'Greatness' of WF's par 3's

[Matt_Cohn]

I guess I don't understand. Clearly the par 3's are not bad, and they're actually quite good. But why are they great? I'm not bashing them, I'm just trying to understand. I feel like I'm missing the boat here.

#3: 215/245, straight ahead to a green with bunkers left and right and a green sloping back to front. Hard? Wonderful test of golf? Yes. Why is it great? Isn't this the kind of hole that people on this website often lament?

#7: 150, green surrounded by bunkers. They're very deep. What else makes this hole great?

#10: Again, 190 to a green with bunkers on both sides and a lot of slope in the green. Why is this one of the great par 3's of the world?

#13: 200 to a green sloping back to front with bunkers on both sides.

I don't understand what is so unique, special, inspired, or brilliant about these holes. They're great tests, and they're all strong, fair, unforgiving holes.

However, if you take away the greens, they each look like 100 other holes. I realize the greens are a huge part of what makes WF what it is. (All similar from foot to head....) But to look at, for example, hole #3 and say that it's particularly great because...the green slopes a lot back to front? And that makes it better than a hundred other long-iron par 3's with bunkers left and right?

Someone explain please!

[Tom Huckaby]

I am not the right person to answer this.  I've played there but once.  Several others are way way way more familiar with the course than I am.

Nevertheless, I do see greatness in those golf holes, or at least three out of the four.  Of course this is gonna turn on how one defines "great."  I shall explain.

#3 - it really is one hell of a great golf hole and it goes far beyond what you say.  The green isn't a simple back to front slope, but rather has shoulders off the bunkers and other more subtle breaks, making it just a monster to putt.  Also miss it and any chip/pitch is going to be very, very tough.  Playing as long as it does, it just falls into such a brutally tough category that I believe that, combined with the history there (Casper laying up, etc.) is enough to connote greatness.  

#7 - what you're missing is that the green is very raised - it's a strange shot in a course otherwised filled with greens more flat to the land.  It's also a rare short approach shot on that course, and you expect it to be easy... but then you are zinged.  Perhaps tough to call it "great" in the world-class context, but nevertheless it is a fun, tricky, surprisingly tough golf hole.  I like it a lot.

#10 - enough has been written on this, not much for me to add.  I have posted here ad nauseam that I don't see the world-class greatness - I was underwhelmed playing it and I do think 3 is a better golf hole - but even I admit the green is freakin' brilliant.  Others can add more, hopefully.

#13 - I didn't see much greatness there either.

So 3 out of 4 are very, very good golf holes.  If one wants to say each is world-class great, the argument is easy against that, I think.  But 3 and 10 each come very very close, if not actually meet the standard.  Then you think of them as a group, and well... the list of courses with par threes as a group better than WF-W would be short indeed.

TH

[Jon Wiggett]

Matt,

if you take away the greens on par 3's you end up with a teeing area with no target which seems a basic description of a driving range. Mmmmm, maybe its the greens that makes them great holes!!!

[mark chalfant]

Challenging ,but other than #10, not great.

The  sets at  Newport ,Myopia Prairie Dunes,  and Franklin Hills, exude greatness due to thier varied topgraphy and charm

Ironically WFE #6,13, abd 17 are some of the best  on the whole property..... WFE par 3s are outstanding

[Matt_Cohn]

Bill - Come on. You gotta give me more credit than that. I hope you were making a joke.

Jon - What you wrote seems like the consensus answer - the greens are, in fact, what make the holes great. Since I've never been there, and it's hard to see the contours on TV, it's been hard for me to "get it".

I'd love to hear an explanation of what Tillinghast did on #3 and #10 greens in particular that puts those holes on a different level of greatness than others around the world that look quite similar from helicopter flyovers.

[ed_getka]

Matt,
   You have played at Prairie Dunes right? What makes #2 a great par 3? I would say given three uphill shots out of 4 to greens benched into a dune ridge shows a lack of variety at PD but each par 3 is challenging in its own right. #10 is a bit of a different setting, but is a challenging tee shot, with probably the least interesting green of the set. Tell me what you think about the par 3's at PD and perhaps I can help you understand the par 3's at WFW. However, in my walkthrough of the back nine last fall #10 was the one that jumped out at me as truly inspired. Think of #6 green PD-type inspired.

[Jon Wiggett]

Matt,

sometimes the answer to the question is so obvious that it is over looked. Yes, it would be interresting to to know what Tillinghast had in mind when he designed the holes. It is always interresing to find out how a GA thinks.

I hope you will have the opportunity to see the holes for yourself so as you can draw your own conclusions about them. Don't forget just because others believe a hole to be great doesn't mean you have to. Sometimes its more fun to go against the flow.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
As Tom Huckaby has indicated, it's really all about the green contours and  how they present themselves at attacking them from the tee. And one can't forget of course, the bunkers which sort of pinch the entry and leave no room for error.  You could play long, but Tillie wisely gets you there too, because if you are long, then you have these built up from the back drop offs, which he ingeniously shaped into the somewhat leel entrances.

Trying to describe it better, and Coore & Crenshaw build many of their green complexes in the same way--I compare it to like being backstage in an old theater where you see all of the essential stuff that goes into making the audience see the set. Behind that set is a quanity of ropes and stancions that support these massive sets.

With Tillie, imagine that being done all on the ground with shaping of the earth. It's sort of raw to see the back of a Tillie green complex, but it allows you to see how he masterfully created these maginificent contours of the green complexes themselves. The back of the green supports much of the flow and direction and how the green itself provides the strategy from the tee on each and every hole at Winged Foot.

I feel the par 3's really do benefit from all of it.

I hope that make sense.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I believe the simple answer is the green complexes.  If you execute the shot as required then perhaps they are like any other par 3's.  The brilliant features, however, apply to how different less then excellent tee shots are penalized. Certain pin locations will absolutely reject misses in the incorrect places and "safe plays" away from pins frequently result in what one member likes to demonstrate to his guests as "challenge putts" that are VERY difficult. Once you come to realize the precise play required at each hole it makes the resulting shot that much more difficult.

The greatness of WF's par 3's come without tricks, hazards or obvious treachery hence the questions about what makes them so good.

All that said, I too prefer #6, 13 and 17 on WF East for their variety and more unique properties.  #13 and 17 are particularly evil

[ed_getka]

I believe the simple answer is the green complexes.  If you execute the shot as required then perhaps they are like any other par 3's.  The brilliant features, however, apply to how different less then excellent tee shots are penalized. Certain pin locations will absolutely reject misses in the incorrect places and "safe plays" away from pins frequently result in what one member likes to demonstrate to his guests as "challenge putts" that are VERY difficult. Once you come to realize the precise play required at each hole it makes the resulting shot that much more difficult.

Geoffrey nailed it on the head. Most great holes, or at least great greens which IS the hole in the case of par 3's, have what Dr. Childs points out in his last sentence.

[Pete Stankevich]

I was at the Open today and hadn't played there since 1989.
I had forgotten how small each green appears from the tee, even though the square footage of each probably wouldn't bear that out.  The bunkering, the green contours, the surrounds, all contribute to that appearance or impression and make for some really good par 3's.  More intimidating than they should be, even with their lack of variety.

[Jeff_Lewis]

We were struck by how much of Winged Foot's overall distinctiveness doesn't come across on TV. I brought some people to walk around, just so they could see the green complexes and have a full appreciation for what the pros are up against when they watched later in the week on TV. We were also remarking to one another what an incredible group of par 3s these are. The yardages vary. The complexes are amazing, and make sense for the yardages. As good a set of parkland par 3s as one will find.