GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group
Why does 4-10-4 seem to be the norm for an 18-hole course?
Jeff_Brauer:
Adam, it does seem to be a bigger part of American culture than other places, no? McDonald's, etc. all part of the same general thought process.
For that matter, draining the everglades and other initiatives to turn wetlands into dryer useable land all part of the same genre of thought processes.
Duncan Cheslett:
--- Quote from: Sean_A on October 15, 2013, 05:00:56 AM --- 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
--- End quote ---
Couldn't agree more, Sean...
John Percival:
Some facts to consider about 4-10-4...
...I remember my father (an average golfer) hating 5 pars and loving 3's. Many avg golfers probably also feel the same, as the 5 pars create more chances for mess-ups (while better players usually feast on 5's). ADVANTAGE: par 70
...most average golfers players define milestones by breaking 100/90/80 ADVANTAGE: par 70
...most better players define milestones vs par ADVANTAGE: par 72 (but 70, if you want to increase their challenge)
...land and construction costs should be lower on a par 70 vs 72 ADVANTAGE: par 70
...time of round should be less on par 70 ADVANTAGE: par 70
...working around DNR, and routings on challenging properties should be easier on 3's vs even a short 4 ADVANTAGE:70
...concept of 'Championship' course ADVANTAGE: par 72 (though I dont adhere to the concept)
Remember playing Allentown Muni in High School and hating it because it was par 73. Made breaking 80 tough, while our home course was a 70. They just posted scores in the paper. Not course's par.
Of course, the obvious continuation would be lowering par even more, say 66. But that would likely push the perception to an 'executive course', and they just dont do well.
And yes, Jeff, have heard about the affection for 72's from the public. Dont understand why, other than being followers.
Ally, I also like 5-10-3. However, can only think of two cses in U.S. with 5 3's...LACC and Pac Dunes.
Any others here?
Tim Gavrich:
Par fives seem to me to be holdovers from golf's early, more cross-country days. Now, with most emphasis placed on hitting strong tee shots that are supposed to set up easier approaches, three-shot holes are really only compelling when it's feasible to reach them in two, I feel. As others on this thread have articulated, there's more chance for disaster among the higher handicapper on par fives.
Does Elie suffer from having no par fives? Certainly not in my opinion.
One of my favorite courses in Connecticut is the Country Club of Waterbury, which is a par-69 course that plays about 6,600 yards from the longest tees. Its one par five plays significantly downhill and is reachable with less club on one's second shot than are a couple of the long par fours on the course. The course is a complete test without a "true" three-shot hole.
I would never vote to abolish par fives but if an architect is going to use four or (god-forbid) more, (s)he'd better make sure they a) fit the land and b) are diverse in terms of shot demands and risk-reward potential.
The amount of land and water-requiring acreage of grass that could be saved by turning every pedestrian 530-580-yard par five into a 450-480-yard par four has got to be enormous. And are holes of the former length intrinsically better than those of the latter?
Brent Hutto:
The basic nature of 4-10-4 or any variant with the majority of holes being Par 4's arose IMO because it provides the rhythm that most golfers historically have preferred to their round.
Hit a shot from a tee
Hit a shot from the fairway
Hit a couple of putts or chips
Hit a shot from a tee
Hit a shot from the fairway
Hit a couple of putts or chips
I think a string of three or four Par 4's in a row is the basic shot-variety (or stroke-variety) rhythm that "just works" for a lot of golfers. All the more so when you interrupt it by one less or one more shot from the fairway at intervals that avoid monotony.
Jeff's example of 6-6-6 wouldn't necessarily be too far off from this if as he says a couple of the Par 5's are either reachable or at least can be playing with a chip or pitch for the third shot by most players. If my speculation about normative player preferences were at all true, it would imply that to be well received (as anything other than a pure novelty or gimmick experience) a course needs at least half its holes to be two shotters or reachable three-shotters.
Or maybe I'm all wet. Just speculating, here.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version