[Patrick_Mucci]

courses had to be routed such that they could and would be played in reverse order, ala TOC ?

Would the creative process be taxed more, thus producing better architecture ?

Would the time necessary to develop such a course guarantee a better product ?

If no, why not ?

If yes, why ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

RTJ used to say that the final test of a good golf hole is whether it played well backwards. Many holes do fit the topo that way, but it occurs to me that if that was criteria, then it might eliminate those holes that only play well one way, and it would perhaps diminish the intended result as a side effect.

It would be sort of like double greens or fairways - Sooner or later, time will distinguish which of the two are slightly or grossly favored, and the second play option is rendered less useful.  So, overall, I say no.

BTW, if GCGC was reversible, and you played it backwards, would your recenct 69 be a 69 or a 96? Now that is a head scratcher!

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have pondered that question a number of times.  To pull it off would require the right piece of property which I would think could not be too hilly.  Locating a green that could be approached from two different ways would be at best difficult on hilly ground.  Bunker placement would be difficult as well, off the tee and into the green.  In principle I like the idea but it would take creative genius to accomplish it.

On the other hand,I have played a course backwards.  The course obviously wasn't designed to do it but my son and I did it on a whim.  We had to play shots we had never played before.  We didn't use the tee box but teed it up a few yards from the green and played to the previous green.  The most interesting part was trying to determine the disances.

[ForkaB]

Tommy makes a very good point.  TOC works not only because they have played it both ways over time, but also because the basic topography is so flat.  When you get elevation changes you end up with some really severe front to back sloping greens.  False fronts become false bottoms.  Nice bit of creativity, Pat, but I don't think it is a keeper.

[Sean Leary]

RTJ did this when he rerouted Eugene CC. Relatively flattish piece of land as well....

[Sean_Tully]

How about Pine Valley?

Was there ever any plans to have that play backward?

Edit I left off the last part...

I am not familiar with the course as some others are so I do not how that would be feasible.

Would the routing be better?

[Mike Nuzzo]

I agree with the premise that a lot more thought put on the routing and design of a course should lead to a better one.

I'll say that the design would be better off if the architect tried several different routings even after they found a very good solution - not necessarily a reverse routing.

It takes a long time to create a nice hole.

[Kyle Harris]

The premise seems to be a part of a subset of a feature of good golf courses, a core routing.

I don't think that holding the course to a reversible standard is practical or the key. Frankly, it puts too much limitations just like an "ideal" spot for a clubhouse or a need for a large driving range would.

However, there is something to be said for the core routing where a hole can be played from one tee box to another green (cross country golf or "sheep ranching").

[Geoffrey Childs]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionprystowsky.html

Westchester CC

[Tim Taylor]

Alright, I'll play the stooge and ask the stupid idiot question. What the heck do you mean by playing the course backwards?

TimT

[Sean Leary]

Tim,

Teeing off at the green and playing back towards the tee. Would the hole work that way?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean and Tim,

I meant it more in the context of the old course and reverse play from tee to green.

[Bill_McBride]

Sean Leary, I played Eugene CC two weeks ago and got a lesson in why RTJ Sr reversed the course.  When he visited for a consultation, he told them "this is a really good course, it's just laid out backward."  The ponds were in front of the tees rather than in front of the greens!

So he more or less turned it around.  Now #5 (177 yd par 3), #6 (par 5 with pond tight in front ala #15 AGNC), #7 (200 yd par 3), and I think #12 (180 yd par 3) are all played to greens across the ponds.

You are generally right that it's a flattish site, the only hilly area is in what is now the cllimb from #5 green to #6 tee.  The 6th plays sharply downhill and dogleg right, with the 6th green behind the pond at the bottom of the hill.  The original hole (not sure of the number) was a short par 4 that played UP that steep hill.  So the change was definitely a good thing in terms of the routing.

There are two nice original and post-reversal routing maps in the clubhouse that really show the story, both at the same scale.  Funny, there were several much longer par 4s then than now, so the course has actually been shortened as a result of the reversal.

The latest state rankings show Eugene CC in the top 10, below the Bandon Courses and Crosswater and maybe Pumpkin Ridge Witch Hollow.  Right behind Eugene are Waverly and Columbia-Edgewater   in Portland.

[TEPaul]

Tully:

During the construction of Pine Valley Walter Travis began to submit hole drawings of Pine Valley (around 1915) that could be played in the reverse direction. He published a few of them in The American Golfer, apparently with Crump's blessing, but he never completed the drawings on all the holes in reverse, as far as I can tell. I suppose Crump just didn't want to do it in the end.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Personally, I think it would create better architecture if more architects accommodated Moe Norman's definition of playing a course backwards -- you should be able to play it with an 8-iron off the tee and a 3-wood approach.  (IF you're a great ball striker, that is.)

[JESII]

What would that add to the quality of a hole Tom?

[RJ_Daley]

Not to answer for Tom, but I'd have to guess that more greens would accomodate a running up shot, on a pipeline flighted path!

Pat, I sure agree with the basic premise that the interest through the routing and design would be outstanding if the courses ground features allowed for reverse play, as TOC.  Of course then pretty much all the concepts would have to follow the template of double wide greens, double FWs, side by FW routing, and tees right next to greens.  Wouldn't the lawyers have a field day with that?

A great course like Sand Hills couldn't accomodate this as it is laid out without a great deal of new FW creation where there are now carries off the tees of 150-200 yards and greens sited closer to tees than they are now.  The terrain could handle it, but the native areas would have to be cultivated and planted in FW turf.  Not impossible, but such reverse design would detract from the intended routing.

[Tom_Doak]

JES:

Everyone could play the course then!

[Phil Benedict]

Patrick:

Personally, I think it would create better architecture if more architects accommodated Moe Norman's definition of playing a course backwards -- you should be able to play it with an 8-iron off the tee and a 3-wood approach.  (IF you're a great ball striker, that is.)

Interesting idea.  Ever tried to design a whole like this? Can either play the hole long club/short club with the next option being short club/long club, with nothing in between.  I guess you'd need some sort of hazard to delineate the choices.

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

I didn't mean to leave nothing in between.  I prefer to leave everything in between, because there are good golfers who hit the ball all different lengths.

However, the last time I played Crystal Downs, I drove into the rough on 16, had to hack an 8-iron out, and then hit driver from there onto the front of the green.

[Matthew Rose]

My home course for awhile was Thornberry Creek CC in Green Bay, which has 27 holes built by Rick Jacobsen. There was a 9 hole course built first, and then a "championship" 18 built later, in two stages. It has non-returning nines; what became holes 1-6 and 16-18 were built first and opened before the second nine were even under construction; the routing underwent several changes before they were built.

Four of the newer holes were routed along a large lake, and it was routed in such a way that the water was on the right side of each. This included two par-fives (originally 10 & 13), a par-three (originally 14) and a par four (originally 15). The developer made him reverse the routing so that the water would all be on the left. So they would have then become 10, 11, 12, and 15.

Looking at the original plan and the finished product, the designs are more or less the same both ways. I always thought about playing them backwards one day knowing that that is how they were originally routed.

As an aside, they ended up being changed to play as 7, 8, 9, and 15, as the three holes which were supposed to be built as 2, 3, and 4 (across a road from 1 green and 5 tee) were eliminated and replaced by three newer holes which play as 11, 12, and 13.

The original 2, 3, and 4 were routed in a heavily wooded area and would have played around and over a natural creek. But the developer scrapped them because he couldn't put any homes there.

Instead, they were replaced by three holes at the other end of the property, which is open, fairly lifeless, and has views of power lines and nearby highways. But there's room for houses there.

I played the finished course every day for a couple of years, and I have a copy of the original routing plan. It hurts to look at it, knowing how much better the course would have been. Plus we would have lived on the 5th hole instead of the 2nd, which would have been a nice point in the round to stop and get refreshments to smuggle out onto the course.

I guess this is what happens when developers begin designing the courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()