"...every tour player is sick to death of playing 220-yard par 3s"

[Jim Nugent]

Ira, ditto for the 15th at CPC, which is sometimes rated better than #16 there. 

[Roman Schwarz]

I can't speak for a pro, but I don't mind a course with a long par-three... but I'm not a fan of courses that have four of them.


Variety is the spice of life.

100% agree that variety is the key.  When I'm playing ~6500 yard courses, I don't want to just play all par 3's around 175 yards, but there are a lot of courses like that.  To me, the way to do that with a long par 3 is to have some options.  If you litter the green with hazards and bunkers and tuck the hole, it's going to play exactly like a short hole with a small green...the best and/or reckless players will go at the hole, but the majority will just go for the center of the green.  It's the same question answered with a different pencil.


I'll extol Wekopa Saguaro's #15 as an excellent long par 3.  233 yards from the ~6700 yard tees with a massive green and a bailout fairway.  Go at it with a 3 wood?  Sure!  Play to the front with a hybrid and try 2 putting from 100 feet?  Sure!  Play out to the right, then have your choice of a pitch or a little runner?  Sure!  It asks something completely different than the well-defended 110 yard 9th.  I've seen everything from mid iron to driver played off the tee.


Long par 3's should be used as a foil to the short holes, not just to make the course CHALLENGING!

[Ira Fishman]

Jim, I made 3 on CPC 15 so it cannot be that challenging .  But you are on the money--it is a great hole.


Ira

[Pete Lavallee]

The quest to get total yardage to over 7000 yards and declare “it’s a Championsip Course” seems to be a big concern here. Throw in 2 sub 150 yard par 3’s and the math just doesn’t work!

[Tom_Doak]

The quest to get total yardage to over 7000 yards and declare “it’s a Championsip Course” seems to be a big concern here. Throw in 2 sub 150 yard par 3’s and the math just doesn’t work!

Pete:


I haven't noticed anyone talking about getting to 7000 yards on this thread, but you are right, that's another reason shorter par-3's have disappeared from golf.


As I said earlier, I hate "design by scorecard".  It's funny though, when I asked Brooks what lengths of holes he would like to see, the sum total of those numbers was quite a bit less than he thought it would be.  The total sounded short to him until I went back through the various holes.  Part of that is that the course will not be a par 72, but he knew to make an adjustment for that.

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,


When I worked in government many years ago, I spent a fair bit of time with the Country’s leading economists on designing a particular program. At least one of them was a Nobel laureate. It did not take me long to realize that they viewed the world through a prism that did not make sense for most people. You have accepted a very difficult challenge of designing a course that works for the Pros and average golfers. I am sure that Brooks Koepka is a great guy. But I suggest that you trust your 30 years of experience.


Ira

[Thomas Dai]

The quest to get total yardage to over 7000 yards and declare “it’s a Championsip Course” seems to be a big concern here. Throw in 2 sub 150 yard par 3’s and the math just doesn’t work!

+1
There are plenty of wonderful, evil, challenging tiddler length par-3s around.
Add a few circa 290/330 yd ‘par-4s’ into the mix and you can surely still get a cracking challenging 18-hole course with a bunch of of player challenge, especially mental-ego tests, and exciting spectating as well.
Atb

[James Brown]

For me, I really like a course where one par three demands a flat out 200ish shot and where one or two par fours and at least one par 5 is reachable with a good drive and hybrid.  Long shots you hit well are the ones I  remember best. 

[Ken Moum]

As holes get longer, there are gaps in player's yardages- a 280 yard par 3 might be an awkward distance as might a 265er. Even 310 is not out of line as there were 250 yard par 3's 80 years ago. Gaps are interesting shots that make players think.


I like variety as much as the next guy and would to see more shorter par 3's as well.
For a touring pro, A 115 yard par 3 is a nice contrast with a 285er and that leaves a lot of room to avoid duplication in the other 2-3 par 3's.

Now you're talking....  That is EXACTLY what I was trying to get at.  They don't like 220-yard par threes for the same reason I don't like a bunch of 160-yarders.


As I said at the end of my rant, the solution is to eliminate nearly all the par threes between 200 and 275.


Or better yet, between 200 and 250


Lke 115, 185, 250 and 290.


Now THAT would be interesting to watch.

[Roman Schwarz]

For me, I really like a course where one par three demands a flat out 200ish shot and where one or two par fours and at least one par 5 is reachable with a good drive and hybrid.  Long shots you hit well are the ones I  remember best.

With or without slope and run?  In general I agree that long shots are good for variety, but it seems like too little thought is put into these shots on many courses.  Mid Pines plays firm and has a run-up area, so #13 plays well.  Stanley Thompson famously didn't hit a very good carry and built nice run-up areas on a lot of his greens for that type of shot.

Rather, I feel like I see too many like #17 at the Ocean Course where the green and approach look like something you'd see on a hole 3/4 as long.  A local course I've played many times has a 200 yard par 3 with a carry over water.  There's a little neck of land off to the right and a hill behind it that theoretically could have been used as a bank...but they went out of their way to shut down that option by adding a bunker at the base of the hill and a large mound in front of the mouth to the green.  If the long shot is added just for the sake of variety and challenge, it fails in my book.  Par 4's and 5's are a little different because you can offer an alternate path home.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

I think most of the members of this site find short par 3s with tiny greens interesting, and I think tour pros would concur.  I think the reason that designers shy away from such holes is the fact that the wear and tear on these holes is concentrated, thus the turf conditions on these greens are likely to be the worst on the course.  If you concentrate foot traffic, plugs from hole location changes, ballmarks, etc. over a small surface the turf is likely to suffer.  Some ways I've seen designers remedy this is with larger greens with distinct tiers, however this does not have the same visual appeal and challenge as a short iron shot to a tiny green.


I'd like to see a double green short par 3 bisected by a stream or bunker, something like that hole at Pine Valley with the two tandem greens (although that is a par 4 no?).  If the overall square footage is similar to a mid size green, you could keep the turf in better condition.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Sounds like a great case is being made by these critics to roll the ball back.


They're sick of 220 yard par 3s yet they love 489 yard par 4s that play driver/wedge.


Shut up and count your blessings.
Oh, and make more putts....;-)

[Matt_Cohn]

The boring 220 yard par-3's are the ones with big, flat greens designed to "accommodate the length of the shot". I think of the two on the back nine at Torrey Pines South. (They're pretty, but that's a different thing).


220 yards to a target that would make you pucker up even with a 9-iron is not boring.


4 at Augusta isn't boring.
5 at Pine Valley isn't boring.
3 at Pasatiempo isn't boring.