Is the sequencing of holes irrelevant ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is the ordering of holes a criterion for determining architectural merit ?  Or, is it irrelevant ?

I knew of only one course that began with a par 3 and a few that ended with a par 3, but, once away from the opening and closing holes, is the sequencing irrelevant ?

[Kyle Harris]

Most definitely yes - at least in terms of how it looks on the scorecard.

This thread made me rack my mind for most consecutive holes I've played in terms of par.

The list:

Par 3: 2 (Seaview Bay)
Par 4: 5 (Mountain Lake)
Par 5: 2 (Wyncote)

I'll think more, but I think 5 consecutive par 4s are the most I've played.

I've also played numerous courses where no holes on one nine feature a consecutive par.

Lookaway's back nine (Rees Jones), for example, follows this routing:
4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4

[Peter Zarlengo]

In terms of "architectural merit" I'd say that it is irrevelant.

I kind of like the idea of back to back par 3's or par 5's, with one being difficult and one being easier. Sort of a ying and yang. I'd also say that while many may not prefer a finishing par 3, I like the idea of a one swing opportunity in a match that makes it to the final hole.

In terms of opening and closing holes, I do get tired of courses that have par 5s on both the 1st and 18th. Something about it I dont like, but cant explain.

[wsmorrison]

A course like Merion East, where there are only two par 5s (holes 2 and 4), doesn't seem an odd sort of routing.  The remaining distribution of holes is so outstanding...the three act play and all.

I think a course that has a series of long par 4s gets a bit boring, the lack of variety that keeps you off balanced and maintains interest is a lot better in my mind.  That's one reason Aronimink doesn't really work for me that well even though the length isn't overly burdensome and the greens are, in my mind, among the best anywhere.  

Solid holes in a routing progression that offers variety and the hard to describe "flow" are much more enjoyable.  I consider enjoyable difficulty a feature of great routings and I may be biased, but think that Flynn was a master of his hole progressions that led to a beautiful rhythm.  

One course where the flow seems a bit odd is the Old Course at the Homestead.  Changes over the years have led to several anomalies that are easily sensed by junkies like us and average golfers as well.  It is one of the few courses in the world that has 6 par 3s, 4s and 5s yet there isn't a par 4 until 6th hole.  Is there another course in the world where this occurs?  The opening holes are now par 5,3,5,5,3!  It feels as weird as it would seem.  Yet there are solid holes among the openers.

[Peter Pallotta]

Wayne - just an aside: I'd ask about "good routing" recently and how it (and the architect's use of the site as a whole) were being judged, since I don't understand it much at all. Your term "beautiful rhythm" struck me as a very, very good concept/barometer.

 

[Bill_Yates]

Irrelevant?  Absolutely not!

The sequencing of holes in the routing actually determines the rhythm and flow of play on the course.  

Courses with a smooth flow are more pleasant to play and easier to manage when it comes to the key emotional ingredient in providing a great playing experience - the pace of play.  Groups playing on courses with less than optimal flow will encounter more and perhaps longer playing delays throughout their round and find their experience more frustrating than they would on courses whose hole sequencing pattern accomodates a smoother movement of playing groups.  

[Tom_Doak]

It is not irrelevant.  Great courses have their own rhythm ... not every one is the same but it's definitely there.

I've seen many courses where they have changed the sequencing of holes for some reason or another, and 80% of the time they don't feel nearly as good as a whole, because of the change.

Is it a big factor in how highly a course is rated?  No, not a big factor -- if the sum quality of the individual holes is worth 90 points, the sequencing might be worth 5 or 10.

[PThomas]

if the holes are good enough, I think unusual sequencing will not be an issue

case study:  Pac Dunes!

[peter_p]

Does a 3-3, 5-5, 3-5 or 5-3 sequencing help the pace of play by eliminating or shortening waits on the preceding group?  If it does, would it allow the course to flow better for the player?

I'll take your answers off the air, heading to the airport.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

It is practically relevant as you suggest to speed of play.

In terms of course quality, I would say that all other things being equal a nice mix of holes is better than one with a string of long par 4, for example.  The key words are "all things being equal."  If that string of long par 4's is the best ever, that's okay.  

Is it also possible that in a competitive event, that this theoretical series of long 4's might favor one type of player too much and allow him/her to get too far ahead in the match to maintain interest?  The same might be true of holes requiring accuracy, delicacy, etc. to an inordinate degree.

I like the rythm of long and short holes, mixes of pars, etc.  However, the features make a difference, too - some courses have a nice mix of approach shot lengths, but the shot requierments are almost identical, other than length.

[TEPaul]

The 'sequencing of holes'?

What do you mean by that? Do you really mean the par balance and where the various types of par holes are placed in the routing?

I'd be more concerned how the natural land is used in a routing sense no matter the sequencing in par balance progression.

[gookin]

FCGC has an odd sequence but it works. #2 and # 18 are the only par 5's. Is their another course with 15 holes between the par 5's? We also enjoy a string of 4 - 4's; 7,8,9&10 and 5 -4's; 12,13,14,15,&16.

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

Is the sequencing and ordering of holes irrelevant?

Hard to say, as I have never played a course where the holes were out of order.

However, since, the lowest-numbered holes get played more often and decide matches that go into overtime, I'll say yes.



Mr. Gookin -

FCGC?

[TEPaul]

David B. Gookin:

Didn't #8 used to be a par 5? When did the club drop that par down?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat -

Is the sequencing and ordering of holes irrelevant?

Hard to say, as I have never played a course where the holes were out of order.

However, since, the lowest-numbered holes get played more often and decide matches that go into overtime, I'll say yes.



Mr. Gookin -

FCGC?

Funny stuff.  I have played a few courses out of order, though, either starting on the back nine, cutting in front of slower players, by accident when drinking or on a very confusing routing, or by playing in a shotgun start.  Is it just me, or do you all ALWAYS start on the toughest hole on the course in those things?  No way to design for shotgun starts.

We can account for double starts on 1 and 10 in our routings, and probably should.  Tournament competitors like similar sequences front and back when the double start for "fairness."  Everyday players still need/kike the easy start if starting on 10.  

For most courses, it shouldn't be the overriding factor, but on flat ground it is achievable. Again, the operative phrase is "all things being equal" which is not usually the case.

[Steve Burrows]

I've always thought about the routing or sequencing of holes as it pertains to creating/playing interesting holes, but much of the conversation here seems to be centered around sequencing of holes as it pertains to achieving an arbitrary, and pre-determined standard of par, or as, Jeff Brauer points out, the perhaps unfortunate necessity of infrastructure and circulation (of starting and ending everyone near the clubhouse).

Maybe a given piece of property lends itself to 2, 3, or even four consecutive short holes.  Should this possibility be quickly discarded?  Maybe the land lends itself to only 15 or 16 high quality holes, rather than 2 or 3 incredible ones and 15 or 16 mediocre holes (to meet the also arbitrarily decided upon 18 hole golf course).  It would be folly to discard these scenarios, but almost invariably, we're stuck on 18 holes, and a par that often falls between 70-72.

Routing and sequencing should be about finding great holes that "feel" right, not ones that fit a formula.  Obviously, Cypress Point is the poster child for this, but even MacKenzie balanced out the long holes with the short ones, with respect to par.  Balance becomes the critical word, I suppose, but there is certainly no rule that controls how balance can, or should, be achieved.  

[Tom_Doak]

Steve:

Funny you should talk about balance.  The other day I made my first try at routing a new project for a resort and I just happened to come up with VERY imbalanced nines ... the front is less than 3000 yards par 34 with most of the good short par-4's, and the back is 3700 yards par 36 with a lot of difficulty.

Normally I would have thrown that one out and tried to find something more in balance, but I realized that this could be exactly what this project needs.  The client has talked a lot about their two different clienteles ... a few serious golfers / homeowners / regular visitors who want a challenging course vs. the majority who are on vacation with spouse and family and really want a very playable relaxed course.  My thinking is that the families will just want to go out late in the day and play the front nine, while the serious golfers will get plenty of challenge over the course of 18 holes.

I've only seen one course I can think of with that kind of imbalance ... Bill Coore's first design, Rockport Country Club, where he inherited a short and tight routing for the front nine and had to stick with it.  And that turned out just fine.  Come to think of it, he had much the same problem at East Hampton, and if this course I'm doing turns out as good as East Hampton I am sure our client would be happy with it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve,

Perhaps the more spectular the site, the more likely a gca would be to "break the rules" of conventional balance.  On garden variety golf sites that are gently rolling, believe me, there is almost always more than one way to route a course to use the natural features.

Using different length and features is one way to distinguish holes from each other.  That said, golfers seem to notice holes that are particularly hard, beautiful, or unusual, no matter where they fall.  And, very few things make you stand up and notice like consecutive par 3 or par 5 holes like Mac used at Cypress.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The 'sequencing of holes'?

What do you mean by that? Do you really mean the par balance and where the various types of par holes are placed in the routing?

Could someone please explain this to TE [/color]

I'd be more concerned how the natural land is used in a routing sense no matter the sequencing in par balance progression.

Could someone please explain the thread to TE.

TE,

Hint
The land will be used to provide golf holes.
18 of them.
End of hint.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Doesn't the land dictate the rhythm rather than the hole sequencing ?

Certainly the sequencing of the back nine at Pacific Dunes has been a topic of discussion.  I would imagine that the discussions began pre-construction

4 par 3's, 3 par 5's and 2 par 4's.

335435435.

And, do you feel there's a distinction in the sequencing, or a perception of a distinction when a golf course has two nines returning to the clubhouse versus a course that doen't return to the clubhouse until the 18th ?

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom D,

Another example of unbalanced length on a course is the Von Hagge designed Playacar club in Playa Del Carmen , Mexico.  From the tips it is 3,200 on the front and an astounding 3,940 yards on the back.  Even from the regular blue tees it is a funky 2980 yards on the front and a challenging 3665 on the back.  And it's a resort course.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I understand thread to mean that the sequence should flow in a way that doesn't seem disjointed.  Or are there holes that are good  but should be at a different place on the course?  It seems to me that sequencing is more important in modern designs.  The reason is earthmoving.  Most sites allow the architect to set a flow that seems balanced.  For instance, the first holes tend to be a tad easier while the finishing holes may be a little more exciting.  How many par four cape holes has Pete Dye designed?  Unless dictated by the land most courses do not have back to back short par fours.  They will have one on the front and one on the back.  Generally courses don't begin with a par three.  It seems that many courses end with a tough par four or a par five.  The holes in the middle of the round probably have more leeway in terms of difficulty.  Does all this make a difference to me?  Not really.  I like a course to have its own distinctive characteristics. Nonetheless, I would think that the average weekender wants a certain kind of flow that is more "normal."

I don't think courses need to be balanced according to par.  I find nothing wrong with one par three on the front and three on the back, or five par threes and five par fours or as Berkshire Red Six fours, fives, and threes.  On the other hand I suspect that the "normal" weekender would find that odd.

[Tom_Doak]

Bryan:

I'm surprised by the numbers on that Playacar course, perhaps von Hagge was thinking the same as I am.  (Perhaps Kelly Blake Moran had something to do with it.)  However, I suspect they were just trying to stretch out the course to get to a certain overall length and the front nine didn't offer any elbow room, for whatever reason.

Patrick:

We did not discuss the sequence of holes at Pacific Dunes all that much, surprisingly.  I walked a group of people (Mike Keiser, Josh Lesnik, Jim Seeley) through that routing without even having formulated a scorecard for it -- and everybody liked the sequence and flow so much that they didn't object to the scorecard when I wrote it up on a napkin afterward.  We could have changed the numbering to make the card more conventional (and to make returning nines), but everybody loved it the way we walked it.  

Maybe I should always take that approach, instead of putting it on paper and letting everyone critique the lack of "balance".  A lot of this talk about balance is a scorecard-watching exercise, whereas on the ground it is possible for the holes to flow beautifully from one to another even as the card looks weird.  Pacific Dunes is a great example of that.

[gookin]

TEP

Yes #8 has gone back and forth several times from the original par 5. Today it plays as a very strong 4 at about 475 with a large but severely sloped green.  But the actual hole has not been changed just the par on the scorecard. As we have discussed we have four "4.5" pars on the front nine.  Amazing how a number on the scorecard can change a player's attitude towards exactly the same hole. I hink I made more fours when the whole played as a par 5.

[gookin]

FCGC - Fox Chapel Golf Club, Pittsburgh, Pa.