[Mark Pritchett]

I think the one "item" on a golf course that has a more adverse affect on designing is the preceived need by some to have returning nines. Routing returning nines ruins more golf courses than cart paths is my bet.  -Kelly Blake Moran


Kelly Blake Moran posted the above on another thread and I thought it was deserving of its own thread.  How many courses would be different if "returning nines to the clubhouse" was not a mandate?

Should a routing be changed to accommodate returning nines?   

My home course does not have returning nines, but my guess is if it were built today the nines would return to the clubhouse. 

[Cliff Hamm]

Of course not.  Historically courses had the outward and inward 9.  What is the purpose of fhe front 9 returning to the clubhouse?  How many golfers wish to play 9?  If they do with carts no problem where the front 9 ends. Perhaps if more courses did not return to the club house there would be more half way houses and fewer cart girls. This is an easy one.

[Mark Pritchett]

I play nine quite often at my home course, however it involves playing 1-5 and then 15-18.

We have a halfway house between the 8th and 15th tees. 

[Cliff Hamm]

And no cart girls I presume

Perhaps another way of phrasing your question would be, "Is there any reason that the front nine should return to the clubhouse?"  As long as facilites are provided I see none.

[Jeff_Brauer]

While TD says returning nines eliminate 75-90% of the possible design solutions I would say its very site specific.  I doubt he had any trouble getting returning nines in Lubbock!  At Pac Dunes or maybe Stoneagle, forcing some returns may or may not have hampered the design, but those are spectacular sites.

It can also be handled by, as TD recommends, routing first and then siting the clubhouse where the requisite 4 holes happen to come close together, although that may affect routing and flow in other ways, not to mention utility extension costs if the gca picks a clubhouse way out on the far side of the site.

Industry stats show returning nines allow about 3000 more rounds per year, both because of nine hole rounds and incremental increases possible via double starts. That might mean $100,000 or more per year in lost revenues, so many owners might very well turn Tom down on his one time offer of $50K.

[Adrian_Stiff]

In the commercial world it is important to have returning nines. I think 99% of the time architects will try and get the ninth back, but there are rare situations where you could get back but its chosen not to. Plenty of situations where you cant get back ofcourse or where the course is better for a loop of 8 and a 10. Its much better if a course is intended to be busy if you have the nines, you can start off both tees and get a few more tee times. We have one where tees 1, 5, 10 and 14 are close to the clubhouse and that has the benifits that you can use 4 tees and fill the course in about an hour.

[Jud_T]

It's infinitely better to simply put up a small halfway house than force the routing back IMHO...

[Adrian_Stiff]

It's infinitely better to simply put up a small halfway house than force the routing back IMHO...

Jud- I think in most cases of new design, theres not much forcing for the purpose of getting the nines, its normally fairy easy to do or its just impossibe, if you have a tight width back into the clubhouse..its a NO, if you can get a place where two pairs of holes will touch is normally easy. Two nines should not really ruin a routing and probaby to most developers the two nines would be a very important component in the routing.

[Jud_T]

TomD,

re-Jeff's comments-time to bump your fee up 50k and bump the offer up to 100k! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jud,

Again, site specific.  And, participants here really seem (historically speaking, and in my opinion) to be hung up on the idea that there is only one true best routing for every site.  That simply is not the case on most sites.  In most cases, its a situation where one potential routing might have "incrementally (not infinitely) better XXXX" but offers a little less "YYY" and about equal "Z" while returning the nines, etc.  And the XXX is probably more along the lines of too many dogleg lefts vs a balanced set of holes, too many long holes in a row, etc.

Perhaps the classic example is Cypress Point (which doesn't return nines, but that is not the point heree) which offers spectacular holes at 15-17 at the expense of a somewhat lackluster 18th.  They had some limitations imposed, mainly 17 mile drive, and it would be interesting to see how different Raynor's routing might have been, if at all or if any iterations had different road alignments, etc.

PS - Don't go getting me in trouble with Tom!  My points, like a few others here, are that we are not only designing a golf course, we are providing a base for a business.  Its great when that isn't the prime consideration, but that is simply rarely the case, which is why we celebrate those occasions, like Bandon, where great design and great business can come together in one package.

[Jud_T]

Jeff,

Clearly there may be many iterations depending on the property in question, some of which, coincidentally, may allow for returning nines. And obviously, the economics come into play.  But if the goal is to find THE best 18 holes on the property then forcing two loops would seem somewhat limiting, no?

[jim_lewis]

Don't get me started!

Returning the ninth (and 18th) holes to the clubhouse may not "ruin" a routing, but it seems to me that it often results in a lesser routing that could have otherwise been achieved. I cite Bandon Dunes as an example. I think the 9th is one of the weakest holes on the course. Just one reason why Pacific Dunes is superior. I even think the same is true of Augusta National. Let me put the question another way. Can you name a great course (Pine Valley, #2, Merion, Pebble Beach, etc.) that could have been better if the ninth green and the 10 tee were near the clubhouse?

I am sure it makes business sense, but I think the course quality often suffers. Of course, the problem could be solved by routing the course first and then locating the clubhouse. Good luck with that one.

Jim lewis

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jud- Most courses are not aimed to be in the worlds best 100. Most new courses are not on spectacular landscapes and many are on flattish landforms where we need to make it. There are a number of factors which determine what people like or want, the best 18 holes could be par 68, or par 76 or involves all the short holes on one nine and none on the other, for some reason this seems to matter and we seem stuck between 70 and 72 as a fixed figure and we cant have a nines with 34 and 38 pars. When you start to look at a golf course can make an extra $100,000 for having returning nines, its an easy call for many developers in a world where 87% of new ventures go bust by the first operator. Somewhere like Bandon wont have people doing 9 holes, so thats a situation where it becomes irrelevant, but remember the rarity of that situation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jud,

Again, site specific.  And of course if its the owners goal to NOT lose their shirt, and I come up with only a design that is out and back, ten they might find that somewhat limiting, too, no?  There are just a lot of things that are figured into any final design.  I just can't say that returning nines is the most limiting factor I can think of.....It would have to be pretty special (think Sand Hills) to make golfers walk a mile to get started on their round rather than walk out of the clubhouse.

Although I will say that Augusta perhaps exemplifies a typical problem of home holes on either nine - locating the CH on top ofthe tallest hill can result in ho hum, uphill holes to finish, rather than perhaps a more desireable conclusion.  So, cluhouse location can really be the problem with squeezing in holes at the end. 

For that matter, lets not forget that in addition to 2 or 4 holes coming somewhere near the clubhouse, the typical golf experience suggsts a practice range be placed close by, which really is a space eater and land planning problem.  And the biggest culprit on poor finishing holes is an owners insistence that the ch have a view of the finishing hole so members can watch the exciting finish of a tournament that will never actually get hosted there......

Finding returning nines has only been a real problem on a few courses for me.  I have only done two out and backs, and a few more that return close but not at the CH, all for courses that really wouldn't have nine hole play in resort type situations......and can only think of a few others that really were a struggle but I put the ninth back to the CH anyway. 

Just like I think of potential design schemes when siting a green, I can think of potential approaches of holes to a proposed clubhoue site.  I pick a few logical sites, I try a few schemesto see what works, and pick one that works best, ll things considered.  Once a decision has been made as part of the design PROCESS, we go with it, presumably because it is a good solution.

Again, it would be hard for anyone to tell in most cases if a better routing might have been had because of returning nines, but you already know that!

[Jud_T]

Jeff,

Thanks for your candor on the subject.  There are obviously many more considerations that go into the routing than most of us Treehouse fly-on-the-walls can imagine.  And I'm sure these days most GCA's are happy to get whatever work comes their way.  The number of opportunities to walk a wonderful piece of virgin property and simply pick the best routing for golf are few and far between (and by the way where is it written in stone that we need exactly 18 holes with par 72 including exactly 4 par 3's and 4 par 5's?).  But then again we can all dream (and blog endlessly about it  ).

[jim_lewis]

Jeff:

Your last post reminded me....... I think you are familiar with the Foothills Course at Barton Hills. In my opinion the their 18th is a great example of creating a bad hole in order to finish below the clubhouse (In this case, the hotel). As you know, in recent years several new courses have solved the problem by locating the 18th green where it belongs and creating a 19th hole to bring play back to the clubhouse. Forest Creek South, Old Farm, and Kinloch are three I can think of. Have you had occasion to employ that solution?

In the case of ANGC, we know that the building that is now the clubhouse was there long before the course. The result is that the approach shots to both 9 and 18 are uphill to the clubhouse. Frankly, I don't think either is among the best holes on the course.

Bringing the 9th back to the clubhouse often dictates the location of the 10th tee, which also may not be optimal.

[Brandon Johnson]

Interesting topic. I know I’m late to the thread but I’ll add my two cents…I agree with JB on a lot of his points. There are so many factors that go into a routing. Just because nines return to a fixed point does not mean the architect automatically left great holes on the table or somehow compromised the design. A clients or owners need to successfully run an operation has to be considered or the design fails to function on other levels. We were discussing Sand Hills in the office today and how you have returning nines but travel a large distance just to start the round.  What are you really returning too? We all know there were hundreds of great golf holes so why did it return to a fixed point? Still in the architects mind, and many others, 18 great holes were achieved. How different would that course be if 1) you started and finished closer to the clubhouse or 2)played in an 18 hole loop?

[Tom_Doak]

Brandon:

I asked Bill Coore years ago specifically about Sand Hills -- how it just happened that the ninth hole returned to Ben's porch.  He said they hadn't necessarily tried to go that way but that was one combination of holes that worked well.  I know he left some great holes on the table, because he showed me where there were two beautiful natural holes running east from #8 tee and back to it ... so they could have had the 11th return to the clubhouse, but then they never would have gotten out as far as #14 green, which was another of their best finds.

Jeff:

I understand your argument about finances but I think Pacific Dunes is more successful financially than most of the 9 + 9 courses you would name.  Whether or not the choice not to return at the ninth is even 2% responsible for that is open to debate, but it shouldn't be dismissed altogether.

[Bill_McBride]

Jeff:

Your last post reminded me....... I think you are familiar with the Foothills Course at Barton Hills. In my opinion the their 18th is a great example of creating a bad hole in order to finish below the clubhouse (In this case, the hotel). As you know, in recent years several new courses have solved the problem by locating the 18th green where it belongs and creating a 19th hole to bring play back to the clubhouse. Forest Creek South, Old Farm, and Kinloch are three I can think of. Have you had occasion to employ that solution?

In the case of ANGC, we know that the building that is now the clubhouse was there long before the course. The result is that the approach shots to both 9 and 18 are uphill to the clubhouse. Frankly, I don't think either is among the best holes on the course.

Bringing the 9th back to the clubhouse often dictates the location of the 10th tee, which also may not be optimal.

Jim, that's the Barton Creek Foothills Course - I just played it last month for the first time in a couple of years.  I had forgotten how many bad holes are shoehorned into that property.  The par 5 18th might be the most brutal finisher for weaker players anywhere.  I'm surprised they all finish without a broken leg, climbing down into that canyon!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Kelly 3000 rounds per year = approx only 3 more 4 balls  (tee times)per day than using the standard one tee, so its a clear fact.
Its hard to make money from golf...make no mistake this 8% increase in play volume can be quite needed. Playing golf eary mornings are very popular tee times whist mid-late morning ones are a bit harder to sale.

[Mark Bourgeois]

"If the 10th tee is anywhere near [the clubhouse], it is of advantage, especially for a club to be used by business men, as there will be two starting-points, and in clubs of this description, where a large number arrive about the same time, this is an important matter.”  -- Harry Colt, 1912.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly,

I heard that from none other than CCA founder Robert Dedman, and then from numerous other heads of successful management companies.  You can pencil out the math of how many extra tee times you can get in a day this way.  While golfers may not "just not play" they may play somewhere else. Maxing out popular (and "perishable") tee times via shot gun or multiple starts is just a good idea for most places.

As TD notes, if you have a real spectacular site and the right business model where they are knocking down your doors, then it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.  Of course, I never said it should be.  But, PD is not your typical case either, and I am not sure it should be held up as an example.  As noted somewhere, Colt, Ross and others pretty much returned nines wherever feasible. 

Tom takes pleasure in being an iconoclast, but I wonder how many of his courses return at the clubhouse?  The few I have seen all do, except for PD.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Kelly 3000 rounds per year = approx only 3 more 4 balls  (tee times)per day than using the standard one tee, so its a clear fact.
Its hard to make money from golf...make no mistake this 8% increase in play volume can be quite needed. Playing golf eary mornings are very popular tee times whist mid-late morning ones are a bit harder to sale.

These people who won't take a later tee time because there is no tee off on hole 10, where do they go??? Do they just not play that day? So, this definately happens 3,000 times each year, 12,000 people exactly walk away from said course??

Kelly, quite cleary you cant sale a tee time twice, if its sold its sold, but if a tee time at 9.00 off the 10th did not sale, a time at 11.00 is free off the 1st.... There are considerable financial benifits. I am suprised your strugging to grasp this.

[Jud_T]

why not just make every hole a shotgun start at 5:30 a.m and let a new group out every 5 minutes?   

[Adrian_Stiff]

why not just make every hole a shotgun start at 5:30 a.m and let a new group out every 5 minutes?   

If you had enough traffic, mutiple shot guns every 4 hours would be ok but those faciitys are rare.  Shotguns that start part way through days are trouble too.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()