260 yard par 3

[B of H]

there are some 240+ par 3's that I play and they were the same length when we were using balatas and persimmon heads.  Now they are just 2 or 3 iron holes for most of us and perhaps 4 iron when they are downwind.

I don't think 260 is even remotely a stretch these days for a downhill par 3 at the pga level.

[trackster]

Why not stretch it back to 300 yards then?  That would really make it hard for the golfer who averages 280 off the tee.  Heck why not have a 400 yard par 3 and require a chip in from 120 out to get a birdie. Distance should not make a hole. I would rather see a Tucked top right pin location on this hole with a sloped green towards the front and the water and about a 155 yard shot with OB if you go to far.  Maybe a 12 yard by 12 yard landing area where you would be safe.  There you go.

[deasy55]

We should go back to the old days where par didn't exist and people just tried to play the hole infront of them in the fewest strokes possible. Nobody would be complaining about any hole then

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by iacas

a) It's hot in Atlanta. It's muggy. The ball flies far.

b) They're not going to have it back there if there's any real wind into the tee.

c) It's a 3I or a 4I for most players. Have you never played a par three that required a 3I or 4I? I played two yesterday.

d) Oakmont has a longer hole.

e) The back tee is elevated, and it played at 243 yards or so in 2001. A decade ago. Without the elevation that makes up for a good chunk of the extra 17 yards.

Yeah, David Toms acing the hole wasn't exciting at all. ;-)

In other words, I think it's fine. Call it a par 3.5 if you want - everyone has to play the same set of holes.

Yes, and this is a new tee...

I didn't say what Toms didn't wasn't exciting..I'm just saying that its getting ridiculous that the length of holes on courses these days.  Try a different way of making courses tougher...THATS my point.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by trackster

Why not stretch it back to 300 yards then?  That would really make it hard for the golfer who averages 280 off the tee.  Heck why not have a 400 yard par 3 and require a chip in from 120 out to get a birdie.

Not sure whose specific comment you're responding to, but the answer to your question is, "Because those examples *would* be ridiculous".  260 is not, especially considering the mitigating factors Erik pointed out.

Quote:

Distance should not make a hole.

I don't think that opinion is shared by most golf fans.  Most like to see a variety of easy/difficult/long/short holes. Nothing wrong with having a long hole or two to make things interesting, IMO.

And I'll reiterate what others have said, since I agree with it: The hole we're talking about is a long iron for most tour pros. I play par 3s requiring a long iron or hybrid all the time. Not a big deal.

[tristanhilton85]

I'm fine with 260... It just requires a long iron for the pros; I think at least one par 3 should do that.  Hell, one of the local munis where I am has a 240 yd par 3... now it's completely open and there isn't a single hazard so it's not nearly as daunting as the one at AAC, but still.

This is definitely going to be a tough hole but it could be the one that separates the winner from the rest.  I could see the pin tucked in back right and somebody pulling off a great shot to get at it and get their birdie to take the lead or whatever.  Tough holes and tough situations are where the memorable shots get made.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by trackster

Why not stretch it back to 300 yards then?  That would really make it hard for the golfer who averages 280 off the tee.  Heck why not have a 400 yard par 3 and require a chip in from 120 out to get a birdie.  Distance should not make a hole.

Originally Posted by Paradox

I didn't say what Toms didn't wasn't exciting..I'm just saying that its getting ridiculous that the length of holes on courses these days.  Try a different way of making courses tougher...THATS my point.

Both of you seem to be making the same point.

Thing is... distance is one way to make a hole play differently . So of the (let's make up a number) eight things you can do to make a hole more difficult, an architect will occasionally choose "add some distance."

It's not a big deal. Golf is a sport, so why not give some advantage or ask that a player not only be accurate but be able to hit the ball far occasionally? Goodness, the "absolutism" the both of you show is unsettling. The pros played the par 3 at Oakmont just fine and it was 40 yards longer (and not as much downhill). It's a long iron. I like seeing pros hit long irons because they rarely have to hit them on the par fours.

[newtogolf]

The course I play has a Par 3 230 yards.  The only clubs I can hit that distance are are 3w and driver, so it's usually at best a bogey or double bogey hole for me.  Pro's shouldn't have much of a problem with 260, since most can still hit an iron to reach it and get up and down a lot better than I do.  There might not be many birdies but most should hit par.

[trackster]

I early said that distance is a "cheap" non creative way to make a hole harder.  They did a story like this on an ABC  golf show where they called it "Tiger Proofing" a golf course.  Which pretty much meant adding 40 to 50 yards to every hole.  They went on to say that as they make courses longer players just start to hit it longer, and they said it is reflecting onto junior players as well.  I'm all for long iron par threes, but in that hole in one video the guy was playing a 5 wood, and that tee box was some 30 yards closer.  Sure the big hitters will play 3 or 4 irons but some players will have to play 3 wood or even driver if it is windy and that tee box is chosen for the round.

As for "Tiger Proofing" a course it is evident all over.  I was just checking out "The Pines" today because it has a course rating of 80 and I wanted to check it out.  They have a tee box called "TIGER".

I think golf architects take someone shooting under par at their course as an insult.  They would much rather have the winning score be over par.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by trackster

I'm all for long iron par threes, but in that hole in one video the guy was playing a 5 wood, and that tee box was some 30 yards closer.  Sure the big hitters will play 3 or 4 irons but some players will have to play 3 wood or even driver if it is windy and that tee box is chosen for the round.

It was 17 yards closer, and David Toms is a short hitter.

And again, they won't play the hole at 260 if there's wind against forecast for that day.

And even if they're a really short hitter and the tees are moved up and it's really windy, so what if they have to hit a 3-wood? It's a par 3.5. Big deal.

[CuppedTin]

I think a 260 yard par 3 is great for the tour. Golf is an athletic sport and every golfer on tour is capable of hitting at least one club in their bag 260 yards. And I feel that being an athletic sport, it should benefit the best, the most elite hitters in the game... I think 8,000 yards is a number that is not far away...

[xxsoultonesxx]

Holes like a 260+ yard par 3 do nothing but make the game more exciting IMO...Think about the excellent shots you might see. Stuffing it close on a 150 yard par 3 is cool, but scaring the hole from over 250 is a sight to behold.

[Zeph]

I have to hit 5 wood into some par 3s, so why not. As long as most of them will hit a long iron or hybrid, I'm OK with it. The shorter hitters are already hitting longer clubs than the rest into long par 4s. It did look a bit silly when some women were hitting driver on the par 3s at the British Open, but I suppose there are larger gaps between the players there. Some of them barely get the driver over 200 yards. They still found the green though. Erik also makes a good point about elevation, temperature, elevation, wind etc., which can quickly take off 20-30 yards.

[Leftygolfer]

I like it.  Why not make a hole where par is a great score.  These guys aren't you and I.  They hit it long (and usually pretty straight) every swing.  They are freaks, test them.

[Wallstreet]

I don't really get the problem with this hole.  Yes, for an amateur player this might be a little ridiculous.  But for a PGA pro this is nothing special.  You might see these guys hit a 5 iron 210 but if they want to get after it they can hit it 230.  So 260 is not out of the realm for a lot of tour players.  It is a par 3.  So putting 1 million sand traps around a 170 yard par 4 isn't going to do much when they put it on the green.  I see nothing wrong with a 260 yard par 3.  I think it would be cool to "try" and par the hole.....or bogey it....

[Chilli Dipper]

It's a 5-wood, people. The hazard to the right of the green is not a forced carry, and there's plenty of room to bail out on the left or play a run-up shot from the front edge. I fail to see why the 15th hole would prompt any sort of controversy at all.

[jamo]

260? Not something I'd want to play everyday, for for the pros, it shouldn't be a big deal. I've actually played a few 250 yarders. If me and the rest of the players at Leo J. Martin Memorial muni can handle it, I'm sure they can.

[Paradox]

I reiterate that its not THIS hole in particular that I think is ridiculous...I just think that the length that some holes are becoming is getting to be ridiculous...Whats next..a 600 yard par 4?  A 700 yard par 5?  The thing that gets me about the increased distance is that they give the pro's these large fairways to hit into and never seem to narrow them down.  Give them a 15 yard fairway with deep rough on either side and see how hard that is.  Keep fairways soft so they don't get 50 yards of roll-out.  Move trees closer to the edges of fairways so that players will have to bail out if they miss the fairway.  Thats the kind of thing I find interesting..precision..not pounding the ball a long way.