[Thomas Dai]

A comment on another thread referring to a course with 6 par-3's, 6-par-4's and 6 par-5's has me wondering why 4 par-3's, 10 par-4's and 4 par-4s seems to be the norm for an 18-hole course, after all, TOC is 2-14-2. How did 4-10-4 come to evolve?

All the best

[Jim Sherma]

TOC wasn't always 2-14-2. I believe the the Road Hole was deemed a par-5 through a good part of it's history after pars were established.

[Robin_Hiseman]

Symmetry.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,

No one knows. Its one of the great mysteries of life on this planet or others.

That said, there is always that tendency to standardization, probably for handicap reasons.  And, I know a business consultant who claims his research says that golfers avoid other than par 72 courses like the plague.  He has never supplied any actual data to me, saying its just his memory of studying so many courses, rounds played, etc.  A lot of developers believe that, thought.

[Tom_Doak]

If you've got a crappy par-70 course, you're in trouble.  If you've got a great one, it's no problem at all, as places like Merion and Pine Valley  confirm.

I am not sure when a standard of four 3's and four 5's became commonplace.  People spoke of "even fours" going back to the 1920's, but the architecture books of the day advocated a variety of holes and not necessarily par-72 ... some Golden Age designers spoke fondly of having five par-3 holes, and very few back then opted for four par-5 holes as a rule.

My guess is that Augusta National helped to set the standard, once The Masters became an important tournament in the 1950's.  US Opens and the Open Championship of the same period were often contested over courses where par had been reduced to 70.

[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

[Nigel Islam]

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.

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]

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.  

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....

[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]

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.

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.   

[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]

 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

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()