Has the 18 hole "standard" been good for golf and Golf Course Architecture?

[MCirba]

I recall someone once remarking that it was unfortunate that the only thing 20th and 21st century architects copied from the Old Course was the total number of holes.   While that is rather overstated, there is a point and valid question whether the 18 hole standard has been a consistently good thing for the game over the past century or more that this has been the general rule.

I thought about this last night on a Facebook post where Melvyn Morrow posted an 1890 drawing of the 16 hole course that Old Tom Morris laid out at Muirfield.   An accompanying article stated that the course was designed to be easily expanded to 18 holes (which it was by the time it opened for play) which begged the question, why design 16 holes in the first place?

Someone subsequently commented that they felt this was still a time period where the idea of an 18 hole standard was only then becoming the norm and that perhaps Old Tom simply laid out the number of holes that he thought best fit the property.

Given removal of any preconceived limitations on the architect to squeeze exactly 18 holes out of any given property, would our courses be better or worse?   Haven't we all seen courses where 18 holes are literally shoe-horned in, where perhaps a promising native site with good landforms wasn't able to be utlized well because the results needed to be constricted to fit 18 holes?   Indeed, we often consider it a great feat when an architect is able to fit in 18 good holes on tight acreage.

But what if we had 10 hole course, or 14 hole courses, or 23 hole courses?   Would the game be better or worse?

[Niall C]

Mike


I think the issue isn't necessarily the number of holes, setting aside the punters expectations, but the length of the course overall and the quality of the holes that are there.


In a historical context, I understand the number 18 was struck upon when the number of holes at TOC were reduced by joining a couple of holes together thereby keeping the same overall yardage but reducing the number of holes from 22 to 18. As the average length of holes has increased over the years and the number of holes has stayed the same, the inevitable result has been longer courses. If you were to keep the same formula going forward ie. increasing length of individual holes x same number of holes (18) =  ever increasing length of course, you will eventually get to the point that the course will become like a marathon. Arguably we have already reached that point for a lot of people.


That being the case should the argument not be to do what they did back then at TOC and simply reduce the number of holes in a standard round while keeping the quality/length of individual holes ?


Niall 

[Niall C]

That's the trouble of rushing into print, you sometimes go off at tangents. Now I read Mikes OP again I see that is what I have done. Apologies.


Niall

[Cliff Hamm]

Nicklaus a few years back proposed 12 hole courses so that a round didn't take so long.  I concur.  I would love to see the typical course be 3 6's instead of 2 9's.  It would provide much more flexibility for play.

[Keith OHalloran]

For me, it depends on the time of year. When the season starts, 12 holes is about right. When I am lucky enough to play in Nebraska after I have been playing a month or two,  with a ton of daylight, 18 is not nearly enough.

[Kalen Braley]

Not to be flippant, but we already have 12 hole courses....
 
Play 12 holes and then head to the clubhouse.

[A.G._Crockett]

Though I dislike agreeing with Nicklaus about anything concerning expense or pace of play, I must.  The game would likely be healthier if it was quicker and cheaper, and 12 hole courses would certainly accomplish both.  I think it would bring more women and kids into the game for a lot of different reasons, and for anyone an activity that takes 4 hours is a tough sell. 

There are so many golf courses that could do without a half dozen or so holes that are ordinary or repetitive or just not very good.  So from a GCA standpoint, less might be more as well.  It's like any other work of art; we don't need MORE art, we need more GREAT art.

[Dave McCollum]

Several times I've played 19 hole courses--eg. The European Club--where the alternate hole could be played while another hole was being worked on.  That's a luxury most clubs can't afford and, depending on design and placement in the routing, could result in a long walk between green and tee.

[Duncan Cheslett]

If Prestwick's 12 holes had been adopted as the standard in the 19th century rather than The Old Course's 18 holes, I suspect that today golf would be in a healthier state.

Golf courses would require less land, maintenance would be cheaper, and a round would take much less time enabling far more people to participate regularly.

Above all, no-one would complain that courses were too short and should have more holes. I am quite certain that 12 holes would be enough for everyone if they had never known 18 hole courses.

12 holes before lunch and another 12 afterwards sounds idyllic to me.

[Niall C]

Here's a conundrum, if shorter courses are better, why have so many courses that started as nine holers being turned into 18 holers and indeed that is still happening today ?


Niall

[MCirba]

I think what I'm suggesting is no standard.  If a particular piece of property is best suited with 8 holes or 13 or 16 or 22 that should be an architectural decision and not restricted by the arbitrary 18 holes, or 9 or 27 hole derivatives.

There may be practical considerations as well that contribute to a sustainable game but I'd like to consider this as well from optimizing the architecture on any particular piece of property.

I say 18 is mass self-imposed tyranny!

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,
 
Its no more difficult than it is default.  No different than why are football quarters 15 minutes and not 20 minutes?  Or why does hockey have 3 periods instead of 2 or 4?  Or  Why bowling has 10 frames with 2 balls each, except the last frame which may or may not have two or 3?  Or why Baseball has 9 innings instead of 10?
Or why we drive on Parkways and park on Driveways....
 
None of it means anything, or makes any sense!!   

[Sean_A]

18 holes is one of the first steps toward the idea of a "championship" course.  I can't really say if the idea is good or bad as a standard for golf, but I do think these days, with a plethora of courses, that standard should be broken.  Without a shadow of doubt however, I think the idea of championship golf has not been good for design. 


Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean


Championships were played on nine hole Musselburgh and 12 hole Prestwick so not sure that has anything to do with a standard course being 18 holes.


Niall

[MCirba]

Mike,
 
Its no more difficult than it is default.  No different than why are football quarters 15 minutes and not 20 minutes?  Or why does hockey have 3 periods instead of 2 or 4?  Or  Why bowling has 10 frames with 2 balls each, except the last frame which may or may not have two or 3?  Or why Baseball has 9 innings instead of 10?
Or why we drive on Parkways and park on Driveways....
 
None of it means anything, or makes any sense!!   

Except golf already differs from all of those other sports in that the field of play is completely variable.   The only thing necessary for a golf course is a pre-defined teeing area to start and a hole in the ground to finish.   Everything else is up to what's already there and what man does to prepare it for play through design and maintenance.   Eighteen hole courses are built on properties from 80 to 380 acres.   

[Sean_A]

Niall


Think about it.  Both courses were thought not to be big enough.  Muirfield took its championship to a new 18 hole venue and Prestwick just lost it.  Other clubs want to follow what championship clubs do...no different today.  How many 9 holers were made into 18 holers because thats what the big boys expect?  18 holes is one of the ideas of standardization which is seriously linked with championship golf.   


Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

Here's a conundrum, if shorter courses are better, why have so many courses that started as nine holers being turned into 18 holers and indeed that is still happening today ?


Niall

I don't think anybody said that shorter courses were better, per se.  The question is whether the 18 hole standard has been good for golf.  So flip your question around; Are there any 9 hole courses that have stayed 9 holes even though they were able to expand?  A corollary question would be (and this is important) Are there any 9 hole courses that do better, all other things equal, than nearby 18 hole courses?  I doubt it...

Because 18 holes IS the standard, 9 hole courses are inevitably looked at as something less; they don't play the back 9 at ANGC twice on Sunday.  In order to be a "real" golf course, at least in the eyes of many consumers, expanding to 18 holes is easily understood, right?  I would imagine that almost every 9 hole course that can expand has already done so.  The ones that are still 9 holes simply don't have the option to expand financially or in terms of land.

None of this speaks to the current health of the game, which was the original question.  I would suspect that the game would be in better shape if all of the courses that started out as 9 holes had stayed that way, or if the entire game was based on 12 holes instead of 18.

[Tim Gavrich]

Here's a conundrum, if shorter courses are better, why have so many courses that started as nine holers being turned into 18 holers and indeed that is still happening today ?


Niall

I don't think anybody said that shorter courses were better, per se.  The question is whether the 18 hole standard has been good for golf.  So flip your question around; Are there any 9 hole courses that have stayed 9 holes even though they were able to expand?  A corollary question would be (and this is important) Are there any 9 hole courses that do better, all other things equal, than nearby 18 hole courses?  I doubt it...

Because 18 holes IS the standard, 9 hole courses are inevitably looked at as something less; they don't play the back 9 at ANGC twice on Sunday.  In order to be a "real" golf course, at least in the eyes of many consumers, expanding to 18 holes is easily understood, right?  I would imagine that almost every 9 hole course that can expand has already done so.  The ones that are still 9 holes simply don't have the option to expand financially or in terms of land.

None of this speaks to the current health of the game, which was the original question.  I would suspect that the game would be in better shape if all of the courses that started out as 9 holes had stayed that way, or if the entire game was based on 12 holes instead of 18.

I'm not sure that 12 is less arbitrary a number of holes than 18 in a way that would put the game "in better shape."


Is there really a significant enough number of people out there who refuse to play nine holes because it's not enough golf but also refuse to play 18 because it's too much golf? What about a hypothetical 12-hole round makes the game better than 18?


It's probably confirmation bias, but 18 holes feels right to me. A great 18 hole match is a great setting for potential drama because it can mirror a stage drama in four or five acts. How many great all-time matches would have ended anti-climactically after 12 holes?


The initial establishment of a "full" round as 18 holes may have been arbitrary, but I think there are compelling reasons to regard it as a feature of golf, not a bug.

[Paul Gray]

Here's a conundrum, if shorter courses are better, why have so many courses that started as nine holers being turned into 18 holers and indeed that is still happening today ?


Niall

Essentially, ego. Or, if you prefer, keeping up with The Joneses. Once a standard is set, any deviation from that is, quite wrongly, percieved as being inferior.


For my own personal preference, and I really don't thnk there's a right or wrong answer, 12 has just always seemed like the right number. It's long enough to feel like a round but not so long that 2 or even 3 rounds isn't unrealistic.

[Josh Stevens]

I suppose its a question of getting enough done to make it worth the effort of coming to club, but not so much that it becomes a grind

A decent golfer might only strike the ball 40 times in 9 holes, and that hardly seems worth getting out of bed for.  While perhaps 18 might drag on.  But then there are those that happily do 36 a day?

We run a 14 hole twilight comp on a fri afternoon in summer by cutting off 4 holes at the far flung corners and that is very popular.  Knock off early, play a quick 14 and then get have beer and food.

Then there is a 9 hole course near me where every inch of every hole has amazing 180 degree oceans views - so a q

As an event then it varies.  But whether any given site can actually produce 18 decent holes without compromising the qualtity is the question.

12-13 hole courses would certainly open up lots of options

[Niall C]

Niall


Think about it.  Both courses were thought not to be big enough.  Muirfield took its championship to a new 18 hole venue and Prestwick just lost it.  Other clubs want to follow what championship clubs do...no different today.  How many 9 holers were made into 18 holers because thats what the big boys expect?  18 holes is one of the ideas of standardization which is seriously linked with championship golf.   


Ciao

Sean


The Open had been going for 30 years or so by the time HCEG decided to move and they did that because of over crowding and having to share where they were. And if you remember rightly, their first course at Muirfield was only 16 holes ! As for Prestwick, they decided not to have another Open (whether the R&A would have gone back is perhaps a mute point but I tend to think they would) long after their course had become 18 holes.


Niall

[Niall C]

Ignoring the number of holes question, what length of course do folks think about right assuming tees were adjacent to proceeding greens etc ?


Niall

[MCirba]

Please note that I changed the title.   While I appreciate the related discussions related to time and how long a round takes and whether shorter rounds mean more golfers generally, I'd also like to explore this from the architectural side.

For instance, might an architect be able to come up with on average superior holes on a hypothetical 110 acres if he/she knows they only have to build the number of holes they can find that make rational golf sense from a routing and land use perspective if they know they don't have to arrive at an arbitrary number of 18?   Instead, perhaps that property has 14, or 16 good holes for discussion purposes.   

Why the need to fit in 18, and what does that do to compromise overall quality?

[Niall C]

Obviously the real GCA's on here would be able to answer better than myself but I've never let that stop me before........so here goes. I think in terms of constraints, that ideas like balanced nines that start and finish at the clubhouse, par 72's, 4 x par 3's and likewise for par 5's is going to be a bigger constraint on getting the best out of site than whether there are 18 holes or not.


Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

For instance, might an architect be able to come up with on average superior holes on a hypothetical 110 acres if he/she knows they only have to build the number of holes they can find that make rational golf sense from a routing and land use perspective if they know they don't have to arrive at an arbitrary number of 18?   Instead, perhaps that property has 14, or 16 good holes for discussion purposes.   

Mike, absolutely. Routing 18 holes on a tight site quite clearly can result in compromise with individual hole quality. For instance, the number of times you find yourself having to squeeze (for example) 3 holes in to a corner of the site that has 2 perfectly natural holes is frequent.
 
Niall - I agree that a predetermined requirement to have returning nines with a 2-5-2 breakdown is a sure fire way of tying an architects arm behind his back before he's started. However - depending on size of site and natural features - I'm not sure it is a bigger bind than having to build a jigsaw of 18 on a tight site. Even on a good size site, it's amazing how many times the best answer seems to add up to 17.... 16 or 14 or 12 quite clearly gives much more space and therefore many more variables and therefore many more options, meaning a much higher percentage chance that all your holes are good ones rather than some compromises...