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

[Dan Belden]

 TEPaul:

   You are refering to my father.  A nice amateur player. (hehe).
   He has been playing over at the Valley for over 40 years.  And he loves the Crump. Of which I think Todd Eckenrode would make a fine addition to the field.    Dan Belden 3.
    

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

My point is more that times are VERY different now and building a par 3 at 260 THESE DAYS is de facto caving in to the equipment nightmare discussed so eloquently on other threads here.  It's the same bad principle as stretching Torrey Pines to 7700 yards.

So I think we're coming at this from very different angles.

Does this make more sense?  Because I don't disagree with any of what you write above, re "par", or how the hole in question plays...

TH

[Dan Belden]

 Tom:

         I think that you have a very valid point.  I understand where you are coming from, but knowing Todd as I do I don't think that tee was built with new technologies in mind.  I think that Todd would have put that tee there even if had desinged the course twenty years earlier and called it a par 4.  The hole is simply what it is, a 260 yard hole.  Which by two thirds( par 5's and par4's) is a very short hole.  Call it a par 4 if you have to.  Now we can argue with todays technology that it is to short,  but it's still a great shot.  
      We can agree to disagree on this one, but I think we could come up with better examples.  
        What Arthur Hills did to Inverness is defintiley a stupid concession to modern technology.  Dan

[Dan Belden]

  Tom:

      I was just reading your last post again, and I think my sticking point is when you say he was building a par 3.   He was just building a hole and the back tee just happens to be 260.  My point is people have been desinging hole like this for a long, long time.  I don't think it is a concession.  I think you could argue that the back tee on 16 is a concession to new technology.  I think Todd designed the hole with an 8 or 9 iron in mind, but he was afraid that even a tee at 150 would only be a wedge for the better players.  So he backed it up as far as he could.   Dan

[THuckaby2]

Dan - I don't know Todd as well as you, but I know him a bit, at least enough to know that having this 260 tee on the hole in question seemed to me to be out of character.  Come on, the only ones that EVER SHOULD venture back to that 260 tee (if and when they have it open) are the very strong players, and for them it's a one shot hole regardless of the length.  There's no way this hole was ever going to be played as a "par-less" 260 yard hole for the average player... It says 3 on the scorecard, from every generally playable tee it's a one-shot hole....

If that 260 tee was the ONLY ONE THERE, I'd buy what you're saying.  Given that it's the farthest back of FIVE tee blocks... I can't accept this thought.

Oh, I know if Todd could do everything he wanted, heck he might have done just one tee block there and did just you say!

The problem is, as a public, daily-fee course attached to a casino, the consumer wouldn't buy that, no way.

Thus given these "constraints", to put in the 260 tee still seems to me to be a bad principle and giving in.  I am absolutely NOT indicting Todd here - I feel confident his personal take is "pure".

I'd have to guess the owners wanted this tee... and that to me is sad.

TH

[Brad Klein]

How's this for design balance? Just played Mountain Lake. Par-3s played as follows:

5th (Biarritz), 225 yards, 3-wood
9th (Short), 110 yards, p-wedge
11th (Redan), 190 yards, 7-wood
17th (High), 145 yards, 7-iron

Quite agree that short par-3s are getting squeezed out by those trying to design scorecards. Yes, long-par-3s played shorter in the 1920s, but some of those Ross holes I named (above) played uphill or to plateaus and didn't admit run-up shots. The name of the game then was variety, which is sorely lacking today.

[TEPaul]

Dan Belden:

When I said "long in the tooth" I didn't expect that! Your father, huh; and 40 years at PV? Now I really do feel long in the tooth! So all I can say to you is; Shut up and go to your room!

[Bob_Huntley]

Tom Huckaby:

What about the 4th MPCC Dunes, 238 yds?

Give 'em the history.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Brad Klein:

That Mountain Lake is pretty nice, Huh? Talk about feeling like you stepped back in time! Do you know Mountain Lake may have been the first planned residential/golf course community ever? Hasn't changed much from 1915 either! Hope you saw the Silva restoration plan I hear they're now going through with.

That short par 3 #9 is not a Raynor original you know? It may have been Banks or William Diddel. The orginal #9, though, was a short par 3 but to #8 green with a tee coming from well over from the right, probably not far from where the back tees are to the present #9! Obviously played at it to a wide, concave, boomerang like affair with a fairly steep back to front slope---very interesting!

Don't know what #7 green-end looked like or whether the hole was a par 4 or 5!

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

AHA!  Got it.  Bear with me, I'm often kinda "thick".  I get what you're saying now.  Ok, so to Todd it's just a "golf hole."
The problem remains though that the consumer there is always gonna see it as a "par3"... and the only way they wouldn't is if that 260 tee was the only one and there was no scorecard.  But I get it.  Yes, there certainly is room for that back tee so why not.

So I get what you're saying and in the end, we're not at all apart here, are we?

Now Mr. Huntley, OBVIOUSLY so difficult a golf hole as #4 at MPCC Dunes belongs on any list of the world's great golf holes, and shouldn't be limited to a discussion of "long par3's".  But given that is the topic here, it fits in here also.  I cannot imagine the skill and cunning required of a player to make an ace there.  I just wish I knew some one who did so.







Oh, you didn't think I'd give you your glory THAT easily, did ya?

Yes, Mr. Huntley is indeed one of very few people who have aced this wonderful hole.  And believe me, it is a good one.  Downhill, but it's always gonna require a long club for even the strongest players.  Dastardly green also... tricky winds... one hell of a golf hole indeed.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Brad Klein is right on target -- variety should be the equation for any combination fo holes on a course.

I've seen too many modern courses rely ad naseum on the same-oh same-oh downhill par-3 that shows you everything. How about a bit more imagination on a quartet of par-3's with character? And, must all par-3's feature the pro forma pond in front?

The long par-3 (like the idea that Rich mentioned about forgetting about par) has a place in the game because it asks you to deliver a specific type of shot (long iron / wood) that often goes out the window on many courses today. I can only imagine the feelings of players from yesteryear when they played any of the holes mentioned by Brad -- they were beasts that required all you had in the bag.

TomH: Glad to see you're OK with the back tee at Barona. I agree most people should simply walk past it and play from the 218 yard marker for the same effect. I can't wait for my next visit to Barona Creek and taking on that marvelous hole and ocurse.  

[THuckaby2]

Yeah, we're "copacetic" Matt (my Dad loves that word).  And you and me both - Barona is so damn good it makes me itch to get down there again.

TH

[SPDB]

A little aside on Mountain Lake.
Tom and Brad - what number hole is the par 3 that plays close to the entrance gate? It has been awhile since i played MTN Lake. That hole infuriated the hell out of me, because of a branch that hung down in front of the tee that could easily knock down tee shots.

[Todd_Eckenrode]

Good God, that was exhausting reading!  The quick and short answer re. #3 at Barona.  I was trying for a few things there...variety in par 3's (variety being one of my ultimate goals always), variety in "shots"-trying to get a long "shot"-whether it be a 3 wood or long iron, or what-introduced into the round, trying for a half par type of hole, and lastly because it was just there and fit.  There's a great greensite nestled near a nice rock outcropping and some cool "safari" trees that I liked, and the tee was a natural bench among some great shrubs.  It made sense in the field.  Also, with the backdrop of #5 behind the green, and the views behind to the east being the "biggest" views on the course, this hole had a very grand scale, and a "big" hole seemed very appropriate. The one thing I'll counter was that it was a client's choice...absolutely to the contrary, they were worried about it's severity.  

Also, by the way, I usually design to how it "plays", not actually yardage.  In this case, the hole drops in elev. 20-30', and is downwind or quartering from the back-right with the predominate wind.  As such, I've found it to "play" from between 210-245 in the 20 or so rounds I've gotten in there.  
As to Tiger hitting a wedge, that I'd like to see.

I liked Dan's ex. of #7 and #17 at Pebble.  Having just played there, I hit wedge and 3 wood on those 2 holes, and it was so damn fun.  Also, many great ex.s given of long par 3's by all.  I certainly need to see more of the Ross holes for my own benefit.  Particularly liked #3 at MPCC which I just played for the first time, and loved the course(even though I posted a smooth triple bogey there).  A wonderful course to be a member at, I'm sure.  

[THuckaby2]

WHEW!  Big sigh of relief.  I sure as hell didn't mean any offense by anything I said, Todd!  But I was sorta fearing your take if and when you saw this.

Good to hear that your motives were "pure" in any case!  As for my speculation that the client wanted the back tee, that was just a stupid guess, standard Huckaby web site chatter.  Yes, a "big hole" is very appropriate there... just something about that 260 number bugged me, still does.  Seeing the tee closed and having them tell me it nearly always is made me jump to the wrong conclusions - that is, that it's just there for total card yardage purposes... sorry!

And damn right, what I was getting at before is that hole PLAYS a LOT shorter than the card distance (which to me is cool - visually it doesn't LOOK like it should - but it sure does due to the firm turf).  I guess my quibble with the 260 tee is so esoteric as to be meaningless but I still do wish it wasn't there!

It's a damn fine hole in any case, on a damn fine golf course, as I say.

Now re Tiger reaching with PW, I'll still take the bet.  Remember I said a STONG following wind... and the conditions have to be as firm as when I was there two weekends ago...

180 carry, 80 bounce roll.  I'd have to say people lose FAR more often betting against that man.

Cheers!

TH

ps - our common friend and I are heading to Shadow Lakes on Friday, again... he was with me at Barona... the Eckenrode tour continues!

pss - I absolutely LOVED the short par 4 on the back, #14.  I vainly tried to carry the right bunker and almost made it... got caught in that tiny finger extending out at the top right.  I swear to God that is one of the coolest bunkers I have ever seen... on a course full of them... not to get maudlin and sorry if this sounds brown-nosing but the bunker work at Barona is INCREDIBLE!  You do channel MacKenzie, my friend.

[Evil Lurker]

James Braid firmly believed that a long par three at around 250 yards should be included in the desing of a golf course - Nicklaus has said one should not be required to hit a wood on a par three.

Maybe architects could look for long par three golf holes that could be convertible in terms of yardage and shot values for players of all skills.  A good example in my home state is shown below.  I think it plays from 80 yards to 250 yards.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Evil L.

That is the is the evilest golf hole I have ever seen!  Gie us more!

Evil R.

[cardyin]

The last three par 3s at Landmark's Oak Quarry course in Riverside, Cal.
are long and tough.  One of them plays about 220 over a canyon, the 10th is about 240 downhill with a bunker across front of the green and a pond right, and the 14th (the signature hole) is about 230 over a canyon with flashed bunker right and the water-filled quarry left.  This is still another Curley/Schmidt design.  I have played several of their courses lately, and while not all of the courses feature 3/4s of the par 3s  this tough, they are throwing in some testers.  I read a column by Steve Smyers recently in which he remarked that long par 3s--perhaps as many as five or six of them--may be the wave of the future because strong players cannot escape designated tee markers.  For average players, multiple tees on such holes take care of their needs.

[TEPaul]

SPDB:

The hole by the entrance gate at Moutain Lake is #5, the Biarritz. It has no swale in it at all although I think Brian Silva's restoration plan might put one in it.

Funny you mention that branch that used to hang over the tee on that hole. I'd not been to Mountain Lake before last year but my host for the weekend told me the green committee wanted to keep it, I believe, and a few members did not so one of them just went out there and cut it off!

[Brad Klein]

SPDB, TEPaul

Silva's Mountain Lake restoration plan is extreme in the best possible way. Can't wait for them to shut the place down this spring and start whacking away, including the Biarritz at no. 5, where he'll bring the swale back. Wisely, they've already started trimming back those overhanging tree canopies, inc. the 5th tee, so you can actually hook a shot in there.

[THuckaby2]

shivas - COOL!  Something we can agree on.  I am with ya brother re multiple tees.  Hate 'em.

When were you last a Pebble though?  They added a set of "gold" in between blue and white and there are separate blocks for some of them... very sad.

Among the coolest in this respect was the old Bayonet... ONE tee block, one only.  Gentlemen, that's where we play today.  God damn I miss it.  There are 4 blocks there now also...

TH

[THuckaby2]

Gotcha.  I'm with ya on all those at Pebble.  I too tend to favor tiny tees and the less "pads" the better.  There are a few good ones at Pasa... how about Riviera #1?  This has been discussed here at GCA before, in any case, mainly in the context of best first tees.  But I'd have to say this is among the many things they have right in the UK that we all too often don't in the US.  I'm struggling to think of courses that DON'T have great tees over there.

TH

[Curious JJ]

Favorite tees, awesome topic! I love the fence at Pebble and the fence at The Point too. And the 18th tee at Medinah is Tres Bien - I love the look and smell of corigated steel! Bring it on bitch!

[Patrick Hitt]

Shivas,
Isn't that a fairway at Harborside that is shaped like an anchor ? By the way I like alternate tees on a par three for the same reason I like different size bunkers - VARIETY. I don't like to see 3 sets in front of me on every hole, but I like different angles and lengths. The downhill par 3 on the back 9 at Westchester CC comes to mind.

[Scott_Burroughs]

The #1 tee at Riv is great.  Nothing like making everyone around the clubhouse stop and wait (and watch) while you hit.

#1 at Merion is about like Riviera's, everyone gets to watch you (not that I've experienced it).

#10 at Tanglewood Park is like the two above, next to the putting green and cart path by the clubhouse.

#12 at Lu Lu is almost inside the snack bar of the clubhouse.

#1 at Bethpage (Black) has everyone watching, too.

#1 at Pasa is right next to the clubhouse, with everyone watching. There is a back tee above and behind on top of the building behind the main tee area.  Great view up there.

#3 at Pasa seems like it's as wide a your stance.  Put the ball in the ground near one marker, and straddle the other one.  Almost.

Of course there's George Pazin's vertigo special (sorry, George   ), #2 at Wolf Creek at Paradise Canyon.