Length and the counter need for diversity in par 3's

[Patrick_Mucci]

It seems that club after club is scrambling to lengthen their golf course.

As holes are lengthened, they begin to blend together and lose their distinctive nature, especially par 3's.

I'v noticed a number of clubs, where length was added, resulting in all of the par 3's being in the 200-220 range, forcing the golfer to face the same shot, over and over again.

Some clubs were blessed with great diversity in their par 3's.
Why are they eliminating diversity in pursuit of length ?

Are new courses guilty of the same trend ?
Do they suffer from a lack of diversity in their par 3's ?

One of the features I enjoyed at Pacific Dunes was the diversity in the par 3's, not just in length, but in direction as well.

Is Pacific Dunes the exception ?

Is there a lack of diversity in many of today's modern courses ?

If so, why do you feel that architects have abandoned diversity in their par 3's in favor of length ?

[David_Elvins]

Patrick,

I am with you.

Logic would dictate that if golfers are hitting the ball 20% longer, you make holes that are 20% longer.  So instead of building a 110 yard short par 3, you build a 130 yard short Par 3.  

The idea that that players are hitting it further means that we need more long holes (instead of longer short holes) has always seemed totally illogical to me.  

Although I don't think it is anything new.  In my mind it was a post WWII trend that many modern day architects are countering.  

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

The reason so many architects have gone to longer par-3 holes is simple:  it is the only place on the course where you can require a good player to hit a long iron approach shot.  Those architects who are focused on challenging the good player, have responded by building two or three long par-3's per round, instead of one.

They don't have to be the "same shot", of course -- they could vary from a 5-iron shot to a 3-iron or utility club to a 3-wood.

I just want them to be diverse, whether they are on the longer end of the scale or the shorter.

[David Druzisky]

More often than you would think in the strive to capture more overall yardage, clubs end up messing with what was originally some diversity in the par 3's.  For various reasons some of the best physical opportunities for adding length come on the one-shotters.  (Some that are too close to the subject forget that those opportunities were probably there originally when the course was routed but the architect kept the hole shorter then for that diversity) The narrow focus for overall yardage increase takes over if an architect does not steer them back to better ideas.  This can occur on par 4's and 5's as well but it is just not as noticeable - at first.  Yardage increase is much more dynamic of an issue than what most think.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Adding length for the primary purpose of enhancing the appearance of the scorecard seems absurd, mindless.

Yet, courses are allowing their par 3's to become nothing more then clones of one another through the lengthening process.

Tom Doak,

I understand the desire to compel a golfer to use a long iron or a wood, but to repeat the examination four times seems excessive and lacking in imagination.

I must admit that playing # 10 at Pacific Dunes, immediately followed by # 11 was a unique treat, not unlike playing # 15 and # 16 at CPC.

You couldn't ask for two more diverse approach shots.
Throw in the alternate tee factor on # 10 and you gain even more diversity.

Hitting four 2-irons or four 3-woods into par 3's, inherently makes them similar, and as such ameliorates or even eliminates their distinctiveness.

And, you have to ask yourself.  how many of these golf courses are going to cater to PGA Tour Pros ?

And, even if they do, for how long .... four days a year ?

It seems like a mindless pursuit, with but one goal...... stretching the scorecard.

[Jordan Wall]

One of my favorite courses and one that I play fairly often has par 3's of 206 yds, 184 yds, 167 yds, and 145 yds, not in any order. Some elevation, but really different and diverse, testing all your shotmaking skills.

I think it's perfect.  Awesome...

...then another course very close to my house has par 3's with the yardages of 167 yds, 169 yds, and 176 yds.  I cant tell you how boring it makes the course.  BTW, those are long for a 2600 yard nine hole course.

When all said and done I couldnt agree more, Pat.  I do not think that Par-3's should all be long, but diverse.  It would make courses lots better, and more interesting.

[Kyle Harris]

While I feel that a diverse mix of par 3s is essential, I also feel that a good 240-260 yard par 3 doesn't appear enough.

Likewise with good par 3s below 150 yards.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Certainly T Doak's comments make sense for today. Up to 20 years ago, the strong 4's were the test of the good players long irons. No so now. However there is something exquisite about a short par 3 and anytime I play a course that doesn't have one I'm left feeling.. well, not as good as I might have felt.. I also think a super strong 3 is a great test of the average golfer (my area) - how many folk hit driver when it is clear to all playing partners that it is the required club?? And how many try to muscle a 3 wood??

[Gerry B]

some great points - the diversity of the par 3's is  why i almost always favour the old classic courses

Myopia / Merion / Chicago Golf Club / PV  / Cypress / Fishers Island / Bel Air / Riviera certainly qualify as does Pacific Dunes

Myopia's trio of one shorters imho set the example- 253 / 175 that plays downhill and the 135 yd 9th - Leeds rendition of the Postage Stamp  - might be my favorite short one shotter on the planet -and lemonade in the water cooler at no extra cost

[paul cowley]

Patrick....I have tried and still do design for both ends of the spectrum....I love the idea of a three that puts a wood in most peoples hands,[#15 at Orchard Creek, 265 yds and some un-opened ones up to 308 yds],......or the ultra short par three with maybe a full wedge to a small target....#7 at the Patriot plays 115 yds from the members tees to a road hole green that plays on a diagonal but with a wall [OB] 3' along one length of the green as opposed to a road.....good, naturally occurring quirk can be hard to find.

[Doug Siebert]

I agree that its a problem, but there is an easy fix for it.  Alternate tees!

My home course has par 3s that are nominally 201, 204, 182/199, and 201 yards from the back tees.  Prevailing summer winds are cross on two, against on one and with on one, but on a relatively calm day its only a club or two range for me, which is BORING.

However, the first 201 yarder has an alternate tee at 177 yards that's about 20* offset (making the green shallower and more angled, playing more directly over the front bunker and increasing the risk of going into the little pot bunker behind the green for a greater range of pin positions.  The 182/199 yarder has two greens (original to the design, along with SEVEN(!) tees, four of which are NLE) and today plays two different tees from the back so it plays from 140-150, 165-185 or 180-200 to the middle, so I may anything from a PW to a 3i on a given day depending on what tee, green and wind I'm facing.

Now most courses aren't going to go to the trouble to construct new greens or seven tees, but there's nothing wrong with alternate tees or just getting a bit more bold and imaginative with moving the markers around so that the tips play next to the regular tees sometimes, or vice versa.

I agree with Tom that par 3s (and reachable 5s) are becoming the only place an architect can force a player to use middle or long irons, so it makes sense to more heavily weight to longer par 3s, at least from the back tees.  I'm frankly a bit surprised we don't see 300 yard par 3s, based on the logic that par 3s of over 250 yards were built during the 20s and 30s that required a driver or brassie for a good player.  And it would only be fair to see a par 3 now and then that required me to pull out my driver, since my dad is pulling out his more and more often playing from the regular or even in some cases senior tees.

[SPDB]

Patrick - You make a good point and one that i've pondered on here before. A number of courses also will beef up the card by dumping some length into their par 3s.  

Merion has done a pretty good balancing, even as it pursues length. On the card, its pro setup for its par 3s are 219, 206, 120, and 246, for holes 3, 9, 13, and 17, respectively.  But bear in mind that 3 plays a tad longer, while 9 definitely plays shorter.

Perhaps a good way to counteract this trend is for archs to cite par 3s in places of elevation change, which mitigates the effect of pursuing length, while achieving the superficial egotism that comes  from wanting 200+ par 3s.

Parenthetically, I'd ask: is this necessarily a modern problem? Do you think CBM came up short in his design of the par 3s at NGLA vis-a-vis diversity of length?

[Jim Nugent]

From time to time I feel touring pro's should face par 3's that are longer than 250 yards.  260, 270 or so.  The holes should play their length.  Would like to see pro's hit something other than irons on occasion.  The shorter hitters might have to hit driver -- but they tend to be laser-accurate with that club anyway.  

[Philip Gawith]

No harm in posting a picture of this hole again! The 7th at Barnbougle Dunes, 112m off the back and 85m off the front. Of the 14 courses I played down under, this was comfortably the most memorable short hole - and possibly the most memorable hole of all. Depending on the wind, anything from a lob wedge to a 4 iron.

It does not directly address Pat's point - but it is a good reminder that short is good!

[TEPaul]

Certainly I've never played it--never been to that part of the world but the 7th at Barnbougle in that photo above is definitely one of the most beautifully natural looking holes I'ver ever seen, with particular praise to the shape (creating a great looking diagonal), formation and look of all the sand bunkering surrounding it.

I would love to know from those who designed and built the hole what the area on and around which the green and surrounds is on looked like before the golf course was built.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

CBM's three par 3's reflected diversity when he built them.

From the Championship tees, # 4 was 185, # 6 was 135 and # 13 was 170.

Bear in mind that # 6 is downhill, probably making it play a club or two shorter, and the angle of the green provides additional diversity because there can be a two club difference between the front right and back left.

All three holes have been lengthened, although not by much, primarily due to land constraints.

I think they continue to provide diversity, although, if there is a weakness, it's their similarity in direction, and as such, the likelihood that the prevailing winds will have the same, rather than a diverse effect.  However, by the time you get to #13 it's not unusual for the wind to have shifted direction.

# 4 plays to the NNE, # 6 to the NE and # 13 to the NE

As a group and individually they're terrific.

[paul cowley]

....I guess  I need to be more specific ; THE NEW TECHNOLOGY IS CREATING GREAT OPPORTUNITIES TO DESIGN HOLES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DESIGNED IN AWHILE, and still test ones game....we can now design half par holes again as distance has removed the norm guidelines [the imposed par and distance box that most designers operated within during the past 60 years]...its a new world to explore, just like the old days before the imposition of 'par'.

in my earlier post I mentioned a hole we are building that will exceed 300 yds as par three [ or is it a four?...I get confused ].

[TEPaul]

"in my earlier post I mentioned a hole we are building that will exceed 300 yds as par three [ or is it a four?...I get confused ].

Paul:

Technically a hole of 300 yards would be a par 4 unless it's straight downhill or something. These yardage designations for hole par I believe are simply USGA/R&A recommendations, even if perhaps quite strong recommendations. However, there's no authority in golf I'm aware of that can tell any club they can't make a hole any par they want it to be.

[paul cowley]

Tom....even the USGA/R&A have been ignoring their own guidelines for the past five years or so when the are setting up tournament courses with par fours exceeding 474 yds....its funny as they tip toe up to 499 without going over the big 500 officially [although maybe they did last year or plan on doing it this year]....my point is that it is no longer relevant....the box doesn't exist anymore and this thread and the other on the the driver and its use and it's relation to distance is kind of obsolete as well...we might as well embrace the new opportunities and if needed lower par on the classic courses to protect the integrity of their designs....[just as the Road hole was changed from a 5 to a 4 within the memory of some here].
All the talk about having to hit long irons or short clubs or into whatever on whatever type of hole is really just lamentations about a time gone by.....I feel sure that some of better designers of the past didn't let the new technology of the day stand in their way.

[paul cowley]

...and the TOC has experienced not only the imposition and progression of 'par', but also the featherie to the gutty to the Haskell to balata to ProV..........God bless her!

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I know the R&A went to 500yds on a par 4 a few years ago and I think the USGA followed suit recently. Nevertheless, it's just a recommendation or guideline. It's OK either way too. For instance the 18th at GMGC has been a 421 yard par 5 for many, many decades. We started playing it at around 485 recently (off the front of the 11th tee ) to get it into the par 5 yardage category and then wouldn't you know they go and make the par 5 category over 500 now!

You want to hear a really odd thing? A friend of mine found an original scorecard (in an old newspaper) from 1917 and the 18th was a 421yd PAR 4!!! The hole goes uphill bigtime and then uphill again bigtime.

[John Shimp]

My home club in Charlotte (Carolina Golf Club an old Ross that has not been meddled with much mostly because it is not a high money club) is undergoing some extensive work now and has a master plan that stretches the course to slightly over 7100 yds from its current 6320yds.   Much of the yardage is from replacing 2 short 4 pars with 2 newly designed holes a longish 4 and a 5.  The rest of the yardage is from tacking onto existing holes.  From looking at the plan, I agree with the bulk of the changes as many of the courses features can be driven over by average lenth hitters.  

But, Pat's topic is spot on with one change that really bothers me which is to add 30 yds and 2 front bunkers to an already long 212 yd par 3 3rd hole.  Carolina already has really strong par 3's.  3 of the 4 are over 200 yds now and have greens that require an excellent shot to hold.  The third is the toughest of the 4 already as it is a bunkerless "volcano" green that runs off severely on all sides leaving a tough up and down from long bermuda rough unless you miss short and real straight.  To add 30 yds is really overkill here.  Also, I hate the thought of adding bunkers. Carolina only has 2 holes without greenside bunkering and they are both excellent holes and don't need help.  2 front bunkers is just such a common look and will ruin a pristine, rugged volcano green.  They will undoubtedly provide and easier up and down than the bermuda and they may be part of the designers plan in adding the length.  Disappointing to me though.  Not looking fwd to wanging away at a 3 wood on this hole.

[paul cowley]

....OK, you're right and thats neat about the old card.

but I just need to be getting back to my work cubicle for now so,

Cai

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Patrick,
You have hit on one of my favourite topics..what ever happened to the par 3 variety?

I to am tired of having to play courses that require you to hit in excess of a 5 iron on all the par 3's...the best courses to me are those that display a variety of club selection from short iron to long iron/wood.

Cypress Point is perfect, Pine Valley follows suit, although the increase in length of #14 does nothing to enhance the golf course..IMHO....Merion great for the same reason..and a newer corse Kingsley has a great selection of par 3's.

One of the reasons I cherish Royal Birkdale so much is it's great variety of par 3's especially the awesome 12th, which is my favourite hole anywhere.
I understand Mr Doaks explanation and he is right, we should test the long iron somewhere in the round of golf, but 2 out of 4 par 3's is adequate.

[Mark_F]

Patrick,

Whilst agreeing with your general premise, wouldn't you balance a set of par threes with the course layout as a whole?

For instance, my course has a set of par threes that are on the longish side, with one exception - yet with four short par four's and a couple of medium - 360 and 377 downhill metres -par fours,you find yourself with a range of short and medium irons in anyway.

I guess the type of hole that made good players hit long irons into them is the short to medium par five - or a very long one that required a long iron second to lay up - but aren't these holes harder to find and build?  

And how many short - medium par fives truly feature a tough gambling second with a lot of trouble if you miss?