We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Easy Par 3s -- Worth it Everywhere?

I hate short par threes, I always feel like it was an after throught. I think 130 is as short as I like. Shorter than that irritates me
 
Tadashi70 said:
I hate short par threes, I always feel like it was an after throught. I think 130 is as short as I like. Shorter than that irritates me
Click to expand...

Number 9 at Caladonia will really piss you off then. Hehe
 
rollin said:
I agree. I want the diversity like most of you do but not the super long ones. They are P3's for a reason. I know things have changed some through the years distance wise but there are super long P4's and for the most part they are still called something else and that is, "par5".

Your average golfer should not be able to usually reach the P5 in two shots and still be successful most the time and that's why its a P5 and not a P4. Where as the P4 would allow for the average golfer to make it in two with decent chance of success.

With the same thoughts, the average golfer should be able to reach a P3 in one shot and stand a decent chance of being successful at doing so. The average golfer is just not putting the first shot on the green from 215 yrds away (and more) most of the time. I think a P3 should be a good mix of short to a mid/longer iron at max. just my thoughts
Click to expand...

Wongstongs said:
Yes, but the average golfer should be able to get it close and have an easy wedge shot or bump and run leaving them with a putt for par. Longer par 3's are always a fun challenge.
Click to expand...

yes and I wouldnt say your wrong but that sort of makes my point. That's getting it close and not on. The average golfer should also be able to get close to a P5 in the scenario I gave above but it still a P5 for that reason and not a P4. Its about having the decent chance of green in regulation and on a P3 and that should be 1 shot not two. Its assumed two putt just like the other holes so decent chance of being close is not the idea. Its not thought of as miss, chip and one putt. Its though of as hit and two putt. Don't get me wrong here, I don't despise the long ones or lose sleep over them but they shouldn't be quite nearly that long IMO for reasons mentioned.
 
Tadashi70 said:
I hate short par threes, I always feel like it was an after throught. I think 130 is as short as I like. Shorter than that irritates me
Click to expand...
I understand that. I grew up at a course, Langhorne Country Club in PA ( now Middletown ) that has a very short par 3. Tee was, I don't know, 100 feet above the green which was a PW away. Could barely see the green. Always seemed a waste. You could practically roll the ball down to the green.

They changed it a bit since, but that was always an irritating hole, especially when bogied :)
 
mcook77 said:
Number 9 at Caladonia will really piss you off then. Hehe
Click to expand...

I better have a big lead orbit will be trouble. Just like I don't think you should have to unload on a wood I don't think a half wedge should be in play.
 
Tadashi70 said:
I better have a big lead orbit will be trouble. Just like I don't think you should have to unload on a wood I don't think a half wedge should be in play.
Click to expand...

Just hit whatever your 100 yard club is on that hole, you'll be fine. Although the overall design of the hole compared to the rest of the course does make it seem a bit like an afterthought.
 
rollin said:
yes and I wouldnt say your wrong but that sort of makes my point. That's getting it close and not on. The average golfer should also be able to get close to a P5 in the scenario I gave above but it still a P5 for that reason and not a P4. Its about having the decent chance of green in regulation and on a P3 and that should be 1 shot not two. Its assumed two putt just like the other holes so decent chance of being close is not the idea. Its not thought of as miss, chip and one putt. Its though of as hit and two putt. Don't get me wrong here, I don't despise the long ones or lose sleep over them but they shouldn't be quite nearly that long IMO for reasons mentioned.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. But then if you made courses based on the average golfer you wouldn't be able to have any holes within the 200-250 yard range. They would be too long for par 3's and too short for par 4's.
 
I'd be fine with it. There is 1 in my area that plays 102 with water in front, wrapping around right side, and coming around about 25% of the back. It never gets birdied but I play with a bunch of hacks.

Now, what every course definitely needs is that 250-280 yard risk reward par 4 where scores can easily range from 2 to 6. Those are the fun ones IMO.
 
My local course has one and I find it pretty fun.

110 yards and can be pretty tough depending on where they put the flag.

I've birdied it a couple of times but generally I find it just as hard if not actually harder to play than the 200 yard par 3 that's 2 holes earlier.
 
Wongstongs said:
Makes sense. But then if you made courses based on the average golfer you wouldn't be able to have any holes within the 200-250 yard range. They would be too long for par 3's and too short for par 4's.
Click to expand...

lol..I know what you mean there and whats funny is that, that is about how I feel.
 
I've thought about this topic for a while now and I've come to the conclusion that in my opinion, there's no such thing as an easy Par 3... period. Over the course of a 30+ year golf career I've seen more 3-putt bogeys on Par 3's than I've seen one putt birdies.
 
First off, I thought Merion was the best US Open course layout in several years. It has tough holes, and holes where birdie is possible. In the end, a round of par is a good round. It's difficult to watch golf on TV for the US Open when players struggle every single hole to make par. Every hole doesn't have to be a challenge.

So to answer the question, yes, I think easy par 3s are a good thing, especially when it's there to balance out some of the tougher holes on the course.

~Rock
 
I hate courses that have all their par 3's at 165+. There definitely should be at least one par 3 that gives you a primo chance to get it close.
 
It is amazing how often course designers decide that par 3's need to be very difficult.

At a course I regularly play, the first par 3 plays about 160, but is a severely elevated green with an almost crowned surface and deep bunkers around. If you don't hit the green you have a VERY difficult pitch uphill to a small green. I've seen some very good players pitch right over.

The second par 3 plays 190 with a lake covering half of it. This is the "easiest" par 3 because the green is not elevated.

The third is a short 120-yard par 3, but again, highly elevated with a deep bunker in front and a run off area to the right. If you don't hit a perfect shot, you're rolling left into thick rough down a steep hill, or right 20 yards down into a collection area.

The fourth is another 190 yard par 3 over a lake to an elevated long skinny green.

In short, all 4 par 3's are extremely difficult holes to par. You walk away quite happy with a bogey, but I've seen golfers a lot better than me make double or worse.

I'm not sure why the course designer decided they needed to be so difficult. What happened to a short par 3 with a receptive green? Why is a golfer making a decent shot and having a chance at par such a bad thing?
 
I would love most courses to feature a par 3 under 120 yards....they could trick up the green or whatever but at least put a wedge in your hand....there is one at Caladonia that is just over 100 yards....that is the one Biggsy aced during the practice round on Thursday.

My home course the shortest par 3 is 145 to an elevated very small green and it plays into the prevailing wind 90% of the time...so it really plays 150-160 yards or more most of the time.
 
Thainer21 said:
I love short par 3s. I like courses that have 4 par 3s, one short, then each one about 20 yards longer than another.

140/160/180/200

Is a good ratio IMO.


I also love 100yd par 3s.
Click to expand...

I like this concept. Make golfers use different clubs. Hate when I go to a course and their par 3s are pretty much the same distance. I like shorter ones too, but since they are shorter, a bad shot should be punished.
 
This got me thinking - I really appreciate diversity and love a short par 3. My course, from the tips, really doesn't have one that's super short, but it does have diversity of distances based on pin location. We have 5 par 3s:

The first has literally a 100 yard green (set at a slight angle) and can play from about 140 to 220 based on the location. It's pretty nuts, but fun.

Then, the rest play about 195, 155, 180, 220. The actual distances are different, but because of elevation changes this is about what they play. I like when at least one of them plays short in any given day.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk 4 Beta
 
In my opinion, the key to a course is variety. I like different length par threes. Heck, a target par 3 surrounded by bunkers or water can be just as tough as a wide open 140 yard one.

I like courses that change things up. I'm not as interested in the Links style courses where they all look the same, but just play differently due to wind or minor undulations.
 
Canadan said:
Watching a bit of the US Open coverage, they have a par 3 that sits at 102 yards. More than likely a mid wedge for most of these guys. they are all throwing it past the hole and sucking it back to the tucked pin.

It got me thinking though, how much do you like that design? One course, with one par 3 that really allows you to throw a dart? The closest my course has is a dog-bone style par 3 that plays more like 140 at the front position, but it's a small area to land with a drop-off behind and water to the right.

So my question, do you like the idea of course design creating a single par 3 that is similar to a wedge into the green of a par 4? 100-125 yards with room to spare on either side.

I tend to think I do.
Click to expand...

I would love that hole at my course but think a lot would not birdie or par it as its a wedge shot and most struggle in that area. That 102 is a perfect 54* for me so I really would love it but bet I would bogie more than par.
 
I love short par 3's I'm not any good at them but I like them!

I like courses that vary the distances of their par 3's nothing worse than hitting the same club or two into them because of the pin placement.
 
wadesworld said:
It is amazing how often course designers decide that par 3's need to be very difficult.

At a course I regularly play, the first par 3 plays about 160, but is a severely elevated green with an almost crowned surface and deep bunkers around. If you don't hit the green you have a VERY difficult pitch uphill to a small green. I've seen some very good players pitch right over.

The second par 3 plays 190 with a lake covering half of it. This is the "easiest" par 3 because the green is not elevated.

The third is a short 120-yard par 3, but again, highly elevated with a deep bunker in front and a run off area to the right. If you don't hit a perfect shot, you're rolling left into thick rough down a steep hill, or right 20 yards down into a collection area.

The fourth is another 190 yard par 3 over a lake to an elevated long skinny green.

In short, all 4 par 3's are extremely difficult holes to par. You walk away quite happy with a bogey, but I've seen golfers a lot better than me make double or worse.

I'm not sure why the course designer decided they needed to be so difficult. What happened to a short par 3 with a receptive green? Why is a golfer making a decent shot and having a chance at par such a bad thing?
Click to expand...

yea this sounds like a bit much. One easier one would be nice though overall I do want some character, some individuality, something to cause one to think even a little but what you describe seems overboard. I wonder to ask what is the rest of the course like. Is it fairly easy?, Are there too many easy P4's and they use the 3's to make up for that? Or is the whole course designed a bit too much over the top?
 
My course has an "easy" par 3 14th, which sits at 103 yards on the yellow tees and 128yards on the white tees.

In anything but ideal golf conditions this hole is a nightmare as it sits atop a steep hill with bunkers guarding the front of the green and a steep slope/out of bounds behind it and to the left hand side.

If its a windy day the wind normally comes in from behind meaning you have to club down and I've hit sand wedges before now that have hit the green and rolled off the back. Normally I go at it with a gap wedge which is my 100 yard club and just aim for the middle of the green.

I don't mind this sort of hole being on the course, its fine in theory. But the layout of our course is odd and we have two back to back par 5s on the front 9 and two back to back par 3s on the back 9. Quite a few members have lobbied for the course to be reshuffled as it wasn't like that going back 5 or 6 years.
 
I would say that there is a difference between an easy and short par 3. My course has a 114 (yellow)/133 (white) yard par 3 with the biggest green I've ever seen. The massive green makes it easy to get on with your tee shot, although that doesn't make it an easy hole as it's a ridiculously hard putting green. I've played it maybe 20 times and have never got a birdie yet whereas I've got plenty of birdies on other supposedly more difficult par 3s.

While it's not easy as such I do think it looks too big and plain. There's just two bunkers front left and front right that are almost always irrelevant as you can just pitch to the back half of the green. If I was designing it I'd make the green half the size, flatten the putting surface a little and add more easy escape bunkers around the outside. That way if you can get it on the putting surface you have a birdie chance, and if you miss and end up in the sand then a well controlled bunker shot can still give you a chance for par.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top