Regardless of skill level, par 3s that can be deuced about a third of the time fall in the categories of being popular AND having a good scoring spread for competition. Holes that would be considered long par 3s run the risk of not being popular AND/OR not having good scoring spread.

I think most can relate to the frustration of certain holes that you'll rarely deuce and only get a 4 if you doink a putt. Not much fun and likely not a very good scoring spread for players at your skill level. It's likely these holes would be considered moderately long par 3s for that skill level on relatively open terrain.

As the length gets longer, we get into the territory of "shot and a half" par 3s where a two is rare but the risk of a bogey 4 is regular threat maybe a third of the time. On these holes, drive placement is critical so the well designed tricky upshot is a worthy challenge even though it may only be 80-125 feet. Even though a 2 might be rare, I think players will like it better than the automatic 3 holes discussed in the previous paragraph because avoiding the 4 is a worthy challenge. The scoring spread will also be good on these types of holes. As a general rule, maybe one out of three to four par 3 holes should be a long 3 like this.

One mistake that's likely being made by some designers is thinking that steep downhill holes that are reachable are as good as reachable par 3s on level ground of the same equivalent distance. For example, a hole on flat ground at 300 produces a higher percentage of birdies than a steep downhill hole that's effectively 300 because it's 405 with a 35 ft drop (405 - 3x35 = 300). Even though the effective distance is the same for both of these holes, the drives on the downhill hole are only as accurate as drives would be on 405 ft flat hole.

Think about it this way, if a straight shot is on a beeline to land 30 feet to the right of a basket at 300 feet on flat ground, it will land 40 feet away from a basket 405 feet away on flat ground if it continues on the same line. Now we know discs thrown that far usually don't fly a dead straight line, they hyzer or S. But the logic still holds in terms of reduced accuracy at 405 versus 300.

So what happens is that this cool looking downhill hole at 405, which a designer thinks will work as well as one at 300 on flat ground, will likely fall in the dreaded routine 3 category with poor scoring spread. We know the hole will still be popular because players like just about any hole thrown downhill. To move into the truly long par 3 category on these downhill holes, the length will have to be maybe 525+ with trouble along the route and in the landing area such that preventing a 4 becomes the challenge with a 2 being a big bonus. This should move the hole back into a better scoring spread with a good mix of 3s and 4s and still be the fun downhill hole that was intended.

I definitely agree with you Chuck. I hate holes that should be an "easy"3 but avoiding a 4 isn't really a major concern until putting. Stretching it out and making you think more about the upshot placement is a good alternative.
And I think working for a par is better than walking into a birdie, so a long par 3 is better than a short par 4.

At what distance would you consider the better option to be moving the par to 4?

Check out the PDGA design guidelines here:
www.pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf)

It depends on several factors such as the skill level, foliage density, elevation and hazards.

I am personally a fan of "shot and a half" holes. I enjoy the relief of getting the "3" on a hole that's par-3, but a challenge to avoid a "bogey 4" if not played well.

I also enjoy course design that includes a bit of all of this---holes that I should birdie (2) but with enough chance to miss that I worry about it.....holes that I can only "birdie 2" with an excellent drive....the above-mentioned "tough 3" where the 4 is a danger....and on up through the tough par-5, where I'm sweating a 6 or 7 or 8 if I mess up.

For myself, the excitement comes in arriving at the tee uncertain of what I will score on a particular hole---excepting when the uncertainty is based mostly on luck (fairway full of trees, etc.).

Which brings to my own question. I understand there is a desire for a certain score distribution on a given hole. I don't know the figures, but something like 20% birdies, 50% pars, 30% bogeys, etc. From this, holes should be designed for a certain par (for a particular skill level), and avoiding par 3.5 (roughly equal distributions of 3s and 4s), or 2.5 or 4.5.

But I'm not sure why. I enjoy the par 3.5 hole as much as any other. In competition, the par 3.5 hole is a chance for the lead to shrink or grow, as half the field gets 3s while the other half gets 4s.

Other than determining what "par" is for proper scoring of the player who misses a given hole, why does this matter? What's the drawback of the "shot and a half" hole?

As a general rule, maybe one out of three to four par 3 holes should be a long 3 like this.

why is the "general rule" for only 25-33% of the par 3's to be a long par 3? is that based on anything?

As a general rule, maybe one out of three to four par 3 holes should be a long 3 like this.

why is the "general rule" for only 25-33% of the par 3's to be a long par 3? is that based on anything?


That is a tried-and-true long standing practice in the proposal world that is called "DRE". :)

If the intent of competition is to determine the best players and we pay the top third or more, then the ideal type of holes that would determine the top third might be 18 holes each with scoring averages in 2.6-2.8 range for that skill level. Those holes produce the most opportunities for scoring separation for those players shooting the best that round (3.6-3.8 and 4.6-4.8 work the same way). If you have 18 holes with scoring average of 3.2-3.4 and 4.2-4.4, you do a good job separating out the bottom third of the players but not the top two thirds.

Again we're talking about holes with average to light to no foliage. Wooded holes give you much more scoring spread to allow the better players that day to emerge no matter what the scoring average. So, in effect, holes in the neighborhood of 3.3 or 4.3 scoring average partially neutralizes the good opportunity provided by a 2.7/3.7 hole for separating your better play from the pack. If the ratio is one 3.3/4.3 hole for every 3 or 4 at 2.7/3.7, the better players have a better chance to demonstrate their better play.

This would be the technical reason for the ratio. From a player standpoint, I believe the 2.7/3.7 holes are much more popular also.

ok, i like the math in that explanation. question - if 2.7-2.8 is better than 3.3 at seperating and are more popular with players, why would you build any 3.3s at all?

could another line of thinking go like this: "long" pars (holes that play par.2-3 instead of [par-1].7-8) are better because they ratchet up the tension more. the top third will emerge - it always does - but the leaderboard will be a bit tighter. as tensions increase, so does viewability and interest. therefore, please build more par.2-3s.

btw, if it really is true that players prefer [par-1.7-8], do they prefer it for competitive reasons ro because they cant take the heat created by par.2-3s? ;)

Thanks. Makes some sense to me from the purely competitive viewpoint. From the "fun to play" viewpoint, I tend to like variety...in scoring average as well as hole design. "Light or no foliage" is almost an alien concept here (SC). Certainly the "long 3"---few 2s, little danger of 4s---are frequently the boringest holes.

Thanks also for the observation on downhill holes. I hadn't thought about it before, but just assumed the higher scores were due to problems controlling flip or fade on the less-practiced downhill throws.

I think 3.3s have their place but are tricky to design without having the "half shot" part of the hole be too lame. You want that 0.3 part of the scoring to come from blowing a short but challenging upshot, not just missing a putt. The reason I said the 3.3 only partially neutralizes the 2.7 is that if you just had a two hole event with one of each, in theory, you could have sorted 30 players into 10 with a 2 & 3, 10 with two 3s and 10 with a 3 & 4. So the 3.3 still has its place mathematically and also just as a variety issue and balance aspect of a light foliage course.

Thinking further, if not particularly deeply, from just the competitive view, would a roughly equal mix of x.3, x.5, & x.7 holes produce the best scoring spread throughout a division?

They're all useful if the holes are designed well. However, as I pointed out, the x.3-x.5 range is dicey on average foliage to open holes because the second shot may be lame. I still think we strive for scoring averages closer to round numbers x.9 to y.1 when possible with good scoring spreads so the par more closely matches the scoring. However, it's usually hard to pull that off on holes with average foliage. So, for that amount of foliage x.6 to x.8 range works for both scoring separation and having an average closer to a whole par value. I think holes in x.4 to x.6 are potentially suspect since either the second shot isn't worthy from a challenge standpoint, or worse, is a hole that strictly favors long arms in that skill level with no chance for a 3 by a good portion of that skill level.

Thanks. It's mostly curiousity to me, since I'm only a course designer on one course (mine), which has lots of foliage and elevation. I don't have enough data to know the scoring averages, but hopefully any x.4 - x.6 holes are fair and challenging (mostly the difference isn't distance, but shot placement on drives). With O.B. seriously in play on 9 of the 18 holes, we have lots of scoring spread, regardless of average.

It's also food for thought for me in evaluating other courses I've played, and pondering why I liked certain holes (or didn't).

Chuck,
I see what you're saying in regards to a x.3 hole not separating scores at the top of the pack, but I think it applies to a certain flavor of hole that isn't representative of the diversity in the sport. i.e. a 470 ft. wide-open hole might yield 5% birdies - 70% pars - 25% bogeys as a gold pool par 3. Almost all of the top players will get a 3.

Another hole that could average 3.3 for a gold pool could be a 380 ft. par 3 with a pond on the right and OB sidewalk long/left of the basket. A hole like this could produce the same average score for the pool, with different distributions near the top of the field, depending on the distance to carry the water to get inside 50 ft., how small the "green" area is, etc., basically is the pin a sucker pin, yellow light, or green light. For the cashing portion of the pool, the sucker pin could yield a spread like 5% birdies, 90% pars, 5% bogeys, the yellow light situation could yield 20% birdies, 55% pars, and 25% bogeys, and the green light situation could yield 25% birdies, 60% pars, and 15 % bogeys. In each situation the rest of the field's spreads adjust as well to give the same average score.

I'm in total agreement that the 470 wide open hole is bad for gold. (Although it could be fine as a red par 4) I think your conclusions are based too strongly on holes that shouldn't exist and discount the tools we've got at our disposal to spread scores with use of given trees (even when not heavily wooded), topography, water, path OB's, etc.

At the other end of the spectrum: there are plenty of 2.7-2.8 gold holes that the guys dialed in on the lead card will all deuce, particularly if there's an early gap that they'll never miss and/or OB that rarely comes into play for the top guys.

Blue Valley had only par 3.5 holes. Some were basically par 3.9, with a random deuce by Markus, but otherwise, generating 3s and 4s. I think if you can't reach the basket except on a ludicrous line, it should simply be a par 4. Throwing in from 150 feet is not a birdie, that's an eagle. No matter where you are.

I had problems on the Par 3s at Blue Valley because I felt the need to have a shot at a 2, when, in reality, I would have stomped the course if I simply played them for a 3. Playing it blind certainly didn't help, so next time I am breaking into the 50s with strategic play.

This discussion is coming at the right time for me. With some luck and approval, I will be heavily involved in designing my first set of permanent holes at our existing course (alternate pin placements). Our course falls into the 'average to light to no foliage" category. We have a few holes that are average, with most being light to no foliage. Over the last several years there have been several trees planted in good places, but they are just not mature enough yet. But, it's all we have for now.

The first thing that I am finding is that everyone needs some convincing that longer IS NOT always better. There are several cases where longer would put those holes in the long Par 3 category. And, having little foliage everywhere�they would be the boring, not well liked variety of a long par 3.

I am taking my first crack at using the hole forecaster with this project. After our tournament this week, I have 160 rounds on the existing course to help me see if my preliminary ideas for pin locations will provide as much variety, scoring spread, and be as likable as possible.

hey jerry, thats great! you'll find the forecaster insanely useful. also, get a copy of the more shot-specific guidelines. they may not be as useful on open courses as they are on tight ones, but they can definitely help design for specific skill levels or help you out of a jam from time to time.

Thanks...It's exciting having a hand in your first desgin project :D

also, get a copy of the more shot-specific guidelines.

You talking about the course design guidlines for specific skill levels (which I do have) or something else?

i think thats the one... it has shot distances for each skill level on it. i use it as a double-check when i am looking to place obstacles in the sweet spots or landing zones at the limits of the shot ranges.

I wish there was a time-limit demo of these course design tools. I'm thinking of joining one of these days, the design group, that is... and I've heard nothing but good things. But I'd like to see these tools in action if only for a one-two day trial.

If the intent of competition is to determine the best players and we pay the top third or more, then the ideal type of holes that would determine the top third might be 18 holes each with scoring averages in 2.6-2.8 range for that skill level. Those holes produce the most opportunities for scoring separation for those players shooting the best that round (3.6-3.8 and 4.6-4.8 work the same way). If you have 18 holes with scoring average of 3.2-3.4 and 4.2-4.4, you do a good job separating out the bottom third of the players but not the top two thirds.

Again we're talking about holes with average to light to no foliage. Wooded holes give you much more scoring spread to allow the better players that day to emerge no matter what the scoring average. So, in effect, holes in the neighborhood of 3.3 or 4.3 scoring average partially neutralizes the good opportunity provided by a 2.7/3.7 hole for separating your better play from the pack. If the ratio is one 3.3/4.3 hole for every 3 or 4 at 2.7/3.7, the better players have a better chance to demonstrate their better play.

This would be the technical reason for the ratio. From a player standpoint, I believe the 2.7/3.7 holes are much more popular also.



I think my brain just melted....you guys are wicked smart...i go into shutdown mode every time numbers get to flying. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think my brain just melted....you guys are wicked smart...i go into shutdown mode every time numbers get to flying.


It's really all just smoke and mirrors. :cool: