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

[Tim Gavrich]

"None of the players I talked to thought it needed to be any longer," Doak said. "The bottom line is you can't defeat tour pros with length. The holes that are more interesting to them are the holes that are kind of in between, and they don't know what to do. A 500-yard par-4 is just a driver, 8-iron anyway. You kind of play into their hands. You think you're trying to challenge the long hitter, but what you're really doing is giving everybody but the long hitters no chance of competing."


What that means is that one or two of the shorter par 5s may become longer par 4s for the tournament, but the course for the most part won't be a bunch of long holes. In fact, it already has two par 3s that are over 220 yards (the 11th is around 250 yards from the back tees), but those will most likely be shortened.


"If we built a golf course where only one of the par 3s was much over 200 yards, we'd be heroes because every tour player is sick to death of playing 220-yard par 3s," said Doak, adding that Koepka cited the short 11th at Shinnecock Hills and ninth at Erin Hills (two U.S. Open courses) as two of his favorites.

This is from my colleague Mike Bailey's piece on the official go-ahead that Tom Doak has received to start renovating Memorial Park, and I think it deserves its own topic.


Anecdotally, it seems to me that long par 3s are generally at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of broad types of holes people - especially touring pros - seem to like. Of course there are exceptions (16 at Cypress being #1, I reckon), but in an era where pros are approaching pretty much every hole with shorter and shorter irons and wedges, it would seem the long par three may be as relevant as ever to the professional game.


What is the true nature of this grievance? I am a fan of long par threes because I think a complete player should be able to finesse every club. But I do think they are tough to get right; the ones that don't work so well tend to have too much going on. Maybe this is what touring pros object to. I can believe there are a some par 3s on Tour that have been lengthened excessively.


I do agree with the first paragraph of the above quote, but I wonder if a truly excellent long one-shotter might be an exception. Since longer hitters are less used to approaching holes with longer clubs, could the Jim Furyks and Zach Johnsons of the world, who are better with their long clubs by necessity, potentially have an advantage on a par three that plays to a just-right length?

[Ken Moum]

This really, really pisses me off, for two reasons.


First is that everyone loves par 3 1/2 holes, whyinhell does it make a difference if its par three or four? Other than the joy of making Tour players unhappy?


The other is that pretty much all of the old courses I've played had a hole that required at least a brassie from even elite players.


I have a simple solution... banish par threes between 200 and 275 yards.


Move the upper limit for a par three to 310 yards, hell they're playing par fours over 500.

[Matthew Rose]

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.

[Tom_Doak]

Sorry you feel that way, Ken.  But a question for you:  how many of those brassie holes are any good?  Brooks's view is that it's the shorter par-3's and the short par-4's and the reachable par-5's that get the players excited ... and make them nervous.



For thirty years architects have been building the par-3's longer, because those were the only holes where you could make a tour pro hit a long iron.  After all, even the longest par-4's are mostly 7-iron [or shorter approaches] for the longer hitters on tour.



So, if your goal is to make the course difficult in relation to par, sure, build the par-3's at 180-200-230-260.  I suspect at many of the courses on TOUR they're that long or longer now.  But then you can't really make the greens small and the hazards scary, unless you put the regular tees down to 140-150 yards.


And that's not really our goal for Memorial Park.  The course hosts 60,000 rounds per year already, and we expect demand to increase once it becomes host to a regular PGA TOUR event again.  It has to be playable for all those people, too.  And we don't particularly care what the winning score will be, as long as it's an exciting tournament.


So we are tentatively looking at par-3's of 140, 160, 180, 200 and 235 yards.  There will also be a par-4 that's not much over 300 yards.


Variety is the spice of life.

[Amol Yajnik]

So we are tentatively looking at par-3's of 140, 160, 180, 200 and 235 yards.  There will also be a par-4 that's not much over 300 yards.

Tom,
Are you converting an existing par 4 into a par 3?  If I recall correctly, Memorial only has 4 par 3's (2, 7, 11, and 15).

[Joel_Stewart]

The question still remains is how do you make it playable for the every day golfer the rest of the year. If you build a par 3 like the 11th at Shinnecock, much less a variety of holes that are complex you could end up with 6 hour rounds for the average muni player.

[Peter Pallotta]

This little phrase struck me in Tom's reply #3 - 'and makes them nervous'.

That's a key here, I think: ie that pros are engaged in tournament stroke play, for real money!

A short 3 or half 4 or reachable 5 etc makes them nervous mostly because they feel they *have* to score well or otherwise fall quickly down the leader (ie money) board...since many others certainly will be scoring well

[Jeff Schley]

I would say who really cares what the tour player wants, I would discount their desires, in favor of 2 others.

1. The fans, who want to see drivable par 4, LONG par 3's (8th at Oakmont), any par 5 basically, hazards where players can have a car wreck of a hole.

2. Pure golf fan, who wants to see a thorough examination of every club in the bag if possible and have to shape shots.

The players will show up and play whatever course is there (particularly majors and WG events).  Why not make it what the audience and pure golf fans want to see? They are the ones who watch and give the ratings, which in turn allows commercials to sell and sponsors.

[Kevin Neary]

Long par 3s are boring for the average player because they are often too difficult and bland. An incredibly long par 3 can't have too many intriguing hazards since the length of the hole itself is the main difficulty. Encountering this two or three times a round is tiring, boring, and disaffecting.


It's no different for the professionals on the Tour. Since the hole is devoid of interest in order to keep the average player relevant, it becomes incredibly straightforward for the professionals. Without a doubt, that may be nice on Sunday coming down the stretch with millions of dollars at stake. However, going out on Thursday morning hoping to have a little fun, it is just not a possibility on a hole asking the player to only hit a long, straight shot.


That's when short par 3s become relevant. Since the hole is shorter, more interesting green sites can be created, more interesting bunkers that provoke thought be added, and, hopefully, indecision on the tee box. These features make the hole more interesting because they create more possibilities. Think of the 11th at Plainfield. It's a great short hole because there a bunch of ways to play the hole. Do I hit it high or low? A draw or fade? Hit it into the false front or carry it to the flag? Compare that to its 14th hole - long par 3 over water. It's not an interesting hole, and that's because it lacks the optionality that its shorter counterpart, the 11th, offers. Of course there's a time and place for these longer holes, and that's not meant to degrade the 14th, but when compared to the 11th, it's simply not in the same league.


I think we often forget on this forum that the professional players are golfers, too (hell, they play the game for a living). It's constantly argued that the professionals play a fundamentally different game than the average player, and that's not entirely wrong. However, the professionals desire intrigue and strategy in the game much like us laypeople, which is why the shorter holes with more options are more fun to play than long holes with one requirement. Understanding this makes it understandable why short par 3s are desired to be brought back to the Tour.

[Pete_Pittock]

a 220 yard par 3 is probably time neutral for pace of play. It would eliminate one potential choke point during the round. Can't say the same for shorter holes. And it could be problematic for players that use four wedges making it harder to choose which clubs to jettison.

[Jeff Schley]

Long par 3s are boring for the average player because they are often too difficult and bland. An incredibly long par 3 can't have too many intriguing hazards since the length of the hole itself is the main difficulty. Encountering this two or three times a round is tiring, boring, and disaffecting.


It's no different for the professionals on the Tour. Since the hole is devoid of interest in order to keep the average player relevant, it becomes incredibly straightforward for the professionals. Without a doubt, that may be nice on Sunday coming down the stretch with millions of dollars at stake. However, going out on Thursday morning hoping to have a little fun, it is just not a possibility on a hole asking the player to only hit a long, straight shot.


That's when short par 3s become relevant. Since the hole is shorter, more interesting green sites can be created, more interesting bunkers that provoke thought be added, and, hopefully, indecision on the tee box. These features make the hole more interesting because they create more possibilities. Think of the 11th at Plainfield. It's a great short hole because there a bunch of ways to play the hole. Do I hit it high or low? A draw or fade? Hit it into the false front or carry it to the flag? Compare that to its 14th hole - long par 3 over water. It's not an interesting hole, and that's because it lacks the optionality that its shorter counterpart, the 11th, offers. Of course there's a time and place for these longer holes, and that's not meant to degrade the 14th, but when compared to the 11th, it's simply not in the same league.


I think we often forget on this forum that the professional players are golfers, too (hell, they play the game for a living). It's constantly argued that the professionals play a fundamentally different game than the average player, and that's not entirely wrong. However, the professionals desire intrigue and strategy in the game much like us laypeople, which is why the shorter holes with more options are more fun to play than long holes with one requirement. Understanding this makes it understandable why short par 3s are desired to be brought back to the Tour.

Kevin 2 questions:
1. With the topic being Tour Players, the average player thinking long par 3's are boring maybe, however their tee box is probably 20-40 yards ahead of the back tees or more so play the appropriate tee box perhaps? 

2. Also having played Plainfield CC, which is my favorite Ross course behind Pinehurst No. 2, how do you play hole 11 low with the false front and green sloping front to back?  Or maybe you were using that as a Segway into your point about options on short holes?

[Ian Andrew]

The question still remains is how do you make it playable for the every day golfer the rest of the year. If you build a par 3 like the 11th at Shinnecock, much less a variety of holes that are complex you could end up with 6 hour rounds for the average muni player.

You are assuming the same maintenance and height of cut all year.


I've played Shinnecock with longer turf in early November, it becomes really friendly and really fun to play. It's a nice causal late season round set up like that.


If the design is made flexible to the maintenance set up, you can work with strong contours. You can use more edge pins. It's what we did at Laval-sur-le-lac (Blue) for the Canadian Open (if it ever goes back to Montreal). There's a playable golf course on the surface, with a little more teeth hidden in the height of cut on and around the greens.

[Tim Gavrich]

Kevin--


I'm having trouble reconciling "boring" with "difficult." I find, generally, that the less certainty I have about what score I'm going to make on a hole, the less boring it is. On a 230-yard hole, which is roughly a stock five wood for me, I know that I'd better make one of my best swings of the day. If I'm successful, I might just end up with a chance to make a rare 2, and a birdie off of a wood shot is a pretty satisfying feeling.


If I hit a marginal or mediocre shot, the task is usually to try and snatch a par from the jaws of bogey. If I do end up making par, it's another boost. But if I end up making bogey, it's not as much of a downer because I'm clear-eyed about how challenging the hole is. Because of this dynamic, a long par 3 doesn't need much at all to be interesting, IMO.


Tom--


I fully agree that variety is great and even necessary for truly testing and rewarding golf. That said, because the pros hit such short clubs into par 4s nowadays, aren't they already kinda-sorta playing a lot of short par 3s-by-another-name? I agree that 11 at Shinnecock and 9 at Erin Hills are superb holes, but the clubs the pros are hitting on short par 3s are being tested elsewhere on the courses they play.


Variety is great among a set of par threes (I'm excited to hear that new Memorial Park will have five, rather than four), but ultimately variety over the 18 holes is more important, as I reckon you'd agree.

[jeffwarne]

Using pro back tee yardages in all examples below.
Not a huge fan of 8 tee par 3's(other than turf rotation) but I do see the need for yardage variance between player levels as the holes gets longer.'Obviously on a short hole more tee space is needed for turf, but that can be done with different angles and size, not proportionately varying the length so much.


In defense of the 220 par 3, it's now one of the few times tour players hit something besides wedges unless on a par 5.
I completely understand a series of 220 yard par 3's is boring.
It used to be every par 3 in Florida in the 80's 90's was 190 (the new 220).


One 220 yard par 3 would be ok if there's variety in the other par 3's. I really like to see a long par 3 and 220 and even 235 is no longer long for these guys.


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.

[Kevin Neary]

Kevin 2 questions:
1. With the topic being Tour Players, the average player thinking long par 3's are boring maybe, however their tee box is probably 20-40 yards ahead of the back tees or more so play the appropriate tee box perhaps? 

2. Also having played Plainfield CC, which is my favorite Ross course behind Pinehurst No. 2, how do you play hole 11 low with the false front and green sloping front to back?  Or maybe you were using that as a Segway into your point about options on short holes?

Having caddied for five years, I often use my dad as the barometer for what a "long hole" is when compared to a "short hole." I went down to Streamsong with him and had the pleasure of playing all three courses, the blue being his favorite because it was more scenic and more enjoyable to play when compared to the Black course in particular. If I remember correctly, it is the 16th hole that plays over 200 yards from the silver tees (under 6300 yard total) that he played from. He was playing the right tees, and loved the hole because the ball could be run up to, and played to be effectively a reverse redan. He managed to make par while I struggled with a double bogey. The disparity in score showed that there are numerous ways to play the hole, and my strategy was poorly executed resulting in a poor score, while my dad's did not.



Compare that to our home course, Montclair. The third hole on the third nine is really an atrocious hole. Straight uphill, nowhere to miss, and an extremely severe green that serves to penalize the lesser player more than the better player. From the member tee which my father plays from, the course plays between 6200 and 6300 yards, which is where he should be playing from, and the hole is question plays about 190 yards. It's simply far too difficult from that distance, and proves to be a challenge to people who play from the ladies tees at a mere 140 yards. It's just a bad hole, and due to its length it only compounds its flaws.


Based on this, I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be long holes, but rather that, like the third at Montclair, they are often one dimensional, incredibly difficult, and leave a bad taste in your mouth when leaving. But, when longer par threes with interest, like the 16th at Streamsong Blue, they should be implemented because they have the architectural intrigue that holds the attention of even the passive golfers like my father.


In regards to your second question, to be fair, the last time I played Plainfield must have been five years ago. I remember hitting a shot fat and getting stuck under the lip of the front bunker, but still having a blast. What I meant by going in high or low is if, say the pin is back, should you try to challenge the false front and let the green take the ball to the back, or fly it to the hole and hope it holds? Additionally, I remember the green overall falls from the ridge right of the green, but I could be completely wrong. If it's the case, that's just another dimension to the hole that is asking the player to play it off the ridge or go at the pin. At Rock Spring, where I used to play, the sixth hole was a 130 yard par 3 "Short" template. It was loads of fun to play, and it had so many different ways to approach the hole. Rather than hitting a stock gap wedge, I would play my "Rock Spring flip" with a pitching wedge instead, one hop to the hole and stop it. Plainfield just happened to be the first example that came to mind when comparing short par 3s to long par 3s.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom--


I fully agree that variety is great and even necessary for truly testing and rewarding golf. That said, because the pros hit such short clubs into par 4s nowadays, aren't they already kinda-sorta playing a lot of short par 3s-by-another-name? I agree that 11 at Shinnecock and 9 at Erin Hills are superb holes, but the clubs the pros are hitting on short par 3s are being tested elsewhere on the courses they play.

Variety is great among a set of par threes (I'm excited to hear that new Memorial Park will have five, rather than four), but ultimately variety over the 18 holes is more important, as I reckon you'd agree.

Tim:


Brooks wants to see the players hit every club in the bag, too.  He just does the math a little differently than you.  He's going to hit long irons into the par-5 holes, and maybe a hybrid or 3-wood.  He's okay with doing that once on the par-3 holes, too, but he thinks it's boring to do it three times.


He's not the only one.  I played with four other famous players last month in Florida, younger and older, and they all said it in their own way.  The older guys remember when par-3's were potential birdie opportunities, and lament that they are now hitting clubs where they should play safe to the middle of the green.  They think that a shorter hole makes it more tempting to go for the flag . . . and potentially get yourself in trouble.  And I think everyone would agree that you can make the par-3 holes more challenging around the green, because you don't have to be concerned about the average guy hitting 4-wood in there.


Personally, as I've said here before, I'm not so stuck on making players "hit every club in the bag."  Other than the par-3's, that's out of an architect's control anyway, because most golfers don't drive it consistently.  The phrase comes from a day when players didn't have matched sets, but now that they do, there isn't much difference between them hitting 8-iron or 6-iron, other than length and the greater dispersion that comes with added length.  [And it really doesn't matter if a pro can hit a 7-iron 200 yards . . . he's going to get the same dispersion at 200 yards no matter what club he is hitting, assuming he puts the same swing on it.]


But I'm not here to have you all tell me what we should do.  I've been pondering taking a break from the site for the duration of this job, because (a) I'm going to be really busy between this and the book I'm trying to write, and (b) I don't want to put myself in the position of speaking for Brooks, as I am already being asked to do.  If you want to come down and see what we are up to, come on down.  But don't talk to me about the scorecard.  We design golf holes, not scorecards. 

[Jeff Schley]

gotcha on variety of ball flights.

Plainfield 11 does have a ridge that brings the ball from right to left big time.  As a matter of fact I pulled my tee shot badly left onto the next tee box and as opposed to flopping it over the bunker, I actually played a low pitch to the top of the ridge way past the hole and it rolled back to about 8 feet and I saved par!  Proud of that shot, but moreso the option existed for me to play.

[Edward Glidewell]

The yardage on the scorecard doesn't matter that much for the PGA event anyways, because they probably won't play from the back tees every day (or even at all, potentially). I know Sedgefield CC has a 245 yard par 3 from the tips, but the tour event doesn't always play it from there -- I think at least one year they didn't use the back tee at all, and I've seen them playing from as far up as the senior tees (which makes the hole roughly 175-180).

[Thomas Dai]

I’d like to see more par-3’s on tour pro courses like the ones on the Bad Little Nine - http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/scottsdale-national-golf-club/
Holes that get into folks heads. Ones that have expectations of a two or an ace but also get the nerves tingling in case of a embarassing screw-up. Postage Stamp and all that.

Atb


PS - Tom, no complete site break please, maybe as an alternative just not take questions on the MP job?

[Kevin Neary]

Kevin--


I'm having trouble reconciling "boring" with "difficult." I find, generally, that the less certainty I have about what score I'm going to make on a hole, the less boring it is. On a 230-yard hole, which is roughly a stock five wood for me, I know that I'd better make one of my best swings of the day. If I'm successful, I might just end up with a chance to make a rare 2, and a birdie off of a wood shot is a pretty satisfying feeling.


If I hit a marginal or mediocre shot, the task is usually to try and snatch a par from the jaws of bogey. If I do end up making par, it's another boost. But if I end up making bogey, it's not as much of a downer because I'm clear-eyed about how challenging the hole is. Because of this dynamic, a long par 3 doesn't need much at all to be interesting, IMO.

I wasn't attempting to argue for the boycott of all long par 3s. As you mention, there can be a sort of thrill in playing a longer par 3, and I completely agree. That being said, encountering it three to four times a round would make the game unenjoyable. Being continually tested on the same part of one's game is boring and unimaginative.


I use both "boring" and "difficult" to argue that numerous long par 3 holes are often similar and one dimensional. It is their length that defines their difficulty, and that is inherently boring when used repetitively. These holes are difficult, and there's nothing wrong with having a bomber hole, but as used on the Tour three to four times, it's just plain boring, and becomes more of a grind than enjoyment.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I too miss the days of having short holes.

The short holes are often the most perplexing. They annoy the better player by making them make a choice, while the poorer/shorter hitter delights in being able to finally hit a short iron to a green or have a better-than-usual chance at birdie or even par.

Short holes of ANY length, par 3s, 4s, 5s.

But yeah, some of the most memorable par threes I've ever played are pretty short. And challenging.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

I completely agree here.  Maybe Tom will build something like #7 at Barnbougle for his new project in Houston.

The pro tee could put them at an angle where they have to fly the bunkers, and the every day tee could be a better angle or even straight on.  Seems like it wouldn't have to be much more than 125 to 130 to make even the pros pucker a bit...

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim:

Brooks wants to see the players hit every club in the bag, too.  He just does the math a little differently than you.  He's going to hit long irons into the par-5 holes, and maybe a hybrid or 3-wood.  He's okay with doing that once on the par-3 holes, too, but he thinks it's boring to do it three times.

He's not the only one.  I played with four other famous players last month in Florida, younger and older, and they all said it in their own way.  The older guys remember when par-3's were potential birdie opportunities, and lament that they are now hitting clubs where they should play safe to the middle of the green.  They think that a shorter hole makes it more tempting to go for the flag . . . and potentially get yourself in trouble.  And I think everyone would agree that you can make the par-3 holes more challenging around the green, because you don't have to be concerned about the average guy hitting 4-wood in there.

Personally, as I've said here before, I'm not so stuck on making players "hit every club in the bag."  Other than the par-3's, that's out of an architect's control anyway, because most golfers don't drive it consistently.  The phrase comes from a day when players didn't have matched sets, but now that they do, there isn't much difference between them hitting 8-iron or 6-iron, other than length and the greater dispersion that comes with added length.  [And it really doesn't matter if a pro can hit a 7-iron 200 yards . . . he's going to get the same dispersion at 200 yards no matter what club he is hitting, assuming he puts the same swing on it.]

But I'm not here to have you all tell me what we should do.  I've been pondering taking a break from the site for the duration of this job, because (a) I'm going to be really busy between this and the book I'm trying to write, and (b) I don't want to put myself in the position of speaking for Brooks, as I am already being asked to do.  If you want to come down and see what we are up to, come on down.  But don't talk to me about the scorecard.  We design golf holes, not scorecards.

Thanks as always for the thoughtful response, Tom. Four or five long-club approaches sounds about right to me. Will look forward to seeing how the short par 3s end up, too.


The anecdote about the pros recalling that par 3s used to feel more like birdie holes than they do now is interesting, and not something that had occurred to me. Didn't the third hole at Bellerive play exactly to a half-par one day during the PGA, when almost exactly half the field made birdie, and the other half made par? Is that an example of a par three playing more to pros' liking? I grant that the soft conditions made the shot a bit less intimidating than intended, but the result was a half-par hole.


I feel like there have been a lot of super-gutsy shots hit in recent times by PGA Tour players. Most recently, I'm reminded of the lines Xander Schauffele took on 17 (from about 220 yards, I recall) and 18 (from 278) at Kapalua last week in the final round, where he courted some potentially tournament-altering danger and it paid off. The pinpoint 3 wood Justin Thomas hit at 18 at Erin Hills to help finish off his 63 is another shot that sticks out. Anytime a pro takes a big risk in order to make a birdie or better, it's a win, so I look forward to seeing some gambling in the 2020 Houston Open.


Add me to the list of people who hope you'll continue to post here during the Memorial Park project.

[JESII]

And we don't particularly care what the winning score will be, as long as it's an exciting tournament.

This was the phrase that I like the most...if it's sincere, and the organizers are committed to that mindset, the whole thing can be a success. Trying to challenge the pros to break par is a fools errand...so make the shots cool and the rest will take care of itself.

[Ira Fishman]

I have not played it, but the 12th at Augusta seems to be plenty interesting and challenging to players of all levels. 


Ira