It amazes me how often an architect will state proudly that the Par 3s at so and so course all play in different directions. Or how often having par 3s playing in the same direction is seen as an architectural weakness
Some people seem to think it is important / clever. I don't quite get it.
To me it is probably one of the last things I notice about a course and is more a nice piece of trivia.
If you are playing on a course with little wind, it does not seem to matter. If you are playing on a course with a lot of wind it can sometimes even out the hole lengths.
I think that it is imortant that the player experiences the wind at different orientations throughout his round but I have never understood why the par 3s would be such an important subset of this.
To me it is more important that holes of similar type are balanced, eg. it is nice if there are two short par 4s that one is downwind and one is into the the wind so that there are a variety of strategies in the round. That way one can have a drive and pitch strategy and one can be drivable.
But par 3s have little strategy. If they are a variety of lengths then that provides variety and if all the holes on the course are varied in direction then the player faces a variety of wind orientations on his iron shots throughout the round as a whole.
It wouldn't factor into my enjoyment or ranking of a course unless it was an extreme example. Ayone agree or disagree? How important is par 3 orientation to you? Do you notice it when you are playing?
David, I've been thinking about this thread over the last few days and I really think that divergant par 3 directions are important. I disagree with your view.
Some archittects will no doubt design a course with this characteristic because it seems like a smart or cool thing to do. Others simply pay no attention to the compass points, and place the par 3s where they fit.
As long as the par 3 holes are varied in character and all of good quality, I'm essentilly happy. I do like the one shot holes to have good variety, but not only in their lengths and greens - also in their orrientation. I notice it a fair bit.
Think of Royal Melbourne East for a moment. A good set of par 3 holes (2 outstanding holes in 4 and 16). They are varied in their length (#4 at 201yds, #6 at 175yds, #13 at 148yds & #16 at 167yds)
Whevever I play East, I'm always disappointed if the wind is strong, and especially if it's a northerly.
These par 3 holes align in very similar directions and 4, 6 and 16 almost identical compass points. A southerly aids most par 3 tee shots and makes landing the greens more difficult. The same dilemma and shot making demand repeatedly requested. Sometimes the same club is ised, despite the varied length of the holes.
Northerly winds see these holes all play into the breeze. This has me leave the 1st tee thinking, I'm going to have to smash tee shots on all 4 par 3s. Or take lots of club. Repeatedly. Despite the variety in the hole designs.
I played a course 2 weeks back, and hit a 19* hybrid 135m into the wind. 3 holes later I was again faced with another 135m par 3 but this time orriented in the opposite direction. A high floating downwind Pitching Wedge and 2 putts. My return visit may see me hit these shots but on the opposite holes, with a different wind.
Different par 3 style of play during a round, and different shots on the same holes on repeat play, is augmented by varying the orrientation in par 3 holes. I agree with you that this aspect of design alone is insufficient to ensure quality golf. The lengths of the holes should vary, as should the greens.
I suspect you may be drawing your conclusions on single visits or low numbers of rounds to particular courses, and that if you played these courses more, you'd see the benefits of greater variety in orrienting par 3s to different compass points.
MM
P.S. We haven't even spoken about cross winds yet!
