Changing the order of holes

[Thomas Dai]

Royal Porthcawl changed their starting hole for this years Wales Seniors Open with the usual 18th-hole becoming the 1st-hole for the event. I believe they also intend to use this starting point when the British Seniors Open is held there next year, although they are not planning to use it such an arrangement at other times.

For medal play or scratch matchplay the starting hole is less relevant than in handicap stabeford or handicap matchplay where the sequencing of the individual holes in relating to the stroke index of each hole can have a significant effect on the outcome of a match.

All the best.

[Sean_A]

Adam

Its debatable if architecture actually changes with a change in the sequence of holes.  What do folks think about this?  I can see it either way if depending on what people define as architecture.

Ciao

The only thing that changes is the flow... Which is incredibly important of course.

It's all architectural really... Even if there is no physical change to the land and individual holes.

Okay, so what?  Is this an issue like starting a book on chapter 7?  Does the golfer suffer some architectural loss?  If so, that would likely mean the archie is the decision-maker on the correct order of play.  I wonder how valid this is considering all the compromises and possible other outcomes that an archie may have preferred in a perfect world.  And then of course there is the golfers' perspective.  Who is to say its wrong to prefer a different sequence to the official sequence?  I admit to not giving this sort of thing much thought when playing because it makes sense to me start and finish near the house especially if walking is a priority.  

Ciao

[Nigel Islam]

Congressional changed its configuration a few times for tournament play.  I don't know what happened for members, though. 

They built an entirely new hole scrapping the 18th and making it the tenth allowing 17 to be the closing hole. I think they changed the direction of that par 3 180 degrees.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Adam

Its debatable if architecture actually changes with a change in the sequence of holes.  What do folks think about this?  I can see it either way if depending on what people define as architecture.

Ciao

The only thing that changes is the flow... Which is incredibly important of course.

It's all architectural really... Even if there is no physical change to the land and individual holes.

Okay, so what?  Is this an issue like starting a book on chapter 7?  Does the golfer suffer some architectural loss?  If so, that would likely mean the archie is the decision-maker on the correct order of play.  I wonder how valid this is considering all the compromises and possible other outcomes that an archie may have preferred in a perfect world.  And then of course there is the golfers' perspective.  Who is to say its wrong to prefer a different sequence to the official sequence?  I admit to not giving this sort of thing much thought when playing because it makes sense to me start and finish near the house especially if walking is a priority.  

Ciao

May be a loss, may even be a gain. Sequencing is one part of routing which is a large part of design. So changing the sequence has to have some architectural impact, even if it is non-material.

The architect is the best decision maker on the best order of play. It is just one choice in the myriad of choices and compromises and one that always has to take the clubhouse location in to consideration, that being a decision that he is lucky if he has an input.

[Jim Nugent]

Nigel, thanks.  Back in 1964, when Venturi won the Open, the 18th hole was the same as now.  That long par 4, whose green sticks out (I think) into the water a bit.  Later, not sure when, they changed that into the 17th, with the long par 3 over water as the finisher.  

[Wayne_Kozun]

And then there is Augusta where the nines were switched a couple of years after it opened, and TOC which used to be played in reverse and was shortened from 22 holes to 18.

[Greg Gilson]

Quote from: Sean_A on Today at 10:35:10 AM


Quote from: Ally Mcintosh on Today at 10:27:06 AM


Quote from: Sean_A on Today at 10:21:27 AM


Adam

Its debatable if architecture actually changes with a change in the sequence of holes.  What do folks think about this?  I can see it either way if depending on what people define as architecture.

Ciao


The only thing that changes is the flow... Which is incredibly important of course.

It's all architectural really... Even if there is no physical change to the land and individual holes.

Okay, so what?  Is this an issue like starting a book on chapter 7?  Does the golfer suffer some architectural loss?  If so, that would likely mean the archie is the decision-maker on the correct order of play.  I wonder how valid this is considering all the compromises and possible other outcomes that an archie may have preferred in a perfect world.  And then of course there is the golfers' perspective.  Who is to say its wrong to prefer a different sequence to the official sequence?  I admit to not giving this sort of thing much thought when playing because it makes sense to me start and finish near the house especially if walking is a priority. 

Ciao

May be a loss, may even be a gain. Sequencing is one part of routing which is a large part of design. So changing the sequence has to have some architectural impact, even if it is non-material.

The architect is the best decision maker on the best order of play. It is just one choice in the myriad of choices and compromises and one that always has to take the clubhouse location in to consideration, that being a decision that he is lucky if he has an input.

Just changing the starting (& finishing) point at National (Old) to fit around a new clubhouse had a dramatic effect on "the flow" of that course. It went from RTJ2's initial gradual buildup to a very tough finish to an awkward #1 and then dreadfully difficult 2 & 3 right out of the box. 18 is now a shortish 4. Members (& even RTJ2 in the end, I believe) have adjusted but the feel was radically different.

[Greg Gilson]

Royal Porthcawl changed their starting hole for this years Wales Seniors Open with the usual 18th-hole becoming the 1st-hole for the event. I believe they also intend to use this starting point when the British Seniors Open is held there next year, although they are not planning to use it such an arrangement at other times.

Thomas, why did they make that change? Is 18 tee closer to the range? Its been a year since I was there & I didn't take much notice but there didn't seem to be much infrastructure up near 17 green/18 tee (apart from the house used for filming the Adams Family).

[JLahrman]

While not an overly noteworthy course, Sharon Woods GC in Sharonville, OH has changed their routing and then changed it back.

Originally (the course opened in 1938) the ninth hole was a long uphill par 5. According to Google Earth, the climb from tee to green is about 150 feet. On hot, humid days apparently many players would stop at the turn after having to walk up the hill.

I'm not sure when the switch happened, but by the time I started playing the course in the mid-1980s, the course had been rerouted so that the former 9th hole had become the 18th. The change was not awkward in the routing at all, as there is a spot on the course where several greens game together. Holes 5-9 became 14-18 and vice versa. While the switch created some imbalance on the scorecard (no par 3s between #2 and #11), I did like that par 5 as the last hole, as well as the hole prior to it (a long downhill par 3) as #17. Along with an interesting par 4 as the 16th, it was a fun finish to the round.

Due to the predominance of carts, the fatigue factor of walking up the hill was lessened, and at some point in maybe the late 1990s the course went back to the original routing.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Royal Porthcawl changed their starting hole for this years Wales Seniors Open with the usual 18th-hole becoming the 1st-hole for the event. I believe they also intend to use this starting point when the British Seniors Open is held there next year, although they are not planning to use it such an arrangement at other times.

Thomas, why did they make that change? Is 18 tee closer to the range? Its been a year since I was there & I didn't take much notice but there didn't seem to be much infrastructure up near 17 green/18 tee (apart from the house used for filming the Adams Family).

Greg,

I'm guessing that there is a lot more room around 17 green and 18 tees for a stand and infrastructure... 18 green is very hemmed in for access

[Thomas Dai]

Thomas, why did they make that change? Is 18 tee closer to the range? Its been a year since I was there & I didn't take much notice but there didn't seem to be much infrastructure up near 17 green/18 tee (apart from the house used for filming the Adams Family).

Greg,

To the left, as you play it, of the 17th green and behind the 18th tee is indeed the practice ground and they recently built a new short game practice area between it and the 18th tee. As to not using the usual 1st-hole as the 1st in this years WSO and the BSO next year, I think this is due with congestion around the clubhouse-18th green combined with when teeing off from the usual 1st you have to drive across either the 18th fairway or the 18th green. I guess that spectator issues might also arise as well around the 18th-green, especially if there are plans, not sure there are though, for any mini-grandstands or bleachers as some call them. Wonderful course and place RPGC, ever so friendly. I can thoroughly recommend their onsite dormy accommodation too.

I liked your line about the house used to film the Adams family. That made me chuckle! I was myself curious about the building so I googled it and here's it's history - http://www.therestporthcawl.co.uk/the_rest/history.htm

All the best.

[Thomas Dai]

Thomas, why did they make that change? Is 18 tee closer to the range? Its been a year since I was there & I didn't take much notice but there didn't seem to be much infrastructure up near 17 green/18 tee (apart from the house used for filming the Adams Family).

Greg,

To the left, as you play it, of the 17th green and behind the 18th tee is indeed the practice ground and they recently built a new short game practice area between it and the 18th tee. As to not using the usual 1st-hole as the 1st in this years WSO and the BSO next year, I think this is due with congestion around the clubhouse-18th green combined with when teeing off from the usual 1st you have to drive across either the 18th fairway or the 18th green. I guess that spectator issues might also arise as well around the 18th-green, especially if there are plans, not sure there are though, for any mini-grandstands or bleachers as some call them. Wonderful course and place RPGC, ever so friendly. I can thoroughly recommend their onsite dormy accommodation too.

I liked your line about the house used to film the Adams family. That made me chuckle! I was myself curious about the building so I googled it and here's it's history - http://www.therestporthcawl.co.uk/the_rest/history.htm

All the best.

[Nigel Islam]

Nigel, thanks.  Back in 1964, when Venturi won the Open, the 18th hole was the same as now.  That long par 4, whose green sticks out (I think) into the water a bit.  Later, not sure when, they changed that into the 17th, with the long par 3 over water as the finisher.  

I think, and I might be mistaken they used a different routing for the course in the 64 open and most of the other tournaments used the par 4 as the finishing hole. Not sure if they used holes from the Gold course. The 97 Open used the true 18th par 3, and USGA influenced them to blow up that hole prior to 2011 Open. The current 10th now goes away from the clubhouse. Ernie hit two beautiful shots on Sunday of '97 on 17 to close out his third (rain delay) round and the tournament. Lehman was one behind on 17 and pulled his 7 iron into the creek. I think everybody parred the 180 yard 18th, and Monty is still waiting to hit his par putt on 17.

[RichMacafee]

Obviously changing the order of holes (not just the sequence) will be more noticeable to members who play the course regularly and are used the way their course 'flows', starts and finishes.

At Kingston Heath we play what is called the "Masters Course" on a Wednesday, so that there are two returning 9's created (it's actually 8 & 10). This allows pre-booking for morning and afternoon fields off 2 tees, and therefor larger fields. The regular sequence has the 6th tee returning to the clubhouse, and the 10th out in the middle of the course.

When the Australian Masters and Open are played at KH, we use that sequence for the same reason. It allows a 2 tee start, which is better for tournament organisers on Thursday and Friday. Our great 10th hole is often then omitted and replaced by 19. The 'Masters Course' is 7,8,9,11,2,3,4,5,6 back to clubhouse 1,19,12,13,14,15,16,17,18

I have taken a few GCA guys to KH on Wednesdays, and I'm not sure how, or if, playing the course this way was an issue. I know a few are confused looking at the card, because the normal hole numbers remain on the card - therefore it looks out of order.

However for me, playing the course this way is like listening to Pink Floyd 'The Wall' on shuffle. It just doesn't work

[Sean_A]

I can accept a flow being different, but its not clear if that makes a difference.  Flow is an individual thing because we all have different ideas about what is good and when.  In other words, all the holes have to be played so in the end it shouldn't make any difference except for in one's own mind and we all are different.  I don't think golf architecture is like a book or a movie.  One can jump in where he likes.  In fact, isn't the point of having more than one starting hole near the house?  And doesn't triangular routing encourage jumping around courses when there isn't time for 18 holes?  A golf course can and arguably should be much more than 18 linear holes. Clever design makes many things probable and encourages those options. 

Ciao

[Greg Gilson]

Sean, we will have to agree to disagree. I think "flow" is quite important and could only imagine archies would as well (certainly RTJ2 did with National Old). I accept that you seem able to appreciate a course as 18 individual, distinct, separate holes. Personally, I even dislike playing a great course (especially if I'm only likely to play it once) from #10. I can just never recall the holes to memory in the "correct order". But we are all different.

Richard...great analogy....sums up my feelings precisely.

Thomas....thanks for the reply. Makes sense now. It certainly would be bedlam down around the clubhouse otherwise. (PS. Agree its a great course, club & atmosphere. We did indeed spend a night in the Dormie accommodation. I think they subsequently abandoned Room #2 after Andrew Bertram ate pizza in there for both dinner & breakfast)

[Phil McDade]

The Eau Claire CC in western Wisconsin underwent a significant change in its order, outlined at the end of this thread:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,49805.0.html

It was precipitated by a change in the location of the clubhouse; I never played the original routing, but the new one has a few awkward transitions.

[Jim Nugent]

I think "flow" is quite important and could only imagine archies would as well (certainly RTJ2 did with National Old).

How do you feel about the tournament golf practice of starting players on different nines?  Those who tee off on #10 (was it #11 at Merion?) experience the course in a totally different sequence than those who tee of on #1. 

[Scott Warren]

Greg:

I think they subsequently abandoned Room #2 after Andrew Bertram ate pizza in there for both dinner & breakfast)

Abandon it? They ought to put up a plaque!

[Tom_Doak]

We are currently going back and forth over whether to switch the front and back nines at Medinah #1 as part of our redesign of the course.

The prior routing started on a par-5 hole and ended on a par-3 over water.  The original 7th-8th-9th are a much stronger set of holes to finish on, BUT what would become the 18th is a long and difficult par-5, where many members might make big numbers.  Not sure that's the best way to finish, either.

The oddest re-routing I've seen is Arcadia Bluffs, which has tried two or three different sequences since it opened ... the last version I saw had you walking miles around other greens and tees in order to improve the "flow" of the course.  

[Matthew Rose]

For the '64 Open, the '76 PGA and the Kemper Open, Congressional borrowed two holes from the Gold Course (a par-three and a par-four) which played as #16 and #17, and then played #17 as #18, and skipped the 18th altogether.

For the '95 Senior Open, they experimented with playing the original 18th as the 10th, but it created a freakishly long and awkward walk from the 9th green.

For the '97 Open, they played it as the members did, par-3 18th and all.

It was prior to the 2011 Open that they flipped it and made it #10.