Where are the six hole golf courses?

[Jordan Jackson]

New 18-hole builds frequently exceed 200 acres these days. Land is getting harder to come by, and water is becoming more scarce and expensive. Quality labour, both in the clubhouse and on the grounds, is getting harder to find (even harder if certain US immigration policies are enforced). People are still complaining that golf takes too long to play.

Is it time to embrace the idea of 6 or 12-hole golf courses? A regulation-length (not short or Par 3) 12-hole course could be built in less than 100 acres, 6 holes less than ~60; if done correctly with a smart architect and developer, I see this product succeeding in and around urban areas where land is expensive and player time is strapped.

What am I missing here?

[Sam Morrow]

Years ago I played the course in Sterling City which is out in West Texas and at the time it only has 5 or 6 holes, it's since been expanded to 9. Course was nothing much but it was simple muni for a small community.

[Ben Sims]

Back in December, Andy Johnson did a Fried Egg podcast with Bob Crosby. The podcast was titled The State Of Modern Golf Architecture. They definitely touched on that subject. But it was so far reaching that you got some great snippets. There was one from Andy where he talks about being a late 30s early 40s dad/spouse and it being considered insane that he’d spend 5-6 hours on a Saturday playing golf. Hard to disagree.


So what then follows? Is it a 1-1.5 hour solution like a 6 hole course? Or is it national clubs, resorts, and the like. It seems as if the market has spoken on that right?

[John Kavanaugh]

Unless you limit players to 6 holes per day there will be hell to pay at the turn.

[Jordan Jackson]

So what then follows? Is it a 1-1.5 hour solution like a 6 hole course? Or is it national clubs, resorts, and the like. It seems as if the market has spoken on that right?

Ben, I too listened to that episode and really liked it; it continues to be insane that golf in certain places on a weekend takes that long. To your quoted text, the market absolutely has spoken, because the faraway national clubs (seemingly) have much less complexity to build around. But won't there be a market saturation point? Perhaps we're already getting there? The 30-minute catchment area around some of these cities is massive, giving so many people an opportunity to play without having to go to an airport. Perhaps a slightly larger Winter Park 9 is the model?

Unless you limit players to 6 holes per day there will be hell to pay at the turn.

John, I am almost positive someone much smarter than I would be able to sort out the logistics regarding blocking certain times to allow for 12-hole loops or restricting play. Maybe even two loops of 3 with split tees. A clear problem, but solutions are not impossible.

[Joe Hancock]

What often happens when having these discussions, the realization of paying qualified help and the costs to maintain at todays’ expectations don’t pencil out for 6 holes and the lower associated fees. As noble of an idea as it is, it needs a philanthrobic input to have it make sense.

[Charlie Goerges]

Not to be just a cold bucket of water, but won't most courses let you choose to pay for/play 9 if you like? And again, when it comes to land use, why are people in our orbit always curious about 6 or 12 holes, when 9 hole courses are reasonably common?

[Brian Finn]

6 hole golf courses do not appeal to me and do not make sense to me.  Like anything, I am sure there is a time and place where it can/will work, but (strictly from my own standpoint over the past ~20 years of being married with kids) there is rarely a time when I can play 6 holes, but not 9.  In a world where people spend hours per day scrolling on their phones, I find it hard to believe that the additional 30-45 minutes makes that much of a difference to a large subset of people.  I don't see a significant market for it, and I don't see how the economics would work out well for a standalone operation.  If a (9+ hole) course is routed in such a way that 6 hole loops can be offered in the early AM or before sundown, I don't see how it would hurt much, but on its own this seems like a limited opportunity.

[John Kavanaugh]

We should have never allowed jeans at dinner. Now it takes three tee times to play 18 holes.

[Joe Zucker]

Not to be just a cold bucket of water, but won't most courses let you choose to pay for/play 9 if you like? And again, when it comes to land use, why are people in our orbit always curious about 6 or 12 holes, when 9 hole courses are reasonably common?

This has always been my opinion whenever Jack Nicklaus brings it up.  You can already play 9 holes on the vast majority of courses. If you catch a quiet part of the day, this is a 1.5 hour event.  Making a 6 or 12 hole course seems like a solution in search of a problem.

[Jordan Jackson]

I appreciate everyone coming in with their own opinions on why this wouldn't work. But the comments around "Why not 9?" are really missing the point. If you play 9 at an 18 hole course, you're paying an elevated price. If you play 6 holes at a 9 hole course, you're paying for 3 holes that you did not play. The course could always adapt pricing to make this work, but the reality is they won't.

And this is coming from a guy who frequently plays 9 hole courses, I know they're great! Almost no one is building them, though.

What often happens when having these discussions, the realization of paying qualified help and the costs to maintain at todays’ expectations don’t pencil out for 6 holes and the lower associated fees. As noble of an idea as it is, it needs a philanthrobic input to have it make sense.

Joe H—I appreciate your comment and tend to believe you're right. But could the associated costs of having/maintaining less land ever equal out over the long run? Genuinely curious, thanks in advance.

[Sean_A]

I tend to think that if there is space for a full length 6 hole course there will likely be space for a less than full length 9 hole course. I can definitely see a 12 hole course  working with two loops of 6. Or even an 18 hole course with three loops of 6.., or maybe 12 and 6 hole loops. To me 6 on its own is a special situation. Maybe a small city plot etc.


Ciao

[Sam Morrow]

We should have never allowed jeans at dinner. Now it takes three tee times to play 18 holes.

In a more civilized world the Ewings got dressed up every night for family dinner and had cocktails.

[Alex_Hunter]

I have always been curious about a 6 or 12 hole course but the economics of it probably rarely make sense these days.

Land, especially in metropolitan areas is already so expensive that limits access to people coming to play your course.
Permitting is difficult. Unless you find a municipality or charity to work with you are probably stuck here.


Resources are scarce (they aren't, its a wage issue, but that's beside the point) - labour for the property may be rather limited.
If the salary of the greenskeeper is not large enough you may not attract talent to keep the property in good enough condition to warrant regular play unless you generate some sort of cult following.


Obviously its worked well at places like Sweetens to be 9 holes, yet attract the amount of players they do being so rural - but I really think you've got so many factors working against you it probably doesn't work out.

[Charlie Goerges]

I appreciate everyone coming in with their own opinions on why this wouldn't work. But the comments around "Why not 9?" are really missing the point. If you play 9 at an 18 hole course, you're paying an elevated price. If you play 6 holes at a 9 hole course, you're paying for 3 holes that you did not play. The course could always adapt pricing to make this work, but the reality is they won't.

And this is coming from a guy who frequently plays 9 hole courses, I know they're great! Almost no one is building them, though.

I understand, but don't totally agree. Any argument against 9 holes is the same argument that can and will be made against any number of holes less than 18. That said, I would probably defer to the architect. If they said, I can give you 12 better holes here than the 9 I would build, then definitely go for it. I will come and pay to play there and enjoy it very much I'm certain. But I feel that economical matters will generally push back against it. Others on this site have said that in the question of economic survival, you are probably better off with 9 holes and a range than 12 holes.


6 I feel is both more worthwhile but even more difficult. If you're choosing 6 so you can hit some drivers (rather than a 9 hole, or more, par 3 course), I would say I'm more likely to want to play there than a par 3 course, but really only if it is a lot better (architecturally) than the 9 hole options.


That seems like a tough place to operate unfortunately. But like I said, I'd try to support it if I could.

[Jason_Bernardon]

The idea of a 6 hole course appeals to me because of the ability to fit golf into an area that would otherwise not be suitable for golf, or into a reduced time frame that would otherwise not permit such activity.


By all measure I would consider this a niche product, but I can see some obvious applications which could include: urban golf in a compact site, an offering targeted to youth or beginners, a home course for a high school or non-div 1 university golf program, office park amenity (golf on your lunch break would be great), a municipal offering where resources are limited (some golf is better than no golf).



I play the majority of my golf at a 9 hole course that sits on under 60 acres, but there are quite a few sacrifices required to make 9 fit.  Par 34, less than 3000 yards, both par 5s less than 500 yards, crossing holes and green to tee distances that are much too close to be deemed “safe” by today’s standards. Would it be better if 3 holes were sacrificed to allow for the other 6 to be stretched out? Probably not. But if there were only 6 holes to begin with, I’d likely still play there quite often.

[Craig Sweet]

Old Works has "The Little Bear"...a three hole course. I don't see too many people playing it.

[Wayne_Kozun]

There was one from Andy where he talks about being a late 30s early 40s dad/spouse and it being considered insane that he’d spend 5-6 hours on a Saturday playing golf. Hard to disagree.

Have you seen the demand for club memberships since Covid hit? Which would contradict that statement.

[Mike_Clayton]

Three fantastic courses in Melbourne (and surrounds) have the 6th hole coming back to the clubhouse.
Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath and Barwon Heads.
Of the three RM is the best -one of the best runs of 6 holes in the world. BH's 1-6 would be the second pick of most and as good as KH's opening six are its loop would come in third.


I've asked a few people lately if they'd be happy being members of a six-hole club/course comprised only of the opening six of either RM,BH or KH.


The best of KH is 7-18 but the other two would see me perfectly happy playing six-hole golf - because at both RM and BH there is more good golf in six holes than many courses have in 18.

[Adam Lawrence]

The fundamental problem with short courses is economic. You can't buy half a mower, so the cost to operate a nine hole course is always more than half that for an eighteen hole course. Therefore you have to charge more than half as much to play there if the numbers are to add up, and that tends to be resented by golfers.

Additionally, there are thousands and thousands of courses, overwhelmingly eighteen holes, whose development costs have long ago been amortised. It is well-known that developing a new golf course is economically marginal at best if you have to take on debt to do so. Combine the two factors, and it is easy to understand why, when people do push the button on building a new course, they don't _generally_ build shorter ones.

Which is not to say there isn't a market for 60-90 minute golf experiences, I think there absolutely is. But, if such an experience is to make a return on the investment needed to create it, literally everything -- location, property, design, operations, marketing -- has to be right on point. There is a reason that so many great courses were developed by super-rich guys for whom ROI wasn't their prime concern.

[Sean_A]

The fundamental problem with short courses is economic. You can't buy half a mower, so the cost to operate a nine hole course is always more than half that for an eighteen hole course. Therefore you have to charge more than half as much to play there if the numbers are to add up, and that tends to be resented by golfers.

Additionally, there are thousands and thousands of courses, overwhelmingly eighteen holes, whose development costs have long ago been amortised. It is well-known that developing a new golf course is economically marginal at best if you have to take on debt to do so. Combine the two factors, and it is easy to understand why, when people do push the button on building a new course, they don't _generally_ build shorter ones.

Which is not to say there isn't a market for 60-90 minute golf experiences, I think there absolutely is. But, if such an experience is to make a return on the investment needed to create it, literally everything -- location, property, design, operations, marketing -- has to be right on point. There is a reason that so many great courses were developed by super-rich guys for whom ROI wasn't their prime concern.

You are of course right Adam. It’s no surprise that many of the good stand alone nine holers in UK&I are shoe string operations.

Ciao

[Jordan Jackson]

Three fantastic courses in Melbourne (and surrounds) have the 6th hole coming back to the clubhouse.
Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath and Barwon Heads. Of the three RM is the best -one of the best runs of 6 holes in the world.

Mike, intriguing! Do you think it would be possible to create a rousing 12-hole routing at Royal Melbourne from a composite of both the East and West courses? I'm not as familiar with the property, obviously.

The fundamental problem with short courses is economic. You can't buy half a mower, so the cost to operate a nine hole course is always more than half that for an eighteen hole course...Which is not to say there isn't a market for 60-90 minute golf experiences, I think there absolutely is. But, if such an experience is to make a return on the investment needed to create it, literally everything -- location, property, design, operations, marketing -- has to be right on point.

You're definitely right, Adam; this could never be a blanket solution. Location is the number one most critical aspect, but true success would depend on a lot of things.

[Jason Thurman]

I can't think of one problem that a 6-hole course helps solve that isn't better solved by an indoor simulator facility.

[Charlie Goerges]

I can't think of one problem that a 6-hole course helps solve that isn't better solved by an indoor simulator facility.

Exercise?

[Kalen Braley]

There was one from Andy where he talks about being a late 30s early 40s dad/spouse and it being considered insane that he’d spend 5-6 hours on a Saturday playing golf. Hard to disagree.

Have you seen the demand for club memberships since Covid hit? Which would contradict that statement.

Outside of the terrific points made by Adam and others outlining the logistical/financial constraints, I think this one resonates the most.

Golf is absolutely booming at both the private and public level.  Even on a sleepy Tuesday afternoon, you can't just show up to the local muni and expect to get out, much less super busy weekends.

P.S.  Perhaps their just isn't as many busy golfers or attached otherwise in relationships as we think.  Or perhaps there are and they just want an escape from kids and responsibilities. 

[Tags:]

Tags: