Par threes

[NiftyNiblick]

This morning, playing a quick nine before having to pick important stuff up at the post office, I figured out why I like par threes more and more as my index creeps up higher and higher.

As a seven or eight capper, par 3s are a tough par. It's like hitting a perfect drive into the middle of a fairway, and still having a four or five iron left to the green.

As an eleven or twelve, they're a very easy bogie. Par threes are the equalizer for very mediocre players such as I am rapidly becoming.

[Pky6471]

This morning, playing a quick nine before having to pick important stuff up at the post office, I figured out why I like par threes more and more as my index creeps up higher and higher.

As a seven or eight capper, par 3s are a tough par. It's like hitting a perfect drive into the middle of a fairway, and still having a four or five iron left to the green.

As an eleven or twelve, they're a very easy bogie. Par threes are the equalizer for very mediocre players such as I am rapidly becoming.

Lerry would tell you to take lessons instead...

[mongrel]

Lerry would tell you to take lessons instead...

After Nifty was finished telling Larry where to insert the books, tapes and driving range pro, Larry would be pretty well stuffed.

[Kiwi Player]

I like par 3s. Shorter holes (7 iron - PW) I expect to par. Longer holes (5 iron - 3 wood) bogie is the most likely outcome.

[Not a hacker]

Par 3s make or break a round. Most of them are like longer approaches than most of the par 4s so if you make pars ypu are pretty happy. But on the other side nifty makes a good point that its like hitting a perfect drive on a par 4 so you feel you should be able to make some birdies on the par 3s. Golf is such a game of contrradictions.

[Fluffy]

par 3's suck....The only good par 3's are over 198yards....

[NiftyNiblick]

par 3's suck....The only good par 3's are over 198yards....

If one is merely expressing an opinion, one might say,

"I personally don't enjoy playing the shorter par 3s. It's not a part of the game that's fun for me."

If one is instead choosing to be disagreeable or annoying, one might say,

"Par 3's suck. The only good par 3's are over 198 yards."

[famousdavis]

I don't like Par 3s. The wait on a par 3 is usually long, it's an iron shot and it's just boring. I think of Par 3s as holes that you just want to get over with and past so that you can start playing real golf again. I don't know why I don't like them but there you go.

[Lord Helmet]

Par 3s tend to kill my rounds. I dont have stats to prove it, but plan to keep better stats in 2012 about this. Have often thought back on rounds and gotten pissed at the doubles I took on 2/4 par3s that day.

If I had only made bogey - would have broken 80.

Not sure what it is....I can be middle of the fairway on a par5, playing my 5-7 iron to layup, and hit a shot right down the chute. Perfect.

Get to the next par 3, pull the same club, and bozo the clown shows up and I pull it, slice it, anything but hit the green, and make double.

Frustrating.

Maybe I should just hit driver 100 yards over the green, wedge it on, and 2 putt for bogey. There ya go.

[Horseballs]

I enjoy par 3's but I'm glad there's only (typically) 4 of them on a golf course. They are great for betting for a variety of reasons, mostly because they are usually high handicap holes where no one is stroking.
At my course, they are definitely tough holes.

[NiftyNiblick]

There's an all par three course in Middletown, Massachusetts that I used to enjoy playing a lot.

Not a pitch and putt course, although I've had fun even playing those. Middleton is (or was--I haven't been there for years) a variety of eighteen full length par threes from 110 to 225 yards, and it was, when I played it, always in immaculate condition. Even the bunkers had nice fluffy sand like at a nice club. An it was a very easy course to walk--fortunate as there was no alternative.

I understand that there's waiting on par three holes, but I've always been very patient that way. I appreciate fast golf because it makes the others in the group happy. Me, if I don't have all day, then I'm probably not at the golf course. Slow play doesn't bother me as much as it probably should.

What does bother me is somebody having the effrontery to hit into me. I've in the past turned into the real "Nifty" when that happened, with effective result. There are some places I can no longer play.

[famousdavis]

There's an all par three course in Middletown, Massachusetts that I used to enjoy playing a lot.

Not a pitch and putt course, although I've had fun even playing those. Middleton is (or was--I haven't been there for years) a variety of eighteen full length par threes from 110 to 225 yards, and it was, when I played it, always in immaculate condition. Even the bunkers had nice fluffy sand like at a nice club. An it was a very easy course to walk--fortunate as there was no alternative.

I understand that there's waiting on par three holes, but I've always been very patient that way. I appreciate fast golf because it makes the others in the group happy. Me, if I don't have all day, then I'm probably not at the golf course. Slow play doesn't bother me as much as it probably should.

What does bother me is somebody having the effrontery to hit into me. I've in the past turned into the real "Nifty" when that happened, with effective result. There are some places I can no longer play.

Later this year I get to play The Country Club during a business trip to Boston. I can't wait.

[NiftyNiblick]

Later this year I get to play The Country Club during a business trip to Boston. I can't wait.

Congratulations. It's awesome. When you see the primrose yellow clubhouse with the green shutters, you feel like you're transferred to 1913.

You won't forget playing at that historic venue. I never will.

[SoonerBS]

I wish that all golf courses had on them were Par 3s and Par 5s. I hate Par 4s.

[Not a hacker]

I wish that all golf courses had on them were Par 3s and Par 5s. I hate Par 4s.

Disagree. I could happily play 18 par 4s. Although it would be a tougher.challenge without the par 5s. Most tournaments come down to how close to par they are on par 3s, and how many under they are on the par 5s for the week. They all shoot pretty much the same on the par 4s, its the 3s and 5s where the winners seperate from the field. At the Masters it all comes to the par 5s. Tiger was probably 15 shots worse on the par 5s this year compared to when he wins. The rest of the holes were probably pretty good for him, but by his standards he stunk up the par 5s.

[Larryrsf]

Lerry would tell you to take lessons instead...

Yep. When a golfer can't hit a teed ball with an iron accurately to a target, he really can't call himself a golfer. He is making serious fundamental mistakes.

SO, learn what they are and then endeavor to make the swing change that is necessary. Do the drills, swing in slow motion, whatever. The root cause of the swing fault is usually in the first few inches of your takeaway- and if not there then further up, certainly in the wrong top position.

This isn't rocket science. If you are smart enough to do nearly any job harder than floor sweeping, you can learn the golf swing. There are guys functioning on the Champion's Tour with IQs in the 60s, ha.

Larry

[Not a hacker]

Yep. When a golfer can't hit a teed ball with an iron accurately to a target, he really can't call himself a golfer. He is making serious fundamental mistakes.

SO, learn what they are and then endeavor to make the swing change that is necessary. Do the drills, swing in slow motion, whatever. The root cause of the swing fault is usually in the first few inches of your takeaway- and if not there then further up, certainly in the wrong top position.

This isn't rocket science. If you are smart enough to do nearly any job harder than floor sweeping, you can learn the golf swing. There are guys functioning on the Champion's Tour with IQs in the 60s, ha.

Larry

It wont surprise anyone that you couldnt be further from the truth Laryy. The only important part of the swing is halfway down to halfway through. 9 oclock to 3 oclock. How you get to 9 oclock is irrelevant. Backswing positions dont mean squat, as long as it gets you into a good 9 oclock to 3 oclock sequence you can take it back any way you like. Look at some of your heroes and see how different their backswings look. No 2 are the same, but the great ball strikers hav a very similar look in the crucial 9 to 3 area. Worrying about backswing positions is nothimg but a distraction. Tempo in the backswing is more important than the first few inches or other positions.

Numb nuts.

[famousdavis]

Disagree. I could happily play 18 par 4s. Although it would be a tougher.challenge without the par 5s. Most tournaments come down to how close to par they are on par 3s, and how many under they are on the par 5s for the week. They all shoot pretty much the same on the par 4s, its the 3s and 5s where the winners seperate from the field. At the Masters it all comes to the par 5s. Tiger was probably 15 shots worse on the par 5s this year compared to when he wins. The rest of the holes were probably pretty good for him, but by his standards he stunk up the par 5s.

One section of Haney's book that I found interesting and believable was hit comments on Tiger searching for more distance. He felt the field was catching up to him in driving distance so he switched to a modern driver.

In his last two US Amateur victories and the first Masters win he used a King Cobra stainless driver with a Dynamic Gold X100 steel shaft at 43.5 inches. He then switched to a Titleist 975D 7.5 with X100 steel shaft. At one point in 2000-2001 he was number one in total driving and something like 3rd in distance...the first real player to ever have a combination of length and accuracy; something that nobody used to think was achievable.

In search of more distance, he switched to a graphite shafted, titanium driver that was longer and lighter.

I think his downfall has been his ego in trying to maintain his driving distance. I could be wrong but it seems like when he hits three wood it's always in the fairway and long. His driver swing is completely different.

[Not a hacker]

One section of Haney's book that I found interesting and believable was hit comments on Tiger searching for more distance. He felt the field was catching up to him in driving distance so he switched to a modern driver.

In his last two US Amateur victories and the first Masters win he used a King Cobra stainless driver with a Dynamic Gold X100 steel shaft at 43.5 inches. He then switched to a Titleist 975D 7.5 with X100 steel shaft. At one point in 2000-2001 he was number one in total driving and something like 3rd in distance...the first real player to ever have a combination of length and accuracy; something that nobody used to think was achievable.

In search of more distance, he switched to a graphite shafted, titanium driver that was longer and lighter.

I think his downfall has been his ego in trying to maintain his driving distance. I could be wrong but it seems like when he hits three wood it's always in the fairway and long. His driver swing is completely different.

You are correct. Tiger was an old school golfer who needed the weight in his driver to swing properly. Lightwieght heads and shafts are for xhoppers, not freaks like Tiger. It's no coincidence tjat he swings much betyer using his old school haevy irons. He needs to feel the weight of the clubhead. I honestly think if he went back to a heavy headed steel shafted driver he wouldnt lose much if any diatance, but his accuracy would improve out of sight.

[NiftyNiblick]

I wish that all golf courses had on them were Par 3s and Par 5s. I hate Par 4s.

I would at least partially agree. A typical par 72 golf course has ten par fours, five on each side.

Most par 70 and 71 courses are that way because they don't have four par 5s. They have only two or three par 5s, still four par 3s, and 11 or 12 par 4s. I don't think that's enough variety. When you have ten or more par fours, they can't all be memorable.

I think the ideal is a par 70 wiith only for par 4s, three par 3s, and two par 5s on each side. Par 3s can run the gamut from pitch and putt length holes with protected microscopic greens to full three and four wood shots. You can have six of them with all of them being quite different.

I suppose not being a fast play freak makes me more tolerant of par threes, but I love the opportunity they provide for variety.

Only eight par 4s allows them to all be different as well.

As for par 5s, I have a very precise concept for them. Each side should have a very short par 5, the pair being almost mirror image doglegs, one each way, that are easily shortened by a good draw and a good fade respectively. Those are the holes where everybody has a good chance at birdie, even short knockers who can't quite reach them in two.

Then the back nine should have a straight par five that's just on the precipice of being reachable for longer hitters, and involves risk for trying.

The front nine should have a monster par five that's a three shotter for just about everybody. Those are course management holes which offer options on both of the first two shots. Let's say the hole is 540 from the white tees. A guy who hits straight and consistent 180 yard five-iron shots can even try to play the hole hitting three of them if he thinks he can do better with that than driver, fairway wood, and wedge.

[A V Twiss]

I can't go along with the view that a par 3 is only good if it is over 198 yards long. Mind you I suspect the poster was possibly being a little tounge in cheek with this post. The best par threes I have played have been around 160-170 with a small greens with penal bunkering. I used to be a member of a club where 3 of the 4 par threes were 210 yards plus. They were rediculous slogs with no design aesthetics whatsoever.

Larry - having watched many hunderes of hours of tournament golf I have seen my fair share of top pros miss a target with a teed up ball. I am pretty sure we would regard these pros as golfers. Hell, they even miss greens with wedges.

[alangbaker]

I can't go along with the view that a par 3 is only good if it is over 198 yards long. Mind you I suspect the poster was possibly being a little tounge in cheek with this post. The best par threes I have played have been around 160-170 with a small greens with penal bunkering. I used to be a member of a club where 3 of the 4 par threes were 210 yards plus. They were rediculous slogs with no design aesthetics whatsoever.

Larry - having watched many hunderes of hours of tournament golf I have seen my fair share of top pros miss a target with a teed up ball. I am pretty sure we would regard these pros as golfers. Hell, they even miss greens with wedges.

Yup.

The most accurate player on the PGA Tour in 2010 was Tim Clark. Now, Tim Clark didn't exactly have length—in fact, he was 184th in driving distance, so he wasn't going for many par 5s in two, which would tend to raise the number of short approach shots he'd be making. So what do you imagine his PGA Tour leading distance from the hole after his approach shot was?

30 feet 2 inches; just over 10 yards.

The very best player on tour in approach shot accuracy averaged 10 yards off the mark, and this year the leader is a little worse at 32' 8".

Even from 100-125 yards, the PGA Tour leader still averages nearly 5 yards off the mark. The worst players on the tour, miss 100-125 yard shots by a full 10 yards!

Kind of makes you wonder why we get so pissed when we're just a few more yards wide, huh?

[oldplayer]

One of our toughest par 3's is only 120 yards. It is perched on a dune and is subject to stong winds. It has a postage stamp elevated green with trouble all around. The difficulty and challenge in any par 3 is more about design than distance.
As for some complaining they don't like par 4's. What!!!..... The game is bigger than modern day recreational players who have weird ideas of how the game can be improved.
It is centuries old and has stood the test of time and contiues to thrive and grow as the greatest game in the world.

[Pky6471]

I like to play well designed 4500 yds executive par-3 courses where I would spend much less time and practice my irons more... unfortunately not too many of them around... I seems to enjoy local range nowadays,,, just a large bucket , my own french coffee , a cigar , resulting a very relaxing 1.5-2.0 hrs

[Kiwi Player]

One of our toughest par 3's is only 120 yards. It is perched on a dune and is subject to stong winds. It has a postage stamp elevated green with trouble all around. The difficulty and challenge in any par 3 is more about design than distance.
As for some complaining they don't like par 4's. What!!!..... The game is bigger than modern day recreational players who have weird ideas of how the game can be improved.
It is centuries old and has stood the test of time and contiues to thrive and grow as the greatest game in the world.

If you don't like par 4s you might as well give up this game. I love par 5s too but par 4s are the bread and butter of this game. If you don't like them then play pitch n putt. How can you not enjoy hitting a drive off the tee and then facing an iron shot from the fairway?
I guess every course has certain holes that you enjoy playing and others that you dread but they could be a par 3, 4 or 5.

[Not a hacker]

Have to agree that I always rate the par 4s highly. In pro tourneys the par5s are considered more exciting cause of the chance of eagle, but imo watching half tje field two putt for bird is a little dull. I much prefer the risk reward ahort par 4s, where eagle or double bogie is equally likely. The opening hole at Royal Sydney is a cracker, less than 300 yards but with trouble everywhere and no real safe route by laying up. Pros have to go for broke and being the first hole it can ruin or set up your round.

[poe4soul]

Disagree. I could happily play 18 par 4s. Although it would be a tougher.challenge without the par 5s. Most tournaments come down to how close to par they are on par 3s, and how many under they are on the par 5s for the week. They all shoot pretty much the same on the par 4s, its the 3s and 5s where the winners seperate from the field. At the Masters it all comes to the par 5s. Tiger was probably 15 shots worse on the par 5s this year compared to when he wins. The rest of the holes were probably pretty good for him, but by his standards he stunk up the par 5s.

You were doing good until this statement. Phil lost the Masters because of the 2 triple's he posted. On Sunday it was on a par 3. He made the statement that you have to be under the hole to make a par or better. Under and off the grand stands wasn't in his plan.

Any hole on a course can be designed to be tough - short or long. I played in a tournament this last weekend that has a 100 yard par 3. The green is a upside down bowl, narrow and 3 clubs long. Miss the green and you better aim for the fattest, flatest part of the green. Hit the chip short and you have the same shot, long same shot. I watched a 11 hc post a 7 on the hole. Some people hate the hole but it's good because it test you.

Part of par 3's is the wait and anticipation. You stand there on the tee, the green is right there. If the hole is designed well you know you have to be accurate or you're in the bunker or in some penal location. That wait mounts the pressure. If you have game and confidence you don't care because you have skill to hit the green or get up and down. If you suck or any part of the your short game is weak you can feel the pressure. Par 4's and 5's are not that way. You only need one, maybe two, good shots of the the 4 or 5 to make par.

I hate courses that throw's away the par 3's. They should be holes you remember. Water, deep bunkers, tough greens, etc to make the hole a challenge. Par 3's and Par 5's make or break a course.

[famousdavis]

Yup.

The most accurate player on the PGA Tour in 2010 was Tim Clark. Now, Tim Clark didn't exactly have length—in fact, he was 184th in driving distance, so he wasn't going for many par 5s in two, which would tend to raise the number of short approach shots he'd be making. So what do you imagine his PGA Tour leading distance from the hole after his approach shot was?

30 feet 2 inches; just over 10 yards.

The very best player on tour in approach shot accuracy averaged 10 yards off the mark, and this year the leader is a little worse at 32' 8".

Even from 100-125 yards, the PGA Tour leader still averages nearly 5 yards off the mark. The worst players on the tour, miss 100-125 yard shots by a full 10 yards!

Kind of makes you wonder why we get so pissed when we're just a few more yards wide, huh?

You left out some pertinent information. The stat you are referring to "approach shot" and Tim Clark's lead with 30 feet 2 inches---approach shot from where? Is that from a distance of 100 to 125 yards out or does that include any approach shot hit to the green from as far out as 250 yards?

If it's a wedge shot from 100 to 125 yards I think 30 feet is a little higher than I thought it would be but not by much. The other day I hit a great wedge shot to a par 5 and I thought it was close to the hole. My putt was probably 20 feet and I considered it a great shot.

[famousdavis]

My favorite golf courses have five Par 5s, five par 3's and the rest Par 4s. I think Par 5s make the game a lot of fun. Also, I think every course should have the following:

A driveable par 4 at around 285 yards where a good drive leaves you just off the green with a pitch and putt for birdie. A wayward drive can lead to double.

A short Par 3 like #12 at Augusta. Not identical of course but with the same idea of absolute accuracy needed.

A Par 5 that is under 500 yards but very penal around the green.

A long Par 3 over 210 yards.

A sharp dogleg Par 4 where you can go over the trees to make it a short pitch, or end up dead in the trees.

A short Par 5, maybe 485 yards, with a lake right in front of the green.

A cart girl that's under 25 and looks great in shorts.

A 19th hole with leather chairs, large LCD screen with Golf Channel, dice cups for settling the tab and little bottles full of peanuts.

[NiftyNiblick]

Pretty much +1. On an FD post. Go figure.

[alangbaker]

You left out some pertinent information. The stat you are referring to "approach shot" and Tim Clark's lead with 30 feet 2 inches---approach shot from where? Is that from a distance of 100 to 125 yards out or does that include any approach shot hit to the green from as far out as 250 yards?

The first figure was for any approach shot...

...something you could have figured out by the fact that the figure for 100-125 yard approaches is different (15 feet).

If it's a wedge shot from 100 to 125 yards I think 30 feet is a little higher than I thought it would be but not by much. The other day I hit a great wedge shot to a par 5 and I thought it was close to the hole. My putt was probably 20 feet and I considered it a great shot.

As my post, said, the leader on tour for 100-125 yard approaches typically averages about 15 feet. The very best guy in the world each year at that averages 15 feet. So yeah: 20 feet is pretty fine. If you could average 20 feet from 100-125, you'd be in the top half on Tour... ...for that stat.

[Larryrsf]

Backswing positions dont mean squat.

If you ever take lessons, you will quickly see that the backswing is everything, the entire focus of the lesson-- because it is where the golf swing is either successful or a failure.

The backswing starts with the first few inches of clubhead movement from setup. If that is wrong, i.e. arms only or hand action, wrists, etc. then there is NO CHANCE for a good swing. So he pro wants to see the clubhead moving straight back and remaining low, indicating a synchronized turn of arms and shoulders.

There is much else of course, dozens of other check points in the backswing that if wrong make it nearly impossible to swing through correctly, but you need to pay the money to hear it yourself from a teaching pro. Take a lesson and learn what others here know.

Larry

[SoonerBS]

You Aussie and NZ boys need to learn to read. I never said the game would be better off without Par 4s, I simply listed my "wish" that all golf courses had Par 5s and Par 3s. I am not submitting a need to change the game. You guys can go back to your Fosters and Kangaroo hash now . . . . .

[Kiwi Player]

That's Kiwi hash you mean also known as Kiweed.

But we understand if your thragina doesn't give you enough length off the tee to make par 4s any fun. Just play the shortknocking game up the middle and play with what you have. That's what the women at my club do and they seem to enjoy their golf. Who cares if you need 3 shots to hit every par 4. Doesn't give seem to bother the ladies. Don't let it bother you.

[oldplayer]

You Aussie and NZ boys need to learn to read. I never said the game would be better off without Par 4s, I simply listed my "wish" that all golf courses had Par 5s and Par 3s. I am not submitting a need to change the game. You guys can go back to your Fosters and Kangaroo hash now . . . . .

Face it Sooner. It was a silly statement and you can't talk your way out of it now.

[SoonerBS]

Lorenzo is right, you can't troll veterans anymore. Oh well, I tried . . . . .

[SDB1]

I have a new found appreciation for par threes since my game has been mostly confined to short courses while accompanying my two children recently. A few things that I have found to increase my chances on par threes.

Never trust the yardage on a par three tee marker or score card. Lazy grounds crews like to place the tee markers wherever they like. The laser is your friend.

Tee the ball right to the ground. Most tee boxes are crap, so you can't play off the turf, but teeing the ball too high can change impact conditions, messing with ball trajectory and lie angle.

Make sure your grooves are clean and sharp! If your grooves are worn out and you are aiming directly at your target it will be dumb luck if you wind up within 5 yards of the direction you are aimed. It is amazing how much wider your dispersion is with worn out or dirty grooves.

Of course, this stuff applies on any approach but short par threes can wear you down if you aren't consistently on target from inside 125 yds.

[NiftyNiblick]

I have more failed sand saves on par threes of five iron length or longer than on any other holes. There's no reason for it, because, unlike the approach shot on a par four, every shot is from a perfect lie on the cup of a fully sunken tee.

I should not hit nearly as many par three sand traps, and I should convert more of my attempts. I'm lucky to convert 20% of them, I'd guess. And that's using a dedicated sand iron that I bag just for the purpose. You should see me with an all-purpose wedge from sand.

Low expectations could be part of the problem. Mere one shot extrication seems like a success because it took me so long to get good at just that.

[Fluffy]

My favorite golf courses have five Par 5s, five par 3's and the rest Par 4s. I think Par 5s make the game a lot of fun. Also, I think every course should have the following:

A driveable par 4 at around 285 yards where a good drive leaves you just off the green with a pitch and putt for birdie. A wayward drive can lead to double.

A short Par 3 like #12 at Augusta. Not identical of course but with the same idea of absolute accuracy needed.

A Par 5 that is under 500 yards but very penal around the green.

A long Par 3 over 210 yards.

A sharp dogleg Par 4 where you can go over the trees to make it a short pitch, or end up dead in the trees.

A short Par 5, maybe 485 yards, with a lake right in front of the green.

A cart girl that's under 25 and looks great in shorts.

A 19th hole with leather chairs, large LCD screen with Golf Channel, dice cups for settling the tab and little bottles full of peanuts.

You forgot a downhill 660yard par5 with a backdrop of the ocean....

[Fluffy]

I can't go along with the view that a par 3 is only good if it is over 198 yards long. Mind you I suspect the poster was possibly being a little tounge in cheek with this post. The best par threes I have played have been around 160-170 with a small greens with penal bunkering. I used to be a member of a club where 3 of the 4 par threes were 210 yards plus. They were rediculous slogs with no design aesthetics whatsoever.

Larry - having watched many hunderes of hours of tournament golf I have seen my fair share of top pros miss a target with a teed up ball. I am pretty sure we would regard these pros as golfers. Hell, they even miss greens with wedges.

The main reason i dont like short par3 and think they are highly unfair towards the longer hitters and lower handicappers is the reason that shortknocking high handicappers can take advantage of this and ANYONE can make par on par3's,especially if you have the "no-worry" mental advantage with a higher handicap.

An easy 1st,then short chip and possible birdie putt, as the guys where talking above look at the amount of close 10feet shots the guys put the balls next to the pin,there are very little, Getting 3 on a par 3 for 3 points is alot easier then getting 3 points for a birdie2 on a par 3. Atleast make par3's the stroke 15s-18s

[SDB1]

The main reason i dont like short par3 and think they are highly unfair towards the longer hitters and lower handicappers is the reason that shortknocking high handicappers can take advantage of this and ANYONE can make par on par3's,especially if you have the "no-worry" mental advantage with a higher handicap.

An easy 1st,then short chip and possible birdie putt, as the guys where talking above look at the amount of close 10feet shots the guys put the balls next to the pin,there are very little, Getting 3 on a par 3 for 3 points is alot easier then getting 3 points for a birdie2 on a par 3. Atleast make par3's the stroke 15s-18s

What?????

[Not a hacker]

Lorenzo is right, you can't troll veterans anymore. Oh well, I tried . . . . .

Tell me about it, you can't even troll newbs these days. I've been giving Tony my best shots on his LPGA threads but so far he has ignored me.

[Not a hacker]

My favorite golf courses have five Par 5s, five par 3's and the rest Par 4s. I think Par 5s make the game a lot of fun. Also, I think every course should have the following:

A driveable par 4 at around 285 yards where a good drive leaves you just off the green with a pitch and putt for birdie. A wayward drive can lead to double.

A short Par 3 like #12 at Augusta. Not identical of course but with the same idea of absolute accuracy needed.

A Par 5 that is under 500 yards but very penal around the green.

A long Par 3 over 210 yards.

A sharp dogleg Par 4 where you can go over the trees to make it a short pitch, or end up dead in the trees.

A short Par 5, maybe 485 yards, with a lake right in front of the green.

A cart girl that's under 25 and looks great in shorts.

A 19th hole with leather chairs, large LCD screen with Golf Channel, dice cups for settling the tab and little bottles full of peanuts.

I would change your dogleg example to one that is reachable with a driver cuting the corner, but running out of room if you miss it straight. Reachable dog legs are the ultimate short par 4 risk/reward holes and every decent course has one. The best hole on my humble course is a shortish dogleg right par 4, about 300 metres with OB left and high trees and a water hazard right all the way along the hole. I can hit a long iron to the left middle without risking OB and leave myself about 120 metres, or I can try to bust a driver around the corner and leave a 20 metre chip to a flat green with no obstacles in front. If you really catch your driver you can make an easy birdie, but there is big trouble right if you try to bite off too much and reload if you go left or straight. Great hole, I look forward to it every time. The only way it could be improved would be if you could reach the green with driver because the risk is so high it deserves a big reward.

[Not a hacker]

The first figure was for any approach shot...

...something you could have figured out by the fact that the figure for 100-125 yard approaches is different (15 feet).



As my post, said, the leader on tour for 100-125 yard approaches typically averages about 15 feet. The very best guy in the world each year at that averages 15 feet. So yeah: 20 feet is pretty fine. If you could average 20 feet from 100-125, you'd be in the top half on Tour... ...for that stat.

One thing you have overlooked Alan is the greens the pros play and the pin positions. Greenskeepers are given the brief at the start of every week to protect par, and the easiest way to do that is to make the greens rock hard and lightning quick, and stick the pins in inaccessable locations. Your are talking 'average' length, but a lot of the time the pros are aiming away from the pins. If you got Tim Clarke at your local muni on a normal day I would guarantee he would be hitting it closer than 15 feet from 125 yards. Any PGA pro would be absloutely shooting down the flag all day from pw distance on a regular course with middle pin locations.

[A V Twiss]

The main reason i dont like short par3 and think they are highly unfair towards the longer hitters and lower handicappers is the reason that shortknocking high handicappers can take advantage of this and ANYONE can make par on par3's,especially if you have the "no-worry" mental advantage with a higher handicap.

An easy 1st,then short chip and possible birdie putt, as the guys where talking above look at the amount of close 10feet shots the guys put the balls next to the pin,there are very little, Getting 3 on a par 3 for 3 points is alot easier then getting 3 points for a birdie2 on a par 3. Atleast make par3's the stroke 15s-18s

If a course is properly balanced then the shorter par 3s will have the highest stroke indices. This is the case at my home course. The flip side of this argument is the medium length par 5 where the low handicapper can either get it on in two or stick it close enough with the 3rd shot to have a realistic chance at birdie. Your high handicapper struggles to get on in 4 to have a chance at bogey. We have such a hole out my home course 485 yeards par 5 stroke index 17

[famousdavis]

One thing you have overlooked Alan is the greens the pros play and the pin positions. Greenskeepers are given the brief at the start of every week to protect par, and the easiest way to do that is to make the greens rock hard and lightning quick, and stick the pins in inaccessable locations. Your are talking 'average' length, but a lot of the time the pros are aiming away from the pins. If you got Tim Clarke at your local muni on a normal day I would guarantee he would be hitting it closer than 15 feet from 125 yards. Any PGA pro would be absloutely shooting down the flag all day from pw distance on a regular course with middle pin locations.

Another thing to point out is that statistics don't really mean that much over the course of a year. Since golf is a game of confidence and feel the only statistics that truly matter are when the player has a good week. I want to know the statistics of the winner or someone in the top 10 for that particular week. That gives you a better feel for what truly matters in golf.

[lorenzoinoc]

Tell me about it, you can't even troll newbs these days. I've been giving Tony my best shots on his LPGA threads but so far he has ignored me.

Besides, we're all friends here. Trolling friends is wrong.

[alangbaker]

One thing you have overlooked Alan is the greens the pros play and the pin positions. Greenskeepers are given the brief at the start of every week to protect par, and the easiest way to do that is to make the greens rock hard and lightning quick, and stick the pins in inaccessable locations. Your are talking 'average' length, but a lot of the time the pros are aiming away from the pins. If you got Tim Clarke at your local muni on a normal day I would guarantee he would be hitting it closer than 15 feet from 125 yards. Any PGA pro would be absloutely shooting down the flag all day from pw distance on a regular course with middle pin locations.

I know they'd be better on a course setup for daily play, NaH (sodium hydride), but typical tour venues aren't really "rock hard" or "lightning quick. And yeah: from 100-125 yards, most tour pros on most normal weekends are firing AT the pin.

[Larryrsf]

It wont surprise anyone that you couldnt be further from the truth Laryy. The only important part of the swing is halfway down to halfway through. 9 oclock to 3 oclock. How you get to 9 oclock is irrelevant. Backswing positions dont mean squat, as long as it gets you into a good 9 oclock to 3 oclock .

Golf instruction is about teaching us to CONSISTENTLY make a good golf swing. And consistency requires that we make little or no handsy compensations or corrections during a swing on plane. So that is what they teach.

So good players can do it over and over again, hit 10 in a row to a target because they have simple swings--with NO conscious compensations.

Accordingly we hear great champions describing their swing feeling, "dead hands" for instance. The "Swing the Clubhead" teaching is to swing the UPPER arms with as little grip pressure as possible, focusing only on the circle the clubhead describes. Such a swing can be messed up primarily by "doing something" with hands before impact, hence their teaching to practice swing with eyes closed and bring that same motion to their real shots.

Returning to Par 3s, this is simply a teed ball hit toward a target. Regardless of distance and with no wind, golfers with a correct swing should cover that pin 10 swings in a row! And if not, realize the problem is swing fundamentals. And the answer is lessons.

Larry

[SDB1]

One thing you have overlooked Alan is the greens the pros play and the pin positions. Greenskeepers are given the brief at the start of every week to protect par, and the easiest way to do that is to make the greens rock hard and lightning quick, and stick the pins in inaccessable locations. Your are talking 'average' length, but a lot of the time the pros are aiming away from the pins. If you got Tim Clarke at your local muni on a normal day I would guarantee he would be hitting it closer than 15 feet from 125 yards. Any PGA pro would be absloutely shooting down the flag all day from pw distance on a regular course with middle pin locations.

Yeah, a good example of this is to look at day one and two tournament scoring and compare the field scoring average to Saturday and Sunday when the greens are dried out and the pins are tucked. Of course, not all tournaments follow this recipe but on those courses you'll see winning scores between 20 and 30 under.

[A V Twiss]

Golf instruction is about teaching us to CONSISTENTLY make a good golf swing. And consistency requires that we make little or no handsy compensations or corrections during a swing on plane. So that is what they teach.

So good players can do it over and over again, hit 10 in a row to a target because they have simple swings--with NO conscious compensations.

Accordingly we hear great champions describing their swing feeling, "dead hands" for instance. The "Swing the Clubhead" teaching is to swing the UPPER arms with as little grip pressure as possible, focusing only on the circle the clubhead describes. Such a swing can be messed up primarily by "doing something" with hands before impact, hence their teaching to practice swing with eyes closed and bring that same motion to their real shots.

Returning to Par 3s, this is simply a teed ball hit toward a target. Regardless of distance and with no wind, golfers with a correct swing should cover that pin 10 swings in a row! And if not, realize the problem is swing fundamentals. And the answer is lessons.

Larry

Not just lessons, but lessons combined with meaningful practice. Harvey Penick was quite correct when he said that you take a lesson to make practice worthwhile.

With regard to par 3s, I would not necessarily agree with your regardless of distance thought. The 240 yard par 3 on my course needs a driver and 10 consistently good drives is a big ask for any golfer.

[SDB1]

Golf instruction is about teaching us to CONSISTENTLY make a good golf swing. And consistency requires that we make little or no handsy compensations or corrections during a swing on plane. So that is what they teach.

So good players can do it over and over again, hit 10 in a row to a target because they have simple swings--with NO conscious compensations.

Accordingly we hear great champions describing their swing feeling, "dead hands" for instance. The "Swing the Clubhead" teaching is to swing the UPPER arms with as little grip pressure as possible, focusing only on the circle the clubhead describes. Such a swing can be messed up primarily by "doing something" with hands before impact, hence their teaching to practice swing with eyes closed and bring that same motion to their real shots.

Returning to Par 3s, this is simply a teed ball hit toward a target. Regardless of distance and with no wind, golfers with a correct swing should cover that pin 10 swings in a row! And if not, realize the problem is swing fundamentals. And the answer is lessons.

Larry

Nonsense! Humans are not robots! There are too many outside variables. It doesn't matter if you know how to swing the club in some "fabled" perfect manner, it will never happen! I don't care how many lessons you take you will not be able to consistently hit perfect shots. The golf swing is about taking in as much data as you can about your lie, your desired target, your surroundings and drawing on past experience in order to try and perform the best shot for that given situation. Lessons will not give you the experience or instinct needed to deal with these variables when needed.

Some of the best players of all time also had some of the best hands of all time. The fact is that you can't be on 100% all the time and swing compensations are frequently required in order to save a round and score.

[Not a hacker]

If a course is properly balanced then the shorter par 3s will have the highest stroke indices. This is the case at my home course. The flip side of this argument is the medium length par 5 where the low handicapper can either get it on in two or stick it close enough with the 3rd shot to have a realistic chance at birdie. Your high handicapper struggles to get on in 4 to have a chance at bogey. We have such a hole out my home course 485 yeards par 5 stroke index 17

I agree. At most courses par threes are at either end of the stroke index. Short par threes can play very easy in benign conditions but par threes over 200 yards are invariably amongst the toughest holes to make par and are usually low in the index.

[Larryrsf]

Not just lessons, but lessons combined with meaningful practice. Harvey Penick was quite correct when he said that you take a lesson to make practice worthwhile.

With regard to par 3s, I would not necessarily agree with your regardless of distance thought. The 240 yard par 3 on my course needs a driver and 10 consistently good drives is a big ask for any golfer.

Of course. In golf or music or anything difficult, we take lessons to learn how to most efficiently teach ourselves. The most important thing to take away from a lesson is the correct drills to ingrain the change. "How did you do it?" is something I ask my teachers and quite often that answer is the most valuable thing I learn.

And we should remind those who will not GRIND to ingrain something that is very different from their habit, they wasted their money taking the lesson. Next time out they will be WORSE than before the lesson. If you are not the type to persistently grind-- and then grind some more, don't take the lesson.

Larry

[Larryrsf]

Not just lessons, but lessons combined with meaningful practice. Harvey Penick was quite correct when he said that you take a lesson to make practice worthwhile.

With regard to par 3s, I would not necessarily agree with your regardless of distance thought. The 240 yard par 3 on my course needs a driver and 10 consistently good drives is a big ask for any golfer.

Par 3 over 200 yards is very unusual, even in pro tournaments. I have never seen them need a driver or even 3w. Usually its a medium to long iron.

Larry

[poe4soul]

Par 3 over 200 yards is very unusual, even in pro tournaments. I have never seen them need a driver or even 3w. Usually its a medium to long iron.

Larry

Sorry guys.

Hey Lary Phucktard, look at the this weekends event. 3 or the 4 par 3's are over 200 yards. Each time you post you prove you are an idiot. Go away already. http://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/r041/course.html

[Larryrsf]

Sorry guys.

Hey Lary Phucktard, look at the this weekends event. 3 or the 4 par 3's are over 200 yards. Each time you post you prove you are an idiot. Go away already. http://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/r041/course.html

"The first par 3 on the back 9 is also the longest on the course measuring over 240 yards from the back tee. From the tee, you can see downtown San Antonio and the best play is to aim at the Hemisphere Tower. This green is one of the largest on the course."

Downhill and downwind and largest green. They will use a a 4-iron, like I said.

And from the tees we would play, it is probably only 210 yards.

Larry

[wofat]

[poe4soul]

"The first par 3 on the back 9 is also the longest on the course measuring over 240 yards from the back tee. From the tee, you can see downtown San Antonio and the best play is to aim at the Hemisphere Tower. This green is one of the largest on the course."

Downhill and downwind and largest green. They will use a a 4-iron, like I said.

And from the tees we would play, it is probably only 210 yards.

Larry

Like I said, the more you open your mouth. ..

3 of 4 is not unusaul. 240, or even your adjusted 210, is > 200. duh.