Order of holes and originality

[Jay Cox]

On Wayne Morrison's "how original" thread, Chris Parker (in his first gca post) asks a very interesting question:

Does the reordering of holes have a significant impact on whether one should a view a course as an original example of an architect's work?

On one hand, mere reordering doesn't eliminate any features of the course:  the golf course as built is still there, open to study and, if one just starts at a different place, to play.  On the other hand, in my mind, changing the rhythm and progression of the transition from hole to hole changes something fundamental about how the course plays.  

For example, at Banff Springs, the original opening hole now plays as the 15th.  That one change:
1) eliminated the dramatic downhill-over-the-river opening tee shot, which had a very different psychological impact than the same shot placed towards the end of the round;
2) created a much more "standard" opening hole -- a relatively benign par 4, with a neat green but hardly one of the more interesting long game holes on the course;
3) made the long par 5 hole that was originally #4 into the finishing hole, removing a hole that tested long play from the early part of the round;and
4) made two back-to-back 350-ish yard par 4s into #s 16 and 17 instead of 2 and 3, creating something of a letdown towards the end of the round.

Thus, in terms of rhythm Banff does not play as Thompson intended -- and wouldn't even if no tee, green, or bunker had been touched.  Though I think the reordering of the holes made the modern Banff a worse course, that isn't my point.  My point is that the order of holes has a significant impact on how a player experiences the course.  Reordering doesn't diminish originality for the history buff.  But I think it does diminish originality for the player, often more so than creating a new angle of play by moving a tee or by redoing a couple of greens.

[Mike Nuzzo]

As one of the lucky few who played Banff from it's original 1st last year, I completely agree the older version is better.
I liked the old 18 as a finisher - at the hotel.
It eliminates the long walk to the old 1st.
It places the cauldron later in the round.

I haven't had enough experience of repeat rounds on a course where it would make that much of a difference.  I am currently working on a project where there are four ways to play - easily walking - and 18 is the finishing hole.

I will find out, and report some of the differences.  

Cheers

[archie_struthers]

 

I think that changing the holes order certainly changes the intent of the architect, even flipping the nines doesn't always thrill me, ie Woodcrest CC, Cherry Hill NJ. perhaps at Pine Valley it wouldn't matter, in that the balance is so perfect.

Any architect who is thinking of that elusive quality, flowwwwwwww, has to have the order in his mind when designing/building. Certainly the best courses flow, which to me means they build to a peak and then ebb thoughout the route. It can't be eighteen hair raising, heart stoppers, ( am I thinking Stone Harbor circa 1992) This just doesn't seem to work, hence the banal failure to me of Tour 18 type courses et al. In this case imitation might as flattery just doesn't work.

Their are surely schools of thought on difficulty being preeminent in deciding order, but that is probably more a pace of play consideration more than a requisite for good design.


But I digress. Certainly changing the order is big, and not just historical. It isn't original, in my humble opinion,and the order is mucho importante!

[TEPaul]

Does changing the order or sequences of the holes of a course change it's originality if nothing is done to the holes themselves?

Well, sort of yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that for those playing the course in some other sequence many may not get the same feeling about playing the course for various reasons, perhaps better but probably worse.

No, in the sense that if the club doesn't like the other sequence all they have to do is go back to the original sequence the next day and it's as if nothing happened.  

One of the most interesting nine flips was Shinnecock. Flynn  designed the course with the nines reversed but they rather quickly changed it to the way it's been ever since and on that particular course it makes a big difference, in my opinion.

Matter of fact, it was even more interesting than that. Initially Flynn designed three separate nines there and the starting hole on one of the nines was the present 14th!  

There's even another interesting sequence to Shinnecock. I call it the "Merion Sequence". Start on #14, #15, #16, #17, #5, 6, 4, 18, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and your back at the clubhouse.  The reason I call it the "Merion Sequence" is it's par 5, par 3, par 5, almost right away (Merions #2, #3, #4) and that's it for par 5s for the round!  

[wsmorrison]

Sometimes changing the hole sequence gave some a reason to redesign holes.  Take Philadelphia Country Club for instance, the clubhouse was moved in the 1950s so that the first hole became the 14th and the 16th became the first.  Well today's first hole is a short par 4 similar to the 12th at Pine Valley (if the trees were removed on the left).  The green is offset requiring a good touch shot on the approach to a green that slopes awaz.  Before the 1960s it was very much narrower than it is today.  Since it was changed to the first hole, the green was widened by about 30% as it proved to be too difficult an approach for the first hole.  As the 16th it worked well but it was problematic as the first and the design was deemed worthy of altering as a result.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Quickly...

Thompson's original sequence at Banff involved leaving the hotel and coming back, which is very dramatic. Kinda like leaving St. Andrews and coming back. Right Mike? This was part of the original "Banff experience", now gone.

Imagine starting the Old Course at the current fifth hole, knowing that it wasn't originally like that, and finishing at the fourteenth green. Think that might take away from the experience at St. Andrews?! I do.

I don't know about other courses where the holes have been re-sequenced, but the change of order at Banff has taken away from the golf experience there. Big time.

[SPDB]

Merion's original front 9 sequence always seem to make more sense  to me.

Using today's hole #s, it went 1,2,6,7,4,5,3,8,9.

Wayne/TEPaul -
What was the reason for its rearrangement? I can't recall.

[Sean_A]

A very on topic example is Hoylake.  Playing #s 17, 18 then #1 radically changes Royal Liverpool.  That opening tee shot to a large degree defines Hoylake.  The two are hand in hand.  Then of course you have the finish on #16.  A very easy three shotter.  

I am not one who thinks the first at Hoylake is a great hole, but I think for an Open test, it is a great opener.  It will be interesting to see if the club decides to make the change permanent.  I am guessing the club wont, but I wouldn't place a large wager on it.


Ciao

Sean

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Sometimes, what you don't know, won't hurt you.
St. George in Toronto was never played in the order that Stanley Thompson designed it to play.

I believe (Jeff or Ian may correct me) but I think the clubhouse was to be near the present practice tee, and that
the first hole would have been the present 18th, and that 17 was to be the 18th, a wonderful finisher.

[Jay Cox]

A corollary question:
Did any golden age architects commonly design opening holes that were either par 3s or hard par 4s (instead of the now-standard relatively easy par 4 or par 5)?  If so, have most of those holes been re-ordered if not redesigned?

[Andy Troeger]

  Assuming the facts I've been told are correct, at my old home course, Morris Park CC in South Bend, the opening hole was a short par five (about 465 yds). The club at some point (quite a while ago) they decided to make it a par four (without shortening the hole). The green is also the smallest on the course, as might befit a short par five. It doesn't really fit the "design a really hard opening par four" class since it wasn't designed that way, but that's certainly how it worked out!

[Jeff_Mingay]

Dick,

You're right. The clubhouse site at St. George's was moved while the course was under construction. The clubhouse was supposed to be where the current practice area. Home Smith, the developer, decided it would be better to built the clubhouse along Islington Avenue.

I think the current second hole was supposed to be the first, with a round finishing at what is today the first green. I could be wrong though. Ian?

The difference between Banff and St. George's is, no one ever played Thompson's original sequence at St. George's. So, no one knows any different. Banff became world-famous partly for leaving the hotel and coming back. Again, that was an integral part of the "Banff experience".

[Mark_Fine]

I'm not sure if it was mentioned yet but probably the most significant switching of the order of holes was at Augusta National.  I don't think anyone here could say they would like to see the nines switched back and truly believe it would be better.  

That said, the order of holes has a significant impact on the architect's original design and vision.  Do you think the TPC at Sawgrass would be the same course if they changed the order there?  I have this feeling Pete designed the holes to flow in a particular order    There are many many other good examples.    

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Jeff:
I am quite sure Stanley would have planned his first hole playing westward, like the 18th.
The second might have had a problem for the early golfers facing the rising sun.

[Jeff_Mingay]

That's a good point, Dick. But I swear, I recall the current first originally being the 18th.

We'll have to find out for sure  

[Jay Cox]

I'm not sure if it was mentioned yet but probably the most significant switching of the order of holes was at Augusta National.  I don't think anyone here could say they would like to see the nines switched back and truly believe it would be better.

Mark, I agree completely.  Should MacKenzie receive less credit for Augusta because he had the nines reversed?

I'm also interested in the current 10th as an opening hole.  Is it part of a pattern of tough par 4 opening holes by the doctor?  Crystal Downs, Cypress, and Pasatiempo fit that pattern.  RMW does not.  Lahinch is not long but quite tough around the green.  Perhaps MacKenzie simply rejected the (modern) convention of an easy opening hole?

[Mark_Fine]

Jay,
Sadly, there is not much Mackenzie left in Augusta National.  He would not recognize the place.  So many changes have been made there it is hard to say who should get the "credit".
Mark

[Jay Cox]

Jay,
Sadly, there is not much Mackenzie left in Augusta National.  He would not recognize the place.  So many changes have been made there it is hard to say who should get the "credit".
Mark

Agreed, but I think that we know enough about the original Augusta to evaluate it as a work by MacKenzie as well as in its current form.  In that context, I think one should rate the original design a notch lower than one otherwise would if one thinks that it would have been (at the time) a much better course with the nines reversed.

It's also interesting that switching the nines probably had a significant impact on what renovations have been made to Augusta over the years.  I'd bet that holes 5-9 would look very different than they do today were they still the finishing stretch, having received much more attention from those trying to "update" the course.

[mike_beene]

If order of holes is insignificant Spyglass just moved up the charts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jay Cox,

The original version of the current 10th hole was anything but a tough par 4.  It was a 410-430 hole with a magnificent view where the golfer hit to a landing area 100 feet below the tee, effectively making the hole play much, much shorter.

The green was not in its present location but approximately 40-50 yards closer on relatively flat ground.

MacKenzie himself called the hole "comparitively easy"

Jay, you raise an interesting point about the lack of visibility of the early holes on "TV" and alterations.  While only the back nine was televised for years, the tournament was still conducted on the front and back nines, and as a result, those holes didn't go unnoticed or unaltered just because the TV audience didn't get to see them.

If you look at the alterations to #'s  7, 8 and 9 over the years, they're extensive.

Until recently, very few modifications were made to the back nine, other than Maxwell's green at # 10 and Nicklaus's bunkers at # 18.

I think MacKenzie would recognize ANGC in the blink of an eye.

[Mark_Fine]

I presume you are joking about Mackenzie recognizing Augusta National right Pat    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

If the routing is the "basic superstructure" or "soul" of the golf course he'd recognize it in a heartbeat.

Many of the holes are essentially unchanged.

Green and bunker reconfigurations are but fine tuning.

When you look at substantive changes, there aren't many.
Narrowed fairways, yes, trees to narrow them yes.
Maxwell's alterations, # 16 and some added bunkers, but essentially, the course remains intact because the routing and hole designs have mostly remained in tact.

I don't think lengthening, or elasticity alters the design integrity unless there are radical angle changes.

[Bill_McBride]

Jay, #1 and #2 at Pasatiempo were both short par 5's when the course opened.  #1 was only made a par 4 (by playing from the front tee) in the past few years.

MacKenzie had other short par 5 starters -- Valley Club of Montecito and Meadow Club also in California.  I don't know about other MacK courses elsewhere, although I know Alwoodley starts with a good par 4, as does Cypress Point.

None of the California courses had a driving range for warming up when the courses opened, one theory for the relatively easy par 5 starting holes.

[Tom Jefferson]

Don't know if it is so now, but when I caddied and played at the Valley Club in the late 60s, both #1 & #2 were par 5 holes.  Interesting that he did that both at Valley and Pasa, and lends weight to the 'no driving range theory' mentioned below.

Awesome weather here in Bandon....cold and clear, a touch of breeze.

Tom

[Chris Parker]

Wow.  My first post spawned its own thread.  Cool.  Thanks Jay!  

I, too, think that rearranging the order of holes can detract from the experience of playing a golf course.  I suppose it depends on the individual course.  There are some great courses, such as Banff & TOC, that should not be (or should not have been) touched.  What if they had rerouted TOC so that it started next to the new Links Trust clubhouse?  
Other courses, I suppose, may actually benefit from a rerouting by a competent architect.  

Overall, it seems to me that "out-and-back" courses would certainly be more detrimentally affected by a reordering of holes than would courses with returning nines.