Certainly the level of the distance and accuracy tests, versus their immediate surrounds, are what I find thrilling about some of the great one's, I've played. SH 17 is a perfect i.e.
One other aspect I find particularly appealing, is some form of blindness, created by either an uphill nature, or some narly natural looking obstacle that protrudes onto the line to the green. That uncertainty as to the balls exact location is delicious anticipation. I suppose a swiss watch wouldn't care for that walk, not knowing and all.

Opposed to a three sided water hole(Wolf Creek) that puckers just a little too much.

I enjoy par 3s with putting surfaces featuring "compartments"; particularly at short holes that demand little more than a short iron. Such greens leave a testing putt if you haven't played your tee shot to the correct section of the putting surface.

Think of the 6th at the National Golf Links of America.

In creating such a "compartmentalized" green, the key is to make the transition between "compartments" smooth - think of the 6th at NGLA! Distinct sections separated by abrupt tiers aren't the ideal.

Tom,

Here at MPCC we seem to have a plethora of great par threes. However, I feel that the really great one is the tenth on the Dunes Course, routed as it were by Raynor, but built by Hunter/MacKenzie.

From the tips it is no more than 170 yards, with a stunning vista of the Pacific, Spanish Bay and beyond. An elevated tee dropping down to a green with a drop off right into a stream and another drop off left to flat grass land. To the rear of the green more drop off to the once hated ice-plant.

The hole is bordered to the left by sand dunes and to the right by inpenetrable scrub.

In the late of day with a setting sun, it could be Brigadoon.

A par-3 is quite obviously differentiated from par 4 & 5's by the control the architect has over the approach shot.  The shot to the green is going to, for example, always be 150 yards.  There's no worry of a longer or shorter drive, or a drive off-line which an architect needs to accomodate with playability.  

To me, the "great" par-3's take advantage of this by increasing the hazards of the areas not likely to be in play.  To invoke MacKenzie, "It is an important thing to make holes look much more difficult than they really are.  People get more pleasure in doing a hole which looks almost impossible and yet is not so difficult as it appears."  

As an extreme example, you can build a moat 50 yards in front of the tee and fill it with crocodiles on a 150 yard hole in a way you cannot on a 400 yard hole.

The par 3's of Pine Valley are probably the best example of this definition of "greatness."

I believe that a great par-three can only come about when several design features are combined. It's that old "sum of its parts" theory.

Length is not the deciding factor as the Postage Stamp & #7 at Pebble are both fabulous holes. Hazards such as water & bunkers may be great design features, but they aren't a necesiity in defining a hole's greatness.

For example, who doesn't think that 17 at Sawgrass with its island green isn't wonderful, but it only works because of the distance that it is played at. If the hole was 230 yards in length, what player, pro or otherwise, wouldn't be screaming, "Who's the idiot who designed this?" Yet if there were a landing area where someone could lay-up 160-180 yards left and short, and there were traps and land behind the hole, than a 230-yard carry into the winds and over the Pacific Ocean becomes possibly the world's most beautiful hole at Cypress Point.

The 10th hole at Winged Foot West is a wonderful par-three, yet if the USGA cuts it to a green speed of 13 for next years Open it will be unfair for many of the players and the potential hole locations will be severely limited. I use this as an example because many average players views of what are great par-threes are defined by what they see on television. In this case, I believe the hole's greatness can only be really experienced at a slower green speed when the cameras are not on.

When everyone thinks of the par-threes at Bethpage, that wonderfully photographic #17 with its oceans of sand comes first to mind, yet in all of my experience playing the course, it is the 8th hole that is usually the most difficult to get close to the pin on, yet there are just 3 features that cause this. On their own they each are insignificant if they didn't have the other two. There is a pond fronting the green that should never come into play, a bunker directly behind the left portion of the green, and a tree that has grown tall and lush and actually is ten yards short of the putting surface on the right and up the hillside of the green.

Not one of these would cause any problems if the other two features weren't there, yet together they create a target that makes the hole fabulous.

So, to make a long story short, I believe that a par-three's best chance at being great begins when the length of the hole is first decided on. It is only then that the architect can choose the proper combination of features that will bring it out.

A great par three has varied degrees of difficulty based on hole locations and tee locations. The design of the hole should force players to make a strategic decision about how agressive they can be toward the hole location. Greens that are set diagonally and combined with an elevation change from tee to green are usually the most demanding par threes.

The 3rd hole and 17th holes at Bethpage Black are great par 3's. Both have diagonal approach angles and the 17th also has an elevated green to compound the difficulty of the hole. Trouble lurks around all sides of both holes.

I'll also nominate #7 at Pebble Beach as a great par 3.

 

I think one quality of a great par 3 is what type of recovery shots there are available when you miss the green.  What's it like when you miss it long, short, left or right.  I guess this is why I am not a big fan of the 17th at Sawgrass.  To me it is not a question of how the hole is when you make the good shot rather it is how many different types of recovery shots can be played so that the hole does not become repetitive and boring if you play it on a regular basis.  Another case of my difference of opinion is that I view the 17th at the Ocean Course as the least interesting of the group and I think it is the 14th which is to me a great par 3 with tough recovery shots and dramatic changes based upon wind changes.  

For pure fun the 10th at Friar's Head is great with the mound to the left obscuring part of the green and that enormous undulating green where it might be better to miss the green than to have a 100 foot putt.

Shivas:

I like your definition the best so far.  However, would you want four par threes in a round which fit all your tests?

You can put 16 at Cypress back in, though ... in my few rounds there, half the people who have hit the green with their tee shot have followed it with a three-putt.  (It's called choking.)  

Others:

Keep your thoughts coming.  I'm sure we have not exhausted the topic yet.

Shivas -- even without a real test of 3 putting, as you said, CP16 MUST be considered a great par 3, I think

and while 8 at Pasa is a good/very good hole, I don't think its a great hole

re 17 at TPC, if it were the only island green I think I would definitely consider it great...but all the imitations take away from some of its luster

another I think is great, I think its #11 at Bandon...only about 130 toward the Ocean, but a nasty ball-sucking trap in front, very narrow green...my first trip to Bandon the pin was way left, the wind was howling...standing there trying to figure out how they hell to play the hole, and imagining how and Ernie Els would...maybe that's my definition of greatness

Par threes are like 'concentrated' golf holes.

The view from the tee, the tee shot, and the approach are all combined into one. Therefore, great par threes must satisfy the requirements of 'great' in all of these areas through one shot - and then go on to supply adequate challenge on the green.

The view from the tee should be exciting and cause you to pause and consider the club to pull - this excitement and decision might be caused by setting and wind variation - if not, then it has to be created through the use of landforms, hazards and illusions.

Variety can be created through green size and contour for pin positions - as well as through large or numerous teeing ground. We must also remember that great par threes can be strengthened through contrast - between themselves and the other par threes on a golf course - to me that's one of the marks of a great course - when the par threes are markedly different, yet equally exciting.

Do-or-die situations are common solutions to the problem.

Sometimes par threes can be made more interesting when they are used to make a transition in the property - revealing a new area of the journey (say - a change of elevation -to a low-lying section, or from forested land into the clear.) You tee the ball in one area - and leave the green in another.

My .02

I like shivas' definition also - somewhat.  All of those things are important, but I wouldn't make any of them absolute musts... that is, if a hole is fantastic in one of the criteria it could overcome a shortcoming in another and still meet the greatness test.  You know, kind of like how Golfweek does their course ratings, where they look at a bunch of criteria and then it has no great relevance to the overall score?

 

Also, setting does matter BIGTIME.  Those who deny this are kidding themselves.  Oh yeah, sure, CP #16 would be just as great hitting over a toxic waste dump.  Yeah sure it would.

Thus I would add a #5, and make it the most important of all:

5.  The setting must inspire the soul.

BTW shivas, a hole you've pooh-poohed in the past meets all four of your criteria - #15 CPC.

 

A great par 3:

1.  must look difficult to the discerning eye (but not necessarily be).

2.  must have a nearly-certain 3 putt/damn near incredible 2 putt from at least one spot to at least one other spot on the green. (this is a different spin on the compartmentalization theory espoused earlier; and the point is that just hitting the green ain't enough)

3.  must have at least one virtually impossible/miraculous up and down.

4.  must reward a great shot with birdie.  

Holes that fit this description, off the top of my head:

#3 at Lost Dunes
#6 at NGLA
#13 at Medinah
every redan I've ever played
#8 at Pasa
#13 at Merion

Par 3's that are generally considered great that DO NOT fit the description:

#7 at Pebble - no 3 putts here
#16 at Cypress -- no nearly automatic 3 putts here
#17 at BPB -- same
#17 at Sawgrass -- no up and down

In my opinion #11 at Caledonia fits your criteria very nicely.
It has always been one of my favorite par3s.
This pic shows shows the ridge running through the green creating two distinct sections and the stream running along the left side.



A three put is very possible from the wrong level.
Up and down to a back left pin from the left side is just about impossible.
The setting is sublime, I love the property that the course is built on.
And if you hit it to the correct section of the green, birdie is there for the taking.

Well done Shivas!

-Ted