What if a golf course had no par 3s?

[Carl Johnson]

That said, I've seen 1,500 courses in my travels and only once that I can recall have I seen a course with as few as two par-3 holes ... and that singular exception is The Old Course at St. Andrews!

The Golf House Club, Elie: two par 3s and 16 par 4s (on the card).  No 5s.  Also in Fife.

[Matthew Essig]

Tom and Ian,


Only 2 par 3s?
No par 5s?


You just described one of my favorite courses: Elie 


Edit: Welp. I guess I should have read onto the second page. Carl beat me to it.

[Ian Andrew]

You just described one of my favorite courses: Elie 

I considered joining when I was there.
Quality trumps convention every time for me.
Never noticed the arrangement till we were done.
Speaks volumes.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian -
I've noticed.
You've gone minimalist.
Posts are very short, and succinct.
It works.
Lots of insight embedded in the words.
Thanks
P

[Joe Hancock]

Ian -
I've noticed.
You've gone minimalist.
Posts are very short, and succinct.
It works.
Lots of insight embedded in the words.
Thanks
P

P,


YW.


IA

[George Pazin]

So, why have par 3 holes at all?

Before reading the other responses, I'll give my answer to this:


The difference between a par 3, 4 and 5 is basically the first one is the same approach to the green for all, the second is an approach after a tee shot, the third is an approach after a tee shot and a decision. They are not at all the same question, so having par 3s, 4s and 5s provides a great deal of variety that wouldn't otherwise be present.


Off to read the other responses...

[Mike Bodo]

For golf viewing there are probably no more thrilling holes than Par 3's. Think of the 12 and 16th at Augusta, the 17th at the TPC in Sawgrass, the 7th and 17th at Pebble, the 16th at Cypress Point, the Postage Stamp 8th at Troon. There are a host of others I'm leaving off, but these are examples of holes that have factored dramatically in tournament golf. They are arguably more memorable than just about any Par 5 or Par 4 holes out there. Quite often they are natural ampitheaters for galleries, making them even more storied in golfing lore. Newer courses, such as the TPC Scottsdale, where the where the Waste Management tournament is going on, have a literal stadium built around the Par 3 16th. The atmosphere on Sunday when the pressure is on is electric on that hole. Par 3's represent some of the most revered holes in golf. When done right, they are often the signature hole of a golf course. I can't imagine playing a course without a Par 3. You need them not only for the reasons stated above and in other posts, but to break up the monotony of Par 4's and 5's.

[Wade Whitehead]

On a par three, you only have to hit one good shot to make birdie.

That's why they're exciting for players of all levels.

WW

[Joe Hancock]

On a par three, you only have to hit one good shot to make birdie.

That's why they're exciting for players of all levels.

WW

I've always viewed that as true for every hole.

[Frank Pont]

It is interesting to note that Colt, Simpson and I also think MacKenzie, all went on record saying that they thought courses ideally should have at least five par 3 holes.....

[Thomas Dai]

Time to look at this subject from the totally opposite perspective - what if golf were only played on par-3's - so here's a thread I raised from 2013 although a few personal amendments may now be appropriate -

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54964.msg1272804.html#msg1272804


Atb

[Adrian_Stiff]

Golf with no Par 3 holes would be another nail in the heart of the game. Worse than a cut hamstring, I'd quit the game.

[John Connolly]

You'd lose the most interesting approach shots on every course. It'd be a boring course.

[V. Kmetz]

The moment individual hole pars are removed...GCA will enjoy its next bit of fresh air...


The most important benefit will be that two entire ranges of hole yardage now rarely used will make greater appearances for all players...230 - 280 & 450 - 490. How the architect and planners render/incorporate these un-parred yardages into a fun, zesty challenge on a 5000-8000 yard course for players of different skill and abilities is the provocation of their own talent.


And when that talent rises to meet that expanded roster of hole yardages, the lid may come off  innovation. I won't bore you with some of my amateur radical ideas in that regard.


Just about since the advent of the 18 hole course, we've had a colloquial standard of good play over a course of general length...level 4s...72. How one designs 18 holes to make the pursuit of that level a stimulating experience matters not to me...Four <110 yard holes in a row?...Go' head...a 600 yard hole followed by a 550, followed by an 80 yard hole?...Lemme see it....Sixteen 325 yard holes concluded with a 200 yarder and a 700 yarder?..OK, I don't think it will work, but if the plan is brilliant, maybe...


Getting rid/reducing Par 3s?...I don't care...Removing/reducing holes which can be reached in one, and where a 2 can be made with a putt?... bad idea.  [size=78%]Removing holes that can be reached in three, and where a 4 can be made with a putt...bad idea. [/size]


Unless you're an elite competitor, four is the score we have in mind...18x.


cheers
vk

[James Brown]

On a cold night in Chicago, I was swatting golf balls into a 10' simulator screen in "driving range" mode. Trying to hit that red and white target from about 150 yards. Got me thinking about par 3s....


....and the shot values of a par 3 that are also present on (theoretically)every par 4 and 5.


So, why have par 3 holes at all?


Every par 4 will have an approach shot (second shot) of perhaps between 75 and 225 yards. Unless the green is drivable. Between skill levels, age, and distance of all players, there will inevitably be a diverse set of second shot yardages especially if a course is designed from the start with no par 3s


Same would apply to par 5s where second or third shots into a green could certainly be similar to a three par tee shot of similar yardages as above.


Not withstanding available land, what would you think of a golf course that had twelve par 4s and six par 5s?

Because having holes of different lengths from 90 yards to 600 yards is fun.  Forget about par. 

[Ian Andrew]

The moment individual hole pars are removed...GCA will enjoy its next bit of fresh air...

I disagree...
I think this would lessen the importance of half par hole.
It's the anticipation or pressure that adds something more.

[BCrosby]

The moment individual hole pars are removed...GCA will enjoy its next bit of fresh air...

I disagree...
I think this would lessen the importance of half par hole.
It's the anticipation or pressure that adds something more.

Exactly. Setting scoring expectations heightens interest.


Bob

[Mark Pearce]

That said, I've seen 1,500 courses in my travels and only once that I can recall have I seen a course with as few as two par-3 holes ... and that singular exception is The Old Course at St. Andrews!

I thought you had been to Elie? 

[V. Kmetz]

In respectful regard of the two comments below (and to the thoughts of others who feel similarly) I say:


A. On IA's "anticipation & pressure" response
1. Though it's what we do on this board, I believe the assigning of an aesthetic virtue to an architect's proclamation of one of three dogmatic par numbers (3, 4, 5) is just "made up" out of whole cloth. Want greater anticipation? Make a 45 yard Par 2, followed by an 800 yard Par 7...I guarantee that if two holes of this nature were truly made on a course today, that course will be called a pioneer and retain popularity 100, 200 years from now... Want greater "pressure" of the kind IA infers? simply call any hole over 300, a Par 3 ...


2. And the old standard formulas (Par 3s, 4s, 5s) always provide for a two-putt as part of their score...not 1, not 3, always 2... to me this will continue to hector and pigeon-hole the imagination as far as green, and thus total course, design...the architect can rarely (especially in light of premium speeds) venture into extremes of contour OR flatness, where a 2 putt is either too hard or too easy, without risk of censure, ridicule or client displeasure. In my opinion, this is a chain on design, not a place of advantage; for why shouldn't there be a green like the wild one I remember seeing from an old picture of a 150 yard hole at Stoke-Poges(?), expected to 3-putt, bravura work to 2-putt, and where a one-putt bespeaks to your total game to achieve the proximity or luck to do so... Good skill, good luck... poor skill, poor luck... audacious presentments... amusing incongruities... this is the soul of the game, and individual hole pars do nothing for it.3. If you called CP 16 a Par 4, would it be so dampened, would the scores change so much, would the pressure change? Does the architect still not believe that players know what can and cannot be done by them and their opponents, especially after familiarity with a course grows over time? On CP 16, Jason Day knows HIS competitors will be shooting for the green in 1, trying to make 2 or 3...like I know my friend Joe can knock it on to the green one of every 4 times and will try, but 2 out of the other 3, I win if I play for 4 with a successful conservative play to the left, we may halve by both screwing up...I have the honor...what do I do? THAT's the pressure. The fact that the "Par" is "3" has nothing to do with it, which I now understand after a lifetime in the game.B. On IA's comment regarding the "lessening of importance of the half-par hole"1. For me, this is just another way of detailing the "anticipation and pressure" argument, with a well-understood concept...which is exactly THAT...a CONCEPT; it has no chance for empirical scrutiny, as to whether hole designs said to be "half par" lend to more "honored" "lauded" or "enjoyable" golf than those which comport more dogmatically with their yardages on the card.

2. If my idea of stripping individual hole pars, where every hole is conceived as a 4 is faulty, then how come the half par model that exists currently...3.5, 4.5 are the only two conceptually used... is based on either side of 4? I have never seen a 2.5, and I can only recall a few examples of that which could be even remotely called a 5.5. If half par, even as concept, is so important then how come we have never seen a Par 2 on an 18 hole golf course, with a Par 6 only a one-off gimmick?

3. Still I agree with the revealed value of "half par holes," and in my conception (where there is no stated hole par, but a course par of 72) I think there is a chance for nearly EVERY hole to be a half par hole...in concept AND practice...the player will be faced continually with holes that are could've made 2, should've made 3/dissapointing 4s, could've made 3/unlucky 4s, and solvable longer 4s, and careful 4s, and hazard laden 4s, and longish 4s, and seemingly impossible 4s of 560 yards... without one of a three numbers on the card to pre-ordain these relationships, every one of these holes might receives a half par designation in each individual golfer's mind. So for me, stripping individual hole strengthens and highlights, not dampens, the healthy sport of the half-par concept.

C. On BC's comment "setting scoring expectations heightens interest."
1. I hope the clarifications above convince that the interest in a sound, strategic, challenging, gorgeously-set or memorable hole, is not dependent in the least on the number assigned to it by a tired old formula which architecture has long-slaved to. The great holes are great because of what they are, not the "par." In the playing of them, people would still shoot what the shoot, hacks and touring pros alike, and history would be no different if we had called it a 3, 4 or 5....or a 2 or 6 for that matter.

2. The phrase "scoring expectations" reveal a level of influence by medal/stroke play and may possibly be assigned to the fact that we (all, me too) have taken too many cues from TV tournament golf and its coverage. In the first case, the original soul of the game, and the way the great majority of us still experience it, is in match play...where "scoring expectations" are almost completely borne by what the opponent can, cannot, might or might now do. I don't care if the par on the card says 2, 3 or 111...if my opponent drives out of bounds or puts it in the drink, I'm strongly considering taking an iron out...and if I have the honor on a dangerous hole or one requiring some risk/reward from the tee, I'm thinking about my own abilities, confidence and what they can get away with, while still provoking him to do something, i'm not thinking, "This is a Par 3/4 or 5...this is a 'half-par' hole...hmmmm." In the second instance, I say "TV" influence because 99% of the people PLAY match, but WATCH medal...because medal is shown 19 times for every match shown... and so the intra-round values of "under par/over par" and "what will be the winning number" are beaten into us as some type of unassailable standard...The irony is that the real, on the ground, ratio is that we play match almost 19 times more than we play in medal/stroke tournaments...yet we're bombarded with these affected concepts of par.

I would not seek to retroactively reach back and make Merion change their scorecard; I'm suggesting that, going forward, some of our fine working architects might see the worth of a "Par-less" yardage, take a chance and convince their client to try this idea...that the course par is 72, which we've whacked up with 18 holes of 18 different yardages.

Lastly I observe that, if my idea WERE implemented...and WAS a folly, it was not received well in a few seasons time, the course could simply change the scorecard and the tee plates...no physical renovations needed.

What could be a more lo-risk experiment, for what I believe would be a potentially great and liberating reward?

cheers
vk

The moment individual hole pars are removed...GCA will enjoy its next bit of fresh air...

I disagree...
I think this would lessen the importance of half par hole.
It's the anticipation or pressure that adds something more.

Exactly. Setting scoring expectations heightens interest.


Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

It's a form of the question I grapple with constantly:
Do you raise a child to succeed in the world as it is, or in the world that he/she wishes it might one day become?
Do you create work that satisfies today's tastes and expectations, or in a way that aims at the timeless and perennial?
Do you engage and interact with others as you perceive them to be, or as they seem to perceive and understand themselves?
Do you do what you can do, or what you should do?
If the land speaks only of Par 4s, do you shut it up and slap it down and impose your Par 3s and 5s on it nonetheless?

[Bob Montle]

VK:
What an interesting, refreshing and inspired idea.
I love it!
Just holes of varying length and difficulty.
Excellent for match play.
Golfers of varying abilities could define their personal pars for the holes.
This would provide for MORE variety as holes could be of any length.
Imagine, short holes with tiny greens.
Or risk-reward holes with varying "pars" depending on how you played them.

I am so eager for the next armchair architect competition!!

[Doug Siebert]

If you want to streamline designs, do away with the par 5. Sure, they're fun when you can reach them in two, but most golfers can't and the most boring shot in golf is a layup.

[Ira Fishman]

There is a thread from a few weeks ago where at least a couple of architects expressed interest in having more freedom from convention in terms of number of holes of certain par and/or sequencing of holes by par. As noted in posts above, at least two universally respected/revered courses have only two Par 3s.  And Ballybunion has five Par 3s with two back to back if my memory serves, plus back to back Par 5s; The Island Club starts with eight straight Par 4s and a Par 3 Ninth hole.  However, I think that there is a practical constraint to pushing all of the way beyond convention: although one or two very short holes may fit the land, it is hard to imagine how an architect could find an engaging, strategic 700 or 800 yard hole.


There also is a very real psychological constraint at least in the US: golfers like to say that they made a Birdie or Par.  It is the standard part of the 19th Hole adult beverage discussion.  Inevitably, par will need to be assigned to each of the holes.  I far prefer Match Play (if only because I can pick up without shame), but I do not think that is the norm in the US nor would it become so even with a great course that is too far unconstrained from convention.

[Sean_A]

I would not seek to retroactively reach back and make Merion change their scorecard; I'm suggesting that, going forward, some of our fine working architects might see the worth of a "Par-less" yardage, take a chance and convince their client to try this idea...that the course par is 72, which we've whacked up with 18 holes of 18 different yardages.

VK...I am convinced, that just as was orginally done, par would be assigned to holes wether formally or informally.  There is no getting away from the concept.  However, that doesn't mean that par has to make complete sense in all cases.  Its not that difficult to create a combo of 550 yards in which the shorter hole, ostensibly a par 3, is just as difficult as the longer par 4 hole.  The same could be said of a combo of 950 yards.  At the end of the day, par is only a number.  For those that want to fall into the trap the number exists. For those that couldn't care less about par, the number is easy to ignore.  I have always thought it somewhat of a joke that hacks measure themeselves against par, but it is what it is.  You probably know this, but since par is here to stay, I have long been a proponent of bogey score for lesser skilled golfers....especially as par was always meant to be a measuring stick for very good players. 

The real problem with par relates to the idea that a course should total an ideal par number such as 72.  This in truth is a serious constraint on design and it is completely arbitrary.    Why not par 66 if that is what the land offers?  Why not par 33 if that is what the land offers? 

Back to par 3s...what I am talking about are holes which most can reach in one shot.  That doesn't mean that everybody can or should, but that is when the concept of half par comes into play.  To me, the yardage between 240ish and 290ish is woefully unexplored in architecture..regardless of the par label.  Yes, there are many holes in this range, but I think most courses can support a fair few of this sort and that they can be more interesting than the 510-540 par 5 or 340-380 par 4 ...two ranges which have any over-abundance of holes.   

Ciao

[Ian Andrew]

Do you create work that satisfies today's tastes and expectations, or in a way that aims at the timeless and perennial?

Peter,


You have to design for yourself - and when I say that I mean what you believe in philosophically (not your own game).
Meeting other people's expectations is essentially comprising your principals and values for popularity.
There's plenty of that to go around and one thing we all know is it almost never stands up over time.