[Ben Sims]

Without saying too much, I’d like to re-hash the debate over whether two shot golf holes are inherently better than one or three shot holes.

[Charlie Goerges]

I like them better than three-shot holes for sure. Also better than one-shot holes on average, but only just.

[Ally Mcintosh]

The concept of a par-4 hole is better, yes. But there are other generalities that weigh off against that, such as the fact that par-3 holes can more easily use dramatic land.

[Ben Sims]

My theory on why two shot holes are the best holes categorically deals in something we talk about here alot: half par.


The par 4 seems to have flexibility that one or three shot holes don’t. I’ve only a few times seen or heard of a three shot hole that’s a hard par. A par 5.5 doesn’t seem to be appealing to golfers overall, even if the hole is over compelling ground.


Somewhat more common is the par 2.5, an easy one shot hole. Avg Dispersion for mid to higher handicap golfers makes it where even 90-130yd holes with gathering slopes might not be an “easy” one shot hole.


I think that two shot holes afford more flexibility as it applies to difficulty and therefore, variety. Which has to be one of the top factors in good architecture in my opinion.

[Charlie Goerges]

That makes sense Ben, there is more flexibility in half-pars with a 4, at least in the sense of people accepting it. Yes, there is no appetite for a par 5.5 and if a hole approached that length/difficulty, it would probably end up as a par 6 anyway leaving it an "easy" hole rather than a more difficult one. Not to mention how much of a slog it would probably be.


Par 3s have less of that type of flexibility in the mind. What I like about them is partly what Ally mentions as well as the fact that teeing up your approach is a bit of a respite, even on an otherwise difficult hole.


The typical distribution of par 3, 4, and 5 holes (on an 18-hole course) isn't too bad, though I'd prefer 1 or 2 less par 5s and maybe 1 or 2 more par 3s.

[Mark_Fine]

My favorite holes are mostly par fives and par threes. Great par fives are probably the hardest to design and par threes are probably the easiest.  Par fours are inherently better for who?  The architect or the golfer? 

[Sean_A]

Par 4s are the meat of golf not least because they have the widest yardage range of 200 yards. It’s a shame archie’s don’t properly exploit the possibilities offered by this range. That said, short holes are essential for any course. Can’t say the same for three-shot holes.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

My favorite holes are mostly par fives and par threes.

My iron law of your posts rings true once more!


Do you suppose there’s any reason besides tradition that 99% of golf courses have a majority of two-shot holes?

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

[Ben Sims]

My favorite holes are mostly par fives and par threes.

My iron law of your posts rings true once more!


Do you suppose there’s any reason besides tradition that 99% of golf courses have a majority of two-shot holes?

Yeah, cause they’re better. 

[Mark_Fine]

Tom

I think you don’t like anyone that doesn’t agree with you constantly What I said doesn’t mean I don’t have some (many) great par fours that I love.  I definitely do.  I am also not talking just strictly about architecture. Some of what I am saying is about fun to play at least for me.   For example, when I play the TPC at Sawgrass, I very much look forward to taking on #16 the par five and #17 the par three more so than the 18th par four.  At Augusta, it’s the 12th and 13th more so than the 11th at Amen Corner (as much as the second shot at 11 excites me) that I would look forward to playing.  At Cypress, the short par fours are so very good especially #9 but it is #15 and #16 that give me goosebumps every time I get to play them. 

Maybe I should take back that my favorites are par threes and par fives because there are obviously by far so many more great par fours out there.  But for some reason the great par threes and certain par fives standout to me. Kind of like #8 at Crystal Downs.  Maybe it is because there a fewer of them.

[Michael Felton]

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.

This was my thought. It's really hard to create a par 3 that has strategy involved. Where they do exist (16 at CPC?) it's because they're really more like short par 4s anyway. Par 4s and 5s you can create options and "pick your poison". But the par 5s you always have to either have it be reachable, in which case it's more like a par 4 anyway, have a "filler" shot in the middle, or you have to create options on two different shots. That's pretty tough and quite possibly why those are Mark's favorite holes.


Examples of what I'm thinking of:


- "Pick your poison" - a hole like 18 at TPC Sawgrass - you either take on the water and have an easier second shot, or you play safe and then have to hit down towards the water potentially from the rough/trees on the right.


- A good par 5 with strategy twice, I think here of 4 at Bethpage Black. You can take on the bunker left off the tee, or play it out to the right. Then you have to decide whether to go for the green, lay it up in front of the green and leave yourself the pitch over bunkers to a green that slopes away from you, or play more up hole high to the right and have a pitch up the length of the green. And if you miss the tee shot, then you have to decide whether to take on the big bunker in the middle or lay up to the end of the lower fairway, leaving you with a third shot that you have the three options with. This is IMO a great hole with options all over the place even with the relatively narrow fairways there.


From an architect's perspective, I'd think par 3s are the only holes that you can really dictate what the approach shot is going to be for everybody. Otherwise it's so dependent on where tee shots and lay ups have ended up. They're also helpful to get between two points on the course potentially traversing some awkward land. Brancepeth castle in the north east of England does that a lot. Five par threes on the course and three of them traverse a gully that's otherwise hard to deal with (it does have two par 4s that cross that as well, but on those two holes, it's right in front of the tee).

[Peter Sayegh]

My favorite holes are mostly par fives and par threes.

My iron law of your posts rings true once more!


Do you suppose there’s any reason besides tradition that 99% of golf courses have a majority of two-shot holes?

Yeah, cause they’re better. 

Hmm.
I've yet to play an all "par four" 18 hole course.

Why?

Tom, would that be too un-traditional?
Have you ever routed (built or scouted) a property and thought there's too many drive and pitch holes?


P.S.
Where are all the posters that quibble about the "concept" of par?

[Ben Sims]

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?

[Sean_A]

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?

There are hard 3s and easy 4s. Except sometimes the hard 3 is called a 4 despite the yardage. Go play Sunningdale Ladies or whatever the new name is.

Let’s not forget that TOC has 14 fours.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

This was my thought. It's really hard to create a par 3 that has strategy involved. Where they do exist (16 at CPC?)

I guess a safe bail out is a strategy, but probably not as exciting as a strategy of how to reach a green, no?

[Michael Felton]

Go play Sunningdale Ladies or whatever the new name is.

Sunningdale Heath I believe. Great fun

This was my thought. It's really hard to create a par 3 that has strategy involved. Where they do exist (16 at CPC?)

I guess a safe bail out is a strategy, but probably not as exciting as a strategy of how to reach a green, no?

Totally agree - I was stretching to count it. There are definitely par threes out there that people lay up on. Didn't Casper lay up on the 3rd at WFW? That is "a" strategy. I don't think it's a particularly fun one.

[Charlie Goerges]

Any time you can make a trade off of an easier shot now for a harder shot later (or vice versa), you have strategy. It can happen on par 3 holes too, even if most of them don't tend to be that strategic. That said, strategy isn't why I like par 3 holes.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I've thought about this for most of the day, and I have a theory, but I'm not going to say that I'm committed it to it at this point, but I still thought I would share it to see if anyone can knock it down or make it better:

I think there are generally two golf swings in golf: a swing for distance, and a swing for a target. That's certainly a messy statement.

A par 3 you're usually playing to a small-ish target.

A par 4 usually gives you one swing for distance, and one swing for a small target.

A par 5 usually gives you two swings for distance, and one swing for a small target, so it can feel lopsided toward distance, which is also why there are exceedingly few par 6 holes.

Anyway, that's the thesis, it's messy, and hard to defend, but i'll say this. I feel like if this thesis is right, there is a lot of room for long par 3s that have huge greens (probably prohibitively expensive to maintain), and short par 5s that require two very targeted shots (these do exist).

Those are my thoughts. I'm very intrigued by the proposition, mainly because I really agree with it without really knowing how to justify that agreement... even if my favorite golf hole is a par 5.

[Michael Felton]

short par 5s that require two very targeted shots (these do exist).

That's an interesting thought. I think the hard part about par 5s that require two very targeted shots (I assume you mean 2nd and 3rd shots) is if those shots are let's say 150 and 100 yards, then unless there's something fairly contrived about it, some people are going to cover that in one shot. If they're more than 150 and 100, then one of them is probably going to be a "hit it far" shot.

[Matt Schoolfield]

That's an interesting thought. I think the hard part about par 5s that require two very targeted shots (I assume you mean 2nd and 3rd shots) is if those shots are let's say 150 and 100 yards, then unless there's something fairly contrived about it, some people are going to cover that in one shot. If they're more than 150 and 100, then one of them is probably going to be a "hit it far" shot.

Yes, the contrivedness is there for the holes that I'm thinking of here. I can immediately think of the old 17th at Boulder Creek G&CC (sadly the back nine was abandoned after the CZU Lightning Complex Fire). The course is an executive course, so hole are much shorter than you would expect, but it's in the redwoods, so, like at Northwood, you're pretty much boxed in. The 17th was a strong double-dogleg, where, a perfect fade/slice drive off the tee, followed by a perfect draw/hook mid-iron puts you easily on the green in two. However, if you miss the fairway here you're cooked. Thus, after good drive off the tee, if you can't try the risky hook into the green, the hole pretty much left a solid short iron to the second dogleg, with another short iron to the green.

I'm not saying that hole was good architecture (it was an executive course trying to squeeze in a "par 5" somewhere), but the principal is the same. If you want to create a hole that leaves two rewarding positions that are shorter shots, it's possible, but it's certainly wouldn't call them normal, as I suspect (if my thesis is reasonable) they would seem very out-of-place and/or forced to many.

[Ira Fishman]

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

[Michael Moore]

Thanks for this most interesting question.
 
I'll say this. There are way too many modern par five holes that have significant bunkering right in there from 90 to 130 yards away from the green. So you hit a good tee shot, and you have 320 yards left, so you can either try to hit a career three wood or, more likely, hit a six iron then a seven iron. The layup is too easy, the approach is too hard, and it gets repetitive.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Matt,


Your theory in reply 18 is a good one. It’s effectively what I meant earlier by “the concept of a par-4 is better”.


Playing golf is about hitting drives and iron / approach shots; and one of each on a hole is the most satisfying number. Putts happen anyway (on all holes). Chips and recovery shots happen on some holes (regardless of par). Long fairway woods to layup areas (par-5’s) are a less “core” shot.


Not to mention that the strategic intent of a par-4 is more often brought in to play than on a 5 (more variables) or a 3 (less strategy).

[Mark_Fine]

“Inherently better” is the key phrase!

Someone smarter than me (Tom Doak will say that is most of you) 🤣 explain to me why for example #1 which is a par four at Cypress Point is an inherently better hole than #15 at Cypress Point which is a par three?  Or why #1 at Pebble Beach which is a par four is inherently better than #7 at Pebble which we all know is also a par three? 

I fully understand that most par fours require at least two shots to get to the green.  Is that extra shot the primary reason why par fours are “inherently better”?  Once that first shot is executed properly, the second shot is frankly not much different than a first shot to a par three hole.  In fact I tend to think of par fours in terms of playing two par three shots; the tee shot is one and the approach shot is the other.

I see nothing wrong with an architect adding three or four holes during an 18 hole round where he or she dictates the starting point for the “approach shot” to the green and calls it a par three.  I don’t see that as “inherently inferior”. Given the architect knows the starting point for all golfers they have more leeway to do what they want at the greensite.  I doubt for example you would see too many green sites designed like the par three #10 hole at Pine Valley at the end of a par four hole.  But it works great as a par three and is one of the best and most anticipated to play short holes in the world.  So someone smarter than me please explain why that #10 hole is inherently not as good as say the #2 par four hole at Pine Valley?


I recall one time playing The Mid-Ocean Club in Bermuda.  One of my favorite holes is the famous Cape Hole, the par four 5th.  I was playing it with a very good player who didn’t think it was all that exciting of a golf hole.  He did exactly what he said he would do, took out driver, smashed it as far as he could over the corner of the lake, and had a 70 yard pitch shot to the green and made an easy three. He did however say he loved #13, the par three Biarritz hole.  He hit 5I that rolled back in the swale where he proceeded to make four from. But said “now that is a great golf hole”!

I could go on with the pros and cons with par fives but let’s stick with me being first educated about par threes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()