GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group

Why does 4-10-4 seem to be the norm for an 18-hole course?

<< < (4/9) > >>

Thomas Dai:
Interesting thoughts here.

I'd be curious to hear what folk think of the 6-6-6 routing, including any examples of courses that follow this approach.

I'm aware that Herbert Fowler's Red courses at The Berkshire, which I haven't played so will refrain from commenting on, has a 6-6-6- routing. Those of you who've played The Red how did you find the way the routing flowed? Was there more playing interest etc with 6-6-6 than with 4-10-4?

All the best.

Ally Mcintosh:

--- Quote from: Matthew Petersen on October 14, 2013, 06:43:40 PM ---Forrest Richardson has some interesting discussion about this in his book on golf course routing, specifically the conflict between what might be the best use of the land and what a client will tolerate. He tells the story of a course where he had six good par 3 sites, and the client was simply unwilling to go along with that "unusual" configuration, as they had aspirations of being a "championship" course and didn't think 6 par 3s would be appropriate.

So, instead of course (my commentary) you've got a really awkward short par 4 now shoehorned into a spot that would have been a nice drop shot par 3.

--- End quote ---

Forrest came on to this forum a while ago (when he was in midst of routing a course) to ask if people would accept three par-3's in a row because that was the best use of land he had found.... Even the majority on here balked at that one...

The 72 (4-10-4) has become prevalent with new builds - I think Ian hit on a possible theory - but it still varies in different markets... GB&I has so many older courses with different configurations that different configurations are more easily sold.... At the other end of the scale, I believe it is quite difficult to get anything in China built that isn't 4-10-4.... Perhaps this comes down to the love of symmetry and the luck of the number 8 in Chinese culture?

60 of the world Top-100 may be Par-72 but have a look at how many great courses have 5 par-3's.... A huge number...

All other things equal (which is never the case), I quite like Par-70 with 5-10-3

Sidney Lin:
My home course Avondale in Sydney Australia has a 5 9 4 setup and routed 1-12 4 x par 3 and 3xpar5 clubhouse then 13-18 1 each par 3&5.

Nothing wrong with it and provides excellent scoring opportunities. Kingston Heath when setup for club play routes 6 then 12 holes but retains the classic 4 10 4 but when setup for tournament play they can have 9 and 9. An amazing golf course and well worth playing if in Australia.

A personal thing but I hate courses that finish or start with par3s. Just does not feel right. The Lakes and Pymble come to mind.

Jeff_Brauer:
I have one 6-6-6 routing near Dallas.  It has been well accepted as a mid level price public course.  Gets some pub for the odd routing.  In reality, most golfers like par 3 holes, and many of the par 5 holes are reachable in two shots, which is also fun.  Overall, there seems to be a higher proportion of fun holes for the average golfer in that kind of routing.

I had forgotten about the RTJ and championship course influence of the 50's until Ian posted it. RTJ was certainly at least somewhat about standardization, or at least, those who hired him certainly wanted as good a course as the last one he designed, and probably had reservations about moving away from the formula too far.

That said, and while he certainly enhanced standardization, I have always wondered if it was really inevitable over time?  People like to generally set standards in most aspects of life, no?

Adam Clayman:
Formulaic, is better, Jeff, thanx.

It's just another example where American initiatives, removed adventure and a sense of journey, to the proper golf C.B. likely learned from Old Tom.   

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page