Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 4848 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted
How often do you up on a par three?

If you had suggested laying up on a par three to me a few years ago, I would have looked at you like you asked me if I ever considered breathing water rather then air.

But as I have gotten better at this game, I find I hit less then driver off lots of tees (maybe half of par 4 and 5s), and now I even lay up on par threes if I think it is a smart play.

One par three I lay up on if my swing or the conditions aren't great is 210 par three with ob left, bunkers all around and some troubling trees right. With a bad 210 yard shot and double or even triple bogie is in play. If I lay up with a mid iron, I take all trouble out of play. Par is hard to make with a lay up, but bogie is not a bad score on a hole like this for my cap.

Another par three that I think I should start laying up on at times is a 166-185 yard down hill par three. I can hit 8 iron- 5iron into it depending on conditions so it not a long hole for me by any means. But the green has water left, and a nasty pot bunker and tree right. Lots of trouble on this hole if you miss the green, but if you lay up 5 yards short of the green, all the trouble is out of play and you have a very straight forward up and down. I can't say I have laid up on this hole yet, but I have noticed many better players not going for the green on this hole. But as I have put too much draw on the ball ended up in the water, or bailed out and ended up in trouble right too many times for more liking, I am considering playing the lay up here when the wind is blowing.

So do you guys ever swallow you pride and lay up on par threes?
Driver R7 Superquad NV 55 shaft or Bridgestone J33 460 NV 75 shaft
3 and 5 Wood X
Hybrid original Fli Hi 21* or FT 22*
Irons AP2
Wedges Vokey 52* - 8 , 56* 14, 60*-7Putter California CoranodoBall TP RedGPS NeoRange Finder- Bushnell Tour V2 When Chuck Norris puts spin on the ball, the ball does not...

Posted
You are starting to think strategy and better players will know where to miss to give them the best scenario to make par. There are a few holes that I know that the front of the green, or just short of the green (the place to miss) will give me a chance at par, especially if the green is severely slanted and you need to be below the hole.

Callaway AI Smoke TD Max 10.5* | Cobra Big Tour 15.5* | Rad Tour 18.5* | Titleist U500 4i | T100 5-P | Vokey 50/8* F, 54/10* S,  58/10* S | Scotty Cameron Squareback 1


Posted
I've actually never even considered this... It makes a TON of sense to a high handicapper like myself though. It is more along the lines of just playing the safe shot even if that means adding a stroke could save you from adding a couple extra...

Thanks for the post

-Red


Posted
I've done it, and I've even occasionally made par doing it. I can't remember doing it and making net-bogey or worse. However, my club tournaments play closest to the pin on all par-3s, and that suckers me in. But then again, sometimes I'm the only one in my flight to hit the green and I win by default.

That having been said, I think someone - Billy Casper maybe? - won a U.S. Open laying up on a par-3 every day, and every day getting down in two for his par. I want to say it was 1959.

-- Michael | My swing! 

"You think you're Jim Furyk. That's why your phone is never charged." - message from my mother

Driver:  Titleist 915D2.  4-wood:  Titleist 917F2.  Titleist TS2 19 degree hybrid.  Another hybrid in here too.  Irons 5-U, Ping G400.  Wedges negotiable (currently 54 degree Cleveland, 58 degree Titleist) Edel putter. 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
There are more 3s to be made on difficult par 3s by laying up and 1 putting than going for the green and bringing danger into play.

In the race of life, always back self-interest. At least you know it's trying.

 

 


Posted
We have a par 3 at our course (175 yds), stroke index 18, so the easiest hole on the course, allthough nobody feels it to be so very easy. Most of times 8 out of 10 there is a mid-strong wind from the right, the green has two levels and it is not a large green (40 ft. wide, 50 ft. deep). The green is elevated, with a really deep (pothole) bunker on the left front edge and deep rough behind the bunker along the leftside, on the right side a severe slope of rough, behind the green also a steep slope and a terrible lot of trees ...... but the front apron is flat and about 60 ft. wide.

The only luck is that it is between a moderate 535 yds par 5 and a relatively easy 490 yds par 5.

Of course any low handicapper will hit a 175 yds tee shot with ease (6i or 5i), but the target is small and missing the green means trouble. I know a few really low cappers, that normally go for 7i or 6i to the flat apron, chip & putt as they really can't afford to loose a stroke at this par 3 hole.

Cal Razr Hawk 10.5 | TM Superfast 3W | Adams Idea Pro Black 20 | MP-68 3-PW | TW9 50/06 + 58/12 | Ram Zebra Putter


Posted
...

Er... sometimes pride goeth before the fall...

It depends on the situation. Used to face a 195-yd. par 3 down in Oklahoma: Good-sized trees ringing the green, with a long, wide bunker to the left of - and a pot bunker front right of - a crowned green. A gusting wind came from the left, so it was an iffy hole on tee shot direction. Left bunker shot sometimes could be a punch out of sand and under tree branches. My solution: Played a 3-iron punch and run, dropped it about 30 yds. short of green on hard spot in fairway, and bounced it up to the fringe. Chip up for a one-putt par. (Often a par would win the hole) There's another hole locally which plays about 185 yds. A marshy creek wraps around the front and left of green, with a rightside bunker backed by a steep berm. Waste-high grass starts 5 feet over the green. Sometimes the marsh grass gets so high in spots it will actually deflect a ball into the water. If I'm not swinging particularly well, and/or there's a crosswind, I'll punch a 7 iron down to the landing area and chip or pitch at the flag. A wild tee shot on this one can quickly turn into a triple bogey. So, I play the odds. (As an added feature, this test measures 160 yds. from the women's tees. The women hate this hole. The owners should probably back up the ladies' tee 50 yds. and let women play it as a short par 4)

Focus, connect and follow through!

  • Completed KBS Education Seminar (online, 2015)
  • GolfWorks Clubmaking AcademyFitting, Assembly & Repair School (2012)

Driver:  :touredge: EXS 10.5°, weights neutral   ||  FWs:  :callaway: Rogue 4W + 7W
Hybrid:  :callaway: Big Bertha OS 4H at 22°  ||  Irons:  :callaway: Mavrik MAX 5i-PW
Wedges:  :callaway: MD3: 48°, 54°... MD4: 58° ||  Putter:  image.png.0d90925b4c768ce7c125b16f98313e0d.png Inertial NM SL-583F, 34"  
Ball:  :srixon: QStar Tour - Divide  ||  Bag: :sunmountain: Three 5 stand bag

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
How often do you up on a par three?

Very rarely-but definitely laid up more than once on one particular par 3. 248 yds from the blue tees, 236 from the whites. At the time I played this course I was probably a 14-15 capper. Narrow, houses directly down the right, and scrubbrush and other desert troulble down the left hand side. An usually very windy day -left to right. Initial plan was to take a smooth 3 wood, but that almost always ends up being a high cut into the wind over the netting of a backyard. Others would try hard 5 wood/some driver down the left side, that always hit near the edge of the sloping fairway before running into a sandtrap or thick tangly ravine brush just off the green. I didn't see any pars for years. My first was by hitting as strait and low 3 iron to the fairway, short of either trap. Pitched up smarly and putted quickly.

I just got back to Arizona and wanted a run at the old home course, so we went out a few weeks ago. I've improved quite a bit in the last few years, and start to string off pars and the occasional birdie. At the turn -2, best score ever, held together till we got to hole 12 and its narrow, windy 248 yd par 3. Today it's playing downhill and downwind, so my Miznuno MX-200 4 iron seems just the ticket. Tee markers are up, pins in the front-and if I can't reach I'll just be right below the undefended part of the green. I nutted it, knew I had the distance but it kept pulling left. It lands pin high in a green-side bunker so I've still got a chance. Ball skidded out of the bunker, into the prickly stuff. I could try to play it but it's a bad decision, so I took the unplayable penalty and drop. Now, I'm hitting 3 and chipping towards a tight pin. Hit one of my best chip/flop shots, and they next putt was no more than a gimmie. But it was still a bogey. I only vividly remember one other par on this hole, and I think it was 6 iron, PW, putt-but the odds that I'll try that again next time are low, because, because of golf...

Posted
Maybe people have different experiences than me but while I am all for course management I've never had the need to lay up on a par 3. If the shot is there to be made, I'm giving it a go...

Posted
The greatest ball striker that ever lived(Hogan) layed up on the same par 3, 4 days in a row during a tournament(I think it might have actually been a US Open), and he made par every time.

Play YOUR game, don't play other peoples' game.

Food for thought.

 - Joel

TM M3 10.5 | TM M3 17 | Adams A12 3-4 hybrid | Mizuno JPX 919 Tour 5-PW

Vokey 50/54/60 | Odyssey Stroke Lab 7s | Bridgestone Tour B XS

Home Courses - Willow Run & Bakker Crossing

 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Depends on the hole as well.

hole 5 were i play is a long par 3, the back tees range from 175 to 205. Its a very thing green front to back, with water taking up 75% of the front, and it slops towards the front. Not to mention left is death because just some 5-10 yards left is a severe drop off with high grass.

If the pin is up front left, i will try to hit it to the back of the green, take water out of play and everything just rolls to that spot anyway on putts.
If its middle or back, i just aim for the middle right of the green.

But laying up, i never done that, never met a par 3 that required it.

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
I've actually never even considered this... It makes a TON of sense to a high handicapper like myself though. It is more along the lines of just playing the safe shot even if that means adding a stroke could save you from adding a couple extra...

The funny thing is I bet your are way more likely to see a low capper try this then a high handicapper.

Driver R7 Superquad NV 55 shaft or Bridgestone J33 460 NV 75 shaft
3 and 5 Wood X
Hybrid original Fli Hi 21* or FT 22*
Irons AP2
Wedges Vokey 52* - 8 , 56* 14, 60*-7Putter California CoranodoBall TP RedGPS NeoRange Finder- Bushnell Tour V2 When Chuck Norris puts spin on the ball, the ball does not...

Posted
No.

I lay up on all par 5's (unless i'm striking the ball really well).

I'll give the par 3's a go, I'll only be slightly off and I can chip on and make a bogey at worst

My Clubs
Driver - LV4 10* R flex
Wood - sam snead persimmon 2 wood (for windy days)
Hybrid burner tour launch 20* stiff flex.
Irons - Tour Mode 3i,4i stiffIrons - FP's 5-PW R-flexWedge - spin milled 54.14Wedge - spin milled 60.07Putter - Victoria Lowest round 2010: 79 (par 70)Latest rounds at...


Posted
On the high school team our home course had a downhill 220ish yard par 3 with water short left, huge dropoffs left and over the green, trees right, and bunkers short right. For me the best way to make a par was to take one less club and do anything possible not to hit it left. Best case scenario I was 20 yard short of the green or I got it to run up close to the front. The only other possibility was to hit hybrid and just hope it didn't go over the green because if it did there was no way to find the ball.

So I guess not laying up so much as purposely missing the green short.

I think in over 50 rounds there I maybe made par 5 times. Bogey was a great score there and usually at least tied the hole in match play.

In my bag:

Driver: Titleist TSi3 | 15º 3-Wood: Ping G410 | 17º 2-Hybrid: Ping G410 | 19º 3-Iron: TaylorMade GAPR Lo |4-PW Irons: Nike VR Pro Combo | 54º SW, 60º LW: Titleist Vokey SM8 | Putter: Odyssey Toulon Las Vegas H7

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
On the high school team our home course had a downhill 220ish yard par 3 with water short left, huge dropoffs left and over the green, trees right, and bunkers short right. For me the best way to make a par was to take one less club and do anything possible not to hit it left. Best case scenario I was 20 yard short of the green or I got it to run up close to the front. The only other possibility was to hit hybrid and just hope it didn't go over the green because if it did there was no way to find the ball.

The 5th at Hopkinton Country Club? I can see it in my head. Bitch of a hole.

Stretch.

"In the process of trial and error, our failed attempts are meant to destroy arrogance and provoke humility." -- Master Jin Kwon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
I may have done it at a higher handicap, but at 13, I'm supposed to shoot par on a lot of par 3s.

Ogio Grom | Callaway X Hot Pro | Callaway X-Utility 3i | Mizuno MX-700 23º | Titleist Vokey SM 52.08, 58.12 | Mizuno MX-700 15º | Titleist 910 D2 9,5º | Scotty Cameron Newport 2 | Titleist Pro V1x and Taylormade Penta | Leupold GX-1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 4848 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • For me that is all details, and the real telling point is this: In none of Jack's majors were substantially all of the top players in the world in the field In every one of Tiger's majors, substantially all of the top players in the world were in the field
    • This is one of the cleanest, least emotional ways to separate the Nicklaus–Tiger debate, because international participation is a direct proxy for field depth. Not vibes. Not nostalgia. Talent supply. Below is a tight, historically grounded explanation of how field strength changed — with special emphasis on how many non-U.S. players were actually in PGA TOUR fields, and what that means competitively for Jack Nicklaus vs Tiger Woods. 1. Why international share = field strength (conceptually) The PGA TOUR doesn’t draft players. It selects talent from a global labor market. So: more international players in the field from more countries who earned access through competitive tours → means a deeper, harder field, even if total field size stays the same. International share isn’t cosmetic — it’s how globalization enters the win-probability math. 2. Nicklaus era (roughly mid-1960s to early-1980s) International presence in PGA TOUR fields ~2–5% of players in a typical PGA TOUR field Often 5–8 non-U.S. players in a 140-player event Many weeks: fewer than five Who those internationals were Gary Player occasional Europeans (Seve later, Woosnam briefly) a handful of Australians or South Africans Crucially: They were elite imports, not a broad middle class. What that means for field strength The top of the field was excellent The middle and bottom were shallow After ~10–12 legitimate contenders, win equity dropped sharply This is why Nicklaus: contended constantly piled up runner-ups remained relevant for decades The field simply didn’t replenish elite threats fast enough. 3. Transition era (late-1980s to early-1990s) This is the inflection point. Structural changes Official World Golf Ranking (post-1986) European Tour becomes a true pipeline Easier travel, better incentives to cross over International share ~8–12% of PGA TOUR fields Now 15–20 non-U.S. players per event Importantly: not just stars, but solid Tour-caliber pros This is when field strength begins to compound. 4. Tiger Woods era (late-1990s through early-2010s peak) International presence explodes ~25–35% of PGA TOUR fields Often 40–55 international players in a 156-man field Representing Europe, Australia, South Africa, Asia, Latin America This is not just more flags — it’s more win equity. Why this matters competitively The median player is better The gap between #1 and #40 shrinks Every round is contested by professionals who already won elsewhere This is what people mean by “deep fields.” 5. Side-by-side comparison (simplified but accurate) Era Intl % of.    Field Intl Players       Event Competitive Meaning Nicklaus prime ~2–5% ~5–8 Elite top, thin middle Early transition ~8–12% ~15–20 Talent thickens Tiger prime ~25–35% ~40–55 Deep, global, relentless This is a 5–7× increase in international representation from Jack’s prime to Tiger’s peak. 6. Why international % matters more than field size A 140-player field with: 8 internationals vs 50 internationals are not the same tournament, even if the entry list length is identical. More internationals means: more elite tours feeding the field more players already proven winners fewer “free” spots for the elite to separate easily This is why win probability collapses in modern golf. 7. The GOAT implication (this is the hinge) Nicklaus Beat great players But usually beat fewer elite players at once Field difficulty was top-heavy, not dense Tiger Beat great players and dozens of near-elite professionals simultaneously Field difficulty was both tall and wide Tiger’s environment: lowers win probability increases variance punishes even small declines Yet Tiger still won 22.8% of PGA TOUR starts. That’s the paradox — and the argument. 8. Why this doesn’t “discredit” Nicklaus Jack dominated his environment as well as anyone ever could. But environments matter. If you translate achievements across eras: Jack’s career length looks more impressive Tiger’s per-start dominance looks more impressive International depth is the biggest reason why. Final synthesis International share of PGA TOUR fields increased ~5–7× from Nicklaus’ prime to Tiger’s peak That increase directly correlates with field depth and difficulty Tiger won more often, by larger margins, against deeper global fields So when people say: This is what they mean — not emotionally, not rhetorically, but structurally. Below is a by-era breakdown of: International share of PGA TOUR fields International share of PGA TOUR wins Win-efficiency ratio = Win share ÷ Field share All wins counted (not unique winners). “International” = non-U.S. citizenship. This framework maps directly onto the GOAT debate between Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods. International Win Share vs. Field Share by Era Era Intl % of Field   Intl % of Wins   Win Efficiency 1965–1974 (early Nicklaus) ~2–3%        ~4–6%      ~1.8–2.0× 1975–1984 (Nicklaus prime) ~3–5%       ~7–10%      ~1.8–2.3× 1985–1994 (transition) ~8–12%     ~15–22%      ~1.8–2.0× 1995–2004 (Tiger ascent/peak) ~20–25%     ~30–35%      ~1.3–1.5× 2005–2014 (Tiger era, global maturity) ~25–30%     ~35–40%      ~1.3–1.4× 2015–2025 (post-Tiger peak) ~30–35%.            ~40–45%.      ~1.25–1.35×
    • If you explicitly adjust for field strength, the Tiger–Jack debate sharpens fast — because once you weight who was in the field and how good they were, raw major counts stop being the right currency. Below is the cleanest field-strength–adjusted framework, followed by what it implies for Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus. 1. What “field strength–adjusted” actually means (no hand-waving) A serious adjustment has four components: A. Field depth How many players in the field were legitimate win threats Measured by: OWGR equivalents, historical win rates, career major contention frequency B. Field breadth How global the field was How many tours fed elite players into the event C. Win concentration How many wins a small elite captured (A win in a top-heavy field is harder than a win in a flat field) D. Margin vs. field Separation from average competitor, not just second place This is exactly how WAR-style logic works in baseball — just translated to golf. 2. Era-level field strength comparison (baseline) Think of this as “average major field difficulty”, indexed to Tiger’s peak era = 1.00. Era Relative Field Strength Early 1960s ~0.55 Late 1960s ~0.65 1970s ~0.70 Early 1980s ~0.75 Late 1980s ~0.85 1997–2008 1.00 2009–2015 ~0.95 Modern (post-2015) ~1.00–1.05 This is not controversial among historians: Global pipelines Full-time professionalism Equipment & training parity all peak in Tiger’s era. 3. Field-strength–adjusted major wins Now apply that adjustment. Raw majors Nicklaus: 18 Tiger: 15 Adjusted majors (conceptual but grounded) If you weight each major by relative field strength at the time: Nicklaus’s 18 majors ≈ 12–14 Tiger-era equivalents Tiger’s 15 majors ≈ 15–16 Tiger-era equivalents So once you normalize: And that’s before accounting for Tiger’s injuries. 4. Runner-ups and “lost wins” matter even more This is where the gap widens. Nicklaus 19 major runner-ups Many in shallower, U.S.-centric fields Variance was higher → more “near misses” Tiger Only 7 runner-ups But competed in denser elite fields Win suppression effect removed variance — fewer second places because he either won or wasn’t close If you convert: top-3s strokes behind winner field quality Tiger gains more “near-win value” per attempt than Jack. 5. Margin of dominance (this is decisive) Tiger Woods Frequently +2.5 to +3.0 strokes per round vs. field in majors at peak Largest adjusted margins ever recorded Dominance increases as field quality increases (rare!) Jack Nicklaus Elite but narrower margins Won via positioning and closing, not statistical obliteration Dominance less scalable to deeper fields If you run a WAR-style model: 6. A thought experiment that clarifies everything Ask one neutral question: He probably: contends finishes top-10 maybe wins once in a while Now reverse it: He likely: wins multiple times by historic margins and suppresses multiple Hall-of-Fame careers That asymmetry is the field-strength adjustment talking. 7. Why longevity arguments weaken after adjustment Nicklaus’s greatest edge is time. But: longevity is easier in lower-density competitive environments variance produces more chances to contend fewer global elite peers mean fewer weekly threats Tiger’s body broke down because: he pushed athletic ceilings under the most competitive conditions ever Adjusted for environment, Tiger’s shorter peak isn’t a flaw — it’s the cost of dominance. Final, adjusted verdict If you do not adjust for field strength: Nicklaus has the edge (18 > 15) If you do adjust properly: Tiger Woods becomes the GOAT Higher difficulty Higher dominance Higher efficiency per start Higher suppression of elite peers Nicklaus is the greatest career golfer. Tiger is the greatest golfer, period — once you account for who they were actually beating.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.