Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Niall C on April 29, 2021, 06:53:09 PM
-
In Tom D's thread on short par 3's there were a lot of examples thrown about that certainly all that short for me. Personally 130 yards and below constitutes a short par 3 for me. What is it for you ?
Niall
-
In Tom D's thread on short par 3's there were a lot of examples thrown about that certainly all that short for me. Personally 130 yards and below constitutes a short par 3 for me. What is it for you ?
Niall
Under 150 is short
Under 130 is defined by its shortness.
-
Pitching wedge or less on a calm day at sea level.
-
About 125 or less is a short par 3 for me.
Ciao
-
I’d agree with the 125-130 length as the max length for a short par 3. Full PW or less.
-
Circa 135 yds (on level terrain).
atb
-
In Tom D's thread on short par 3's there were a lot of examples thrown about that certainly all that short for me. Personally 130 yards and below constitutes a short par 3 for me. What is it for you ?
Niall
Under 150 is short
Under 130 is defined by its shortness.
This is perfect
-
As an architect I would say under 150. As a player under 130.
I always think as a rough rule
MICRO less than 100
SHORT 101-150
MEDIUM 151-185
LONG 186-220
VERY LONG 221-250
-
Given that the average par 3 is around 150 yards I’d say a short one is under around 125 yards.
-
Interesting comments. For me what defines it is what club I use or have to use to get there. I can still just about hit an 8 iron 130 yards. If I have to hit a 7 iron then that is mid-territory.
Personally, I prefer short par 3's or long par 3's rather than mid-length ones. I always feel there is more scope to manufacture a shot on a short part 3 whereas on a mid-length hole I just tend to hit the club. On long par 3's I just love it when you're going for the green with timber in your hand.
Niall
-
Under 150.
-
As an architect I would say under 150. As a player under 130.
I always think as a rough rule
MICRO less than 100
SHORT 101-150
MEDIUM 151-185
LONG 186-220
VERY LONG 221-250
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.
Niall, I recall having a course just miss the GD best new public list. In reading the comments, it was clear that the course, which porposely had all fun, mid length par 3's that a rating criteria was length differential in par 3's. So, for a while, I designed courses which had par 3's of roughly 130, 170, 210, and 250+ figuring no one would find those the same. (Back tee yardage)
I had always been taught, both from my mentors, and the super I worked under for summers in college, that average golfers just don't care for 200+ yards on a par 3. Even with top players now hitting much further, I probably split the tees further if I want the back tees to be extremely long. Because, who I am I designing for? Raters or players?
Add in the typical back ups at par 3 holes, and a slightly easier hole (rather than slightly harder one, as per Ross) makes some sense in avoiding long waits, and shorter holes are easier. Not to mention, public players still see par 3 holes as a breather and better opportunity for par than 4's and 5's.
I have never had the gumption to do a micro par 3 on a regulation course, though. I think many golfers would find that too easy, and maybe somewhat condescending, even if the hole isn't as easy as the length would indicate.
-
Another vote for the 125 or less camp.
As much as we've seen distance gains for the best players, your average joe still gonna be hitting 7 iron from 150, certainly not a short club.
-
About 125 or less is a short par 3 for me.
Ciao
Agree.
-
Under 150 from the back tees.
-
I am surprised at all of the "125" responses, because I do not often see holes that short -- from the back tees, or even from the tees I play. I would have said anything under 150. Under 125 is "very short".
-
Jeff
I recall one time playing Craigielaw which is just over the wall from Kilspindie and is a modern Tom MacKenzie course that has 5 par 3's. The par 3's are all of varying lengths but they also have sizeable tees which meant that they can play around with the yardage for each hole. Somehow on this day the greenkeeper managed to get the tee positions, the holes positions and the wind direction perfectly aligned such that I played the same club on every par 3.
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
-
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 am surprised at all of the "125" responses, because I do not often see holes that short -- from the back tees, or even from the tees I play. I would have said anything under 150. Under 125 is "very short".
You need to get out more! ;D ;D ;D
I guess my idea of what constitutes a short par 3 is influenced by my favourite such hole anywhere - the 115 yard 15th at Cavendish
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51063978393_487a510f96_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kNmeJz)15 (https://flic.kr/p/2kNmeJz) by Duncan Cheslett (https://www.flickr.com/photos/185291780@N03/), on Flickr
I take your point about back tees though. I'm also a member at Silloth and think of the 9th as a short par 3, even though I've had to hit 4 iron in the past to get anywhere near!
Checking the yardage just now, I'm astounded to learn that there is actually a back tee at 142 yards. Even in club competitions, I've never played it from more than 130 yards. It is generally played from around 120.
https://www.sillothgolfclub.co.uk/hole_9 (https://www.sillothgolfclub.co.uk/hole_9)
-
Another vote for the 125 or less camp.
As much as we've seen distance gains for the best players, your average joe still gonna be hitting 7 iron from 150, certainly not a short club.
This is my thinking...and then there are women, kids and old folks to consider. Just because there aren't many sub 125ers doesn't mean that isn't a better distance to determine a short hole. Archies are missing a big trick in this area just as they are with 230-270ish range. Archies chase yardage to meet a predetermined goal of acceptable total length. Golf would be better off with more holes in the ranges of 90-125 and 230-275.
Ciao
-
Golf would be better off with more holes in the ranges of 90-125 and 230-275.
90-125 yds yes, would prefer 250-300 yds but 230 to 275 metres will do. :)
Not enough ultra-shorties for sure. Not just for play reasons but course footprint, pace of play etc as well.
atb
-
Short to me means Wedge or maybe 9-iron or shorter ... so 140 ish and in. Long would be long-iron (4) or higher so 210 ish or more.
-
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. For me it has to do with the club I'd be hitting in normal conditions ie. a 150 yard hole into a 4 club wind wouldn't count as a long par 3 for me in normal circumstances. If in normal conditions I'm hitting a wood or even a hybrid then that counts as a long par 3 and that can be anything from 190 yards, 185 even depending on whether it is uphill. Others will have their own views as this thread has already shown.
I think you also need to consider factors other than pure length. There tends to be a difference between a short par 4 and a long par 3 although the differences can be a grey area and also fairly academic for the likes of Rory or Dustin but we're not talking about them. However, all that said, answer the question as you please, for yourself, or for what you think the average hacker likes.
Niall
-
Personally I don't think a PW or below belongs on a Par 3.
So work that one out?!
-
Interesting how every architect on this thread has plumped for 150 and just about everyone else has plumped for 130.
Also, why are so many of you considering women and short hitters? Surely it is taken for granted that every 150 yard hole has tees that are further forward? A 150 yard hole off the Ladies Tee is quite clearly not a short par-3. More often than not, that is a 210 yard hole.
If the question is about each individual answering and their specific choice of tee, then that is a little different. But I took it as a general question about perception.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
135 for me.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
8)
less than 150 yards
-
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.
-
149 or shorter.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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 = ?
-
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.
-
Anyone that's short enough for me to birdie?!
-
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. ;-)
-
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?
-
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." :D
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Jeff
I like well designed short and very short par 3s more than long ones, but I like variety most of all. I have no issue being asked to hit driver on a par 3 as long as I can say no and opt for another shot and the archie doesn't overplay that card.
Ciao
-
More fascinating insights from Brooks K via Tom D above.
Seems like the most most 'off the top of the head' memorable par-3's are pretty short ..... 12th at ANGC, Postage Stamp at Troon, 17th at TPC, 7th at Pebble Beach, 10th at Pine Valley, 7th at Barnbougle. Maybe a shame the original wee 7th/16th at ANGC isn't still with us?
As to notable longer one's, proper longer one's, well there's the 16th at Carnoustie, the 5th at Pine Valley although even the once feared Calamity at Royal Portrush isn't long these days.
atb
-
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.
Jeff
I like well designed short and very short par 3s more than long ones, but I like variety most of all. I have no issue being asked to hit driver on a par 3 as long as I can say no and opt for another shot and the archie doesn't overplay that card.
Ciao
Sean, I agree, although it just seems to be fact that average golfers don't want to hit a driver, and of course, many cant, even with multiple tees, based on "average" but not the shortest hitters typically using that tee.
That said, one of my own personal favorite long par 3 designs is at the Quarry at Giant's Ridge - at 261 yards, downhill from the tee, open front green, and tiny, originally shaped with a flat front, a la the liberty bell shape. It was fun blasting a driver from that back tee. At least when I could reach it. Now, I typically come up 20 yards short, LOL. So, part of my philosophy is thinking about seniors, etc. (of course, their tee on the hole is 180, or about a full driver.
What is memorable about the short par 3 holes you mentioned is the do or die effects. IMHO.
Thomas Dai,
The long par 3 holes you mention, 16th at Carnoustie, the 5th at Pine Valley strike me as almost unplayable by someone of my skill level. I didn't enjoy playing them, so if enjoyment is the prime design criteria (and for most courses, shouldn't it be?) I wouldn't include versions of those holes, esp. PV 5. At least in my Quarry example, the fw in front of the green is even wider than the green itself, so coming up short is no penalty, as I think it should be.
But, if asked to design a tournament course, sure why not. Except, Keopka wouldn't approve, LOL>