[Patrick_Mucci]

I've been told, by some well respected architects, authors and historians, that par 3's often serve, primarily, as connectors.

Bridging the routing gaps.
Or, getting the golfer from one section of the golf course to another.

If that's the case, have there been routings that were so good that they didn't need par 3's ?

Now I know that we've gotten used to par 3's, that they serve a purpose in terms of "demanding" a certain, fixed, test for the golfer.
There also seems to be a modern need for four par 3's, four par 5's and 10 par 4's.
Courses/clubs seem to shy away from any par other than 72.

What courses have the fewest par 3's on them, and how good are those courses in terms of routing ?

And, how good are they in terms of architectural merit ?

[Phil McDade]

TOC has all of two par 3s; it's pretty well regarded.

[Brian Potash]

Engineers has 3 par 3's in play (4 in total but they alternate between the old 14 - "2 or 20" and #11)

When they have hole #11 (the par 3) in play the routing flows more smoothly.  However, I think that hole is the worst and blandest of any hole on the entire course.  I wonder what the story was regarding it's creation.

The old 14 sends you a bit out of the way in terms of routing but for me that shot is the highlight of any round at Engineers.

I'm trying to figure out what my point is here but am struggling 

[Scott Warren]

Royal Cinque Ports and Kingston Heath have only three par three holes each, and both make fantastic use of the (some would say limited) natural features of their property.

However, Patrick, on the flipside of what you state above is Harry Colt, who would first select his par three locations before connecting them with the longer holes. It is not surprising, in light of that, that his courses have such fine one-shotters -- from the likes of Swinley Forest right through to courses such as Canterbury GC.

And it could be said that Colt's actions at Pine Valley -- making the creation of the 5th hole a priority -- were a crucial play in making that course as great as it undoubtedly is.

[David_Madison]

Pat -

Interesting. I'd heard or read more than once that it was the par 5's that were the connectors. That's why on some pretty interesting courses you have long, relatively featureless, forced par-5's that bridge the interesting pieces of land that contain the 3's and 4's. Didn't you once start a thread on that very subject?

Seems to me that when I look at a piece of land and visualize golf holes on it, the most obvious ones are one shot holes with natural greens sites and teeing areas. I wonder how many courses over time have been routed to take advantage of the very pure par-3's that the architect identified while exploring the property.

[mike_beene]

Carnoustie has only 3 and the last one is almost a short 4 when the wind is up.

[Michael Dugger]

One shot holes are my favorite in golf.

They offer the opportunity for one stroke of brilliance to bring the golfer a par or better.

[Michael Dugger]

NGLA only has 3

[Patrick_Mucci]

Royal Cinque Ports and Kingston Heath have only three par three holes each, and both make fantastic use of the (some would say limited) natural features of their property.

However, Patrick, on the flipside of what you state above is Harry Colt, who would first select his par three locations before connecting them with the longer holes. It is not surprising, in light of that, that his courses have such fine one-shotters -- from the likes of Swinley Forest right through to courses such as Canterbury GC.

And it could be said that Colt's actions at Pine Valley -- making the creation of the 5th hole a priority -- were a crucial play in making that course as great as it undoubtedly is.

Holes 1 thru 4 at Pine Valley had already been crafted when Colt altered the 5th hole, hence it was hardly a priority.

Michael Dugger,

As does GCGC.

# 2, 12 & 18 come at interesting locations in the routing.

I don't think the designers in the early part of the 20th century were that concerned with balancing par at 72.

Wannamoisett at par 69 would be an example along with many par 70, 71 and 73 courses.

[Scott Warren]

Patrick,

Of course they had been, and there was already a hole where the current 6th site, but by linking the 4th to what was then the 8th with his brilliant 5th, Colt caused significant change to the routing.

As for it being a priority for him, he could hardly have done it before he arrived, so what was done before he was on site isn't part of my reasoning.

Did the creation of the 5th hole necessitate routing changes elsewhere to fit it into a practical 18-hole routing? The answer is undoubtedly yes.

And there are many examples of Colt prioritising par threes on his other designs, as noted above.

[David_Elvins]

I've been told, by some well respected architects, authors and historians, that par 3's often serve, primarily, as connectors.

Par 3s have many purposes.

They use up extreme land.

They are the easiest hole to chuck into a routing at the last minute when an architect realises that he only has 17 holes.

They give the golfer an opportunity to chat on the tee with the group in front of them,  and the group behind them. 

They allow hole in ones, and nearest the pin competitions.

They are good for betting holes or tie breaker holes.

They allow a downhill approach shot without a downhill landing zone for the previous shot.

Par 3s are clearly the best holes in golf.  That is why we have entire courses made up of par 3s but no par 4 courses or par 5 courses. 

[Sean_A]

Par 3s are good connectors in terms of transitioning over/through difficult terrain.  Because of this, short holes also set up perfectly as set pieces for an archie to create.  If there isn't any difficult or terribly interesting terrain there shouldn't be much need to "connect" unless the archie has identified a par 4 or 5 which he thinks is a must for the design and the only way to make it work is to build a par 3 before and/or after.  I think it a mistake not to build more than two or three par 3s and believe there has to be a very good reason not to build five of the buggers.  I always look for good short holes which don't use an interesting bit of terrain, but they are a pretty rare bird.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Pat

Your sources may be "well respected architects, authors and historians" but they are full of it (or themselves).  Variety is the spice of life, even in golf.  Whilst getting rid of the par 3s, why not go after the par 5s too?  Or even the par 4s over or under 400 yards?  18 X 400......now that's a golf course only "well respected architects, authors and historians" would like.....

You need to spend more time with Tom Paul.

Rich

[Mark Pearce]

Elie has only two par 3s and has, as Rich suggested, done away with par 5s entirely.  I think it's a decent routing.

There are many great par 3s.  I had the pleasure of playing Dornoch this past weekend for the frst time in 20 years and was reminded what a brilliant set of par 3s it has.  However, as in all things, hard and fast rules simply serve to be broken.  No-one would claim that the two par 3s at Elie are great holes and they certainly aren't the best holes on the course (or even in the discussion) but that doesn't in any way make it a lesser course.

[Tony Ristola]

I've been told, by some well respected architects, authors and historians, that par 3's often serve, primarily, as connectors.

Bridging the routing gaps.
Or, getting the golfer from one section of the golf course to another.

If that's the case, have there been routings that were so good that they didn't need par 3's ?

Now I know that we've gotten used to par 3's, that they serve a purpose in terms of "demanding" a certain, fixed, test for the golfer.
There also seems to be a modern need for four par 3's, four par 5's and 10 par 4's.
Courses/clubs seem to shy away from any par other than 72.

What courses have the fewest par 3's on them, and how good are those courses in terms of routing ?

And, how good are they in terms of architectural merit ?

Not just connectors but pace changers too. It allows you to get the golfer to haul a different club from his bag, even though it's on a tee. Some courses lack long approaches... this is an opportunity to introduce such a shot without eating up a ton of ground... especially today!

[D_Malley]

Water Gap CC in the poconos only has two par 3's. 

it is a very fun course to play despite the lack of par 3's

[Ronald Montesano]

I wonder, after playing a sampling of Tillinghast courses, if he didn't look for the ravines on the course and site his tees lee and greens starboard, then build the rest of the course. I found this at Bethpage, on a number of the courses there. I'm stunned he didn't build back to back 3s on the Black, since a ravine crosses #4 (half kidding, half serious).

Since most architects are dead, we can't consult them. Living architects, while you are still breathing, can you answer Mr. Greenjeans question? Thanks in advance...

[Niall C]

Patrick

I take your point, that par 3's can be used to traverse akward terrain to make the routing work but they can also be used on terrain that simply couldn't accommodate a par 4 or par 5. I'm thinking of really great greens sites that are too good to ignore but also too difficult to utilise in a par 4 or 5 without stuffing up the routing eg. the Postage Stamp for instance.

Also, I wonder how many of those old courses were designed with no par 3's ? Probably a few, but I suspect a lot of the shorter par 4's later became par 3's. At Old Moray their are 3 par 3's, one of which in the right wind needs the full force of the driver or 3 wood, and like the 2nd at Dornoch, probably should be played with a lay up to the front of the green.

All in all, par 3's offer a lot more variety than 4's or 5's.

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Pat,

Has any architect or historian actually used the word "primarily" in that first sentence that you paraphrased?...

They are of course good connector holes (for any number of reasons, chief amongst them site limitations in topography or space) ... But to intimate that that is their primary function would be false...

Rgds,
Ally

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

I'm not so sure.

Par 3's are the ultimate in target golf, rarely presenting options.
You must play from point "A" to point "B" with little in the way of viable alternatives.

Par 4's and par 5's offer far more variation in their play.

Ally,

Please reread the title and opening thread.
I think you've misconstrued what was typed from a particular to a universal.

Rich,

Only if I'm compensated with "hazard duty" pay.

It's not unusual for a golf course to have two (2) par 5's, so why would it be unusual for a golf course to have only two par 3's ?

Is it a mindset or rut we've gotten into, architecturally ?

Aren't par 4's par 3's after you've hit your drive with the only difference being the lack of a tee and the variety in location ?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Elie has 2 par-3's also...

But par-3's are fun... Courses should err towards 5 rather than 3.... The fact that there are added routing benefits is incidental (though helpful)...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally,

I think it's far, far more difficult to craft a good par 5 than it is a good par 3.

Hence, par 3's are convenient connectors because they're relatively easy to craft.

[Niall C]

Patrick

I think there are a couple of reasons for the greater variety in par 3's over par 4/5's. First of in terms of distance, par 3's can range from under a hundred yards to 275 yards. In comparative terms thats a bigger difference than you generally get in the shortest par4/5's compared with the longest.

And while you simply go from A to B on a par 3, point B can vary quite considerably on a day to day basis due to weather or pin psotions as par 3 greens tend to be more exacting than say most par 4 greens which make allowances for varying length of drives.

Not sure I explained that all that well but hopefully someone will see what I'm saying.

Niall

[Matthew Mollica]

"The importance of the par-three hole is that it truly represents the designer’s policy as to the character of the golf course. It is a wrong idea that a par-three hole is easy to make because it is just a short yardage. The [good] designer puts his heart into making a par-three hole special among others" - Japanese architect Shunsuke Kato

[Jim Sherma]

I've been told, by some well respected architects, authors and historians, that par 3's often serve, primarily, as connectors.

Bridging the routing gaps.
Or, getting the golfer from one section of the golf course to another.

Pat: can you name 5 holes on any 5 courses that do not serve as connectors, that is holes that fail to serve the purpose of "getting the golfer from one section of the golf course to another." It would appear to me that all holes of any length other than zero would technically serve this role. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()