JNC,

St. George's, Galt, Highland CC (in london), Kawartha and (original) Summit all have 5.

But other great works like Catarqui, Oshawa, Islington, Peterborough, (original) Cutten, Westmount, all have four.

He was not a prolific writer, so it is hard to get much of a sense of his desires for an ideal golf course. Most of the writing concern playability and (funny enough) maintenance issues.

To finally answer your question of did he look for five par 3's. I personally don't think so. I think it had more to do with the challenge of the terrain dictating an extra pr three to make the routing work.

Jasper, Banff, (especially) Capilano, Highlands, Montebello, and even to a degree St. george's are all on some pretty dramatic pieces of land. I think this is a bigger factor.

He definately tried to place the par threes on the most dramatic spot in the property, when he could. If you follow his great courses, this becomes a common theme, but like most architects the threes are sometimes the link between great land for longer holes.

#12 and 13 always struck me as the link between at Jasper for example

Westmount has one of his greatest collection of long holes (all are very good to excellent, but the threes are definately average at best. They feel like the links between great longer holes.

Highlands has no links, but that is because the routing follows the tillable land. He could not move soil like other jobs because the project only had one or two pieces of equipment (the rest was done by hand). That dictated his routing, and that is why it is one of his best.

May be the best ones to look at are his routings on very gentle land (specially if he had lots of land), to see what he choose to do.

As a funny note: 6 of the course I have listed have a pr three starting the back nine. That's an uncommonly large number too.

Five at North Oaks, too (St. Paul, Minn.).

[Jason posted while I did my hole-by-hole mental tour!]

Another prevalent theme to Thompson's one-shot hole designs; is a penchant for including a monster (230-240 yd range - 16 at Capilano, 8 at Uplands), and a short pitch hole fraut with danger (Bad Baby at Jasper).

TK

Cataraqui fits with Tyler's pattern - the 15th being the 220yd uphill monster, and the 12th - shortish (175ish) very downhill par 3 - pond short left - premium on club selection.

Oops!!  Sorry, I mistakenly did not include the course name.  Yes, it was St. George's I played, which as Ian Andrew mentions is on a relatively dramatic piece of land.  It is true that holes 3, 6 (This is still a very good short three), 13, and 16 were links to better long holes  (2,4,5,7,12,14,,15, and 16 is an excellent collection of golf holes) but Number 8 almost seems like a centerpiece hole, and I find it a great hole.  It fits the description of the long three that Tyler Kearns suggested.

Ian Andrew:
Did you think the best way to attack a dramatic piece of property is with five threes???  In fact, I played a course by DL3's group called Windermere outside of Atlanta, probably built on the most severe property I've ever seen for a golf course, and it had five par threes.  Does this theory hold true more often than not?  I tend to think it might.

 

.

Sleepy Hollow near Cleveland has four par-3's, although the par-4 17th may have fallen into the catagory of par-3.5. Its a little over 300 yards today, but originally was around 260 to 270 yards (dogleg) or 240 tee to green. Based on Jeff's ideal course, Thompson may have favored that length hole.

I seem to recall (in his writing on the subject) Colt concentrated on finding par-3's early in the process...some have thought he may have been a big influence on Thompson.

Ian, Jeff et al:

Have you seen "About Golf Courses"
Their construction and upkeep by Stanley Thompson & Co?

I will bring a copy with me to the GCA gathering.

JNC Lyon,

Finally the answer, or at least the answer the day he wrote this. His thoughts may have changed after the document bwas written.

From the booklet "About Golf Courses Their Construction and Upkeep by Stanley Thompson.

Page 12 begins....

"There should be three or four short holes - five is perhaps one too many, as the remaining holes are apt to be unbalanced. They should be intersperced - not, however, near the begining or the end. In the former case they tend to congest the course, while in the latter the player who happens to be down is discriminated against. There should be six or seven good two shotters, with alternate tees for lengthening or shortening of the holes as the ground is hard or soft or the direction of the wind, to preserve their values. The rest should be apportioned between pitch and iron shots for the second. Beware the three shotter unless there is some natural feature demanding them.

It continues onto starting holes and a few other comments in addition.

I have used five par-3's on several courses myself.  I don't do it just to make connections in difficult terrain, but also when the property has a combination of terrain and boundary issues ... see either course at Stonewall.

Flynn used five threes a lot on his Philadelphia-area courses, but not much elsewhere that I've seen.

Generally, making a routing with five par-3's is just much easier to pull off.