I played the front 9 at Rouge Park Golf Course in Detroit this morning. When I arrived at hole #7 (from here on out called the leprechaun") , I couldn't figure out what the hole was. Well, it is a diminuative par 3 of 95 (maybe 105 from the tips) yards uphill to small green that is not visible from the tee box. The tee shot requires a straight, uphill shot through the tree line and a carry over a river as well as a very steep embankment. The hole is so easy, it is hard. There were 2 groups on the tee box and while we waited I saw no one hit the green! I fared no better, I walked off with a 2 putt bogey. I liked this hole a lot, it was a good use of the terrain, took up very little space and was not a guaranteed birdie, or any other score for that matter. The hole, lacking distance as it's protector, utilizes several things to protect par: 1. An uphill shot to a somewhat small, not visible green. 2. If the wind is blowing (and it was today!) club selection can be difficult. 3. It requires a perfectly straight tee shot with something less than a 9 iron with great distance control. Long shots will be caught by some trees to the rear of the green. Many will over hit to clear the steep embankment only to miss the green. Rouge Park Golf Course is a fun muni, in average conditon at best, that is worth a play of in the area. I liked it and it had a nice mix of holes. Maybe designed by Donald Ross, maybe NOT. Assuming the topography allows an interesting short hole, why not have more sub 110 yard par 3's on newly designed courses? Are they loathed that much? OR, are they just squeezed in (I have played a few of these) when ample area is lacking for a longer hole?
2 views of the hole from the tee box.
View of the green, which is slightly elevated all around.
Looking back to the tee.