Criticism of holes routed back and forth, is it just? Can they be great?

[BCowan]

When courses are routed on compact sites or land dimensions that are more rectangular this often happens.  Aren't we suppose to judge holes on how they fit into the land and whether or not they maximize natural land features?  I say Yes, u?  Saying holes can't be great that go back and forth is really ignorant IMO.  What do you say??   

[JESII]

I say Yes, u?

Just love this sentence...

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:


The individual holes can be great ... but they'd better all be great, if you have the monotony of "army duty" working against you which makes it extremely hard to remember the holes individually.


Donald Ross made a career out of taking rectangular properties and avoiding repeated back-and-forth stretches.  At your beloved Inverness, some of that has been taken away by the loss of the short holes that broke them up.

[mike_beene]

I am trying to think of a more up and back routing than Inverness (which seems to work fine there).

[Sean_A]

Ben

In theory I agree with you.  In practice, its more difficult to pull off greatness with a back n' forth routing. I think the guy calling a back n' forth routing great likely doesn't value the effect of wind, using terrain/features in different ways, doglegs and what causes the back n' forth routing.   

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Didn't Dr MacK' like to do this? Not the criticism, the routing.
Atb

[BCowan]

Didn't Dr MacK' like to do this? Not the criticism, the routing.
Atb

I haven't played as many good dr routings as I'd like too, but u might be onto something.  15-17 at UM.  2-5 at UM with #3 being a stretch with the dogleg. 

[Matthew Sander]

Isn't one of the common problems in such a property the fact that the landforms are (typically) too broad and on such a scale that they end up being used in very similar ways throughout the round? For instance, a long ridge that sets up many downhill tee shots and/or uphill approach shots...if the routing is primarily back and forth.


Theoretically, if the property had many landforms singular to that particular section of the property, the repetitiveness could be mitigated. It would take a unique site to offer these possibilities to a back and forth routing.

[Sean_A]

The 3rd green at UofM is nowhere near the the 2nd tee.  The dogleg brings in an entirely different landform.  I am not sure thats what folks mean by back n' forth...maybe I am wrong though.

15-17 at UofM is the weakest part of the course...not a great example of successful back n' forth routing.

Ciao

[BCowan]

The 3rd green at UofM is nowhere near the the 2nd tee.  The dogleg brings in an entirely different landform.  I am not sure thats what folks mean by back n' forth...maybe I am wrong though.

15-17 at UofM is the weakest part of the course...not a great example of successful back n' forth routing.

Ciao

I stated the 3rd green as a stretch.  15 is one of the best holes out there. 16 and 17 are held back by tree removal. 17 is one of the weaker holes. 15, not even close. I also wasn't stating the UM back and forth holes were great, just that they went back and forth

[Jason Topp]

San Francisco is a good case study.  You have pretty long stretches of back and forth on both nines.  Each hole is quite good in its own right and they vary from one another but nonetheless, as a whole, I view the way the holes are routed as a negative - particularly on the back nine.

The front nine of my course features 4 back and forth par 4's.  Each hole is very unique but I also view the routing as a negative.  I have tried several times to devise an alternate routing that would be more interesting but I have never come up with anything I know would be better. 

It is entirely possible that the architect created the best possible routing on both courses, but if one attempts to identify the best of the best in course architecture, I believe that would be tough to achieve with back and forth holes.

[Tom_Doak]

San Francisco is a good case study.  You have pretty long stretches of back and forth on both nines.  Each hole is quite good in its own right and they vary from one another but nonetheless, as a whole, I view the way the holes are routed as a negative - particularly on the back nine.

That's actually the first time I have heard SFGC criticized for all the back and forth holes.  You are correct about what it is ... the decision to run the 9th & 10th holes north and south across the property meant most of the rest would have to run E-W-E-W.  But the variety of the topography on the front nine is so good few people notice ... it only starts to wear on you near the end, where 14-15-16-17 start to feel similar.


Interestingly, a lot of the routing was done by someone before Tillinghast; I doubt he would have done it that way had he started from scratch, although I cannot imagine how else it might have been done without needing another 20 acres.

[Mike Schott]

Didn't Dr MacK' like to do this? Not the criticism, the routing.
Atb

I haven't played as many good dr routings as I'd like too, but u might be onto something.  15-17 at UM.  2-5 at UM with #3 being a stretch with the dogleg.

UM is a good example of why back and forth holes can work. Two is uphill and 3 is down, one is a par 4 the other a downhill par 5 dogleg. It's all about the land. Of course it helps when the architects are Mackenzie and Maxwell.

[James Brown]

San Francisco is a good case study.  You have pretty long stretches of back and forth on both nines.  Each hole is quite good in its own right and they vary from one another but nonetheless, as a whole, I view the way the holes are routed as a negative - particularly on the back nine.

The front nine of my course features 4 back and forth par 4's.  Each hole is very unique but I also view the routing as a negative.  I have tried several times to devise an alternate routing that would be more interesting but I have never come up with anything I know would be better. 

It is entirely possible that the architect created the best possible routing on both courses, but if one attempts to identify the best of the best in course architecture, I believe that would be tough to achieve with back and forth holes.

If SFGC is back and forth, so are Olympic and California Golf Club. 

[BCowan]

Jason/James,


   Thanks for listing more highly reguarded courses with back and forth routing segments.  Hope there is more to come.


Jason,


   I disagree with you that back and forth is a routing weakness.  I havent played SFGC, some friends think highly of it.  I personally think poor transitions with numerous long walks is poor routing. Also missing integral land forms that could maximize holes is poor routing imo.  I guess maybe a "what makes a poor routing" thread could be in order. I need to think of more reasons a course could have poor routing, need some more coffee first. 

[Tom_Doak]

I personally think poor transitions with numerous long walks is poor routing. 

So do I.  One of the reasons I don't like stretches of back-and-forth holes is that often the green-to-tee walks are longer than if you kept playing the same direction, to make sure you don't yank a tee shot back into the fairway you just played.


Also, back-and-forth holes usually lead to a lot of tree-planting in between.

[David Davis]

San Francisco is a good case study.  You have pretty long stretches of back and forth on both nines.  Each hole is quite good in its own right and they vary from one another but nonetheless, as a whole, I view the way the holes are routed as a negative - particularly on the back nine.

That's actually the first time I have heard SFGC criticized for all the back and forth holes.  You are correct about what it is ... the decision to run the 9th & 10th holes north and south across the property meant most of the rest would have to run E-W-E-W.  But the variety of the topography on the front nine is so good few people notice ... it only starts to wear on you near the end, where 14-15-16-17 start to feel similar.


Interestingly, a lot of the routing was done by someone before Tillinghast; I doubt he would have done it that way had he started from scratch, although I cannot imagine how else it might have been done without needing another 20 acres.

Interestingly enough the first course that popped into my mind when I read the first post was SFCG. I think of the great courses this one is the best example of what is required to make a back and forth routing really work and that is the extremely varied terrain. The fact that in the end starts to wear on you as Tom mentioned is likely a testament of how difficult it really is to create 18 truly interesting standout holes on anything less than a perfect property or one that does not quite have the ideal amount of space, if such a thing exists.


I have had this discussion with several people about SFCG and heard the comment that nearly everyone hadn't expected that and felt there was too much back and forth, yet all still loved the club, course and overall experience. Most certainly not a poor hole on the course in spite of the back and forth.


I have the feeling less at Cal Club on the holes that are adjacent one another but again it's a property issue and the fact that they have shortgrass nearly everything so it's hard to feel where one hole's boundaries might end and another might start, certainly nothing wrong with that. There is a "best" angle of approach and a the rest may be, "good luck" angles of approach and that works their brilliantly.

[Ally Mcintosh]

As a rule, I try to avoid back and forth holes because I think there is often a sense of turning back on yourself rather than continuing the adventure.


However, it is often impossible to avoid two holes being routed side by side so it is at three holes where I really start to question whether the best solution has been found - where there is space for three holes side by side, there is often space for three holes set as a triangle.


All variables being equal of course. No hard and fast rules.


There are quite a few examples of back and forth that work well because of the variety of holes.


Tom's Renaissance Club is one. Pat Ruddy's European Club works even better. I think the routing there is excellent. Very few people realise that one to seven tend to tack a little back and forward because there is such a difference in hole type and in topography. Plus all the longer holes head in one direction so you are moved in to different areas and slowly closer to the sea.


One solution when you need to lay holes side by side in the same orientation is to take the sequencing of holes in to a different part of the site for a section before returning to the back and forth area. Therefore splitting 4 side by sides in to a 1-2-1 for example.


Ally

[Kyle Harris]

The main reason I prefer World Woods Rolling Oaks to World Woods Pine Barrens is this aspect of the routing on Pine Barrens, especially in the sand quarry on the second nine. The routing choices to get to the quarry are curious in their own right (such as crossing the same several acre multiple times during the round with no golf!) but once in the quarry you are treated to 4 holes routed back and forth. After this, 16, 17, and 18 are all disjointed with not much pay off in terms of hole quality.

In the Confidential Guide, Tom mentions that Rolling Oaks should have greens like Augusta National if you're going to market it as such. Well, shouldn't Pine Barrens then have a routing as elegant as Pine Valley's? 

[Tom_Doak]

In the Confidential Guide, Tom mentions that Rolling Oaks should have greens like Augusta National if you're going to market it as such. Well, shouldn't Pine Barrens then have a routing as elegant as Pine Valley's? 

Yes, but that would have been impossible since they didn't have the land that Pine Valley does, either.

[Kyle Harris]

In the Confidential Guide, Tom mentions that Rolling Oaks should have greens like Augusta National if you're going to market it as such. Well, shouldn't Pine Barrens then have a routing as elegant as Pine Valley's? 

Yes, but that would have been impossible since they didn't have the land that Pine Valley does, either.

One can infer from this statement that the quality of routing is directly correlated to the quality of land. That's a rather thought-provoking idea.

I'd think it's easier to put a good routing on mediocre land than it is to put an ideal routing on ideal land.

But then again, I'm not writing the book on the subject. 

[JJShanley]

I've often wondered whether a routing around a centrally located club house, to which you would return every 2-3 holes, would work.

[Ulrich Mayring]

If it's a huuuuuuuge (i. e. Trumpesque) clubhouse

Ulrich

[Matt Wharton]

At first glance from high overhead one might think negatively of Carolina Golf Club as it features 8 parallel par 4's situated side-by-side-by-side.  And although each plays across a natural trough running through the property I've yet to encounter anyone that ever realized, or expressed negatively they were playing a course with 8 parallel par 4's next to one another.


The first drawing below shows the original routing/sequence as designed by Donald Ross.  You notice holes 1,2, & 3 start you back and forth but then you don't return to that portion of the property until holes 9 & 10.  After playing 11 you return back and complete the last three holes of the conglomerate 12,13, & 14. 


The club privatized in 1958 and a new clubhouse was constructed on a high point between the original 5th green and 6th tee in the early 1960's.  This necessitated changing the sequence of when each hole was played.  The original hole numbers of 1,2,3,9,10,12,13,& 14 are now 7,6,5,4,15,17,18,& 10. In 2005-2006 Kris Spence constructed two new holes on neighboring land acquired by the club and the two parallel par 4's (Original 6 & 7) were reshaped and rebuilt into our practice range thus preserving the current sequence.


To answer the question posed in the thread, I say great.  But of course I'm biased. 

[Norbert P]

Matt W. That's a fine example of where and how it works.


Another example where it works, imo, is the 4 hole stretch of 7 through 11 stretch at St. Andrews Beach, Australia.


https://www.aussiegolfquest.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/st-andrews-beach-map-411x460.jpg


(Sorry, can't remember how to code the picture for display)