What constitutes a short par 3 for you ?

[Bruce Katona]

When I read most of this thread, I thought to myself  " BK - no one is thinking about most of the players - the higher handicaps, seniors, women and newer players - Jeff B did with the following reply:



" I am in this boat, but as an archie, will say 150 back tees, 130 average tees, 110 senior tees, and under 90 for forward tees."
[/size][/color]
I was taught, in a perfect world, a course should have the following a short/wedge par 3, a medium length par 3, a long par 3 and the forth of 5th par 3 would be dictated by routing/site conditions or other unique local conditions.


A good example of the above is Somerset Hills - everyone know the great Redan par 3, but the other 3 par holes:  #8 - long; #12 short/wedge & #16 medium - are a very good mix and variety of holes to test parts of ones game.


IMHO.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Short par 3s are very different for short hitters, especially some women and seniors.  My club has a 110 yard hole with a small green surrounded by bunkers on all four sides which is about 90 yard from the forward tees.  But the hole is radically different for someone who can hit a high Gap Wedge, vs an 8 Iron that doesn't get very high in the air and doesn't stop quickly. My girlfriend struggles with this hole as she pretty much has to hit into the bank in front of the green to get the ball to stop on the green.

How do architects take this into account?

[Niall C]

Bruce


Well in fairness Bruce, the OP asked "what constitutes a short par 3 for you ?". Maybe I should have asked about short hitters but I didn't. I left that thread for you 


Niall

[Peter Sayegh]

135 for me.

[V. Kmetz]

As an aside, do you still think it's true that average golfers (and I'm very average) don't like long par 3's ?

Niall

Dead Horse Zombie Alert - so you're asking if golfers don't like 200-240 yard holes? Same thing, isn't it?

I'm not sure who you are suggesting is the zombie, me or you ?

Firstly, and similar to the question in the OP, what constitutes a long par 3 is up to the individual.
Niall

It was me, not you...


So the res-stated question is do golfers like or enjoy a shot they consider to be long?

[Forrest Richardson]

John Low: "The short hole should not be long."

Possibly the best words ever written about short par-3s. I'd go 125-130, or less. Rationale: At 150 a par-3 will likely not be anything less than a full swing by the better player. Whereas, at 125± he/she might have several clubs to select from — and several swing paths. That is the true test of a short par-3...getting the player to finesse.

[Niall C]

So the res-stated question is do golfers like or enjoy a shot they consider to be long?

Does the question need re-stating ? It's a long par 3; you're playing from the tee; and you're aiming at a green. A fairly simple concept which is distinct from hitting a driver off the tee at a medium/long par 4 or par 5.


Niall

[archie_struthers]

 




less than 150 yards

[Bill Gayne]

Most of the replies have defined a short par 3 by either club or distance and for me it's not either of those. You can have a short distance hole and it best played with a punch seven iron or a longer distance hole that will be played with a shorter club depending on how the ball can bounce onto the green or vertical drop.


I think it's about the trade off between carry distance and precision. On a longer par three my main focus and concern is hitting the ball a good distance that will leave me in a safe spot to make par while on a short hole the main focus and concern would be hitting a shot with a higher level of precision.


The short hole definition for me regardless of club or hole length is if my overriding thought is shot precision and minimal concern about carry or distance. Short is defined by what's in the player's head.

[David Ober]

149 or shorter.

[V. Kmetz]

So the res-stated question is do golfers like or enjoy a shot they consider to be long?

Does the question need re-stating ? It's a long par 3; you're playing from the tee; and you're aiming at a green. A fairly simple concept which is distinct from hitting a driver off the tee at a medium/long par 4 or par 5.

Niall

Don't get touchy... my further questions/framing are to tease out what/why your question won't recognize in the discussion... THAT IF YOU PUT A NUMBER ON THE CARD FOR SOMETHING, IT CHANGES WHAT THE THING IS?... THAT IF I ASSIGN A PAR NUMBER OF 4 TO A 230 yd hole it becomes unliked by the same average golfer?

As an aside, do you still think it's true that average golfers (and I'm very average) don't like long par 3's ?
Niall

[Niall C]

VK


I'm not getting touchy, but I am wondering why you're being so obtuse for what is a simple and straightforward question.


Niall

[Niall C]

John Low: "The short hole should not be long."

Possibly the best words ever written about short par-3s. I'd go 125-130, or less. Rationale: At 150 a par-3 will likely not be anything less than a full swing by the better player. Whereas, at 125± he/she might have several clubs to select from — and several swing paths. That is the true test of a short par-3...getting the player to finesse.

Forrest


Well said. That last part is probably equally true for us average golfers too.


Niall

[V. Kmetz]

VK

I'm not getting touchy, but I am wondering why you're being so obtuse for what is a simple and straightforward question.

Niall

NC, sorry for the impugn... but your innocent aside question is a nuanced example of how the damn number of the card - which has nothing to do with the merit of a hole - is extrapolated to bear on what an average golfer does or does not think...


200 yard par 3 = average player does not like
200 yard no par = ?

[Mike Schott]

Personally I don't think a PW or below belongs on a Par 3.
So work that one out?!

Small target area is the key. There may be a pin position on a green difficult to hit even with a pitching wedge in hand. For example, 8 at Rustic Canyon. Depending on the pin, from the Hanse or White tees it's a PW. But the golfer had better be accurate.

[PCCraig]

Anyone that's short enough for me to birdie?!

[David Ober]

Pitching wedge or less on a calm day at sea level.

So 171 for some elite players if warm, it's even a touch downwind and even the slightest downhill. ;-)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Anyone that's short enough for me to birdie?!

Perhaps with a punch bowl green to funnel tee shots to the hole?


Sorry, OT.  But your post did make me think of all those wealth of dispersion shot patterns for all levels of golfers.  For most, even the low handicap player, there is a bit of an accuracy drop at 180 yards and up.


Takeaway - a medium length par 3, IMHO, should not exceed 170 yards from the middle tees at least, which is probably why 150-160-170 yard blue tee par 3's are used so much.


So, from blue tees, we should probably have one shorty, i.e. 130 yards or so/less, and one 170 or less. 


To answer the question posed of me earlier, yes, I doubt average players like par 3 holes over 200 yards, to this day.  They probably get a bit uncomfortable at 180, and maybe that should be the longest from the blue tees, as per above.  Maybe 190 if downhill, easy target, etc.  So perhaps a nice mix for average players would be wind and elevated adjusted par 3 holes of 130, 150, 170, and 190?

[Tom_Doak]

To answer the question posed of me earlier, yes, I doubt average players like par 3 holes over 200 yards, to this day. 

Nobody else likes them, either.  Brooks Koepka's first piece of advice on Memorial Park was, "If we just don't make most of the par-3's over 200 yards, we'll be heroes." 

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


I'm sure around here, that statement might raise some questions, along the lines of "Who cares what they think, they should have to play some tough, uncomfortable holes" and "Isn't a 250 yard par 3 to a tiny green the only way to test tour players these days?


But, since the design is aimed squarely at 2 groups - average public players and tour pros, I guess if you are 0-2 for groups who like long par 3 holes, you leave them out, no? 

[Jeff Schley]

TD,


I'm sure around here, that statement might raise some questions, along the lines of "Who cares what they think, they should have to play some tough, uncomfortable holes" and "Isn't a 250 yard par 3 to a tiny green the only way to test tour players these days?

Jeff this is correct, or either the island green trainwreck everyone is waiting to see happen.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


I'm sure around here, that statement might raise some questions, along the lines of "Who cares what they think, they should have to play some tough, uncomfortable holes" and "Isn't a 250 yard par 3 to a tiny green the only way to test tour players these days?

Jeff this is correct, or either the island green trainwreck everyone is waiting to see happen.

You are correct.  Since the course technically is a PGATour venue, I was reminded in one of my periodicals just this morning, in an article about TV coverage that they are forgetting the old Bob Hope line, "Don't forget this is entertainment."  So, maybe Tom should have also had a TV exec as a consultant.  And, to your point, trainwreck holes are entertaining, and even if the pros don't like them, they should have a few near the end, for the entertainment value alone.

[Sean_A]

TD,

I'm sure around here, that statement might raise some questions, along the lines of "Who cares what they think, they should have to play some tough, uncomfortable holes" and "Isn't a 250 yard par 3 to a tiny green the only way to test tour players these days?

But, since the design is aimed squarely at 2 groups - average public players and tour pros, I guess if you are 0-2 for groups who like long par 3 holes, you leave them out, no?

I dislike the idea of the bottom line being a few groups of golfers don't like 200+ short holes. Weaker players can ALWAYS move forward and /or accept their limitations. And yes, who gives a shit what pros think? The worse I have become the more I admire a well designed long par 3. A good hole is a good hole. It is silly to avoid yardage ranges.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


Your comments are right on my estimated schedule!


But it seems there are two groups with a nearly universal dislike of the long par 3.  Understand multiple tees, with IMHO, it sort of depends on what kind of course it is.  For a golf factory type, or even a resort or play every day country club, where pace of play is pretty important and a certain type of challenging design isn't for most players, a group of shorter par 3 holes makes sense to me.


You know, that whole form follows function thing.  I get the argument (and design urge) to sometimes do something really different just to do it, but in the end, does it serve the course the best?  A case by case basis, methinks.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm sure around here, that statement might raise some questions, along the lines of "Who cares what they think, they should have to play some tough, uncomfortable holes" and "Isn't a 250 yard par 3 to a tiny green the only way to test tour players these days?

But, since the design is aimed squarely at 2 groups - average public players and tour pros, I guess if you are 0-2 for groups who like long par 3 holes, you leave them out, no?

Jeff:


Let me clarify:  Brooks likes hard courses, and did not want the par-3's to be easy.  He just felt that it was better to build hard par-3's that are short and nasty, instead of having them all at 210 or 220 where you then can't make them too severe.  He cited two holes where he won majors as prime examples:  the 9th at Erin Hills and the 11th at Shinnecock.


He got a good chuckle at some of the train wrecks during the week on the 9th and 15th holes at Memorial Park, on both of which you could land on the green but wind up in the water.


I did build a 240-yard par-3 at Memorial also, the 11th, just a little longer than Brooks would have liked it.  However, in reviewing the scoring from year one, it seemed like most guys played it very conservatively -- no one more so than Brooks himself -- and there were just a bunch of threes and fours and not so much scoring deviation.  Whereas, Paul Rudovsky told me the SD on the 9th and 15th holes was extremely high, even when we smoothed the "others" to double bogeys.  I am going to see if I can convince the TOUR to play the 11th up on one of the days this year, when they use the toughest hole location.