What Makes a Great Par Three?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Great topic.  I am not sure I know either, and I agree that like anything else, there are rules - often broken - of thumb (ROBOTS) but not that hard and fast a rule.  

The par 3's I consider great probably have a great setting. Since you can design the hole to be viewed in its entirety, there is no reason it can't be visually spectacular.  Naturally spectacular like Terry Hatcher?) always better than artifically spectacular.....but artifical, with bunkers, etc. not bad either.

I have always believed 3 pars are less strategic, as there is no shot relationship, even though there is strategy in shot location, shot pattern, etc.  As such, I generally feel they are good places to test specific skills or concept shots, like CBMac's Biaritz, Redan, Short, etc. To use another showbiz analogy, Curly in City Slickers says "Theres just one thing.....and you got to find it" That may be different for everyone, but it must be memorable for something specific - for both the visuals AND the type of shot.

In modern design, I think an ultra long par 3 can be great, if only to test a long iron shot.  On two and three shot holes, the player can lay back to full wedge distance, so its also a chance to create the half wedge shot, so ultra short holes, like PB 7 are great too.  

I agree generally that the margin for errors can be less than on similar greens for par 4 holes, given the gca control of the shot from the tee.  However, I think there are too many "straightforward" par 3 holes that are accuarcy only tests.

I also agree that the great par 3 must play differently every day, rather than be automatic to be great, in most cases.  This can be through varied tees to a smallish green or through a large green from limited tees, or a large green with large, varied tees!

Someone mentioned they might be considered as a set..... I suppose that four very good par 3's help make a great golf course, but certainly, a great par 3 could stand as part of an otherwise lackluster course, or for that matter, stand out on any course.

If I really come up with some good thoughts, I will post again!

[Ted Kramer]

Ted:

To me that's a totally separate question from "is #12 Augusta great?"  It is, for all the reasons I state, and nothing else matters much....

So would I want to play it all the time?  Sure.  Heck yeah.  A challenging, ballsy, very tough to figure out golf hole like that is great by me.  Of course I wouldn't want EVERY green site on my course to be like that... but one little 155 yard par 3?  Bring it on.  I'd say the same for #17 TPC Sawgrass.  One hole that's do or die out of my 18?  What's the problem?

TH

You got the wrong party pal
I never said a thing about #12 Augusta.
Come on, you know me, all I do is talk about Pine Hill

-Ted

[Ted Kramer]

Ted, I'd love to see this hole some day, but just from the picture, the hole is screaming left to right to me.

Here is another pic of the hole courtesy of one of my buddies on Bombsquadgolf.com . . .



-Ted

[THuckaby2]

Ted - sorry about that...

Obviously my response was intended for Jerry Kluger.

Ted/Jerry/Tom/Dave... heck what's the difference?

 

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

You can't see the slope that well from the tee - only from experience do you learn how tough it is.  And it only works with certain pins also - there's a large flat area on which they tend to put the pin way too often which negates a lot of this.

So sorry my friend, I have absolutely no doubt you would come to that tee and after reminding yourself "what the hell am I doing playing this horseshit course when I have so many other choices" you'd think birdie and birdie alone.  That is after you wake yourself up having been bored to sleep by the blah setting.

Only on repeated play do the terrors emerge - and there are terrors, believe me.

So that's why I'm cool with calling it a pretty good golf hole - it is.  It reveals itself over time and to me that's a good thing.

It's just not great, nor will it ever be, unless one REALLY stretches the definition of greatness.  And it's nowhere near a dynamite hole you'd be happy to play.  Still it meets the bare-bones criteria... But as you amended that, to say that's just the "essentials", well then that's why it's not great - it's the Honda Element of golf holes.

 

TH

[Mike Benham]

Case in point:  #14 Santa Teresa (my home course, a muni in San Jose, CA).  It meets every other definition perfectly, but it is far from a great golf hole (at least in comparison to the others we tend to mention in this context), because the setting is blah in the middle of a nice but relatively blah course.

If your statement is correct (excluding the setting issue), then there is something wrong with each definition.  That hole will never be confused with a great hole, fabulous setting or not.

[THuckaby2]

Case in point:  #14 Santa Teresa (my home course, a muni in San Jose, CA).  It meets every other definition perfectly, but it is far from a great golf hole (at least in comparison to the others we tend to mention in this context), because the setting is blah in the middle of a nice but relatively blah course.

If your statement is correct (excluding the setting issue), then there is something wrong with each definition.  That hole will never be confused with a great hole, fabulous setting or not.

Mike:  Thank you.  That's the point, used to refute putting too much stock into Shivas' four criteria, or making them absolute determiners of greatness, because #14 ST does meet each, and as you say, will never be confused with a great golf hole.  But he has amended that to say that those criteria are just the "essentials".  To use his terms, this hole is a Honda Element - great engine in lousy package.

TH

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
........a lot of 4's, 5's and "others" on the card. I think a good 3 makes you feel rewarded carding par and Tour-like carding 2.  

[THuckaby2]

You know what else I like?  I like holes that LOOK like they slope, but don't.  You drop a par 3 into a sideslope and have it NOT break wildly.  Now THAT suckers me almost every time into assuming a slope that's just not there...

Whoa... I would like that too... I just can't think of any examples.. there can't be too many of these...

[DMoriarty]

Dave, you make a good point about getting fooled.  But what are you saying?  That a great hole simply must have some level of possible/probably deception, one way or the other?  I can probably live with that.  I simply prefer holes that fool/jar me into initially thinking "holy shit!", rather than "what the hell is this piece of crap?".

I like some level of deception one way or another.  I think it is especially appropriate with the modern golfer, who is so used to being completely confident and comfortable on every shot.  

I'm not so sure that I'd make it deception/discomfort a rule though,   I am sure there are holes out there which are great precisely because they give you a completely honest assessment of what you are getting into from the tee.  I just cant think of any offhand.  

Your preference for the "holy shit" hole gets back to that delicate ego thing.  You think "holy shit" yet you still end up with a pretty good score-- You must be pretty damn good to par or birdie a "holy shit" hole.   MacKenzie was very aware that golfers loved shots that looked harder than they really were.    I just think it has been done so much that it is almost an expectation now.   Meanwhile the "piece of crap hole" is snickering you, thinking play me ten times, then tell me I'm a piece of crap.  

I'm not going to address the rater thing.  YOu and Barney can have a sidebar bitch 'n moan party about that off the board.  It's tired.

 Tired, but true.

As to the requirement of virtual impossibility, what I'm getting at is that IMO, there needs to be exactly what you describe -- a challenging and interesting and fun up and down spot.  A spot where as soon as you hit the ball, you're thinking "oh crap".  That's the price you pay for a lousy shot.  Don't forget - you've missed the green in the worst possible place, the one place you DON'T want to hit it.  Rather than being in a hazard, what I want is a damn near miracle for you to make 3 from there.  I don't think that's too high a price to pay for an el stinko shot.  This isn't draconian.  Draconian is where you're reloading half a second after impact becuase you know you're wet.  Frankly, I hate that.  Masochist that I am, I much prefer the slow painful death, while all the while having a slight glimmer of hope for a miracle as a tease, rather than the instantaneous death blow that comes from dunking one in the drink.  The end result can be the same -- 4 or 5 or whatever, but I like the chance for the miracle.  Water doesn't allow for that.

Besides, all you're proving to me with positions like this is what I've been saying all along -- you just want every course to be a cupcake.  Every fairway should be 100 yards wide and, now, every par 3 should be fun and interesting up and downs, but none of them can be really testy.  That's pussy golf.  There, I said it.  

So what you are getting at is 'exactly what I describe,' yet it's "pussy golf?"  You're right, you said it.    

As to the birdie thing, what I'm saying is that the green contours can't be stupid.  If you stuff it, you should not be scared of rolling it off the green, even if you lag.  That's all I'm getting at.  I agree that you still have to make the putt and that the putt can be difficult as hell.  You may even have to lag from 6 feet or whatever.  But if you DO lag, you shouldn't go flying off the green.  All I'm saying is that if you make a great shot, you shouldn't have to intentionally settle for par because the green is just stupid.  What I meant was "must reward a great shot with a legitimate chance at birdie."  Obviously, you have to make the sucker.

I still disagree.   Maybe not for the hole green, but I like a great green that has some pin placements where aiming at them is just absolutely stupid.   One reason they may be stupid is that even if you get it close, you still have a near impossible birdie putt.    I love to see players successfully go at pins where a close shot guarantees them nothing.   Again it is part of dealing with the mentality of the modern golfer.   They expect that if they hit it to five feet they ought to have an easy putt.  I like greens which sometimes remind them that golf owes them nothing.    

[THuckaby2]

Ted/Tom/DaveM:

 Just like I don't think it takes that discerning of an eye to notice that Huck's #14 slopes hard to the left front.  

Discerning, eh?

The hole DOESN'T slope to the left front... It slopes a bit from back to front in general, and right to left in general, but in fact the fall off of the left bunker makes it come back uphill in the left front.

The hole does slope HARD to the left rear.  Any left back pin is murder and missing high and right, even on the green, is death.

One can't see this from the tee, and in fact it takes a few playings to truly understand.

TH

[THuckaby2]

If your statement is correct (excluding the setting issue), then there is something wrong with each definition.  That hole will never be confused with a great hole, fabulous setting or not.

Mike:  why?

I'll be interested in Mike's answer....

My take is that it's on a blah setting in the midst of a blah golf course.  It also does meet your definitions, but can also be played for a cautious three pretty damn easily - just miss short and chip up.  There also are too many easy pin positions - the flatter parts - and they seem to use those 5 times for every time you get the fun tough one back left.

So it meets your definitions, but will never be confused with great.  Honda Element.

You need the Ferrari body for true greatness.... or you damn well better have a REALLY special engine if you don't.  This hole meets the engine essentials, but will never get you going 240mph, so it's blah body carries the day and leaves it at functional, pretty good, nothing really special.

Whaddya think, Mike?

TH

[Mike_Golden]

I've been trying to think of something of merit to add here because this is a really good thread, so how about the need for some sort of deception in the design.  Here are 3 examples:

1.  A hole that looks incredibly challenging and full of trouble yet is a birdie opportunity for a well hit shot (Bethpage Black #17, one of my personal favorites, falls into this category as would CPC #16 and I suppose TPC Sawgrass #17)
2.  A hole that looks like nothing (Santa Teresa's #14, although I haven't played it) and can be a real bitch
3.  A hole that has a design feature that can trick you into the wrong shot (examples of this would be Talking Stick North #11, where there is a bunker that looks like it's right in front of the green but is actually 30 yards short or HMB-Ocean #2, where the green looks like it's shallow but is actually 30+ yards deep-as pointed out to me by Pete Galea)

[THuckaby2]

I've been trying to think of something of merit to add here because this is a really good thread, so how about the need for some sort of deception in the design.  Here are 3 examples:

1.  A hole that looks incredibly challenging and full of trouble yet is a birdie opportunity for a well hit shot (Bethpage Black #17, one of my personal favorites, falls into this category as would CPC #16 and I suppose TPC Sawgrass #17)
2.  A hole that looks like nothing (Santa Teresa's #14, although I haven't played it) and can be a real bitch
3.  A hole that has a design feature that can trick you into the wrong shot (examples of this would be Talking Stick North #11, where there is a bunker that looks like it's right in front of the green but is actually 30 yards short or HMB-Ocean #2, where the green looks like it's shallow but is actually 30+ yards deep-as pointed out to me by Pete Galea)

Mike - great stuff - I too like these tricks, visual or otherwise, that get revealed over time.  And ST#14 is a lot tougher than it looks, for sure.  I just do have a hard time calling it a great golf hole, for the reasons I've stated.

So I'd say your three additions here CAN make a hole great, but aren't sole determiners... that is, holes can be like this but still not be truly great.  

Which I'm sure is what you were getting at anyway....

Can a hole NOT have these deceptive qualities and be great?  I think so... but the examples are few and of course the setting, or something else, would have to be off-the-charts great to overcome this.  Of course by my take there shouldn't be that many "great" holes period, so that's fine....

TH

[Mike_Golden]

Huck,

You're right, it's one element out of the set, not something that stands exclusively.  There are probably lots more examples of bad par 3's that include deception than the other way around (but that would be an entirely different thread)

[Jim Thompson]

In my mind a great par three has to have many different faces.  Not only should its spacing and scale require or allow for multiple club selections, but it should also require multiple shot shapes and type based on pin locations.  The anti-great par three is the one that requires the same shot each and every time its played i.e. little draw eight iron from 150.  Par threes need to made so as to eliminate the monotony and strucure.  A great par three has players wondering as they approach it, "I wonder what they're gonna' make me do here today."  or better yet " I never know how to play that thing when they put the pin on the back left."

Cheers!

JT

[Mike Benham]

If your statement is correct (excluding the setting issue), then there is something wrong with each definition.  That hole will never be confused with a great hole, fabulous setting or not.

Mike:  why?

I'll be interested in Mike's answer....

My take is that it's on a blah setting in the midst of a blah golf course.  It also does meet your definitions, but can also be played for a cautious three pretty damn easily - just miss short and chip up.  There also are too many easy pin positions - the flatter parts - and they seem to use those 5 times for every time you get the fun tough one back left.

So it meets your definitions, but will never be confused with great.  Honda Element.

You need the Ferrari body for true greatness.... or you damn well better have a REALLY special engine if you don't.  This hole meets the engine essentials, but will never get you going 240mph, so it's blah body carries the day and leaves it at functional, pretty good, nothing really special.

Whaddya think, Mike?

TH

Huck has it pretty much correct ... but I also will add this ... I only briefly scanned the criteria yesterday (something about prepping for a board meeting got in the way ...) so when I logged in this AM, and saw the #14 at Santa Teresa, I laughed.  Actually, I need a few seconds to go through the course in my head to try and REMEMBER #14 ...

The hole seems forced into its location on the course, with 14 -16 kind of stuck in the routing to get 18 holes and get around the little mountain in the middle of the course.

Santa Teresa Aerial

I believe that most par-3s can have the element of greatness but not be considered great.  Kind of one of those "the sum of the parts (definitions in this case) is not greater than the (w)hole"

Btw, #16 is a far better par-3 by the definitions, but still not great.

[THuckaby2]

Mike:  the laughter of those who have actually played this hole was my full intent in mentioning it.  It is rather comical to include it in the same paragraphs as truly great golf holes, no?

And right on re #16... from the tippy-tips that may well BE a great golf hole - it's way better than 14 by any account, anyway.  But it fails a couple of shivas' definitions.

Thus my point:  I find it difficult to make ANY absolute requirments or criteria to define greatness for a golf hole.  All can make it great, none are essential, some can outweigh others, you get the drift.

TH

ps - #7 is also a better hole than 14... and as far from great as I am from skinny...  

[W.H. Cosgrove]

This is a great thread...sorry I came to it so late!  

Par 3's for me almost need to be taken as a group.  The 3's on any course are the shotmakers arena.  Each one shotter on any course should be an examination of the players ability to create a shot that best allows a putt for birdie.  Whether that be right to left, left to right, High, low, long or short.  And, by definition by the end of the round the player has been asked to create different shots.  

Certainly, a sense of place, demanding hazards and many of the other comments here are valid for golf holes in general, but I believe that the element of a 'controlled' experiment in shot making is what makes the great set of  par threes.

[Mike_Golden]

Based on everything written here, maybe the definition is really, 'I'll know it when I see it'.  And that's why professional architects, who are capable of taking a piece of land and occasionally creating something great, are at such a higher level than the rest of us who can merely look at the finished product and verify such greatness (or lack thereof).

[THuckaby2]

Based on everything written here, maybe the definition is really, 'I'll know it when I see it'.  And that's why professional architects, who are capable of taking a piece of land and occasionally creating something great, are at such a higher level than the rest of us who can merely look at the finished product and verify such greatness (or lack thereof).

Amen.  Only some holes we don't know are great upon first seeing.. they reveal themselves over time... And vice-versa... we think they're great and then they prove to be dumb blondes....

Fascinating stuff.  Or at least I think so.

 

[MarkT]

Santa Teresa's #14

[THuckaby2]

Mark - thanks - that's my boy!

I shouldn't denigrate it too much - it is a very good golf hole and has a way of changing many matches, or tournaments.  Way more 5s are taken there than ever should be, and damn few 2s.

I just have a really hard time including it as "great."

TH

[PThomas]

I agree with Mike too:  it's like pornography, you know it when you see it

a possible nomination:  9th at Kingsley...or is it too hard??

and how about this:  can aa par 3 be great one day depending on the hole location, wind, etc., and not the next?

possible example:  at Ravisloe the 7th is a par 3 of about 200 yards, over about 170 yards of water..diagonal green, bunker guarding the left...difficult enough with a center or right pin placement, but when the pin is way back left as it was recently you really need  a golf shot to get it back there

that was the first time I play the hole with the pin in that spot and it really made it a different proposition

a much better example :  12th at Augusta when the pin is on the left side

[THuckaby2]

can a par 3 be great one day depending on the hole location, wind, etc., and not the next?

ABSOLUTELY.  I said this about the beleaguered #14 at Santa Teresa.  Get the back left pin and it damn well may be great... it's still not by my strict limiting of that term, but in terms of how it plays it is pretty cool.  But all other pins are blah...

So the question then is, if a hole can be great just with one pin, is it really great at all?  I'd say no.

And I don't except Augusta #12 from this.  Because to me, even the front left pin doesn't take away the majesty and meaning of that golf hole.  It does make it an easier shot, for sure, but that's irrelevant in the overall.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: