[Sam Kestin]

Fellas,

I was just writing part of an article I'm working on for the Northern Trust Open and I got to thinking about something that I'm curious to hear your opinions on...

How much does hole sequencing matter to you? More specifically, do you feel the placement of a hole at a specific point in the round can significantly add or detract from the overall experience of playing it?

By sequencing, I'm talking about the specific order in which the holes are placed. (I think sequencing is the right term...but maybe I made it up...I can't recall...)

For example, I was playing out at the Seawane Club in Hewlett Harbor over the summer and found myself wondering if the golf course might be better off if they changed around the order of the holes. The first twelve holes are laden with a number of solid birdie opportunities while the last six, especially when the wind blows, just beat the hell out of you. You could easily save the short 3rd and 4th for later in the round and play them as  the 15th and 16th...but I don't know if I'd like the course more or less this way.

Similarly, while writing about Riviera, I was reading about Thomas' affinity for bringing the 2nd back to the clubhouse and got to thinking about how easily you could re-arrange the order of the holes out there and how much different the golf course would feel to me if they were in a different sequence.

For example, you could (not that you would, but you could) re-arrange it as:

1-12-13-9-3-4-5-6-7-8-14-15-16-17-18-10-11-2

I was thinking about it the other day too while watching the FBR. I remembered playing the TPC at like the crack of dawn on no sleep after a long night out in Scottsdale and being kind of let down that we had to jump off the back since I dig how fun that closing stretch is. To me, the stretch of holes from 15-18 there just isn't quite as spicy when its actually the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th holes.

Anyway, what do you all think?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Sam,

I think sequencing of holes (you've got the right term, in my opinion!) is very important. (Most) golf courses are designed with a specifc sequence of holes in mind.

The biggest travesty in golf, with regard to resequencing, is found at Banff Springs, Alberta. This has been discussed here numerous times before. But, Stanley Thompson's original design played "out" from and "back" to the magnificent Banff Springs Hotel; the experience is actually not dissimilar to leaving St. Andrews and coming back to the town at the Old Course.

These days, a round at Banff Springs begins at Thompson's fifth hole. This hole isn't as good of an opener as the current 15th (Thompson's first); the fourth certainly doesn't compare with Thompson's home hole, finishing in the shadow of the hotel; reaching the "Devil's Cauldron" at the 4th hole instead of the 8th isn't as good either; etc.; etc.

The "Banff experience" is markedly changed for the worse because of this resequencing of holes... which, for the record, stems from addition of a new 9-hole course and clubhouse, in 1989.

[Adam Clayman]

It matters a lot.

Sequencing is essential to the journey. The story. Whatever it is that makes the routing work well is most likely through the sequencing.

Examples of re-configuring courses, like the one Jeff mentions, are systemic throughout. That tells me not everyone recognizes sequencing, or the subtle genius of a good routing.

One of the newest attempts at pushing the sequencing envelope is up in Marquette Michigan. Greywalls is awesome in how the journey unfolds, and, counter intuitive in how it finishes.

[mike_beene]

It matters enough to make Spyglass one of the most discussed courses on this site.

[RJ_Daley]

It seems to me that sequencing is very important, but also can be discussed in a number of different contexts.   All of the sequencing ultimately reflects on the routing creativity of the architect. 

But, in addition to the sequencing of pars and degree of difficulty of various holes as they progress along the route, and the concept of the experience of journey in revealing the the course's aesthetic appeals, there are the considerations of timing as sequence, in that the design and features and hazards that must be negotiated at key times during the round, and what par is on holes of various hazards, all plays into the pace of play aspect of sequencing.  We all know courses that notoriously back up at clog points, often due to a certain holes particular playing characteristics such as unusual hard or tricky to deal with hazards, where players are faced with time delaying consequences of a hazard, where it is too frequently a place of ball searches, or OBs and reloads, and repetitive failed swings to advance in an orderly fashion.  And, when those time delaying holes are also compounded in complexity with the sequence of pars where players natually stack up at choke points, that can be double trouble.  And finally, the par sequencing that sometimes works where it is quirky can be important in a positive fun sense, or a negative frustrating sense, depending on how it actually plays out on the ground.

[Pete_Pittock]

   The Tour re-sequences the holes every week. How does TPC-Sawgrass change on the day when you play from the 10th tee and face 17 midway in the round?
   Thomas, and many other architects had the affinity of returning the second hole to the clubhouse so extra hole matches would end with a shorter return trek.
   One of the two courses at my home course changed sequencing to get the first tee under better control and eliminate a bottleneck at the 2nd hole a par 3. I think the course lost a good flow envisiioned by the architect.
(North-Cupp original route was 10-15, 7-9, 1-6, 16-18 using current hole numbers and played 36-36 instead of 37-35).
   I don't think any good architect would like his routing rearranged.

[BVince]

I agree that sequencing is like a story or great movie, it needs to climax at the right time for it to be memorable.  I think that is why Cypress Point is so great.  The story builds from the understated pro shop, to the first tee, and you continue to anticipate what great hole is next.  There are points of foreshadowing, like the view from 9th tee and when you get to 12th green, there is a sense of the greatness to come.  It tells a fabulous story and makes for a truly wonderful experience.  I know it there are other great examples out there, but it is the best sequencing that I have seen.

[Matthew Rose]

I lived on a course that was built in stages - it was 27 hole complex with a 9 and an 18. The 9 built first and had two flags on every green, a la Desert Mountain Renegade.

The 18 was designed with non-returning nines, which I liked because it forced the nine-holers to play the nine-hole course and kept them off the 18.

The 18 hole course opened in two stages. The first nine holes that were built were 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, and 18. They played as a "back nine" to the original course when it opened, although they were just conventional one-flag greens.

The hole which was to be the 5th was a par-three, and just happened to be the one in our backyard. We liked it being in that position. It was a good place to sneak off and grab some drinks.

The original plan called for holes 2-4 to be built on the other side of a road, routed in nice woodlands along a natural creek which would have allowed for a magnificent split-fairway par five among two other nice holes.

Holes #10-15 were also really interesting, mostly routed around a lake.

The first thing that happened was that somebody decided there was too much water on the right side of those holes, so they flipped all of them to play in the opposite direction. The resulting holes were not nearly as interesting as those originally planned, and the longest par-five now played against the wind, instead of downwind.

Then something worse happened - the developer killed the three holes in the trees, and decided to have three new holes built completely on the other end of the property instead (boring, treeless farmland), so he could cram more housing lots. So the front nine became 1,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 and the back nine became 13, new hole, new hole, new hole, 14-18. The three new holes were all flat, featureless holes in the most open portion of the entire property and had stunning views of cornfields, county highways, and power lines.

The 5th hole became the 2nd hole. I'm not a fan of par-3 second holes.... it always seems to slow play down, and this one indeed became a bottleneck. It also wasn't quite as much fun passing the house that close to the beginning of the round.

In addition, the farthest point from the clubhouse was now about 1/2 mile further out than previously, making it a nightmare for anybody caught out during a thunderstorm to get to shelter.

Over five years I watched this course go up, and the original routing never got built in it's intended form, which really disappointed a lot of people. Once I got to play the course a lot, I couldn't help but feel the disjointed nature of how it went up ended up hurting it in the end.

I suppose this isn't entirely on topic, as it is more a case of a developer ruining a routing before it's even built.

[Jim Nugent]

A couple of the world's greatest courses have been re-sequenced.  ANGC reversed the front and back nine.   So did NGLA.   And what is the story on TOC reverse course? 

One question is, has resequencing made any courses better?  e.g. is Royal Liverpool better with the British Open sequencing? 

I think the Senior PGA Tour reversed the nines at Rancho Park.  Anyone know why? 

[TEPaul]

I have real respect for an architect who can imagine and execute really interesting "sequencing" alternatives with a golf course (obviously in the routing process).

We believe we have noticed that Flynn seemed to do this enough times on enough golf courses that we feel it was definitely no accident or coincidence.

Lancaster, Kittanset and Shinnecock are very good examples of it.

[Joe Hancock]

If the sequencing is such that a golfer doesn't give it a second thought, is it close to ideal?

Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

I don't think so. Most golfers naturally don't give sequencing a seccond thought. If they do its for the negative items - back to back par 3's, too many tough holes in a row, etc. 

I think it takes exceptionally good sequencing for a golfer to take positive notice.  That sequence can be the routing - lengths, uphill, downhill, wind direction.  But it can also be features that relate - for example the big green followed by a small one.  Or a hard hole followed by and easy one.  Or in the case of Cypress Point, holes in different settings - from open to woods to open to ocean.

[Mike Hendren]

Sequence is irrelevant.

Routing is paramount.

Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have real respect for an architect who can imagine and execute really interesting "sequencing" alternatives with a golf course (obviously in the routing process).

We believe we have noticed that Flynn seemed to do this enough times on enough golf courses that we feel it was definitely no accident or coincidence.

Lancaster, Kittanset and Shinnecock are very good examples of it.

Quite a discrepancy between your view and Mike Hendren! I agree routing is paramount in that if the holes are no damn good, it hardly matters what sequence you play them in.  However, if holes ARE good, then all things being equal, I think good sequencing adds to the enjoyment.

The other questions I need to ask is, when does sequencing become formula and when is it just a good idea?  The prime example is the "perfect par rotation" of 4-5-4-3-4-5-4-3-4 which often fails to satisfy.  Again, that leads me to think that sequencing has more to do with holes and their setting, difficulty and perhaps shot requirements.  Par and length have little do with it - for example, a sequence of long par 5, medium 4 and short 3 could all place a short iron in your hand for the approach.  Of course, for good players, or long ones, its hard to vary that short iron approach sequence as much as we used to!

[Adam Clayman]

Mike H. Rather simplistic semantics. The routing is the sequencing. Its the micro sequencing that would best describe the macro routing. Pinon Hills re-configured their route because it eased the starters job. I had no greater satisfaction then when that starter admitted to me that he felt the difference in his own game. He said that he never could get into a rythum under the new config. A testament to how good the original was.

[rjsimper]

Sequence is irrelevant.

Routing is paramount.

Mike

Untrue.

Was just talking the other day about my one round at Riviera, and how we were about 2 minutes from having to start on the back nine (team play was beginning on the first tee, and we were running a touch late)

Riviera would not be the same great experience for two compelling reasons:

1) Play the 10th hole as their first
2) Not play the 18th hole last

and to a lesser extent, a third...

3) Not play the first hole first, given the Thomas intention of starting off with a relatively friendly par 5

A simplistic example perhaps, but painting with a broad brush leaves room for runs, drips, and errors my friend.

This sequencing issue (although I am not getting into the re-sequencing within a 9) is part of the reason I dislike 27 hole facilities.

[Joe Hancock]

Sequence is irrelevant.

Routing is paramount.

Mike

I don't disagree with this, yet it isn't complete.

If someone were to go the Sandhills (take your pick on exact location) and route 18 really good holes that went 3-3-3-3-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-5-5-5-5, then I think we would all agree that somehow the sequencing failed even though the routing came up with 18 really good holes.

It has to work together, and it is important.

Joe

[JMorgan]

It's the puddin' for me.

[Mike Hendren]

Adam,

Are you really surprised I would oversimplify?   It's in my DNA.

Ryan, while I haven't had the privilege to play Riviera I'm not so sure the current 10th would be a great opener - at least you wouldn't have to worry about hitting the first tee shot of the day OB left as you do with the current 1st.  Also, the 9th doesn't exactly appear to be chump change. 

Mike

[Jason Topp]

I play in a series of interclub matches that use shotgun starts on teriffic courses.  Starting from the middle of the course messes up the experience for me more than I would think it should.

I am also a big fan of courses that present the course in different acts.  The Old Course is a very good example with a meat and potatoes start for 6 holes, the excitement of the loop and the interesting challenges of the last 6. 

[Steve Burrows]

Per the original post which references Riviera...

I worked at Riviera for a while and, during that time, was able to play the golf course more than a handful of times in the intended, prescribed sequence, as well as a number of times when I just went to holes that were available.  I think that each of the holes work wonderfully in their current positions (and it is an absolute pleasure to play), but I think that they sequence as laid out by Sam would still be an enjoyable way of experiencing the golf course. 

For example, # 18 is certainly a fine finisher, and the clubhouse as a backdrop only increases that, but # 2 is no slouch and would serve as a stern finish as well (and this idea of a demanding finish was certainly part of Thomas's original scheme with the golf course).

I still find it odd to assume that even the original designer of a given golf course would have routed and sequenced it in the same way if given the chance to do it again.   Authors, movie directors and editors, etc., would likely make changes to their product if given the chance.  Designers, even the great ones, are/were fallible, but more than this, we, as players, are somewhat stubborn in the fact that, after experiencing a golf course, have a tough time envisioning it in any other way.   We tend to be creatures of habit who are not often capable of letting go our preconceived notions of a golf course or a routing.  Bt what would you think of the course if you played it in this alternative sequence, but without any knowledge of the original play?  Would it be possible for any educated designer/player to do so?  Only under those unlikely circumstances would we be able to judge whether a golf course would be better or worse in an alternative sequencing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()