The long par-3 / the missing link in golf design

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Chris

Applebrook has come close to achieveing this with the magnificently tiny greened 11th and the 3rd, which only wimps would call a par "4" from the 300 yard tips....

[Don_Mahaffey]

From a native So Cal guy with a decidedly western bias, I'd say Mr. Thomas has to be the king of the long par 3. Just check out LACC, Riviera, and Bel-air.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

If par threes become 270, I will have to move up.  I cannot imagine it, but I am sure I will see it.

In the pattern of my post on Stanley Thompson last week, I will list some of his best efforts..
8 at Uplands - 232 slightly down. Perhaps the best of the long par threes.  One of the most difficult green complexes anywhere.
2 at Cataraqui - 214 uphill to a great (read 4-putt) green
15 at Cataraqui - 206, steeply uphill, very difficult
4 at Jasper - 240 downhill, only slight opening to run the ball in
9 at Jasper - 232 downhill, great hole, requires a delicate run in shot
12 at Highlands - 240 flat, I like this, despite its lack of praise.
10 at Banff - 220, the only one of this bunch with water.
13 at Banff - 230, tough long hole, especially into the wind.

Lots of great choices, and most of these courses were built in the 30's.  Canadian Honourable mention, 6th at Wolf Creek, Rod Whitman's 225 yard beast.

[Jeff Mingay]

Nice list, Ben  

The 6th on the South nine at Wolf Creek is one of my favourite long par 3s as well. I have an excellent photo of that hole, but I'm computer-illiterate, so I can't post it!

We've built two long par 3s built at Blackhawk too: the 230 +/- yard 8th (played downwind/downhill) and the 245 +/- yard "Gibraltar-esque" 12th (played into the prevailing wind).

Still, will those holes at Blackhawk be LONG par 3s for better players? I mean, when Thompson was laying out 240 yard par 3 holes, good players were hitting driver and not necessarily reaching the green unless firm conditions were present. Today, Tiger can hit a 5-iron 240 yards under the right conditions, and stop the ball on a dime.

To lay out long par 3s that will play comparable to the way Thompson's best long one-shotters played in the 1920s and '30s, we have to build 300 yard + par 3s. And in order for architects to do that, the USGA has to increase the maximum distance for a one-shot hole to over 300 yards (!!!).

Better yet, why don't they just do something to regulate the ball.

[Jeff Mingay]

BTW, Ben. Some (potentially) disturbing news about the 2nd at Cataraqui: Ian A. tells me that its "great green" will be rebuilt this coming season.

I haven't seen the hole... in your view, is a rebuild necessary?

[Patrick Hitt]

Matt,
I don't think the green needs to be small for it to demand accuracy. At Skokie CC the 2 Langford / Moreau par 3s are 225 and 248 from the back tees. The 225 yard 12th plays to a large 32yd x 36 yd plateau green that is 85% carry over a diagonal water hazard. If you hit the wrong half of the green - especially if the pin is on the front left third, good luck two putting. The 248 yard 16th is a relatively straight shot into the prevailing wind to another large green that contains more swales and 5'-6' of elevation at the back. Both holes require accuracy because the greens are so large.

[Tony Ristola]

Built one at Artland GC, Germany...the 16th hole.  With three par-3's in the closing 6 holes, I needed variety and this really helped provide it.  

The hole is 235 yards (had room to make it 30 yards longer) and there's usually a right to left cross wind.  I wanted to 1. try to fit the distance into the gap between long irons and fairway woods (impossible to do for everyone of course, but it's in the gap area often enough for the better players) and 2. let their ego get in the way so they'd try beating a long iron home instead of a fairway wood.  

There's a bunker short right of the green (not the sandy waste), and a drop off left of the green with the green sloping away from the hollows, and it's split into two levels with about 4 feet of fall.  

I watched the state PGA there and most guys bailed into the hollows left, had little room to work and control the ball.  Some let their ego get in the way and under-clubbed trying to beat home their longest iron.

The green is pretty large, about 700 square yards.  For the members it plays 192 yards, and the women 155.

cheap plug
http://www.agolfarchitect.com/photos12.htm

[Matt_Ward]

Long par-3's need to tbe reexamined for their total length because when ground conditions and general topography permit I see no reason why 250 yards is the absolute limit. That does not mean to say that I believe evry golfer needs to play from that max length -- but there should be some sort of corresponding comparable length of for the mid handicapper. As someone already pointed out there seems to be the usual quarter of 175-195 yards holes. Isn't variety the spice of life?

What makes long par-3's so tough for just about anyone is the absolute importance people place upon making a "3" on the hole. This is where the trouble starts. If most people opted to accept the reality that they will make "4" on this type of hole at least 50 percent of the time they would be less inclined to "force" a long club and leave themselves open for the quick "5" or "6." The 16th at CP is a great example where caution / prudence beats valor just about everytime, however, how many people really do this? Nothing can be so disheartening to come to the clubhouse and see that nice big "6" on a so-called "easy" par-3 hole.

Someone mentioned the 18th at East Lake and I really like it because controlling the long shot is tough to do under any type of pressure. Sutton's was just superb. With the top pros even Phil and Tiger can be made to hit long irons -- a club that is really out of play at the top end of competitive golf unless you have freak weather conditions.

One of the things that concerns me is the cookie-cutter approach taken by many designs today. You get the pro forma downhill par-3's, the reachable par-5's that often lack little strategic value and an assortment of blah par-4's that often lack character (short) and muscle (long). Just look at the demise of the long iron in any set of clubs sold today. Clearly, most golfers would be better off abandoning anything less than a 5-iron but does that mean that such long par-3's need to also face the scrap heap?

The long par-3 is a valuable tool in the hands of a competent architect and I only hope that its place in golf will continue because without it you are reducing a key element in any design. Best of all, even on tight acreage, the skilled architect can find room for such a unique hole(s).

[SPDB]

I tend to agree that the real disappearance is that of the short par-3. Real tricky 100-110 yarders like the one at Gulph Mills, are just not being built anymore. I would be willing to gamble that there are roughly 10-15 par 3s over 230 that are being built for every 1 that is 110 and below. I see no evidence that the 230+ par 3 is disappearing.

On other discussions we talk about the obsession with length, and clearly the par 4s and 5s are not themselves totally responsible. In fact I think that a lot of designers are encountering situations where they need to add length to the card, and so they dump it into the par 3s, pushing the tees back to ridiculous lengths. This is helped by multiple tees and the elasticity of length that these multiple tees create on par 3s. It is not uncommon to see a par 3 that can range anywhere from 150 to 240. Too me, this is one of the more disappointing developments in arch. since the strategy of a 150 yard hole should be markedly different than that of its 240 yard companion.

A good example of what is good and bad in long par 3s can be found at Hudson National. There are two par 3s, each 250 yards. The first one, however, demands a 220 yard carry over un-enterable wetlands. The second is a stunning downhill hole to a redan type green - it is, IMO, one of Fazio's best. I have been told by somebody who worked the site, that the ownership wanted more length and so they dumped some length into that first par 3.

I don't mean to rip Fazio. In fact, I credit Fazio as being one of the few designers who repeatedly includes good short, wedge-type par 3s into his design (Johns Island West, Hartefeld, etc)

[Scott_Burroughs]

I wonder if Mike Cirba remembers #17 at Soaring Eagles (244 yards) or #11 at Mark Twain (231 yards straight uphill to a very nasty green, though supposedly the green has been redone since I last played it about 17 years ago).  It's the #4 handicap hole on the course.

There's also #13 at Mid Pines (230), #12 at the Dunes G&BC (245 over water), and #11 at Mauna Kea (247).

[Mike_Cirba]

Scott,

I certainly do, and don't believe the one at Mark Twain was disturbed yet when I played it.  I recall it being quite severe.  

I still think Elmira, NY has possibly the neatest, cheap, classic, one-two punch of public courses in the world with this tandem.  Soaring Eagles was screaming fast when I played it last spring, and the only bad news is that someone told me they are installing an irrigation system at Mark Twain.  

[Scott_Burroughs]

Elmira also has a private Tillinghast club (Elmira CC - c. 1897) that probably most people have never heard of.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

I guess I'm with ya if you say put ONE par 3 in the "long" range.  The average player is gonna hate it still, but I've been won over that we shouldn't "dumb down" architecture for such.

As for #3 at Barona Creek, the 260 tee was closed when I was there two weekends ago and the pro shop fellows say it's rarely open.  Yes, it makes for a good hole... it's a fun tee set off by itself as it is.  But to me it's setting a bad precedent.  I'd be interested as to WHY Todd put that tee there... If the golf world is moving toward 260 par 3's, it's a sad day.

In any case, I'm hoping Todd's answer is to force a long player to actually hit a longish club into a green... he won't do that many times at Barona.

BTW, as for Tiger reaching that with PW, well... From the 215 tee I hit 6iron and semi-thinned it, and it rolled all the way to the back of the green.  We had only a tiny wind behind.  I am absolutely NOT a long hitter - man that ground is rock hard.... Yes, give a signifant wind and Tiger could most certainly carry his PW the 190 or so required, with the 70 additional yards of bounce/roll he'd get....  Let's just say if he hit anything more than that, he'd go over for sure.

Fun hole in any case, I have nothing against it from the "normal" tees.  Just wanted a bit of full disclosure.

TH

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

BTW, Ben. Some (potentially) disturbing news about the 2nd at Cataraqui: Ian A. tells me that its "great green" will be rebuilt this coming season.

I haven't seen the hole... in your view, is a rebuild necessary?

The green was a rollercoaster, but it is the way to protect it, given that I hit 4 iron in there now.  So in my opinion, no.

[Dan Belden]

   In defense of the third hole at Barona.  What does the yardage matter.  It is the shot that is important.  It is a great shot from the back tee with lots of options for different plays A high five wood, maybe even a hooded 3 iron.  It doesn't matter if they call it a par3 or par4.  What it really is, is a par3 and half.  Kudos for Todd in designing a course where par is thrown out the window.  Does anyone really think that the Dr's 16th at Cypress would exist if he was worried that it might be too long of a par 3. He was interested in the shot. Give me a break.   I don't think most architects these days would know what a good shot is if it bit them in the rear end. It could be wedge or a brassie.    
     As for other great long par 3s where the architect didn't care about the par just the shot.  #5 at Pine Valley, #2 at Shinnecock Hills, ,#8 at Seminole etc... etc...
    Two other not as well known great long one shoters( note that I did not use the par 3 designation) are the 11th hole at the Kirtland CC in Cleveland, and the 4th at Ross's Brookside CC in Canton ( soon to be even longer with Brian Silvas insight.  
   And finally I am suprised that no one has mentioned the 17th at Pebble from the way back tee.  What wonderful variety with the 7th and 17th.  
                                              Dan Belden

[THuckaby2]

Dan - no need to "defend" the 3rd at Barona - I am seriously giving the wrong impression here.  I too think it's a fine golf hole and I enjoyed the shot I had from 218 - it had the same sort of choices you mention.

My only quibble is that putting in a 260 tee that's rarely open sets a bad precedent in many ways.  Take out that tee, and I have nothing but praise for the golf hole.

See, the card is always gonna say "par 3"... people are always gonna look at it as a "par 3"... and while I COMPLETELY agree that par doesn't matter at all (Cypress 16 is a fine example), you and I are in a tiny minority in the golf world on this point.  Par matters BIG TIME to your average golfer.  It is certainly NOT thrown out the window on that hole, or any, at that golf course, for the typical consumer there.  Far too many are gonna look at that tee, wonder why they can't play it, and if it is open, venture back there and try it, while I in the group behind wait forever for them to finish.  Then they're also gonna ask for their home course to build rarely open 50 yards back tees on their home par3's....

MAJOR kudos to Todd for building one fantastic golf course.  I absolutely loved it.

Just get rid of that 260 tee on #3, ok?

TH

[THuckaby2]

PS - mentioning 17 at Pebble goes along these same lines... the only time they EVER have the way back (220) tee open is for the US Open or Amateur... it's very, very rarely open for public play.

So does it even count, in that respect?  From the normal tee it's a semi-long shot, but not in this league...

TH

[ChipOat]

Tom Huckaby:

Pebble #17 counts.

CO

[THuckaby2]

Really, Chip?  One of my best buds played there a week ago and he said the back tee is covered by stands... it'll be playing at 180 or so for the pros in the AT&T.  Now of course we all remember Jack's 1-iron in the 72 Open, but I can honestly say that in my app. dozen times playing the course, that tee (far side of road, adjacent to the back of #4) has NEVER been open, and the longest tee available has been that 180 they use for the AT&T.

Thus is it really fair to include this in a discussion of long par 3's, when no one really gets to play it as such?

No quibbles if so... I just get wary when discussing tees that aren't generally open.

TH

[guest]

Inniscrone #8 at 235 uphill, but even the architect doesn't prefer that tee.  Sometimes it's not always a good idea.  The hole is awesome at 190.  Length isn't necessarily good for length's sake.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Matt Ward brings up a very important point on this thread, mainly the psychology of "par," which we have discussed elsewhere in terms of long4s/short5s.  The same thing applies here.  I really like the idea of a 260 or 270 yard "Par" 3 that plays with the golfers mind.  He will certainaly look on that hole much differently and probably play it much differently than if it were a "driveable" par 4.  In the latter case he might even "lay up."  But, when was the last time you saw a good golfer "lay up" on a par-3, except, perhaps at the 180 yard 2nd at Dornoch.

Watson won the 1975 British Open while never managing to "par" the 235 yard 16th in 5 tries (he won in a playoff).  What do you think he thinks is "par" for that hole?  Isn't that confusion part of that (and other similar holes') greatness?

[TEPaul]

Let's call a spade a spade here! Inniscrone's #8 is not designed properly for that back tee at 235yds, period.

Gil Hanse is the first to admit that and as to why it's the way it is is an interesting story that only proves that people who have no earthly idea about golf course architecture should stay the hell out of it!

[TEPaul]

Just as a perfect example of the psychology of par and how it skews things and supplementing what Matt Ward and Rich Goodale said about it I should give you again Gil Hanse's #3 Applebrook, a cool little driveable par 4 of 300yds for the bold, but very optionally layupable for the sensible and a hole that everyone seems to think is very neat!

Rich Goodale said that only a wimp would not drive at it from the tips, and maybe he's right about that! People do seem intrigued by that option and I hear many are trying it!

But, BUT, as much as golfers seem intrigued by that hole and driving at it and admire it as a 300yd driveable PAR 4, I venture to say that if Gil decided to just call the hole a 300yd PAR 3 one day, those very same golfers would hunt him down and be after his head!!

That's the idiocy of the psychology of par and how it can completely distort a golfer's perception of strategy!!

[TEPaul]

Dan Belden:

Are you the same Dan Belden from like Ohio I've seen over the years at Pv's Crump Cup (and maybe beat or lost to--I can't remember now) when the two of us were not so long of tooth?

Tom Paul

[Dan Belden]

  Tom:

    I don't get the problem.  I think the right way to go is to do what Crenshaw and Coore did at the new course at Notre Dame where there is no par.  They way I interpet what you are saying is that when Crump and the  Dr. built five and 16 respectively they shouldn't have done  it because it sets a bad precedent ( whether the courses are private or not).  Back when those holes were built they were more often than not, two shot holes, and easily played as long or probably longer than 3 at Barona.   I think Todd, like Crenshaw and Coore, is just trying to go back to the design ideals that guided people like Crump, MacKenzie, Ross, and Thomas.  And in their cases par wasn't much of an issue. If it was I gurantee you we would not have holes like 5 at PV and 16 at Cypress.  Honestly 5 at Pine Valley even today plays as long from the back of that tee as 3 at Barona. I hit the same club at both, usually a two iron.   By telling him not to put a tee back there to maybe speed up play is in my opinion a travesty and a huge step in the wrong direction for educating the public.  
  3 at Barona is designed to run the ball up on to that huge green.  If joe shmo wants to go back there and give it go so what.  The way the hole is built he probably has as good a chance of hitting the green at 260 as he does at 215.  Plus a big as that green is ,he should, and I stress should be able to get a little wedge, or bump and run shot on that green in two, get his bogey and get out of there.   I honestly don't think it would take the average player any longer to play the hole from either the 215 yard tee or the 260 tee.  
                                                        Respectfully, Dan
   I