[Steve Burrows]

A few weeks ago, while on a trip to Australia, I was fortunate enough to play a round of golf at Kingston Heath Golf Club (when I get organized, I will post some pictures).  Perhaps unfortunately, I was there on a Wednesday, when the renowned 15th hole is taken out of play (to let it recover) and so the "19th" hole, a par-3 constructed at the north-east end of the property, directly beyond the 1st green, is its substitute.  Moreover, on these days, the members do not simply play this hole second, and then proceed through the rest of the course in order, skipping the 15th, but rather play an alternative routing (for reasons that still elude me). 

The routing is as follows: 1, 19, 12-14, 16-18, 7-11, 2-6.

Naturally, most would prefer to play a golf course in the manner that it was "intended," but, having played this well-respected course out of sequence, I am not convinced that it truly matters.  I certainly can appreciate the idea that a designer wishes to create a sense of rhythm and flow with his/her routing (trying to balance shot values, etc.), but when one is simply playing each golf shot in the moment, I am not sure that it matters too much; I don't feel as though I was deprived of anything monumental due to this change in organization and would actually submit that the possibility of playing alternative sequences is a testament to the ingenious routing of this particular golf course.

Has anyone experienced this and/or can anyone come up with any meaningful objections to playing out of sequence?   

 

[David Stamm]

I can't help but think the experience of CPC would be compromised if it was played out of order.

[Steve Burrows]

Admittedly, Cypress may well be one of those objections.  Moreover, there are courses, such as TPC at Sawgrass, where the last few holes are so deliberately placed that playing out of sequence may seem almost silly.

However, is every course that has ever been built absolutely meant to be experienced like a train coming down the track, and that there is only one way in which one's golfing experience will be fulfillled?  Presumably you would feel cheated if the 16th at Cypress was closed down the day you were there, yes?  But, what about the other 17 holes?  Is there importance to be marginalized or negated because of this other, seemingly more important contribution?  Would you decline an opportunity to play there if you knew that one of the holes was out of play?

[Bill_McBride]

I can't help but think the experience of CPC would be compromised if it was played out of order.

That might be the best example.  It would also be uncomfortable, perhaps, to play Augusta National off the 10th tee since everyone is so familiar with the current routing from television of the Masters.  

I never really like playing shotgun starts because you have to figure the architect had a reason for routing the course from 1-18, whether it's pacing, rhythm, building to a finish, or maybe even sun in your eyes.

My one day at Muirfield, we played off the 10th tee as a morning fourball - the standard start of "the day," and the only difference that really meant was I wasn't warmed up, hit a shorter than normal tee ball off the 10th tee and had to lay up short of the cross bunkers which are well short of the green!  Otherwise it didn't make much difference, although 17 and 18 are a fine finish to a round.  Finishing on 8 and 9 wasn't shabby either!  

[jeffwarne]

Bill,
I used to play Augusta by starting on #13.
We called that a "barbed wire start"
#12 was a nice finisher

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,
I used to play Augusta by starting on #13.
We called that a "barbed wire start"
#12 was a nice finisher

Were you playing in the dark? 

My only steps on the sacred turf of San Francisco Golf Club began with a climb over the chain link fence in the trees by #7 when I was an impecunious college student.  We played about six of those magnificent holes before being unceremoniously escorted off the property.

[Kirk Gill]

I've played a number of rounds at a local Jeff Brauer design called Black Bear (formerly Canterberry), and the start always felt sort of odd to me - nothing I could really define, but maybe a bit too hard, a bit too abrupt a way to begin a round.......and via this site I was able to ask some general questions of the architect and Mr. Brauer told me that the hole sequence had to be changed after the routing due to clubhouse relocation. It made a difference, I think, to how the course feels and plays. Certainly not a deal-breaker, but I tend to agree with Bill McBride that the architect's original feelings regarding the hole sequence is the way I'd prefer to experience the course, if possible.

[Steve Burrows]

Kirk Gill wrote: "I tend to agree with Bill McBride that the architect's original feelings regarding the hole sequence is the way I'd prefer to experience the course, if possible."

Doesn't this assume that the designer created something flawless in the first place?

[John Moore II]

I think its interesting that we talk about a certain routing and holes meant to be played at certain times of the day. I have played courses that I thought were routed poorly because some of the opening holes played directly into the morning sun and the later holes played right into the afternoon sun. I always thought if I were to design a course, the position of a hole in relation to the sun would be one of the main things I designed for.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I generally like to play sequentially on a course that is new to me.  i my own course, I don't care.  If one section has a few groups on it I have no trouble slipping over to other holes. I don't even have to play each hole, as long as I get to play as at least 18.

[Kirk Gill]

Steve, I think that if I'm playing a course for the first time, or perhaps the first few times, I'd like to play it the way the architect intended. On courses I play more regularly that would certainly be less of an issue. There are a number of courses I've played where if I only had time for nine I'd much prefer to play the back, etc. I'm certainly not saying that one should always assume that a designer's intent is flawless, but I'd at least like to honor that intent until I become familiar with what's on the ground and feel comfortable drawing my own conclusions (also not flawless !).

[Mike Bowline]

When I play a course for the first time, I like to play starting from #1 and play consecutively thru to #18. On courses where I play the first time and I am forced to start on #10, I always have a more difficult time remembering the holes. My ease of remembering holes after playing has always been a barometer in my mind of the quality of the holes, and of the course in general.

On courses with two (or three) nine-hole loops, does the architect plan the rhythm within each respective nine holes, and whether play begins on #1 or on #10 my be irrelevant? This is of course with the exception of the famous courses mentioned earlier (AGGC, CPC).

[Sean_A]

I sort of agree with Mike.  I have a very good memory for the flow of a course and can often retrace the hole numberings just by a linking feature or something like that.  When I ride, start away from #1 or skip holes I usually terribly confused.  The last course this happened with was Merion West.  I don't have a clue of the routing and I think it really colours my impression of the design so much so that its almost like I was never there - all I have are impressions and this was from last spring!  With few exceptions I like to start on #1 and go from there. 

Ciao

[Adam Clayman]

I can't help but think the experience of CPC would be compromised if it was played out of order.

David, You may be right, but, I can assure you, it happens at CPC frequently. Knowing some of the caddies, I was often surprised at how many times I heard of members who rather than wait for the first tee will grab their guest and start out in the middle. Most of that likely occurs during those periods when the club allows outside unaccompanied play between 7;30 and 9;30 a.m.

[Steve Burrows]

Then isn't this all simply a matter of perception? 

What if you showed up blindly to a given course, not knowing the original routing or sequence, and played in some differing order (not simply the reversing the front nine and back nine, but an interweaving of holes, like at Kingston Heath as explained in the original post)?  This is obviously a big leap (and is probably too much to ask), but, ignorant of the original routing, you would assume that you are playing as the designer intended, correct?  Your experience would be YOUR reality and you would assume that this is the flow and rhythm that the designer's intent, right?

So, for example, would Kingston Heath be an appreciably worse course if you thought that the routing on Wednesdays is the real deal (apart from not playing # 15)? 

   

[RichMacafee]

Steve,

I am a member at Kingston Heath. I hope you enjoyed your round. It's a pity you didn't get to play the 15th - the tee was being levelled and re-turfed as the back area had become uneven.

Just to clarify, the 15th (or any other hole) is not rested every Wednesday, it was only because work was being done on the tee. Sometimes one of the par 3's is rested, but that is rare. Normally on the 'Wednesday course' you go from the 1st to the 12th, and don't play the 19th.

The reason this was done is it allows a 2 tee start, which the regular routing does not allow due to the 10th hole being out in the middle of the property.

Logistically, this has worked very well and allowed for bigger midweek comp fields. However, being a 25 year member, it still feels 'wrong' every time I play the course that way. The flow is different, and the 'previewing' of holes you are about to play, and some pin positions, is messed up. I much prefer hitting off the 7th tee on Wednesdays, as this still means the last 7 holes are played as 12-18, so the strong finish is retained. You also get to see the 17th pin from the 7th green, which is important. I always book on the 7th tee if possible.

It is an interesting question for those that haven't played a course before though, I agree. When reviewing a course and discussing it after playing it, it can be confusing to have played it 'out of order'. When I took Ed, Lloyd and David from GCA to KH last year we played on a Wednesday, and while they loved the course, I know it was a bit confusing when disussing the holes afterwards.

Interestingly, the Australian Womens Open was played over the 'Wednesday routing', so the finishing holes would be closer to the clubhouse. The organizers felt this would be better for the spectators and atmosphere. It worked well.

If we had got the Presidents Cup, this would also have been the routing, because matchplay matches would have finished closer to the clubhouse, and not down in the far corner where 14,15,16 are.

Cheers, Rich.

[Tom_Doak]

I actually once played Cypress Point out of order ... we were delayed getting there for our early-morning start and there were other groups on the tee, so they asked if we'd mind starting on #10.  (There is a very small dirt car park out by #4 tee for that purpose.)

It was very weird getting to #16 that early in the round, and I was a bit off balance the entire day, but perhaps it goes back to having gotten there late.

As a designer, I would prefer that everyone got to play the course starting with #1, and we go out of the way at our Renaissance Cup events to make it work that way, at least for the first round of the event.  I do not like trying to plan a course for starting on #1 or #10, as we had to do in Myrtle Beach ... you wind up trying to build #10 and 11 too much like your first two holes in terms of difficulty, and it messes up the variety of the course.  Also, having to avoid par-3's as 10 and 11 as well as 1 and 2 really limits the options in the routing.

On the other hand, I did once design a course with no set routing, where the players decide where to go next ... and that worked very well.

[Peter Pallotta]

Steve - interesting topic.

I'm surprised that the intended sequencing isn't being given more weight and/or importance.

Maybe I shouldn't be. I can't myself argue intelligently in its defence, or against it.

But if good routing comes down to no more than using the features effectively/strategically (that's hard enough, I know), then I guess I've been asking too much of (or looking for too much in) the routings I play.

Peter

 

[Matthew Rose]

I played a muni that actually changed its routing completely around, for reasons not apparent to me then, but the change pretty much gutted both nines and had you play holes from each on the new nines.

I got used to it quickly, mainly because I'd only just started playing golf the year before and ended up playing the course a lot more after the change. In later years, when I worked there and had it to myself after dusk, I would go out and play the old routing, which I decided that I liked better.

It was an interesting routing in that there are conceivably about six different ways to play it and still have two returning nines.

[Scott Sander]

I've played a number of rounds at a local Jeff Brauer design called Black Bear (formerly Canterberry)...

Mr. Gill-
Is the sequence the same as it was when Canterberry opened?  I played there a few times in the late-90's and I recall the starters/rangers claiming that things would eventually change, but I haven't been back in years.  When Aurora decided to build some terrific courses it made driving down to Canterberry less appealing.  Canterberry was a heckuva layout - but it had extremely uneven management in the early years. 

Also (and perhaps Tom Doak may have a word about this)-
Do you play Riverdale Dunes much?  When I lived there they rotated #10 and #1 as the opener.   I didn't mind either way, but the "rhythm" sure was different.  The by-the-numbers routing always tested one's ability to find aggressiveness late in a wearying round, while the alternate version was more "grip the wheel tightly and try to keep the wheels attached" - for me, anyway. 
 #9 and #18 could not possibly be more "different" as closers.

[Scott Warren]

The courses I have played with an obvious high point mid-round or mid-nine (NSW 5&6 and 13-15 for example) are all the better for the build up to that point.

If you were to play NSW teeing off on either 13 or 5, I think the course would lose some of the momentum and the anticipation. At least that's how I would feel.

As far as courses that host championships, the character of the back nine is what creates so much atmosphere, no?. Take ANGC for example (at least the old ANGC!), would Jack's charge to the green jacket in 1986 have been as thrilling if he started on 9, played his first 10 holes in -7, then parred his last eight?

I think playing a good course in the wrong order would be like watching a season of a TV show you love in a non-chronological order. Each episode would still be enjoyable, but the series is much better if you encounter it in the order the creator intended.

[Paul Jones]

I can't help but think the experience of CPC would be compromised if it was played out of order.

I heard the best round at CPC is to start by playing 15 - 18, then play all 18.

[Gerry B]

played fishers island once and started on hole 6 - how about those 4 finishing holes  that day - including 2 quirky / unique versions of the redan and biarritz and the all world alps / punch bowl

[Kirk Gill]

Scott, I'm afraid I can't effectively answer either of your questions. I played Canterberry a long time back, when it first opened, but don't really remember specifically if it was different then than the sequencing I'm used to playing now. I don't know that the current sequence is "bad," per se, it just struck me as an unusually difficult way to start out a round, and the feel of it seemed to make better sense once I thought about playing it in the original order. From what Jeff said, the current 1st and 2nd were originally 17 and 18.

As to Riverdale Dunes, it's on the other side of Denver from me, so I don't get to play it as often as I'd like, but I've always teed off on the same 1st hole there. I'd have to use my imagination to think of what it would be like to start on what I think of as the 10th. I love the 1st hole - especially in full summer when the long grass is waving at you. It's one of those holes that can be easy, or with a terrible drive can get you staring at the ground and grumbling from the get-go.

[Mike Bowline]

I can't help but think the experience of CPC would be compromised if it was played out of order.

I heard the best round at CPC is to start by playing 15 - 18, then play all 18.

I disagree. The best round at CPC would be to start by playing 15-18, then play 1-18, then 1-18 again, then 1-18 a third time, then to the hospital.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()