[Joe Schackman]

I'm going to try my best to explain what I mean by "flexibility". Hopefully it makes sense...

So at the course I play at (Shackamaxon in NJ) the routing/hole numbers of the course has changed a bit over the past few years. And I'm not just talking about flipping 9s. I'm talking about fairly distinct changes to the order of holes. Now there has been a lot of changes to the course/club overall but I'm really just talking hole order.

One of the reasons the hole order has been changed so much is that the routing of the course allows for the changes relatively seamlessly. At one point there were 3 tees that could be used to start a 9 (now there are really only two). And many years ago changes were made to avoid starting on a driveable par-4 that slowed up play right off the bat.

Also, at one point on the property, 7 holes into each of the current 9s, 2 greens and 2 tees converge nicely and allows you to play any of the remaining two holes into the clubhouse (and the pars the same, a par 3 and a par 4). Hole #s are relative but to further explain what I mean, you could plays holes 1-7 then 17 and 18 and never know the difference. Or vice-versa, 10-16 then 8 and 9. The walks might be slightly longer but nothing of real consequence.

My question is, is this an intentional aspect of the design? Is this a characteristic in the routing that architects strive for? Or is this really just a result of a tight property? Or a happy coincidence that emerged just by building the best course?

There is talk among the membership and golf staff about doing some tweaks to the current routing to ease a long walk from 18 to the clubhouse and I was thinking how having the flexibility in the course is a nice feature for the staff/membership.

[Tom_Doak]

Joe:


There are many architects who have commented that for private clubs, it is an advantage if the course has multiple potential spots to start and finish near the clubhouse, so members can jump around and play a few holes in the evening.


I don't think I've heard any architect advocate for doing this to make it easier for green committees to screw around with the order of the holes that the architect intended to begin with.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,


I can't say I have.  Usually, you are just trying to fit in the best 18 holes.  Sometimes, if there is a feature - often a large rise - that makes sense for multiple tees and/or greens, it might turn out that changes in routing via re-numbering can occur.


It seems like the first pros at a course take great delight in finding such combos that might improve, in their eyes, sequence.  I usually have an idea of what sequence I think works better, but then, in most cases, if I have found 18 good holes, even that doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference to the golf experience.

[Joe Schackman]

Tom & Jeff. Thanks for the responses!

[mike_beene]

Are courses like Merion, where it seems there is a certain rhythm to the sequence, the exception rather than the rule? Does it bother you, at least in some cases, that your sequence is not honored? Have you ever tried to make 9 or 10 a par 3 so future committees will leave your sequence alone?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


It doesn't really bother me, and other than swapping nines, it has only happened a few times.  Once was Opryland for the senior tournament they used to hold, and it resulted in back to back par 3 holes for the sake of crowd control one week a year.


In the few other cases, it seemed to work out fairly equally.  While we do consider a balance of holes in routing, trying to mix short and long par 4, par 5 and par 3, etc., I can't say it really altered the course experience for most. Again, if there are 18 solid holes, that is all that matters in most cases.


Interesting on the par 3 thing.  At the Quarry, proposed an 18th hole par 3, even contacted Ron Whitten to get a list of courses, including top100, that had them, but no dice.


Have a routing now, in already platted/built (partially) where a narrow corridor exists closest to the clubhouse, really only fitting a par 3 finish.  Faces east, so 18 makes sense.  We shall see.

[Adrian_Stiff]

My take would be this.


Primarily the land dictates the routing, the one I put forward is MY #1. Sometimes there are close calls and the routing may be influenced slightly on things that are non golfing and in the case I might give options. Within the routing I think of balance and returning nines as important but not to the point it messes with the best possible 18.


If multiple starts occur then great. If 9 and 18 can be flipped then if I had 9 as (9) and 18 as (18) it was for a reason. If the reason changes in the future, ie clubhouse extension and 9 is better as 18 then fine but that's the clubs call.


Flexibilty in the possible expansion of the course in the future is another matter, but I would need briefing that it may happen at the start.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()