chance of success in any playable conditions. The tenth requires you to play over the hazard and with certain conditions it is very difficult for most to pull off the required shot. Having said that it comes down to format as the 10th would be a great matchplay hole in such conditions.

Jon

You still have to run through the obstacles...the penal nature of the bunkers doesn't disappear with a layup...you merely lessen the difficulty of the next shot (this can be done regardless of the style of hole)...hopefully.  Given that we are talking about handicap players, there is a good chance that the layup will not be precise and then require flying a bunker....so far from a guarantee of a 4. In any case, the supposed guarantee of a bogey is not the definition of strategic.  Options is the essence of strategy and laying up is practically always an option so usually two options exist nearly all the time...not terribly strategic and certainly nothing like the ideal concept of strategic as originally defined by the ODGs.  Look the well worn sketches of 14 TOC to illustrate strategic design...this is why I think nearly all par 3s are by nature strategically limited.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,


my understanding of penal is where you are forced to take on the hazard i.e. cross bunker or a wall with no alternative route round or through. So the 10th is a penal hole because no matter what you do you have to play over the hazard at some point to reach the green whereas the 2nd does not require this. Just simply having to play between the obstacles (not through as seem to think which means entering the hazard) does not require you to take the obstacle on. I believe most handicap players would be capable of playing a lay up. Handicap golf is not the 'hit and hope' scenario you seem to imagine.


By your definition everything is penal.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

my understanding of penal is where you are forced to take on the hazard i.e. cross bunker or a wall with no alternative route round or through. So the 10th is a penal hole because no matter what you do you have to play over the hazard at some point to reach the green whereas the 2nd does not require this. Just simply having to play between the obstacles (not through as seem to think which means entering the hazard) does not require you to take the obstacle on. I believe most handicap players would be capable of playing a lay up. Handicap golf is not the 'hit and hope' scenario you seem to imagine.

By your definition everything is penal.

Jon

Penal is forced carry or line.  So playing between hazards (or nasty rough, rows of trees etc) is penal because it limits options. All the options presented are within the confines of the hazards...which usually means two choices...go where directed or lay-up (which is nearly always a choice) then go where directed.  Its really road map design.  I stress that when I use the terms penal and strategic it isn't a value judgement...just defining statements.  I think both styles and everything between is important and that the hole in question is very good despite unnecessary bunkering and really unnecessary gorse.  A huge percentage of short and mid-length par 3s are penal because I think it is a natural tendency of archies to create a set piece of this ilk.  Plus, bling matters and its easy to provide bling with penal style architecture. Generally, strategic architecture tends to be more subtle.   

To me the debate becomes more interesting with a design like Pinehurst.  There is no question the use of sand is very penal, but the sand isn't classified as a hazard and generally leaves a recovery shot...very arguably moreso than 3 inch deep Bermuda.  To me, this is exciting design especially as it is very difficult to lose a ball or be stuck in a position where even the very high capper can't have a go at a recovery. 

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,


you state penal is 'forced carry or line' so where there is a choice it can not be penal. You are incorrect in saying the second is a penal hole even by your definition.

[Thomas Dai]

Re the 2nd at Dornoch.


My recollection is that there is quite a pronounced mound come lengthways spine that pretty much abuts the front of the 2nd green and makes laying-up difficult as it deflects intended lay-up shots either to the left or to the right.


Is my recollection correct?


atb

[Sean_A]

Sean,


you state penal is 'forced carry or line' so where there is a choice it can not be penal. You are incorrect in saying the second is a penal hole even by your definition.

Jon

The 2nd at Dornoch absolutely requires either a carry over a bunker or single route between bunkers...that is the very definition of penal.  The same hole without bunkers wouldn't be penal.  It doesn't necessarily mean the hole would be better, but it wouldn't be penal.

Ciao

[Ben Stephens]

Boony

One suspects par 3s are more penal as it is easier to hit the approach shot by using tee pegs which makes it easier to hit or control the ball generally compared to hitting approach shots on par 4s or 5s as they will be either the fairway on a tight lie or semi rough, rough or jungle in which i am normally accustomed to as you know very well. This generates less ball control so the par 4s and 5s greens tend to be more forgiving in my view.


Regarding par 3s - it is nice to have a balance and fairness. i would make the last par 3 the hardest of the lot and have a short par 3 which is more penal than the others in the middle of the round and other par 3s which are more forgiving/strategic.


For example Notts 5th and 9th are generally easy one shotters with a number of bunkers around the greens, long to mid irons for most players and greens big enough to stay away from a flag that is tucked close to a hazard - 13th is tough.


Cheers
BB

[Rich Goodale]

Sean,


you state penal is 'forced carry or line' so where there is a choice it can not be penal. You are incorrect in saying the second is a penal hole even by your definition.

Jon

The 2nd at Dornoch absolutely requires either a carry over a bunker or single route between bunkers...that is the very definition of penal.  The same hole without bunkers wouldn't be penal.  It doesn't necessarily mean the hole would be better, but it wouldn't be penal.

Ciao

Sean


Jon is right and you are wrong.  99% of shots over the right or left bunkers on #2 at Dornoch end up in the dingley dells.  In the bunkers is MUCH better than  carrying them. Ask anybody who knows (not including Chip Beck who gave up trying to get out of the LH bunker 30+ years ago....).


Rich

[Sean_A]

Sean,


you state penal is 'forced carry or line' so where there is a choice it can not be penal. You are incorrect in saying the second is a penal hole even by your definition.

Jon

The 2nd at Dornoch absolutely requires either a carry over a bunker or single route between bunkers...that is the very definition of penal.  The same hole without bunkers wouldn't be penal.  It doesn't necessarily mean the hole would be better, but it wouldn't be penal.

Ciao

Sean


Jon is right and you are wrong.  99% of shots over the right or left bunkers on #2 at Dornoch end up in the dingley dells.  In the bunkers is MUCH better than  carrying them. Ask anybody who knows (not including Chip Beck who gave up trying to get out of the LH bunker 30+ years ago....).


Rich

Rihc


In your haste to be a smart ass, you fail to grasp the point. Go back and read the posts properly.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Yes Sean, I am a smart arse, but I am not completely clueless.  Next time you play Dornoch #2 and hit your tee shot over the right or left side bunkers (as you seem to recommend) and then contemplate WTF went wrong with your "strategy."


Arrivederci Roamer

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,


a shot played between two hazards is most certainly not the definition of  'penal'. Were it to be so EVERY course, hole and shot would be a penal.


A shot where there is no alternative than to play OVER the hazard be that water, valley, ditch, wall, deep rough or even bunker is penal.


Jon


Jon

[Sean_A]

Sean,

a shot played between two hazards is most certainly not the definition of  'penal'. Were it to be so EVERY course, hole and shot would be a penal.

A shot where there is no alternative than to play OVER the hazard be that water, valley, ditch, wall, deep rough or even bunker is penal.

Jon

Jon

I use the definition as invented by the ODGs.  Playing between hazards was most certainly highlighted as penal architecture because of lack of choices...basically one option just as you do with a forced carry. I leave it to you to go back and read up on the ODGs because we are not getting anywhere with a back and forth conversation in terms of this thread.

Ciao 

[John Chilver-Stainer]

How about a bit of literal definition.
My interpretation of penal is when a penalty infringement is incurred when the ball does not hit the defined target area.
Ok now try defining "defined target area"

[Steve Lang]

   is it not Kafkaesque, In the Penal Colony?

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

a shot played between two hazards is most certainly not the definition of  'penal'. Were it to be so EVERY course, hole and shot would be a penal.

A shot where there is no alternative than to play OVER the hazard be that water, valley, ditch, wall, deep rough or even bunker is penal.

Jon

Jon

I use the definition as invented by the ODGs.  Playing between hazards was most certainly highlighted as penal architecture because of lack of choices...basically one option just as you do with a forced carry. I leave it to you to go back and read up on the ODGs because we are not getting anywhere with a back and forth conversation in terms of this thread.

Ciao

Sean,


I think you maybe relying on something that has been superseded for quite sometime. I certainly do not think a hole which has hazards/difficulties on either side is automatically a penal design.


I refer to Forrest Richardson's description of penal design which I think sums up the modern way of thinking.


quote '

A golf shot that presents no alternative route to avoid a hazard or feature is said to be penal. The word comes from the Latin poena, which means "fine" or "penalty." Penal golf deign is thought to have been a standard of early golf course design, but perhaps this is not so. Only sometimes did hazards completely obscure the path to the hole. In fact, on many natural links courses and even early designed courses, holes defined as penal were played by way of alternate routes devised by golfers who refused to believe there was no way around the impediment. They devised their own routes to the hole and, in the process, invented what has become known as strategic and heroic design' .

This I think sums up more accurately what a penal design is. If you wish to refer back to a bygone era please do but if you want to back it up please do your own leg work and find the material yourself.


I would add I think you are correct that we can get no where with this as we are with me showing the big holes in your assertion of playing between two hazard being penal design. The 18th at TOC has OOB both sides of the fairway which according to you would make it penal in design as it has a hazard which you have to play between. I say it is not penal but rather strategic as the player can decide both angle of attack to the green and length of second shot. You might argue it is both strategic and penal in design and though I think this would have some basis for validity I would not be in total agreement.


Jon