The Missing Link - Long Par-3's on Private but not on Public Courses ?

[Matt_Ward]

I have to say that in general terms you rarely see quality long par-3's (I define that in terms of 225 yards plus from the tips) on many modern public courses today. Ditto on the resort side as well.

Far too often you get designs that are quite formulaic and predictable with a rendition of the obligatory 140-150 yard hole and an assortment of three other par-3 holes which generally play somewhere between 175-190 yards.

It seems such a rare event when you see a quality long par-3 on a modern public course. One quick example is the par-3 8th at Black Mesa just outside Santa Fe. To Baxter Spann's credit the hole plays 235 yards and often longer when the prevailing SW or W winds are blowng in one's face. The hole is superbly designed and makes you really earn a 3 in nearly all situations -- wind or not.

The hole is indeed stellar and I have to ask what has led to the gradual disappearance of such holes on public / resort layouts. You don't see a similar situation with a number of top tier private layouts that have opened in the last 10+ years or more.

I have to wonder if designers sensing the audience simply have abandoned such holes for a host of reasons. So much on this site often waxes poetic about the short par-3 hole -- those less than 125 yards. Few lament about the long par-3. Likely it's because of self interest tied to one's own game. I imagine the owners of public courses / resort layout think in comparable terms and try to steer away from their inclusion into the final product. In many cases - you get the boring / lame par-3 over a pond with (yawn) flankng bunkers that are merely eye-candy and nothing else.

That same thinking doesn't pervade the private side of the aisle to the extreme I have seen with the other two categories previously mentioned. No doubt the amount of rounds to be played is a factor and the greater flexibility gven to the architect given the audience involved.

Be curious to the thoughts of others -- my conclusions are based on a vast number of new places I have played across the USA over the last 10+ years.

[David Stamm]

Matt, I too enjoy playing a quality par 3 of this length. There are a couple of this description that you cite that spring to mind. The 3rd at Barona which can play at 260 yds plus and the reworked 15th at Soule Park (by Gil Hanse and Jim Wagner) that plays at 245 yds. One feels very satisfied with a 3 on the card after playing these.


The 4th at Paiute's Wolf course is another that I just thought of. It's 223 yds and I found that what made this one particularly tough was the waste area behind the green. So often a par 3 of this size makes the player worry so much about hitting enough to get there that this also makes the golfer have to take into account not going too far. Like the 2 I mentioned, a very stout and fine test.


It's not quite as long as your criteria, but the 6th at Rustic Canyon is quite a stern par 3 at 216 yds. The green's contours and the forced carry really get ones attention on the tee.

[Matt_Ward]

David:

Frankly, I should have increased the bare minimum to no less than 230 yards.

I've played the other ones you mentioned -- the long par-3 at Barona Creek is well done -- especially if the turf is quite tight and firm.

It just seems the type of hole I am talking about is more of an oddity than something one will find on today's public / resort layouts. Architects simply see public courses as a different audience and usually only have the lengths for par-3 holes I originally mentioned.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I do think there tends to be more creativity used on some of the shorter par threes as the longer ones use the length itself as a defense and sometimes sacrifices other interest.

As you mentioned the 8th at Black Mesa is a good example from New Mexico. Paa-Ko Ridge has a lot of long par threes as well, they tend if anything to be a little repetitive in their length actually, but #14 is the best of the bunch IMO. I've only played one quick nine on the 19-27 set though so I'm not as familiar with those holes. #15 at Twin Warriors at 240 is one of the better holes on that course as well.

#14 actually measures 272 from the back tee, although I'm not sure they use it. Still a stout 243 from the next tee up. #8 is "only" 265/254!

There are others. Arcadia Bluffs #13 is 240 from the tips and Whistling Straits #17 I think is about 225, both very tough with something going for them other than length. #12 at Tullymore is about 250 from the back with a large portion of it carry. Its not for the faint hearted with a mostly blind green from back there!

One common thing about a large portion of these longer holes though is that they are downhill. Add the elevation difference in New Mexico for the holes located here and the distance becomes little more than a number in some cases. Still creates some interesting holes though.

[David Stamm]

It just seems the type of hole I am talking about is more of an oddity than something one will find on today's public / resort layouts. Architects simply see public courses as a different audience and usually only have the lengths for par-3 holes I originally mentioned.

You are right, it is an oddity. I don't understand why that is. If the architect is afraid to, why? That the hole would be perceived as too hard? Or, perhaps it's difficult for the architect to create interest on a hole of this length without going overboard. I would need some time to think about this one.....

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

I find the par-3's at Paa-Ko to be predictable in terms of their overall length and playing aspects. I'm not advocating long par-3 holes devoid of any real merit from a strategic sense.

Andy, you answered your own question -- in many of the examples you listed -- the holes actually play down hill from elevated teeing grounds so the "effective" length is really a  good bit less unless prevailing winds kick into full force.

I still stand by what I said -- if I had to name all the top long par-3 holes I have played over the last ten years from new courses -- the bulk of them would be on private layouts.

Sometimes I wish architects would design a long par-3 hole like the 8th at Wolf Creek (Mesquite, NV) just to stir the juices and scare the living daylights out of players when coming to the tee box. Even though the hole plays downhill it strikes absolute terror.

Candidly, having control of the long iron, hybrid or fairway metal is a lost situation and you get the yawn / yawn type holes that are 150-175 with fronting H20 hazard and the mindless flanking bunkers which only come into play with a severe pull or push shot.

[Bart Bradley]

I agree but generally play one up from the tips anyway... this was a memorable par 3 I played on a recent golf trip...240 from the tips.  Arcadia Bluffs #13 photo from their website.



and my photo from the front of the tee box...one forward from the tips...



This is a spectacular long par 3 on a public golf course IMO.


Bart

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
Give a little more thought to the specific examples I provided. While I mentioned that Paa-Ko has many downhill par threes (and I agree with you about the others), #14 is not severely downhill (a little bit admittedly) and has an interesting green especially to left side pin placements.

Most of the other holes I listed are actually not significantly downhill and I do mean to include those as worthy holes and examples. I do agree that many other holes have a big number but play quite a bit shorter.

Bart,
That hole at Arcadia Bluffs is amazing, I have a photo similar to your second one from my visit there. From 240 that would put some terror into most folks especially with a bit of breeze! From the up tees its still tough but much more reasonable for the higher handicaps.

[Ryan Farrow]

I agree but generally play one up from the tips anyway... this was a memorable par 3 I played on a recent golf trip...240 from the tips.  Arcadia Bluffs #13 photo from their website.



and my photo from the front of the tee box...one forward from the tips...



This is a spectacular long par 3 on a public golf course IMO.


Bart

Bart, I don't think you could have found a better example about what is wrong about long par 3's. It seems like this is exactly what they are all like and why I used to hate long par 3's. Don't make me carry the ball 240 yards to the green. Let me hit an accurate 3-4 iron  or 5 wood 190-220 and work the ball on the green. Don't ever make me carry it 240 in the air, do or die. IMO that is why the average golfer doesn't like long par 3's.

[Andrew Summerell]

Matt,

I agree with what you are saying. Most of the new courses I have played tend to not of good long or short par 3’s. A few of the new public courses in Australia tend to favour a distance between 170y & 200y from the tips, often for 3 or even 4 of their par 3’s, which can make them quite monotonous.

Interestingly, my home course (Newcastle GC) has two par 3’s around the 240y mark. Although both are quite difficult holes, neither hole requires the golfer to fly the ball all the way & both greens are designed to take a variety of shots. The members know how best to play them for their own game, but visitors often struggle with them due, in part to unfamiliarity.

For long par 3’s to be successful they have to offer a few option from the tee, which often requires more width than a normal par 3. Both long par 3’s at Newcastle, even though one of them has a very thin green, have a lot of width in the corridor to allow the golfer to lay up if required. Most public & resort courses don’t have that amount of room, so most architects probably don’t bother with longer par 3’s for that reason.

[Bart Bradley]

[quote author=Ryan Farrow

Bart, I don't think you could have found a better example about what is wrong about long par 3's. It seems like this is exactly what they are all like and why I used to hate long par 3's. Don't make me carry the ball 240 yards to the green. Let me hit an accurate 3-4 iron  or 5 wood 190-220 and work the ball on the green. Don't ever make me carry it 240 in the air, do or die. IMO that is why the average golfer doesn't like long par 3's.

Ryan:  

From one tee up from the tips the hole is something like 190 to the middle ...and I think there is more room safe than it looks ...a well controlled 4 iron would probably put you dancing somewhere and a solid fade or push would still be safe.  I don't mind shots like this where you can choose a line that is safer but might require an up and down for par... But I bet you could fly it on from the tee that I played with a decent swing.  What I don't like are completely do or die shots of this length...I have seen also seen too many of those.  

Bart

[Tom_Doak]

Bart:

I have to agree with Ryan about the ninth hole at Arcadia.  It's the most spectacular hole on the course, but maybe the worst hole, too.  That 190-yard tee is not a 4-iron on a nice summer day with the wind blowing from the north; it's still a wood for most golfers.  And if you play for the shorter carry, there are two VERY deep bunkers blocking the entrance to the putting surface.  And then the putting surface slopes away from the bunker for 30-40 feet, so a ball which just makes the carry shoots on away to the back of the green.  Playability is not the hole's strong point.

Matt:

Seems to me there are a lot more very-long par-3's being built now, on public and private courses alike.  Ten or twenty years ago, nobody wanted to build them.  But many of the holes you have cited are at altitude, so they don't really play all that long ... the Black Mesa hole is just a 200-yarder plus altitude, isn't it?  I can't remember what club I hit there but it surely wasn't driver.

For myself, I can't say that I have used the concept more on private courses than on public layouts; we just haven't built as many public courses recently, period.  

It is hard to include a 240-yard hole in a really windy places, because there are days when it won't be reachable at all, and most people are going to hate that.  Pacific Dunes doesn't have a very long par-3, for that reason.  I've still seen good players have to hit driver on #5, #10, and #17 depending on the day.  

[wsmorrison]

Flynn nearly always designed a very long par 3 at each of his courses.  He designed the 15th at Cascades in 1923 as a 240 yard par 3 on level ground from the middle of the back tee to the middle of the green.  Incidentally, the green was 40 yards long, so it could be played at close to 260 yards.  RTJ changed the playing angle and distance when he moved the 14th green.  Altogether a botch job that could have been avoided by moving the tee rather than the green on 14.

Other long par 3s on public golf courses by Flynn included:

uphill 3rd at Marble Hall, 225 yards
5th at Opa Locka, 229 yards
old 9th at Pocono Manor, current 13th, 225 yards
8th at Ritz Carlton North, 229 yards into prevailing winter wind (course was never built)
4th at Ritz Carlton South, 240 yards
7th at Yorktown Lake, 230 yards

[Adam_Messix]

Matt--

I will put it simply in two words....SLOW PLAY.  You can't put a really long par three on a course, particularly early in the round without totally clogging the place up.  All you need is one group of 36 handicaps (and that's being kind) who want to play "the whole course" who wait for the group on the green to putt out and take 30 minutes to play a hole like #13 at Arcadia Bluffs (a hole that I really like) to have a slow play disaster with every group behind them miserable.

[Jim Nugent]

Flynn nearly always designed a very long par 3 at each of his courses.  He designed the 15th at Cascades in 1923 as a 240 yard par 3 on level ground from the middle of the back tee to the middle of the green.  Incidentally, the green was 40 yards long, so it could be played at close to 260 yards.  RTJ changed the playing angle and distance when he moved the 14th green.  Altogether a botch job that could have been avoided by moving the tee rather than the green on 14.

Other long par 3s on public golf courses by Flynn included:

uphill 3rd at Marble Hall, 225 yards
5th at Opa Locka, 229 yards
old 9th at Pocono Manor, current 13th, 225 yards
8th at Ritz Carlton North, 229 yards into prevailing winter wind (course was never built)
4th at Ritz Carlton South, 240 yards
7th at Yorktown Lake, 230 yards

Making the gap even bigger...with modern technology and balls, a 260 yard par 3 in the 1920's is around the same as a 310 yard par 3 now.  

All those 200+ yard par 3's back then were way way longer than just about anything golfers face today.  

One muni course I played a lot as a kid -- the Forest Park 18 in St. Louis -- had a par 3, number two, that was about 215 or 220.  (When I measure it on Google earth, it comes to 230, but I'm pretty sure it was not that long.)  In 1970, when I was 18, I had to hit a full 4 wood to reach the green.  The course had three other par 3's that were 185 to 195.  One was heavily uphill and blind.  

Holes like these made par of 70 hard for the city's best amateurs, even though the course measured under 5900 yards.  

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Matt

How about the 14th at Kelly Blake Moran's Lederach? This is an uphill long par3- 233y from the tips and 211y from the middle tees with a very large undulating green. I hazard a guess that there are very few ball marks on this green although I came very close to a hole in one there last year.

[Ken Moum]

Matt,

I think you are right, and I find it odd given the number of holes like that on courses built in the far distant past.

I grew up playing on nine-hole courses built from 1915 to ~1960 by designers unknown. Most of them were barely 3,000 yards, if that. Through my late 40s I played these courses in tournaments up to 12 times a summer.  And nearly every one of them had a par three that measured 200 to 220.

The course I play today was opened in 1915, and it has an uphill par three that's 225 from the tips. I these holes were playable with hickory shafts, I cannot imagine why they aren't today.

But I agree that long par threes with big bunkers in front of the green are asking a bit much from anyone but the pros.

Ken

[Kirk Gill]

As a higher handicapper, I have to say that the satisfaction of hitting the green on a long par 3 is one of the greatest in golf. From an architectural standpoint the long par 3 second at the home course of my youth wasn't much to speak of, but GIR's on that hole were always memorable. I have to go along with Mr. Messix, though, and say that backups at that hole are common, and with its position early in the round, it can be a very frustrating backup when the course is full. It seems obvious that slow play would be a big consideration when deciding whether or not to build a long par 3 on a public course that needs a lot of play.

[Steve Lapper]

Matt--

I will put it simply in two words....SLOW PLAY.  You can't put a really long par three on a course, particularly early in the round without totally clogging the place up.  All you need is one group of 36 handicaps (and that's being kind) who want to play "the whole course" who wait for the group on the green to putt out and take 30 minutes to play a hole like #13 at Arcadia Bluffs (a hole that I really like) to have a slow play disaster with every group behind them miserable.

Adam is spot on. The primary reason these holes don't exist on public courses is that they become definitive bottlenecks for pace. While there is great pleasure taken in reaching the green on such a hole, the time taken to get there can be maddening for those who miss and thus the golfers on the tee are forced to wait to advance play. With Kelly's help we recognized this early as a feature to avoided at Old Bridge. In general this type of hole (even without any severely penal architecture) will slow pace by over 15 minutes. Of course, with an additional tee, a well-designed mid-length par 3 can be stretched for competitive play, but even then, absent a large enough green will still stand out as one of the tougher & time-consuming plays on any public course.

[Garland Bayley]

Of course, Matt Ward would recommend and look for long Par 3s of note. He has a reputation as a long hitter to maintain. However, in Gleanings from the Wayside, Tillinghast recommends against such holes. Unfortunately, I cannot recollect his reasons well enough to replicate them here, but he is satisfied with a collection ranging in length but all short of 200 yards. This is from a man who considers the collection of one-shotters to be one of the premier standards in judging a course.

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

What a few people mentioned could be something added on to the American golf landscape -- you see plenty of courses in the UK / Ireland that are merely just over 6,000 yards in change. The most many play are 6,400 yards. In that mixture you get few par-5 holes -- but a healthy dose of long par-4's with character and the neatly balanced set of par-3's which often includes one or two long par-3 holes that add to the backbone of the layout.

In terms of overall length -- it may be listed as short but you can throw such holes into the overall picture and the fangs of such course(s) can provide a sufficient bite and make you really buckle down when you stand on the tee of such respective holes.

One further item -- I see the long par-3 as really a short par-4 for the higher handicap player. While the high handicap type is often reduced to a chip and putt situation for a par the pressure is really on the better player who believes he must reach the green in regulation -- often this attempt is met with great risk if such long par-3 holes are designed to keep them at bay withy any indifferent swing.

Steve S:

I applaud what Kelly did at Lederach. More diversity of holes is needed and designers should not simply go to the lowest form of acceptance -- golf's history s replete with a number of examples of long par-3 holes that were a key ingredient of such courses.

Adam Messix:

Let's get real.

Slow play can happen at anytime and anyplace -- you could have a hole that had funnels on either side of the fairway and the actual hole could be the size of a basketball rim and given the tendencies of certain golfers the actual pace can come to a halt. 36-handicappers are not the only folks who cause slow play --  I know, as do many others on this site and elsewhere, low handicap types who move like tortoises when they are playing.

In sum -- it's not the nature of the hole that causes slow play -- it's the manner by which the individual player causes such situations to happen.

The idea that long par-3 holes are the main culprit doesn't hold water for me. The real issue is one in which public operators and those handlng the purse strings at many resorts is to provide a comparable model of golf holes -- the long par-3 is really left out for the reasons I previously mentioned.

Tom Doak:

A little bit of information concerning the 8th at Black Mesa. I've played the hole anywhere from a 6-iron to a full driver to reach the putting green -- granted in the latter case the wind was blowing in through the chute area where the tee is located between rock croppings. Wind speed that day when I hit driver was in the range of 40-50 mph.

I still stand by what I said -- the functionality aspect seems to be the marching orders for many public and resort layouts. That means you get a dictum that encourages the predictable spread range of 140-210 yards for the quartet of par-3 holes encountered.

One other thing to remember -- I don't favor this slave-like concept where fairness must be embedded into the nature of a long par-3 hole. My God -- is the nature of any controversial hole going to be determined solely by the Gallup poll of whether or not the hole is entirely fair?

Yes, such long holes can be a real pain in the ass to play and often times fear should be a real element. Unfortunately, too much of design goes towards the more conventional approach. I've played the hole at Arcadia Bluffs and it's a bear when the wind does blow. However, people need to realize that as much as many gush about the short par-3 hole -- say less than 140 yards -- it's just as much golf to have a long par-3 hole that makes you quake in your boots.

I fully understand the business models that many public / resort layouts follow. Give the masses a beautiful picture and get them around quickly enough to keep the show going.

When quality design sacrifices itself totally to the convenience of the customer / owner you get fast food design that while able to meet the immediate needs will still leave you hungry for somethng more.

Steve Lapper:

That's nonsense. The pace of play at Black Mesa isn't effected the slightest with the inclusion of such a hole. Let me give you a closer example of a demanding long hole -- the 2nd at Francis Bryne in West Orange, NJ. The pace of play doesn't slow down because of the hole.

I can name plenty of other public courses -- the 7th at Wild Turkey (Hamburg, NJ) is an even better example. No doubt high scores can happen on such holes -- but guess what -- they can happen on just about any hole if a particular player plays them in the wrong manner. One other thing to keep in mind about slow play -- it's more a function of laziness and inertia from golf course owners / management that allows slow play to grow and grow.  

Wayne M:

I don't dispute the fact that oldtime architects included such long par-3 holes -- both private and public as part of their designs. The issue, as I spelled out in great detail, is how in the most recent designs (e.g. public / resort) spread out throughout the USA and from the ones I have played, seems to favor a more formulaic and predictable result in terms of overall par-3 design.

No doubt Flyyn provided such holes -- I only wish more were part and parcel of today's design landscape -- especially on the public and resort level.

[Matt_Ward]

Garland:

Get over it -- I don't advocate holes simply because of my game. I've named plenty of holes / courses where the overall length and nature of such holes / courses is far from being geared to what club I may hit. I've mentioned a slew of courses that provide a solid quartet of holes -- often times only one of them is beyond 200 yards -- see Forsgate / Banks Course (Monroe Twsp / NJ) as one clear example I've mentioned previously.

You need to so some serious re-reading on what I have opined on previously.

One other thing -- if you want to see a really grand course be sure to analyze the nature of the par-3 holes. Yes, I do believe that it is one of the "premier standards" for the overall standing of any course. Check out a really great course and you will likely find the par-3 holes are often cited as one of its real strengths. By the way -- knock yourself out and list for me any course where the collectve nature of the par-3's is that poor but the overall course still is considered to be among the best. You'll be searching for a loooooong time partner.

[Garland Bayley]

Matt,

Your fight is not with me. It is Tillinghast that disagrees with you.

As for a great course without the quartet of outstanding par 3s. Try Chambers Bay on for size.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

While the course is at elevation, Thanksgiving Point has number 17 which play 250ish from the back tees with water surrounding most of the green complex.  I can't even imagine attempting to play that hole from that length.  As a side note, one other par 3 also plays 200+ from the blacks and the other two play in the high hundreds 180-190.

[Garland Bayley]

Matt,

If you were the average length hitter that Tom Doak mentioned needs a wood to make the carry at Arcadia Bluffs, would you be out searching for long par 3s?

Answer what you may, but methinks not.