GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group

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

<< < (2/9) > >>

Sean_A:
Didn't Dr Mac talk of at least 4 one-shotters?  I don't think he talks about any number of par 5s though.  I get the feeling these ODGs liked to create a handful of 4.5s and call half par 4s and half par 5s.  Consequently, often times only two or three par 5s came out in the mix.  Colt used to create five par 3s a lot and I am sure it was a way to fit courses into fairly tight spots.  Plus, I think he really liked building par 3s.

Ciao

Matthew Petersen:
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.

Tom ORourke:
I was a member at a course that was 37-34-71 and no one complained about missing a par 5. I also played a course in California that had only 8 par 4s, but 5 par 3s and 5 par 5s, and never felt short-changed by the lack of par 4s. I think the amount of available land has something to do with it, but not always. Shinnecock and Pine Valley are none the less for being 70s, and Pine Valley had the land for more. If you have to shoehorn in a few holes a par 70 may be the option, i.e. Merion. A friend of mine always loved a par of 70 or 71 just because his score sounded better. I know that Tiger wins on par 72s but I think the day to day public would be better served with 70.

Ian Andrew:
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.

Peter Pallotta:
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. I can play three or four Par 4s in a row and enjoy them and not give it a second thought; string together three Par 5s, on the other hand, and I don't think I'd have much fun (maybe because I'm an average golfer at best; maybe because I think a really good Par 5, let alone a great one, is rare); same goes for Par 3s -- in most case, they simply aren't all that interesting to me except in relationship to what's come before. Not a rule that's set in stone, obviously, or even a demand or expectation on my part -- I just think that, however it developed, the 4-10-4 approach can not only be reasonably defended, but has some real positives on its side.

Peter

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page