Perfect par 3

[sjw]

There's a 220y par 3 at my course. I always hook my hybrid left into the trees, and I refuse to take driver. Guy I joined up with yesterday hit driver, only made it to the front edge. He did actually make par, but before we teed off he said, "how can this be a par 3 at 220y?" and I think that is the general consensus

 

[SteveW86]

I have tried it that way (albeit 5 wood rather than an iron) but it doesn't really make it much easier. And as we get towards winter even my driver won't reach so all I'd be doing is making the chip longer. I'd rather get as near as possible with the first shot.

And going back to the original point, I think a par 3 that you have to play as a par 4 makes it a crap par 3 personally. ??‍

As long as there is a good mixture of lengths of the par 3's on a course I dont mind a long one.

We have a good mixture with anything from 120 - 210 across our par 3's, so the long one isnt an issue. Its also index 7, so quite happy to play to the front of the green and try and get up and down. If not then just walk off with a 4. The handicap system is there to take care of those types of holes and make it fair for those who cant reach it. I also think you need these type of holes to challenge the low handicappers/big hitters who will be hitting 4/5 iron into it.


To answer the original question, I perfect par 3 would be sub 150 yards with a good amount of trouble around the green.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Is a par 4 you can't reach in 2 a bad hole, or a par 5 you can't reach in 3?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I like seeing long par 3's balanced with short par 4's.
All new courses tend to be the 4 par 5 and 4 par 3's which is quite boring.

My old course in Surrey had 3 par 4's around the 300 yard mark. One was an easy downhill but the other two were quite treacherous and easy to double bogey if you played a poor tee shot.
It also had two par threes together one was 201 yards with a tiny green.
Never a boring course to play.

 

[Backsticks]

If you've got shots surely the whole point is to use them.

I dont think so. Where you will drop/use your handicap shots is not a clear cut thing. Its a probability spread over your round, and doesnt necessarily go by index. Furthermore, indexes will generally not fully correspond to hole difficulty.

 

[Backsticks]

If you get a shot on this hole (do you?) then what’s the problem?

Having or not a shot, has no bearing on whether a hole is a good hole or not.

 

[SteveW86]

Having or not a shot, has no bearing on whether a hole is a good hole or not.

This is all relative to ability though. A scratch player and 15 handicapper will likely have different views.

 

[Backache]

Whilst I don't disagree with the premise that some par3's that are short are crackers and that a decent course should have some. Even as a short hitter I have thoroughly enjoyed the 14th at Portrush the 17th at the Castle St Andrews and the Rockies at Anstruther all of which are long par 3's with jeopardy but also the possibility of bail out. Courses need variety for enjoyment and long par3's in each of these cases provide variety and enjoyment.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Is a par 4 you can't reach in 2 a bad hole, or a par 5 you can't reach in 3?

I think a course should test different aspects of your game. If you have to take driver on par 3's, that will be the case for a lot of golfers once you get over 180yds, then it is no different a test to a par 4 or 5 as far as your tee shot is concerned.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Having or not a shot, has no bearing on whether a hole is a good hole or not.

Nor does the OP’s inability to reach it.

 

[Backache]

I think a course should test different aspects of your game. If you have to take driver on par 3's, that will be the case for a lot of golfers once you get over 180yds, then it is no different a test to a par 4 or 5 as far as your tee shot is concerned.

And for soem people a 200 yd shot may be a mid iron courses need to cater for all golfers and the long par 3's I have listed do that though some may need two shots to get there.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

 

[Deleted member 15344]

A golf course will always be designed with the scratch golfer in mind and also to ensure it tests all areas of the game , the par 3’s should be a mixture of short medium and long and even the par 4s will have a mix

Then each hole will have at least 3 tees to be able to vary the playing of the hole

If people can’t reach a par 3 without hitting a long iron or wood then the handicap will be reflective of that

 

[Lord Tyrion]

And for soem people a 200 yd shot may be a mid iron courses need to cater for all golfers and the long par 3's I have listed do that though some may need two shots to get there.

According to PGA stats the average for the tour, for 200yds, is a 5 iron. If pro's are taking 5 iron, in warm conditions on the whole, then your club golfer is not taking a mid iron in the UK. Maybe a few players per club, but not many. Either the woods come out or they will take iron and land short.

 

[Orikoru]

As long as there is a good mixture of lengths of the par 3's on a course I dont mind a long one.

We have a good mixture with anything from 120 - 210 across our par 3's, so the long one isnt an issue. Its also index 7, so quite happy to play to the front of the green and try and get up and down. If not then just walk off with a 4. The handicap system is there to take care of those types of holes and make it fair for those who cant reach it. I also think you need these type of holes to challenge the low handicappers/big hitters who will be hitting 4/5 iron into it.


To answer the original question, I perfect par 3 would be sub 150 yards with a good amount of trouble around the green.

We do have a good mix at my course, and in fact we have one too many par 3s as one of our par 4s was forcibly shortened. The lengths of the others are 110, 145, 170, 175 and 220. I could treat the longest one as a par 4 I suppose, it just doesn't feel right, even if that sounds silly. If it's a par 3 I really feel that the majority should have a chance of landing on the green - as mentioned it should be more about accuracy that being able to reach it or not. But hey I'm used to it now - if I make a bogey 4 I'm happy and we move forward.

 

[Orikoru]

According to PGA stats the average for the tour, for 200yds, is a 5 iron. If pro's are taking 5 iron, in warm conditions on the whole, then your club golfer is not taking a mid iron in the UK. Maybe a few players per club, but not many. Either the woods come out or they will take iron and land short.

The average age in my golf club must be well over 50, and I would expect the majority can't reach our uphill 220 yarder in one shot.

 

[SteveW86]

We do have a good mix at my course, and in fact we have one too many par 3s as one of our par 4s was forcibly shortened. The lengths of the others are 110, 145, 170, 175 and 220. I could treat the longest one as a par 4 I suppose, it just doesn't feel right, even if that sounds silly. If it's a par 3 I really feel that the majority should have a chance of landing on the green - as mentioned it should be more about accuracy that being able to reach it or not. But hey I'm used to it now - if I make a bogey 4 I'm happy and we move forward.

Even some of our short par 3's I'm happy to walk off with a 4

 

[Backache]

According to PGA stats the average for the tour, for 200yds, is a 5 iron. If pro's are taking 5 iron, in warm conditions on the whole, then your club golfer is not taking a mid iron in the UK. Maybe a few players per club, but not many. Either the woods come out or they will take iron and land short.

Even at a few players per club that's fine with me. I don't feel I have to be able to reach every hole in regulation and there are many par4's where I can't.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

A perfect par 3 should :
- have tees so that whatever the level of golfers playing it, beginner to tour, it should play in their 4-5-6 iron range.
- it should have no lake or large expanse of water in play
- it should though, have a narrow, snaking, stream or burn, that is more of an influence on the shots posed, rather than a real catcher of balls
- the green should have multiple subtle undulations, that reward shot shaping from the tee, but make the first putt difficult if not from the 'correct' approach
- it should have no out of bounds
- it should have no false front, steep and long run off, stepped tier design, or gimmick element
- it should not be a kidney shape or other curvature inviting wedges to skip over rough or bunker to the hole if on the green
- its real design excellence should lie in the variety, and difficulty, of missed green shots presented, from fringe to 20 yards from the green
- it should have no dense bushes or trees or rough, in range where a ball might be lost.
- it should have a minimum of one bunker, but any must be strategically placed in the contours, and not simply there as unimaginative protection for want of better design
- it should feel isolated from the rest of the course, as it if were the only golf hole in the world, whether shielded by trees, the contours, or its distance and orientation from other holes.
- its middle and long distance scenery sould be a delight. Such that, even if not a golfer, one should be wont to choose its tee as a spot for a summer picnic

I hope you're not a course designer.

 

[Backache]

Is a par 4 you can't reach in 2 a bad hole, or a par 5 you can't reach in 3?

Plenty of par 4's I cant reach in two but I have to confess a par 5 that I couldn't reach with three well struck shots in normal conditions would feel a bit of a slog too me.