[Thomas Dai]

Note the “?” in the threads title.

It’s often suggested that a round of golf takes too long to play.
Similarly, it’s often suggested that golf is using too much land and water etc etc.
It’s also suggested that better players, particularly the elite ones we see on TV, seem to have relatively more difficulty with par-3’s than they do with par-4’s and par-5’s whilst lessor players seem to find the opposite.

So should we therefore have more par-3’s on courses? .... should the general convention of 4 be phased out? ...... should 6, 7, 8 par-3’s per round now be a better norm?  ..... and ones where the length varies very considerably?

Thoughts?

Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

With modern green speeds (and the limits placed on contours), I'm not sure advocating for more Par 3s is a good/timely idea -- so 'green-dependent' they are, and holding (for me) so little inherent interest or charm otherwise. Plus: in my world/playing experience, an excellent and memorable Par 3 is almost as rare (and, apparently, as tough to design) as a truly great Par 5, and just as setting/site-dependent. So: no -- I'd like to see architects give themselves as much help in (and the best chance of) designing the most exemplary golf holes possible, so I think they should stick to designing a lot of Par 4s.
P

[Ben Malach]

As someone that grew up playing a lot of par 3 courses and short courses they have a soft place in my heart. Yes, there could be more of them but the main issue is one of pure economics. Its just not significantly cheaper to maintain a par 3 or a short course as it is a more traditional length course. Also the expectation is that there be a discount for it not being a traditional setup. This leads to thin margins in a industry that a lot of time already exists on a razors edge. Which is a shame as a lot of courses I have seen that are complete redo's would benefit from having one 9 that is of a executive or par 3 length with the other 9 being more traditional. Its just that this setup means that they have two courses instead of 1 which is sort of a management no no when each course is only 9 holes.   

[jeffwarne]

Par 3 courses may take less time to play...
but get backed up far more easily as the players take more shots in a small area.


example-a par 3 early in the routing always backs up play which spreads out eventually over the following par 4's and par 5's


so I'm good with 4-5 par 3's per course

[Edward Glidewell]

Par 3 courses may take less time to play...
but get backed up far more easily as the players take more shots in a small area.


example-a par 3 early in the routing always backs up play which spreads out eventually over the following par 4's and par 5's


so I'm good with 4-5 par 3's per course

Was going to say something similar -- par 3s tend to back up far more than par 4s and par 5s, because you have to wait for the group in front of you to finish the entire hole before you can even tee off. I've been on a par 3 tee with multiple groups waiting to tee off more than once; I don't think that's ever happened to me on a 4 or a 5.

[Thomas Dai]

Amazed to hear speed of play as a reason for not having more par-3's!


The thread is not about par-3 courses, it's about the number of par-3's on a main course. I go along with Ben's two-nines position although I share his thoughts on viability.


atb

[Sean_A]

I am not sure what is meant by more par 3s.  I generally prefer there to be 5-6 on a course..at the expense of par 5s.  I don't see any overarching need for there to be more than 10 par 4s.  Of course, if the land is funky it is likely more par 3s would be necessary.  Painswick has a bucket full of 3s and I never noticed backups when playing there.

Of course this is all theoretical.  Most combinations of par can work its all down to it depends. That said, I know folks say they don't miss par 3s at TOC and Elie, but I do...especially TOC.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think 5 is probably the most you can have in a serious golf course. After that it is perceived as a minus from the majority.


Par 3 holes radically reduce the overall length, conversely the reason why St Andrews is short at 7200 yards, ie 2x par 4 at 350 equal 700, 1 par 3 at 175 + 1 par 5 at 525 same distance.


You can still get a great course, it does use less land, my Stranahan course only uses 75 acres and has 7 of the blighters, 8 par 4s and 3 par 5s but it is dissed by many (not all) because of its length.


So.... if you build one I think you instantly appeal to about 50% of a potential market. I think a 12 hole course would probably appeal to an even smaller market perhaps the same as a 9 hole one. This is only applicable if there is choice of course.


Par 3 back ups are normal, but they are compensated by speed, a course with a lot of short holes is significantly quicker provided that the course is not busy..... medal play/competition you can add an hour.

[Daryl David]

I think 5 is probably the most you can have in a serious golf course. After that it is perceived as a minus from the majority.

I never heard anyone question whether Cabot Cliffs is a serious course. It has 6 par threes.

[Kalen Braley]

Isn't Cabot a 6-6-6.  That sounds ideal to me!

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think 5 is probably the most you can have in a serious golf course. After that it is perceived as a minus from the majority.

I never heard anyone question whether Cabot Cliffs is a serious course. It has 6 par threes.

You missed the word 'probably' very Scott Warrenish. Always exceptions.

[Jeff Schley]

I like more than 4 par 3's on a course personally.  Particularly when they have distance variety and have enough different wind directions to play.
My home course growing up had 5 par 3's and started 3,5,3,5,3.  However all three of those par 3's were in the exact same direction, which was not a good layout. Innwood GC in Joliet, Illinois.

[Ally Mcintosh]

All things equal and considering that the land and routing always dictates, I do like a Par-70 with 5 one-shotters and 3 three-shotters.


But I can take anything at all if it works, including the 3 short holes at my home course (all excellent) and the 2 at TOC and Elie. Also the 6 at Berkshire Red.

[Thomas Dai]

I recently played in a 160 person 2-day 2-links courses event played on one longer course with only 3 par-3’s and the other course a shorter one with 5 par-3’s. The ground conditions, weather etc was the same both days as both courses are the same venue.
Guess what? The overall scoring for both courses over both days showed that the harder course to score on was the shorter course with the 5 par-3’s. And the time to play 18-holes was less on the shorter course too.
Atb

[Greg Smith]

I'm thinking the magic number is five par-3's.  Stanley Thompson thought so, and others agree. 

If we need to speed things up a bit, let's include our five 3s (with Emmet-style variance in length), and make darn sure we have several short 4s to go with them.  Maybe a "sixth 3" could be a really long one (270?) that's labeled as a "par 4."  With modern equipment, that 270-yard hole might be a perfect Biarritz that plays very much like the old 230-yard holes did.   For the white tee members that could be a 255-yard hole that has "4" as its designation.

[Tim Gavrich]

A big effect of the asinine historic aversion to courses with pars below 70 is that golfers have been robbed of having more courses with 5 or 6 par 3s. There can't be too many golf courses out there where I wouldn't trade out a run-of-the-mill par 4 for an extra par 3 with some drama or variety-add.

[Kyle Harris]

It's not the Par-3 causing the back up. It's a golf course that is over-capacity.

[Jim Nugent]

I recently played in a 160 person 2-day 2-links courses event played on one longer course with only 3 par-3’s and the other course a shorter one with 5 par-3’s. The ground conditions, weather etc was the same both days as both courses are the same venue.
Guess what? The overall scoring for both courses over both days showed that the harder course to score on was the shorter course with the 5 par-3’s. And the time to play 18-holes was less on the shorter course too.
Atb

How good were the players?  Scratch, bogey, a mix? 

[jeffwarne]

I recently played in a 160 person 2-day 2-links courses event played on one longer course with only 3 par-3’s and the other course a shorter one with 5 par-3’s. The ground conditions, weather etc was the same both days as both courses are the same venue.
Guess what? The overall scoring for both courses over both days showed that the harder course to score on was the shorter course with the 5 par-3’s. And the time to play 18-holes was less on the shorter course too.
Atb

No disputing that one would play a course with more par 3's in less time.
But that doesn't mean one is not waiting more.


As Kyle points out, over capacity can be a cause of backups-but the even at the most generously spaced courses, early par 3's cause backups, which can be eventually eliminated by "actching up" on a series of par 5's or par 4's, but a steady diet of more par 3's creates more of what I call "in range" waiting where a player COULD hit the green, but won't and the groups behind wil inevitably end up waiting as the player plays ping-pong around the green.
the same thing happens in junior tournaments when courses are dramatically shortened- a longer hitter has to wait as an equal amount of kids are spread out over a smaller area.


Shorter courses courses can be played faster, and therefore deserve the luxury of more spaced out tee times, so that one can actually enjoy the shorter round, rather than waiting more. during their "fast" round.
I'm all for 5 or 6 par 3's but where they are placed and tee time management has a lot to do with how much waiting one does.


a first hole par 3 is an excellent way to develop rest of the day spacing.

[Mike Bodo]

All I know is that long-ish Par 3's (175+ yds.) tend to play more like Par 4's, so I'm in not in favor of more than four of them on any 18 hole course. Most amateurs don't find the green on their first shot on a long par 3 and more often than not it takes two strokes, if not 3 in some cases, just to get on the green. As such, a long par 3 can take as long, if not longer to play than a 400 yd. or shorter par 4. Given that par 5's are the most likely birdied holes and par 3's the most commonly bogeyed, let's just call it draw and make all 18 hole courses par 4's? 

[Tom_Doak]

Every one of the courses I've built to date has either four par-3's, or five.  I think 30-40% of my courses have the extra one.  I know I did a routing for some project that only had three short holes, but it never got built.  I wouldn't mind that; Kingston Heath has only three and nobody has a fit about it.


I'm not a big fan of six par-3's, which is probably why I haven't gone there, yet.  I say that because I believe there is inherently more variety to explore in par-4 holes than in par-3 holes.  I'm a big believer that great par-4's are the backbone of nearly every great course.


Also, from a "flow" standpoint, having too many par-3 holes spaced through the round keeps you from getting into a rhythm of hitting your driver.  The worst offender was one very good course, which I liked otherwise, which had a par-3 every other hole from #4 through #14.


Pacific Dunes famously has the four par-3 holes on its back nine [and only one on the front], but the fact that 10 & 11 are consecutive means that the others [14 and 17] could be spaced well apart.  Since the course doesn't return to the clubhouse at the 9th, a lot of players don't even realize that the back nine started with two short holes, or that there are four of them overall.

[Thomas Dai]

Would 6-6-6 be too much of a beast?
atb

[Mike Bodo]

Would 6-6-6 be too much of a beast?
atb

  That was very funny and clever, Thomas. Chapeau!

[Mike Bodo]

I'm a big believer that great par-4's are the backbone of nearly every great course.

+1

[Jake Marvin]

I think the general convention of four is less a problem than the general convention of seven; that is, the notion that the par of the eighteen holes has to start with a seven. Generally, sixty-something pars are a signal for uninspired design or an executive course (at least in the areas I've experienced), so we lose the possibility of a lot of solid 67, 68, and 69s that can be accomplished with some combination of 4-6 par threes and and 0-3 par fives in favor of conventional 4-10-4 layouts.


If we need more par threes for the reasons outlined by the OP, maybe we also need to examine a need for fewer par fives for the same reasons?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()