Hole Sequencing

[John Kirk]

First we'll start with a little name dropping...

This summer I played golf with Mike DeVries at his beloved Crystal Downs GC.  Late in the round, Mike talked about his interest in hole sequences, and the genius of the opening sequence at the Downs.  After a long, tough opening four hole stretch (long 4, long 4, medium-long 3, medium-long 4), the player looks down at his card and sees three consecutive short par 4s, each about 350 yards long.  The player thinks or assumes this is a much needed break from the early difficulty, that strokes can be saved here.  But that is hardly the case, as the three short 4s are all tough, requiring distinguished shots to make par or better.

Hole sequence should make a fine general discussion.  I see no strict rules that the architect must abide by.  I believe that most sequences will work, but that archiects must avoid certain pitfalls.  Here are a couple simple rules:

1.  The course design should avoid chronic bottlenecks, slowing the pace of play.

Actually, that's the only rule.  All other considerations are optional.

2.  The course design should create a varying sense of drama or tension, taking the player on an emotional journey.  Should the player be required to finish his round and prove his score with difficult finishing holes, or be allowed to "charge" towards to a good score on the back nine?

A couple examples to start the discussion:

A.  Both Garden City and Royal Dornoch start with a 300 yard hole, followed by a medium to short par 3.  My first reaction was this is sure to create early bottlenecks, but I believe the opposite is true.  If you allow the group ahead to finish (or nearly finish) the first hole, player spacing should be excellent throughout, barring any further bottlenecks.

B.  Rock Creek Cattle Company begins 4-4-5 4-4-4 4-3-4.  Seven long holes before the first par 3.  Another way to spread the players out.

C.  Many top classic California courses begin short par 5, long par 4, though some of these were originally two par 5s.  The fast getaway to train players to move quickly.

D.  Both courses at Pumpkin Ridge have very difficult 18th holes, among the two hardest on the course.  However, the back nine at both courses is easier than the front, and especially at the public Ghost Creek course, the player can charge on the back.  In my opinion, the most emotionally satisfying stretch at Ghost Creek is holes 2-8; at Witch Hollow it's pretty consistent, but 3-6 and 12-16 are very nice.


I see hole sequencing as mistakes to avoid, augmented by secondary enhancements to add emotional depth.  I would particularly enjoy the architects' perspective.  I would also like examples of sequences that do not seem to work.

[Scott Stearns]

if it can be avoided, dont put a reachable par 5 before a par three, esp a long/hard one that lots of people miss.

gets slower than molasses.

those of us the help run golf tournaments will thank you.

[Rich Goodale]

John

One of the great things to me about Merion is that after 6 ball-busters you get 6 seemingly "easy" holes.  As I remember, I was 1 or 2 over on the 1st 6 and then struggled to get par until I made it to the last 6!

Similarly, people talk of the front 9 at Dorncoh as being the easy bit, but if you can break 40 there, you have a good change of shooting 75.

The great courses have great short 4s that slice you and dice you if you are not payingt attention.  IMHO, of course.

Rich

[Bill_Yates]

John,
I think your perceptions and ideas are right on target.

I address the issue of hole sequencing in questions 10, 11 and 13 of my July 2007 GCA Interview. 

I believe that hole sequencing has a very real impact on the perceived "greatness" of a course. My insights come from years of observations and actually measuring the effect that hole sequencing has on the way courses should be managed, and therefore on the day-to-day quality of the playing experience - recognized by the player as the "pace of play." 

Great courses provide an ever-changing sequence of physical and intellectual challenges for all levels of players, while quietly delivering a smooth-flowing uninterrupted experience.  On great courses we only think about our gameand the course and its challenges, not about the group ahead of us.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

I see designing for speed of play and sequencing as two subject, albeit linked.

I wonder how many golfers really look that far ahead at the scorecard to surmise if holes will be easy or hard.  Certainly competitive players do, but they consider more than length when considering where their birdies may come from. 

I think all golfers sense when the course is beating them up.  When there is a string of easy holes, I think they just figure they are on fire and playing well!

One thing I look at is the sequence of club selection.  The "perfect par rotation" advocates of 4-5-4-3-4-5-4-3-4 think they provide good variety, and they can.  But many I am familiar with also go Med 4-Long 5-Short 4-Long 3- Long 4-Short 5-Short 4-Short 3-Long 4.  Its quite possible to have 3 short iron approaches, albeit of a 3, 4 and 5 par hole in a row.

I also look at features - if too dogmatic on "big green for a long shot" golfers can face too many similar shots. I like one of those long par 4 greens in a sequence of long par 4's to be really small for variety, as an example.

In the end, I think the gca just has to "feel it" in terms of what provides variety rather than stick to any formula.

[paul cowley]

"In the end, I think the gca just has to "feel it" in terms of what provides variety rather than stick to any formula"

I've got to go with the big man in plaid.

I could come up with all sorts of hypotheticals without a real piece of land in front of me, but in the end I just try to let the land dictate whats best....oh, maybe play around with switching short fours and long threes or long fours and short fives in an attempt to balance a card....all things being equal.

...but one really shouldn't work against good "quirk" if it exists...embrace it,  nurture it, and it will repay you in kind [whatever "kind" is....is it a measurable commodity?].

[Peter Pallotta]

John -

I think I'm probably misunderstanding your question, and even if I am understanding it I should probably leave it to the professionals to answer....but here goes anyway:

I think you're asking about one of the most difficult value-judgments of all (even more than whether an architect has gotten the most out of a site).  Variety, psychology, shot-testing, pace of play, flow, walkability and aesthetics are all tied to/dependent on good hole sequencing.

And what IS good/proper hole sequencing? Beats me. But I'm guessing it's an area/skill where all the training in the world doesn't replace an architect's instincts for what works.

On Mike Devries' The Mines, there are back to back Par 3s on the front nine, but situated in an open and natural expanse of valley such that you're also right next to a Par 3 from the back nine.

Well, the feeling I got stepping up to the first Par 3, the openess and naturalness of it and the look I got at 3 golf holes all at once, was so pleasing to me I have to say that THAT was the epitome of good sequencing....for THAT site that is.

Peter

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

In short, better golf holes make better courses?  And, where collections of holes are about equal, THEN and only then, start worrying about how the round falls in terms of sequence?

I have been thinking about it, and that's about where I come down on it in actual routing and design.

[paul cowley]

Jeff....you and I know from experience, and Peter knows from some kind of osmotic ability to understand things regardless of actual experience, that this is one of those questions one finds on this site that really can't be answered without sounding like a blithering idiot......to try to answer something so hypothetical just begets endless qualifying and citing of exceptions to the rule that before you know it, you find yourself on some kind of forth dimensional mobius strip of uncertainty.... where you are not even sure where you started to begin with.....or when to get off.

Actually, its really not a bad question....its just that if I was finally able to produce an answer, I would probably as a consequence go out in my backyard and shoot myself.

I can though, from my own experience, cite what makes ANGC, Cypress Points and Pebble's sequences either good or bad because they are grounded by their site.....real and in terra firma.

Which is another reason I want to reverse Pebbles sequence from #9 thru #13.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul C,

Hey, that moniker describes your golf swing to a "T"!  Back to reality....

Having written a fair bit on the subject of gca, yeah, whenever you try to put complex sequential thought into a few sound bites, it sounds somewhat idiotic....if not to me, then to whoever reads it.  And, yeah, whenever I think about golf course architecture too deeply, I have the urge to go out back and shoot you, too!

Now, who is this Pebbles?  Are you no longer with Miss Dawn?

(insert grins and giggles)

[Mike McGuire]

The perfect first four hole sequence is 4-4-5-3

[Joe Hancock]

The perfect first four hole sequence is 4-4-5-3

What if the first 4 holes are:

medium length par 4

medium length par 4

long par 4

short, potentially driveable par 4

?

Joe

[paul cowley]

OK Mike....I'll give it a stab....I have always liked 554444433.

But I have yet to find the perfect site in Kansas to try it out.

[Mike McGuire]

The perfect first four hole sequence is 4-4-5-3

What if the first 4 holes are:

medium length par 4

medium length par 4

long par 4

short, potentially driveable par 4

?

Joe

Joe -

Im sure this sequence exists - and is awesome - but on paper is it the best?

the rest of the perfect sequence - 45434

[Brad Swanson]

The perfect first four hole sequence is 4-4-5-3

What if the first 4 holes are:

medium length par 4

medium length par 4

long par 4

short, potentially driveable par 4

?

Joe

Joe -

Im sure this sequence exists - and is awesome - but on paper is it the best?

the rest of the perfect sequence - 45434

Wow, I just happen to know a course that has this front 9 hole sequence in WI!  Go figure!.

Brad

[mike_beene]

So how do you guys feel when someone reverses your nines.

[Adam Clayman]

Obviously lots of interpretations of what John meant.
 
I'll start with an exception to his one certainty, the 8th at Pebble. At those times of the day when the play slows, bottleneck always happens on 8 tee.
 Anyone who bitches about being stranded, for an extra amount of time, at that particular spot on this planet, should really examine what's wrong deep within themselves.

I'd also agree with Jeff. How many players actually look down at the card when they are traversing land like that found on the front nine at The Downs?

My understanding of ebb and flow can possibly be conveyed to others through examples, not words, and, certainly not numbers. The thought that occurred to me was both Pebble and Merion make for great examples. DeVries Greywalls is a modern day example where the sequences accentuate the whole.

Paul, You know on the surface you're right about the reverse loop, if only to get 11 downhill, but in reality I sense the sequence of holes, their ebb and flow, their mojo, would be negatively altered. Counter intuitiveness at it's finest. In a Golf's 2+2 does not equal 4 kind of way. Besides, it is not how one would walk the raw property. With Carmel Bay calling, one would not head inland at that point. Changing that turn for home would be risky.

[Mike McGuire]

Wow, I just happen to know a course that has this front 9 hole sequence in WI!  Go figure!.

Brad

Brad-

You are correct that is the sequence of my home course West Bend CC in Wisconsin. The reason I like the sequence so much is I have 25 years of playing it to observe how well its works

[Scott Stambaugh]

Interested in some feedback on something bothersome but (I guess) a necessary reality in country club life- the shotgun start.

Case in point- I played in a tournament last weekend, my starting hole was #5, a driveable par 4.  Because of the shotgun format, my first swing of the day.  #1, #2 and #4 of this course provide you lots of room off the tee, giving you a chance to pound driver and hopefully get things worked out in anticipation of giving the green a go on #5.  As a first hole though, no one in the group even considered it.

So, in the modern reality of country club golf tournaments, does sequencing matter if play rarely starts on #1 and finishes on #18 anymore?  Is consideration of the golf course being played in this manner ever a consideration in design?

Scott

  

[Mike McGuire]

So how do you guys feel when someone reverses your nines.

Mike

In our case reversing the nines did not work due the second hole (#11) being a short par five which backed up play.

[paul cowley]

Adam, when you state:  "Paul, You know on the surface you're right about the reverse loop, if only to get 11 downhill, but in reality I sense the sequence of holes, their ebb and flow, their mojo, would be negatively altered. Counter intuitiveness at it's finest. In a Golf's 2+2 does not equal 4 kind of way. Besides, it is not how one would walk the raw property. With Carmel Bay calling, one would not head inland at that point. Changing that turn for home would be risky.".....I don't feel its risky at all. Its only seems risky because most people feel uncomfortable changing what they already have.....they are not looking at it with a designing eye on the land in its raw state. I do.

If one views it purely on the card, the reverse sequence does a better job of balancing the ocean asset and experience.

Instead of having your ocean holes as 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and then returning to the ocean for 17 and 18, the reverse sequence course would consist of 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, on the ocean and then return for 11, 12, 13, go back inland again for 14, 15, 16, and finish with 17 and 18.....for five holes on the returning nine, versus the current 3 holes. I actually liked the sequencing provided by using the old #5 better, because it provided a pause from the ocean and then a new discovery at #6 tee......that's another thread of its own.

....but that's not the meat of the change.

- reverse 13 would play downhill to a semi pocketed corner surrounded by trees and a good back slope. It even still works with the abomination of a halfway house and maintenance building complex that was plopped down in a great view filled open space....a bad, bad placement decision if there ever was one. I could forgive a well designed halfway house only....it would be a calming place to pause with great ocean views, but why the maintenance building....there is no justification.

- reverse 12 would play slightly uphill to another corner...the only uphill par three since they got rid of the old #5. Not losing alot here.

- reverse 11 would play directly towards the ocean [like 17], but the hole would also start at the highest elevation of the course and finish at one of its lowest. It would dogleg gently left and finish in the corner with Carmel beach spreading out below.....awesome hole compared to the existing one.

- reverse 10 would become a left turning mini cape hole with its green tucked on an existing projection that is not used currently. The views of #8 promontory and the ocean edge are really good for this hole and the next, and the afternoon sun will do nothing but accent this drama.

- reverse 9 would play out from an elevation above the preceding green and then turn to the right with the second shot to an uphill green site....not bad.

I need to go to work....but in closing I don't feel the original routing is all that bad....routing is all about selecting among various options, and I don't feel they selected the best of the best...and besides, these guys were just amateurs anyway.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

So how do you guys feel when someone reverses your nines.

Mike, it happens so often that I usually reverse them from what I really want now so I can graciously agree to the new pros' "contribution" to the design........

That does bring up an aspect of sequencing not yet touched on - so many courses use double starts on weekends )and I always hope my courses will be busy enough to require it) so I actually consider the sequencing of each nine, rather than the entire 18, just in case.  In reality, as I mentioned, a good sequence of hard-medium-easy probably should be confined within 9 holes anyway.  I don't think anyone would consider 11 straight tough or easy holes, for example, as a good sequence.

[Anthony Gray]

  My home course opens with a par 5 that is reachable by most captians in the weekend low-ball. At times it can be 30 minutes before the next group can tee. MOLASSES!!!!

[Adam Clayman]

It even still works with the abomination of a halfway house and maintenance building complex that was plopped down in a great view filled open space....a bad, bad placement decision if there ever was one. I could forgive a well designed halfway house only....it would be a calming place to pause with great ocean views, but why the maintenance building....there is no justification.

Paul, The justification I had heard was.... Mr. Schwab was not a happy camper having the gang of loud equipment traverse near his property that early in the morning.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Maintenance building placement is a whole nother topic!  At budget courses, they are placed nearest the roads and/or utilities, even if in plain view.  At busy courses they are placed behind the first green or centrally so mowers can beat the golfers out and total travel time is reduced.  At high end courses, they are placed at greater expense at the edges of the property specifically so they will not affect play.