Should architects consider more par 3s or par 5s?

[Jerry Kluger]

The template course has 4 par 3s and 4 par 5s but should architects consider designing courses with more than 4 of each to make the game/course more fun? Blackstone in Arizona is a Jim Engh course and has 5 par 3s and 5 par 5s.  What do you think about a course with 6 par 3s and 6 par 5s of various distances and elevations with 6 par 4s in a combination that includes long holes as well as at least one drivable par 4?

[Jeff Schley]

I love the idea......I know the Aranold Palmer Private Course at PGA West has 5 par 3's and 5 par 5's.  Love par 5's as they are so challenging and exciting.

[Jeff Schley]

Also don't forget about the par 6 played in 2015 on the Challenge Tour!  The hole is the 15th on the Legend Course at the Penati Golf Resort in Senica, Slovakia. 783 yards!

https://www.pga.com/golf-courses/golf-buzz/783-yard-par-6-hole-longest-in-european-tour-history

[Jeff_Brauer]

I was once forced into a 6-6-6 configuration, but didn't care for it.   If I did anything, it would be the Stanley Thompson addition of a fifth par 3, and/or reduction of par 5 holes from 4 to 3 or 2.



Golfers like par 3 holes, so why not include more?


Most par 5 holes are boring (or at least the middle shot is boring) so why have so many?  Would keep top players a bit less under par as well.  Also, par 5 holes take up land (especially if made unreachable) and water, etc. 


I always found myself wondering how the par 3 and 5 came to be, anyway.  Felt they needed variety, perhaps?  Two shots is all you need to set up strategy, which explains the dominance of par 4 holes. 


Par 3 holes could be justified as useful in creating concept shots.  Par 5 as a going for it in two variety, but you can do the same thing with short par 4 holes.  Both perhaps necessary on rugged ground to get the course back or fit it in before earthmoving, of course.


Anyone ever recall reading anything about how those holes came to be seen as useful in design?

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,


I've always wondered if par 5s wouldn't be more interesting with a few more small bunkers placed inside or near the confines of the fairway.  With 4 or 5 tees, and so much variance in player ability, it'd be almost impossible to know where to place them.


So why not make a sketch of the hole, tack it to a dart board, and throw a handful of darts at it to determine bunker placement!

[Thomas Dai]

More par-3’s (variable length) and less par-5’s would be just fine by me.
Are there any 9 x par-3’s plus 9 x par-4’s courses out there?

Atb

[Jerry Kluger]

I have seen too many par 5s which demand two very particular and demanding shots just to give you a reasonable chance of hitting your third close to the pin. Too often the layup shot is just about as difficult as going for the green with the second shot.

[Adam Lawrence]

Also don't forget about the par 6 played in 2015 on the Challenge Tour!  The hole is the 15th on the Legend Course at the Penati Golf Resort in Senica, Slovakia. 783 yards!

https://www.pga.com/golf-courses/golf-buzz/783-yard-par-6-hole-longest-in-european-tour-history

... and it's terrible

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry:


I don't know why any architect or golfer cares about the "balance" of having four par-3 holes and four par-5's.


In my 34 courses (not counting the nine-hole Aetna Springs) I've only done seven that had the common setup you mention.  Sebonack and Streamsong Blue are the best of those.  And those seven are my only par-72 designs!


I've done thirteen courses with four short holes and three par-5's, and another nine courses with five short holes and four par-5's, and almost all of my highly-ranked courses are in those two groups.


I've also built three courses with five short holes and three par-5's (both courses at Stonewall, and Atlantic City), one course with only two par-5's (St Andrews Beach), and one with five par-5's (Black Forest).


I did not decide in advance how many short holes to build on any of these courses; the routings just worked out as they did, and I had no strong preference.

[ChipRoyce]

Jerry;
Too funny that you bring this up.

For those that don't know, Jerry and I are members at the same club and play every Sunday.

I was going to bring up an idea / question / theory I have, which is building regulation length part 69 or par 70 courses.

My theory, which I'm sure you'd provide an interesting viewpoint to , is that one might see more variety (different mix of par 3's, different sequences of par 4's and par 5's than we're used to). My initial thoughts are a lot of potential benefits depending on the site, including more variety, better pace of play (although more par 3's could lead to backups), more interesting strategies, etc, but not neccesarily sacrificing overall distance (7000 yd par 69 from the tips could still be formidable for low handicapers?)

[Wayne_Kozun]

Cabot Cliffs has 6-6-6 and I don't find the par 5s to be boring at all.  IMHO three of them are spectacular - 7, 15 and 18.  1 is probably the least dramatic of the par 5s but even it is quite good.  8 is a lot of fun - reachable with a Biarritz green.  10 is dramatic along the coast but in my opinion is the least interesting strategically as I find that I am always hitting a layup to the same spot on my second shot as it is too hard to reach for all but the longest hitters and the penalty is severe.

[Sean_A]

More par-3’s (variable length) and less par-5’s would be just fine by me.
Atb

I fall very much into this camp.  Less 5s means the very under-explored ranges between 80 and 125 and 225 and 325 would have a chance to get more play.   To me, these yardages are inherently more interesting than the typical 525 par 5.

Ciao 

[Matt MacIver]

I don’t mind more par 5s, as long as the second shot is interesting - which is seems is the hardest shot in archtecture to design. I would rather play a good or fun hole than a bland -and one shotters are easier to find, and create.

[Buck Wolter]

Also don't forget about the par 6 played in 2015 on the Challenge Tour!  The hole is the 15th on the Legend Course at the Penati Golf Resort in Senica, Slovakia. 783 yards!

https://www.pga.com/golf-courses/golf-buzz/783-yard-par-6-hole-longest-in-european-tour-history

... and it's terrible

I didn't realize they added a Nicklaus 18 (with this hole) but the original I always thought looked compelling


https://www.penatigolfresort.sk/en/golf/heritage-course/

[Matthew Rose]

I'm a fan of the extra par three; I think it works well for public golf especially. A couple courses I play regularly are par 70 layouts with three par-fives and five par-threes; usually in a 34-36 or 36-34 configuration. An extra par three of some length can require the better player to hit another long shot without adding extra length or space.

I think the extra par three plus the par of 70 provide a psychological boost, especially if you play for a number rather than over/under par. To shoot 79 you only need to be +9 instead of +7.

[Jim Nugent]

More par 3s than par 5s.  That makes the course easier for bogey golfers, but harder for scratch/pro's. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

I am coming to the view that par 4s in the range 460-480 yards would benefit from being re-labelled par 5s.


Holes of this length are generally beyond the reach of average club golfers who play them as a three-shotter anyway. Good player are just as likely to reach a 500 yard hole in two as a 480 yarder, so why the break between par 4 and 5 at around 475 yards?


The par that a hole is given does not change anything about the strategy or difficulty of a hole. It is up to each player to play it in the way that best suits them on that particular day. Those that play it more successfully will still record the better score. Par is just a number, and largely irrelevant.


Making 460-480 yard holes par 5s however, will increase the number of par, birdie and eagle opportunities for everyone. This in turn will increase the potential enjoyment to be had on the course without compromising the challenge one bit.


A "reachable" par 5 is always going to be more fun than an "unreachable" par 4.


What's not to like?

[Adam Lawrence]

Also don't forget about the par 6 played in 2015 on the Challenge Tour!  The hole is the 15th on the Legend Course at the Penati Golf Resort in Senica, Slovakia. 783 yards!

https://www.pga.com/golf-courses/golf-buzz/783-yard-par-6-hole-longest-in-european-tour-history

... and it's terrible

I didn't realize they added a Nicklaus 18 (with this hole) but the original I always thought looked compelling


https://www.penatigolfresort.sk/en/golf/heritage-course/

The Nicklaus one came first, designed by ND associate Dirk Bouts. It's quite good, though as I said the par 6 is a dreadful idea. Jonny Davison's Heritage course was the second, and it is terrific.

[Adam Lawrence]

I am coming to the view that par 4s in the range 460-480 yards would benefit from being re-labelled par 5s.


Holes of this length are generally beyond the reach of average club golfers who play them as a three-shotter anyway. Good player are just as likely to reach a 500 yard hole in two as a 480 yarder, so why the break between par 4 and 5 at around 475 yards?


The par that a hole is given does not change anything about the strategy or difficulty of a hole. It is up to each player to play it in the way that best suits them on that particular day. Those that play it more successfully will still record the better score. Par is just a number, and largely irrelevant.


Making 460-480 yard holes par 5s however, will increase the number of par, birdie and eagle opportunities for everyone. This in turn will increase the potential enjoyment to be had on the course without compromising the challenge one bit.


A "reachable" par 5 is always going to be more fun than an "unreachable" par 4.


What's not to like?

Yeah but Duncan, how many 460-480 yard holes are there on the average course, from the yellow tees which ordinary golfers play? Not so many. If it's that long from the whites it's probably 440 max from the yellows.

[Duncan Cheslett]

A good point Adam, as we move towards multi tee competitions.


At present however, everyone plays from the white tees in qualifying comps every Saturday.


For those opting to move up to the yellow tees, even 440 yards is beyond reach 99% of the time. The average club golfer hits drives of 200 yards.


470 from the whites and 440 from the yellows still works better as a par 5 for me.


At Reddish Vale our yellow tees are only 10 yards in front of the whites on our two 460+ yard par 4 holes

[Sean_A]

Duncan

Of course its all perception as the number on the card doesn't matter.  I would, however, say that its important to give older courses which tend to be on the short side a bit of bite with longer 3s and 4s.  Despite the idiocy of par, folks fall for it all the time.  Hence we get the classic 450 yard par 4 being perceived as harder than a 500 yard par 5.  Bottomline...courses need to mix it up so it keeps all sorts happy.  Its also important to pay attention to traditional yardage barriers even if they mean very little for the better players.  For instance, a short course of say 6100 yards having 6 or 7 holes over 400 yards won't feel as short as the yardage suggests.  Most will feel suitable challenged and this still leaves room for many short 4s and a short 3 or two. 

Ciao

[Jerry Kluger]

We see at the professional level where they play a forward tee as a par 4 when it plays as a par 5 for the membership - this is often the case at the US Open. I have foolishly looked simply at the course yardage when determining which set of tees to play without noting what par is for the course - makes for a tough day.

[Duncan Cheslett]

At the professional level what possible difference does it make what the par of a hole is?


For that matter, what difference does it make at any level?


It's still the same hole, and the aim is to play it in as few shots as possible.


Unfortunately though, par is lodged in most players' psyches. All Im saying is that most average pkayers will get more enjoyment from a short par 5 than a long par 4.


Its a commercial argument rather than a golfing one.

[Rich Goodale]

This is a very interesting post with many thoughtful replies.  Thanks Jerry!


From me, how about a "standard"of a 6-6-6 course with 100-250 "par" 3's, 280-430 "par" 4's and 460-610 "par" 5's.  It could total c. 6400, per above.  It would challenge 99+% of all golfers and probably give the pros conniptions.  It would also be walking friendly.  I think that the 6-6-6 configuration would be much more architect-friendly than the boring 4-10-4 standard.


rfg

[Jerry Kluger]

Rich: I think if a course was as you suggest that it would certainly be more enjoyable for nearly all golfers. I wonder if members would have lower handicaps from such a configuration.