Unbalanced nines

[archie_struthers]

 

How do you guys feel about unbalanced nines. Both yardage and par .  Consider things such as three
par threes on one side , one on another , etc etc etc

[Bill_McBride]

Pacific Dunes is the poster child with four par 3s and three par 5s, only two par 4s on the back nine.  It works, best holes to be found. 

[Jonathan Sirois]

I'm totally fine with it. Working with the land at hand, I think the architect should present the golfer with the most interesting and intriguing set of holes he can, taking challenge and playability into account, of course. They should tell a cohesive story; the length and makeup of that "story" are contingent upon the nature of its "pages," both in terms of quantity and quality. Simply put, stock nines of 36 (~3,500) / 36 (~3,500) are all too often uninspired and contrived in feel. Aiming for that outcome from the get-go, for the sake of achieving a "championship layout," is bananas

[mike_beene]

I prefer them. I really like the feel of a 34 or 35 back nine.I have no idea why.

[James Bennett]

Some front nines I have played have only had eight holes, and the back nine (fortunately) has had ten holes.

My home club (RAdelaideGC) has a front 13 nine and a back 5 nine.  It seems to work quite well.

They are good examples of unbalanced nines.

The first nine holes have two par 5's and a par 3, the last nine holes have two par 3's and a par 5.  This also seems to work.



James B

[Adrian_Stiff]

Some of the 'rules' are good for other reasons other than just the golf course. Commercially and for the enjoyment of all two returning nines are still better than 10s n 8s or 11s n 7s etc. Equally a reasonable balance is still preferable. Doak's 4 par 3s in nine and 1 on the other happened just because he felt it was better to over-ride 'the rule' and that all things considered the golf course was better by having the 'flaw'. I think his opinion was totally vindicated judging by all the comments.

I don't see much flaw in a 36 v 34 or 35 v 37 but 37 v 33 is probably pushing it too far and I have never heard of 5 shots different. I have never heard of a nine holes not containing a short hole, though many will not have a par 5.

The masses generally perceive a par 70, 71, 72 or 73 as being a normal course. A par 69 is a slight minus and anything lower gets worse and worse. These things reflect more in the commercial world than the more knowlegable GCA opinion of what is good and bad.

I think a reasonable flow of sequencing is important when designing a course and the balancing is preferable. In my mind I juggle with the best holes that can fit factored by the balancing of the course. From there make best call (then change my mind 50 times).

Some courses are great just because they slightly break the mould and that is then its USP.

[Sean_A]

Adrian

I wonder if there is much truck in the idea of two starting points in a design, but say 5 or 6 holes on one side and 12 or 13 on the other?  The reason I ask is because of pricing.  Do you think a market exists out there for three price points of 6, 12 and 18 holes rather 9 and 18? 

Ciao 

[Ally Mcintosh]

An element of balance does matter. It's far too easy to follow the mantra that it doesn't but the overall flow is of utmost importance to me and this means a course can't feel unbalanced. Not in terms of par number. But in terms of making sure the good player has to hit a few mid irons.

[Sean_A]

An element of balance does matter. It's far too easy to follow the mantra that it doesn't but the overall flow is of utmost importance to me and this means a course can't feel unbalanced. Not in terms of par number. But in terms of making sure the good player has to hit a few mid irons.

Ally

I think I know where you are coming from, but the archie often has the option of creating a par 3 or two which can seriously challenge good players.  That said, I think there is some issue with balance, but for me its not about shot difficulty, its about hole quality and variety.  Machrihanish is a good example of a back 9 which doesn't come close to measuring up to the front 9 and because of this I think the rhythm of the round is compromised a bit.  Liphook too comes mind with five short 4s in the span of 9 holes and none realistically drivable).  This to me is a serious flaw because it compresses a bunch of similar shots and thus mucks with the flow of the round.  But I could care less if one side was a par 37 and the other a par 33 so long as variety exists. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

An element of balance does matter. It's far too easy to follow the mantra that it doesn't but the overall flow is of utmost importance to me and this means a course can't feel unbalanced. Not in terms of par number. But in terms of making sure the good player has to hit a few mid irons.

Ally

I think I know where you are coming from, but the archie often has the option of creating a par 3 or two which can seriously challenge good players.  That said, I think there is some issue with balance, but for me its not about shot difficulty, its about hole quality and variety.  Machrihanish is a good example of a back 9 which doesn't come close to measuring up to the front 9 and because of this I think the rhythm of the round is compromised a bit.  Liphook too comes mind with five short 4s in the span of 9 holes and none realistically drivable).  This to me is a serious flaw because it compresses a bunch of similar shots and thus mucks with the flow of the round.  But I could care less if one side was a par 37 and the other a par 33 so long as variety exists. 

Ciao

Sean, this I agree with. It is about variety of holes but that means variety of shot lengths rather than difficulty, hence my mid-iron statement. Par balance means little to me also.

[Tom_Doak]

Well before Pacific Dunes, High Pointe was par 37-34=71, so obviously I have never had too much problem with the idea.  As Ally indicated, though, there are certain circumstances where I would be more resistant, if I didn't think the course had a good flow to it.  Even then, I'm not opposed to an unusual "flow", I wonder if Ally would have been OK with Merion for example.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian

I wonder if there is much truck in the idea of two starting points in a design, but say 5 or 6 holes on one side and 12 or 13 on the other?  The reason I ask is because of pricing.  Do you think a market exists out there for three price points of 6, 12 and 18 holes rather 9 and 18? 

Ciao 

I think there is a good market for 9 holes of golf and possibly 'all you can eat with 150 minutes of sunlight left'. 6 holes I would say not much of a market...it's all a bit too much effort to get there just for 6, unless you live close in which case you would probably be a member.
As to designing a 6, 9, 12 and 18 routing.....you get into the aspect of thinking too much about the commercial aspects v flow of the course. At the Players Club we have the 1st, 5th, 10th and 14th so can do a 4 tee start and that's popular with big corporate days and club comps, everyone (128 players) can start and finish within 72 minutes. The design of this was an accident though. Centrally placed clubhouse's make these things more possible.

[Rob Curtiss]

I just played Fiddlers Creek in Naples 2 days ago and the setup was 37-35.

I really liked the fact that it had 3 par 5's on the front- it got me off to a good start and built some confidence going into the back 9.

It is good to change it up every once in a while instead of the same 36-36 .

[Kevin_D]

Wykagyl is 37-35 and it works just fine, thank you very much.

[Tim Gavrich]

Two Strantz courses I know of--Bulls Bay and True Blue--are 37-35 or 35-37, and neither of them is worse off for it. Also, here in CT, both Shuttle Meadow CC and New Haven CC are 34-37 courses and again, neither is worse off for it. Curiously, they're both Willie Park courses.

Dividing an 18 hole course into two nines is more or less arbitrary, so I'd agree that if the total product is engaging, that's most important.

[Neil Davis]

I'm a member at a club that has unbalanced 9s (35-37).  We have a very difficult par 4 on the first 9 that members either want to neuter/ruin by eliminating its key feature, or change to a par five in conjunction with changing/ruining a par 5 on the second 9 to a par 4.  One argument that is always thrown out in favor of changing the difficult par 4 to a par 5 is that it would balance the 9s.  I've never really got it, as the flow of the course is good as is--I think people just like things to fit in tidy little boxes.   I don't think it will happen, but people talk about it.   

[Kyle Casella]

I think it is great if done properly. Many times, unfortunately, one side is the easier side and one side is the harder side. Essex County Club in Manchester, MA uses this strategy to great effect. The front nine plays over 3,400 yards to a par of 36. The back is 2,990 and a par 34. I don't think you will find many people who think the back is significantly easier. The front is flatter and more open with two par fives that provide scoring opportunities (although one of them is 600+ and par there is a very good score). The back plays mostly uphill until the the finisher and requires very precise shot-making.

[OChatriot]

20yr old Pyrford west of London has 8 very easy holes to start, then you hit a 600+yd double dogleg with water everywhere, and a much more difficult back nine. It doesn't work well. The tempo of the round fell brutally from that 9th hole and the course would have much benefited from a balanced mix of hard and easy holes.
Makes me think of this: two guys walk out of the race-course with their original cash in hand: one is fuming, the other one is grinning. That's because the first guy found the winning horse of the first race and lost all his gains on the others, while the second one recouped all his afternoon losses on the last race.
At Pyrford, there is a risk to feel like the former.

[Brian Finn]

I don't see much flaw in a 36 v 34 or 35 v 37 but 37 v 33 is probably pushing it too far and I have never heard of 5 shots different. I have never heard of a nine holes not containing a short hole, though many will not have a par 5.

I have never had an issue with unbalanced nines, in par or yardage terms.

I am curious how far other folks would be willing push the imbalance.  It seems the 'acceptable' par range is from a low of 34 to a high of 37 (per nine).

How would you feel about par of 33 (or below) on one side and 38 (or above) on the other?  Would 'flow' almost certainly be disrupted at this point?

Just as one hypothetical example:
- front 9 par 33:  3 par 3s, 6 par 4s
- back 9 par 38:  1 par 3, 5 par 4s, 3 par 5s

[Garland Bayley]

My home course is 34-36. No par 5s on the front. Much shorter on the front. The elders, women, and children love playing the front nine, while the more talented players love playing the back nine.

I often get my 18 by playing the back twice. Not that I'm a more talented player.

[Paul Gray]

I don't see much flaw in a 36 v 34 or 35 v 37 but 37 v 33 is probably pushing it too far and I have never heard of 5 shots different. I have never heard of a nine holes not containing a short hole, though many will not have a par 5.

I have never had an issue with unbalanced nines, in par or yardage terms.

I am curious how far other folks would be willing push the imbalance.  It seems the 'acceptable' par range is from a low of 34 to a high of 37 (per nine).

How would you feel about par of 33 (or below) on one side and 38 (or above) on the other?  Would 'flow' almost certainly be disrupted at this point?

Just as one hypothetical example:
- front 9 par 33:  3 par 3s, 6 par 4s
- back 9 par 38:  1 par 3, 5 par 4s, 3 par 5s

I'd actively be encouraged to play it.

I'm surprised that examples have started to flow. I would have thought that many courses which span two sides of a road would have this kind of imbalance. I'm pretty sure I saw a 38/34 online recently but can't for the life of me think where.

[Brad Isaacs]

There are par unbalanced  nines and then there are difficulty unbalanced nines.  My home course is 2 strokes harder on the back side.  Does ending with a difficult stretch of holes (17 and 18) make a course seem less enjoyable?

[Michael Felton]

Of my two clubs back in the UK, Effingham has a par 36 on the front nine and 35 on the back nine, but the back nine is actually longer and quite a bit harder. Walton Heath, the Old course is 35 front and 37 back (2 3s and 1 5 on the front and 2 3s and 3 5s on the back) and the New course is also 35 on the front and 37 on the back (2 3s and 1 5 on the front and 1 3 and 2 5s on the back). None of those things has ever really bothered me, although on the New the last par 3 is the 10th and I'm not a huge fan of that.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Reddish Vale is about as unbalanced as they come; 33 (2770 yds) and 36 (3316 yds). As Ran points out in his profile however, it really doesn't impact adversely on the playing experience. The front nine doesn't 'feel' short - it just has four short holes in it.

Talk is always ongoing about lengthening a hole to increase the overal par to a more commercially attractive 70. Unfortunately the only two realistic candidates are long par 4s at 11 and 13, either of which would make a quality par 5 given another 30 yards. Stretching one of them would serve only to make the nines even more unbalanced.

[Tom_Doak]

I think there is a good market for 9 holes of golf and possibly 'all you can eat with 150 minutes of sunlight left'. 6 holes I would say not much of a market...it's all a bit too much effort to get there just for 6, unless you live close in which case you would probably be a member.
As to designing a 6, 9, 12 and 18 routing.....you get into the aspect of thinking too much about the commercial aspects v flow of the course. At the Players Club we have the 1st, 5th, 10th and 14th so can do a 4 tee start and that's popular with big corporate days and club comps, everyone (128 players) can start and finish within 72 minutes. The design of this was an accident though. Centrally placed clubhouse's make these things more possible.

I agree with all of this.  It is rare enough to come up with a routing that has two even loops of nine holes and feel like that's really the best routing.  Coming up with three even loops of six holes is almost guaranteed not to be the best routing, unless the ground is just featureless.