GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group

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

<< < (8/9) > >>

Phil McDade:
William Langford was a Golden Age architect who often routed his courses with five par 3s (his best-known course, Lawsonia, is a 5-8-5 course). Langford, in his writings (he was fairly prolific in his commentaries about golf design), often talked about shot values, specifically what might be better described as the kind of shots one hits into greens. He worried less about par -- both the par of the hole, and the overall par of the course -- but rather wanted to test the golfer with a variety of shots into greens.

I've always thought his Spring Valley course in Salem WI is the poster child for this kind of approach; perhaps even better than Lawsonia (not saying it's a better course, but to me it truly embodies his views on shot values) -- take a look at the scorecard:

http://www.springvalleyccgolf.com/#!scorecard/c1p3i

-- A par of 70 for 6,451 yds (from the tips);
-- A 5-9-3 combination of holes;
-- Four par 4s under 390 (including a nifty, driveable 278 yarder), but also four par 4s of 420+, including two beefy par 4s to start each nine at 460 and 450 yds;
-- Five par 3s that range from 138 to 230, and play in every direction (thus they may play longer or shorter, depending on the day's wind);
-- Three par 5s from 505 to 560 (the longest with a fun blind 2nd shot)

The notion of "hitting every club in your bag" may be a cliche, but Langford really liked courses that asked the golfer to take a variety of shots into his often turbulent greens. That mattered more than the hole's (or course's) par.

Dan Kelly:

--- Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on October 15, 2013, 10:44:58 AM ---the par 3 obviously has no strategic shot relationship.

--- End quote ---

Jeff --

That isn't at all obvious to me.

The strategic shot relationship, on a lot of the best par-3s, is between the tee shot and the hoped-for putt or the dreaded alternative. No?

I don't see how the risk/reward calculus on "strategic" par-4s or par-5s is any different, fundamentally, from the risk/reward calculus on interesting, well-designed par-3s.

Dan

Peter Pallotta:
Tom B - thanks, a really good post. I've often wondered about the (unintentional) revisionism that many of today's golf architecture afficiandos engage in when it comes to the golden age greats; and I have often doubted the narrative and consensus opinion that has come down to us (many of which you note) as technology has changed the way those original holes played and as our reverance for the top architects of the past has grown -- changes that have led to the average golfer's belief that "Ross not intend players to hit long irons or fairway woods into THAT type of green"...and to all the expectations/demands that go with that belief. 

Peter

Sean_A:
Tom

I agree about 5s.  I think a large percentage were designed as 4.5s for scratch players back in the day and that the elimination of bogey forced the issue.  In effect, what designers would do is create 4-6 4.5 holes and eventually about half became 5s.  What is very cool about this is on any given day a par 5 may actually be easier than a par 4 - demonstrating the idea of 4.5 holes.  Okay, today most of those 4.5s are now really par 4s for scratch players no matter what they are labelled, but for handicap players, they remain 4.5s - hence the sense of confusion where par is concerned and absolute sense where bogey is concerned.

My ideal course probably has five 4.5 holes, four 3 holes and three or four 3.5 holes.  The par 4 (say between 315ish and 425ish) considered the stock of the trade, but I think about five or six does the job for me.  

Ciao

Tom Bagley:
Peter:  Thanks for the kind words.

Sean:  I agree whole-heartedly, that Colt, Ross, MacKenzie and others built many holes in the 430-460 yard range that were always 4.5 holes (in our modern way of looking at it).  That is why these holes often have difficult greens or hazards well-short of the green to provide interest and challenge for those players who need three shots to play the hole.  Too often, we think about the "three-shot player" (a player requiring three shots to reach the green) competing against the "two-shot player" and how the hole is fair/unfair for those players when competing against each other.  The more common match involves players of roughly the same skill level competing against each other:  the three-shot player vs. the three-shot player, for example.  For their game to have interest - and strategy - the architect needs to provide some challenge for their SECOND shot on those holes.  Otherwise, they would be just mindlessly advancing the ball down the fairway to within short range of the green.

I also agree with your "ideal" course.  Too many "standard" 4s leads to dull golf.  It's nice to have a few of those holes, but not two many.  The 4.5s and 3.5s are much more interesting.

Of course, on the PGA Tour there would be an insurrection if the 4.5s (for them) were labeled as 4s, and the 3.5s (heaven forbid) as 3s - witness the response to #3 at Merion during the Open this year.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page