"I've always been partial to par-4's."

[George Pazin]

I don't think the four par-3's are a weakness, there are just a bunch of exceptional par-4's on the front nine, and I've always been partial to par-4's.

So says Tom D.

George Thomas seemed to have at least a written affinity for par 3s.

How about the other architects on board? Do you have an affinity for one particular par-type?

How about some of the great architects in the past? Mackenzie? Ross? Tillie? Colt?

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

Many gca's are said to have a flare for one type of hole or another.  Whitten says I have a flare for the short par 4, based on seeing the 4 at the Quarry.  Maybe I just got lucky, though!

Par 4's are certainly the backbone of the course, regardless of length as they establish strategic relationships without "wasted" shots.  

I like Par 3's for the self contained visuals, and to try concept shots rather than relationship shots.  Its also easy to grasp the idea of designing four unique par 3 holes, by length, green size, concept, etc.

Par 5's I think are more problematical for all of us for reasons mentioned on the Par 5 thread.  While the 2-4 of them I am likely to have on the course theoretically have as much chance for variety as the par 3's, it doesn't seem to work out that way, because they tend to get broken into two groups - reachable and not.

[JESII]

Is it fair to say the game is based on the two-shotter?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jes,

I think so....I have often replayed the conversation that must have taken place with Old Tom and someone regarding the length of holes......maybe they just happened because of how they laid out the originals, but somewhere, they must have had the philosophical discussion on what might be best.

As mentioned, the two shotter creates strategy efficiently.  

Who thought that a one shotter or three shotter made any difference, and why?  I really think it was just variety, or a need to have them because of how courses had to be laid out without signifigant earthmoving.  Better a three shotter than spending any real money back in those days, eh?

Or, did someone have a good reason for other hole types than the par 4?  Alternatively, were there other hole types (par 2, 6, 7, 8's or 9's?) that eventually went away as too boring, under the thought that 4 was best and 3's and 5's were close enough to leave around?  

[David Stamm]

I don't think the four par-3's are a weakness, there are just a bunch of exceptional par-4's on the front nine, and I've always been partial to par-4's.

 

George Thomas seemed to have at least a written affinity for par 3s.

 

George, if you are referring to the essay titled "The theory and architecture of the one shot hole" that GT wrote, keep in mind that it was to be the first in a 3 part series (the virtues of par 4's and par 5's were to follow in order). Unfortunately GT passed away before writing the other 2. I agree, he did like par 3's and was very good at them. But I am biased!

[Tom_Doak]

JES:  I don't know if you can say that the game is based on the two-shotter.  Back in the 1850's, a lot of holes took three blows for mortals.  St. Andrews was often praised in the early literature about golf courses because its holes were of a certain length that a good player had to hit two good shots to get home; perhaps that in itself had great influence on people like Tom Morris and Donald Ross and C.B. Macdonald and Tillinghast.

Tillie was particularly fond of his short holes, although he did consider two-shotters to be the backbone of the course.  Robert Trent Jones Sr. is the first architect who comes to mind as one I think would identify himself with par-5 holes.

[JESII]

Tom,

Your first paragraph seems to support my statement...

I guess the trouble is that today's good players don't really need two shots to reach many of the two-shotters...but I do think the structure of the two-shot hole is the basis for quality golf.

Par 5's give too much slack, and par 3's not enough...

[George Pazin]

I don't think the four par-3's are a weakness, there are just a bunch of exceptional par-4's on the front nine, and I've always been partial to par-4's.

 

George Thomas seemed to have at least a written affinity for par 3s.

 

George, if you are referring to the essay titled "The theory and architecture of the one shot hole" that GT wrote, keep in mind that it was to be the first in a 3 part series (the virtues of par 4's and par 5's were to follow in order). Unfortunately GT passed away before writing the other 2. I agree, he did like par 3's and was very good at them. But I am biased!

I'm not aware of the article you mention, so it definitely wasn't that! It's more just a general feeling, from reading The Captain and Golf Course Architecture in America a few years ago. I believe he even mentioned that he'd rather see a course have 5 par 3s than 3, but that could just be an inference on my part.

I find the progression of par preference among golfers to be an interesting corollary to this discussion. It's been my experience that as a beginner or high handicap golfer, you generally prefer par 3s, as they are your best chance at par (only one good shot required!). By the time you're a top golfer, you realize par 5s are your best scoring chance (5 chances for that good shot, as opposed to 3).

Have any of the architects on board experienced an analogous change in design? Are par 3s easier early on, and then you realize the supposed simplicity makes them trickier to design?

Could be I'm just thinking too much, stuck up here in the freezing cold.

 

Only 2 months till spring!

[Garland Bayley]

In one of his essays in Gleanings from the Wayside, AWT wrote that the quality of a course begins with the quality of the par 3s. Therefore, par 3s were clearly important to him. He wanted a range of lengths to test the shots with the irons.

[Michael Powers]

I don't know about being partial, but in all the Ross courses I have played, he certainly didn't build them around par 5 holes.  Least that's what it seems like with all the par 70's, 71's and the 69's.