[Mark_F]

In Geoff Shackelford's book Masters of the Links, Ben Crenshaw wrote an essay extolling the virtues of the short par 3 (and virtues they are).  
No one could doubt that holes like #10 Pine Valley, #6NGLA, #13 Merion, #7 Royal Melb., #7 Pebble Beach, #8 Royal Troon, #12 Augusta, #15 Kingston Heath, #8 Ballybunion and #15 Cypress Point are magnificent holes.
But aren't #16 Merion, #5 Pine Valley, #4 Royal County Down, #16 Cypress Point, #16 Carnoustie, #14 Royal Portrush, #6 Turnberry, #4 Riviera, #13 Notts and #17 Royal Troon also brilliant holes?  
Perhaps it is arguable they are even better?
Ben Crenshaw finished by saying that he would enjoy seeing more of them, "for it's one of the many ways to check unbridled power and occasionally make those long hitter's knees tremble".
But is it?  In the latest issue of Golf Australia magazine, Mike Clayton, in his preview of the Aust. Open at Victoria Golf Club, wrote that he hopes they play the 164 metre 4th hole about fifteen metres shorter, to tempt players to hit an 8-iron to potentially dangerous front pin positions.  If it is played at the full length, they'll just hit a 7-iron to the back of the green and take the chance to two putt back down the green.
So if they're not going to tremble...

[Dave_Miller]

Mark F:

I'm confused (Not an unusual situation some would say ) about what your point is.  Are you talking about par 3's?

No.7 at Merion  and No. 16 at Merion are not Par 3's.  No. 16 is the famed quarry hole.  

I'm not following what you are saying here.

Best,
Dave

[Mark_F]

Sorry, dave, too many numbers too remember.
I meant #13 and #17.

Mark F:

I'm confused (Not an unusual situation some would say ) about what your point is.  Are you talking about par 3's?

No.7 at Merion  and No. 16 at Merion are not Par 3's.  No. 16 is the famed quarry hole.  

I'm not following what you are saying here.

Best,
Dave

[Dave_Miller]

Mark:

No.17 at Merion definitely makes your point but No.13 is a short Par 3.  I believe it is about 140-145 from the back tees.  

It is a difficult hole if the green is missed.  Heck it is difficult if the green is hit, but it is not going to make any long hitters think twice.

No.17 definitely does.

Best,
Dave

[Dan Grossman]

I agree with Mark_F.  I start to get worried everytime I have a three wood in my hand on a par 3.

Of the long par 3's that I have played lately, #3 at Pasatiempo and #4 at Hidden Creek are pretty good ones.  Even if you manage to get on the green, you have a lot of work before you can take your three and go home.  Both holes have undulating greens which induce three putts.

#3 at Twisted Dune isn't too shabby either.

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

I've said in a previous thread that I posted awhile back that the long par-3 most certainly has a definite place at the table of fine course architecture.

There are countless examples -- the 5th at PV, the 16th at CP, the 4th at Riviera, the 3rd at Olympic / Lake, the 16th at Oakmont, etc, etc.

Too many of today's par-3 are designed to be politically correct for the masses. How so? You get the standard formulaic downhill mid-length (no more than 180 yards) par-3 from an elevated tee to a green fronted by the proverbial man made water hazard. Often the green is built as big as Kansas in order to encourage a putting contest and spread "play around the entire target." Yawn , yawn, yawn.

The long par-3 forces the golfer to decide how much to risk in terms of both length and accuracy. Marrying the two elements together on one shot is indeed as fine a statement as any golfer can enjoy when playing. I agree with Ben Crenshaw there can certainly be elements where the golfer does in fact tremble.

I only wish the long par-3 were still a major element of any designer's portoflio. Alas, you get plenty of PC type par-3's which are meant to be nondescript postcard type holes.

I'm not advocating four long par-3's that are 225+ in yards. However, I'd like to see more in this area than you often see at so many new courses today.  

[Tim Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I share your enjoyment of the long par 3 and prefer to see at least one in the 230 yard range where I'm probably going to play my four wood.

But, how long do you think a par 3 needs to be to be long for the modern professional?

Mark F:

I'm a bigger fan of Royal Troon than most people, but I've never heard anyone suggest #17 is "brilliant". What makes it so in your mind?

[Doug Siebert]

What you are talking about here, par 3s that are long, or par 3s that are long and have enough shot value to make you worry a bit on the tee.  I can play a 250 yard par 3 without a second thought if there's no reason to think I'll do any worse than 4 if I miss the green.  I'll worry more on the tee of the Postage Stamp with a SW in my hand, because I know there are plenty of numbers in play if I miss that green.

There does seem to be a trend in new "championship" designs that has reduced the spread of distances you'll encounter in par 3s.  Quite often the shortest hole isn't much less than 200 yards, but the longest isn't much more than 220.  Give me a good wedge/short iron hole with a small green and some hazard(s) to make me think, and then something very long would be a good complement.  But if the shortest hole is 196, it seems a bit rude to make me play a 245 yarder as well.

[Mark_F]

Totally unfair, Doug.
Seems to be typical of many designers, though.  Narrow range of par 3s as you say, most of the par 4s are also between 440-470, which really needs some work from the "average" handicapper to get close in two, yet they also design their par 5s in the what, 500-550 yard range?  Gee, I wonder how difficult they are for the low handicapper to reach in two?
Metropolitan here in Melbourne has always struck me as course that the "average" member would struggle with.  A lot of long par 4s you can't guarantee to be on in two, low handicappers excepting,  yet the four par 5s are all around the 500-530 yard mark and also no real problem to be on in two.  (Metropolitan afficionados/members please no death threats)

[Mark_F]

Umm, to quote from the Confidential Guide... "the 17th is overlooked as a terriffic long par 3".
I haven't played it, which is why I'm relying on Tom Doak's expert words of wisdom (and at 120 pounds sterling per round, I doubt that I will be.  That's six rounds at Macrahanish, for crying out loud).

Matt Ward:

I share your enjoyment of the long par 3 and prefer to see at least one in the 230 yard range where I'm probably going to play my four wood.

But, how long do you think a par 3 needs to be to be long for the modern professional?

Mark F:

I'm a bigger fan of Royal Troon than most people, but I've never heard anyone suggest #17 is "brilliant". What makes it so in your mind?

[Mark_F]

Wasn't there a par 3 at Bethpage Black in the 230-yard range?  I vaguely remember seeing Garcia hit it with a 4-iron.  Does that mean, to follow another thread, that if we want to see a professional hit a 1-iron/4-wood, or, heavens to betsy, a 3-wood, to a par 3, it would need to be 260- 290 odd yards?  
Can you imagine the squeals of protest?    

Matt Ward:

I share your enjoyment of the long par 3 and prefer to see at least one in the 230 yard range where I'm probably going to play my four wood.

But, how long do you think a par 3 needs to be to be long for the modern professional?

Mark F:

I'm a bigger fan of Royal Troon than most people, but I've never heard anyone suggest #17 is "brilliant". What makes it so in your mind?

[Matt_Ward]

Tim Weiman:

I don't have a set distance where a par-3 needs to be "x" length for the modern professional. Clearly, pushing these players to hit long irons or even a wood approach makes for interesting situations.

Just look at the final hole at East Lake. Playing about 235 yards and a bit uphill the hole really does provide plenty of theater. Clearly, you can miss the green and make a bogey or worse -- sometimes you see a player stiff it close like Singh did Saturday's round and it's a superb birdie!

I also enjoy seeing uphill par-3's with length. The 3rd at Wolf Creek at Paradise Canyon in Mesquite, NV is a great exmaple of this type. Since you are from Ohio Tim I also enjoy the long par-3 at Cantebury among the closing holes there.

I agree with Doug that having a lengthy par-3 is pointless if there isn't any strategic value to it. I've always loved the long par-3 4th at Riviera for this reason. It's important to provide an avenue for the player that doesn't have the length to play the hole in some sort of manner, but that danger is still present to prevent a ho-hum hole.

It's my personal belief I lot of players don't like long par-3's because they don't have the firepower to handle them. As a result you get plenty of designers today bringing forward their politically correct par-3 quartet to satisfy the masses -- which invariably has the pro forma series of holes that call for a downhill shot to a green fronted by water or other such repetitive aspects.

If you analyze many of the so-called "classic" goolf courses that were built in the 20's you often see the long par-3 as part of the mix. How many people have enjoyed the long par-3 9th at Yale with its great green!

The long par-3 has sadly become less and less a part of modern course design. Again -- I'm not advocating all par-3's be 230+, but the long par-3 has a place at the table no less than the short par-3 that many people usually fawn over.

[SPDB*]

I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that there are more par 3s being built at lengths of > 220 yds than there are <140.
And not by a small margin.

So isn't it the extinction (or persecution) of short par 3s we should bemoaning?

[JakaB]

French Lick..a nice old Donald Ross course has four par threes going at 195, 221, 222 and 145 to greens that will straighten the short hairs...only the 145 is downhill.   On a side note I just noticed the slope is only 119 from the championship tees...how in the hell can a course with a set of greens as tough as any in the country and the only flat lie you get found in front of the mens urinal...have a slope so low...this beautiful course sits mostly empty because high handicapers are just flat lost on even finishing some holes.

[Matt_Ward]

SPDB:

I'd be more than happy to make such a wager.

From my experience in seeing a fair number of new courses opening in the last 17 years, it's my opinion, that the spread of par-3's is usually contained from between 150-210 yards. If I had the time I would love to document how the downhill par-3 of 150-190 yards with water in front and flanking bunkers has been done to the upteeeeeeeeenth time. It's like Stallone, Arnold, action picture. Seen one -- seen them all.

Plenty of new designs I see today are being designed with the "customer" in mind. Many of these same architects know full well how the "average male" golfer really doesn't like the idea of having to grab his 3-wood or even driver in order to reach the target. What's ironic is that many women routinely have to play woods to a number of these holes!

If any preference is coming forward it's leaning more towards the mid-length par-3. Yes, I agree -- I would love seeing par-3's that are especially short but if they happen to be on daily fee or taxpayer owned layouts you best have a large green to handle the traffic or build two greens to rotate play.

Again -- the oldtimers incorporated the long par-3 as part of its arsenal. And, I hasten to add -- not just length for length's sake but with strategic merit.

I'll also provide a good example of a long par-3 at a new course that just recently opened. The long par-3 3rd at barona Creek in Lakeside, CA (just outside of Diego) is 260 yards from the tips but is skillfully done. You can fly or bounce the ball to the target and it clearly adds to the round. On the flip side is the par-3 16th which plays just under 170 yards from the tips and requires a deft touch with the short iron.

[SPDB]

Matt - you're love of length knows no end.  

However, we talk quite often on this site about how technology, or the obsession with "toughness" has led to some absurd measurements at courses being built today. Moreover, many on here (me included) regret that only a few architects have the courage and conviction to convince owners to build sub-68/6700 yard course (from the tips).

Doesn't it then logically follow that if these courses are pursuing ever increasing lengths that the short <140 par 3 is in real jeopardy of becoming obsolete?

I'm not certain how we would find such statistics to settle our wager, but I am certain of one thing.....I am right and you are wrong.  

[Matt_Ward]

SPDB:

I admire your pluck but question your research.

Look, I'm not suggesting creating a course called Jason Zuback Golf Club. And, yes, I'd like to see more courses fit the profile you described. To give you one example that fits what you're saying -- The Kingsley Club by Mike DeVries in Michigan.

To Mike's credit you do have a long par-3 that fits the bill I just described (5th) as well as short par-3 that closes the front nine (140 yards). Providing design balance can be done without overdosing on just one side of the equation.

However, let's be honest -- there are plenty of male golfers who just positively squirm when they have to tee it up on a par-3 of serious length with real strategic value. I usually hear all the lame arguments that long par-3's are this and that and blah, blah, blah. The reality is this -- they don't like them because they don't have the game to play them. Ditto the same case on the issue of length.

Let me also add I agree with you about the short par-3 being a major plus. The issue for many short par-3's is presenting a green or double green that can handle the stress of daily play -- especially on public layouts. I don't see how you can have a short par-3 of 130 or less yards with a green of 3000 or less square feet. Think how marvleous the short par-3 14th at Maidstone is and think how the putting green would be if you had 250-300 rounds on the surface each and every day if the course were open to daily public play!

One closing comment -- ask many architects today and I believe you'll hear how they need to design courses for the masses and the general result in many cases is the formulaic 150-190 yard par-3 from an elevated tee to a green protected by a pond in front and flanking (but never strategic) bunkers. It's post card eye candy at it's best.

[SPDB]

Matt,
I'm not sure you responded to my point, but for the sake of this discussion. let's stick to the tips. 5 at Kingsley is 220+ from the tips, and 9 is 160-170 from the tips (no double standards here).

 

[Mike Hendren]

JakaB,

On a cool spring day, I hit 5-wood, 3-wood and driver on the first three one-shotters at French Lick.  Needless to say, I was O-for.  As you point out, each of these holes has a severe green to boot, particularly the narrow 13th with its three tiers.  All three are vintage Ross - tough par / easy bogie.  I did hit the short 16th, which bears remarkable resemblance to a classic Raynor/Macdonald short hole with a slight thumbprint front-middle.  

Mark F,

Speaking of "squeals of protest" the LPGA professionals disdain the 12th at my home course.  It plays 205 severly uphill to a generous two tiered green with a four foot false front. The wind is typically in your face.  I hit a three wood Monday.  They don't like having to do the same.

As for the professional game, how often is a player asked to hit a green in regulation from 250 yards?  If they're driving the ball 300 yards,  a par four hole would need to be stretched to 550 yards and a par five would need to be stretched to 800 yards if they can hit a 3-wood 250.  Of course both are absurd, so a tournament set-up should indeed include a one-shotter of that length or more.  If I'm asked to hit a 3-wood, why aren't they?  

Regards,

Mike

[Matt_Ward]

SPDB:

I thought I had responded to your point. I mentioned Kingsley because Mike Devries did a masterful job in offering a solid mixture of par-3's throughout the design. Is that not a good thing? How does having one or two long par-3's on any design take away from a course. Look at how many classic courses from the 20's have holes that exceed 225 yards. And, you can still accomplish your previous point on having a design that doesn't exceed 6700-6800 yards.

When I think of Pine Valley there's plenty of discussion on the 10th with its Devils A-hole bunker but it's the 5th that NEVER leaves your brain long after you finished the round.

[Mike_Cirba]

I agree with Matt that many great classic courses have a very long par three in the mix, and more of their ilk should be built (as well as more of the very short par threes ).

Some that come immediately to mind include the 10th at Rolling Green, the 17th at Merion, and one that Tom Doak included in his "Eighteen Toughest Holes, the 15th at Philadelphia Country Club.  

[SPDB]

Matt -
I completely agree with you that long par 3s are crucial to providing a test. The havoc that the 5th at PV plays with your mind is an important element in course design and strategy. Pine Valley, IMO, wouldn't be the same without it. But the same could obviously be said for #10.

I was merely responding to the point raised by this thread that the long par 3 has been persecuted. My position is that the long par 3 has been embraced to the exclusion of the shortish ones.

But don't mistake that for a negative view of long par 3s. I think they are great, I just wish more modern archs wouldn't continue to create them ad nauseam at the expense of their tiny brethren.

What was it that Lee Trevino said about the 17th at Merion -
"the toughest par 4 in America"

[redanman]

certainly long and downhill gets a real yawn from me.

One good long 3 is a good thing, more gets old ........... however........technology often dictates long par 3 design otherwise, no mid or long irons are used in the course of a round.

Obviously a Biarritz with the run-up option is classic, but long or longish and uphill Rolling Green (13?) and Fenway #11 fit the bill, too.

Mix is a good thing.

[Joel_Stewart]

I don't have much to add but will show this picture of the 3rd at Olympic.  I don't think anyone would disagree that its the best (and by far the longest - 223 yards) par 3 on the course. I personally love the big par 3's, 5th at PV or 2nd at Shinnecock.

[TEPaul]

There isn't any unjust persecution of the long par 3! The only par 3 that's been unjustly persecuted is the scrawny teeny little par 3---poor little feller!

He's been unjustly persecuted almost to death and thrown out of the mix as a sacrifice to total card yardage!

Look what the hell happens if you even try to bring him back. Gil Hanse tried to bring him back at Inniscrone and some persecuting ecoterrorist township supervisor or someone like that made Gil drop the little 100 yard guy down about 25 feet where you couldn't even see him from the tee! That's extremely unjust persecution!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()