Can you get away with more difficult greens on a par three than a four or five?

[Tommy Williamsen]

This 16 at Victoria National. It is scary shot from any tee you pick. Would it work if it were a second shot on a par four or does the green site have to be less penal?

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
On the thread about par, many feel par doesn’t matter so why should the greensite matter if the hole has no defined par? 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy,
On the thread about par, many feel par doesn’t matter so why should the greensite matter if the hole has no defined par?

I wasn't necessarily thinking about par just idea of having a very difficult green site on a second shot into green. We could use 17 at TPC Sawgrass as an example. How well would that work as a two shot hole?

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
This gets into design intent which some here don’t think we should talk about or try to interpret or try to figure out.  If the second shot is a short iron in your 17th at TPC example it is different than if it is 200+ yards out. 

That tiny little green I just played on that 265 yard par four would be a little more challenging on a 465 yard hole.

Got to tee off.  I am killing time while waiting to hit 

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:


It's conventional wisdom that you can build a smaller / tighter target on a par 3 hole than others, because you don't have to worry about a player being in a bad lie, or that there will be no realistic option after a short tee shot.


There are, of course, lots of famous holes that bend such "rules".  If you made the Road hole at St. Andrews into a 180-yard par-3, people would howl, but it's accepted at the end of a long par-4!  And surely greens like the 8th at Pine Valley or the 11th at Merion are as scary a target as any par-3.


Originally I had read your post as whether you could get away with a more heavily contoured green on a par three.  I have never really thought much about it, but with the exception of the 13th at Barnbougle, I think most of my wild greens are on short par-4's and par-5's.  Wild greens are more easily tamed when you can pick your angle of approach, and on a par-3, you can't.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
The architect picks the angle of approach on par threes so why wouldn't wild greens work well on them? 


You built quite a large green if I remember well on a very short par three 17th at Stonewall (the original course).  I could be wrong but didn't they lengthen that hole?  Do you know? 


Tommy,
As Tom pointed out those two greens on #8 at PV are scary even with a sand wedge in hand.  I don't think you see too many greens that small or difficult on par threes unless they were very short but even then, ball marks become a problem as well as spreading out wear.  The Postage Stamp I think is even larger (at least it feels larger) except when the wind is blowing 40mph 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Each of those two greens at 8 are scary even with a wedge. The first time I played it my host missed his tee shot and had a 7 iron. He made an easy six.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
The architect picks the angle of approach on par threes so why wouldn't wild greens work well on them? 


You built quite a large green if I remember well on a very short par three 17th at Stonewall (the original course).  I could be wrong but didn't they lengthen that hole?  Do you know? 

(a)  Because I don't want to dictate the shot everyone has to play -- that's boring.  I would rather golfers figure out what angle is best for them, and see people try to use the contours in different ways.


(b)  That hole was built to be a 220-yard par-3 originally, but the client got cold feet that it was too hard, and asked us to change it.  There really wasn't a good place for a 180-yard tee, so we changed it from the longest par-3 to the shortest.  We shrunk the green a little when we did that, but the drainage was in it already!  And then in the run-up to the Mid-Am, the USGA guys suggested building the original tee I'd wanted to build. 

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
That makes sense about #17, thanks.


I get it and agree about using the contours different ways from different locations.  But regarding par threes, by definition the architect picks the starting point for everyone.  You seem to be implying the greens for par threes have to be more benign?  Maybe I misunderstood?  We both know a lot of par threes that wild greens (unless you don't consider for example a biarritz green wild).

[Tom_Doak]

Actually I don't consider most Biarritz greens wild, since the front half of them was not meant to be green.


I guess there are some par-3's with wild greens, but not that many.  They're usually smaller targets, as noted above.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
What would you consider #7 at Streamsong Blue?  Only played it once but a recall it being pretty contoured.  Again, I realize there are exceptions. 

[jeffwarne]

This 16 at Victoria National. It is scary shot from any tee you pick. Would it work if it were a second shot on a par four or does the green site have to be less penal?

I guess it all depends upon your definition of a greensite "working"
I wouldn't vote for that greensite on any hole, with any par, but gun to head could see it "working" at least as well on a short par 4 with an equal amount of tees littered about so many/most could face a short pitch or short iron.

[Thomas Dai]

There is a slight element of the 8th at Dornoch about the hole in the photo and as such I could envisage it working as a par-4 or even a par-5 with a couple of proviso's -
1) the lay-up fairway area at the top of the rise were nice and wide without clutter, bunkers or obstructions
2) the area at the bottom of the hill had considerably more fairway height grass
I suspect a hole with an approach like the one in the photo would probably be a hole that would cause pace of play issues however.
It might not be ideal from a maintenance aspect either what with shots landing from a height on the green and the resulting many deep pitchmarks plus the necessity to keep the vegetation on the severe downhill cliff from acquiring high tree growth
atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Donald Ross wrote that you could, so I think you could.  Not sure that he specified whether he meant target size, surrounding hazards, or contours.  In any case, probably one of three would be enough to make it slightly harder, would be really tough if two or all three aspects were used, and counterproductive, i.e., smaller greens usually need to be 100% cuppable.  Even the TPC Island green has surrounding hazards and green contours but has enough size to accommodate the shot, probably statistically oversized for the 100+ yards in.


For shorter par 3's, the ball on the tee may also mean more backspin for all players.  The practical side of design suggests a bigger green to distribute ball marks and for at least the front of the green, where most shots land, a flatter green, because ball marks cause less damage.  A bigger green, together with a probable desire for small targets to be tougher suggests a multi-target green, separated by steps, ridge, or valley is one typical design solution.  And, each of those targets might have a different slope toward, away, or to the side of the line of play to make it play differently with every pin move.


The other thing to consider is that for many average players, the par 3 hole is sort of a respite, where they feel they have a better chance of hitting the green.  On public courses, do we really want to take that away from them?

[Tom_Doak]

For shorter par 3's, the ball on the tee may also mean more backspin for all players.  The practical side of design suggests a bigger green to distribute ball marks and for at least the front of the green, where most shots land, a flatter green, because ball marks cause less damage. 

There are a bunch of famous short par-3's where the green slopes slightly away from the line of play.  I'd never thought it might be about ball marks, just about making it not so easy to stiff a 9-iron or wedge shot, but the lesser impact is another advantage.


We did this on the 12th at Sebonack because, when I suggested a "Postage Stamp" type hole, Jack Nicklaus immediately came back with having most of the green slope away as at Troon.  However, the very front part of the green does slope toward the front right instead of the back.

[Michael Felton]

Actually I don't consider most Biarritz greens wild, since the front half of them was not meant to be green.


I guess there are some par-3's with wild greens, but not that many.  They're usually smaller targets, as noted above.

Out of curiosity, would you view the Short at NGLA as a par 3 with a wild green or a par 3 with four small greens that the greenkeeper chooses from each day, which just happen to all be connected to each other?

[Tom_Doak]

Actually I don't consider most Biarritz greens wild, since the front half of them was not meant to be green.


I guess there are some par-3's with wild greens, but not that many.  They're usually smaller targets, as noted above.

Out of curiosity, would you view the Short at NGLA as a par 3 with a wild green or a par 3 with four small greens that the greenkeeper chooses from each day, which just happen to all be connected to each other?

Now, that's a wild green!

[Jeff_Brauer]

For shorter par 3's, the ball on the tee may also mean more backspin for all players.  The practical side of design suggests a bigger green to distribute ball marks and for at least the front of the green, where most shots land, a flatter green, because ball marks cause less damage. 

There are a bunch of famous short par-3's where the green slopes slightly away from the line of play.  I'd never thought it might be about ball marks, just about making it not so easy to stiff a 9-iron or wedge shot, but the lesser impact is another advantage.


We did this on the 12th at Sebonack because, when I suggested a "Postage Stamp" type hole, Jack Nicklaus immediately came back with having most of the green slope away as at Troon.  However, the very front part of the green does slope toward the front right instead of the back.

When my course in Omaha hosted the Hooters Tour, I went around with the PGA Tour agronomist who pointed out that any green where I had steeper contours near the front had much worse ball marks.  They also generally prefer flatter slopes on the front of the green to reduce chances of embarrassing putts from above the hole. 


I find if I use flatter slopes draining out the front, and steeper ones near the back, it also helps avoid the turtleback greens on normal public play courses, where golfers find it hard to hold greens, especially past the middle of the green.


Did you get any advice from the Tour at Memorial along those (or any) lines?  Things the PGA Tour likes to see from a maintenance standpoint?  Or play?

[Mike Nuzzo]

I never saw a ball mark at Wolf Point - thank you Don Mahaffey.
Even the 12th, our 140 yard one shot hole.
It did slope hard away from the player, and to the right.
Impossible to fly it to the front of the green with the prevailing wind, which is why we built the little catcher's mitt in front.


To the original question, yes, but you can get away with severe greens anywhere. It's just a harder hole and can be balanced throughout the round - like Pine Valley's 2nd - which should have never been softened.

p.s. The 15th at Memorial surely is one of the most severe - the shortest hole on the course.

Peace