[Chip Gaskins]

I played a course on Thursday where I started on #7.  I had just as much fun, but I do realize some might think you have to play the course in some sort of order....

[Mike Bowline]

I prefer starting on #1 and playing the holes in the order the architect prescribed them to be played in. Great courses start and build, and my feeling is starting anywhere but #1 could tamper with the rhythm of the holes.

But if someone asked me if I wanted to play Cypress Point, but we were starting on #7, would I say "no"? Shoot, I'd be happy to play #7 eighteen times!!

[John Moore II]

I would say that it depends on the course. On a lesser course, it may not matter how you play the course. But on great courses, I would think that each hole is designed with a specific intent and that intent is best found when the holes are played in a certain order. Not to mention, the 18th is usually designed with something special involved to make it a better finishing hole.

[A.G._Crockett]

I once had the opportunity to play a course with the GCA that designed it.  When the pro shop told him we were to go off #10, he politely insisted the we would NOT.  He, at least, felt that it made a difference, so I'll take his word for it.

For whatever reason, I have a much, much harder time remembering a course if I don't start on #1.  That may just be my lack of math skills, or it may reflect that a golf course is a unified whole that should be played like a good book is read; from the beginning.

[John Moore II]

A.G.-you bring up a good point. I played in Florida at a course with the architects, both members of this site, btw, and Jeff mentioned that he felt the current 10th hole (formerly #1) was a better opening hole than the current opener. I can agree with him on that. However, I do feel that the back 9 was the better closing 9 holes as opposed to playing the current front 9 last.

[mike_beene]

Although not foolproof,it seems like an architect not wanting the nines reversed could make 9 or 10 a par 3.Not getting back to the clubhouse is another solution.Courses that reverse the nines often reverse them back. Reminds me why I dislike 27 hole facilities.

[A.G._Crockett]

Although not foolproof,it seems like an architect not wanting the nines reversed could make 9 or 10 a par 3.Not getting back to the clubhouse is another solution.Courses that reverse the nines often reverse them back. Reminds me why I dislike 27 hole facilities.

I'm sure the pros on the site could speak to this, but it would be tough for the GCA to design the course that way.  So many courses now double tee in the mornings, and there is such bias against starting or ending a nine with a par three that it would be tough to sell that design to your client.

[John Moore II]

Mike-it would be somewhat difficult to get these things past a client. Though I must say that Park Ridge finishes the front 9 with a par 3, however, the site is somewhat unique, so I am not certain that there would have been any other way to finish the nine. Single loop golf courses (ones where the 9th is not back to the clubhouse) are very good designs, but they generally are not seen in new courses due to being able to make money in the clubhouse with people stopping over at the turn. The only modern course I have played without returning 9's is the Dye at PGA Golf Club, but the first tee is about a mile from the clubhouse, so the 9th would not return to the clubhouse anyway.

[mike_beene]

You got me thinking,and the only modern courses I can think of that don't return to the clubhouse after 9 are Spanish Bay, Cowboys and the old Village course at Kapalua. I am sure there are more but I either don't know them or can't remember.

[John Moore II]

Mike-does Sand Hills return to the clubhouse? However, when looking at a club of the stature, they are not exactly worried about making money on beer and soda sales. Rich Harvest does not return after 9 either. But in all honesty, I would say that the reason public courses return to the clubhouse after 9 holes is to make more money selling F&B.

[mike_beene]

Well ,I kind of missed an obvious one since I was at the Nelson today:TPC Las Colinas.

[Sam Morrow]

Well ,I kind of missed an obvious one since I was at the Nelson today:TPC Las Colinas.

I don't even recognize it anymore.

[Jim Nugent]

Somewhat OT, but related: often in pro events half the players tee off on number one, half on number ten.  Does this have much effect on scores?  I know they switch the next day, which may or may not even things out. 

[Jason McNamara]

Jim, if #1 is either a "must-birdie" hole or a real card-wrecker, I think some guys might not mind starting on #10.  (I've heard this specifically in reference to Riviera, iirc.)

[John Moore II]

I can say that Wake Forest GC (NLE) would have been better starting from #10. 10 was a 425ish par 4 but hole 1 was the monster 710yd par 5. 10 would certainly have been the best starter there.

[Sean_A]

I am of the opinion that a golf course has a proper beginning and end.  There are some courses which are blessed with 2 or 3 starting points which make sense and are of equal "quality" if that is the right word to use.  Notts is one that comes to mind.  The course works well starting from #4 and finishing on the short par 5 3rd.  In fact, the 4th may have been the original starting hole, but the current #s 1-3 are not original.  Woking is another.  Starting from the 15th seems a good proposition with it being slightly awkward crossing the clubhouse area (though it makes a stop in the proshop handy) to get from 18 to 1, but not terribly so.  I could see a case for starting on Huntercombe's 6th rather than the short par 3 1st. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think its unlikely. I agree a course kind of has a beginning and end.

[Richard Boult]

I realize many architects attempt to design a course with a intended beginning and end and even try to build in some sort of creshindo, but as a humble player, they're all just holes to me, to be played in any order.  The only reason I don't like starting on holes other than 1 or 10 (shotgun) is because it usually requires the use of a cart.

[Kirk Gill]

There's a local course called Black Bear (formerly Canterberry), designed by Jeff Brauer, where I always make a point of warming up well before playing because the start is pretty difficult compared to the rest of the course. It was interesting to find out on this board that the clubhouse was re-positioned after the initial routing, and that the opening holes were not ever envisioned as opening holes by the architect.

On the other hand, I like the current 18th as a finishing hole, as it's a big downhill drive on a fairly short hole, with a heavily bunkered green.......

Go figure.....

[Jim Thompson]

I still believe that any course would be more enjoyable if all play started on the first par 3.  More rounds are ruined by operators who have little concept of spacing then all design issues combined.  I do agree with the notion of trying to create crscendos into a design, but when the music is paused over and over again, it never has a chance.

[Andy Levett]

Jim Finnegan’s Ireland book recounts how the first time he went to Royal County Down he was wined and dined by the committee (not sure why, maybe they thought he’d get them on Pine Valley).

When the time eventually came to play he was a bit nonplussed to be starting from the 10th  to avoid a hold-up on the first (RCD is relatively unusual for a links to have returning nines).

When I read it, I thought he was a bit ungracious even mentally questioning which hole he should start from after being so royally entertained but having subsequently played the course is the 10th in fact not a better place to start anyway?

People dispute how great the superiority of 1-9  is over 10-18 at RCD but everyone (?) agrees the front nine is better. (Cf Machrihanish and Royal Aberdeen, which don’t have the option of starting anywhere other than the first).

So why not start with the ‘weaker’ nine and build up to the crescendo? Or has this been tried at RCD?

[Gerry B]

interesting topic.

the first time I played Fishers Island - started on 6 - so we ended with holes 2-5 which i think is one one of the best run of 4 holes on the planet.

On a few occasions have started on the back 9 at Chicago golf club which works as well.

[Mike McGuire]

So why not start with the ‘weaker’ nine and build up to the crescendo? Or has this been tried at RCD?

My home course starts with the strong nine. One reason I like it is when playing 27 you play the strong nine twice!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()