GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group
Why does 4-10-4 seem to be the norm for an 18-hole course?
Nigel Islam:
--- Quote from: Ian Andrew on October 14, 2013, 08:00:47 PM ---Robert Trent Jones
He became the standard for golf and golf architecture very quickly after World War Two.
All the Golden Age architects were dead and he was almost the last man standing.
He shared his philosophy of design, it was repeated in the press, and the par 72 "championship course" became the ideal.
The mix of 4-10-4 became was a common result.
Since the new designers were course builders, turf men or engineers - they looked to him for the method to design courses.
It was an era of modernization, so older architecture was largely ignored.
They designed and built just like him right down to a standardized set of holes for each nine and a total par of 72.
It took a long time for people to question his way.
That's my take.
--- End quote ---
You beat me to it Ian ;)
Jim Nugent:
How standard is it? I wonder what the distribution is, of par 70, 71 and 72 courses, both in the U.S. and other countries.
ETA: I checked par on Golf Digest's top 100 U.S. list. By my count, 60 of the top 100 are par 72.
Paul Gray:
--- Quote from: Jim Nugent on October 15, 2013, 12:16:00 AM ---How standard is it? I wonder what the distribution is, of par 70, 71 and 72 courses, both in the U.S. and other countries.
ETA: I checked par on Golf Digest's top 100 U.S. list. By my count, 60 of the top 100 are par 72.
--- End quote ---
Perhaps "standard" is the wrong term. "Ideal," at least in the eyes of many, is possibly more accurate.
Certainly it seems to be more of a trend in the US, where Trent Jones was so dominant, but that isn't to say that the average British golfer doesn't open the wallet a little wider when the terms "par 72" and "championship" appear. I am, however, optimistic that we've begun to turn a corner. Perhaps that's just false optimism.
Whilst there's no such thing as a prescription for perfection, all else being equal, I'd happily take 6 3's and 3 5's over a standardised 72.
Sean_A:
Just to say, though - maybe I've been duped and/or conditioned, but two par 5s and two par 3s a side "feels" right to me.
Pietro - that is interesting. While I don't mind four short holes (less than 4 is muy malo), I do tend to mind four three-shotters. I think my preference is more for 5-6 short holes and two, maybe three at most par 5s - all else being impossibly even of course. I am a great admirer of the the 6000 yarder which can grab me by the throat.
Ciao
Sidney Lin:
I remember once reading that a golden age architect commented that each par 3 and each par 5 should be perpendicular to each other hence you ended up with 4 10 4. So one par 3 is into the wind, another downwind, another left to right and the last right to left wind. Same with the par 5s.
On another website they held a amateur design comp where the winner got an internship. From memory the winning design incorporated this feature of perpendicular 3and5s and it was highlighted by the judging panel....
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version