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
Originally Posted by nike_golf

I've honestly never even THOUGHT of laying up on a par 3. Maybe it's the young blood in me, but this "strategy" makes NO sense to me. Par 3's are designed for you to be on in one. And since 99% of us aren't playing U.S. Open courses, why are we bringing up ridiculous Par 3's where laying up MIGHT make sense? (Granted, yes, some of you do play some ridiculous Par 3's, but still, MOST of us aren't)

And hey, anything bad can happen on a lot of shots. What's the difference in going for the green on a par three versus shooting a wedge into a green from 120 out w/ a guarded green on a par 4 or 5?

If you lay up, who's to say you make a decent second shot to save par, or even bogey? I can't believe some would play a Par 3 for a bogey and be fine and/or happy w/ it.

I salivate when coming up onto Par 3's. A 160 yard Par 3 w/ a heavily guarded green is just fine w/ me. I, for one, love holes such as those.

Bring it on!

Dredging up an ancient thread here simply because I'd been thinking about this exact same subject.

I play a course with a 185-yard par three.  From the tee box all the way to the green is water on the left, extending about half the width of the hole.  The green is more skinny than wide.  On the front-right is a collection area, but on the far right and long is nasty junk.  Oh, and there's a bunker thrown in for good measure.

I'm a relatively high handicapper.  The last time I played this hole, I blocked my tee shot out to the right, into the junk.  Fortunately, they had just mowed it, so I found my ball (which normally is impossible).  However, now I've got a 30-yard pitch onto a skinny green that slopes away from me to the water.  Naturally, I left the pitch short in fear of knocking it in the water.  I pitched on with my third-shot and 2-putted for my double.

Had I just hit an 8-iron down into the collection area, I would have had a perfect lie, with a perfect angle.  Chances were very high I would at worst chip on and two-putt.  I might have even parred it with a good chip and putt.  Such a good chip would have been much more likely because I would have been coming off a perfect lie, uphill to the hole, with the water not in play.

Now, why is that any different than just going for it and chipping on?  Well, because golf course designers aren't stupid.  If you miss in the right spot, you're OK.  If you miss in the wrong spot, you're dead.  You may well end up with a second shot that has two possible outcomes:  perfection or disaster.  If you lay up, you are dramatically increasing the chances you're going to be in the right spot.

Can you flub a second shot?  Sure you can.  But your chances of badly flubbing a chip are not as high as missing the green in the wrong spot with a 4-iron.  Par 3's are one of the biggest killers of scorecards.  Is that because people are always laying up when they didn't need to?  Heck no.  It's because your wayward tee shot puts you into an impossible position, and you take a double or triple as a result.

I think the right thing for higher-handicap golfers to do is to use the 7/10 rule.  If you don't think you can hit that green with your 4-iron 7 out of 10 times, lay up.  I'd be willing to bet I hit that green less than 50% of the time when I hit my 4-iron.  Why am I doing that to myself?

Should a high handicapper be satisfied with a bogey on a par 3?  Heck yeah!  Take that bogey and run. I'd be willing to bet that if most high-handicappers took bogey on each of the four par-3's on most courses, they'd save themselves somewhere between 2 and 6 strokes a round.

For the lower handicapper who has a much better chance of hitting the green and/or controlling his miss, absolutely, go for it every time.

Now, just in the interest of full disclosure, there's another par 3 on the course which is even longer at about 195, and I go for it every time.  Why?  Because there's nowhere to lay up.  There's water all between the teebox and the hole, so you might as well hit your 195 club and just hope you hit it on.

  • Upvote 1

Posted
Dredging up an ancient thread here simply because I'd been thinking about this exact same subject. I play a course with a 185-yard par three.  From the tee box all the way to the green is water on the left, extending about half the width of the hole.  The green is more skinny than wide.  On the front-right is a collection area, but on the far right and long is nasty junk.  Oh, and there's a bunker thrown in for good measure. I'm a relatively high handicapper.  The last time I played this hole, I blocked my tee shot out to the right, into the junk.  Fortunately, they had just mowed it, so I found my ball (which normally is impossible).  However, now I've got a 30-yard pitch onto a skinny green that slopes away from me to the water.  Naturally, I left the pitch short in fear of knocking it in the water.  I pitched on with my third-shot and 2-putted for my double. Had I just hit an 8-iron down into the collection area, I would have had a perfect lie, with a perfect angle.  Chances were very high I would at worst chip on and two-putt.  I might have even parred it with a good chip and putt.  Such a good chip would have been much more likely because I would have been coming off a perfect lie, uphill to the hole, with the water not in play. Now, why is that any different than just going for it and chipping on?  Well, because golf course designers aren't stupid.  If you miss in the right spot, you're OK.  If you miss in the wrong spot, you're dead.  You may well end up with a second shot that has two possible outcomes:  perfection or disaster.  If you lay up, you are dramatically increasing the chances you're going to be in the right spot. Can you flub a second shot?  Sure you can.  But your chances of badly flubbing a chip are not as high as missing the green in the wrong spot with a 4-iron.  Par 3's are one of the biggest killers of scorecards.  Is that because people are always laying up when they didn't need to?  Heck no.  It's because your wayward tee shot puts you into an impossible position, and you take a double or triple as a result. I think the right thing for higher-handicap golfers to do is to use the 7/10 rule.  If you don't think you can hit that green with your 4-iron 7 out of 10 times, lay up.  I'd be willing to bet I hit that green less than 50% of the time when I hit my 4-iron.  Why am I doing that to myself? Should a high handicapper be satisfied with a bogey on a par 3?  Heck yeah!  Take that bogey and run. I'd be willing to bet that if most high-handicappers took bogey on each of the four par-3's on most courses, they'd save themselves somewhere between 2 and 6 strokes a round. For the lower handicapper who has a much better chance of hitting the green and/or controlling his miss, absolutely, go for it every time. Now, just in the interest of full disclosure, there's another par 3 on the course which is even longer at about 195, and I go for it every time.  Why?  Because there's nowhere to lay up.  There's water all between the teebox and the hole, so you might as well hit your 195 club and just hope you hit it on.

Using your 7 out of 10 rule, I should always lay up outside of 100 yards.

-Matt-

"does it still count as a hit fairway if it is the next one over"

DRIVER-Callaway FTiz__3 WOOD-Nike SQ Dymo 15__HYBRIDS-3,4,5 Adams__IRONS-6-PW Adams__WEDGES-50,55,60 Wilson Harmonized__PUTTER-Odyssey Dual Force Rossie II

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Well I've finally started playing many par 4s with shorter clubs off the tee.  But on par 5s I still almost always hit driver cause I'm capable of hitting the green in two on almost all amateur setup par 5s and am too tempted, and on par 3s I'm too stubborn to just fully lay up.  I will go for the "front of the green" if just right and "a little short" as the slight miss shot if that makes sense, but just fully laying up I've literally never done on a par 3...

Matt

Mid-Weight Heavy Putter
Cleveland Tour Action 60˚
Cleveland CG15 54˚
Nike Vapor Pro Combo, 4i-GW
Titleist 585h 19˚
Tour Edge Exotics XCG 15˚ 3 Wood
Taylormade R7 Quad 9.5˚

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Originally Posted by 14ledo81

Using your 7 out of 10 rule, I should always lay up outside of 100 yards.

While you might miss a green with a 8-iron, you're not tremendously likely to miss badly and put yourself into huge trouble, or at least a lot less likely to do it than you are with a long club.  There's a big difference between pulling your 8-iron left to 10 feet off the green and pulling your 4-iron 30 yards left into the hazard.

If it's not for you, don't do it (and judging by your handicap, it wouldn't be).  I'm not suggesting laying up on a 125-yard par 3.  But when it's 180+ and there appears to be an advantageous position to lay up, it may be the smarter play for the high-handicapper. It's just an experiment I'm going to try.  I predict my scores will drop some as a result.


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

    • Wordle 1,695 3/6* ⬛⬛⬛⬛🟨 🟨⬛⬛🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • 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×
×
×
  • 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.