Should Courses have more 3.5 par holes?

**MEfree** · April 13, 2015

Should good golf courses have more holes in the 220 to 340 yard range (from the Championship tees)?

To me, a good golf course makes you use (or at least strongly consider using) all the clubs in your bag. In my mind, some holes/shots should set up better for a right to left ball flight, while others should favor the opposite.

I know that some golf course architects like to include at least 1 driveable par 4. Should this thought process be expanded similar to how a great course like Augusta has a lot of 4.5 par holes (and #4, which I consider to be in my 3.5 category). While it is good to have 1 driveable par 4, this is only going to test 1 length/type of shot each round. What about having 2 or 3 of these type holes along with a couple really hard par 3s so that a player is forced to play shots that typically play all different lengths (i.e. 225, 250, 275, 300, 325) ?

Augusta National GC - All Rounds
HOLE	PAR	YARDS	AVG. SCORE	EAGLES	BIRDIES	PARS	BOGEYS	DOUBLES	OTHERS	+/- AVG.
8	5	570	4.66	7	113	166	14	4	0	-0.35
2	5	575	4.62	8	122	153	20	1	0	-0.38
15	5	530	4.60	9	144	117	29	4	1	-0.40
13	5	510	4.55	20	141	111	22	9	1	-0.45
11	4	505	4.33	0	22	179	90	9	4	0.33
7	4	450	4.24	0	34	170	93	7	0	0.24
1	4	445	4.23	0	22	198	77	6	1	0.23
18	4	465	4.21	0	53	147	93	9	2	0.21
10	4	495	4.17	0	30	204	60	9	1	0.17
17	4	440	4.16	0	28	204	69	3	0	0.16
5	4	455	4.15	0	31	207	57	9	0	0.15
9	4	460	4.09	0	39	206	53	6	0	0.09
14	4	440	4.08	1	37	208	52	6	0	0.08
3	4	350	3.95	2	55	205	40	2	0	-0.05
4	3	240	3.30	0	20	183	92	9	0	0.30
12	3	155	3.13	0	50	186	51	15	2	0.13
6	3	180	3.09	0	28	226	46	4	0	0.09
16	3	170	3.02	0	53	201	42	7	1	0.02

**danL** · April 13, 2015

My home course has a few holes that play like that. If you want to get brave and hit a driver you can leave yourself with a 60-90yd approach but the Fairway gets exponentially narrower once you get past 200yd. I typically hit a soft 3 wood or a full 3 Iron (don't currently have a 5 wood or hybrid) and leave myself with a 140yd or so approach. Much better than risking it with a driver and going off the Fairway left or in the water to the right. But, if your brave, the option is there.

**saevel25** · April 13, 2015

Not sure. I don't mind 1 par 4 that can be drivable from the tee. In the end you'll end up with a lot of irons off the tee with a wedge into the green. I think Augusta has a good spread.

***iacas*** · April 13, 2015

@MEfree , to what end? Why?

If your answer is "use every club in the bag" then it's certainly possible to do that without having a par 3.5 hole. You also have holes like the 10th at Riviera which is drivable, but plays more like a par 4 for scoring.

Also, Oakmont's 8th is a par 3.5 hole… that's called a par 3.

**Dave2512** · April 13, 2015

No. Despite liking holes like this they slow play from all those that wait for the green to clear before not getting it close. We have two on a par 71. One follows a par 3 with a peninsula green and 160-170 carry over water. On a busy day this course plays very slow.

**MEfree** · April 14, 2015

@MEfree, to what end? Why?

If your answer is "use every club in the bag" then it's certainly possible to do that without having a par 3.5 hole. You also have holes like the 10th at Riviera which is drivable, but plays more like a par 4 for scoring.

Also, Oakmont's 8th is a par 3.5 hole… that's called a par 3.

I agree that it is possible to use every club in the bag without these type of holes but think these type of holes can be another way to test/reward, accuracy & distance control on shots in the 240 to 340 range (with these distances being adjusted downward for those who don't play the back tees). Sure, this can be done with narrow fairways, shallow landing areas and/or greens that are much more receptive from one side of the fairway over the other, but, for me, some of the funnest holes I play are driveable par 4s (along with reachable par 5s)

I played #10 at Riv multiple times many years ago when the green was not so severe (and only a minority of pros had the distance to drive it). There is nothing wrong with having a short par 4 that averages 4, but I agree with the announcer (don't remember) who said that the green is now too severe. I recall a shot this year (I think by Ryan Moore) that looked like it landed in the what seemed like the perfect spot just short of the green with a nice high soft ball flight- the ball almost went into the cup at a slow speed and looked like he would have a very short eagle putt but ended up in a spot where 4 was the most likely score (which is what I think he made). I like a hole that has a good risk-reward trade-off and think a 300 yard shot that is nearly perfectly executed should result in a 2 or 3, but not higher unless the player actually misses the proper landing area (i.e. the face of a bunker)

No. Despite liking holes like this they slow play from all those that wait for the green to clear before not getting it close. We have two on a par 71. One follows a par 3 with a peninsula green and 160-170 carry over water. On a busy day this course plays very slow.

Interesting point! Copper Creek tends to back up at one of my favorite holes, #9, a ~250 yard downhill par "4" to a partially blind & shallow green with bunkers and scrub around it.

I think the same thing can happen on (tougher par 3s and) reachable par 5s- guys wait for the green to clear from 240 out, but may end up taking 6 more shots. Not sure what the answer is, but have seen a wave up policy instituted at some courses on par 3s (and at driveable par 4s on the PGA Tour).

**Dave2512** · April 14, 2015

Honestly the last thing I think is good for recreational golf as it relates to pace of play is more people emulating what pros do.

***iacas*** · April 14, 2015

I agree that it is possible to use every club in the bag without these type of holes

Okay. Then you agree we don't need these types of holes to test every club in the bag, so what I'm trying to see if I can draw out of you the reason you want more of these types of holes.

but think these type of holes can be another way to test/reward, accuracy & distance control on shots in the 240 to 340 range (with these distances being adjusted downward for those who don't play the back tees).

The average golfer will still face plenty of shots from 240 and 340. Second shots on par fives. Shots to long par fours (possibly after a screwed up first tee shot). Etc. Plus, don't those more often just test the driver? We have plenty of holes that test the driver already. Or the 3W.

The average golfer misses so many greens to it's not about testing the short clubs. It's not about testing the 40-80 yard shots, because again, the average golfer gets plenty of those: between 3 and 5 per round.

So again, what's the purpose of adding more of these types of holes? Let's see if you give one (that makes sense).

Sure, this can be done with narrow fairways, shallow landing areas and/or greens that are much more receptive from one side of the fairway over the other, but, for me, some of the funnest holes I play are driveable par 4s (along with reachable par 5s)

It can be done as I've said above on a regular golf course, and again, you're really just testing how well someone drives the golf ball. You're not creating more variety of "other clubs" used. Average golfers already use their driver and wedges a fair amount. You're actually reducing the number of clubs used in a round of golf by increasing the number of times the average golfer hits their wedge (they already hit their driver 12-ish times).

So, I'm still waiting for the reason why you want more of these types of holes.

I played #10 at Riv multiple times many years ago when the green was not so severe (and only a minority of pros had the distance to drive it). There is nothing wrong with having a short par 4 that averages 4, but I agree with the announcer (don't remember) who said that the green is now too severe.

What does this have to do with the topic? I only mentioned Riviera's 10th because it's a short hole that is still a "par 4" - it is not a "par 3.5." So what I'm saying is that the length alone is not the determinant of par.

Whispering Woods' 16th hole can be drivable under the right conditions, but it's a hole I play for par all the time (even when driving the ball). Birdies are rare. It is a strong par 4, despite being < 300 yards from almost all tees.

Length alone does not determine par, and short par fours can still be "strong par 4s" and not your desired par 3.5 holes.

So… why do you want more par 3.5 holes?

I may not even disagree in the end, but I don't understand thinking "I want more par 3.5 holes" without having a reason, so I'm trying to determine your reason(s).

**MEfree** · April 14, 2015

My thinking is this- for PROs, holes in the 270-340 range is another, possibly superior, way to test driving (or FW wood) accuracy and DISTANCE CONTROL. i.e. a 500 yard par 4 or 5 certainly rewards being able to hit it long and in the fairway, but most of the time it only makes a small difference if a guy hits it 290 or 330 (whatever the scoring difference is from 210 vs 170). OTOH, If you have a 310 yard hole, there is likely going to be a big scoring difference between a straight 310 yard shot compared to a straight 290 or 330 shot. Also, as I think your Lowest Score Wins hints at (I haven't read it), a 330 yard drive that is 25 feet off line is better than 310 drive perfectly in the middle on a longer hole. Not necessarily so on a 310 yard hole.

Also, tee balls on long holes don't necessarily test your ability to land it softly like you need to do on some driveable par 4s.

I agree that second shots on some longer holes may test distance control as well but some courses might find it easier to offer multiple holes in the 270-340 range rather than having multiple 580+ holes. Also, a hole that is 310 yards (with a reasonable enough risk-reward trade-off that many Pros will go for it) will always test the accuracy & distance control of a 310 yard shot (ignoring wind) regardless of how far Pros hit their tee shots.

OTOH, as we have seen, the approach shots have gotten shorter at many holes as technology & conditioning have increased the distance the pros are hitting it- holes where the architect thought Pros would be coming in from 200-220 (and designed the green accordingly) have either started to play much easier, or have been lengthened/re-designed. (It is for this same reason as well as fairness, that I feel it is a mistake to always put the trouble off the tee or narrow the fairway at certain yardages) .

**newtogolf** · April 14, 2015

I don't get why there's a need to use every club in your bag? If there's a club you don't have a use for on your home course, leave it home or replace it with one you will use. Phil has carried two drivers because he felt some clubs were not necessary to play a course.

You're also forgetting that the distances you're citing are near the max range for most non-pro's which means that every time a hack tees off from the tips they will be double bogeying your par 3's and backing up the courses worse than they do today.

***iacas*** · April 14, 2015

Originally Posted by MEfree

My thinking is this- for PROs, holes in the 270-340 range is another, possibly superior, way to test driving (or FW wood) accuracy and DISTANCE CONTROL.

So now this is about pros? I'm not so sure about that. First, the driver is not about distance control, and asking that of any golfer is goofy.

In one or two sentences, please tell me: why do you want more par 3.5 type holes?

Also, as I think your Lowest Score Wins hints at (I haven't read it), a 330 yard drive that is 25 feet off line is better than 310 drive perfectly in the middle on a longer hole. Not necessarily so on a 310 yard hole.

Let's try not to discuss things you haven't read, please. That got you in enough hot water with a $2 booklet.

Drivers are not about distance control. They're about advancing the ball far while keeping it in play. Distance control matters most for the irons. It matters next to zip for the driver and barely more for the fairway woods.

Also, tee balls on long holes don't necessarily test your ability to land it softly like you need to do on some driveable par 4s. .

Why would you care about testing that? If that's your answer to my question, I strongly disagree.

So what, in a sentence or two, is the answer to the question?

You're also forgetting that the distances you're citing are near the max range for most non-pro's which means that every time a hack tees off from the tips they will be double bogeying your par 3's and backing up the courses worse than they do today.

I still don't know whether we're talking about the pros (because, really, who cares?) or the average golfer's game and courses.

**MEfree** · April 14, 2015

I agree with those that have brought up the point that 200+ yard approach shots (to par 3s, 4s or 5s) tend to result in many golfers waiting for the green to clear and then missing the green badly and taking forever to complete the hole. Not sure what the solution to this other than to design a course that leaves a lot of 100-150 yard approaches and doesn't leave any 200-300 yard approaches. 3.5 pars certainly don't do that and may slow up play. With that said, I will try to respond to Erik more concisely.

In one or two sentences, please tell me: why do you want more par 3.5 type holes?

Driveable par 4s are fun to play and can test your skills with a driver/FW wood differently than tee shots on longer holes. Long Par 3s can help to offset the easy par 4s and test players long iron/FW wood shots resulting in a fun course that makes you hit a variety of shots using all your clubs.

I still don't know whether we're talking about the pros (because, really, who cares?) or the average golfer's game and courses.

I'm talking about both pros and average golfers. The distances I gave were for Pros and should be adjusted downward for most other players. On the PGA Tour, I like the trend of shortening a normally un-reachable par 4 at times to give the players a risk-reward scenario on courses that didn't originally have a driveable par 4.

***iacas*** · April 15, 2015

Before I respond, I had to repair your malformed post, @MEfree . Please be careful about that sort of thing.

I agree with those that have brought up the point that 200+ yard approach shots (to par 3s, 4s or 5s) tend to result in many golfers waiting for the green to clear and then missing the green badly and taking forever to complete the hole. Not sure what the solution to this other than to design a course that leaves a lot of 100-150 yard approaches and doesn't leave any 200-300 yard approaches. 3.5 pars certainly don't do that and may slow up play. With that said, I will try to respond to Erik more concisely.

200-300 yard approaches are still going to occur on par fives. But yes, speed of play becomes a factor on any hole where players feel

Driveable par 4s are fun to play and can test your skills with a driver/FW wood differently than tee shots on longer holes. Long Par 3s can help to offset the easy par 4s and test players long iron/FW wood shots resulting in a fun course that makes you hit a variety of shots using all your clubs.

I don't particularly agree with the latter part about long par threes, but the former is a perfectly good reason.

My own reasons are that short par fours (or even shorter par fives, like a 480-yard hole for the average golfer) can be great risk-reward holes with a wide scoring range. There's a course nearby that, while it otherwise is kind of drab, has a 297-yard sharp dogleg right par four with a narrow chute of trees. I've had six-foot putts for 2 here, and I've seen friends make 6 or 7. These par-3.5 holes offer something different. They make players think . They're unique, and because of that, fun and challenging in their own way.

Why it took so long to get this answer is typical @MEfree type stuff, and a big part of your reputation here. You never seem to just come out and say what you want in post #1. People always seem to have to draw it out of you, or they take you at your word and then you change the scenario up.

I'm talking about both pros and average golfers.

I'd ask that we limit the discussion mostly to courses average golfers play. We tend to care a bit more about that than some course we will likely never play, and played by the best guys on earth.

**MEfree** · April 15, 2015

Before I respond, I had to repair your malformed post, @MEfree. Please be careful about that sort of thing.

200-300 yard approaches are still going to occur on par fives. But yes, speed of play becomes a factor on any hole where players feel

I don't particularly agree with the latter part about long par threes, but the former is a perfectly good reason.

My own reasons are that short par fours (or even shorter par fives, like a 480-yard hole for the average golfer) can be great risk-reward holes with a wide scoring range. There's a course nearby that, while it otherwise is kind of drab, has a 297-yard sharp dogleg right par four with a narrow chute of trees. I've had six-foot putts for 2 here, and I've seen friends make 6 or 7. These par-3.5 holes offer something different. They make players think. They're unique, and because of that, fun and challenging in their own way.

Why it took so long to get this answer is typical @MEfree type stuff, and a big part of your reputation here. You never seem to just come out and say what you want in post #1. People always seem to have to draw it out of you, or they take you at your word and then you change the scenario up.

I'd ask that we limit the discussion mostly to courses average golfers play. We tend to care a bit more about that than some course we will likely never play, and played by the best guys on earth.

I honestly don't know what the formatting issue was...to me, my last post looks the same as when I posted it (but thanks for correcting if something was wrong). I realize that my OP was a question in which I did not state my opinion, but in my second post I did say (among other things):

...for me, some of the funnest holes I play are driveable par 4s (along with reachable par 5s)

... I like a hole that has a good risk-reward trade-off ... one of my favorite holes, #9,[at Copper Creek is] a ~250 yard downhill par "4" to a partially blind & shallow green with bunkers and scrub around it.

While I will continue to like these type holes and would be happy to play more of them, the posters who brought up the speed of play issue they can create make a valid point.

**oregongolfguy** · April 15, 2015

I agree that short par 4's can be fun. But honestly I never really go for the green off the tee on one. I used to play a really short, nice course. It had two drivable par 4's. One was a sharp dogleg left with fairly tall pine tree's and a ravine that the hole curved around. From the tee box you can see green almost 90 degrees to the left. It was 210 carry to get past the fence guarding the ravine. But long was in impossible nasty rocks and weeds. You had about 20yds of landing area. I always played mid iron cutting the corner and pitch onto the green. The second one was a straight away par 4 about 260 ish on the card and usually played down wind. Nasty back to front small green and two bunkers guarding the front. Same deal for me. Hybrid and pitch.....

However, the course was really par 4.5 instead of par 5 holes. (again short course). Two of the 3 par 5 holes however had a lot less trouble around the greens, so they were usually green light special to go at them in two....

Honestly for me to go at a drivable hole, I would need it to be long enough that I could land short and possibly roll it on with no trouble around the front of the green....

***iacas*** · April 15, 2015

I honestly don't know what the formatting issue was...to me, my last post looks the same as when I posted it (but thanks for correcting if something was wrong).

I had to fix this post too, and sent you a screenshot.

I realize that my OP was a question in which I did not state my opinion, but in my second post I did say (among other things):

We'll have to agree to disagree on how clearly you stated that as being your reason. Burying the lede, as they say. And not in the first post, per your usual…

So, golf courses have to balance pace of play with a bunch of other things: new challenges, possibly tight spacing that may force a shorter hole whether they want it or not, safety (nearby holes), etc.

**mmoan2** · April 15, 2015

Should good golf courses have more holes in the 220 to 340 yard range (from the Championship tees)?

To me, a good golf course makes you use (or at least strongly consider using) all the clubs in your bag. In my mind, some holes/shots should set up better for a right to left ball flight, while others should favor the opposite.

I know that some golf course architects like to include at least 1 driveable par 4. Should this thought process be expanded similar to how a great course like Augusta has a lot of 4.5 par holes (and #4, which I consider to be in my 3.5 category). While it is good to have 1 driveable par 4, this is only going to test 1 length/type of shot each round. What about having 2 or 3 of these type holes along with a couple really hard par 3s so that a player is forced to play shots that typically play all different lengths (i.e. 225, 250, 275, 300, 325) ?

Augusta National GC - All Rounds

HOLE
PAR
YARDS
AVG. SCORE
EAGLES
BIRDIES
PARS
BOGEYS
DOUBLES
OTHERS
+/- AVG.

8
5
570
4.66
7
113
166
14
4
0
-0.35

2
5
575
4.62
8
122
153
20
1
0
-0.38

15
5
530
4.60
9
144
117
29
4
1
-0.40

13
5
510
4.55
20
141
111
22
9
1
-0.45

11
4
505
4.33
0
22
179
90
9
4
0.33

7
4
450
4.24
0
34
170
93
7
0
0.24

1
4
445
4.23
0
22
198
77
6
1
0.23

18
4
465
4.21
0
53
147
93
9
2
0.21

10
4
495
4.17
0
30
204
60
9
1
0.17

17
4
440
4.16
0
28
204
69
3
0
0.16

5
4
455
4.15
0
31
207
57
9
0
0.15

9
4
460
4.09
0
39
206
53
6
0
0.09

14
4
440
4.08
1
37
208
52
6
0
0.08

3
4
350
3.95
2
55
205
40
2
0
-0.05

4
3
240
3.30
0
20
183
92
9
0
0.30

12
3
155
3.13
0
50
186
51
15
2
0.13

6
3
180
3.09
0
28
226
46
4
0
0.09

16
3
170
3.02
0
53
201
42
7
1
0.02

My home course has two drivable par 4s, both over water. The first - number 8 - is about 270 to the middle of the green, 220 to carry. The second - 17 - is about 295 to the middle, 250 to carry. I'm convinced the course architect is a genius. Every guy I play with talks about these holes, talks about how they can make or break your round, how if they carry hole 8, do they dare try to carry 17, or play it safe for a relatively easy par. So many people hit 17 saying "if I could just birdie this hole..." and then PLUNK! in the water, double bogey city. Love it!!!

**Dave2512** · April 15, 2015

Seems like every course I play already has holes like this so not sure why there would be a need for more. One or two is enough. While I agree it could be considered a test of ability most don't have the ability to pass that test. I see more poor decision making and bad golf on short par 4's and long par 3's than any other holes.

In some regards the super long par 3's are even worse than the short par 4's because recreational golfers suck and they don't hit GIR often from those distances. And they are always dressed up with bunkers and water that inspire golfers to get into Tin Cup mode. We have one that plays 210-220 and because I double that hole more than any other I play it like a par 4. For me going for the green is death. I play short of the green and take my chances getting up and down. It's freaking silly but the hole is a time and score killer. A bogey there is a victory for me.

Sign In

Should Courses have more 3.5 par holes?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Topics Being Discussed Right Now on The Sand Trap

TST Partners

Popular Now

Posts

Important Information