Can A Course Be No Better Than It's Par 3s?

[Sean_A]

I think I read a Tillie quote to this effect.  Is it true that a course is  only as good as its one shotters?  If so, which courses would otherwise be top notch if not for the short holes?  If this isn't the case, which courses are top notch without a superlative set of one shotters?

I can start the ball rolling with Swinley Forest.  I think the one shotters are tough to beat, but I am not convinced the course is top notch.  

For the reverse, I might suggest the Addington.  #s1 & 3 are very similar - though not at all bad holes.  #17 is a good hole, but not terribly memorable.  I think if the club does have any reputation for its one shot holes its due solely to the 13th.  

For a great course which overcomes its set of 3s I would nominate Sandwich.  Not a bad set by any means, but not one which is in anyway a match for the rest of the course.  

Ciao

[Tim Bert]

The best top tier course I've played where I didn't think the par 3s were world class was Pinhurst #2.  I'm sure some here that know more about the course (an that have played it more than twice) will dispute that the par 3s aren't all-world.  I thought they were good, but the course is vertainly better than its par 3s.  Same goes for the par 5s.  For me, Pinehurst #2 was all about the par 4s.

#2, #3, #5, #7, #11-14, and #18 are what it is all about for me.    

[Steve Verde]

Bethpage is certainly a world class course but it doesn't have a world class set of par 3's in my opinion. They are solid as a group, but for a course of that calibur it really lacks an outstanding par 3. I like holes 3, 8, and 14 but 17 is a flawed hole. I don't think a par 3 of that length should have no possiblity of running the ball on the green. The bunkering resembles the bunkering of a hole 50-80 yards shorter.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I think the 3s are the weakness of the following (the courses would be better if the 3s were as good as the 4s & 5s):
The Old Course (only because there is just one, even though it is a +++ hole)
Oakmont
Merion
Sawgrass
Shinnecock


I disagree that a course is only as good as its 1 shotters.

[Michael Dugger]

I think the 3s are the weakness of the following (the courses would be better if the 3s were as good as the 4s & 5s):
The Old Course (only because there is just one, even though it is a +++ hole)
Oakmont
Merion
Sawgrass
Shinnecock


I disagree that a course is only as good as its 1 shotters.

Nuzz....

You really don't fancy the following one shotters?

[Joel_Stewart]

Shinny's par 3's are world class, great balance.  #2 is a long ball buster and #11 a short ball buster.  Add in #7 (an original CBM hole)  and #17 and it doesn't get much better.

Olympic Club is a course with 1 fairly good par 3 (#3) and thats about it.   The course gets it merit based on fantastic par 4's which may put Tillies quote to bed.

[Jim Nugent]

The Old Course (only because there is just one, even though it is a +++ hole)

TOC only has one par 3?  The online scorecard shows two.  

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jim,
Thanks, I was ignoring #8 on purpose.

Mike,
Thanks for the refresher...
I didn't say they weren't great, just not as good as the 4s.
Cheers

[Ryan Farrow]

I'd like to second Mike's opinion on Oakmont. And much like he said, its not that they are bad, just not as good as the 4's and 5's. Sorry Sean I think the theory is BS. But an interesting topic.

[mark chalfant]

sean

Inverness comes to mind for me.  All  three present challenge but none are very  memorable. As we know its not Ross's fault
i  certainly consider Inverness "top notch"  the land,# 13 and the  two shotters are very  very good. Overall i prefer Mayfield, Franklin hills, and Camargo as more interesting designs

[Ryan Farrow]

And Michael, that last picture is #5 not 6, the par 3, at Oakmont.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Where’s Mark Chaplin, there hasn’t been a good fight on here for at least 48 hours.

My query is with the one shotters at Deal.  I like the first one, as the green is beautifully situated and plays at an angle to the wind from a raised tee.  But the long one is nothing without wind and there’s a lack of something really memorable.

[Mark Pearce]

Muirfield is a much better course than its par 3s.

[Tom_Doak]

If that is just another way of saying that most people overrate the importance of the short holes in their evaluation of a course, I'd have to agree.  But if you're asking whether a course can be great without great par-3's, of course it can:  The Old Course.

[wsmorrison]

Tom D,

In my opinion, The Old Course has one pretty lame par 3 ( and one outstanding and thrilling to play par 3 (11).

Mike N,

I can agree that the par 3s at Oakmont aren't as fine a collection of holes as the sets of par 4s and par 5s.  But what does that mean exactly?  To me it means the par 3s are a solid bunch but the memorability of the course lies in the par 4s and 5s, among the finest in the world.

As for Shinnecock Hills, I think they are a marvelous collection of par 3s that holds their own against the par 4s and 2 par 5s.  This is a considerable feat given that this is my favorite course of all.  By the way, Joel, the 7th at Shinnecock may be a Redan (with a very limited to no run-up option)  and in the same location as the Macdonald Redan, but all the bunkers and the green are by Flynn and not Macdonald or Raynor.  Flynn's green is built up above the tee, Macdonald's green was below the tee level.  The only thing that is Macdonald is the tee.  The Flynn tee was obsoleted and very well may return.  We hope to see both tees in use for variety in weather conditions.

I am really curious that you think Merion's par 3s are not up to the standards set by the outstanding par 4s and two par 5s, also no mean feat as this is my second favorite course in the world.  Holes 3,9 and 17 are surely world class designs (I'm surprised the 9th isn't concept-copied) and the 13th is one of the last examples of solid short par 3s on championship courses.  It isn't as easy as it looks (which isn't all that easy in appearance) and has a very fine green, improved over time by the sand splash out of the front bunker.

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

I think this is just one of those throw-away lines that Tillie used and then probably forgot.  You could argue every which way around it until the cows came home and never come to a conclusion, regardless of how many cliches you had at your disposal.  I think all those old magazines were the GCA.com of their time, and Tillie and Flynn and Behr were just Barney's in waiting or frustrated Tom Pauls angst-ridden because they could only get 500-1000 words a month into print rather than 2000 words/hour.

Rich

PS--agree with you re: Swinley.

[TEPaul]

I'm  a huge fan of Maidstone and I think it has two great par 3s and two others that are OK with me but not particularly interesting par 3s. The two I consider great (#8 and #14) aren't that hard really but they definitely are really cool holes for other reasons, in my opinion.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Shinny's par 3's are world class, great balance.  #2 is a long ball buster and #11 a short ball buster.  Add in #7 (an original CBM hole)  and #17 and it doesn't get much better.

Olympic Club is a course with 1 fairly good par 3 (#3) and thats about it.   The course gets it merit based on fantastic par 4's which may put Tillies quote to bed.

Joel -

Don't you think #8 is a solid short hole?  Being completely blind, the player has to trust his shot (yardage and swing), but is allowed to do so with nothing more than an 8 iron (maybe 7 if the pin's back and there's a bit of wind).  

I've become a fan of short par-3's, and this and 13 at Merion East are excellent examples IMHO, because I think players are expecting to make par and maybe birdie with such a short club in their hand.  And, time and again one can get overly confident and aggressive and come away with much more.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Wayne,
I think in general with 18ish outstanding holes, 4 holes can hardly make that much of a difference, unless they are like Pine Valley's or Cypress Points.

If I were to write a my home course (for the ones mentioned) I wouldn't make the par 3s my lead into the story.  These individual holes don't stand out as well for me as the sum of these courses are much greater than the parts -- how well the holes fit into thier settings and working in cool different ways with the existing terrain.

The 11th at Shinnecock is fantastic -- all world.  The Redan is obviously memorable for me, but didn't fit the land as well as the rest of the course.  I don't remember 2 & 17 as well as the rest of the course.  To qualify, I only spent a few hours on the course - I haven't played.

The 17th at Merion was my favorite 3, and it isn't as pretty as the others.  They have great variety - looking at the aerial right now, I didn't realize how small the 13th green was -- it was a simple up and down for me.  
The 3rd is a big burly hole, I liked its place in the round -- get ready for some teeth.  Both 3, 9 & 13 all rely on the bunkering to make the holes great.  Maybe I find 4s more interesting because there is just more land -- more opportunity.
Hell... 9 was an even easier up and down than 13, so it couldn't have been how I played them....  

How was that for an explanation?

[Tags:]

Tags: