Changing Pars on 9-hole Courses for the "back side"

[Pete_Pittock]

     Excluding the par 3 holes, four of the seven holes change par after you make the turn. How common is this practice, switching pars and adding or subtracting 100 yards to change the character of the holes and how you approach them? Does it in some way help you understand the architect in how he approaches the routing?

     Earlier this week I played Pineway, a 9 hole course in Lebanon, OR, designed by H Chandler Egan. I think a lot of Egan remains. It was a 9 hole course, so I played 9, part of my quest to play every course in Oregon . As I was preparing to leave I had a pleasant conversation with another golfer who said he needed the extra shot on #2. Huh? And I left. Later the mind fog lifted.

   The awkwardly difficult par 4 2nd (365/390), became a much gentler par 5. Instead of having to bust a drive much like the 18th at Riviera, needing to keep it between narrowing tree lines for a semi-blind uphill approach. As a par 5 it was a drive to the base of the hill. a mid/short iron to the flats, followed by a wedge.  The 9th (455/331), the other hole running up to the clubhouse was a par 5 with a big shoulder protruding into half the fairway about a wedge shot short of the green on top of the next hill. As a par 4 and 125 yards shorter, the different angle of the tee shot and less yardage made the shoulder less relevant.  The down and back 5th  (480/380)  and 6th (353/465)  are basic wide-open holes, but the approach shots are markedly different by length, and the bunkering in front of the 5th matters much more..

    It is almost the red tee/blue tee approach. The great Ernie Banks said it's a great day, lets play two. He was right, now I need to go back and play the back nine.   

[Adam Clayman]

Coincidentally, yesterday I played a local town course that utilizes their small piece of ground effectively using such a technique. They have 10 greens, though. The routing starts off with a somewhat flattish parralell feel to it, but there's enough micro to medium movement on the ground, to make the holes play differently. As you approach the closing holes you get to ground with significantly more character. #6 plays as an uphill 276 yd par 4 with a barranca wall looming aprox 210 yards out. When It's #15 it plays as a par 3 from a further right angle at aprox 140y. #7 is a narrow short par 4 utilizing trees to dictate the line. As #16, it plays as a par 5 over that green, dropping down to a serpentine like fairway, segmented by a creek with lots of flora and fauna to the extra 10th green. Then #17 is played as a very short (88y) par 3 up over the barranca wall to the 8th green, which played as a dogleg par 4.


I don't think there was an architect involved in these rather genius decisions, which maximizes both the site and the enjoyment. Just some passionate small town golfers. So, to answer your question... I think it means an architect that maximizes the site in this manner, likely spent significant time on site, and wasn't afraid to break the rules, on occasion.