Palindrome Nines

[Evan Fleisher]

A few weeks back I had the opportunity to play at Oak Creek Golf Club in Irvine, CA while out West working on my new warehouse.

As I played the front nine and reviewied the scorecard a little closer I realized that the hole sequencing was quite odd:

5-3-4-4-4-4-4-3-5

I had never seen such a configuration, and wanted to offer it up as a discussion topic here.  What other courses have you played that contained a palindrome nine, or maybe even a palimdrome 18?

[John Kirk]

The back nine at Augusta National:

4-4-3 5-4-5 3-4-4

Ta-daaaaaaa!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Evan, that is odd.  Some gca's strive for "Perfect Par Rotation" of 4-5-4-3-4-5-4-3-4, which almost qualifies, and could by switching a par 3 and 5.  In fact, I think the front 9 at ANGC qualifies by doing so.  Its 4-5-4-3-4-3-4-5-4.

[Ally Mcintosh]

The Island:

4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-3 (damn!)

[Ally Mcintosh]

Even Better - You should all recognise the following 'Palindrome 18':

4-4-4-4-5-4-4-3-4-4-3-4-4-5-4-4-4-4

[Rich Goodale]

Yes Ally

That really deserves a "Ta-daaaaaaa!"

Rich

[David_Tepper]

The current back-9 (used to be the front-9) at the Presidio in San Francisco is 5-4-4-3-4-3-4-4-5.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Rich,

Maybe it should become the No.1 priority for all aspiring GCA's

No.1: Make sure my course reads as a Palindrome
No.2: Have to have returning nines
No.3: Must be a Par-72
No.4: Can't start with a Par-3
No.5: Must conform to too many restrictions on what I must do.

etc... etc...

[Rich Goodale]

Rich,

Maybe it should become the No.1 priority for all aspiring GCA's

No.1: Make sure my course reads as a Palindrome
No.2: Have to have returning nines
No.3: Must be a Par-72
No.4: Can't start with a Par-3
No.5: Must conform to too many restrictions on what I must do.

etc... etc...

Amen

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally,

Somewhat OT, but since you bring it up, all those things are good ideas in general:

Par 3's slow play, so you want them as far back as possible in the round,

Returning nines allow about 3000 more rounds per year, so most owners want them

Par 72 - I agree there. Don't know why so many feel par 72 is crucial.

On a world class site, there may be a situation where the gca would be tempted to break the rules. On most sites, I would still go for most of those conventions, because they are pretty good ideas based on experience.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

Somewhat OT, but since you bring it up, all those things are good ideas in general:

Par 3's slow play, so you want them as far back as possible in the round,

Returning nines allow about 3000 more rounds per year, so most owners want them

Par 72 - I agree there. Don't know why so many feel par 72 is crucial.

On a world class site, there may be a situation where the gca would be tempted to break the rules. On most sites, I would still go for most of those conventions, because they are pretty good ideas based on experience.

Jeff, I don't disagree... I think you should always try and search all of those things out in your design... But I also think that each situation is different and provides many variables.

The pros and cons of each Brief / Client / Site needs to be evaluated on an individual basis and I think that some of those "necessities" are given too much importance in situations when they don't need to be.

P.S. I would think Par-3 opening holes regulate the pace of play, perhaps reducing the number of start times and rounds per year. They definitely don't slow the flow of the round (unlike Par-3 second holes which often do).

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally,

It crosses my mind that in this era of reduced expectations for play, that some of the rules - like starting with a par 3 - might be relaxed.  In the go-go 90's no owner would want to regulate play!  They would want to shove as many players out on the course as possible.  They still do on Weekend and Holiday mornings, though.  Plus, how would golfers react to a first hole par 3 even if unaware of how it was making them wait to tee off?

Sidebar - If the group in front of me "looks" like slow players, can I demand to play through on the first tee on a par 3?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

It crosses my mind that in this era of reduced expectations for play, that some of the rules - like starting with a par 3 - might be relaxed.  In the go-go 90's no owner would want to regulate play!  They would want to shove as many players out on the course as possible.  They still do on Weekend and Holiday mornings, though.  Plus, how would golfers react to a first hole par 3 even if unaware of how it was making them wait to tee off?

Sidebar - If the group in front of me "looks" like slow players, can I demand to play through on the first tee on a par 3?

You are assuming a green fee pay and play facility which I guess is the vast majority of courses these days...

In any case, I wasn't suggesting that regulating play with a Par-3 was a good idea (in terms of numbers). I was just pointing out that it didn't actually slow play for those on the course.

As I said, I'm not disagreeing with the "rules". I just believe that there are some times when those rules have to be broken and more importantly there are times when those rules SHOULD be broken yet are not... because they are the "rules"

[Anthony Gray]

Even Better - You should all recognise the following 'Palindrome 18':

4-4-4-4-5-4-4-3-4-4-3-4-4-5-4-4-4-4

   TOC. NEVER NOTICED THAT BEFORE.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Even Better - You should all recognise the following 'Palindrome 18':

4-4-4-4-5-4-4-3-4-4-3-4-4-5-4-4-4-4

   TOC. NEVER NOTICED THAT BEFORE.

In a way, it makes perfect sense, what with a genuine out and back layout using all double greens - it almost HAD to be palindromic...

[Tyler Kearns]

The back nine at Augusta National:

4-4-3 5-4-5 3-4-4

Ta-daaaaaaa!

John,

So is the front nine at Augusta Nat'l

4-5-4-3-4-3-4-5-4

Double Ta-daaaaa!!

TK

[Kalen Braley]

A few more palindrome 9's

Front 9 at Old Mill Golf club in SLC

443, 454, 344.

Back 9 at Murphy Creek in Aurora, CO

434, 545, 434

[Doug Wright]

I thought this topic had been broached on GCA.com before. It has--back in 2002! Then again, what hasn't been broached on here before?

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,2687.0.html

[James Bennett]

Even Better - You should all recognise the following 'Palindrome 18':

4-4-4-4-5-4-4-3-4-4-3-4-4-5-4-4-4-4

   TOC. NEVER NOTICED THAT BEFORE.

In a way, it makes perfect sense, what with a genuine out and back layout using all double greens - it almost HAD to be palindromic...

Amazingly, The Reverse Old Course has the same set of par.  Yes, obvious, palindrome.  I know.  Just as well they converted #17 from a par 5 into a par 4 then, isn't it!

James B