Are par threes any different to fours and fives?

[Scott Warren]

The question is often asked: what makes a great par three?

In response to such a question (and rather than hijack Jason Thurman's thread I wanted to keep this separate), I ask this - why are the qualities that make a par three good, bad or indifferent any different to those which make or break a two-shot or three-shot hole?

Given that every hole begins between a set of tee markers and ends at the bottom of the cup, all I see in between is a series of decisions where a golfer looks to place their ball with consideration to the risk of the hazards and the reward of an easier subsequent shot.

And obviously, that will often mean aiming away from the direct line between the teeing ground and the hole.

In my opinion, a hole that allows you to hit your tee shot onto the green doesn't differ in the above respects from one that requires a second or third shot to reach the putting surface.

A good par three will do the same thing as a good four or five: challenge you to embrace challenge to earn an easier next shot, while offering an easier alternative that means challenge is delayed, not avoided.

Why does it matter that taking the easy way out on a par three means a lengthy putt or maybe a chip from beside the green, while doing the same on a longer hole might mean an iron shot over a bunker? In both instances, a golfer who embraces the challenge and executes well is rewarded with an easier second shot than a safety-first or poorly-executing opponent.

Am I wrong? If you think so, what intrinsic difference separates par threes from fours and fives in this regard?

And if you disagree with my premise, do you view driveable par fours as sitting in the same camp as par threes? With the fours and fives? Or perhaps in another camp all on their own?

[Sean_A]

Scott

I am not sure of what you are asking.  For one thing, a par 3 is a set piece.  The archie completely controls the shot.  This never happens on any other type of hole.  This is just my personal opinion, but I think there should be more of an onus on the archie to create something

1. beautiful

2. which breaks the mould compared to the 4s and 5s - for instance we get the 3s at TOC which are aerial in their intent, the remainder of the course is not of this ilk

3. exciting; I don't think there can be any excuse for an archie to build a hum drum par 3

Ciao 

[Scott Warren]

Sean:

The archie completely controls the shot.

Why? can you elucidate?

How does the architect control the shot on the tee of a par three or driveable four any more than on a hole where the green cannot be reached from the tee?

[David_Elvins]

Scott,

I think the major difference between par 3s and par 4/5s is the land they use.  Obviously this is not true in every case, but in a lot of cases they involve shots that are almost impossible to replicate on a par 4 or par 5 hole.  Basically par 3s use more extreme land
- because it cannot be used well for par 4s,
- the fact that bad players score better on shorter holes than longer holes means that it is more palatable for shorter holes to contain extreme harzards and features.

This leads to different expecations about what a par 3 should offer. 
- more downhill shots
- more shots across valleys
- more aerial approaches
- more difficult hazards  around the green. 

That would be my take. 

[Scott Warren]

David,

An interesting take, as always.

Am I right to take away from that post that you'd appraise a par three differently not in any strategic way, but simply in terms of what it accomplishes in land use / routing?

[Sean_A]

Sean:

The archie completely controls the shot.

Why? can you elucidate?

How does the architect control the shot on the tee of a par three or driveable four any more than on a hole where the green cannot be reached from the tee?

Scott

Presuming the player intends to play for the green, the archie selects all the details of the shot faced.  On a 4 or a 5 the player could be approaching from god knows where.  The archie has far less control once the hole is intended to be more than one shot to reach the green.  In this way, I am not terribly keen on long par 3s because some people cannot reach them and the value of the set piece is lost.  

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Sean,

The architect similarly selects the set-up on the tee of any hole, and just as with a par four or five, there's no governing the outcome of a tee shot at a par three - the location of the second shot is just as random.

Why does the green being in range have any impact on that?

A second shot from on or next to the green is still a second shot.

[Matthew Mollica]

Scott,

I think the major difference between par 3s and par 4/5s is the land they use.  Obviously this is not true in every case, but in a lot of cases they involve shots that are almost impossible to replicate on a par 4 or par 5 hole.  Basically par 3s use more extreme land
- because it cannot be used well for par 4s,
- the fact that bad players score better on shorter holes than longer holes means that it is more palatable for shorter holes to contain extreme harzards and features.

Most of that seems like a bit of an odd generalisation Dave. I can think of many par excellent 3s where the land is anything but extreme. None of the land on any of the par 3s at RM or KH is extreme IMO, and the gradients of those parcels are all matched or exceeded by par 4 and 5 holes elsewhere on the properties.

MM

[Sean Walsh]

Matthew,

The gradient of 15th exceeded elsewhere?  I think on KH that somewhat fits some of David's theory. 

[Matthew Mollica]

I think it is on the very next hole Sean.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

The architect similarly selects the set-up on the tee of any hole, and just as with a par four or five, there's no governing the outcome of a tee shot at a par three - the location of the second shot is just as random.

Why does the green being in range have any impact on that?

A second shot from on or next to the green is still a second shot.

But what the archie sets up on 4 or 5 is often not how the hole is played.  Guys come in from all sorts of directions that an archie can't fairly be held to account for.  With a par 3, nearly everyone gets a crack at the green from a set place.  This situation just doesn't exist on the other holes.  I can understand if you don't think that it makes 3s any different from 4s or 5s in terms of two shots or three shiots being strung together, but I do.  I see these 3s as an opportunity to do what I mentioned earlier.  Using 17 at Sawgrass as an example; I think the short 3 over a pond works better than on 4s or 5s because there is no worry of gaining position or length being an issue.  Its just a matter of executing one shot - which most who play golf can do.  A severe hazard is introduced, but in a way which is about as equal as it can be.  Now, its another matter if one likes the concept or not, but that isn't the point.

There are some courses which break this mould, off-hand, I think The Cashen could be one example.  Even on a spectacular site with many exciting shots, many don't think much of the course.  I suspect part of that lack of love is because the designer "broke the rules" in not accommodating (well the wind for one thing!) the golfer in the expected ways.  Meaning, there are a lot of shots that many would consider best placed for short holes.  In one way, the course can be considered the ultimate target course, a bunch of par 3 shots strung together.   

Ciao

[Mark_F]

Am I wrong? If you think so, what intrinsic difference separates par threes from fours and fives in this regard?

Two and three shot holes have a much wider variety of strategies than par threes.

They also have more tricks in the bag, such as features that hinder depth perception, that par threes generally don't have.  Par threes generally have everything out in front of you.

[Tom_Doak]

I agree with Sean, that when designing a par-3 hole, you are relieved of having to think about the player who might have to hit a 4-wood approach shot off a weak drive.  So, the defenses around the green are generally tighter.

I'm still not sure what makes a great par-3.  For me, it's strategy ... there are so few par-3 holes like the Eden, where there are really different ways to approach the hole and a lot of people will aim away from the flag.  For most people, though, when you ask them to name the greatest par-3's they seem to name holes that are surrounded by trouble and have little strategy to them.  For the majority, I think it's all about the setting and the composition of the picture presented from the tee.

[Scott Warren]

Sean, Tom, Mark:

Longer holes certainly have more scope for strategy to differ from man to man and play to play, but it seems none of you disagrees that the nature of the strategic challenge is the same - only that the scope is less on a par three (and on that point I agree with you).

[Neil White]

To a certain extent I imagine that par 3's have a greater psychological impact on the golfer than a par 4 or 5.

As Sean alluded to in his reply the architect can dictate where the golfer hits from.  Nothing puts more emphasis on a golfers state of mind than a reachable par 3 which s/he would expect to hit 9 times out of 10.

Regardless of location, design or strategy the fact that you stand there, say 150 or so yards from the green knowing that all is required is a solidly hit 7 iron from a level lie / tee'd up ball puts more pressure on a golfer than a similar shot from off the fairway on a par 4 or 5.

It is the expectation of the golfer that makes the par 3 different to a a.n.other par hole.

This doesn't answer what makes a great par 3 but I would vouch that the winner is one that unwittingly messes with your head first and then potentially your scorecard.

Neil.

[Peter Pallotta]

Scott - to look at your question from another perspective: I'm not a very good golfer, but like all not very good golfers I have my moments. I've found over the years that, in match play with friends (all of whom are better than me), I consistently have those moments and make the greatest contributions to my side on the Par 3s. Maybe it's the simplicity of the demand/choice (which allows me to concentrate better/more easily), maybe it's because I usually have a user-friendly 6-8 iron in my hand -- but I think it's mostly because the difference in skill levels between me and those better golfers is lessened when all we have to do is hit a single full shot; in other words, the odds are much better for me matching/equalling my opponents on one shot than for matching them on two or three. I find it rare for a Par 3 (at least on the courses I play) to be among the top ten hardest holes (i.e. handicap wise) -- and I think from an architectural perspective this reflects a basic/common choice that architects make (consciously or not) to give a golfer like me those better odds, i.e. to reward the lesser golfer with a chance to win the hole if he can, on one shot at least, bring his best to the table. In short, I find that architects tend to make Par 3s easier golf holes -- or at least, don't tend to compensate for the fact that the slope ratings for Par 3s are (for the reasons I give above) inherently lower than for Par 4s and 5s. The average golfer in me is happy about this; the architecture geek wonders if oportunities (and opportunities for greatness) are not being missed.

Peter

[Scott Warren]

These responses are illuminating - not one that contends that in the nature of the strategic challenge is different on a par three hole - only, naturally, that the scope for that to vary is less than on a longer hole. I wasn't expecting that.

So does it come down to the expectation of execution? That with the ball teed up, hitting from a familiar position, the golfer marks himself harder and thinks more of his abilities than when hitting the same shot on a four or a five from a "random" position.

The problem with classification by par is that the 5th and 6th at West Sussex, for example (15th and 16th at Cypress Point might be a similar example that is more widely known), are both "par threes", but the degree of strategic planning required differs greatly.

Peter, you're definitely right about the attraction to lesser players of par threes. When my home course was in redevelopment we went from three par fives and four par threes out of 18 holes to no par fives and five par threes out of 15 holes. The lesser players were elated, the better players were shattered.

[Wade Whitehead]

They are different.  You only have to hit one good shot to make a birdie.

WW

[Garland Bayley]

They are different. A par 3 will generally give you a chance for a par with a reasonable approach shot. Par 4 holes can put you completely out of it so that on your approach shot par is nearly impossible without the improbably hole out.

[Peter Pallotta]

Scott - I'd meant to suggest in my post that the strategic challenges of par 3s are limited (your examples seem among the exceptions) because architects are aware of the advantages that low-slope Par 3s afford the lesser player and have come to accept that (consciously nor not) as normative, and tend to design/build accordingly. It is no accident that the 6th and the 16th you mentioned were design in the late 20s and early 30s, before that norm was established.   

Peter

[Mark Pearce]

Scott,

I think you are really stretching an already tenuous argument here.  On the tee of most par 4s (and 5s) the player has to consider where he wants his tee shot to end, to set up his approach.  On good holes that gives a choice of distance and direction, in the knowledge that the shot to be executed is intended to give the player the best option  for a full second shot.

On most par 3s, distance off the tee is, to a much greater extent, dictated.  The player may not choose the distance to the hole but, if he doesn't it will be because there is a place on (or, just possibly around) the green which is a far easier or safer target and gives a good chance of par or birdie.  The player is not setting up another full shot and the considerations are completely different.

If you reduce strategy to simply trying on each shot to providing a preferable next shot then of course there's no difference, that's what you are trying to do on every single shot in a round.

[Scott Warren]

Mark,

On the tee of most par 4s (and 5s) the player has to consider where he wants his tee shot to end, to set up his approach.  On good holes that gives a choice of distance and direction, in the knowledge that the shot to be executed is intended to give the player the best option  for a full second shot.

Perhaps I'm just wired differently, but I see this situation taking place on a par three as well.

You walk on the tee and have to, with consideration to your own ability/form, work out the best place you can reliably (taking into account a relative approach to risk and reward) hit the ball to simplify the second shot.

Just as it is preferable to have an iron shot to a pin you can easily approach from a good angle over one that must carry a bunker, it may be preferable to have an uphill chip from short grass over a bunker shot or even a putt of a similar length that has to travel down a swale.

The decisions may not be as great in magnitude on a par three, but every golfer is still making the same decisions on a short hole as on a long hole.

I don't think you can say as a blanket statement that placing your ball off the tee on a longer hole is more or less important than placing your ball on a shot into the green. It depends on the hole and the golfer.

It's true that distance off the tee on a par three is a more focused issue than off the tee on a longer hole, but with smaller tolerances between good and bad in a lot of cases, I can't say I agree that it's less important.

On the 3rd hole at Sandwich, staying below the hole is one of the most important things you can do on the whole course. On the 7th at Barnbougle Dunes, you're often choosing the best miss on a 100-yard hole. Missing left there is one of the cardinal sins in golf - far greater than being on the wrong side of a fairway elsewhere on the course.

Re: this comment of yours:

The player may not choose the distance to the hole but, if he doesn't it will be because there is a place on (or, just possibly around) the green which is a far easier or safer target and gives a good chance of par or birdie.  The player is not setting up another full shot and the considerations are completely different.

Why are the considerations completely different? Isn't the common thread a desire to place the ball in as ideal a position for the subsequent shot as your ability will allow?

[Sean_A]

Sean, Tom, Mark:

Longer holes certainly have more scope for strategy to differ from man to man and play to play, but it seems none of you disagrees that the nature of the strategic challenge is the same - only that the scope is less on a par three (and on that point I agree with you).

Scott

You are losing me in esoteric dialogue.  I am a nuts and bolts kinda guy when it comes to golf.  If you don't think there is a fundamental difference between holes which require thought and execution to gain the proper approach compared to a hole where this is dictated and provided, then I guess we shall agree to disagree.  

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

What's esoteric about my argument? The decisions made on a par three are the same as those made on a longer hole.

Deciding where in the vicinity of the green you're best to place your ball on a par three with respect to the wind, pin position, your own play is not different to the same process on a longer hole. Obviously you tend to make the decisions more times on a longer hole, but you're working through the same processes.

Here's where we disagree:

If you don't think there is a fundamental difference between holes which require thought and execution to gain the proper approach compared to a hole where this is dictated and provided, then I guess we shall agree to disagree.

The tee shot on a par three may present less range in decision-making than a longer hole, but the importance of making the right call is not less.

We're taking shades of grey, not black and white - different varieties of apple, not apples and oranges.