Great Holes, But Poor Routing?

[JWinick]

After my second round at Arcadia Bluffs, I thought about the contrast between the strength of the golf holes and the poor routing of the golf course.   

The Par 5, Par 3, Par 5, Par 4, Par 5 start is an awkward way to start a golf course and ensures a backed up front nine.   I found it difficulty to get into the flow of the round by such an unusual and contrived routing.    The property is enormous and offered the architect multiple options to route the golf course.   Why would you force such a poor routing on the golf course?   From what I've heard, the original routing did not feature returning 9s, so I'm sure the old routing was better.

Overall, the golf holes were solid to great (except for hole #6) with interesting fairway contours, bold green complexes, and excellent conditions.  I have not played a public course in better condition. 

Can you have a collection of poorly routed good to great golf holes and still be a great golf course? 

[Phil McDade]

No. I think you can have a good course, because of the number of solid holes. But to me, routing is key -- I think some courses are elevated in my mind because, although not a lot of holes stand out, the entirety of the course, and the flow of the round, is such that it makes for a very pleasureable 18 holes.

This is a good topic, one I and others have explored in some threads about RTJ Jr.'s University Ridge near Madison, WI:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38431.0/

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,31479.0/

[John Moore II]

Why is the routing contrived? Is Pacific Dunes contrived because it has only 2 par 4's on the back nine with back to back par 3's? I mean, should every course be like Augusta and be 4-5-4-3-4-3-4-5-4 on the front and have no holes of the same par back to back, never have a 5 and 3 side by side. Is it possible that the routing in question was the best possible? All I know is that I really want to get up and play Arcadia.

And just based on a quick look at yardage, just play #1 as a par 4 and all is well. 

[Phil McDade]

John:

I think you can have odd hole sequences, relative to par, and still have solid routing, and by the same token have fairly traditional hole sequences relative to par and have lousy routing.

Lawsonia rather famously has a stretch of holes (9 through 14) that goes 5-3-5-3-5-3, but none of it feels contrived, in part because Langford routed the holes over land that feels right for the par on those holes, and (even better) varied the shot requirements on them, so you don't always feel that you're hitting the same clubs over and over. Two of the par 3s play essentially as connector holes, to get from one part of the course to another, but they both have some solid qualities that don't make them seem routine, like some connector holes do.

URidge, on the other hand, starts out 4-5-3-4-3-5 -- pretty standard stuff for the distribution of the holes. But the routing is pretty contrived, in my view, and the demands are such that the course never really starts to flow until your round is a third over -- the mark of poor routing.

Like the good Justice Potter Stewart's views on pornography, routing may very well be one of those highly individualistic things, more "felt" by the player as good or bad than anything specifically related to par distribution. Courses that have really good routing -- to my mind, Lawsonia is obviously one, but I'd also put Milwaukee CC up there -- just feel like the next hole is the obvious one that should follow.

[Ronald Montesano]

JWinick,

I didn't find it contrived at all...in fact, if I'm thinking "my, this golf course has a contrived routing," then I should give up golf on the spot and commit myself to the nearest mental institution. 

Define exactly what you mean by "contrived."  I find it to convey no meaning until you elaborate.  I'm not judging the merits of your post, but do want a clearer idea of your purpose before I attack  contribute further.

[Adam Clayman]

Can you have a collection of poorly routed good to great golf holes and still be a great golf course? 

Only with perfect conditioning. Ask anybody.

[JWinick]

The reason I used contrived is the property is enormous, at least 250 acres, yet the walks from green to tee were long.

Most likely, the routing was made difficult by the dunes, the desire to have returning nines, and the desire to have as many holes close to the ocean as possible.  It completely fails the walk in the park test.

Usually, courses like Pacific Dunes, which I have not yet played, have unusual sequences due to the architect designing the routing around the land, instead of forcing it.

Moreover, for a public course, a series of par 3 and par 5s grouped together will cause significant pace of play issues.
 

[Phil McDade]

Moreover, for a public course, a series of par 3 and par 5s grouped together will cause significant pace of play issues.
 

I'm not sure this is always the case. Again, the Lawsonia/University Ridge contrast comes to mind. I've never really encountered significant pace of play issues with the middle routing at Lawsonia, in part because the golfer is already well into the round, but also because of the mix of holes and their shot requirements (and relative difficulty).

URidge, on the other hand, does have significant pace of play issues with its front nine -- even with an equal mix of par 3s, 4s, and 5s -- because of the trouble that can be encountered -- and tempts the golfer -- on nearly every hole.

I think the nature of the hole, moreso than its par, creates more pace of play issues.

[Mike Boehm]

The Par 5, Par 3, Par 5, Par 4, Par 5 start is an awkward way to start a golf course and ensures a backed up front nine.   I found it difficulty to get into the flow of the round by such an unusual and contrived routing.    The property is enormous and offered the architect multiple options to route the golf course.   Why would you force such a poor routing on the golf course?   From what I've heard, the original routing did not feature returning 9s, so I'm sure the old routing was better.

It is true that they made changes to the routing, but the placement of holes 1-7 has remained the same under both rountings.  The think the original routing (using current holes numbers) was 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-16-13-14-15-8-9-10-11-12-17-18.  The change was certainly driven by havinga return to the clubhouse after #9, but based on my one play under each routing, I don't think it significantly improved or detracted from the golf course.

[JWinick]

It just made me think of why they made the changes.   So, if you thought a golf course had great holes, would you still enjoy it if you didn't like the routing?  Accept my premise: great holes, poor routing.   What's your take then on a golf course with that dichotonomy?

The Par 5, Par 3, Par 5, Par 4, Par 5 start is an awkward way to start a golf course and ensures a backed up front nine.   I found it difficulty to get into the flow of the round by such an unusual and contrived routing.    The property is enormous and offered the architect multiple options to route the golf course.   Why would you force such a poor routing on the golf course?   From what I've heard, the original routing did not feature returning 9s, so I'm sure the old routing was better.

It is true that they made changes to the routing, but the placement of holes 1-7 has remained the same under both rountings.  The think the original routing (using current holes numbers) was 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-16-13-14-15-8-9-10-11-12-17-18.  The change was certainly driven by havinga return to the clubhouse after #9, but based on my one play under each routing, I don't think it significantly improved or detracted from the golf course.

[MikeJones]

Course routings are always going to be a compromise. Although the prime consideration is to get the best holes out of the land available, there are other considerations as well that might concern course length, ideal clubhouse positioning, drainage etc. Having a slightly longer walk between some greens and tees is just another compromise to get the best out of the land.

Of course the more earth you move, the less compromises you might have to make.