what happened to all the great short par-threes?

One of the par 3's at my home course plays 138 from the tips.  I routinely play it at 131.

Another one plays 160 from the tips, but it is elevated quite a bit.

The shorter one has a big ravine in front of it, sand short and right, and sand on the whole left side.  The longer one has a pond short and right , and a large bunker on the left that is lower than the green.  Both are very fun to play.  Especially for me.  My iron game starts to get really shaky outside of 150 yards.

One of the hardest holes I regularly play is anywhere from 120 to 135. It basically a volcano green with ob long, a small deep bunker short right, and a really tough chip left of the green or right.Its a really fun hole .Very easy if you hit the green but if you miss triple is definitely in play.

I think most courses don't want a short par 3 for their longest tee's. Most people realize that distance adds difficulty on its own and you don't have to gimmick up a par 3.

Look at No. 17 at Sawgrass, 137 yards, but still only plays to a 3.064 stroke average. Not the toughest par 3 even on the course. No. 13 is 3.077 stroke average, No. 8 is 3.195 stroke average, No. 3 is 3.077 stroke average. Hole 17 at sawgrass for the PGA Tour professionals is the EASIEST par 3 on the course. The primary reason, it is 40 yards shorter than the next shortest par 3 on the course.

I am sure most PGA tour players will say it is a tough hole because of the water. Even bringing in the water on the scoring average it isn't that tough.

I don't mind seeing shorter par 3's. I rather not see a Par 3 become an automatic birdie for the PGA Tour players.

My regular course has a short par 3 (125 from the Whites) which is well bunkered and rewards the accurate short game.  The course also has a few back breakers, even from the white tees, to reward the long hitters.  The intermmediate length holes each have a fair amount of trouble along the way where some length is required but you have to be accurate or use a hybrid to tee off.  There is also a downhill par 5 of about 490 that if I really somke it (for my swing) and wind up on the left side of some trees I can give it a go at the green.   But the short par 3 has its own difficulties and helps balance out a total golf experience on the course.

Par 3's are one of my pet peeves on some/most golf courses. There are many courses that seem to have all their par 3's that are the same club or at best 2 clubs for the round (typically 165-180).

If I were to design a course it would have 4 par 3's and they would be 9i/PW, 7i/8i, 5i/4i, hybrid/fairway wood - and the tee boxes would compensate for average length.

Hybrid / fairway wood par 3s always seem ridiculous to me. Getting that distance alone is hard enough with long clubs. Avoiding bunkers and the like is just making a bad situation even worse. The longest par 3 on the courses I play at is about 187 and that's hitting my 5/6 full out.

I agree.  A course I played the other day has par 3's that are 175, 210, 165, 170 and then they also have this little gem:

And here's a picture from to the right of the green where you park your carts:

It's usually about 150 yards from the back (elevated) tee, and its usually downwind ... not more than a gap or pitching wedge and it's just as, if not more, difficult than all of those other holes.  Also, more fun!

Dang... where is this?

Eagle Springs in Mukwonago WI. It's the oldest course in the state. It's a par 35 9 hole course (it's an easy course besides 2 and 9). Trying to get up and down from anywhere besides short is a real pain in the ass. The left side is really steep and the right is awkward because the trees don't allow you to hit a very high shot. The green slopes pretty hard back to front also which makes putting from either side or past the hole tough.

Totally agree (except I am often hitting fairways woods).