• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Oakmont par 3, 301 yds

The only relevance this has is to the USGA's continued obsession with Par....therefore it does have relevance
Yes, lowest score wins and in that respect it doesn't what the par of any hole is
The USGA have seen a way of taking back 0.75 or so of a shot from most of the field....a way of ensuring that the winning score is not under par..or not much.
This par 3 will not play under par and will yield very few birdies
Who gets up and down from 300 yards more than 1% of the time....
It's a gimmick designed to fuel the obsession with Par.....
Other views may vary
 
Orikoru said:
That's a visual so we can see who's "leading". What other alternative is there? They can't put number of shots taken because they're all played a different number of holes, so the one who's played the least holes would be winning.
Click to expand...
I accept that but we are also constantly thrown stats about average par for a hole, how many birdies or eagles does someone make, bogey, double bogey. All focus around par. It ultimately doesn't matter what par is but par is still central.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
I accept that but we are also constantly thrown stats about average par for a hole, how many birdies or eagles does someone make, bogey, double bogey. All focus around par. It ultimately doesn't matter what par is but par is still central.
Click to expand...
Most of the people viewing are amateurs, and we can relate to par. We understand par and feel comfortable around it. Just look at PJ above, refusing to let go of the concept.

It's no different to the par 5s they play, most of them expect to shoot a 4 and see a 5 as a lost shot against the field, even though it's a par really. This hole would be the same if they made it a par 4. But also, there would only three par 3s, and the usually seem to prefer to have four of them for symmetry.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
I accept that but we are also constantly thrown stats about average par for a hole, how many birdies or eagles does someone make, bogey, double bogey. All focus around par. It ultimately doesn't matter what par is but par is still central.
Click to expand...

Obviously doesn't mean much but personally I don't think a par 3 should be allowed to be longer than an average pros 7 iron (on a clear day obviously, not into wind then club up etc) if they can't reach with a 7 iron being a fantastic player (for example Rory 195 typical with a 7) then 200 should be the cut off.
 
When someone is announced as the winner it’s normally under the guises of “with a winning score of 278 etc”

It’s a major , it’s supposed to be tough , the winner will prob grab himself solid pars across the four rounds

The length will prob vary across the days , pros will prob be hitting a solid 3 wood

Years go by pros have hit woods into par 3’s
 
sunshine said:
This argument has gone completely over your head. When a course finishes with an easy par 5, the pros expect to birdie it. It’s not an opportunity to make up a shot on the field if everyone is making a 4 on the hole.

The 301 yard hole at Oakmont averaged 3.3 last time. That’s closer to 3 than 4 so it makes sense they call it a par 3. But it really doesn’t matter, there are no handicaps or stroke indices, it’s just a gross total of shots over 72 holes.

The reason we have a thread is because half par holes are interesting.
Click to expand...
It hasn't gone completely over my head, simply my point has gone completely over yours. I'm perfectly aware that every player has to play the same hole. I'm not a moron who thinks it is an optional hole, and others can choose a 100 yard par 3 instead :ROFLMAO:

Yes, if every single player in the field was guaranteed to make a 3, then par makes no difference. But, obviously that is not the case.

So, when the leaders are playing the final round and we are looking at their score compared to other players in the field who are playing ahead of them, we will look at the holes they need to play. Some of those holes will give them a good opportunity to extend their lead or catch up on the other players on the leaderboard. Other holes will give them major headaches to try and just maintain their score, let alone improve it. When they get to a 301 yard par 3, I know which category that hole will be in. And it won't be considered one of the "easy" holes to improve on their score.
 
PJ87 said:
Obviously doesn't mean much but personally I don't think a par 3 should be allowed to be longer than an average pros 7 iron (on a clear day obviously, not into wind then club up etc) if they can't reach with a 7 iron being a fantastic player (for example Rory 195 typical with a 7) then 200 should be the cut off.
Click to expand...
I guess that is a different discussion but I agree with you on the whole. Long par 3's are very dull to watch. We see the pro's tested with long clubs on 14 other holes, let's see what they are like with the shorter ones as well. Test their all round game.
 
Arthur Wedge said:
When someone is announced as the winner it’s normally under the guises of “with a winning score of 278 etc”

It’s a major , it’s supposed to be tough , the winner will prob grab himself solid pars across the four rounds

The length will prob vary across the days , pros will prob be hitting a solid 3 wood

Years go by pros have hit woods into par 3’s
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I have never heard that. It's always related to par.
 
Orikoru said:
No it's not! Pros don't care what the par is, they want to make the lowest score possible! That's it! No change in mindset! 😆
Click to expand...
That isn't completely true.

How many times do we see a pro decide to lay up on a par 5, even though they are capable of going for it in 2. Perhaps they even just hit an iron off the tee.

Make that hole a par 4, you won't see any pro's purposely play 3 shots to the green, they'd only do that if a mistake forced them into it.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
I guess that is a different discussion but I agree with you on the whole. Long par 3's are very dull to watch. We see the pro's tested with long clubs on 14 other holes, let's see what they are like with the shorter ones as well. Test their all round game.
Click to expand...
Isn't this the opposite argument from what we have so often heard?

So many golfers hit their frives so far now, their second shots are often pitch shots or short irons. Even on par 5's sometimes. Many fans want to see these pro's having to hit long clubs into greens, like the good old days.

Having a 301 yard par 3 seems to fit that wish. But I guess you can't please everyone. I agree that having hugely long par 3's is dull, if all of them are like that. However, I don't mind if the odd one has a crazy length, it is definitely a talking point
 
Swango1980 said:
That isn't completely true.

How many times do we see a pro decide to lay up on a par 5, even though they are capable of going for it in 2. Perhaps they even just hit an iron off the tee.

Make that hole a par 4, you won't see any pro's purposely play 3 shots to the green, they'd only do that if a mistake forced them into it.
Click to expand...
I honestly think that's still the case if it's a par 5. They know that making a par is giving up a shot on the field more often than not. Unless it's 600 odd yards.
 
Swango1980 said:
Isn't this the opposite argument from what we have so often heard?

So many golfers hit their frives so far now, their second shots are often pitch shots or short irons. Even on par 5's sometimes. Many fans want to see these pro's having to hit long clubs into greens, like the good old days.

Having a 301 yard par 3 seems to fit that wish. But I guess you can't please everyone. I agree that having hugely long par 3's is dull, if all of them are like that. However, I don't mind if the odd one has a crazy length, it is definitely a talking point
Click to expand...
That's a different set up. Second shot compared to tee shot. Greens, and their protection, are set up differently for par 4 and 5's compared to a par 3 hole.
 
PJ87 said:
If it was a 4 you might see about 2 eagles across the week. -2 for the card. Giving someone a chance to catch the field.. prob see majority 'birdies' but a few pars aswell.. but those pars wouldn't lose them a shot..

The us open is tough as hell and avoiding bogeys can be key. It's hard to make up shots. This is a card wrecker of a hole on a tough course
Click to expand...

What does "catch the field" have to do with it?? Everyone has to play the hole four times. The winner is decided on gross score - it is not a stableford where points matter. Par is irrelevant.
 
PJ87 said:
Two different mind sets tho. @Swango1980 put it perfectly. If your in the lead and it's a 4 you lay up play safe for a 4

If you in the lead and it's a 3 you are still going for a 300 yard green to try and make a 3
Click to expand...

No professional is ever going to do that - if you are in contention in a major, you are doing whatever it takes to win.
You are thinking about it as a high-handicap amateur. You are not a professional.

Even when I was in real contention in a scratch open a decade ago, I came to a 480-yard par-4 that I knew I could not reach in two. I played it as a three shotter and then made the 10 foot par putt. And won by a shot.
 
I find some views on this thread rather perplexing, to say the least…Still. It takes all sorts to make a world🤪🤣

The 13th at Augusta…a Par 5 that see more birdies than most holes

Someone goes for the green it in 2 rather than laying up short of Rae’s Creek at a favourable yardage and angle, is because of the quality of their drive….and if someone lays up they still want to get up and down and one putt for birdie 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top