|
Post by tgc7026 on Nov 16, 2020 0:01:18 GMT -5
What does everyone think of a very short par 3? Like a 70-90 yard hole. Would it affect the courses approval rating.
|
|
|
Post by hallzballz6908 on Nov 16, 2020 0:43:50 GMT -5
What does everyone think of a very short par 3? Like a 70-90 yard hole. Would it affect the courses approval rating. I think it should at least be a full swing lob wedge.
|
|
|
Post by tpetro on Nov 16, 2020 0:46:51 GMT -5
As a reviewer, this wouldn’t affect rating unless it’s ridiculous. I’d say anything below 80 is questionable but it’s all about how it plays. if you’re giving me a 90 yard par 3 with a flat, circular green, you’re doing it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Nov 16, 2020 12:52:41 GMT -5
Check the 9th at O Say Country Club for the best sub-100 yard par three I've seen. Generally, I'd still be going for 100-120 for a short par three though - below that tends to feel gimmicky to me. Wouldn't be a reason to not approve a course on its own though.
|
|
|
Post by virtualgolfer65 on Nov 16, 2020 14:54:55 GMT -5
Same as mist very other hole, as the way shape the green and the shot in, to reward precision and punish lack of it. This becomes even more import as the length of shot reduces the sweet spot landing requirement. See the following for more on shirt holes and look them up to see how they were designed. www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/gallery/photos-short-par-3s/amp
|
|
|
Post by SteelVike on Nov 18, 2020 12:45:10 GMT -5
For the game, I wouldn't go below 100. My personal preference when designing is no less than 120. If you do go below 150, you have to make it up by increasing the slope of the green and surrounding hazards.
|
|
|
Post by mvpmanatee on Nov 19, 2020 9:57:20 GMT -5
For the game, I wouldn't go below 100. My personal preference when designing is no less than 120. If you do go below 150, you have to make it up by increasing the slope of the green and surrounding hazards. My personal preference is to disagree on the "you have to" make it more difficult the shorter it is. Just because the "par" is 3 doesn't mean 3 has to be an acceptable score. A very easy 100 yard hole on the back 9 of a tournament course could inspire more fear in contenders than any other hole, as they will know that par is a lost shot on most of the others, and that 1 shot can easily provide to be the difference at the end of the day. My mentality is that less "you have to"s in golf makes the game more fun.
|
|
|
Post by SteelVike on Nov 19, 2020 10:05:46 GMT -5
For the game, I wouldn't go below 100. My personal preference when designing is no less than 120. If you do go below 150, you have to make it up by increasing the slope of the green and surrounding hazards. My personal preference is to disagree on the "you have to" make it more difficult the shorter it is. Just because the "par" is 3 doesn't mean 3 has to be an acceptable score. A very easy 100 yard hole on the back 9 of a tournament course could inspire more fear in contenders than any other hole, as they will know that par is a lost shot on most of the others, and that 1 shot can easily provide to be the difference at the end of the day. My mentality is that less "you have to"s in golf makes the game more fun. I will agree that you don't have to, but it is recommended for balance. This video by b101 offers great insight behind the strategy in building a short par 3.
|
|
|
Post by mvpmanatee on Nov 19, 2020 10:55:09 GMT -5
My personal preference is to disagree on the "you have to" make it more difficult the shorter it is. Just because the "par" is 3 doesn't mean 3 has to be an acceptable score. A very easy 100 yard hole on the back 9 of a tournament course could inspire more fear in contenders than any other hole, as they will know that par is a lost shot on most of the others, and that 1 shot can easily provide to be the difference at the end of the day. My mentality is that less "you have to"s in golf makes the game more fun. I will agree that you don't have to, but it is recommended for balance. This video by b101 offers great insight behind the strategy in building a short par 3. Yes I have seen all of Ben's amazing videos, and one thing I would like to quote him on is "Don't relentlessly protect par. It shouldn't be an auto-birdie but it should be a good opportunity" (13:44). What I took away from this, and what I still do now, is that making a birdie can be a common thing. Allowing players to attack the pin can be something that a short par 3 can allow, and if you don't make that birdie, you feel like you are losing a shot on the field. I don't necessarily say that every short par 3 should have this quality, I don't even think that most should, but I do believe it is something that short par 3s can have. I just wanted to state an opposing opinion to "you have to protect the pin" like you originally suggested. I do have my share of short par 3s surrounded in hazards and internal contours that make it difficult. For the record, I always loved the 15th hole at Spyglass Hill for this reason. It is like 115 yards, 25 feet downhill, and while there is a lake in the front right and some shallow bunkers long, it's a pretty big flat green on a course with tiny cantered greens. I watched it a few big Northern California Am tournaments when I was younger and almost every player gives the hole a scare from the tee, but in the final round I saw a few players hit their worst shot of the day, and I believe they only did that because they all step up to the tee thinking "I need birdie or I won't win".
|
|
|
Post by SteelVike on Nov 19, 2020 11:12:22 GMT -5
I will agree that you don't have to, but it is recommended for balance. This video by b101 offers great insight behind the strategy in building a short par 3. Yes I have seen all of Ben's amazing videos, and one thing I would like to quote him on is "Don't relentlessly protect par. It shouldn't be an auto-birdie but it should be a good opportunity" (13:44). What I took away from this, and what I still do now, is that making a birdie can be a common thing. Allowing players to attack the pin can be something that a short par 3 can allow, and if you don't make that birdie, you feel like you are losing a shot on the field. I don't necessarily say that every short par 3 should have this quality, I don't even think that most should, but I do believe it is something that short par 3s can have. I just wanted to state an opposing opinion to "you have to protect the pin" like you originally suggested. I do have my share of short par 3s surrounded in hazards and internal contours that make it difficult. For the record, I always loved the 15th hole at Spyglass Hill for this reason. It is like 115 yards, 25 feet downhill, and while there is a lake in the front right and some shallow bunkers long, it's a pretty big flat green on a course with tiny cantered greens. I watched it a few big Northern California Am tournaments when I was younger and almost every player gives the hole a scare from the tee, but in the final round I saw a few players hit their worst shot of the day, and I believe they only did that because they all step up to the tee thinking "I need birdie or I won't win". I agree with you 100%. I guess in my original quote I should have stated it as more of a recommendation than something that you have to do. It all comes down to how your route your holes. If you have a few holes before that short par 3 that are difficult, it totally makes sense to ease up and make it a scoreable hole where players think that they must make birdie. On the other hand, if the holes before are scoreable holes, like a driveable par 4 then an easily reachable par 5, it would make sense to up the difficulty around the green to balance out the shortness of the hole.
|
|
|
Post by mvpmanatee on Nov 19, 2020 16:12:17 GMT -5
Yes I have seen all of Ben's amazing videos, and one thing I would like to quote him on is "Don't relentlessly protect par. It shouldn't be an auto-birdie but it should be a good opportunity" (13:44). What I took away from this, and what I still do now, is that making a birdie can be a common thing. Allowing players to attack the pin can be something that a short par 3 can allow, and if you don't make that birdie, you feel like you are losing a shot on the field. I don't necessarily say that every short par 3 should have this quality, I don't even think that most should, but I do believe it is something that short par 3s can have. I just wanted to state an opposing opinion to "you have to protect the pin" like you originally suggested. I do have my share of short par 3s surrounded in hazards and internal contours that make it difficult. For the record, I always loved the 15th hole at Spyglass Hill for this reason. It is like 115 yards, 25 feet downhill, and while there is a lake in the front right and some shallow bunkers long, it's a pretty big flat green on a course with tiny cantered greens. I watched it a few big Northern California Am tournaments when I was younger and almost every player gives the hole a scare from the tee, but in the final round I saw a few players hit their worst shot of the day, and I believe they only did that because they all step up to the tee thinking "I need birdie or I won't win". I agree with you 100%. I guess in my original quote I should have stated it as more of a recommendation than something that you have to do. It all comes down to how your route your holes. If you have a few holes before that short par 3 that are difficult, it totally makes sense to ease up and make it a scoreable hole where players think that they must make birdie. On the other hand, if the holes before are scoreable holes, like a driveable par 4 then an easily reachable par 5, it would make sense to up the difficulty around the green to balance out the shortness of the hole. On my most recent course there is a 5 hole stretch (9-13) where the toughest hole is a 143 yard par 3, and even that hole has not much trouble in comparison to most on the course. I decided that allowing players to go on a birdie run would be great as the next 4 afterwards are all brutes. I guess what I mean is that I love to think that there should never be "restrictions" on when or what to do with a hole, as long as the hole works well, and the hole is fair for all. I love that I created 5 birdie holes in a row, followed by 4 difficult pars! If you like a course with 9 birdie holes in a row, followed by 5 tough pars, because the land allows for it and all are good holes, then why not! My home course has a 3 hole stretch on the back that always play as the 3 toughest holes on the course, back to back to back, and then follows it up with short par 5, short par 3, medium length yet easy par 5. The excitement for me is that I come off the 14th green and know that now is the time to get things going! That idea that pops into my head of "now is the time" is usually why I end up bogeying the easiest par 3 on the course.
|
|
|
Post by mvpmanatee on Nov 19, 2020 16:12:59 GMT -5
Loving the conversation SteelVike this really is what makes our TGC Tours community so special and thank you OP for creating the thread for us.
|
|
|
Post by hallzballz6908 on Nov 21, 2020 23:09:24 GMT -5
SteelVike and mvpmanatee, I like and agree with what you both are saying about short par three design. One thing that I like to do when designing is to set a par value for each hole that goes beyond the standard 3,4,and 5 and expands into partial values. For example, if I have a par 3 hole where I expect to have a reasonable chance at birdie after striking a pure shot, I might assign that hole an actual par value of 2.5 or 2.75. On the other hand, if I have a par 3 where striking a pure shot should give me a reasonable chance to make par, I might assign a par value of 3.5 to that hole. It really helps (at least for me) in managing the “flow” of the golf course. Also, I’ve always kind of felt that aesthetics trump strategy on par 3s anyway. At least IRL, par 3s are realistically the only opportunity designers have to showcase a particularly memorable or beautiful approach as everyone hits from relatively the same spot. So to get back to the topic of the OP, I feel that difficulty, or lack there of, on a short par 3 takes a back seat to the overall aesthetic of the hole. I design them more from the perspective of taking an opportunity to showcase a beautiful approach that might not otherwise always be utilized if the hole were a par 4 or 5 that players have multiple options on where they play their approach from.
|
|