Should Courses have more 3.5 par holes?

[DeadMan]

Like with anything in golf course design, it all depends on the execution. At my home course, there's a par 4 that is driveable, but it's not really a risk/reward shot. There is very little danger in trying to drive the green on that hole, so it makes it pretty easy. Which is fine, but it's not the classic risk/reward like you'd expect.

Similarly, there's nothing worse than a really tough, long par 3. I don't really have a problem with long or tough par 3s, but when you're trying to hit a 220 yard shot into a narrow green with trouble on both sides, it's over-the-top frustrating for the amateur golfer. Holes where double bogey is not a bad score are holes I tend to hate.

[newtogolf]

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.

This is in line with what I thought.  Requiring high cappers to hit driver or 3w into a long par 3 is a disaster for the players and pace of play.

[saevel25]

This is in line with what I thought.  Requiring high cappers to hit driver or 3w into a long par 3 is a disaster for the players and pace of play.

I always thought that there should be one par 3 that required short iron, the rest should be mid-irons. If you have two short par 3's then one can be a long iron. A par 3 should never require a 3-wood or driver to hit into. I know in some rare instances you have a senior that has to hit driver. It should never be designed for majority of people to hit 3-wood or driver.

[Dave2512]

I don't see any consistency in par 3 length at the courses I play most. At least not from the tees I play.

#1 total yards 6600 has four par 3's 148-132-190-169 on the card. The shorter holes play downhill here.

#2 total yards 6500 has five par 3's 179-155-210-160-186 on the card. The shorter holes uphill here.

[mdl]

I agree with @Dave2512 es already have holes like this.  Some short (sometimes driveable) par 4s, some longer par 4s, some long par 3s, and some shorter (reachable for some) par 5s.  Between all those it seems like you test clubs through the bag already.

[Dave2512]

Honestly I don't get the all the clubs in the bag thing. That is a moving target based on how well or poorly you strike the ball on any given day with some luck tossed in. My goal is to never use anything longer than a 6 iron or so unless it's on the tee box of a par 3. If I am faced with grabbing a 5 iron or 4 hybrid I don't think yippee I get to use all my clubs I am trying to figure out a way not to blow it up because I just hit a very poor drive.

Though I do hit a lot of longer clubs but less than 3 wood on short par 4's. On our par 4's 333 and 292 I hit 5 iron from the tee most days unless I am having an exceptional (for me) driver day. Either way in three years playing that course not once have I ever seen anyone drive the greens. If they do chalk up to happenstance that their best drive of the day cam on that hole because most others were mediocre at best. The 333 holes has a bunker about 220 out with a lateral directly right of that. I see a lot of golfers in both that waited for the green to clear.

I get why architects design holes like this. They are there to make golfers think. But IMO it's more of a very good player dilemma. For most it's more risk than reward because they lack the consistency to hit that great shot on command. That's why I see these holes as time wasters. They only trick the lesser skilled into thinking they can hit that great shot.

[WUTiger]

At my home course, three of the "short" par 4s can be killers for your round.

For example, No. 11: 290 yards (Blues). OB + bunkers left / lake on right. Shallow, elevated offset green surrounded by five bunkers (think No. 7 at Augusta National). I would gladly take a 5 here, but playing safe is no guarantee of a bogie.

Some golf architects have a "calculus" for how they arrange a course. The Foulis brothers, who build dozens of courses in the Midwest in the early 1900s, had this guideline for each nine: 3 hard, 3 moderate and 3 easy holes.

A good, short par 4 doesn't have to be drivable. I think the average golfer will do better on a nine with two shorter par 4s, maybe 310 to 330 long, rather than a single drivable hole (unless it's just plain unprotected)

[WUTiger]

This is in line with what I thought.  Requiring high cappers to hit driver or 3w into a long par 3 is a disaster for the players and pace of play.

Hitting a 3W into a par 3 is not a disaster, if the architect isn't too sinister.

A local golf course has a par 3 that's 215 from the whites, 226 from the blues. Green has bunkers on the right front and left side, but you can lay up short left and have a good chance of getting up and down.

Also, a good draw aimed at the right trap will sometimes bounce on.

Worst scenario: The course converts a short, tight par 4 into a long par 3.

[newtogolf]

Hitting a 3W into a par 3 is not a disaster, if the architect isn't too sinister.

A local golf course has a par 3 that's 215 from the whites, 226 from the blues. Green has bunkers on the right front and left side, but you can lay up short left and have a good chance of getting up and down.

Also, a good draw aimed at the right trap will sometimes bounce on.

Worst scenario: The course converts a short, tight par 4 into a long par 3.

I haven't played golf as long as you but I've never seen someone intentionally lay up on a long par 3.  I did it once, the hole played 220, which at the time was a good drive for me (assuming I hit it straight).  I opted to hit hybrid and left myself about 60 yards which was a perfect distance for my 60* wedge.  I ended up bogeying the hole but the rest of my foursome blasted driver and 3W after questioning my manhood and presence of my testicles.

No one scored better than bogey, in fact 2 ended up taking 5 for the hole and picking up because their drives went OB but that didn't prevent them from reinforcing to me that "no one lays up on a par 3".

[Dave2512]

I am going to start laying up on our 210-220 yard par 3 in men's league to prevent double. I'll take my chances getting up and down from in front of the green instead of risking a long bunker shot or recovery from the calf deep native areas to the sides of the green. Par 3's are hard.

[WUTiger]

NewToGolf,

A veteran amateur golfer down in Oklahoma once told me how he played a tough par 3 at the old Trans-Mississippi Open.

He said the hole was 210 yards long, had a shallow green with lagoon front and right side, and uphill-swept bunkers behind the green. (You would get a downhill bunker shot with water in back.) During a practice round, a greenskeeper rolled by and suggested he hit a 5 iron into the short rough to the right of the lagoon. Then, he could hit a chip shot up the long axis of the fairly flat green to save par.

The guy said he did this lay-up during the tournament, and had an up-and-down par all four days. (He didn't win, but more than half the field got bogey or worse whenever they played the hole).

As for your lay-up, you beat two of the swing-away guys. Don't let them punish you for out-thinking them.

[MSchott]

Honestly I don't get the all the clubs in the bag thing. That is a moving target based on how well or poorly you strike the ball on any given day with some luck tossed in. My goal is to never use anything longer than a 6 iron or so unless it's on the tee box of a par 3. If I am faced with grabbing a 5 iron or 4 hybrid I don't think yippee I get to use all my clubs I am trying to figure out a way not to blow it up because I just hit a very poor drive.

Though I do hit a lot of longer clubs but less than 3 wood on short par 4's. On our par 4's 333 and 292 I hit 5 iron from the tee most days unless I am having an exceptional (for me) driver day. Either way in three years playing that course not once have I ever seen anyone drive the greens. If they do chalk up to happenstance that their best drive of the day cam on that hole because most others were mediocre at best. The 333 holes has a bunker about 220 out with a lateral directly right of that. I see a lot of golfers in both that waited for the green to clear.

I get why architects design holes like this. They are there to make golfers think. But IMO it's more of a very good player dilemma. For most it's more risk than reward because they lack the consistency to hit that great shot on command. That's why I see these holes as time wasters. They only trick the lesser skilled into thinking they can hit that great shot.

This. Short par 4's are about strategy and options. Choose to try to drive the green and take a risk or lay up and have a risky approach. We always cite Riviera 10 but as Erik points out that hole is now hard to par. But that's because of how the club has modified the hole. A good short par 4 IMO should reward either a great drive or a well placed lay up. It should also not be penal, as in having to carry a pond. That's poor architecture and a lazy architect.