Long Par 3's--

« **Reply #25 on:** October 30, 2006, 02:20:54 AM »

Quote from: Robert Mercer Deruntz on October 29, 2006, 09:58:32 PM

The point of this thread is the potential for par 3's to be length equalizers. In theory, the longer hitter has an advantage. However, on these long holes, they do not seem to dominate statistically.

Wish we had some hard numbers on this. You could well be right though. Because if they do dominate, the shorter hitters must beat them up real bad on the medium and short par 3's. At least on the PGA tour that is the strong trend.

« **Reply #26 on:** October 30, 2006, 06:55:14 AM »

Watching a tournament on a course with 3 or 4 200+ yard par-3s (much less playing it) makes for some very unappealing golf. Variety is the spice of life.

« **Reply #27 on:** October 30, 2006, 07:04:26 AM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on October 30, 2006, 06:55:14 AM

Watching a tournament on a course with 3 or 4 200+ yard par-3s (much less playing it) makes for some very unappealing golf. Variety is the spice of life.

Tom.........and that is precisely why we are building one that is 312 yds long on a new course in Mexico.

« **Reply #28 on:** October 30, 2006, 07:11:32 AM »

PC
I understand Curious JJ is a charter member. How do you say bring it on bitch in Spanish.

The 10th at Riviera is a great par-3...perhaps you should model your hole after it.

« **Reply #29 on:** October 30, 2006, 07:39:11 AM »

Take a look at the handicap figure for long par 3 holes. I think in general they are not low handicap numbers but rather mid to high numbers.

« **Reply #30 on:** October 30, 2006, 07:46:06 AM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on October 30, 2006, 07:39:11 AM

Take a look at the handicap figure for long par 3 holes. I think in general they are not low handicap numbers but rather mid to high numbers.

Wayne, I thought the question is how the long par 3's play for short vs long hitters, who are of the same overall caliber or handicap. Robert didn't say that, but otherwise it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

« **Reply #31 on:** October 30, 2006, 08:08:59 AM »

I see your point, Jim. I guess I generalize when I say that longer hitters have lower handicaps. Seems to me if two players have about the same handicaps, the shorter hitter is somehow making up for a lack of distance. (S)he must be doing so with greater accuracy and/or a better short game. This would seemingly be important on all par classes, but perhaps not equally.

I'm starting to think I have no idea what I'm talking about.

« **Reply #32 on:** October 30, 2006, 08:12:47 AM »

Tom.....actually the hole was layed out at 306 yds. When we were finalizing the routing in the field, a few clubs were brought along to test shots here and there. When we got to the par three....which is down wind and downhill to the green site which sits in a massive blowout....Mark Love and Bob Guadet teed up balls on a tuff of grass and hit both of them on.... all carry and no roll......and with the longest club we had...a four iron.
So I'm not really sure anymore where the back tee is going to end up.....it can move back at least another 50 yds.
Maybe we will throw in a 245yd into the wind par four to balance it all out......I think I'm serious

.

...oh, and 'pinche puta' is the answer to your guestion.

Is this Curious JJ someone I should get to know?

« **Reply #33 on:** October 30, 2006, 02:38:04 PM »

Paul,

Mark Love I'll believe but BG with a 4-iron from 312... Were you here when the hurricane was blowing past?

?? Pretty stout for a little guy!

Hope the course is coming along well... looks like Jack and his crew are getting started soon in your neighborhood.

Such language on the net gentlemen!

« **Reply #34 on:** October 30, 2006, 11:01:54 PM »

Where did I mention having 3 or 4 over 200 yard par 3's? On certain properties they could be this long and have great variety. I play one of the greatest short par 3's several times a week--I love the hole. I grew up playing one of the great long par 3's--it is still one of my favorites. I've thought quite extensively about long par 3's because a new generation of golfers can flat out kill the ball. It is the 190 yard holes where they have a huge advantage--the guy hitting a 7 iron against the 5 iron can hit a mediocre shot that is equal to a decent 5 iron. And a good 7 iron should consistently finish inside a 5 iron, and you can attack a sucker pin with a 7 iron.

« **Reply #35 on:** October 31, 2006, 09:36:03 AM »

Robert,

Why then would that same guy not have a big advantage with his 4 iron from 230 versus someone else's rescue club or fairway wood? They do, but like all things in golf, it comes down to actually hitting the shot. The higher the launch, the less manuevering needed to get to your tucked pin.

« **Reply #36 on:** October 31, 2006, 09:42:54 AM »

JES II

As a lesser player who is getting old, I can say that those rescue clubs or even 5-7 woods give us more confidence in our swings leading to better contact than our 3-4 irons. This could account for the feeling that the longer par threes give us more hope versus you good guys than the 180-200 yard par threes.

« **Reply #37 on:** October 31, 2006, 09:49:33 AM »

Quote from: Robert Mercer Deruntz on October 28, 2006, 09:36:21 PM

Long par 3's could be the best length equalizer. The longer hitter should have an advantage, but if designed well, the shorter player can shape a shot to find the pin. I have been playing a generic Fazio in a tournament with two long par 3's and a short hitter faired better than the really long player in my group. And while watching the Chrysler at Innisbrook, the par 3's did not seem to favor the bombers. Any opinions on this observation.

After thinkng about this a bit more, there is an implied qualifier in this initial post by Robert that would need explanation. Are we to assume that the longer player is incapable of working the ball toward the target?

My personal opinion is that the better player will prevail regardless of their length. The one with the most control over the ball have the best chance at success.

p.s. Mike, Rescue clubs are great, almost like cheating.

« **Reply #38 on:** October 31, 2006, 09:56:06 AM »

I'm just very grateful to be able to play two great 200+ yard par threes constantly. Ted Kramer says one of them is among his all time favorites and , for me, it comes in second to the other one on the same nine!

« **Reply #39 on:** October 31, 2006, 10:01:29 AM »

I like them both but would pick #10 if I had to....you?

« **Reply #40 on:** October 31, 2006, 10:09:02 AM »

You chose the same as Ted. #14 is more favored by most of those who play there frequently. The tee shot is more demanding and the consequences for a miss are more severe. It also is more beautiful.

« **Reply #41 on:** October 31, 2006, 10:12:31 AM »

No quesion #14 is more difficult. Not that #10 is a walk, but #14 is a bear.

« **Reply #42 on:** October 31, 2006, 10:28:16 AM »

Wayne was certainly right about Flynn's par threes. Take the two at Rolling Green and add just the two at Huntingdon Valley and you end up with very different, challenging, and fun long par threes. I also feel like the average player is not humbled by them either.

« **Reply #43 on:** October 31, 2006, 01:57:49 PM »

I think that long par 3's do favor the shorter hitter, here is why. As a low handicap player that hits it long enough, but not super-long or anything, when I come to a long par 3 and have to give a shot, I realize that I am very vulnerable, because if I hit first and miss, the hole is most likely lost. When a hole is very difficult, it lessens the longer players advantage, because the distance advantage is only being used over one shot instead of two or three, so it is all about math. If they both miss the green, chances are the shorter player has the better short game, if he doesn't, then he would be getting a shot and have an even bigger advantage.

« **Reply #44 on:** October 31, 2006, 02:24:22 PM »

So you are another low handicapper that thinks you're better than everyone you hit it further than...

The thread compares golfers of relatively equal overall ability that hit it different lengths.

Of the guys you play golf with, are there any nearly as good as you? Of those, do any hit it as far as you? Of those that do not, who has the advantage on a 200 hole?

« **Reply #45 on:** November 02, 2006, 04:10:48 PM »

How on earth did you take that from my post? I never implied anything of the sort, but if I am playing a guy that I am not giving any shots to and he is shorter than me, I am happy to see the 18th be a reachable par 5 if we are all even. I don't understand what you are getting at. Just the same, if that hole is not reachable, I know that I will probably be screwed because it will come down to wedges and putting.

« **Reply #46 on:** November 02, 2006, 05:14:20 PM »

Wayne,

Take a look at Stanley Thompson's portfolio of par-three holes. Pretty good, with excellent variety, always.

We're pretty excited about the 6th hole we're currently building here, at Sagebrush, in British Columbia. I've got it lasered at 260 yards long; though, we've not settled on the definite dimensions of the hole just yet.

« **Reply #47 on:** November 02, 2006, 06:16:41 PM »

Glenn,

Not sure how you morphed into talking about par 5's, but the implication you made in post #43 is that someone shorter than you is getting a shot from you on a long par 3 and this puts you at a disadvantage. Your second sentence in that post just automatically goes to you giving the guy a shot. Why is that?

Now let me ask again, of the people you play with that are of relatively the same handicap, who has the edge on a long par 3 with no shots being given? You, or the guy two clubs shorter than you?

« **Reply #48 on:** November 02, 2006, 06:23:22 PM »

Jeff,

I am awfully interested in seeing Stanley Thompson's courses. Interestingly, I just plucked "The Toronto Terror" by James Barclay from my shelf to bring with me to Southampton this weekend.

« **Reply #49 on:** November 02, 2006, 06:34:01 PM »

Wayne,

As we've mentioned in the past, Barclay's book unfortunately lacks on the architectural side of Thompson's life and career.
Jim's a friend of mine, and I've had this conversation with him.

In fact, he made me gulp a few years ago, saying: "Jeff, I wish I'd know you better while I was working on this book. I would have asked you to contribute a more detailed section on Thompson's architecture."

Damn

News:

Jim Nugent

T_MacWood

paul cowley

T_MacWood

wsmorrison

Jim Nugent

wsmorrison

paul cowley

Greg Tallman

Robert Mercer Deruntz

JESII

mike_malone

JESII

mike_malone

JESII

mike_malone

JESII

mike_malone

Glenn Spencer

JESII

Glenn Spencer

Jeff_Mingay

JESII

wsmorrison

Jeff_Mingay

An Error Has Occurred!