If the nines are imbalanced (in length), which do you prefer harder?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Generally speaking, I don't mind it when nines are slightly imbalanced in length, as long as there are a variety of hole types. However, I've a situation at the moment where a resequencing is going to mean we end up with a par-34 of 2,950 yards and a par-36 of 3,450 yards, the former with no three shotters and four short par-4's, the latter with three long par-4's towards the end of the nine.


It's not ideal, yet knowing the holes, it will work. And it's the only potential negative in an otherwise very strong plan.


If you had the choice, would you prefer to start with the hard nine (with the hardest holes to par in the early middle of the round) or would you prefer the more traditional route of building to a tough finish?

[Kyle Harris]

Ally,

The question sort of begs another question about length equaling difficulty. Is that the case here? Those short 4's could be tricky. That being said, I'd prefer the harder or longer holes on the back.

Mountain Lake is a curious case of a Par 36/34 setup, but the second nine is only slightly shorter than the first. So to par/length the course is "easier" but in reality the second nine is more difficult.

[Adam Lawrence]

don't care at all.

[Thomas Dai]

Couple of queries Ally.
Do both 9’s return to the Clubhouse?
Does the prevailing wind effect the ease or difficulty of either 9?
Is the sun when rising or falling likely to be into players eyes on the prospective starting/finishing holes?
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Ally:


If par is two shots different, then I would add 300 yards to the effective length of the shorter nine, and say that the two nines will only feel / play 200 yards different in length.


As to which comes first, I don't think there's a good answer.  I've been observing reaction to The Loop ... which is 36 / 34 when you play the Red course, and 34 / 36 when you play the Black.  The Red is the more traditional easyish start and longer finish, while the Black starts off quite difficult and the finishing holes offer birdie chances.  Some people like one, some the other.


If I were in your shoes I would just look at the 2-3 starting holes and 2-3 finishing holes in each of the options, and see which you prefer.  And if anything, I'd give precedence to whatever you think are the best starting holes.

[mike_malone]

Since I play a course with 3 threes on the back which makes it shorter I prefer that. As matches heat up there are chances to make shots rather than just survive.

[Sean_A]

Ally

I would go with the wind patterns.  If the long holes are made tougher due to wind and/or terrain I would try to start with that side and offer an easing finish.  Otherwise, I am not too bothered.

Ciao

[Jack Carney]

The length and par differences don't bother me at all but I really like the crescendo effect to a course. Great example of both to me is Merion.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally:


If par is two shots different, then I would add 300 yards to the effective length of the shorter nine, and say that the two nines will only feel / play 200 yards different in length.


As to which comes first, I don't think there's a good answer.  I've been observing reaction to The Loop ... which is 36 / 34 when you play the Red course, and 34 / 36 when you play the Black.  The Red is the more traditional easyish start and longer finish, while the Black starts off quite difficult and the finishing holes offer birdie chances.  Some people like one, some the other.


If I were in your shoes I would just look at the 2-3 starting holes and 2-3 finishing holes in each of the options, and see which you prefer.  And if anything, I'd give precedence to whatever you think are the best starting holes.

I've made sure that we will have a very short 4 to break up the march of long holes in the par-36 nine. I don't think the difference will be hugely noticeable though I do think it will have an impact.


The most interesting start and finish has the long nine coming second. It is probably worth the 150 yard transition between 9 & 10 that wouldn't be there with the nines switched.


Thanks,
Ally

[Adrian_Stiff]

If you are unsure of which nine to have front or back, I would look at this as deciders.


1. How early is the first short hole in each nine. Give a point to the one which has the later short hole.
2. Which final green offers the best view from the clubhouse. Important in making a great club.
3. Which 1st tee would be the nearest. Important for administration.
4. I would give a point to the longer/tougher nine being the back nine as that adds more fun to the course, relative average players can enjoy themselves for longer.
5. Which hole is the superior opening hole.
6. Which hole is the superior closing hole.


If its 3-3 on points flip a coin.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Thanks Adrian, thanks all.


All other aspects I am quite sure of the pro's and con's. Isn't that an integral part of the job?


The only thing I was unsure about was whether there was an overriding preference for a harder nine to be first or second. It seems from this thread that there isn't really.


Ally

[Matt_Cohn]

I prefer tough first. End with fun and hope. I don't think most people want to dread the closing stretch.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ally - there's an old saying in the script writing business: there's nothing as important as the first 10 minutes of a movie - except for the last 10 minutes of the movie!
I think it applies to golf courses as well, at least for me. During the middle portion of a round, I simply take what comes, as it comes: hard, easy, short, long, 3s, 4s, and 5s, and if the golf holes are good I don't give it a second thought.
But I do like something particularly good and/or interesting in the first 2 or 3 holes, as that sets the tone and to a certain extent my mood. And then near the end, it is gratifying to be snapped out of whatever lull I may have fallen into by a couple more particularly good golf holes.
And I find that it doesn't matter to me much if those are difficult holes or easy ones - I've enjoyed (or not) both types of finishers.   
So I'd say: end the course with the best 3 hole stretch you have, and start the course with the 2nd best 3 hole stretch you have.
Peter

[archie_struthers]

 




From an operators standpoint the harder side should be front irrespective of the distance.  I'm on record saying that the worst thing is a brutal finishing hole with potential for disaster.


One of my favorite local courses , Woodcrest (Flynn) , continues this mistake .

[Joe Bausch]

From an operators standpoint the harder side should be front irrespective of the distance.  I'm on record saying that the worst thing is a brutal finishing hole with potential for disaster.

One of my favorite local courses , Woodcrest (Flynn) , continues this mistake .

Archie speaks the truth about Woodcrest!

[Tom_Doak]

When we started out consulting at Bel Air, several people pointed out to me that the back nine there is much harder than the front.  The professional stated that eight of the hardest nine holes [in member tournaments] are on the back nine!


Of course, we are restoring the course, so I presume that's the way George Thomas wanted it.  It's possible a couple of the holes on the front will be strengthened by the restoration.

[Duncan Cheslett]

"If the nines are imbalanced (in length), which do you prefer harder?"

Length doesn't necessarily have much to do with difficulty.


At Reddish Vale the nines are extremely unbalanced in terms of length - 2770 yds (par 33) against 3316 yds (par 36).


Yet the front nine is universally considered to be tougher than the back - due to four very tricky par 3 holes against only one on the back.


I would much rather have it this way round. The opening holes require precision rather than length, rewarding the accurate golfer over the adventurous. The time for opening one's shoulders comes later once one is warmed up and one's swing has been found.


If you still have a card worth marking, that is.


Far better like this than to have the fiendish short holes towards the end of the round, IMO.

[Richard Fisher]

My beloved Harlech is the same, albeit not quite as imbalanced as Reddish

Outgoing par 36, including two par fives in succession (7 and , giving a total length off the very back (championship) tees of 3475 yards: on the whole these holes are flatter, with probably more mid-handicap opportunities for stableford points (notably at 5, 6 and than the much shorter back nine, which is played amidst some huge dunes (especially the famous loop of 14-17) and often with an adverse wind. This back nine has  a vicious par of 33, with three par threes, and a total length of 3154 yards: the realistic SSS is more like 36 or 37. I would always prefer to end with the blazing challenge, having warmed up earlier on in the round.

Weirdly 'countback' arrangements for many years at RStD were based on performance on the front nine, a unique (I think) and  unjustified idiosyncrasy!

[Ally Mcintosh]

Richard, Duncan,


Both Reddish Vale and Harlech don't really have an imbalance in the way I am talking about. They lose their yards in the par-3's.


Both nines on each course have a similar spread of two shotters in terms of length.


One of the issues I have is that most of the shortish fours come in a bunch and most of the longish fours also come in a bunch. I'm doing everything I can to break up the stretches but there is only so much that can be done.


Hence the original question.

[Charles Lund]

If one of the nines has more memorable, fun, and challenging holes in the last four or five holes, I would generally prefer to finish my round on that nine.  I also tend to like courses that start with a couple of fun holes that are not overly penal, but not necessarily easy.


Charles Lund

[Ira Fishman]

Ally,


I am by the far least expert of those who have responded. I care not a whit about “imbalances” in length or convention (great is great regardless) nor do I keep score. So with all of those caveats in mind, I offer an unconventional criterion for your consideration: if I am going to play nine holes because of time constraints or after a full round, I prefer to play the “back” nine if it has more memorable holes than the front. Somehow it gives me a sense of completion even though less than a full round may have been played. I doubt that this helps you much but hope it does.


Ira

[Garland Bayley]

Sounds like my home course. Short front and longer back.

It seems to work well as the most senior players play only nine, and they prefer the short nine.

[Matthew Essig]

If you are unsure of which nine to have front or back, I would look at this as deciders.


1. How early is the first short hole in each nine. Give a point to the one which has the later short hole.
2. Which final green offers the best view from the clubhouse. Important in making a great club.
3. Which 1st tee would be the nearest. Important for administration.
4. I would give a point to the longer/tougher nine being the back nine as that adds more fun to the course, relative average players can enjoy themselves for longer.
5. Which hole is the superior opening hole.
6. Which hole is the superior closing hole.


If its 3-3 on points flip a coin.

Tiebreaker is if the opening hole heads east or if the finishing hole heads west, give the other routing the point.

[Pete_Pittock]

From a psychological standpoint having the shorter side play tougher would get into the minds of golfers if they don't play well, rather than vice versa.


One of my home courses did a re-routing switching the first six holes between nines, but leaving 7-9 and 16-18 as it was originally designed. That changed par from 36-36 to 37-35. The flow changed from being able to get off potentially good start and then hang on to starting out with more difficult holes. Reasoning was better control of the first tee from the pro shop and having one extra hole before reaching a par 3.


I liked the older iteration.

[Tom_Doak]

The dangerous thing about these "rules" we are proposing is that someone might use them to flip the nines on a course where that doesn't need to happen.  For me, the most important thing is the overall flow of the course and I don't want someone telling me that another order is preferable because x, y or z.


The worst thing you can possibly do is be wishy-washy about it and keep changing the order of the holes, because it confuses people and makes it hard for them to talk about the course.  Arcadia Bluffs changed its sequence twice, so I can't even have a conversation about it with someone.  And since word of mouth is everything to a course's reputation ...