[Joel Pear]

Be gentle, this is the first topic I've started!  There is a course in the western suburbs of Chicago designed by Ray Hearn that opened in the late 90's.  I used to play it a lot when it first opened, and enjoyed it.  It had a really good flow to it and placed a premium on strategy.  My only real complaint was that some of the greens seemed (to me) to be overly severe.  So much, that they were difficult to mow.

The first hole was a wonderful opening hole, a gentle dogleg left to a very approachable green.  Not overly long, around 380 if I remember correctly, but it just eased you into the course.  For some reason, ownership/management decided to change the routing to the front nine.  Officially they said it was because the first and tenth tee were too close and served by the same path causing too much congestion.  I played the course weekly for a season and never really notice it.

The new #1 is the original 7th and it requires a very demanding tee shot.  It has a small stream bisecting the fairway and the desired line would be over the stream and onto the left side of the fairway.  It just seems to be a bit off-putting, and doesn't really get you into the course; more like the course is getting into you!

So, my questions are, how do you feel about routing changes, should a good design ease a player into a course, and when architects present plans to owners, do they provide for alternate routings of their holes.

[Carl Johnson]

Joel, in prior discussions of this subject I've been told by experts (that is, architects and Pat Mucci) on this site that "routing" is a different concept from the "order of play" of the holes, which is what you seem to be getting at.  I'm told that "routing" has to do with individual holes and how they are laid out on the land, and not with respect to their order of play.  In any case, it seems to me as a golfer that the order of play is or should be a consideration in the overall design.  For example, one design "rule" I've heard espoused is that the opening hole or holes should play west, and the closing holes east - for reasons of the sun location.  So, what if the architect designs the course that way, but later the playing order is changed by the club itself so that generally you play into the sun both at the beginning and end of your round.  It seems to me that this defeats an important part of the design - exactly like you point out with changing a modest opener to a difficult opener.

Thus, I agree with you, and would also like to have architects chime in on the importance of order of play to their design work.  A more fundamental question is to what extent do architects pay attention to order of play at all when designing or laying out of a course?  Is it inconsequential?

[Joel Pear]

Carl, thanks for the clarification.  Order of play is definitely to what I was referring.

[Carl Johnson]

Carl, thanks for the clarification.  Order of play is definitely to what I was referring.

And here is what I just found from an earlier discussion I was involved in.  Tom Doak: "Changing the order of holes played can change the feel of the round, but it's not an architectural change."  (Emphasis added.)  So, does Tom mean it is not a consideration of the architect?  I don't feel like I have a handle on the issue, either, Joel.

Here's a link to an earlier discussion involving, but not solely about, this topic - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56336.0.html

[Terry Lavin]

Shall the course remain anonymous?

[Jason Topp]

They changed the order of play on my childhood course.  The decision was undoubtedly a good one from a safety standpoint but I do think the course suffers a bit as a result.  Originally, you had a nice, relatively gentle series of par fours to ease your way into the round with the drama saved for later. 

The new order of play gives you drama early, and the gentle par fours seem less interesting in the middle of the front nine.

[Richard Hetzel]

Shall the course remain anonymous?

Mistwood maybe???

[Jeff_Brauer]

Carl,

I don't see how you can't at least consider where the hole might play in a routing, because the example shows what can happen, with 7 being not as good an opener as 1 was.  Distinguishing routing and order of holes is a bit picky, IMHO.

We usually joke that we show the nines reversed from what we really want, knowing that someone will come up with the idea that the nines should be reversed, and that way we get what we really want.

Funny timing, in that I took a break from routing a course, where I was trying to decide whether two particular holes in the middle of the front nine should be 4 and 5 or 8 and 9.......probably will stick with 4 and 5 to save one road crossing in a development course.  Golf wise, they play a little better, but not much, but it shows some of the "other" considerations that might affect the order of holes.  

Others are avoiding particular sun orientations early and late in the rounds, or having the early holes closer to the maintenance facility and having more holes hook into housing vs. slicing into housing.   I am working this same routing two ways, putting maintenance near 2, where they could get to early holes quicker, or in reverse, 17, where they couldn't.  However, 1 would be uphill vs. downhill, with a lake right vs. a lake left, and I probably prefer the reversed routing because the holes are better.

[SL_Solow]

It has to be Mistwood; only Hearn course in greater Chicago.  I note that Ray just undertook a major redesign so I suspect he had some say in any routing/ordering decisions.  As to issues regarding the "type" of opening hole including length , direction etc. there are different schools of thought and concerns.  Part may be dictated by the location of the clubhouse, if it has already been sited.  The nature of the land forms matter.  I also understand that certain architects preferred holes that allowed some spacing to encourage reasonable pace of play.

[Bill_McBride]

Joel, in prior discussions of this subject I've been told by experts (that is, architects and Pat Mucci) on this site that "routing" is a different concept from the "order of play" of the holes, which is what you seem to be getting at.  I'm told that "routing" has to do with individual holes and how they are laid out on the land, and not with respect to their order of play.  In any case, it seems to me as a golfer that the order of play is or should be a consideration in the overall design.  For example, one design "rule" I've heard espoused is that the opening hole or holes should play west, and the closing holes east - for reasons of the sun location.  So, what if the architect designs the course that way, but later the playing order is changed by the club itself so that generally you play into the sun both at the beginning and end of your round.  It seems to me that this defeats an important part of the design - exactly like you point out with changing a modest opener to a difficult opener.

Thus, I agree with you, and would also like to have architects chime in on the importance of order of play to their design work.  A more fundamental question is to what extent do architects pay attention to order of play at all when designing or laying out of a course?  Is it inconsequential?

Carl, your course had a major re routing with the new first two holes.  There's a prime example!

[JLahrman]

Recent thread which has some examples:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56745.0.html

More of a list of courses that have changed as opposed to addressing the specific questions posed in the title of this thread, but it may help provide some examples for discussion.

[Carl Johnson]

Joel, in prior discussions of this subject I've been told by experts (that is, architects and Pat Mucci) on this site that "routing" is a different concept from the "order of play" of the holes, which is what you seem to be getting at.  I'm told that "routing" has to do with individual holes and how they are laid out on the land, and not with respect to their order of play.  In any case, it seems to me as a golfer that the order of play is or should be a consideration in the overall design.  For example, one design "rule" I've heard espoused is that the opening hole or holes should play west, and the closing holes east - for reasons of the sun location.  So, what if the architect designs the course that way, but later the playing order is changed by the club itself so that generally you play into the sun both at the beginning and end of your round.  It seems to me that this defeats an important part of the design - exactly like you point out with changing a modest opener to a difficult opener.

Thus, I agree with you, and would also like to have architects chime in on the importance of order of play to their design work.  A more fundamental question is to what extent do architects pay attention to order of play at all when designing or laying out of a course?  Is it inconsequential?

Carl, your course had a major re routing with the new first two holes.  There's a prime example!

Bill, I know what you mean, but the big "reorganization" of the order of play on our course actually happened when the original club house on Donald Ross Rd. was abandoned and the current one built off Old Steele Creek Rd. around 1958 - 1960.  I won't take you hole-by-hole, but what (under the original Ross plan) was no. 1 is now no. 7, what was no. 10 is now no. 15, what was no. 16 is now no. 12, etc., etc.  The only holes that play in the same order as originally are what were 14 through 18, but are now 10 through 14.  As you say, in 2008 a major re-do of the course was completed.  Holes 1 and 2 are completely new - they replaced prior 1 and 2, which in fact had been numbers 6 and 7 under the original Ross plan.  No. 12 is completely new, replacing the prior 12, which originally was no. 16.  All in all, I think it works our pretty well except that to go from 4 green to 5 tee you must skip past the 15 tee.  Under the original play, what's now no. 4 was no. 9, and what's now no. 15 was no. 10, so the cross-over didn't exist.  I am sure this is all very clear to you now.    Seriously, the biggest change as a result of the re-ordering of the holes circa 1958 - 1960 was that no. 1 went west and no. 18 went north previously.  The change put 1 going east and 18 going west.

[Bill_McBride]

Joel, in prior discussions of this subject I've been told by experts (that is, architects and Pat Mucci) on this site that "routing" is a different concept from the "order of play" of the holes, which is what you seem to be getting at.  I'm told that "routing" has to do with individual holes and how they are laid out on the land, and not with respect to their order of play.  In any case, it seems to me as a golfer that the order of play is or should be a consideration in the overall design.  For example, one design "rule" I've heard espoused is that the opening hole or holes should play west, and the closing holes east - for reasons of the sun location.  So, what if the architect designs the course that way, but later the playing order is changed by the club itself so that generally you play into the sun both at the beginning and end of your round.  It seems to me that this defeats an important part of the design - exactly like you point out with changing a modest opener to a difficult opener.

Thus, I agree with you, and would also like to have architects chime in on the importance of order of play to their design work.  A more fundamental question is to what extent do architects pay attention to order of play at all when designing or laying out of a course?  Is it inconsequential?

Carl, your course had a major re routing with the new first two holes.  There's a prime example!

Bill, I know what you mean, but the big "reorganization" of the order of play on our course actually happened when the original club house on Donald Ross Rd. was abandoned and the current one built off Old Steele Creek Rd. around 1958 - 1960.  I won't take you hole-by-hole, but what (under the original Ross plan) was no. 1 is now no. 7, what was no. 10 is now no. 15, what was no. 17 is now no. 12, etc., etc.  The only holes that play in the same order are what were 14 through 18, but are now 10 through 14.  As you say, in 2008 a major re-do of the course was completed.  Holes 1 and 2 are completely new - they replaced prior 1 and 2, which in fact had been numbers 6 and 7 under the original Ross plan.  No. 12 is completely new, replacing the prior 12, which originally was no. 16.  All in all, I think it works our pretty well except that to go from 4 green to 5 tee you must skip past the 15 tee.  Under the original play, what's now no. 4 was no. 9, and what's now no. 15 was no. 10, so the cross-over didn't exist.  I am sure this is all very clear to you now.  

All I can think of is what a brutal first hole current #7 would have been, with that slippery green.  I could see guys quitting when they just couldn't quite finish the first hole!   

[Carl Johnson]

Joel, in prior discussions of this subject I've been told by experts (that is, architects and Pat Mucci) on this site that "routing" is a different concept from the "order of play" of the holes, which is what you seem to be getting at.  I'm told that "routing" has to do with individual holes and how they are laid out on the land, and not with respect to their order of play.  In any case, it seems to me as a golfer that the order of play is or should be a consideration in the overall design.  For example, one design "rule" I've heard espoused is that the opening hole or holes should play west, and the closing holes east - for reasons of the sun location.  So, what if the architect designs the course that way, but later the playing order is changed by the club itself so that generally you play into the sun both at the beginning and end of your round.  It seems to me that this defeats an important part of the design - exactly like you point out with changing a modest opener to a difficult opener.

Thus, I agree with you, and would also like to have architects chime in on the importance of order of play to their design work.  A more fundamental question is to what extent do architects pay attention to order of play at all when designing or laying out of a course?  Is it inconsequential?

Carl, your course had a major re routing with the new first two holes.  There's a prime example!

Bill, I know what you mean, but the big "reorganization" of the order of play on our course actually happened when the original club house on Donald Ross Rd. was abandoned and the current one built off Old Steele Creek Rd. around 1958 - 1960.  I won't take you hole-by-hole, but what (under the original Ross plan) was no. 1 is now no. 7, what was no. 10 is now no. 15, what was no. 17 is now no. 12, etc., etc.  The only holes that play in the same order are what were 14 through 18, but are now 10 through 14.  As you say, in 2008 a major re-do of the course was completed.  Holes 1 and 2 are completely new - they replaced prior 1 and 2, which in fact had been numbers 6 and 7 under the original Ross plan.  No. 12 is completely new, replacing the prior 12, which originally was no. 16.  All in all, I think it works our pretty well except that to go from 4 green to 5 tee you must skip past the 15 tee.  Under the original play, what's now no. 4 was no. 9, and what's now no. 15 was no. 10, so the cross-over didn't exist.  I am sure this is all very clear to you now.  

All I can think of is what a brutal first hole current #7 would have been, with that slippery green.  I could see guys quitting when they just couldn't quite finish the first hole!  

However, also keep in mind that what is now the 7th green is by no means the original, Ross, 7th green.  The pre-2008 green did not have the false front or other contours.  Of course, what I do not know was exactly how it looked in 1929 when the course opened.  It was certainly larger than just pre-2008, but probably about as flat (relatively speaking) as the just pre-2008 version.  Of course, for everyday member match play today no. 7 has more "I quit" concessions than any other hole on the course, I am sure.

Also, Bill, I added this to my original post while you were first commenting: "The biggest change as a result of the re-ordering of the holes circa 1958 - 1960 was that no. 1 went west and no. 18 went north previously.  The change put 1 going east and 18 going west." 

[Carl Johnson]

Carl,

I don't see how you can't at least consider where the hole might play in a routing, because the example shows what can happen, with 7 being not as good an opener as 1 was.  Distinguishing routing and order of holes is a bit picky, IMHO.

We usually joke that we show the nines reversed from what we really want, knowing that someone will come up with the idea that the nines should be reversed, and that way we get what we really want.

Funny timing, in that I took a break from routing a course, where I was trying to decide whether two particular holes in the middle of the front nine should be 4 and 5 or 8 and 9.......probably will stick with 4 and 5 to save one road crossing in a development course.  Golf wise, they play a little better, but not much, but it shows some of the "other" considerations that might affect the order of holes.  

Others are avoiding particular sun orientations early and late in the rounds, or having the early holes closer to the maintenance facility and having more holes hook into housing vs. slicing into housing.   I am working this same routing two ways, putting maintenance near 2, where they could get to early holes quicker, or in reverse, 17, where they couldn't.  However, 1 would be uphill vs. downhill, with a lake right vs. a lake left, and I probably prefer the reversed routing because the holes are better.

Jeff, to my way of thinking architects would take the order of play into consideration, even knowing that someone might come along a change it.  That's why I found Tom Doak's comment that changing the order of play was not an architectural change interesting.  This may just be a subtle semantics issue, e.g., the original order the architect had in mind was an "architectural" decision, but to make a change in the order later is not an "architectural" change.  Emoticon should go here, but not sure which one.

Also, regarding: "We usually joke that we show the nines reversed from what we really want, knowing that someone will come up with the idea that the nines should be reversed, and that way we get what we really want."  I am not an architect, but I hope you don't mind my using that line at some appropriate point in the future.

[Jordan Standefer]

Oak Quarry in Riverside, CA starts off with a driveable par-4 and has a long S-shaped par-5 for hole #16.  It wasn't until my last time out there that I was informed that the current #17 and #18 used to be #1 and #2.  In the original order of holes, this would allow you to start your round with some medium length par-4s before you got to the reachable par-4.  Also, your round would end with a pretty dramatic par-5.

I think the original iteration was probably more fluid, but I imagine they changed the order because you would inevitably have major congestion with everyone waiting for the green to clear on #3.  Better to have golfers wait at #1 before their round and have consistent pace of play throughout.

[Matthew Rose]

My childhood muni did it, only a year or so after I started playing there. I'd only played it maybe less than five times in the original sequence, and ended up playing it hundreds of times the new way. Eventually I struggled to remember the original sequence.... I think it actually may have changed twice, since I've had conflicting accounts of the correct back nine order.

I never did find out why it was done. It may have been to eliminate a long walk from 16 to 17, which eventually became 9 to 10. I think 16 may have been the original 18th.... it's been the 9th hole now for almost 30 years. The course was routed in such a way that there were several two-hole loops that could be played, and there were four holes that returned to the clubhouse instead of two.

One unexpected benefit that came out of it was that the 9th hole became the 5th hole, and returned to the clubhouse. They found that a lot of people would stop in for concessions between 5 and 6 and then again between 9 and 10, something that they did not really do when those holes came later in the round. So the grill actually saw itself getting more business. I doubt that's the reason why it was done, but it just so happened to be a bonus.

Architecturally, I think the original sequence was better. In both cases, the 1st hole was the same, but the balance between the nines was better, and it had a much stronger finish. 16, 17, and 18 in the original sequence were among the three best holes on the course, and they were replaced with a good 16th (originally the 5th) but 17 and 18 were replaced by the 2nd and 11th which were much less challenging and interesting holes.

I think it was done more for traffic flow than for anything else. I'm curious to find out what the sequence was when it opened in the 20s, because I'd been told it may have changed multiple times over it's entire history.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I’ve actually just proposed changing the sequencing of holes at a club the other week. The course was built a little piecemeal so has no consistent architectural merit. The proposal involves the eradication of one weak hole and the re-ordering of the rest with numerous advantages, including better flow, returning nines where they didn’t before, eradication of a couple of really awkward crossovers and slightly less green to tee walks.

Perhaps the best example of renumbering I can think of was at County Louth / Baltray which was routed by Tom Simpson as follows (and changed in the 80’s):

1 – Current 4th
2 – Current 5th
3 – Current 6th
4 – Current 7th
5 – Current 8th
6 – Current 9th
7 – Current 1st
8 – Current 2nd
9 – Current 3rd

10 – Current 11th
11 – Current 12th
12 – Current 13th
13 – Current 14th
14 – Current 15th
15 – Current 16th
16 – Current 17th
17 – Current 18th
18 – Current 10th

[Jeff_Brauer]

Also, regarding: "We usually joke that we show the nines reversed from what we really want, knowing that someone will come up with the idea that the nines should be reversed, and that way we get what we really want."  I am not an architect, but I hope you don't mind my using that line at some appropriate point in the future.

Carl, I think I have used that one often enough its now in the public domain, so use it freely.

I was thinking about this last night, and really, if there are 18 good holes, it will probably matter a little bit less where they fall.  Or, if the sequence avoids three similar holes in a row by mixing up pars and yardage, then the sequence should play pretty much the same.  I have seen flipped nines result in back to back par 5's at 9 and 10, and a few other oddities, but in playing the course, they never bothered me.  Things like a driveable par 4, Reachable par 5, or par 3 in the first 2-3 holes will slow up play, and should be avoided in any renumbering scheme, at least in my opinion.  It's sort of a cross pollinated thought from Pat's "formula is common sense" thread, but those holes DO slow up play and there is a reason for that particular formulaic pattern.

[Scott Wintersteen]

Be gentle, this is the first topic I've started!  There is a course in the western suburbs of Chicago designed by Ray Hearn that opened in the late 90's.  I used to play it a lot when it first opened, and enjoyed it.  It had a really good flow to it and placed a premium on strategy.  My only real complaint was that some of the greens seemed (to me) to be overly severe.  So much, that they were difficult to mow.

The first hole was a wonderful opening hole, a gentle dogleg left to a very approachable green.  Not overly long, around 380 if I remember correctly, but it just eased you into the course.  For some reason, ownership/management decided to change the routing to the front nine.  Officially they said it was because the first and tenth tee were too close and served by the same path causing too much congestion.  I played the course weekly for a season and never really notice it.

The new #1 is the original 7th and it requires a very demanding tee shot.  It has a small stream bisecting the fairway and the desired line would be over the stream and onto the left side of the fairway.  It just seems to be a bit off-putting, and doesn't really get you into the course; more like the course is getting into you!

So, my questions are, how do you feel about routing changes, should a good design ease a player into a course, and when architects present plans to owners, do they provide for alternate routings of their holes.

I definitely agree with you on the new first hole.  I played Mistwood a handful of times pre-renovation and liked the layout.  However, I played it last summer after the renovation and was not that impressed.  The first hole is not a good starting hole for a golf course with the awkward tee shot you mentioned above.  The only reason I can think the change was made was because of the new practice/teaching facility they added. 

[Kyle Henderson]

Spyglass Hill would offer a better experience, IMHO, if the 7th became the first and the 6th became the last hole played. All they would really need to so is flip the driving range and maybe shuttle players to #1.

[Tim_Cronin]

Be gentle, this is the first topic I've started!  There is a course in the western suburbs of Chicago designed by Ray Hearn that opened in the late 90's.  I used to play it a lot when it first opened, and enjoyed it.  It had a really good flow to it and placed a premium on strategy.  My only real complaint was that some of the greens seemed (to me) to be overly severe.  So much, that they were difficult to mow.

The first hole was a wonderful opening hole, a gentle dogleg left to a very approachable green.  Not overly long, around 380 if I remember correctly, but it just eased you into the course.  For some reason, ownership/management decided to change the routing to the front nine.  Officially they said it was because the first and tenth tee were too close and served by the same path causing too much congestion.  I played the course weekly for a season and never really notice it.

The new #1 is the original 7th and it requires a very demanding tee shot.  It has a small stream bisecting the fairway and the desired line would be over the stream and onto the left side of the fairway.  It just seems to be a bit off-putting, and doesn't really get you into the course; more like the course is getting into you!

So, my questions are, how do you feel about routing changes, should a good design ease a player into a course, and when architects present plans to owners, do they provide for alternate routings of their holes.

I definitely agree with you on the new first hole.  I played Mistwood a handful of times pre-renovation and liked the layout.  However, I played it last summer after the renovation and was not that impressed.  The first hole is not a good starting hole for a golf course with the awkward tee shot you mentioned above.  The only reason I can think the change was made was because of the new practice/teaching facility they added. 

Because of that creek cutting across – and the slant of it from left to right as it runs away from the tee – it's a really difficult opening hole. It's difficult visually because the hole is flat and the creek is fronted by some high grass. Leak to the right and you're either in the creek or on the orphan side of the fairway, away from the green. I can imagine many a round starting players hitting 3 off the tee en route to a double bogey or worse.

The routing – it's fine to use that word – has the original seventh, eighth and ninth holes as the first three. Then you play the original first six. The back nine routing is unchanged.

[Joel Pear]

Sorry gents, but I've been out of town and did not have internet access.  The course, indeed, is Mistwood. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()