Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ed Oden on June 12, 2008, 01:18:25 PM
-
Richard Farnworth Goodale's thread asking posters to list the best 18 holes of par 3s, 4s and 5s they have played, each matching their actual hole number, got me thinking about par 3 opening holes. I could recall only one course that I have ever played where the opener was a par 3. Is there some architectural/other reason why this is so rare? Wouldn't a par 3 opener benefit pace of play by taking one potential slowdown spot out of the interior of the course and putting it in a more controlled environment where separation of tee times would reduce the likelihood of gridlock? Wouldn't a par 3 generally allow for the warmup/easy start some advocate? I suspect I am missing some obvious flaw that makes par 3 openers a bad idea. My apologies if this has been addressed previously. I searched and found a few threads discussing specific par 3 openers but not as a broader concept.
-
Pacific Grove opens 3-3. I think that's the only par-3 opener I've come across.
My new home has a 297-yd par 4 opener. Since many players go for it, we basically treat it like a par 3 and let the green clear before a subsequent group tees off. This produces a pretty nice distance between groups.
I think it's fine for a pace of play idea. But I'd prefer not to open on a par-3 solely because it's nice to be able to recover from a bad first tee shot. That's not really possible on a par 3.
Especially at public courses where many guys get out of their car & go to the tee. Starting with a par 5 is a good idea to get them going and not make a first shot blunder to costly.
-
Richard Farnworth Goodale's thread asking posters to list the best 18 holes of par 3s, 4s and 5s they have played, each matching their actual hole number, got me thinking about par 3 opening holes. I could recall only one course that I have ever played where the opener was a par 3. Is there some architectural/other reason why this is so rare? Wouldn't a par 3 opener benefit pace of play by taking one potential slowdown spot out of the interior of the course and putting it in a more controlled environment where separation of tee times would reduce the likelihood of gridlock? Wouldn't a par 3 generally allow for the warmup/easy start some advocate? I suspect I am missing some obvious flaw that makes par 3 openers a bad idea. My apologies if this has been addressed previously. I searched and found a few threads discussing specific par 3 openers but not as a broader concept.
Ed- As a straight question good or bad, its bad. Its more bad than good because it takes quite a long time to complete the play of a par 3 hole relative to the time it takes to be out of range on long hole, probably 11 minutes v 8 minutes, commercially that racks up plenty of lost dollars. On the flipside it means a more spacious course if $$$$ are not so important. I am currently on my 12th course (The Stranahan) and its the first time I've gone with a par 3 starter, its tiny at 110 yards (hopefully 10 minutes to play) but in all honesty I had no choice as the course is on just 70 acres and I needed to use pretty much everything. I guess a 230 yarder to start with could be worse or one where many will miss the green but i suspect many architects would 'break the rule' if the land really suited.
-
Despite never having seen a course that opens with a 3 par, I'm all in favor for the same reason Adrian is opposed.
There's nothing that makes me crazier than playing a course where the tee times are jammed together in 7- or 8-minute intervals, only to arrive at the first par three to find three groups on the hole.
I play a couple of places where the second hole backs up like that, and the players never regain their pace after waiting 20 minutes on the tee.
Too many operators think that $$$ are produced by how many you send off #1, but if it takes 5.5 hours to play as a consequence, no one will take a tee time after 10 a.m.
Ken
-
Boat of Garten opens with a par 3, and it's the most indifferent hole on a course otherwise peppered with some wonderful stuff.
I can actually see the pace of play argument in starting w/ a par 3. I've been to too many courses where a par 3, particularly a long or tough one, somewhere among the second, third or fourth hole played slows up play. But then again, slow play is usually (although not always) the responsibility of players.
-
The Berkshire Blue starts with a 210 yard hole which is virtually all carry (though there's a bale out fairway to the left). Miss short or right and you're searching for your ball. I've never found it to be a problem and it does make for a nicely spaced course.
-
Royal Lytham starts out with a par three. Lanny Wadkins loved the hole. he aced it in the final round of the 1998 Open Championship.
Bob
-
But then again, slow play is usually (although not always) the responsibility of players.
While that may be true, certain kinds of layouts, combined with wrongheaded course managers can make it impossible to avoid long waits at some tees.
IMHO, having to wait to hit a tee shot is even more aggravating than slow play without the long waits.
There's a nice public course in Sioux Falls, SD on which both 2 and 11 are par threes. On #2, especially, it's almost inevitable that you'll sit and wait to hit.
The last time I played it, when we arrived at the tee, a group was just teeing off on #3, and the group ahead of us had just arrived on the tee. So we thought we were good to go, it turned out that there was third group wandering around below the tee looking for their tee shots We were the third group on that 160-yard hole!
About 20 minutes later we finally teed off.
Aaack!
Ken
-
Ken:
Agreed; slow play I've found is more often than not because of back-ups on tees -- sometimes related to design, routing and difficulty -- although sometimes not.
I've written several times about Wisconsin's semi-acclaimed University Ridge here in the Madison area, which I disdain partly because the opening nine plays so slowly. A combination of a silly risk/reward par 5 2nd hole, and very difficult par 3 3rd hole, invariably lead to frequent back-ups on the course.
-
Ed:
I would tend to think that most good par 3s demand an exacting shot. Isn't that the opposite of what I need to start a round. I need a hole where a dead shank can still let me keep up the illusion that I might have a decent round ;). Seriously, I would tend to think that a forgiving par 4 or 5 would make for a better more enjoyable round. I often find that my good rounds start reasonably well and my bad ones usually with poor scores. I have always felt that par 3s were more likely bogies for me and who wants to start out with a bogie. Just my uneducated opinion.
Bart
-
Despite never having seen a course that opens with a 3 par, I'm all in favor for the same reason Adrian is opposed.
There's nothing that makes me crazier than playing a course where the tee times are jammed together in 7- or 8-minute intervals, only to arrive at the first par three to find three groups on the hole.
I play a couple of places where the second hole backs up like that, and the players never regain their pace after waiting 20 minutes on the tee.
Too many operators think that $$$ are produced by how many you send off #1, but if it takes 5.5 hours to play as a consequence, no one will take a tee time after 10 a.m.
Ken
Ken- Consider this "No one goes there anymore- it's too busy"
-
i can remember playing 2 off the top of my head -
walton heath old - only hole on the clubhouse side of the road - seemed quirky at the time but a there are worse opening shots than 235 yds staright away to open a round. can't posibly hold up pace of play
did not mind the opener at pacific grove either
-
From a pace, scientific point of view, a par-3 opener is the absolute best as it meters the course and only allows the volume -vs- time that can be accommodated. The alternative is for a course to be loaded "artificially heavy" and then to have the back-up occur where ? ? ? ? at the par-3!
So, a par-3 opener regulates the pace at which a course will be able to handle play.
As far as perception and "feel", I fear it is not a like-able situation.
-
I recently started a shotgun competition on a 230 yard par three. I liked it as an opener because I thought it was unlikely I would hit the green even in the middle of the round. With that attitude, I relexed, hit a decent tee shot just off the wide side of the green and chipped to tap in range. I felt like I stole one to start the day.
-
From a pace, scientific point of view, a par-3 opener is the absolute best as it meters the course and only allows the volume -vs- time that can be accommodated.
Forrest --
From a pace point of view, what's the ideal 2nd hole after a par-3 opener? A three-shot par-5?
-------------------
I have played just two par-3 openers, and thought they were just fine ways to get under way.
I like Jason's take on it. If he's talking about the hole I think he's talking about (No. 11 at his home course), I think that would make just a fine opening hole at any course.
-----------------------
This is going to sound stupid, but I don't think it is:
Every par-3 course I've ever played has opened with a par-3. And that fact has never bothered anyone.
It's all about expectations, isn't it?
-
West Winds follows that formula. Each nine opens with a par 3 followed by a par 5. There's usually never a pace problem, but, as considerations go for making great golf, it should not be too high on the list.
My reason; Par 3's require some lead time to get a feel for one's round and swing. The range argument not withstanding, it just doesn't FEEL right.
-
Despite never having seen a course that opens with a 3 par, I'm all in favor for the same reason Adrian is opposed.
There's nothing that makes me crazier than playing a course where the tee times are jammed together in 7- or 8-minute intervals, only to arrive at the first par three to find three groups on the hole.
I play a couple of places where the second hole backs up like that, and the players never regain their pace after waiting 20 minutes on the tee.
Too many operators think that $$$ are produced by how many you send off #1, but if it takes 5.5 hours to play as a consequence, no one will take a tee time after 10 a.m.
Ken
Ken- Consider this "No one goes there anymore- it's too busy"
That would have been Yogi Berra, not me.....
The course here that I am most familiar with has an empty tee for several hours almost every Sat and Sun. No on wants to play after about 9 a.m.
He manager thinks he's maximizing income by cramming the course full for about three hours in the morning, but Bill Yates' work seems to indicate that he'd make more by giving up a few tee times each hour in the early morning, and getting them back later in the morning.
Of course, I could be wrong.
K
-
Dan — That is getting beyond my expertise. I am savvy enough to understand some of what I overhear. I suppose there s an "ideal" second, etc. But, there are so many variables — including, I will add, the nature of the par-3 at the opener.
When Bill Yates (pace of play guru) discusses pace, he often uses the analogy of the laundry sink with a small drain. You can open the faucets wide open — but you will only fill the sink artificially until a point at which the small drain cannot keep up. You have to turn the faucets down...to let the drain equalize the water.
When a course artificially loads a course by packing players in rapid succession, it has the same effect. At some point there can only be a particular pace — and that is the par-3, typically the first in the routing — the drain.
See, just enough to be dangerous.
-
Isn't safe to say this is strictly an American design issue? If that is true what does it matter how far open the faucet Is?
-
Walton Heath (old) starts with a par 3.
It's a great course, but I'm no fan of par 3 openers. In addition to the pace of play issue, it can be a fairly exacting shot right out of the gate.
-
'm no fan of par 3 openers. In addition to the pace of play issue, it can be a fairly exacting shot right out of the gate.
Dan --
1. What's the pace-of-play issue? I don't see one. The testimony we're getting here is that a par-3 opener eliminates one pace-of-play issue later in the course.
2. *ANY* type of hole "can be" an exacting shot right out of the gate. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that TPC 17 would be a good first hole. But I don't see any reason to dislike a par-3 opener where mis-hits aren't disastrous.
Dan
-
There is a theory that, at St. Andrews, the first two holes of the Old Course were combined to eliminate pace problems. So, for pace being an American issue — perhaps, but it likely has not always been reserved for the U.S.
-
When I started this thread I figured it would take no time for someone to raise an obvious flaw I was overlooking that makes Par 3 openers bad in concept. But the worst thing posted so far is that there are some who don't like the notion of starting their round with an exacting iron shot. I suspect there are just as many people out there that fear the initial driver of the day. That seems to be a question of personal preference to me. Regardless, if there is in fact nothing fundamentally wrong with starting off on a par 3 and if doing so might actually improve pace of play, then I'm surprised it doesn't occur more often. I'm guessing that far less than 1% of all courses have this design.
-
Dan K -- It generally takes longer for people to clear a green than a fairway, but of course you're right about the eventual pace of play eventually evening out. "First tee" time, much like "treadmill" times just seems longer.
Regarding exacting shot, from my experience and on most holes, I can hit or be near a fairway and still have a decent shot at being on in regulation on a par 4 or 5. You miss the green on your tee shot on a par 3 and you just won't be on in regulation.
-
The club I am considering joining has a par 3 at the SECOND hole and I have been thinking lately that this is somewhat unusual, though not as unusual as a par 3 opener. The more I thought about it, it doesn't matter to me and I was able to think of a couple of notable courses with par 3 seconds (Bandon Dunes and Bandon Trails) but I think it is far more common to not have a par 3 until the third hole or often later in the round.
Is this simply tradition or is there some untold agreement among architects that players want a couple of longer holes to start with to get warmed up (mentally and physically) before more taxing par 3s? I don't know for amateurs, but regularly on pro telecasts they talk about par 3s playing more difficult to par than 4s and 5s.
-
Adrian,
I need to directly address your post. Your beliefs are held by many people and I want to ask you to entertain a new position on the subject.
First, when applying Pace Rating formula to your proposed 110 yard first hole, it will take the average foursome around 7 minutes to play the hole (from first ball in the air to flag-in). This will most likely overcrowd the course and cause backups on the following holes. Better would be to start with a hole of approximately 180 yards which will take approximately 9 minutes to play, thus better separating the groups from the start.
Also, your comment regarding the need to have 8 minute intervals or smaller in order to make money, only works on paper. In reality, today courses with 8 minute intervals or less tend to backup on the first tee. That is why so very many courses have their starting times fall behind schedule after the first hour of play while round times grow longer as the day wears on. What you end up with is a playing product of inconsistent quality, a reputation for "slow play" and lost revenue.
Ken,
You are absolutely correct! The best approach to managing play is counter-intuitive; on this subject stick with your guns.
Jason,
Regarding Pacific Grove, the first hole, a par 3 is approximately 140 yards and takes less than 8 minutes to play. The second hole, also a par 3, is approximately 200 yards and plays in approximately 9 minutes, that is why there is always a backup on the second tee. If the holes were reversed, play would not back up on #2. This is an example of the point I was making to Adrian above.
-
I am glad Bill chimed in. As you can see, he clearly knows his stuff.
On the matter of what architects find "acceptable" — for whatever reason, I have always enjoyed courses that reserve the par-3 for number 4 or later. The reason for this is that I truly enjoy par-3s more than most other holes, and I am inclined to be better prepared for the par-3 after a few holes to warm up. I think golfers, overall, also like par-3s best. The reason is that this is the only type of hole where we have the chance, realistically, to make a "1" during the round. Also, it is the only approach to a green where the golfer must begin from a set location — not one devised by his/her round, but set in stone by the golf architect, the superintendent and the order of rules.
My ideal opening hole is a relatively open design with all hazards in clear view. I also like a beacon, or aiming device, such as a lone bunker or landmark. At the green I prefer a wider green than usual, and nothing too out of the ordinary. I do not mind a dog-leg. In fact, a bending hole can be nice because it has a sense of leaving and getting out of visual range from the clubhouse.
I also think golfers, in general, enjoy the good par-5. So, when possible, I try and hold off for a few holes before unleashing the first par-5.
-
The club I am considering joining has a par 3 at the SECOND hole and I have been thinking lately that this is somewhat unusual, though not as unusual as a par 3 opener. The more I thought about it, it doesn't matter to me
From sad experience, I can tell you that if the course is busy at all, it better have tee time intervals of 10 minutes or there will be a backup at the 2nd tee.
Most private clubs have 10 minute intervals, if they have tee times, so it shouldn't be a problem.
Ken
-
Ken,
I am curious how you would know that without an in-depth pace rating analysis?