When is Par 3 no longer realistic?

[jongoff09]

Wouldn't all this just be easier to use the average score of the players each tee or layout is intended for? If the SSA of a Gold course is 72 then the pars on the holes should equal 72. The same for White tees. If 72 on the white tees are a 900 rated round then the White or Am par should total up to 72. It's not that hard to take the average score for just the golfers the tees were intended for and either adjust the par or the hole some how.

Par isn't an average score. That isn't the way it works. Course pars are a reflection of how it plays. A par 54 course should be one where every "green" is reachable from the tee for the level of player it was designed for, and if the par is 72, then you shouldn't expect to reach many of the baskets with your drive. Whether the average is par or not depends on how tough the course is for the players it was designed for.

 

[jimimc]

I believe in a good course design, both would and should be true. A par 3 should not only be reachable, but have a balanced score and at least a 2 stroke swing. Same for a par 4. Just because you can't reach the hole doesn't make it a good par 4. A 600' wide open hole can not be a good par 4 for a gold player. A 600' wooded hole on the other hand would make a great par 4. I'm not saying all holes have to play exact to their par, but I believe they should equal out.

 

[Discobedience]

A par 4 would IMO be either a distance issue, a reaching issue, or a balance between the two.

As far as distance goes, I would say that in order to jump into par 4 land you would have to be up over 1000' in the open, and no significant downhill slope. I top level AM should most of the time end up with a 4.

As far as a technical par 4, there would be no true definition. All wooded and obstacled holes are going to be so incredibly different that it tough to dicuss. I generally think of these par 4's being a long distance through the woods or having forced shots that dont allow you to reach it in 2.

Either way, where I come from up in Maine, there are very few true par 4's. You want some nice par 4's hit up Maple Hill.

 

[HeadsUpHolloway22]

That was written by casual players, not the course designer, David Mac. Here is the 'official' par for Potosi:
http://gdstour.com/the-potosi-course-update-back-nine/

Ahh thank you. I thought i did fairly good on that course till now lol :/ I do agree now that hole six is tough, and you would need a fairly good arm and accuracy to get it to the hole. But what i do and what many others is always to have competition within yourself and try to stack some PR's! :thmbup:

 

[Stud Muffin]

Ahh thank you. I thought i did fairly good on that course till now lol :/ I do agree now that hole six is tough, and you would need a fairly good arm and accuracy to get it to the hole. But what i do and what many others is always to have competition within yourself and try to stack some PR's! :thmbup:

Yea, with the other method I was shooting under par pretty often. Anyways, the back 9 is not as tough as the front, so hopefully that stroke can be made back.

 

[bwiese]

A par 4 would IMO be either a distance issue, a reaching issue, or a balance between the two.

As far as distance goes, I would say that in order to jump into par 4 land you would have to be up over 1000' in the open, and no significant downhill slope. I top level AM should most of the time end up with a 4.
QUOTE]

I dont think I have ever seen a 1000' foot hole be a par 4. They have all been 5's even mostly open ones

If you you get a 4 on a 1000' hole in a tourney you walk away happy. Very few people (ams) have the power or skill to be putting for a 3. throw in yes, putting usually no.

There are tons of par 4's in the woods that aren't crazy long, just more placement holes.

To the OP if par 3 is no longer realistic, you get a 4 or worse......

 

[Stud Muffin]

I got another par on 6. Dropped one from 54' away. Yes, I measured it. :thmbup: