GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture
Par-3 first holes: bad or good?
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version