[Tom_Doak]

the 9th green is nowhere near the clubhouse.  9 out and 9 holes back.  Happy Thanksgiving to all.  Mark

That's got to be what Patrick was thinking of.

When DID the mandate to return at #9 take hold?  Lots of architects spoke of it as being ideal, including MacKenzie in his 1920 book; in his 1934 follow-up he wrote that he had taken more grief for saying it and then breaking his own rule, than for anything else in that first book.  Muirfield's 9 and 9 routing was also held up as an ideal, but I don't know exactly when.

I would say that the 9-and-9 setup became de rigeur the day that courses started being developed for profit instead of for fun.  I'm not sure exactly when that was, but let's say right after WW II.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Stanley Thompson did the same - professed that returning 9s are essential in his early 1920s design manifesto then created his "Big Five" courses - Jasper, Banff, St. George's, Capilano and Cape Breton Highlands Links. Not one returns to the clubhouse at the 9th hole.

Though, St. George's was supposed to; an 11th hour change to the clubhouse location changed that.

[Scott Warren]

Tim:

Scott-Although not the furthest point away 9 green does not come back to the clubhouse. Isn`t that what denotes an out and back?

To me an out and back routing is easy to identify: it goes out, then it comes back.

It might kink a bit here and there (R. Cinque Ports, The Old Course), but by and large that is an "out and back" routing.

National is out and back, Fishers Island I would say while "non-returning" and "an 18-hole loop" is not. Even The Valley Club -- which has loops from 4-7 and then from 8-10 that begin and end more or less where the 3rd green and 11th tee are -- is often called "out and back" and I don't believe it is. MPCC Dunes is much the same.

As with the term "links", I think "out and back" has been hijacked somewhat in the 20th and 21st centuries to describe courses that are not out and back routings.

If you look at the likes of Burnham & Berrow, National, Brora -- that is out and back.

Pine Valley as the example here has a loop from 1-4, 7-8 play in complete opposite directions, 9-11 is a little loop, 15-16 play in complete opposite directions... in my book it's about as far from an out and back as you can get.

[Ed Brzezowski]

Well it is very easy to visit the bar between 13 and 14 at Merion. Billl,  the old barkeep, was always willing to help a guest in need to rehydration. So out and back does not really apply.

[Tim Martin]

Tim:

Scott-Although not the furthest point away 9 green does not come back to the clubhouse. Isn`t that what denotes an out and back?

To me an out and back routing is easy to identify: it goes out, then it comes back.

It might kink a bit here and there (R. Cinque Ports, The Old Course), but by and large that is an "out and back" routing.

National is out and back, Fishers Island I would say while "non-returning" and "an 18-hole loop" is not. Even The Valley Club -- which has loops from 4-7 and then from 8-10 that begin and end more or less where the 3rd green and 11th tee are -- is often called "out and back" and I don't believe it is. MPCC Dunes is much the same.

As with the term "links", I think "out and back" has been hijacked somewhat in the 20th and 21st centuries to describe courses that are not out and back routings.

If you look at the likes of Burnham & Berrow, National, Brora -- that is out and back.

Pine Valley as the example here has a loop from 1-4, 7-8 play in complete opposite directions, 9-11 is a little loop, 15-16 play in complete opposite directions... in my book it's about as far from an out and back as you can get.

Scott-Fair enough. Thanks.

[Sam Morrow]

They are all golden age courses?

[Chris Kane]

Doesn't matter.  Regardless of prior threads or otherwise.  No explanation necessary.  It's not funny in any situation. 

Its very disappointing Mark Ferguson gets censured for this, yet there was minimal complaint when Pat Mucci started this offensive line of discussion.

[Ronald Montesano]

Chris...I wouldn't call it censure...Only Ran can do that and he is very professional and non-public when such censuring is called for. I think that Mark added "have access to" in italics on his own.

I give Pat credit for not taking Mark's bait.

I don't fault nor sanction Mark for harboring a grudge.

I still want to know what those courses have in common...

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I am guessing being loops as well. Bill, 4 is a great hole at PB, but that is the only one.

[J_ Crisham]

I am guessing being loops as well. Bill, 4 is a great hole at PB, but that is the only one.

Tiger,   
         I have always thought the 3rd at PB was the start of a very good run of holes.It provides the first view of Stillwater Cove from the  fairway, it never fails to get my heart racing. This has always been 3 wood and 8 or 9 iron to a very severe green.  I would agree that #4 is a better short par 4. I would also argue that #16 is a pretty good short par 4. At this point in Chicago, any par 4's would be welcome!

[Bill_McBride]

I am guessing being loops as well. Bill, 4 is a great hole at PB, but that is the only one.

Tiger,   
         I have always thought the 3rd at PB was the start of a very good run of holes.It provides the first view of Stillwater Cove from the  fairway, it never fails to get my heart racing. This has always been 3 wood and 8 or 9 iron to a very severe green.  I would agree that #4 is a better short par 4. I would also argue that #16 is a pretty good short par 4. At this point in Chicago, any par 4's would be welcome!

Jack, #16 is no short par 4.   Last time there I hit reasonably solid driver and 5-iron.   That's no short par 4. 

[Bill_McBride]

Doesn't matter.  Regardless of prior threads or otherwise.  No explanation necessary.  It's not funny in any situation. 

Its very disappointing Mark Ferguson gets censured for this, yet there was minimal complaint when Pat Mucci started this offensive line of discussion.

Sorry, Chris, but what was offensive about Pat's seemingly innocuous opening post?   Mark came out of left field.  I don't object to his post but it's clearly way out. 

[J_ Crisham]

I am guessing being loops as well. Bill, 4 is a great hole at PB, but that is the only one.

Tiger,   
         I have always thought the 3rd at PB was the start of a very good run of holes.It provides the first view of Stillwater Cove from the  fairway, it never fails to get my heart racing. This has always been 3 wood and 8 or 9 iron to a very severe green.  I would agree that #4 is a better short par 4. I would also argue that #16 is a pretty good short par 4. At this point in Chicago, any par 4's would be welcome!

Jack, #16 is no short par 4.   Last time there I hit reasonably solid driver and 5-iron.   That's no short par 4. 

Bill, When I  describe it as short,at 385 yds these days it is certainly not long. As I recall when we played it in May 2010 we all hit 3 woods and had 8 or 9 irons left. Kyle K hit it a mile past us but still had 9 iron from the deep right rough- as you know,he does hit it quite far so his 9 would be a typical 7 iron for the rest of us.A great hole none the less with a tough putting surface!

[Scott Warren]

Bill:

Sorry, Chris, but what was offensive about Pat's seemingly innocuous opening post?   Mark came out of left field.  I don't object to his post but it's clearly way out.

Chris is (as was Mark) referring to a previous thread in which Pat Mucci made a number of fairly distasteful comments, refused to apologise for them and received very little backlash (from memory the only people who registered opposition to what he said were from outside the USA). In the same thread, he said a reason to keep private clubs private was so there wouldn't be sex offenders playing the course.

In reference to that previous discussion, Mark's post in here did raise a chuckle.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill:

Sorry, Chris, but what was offensive about Pat's seemingly innocuous opening post?   Mark came out of left field.  I don't object to his post but it's clearly way out.

Chris is (as was Mark) referring to a previous thread in which Pat Mucci made a number of fairly distasteful comments, refused to apologise for them and received very little backlash (from memory the only people who registered opposition to what he said were from outside the USA). In the same thread, he said a reason to keep private clubs private was so there wouldn't be sex offenders playing the course.

In reference to that previous discussion, Mark's post in here did raise a chuckle.

Shit, does this mean I ave to read everything that gets posted here?   OMG.......

[Michael Essig]

As for the rest who want to actually participate in this thread...

Outside of the short par 4's, don't all these courses also have a great short par 3?

That is the type of hole that has really seemed to disappear from the majority of modern design. It seems to me that so many of the newer courses think that a par 3 has to be 200 yards +.  We saw this past week at Royal Melbourne that a short par 3 can provide plenty of challenge when designed properly.

I agree with Mr. Slonis, it is the short par 3: NGLA #6 135 yds; GCGC #2 137 yds; PV #9 146 yds; Maidstone #14 148 yds; CPC #15 135 yds; Pebble #7 107 yds and Merion #13 120 yds.  These distances are all from the back tees.  As was pointed out by my son, the difficulty of these short holes for very low handicappers and pros is that they spin the ball so much, that they have difficulty attacking a back pin position.

[Mark_F]

Shit, does this mean I ave to read everything that gets posted here?   OMG.......

Bill,

Not at all, just my few and far between words of wisdom. 

To Mark Ferguson: Congratulations on your 2000th post...that was quite a celebration!

Ronald,

I wasn't counting, but I do have a gift for timing...

I think that Mark added "have access to" in italics on his own.

I did.  It is what I meant.  Not sure whether it makes it more or less offensive, but I don't care, since I still think it's funny, and like my sexual performance during masturbation, my opinion is the only one that counts.

I don't fault nor sanction Mark for harboring a grudge.

I don't harbor grudges.  I find it amusing Patrick dug himself into a deeper hole on the previous thread rather than admit his wrongdoing, but then I guess everyone is guilty of doing that at some point.  I am sure Patrick is an interesting person who has had a heck of a life.  David Elvins is generally a fine judge of character - his only fault is that it is clearly obvious I am better company on a golf course than Patrick. 

I still want to know what those courses have in common...

Given that Patrick claimed in the aforementioned thread that he was playing golf in the UK before the other Marks were born, I wish he would ask questions about courses more of us have seen...

[Mark Chaplin]

Bill you are an absolute gent so your posts are read for their worth. The goat was got by someone using offensive terms & not only refusing to withdraw them but celebrating them.

[Ronald Montesano]

Michael Essig...I'll quarrel a bit.

Professionals know how to take spin off a ball, so the "too much spin" argument doesn't hold water in my book. In addition, I find a lot in the 41 yard difference between 107 and 148...that's nearly three clubs and I wouldn't call them similar holes at all.

However, knowing that you and your son are so enthusiastic about the game and converse together, is an enviable thing.

[Rory Connaughton]

Its not clear whether the commonality is great short threes or front 9's that don't return to the clubhouse (both?).
When did returning 9's become prevalent?  Was it with the advent of the "country club" (vs. the golf club).  A broader more delicate constituency that was deemed capable of only 9 at a time?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Piping Rock, Fishers Island and The Creek are three others that fit the profile.

Mark Studer and TEPaul got it right.

None of these great cousres have the 9th green returning to the clubhouse.

At Pine Valley, nyone who's made the walk from the Clubhouse to the 10th tee, or from the 9th green to the clubhouse knows how difficult and far that walk is.

With so many GREAT, early courses not returning to the clubhouse after 9, when did that trend change ?

What caused it to change ?

Was it the expanding demographic ?

The increase in the number of golfers accessing the courses ?

How many great modern courses don't have the 9th green returning to the clubhouse, (main or functional).

[K. Krahenbuhl]

I am guessing being loops as well. Bill, 4 is a great hole at PB, but that is the only one.

Tiger,   
         I have always thought the 3rd at PB was the start of a very good run of holes.It provides the first view of Stillwater Cove from the  fairway, it never fails to get my heart racing. This has always been 3 wood and 8 or 9 iron to a very severe green.  I would agree that #4 is a better short par 4. I would also argue that #16 is a pretty good short par 4. At this point in Chicago, any par 4's would be welcome!

Jack, #16 is no short par 4.   Last time there I hit reasonably solid driver and 5-iron.   That's no short par 4. 

Bill, When I  describe it as short,at 385 yds these days it is certainly not long. As I recall when we played it in May 2010 we all hit 3 woods and had 8 or 9 irons left. Kyle K hit it a mile past us but still had 9 iron from the deep right rough- as you know,he does hit it quite far so his 9 would be a typical 7 iron for the rest of us.A great hole none the less with a tough putting surface!

I was in the rough???  Hard to believe

I can't imagine seeing Pebble on a better day then we did that time out.

Happy Thanksgiving to both of you!

[Bill_McBride]

Piping Rock, Fishers Island and The Creek are three others that fit the profile.

Mark Studer and TEPaul got it right.

None of these great cousres have the 9th green returning to the clubhouse.

At Pine Valley, nyone who's made the walk from the Clubhouse to the 10th tee, or from the 9th green to the clubhouse knows how difficult and far that walk is.

With so many GREAT, early courses not returning to the clubhouse after 9, when did that trend change ?

What caused it to change ?

Was it the expanding demographic ?

The increase in the number of golfers accessing the courses ?

How many great modern courses don't have the 9th green returning to the clubhouse, (main or functional).

Pacific Dunes, Bandon Trails, Old Macdonald, all at the Bandon resort.  

Add the West Coast greats, Pebble Beach, Cypress Point and the Valley Club, to your list of classics.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

I included PB  and CPC in the title.

[Niall C]

Piping Rock, Fishers Island and The Creek are three others that fit the profile.

Mark Studer and TEPaul got it right.

None of these great cousres have the 9th green returning to the clubhouse.

At Pine Valley, nyone who's made the walk from the Clubhouse to the 10th tee, or from the 9th green to the clubhouse knows how difficult and far that walk is.

With so many GREAT, early courses not returning to the clubhouse after 9, when did that trend change ?

What caused it to change ?

Was it the expanding demographic ?

The increase in the number of golfers accessing the courses ?

How many great modern courses don't have the 9th green returning to the clubhouse, (main or functional).

Patrick

All interesting questions and I think it was Tom D earlier in the thread that suggested commercialsm might have partly the reason. If that is the case I wonder the change was as abrupt in the UK where there are more members clubs.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()