[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


Your posts have engaged in cherry picking. Of course there are great Par 5s that are better than a given Par 4. The point is that on the whole Par 4s provide better holes than Par 5s. Certainly in my experience the percentage of very good to great Par 4s is higher than the percentage of very good to great Par 5s and the percentage of average to less than average is lower.


Par 3s are a different story for me. Generally they do not offer as many strategic options but I appreciate the concept that a Par 3 demands the right shot to the right spot (which may well be to avoid a sucker pin). Varying the length can then determine the the difficulty of the demand that the hole makes.


Ira

[Tim_Weiman]

2 shot holes most efficiently set up strategy - A tee shot to set up the approach and then the key shot - the approach.  Most par 5 holes have a "wasted" middle shot that inherently isn't as exciting as hitting the green or initially hitting the fw. 


Par 3 holes are okay, but is there really strategy?  I always found those better for "concept shots," like CBM, i.e. precision shot, or offbeat shot like punch bowls, Redans, etc., because there is no shot relation.

Jeff,


I probably agree with the emphasis you and others here place on Par 4s, including your suggestion that they “most efficiently set up strategy”.


But I have certainly played Par 5s where I didn’t consider the second shot “wasted”. The Par 5s at Old Barnwell (#1, 12, 15, 16) are an example. The second shots are all critical to setting up the approach shots to the greens.


Sure, the approach shot is the “key shot” for scoring, but I view Par 5s, if well designed, offering the challenge of requiring not one but two shots to set up the key shot. Not a bad thing, IMO.


Would I like every hole to be a Par 5? No, but I do think the variety of the standard Par 72 with four Par 5s and four Par 3s along with the ten Par 4s makes sense. It must or there wouldn’t be so many courses configured this way.


Your question about whether Par 3s require strategy probably deserves its own thread, but my inclination is to suggest there certainly are some that do, including some famous examples.

[Charlie Goerges]

“Inherently better” is the key phrase!

What most everyone is talking about is the concept of the par 4 being better than the other concepts, not that there aren't going to be better par 5s or par 3s. It's hard to argue that it isn't when 55%+ of the holes on almost every golf course are par 4s. There's a reason for that and I generally agree with it.


Now, if I'd played all the courses you've played, I'll bet there is a high likelihood that my favorite hole would be a par 3 (CPC 16) but I'd still find the concept of the par 4 a more ideal setup (for the reasons mentioned by Ben, Matt, Ally, and numerous others).


But Mark, if you think about it, this idea can support another of your causes...of forward tees. If a par 4 concept (hitting a longer drive followed by a more accurate approach shot) is really the ideal, it really backs up the idea that for shorter hitters there should be a shorter tee that lets them play the ideal formulation of drive and approach! See what I mean. I'm not even sure I agree with that 100%, but such a thing would be a decent datapoint in the argument for some much shorter tees in certain of those cases.

[Craig Sweet]

Par 3's are point and shoot. Par 4's are find the best place for your drive to improve your chances of getting your 2nd shot on the green. And par 5's don't offer much more than setting up a point and shoot 3rd shot from a comfortable distance.

[Michael Felton]

Peter,

It would take someone with guts to do it, but I there is room for a course with all par 4’s or very close to it (think Elie). The kicker is that there would have to be several par 3.5’s where people felt like they could get a stroke back on the golf course, like we have now with most par 5’s.

I often think that the weakness of the short two shot hole in recent times is that people feel like it needs to be defended, meaning a score of 6 or 7 is as likely as a 3 or 2. What if a short par 4 was just like many other great par 4’s, but instead of hard 4/easy 5, it was hard 3/easy 4?

Ben,


Elie is the perfect example of a course with a superb mix of almost all Par 4s. I might even assert that depending on the wind, number 3 makes it 17 Par 4s.


Such a wonderful and unique golf experience.


Ira

Funny thing for me about Elie. I played it one time about 20 years ago. Then read on here about two years ago that there are 16 par 4s and 2 par 3s on that course. I had absolutely no idea. I didn't notice as I played it at all. I think that's testament to the variety of those par 4s. One thing I do remember about that was hitting it left on I think 16. I went to look for my ball. I did not find it. But when I got to where I thought my ball was, I couldn't see anything other than the rough that I was in. There was a sunflower next to me that I think was about 12 feet tall. The rest of the stuff around me was only around 7-8 feet tall. Wild.

[Ben Sims]

This thread has been informative and like many, took a turn I didn’t quite expect. We haven’t really had what I assumed would lead to treatise on “par” as a design element. So for fun, I’m going to chuck a grenade and run.


Use of par for variety is uninteresting. One of the worst knock on affects of the popularity of Augusta (and the greater tournament golf world to a lesser degree) is to make the average golfer think that par 3’s and par 5’s are the strategic/varietal ideal of golf architecture.


Thoughts? 

[Michael Felton]

This thread has been informative and like many, took a turn I didn’t quite expect. We haven’t really had what I assumed would lead to treatise on “par” as a design element. So for fun, I’m going to chuck a grenade and run.


Use of par for variety is uninteresting. One of the worst knock on affects of the popularity of Augusta (and the greater tournament golf world to a lesser degree) is to make the average golfer think that par 3’s and par 5’s are the strategic/varietal ideal of golf architecture.


Thoughts?

I think when I think of the par 3s on a golf course, I'd generally want to see some variety in them. I don't want four par threes that are all 170 yards. I'd much rather have a 130, a 160, a 190 and a 220 par three. And if they happen to also vary in direction, then great. Similarly with par 5s. I think it's fairly boring to have four par 5s all at 550. I'd rather see one at 495, one at 525, one at 550 and one at 580 (or something like that). So I guess I think of variety with par as viewing them collectively by par. So you might say a course has good variety of par 3s or good variety of par 4s or what have you, but I wouldn't say a course has good variety because it has par 3s, 4s, and 5s.

[Charlie Goerges]

Use of par for variety is uninteresting.

Maybe... but I think you're getting us on a technicality. Leave par off, is that 265-yard hole a par 3 or par 4? Doesn't really matter to me. That said, it's pretty clear what that 108-yard hole would be.

[Jeff_Brauer]

When I think of the par 3s on a golf course, I'd generally want to see some variety in them. I don't want four par threes that are all 170 yards. I'd much rather have a 130, a 160, a 190 and a 220 par three. And if they happen to also vary in direction, then great. Similarly with par 5s. I think it's fairly boring to have four par 5s all at 550. I'd rather see one at 495, one at 525, one at 550 and one at 580 (or something like that). So I guess I think of variety with par as viewing them collectively by par. So you might say a course has good variety of par 3s or good variety of par 4s or what have you, but I wouldn't say a course has good variety because it has par 3s, 4s, and 5s.

It's a funny story, but I had a course just miss being on the "Best New" Golf Digest list years ago.  From the rater's comments, the biggest problem was that my par 3 holes were of similar length, with none over 200.  Frankly, as a public course, I did that on purpose, because average length par 3 holes are fun for public and average players, while I knew from years of golf that no one likes long par 3's (from the middle tees at least).  So, after that, for years I strove for the kind of balance you suggested, at 130,190, 210, and 240+ (with my longest back tee yardage once hitting 285, right after I had played the 8th at Oakmont, of similar yardage.)


As I aged and matured (?) as an architect and the "the older I get the better I used to play" knowledge crept in, I reverted to mostly mid length and short par 3 holes.  I also tended to make par 3's easier, not harder as Ross once suggested was the norm.  If form follows function, and the main function is to give the majority of players (presumably C and D players) it makes more sense, i.e., winning design awards isn't really a design function worth pursuing.


In fact, on par 3's it is quite possible to have unique holes of similar length depending wind direction, i.e. 160 into the wind and 160 downwind will use different clubs, and if I can reverse the cross winds on the other two holes, they might play differently anyway, even if with a similar club.  I tended to ignore the "rule" that said longer holes ought to play with the wind and shorter ones against, because it often made holes play the same effective distance.


I still agree with you on the variety of par 5 lengths and wind orientation.

[Mark_Fine]

Ira and others,
In my initial post, all I said was many of my favorite holes are par threes and par fives and that great par fives are the hardest to design and par threes probably the easiest.  Tom Doak (as he always does) blew it out of proportion.  Clearly the amount of great par fours (they obviously dominate the type/number of holes out there) will far exceed the number of great par threes and par fives.  No one is arguing with that.  So if it is by shear number then par fours are inherently better.  But if you “cherry pick” as Ira says, there are many great par threes and par fives that are “inherently better” than many par fours 😉

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


I was quite clear that I was talking about the percentage of Par 4s versus the percentage of Par 5s and not the absolute number.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
Then we are in agreement. 


Par fives in general are the hardest holes to design to a high standard.  Par threes probability follow.

[Tim Gavrich]

Here's a fun fact: the vast majority (possibly more than 90%) of Western popular music is in 4/4 time.


Sure, "Take Five" is a great jazz song and there are all sorts of others that break with convention (and there's plenty of great 3/4 songs, too), but 4/4 is the standard from which others selectively deviate (currently listening to "I Hung My Head" by Sting, for example; it's in 9/8). There may be an inherent symmetry to 4/4 music that is pleasing to at least Western ears.


Par 4s are the natural/default golf hole in part because there's a rhythm to them that is compatible with how the tools we use to play golf are composed/arranged. [Long shot/shorter shot/chip/putt] or [Long shot/shorter shot/long putt/short putt] is an elegant and instinctively sensible cadence with enough potential variety to be worth repeating many times over the course of 18 holes, given the typical assortment of 14 clubs.


The few par-6 holes in the world are seen as gimmicky because they stretch to the point of breaking that possible innate desire for four-ness.


When it opened, a course in California now called Rolling Hills had tees on every hole to make it a par 3, par 4 or par 5. Imagine 18 par 5s! Visiting golfers couldn't, so they abandoned the concept. There's something right about par-4 golf holes.


(FWIW, I think this is why par-3 courses, while amusing, have a relatively low ceiling for true greatness. Something is missing.)

[Mark_Fine]

Tim, your points are well taken but a lot of this is because of convention and what we are all used to. Is there such a thing as the 100 greatest nine-hole courses in the world?  There might be but I haven’t really bothered to look.  Probably the same goes for the top 100 greatest par three courses.  Does it exist?  Has this site ever talked about either of those lists?  If they do exist and we have, it pales in comparison to how much we have discussed the 100 greatest 18 hole courses.  Speaking of nine hole courses; what I think is one of the best nine hole courses at least in Scotland is at Royal Aberdeen.  When I say that most every person who knows the course says that Royal Aberdeen is an 18 hole course.  I comment back, well if you just play the front nine it’s not . 

We all like what is traditional and conventional.  And by the way most golfers love to pound a driver so how could any par three course be that great when you don’t even need that club 😉

[Tom_Doak]

Ira,
Then we are in agreement. 

Par fives in general are the hardest holes to design to a high standard.  Par threes probability follow.

Mark:


Does that not mean logically that par four holes are easier to design because they are inherently better?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I have a lot of respect for your golf courses. No question you have designed some of the greatest ones out there. But you as a person can be a real ….  Why don’t you give me a little credit once in awhile as I do have some clue what I talk about on this site and have been quite successful in this field despite few, including you, giving me any chance of success or any support.   Fortunately I had others like Gil and Forrest to name a couple who did. 


You know very well designing great par fives is not easy and much harder than designing great par fours or great par threes. Look at some poor par fives you have designed yourself such as the 18th at Stonewall North and the 18th at Riverfront to name just two.  They are not great par fives, not even close and maybe the weakest holes on both courses and they are the finishing holes    How does the great Tom Doak finish two of his courses with very marginal golf holes, par fives at that?? But of course you won’t admit any of this because you never are wrong and can’t stand the thought of agreeing with me.  Sorry to vent but it is one thing to debate and disagree. It is another to be an … about it. 

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark,


Many years ago I spent a year living in Sacramento and I remember it fondly because it was the only time in my life I played a golf course every Saturday and Sunday always trying to break 80 and usually shooting somewhere in the 78 to 82 range.


The course I played was Ancil Hoffman. I am sure it wouldn’t be considered anything special today, but back then it was among Golf Digest’s top 75 public courses.


Anyway, there was a Par 4 on the front side (#8 if I remember correctly) where I came to feel two very different shot shots were required: a drawn tee shot and a fade approach. In other words, the hole, to be played well, required shot making skills.


Could one play the hole without shot making skills? Yes, one could, but especially with certain pin positions the odds of making birdie weren’t very good.


Now, I have played #10 at Pine Valley and #7 at Pebble Beach and enjoyed both. But, do I consider either of these famous holes as good as this relatively unknown hole at Ancil Hoffman? No, I don’t. They both have the disadvantage of requiring only one shot and, arguably, a less interesting (straight) shot. Quite simply, two beats one.


That said, I would add to be comments above about Par 5 holes by suggesting I think we may be understating their value when it comes to mid handicap players. I just think there are probably many Par 5s where the second shot is pretty challenging and important for the 15 handicap player.


Tim

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
Nice story and points well taken. i don’t disagree one bit that holes like #10 at PV, #7 at PB, #12 at Augusta National, #17 at TPC Sawgrass, #15 at Cypress to name a few, basically require one shot, an aerial shot, to safely reach the green.  In that regard they are somewhat one dimensional even though the shape and flight of that shot might need to vary a lot depending on the conditions and hole location. I But as you know from playing these holes, they all present a test that most golfers have at least some chance of achieving.  The golfers also know well ahead of time that test is coming and they will need to pass it.  These tests only happen a few times a round (at least when it comes to par three holes) and they are very rewarding when the golfer over comes them.  Maybe you and other golfers feel the same on the hole you mentioned in your post. 


By definition, most par fours will always require one more shot to reach the green vs a par three hole.  Does mean par fours are always better?


On the same note, as I think you are implying, many of the best par fives require three (not two) well executed shots to reach the green.  Would that make them better than par fours which only require two?

[Charlie Goerges]

By definition, most par fours will always require one more shot to reach the green vs a par three hole.  Does mean par fours are always better?

It's not the fact that it's one more shot that makes it better. It's the fact that there is balance between a far-and-sure drive and a short-er but accurate approach (1:1), plus the fact that it's easier to design-in strategy on that hole (i.e. create tradeoffs between the current shot and the next shot). Now this is just for most holes for most golfers most of the time. There are countless cases of a better or more strategic par 3 or par 5 than a given par 4, it's just more likely to occur on a par 4 for the many reasons listed.


One thing we could be talking about more is that given how much easier it is to design a good/great par 4, why are there so many boring ones?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Charlie,


Couldn't that just be a case of there being so many more of them, that they are bound to come up with a few more clunkers?

[Mark_Fine]

Charlie,
I was just responding to Tim’s comment where he said:


“Quite simply two beats one”

[Charlie Goerges]

Charlie,


Couldn't that just be a case of there being so many more of them, that they are bound to come up with a few more clunkers?

I'm sure that contributes to it, but there were so many contour-less and bunker-less par 4s where I grew up that looking back I just wish someone had at least put a fairway bunker left and greenside bunker right on a few of them (or vice versa). Anything to spice it up. Some of them were probably designed by people other than golf architects and without much variety of golf experience. But they tended to put bunkers or some contours on par 3s for some reason. I'm sure I'll never know why.

[Dan_Callahan]

On the same note, as I think you are implying, many of the best par fives require three (not two) well executed shots to reach the green.  Would that make them better than par fours which only require two?

I think for the average golfer, the reason they love par 5s is because it DOESN'T require three good shots to reach the green in regulation. On a par 3, a bad tee shot puts a double in play. On a par 4, a bad tee shot will likely lead to a bogey. On a par 5, a bad tee shot into a bunker or trees can usually be followed by a relatively straightforward recovery to set up a wedge for a third, and par or even birdie is still in play. For the average golfer, a par 5 is a breather, a chance to relax. Could be the opposite for a scratch golfer, who puts pressure on himself to birdie the par 5s, and anything less than that seems like a missed opportunity.

[Charlie Goerges]

Charlie,
I was just responding to Tim’s comment where he said:


“Quite simply two beats one”

Fair enough and you're right that by that logic, a par 5 should be even better still, but the consensus here is that it's not and that the balance and some of the other factors are the reason.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,
Nice story and points well taken. i don’t disagree one bit that holes like #10 at PV, #7 at PB, #12 at Augusta National, #17 at TPC Sawgrass, #15 at Cypress to name a few, basically require one shot, an aerial shot, to safely reach the green.  In that regard they are somewhat one dimensional even though the shape and flight of that shot might need to vary a lot depending on the conditions and hole location. I But as you know from playing these holes, they all present a test that most golfers have at least some chance of achieving.  The golfers also know well ahead of time that test is coming and they will need to pass it.  These tests only happen a few times a round (at least when it comes to par three holes) and they are very rewarding when the golfer over comes them.  Maybe you and other golfers feel the same on the hole you mentioned in your post. 


By definition, most par fours will always require one more shot to reach the green vs a par three hole.  Does mean par fours are always better?


On the same note, as I think you are implying, many of the best par fives require three (not two) well executed shots to reach the green.  Would that make them better than par fours which only require two?

Mark,


I anticipated your three vs two question and I would probably say “no” because of the comment Jeff Brauer made about efficiently setting up strategy. Jeff is probably right on this point.


Tim

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()