[Duncan Cheslett]

I’ve long had an interest in the idea of 12 hole golf courses. If the  Prestwick model had been adopted instead of the St Andrews one 150 years ago we would all be playing 12 hole rounds and in my view golf would be none the worse for it.


I stumbled across this club online of which I had never previously heard. My apologies if this has already been covered but a search for Blacknest revealed absolutely nothing.


https://www.nextchapterforblacknest.co.uk/

[Tom_Doak]

Looks like a bit of a shooting gallery "before" -- 18 holes crammed into the space of 12, which is probably why you [or I] have never heard of it.

[Marty Bonnar]

Shiskine.
As much fun as it’s possible to have playing golf.
F.

[David_Tepper]

I thought the project's website and the plans presented were very impressive. I wish the new ownership good luck. It will be interesting to see what the demand is a for a 12-hole course and how the project turns out over all.

[Adrian_Stiff]

The company behind it have engaged M & E to rip up their existing 18 holers and build 12 hole courses. They own about four courses. There is one near me.
IMO it is the most stupid idea and akin to cutting your leg off for a joke. Golfwise I am certain they will go bust or have to change their model. Someone has convinced someone its the way to go.


Building a 12 holer from the start is not stupid, but to have a membership decent 18 hole and go back to 12. Well the members voted with their feet and all left.


Nothing wrong with 6, 9, 12 holes but just build them in loops for the 18.

[Adam Lawrence]

The company behind it is owned by my friend Robert Clive and Joel Cadbury, the developer of the extremely expensive and exclusive Beaverbrook club not far from Walton Heath. I hadn’t heard about this project before, but the principals have a _very_ strong track record.

[Robin_Hiseman]

I've lived within 10 miles of Blacknest for nearly 20 years...and have never played it. Draw your own conclusions!


I've been there a handful of times, as they have a pitch and putt course, where I took my son for his first golf. Used the range also, but never got close to wanting to pay a green fee. The last time I was there (to use the range), there were golfers coming off the course in wellington boots. The ground around the air gun, where golfers clean shoes, was akin to a muddy farmyard. Not tempted.


The M&E plan will be a significant improvement on what is there and I would give it a go then.


The same client / design team tried to initiate this 12-hole model at nearby Oak Park, an abandoned 27-hole course in Crondall, near Farnham. It was rejected at planning.

[Duncan Cheslett]

The company behind it have engaged M & E to rip up their existing 18 holers and build 12 hole courses. They own about four courses. There is one near me.
IMO it is the most stupid idea and akin to cutting your leg off for a joke. Golfwise I am certain they will go bust or have to change their model. Someone has convinced someone its the way to go.


Building a 12 holer from the start is not stupid, but to have a membership decent 18 hole and go back to 12. Well the members voted with their feet and all left.


Nothing wrong with 6, 9, 12 holes but just build them in loops for the 18.

I’m not so sure Adrian.


Since I started working at a suburban 9 hole course my view that 18 holes is not the be all and end all has hardened.


We have a growing membership - a high proportion of new members have joined on on a 6 day deal, which doesn’t include Saturday competitions. These golfers appear not particularly interested in competitive golf, preferring a social round with friends. Very rarely do they play more than 9 holes.


Indeed, most social golf played by all members is over 9 holes, not 18. Members value being able to get round in 90 minutes and then either have a drink or go home to their family.


Visitor numbers are also strong, and the vast majority of green fees are for 9 holes, not 18. Shorter form golf definitely has a market.


If we had space to build another 3 holes I would be pushing the club to do it. 12 holes would be perfect - a 2.5 hour round with the attractive option of another 2.5 hour round after lunch if you want to make a day of it.


I can think of a lot of 18 hole courses on cramped sites that could be improved immensely by reducing down to 12 holes.
They would be cheaper to maintain and free up some land for practice facilities or to be sold off for housing.


I will be very interested to see how this company’s plans unfold. I suspect it might just be a big success. A lot depends however, on the handicapping authorities agreeing to give 12 hole handicaps. It can’t be that difficult.

[Adrian_Stiff]

The company behind it have engaged M & E to rip up their existing 18 holers and build 12 hole courses. They own about four courses. There is one near me.
IMO it is the most stupid idea and akin to cutting your leg off for a joke. Golfwise I am certain they will go bust or have to change their model. Someone has convinced someone its the way to go.


Building a 12 holer from the start is not stupid, but to have a membership decent 18 hole and go back to 12. Well the members voted with their feet and all left.


Nothing wrong with 6, 9, 12 holes but just build them in loops for the 18.

I’m not so sure Adrian.


Since I started working at a suburban 9 hole course my view that 18 holes is not the be all and end all has hardened.


We have a growing membership - a high proportion of new members have joined on on a 6 day deal, which doesn’t include Saturday competitions. These golfers appear not particularly interested in competitive golf, preferring a social round with friends. Very rarely do they play more than 9 holes.


Indeed, most social golf played by all members is over 9 holes, not 18. Members value being able to get round in 90 minutes and then either have a drink or go home to their family.


Visitor numbers are also strong, and the vast majority of green fees are for 9 holes, not 18. Shorter form golf definitely has a market.


If we had space to build another 3 holes I would be pushing the club to do it. 12 holes would be perfect - a 2.5 hour round with the attractive option of another 2.5 hour round after lunch if you want to make a day of it.


I can think of a lot of 18 hole courses on cramped sites that could be improved immensely by reducing down to 12 holes.
They would be cheaper to maintain and free up some land for practice facilities or to be sold off for housing.


I will be very interested to see how this company’s plans unfold. I suspect it might just be a big success. A lot depends however, on the handicapping authorities agreeing to give 12 hole handicaps. It can’t be that difficult.

Well, time will tell but at the one I know as soon as they announced their plans everyone left. If you are a member you tend to play 18 holes, competitions, matches are over 18, proper golf is 18. Simple solution for those wanting 12 holes and what you say is fine...just have the 12th back to the clubhouse. Give people choice. I can't see a society wanting to play 12, I can't see an expensive green fee for 12 holes. Some might join a 12 holer and not care but if they get better they will leave and go to an 18 holer, its one of the problems with 9 hole courses you are often a feeder for another. In commercial terms the worst 18 holer is always better than the best 9 holer.

[Thomas Dai]

With the modern era golf ball, modern era Driver and big, strong modern era person and all the inherent safety, boundary, resource etc issues that go with it unless a significant rollback is to take place playing only 12-holes over an area of land that previously contained 18-holes would appear to have merit. Just saying.
Atb

[Charlie Goerges]

I'm super in favor of building a right-sized course for the given land and all of the associated caveats. But leaving aside the other smaller types of courses that aren't full-size (par 3, pitch and putt, executive, etc), we have a form factor for a smaller parcel of land already... 9 holes. It works and lots of people love it already, and twice around equals the industry standard, it's all so neat and tidy. Is there really that big a desire in the populace for 3 extra holes (or 6 fewer holes)?

[Ben Sims]

 In commercial terms the worst 18 holer is always better than the best 9 holer.

Not to be pedantic, but the best nine hole course in the world is commercially less better than the worst eighteen hole course? That seems odd to me.

My opinion couldn’t diverge more. Good golf is good golf. An example would be at Dunaverty recently I pondered how much better the course would be if it was ONLY 9-12 holes. I mean that both in quality and commercially. There’s oodles of courses that would be easier to maintain (and likely cheaper) if they only had  9-12 of their best holes. Does that mean the masses wouldn’t come? I dunno. Ask the guys in South Pittsburg TN or at that somewhat famous nine holer in Suffolk.

[Matt Schoolfield]

IMO it is the most stupid idea and akin to cutting your leg off for a joke. Golfwise I am certain they will go bust or have to change their model.

If you are a member you tend to play 18 holes, competitions, matches are over 18, proper golf is 18.

There are few things I hate about golf culture more than the tyranny of 18 holes. It's so frustratingly forced into the way we play golf that we end up with a bunch of half-hearted holes that exist only because they needed to squeeze 18 onto a site that didn't have the space. It's why we have back-to-back fairways -- as boring as airport runways -- filling out our Munis. While that might not matter to the sprawling country club crowd, this cultural insistence absolutely affects the design of courses with humble means, and for the worse.

If we must insist on the 9/18 model, then sure, route 9 and have three bye holes for playoffs, but I would so much rather have variety in courses, with lots of options, designed for friendly weekend games. Instead, I see many folks at Munis, standing over their putts like they are in the US Open, while at the same time whining about how long their round is taking.

I'd much rather be a member of a solid 9-hole course, or 12, or 15, than play at an 18 hole course without a single center-line fairway bunker. Width matters. Perfect is the enemy of good.

[Tim Gavrich]

I'm on board with building a 12-hole course when the land isn't enough for 18 (I'd love to see Shiskine, e.g.), but in general I'm inclined to defer to John Updike on the matter (emphasis mine):


"Our mazy progress through the eighteen is a trek such as prehistoric man could understand, and the fact that the trek is fatiguingly long constitutes part of its primitive rightness. A more reasonable length - twelve holes, say - wouldn't have the resonance, the religious sense of ordeal. It is of the essence that a game of golf can't be quickly over and done with; it must be a journey."

[Ben Sims]

I'm on board with building a 12-hole course when the land isn't enough for 18 (I'd love to see Shiskine, e.g.), but in general I'm inclined to defer to John Updike on the matter (emphasis mine):


"Our mazy progress through the eighteen is a trek such as prehistoric man could understand, and the fact that the trek is fatiguingly long constitutes part of its primitive rightness. A more reasonable length - twelve holes, say - wouldn't have the resonance, the religious sense of ordeal. It is of the essence that a game of golf can't be quickly over and done with; it must be a journey."

Oh yeah, let’s trust John Updike with matters involving brevity and pragmatic use of artistic expression. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

 In commercial terms the worst 18 holer is always better than the best 9 holer.

Not to be pedantic, but the best nine hole course in the world is commercially less better than the worst eighteen hole course? That seems odd to me.

My opinion couldn’t diverge more. Good golf is good golf. An example would be at Dunaverty recently I pondered how much better the course would be if it was ONLY 9-12 holes. I mean that both in quality and commercially. There’s oodles of courses that would be easier to maintain (and likely cheaper) if they only had  9-12 of their best holes. Does that mean the masses wouldn’t come? I dunno. Ask the guys in South Pittsburg TN or at that somewhat famous nine holer in Suffolk.

Ben - Its a commercial opinion not about GOOD GOLF. Point being, your run costs about 85% that of an 18 holer, you can't have half a tractor, mower, golf pro, irrigation system, etc etc... Incoming costs are not even 50%, so its a tough fight. It is a majority thing that MOST people want 18 holes, with the option to play fewer (say 9). Only having half the patrons means the clubhouse is a tough place to make money. Commercial golf makes money with MORE holes (pref 36 or more). Nine or Twelve hole courses can work well coupled with other things.

[Adrian_Stiff]

IMO it is the most stupid idea and akin to cutting your leg off for a joke. Golfwise I am certain they will go bust or have to change their model.

If you are a member you tend to play 18 holes, competitions, matches are over 18, proper golf is 18.

There are few things I hate about golf culture more than the tyranny of 18 holes. It's so frustratingly forced into the way we play golf that we end up with a bunch of half-hearted holes that exist only because they needed to squeeze 18 onto a site that didn't have the space. It's why we have back-to-back fairways -- as boring as airport runways -- filling out our Munis. While that might not matter to the sprawling country club crowd, this cultural insistence absolutely affects the design of courses with humble means, and for the worse.

If we must insist on the 9/18 model, then sure, route 9 and have three bye holes for playoffs, but I would so much rather have variety in courses, with lots of options, designed for friendly weekend games. Instead, I see many folks at Munis, standing over their putts like they are in the US Open, while at the same time whining about how long their round is taking.

I'd much rather be a member of a solid 9-hole course, or 12, or 15, than play at an 18 hole course without a single center-line fairway bunker. Width matters. Perfect is the enemy of good.

Matt I can see your point, but from my experience it is a minority opinion. (Though will be a majority one here because we are all a bit mad here)

[jeffwarne]

With the modern era golf ball, modern era Driver and big, strong modern era person and all the inherent safety, boundary, resource etc issues that go with it unless a significant rollback is to take place playing only 12-holes over an area of land that previously contained 18-holes would appear to have merit. Just saying.
Atb

LOL.
Isn't it incredibly ironic that we have willingly and massively expanded the scale of the game, and the solution is to shrink the field of play.

[Tim_Weiman]

IMO it is the most stupid idea and akin to cutting your leg off for a joke. Golfwise I am certain they will go bust or have to change their model.

If you are a member you tend to play 18 holes, competitions, matches are over 18, proper golf is 18.

There are few things I hate about golf culture more than the tyranny of 18 holes. It's so frustratingly forced into the way we play golf that we end up with a bunch of half-hearted holes that exist only because they needed to squeeze 18 onto a site that didn't have the space. It's why we have back-to-back fairways -- as boring as airport runways -- filling out our Munis. While that might not matter to the sprawling country club crowd, this cultural insistence absolutely affects the design of courses with humble means, and for the worse.

If we must insist on the 9/18 model, then sure, route 9 and have three bye holes for playoffs, but I would so much rather have variety in courses, with lots of options, designed for friendly weekend games. Instead, I see many folks at Munis, standing over their putts like they are in the US Open, while at the same time whining about how long their round is taking.

I'd much rather be a member of a solid 9-hole course, or 12, or 15, than play at an 18 hole course without a single center-line fairway bunker. Width matters. Perfect is the enemy of good.

Matt,


I like 18 holes. Also like 9 holes. In sixty years of playing golf, I never felt either were “tyranny”.


Very strange word to describe playing golf.


Besides many golf courses are configured to allow playing a different number of holes. Pelham Country Club, the course I grew up playing, has a very natural four holes (#1, 2, 17 and 18).


Old Barnwell has what we call the upper loop (#1-5, 17 and 18).


Tim

[Matt Schoolfield]

I like 18 holes. Also like 9 holes. In sixty years of playing golf, I never felt either were “tyranny”.

Very strange word to describe playing golf.

When I say tyranny, I mean the way that 9 holes and 18 holes are effectively required for handicapping purposes. If we, say, said --well, just record however many holes you play -- and we based the handicap around each individual hole, rather than a set course (of 18 or 9 holes), then courses that decided to add a 10th or 12th hole wouldn't have as complicated time of dealing with that.

One place I see this was when I was researching Golf Club Belle-Ile-en-Mer, and found out that because it's a 14-hole course, they basically have a ton of problems running tournaments. Here is an example, in their explanation of how they have to run tournaments [.PDF] (translated):

Use of RMS in the context of the Belle-Île-en-Mer golf course (short version) The Belle-Île golf course uses the federal sports management software RMS-Clubs. This RMS software distributes the strokes received to the 18 holes of the courses according to their handicaps. It is perfectly suited for our three approved courses Le Phare (9 holes), Ster Vraz and Sarah Bernhardt (18 holes) but it is not adapted to our 14-hole Old Course.

The sports commission therefore looked for a way to manage our friendly competitions with RMS by adapting it to our golfing exception.

In order for the software to work on the Old Course, the FFG completed the course with 4 virtual holes that are not played: holes no. 15, 16, 17 and 18 on the RMS map. The software can therefore assign 4 strokes returned to 4 holes that are not played.

It appears that in order to "give back" these 4 strokes to the players, one of the ways is to artificially increase their index, the only adjustable parameter on RMS.

• If his index is less than or equal to 14, the player does not "lose" strokes given back since he has 14 at most, awarded on the holes actually played. His index is not modified;

• Above 14 up to 28 the index is increased by 4. The player recovers his 4 strokes given back lost on holes 15, 16, 17 and 18 not played but present on the RMS scorecard;

• For this system to work, the strokes given back must be limited to 2 strokes per hole. As a result, the maximum corrected indexes will therefore be 32 for our friendly competitions (a ceiling which is also the norm for many club competitions).

This new way of doing things no longer requires manual intervention or adjustments after the competition. This required time and skills that were not always available at the club. The results are fair and consistent.
However, high indexes should not feel ostracized but rather boosted and encouraged to participate, in addition to friendly competitions, in the Extreme Thursdays, approved competitions that count towards the handicap, in order to lower it. Incidentally, by limiting the strokes received to two per hole, we eliminate some of the disputes that regularly arise regarding false indexes.

This counting protocol was developed by Gérard Gallen and Yann Lavictoire, and it was tested with the help of Valérie Nicolas, at the secretariat. May all three of them be warmly thanked!

Another place where this shows up constantly is 27 hole courses. Instead of simple having a standard rating for each nine-hole course, each combination of 9-hole courses must be separately rated as an 18 hole course, which is, again, an unnecessary commitment to 18 holes.

This problem was front of mind when I started building the wiki. I have completely avoided any hard references to 9 or 18 holes in any part of the programming so that any course can easily be any length (with the exception of where to add the initial marks in creating a scorecard).

The fact that 18 holes is "tradition" -- even if it's a tradition created from a previous non-tradition -- the fact that it is now so common that our handicapping system is built around it, it provides little, if any, freedom for architects to design around it without expecting a huge headache.

I know this is deep in the weeds, but I see the systemic commitment to 18 holes is extremely problematic in creating the best golf courses for the most people. Instead, we end up with filler holes simply for the sake of fitting 18 holes onto a plot better suited for 16, 15, or even 12 fantastic holes. 18 holes is a journey, but I can see days where I'd prefer 22 if the land is right, or 14 if the elevation is taking it out of me.

When I see "par 72", with ten par fours, four par threes and four par fives, I know I've walked onto a "correct" golf course, which usually goes with all the fair-police policies attached. There's obviously nothing wrong with this, it just tends to not be for me.

[Tom_Doak]

When I say tyranny, I mean the way that 9 holes and 18 holes are effectively required for handicapping purposes. If we, say, said --well, just record however many holes you play -- and we based the handicap around each individual hole, rather than a set course (of 18 or 9 holes), then courses that decided to add a 10th or 12th hole wouldn't have as complicated time of dealing with that.

Actually, I believe that the USGA handicap system [now adopted in a lot of the world] allows you to post rounds of less than full length for handicap purposes. 


I'm sure they could reverse-engineer the math to help a 14-hole course sort out how many strokes should be given.


It's ironic, though, that some of the most celebrated modern courses [Sand Hills and Ballyneal among them] eschew course ratings and posting scores altogether, on the basis that the wind is such a big factor in scoring.  No one says boo about it there.  So, why does a 12-hole or 14-hole course have to conform, when they are clearly not advocates of conformity?

[Matt Schoolfield]

Actually, I believe that the USGA handicap system [now adopted in a lot of the world] allows you to post rounds of less than full length for handicap purposes. 


I'm sure they could reverse-engineer the math to help a 14-hole course sort out how many strokes should be given.

Yes, this is definitely true. Shiskine being the obvious go-to example with their conversion chart [.PDF]. However, the point that the conversion chart is needed, and that the vast majority of tournament software is not designed for non-9/18-hole calculations is what I mean by the culture if 18 holes being so dominant. My concern here is the expectation of 18 holes has a non-trivial amount of infrastructure built around it, so building a non-18-hole course likely creates confusion and hostility, which I think will limit building the best golf holes possible. 

It's ironic, though, that some of the most celebrated modern courses [Sand Hills and Ballyneal among them] eschew course ratings and posting scores altogether, on the basis that the wind is such a big factor in scoring.  No one says boo about it there.  So, why does a 12-hole or 14-hole course have to conform, when they are clearly not advocates of conformity?

I mean, again, I think this is a perfectly good argument. I do generally think conformity of systems is mostly helpful. The concept of handicapping, and what constitutes "fair play" more generally, is something that really benefits from conformity of systems. I just hope that we would generally be using systems that allow for much more variance in courses.

Perhaps I am being a bit too critical though. I have not really thought of various forms of handicapping. I suppose different systems could suit different types of courses better depending on things like wind, and perhaps windy courses would benefit in the equability of play across skill levels if a different style of handicap were used than, say, a standard tournament course. Something to think about.

[Ben Stephens]

Spice is the variety of life - it is interesting to see different concepts.

Augie Piza is working on a new concept - Butterfly Golf with Brandel Chamblee in Mexico 4 no 6 hole loops - 24 hole course.


https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/agustin-piz225-partners-with-brandel-chamblee-on-golf-course-project-in-mexico


Ohoopee is more than 18 holes and Seaton Carew is 22 holes. Spey Bay is to have additional holes to create more 18 hole configurations.


OCM are working at Long Island in Melbourne more than 18 holes in one area with 3 different 18 hole configurations.


There are many courses with additional temp hole - isn't Long Farm 20 holes?


In the UK there are lot of 18 hole courses which has a rather cramped design which affect safety margins - it may be safer to have 12 holes however commercially wise they are more likely to be less viable than a 18 hole course as that is seen as the 'norm'.

[Tony_Muldoon]

 In commercial terms the worst 18 holer is always better than the best 9 holer.

Not to be pedantic, but the best nine hole course in the world is commercially less better than the worst eighteen hole course? That seems odd to me.

My opinion couldn’t diverge more. Good golf is good golf. An example would be at Dunaverty recently I pondered how much better the course would be if it was ONLY 9-12 holes. I mean that both in quality and commercially. There’s oodles of courses that would be easier to maintain (and likely cheaper) if they only had  9-12 of their best holes. Does that mean the masses wouldn’t come? I dunno. Ask the guys in South Pittsburg TN or at that somewhat famous nine holer in Suffolk.

Ben - Its a commercial opinion not about GOOD GOLF. Point being, your run costs about 85% that of an 18 holer, you can't have half a tractor, mower, golf pro, irrigation system, etc etc... Incoming costs are not even 50%, so its a tough fight. It is a majority thing that MOST people want 18 holes, with the option to play fewer (say 9). Only having half the patrons means the clubhouse is a tough place to make money. Commercial golf makes money with MORE holes (pref 36 or more). Nine or Twelve hole courses can work well coupled with other things.

I'd bet that from the time you start packing, drive there, play 9 holes, socialise, return and put it all away; its more than 75% (85% ) of the time it would take to play an 18 hole round.
Some golfers like meeting for golf more than they do playing!

I like 9 holers and will preferably go round twice if it's new to me. But I think I'm in the minority and in my experience most are happier hitting the clubhouse than the 10th tee.

IMO most of the golfers I see on 9 holers are learning the game or hanging on in there while they still can.  Even Royal Worlington seems to offer a discount visitor fee relative to the competition. A Royal near London for less than £100 (18 holes).  I've pitched it as a suitable venue for a Society I play with and the background murmurs of "9 holes?" seem to prevail.



Good luck with their experiment.

[Tom_Doak]

FWIW, the first nine holes at High Pointe have been open for a month now and it’s two hours for me to play nine holes by myself in the evening . . . including a 15-20 minute drive each way!  As a result I’ve played more golf this summer than I have in ages.


At no point have I thought, gee, I wish they’d open the next three holes so I could be out here another half hour.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()