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

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

Be interested to know your leading examples of the best long par-3 holes you have personally played from the public / resort side of the design aisle that are at least 225+ yards in overall length and have opened in say the last 10-15 years?

Let me add I do agree with your comment that designers should not automatically try to include any type of hole that doesn't fit their overall routing and the land they must handle in their final product of holes.

However, I do believe the long par-3 seems to be the first choice of hole to be often jettisoned -- whether that comes from pressure of the client or from a willingness of the architect to do so -- the net result is the same and that's unfortunate, in my mind.

Tim P / John V.B.:

Tim, how do you know how good BT is as a C&C course if the only sample you have personally played for discussion purposes is the actual course itself?

I don't doubt you like it and have "positive impressions." I have had the benefit in playing other C&C courses and frankly BT gets plenty of brownie points from others who automatically concede that anything this talented duo does is at the same level (or even beyond) with each new course they bring forward. That argument generally makes the assumption that certain designers hit home runs with each and every design. That's not the case -- save for the groupies (I'm not including you in that mixture) on this site who believe such a thing.

For what it's worth -- limited architectural portfolios that you have personally played can often mean "impressions" that are rather narrow in their overall scope. Doesn't mean you're not entitled to your personal opinion but the nature of its overall meaning and applicability to the larger universe needs to be kept in mind.

John VB, I didn't say the 12th at BT was a bad hole. It's just not that noteworthy when compared to the laundry list of other long par-3's -- those that have opened in the last 10-15 years from other public / resort courses I have played.

Let me put it another way -- if you looked at the rest of the par-3's at BT where would the 12th finish? I would rate them in this order ...

5th
17th
2nd
12th

If you want to see a C&C long par-3 that has some real character try the 13th at Sand Hills -- granted its a private layout and not in tune with the public / resort categories I mentioned from the outset on this thread.

The shot is played from one elevated tee to an elevated green and has a green complex, if memory serves, that promotes three-putting far better than the barkers of NYC lore who used to shill local newspapers on the streets of Manhattan.

Tim, in regards to Pac Dunes -- I don't see the 10th qualifying for the category -- ditto the 17th (although I really do like that hole). Tim, when you say "if the wind blows" -- well that sort of reasoning can be applied to just about any hole in the world. Where does one begin / end when the word "if" is inserted into the mixture. I'm simply saying that the length of such holes -- those 225+ -- which can be evaluated without the added ingredient of wind being stapled to its overall core. I'm not saying wind isn't a factor but for the purposes of analysis I tend to evaluate holes / courses without such a consideration being seen front and center.

Like my late father used to say about the word "if" -- if the queen had b*lls she'd be the king.

Garland:

How many holes do players hit drivers / 3-metals or other such long clubs with their approaches to other holes? Wake up my good man -- many good players routinely today don't hit more than a mid-iron at best to any par-4 -- some never hit more than a 7-iron. One other thing -- sometimes a course can be quite short -- as the examples I provided on UK / Ireland courses (under 6,300 yards is not uncommon) and as a result the need for long clubs is held in check until you reach a particular hole that demands its usage. Tom Doak is quite right -- a long par-3 forces that shot choice into the round.

Another misconception on your part -- I didn't advocate some sort of formula for all types of courses. I simply said that from all the visits I have made to new public / resort / private courses over the last 10-15 years the long par-3 is slowly being used less and less from the public / resort side than the resort.

If you bother to check out the contributions of many of the old time architects the long par-3 was really something of note for many of their overall designs. And, that includes public / resort courses as well.

I'm simply stating a possible trend from my own observations with design outputs today. And, frankly I find it completely and totally boring to keep playing the same rendition of the 140-190 yard hole -- often times with the proverbial pond in front of the green and flanking bunkers that are simply mindless window dressing and little else of real intellect with green contours.







 

[Matt_Ward]

John Moore II:

Please tell me how a long par-3 slows play when compared to other types of holes. I can name plenty of instances on public courses where short par-4's and second shots on reachable par-5's did even more harm to the pace of play.

John, try to realize it's not the nature of a hole or its length --but the inability course owners / management to effectively police the pace of play, in my mind.

Garland:

Just would like to know since you trashed the 8th at Oakmont as a "black eye."

Have you ever played the hole?

I've attended the different Opens since '73 at Oakmont and have played the course a few times. The quality of what it provides is apparent to me from personal observations.

Are you simply winging an opinion from the seat of your pants. Nothing wrong with that btu a bit of a clarifiation would be appreciated.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Any decent course should have at least two holes, not being par threes, that allow a long iron to be used off the tee.  

Almost all non par threes allow long iron off the tee!

I think really good courses present that option on almost every hole.  

Point blank, the thought that a mid length player should never have to hit woods into a par three is stupid.  That is only dimishing the variety of holes.

The last thing we need is a course where all the par threes are 175 yards and under.  Because really, a mid length player hits his 4-iron about 175 yards.

What does the 4 iron you talk about have to do with the driver/3 wood I talk about? Who said anything about 175 yards? Are you daft?
Report directly to study hall, No holiday break for you.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Have you ever played the hole?
...

Read my signature Matt. Ran and I don't believe you have to play a hole to know significant things about it. Furthermore, many people can play a hole many times and still not get it.

[Jordan Wall]

Here's the deal folks. On a typical course with four par threes, there are 14 holes where driving is being examined. Why waste one or more of your par threes to examine hitting driver or 3 wood yet again?

OK, Garland, lets walk through this.

You are saying that, on a typical course, a player will hit a driver or 3-wood 14 times.

Then, you say this.

Almost all non par threes allow long iron off the tee!

In which case, the player would not use that driver or 3-wood 14 times!  Rather, there would be certain holes where the player would use a long iron in order to gain an advantadge on any particular hole not being a par three.  

Now, since par-4's present this option of hitting long irons off the tee, is it a bad idea to suggest a wood should be used to hit into a par-3?  What mid length player would not find excitement in hitting a green with a wood, and watching a well struck ball roll on the green after landing some 15 or 20 yards short?

This is precisely why there needs to be these long par threes, to offer the player the option of rolling a ball onto a green with a longer club.  To offer variety, excitement, and some fun to the round and the course.  Please tell me what you dont get about this.  Or maybe none of it makes sense and I'm still a daft kid.


 Huge waste of time to me and Tilly! Causes automatic lowering of the rating of the course. Get over this silly idea that Matt seems to have that long par threes are important.

Right, Garland.  Long par-3's are unimportant.

In fact, your favorite par-3 in the world, the 9th at Chambers, is 230 yards long.  

That would classify as a long par-3.

[J_ Crisham]

Cog Hill's Dubsdread has a couple of lengthy par 3's in the 210-230 range. They don't seem to slow the pace of play - people who play here know what they are in for. Excited to see the remodel upon completion.

[John Moore II]

Garland- My point was not that you can hit the ball anywhere and have the same result, my point was, how many golf courses do you play that require that you hit your ideal drive 14 times? Is the players ability to hit the driver really examined? And what I meant about slow play, its more general, any very difficult hole will slow up play. During a recent tournament at my club, we had 5 groups on the same par 3, and its mid length. And at that point, there is nothing the club can do to marshall play. Slow play is caused by people thinking they can do something that in most cases they can not do and they end up taking a lot of shots.----
Just a simple man's opinion

[Matt_Ward]

Garland:

It's nice to see you link with Ran -- help me out with something. You did a tap dance to my direct question.

I imagine the answer is no -- you have not played it and are simply commenting on the qualities / lack thereof from the seat of your pants.

Nothing wrong with that but let's be a bit more forthcoming. Personal experiences are the more truest indicators -- granted people who play it may not understand all its qualities -- however, it's a bit much to make the assumption that those who have not played it can denounce the hole for reasons gleaned from simply photos or second / third hand accounts.

Unless I'm wrong -- I believe Ran has played the hole.

When you say the hole is "dumbed down" -- I wonder if your own assessment follows that same grain.  

[Garland Bayley]

Man Jordan, today's high school education is severely lacking. Go to the dictionary and look up allow. While you are at it, look up require.

Let me define long par 3 as I have been using it to mean requiring driver or 3 wood. I thought that would be clear from context if you read all of my posts. Also, note that I am taking the same position as AWT. It is not such a strange position. Note that AWT allowed par 3s reaching to nearly 200 yards in his day. Essentially not driver/3 wood, but everything else.

Chambers #9 does not require driver/3 wood for me to play. Nor would it require it of todays top players playing from the back tees. Also, note that there is at least the 2 and 3 irons between the 4 iron and the 3 wood.

[Garland Bayley]

Matt,

Which part of flattest green, most shallow bunker, 43 yards of open fairway ... to the front of the open green, did you not understand as dumbing down?

[Matt_Ward]

Garland:

If you remotely think the Fownes family would dumb down ANYTHING at Oakmont then you really are proving the point that dumb isn't what applies to the hole but to your analysis.

The green also has more movement than you would possibly know. Geeze, how would I know that? I can tell you this I didn't get it from hearing about the hole from others or looking at photos and then weighing in with comments.

Let me point out that the immense size of the Saharra bunker makes for a bit more challenge than it's so-called "shallow" nature would suggest.

One final item -- the point of MY THREAD was to deal with public / resort layouts and par-3 holes which are 225+ yards. Do everyone a big favor and return to what you know firsthand. It would make for a better and more enriching experience for all involved. I did appreciate your take on Chambers Bay for what it's worth.

[Jon Spaulding]

The 3rd @ Barona, already mentioned, is excellent.

The 255yd, par 3 15th @ Wekopa Saguaro was one I saw recently that was excellent. Nicely situated between a split fairway par 5 and a short uphill par 4. The angle of play over the natural area/bunkering was top notch.

[Garland Bayley]

Matt,

At no point did I remotely implicate that the 8th at Oakmont was "dumbed down" over anything other than the other holes at Oakmont. You can flaunt your experience at Oakmont all you want, but if you cannot understand what is written on the page, but instead choose to substitute your own misinterpretations, then you are wasting others time.

It is a simple matter. Ran testifies that the green and surrounds at the 8th are more forgiving than at the other holes. A reasonable conclusion to draw is that it was done so, because of it's length as a par 3. I believe most would agree that there are several other holes at Oakmont that examine the driver or 3 wood more than the 8th does.

The argument that I have adopted from AWT is that there is no need for further examination of the driver/3 wood on the par 3s, because that shot should be examined well enough elsewhere. It appears clearly logical to me that Oakmont would be a better course if it had another more testing, but shorter par 3 instead of the 8th.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
Admittedly in the southwest and especially the mountains we have more of the long par threes than some other areas, but it seems like they are being built still on public courses, that's partially how these courses get to be 7300 yard behemoths (see your other thread!). The question might be whether the majority of those longer holes are of quality, not just whether they exist. You've mentioned that idea anyway somewhat as the thread has gone along.

Garland,
I've followed this thread a fair amount and where has anyone but yourself stuck to the driver/3-wood definition of a long par three? You keep going back to it, but save perhaps for #8 at Oakmont anyone that would have any thought of playing the back tees surely wouldn't need a driver (barring wind in the equation which is a different issue altogether) and on most holes not a three wood either. Heck, even the 270 yard holes at Paa-Ko would be 3-woods for me due to being downhill and at 7,000 feet, and I'm not long enough to play the tips there.

I agree that forcing a driver play on a par three shouldn't really be the point unless one is playing tees they probably shouldn't be playing, but to me you're missing the point that a 230 yard hole is a 2 or 3 iron for most of the folks playing back there. I see nothing at all wrong with that (or even the occasional 3-wood), and most of the holes cited fall into that mold.

Edit: would it be realistic to say that 200 yards in AWT's time now would equate to 230 yards today given technology changes?

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I haven't got time right now to go back through the list of all the courses I've seen in the last 10-15 years.  I'm just saying from what I've seen, there are WAY more holes between 220 and 320 yards being built today than there were 20 years ago.  Talking Stick North has that 230-yarder over a big bunker about 30 yards short; The Legends (Heathland) has the really long 17th hole, which Larry Young made me keep down to about 220 or 225; Black Forest has the par-3 fifth, which we measured at 238 from the middle of the back tee.  

But, I think Garland is right -- some of these are good holes, and some of them are dumbed down because they're so long.  The eighth at Oakmont is fine for what it is, but I personally have no interest in building a lot of holes like that, for "variety" or any other reason.

Your comments to Tim about the par-3's at Pacific Dunes just show your ignorance.  On summer afternoons nearly everyone is hitting a wood on 17 unless the tee markers are way up, and when the lower tee is in play on #10, it usually requires a wood as well.  The wind is only blowing that way about 30% of the time, and maybe you haven't played it in those conditions -- but they are prevalent enough that it would have been stupid to build the holes any longer than they are.

[Tom_Doak]

Lou:  I forgot your post while I was getting annoyed at Matt, sorry.

Originally the 19th hole at Stone Eagle was going to be in the 215-yard range, with the tee close behind #18 green.  But, the site plan for the "Aerie" at the top of the hill was expanded, and we had to shorten the hole dramatically so nobody would get killed from a shanked tee shot.  None of the other short holes offered the potential to go back much further.  The 7th hole is actually 215 or 220 yards, but plays WAY shorter because of the 75-foot elevation change.

[Kyle Harris]

Just forget par and build a 260 yard hole...

[Ryan Farrow]

Jon, I'm glad you mentioned that hole before I got around to it. Seemed like a good example to me, but we really shouldn't be surprised with who did it.

[George Pazin]

Garland, there's nothing dumbed down about the 8th, in spite of whatever you may have read. It's a very interesting par 3 1/2.

A long bunker shot is never easy, the vast expanse of land short of the green allows a running shot, and the green, while flat by Oakmont standards, both fits the land well and is more than entertaining enough to provide much fun and interest.

As for long par 3s in general, I would argue that there is a huge difference between being tested driving the ball, and being tested approaching the green, so I don't see your "14 driving holes is enough" argument.

Additionally, I believe long par 3s are an excellent opportunity for a cunning lesser golfer to actually make up ground on a longer, maybe even better, golfer. The longer cannot pass up the temptation to hit another green in regulation when it is well within reach, so he may overextend himself, while the shorter golfer can play safe and opt for the chip and putt par.

Tom's right, there doesn't have to be a checklist for greatness, but avoiding a long par 3 because it allegedly slows down the game is very wrong in my book, and avoiding it because it is too long for many to reach in regulation is also dumbing down a course.

Lastly, Kyle has the best philosophy of all.

[Tim Pitner]

Tim, how do you know how good BT is as a C&C course if the only sample you have personally played for discussion purposes is the actual course itself?

Matt,

I never said I did.  I said that I like Bandon Trails #12 as a long par 3 and that I like BT as a whole.  I'm less interested in evaluating where a course fits in a designer's (or design team's) pantheon than evaluating where the course fits within the universe of courses, particularly those I've played.  

Tim, in regards to Pac Dunes -- I don't see the 10th qualifying for the category -- ditto the 17th (although I really do like that hole). Tim, when you say "if the wind blows" -- well that sort of reasoning can be applied to just about any hole in the world. Where does one begin / end when the word "if" is inserted into the mixture. I'm simply saying that the length of such holes -- those 225+ -- which can be evaluated without the added ingredient of wind being stapled to its overall core. I'm not saying wind isn't a factor but for the purposes of analysis I tend to evaluate holes / courses without such a consideration being seen front and center.

Like my late father used to say about the word "if" -- if the queen had b*lls she'd be the king.

Matt,

My scenario--the wind being against on #10 and #17 at Pacific Dunes--is hardly far-fetched.  It happens frequently.  How can you evaluate links holes without considering the wind?  

[Matt_Ward]

Garland:

Contact Roger Clemens on the art of verbal tap dance - he may need our services. Your inability to remember directly what you wrote is amusing.

Direct quote ... "I don't believe you have to play a hole to know significant things about it."

Really?

That speaks volumes to me.

You say the 8th hole at Oakmont was "dumbed down on purpose." Really. What is some "dumbed down" on the hole? You can't speak to any personal experiences -- simply from photos or other such accounts.

You also said the hole is a "black eye" on Oakmont overall. Again -- how do you make such broad brush statements from the seat of your pants?

Your ability to tag courses / holes is truly amazing. I understand what you wrote Garland -- the simple fact, in my mind, if you don't have credibility on the subject and I called you on it.

End of story.


Tom Doak:

Appreciate you responding despite your being "annoyed" with me. You can imagine how I might feel towards you at times too.  

Let's talk about Pac Dunes -- allow me to enlighten you if such a thing is possible. When a hole is listed at "X' yardage and the wind blows in on the player I have admitted that such holes will play far longer than the card indicates. However, I don't base a hole simply under the calculation of "if" this happens. "If" the wind blows in on any hole at say 40-50 mph then no doubt people will hit far more club. I've admitted as much with my own personal club selection for much shorter holes -- the 7th at PB was cited by me previously.

Hello Tom -- guess what Ward gets it. That's elementary 101 understanding.

When you say "way more holes" being built between 220 and 320 I have to say I don't see that as being the case from the many different layouts and locations for golf that I have played.

Keep in mind this -- the focus of THIS THREAD was long par-3 holes that are more than 225 yards and being built primarily for public / resort layouts. I don't doubt many more short par-4 holes are being built and a number of architects deserve credit for bringing back to life this creative type hole.

I have visited a slew of public / resort layouts over the last 15 years and the tendency to follow a formulaic profile for par-3 holes seems to be happening from the personal evidence I have witnessed. No doubt you might get a high profile public / resort place like Whistling Straits which is interested in hosting big time events so the marching orders will be to include a long par-3 in the mix -- the 17th there is a good example of such. Often times -- those are the exceptions for the reasons I mentioned.

In the cases I have seen -- and keep in mind I don't simply traverse the northeast -- the tendency is for the quartet or more of par-3's to be fairly benign and in the 140-190 yard range.

One other thing -- I'm not suggesting long par-3 holes HAVE to be included into every mixture of par-3 holes at public / resort layouts. I just simply opined that seeing less and less of such holes holes would be a real loss to the game.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim P:

Allow me to address your comments.

You stated you are fan of BT (and the 12th hole particuarly). Fair enough. I have not the slightest idea of just how many courses you have played and what courses you would rate as being the best of the bunch you've played.

Clearly, my portfolio of courses played may be very different than yours. Tim, you may not be "interested in evaluating where a course fits in a designer's pantheon" -- but to truly say BT is that good a course I would think it would help your understanding from others (not just me) in providing you some perspective on other C&C layouts and how they might compare / contrast to BT.

No doubt -- in your own world of courses played what others think may matter less or not at all to you. So be it. You can take my comments, or anyone else's for that matter, and embrace them or chuck them out the window.

I've seen other C&C courses and witnessed what they have done in creating other long par-3 holes that I see as better examples of this type -- particularly when held against the 12th at BT. If you don't see any value in the opinions of others so be it.  

Tim, in regards to the "wind" argument. I simply stated one can apply any situation by including the word "if" as needed. No doubt the holes at Pac Dunes -- the 10th & 17th -- can play m-u-c-h longer when the wind blows into the player or you face severe crosswinds. One has to factor that into the equation for club selection on that particular moment / day. But I will repeat what I said previously ...

"Where does one begin / end when the word "if" is inserted into the mixture? I'm simply saying that the length of such holes -- those 225+ -- which can be evaluated without the added ingredient of wind being stapled to its overall core. I'm not saying wind isn't a factor but for the purposes of analysis I tend to evaluate holes / courses without such a consideration being seen front and center."

In sum -- you could play a course that's 6,200 yards and for that day and moment of time when you are there -- it might play 1,000 yards longer because of weather patterns unique to that time of year or that simply emerged that day. The reverse is also true -- one cannot minimize the qualities of a hole should you catch it when it plays "easier" because of downwind conditions or other such circumstances. If memory serves -- I did say I was a big fan of the 17th at Pac Dunes.

I hope I have provided some additional clarity.

 
 



Tim, when you say "if the wind blows" -- well that sort of reasoning can be applied to just about any hole in the world.

 
 

[Jordan Wall]

Garland,

I think the best way to address your argument about long par threes is the way Mr. Pazin put it.

As for long par 3s in general, I would argue that there is a huge difference between being tested driving the ball, and being tested approaching the green, so I don't see your "14 driving holes is enough" argument.

And for the record, I hit three wood to a back pin the only time I ever played the tips at #9 at Chambers.  Granted, it was into the wind, and a decent one at that, but I wouldnt consider myself a short hitter.  Generally I hit my 3-wood around 240 yards, and thus I think that #9 at Chambers can play as a long par-3.  That being said, I have played the whites (or teal?) and hit wedge from 172, downwind.  So perhaps it is both a long and a short par-3, depending on the wind.

#17 would a better example.
At 220 and uphill from the back tees, its no gimme.  I hit 3-wood there as well.  It's a great hole.

[Tim Pitner]

Tim, when you say "if the wind blows" -- well that sort of reasoning can be applied to just about any hole in the world.

But Matt, the wind blows all the time at Pacific Dunes and Tom Doak says it's into on #10 and #17 about 30% of the time so we're not talking about some rare occurrence.  

Re: BT #12, I'm not sure we're making much progress.  I offered the hole as an example of a long par 3 on a resort course that has some unique qualities.  I gave some reasons why I think it's a good hole and John VB gave some others.  Apparently, you think it's sort of a nothing hole, but I haven't heard you say much about #12, specifically.  You said that C&C have built better holes, which is neither here nor there in the context of this discussion.  

If you're saying that C&C have built better long par 3s at private courses and the reason why BT #12 is inferior is because it's at a resort course, that might be interesting but you haven't said that and I doubt it'd be true.  BT #12 is built on some pretty flat land, assuredly not as interesting as Sand Hills, for example.  I'm not nominating it as a world-class hole, but I think it's a very solid long par 3 recently built at a public-access course, which I think was the subject of this thread.  

BTW, I agree with your overall premise--people should not shy away from building long par 3s.  As Tom D said, though, sometimes, given frequent winds, a long par 3 could be in the 200-yard range and doesn't have to be a pre-determined yardage of 225+.  

[Matt_Ward]

Tim P:

The 12th at BT has no real memorable detailing to it beyond the fact it's a long hole. I don't know what else to say but given the fact I've played other long par-3 holes I can tell you this -- the 12th would not be on my personal short list of "must play" long par-3 holes from public courses of recent vintage. Compare the 12th to the 2nd at Bandon Dunes and you can see what I mean regarding the overall design / detail aspects that each provides. Compare the 12th at BT to the 8th at Black Mesa and the differences are glaring. Likely, you may not have played my second example.

One other thing -- I mentioned to you the other par-3 holes at BT and said very candidly that the 12th would be the least favorite of the bunch. Care to take issue with that?

Tim -- there are plenty of good / decent holes in golf -- the 12th is not especially unique from the many different holes of that length I have played. You seem to have a much higher appreciation of what that hole and even the entire BT course is about. I don't. And I have stated many times - in an assortment of threads the rationale behind my thinking. You hold the course / hole in high opinion -- so  be it. I simply opined back that your conclusion in this matter likely comes from a portoflio of courses that you have played. My portfolio is likely a good bit different than yours.

In regards to the wind situation -- I'll repeat this again -- when people base their assessment on a situation that can vary widely -- whether headwind / downwind, it's best to see the hole as is with the stated yardage. I don't doubt -- and I have said this many, many times over -- that on a one time visit a particular hole can play very easy, very hard or somewhere in between because of wind patterns THAT DAY.

When people get into the "what if" the wind does this and "what if" the wind does that you can get any sort of scenario that will play into one's beliefs. I don't doubt the 10th and 17th at Pac Dunes can play tough when hitting into a mini hurricane. So can the 7th at PB.

A proper assessment, in my mind, should take into account the nature of the hole without maximizing / minimizing the aspects of Mother Nature.

I do appreciate your support on the concept of having long par-3's still be an element in public / resort golf. It seems from the many visits I have made to such facilities that such an inclusion seems to be happening with much less frequency.