what happened to all the great short par-threes?

[SavvySwede]

What really bothers me about this is that I've seen courses with par 3's that go 180, 190, 215, 200 from the tips yet they only have one par 4 over 400 yards so I'm either hitting a wedge or a long iron into the green. The 7,8, and 9 iron barely get used. Put some of that yardage back into the par 4's and mix up the par 3's a little.

[dave s]

Another thing about par 3 holes is they are usually the lowest hdcp (easiest) holes on the card.  Not always the case of 'short' equals 'easy'.  My league hdcps holes based on league scores.

We have 2 par 3s that are rarely parred.  One plays 165-180 (depending on tee position) over a ravine/waste area and 100% carry to a slightly elevated green. To make things even more difficult, it's shrouded by large old growth oak trees on both sides.  The green is wide left to right but not really deep.  One wide bunker behind, then woods.  I've played this hole during a league round where the 4 of us collectively racked up 22 strokes.  This particular hole is our #2 hdcp hole on the side based on years of actual scoring.

On the other side, we have the par-3 #8 that plays 198-215 due west and into the wind.  On a good day, it's a 5-wood.  I've hit driver there more times than I'd like to admit.  In the past 5 years, I've parred the hole twice.  But because it's a par-3, the card ranks the hole among the easiest on the side.

I'm just guessing that the #1 criteria for how a hole is handicapped on the card (easy to difficult) is based on yardage FIRST and not much else.

dave

[DaveP043]

Quote:

I'm just guessing that the #1 criteria for how a hole is handicapped on the card (easy to difficult) is based on yardage FIRST and not much else.

dave

This is probably the subject for another thread, but I'll add my two cents right here.  The hole handicap isn't necessarily based on hardest or easiest.  The USGA recommends comparing hole-by-hole scoring of two groups of players, one lower handicap and one higher handicap.  The holes with the greatest difference between the two groups should have the lowest handicap ranking, subject to some other considerations.  I can see where a long par 3 would play tough for low-handicap players, but not a lot tougher for high handicappers, so the difference between the two groups wouldn't be too great, consequently earning it a high handicap number (i.e. an "easy" hole).  This is the case at my club, where the number 18 hole is a 205 yard par 3.

another dave

[onthehunt526]

This is probably the subject for another thread, but I'll add my two cents right here.  The hole handicap isn't necessarily based on hardest or easiest.  The USGA recommends comparing hole-by-hole scoring of two groups of players, one lower handicap and one higher handicap.  The holes with the greatest difference between the two groups should have the lowest handicap ranking, subject to some other considerations.  I can see where a long par 3 would play tough for low-handicap players, but not a lot tougher for high handicappers, so the difference between the two groups wouldn't be too great, consequently earning it a high handicap number (i.e. an "easy" hole).  This is the case at my club, where the number 18 hole is a 205 yard par 3.   another dave

I'll buy that it's the difference on low and high handicap players... So you're saying that the reason that par-fives are usually the number 1 handicap, is because they are easier for low handicaps and harder for higher handicaps? What we need is a 98-yard par-3, with a green surrounded by a moat, with two tiny little pot bunkers on either side, with a tiny little 600 sq. ft. green, that slopes away from you... that would be a hard par-three...

[Golfingdad]

I'll buy that it's the difference on low and high handicap players... So you're saying that the reason that par-fives are usually the number 1 handicap, is because they are easier for low handicaps and harder for higher handicaps?

What we need is a 98-yard par-3, with a green surrounded by a moat, with two tiny little pot bunkers on either side, with a tiny little 600 sq. ft. green, that slopes away from you... that would be a hard par-three...

Yup, I believe that @DaveP043 nailed it.  The hole handicaps are there to help allocate strokes during matches, so it stands to reason that the holes most likely to yield the biggest discrepancy between lower and higher handicapped players are the ones where the strokes are going to be doled out.  And I also believe @dave s is basically correct that length is a big (or the biggest) factor there.

[onthehunt526]

We still need that 98-yard par three though

[Lihu]

What we need is a 98-yard par-3, with a green surrounded by a moat, with two tiny little pot bunkers on either side, with a tiny little 600 sq. ft. green, that slopes away from you... that would be a hard par-three...

For me, it would only take a full swing 60 degree, and it usually stops within 3 yards unless the green is steeply sloping away from the tee box. Just have to make sure I don't pull the shot. . .

[onthehunt526]

For me, it would only take a full swing 60 degree, and it usually stops within 3 yards unless the green is steeply sloping away from the tee box. Just have to make sure I don't pull the shot. . .

Yeah because you'll end up in the moat... I wonder what Erik thinks about this theoretical par-three

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

For me, it would only take a full swing 60 degree, and it usually stops within 3 yards unless the green is steeply sloping away from the tee box. Just have to make sure I don't pull the shot. . .

Yeah because you'll end up in the moat... I wonder what Erik thinks about this...

Yeah, the radius is only 4.6 yards. That's pretty tight. You could always "accidentally" bump your opponents off the green. . .

[onthehunt526]

If the green is a perfect circle... ok we can make it 900-1000 sq. ft. but the green slopes away from you at 4.5% grade

[Lihu]

If the green is a perfect circle... ok we can make it 900-1000 sq. ft. but the green slopes away from you at 4.5% grade

Okay, at least you can get a foursome on the green without any potential mishaps.

This is such a diabolical hole. I think it's still worse than TPC Sawgrass 17.

[onthehunt526]

Yeah, the radius is only 4.6 yards. That's pretty tight. You could always "accidentally" bump your opponents off the green. . .:-D

[quote name="Lihu" url="/t/80045/what-happened-to-all-the-great-short-par-threes/30#post_1109064"] Okay, at least you can get a foursome on the green without any potential mishaps. This is such a diabolical hole. I think it's still worse than TPC Sawgrass 17. [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/114881/] [/URL] [/quote] It's diabolical because it's a tiny green, and a perfect shot could end up in the moat... I will throw you guys a bone though, the two sections where the hole locations could be, will be flattened and softened, but each area is only 9 ft in diameter... still pretty Damn hard... you can always bail out over the moat over the green...

[Bechambo]

At my course, The Golf Club at Terra Lago, we have a nice mix of par-3's. North course has a 156, 172, 182 and 232 fromt he tips. South course has a 148, 149, 201, and 231 from the tips. My club selection for the North is 9, 7, 6, 3 iron. South, 9, 9, 6, 3 iron.

[Lihu]

At my course, The Golf Club at Terra Lago, we have a nice mix of par-3's. North course has a 156, 172, 182 and 232 fromt he tips. South course has a 148, 149, 201, and 231 from the tips. My club selection for the North is 9, 7, 6, 3 iron. South, 9, 9, 6, 3 iron. [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/114908/] [/URL]

Sounds really nice. Maybe our summer outing?

[tristanhilton85]

Sounds really nice. Maybe our summer outing?

I don't know if we could get enough people out here to have an "outing" in the summer. Remember it'll be well over 100° by that time. If enough people want to do it though, I can set that up when the time comes.

[Fourputt]

My former home course has par 3 holes ranging from 125 yards to 195 yards, all with very different looks.

This is the 8th hole, it might stretch to 130, but that is with both the tees and the pin back.  It typically plays about 125 from the tips.  Short is bunkered, left is bunkered.  Right are 2 spruce trees, one even with the back edge and the other even with the front.  They are ball magnets.  Long are those mounds which you have to either pitch over or play from an extreme downhill lie.  If you miss left wide of the bunkers, the ground slopes away and your ball usually ends up in the native rough that you can just see on the left side of the photo - it's nearly unplayable there.  The green doesn't look difficult, but it is deceptive - not a lot of putts over 6 - 8 feet made here, and 3 putts are common if you go aggressively at a left middle or left front pin from the back or right side.   The flag you see in the photo is the easiest placement, yet from the front of the green you can be looking at 3 feet of break, even though it looks almost flat.

I think it's an excellent short par 3, yet it really doesn't look like anything special at first glance.  It looks like an easy par from the tee, but I've seen a shocking number of doubles and triples (and worse) on this hole.

[Lihu]

My former home course has par 3 holes ranging from 125 yards to 195 yards, all with very different looks.

This is the 8th hole, it might stretch to 130, but that is with both the tees and the pin back.  It typically plays about 125 from the tips.  Short is bunkered, left is bunkered.  Right are 2 spruce trees, one even with the back edge and the other even with the front.  They are ball magnets.  Long are those mounds which you have to either pitch over or play from an extreme downhill lie.  If you miss left wide of the bunkers, the ground slopes away and your ball usually ends up in the native rough that you can just see on the left side of the photo - it's nearly unplayable there.  The green doesn't look difficult, but it is deceptive - not a lot of putts over 6 - 8 feet made here, and 3 putts are common if you go aggressively at a left middle or left front pin from the back or right side.   The flag you see in the photo is the easiest placement, yet from the front of the green you can be looking at 3 feet of break, even though it looks almost flat.

I think it's an excellent short par 3, yet it really doesn't look like anything special at first glance.  It looks like an easy par from the tee, but I've seen a shocking number of doubles and triples (and worse) on this hole.

Probably from all the 4 putts. That green looks gigantic, and it seems to drop off to the left even more!

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

My former home course has par 3 holes ranging from 125 yards to 195 yards, all with very different looks.

I think it's an excellent short par 3, yet it really doesn't look like anything special at first glance.  It looks like an easy par from the tee, but I've seen a shocking number of doubles and triples (and worse) on this hole.

Probably from all the 4 putts. That green looks gigantic, and it seems to drop off to the left even more!

Actually none of the greens on this course are huge.  And you are right, that there is a sort of shallow collection area to the left front, and everything on the green tends to break in that general direction.   It just never looks like it breaks as much is it does.