Ryan,

I agree completely regarding the long par three at Arcadia.  I looked at both pictures and couldn't figure out why the heck it would be 240 yards.  Heck, I cant even seeing that hole being a 200 yard hole.  For such a long hole, there has to be an alternative option to the green besides flying it there, especially with such a big downslope on the front of the green.

Yes, the hole is awesome looking.
But, it would seem that the hole could be summed up as eye candy, and nothing more.

I really like them because they're typically half par holes.

I haven't noticed long par 3s being backed up that much more than short or medium par 3s, on public courses anyway. My experience is that public courses are backed up just about everywhere, especially on any par 3. It's the nature of the beast.

I do think they work best when offering plenty of run up room, which is unfortunately somewhat at odds with the modern preference for dramatic carries.

One hole not mentioned is #12 at Bandon Trails, which I think is a great example of a par 3 of that length that is playable by everyone.  

#2 at Bandon Dunes used to have a tee over 240 yards although they don't list it on the score card online.

How long is #11 at Torrey Pines these days?  I remember it being very long back in the early 70s when I played there a lot.

If a par 3 of that length is to be built on a public course, it shouldn't require a forced carry that can leave the weak player with little or no chance.

David,

A small carry like a ditch is ok with me.  It is the long carry over a canyon or cliff where the player either reloads or goes against the rules and drops a ball on the other side that bothers me.  Especially when the course realizes it has to put a ball drop on the green side just to keep play moving.

One of the beauties of the 16th at Cypress is that the player can hit to the fairway left of the hole and keep playing.  To many of the spectacular long par 3s of the world don't give the player that option.

I have to admit that until I looked at the scorecard again I had forgotten that the back tee on #13 at Arcadia is that long. I played it more the 180-190 range from and at that distance its a good hole although again not that strategic as others have pointed out. The site in that case still makes the hole.

Our 14th hole at Highlands (Brauer) plays 240 on a windy site (normally down).  I think it's one of the best holes on the course.  I've hit from a driver to a 6-iron.  It has a redan quality, sloping right-to-left, and front-to-back.  Brauer included a neat, smallish mound about 20 yrds short that obscures the left half of the green from the tee.  Players that come up short are left with a very demanding chip, especially to a front pin (7-iron).  I like a long-3, a hole I can win.  

Matt, Doesn't Paa-Ko-Ridge have a couple of 275 yarders? It's public, but, at close to 7k ft in elevation. That still equates to 250 yarders at sea level.

Not sure if they create a pace problem.

Varying lengths are important, compass direction less so.

Distance deception is of greater interest then sheer length.

My local nemesis. It's easily reached from 225 due to its downhill nature and a helping wind from the left/rear, but the green runs front/right to back/left quite severly, making all recoveries and even putts close to impossible. Thank the lord they don't keep the greens running faster than ~8-9 on the stimp, even on hot windy days.

http://www.mountainhousegolf.com/hole05.html

Adam C:

I mentioned the par-3 holes at Paa-Ko previously -- you may have missed my mentioning them.

The issue is not simply having long par-3 holes -- but ones that provide a unique design aspect. I see the redundancy of long par-3 holes at the original 18 at Paa-Ko as being a weakness because the sheer diversity is much less so -- save for the par-3 16th which is rather fun to play.

You stated the need for "distance deception" and I can see the importance of that versus just simply length for lengths sake.

Steve L:

You can tell Kemper whatever you please. I've played public golf all my life and have waited on any number of different holes. You are the guy who says that long par-3's are avoided because THEY cause slow play. Geeze, as Steve S mentioned, Kelly Blake Moran has a good one at Lederach and play isn't backed up there any more so than any other hole at the course.

In my rounds at a wide variety of public courses throughout the USA I don't see simply long par-3 holes as the #1 cause for slow play. Any number of different holes / situations can cause the issue from lack of general attention from management (likely the #1 reason in my book), the overall topography of the course in question to whether or not hazards on the hole greatly impact players when playing -- irrespective of the hole's length. I've waited a good bit many times on the par-3 7th at PB and the length of the shot was far less than any long par-3 hole.

Garland:

You made a blanket condemnation on what I opined previously concernng the critical value that par-3 holes play with any top tier course. You named Chambers Bay -- I have not played it so I will not comment. Just name a current top 100 course -- you can use Golfweek, Digest, Golf Mag, etc, etc. and highlight for me a course where the collective nature of the par-3 holes is thaaaaat weak when compared to the totality of the rest of the course. You will be searching a good bit of time for any concrete examples.

Let me address another fallacy -- I've hit drivers into par-3's when the situation demands it and found nothing wrong with it. I'll repeat this in the event you skipped what I wrote previously on this thread and elsewhere - I don't base my views on holes / courses simply from what I have done or have hit when playing them. You can continue to print the same false story over and over again. It has no traction then or now.

End of story.

Gents:

The reason why long par-3 holes are less apart of golf course design is because you see management / ownership groups overdosing with the range of par-3 holes falling somewhere between 140-190-yard holes. You also get a predictable manner by which such holes are designed as I stated previously.

What's so funny is that years back old time architects (e.g. Flynn, Ross, etc, etc) thought having such holes was entirely appropriate and included them whether they be private or public.

Why would a long par 3 slow things down any more than a short par 4? Or a reachable par 5?

At least you can chat with other groups on the tee box, as opposed to hanging out in the fairway.

Well, regarding the 13th at Arcadia ...you all have convinced me...I was wrong.  The hole is spectacular but could certainly be more playable.  I am the first poster ever to admit having their mind changed?  Maybe I was just awed by the beauty...

Lots of good discussion though  

Bart

 

Matt at Twisted Dune we have two.....#3 is about 260 from the tips and #16 is 230...but plays shorter

Mauna Kea, a Robert Trent Jones resort course built in the 60s, has a slew of long par 3s....I think every one of them plays over 200 from the tips, #3 is a monster at 261 yds and #11 is 247.   #3 gives you the option of going for the green from a tiny tee box perched out over the ocean or bailing out right, and #11 allows you to hit short.  I've only played the course a few times, but #3 in particular can be a bottleneck for slow play...though the ocean views might have as much to do with it as the lost balls in the ocean.  

Here's my picture of number 3 at Mauna Kea..Is the course back open yet?



Bart