Par-3 first holes: bad or good?

[Greg Smith]

The recent "best by hole sequence, 3/4/5" threads got me thinking about par-3 openers.  I've only ever played one such hole (on a legitimate full-sized course, not exec, par-3, or "short").  I have decided I really like the idea -- let's try and talk me out of it.

I've heard some say that the initial par-3 creates good spacing, with the result being smoother flow and pace of play for the rest of the round.  By this viewpoint, I guess you'd say it shifts the "backup" on an early par-3 from the 2nd or 3rd tee to the starter's shack, which is a better place to wait!

I've heard others say the opposite -- that the par-3 first HARMS spacing and gets one started off on the wrong foot.  Still others have said that if you've got an opening par-3, follow it with a par-5 second and it helps the flow.  The one par-3 first I have played DID have a par-5 second.  I played that course maybe 10 times, and based on that data set I think this assertion is correct.

So I tried to think of all the short 1st holes I've seen mentioned on GCA or that I heard of elsewhere -- once again, not on exec, short, or par-3 courses.  It's fewer than I thought!  I looked them all up, and here they are, with back tee yardage listed, architect if I knew it, and what sort of hole follows:

In the UK:

Berkshire (Blue) -- 217 yd.  Followed by a short par 4.  (Fowler)
Kilspindie -- 158 yd.  Par-5 second.
Huntercombe -- 146 yd.  Followed by a long par-4.  (Park)
Southport & Ainsdale -- 204 yd.  Par-5 second.
Royal Lytham & St. Annes -- 206 yd.  Followed by a long par-4.
Hayling -- 179 yd.  Par-5 second.
LaMoye -- 167 yd.  Par-5 second.  (Braid)
The Addington -- 165 yd.  Par-5 second.  (Abercromby)
Walton Heath Old -- 235 yd.  Followed by a long par-4.  (Fowler)

In the USA:

York (Maine) Golf & Tennis Club -- 225 yd.  Followed by a short par-4.  (Ross)
Brooklake (NJ) -- 190 yd.  Par-5 second.  (Strong)
Pacific Grove -- 146 yd.  Followed by a long par-3 (!!).  (Egan)
Cumberland (MD) -- 230 yd.  Par-5 second.  (Robert Pryde)

I have to say that upon research, most of these holes looked like legit specimens with some kind of shot value and/or esthetic value.  You'll also notice that many of these DO have a par-5 second following.

That one hole I've actually played is the last mentioned at Cumberland CC, a mountain course in western Maryland.  The 1st at Berkshire Blue looked very similar in concept to that hole.  On both, there's fairway off to the left, and the direct line to the green is over a "native area" -- in Berkshire's case the heather.   Both tee shots are long, unless you're laying up short left to have some kind of lob wedge in -- a great half-par question.

So can anyone think of some more to add to this list?  What about the effects on pace of play?  Personally, I think the par-3 1st may add some feeling of "intimacy" to the start of a round, on a course that might otherwise be of rather large scale.  What say ye?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Greg,


Unconventional, but yes, Mr. Yates and others have said the beauty of waiting on a par 3 first hole is that, technically, those 10 minutes aren't included in the "4 hour, 15 minute" (or whatever) round.  He says a course with 18 par 4 holes would play the fastest. 


Other than that, balancing difficulty rather than a mix of harder and easier holes also helps flow, which also goes against the gca mantra of rhythm and flow.   Turns out, you can have one or the other.  For flow, having equally difficult holes, perhaps varied by difficult driving, approach shots and putting, with the other 2 challenges being somewhat easier, rather than a drop dead short, easy hole, helps flow, because the easy hole plays quick, and puts them on the next tee too soon.


Lastly, from a pure flow issue, having the hardest hole first, and then having each one just a bit easier would tend to let groups get out ahead and stay there, again, almost the reverse of the gentle handshake idea.


Times change, eh?

[David Ober]

From an "enjoyment' standpoint for the majority of golfers, I'd say that any par-3 starting hole should be:

• Devoid of water or hazard (if if there is one, that it be quite removed from the playing lane)
• "Favorably" mounded for the player
• Be no more than 180 or so from the BACK tees

So the "gentle hand shake" concept, merely in par-3 form.

[Adrian_Stiff]

If it is a straight question with no grey areas then it is a BAD for me.

[Matt_Cohn]

It would seem to increase the likelihood of an embarrassing first tee shot for nervous golfers. You don't usually chunk, shank, or blade a driver, but you certainly could do any of those with a 9-iron.

[Duncan Cheslett]

A straightforward 130-160 yard par three that takes less than 8 minutes for a 4-ball to finish can be a very good opening hole. As soon as the possibility of lost balls or multiple second shots into the green is introduced into the equation however, it can become a very bad opening hole.


The first hole at Bury GC (MacKenzie) is a good example of a successful par 3 opener.


Hole#1 by Duncan Cheslett, on Flickr

Everything is on view, it is not over long, and it is followed by three par 4 holes of over 400 yards in length. I play there often and I have never known any hold-up on the tee. Groups are then spaced perfectly for the subsequent holes.


It should be noted that MacKenzie started the course at the current 400 yard 4th and had this hole as the 16th. The change was made in the 1980s and I am told it is a big improvement. The fourth has a blind tee shot with a cliff-edge eating into the right hand side of the fairway 200 yards from the tee. THAT is a bad first hole!

[Bruce Katona]

I'm thinking about this premise, and the more thought the more I'd like to see it implemented.  Waiting at the starter's shack to go off after the par 3 1st green is cleared is infinitely better than having a foursome of the typical golfers taking practice swings with drivers on the 1 st tee box taking divots (Adrian Stiff, Steve Lapper & Archie Struthers, to name three, know all about this 1st hand). No water necessary on this hole (frankly water would be counter-productive), minimal sand (perhaps grass bunkers would be better as the high handicap player can get a wedge under the ball and pop it up onto the green) and I concur it should be of medium length - 5-7 iron for the 20 handicapper


 If the 2nd hole is a par 5, it needs to be a 3 shot (for the average player) hole, with no chance to go for the green in two, which would immediacy bunch up play.


I'm thinking hole 3 should be a medium length par 4 with a nice wide driving area and bigger flatter green for the gentle handshake and then head off as the land allows.


I'm a stronger proponent of "easier tee to green" followed by "a bit more challenge on the putting surfaces" for public golf.  Public golfers and higher handicap players like to hit and kind their ball and hit it again.  They are more than ok typically with on the green in regulation (or close to it) and tolerate many more 3 putts than better players......again hitting the ball, finding it and hitting it again will win the day for the public golfer; IMHO. 


Private courses are a different animal as Jeff Brauer, Tom Doak and the others on this site who make a living designing and renovating courses can attest to.

[Peter Flory]

I wouldn't say never, but in my opinion, it places too much importance on the first swing of the day.  In a tournament, that is fine because you'll prepare for it.  But in most casual rounds or matches, it is a nice thing getting in a shot and a walk to loosen up before you really have to be precise. 

I wonder what percentage of golfers at public courses would take a breakfast ball off the first tee if they hit a bad shot.  My guess would be that it is something like 80%.  On a par 3, a mulligan is a significant thing and socially awkward, especially if you stiff it. 

Kilspindie's start is pretty nice though.  Winged Foot's 10th would make a cool starting hole. 

[Thomas Dai]

Some more in the UK would include Ashburnham, Church Stretton, Lindrick, West Cornwall and the Stranahan at The Players. I’m sure there are others as well.
From a club member and player perspective I’m in favour of a par-3 to start. From a club operating perspective, especially a pay-n-play type facility, then as Adrian has explained a few times in threads over the years, a par-3 1st is not the way to go.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

I have only once really considered the idea of a par-3 opening hole, at Stone Eagle.  The first hole I found at the top of the hill was a beautiful spot for a par-3; it could have been the first hole or the eighteenth.  I lobbied for it extensively, because that was a difficult site to find 18 holes on, but I could not convince the client for either alternative -- they would only use it as a 19th, so we had to blast a lot of rock to create another hole to make up for it.


In theory, a par-3 starter might be excellent, but I can't imagine a client outside of the U.K. agreeing to one.  Clients would just see it as something their peers might mock.


I think the demise of the par-3 starter must have been the 1920's, when all of the ODG's books declared par-4 holes [or par-5's] as the ideal starting hole, and that was that.


While I said in the other thread that I thought the 1st at The Berkshire (Blue) was the best hole, I think something like the 1st at Kilspindie would be the ideal for a starting hole, if you had to start with a par-3 . . . it's not too difficult.  But you're unlikely to see one like that, because the only justification for starting with a par-3 now would be severe terrain which gave you no other choice.

[Ira Fishman]

A mid-length Par 3 strikes me as a very good way for the average player to start the round. Even a mediocre shot is likely to get somewhere in position for an easy bogey which provides more momentum than a pop up, pulled, sliced Driver followed by who knows what. Kilspindie is indeed a great example. Not too difficult, and more importantly, a signal of what makes the course so special—convention being irrelevant.


Ira

[David Harshbarger]

My home course, Battenkill, starts with a downhill 180yd par-3.  There are red stakes right (creek and woods), long (Battenkill River), and yellow stakes in the top shot pond front left.

The real danger is when you finish and stride 10 yards left of the 1st green.  Pulled shots coming in from the next group up invariably hail down as you negotiate a power fade dogleg right 2nd that runs parallel to the river...also right.  2 is as good a par 4 1/2 candidate you will find.

The hole gets you away from clubhouse on the narrow end of the property.  The tee is right in front of the clubhouse, convenient for all to judge your first swing form.

With no driving range, you better put your game swing on with your shoes before you leave the parking lot.  With no tee times, if the tee is open you can park at the tee and be off in less than 2 minutes.

3rd hole is a par 5.  If you play 2 safe (4h-3w?), you don’t pull driver until 3.

Pace of play is good for the rest of the course.  I believe the starting 3 sets the spacing which sets the pacing.

Course dates to 1925.

[Ronald Montesano]

Not a fan. If the hole is that great, convince the owner to relocate the clubhouse.


I'd like for Jeff, Tom, and the other architects to comment on whether they have ever been tempted to open with a one-shot hole.

[Sean_A]

I kinda like the idea of a long par 3 opener where most will hit wood if not driver. It's the sort of short hole most don't expect to hit the green so it's OK to play it indifferently for a bogey.

Ciao

[Robin_Hiseman]

No issue for me. Learnt to play on a course that opened and closed with a 3.


I'm pressing hard to convert the opening hole from a par 4 to a par 3 on my next design in Bulgaria, but know I will come up against this (to me) illogical prejudice. The fallback is to flip the nines and make it the 10th, though that will impact the narrative of the planned scheme. The greensite I want to develop has a dramatic granitic tor as a backdrop to a mid-length three played from high ground to high ground across a shallow valley. That same tor becomes a hindrance if the hole has to play around or over it on the tee shot. Unfortunately, the domino consequences of the proposed change are difficult to absorb in the remaining holes of the front nine without further changes to an agreeable layout.

[James Boon]

Some more in the UK would include Ashburnham, Church Stretton, Lindrick, West Cornwall and the Stranahan at The Players. I’m sure there are others as well.
From a club member and player perspective I’m in favour of a par-3 to start. From a club operating perspective, especially a pay-n-play type facility, then as Adrian has explained a few times in threads over the years, a par-3 1st is not the way to go.
Atb

Lindrick has its 18th as a par 3, not its first? Did you mean Liphook? Thinking of Liphook and the Buda there quite a few years ago now, one thing I liked about it was you could watch the other matches play the whole first hole and therefore know how the matches ahead of you had started...


Cheers,


James

[Pete Lavallee]

The municipal course in Southampton England has both nines start with a par 3! Very unusual but not awkward. Both holes are about a 7 iron length, if I recall correctly.

[Tom_Doak]

Lindrick has its 18th as a par 3, not its first? Did you mean Liphook? Thinking of Liphook and the Buda there quite a few years ago now, one thing I liked about it was you could watch the other matches play the whole first hole and therefore know how the matches ahead of you had started...

Liphook is one where the par-3 starter was a result of moving the clubhouse from its original location, was it not?


I think that's true for a few of these -- The Addington, also, IIRC.

[Jon Wiggett]

Sure its been mentioned already but Lytham & St. Annes springs to mind as does Kilspindie. The one that sticks in the mind though is the lesser known of the Dunbar courses.

[Lou_Duran]

I noted Kilspindie on the other thread, its first hole being an interesting par 3 and far more enjoyable later in the round.  Though 3s as #10s are far more common, I am not sure I like them any better.  Starting on Winged Foot West's #10 would be daunting when using both tees to start, and likely unfair to the other side of the field.


Flow of play considerations alone should give an architect pause.  On the other hand, if the site favors such a hole considerably as in Robin's case, it is not like one can't prepare on the range to hit the specific shot beforehand.  Aberdour, Huntercombe, Kilspindie, Liphook, and Walton Heath Old  are the only courses in my list of some 700 that I have catalogued by hole with a par 3 start.  There must be a good reason for it. 

[James Reader]

Knole Park is another one that hasn’t been mentioned.


JF Abercromby didn’t seem to mind starting with a par 3 - although if Tom’s right that both The Addington and Liphook were not the original openers, perhaps he didn’t use it as often as I thought.

[Marty Bonnar]

I’ve just remembered a Course I play annually with a mate who seems to win a free fourball on it every year.
Crieff GC in bonnie Highland Perthshire opens with a 165-yard uphill, crosswind 3. A bit ‘vanilla, bunker left, bunker right’ and always ‘feels’ a bit odd, but certainly isn’t totally abhorrent.
Crieff has some really good holes, btw, and well worth a stop on the way north.
F.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

There's a lousy farmland course near here that starts with a par three. The second hole is a medium-length par four, and the first is about 170 but downhill. Into the wind I've hit 5I, no wind you can hit 7I or 8I. There are no bunkers on the hole.

The old first hole was #10 - a downhill par four with water (a creek) right in front of the green. The current 18th is also a par three (also about 170 back up the hill IIRC).

Scenic Heights GC.

[Pete_Pittock]

Not good or bad per se.   But starting times are 10 minutes and no starting early allowed.


Tualatin CC had a 10th hole par 3 (7, then 8, then 7 minute tee times.) It played well as a 10th hole but on split tee starts it became a three group wait.  Astoria G&CC has a par 3 10th hole, but for split tee starts they started on 1 and 11.


As the green and green surround becomes more complex, the less likely I would prefer it as an opener.

[Tim_Weiman]

A straightforward 130-160 yard par three that takes less than 8 minutes for a 4-ball to finish can be a very good opening hole. As soon as the possibility of lost balls or multiple second shots into the green is introduced into the equation however, it can become a very bad opening hole.


The first hole at Bury GC (MacKenzie) is a good example of a successful par 3 opener.


Hole#1 by Duncan Cheslett, on Flickr

Everything is on view, it is not over long, and it is followed by three par 4 holes of over 400 yards in length. I play there often and I have never known any hold-up on the tee. Groups are then spaced perfectly for the subsequent holes.


It should be noted that MacKenzie started the course at the current 400 yard 4th and had this hole as the 16th. The change was made in the 1980s and I am told it is a big improvement. The fourth has a blind tee shot with a cliff-edge eating into the right hand side of the fairway 200 yards from the tee. THAT is a bad first hole!

Duncan,


Yes. I can see that hole working as an opener. I like it.