[Mark_F]

Re-reading several books over the weekend, it struck me how many great par threes, whether on perfect land or not,  either have severely contoured and/or sloped greens.

Is this a necessity?

Can a great par 3 have a more subtle green and still be worthy?  

If so, where are they?  

[ForkaB]

Mark

No.

Yes.

The Postage Stamp, the 11th at Applebrook, the 6th at Dornoch, and the 7th at Pebble Beach come immediately to mind.  "Greatness" comes from the total package, of which green contour is a highly overrated element, IMHO.

[TEPaul]

It probably helps although probably generally has something to do with their length.

A good example, although I never saw it, of a short par 3 that may not have had a lot of slope and contour may have been the little and super famous 2 or 20 green at Engineers that seems to be under discussion on this website now. Again, I never saw it but it sounds like it was just a little super pushed up affair that was just hard to hit period---and if you failed to hit it you were in a world of hurt getting your ball back onto the little thing from somewhere way below it.

Another pretty darn cool super short par 3 green with not much slope or contour to its surface is Ross's #4 at LuLu. It sits on a table top above a quarry and the interesting thing about it is it's just very hard to see the length of it (how deep it is) because the golfer on the tee is just about at eye level with the putting surface. This makes the green seem very shallow although in fact it really isn't . But if you miss the surface (which is pretty flat) you're in a world of hurt (unless apparently you're Tommy Naccarato!).

Another interesting recent example of a par 3 green with not much slope or contour to it (at least not in comparison to the rest of the course) is Doak's #9 at the new Stonewall North. It's a very unexpected change-up compared to what came before it and very unexpected on a hole like that one. But I think it's cool for that reason. It sure looks like that one is a green you definitely don't want to be short of though.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

# 2 at GCGC, # 12 at ANGC and # 13 at Pine Tree are some that come to mind.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:  I like this thought, and I haven't heard anyone say it before.  Certainly not EVERY great par-3 has a severe green ... you can also just make a tiny green as in most of Rich's examples ... but the Eden, the Redan, and the Biarritz are all more strategic than that.

Tom P:  The "two or twenty" hole at Engineers is not just a push-up green ... it runs out along a very narrow ridge with a 20-foot drop to the right and another over a bunker at the back left.  Also ... it's only 90 yards and the green runs away to the back, so it's very hard to stop a shot on the green.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

Ross, and others wrote that par 3's could be a bit more difficult than other holes, since the ball started on a tee.  I agree, and it could be, as others point out, a test of accuracy, putting, etc.

I also think they are, given no shot relationships strategies, a good place for interesting shots, and concept shots, like the Redan hole, etc. but they don't particularly have to be more difficult in putting.

[ed_getka]

#2 Kingsley Club is one of the best short par 3's I have played, and is the best of modern courses IMO.
   The green is fairly flat, and pearshaped (with the narrow part of the pear closest to you). There isn't anything immediately behind the green so depth perception is an issue. There is bunkering left, and a big deep bunker on the right that you barely see, and just in front of that bunker and down below it is the hollow where balls come to rest about 20 feet below the green surface. The wind tends to come across from right to left.
   As you stand on the tee it looks like a fairly small target, because you don't see the width of the back of the green. One of the most intimidating short holes I've played.
   The other cool thing is that if there was a walking path mowed for the first 20 yards or so, off the tee you could play the hole with a putter.
    The best bailout is short, but from 130 yards you would feel like an idiot. Like #2 at Dornoch, if I absolutely HAD to make three, I would probably lay up.

[David_Tepper]

Mark Ferugson-

Based on what I have seen watching the Masters on TV for 40 years, #12 and #16 at Augusta National provide an interesting contrast in green slopes/contours and challenge.

The green on #12 appears to be very flat. The challenge of the hole comes from the narrowness of the green, the diagonal angle of approach to the green from the tee, the water short/right, the bunkers long/left and the bunker on the right side of the green between the green and the water.  Throw in the swirling winds and you have a par-3 where the challenge of the hole is hitting the green with your tee-shot.  Two-putting is not much of a problem of a problem (at least it seems that way during the Masters).

The tee-shot at #16 is also a forced carry across water, but it appears to me you see far less balls getting wet during the Masters at #16 vs. #12.  The green on #16 is much larger, but there are 3 levels to the green (front, back left and back right). Finding the right level with your tee-shot is the key to having a birdie opportunity. You rarely see any birdie putts made if the ball is on one level of the green and the cup is on another. In fact, the odds of 3-putting increase sizeably if a tee-shot finds the wrong level.  If I am not mistaken, Seve Ballesteros once 4-putted on #16.      

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion as to whether these two holes are good or great par-3's. However, they do illustrate two different ways challenge can be built into a par-3.  

DT

[Joe Hancock]

Ed,

I don't know if #2@ Kingsley has a bailout, but the safe play would be the back 2/3 of the green, which you already mentioned is the fat part. I tend to grab a little more club there rather than less.

Joe

[Mike_Trenham]

If I am not mistaken, Seve Ballesteros once 4-putted on #16.

One of the great responses to a question from a reporter.

Reporter: How did you three putt 16

Seve: I miss, I miss, I miss, I make

[Bob_Huntley]

No.8 on the Old Course.

No 16 at Cypress.

No 16 at Carnoustie.

I could go on.... and on.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:  The "two or twenty" hole at Engineers is not just a push-up green ... it runs out along a very narrow ridge with a 20-foot drop to the right and another over a bunker at the back left.  Also ... it's only 90 yards and the green runs away to the back, so it's very hard to stop a shot on the green."

TomD:

Thanks. As I said, I never saw the 2 or 20 hole in person, only in a photo, so I had no real idea if the green surface was sloped or contoured or not. I only know it was small and dangerous and easy to miss and apparently difficult to get back on due to some severe dropoffs.

So the green surface ran away severely too, huh? Would you say that even at 90 yards in length the hole was kinda goofy or would be today if it was as it was originally? Would you consider building something like that today (if the client agreed, of course)? Do you think, as it once was, it would be a fun and interesting hole today?

[Steve Lapper]

Definitively NO

So many come to mind:

Domestically:

17 at Sand Hills

9 at Myopia Hunt Club

10 at Pine Valley

6 at Riviera

15,16 at Cypress

10 at Friars Head

13, 17, and 3 at Merion

17 At TPC Sawgrass

14 at Maidstone

Foreign:

5 at Royal Melbourne

15 at Kingston Heath

6 At New South Wales

14 at Royal Portrush

8 at Royal Troon

4 at Royal County Down

4 at Banff Springs

And there are, no doubt, many more.....while several of these, like CPC and NSW have mother nature to give 100% thanks to, the others reflect the hand of man and prove a severely countered green doesn't make it great!

[Jimmy Muratt]

Ed,

Great call regarding #2 at Kingsley, that's my favorite par 3 on the course, and it has five very good ones.  Here are a few different views of that hole that shows what you were explaining.  It's awful hard to play conservatively on a 130 yard hole, but with a front pin location, that's the only smart play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jimmy Muratt,

Nice Pictures.

David Tepper,

The interesting thing about # 12 and # 16 at ANGC is the relative values of approaching and putting .

Hitting # 12, even though it is 15 yards shorter from the Masters tees, is a more difficult shot then hitting # 16, however, once you're on the green putting # 12 is infinitely easier then putting # 16.

That relationship, ease of approach, but difficulty in putting, or the reverse, difficulty in approach but ease of putting is encountered throughout the golf course, and provides interesting contrasts and challenges.  Their are some holes that provide both difficult approaches and difficult putting and others that provide relatively easy approaches and putting.
It's a great mix.

[David_Tepper]

Mr. Mucci-

We DO agree about something!

DT

[TEPaul]

Steve:

PVGC's #10 is pretty strongly contoured. Much more for a little green like that and it would be near over the top.

[Steve Lapper]

Steve:

PVGC's #10 is pretty strongly contoured. Much more for a little green like that and it would be near over the top.

Tom:

 No question the green has contour (as does #12 at ANGC as well). But it is hittable and holds any shot with reasonable height...does it not? I don't think the contour or slope on that green determine its greatness, do you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Tepper,

As I've told TEPaul many, many times,
everyone is entitled to my opinion.

Steve Lapper,

There is no contour in # 12 green at ANGC.
Pitch, yes, contour, no.

[Steve Lapper]

Pat Mucci:

Semantics yes, definition no.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Lapper,

It's a pretty flat green, and the pitch is hardly noticeable from across Rae's Creek, and not at all from the tee.

[Steve Lapper]

Ahhhh....but upon closer inspection, the pitch/contour/slope/cant all appear!

[Mark_F]

Some pretty interesting answers here. I like the 12th vs 16th Augusta note.  one contoured, one pitched, yet the pitched one has a whole bunch of other terrors.  

What are the other two par threes at Augusta like?  

Obviously there are various reasons for the existence of par threes, but I thought there were mainly two:

To test your ability to hit and hold a green that doesn't want to get hit,

And to use a green's contours to manouevre the ball into the correct location.  

Steve Lapper:

I would have called the 5th at RM fairly contoured as well as ptiched.  

[Chris Kane]

Steve Lapper, 5W and 15 at Kingston Heath both feature plenty of internal movement.

[Steve Lapper]

My Down Under Mates:

   Granted, my far away onset of early Alzheimers might interfere, but aren't both 5W and 15 at KH both great holes if the greens "internal movement" was absent?

    My pea-brained interpretation of this question and hindered memory of RM & KH seem to suggest that the settings, placements, and shot values inherent to those holes don't diminish based on contour.

    Of course, I could be wrong

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()