How important is balancing yardage?

[Greg Holland]

Do you architects worry if you come up with a routing that results in a discrepancy between the yardage on the outward and inner nines of several hundred yards? 

If so, does the concern decrease if, for example, you have 3 one shot holes on the shorter nine?

Are there any "great" courses with a difference of 500 yards or more between the front and back nines?

Thanks.

[Ed Oden]

Are there any "great" courses with a difference of 500 yards or more between the front and back nines?

Greg, as noted in another thread, the nines at The Club at Irish Creek vary by almost 600 yards (3254 v. 3845).  As for "great" courses, the one that I immediately thought of is NGLA.  It is 3300 par 37 going out and 3600 par 36 coming in.  So if you factor in the varience in par, its a pretty big difference, albeit under 500 yards.  That being said, the prevailing wind likely offsets this difference.

Ed

[Adam Russell]

I don't think its that big a concern for good design in either instance...better to increase the playability and enjoyment at the expense of yardage than the other way around.

Prestwick, Gullane No.1, Royal Melbourne Composite around 500 yards difference b/t nines. Prestwick if I'm not mistaken is almost 1,000 yds. difference. Only American course I could think of was The County Club, original.

[wsmorrison]

I'm not an architect, but I don't think balancing yardage is important to a degree.  You wouldn't want the yardage difference to be so great that par 3s and short par 4s are mostly on one nine and long par 4s and par 5s are on the other.  A yardage differential of 1000 yards makes little sense.  However, I feel that if the architect routes the golf course in a way that provides variety, interest and challenge...the results can be excellent.  In fact, to some degree, I hope the architect isn't considering yardage and par balance in the first stage of routing, that he is simply looking for the best holes and working back from there.

Pine Valley is very well balanced from the traditional back tees at 3363 par 35 on the front and 3336 par 35 on the back.  On the other hand, from the traditional back tees, Merion is 3420 par 36 on the front and 3062 par 34 on the back.  Both are great golf courses.  In my lay opinion, balance, to a degree, is not an important factor in great golf design.

[John Kavanaugh]

I used to be a member of a course that went par 34, 37 and it annoyed me.  I think it matters for the more simple minded clients that may play or visit your course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Greg,

Its not important to me so much, but pros seem to think its more important.  In tournaments, they often start on both one and ten and generally, don't want competitors to have too different an experience in the name of fairness.

Even everyday play, most courses often use dual starts. And, in some cases, many players play only nine holes. If they play the front nine, and its too easy or too hard compared to the rest of the course, it can affect their handicaps, which trouble many golfers.

I just did a renovation of Weeks Park Golf Course in Texas, which holds a fairly important junior tourney. They needed more length for that annual event, but not so much for its every day role as a muni.  As it happened, the back nine had more land available for expansion and the front nine was pretty tight and getting tighter because of the addition of a driving range.  So, that course turned out to be unbalanced at about 3750 and 3450 yards from the back tees in order to get the most yardage possible.  We moved a few mid tees up more on the back nine to better balance the yardage from there and make sure the longer par 4 and 5 holes on the back weren't 3 and 4 shotters in every day play.

300 yards is about the biggest imbalance I can recall on any of my courses.  So, like anything else in gca, yes, ideally balance is a good thing, but site and other design considerations often make other decisions preferable.

[Jim_Coleman]

     The only conceivable reason that balance is relevant is for nassau betting.  Other than that, 18 holes is 18 holes.  Would it be that bad if you had a course where the first 6 holes were par fours; the next 4 par threes; the next 4 par fives; and the last 4 par fours?  Might be fun.  Like turning chapters in a book.  Merion is often called a three act play.  I'm suggesting that different kinds of acts wouldn't be that horrible, particularly if "that's what the land provides."
    There's a course on northern Scotland (I think it's Galsby) where the first 6 holes are links; the next 6 heathland; and the last 6 parkland.  Pretty cool. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Galsby?

Have you ever considered that the phrase "They have some gall to build a course like that" might reference just those differences?

Anyway, your description - which also fits Cypress - says variety of backdrops (and maybe wind) but isn't necessarily related to balancing either yardage, or the old hook vs fade holes, etc.

[Mark Pearce]

Golspie?

[Sam Morrow]

Greg,

Its not important to me so much, but pros seem to think its more important.  In tournaments, they often start on both one and ten and generally, don't want competitors to have too different an experience in the name of fairness.

Even everyday play, most courses often use dual starts. And, in some cases, many players play only nine holes. If they play the front nine, and its too easy or too hard compared to the rest of the course, it can affect their handicaps, which trouble many golfers.

I just did a renovation of Weeks Park Golf Course in Texas, which holds a fairly important junior tourney. They needed more length for that annual event, but not so much for its every day role as a muni.  As it happened, the back nine had more land available for expansion and the front nine was pretty tight and getting tighter because of the addition of a driving range.  So, that course turned out to be unbalanced at about 3750 and 3450 yards from the back tees in order to get the most yardage possible.  We moved a few mid tees up more on the back nine to better balance the yardage from there and make sure the longer par 4 and 5 holes on the back weren't 3 and 4 shotters in every day play.

300 yards is about the biggest imbalance I can recall on any of my courses.  So, like anything else in gca, yes, ideally balance is a good thing, but site and other design considerations often make other decisions preferable.

Jeff thanks for the details, I have a few visits to T/O under my belt and always saw some potential in that golf course. You were certainly stuck with what you could do with that front nine.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think its easy to have two nines of par 34 and par 36 so in that respect the 2 stroke difference will naturally represent c450 yards. I dont suppose people would really notice a 'natural' difference, whereas 2 nines equal in par and different in 450 yards is 50 yards per hole, that could be quite an inbalance.

eg. nine 1 360, 475, 180, 550, 430, 370, 160, 525, 400
eg. nine 2 310, 425, 130, 500, 380, 320, 110, 475, 350

nine1 is fairly tough and probably fairly typical of a modern resort type
nine2 many easy holes, group these nine together and I'd say its imbalanced.
nine 3 (par 34) 360, 475, 180, 350, 430, 370, 160, 275, 400
does not seem so bad

[Carl Rogers]

In the few golf courses that I have had the opportunity hang around, the owners know that they will never in the wildest dreams host a tour event or get on television. 

But it is within their wildest dreams to host some kind of USGA qualifier no matter how obscure. 

That may be the issue of the nines balancing.

[Tim Nugent]

In routing a course, one objective is variety.  You want the golfer to be exposed to as many different situations as possible and length is a major variable in this equation.  I think that if you set up a course to test all the facets of a players game, you end with a collection short, medium and long holes of each par.  Since 2,5,2 is the norm, for each nine, you generally end up with the nines being relatively balanced.  But as was mentioned earlier, wind can play a role as we design for how long a hole will "play" rather than what it measures.

[Matt_Ward]

Holes, and their par designation, should fit the land one has. The idea to have things totally "balanced" with an equal number of set holes (e.g. par-3 / par-4 / par-5 types) is not needed.

If the site calls for back-to-back par-3 or par-5 holes so be it.

I would say that having short par-4's in the mix is crucial. I have come to appreciate the belief that any superior course will have at least two such holes during an 18-hole round.

It would be important to make sure that no easily identified pattern is present. Variety, as others have already mentioned, is crucial.

[John Moore II]

I agree with Matt--The balance in yardage is not as much an issue as a balance in having the holes fit the land. And having variety. I also think that yardage is not as much the key as is difficulty. If one side plays mostly into the wind and the other plays mostly down, then a large difference in yardage is not bad. Same can be said for uphill and downhill.