[ian]

This stems from the thread on greatest set of par threes.

Stanley Thompson is said to have looked for the par threes first before looking for the rest of the holes.

When I started to think about four quality threes from one course, it got me questioning whether the par three was a more important hole than the par 4 or 5. I don't think so, but I find on any list of favourite holes, the three is easy, the four slightly less so, and the five is always difficult.

1. Is greatness in the par threes absolutely essential to having a great course?

2. Is there a great course without a truly great par three?

3. Are four great par threes enough to make weakness in the rest of the course forgivable?

4. Should a routing always favour finding natural par threes and avoid using a par three to overcome difficult connections in the land, even if there must be blind tee shots or lesser par fours to allow this to happen?

I think this has become a routing thread, but I'm not sure where I want it to go.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

Some offshoots of this question are the most fascinating to me. You said Stanley Thompson looked for good par 3s on sites before any other holes. I think that's so interesting in the sense that doing it that way just seems to me to be so much more difficult to do (probably particularly on more topographically complex sites) in the sort of jigsaw puzzle sense of routing. I've heard a number of architects did it that way.

In the two attempts I've done at routing I basically looked at par 3s as either "connectors" or "separators" in relation to the other holes.

[A_Clay_Man]

Ian- From a playing/scoring perspective, I find the par 3's to be very important. So why shouldn't they be given their proper due during the planing stages?

[ian]

"In the two attempts I've done at routing I basically looked at par 3s as either "connectors" or "separators" in relation to the other holes. "

The great ones are almost always found naturally in the landscape. The architect continues to manipulate their routing to make sure that special hole can occur in the round.

I wrote that above and realized that the three still has the most potential to be "made" rather than found.

I do find if a course has too many connecting threes, you come away feeling there must have been a better routing in the land . The holes generally do not inspire you, and yet for many the three is the highlight of each round.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I think it's tough to have a truly great course without good par threes, just from the point of assessment on the part of a human being.

A par three is so condensed and restricted. You (theoretically) stand in a predetermined position and look at the view from there; make your club selection based on that view and hit one shot to the green. Then you make a relatively short walk (usually in close proximity to the other golfers in your group - at least within speaking distance) and begin to assess your next shot - which is often a putt.

The predefined positioning in space, the close proximity to other golfers and the shortened sequence of events makes a par three a very powerful player when it comes to defining your experience during a round of golf.

Another thing to consider is the fact that every time you play a par three with a group, you get to see it played four times up close. You get to watch more actual play than you do on many longer/wider holes. The experience of playing a par three is therefore more intensely shared by golfers during a round. This shared time gives you the opportunity to make a more thorough assessment of it's strengths and weaknesses. It also allows you a better chance to point out what you discover to the other golfers in your group - they're most likely not standing too far from you at any point during the play.

It's tough to love a course when you've just witnessed 12 (or more) poor or so-so experiences. Maybe not impossible, but the rest of the holes better kick some serious ass.

[Wayne Freeman]

Adam-  you have made some interesting points to ponder.  I don't feel par 3's are necessarily the most important holes, but I certainly don't think you can have a great course without a great set of par 3's.  They give the architect a chance to create a beautiful  portrait, a still life experience that is complete to the eye.  They provide incredible drama, provide an opportunity to use different clubs than might have been otherwise used in the round, and can serve as transitions, breathers, or turning points. Go down the list of the top 50 courses in the world and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any weak set of par 3's.

[George Pazin]

I think George Thomas thought so. He also said he'd rather see a course have 5 par 3s than 3.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

When routing a course I am not looking for par-3 holes in particular; if a good green site traces back to a good landing area, then I will probably place a longer hole there.  I will only put a par-3 in place when the topography back from the green site is too severe for a landing area, or if I've already got several good longer holes in a row.

I guess this means that I am looking for the longer holes first, because (as you understand) they are harder to find.

I believe that most golfers place an inordinate emphasis on the par-3 holes because they are much easier to remember.  Whether that means they're more important depends on how much value you place on other people's opinions.

[ian]

Tom,

"if a good green site traces back to a good landing area, then I will probably place a longer hole there.  I will only put a par-3 in place when the topography back from the green site is too severe for a landing area, or if I've already got several good longer holes in a row."

I like the way you phrased that.

I agree that natural fours or fives are harder to come by and when routing they almost naturally become the priority. I guess where this whole question comes from, should there be more time spent looking for threes.

Is it worth "sacrificing" (poor work but I couldn't find a better one) the quality of a couple of fours or fives to bring up the collective quality of the threes?

"I believe that most golfers place an inordinate emphasis on the par-3 holes because they are much easier to remember.  Whether that means they're more important depends on how much value you place on other people's opinions. "

Your opinion is clear. We have been criticized for having average threes on one of our best courses course despite the fact that it has a really strong set of fours and fives. It has made me question the value of threes. The perceived weakness in the threes really hangs over some peoples opinion of the course.

Thanks for your opinion Tom, and I hope that Kelly, Jeff, Neal, etc. and the other architect also talk about what they think (along with everyone elses opinion of course).

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

The other approach is to take a couple of the holes that don't easily convert into a longer hole and bully them into it by blitzing a landing area in there, so you can save some of the more special green sites for the par-3's.  I can think of a couple of architects who approach their routings that way.

Are the "average threes" on the course you mentioned handicapped because they were connector holes in the routing?  Or are they disappointing for other reasons?  I try to use up the duller flatter parts of the property for the longer holes and put the par-3's into the more severe topography, so they are dramatic in nature.  Jim Urbina often talks about not wanting to wind up with a "field par 3."

[RJ_Daley]

Just like we live in a sound bite sort of society, the public's perception and enduring 'snapshots' in their memory of golf holes tends to be the "signature" par 3s.  To some extent, when golfers have a more enduring recollection of longer par 4s and 5s and totality of the routing that cause them to highly regard a course, I think of it as a more 'erudite' golfer who is able to digest long essays or enjoy lengthy books VS the Cliffs notes or short stories.  There are too many golf calendars that only depict a par 3 due to confined scope of the photo, and that burns into collective memories and becomes the standard for evaluation.

[ian]

RJ,

The 10 second "MTV" attention span probably has crept into our generation too. If the photo/hole does not instantly wow us, we move on till we find something that will. Too bad.
How much average golf is due to our lazyness as a consumer?

Tom,

There was no connectors, but the land is more spectacular on the fours and fives. If anything, the combination of flatter land and some similarities between the four holes combined to reduce the colection to average (my opinion).

Loved the comment "The other approach is to take a couple of the holes that don't easily convert into a longer hole and bully them into it by blitzing a landing area in there, so you can save some of the more special green sites for the par-3's. "

I wonder if holes like the 7th at Sunningdale Old become the key. The tee shot is not pleasent, but the second shot is phenominal. The hole manages to take the player through a tough transition without being a poor hole.

Are these holes the key, concede something to achieve a greater overall result.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know if you're conceding something ... you are just picking which is the best spot to do something major to make a hole work and conceal it, knowing that the others will stand on their own.

At Pacific Dunes the spots we picked were on #12, #14, and #18.

[ian]

Tom,

"At Pacific Dunes the spots we picked were on #12, #14, and #18.

Facinating to learn which holes you used. No holes feel like connectors.

[Michael Plunkett]

First the question, What is the school of thought with a finishing hole being a par three?  Does anyone feel cheated not having a long beautiful dogleg par 5 or 4 as a closer?  What about a three as an opening hole?

I like very tough well guarded par threes that I can attack with a high five iron, about 180ish yards or small green threes about 130/140 yards.  I hate par threes that are threes because of poor routing - like a painter in a corner. Long par threes -200+ must have a bailout area.

As a beginer golfer I firmly believed par threes were an arrangment between the devil and the scots - I hated them. Par five anytime.  I loved them now !

[Steve Lang]

 

From recent experience at Banff and Jasper, I think Stanley Thompson was truly on to something..  

Chronologically Jasper came first and it's 3's are definitely a challenge, each simultaneously testing distance control and accuracy.. and they are certainly more memorable than many of the two shotters and two of the three shotters there.  Hell, they even named a beer after one, Cleopatra!  

At Banff, in that fabulous setting, Thompson took a step up in my opinion in reserving the locales of the one-shotters, again testing distance and accuracy, and while not outdoing the two and three shotters as much, still a bit.    

[Bob_Huntley]

I can imagine a course bereft of par fives but not of par threes.

They are the beauty spots on the face of a courtesan.

[ian]

I had a chance to go through all the courses that Doug Carrick has designed, with Doug, to find out how he routed each course.

Exactly half the final routings involved one or two par threes dictating the routing; and half involved no concideration for a particular par three at all.

In some ways, this is no suprise at all.


Steve,

I really like Banff's threes, but if I said that I thought that Banff's par fives were weak, would that change your opinion on Banff's routing? Just a question.


Bob,

They are the beauty spots on the face of a courtesan.

priceless!

[Steve Lang]

 

Ian,

Well,.. i've thought about your question a bit.  good head  scratcher..

IA: " if I said that I thought that Banff's par fives were weak, would that change your opinion on Banff's routing?"

Answer is .. Not likely.  

I assume your prime inference is to the front where a 3 precedes and follows a 5 (#3 Gibraltar was my favorite 5) and then a 5 (#7 2nd fav.) precedes a tough little three (Papoose) which makes the turn for the clubhouse at the river..  

The longish threes on the back, especially #10 which slaps you into "game on" reality press the long accurate shot needs, which can be taken away by big drives on 4's though almost all the 2 and 3 shotters have both tee and approach shot challenges galore..

Since its a loop in mountain settings, obviously, the constraints there are significant, but I don't really see how the routing at Banff would be all that different, but I could see places for more boring 3's... or if you incorporated some of the Tunnel 9, something more mundane..

p.s. I played several balls from the lower tee on #4 and wondered about that drainage path back westward.. must be some interesting topogrpahy there too!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()