[Michael Blake]

When the bottom line is profit then it seems vital that nines return, as Adrian and Jeff prove.  A paradigm shift would be needed to change owners/developers minds.

[Brent Hutto]

So let's someone is going to build a golf course ten miles from your house, on a decent but nothing-special piece of land, and charge 60 bucks to play on a weekend...is a Platonic GCA ideal of "The Best Possible Routing" somehow morally superior to a presumably compromised routing which allow returning nines and two-tee starts?

How many golfers (not GCA geeks) would be willing to pay $70 instead of $60 and possibly have to play at an off-peak time instead of 9.00am in order to let the architect utilize a couple of really neat-o angles and contours that aren't available in a returning-nines routing?

From some of the reactions in this thread you'd think having returning nines resulted in sixteen holes or eliminated all the Par 3's or something.

[Bill_McBride]

Anybody have any idea what was the first course with returning nines? 

I have no idea, just wondering.

I guess the earliest courses, those built along the linksland, were on narrow land just wide enough for two fairways.  Those were out and back (TOC, North Berwick, Balcomie).   But when did the returning nine first come into vogue?

Many of the classic U.S. courses followed that model.  Pebble, Cypress Point, NGLA.  But Shinnecock and I think Maidstone get back to the house at #9.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Bill not sure of the earliest but I think Muirfield was pre 1900.

To reiterate, its not normally to much of a problem to get returning nines. There are times though with narrow parcels like linksland where the only way would be to sit the clubhouse in the midde and play out 4 back 5, then go the other side and do the same, if the clubhouse has to be at one end..its obviously impossible.

I also think getting two returning nines is an important component in a good routing and not getting two nines is a minus, but I know of one architect who wont agree on that.

[Jud_T]

Adrian, aside from financial or functional terms, i.e., in purely design terms, why are returning nines an important component of a good routing?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Anybody have any idea what was the first course with returning nines?  

I have no idea, just wondering.

I guess the earliest courses, those built along the linksland, were on narrow land just wide enough for two fairways.  Those were out and back (TOC, North Berwick, Balcomie).   But when did the returning nine first come into vogue?

Many of the classic U.S. courses followed that model.  Pebble, Cypress Point, NGLA.  But Shinnecock and I think Maidstone get back to the house at #9.

Any course built as a nine holer and extended early would be a possibilty in this category...

For example, Portmarnock was originally laid out as nine holes in 1894 before being extended to 18 holes (with returning nines) in 1896...

dumb questions from treehouse nut,

1.  Were returning nines originally due in any way to the ability to share greens and/or fairways, ala TOC?

2.  Adrian, aside from financial or functional terms, i.e., in purely design terms, why are returning nines an important component of a good routing?

Jud, surely double greens are a hindrance to returning nines rather than a help?... There are absolutely NO design reasons why returning nines are an important component of a good routing... However, functional and financial reasons can certainly be reason enough as Jeff and Adrian have highlighted...

[Jud_T]

Ally,

DOH, i told you it was a dumb question!!

[Adrian_Stiff]

dumb questions from treehouse nut,

1.  Were returning nines originally due in any way to the ability to share greens and/or fairways, ala TOC?

2.  Adrian, aside from financial or functional terms, i.e., in purely design terms, why are returning nines an important component of a good routing?

Jud - I dont really know how the returning nines thing evolved, on point 2 It is really only financial and functional reasons, the functional being a lot of people just want to play 9, with an out and backer, when you chip back into the second nine at say 15, there may be golfers. Design is about many things, the best design is not always about finding the best 18 holes, they have to flow, walkabiity from one hole to the next, variety etc but also when things are designed they have to be viable financially and they have to function properly, a golf course design is better if it can allow a player the option to play half a round, or even 27 holes. For that reason I think its an important component of a good routing to have returning nines.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I grasp it, but I am not certain in most instances that a golf course is losing 3,000 rounds. I suspect for many it is substantially less than that, or they may provide other incentives to play later that help them capture the potential lost rounds in the peak times. The 3,000 rounds sounds dramatic and convincing, but it seems to represent a maximum potential loss, not neccesarily a real loss. I try hard not to just accept "standard industry stats" and look all around and through the issues to see if in fact the accepted standards in are true in the field, and if there are other ways to overcome the "accepted facts" in order to do something better like make a better routing plan. There is no doubt in my experiences that routing a course without having to bring the 9th hole back to the clubhouse will result in a substantially better routing plan. That fact should not be hard to grasp if you have routed several courses. Now if I can do that and there other ways to overcome the issue of lost rounds because there is not a 10th tee at the clubhouse, then I have accomplished something meaningful for the owner, golfer, and the land.

Kelly- We just introduced a 4 tee start on Saturdays from first light to dusk and we get 120 people on the course, i think within 72 minutes using 4 balls and 8 minute intervals, over the day we get 6 more tee starts = 24 players, that is enough to pay 1 more wage during the winter, possibly 2 wages. Its a big thing to us, weekend revenue in the UK is often all you get. I dont know your involvement in this game but its hard to earn a crust without having inhibitors like no 2 two tee starts. You have to factor how the product is going to be financially sustainabe, you can put all your eggs into one basket and concentrate just on the route and you might end with a great course but it might end up bust. You start adding an 8% income stream which could be perhaps a 30% increase to the bottom line on any buisness and its a good thing. You might not want to believe it but 3000  extra rounds, many made up of 9 hole rounds is a very realistic figure.

[Jud_T]

From an economic point of view, maybe the way forward is more good 9-hole courses!

[Ben Stephens]

One of Alister MacKenzie's '13 ideals for golf course design' is where allowed to have two loops of nine holes, biggest example of this is Augusta.

Muirfield - did Colt re do the layout and ended up with 2 loops of nine.

I believe its not just commercial factors that influence this, there are other factors such as:

Comfort - golfers feel more comfortable to come back to the clubhouse for a drink, toilet break, more clothes if cold, etc,

Time - some people only have time to play 9 holes rather than 18 after finishing work etc

Ease of access - the first tee may be busy and an alternative starting point from the clubhouse is beneficial when there is no one coming up on the 9th (or the previous hole)


Cheers
Ben

[Brandon Johnson]

Does one really go out with the agenda TO route or NOT route returning nines? If the best holes, solutions occur with returning or non returning nines then so be it.

Tom,

I agree #14 is special and I think the mention of the other potentially great or passed over holes speaks to the point Jeff made (that I side with too) in that there is surely more than one pleasing, correct or even great routing solution to most sites especially the great ones. There are interesting holes all over that Sand Hills property. While the routing is masterful had they gone in a different direction (like an 18 hole loop or #11 returning to the fixed location) I still think something special and equal to what is there would have been created. All of this certainly speaks to my point that an architect does not automatically compromise a design by deciding the final solution will have returning nines.

[Ally Mcintosh]

From an economic point of view, maybe the way forward is more good 9-hole courses!

Voila!

(We just need to convice the general public that 9 holes of golf doesn't equal 9 inferior holes of golf)

[Roger Wolfe]

Don't forgot crossovers and nine hole closures.  We routinely tee off on 10 if we have a significant morning maintenance project on the front nine.  We also use crossovers for almost all of our big, stroke play tournaments (Club Championship, City Amateur, PGA Qualifying).  Just a few more reasons 1,9,10 and 18 near the clubhouse sometimes make life much, much easier.

[JESII]

I think if I were building a course I would suggest to the architect that the more often you return to the starting point (vicinity) the better. I can't think of any other guidance...I wouldn't care if par dipped below 70 if the architect thought the best holes made it a par 68 or 69...I wouldn't care about 7500 yards, or the par 3 / 4 / 5 mix...I think the ability to jump out for 4 or 6 or 9 holes is a huge value to a golfing operation and hoping there will not be anyone on the 16th hole when I want to jump over from the 2nd is not as attractive as knowing I can go out now and play 5 holes and go home.



The only other guidance might be to limit the number of tees (or tee space) to 2 or at most 3 modest size pads...but that's a different thread...

[Jud_T]

It still seems that all of the rationale here for 2 loops is practical in nature.  I am not trying to downplay practical considerations, particularly these days, but I see nothing here to dissuade me from the idea that this severely limits the design of "The best 18".  Many of these practicalities, it seems, can be cured with a small halfway-house and, god forbid, a cart shuttle....

[Sean_A]

Anybody have any idea what was the first course with returning nines? 

I have no idea, just wondering.

I guess the earliest courses, those built along the linksland, were on narrow land just wide enough for two fairways.  Those were out and back (TOC, North Berwick, Balcomie).   But when did the returning nine first come into vogue?

Many of the classic U.S. courses followed that model.  Pebble, Cypress Point, NGLA.  But Shinnecock and I think Maidstone get back to the house at #9.

Ace

Murifield must have been one of the first to return to the house after nine.  

This is an odd topic.  I would have thought returning to the house at some point (say between the 4th and 14th for argument sake) before the 18th is potentially part of a good routing.  Folks seem to be taking the view that getting back to the house is neither here nor there.  I for one, at the very least, want to start at the house and finish at the house.  Any routing that doesn't do this has a flaw.  It may not be a damning flaw, but a flaw just the same.  Additionally, if the archie can bring the course back to the house twice it is a major advantage imo.   It doesn't have to be the 9th, but two starting points are surely worth a bit of sacrifice in quality, because afterall, bringing the course back twice is a desirable and therefore arguably a quality aspect of the design.

Ciao  

[Adrian_Stiff]

It still seems that all of the rationale here for 2 loops is practical in nature.  I am not trying to downplay practical considerations, particularly these days, but I see nothing here to dissuade me from the idea that this severely limits the design of "The best 18".  Many of these practicalities, it seems, can be cured with a small halfway-house and, god forbid, a cart shuttle....

Jud - I think that having returning nines is a plus in the same way that to get the best holes is a plus, you just have to have sacrifices sometimes, occasionaly theres 1 great hole and 3 okay holes, whereas you might get 2 pretty good holes and 2 okay ones, everything becomes a factor in getting the best golf course out of that piece of property. Its just an opinion as to the best ways, there will be detractors against any course, you cant walk, you cant ride, you cant play 9, has too many doglegs, has not enough doglegs, has too much water, has no water...some like blondes, some like brunettes.

Ben - Comfort is another great reason, when play is less than busy by using two tees you create space between pay, so less waiting.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It still seems that all of the rationale here for 2 loops is practical in nature.  I am not trying to downplay practical considerations, particularly these days, but I see nothing here to dissuade me from the idea that this severely limits the design of "The best 18".  Many of these practicalities, it seems, can be cured with a small halfway-house and, god forbid, a cart shuttle....

Jud,

Not trying to bust your chops, but in reality, the best designers are good because they try many, many concepts and don't focus in on one.  Flexibility is a key to being a great designer, including thinking outside the box and considerig non returning nines.

As to cost, its usually just as cheap to move some earth and build a hole rather than find one near the clubhouse, if you have to on one hole.   But, on gently rolling sites with typical elevated clubhouse situations, its not unusal for the same kind of topo pattern to be present in broad enough areas to fit in four similarly good holes.  On steeper topo, that can be a bigger problem, a la Barton Creek.

And halfway houses can get expensive running utiliies like electric, potable water, etc. out to some remote point on the course.  I have seen them cost over $100K, or almost enough to build another hole.  Of course, sometimes you can locate it by the maintenance and reduce those costs too, but you will still have to give some consideration to where the ninth hole ends up for cost reasons.

So, yes, its practical.  But I just don't see how you pass up all the benefits (in most cases) of returning nines unles its really spectacular and you are pretty sure you will get loads of 18 hole rounds spread throughout the day, a la Bandon or other resort situations.

[Mark Pritchett]

Jeff,

Is it pretty much commonplace that the clubhouse location is more or less determined prior to beginning work on the course routing?  Obviously each project is different, but in general terms is this the case.

Mark

[Adrian_Stiff]

From an economic point of view, maybe the way forward is more good 9-hole courses!

From an economic point of view 9 hole golf courses in the UK are disaster, heres the main reasons, firsty the best you can get is ony half the revenue, but you cant have half a tractor, half a secretary, half a pro etc. Too many aspects are not half the price it would be for an 18 holer. Many 9 holers are cheap and cheerful honesty box situs, its very hard to break even commercially unless they are linked to other things say a range, hotel. Outside of economic reasons they are great.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

Is it pretty much commonplace that the clubhouse location is more or less determined prior to beginning work on the course routing?  Obviously each project is different, but in general terms is this the case.

Mark

That varies, too.  At the Quarry, the highway had a curve and the only safe place to put a driveway was right on the outside curve, so that was predetermined.  In other cases, liquor laws and/or a host of factors most don't consider play a part.  Most often, utility connections are near one side or the others, and it just isn't possible to spend millions running utilitie across the site, etc.  That is why Ross ended up with so many clubhouses in corners, IMHO. 

In other cases, we have two or three logical sites and try routings based on each.  I know Tom will say he routes first, then picks a clubhouse site, but its hard to believe that at least some consideration to clubhouse isn't in all the planning early, at least in the back of the mind.  Its really two sides of the coin.  If you pick clubhouse sites early, then you have to be open to moving it depending on how the routing is going.  Either way, its best not to lock in on any one focus too early in the routing since the best product usually comes from many attempts, and maybe even combining the best features from many attempts at routing.

BTW, I should confess to my own bias for returning nines.  My first on course experience was at Medinah's No. 2 course, where I played holes 1, 17 and 18.  Not long after, my Dad took a day off so we could play an uncrowded Rob Roy course. I was sleepy, he rushed me out without breakfast and I was hungry.  When I stepped up on the 9th tee and saw the clubhouse and snack shope behind the green, I figured the guy who routed that course was a freakin genius!  I guess it kinda stuck with me......I will say that the advent of beverage carts has theoretically reduced the need to return nines.

George Thomas advocated a second hole coming right back to the clubhouse for both pidking up forgotten items, including late arriving playing partners! Others have recommended 6-6-6 configurations for three returns to the clubhouse.  Barring something really spectacular, there are just a lot of conveniences experienced with rturning nines.

[Jud_T]

Jeff,

Not too shabby for a first golf experience! At least you got out before the Open Doctors took over 

[Mark Pritchett]

Jeff,

Thanks for your response.  I like the idea from George Thomas you mentioned and the others make sense.  So I guess the general, the presumption is it is ideal to have returning nines, but if you have a significantly better routing with out them, it is worth considering other options.   

Not only are the halfway houses expensive to construct and maintain, but they also usually require an employee to be present which adds to the ongoing costs.

Mark

[Tom_Doak]

One of Alister MacKenzie's '13 ideals for golf course design' is where allowed to have two loops of nine holes, biggest example of this is Augusta.


Cheers
Ben

Ben:

If you are going to quote Dr. MacKenzie on this topic it would be wise to remember the revised quote from his later book, The Spirit of St. Andrews:

"I believe I was the first to write articles emphasizing the importance of two loops of nine holes.

During recent years in the United States I have had more sleepless nights owning to committees being obsessed by this principle than anything else, and I have often regretted that it had ever been propounded.

If land for a golf course lends itself readily to constructing the two loops, well and good, but it is a great mistake to sacrifice excellent natural features for the purpose of obtaining it.  Most of the world's best known courses, such as nearly all the British Championship courses, The National, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Pebble Beach, and many others I could name, are without loops.  There is a charm in exploring fresh country and never seeing the same view twice until one arrives back at the clubhouse."


But, I guess a few extra tee times are more important than what some old guy said.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()