The Scottish tolerance for "impossible" par threes.

[Ken Moum]

Being a member at Golspie,  loving Brora, and having recently played Reay and Muir of Ord, I am more convinced than ever that Scots have a tolerance for impossible par threes that exceeds anything you'll see in the US. Especially among the best players.


Consider the list below, only because I played them all in 2023.


Fortrose and Rosemarkie, 9 and 18
Reay, 1
RDC, 2
Muir of Ord, 12 (and likely 13, even at 100 yards)
Anstruther, 5 and 6
Brora, 18
Tain, 17
Golspie, 17 (probably 2 as well)


When those courses were built, even the best players were hitting a wooden club to those greens, to ask that of the best players today, you'd have to, for instance, call the 10th at Riviera a par three...


I know that par is a relatively recent term and courses that were built before the Haskell ball wouldn't have used that designation.


On the other hand, I grew up in northern Minnesota playing nearly all my golf on nine-hole courses built after WWI, and every single one of them has a par three that required a driver or brassie at the time.  Same thing in SD where I lived for 23 years.


I say bring back the concept.... time for some 275- to 325-yard par threes on Tour.

[Tom_Doak]

Ken:


We built a hole like this at Pinehurst #10 . . . 260 yards downhill to the smallest green on the course, with trouble left and right.  There's even a place to go at it from 300 yards if you want to.


I've had to wrestle with the resort wanting to call it a par-4.  And I'm guessing if we keep it a par-3, they will have people using the 200-yard tee instead of the 260-yard tee most of the time.  I guess resort customers don't like to make bogey!

[Sean_A]

I don’t care what the par is or if they are in the pro game. I am all in favour of holes between 215ish and 270ish. It’s a seriously under used yardage range.

Ciao

[David_Tepper]

#16 (229yds) & #17 (230yds) at Lincoln Park in San Francisco could go on such a list. Both play downhill, but bouncing the ball on is not easy given how soft the turf usually is.

#17 is the well photographed hole that looks back (east) on the Golden Gate Bridge.     

I almost forgot #12, which is 192yds but very much uphill.

The 9-hole Fleming course at Harding Park has couple 200+ yard par-3's as well.

[Ken Moum]

Ken:


We built a hole like this at Pinehurst #10 . . . 260 yards downhill to the smallest green on the course, with trouble left and right.  There's even a place to go at it from 300 yards if you want to.


I've had to wrestle with the resort wanting to call it a par-4.  And I'm guessing if we keep it a par-3, they will have people using the 200-yard tee instead of the 260-yard tee most of the time.  I guess resort customers don't like to make bogey!

The "don't like to make bogey" is exactly what I'm talking about.  The Scots just don't seem to give a hoot.  It's actually refreshing. 


Playing Golspie as a member last summer, in comps, I realized that none of the five par threes there are play even close to par for most of the members.  As short as Lochy (#10) is, I almost never saw a tee shot stop on the putting surface.  Seventeen is basically a par four with a blind second shot for virtually all the women, and I suspect most of the senior men.


I got my eyes opened by C&Cs Sugarloaf Mtn. in FL, where the longest three and shortest four were about the same length.

[Ira Fishman]

Ken,


Golspie 17 is a beast (and 16 as you know is no picnic) as is Brora 18.


But the hole that I have played that best supports your thesis is Crail Balcomie 13. On our first play, the wind was pretty benign and it still was a hefty, intimidating carry. Last year, we played it into a strong wind. We were matched up with a young strong player who crushed a driver (while letting out a discus thrower yell) and it just made the front of the green. One of the great shots I have witnessed.


I doubt that anyone now would design such a hole.


Ira

[Ken Moum]

I don’t care what the par is or if they are in the pro game. I am all in favour of holes between 215ish and 270ish. It’s a a seriously under used yardage range.

Ciao

A great point.  For a short hitter like me, holes in the 320-375 range are soul crushing.  They're supposedly two-shot holes, but end up being driver, five wood, wedge. (FWIW, my average drives are about 170, and my longest fairway club sometimes gets over 150 with carry and roll)


Under 300 gives me a chance to have a "scoring shot" if I play smart. Holes like 12 at Muir of Ord or 17 at Tain, are 200-yard par threes on the card, but since they have a burn (or two) to carry, they present an interesting challenge, and can catch out players who are much, much longer than me.

[Matt Schoolfield]

As a match-play zealot, I definitely see the "but bogey is bad" mentality in American golf, and it makes me sad. The real irony is that, with course ratings and slope being all over the place here, par doesn't even really matter much in stroke play either.

#16 (229yds) & #17 (230yds) at Lincoln Park in San Francisco could go on such a list. Both play downhill, but bouncing the ball on is not easy given how soft the turf usually is.

The thing that is really frustrating about these holes isn't their challenge, it's that they have zero optionality (you're likely to end up out-of-bounds just trying to lay up on #16). They're brutally penal, yes, but may main criticism is that they simply require the player hit the exact same shot twice. I always talk about Lincoln as a bad course with some good holes, and this back-to-back par three at the end of the day is one of the main reasons why. At least #12 gives you the option to play short, left, or long depending on hole-location.

[David_Tepper]

Matt -

Yes, the problem with #16 at Lincoln is there is no real place to lay up, except for hugging the tree line on the right and hoping you don't get stuck behind one of the trees.  There is much more room to play short of the green on #17.

Ken & Ira -

Some years ago there was talk at Golspie about moving the yellow/white tee box on #17 up on the dune ridge to the left of the 16th green (where the bench is) and calling it a par-4. Nothing ever came of it.

DT

[Michael Felton]

I don’t care what the par is or if they are in the pro game. I am all in favour of holes between 215ish and 270ish. It’s a a seriously under used yardage range.

Ciao

Sunningdale Heath (formerly Sunningdale Ladies) has two holes back to back that run parallel to each other. Both holes are I think the same length (if they're not, they're very close) about 235-240 yards long. One plays down the hill and is a par 3 and the other plays up the hill and is a par 4. I found those to be quite delightful fun for that.


To the OP - there is a hole I think on Gullane No. 2 (11?) which is about 220 yards uphill with a punchbowl style green that is blind from the tee. That's a brute of a hole and fits in well with your description. I haven't played it in about 30 years, so forgive me if my memory is playing tricks on me.

[Simon Barrington]

Great subject. Which reminds me of a personal story


My first ever game on a links (having been raised on English leafy inland) was for my University (away match) at Gullane No.2.


It was blowing a gale in October, and on the 3rd I walked on to the tee and scoffed at the Tee Block.
"237 yards Par 4", I genuinely asked if this was the Ladies Tee...couldn't have been more wrong.
So a full Driver up hill into the gale, followed by a full eight iron I was still short of the putting surface...
Big lesson learned about the Scottish links game and humility...Par doesn't matter a jot...matchplay, play the opponent and get on with it


Just loved the links game even more from that moment...




EDIT: Michael this may be the hole you recall?

[Thomas Dai]

Likely drive and pitch ‘bogey-4’ holes when initially laid out and played with hickories later morphing into long par-3’s yet holes still impossible for some to reach from the tee even with modern equipment the more so as the player becomes older.
Atb

[James Reader]

The 9th and 17th on the New course at St Andrews can be added to the list. I’m sure I’ve had more 5s than 3s on the 9th; offer me a 4 and I’d take it every time!

[Simon Barrington]

"1) Four short holes, all of a different type.
One of these four should be a very short one (about 120 yards); a second should be a little longer, so as usually to make the difference between a mashie and an iron; a third should generally call for a long cleek shot, or just a little more than that; and the fourth should represent a good full drive."

We now know who to blame...James Braid "Advanced Golf" (1908) p.245

[Niall C]

I can't say for sure but I suspect that a lot of the par 3's that Ken refers to were actually laid out long ago as two shotters which in modern parlance means a par 4. The idea that they could be reached with the tee shot probably wasn't even considered. Over time the holes have more or less stayed the same but the yardages for par 3's/4's has changed. Another good example is the 4th at Moray Old.


That's one of the benefits of improvements in equipment on old courses that haven't changed much. The golf is much less standardised and therefore far more interesting.


Niall 

[Tim_Weiman]

Being a member at Golspie,  loving Brora, and having recently played Reay and Muir of Ord, I am more convinced than ever that Scots have a tolerance for impossible par threes that exceeds anything you'll see in the US. Especially among the best players.


Consider the list below, only because I played them all in 2023.


Fortrose and Rosemarkie, 9 and 18
Reay, 1
RDC, 2
Muir of Ord, 12 (and likely 13, even at 100 yards)
Anstruther, 5 and 6
Brora, 18
Tain, 17
Golspie, 17 (probably 2 as well)


When those courses were built, even the best players were hitting a wooden club to those greens, to ask that of the best players today, you'd have to, for instance, call the 10th at Riviera a par three...


I know that par is a relatively recent term and courses that were built before the Haskell ball wouldn't have used that designation.


On the other hand, I grew up in northern Minnesota playing nearly all my golf on nine-hole courses built after WWI, and every single one of them has a par three that required a driver or brassie at the time.  Same thing in SD where I lived for 23 years.


I say bring back the concept.... time for some 275- to 325-yard par threes on Tour.

Ken,


I would like to know what members at Canterbury in Cleveland, Ohio think of their 17th hole these days. A Par 3, from the back tee it plays uphill and about 240 yards. So, I can’t imagine that the typical member pars it very often.


It has been quite a while since I played it, but my recollection is that at least some of the members took pride in it and the long uphill Par 4 18th hole. If my memory serves, one member said “even Jack Nicklaus found it very hard”.

[Tom_Doak]

The "don't like to make bogey" is exactly what I'm talking about.  The Scots just don't seem to give a hoot.  It's actually refreshing. 

The Scots just do not think about "par" and "bogey" as much as Americans do.  They are usually playing a match [where par doesn't matter], but if it's a medal round, they are only thinking about 3 vs 4, not par vs bogey.


And in Stableford, the holes being discussed are not going to be listed as the 14th stroke hole "because par-3 holes are always the last stroke holes" -- they are likely to be one of the first few index holes.

[Michael Whitaker]

Some years ago there was talk at Golspie about moving the yellow/white tee box on #17 up on the dune ridge to the left of the 16th green (where the bench is) and calling it a par-4. Nothing ever came of it.

DT

David - after our last visit to Golspie our group discussed which Highland course had the best set of par three holes. Golspie won hands down. Golspie’s threes are the best set you’ll find almost anywhere. Even with all the other fantastic holes, Golspie’s threes alone are worth the visit. It’s a shame they don’t get more visitors.

[Josh Bills]

Great subject. Which reminds me of a personal story


My first ever game on a links (having been raised on English leafy parkland) was for my University (away match) at Gullane No.2.


It was blowing a gale in October, and on the 3rd I walked on to the tee and scoffed at the Tee Block.
"237 yards Par 4", I genuinely asked if this was the Ladies Tee...couldn't have been more wrong.
So a full Driver up hill into the gale, followed by a full eight iron I was still short of the putting surface...
Big lesson learned about the Scottish links game and humility...Par doesn't matter a jot...matchplay, play the opponent and get on with it


Just loved the links game even more from that moment...




EDIT: Michael this may be the hole you recall?

Here is the 3rd hole tee shot from 2016.


 


I have included the green for your benefit too, as that view once you crest the hill is pretty cool. 




I won't post the big view reveal from the green in case anyone wants to experience it themselves. 

[Michael Whitaker]

The "don't like to make bogey" is exactly what I'm talking about.  The Scots just don't seem to give a hoot.  It's actually refreshing. 

The Scots just do not think about "par" and "bogey" as much as Americans do.  They are usually playing a match [where par doesn't matter], but if it's a medal round, they are only thinking about 3 vs 4, not par vs bogey.


And in Stableford, the holes being discussed are not going to be listed as the 14th stroke hole "because par-3 holes are always the last stroke holes" -- they are likely to be one of the first few index holes.

Tom - this is oh so true… especially in Stableford games. They just focus on making points. A bogie is at least 1 point and helps the cause. The dreaded result is a “blob,” scoring zero points on a hold.


I’ve found golf in Scotland to be much more “fun” than golf back home. So many more matches… so many more Stablefords… very few medals. In the States golf tends to be more of an individual endeavor and most players are singularly focused on their score. How many times have you played with someone who has a bad start to their round, making a couple of double bogies, and angrily declared that their round was already “ruined.”


That’s another main difference in golf in Scotland… you RARELY see someone lose their temper on the course, or beat themselves up over poor play. I’ve learned a lot about self control from my mates at Gullane. 😉

[David_Tepper]

"after our last visit to Golspie our group discussed which Highland course had the best set of par three holes. Golspie won hands down."

Mike -

I did comment on the high quality of Golspie's five par-3's on the current James Braid thread.

DT

[Simon Barrington]

Here is the 3rd hole tee shot from 2016.


 


I have included the green for your benefit too, as that view once you crest the hill is pretty cool. 




I won't post the big view reveal from the green in case anyone wants to experience it themselves. 

What is that blue stuff at the top of the picture? I only recall grey squally clouds dumping rain and a Force 8 Gale!
Thanks, brings it back even more, Cheers!

[Will Lozier]

We built a hole like this at Pinehurst #10 . . . 260 yards downhill to the smallest green on the course, with trouble left and right. There's even a place to go at it from 300 yards if you want to.

Tom,


Not to hijack but just wondering if the 2nd was in anyway inspired by the 8th at St. George's Hill?


Cheers

[Ken Moum]

"1) Four short holes, all of a different type.
One of these four should be a very short one (about 120 yards); a second should be a little longer, so as usually to make the difference between a mashie and an iron; a third should generally call for a long cleek shot, or just a little more than that; and the fourth should represent a good full drive."

We now know who to blame...James Braid "Advanced Golf" (1908) p.245

That's EXACTLY the reference I hoped someone would provide in this thread.


I've been thinking about this subject for at least 30 or 40 years, from my experience in SD and MN.  Those nine holers I grew up around almost always had two holes in the 200- to 270-yard area, one a par three and one a par four.  And the threes were definitely not built as two-shot holes.


My home course in Kansas was almost certainly laid out by Donald Ross when he went west to do Broadmoor, and somewhere I have an old scorecard that lists two of the par threes at ~210 yards (uphill) and ~190.


As I said in the original post, the fact that so many Scottish courses have similar holes really struck me last summer.


Finally, although The Rockies at Anstruther was voted the hardest par three in the UK a few years ago, there's no chance it was built as a one-shot hole.

[Simon Barrington]

"1) Four short holes, all of a different type.
One of these four should be a very short one (about 120 yards); a second should be a little longer, so as usually to make the difference between a mashie and an iron; a third should generally call for a long cleek shot, or just a little more than that; and the fourth should represent a good full drive."

We now know who to blame...James Braid "Advanced Golf" (1908) p.245

That's EXACTLY the reference I hoped someone would provide in this thread.


I've been thinking about this subject for at least 30 or 40 years, from my experience in SD and MN.  Those nine holers I grew up around almost always had two holes in the 200- to 270-yard area, one a par three and one a par four.  And the threes were definitely not built as two-shot holes.


My home course in Kansas was almost certainly laid out by Donald Ross when he went west to do Broadmoor, and somewhere I have an old scorecard that lists two of the par threes at ~210 yards (uphill) and ~190.


As I said in the original post, the fact that so many Scottish courses have similar holes really struck me last summer.


Finally, although The Rockies at Anstruther was voted the hardest par three in the UK a few years ago, there's no chance it was built as a one-shot hole.

Ross and Braid have so many common theories it is beyond co-incidence...there could be many reasons, but one commonality is of course OTM
I am working on working out exactly why...but very early days...work to do...