[Scott_Burroughs]

The only people who made par 72 and 7000 yards 'standard', 'desired' if you will, are course developers who want certain numbers to sell something.  

The true standard of 18 holes and par 72 came from TOC, I believe.

It certainly is true that a good number of great courses don't have returning 9's (as the original course, TOC, did not), such as TOC, Cypress, Pebble, NGLA, etc., but as a member of a club, I find returning 9's extremely convenient for my invaluable time.  How many times have you arrived at the first tee, as a single perhaps, only to find 5 4-somes waiting on the first tee.  Gee, #10 tee, also by the clubhouse, is wide open.  That'll save me an hour or more right there.  Our #16 tee is also near the clubhouse, and I've teed off there first many a time, as #1 and #10 were full with no signs of gaps to get in.

[Dan Kelly]

The eighteen hole standard began one of golf's most unfortunate eras. It fostered 7,000-yard "standards", par-72 ideals, returning 9s, par "order", equal nines, formulas that get forced into sites, and nail-clipper precision. All of these in appropriate doses are OK. But the problem is that the doses are now way out of whack.

Maybe so.

How do you suggest we get those doses back inside whack?

[Forrest Richardson]

Be flexible. Don't complain or whine when we see a course trying something new. Hey, combat slow play? How about making those highly used venues 15 holes on weekends before noon, instead of all 18? Embrace 27-hole complexes. And 36. And 12. Celebrate golf's most remarkable asset:

GOLF CHANGES ALL THE TIME...EVERY COMPONENT OF ITS LANDSCAPE...EVERY DAY...AND FOR EVERY STROKE TAKEN.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug,

Not far from Ridgewood are Upper Montclair and Edgewood.

Montclair has four (4) nines, three by Ross one by Banks.

As Greg stated AWT did all three nines, hence design continuity exists.

The effectiveness of three nines is dependent on the number of playing members, and in many cases can reduce the time of play.

Ridgewood is a great example of utilizing one global feature but routing the course in such a way that each nine straddles a different part of that feature.

A ridge runs through the golf course.  The east nine plays in the flats and up against the rising eastern portion of the ridge.
The center nine plays atop the ridge, occassionally going to either side, and the west nine plays in the flats and up against the declining western portion of the ridge.

Don't view 27 hole complexes as odd, view them as a luxury.

[Dan Kelly]

Be flexible. Don't complain or whine when we see a course trying something new. Hey, combat slow play? How about making those highly used venues 15 holes on weekends before noon, instead of all 18? Embrace 27-hole complexes. And 36. And 12. Celebrate golf's most remarkable asset:

GOLF CHANGES ALL THE TIME...EVERY COMPONENT OF ITS LANDSCAPE...EVERY DAY...AND FOR EVERY STROKE TAKEN.

So, once again, golf's imperfections are the customers' fault?

I'm not buying it.

Give the public a really fine par-68 course, with two par-5s and 6 par-3s, and I think they'll flock to it.

Give them 27 good holes, or 36, and they'll flood the place  with business. There's plenty of evidence of that.

Give them a routing that doesn't hit the clubhouse after 9, and they'll be fine with it -- so long as you give them a place to pee.

I'll give you this much: I suspect that the public would have, as I have, no interest in playing a 15-hole course, or a 12-hole one. If that makes us inflexible, so be it!

[Andy Hodson]

Patrick
I couldn't agree more with you when you state about viewing 27 hole clubs as a luxury. If I ever were to join a club, 27 holes would be the selling point. It makes it so much easier to get a tee time, or to find 9 open holes late on a Sunday afternoon.

Having worked at a 27 holer, I can tell you from this side of the counter, it is a blessing. Many less dissatisfied members, with much more flexibility for the professional staff. 27 holes usually means open spaces for playing lessons, new equipment trials in "real world" settings, space for juniors and junior camps, etiquette lessons for beginners, less burden when singles just show up, etc.

Plus, I find it interesting to see how the different nines "work" when paired with each of the other two nines. Sometimes the difficult "eigth" hole becomes a bear of a "seventeenth" when played with the other nine as the front nine. I like the different combinations.

[Forrest Richardson]

Dan -- Go out and survey 100 average golfers and see how many would be interested in a course if it were a par-66 at 5,400-yards as opposed to one the same distance away at 6,900-yards, par-72. You would need to assume both courses were about the same in condition, quality, interest, green fee; and that both have the same size parking lot, clubhouse, etc. I believe you will find that, due to our standardization efforts, the second course would get much more likely attention. This is because magazines, course operators, pros, television, and -- yes -- golfers, all have flocked to the 18-hole, par-72, just-about-7,000-yard venue. You and I might enjoy the shorter, more unique, but we are clearly smarter.

[Dan Kelly]

Magazines, course operators, pros, television, and -- yes -- golfers, all have flocked to the 18-hole, par-72, just-about-7,000-yard venue. You and I might enjoy the shorter, more unique, but we are clearly smarter.

Forrest --

Finally! Something I can agree with!

But, seriously (or more seriously   ):

If you (generic you) don't offer something to the public, how can you blame the public for not buying it?

For the paucity of interesting experimentation in the golf-course business, I, personally, blame the money guys (course owners/developers), who don't have the guts to try offering something different ... something that might succeed famously (if my view of the world is correct) or fail miserably (if the opposite view is accurate).

[Forrest Richardson]

How do you (where do you) define "offer"?

Do you mean a golf course offering a design and solution to a developer? I've done that and am a fairly convincing fellow. Yet I am hard-pressed to find many people willing to listen to par-3 designs, 9-hole layouts, 12-hole options, etc.

Believe me, we try. Not all clients are open-minded. In fact, many are not. I believe you would be able to write a script of an architect and a developer discussing a par-65, 5,400 yard course concept.

[Dan Kelly]

Forrest --

You misunderstand me. I wasn't talking about what YOU do, about which I was not (till now) informed; I was talking about "the generic you" (meaning: golf-course architects and particularly golf-course owners, as a group).

All I meant to say was: If inventive (non-par-72, 7,000-yard) courses aren't offered to the public (by inventive architects in league with inventive owner/developers), the blame lies not with the public (which can't either embrace or rebuff things it never sees), but with the golf-course owners and developers.

[yogi_barry]

Forrest is right...

Unfortunately developers see what they believe their customers will buy...  I don't see real-estate values of a really unique par 65 layout surpassing an ordinary par 72 layout.

There is a perceived level of quality between the "conventional" par and yardage standards (however misguided and arbitrary).  It has been burnt into the minds of the buying public when advertising "a 7,100 yard par 72 championship course".  An outstanding "5,400 yard par 68 golf course" doesn't sound as appealing in a development brochure - although it may be undisputably better and more fun to play...

It's a tough sell...

[Dan Kelly]

Yogi --

I didn't say it wasn't a tough sell! It might turn out to be a very tough sell!

I said, and I repeat: If no one is TRYING to sell it to the public, don't blame the public for not buying it!

You say: "Developers see what they believe their customers will buy."

Correct!

And I say: If you build it -- and if you build it WELL -- they will come. That's my guess.

What we need are a few developers with a little chutzpah. Or a lot.

When they go broke, THEY can blame the public. Until then, cut the public some slack!

[Forrest Richardson]

And I agree -- partially. The public sets demands by way of their buying habits. If they buy and are happy, the offerers will continue offering those products.

[Doug Wright]

Patrick,

Are those private clubs? Sure it's a luxury to have extra holes at a private club. I think the 27 hole situation I'm uneasy about pertains to public/resort not private courses. If I don't like the cut of a 27 hole private club's jib I won't join it. If someone invites me to play at their 27 hole private club and we play the X and Y nines instead of the Y and Z nines I'll gladly take what comes.  I refer to public/resort courses, particularly those with a substandard (in my opinion) 9 holes or a stronger 18 that I'd prefer to play every time. I don't like getting shunted onto the weak 9 at these public courses just because it's Tuesday or the moon is full. This usually has happened when I was visiting someplace and walked up with little or no advance planning or knowledge, eg Tucson National a couple of years ago, which has a perfectly dreadful newish what I'd call a "reliever 9" to take the pressure off the main 18, which I'd heard about, was the reason I was there in the first place and fully expected to play.  A similar experience at the Isleta 27 outside Albuquerque probably planted this thought more firmly in my head.

All of this was pre-GCA. Now I know better. I'll learn about the courses I want to play, call ahead and find out what's on tap and skip the course altogether and go elsewhere if I don't like what I hear. Do others in the golf-playing world care a whit about this? Probably not. I'm pretty flexible, and I only care a little.

All The Best,

[yogi_barry]

Case in point...

Within the past year we (Architects/Planners) tried to do a 12-hole facility in a well known resort golf community here in Florida.  We teamed with a "signature" golf course architect to create a routing which could be played with a number of different 18 and 9 hole options; as well as 3, 6, and 12 hole options.  

It was designed as a core course - and would be promoted as the future of golf, needing less land, requiring less time, reducing the cost of maintenance, and thus the cost to play.  It was to be walkable, family-oriented - but each hole was envisioned to be as good as any hole anywhere.  The golf course architect was completely behind the concept.

Ultimately, the developer decided for a number of reasons not to pursue this direction.  It is now planned as a more traditional residential community (there are already two other golf courses as part of this project).  It would have been great, but illustrates a point that there are some (golf course architects and associated design disciplines) who are trying to create viable alternatives to the ordinary...

And...  We WILL get a project like that built eventually...!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug Wright,

Try walking up to the starters booth without advance notice to get on to St Andrews.

If you're lucky they'll shunt you to the NEW course or somewhere else.  If you're really, really lucky, they may have an opening for a single.  If you're unlucky, they'll ask you to come back another day.

If a facility has 27, with what you consider an ideal 18, then advance arrangements would be a critical element in your game plan.

[Brian_Ewen]

Guys
First time I came across 27 hole golf courses , is here in Thailand . Close by ,there is several inc. Laem Chabang(Nicklaus),Khao Kheow(Dye Designs), and I have to say they are all a nightmare .
I am sure they were designed to have 3 rotating nines but now because of how busy the place has become , all three nines are now open and its a free for all , You play one nine , and then you pray that there isnt half a dozen groups , waiting to go off the other nines , as there is no way they will let you jump ahead of them , even though you are half way through your round.
I know this is more the fault of the mangement of the courses ,rather than the design , but I am living in a third world country and they have no idea about running golf courses.
If you have seen the amount of fist fights on 1st tees that I have , you would prefer 18 holers any day , especially ones that dont return to the clubhouse , as these FLOW .

Brian Ewen

[Forrest Richardson]

Fist fights are the first tees! Wow, not that's a hazard I've never thought about. Actors! Yes, I can see it now, we build into the budget to hire out of work actors to wear golf attire and pretend to beat the hell out of....

[brad miller]

Ridgewood's 3 sets of nine are good because they flow together so well. When they had the Sr. PGA there a couple of years ago they created a composite course from all 3.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()