What's more important to you?

[Voyager EMH]

Thread Bump…

Was thinking again about this recently esp with the ‘golf expense’ thread…Conditioning vs Strategy vs Scenery

I think Conditioning has to be right up there in terms of importance. Especially with regard to greens and their surrounds…I think Scenery is also under-appreciated

I came to this realisation when I wondered what specifically made certain Par 3s ‘good’ — it’s only their level of difficulty and scenery that denote whether a Par 3 is considered ‘good’.
Everyone should be able, physically, to reach the green in 1 on a Par 3. There’s obvs a carry, and danger…no strategic element really. There are some incredibly hard Par 3s and there are some beautifully set par 3s in good scenery

Strategy is the ‘cool’ answer - we all like to think we like strategic courses but a lot of classic course design, asking players to come in from a certain angle etc, is now negated by modern golf balls and the ability to fly it and stop it over hazards..
As far as I’m aware, courses like Ganton and Lytham which are very strategic are rare. Most courses are fairly obvious how to play them.

IMO it’s the impeccable conditioning and scenery and difficulty with run-offs, swales etc and interesting greens that make the best courses worth spending the money on

Some of the very best courses…Dornoch, Turnberry, North Berwick, and Dunbar - if they didn’t the have superb views they do, they would be undermined for sure

Everyone should be able, physically, to reach the green in 1 on a Par 3.

At 12 years old had a handicap of 27. Longest shot was about 160 yards.
Only very short par 3s were reachable, as long as there were no bunkers in front of the green, yet I was playing good golf for someone of my physical capabilities at the time.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Everyone should be able, physically, to reach the green in 1 on a Par 3.

At 12 years old had a handicap of 27. Longest shot was about 160 yards.
Only very short par 3s were reachable, as long as there were no bunkers in front of the green, yet I was playing good golf for someone of my physical capabilities at the time.

As far as par 3s are concerned I think the ideal for a course is variety. Once we have built a new tee for one of ours, our four par 3s would typically be 140, 160, 180, 200. With the shortest (SI 17) being heavily bunkered demanding accuracy but offering high risk/reward for some pin positions, and the longest (SI 9) lightly bunkered but giving a safe route in for shots landing short but on the right line.

 

[IanM]

My wife would mention the availability of on course loos!



She'll mention Sawgrass having excellent ones mid 9 as well as at the turn. Desert Springs in Spain has Moulton Brown toiletries in theirs!

 

[Voyager EMH]

As far as par 3s are concerned I think the ideal for a course is variety. Once we have built a new tee for one of ours, our four par 3s would typically be 140, 160, 180, 200. With the shortest (SI 17) being heavily bunkered demanding accuracy but offering high risk/reward for some pin positions, and the longest (SI 9) lightly bunkered but giving a safe route in for shots landing short but on the right line.

We have 5 par-3s at our course. The white tee yardages are 129 (11th), 146 (6th), 166 (2nd) , 182 (4th) and 202 (16th). That's good variety, but the 202-yarder is slightly uphill and against the usual SW wind. For more than 50% of members that means driver from the tee and for some there is no way for them to reach it in one.

 

[Imurg]

We have 5 par-3s at our course. The white tee yardages are 129 (11th), 146 (6th), 166 (2nd) , 182 (4th) and 202 (16th). That's good variety, but the 202-yarder is slightly uphill and against the usual SW wind. For more than 50% of members that means driver from the tee and for some there is no way for them to reach it in one.

A course near here has a 240 yard par 3......not something I'd want to play on a regular basis.....

 

[Albo]

I don’t think it’s a one or the other situation.
Having a flat up and down golf course in immaculate condition would still be boring as heck, yet having a spectacular routing and wonderfully designed holes which had horrific greens, tees fringes and fairways would equally be horrible to play on.
But if it were a case of average routing and great condition versus great routing and average condition, I’d probably lay both courses alternately and moan about why they couldn’t combine both to make the perfect course

 

[Albo]

A course near here has a 240 yard par 3......not something I'd want to play on a regular basis.....

My home course has 5 par 3s at 123, 151, 188, 213 and 224 (up hill). The last one is very much a par 3.5 most people take driver to it few hit the green it has bunkers short left and right, trees and OB beyond them to the left and a smaller number or big trees to the right. It’s brutal, it can be reached with a 3w if the wind is favourable but prevailing wind is left to right so it’s not often favourable. Tough hole! A friend of mine started talking 7i, wedge and played it as a par 4, he made birdie on in last year pitching in with his wedge.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Thread Bump…

Was thinking again about this recently esp with the ‘golf expense’ thread…Conditioning vs Strategy vs Scenery

I think Conditioning has to be right up there in terms of importance. Especially with regard to greens and their surrounds…I think Scenery is also under-appreciated

I came to this realisation when I wondered what specifically made certain Par 3s ‘good’ — it’s only their level of difficulty and scenery that denote whether a Par 3 is considered ‘good’.
Everyone should be able, physically, to reach the green in 1 on a Par 3. There’s obvs a carry, and danger…no strategic element really. There are some incredibly hard Par 3s and there are some beautifully set par 3s in good scenery

Strategy is the ‘cool’ answer - we all like to think we like strategic courses but a lot of classic course design, asking players to come in from a certain angle etc, is now negated by modern golf balls and the ability to fly it and stop it over hazards..
As far as I’m aware, courses like Ganton and Lytham which are very strategic are rare. Most courses are fairly obvious how to play them.

IMO it’s the impeccable conditioning and scenery and difficulty with run-offs, swales etc and interesting greens that make the best courses worth spending the money on

Some of the very best courses…Dornoch, Turnberry, North Berwick, and Dunbar - if they didn’t the have superb views they do, they would be undermined for sure

Should “everyone” be able to reach par 3’s ?

Surely you need to quantify it a little.

If all par 3’s need to be reachable for everyone in 1 then you won’t get many over 120 yards

Golf courses are approximately build and set up for the scratch golfer level - then the course is rated how difficult it is against that imaginary golfer and then each hole is rated.

The amateurs are getting shots across the holes to allow them to reach the hole in the par relative to the persons HC

Par 3’s on course’s need to have the mix - one short , couple of mediums and a long one , if the long is too long to reach in one then the HC golfer will have a shot to help them reach the hole “net 1”

 

[evemccc]

My point about Par 3s is that courses can be often said to have a “wonderful set of par 3s” - to me this would mean they are a mixture of lengths and play in different directions…In an idea world one would play downhill like the superb 12th at Wallasey, and maybe one would play slightly uphill like the equally superb 10th at Hillside

But as regards what makes any individual Par 3 commonly seen as ‘good’ - is not really its strategic nature…but more so its challenge eg. a downhill par 3 with very penal bunkers surrounding - or - it’s framing and beauty amongst the dunes or it’s backdrop in the pines and heather / the sea

Par 3s IMO tell you where to hit the ball…North Berwick’s Redan for example, or the Par 3 4th at Swinley - and punish you for not doing so…Ipso Facto there is no (or exceedingly rarely) strategic choice involved…it’s a case of ‘here is the danger, can you execute the required shot. And isn’t the framing of the hole attractive with the backdrop of sea and dunes, and blue sky?’ That’s what IMO is required by the hole…You pick a club to get the ball on the green from the tee box in almost all cases

Hence my point that it’s scenery that’s often underrated in evaluating golf holes and courses.
And as for ‘everyone being able to hit a par 3 in one shot’ — MOST golfers certainly aim to hit the green in one on MOST par 3s…whether they take 5 iron, 9 iron, SW or their Driver is irrelevant ….it’s not a strategic choice that the hole is asking and when someone describes a hole as a “great par 3” they really mean it offers a big challenge AND / OR looks beautiful

 

[jim8flog]

I came to this realisation when I wondered what specifically made certain Par 3s ‘good’ — it’s only their level of difficulty and scenery that denote whether a Par 3 is considered ‘good’.
Everyone should be able, physically, to reach the green in 1 on a Par 3. There’s obvs a carry, and danger…no strategic element really. There are some incredibly hard Par 3s and there are some beautifully set par 3s in good scenery

QUOTE]

Why.

We have one very difficult par 3 which I know a lot of senior golfers cannot reach. However it is stroke index 3 so there are very few golfers who do not get a shot on the hole and many get 2 shots (one guy I play with often gets 3)

Clubs need holes where the very best players have a degree of chance of bettering the players worse than than them but even then it can be quite hard particularly stableford and match comps. In stableford we have a couple of players who quite often score 5 points the hole to equal them I have to get a hole in one.

 

[evemccc]

??

 

[richbeech]

This thread resonates with me a bit because I've literally just moved clubs for partly this very thing. Old club was a fantastic layout, a sort of inland links, the shaping of the holes, the elevation changes, it was very very challenging but incredibly rewarding if you even just played to your handicap. However, for the vast majority of the year it was very scruffy and poorly presented. Typically there was a 6 week window in the middle of the season where they would get the course in alright shape and then it was great. For what ever reason though they just couldn't maintain those standards. The club I moved to is still a decent layout for a parkland course and it's set in some lovely Staffordshire countryside, but the condition of it is absolutely first class. It's like Augusta compared to my old place. There are other reasons which contributed to my decision to move but the course was the main one. So for me I think condition trumps layout providing the course still has some level of challenge and interest.

 

[evemccc]

This thread resonates with me a bit because I've literally just moved clubs for partly this very thing. Old club was a fantastic layout, a sort of inland links, the shaping of the holes, the elevation changes, it was very very challenging but incredibly rewarding if you even just played to your handicap. However, for the vast majority of the year it was very scruffy and poorly presented. Typically there was a 6 week window in the middle of the season where they would get the course in alright shape and then it was great. For what ever reason though they just couldn't maintain those standards. The club I moved to is still a decent layout for a parkland course and it's set in some lovely Staffordshire countryside, but the condition of it is absolutely first class. It's like Augusta compared to my old place. There are other reasons which contributed to my decision to move but the course was the main one. So for me I think condition trumps layout providing the course still has some level of challenge and interest.

Great post

 

[richbeech]

Great post

Thanks pal

 

[Jason.H]

If a par 3 is over 200 yards I would guess the vast majority would have a shot on that hole.

 

[evemccc]

Surely you need to quantify it a little.

If all par 3’s need to be reachable for everyone in 1 then you won’t get many over 120 yards

Golf courses are approximately build and set up for the scratch golfer level - then the course is rated how difficult it is against that imaginary golfer and then each hole is rated.

The amateurs are getting shots across the holes to allow them to reach the hole in the par relative to the persons HC

Par 3’s on course’s need to have the mix - one short , couple of mediums and a long one , if the long is too long to reach in one then the HC golfer will have a shot to help them reach the hole “net 1”

Yes - courses are primarily designed for the scratch player, of which few golfers are relative to the numbers of HC golfers

Designers often work in ways to offer bail-out options on par 4s and 5s - and often what are seen as ‘good’ holes offer risk / reward strategic options on, for example, short / drivable par 4s, and design holes to offer the long hitter the chance to go for a Par 5 in two shots (with a high tariff if he/she missed the green) or to offer a hazard such as cross-bunker that makes the golfer make a definite decision about whether to lay-up in front of, or choose a club to go over it

Relative to the strategic possibilities of playing well-designed Par 4s and Par 5s that offer choice, there surely just isn’t the strategic element or in the overwhelming majority of Par 3s to the same degree as 4s and 5s

Par 3s are more likely penal > offering strategic choice

It’s nothing to do with how many shots a bogey golfer gets on a par 3

 

[sunshine]

Yes - courses are primarily designed for the scratch player, of which few golfers are relative to the numbers of HC golfers

Designers often work in ways to offer bail-out options on par 4s and 5s - and often what are seen as ‘good’ holes offer risk / reward strategic options on, for example, short / drivable par 4s, and design holes to offer the long hitter the chance to go for a Par 5 in two shots (with a high tariff if he/she missed the green) or to offer a hazard such as cross-bunker that makes the golfer make a definite decision about whether to lay-up in front of, or choose a club to go over it

Relative to the strategic possibilities of playing well-designed Par 4s and Par 5s that offer choice, there surely just isn’t the strategic element or in the overwhelming majority of Par 3s to the same degree as 4s and 5s

Par 3s are more likely penal > offering strategic choice

It’s nothing to do with how many shots a bogey golfer gets on a par 3

Of course par 3s can have bail out options. Many do.

Plenty of courses have long par 3s which play as par 4s for shorter hitters. The par 3.5 (eg 16th at Carnoustie) can be a great strategic hole.

 

[evemccc]

Of course par 3s can have bail out options. Many do.

Plenty of courses have long par 3s which play as par 4s for shorter hitters. The par 3.5 (eg 16th at Carnoustie) can be a great strategic hole.

Yes. ‘Can’. my home course has a very long Par 3 which most play as a two shotter - but they’re pretty rare

Approximately do you think there are i) more, ii) equally as many iii) fewer, strategic par 5s, compared to par 3s?

And the same question for Par 4s Vs Par 3s?

 

[D-S]

Do these long par 3s that a lot of players cannot reach have prepared fairways?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Yes. ‘Can’. my home course has a very long Par 3 which most play as a two shotter - but they’re pretty rare

Approximately do you think there are i) more, ii) equally as many iii) fewer, strategic par 5s, compared to par 3s?

And the same question for Par 4s Vs Par 3s?

Which tees do you play off ?

When playing in social play or competition play

There is so many factors in play when looking at course playability for all levels

and yes there will be par 3’s where some people can’t reach in one just like there is par 4’s people can’t reach in 2 and Par 5’s where people can’t reach in 3