[Bill_McBride]

make every hole as good as you can and let the chips fall

I like the front of Wolf Point a bit better (more unusual) and I prefer the routing that way
15-17 is a hell of a stretch though

As one of the fortunate visitors, I can testify that the best stretch at Wolf Point is #1 - #18. 

And I'm not sucking up either.  Fans of The Old Course do and will appreciate Wolf Point.

[Jason Topp]

If one nine is dramatically better than the other I think you should save the best for last.  Same for difficulty.  If they are close, I don't think you can reach a general rule.  The important thing is a sequence that creates the most possible interest and enjoyment.  I tend to think in terms of birdie holes and like to see a block of holes somewhere in the round where the player needs to make good scores.

As I try to think of examples, however, my reactions are contradictory,

On my course I like the back nine better than the front.  When I start on number 10 I do not like the course as well as when I start at 1.

By contrast, I would submit Pebble Beach has a better front than back (although 14 and 18 are about as good as it gets).  I think the course would be worse if the nines were reversed.

They switched the 9's at the Classic in Brainerd for pace of play reasons.  The original back (now front) is much more difficult, although I would not say it is better or worse.  I think the course suffers from the switch.

What about Pasatiempo?  I would say the bacck is much better and am not sure I would like the course as well with reversed nines.

Tralee would suffer dramatically if you played the back first and then had to play the front.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

I know the cliche answer, and I know that every golf pro would have to say the back nine is more important.

But I was reading the Ballyneal thread and then thought about Pacific Dunes as well and the key to those courses is how quickly you are hooked by them and excited to be out there.  And the same thing is certainly true of Royal County Down and Pine Valley and Crystal Downs.  (And don't forget, Dr. MacKenzie had the nines at Augusta reversed to start with.)

So, is it REALLY important for the back nine to be better, or is that just because of television?  Think about your own favorites before you give me a stock answer.

Tom,

To quote Arnold Palmer, " If you don't birdie the first hole, you can't birdie all eighteen holes"

If you're asking the question in the context that you can only have one great nine, it might depend upon whether you're at match or stroke play.

It would seem desirable to have a great front nine in match play because you might only play a few holes on the back nine.

If it's stroke play, does it matter which nine is great, since you're condemning the golfer to only have one great nine ?

If I had my druthers, I'd rather have a great back nine since that would strengthen my outlook on the next day's round.
It would also signal, that despite the front nine, I was able to rally and put together a great back nine.
It also says that you're not a quitter, but, a fighter, and I like that.

[Daryn_Soldan]

I would prefer to see a great back nine. Like many posters on this topic I immediately considered the quality of the other nine in my decision. In the end I'm not sure it makes a darn bit of difference if the other nine is also of high quality but not necessarily "great". However, if there is an obviously noticeable difference in quality I'd prefer the better nine come later in the round. My perception has always been that in cases where one nine is significantly better, a great front nine will be drug down by a pedestrian back nine while a great back nine can rescue a less than stellar opening stretch.

That being said, I think that too often attempts at back nine greatness, particularly on the last few holes, results in unnecessary difficulty. While there is nothing wrong with a challenging back nine or finishing few holes, a course that concludes with a slog of long difficult holes forces the golfer into a hang-on-for-dear-life attitude. I'm sure many of us can think of a course that concludes with several holes that are among the course's longest with respect to their par and feature a high concentration of hazards. As an alternative I'd prefer to see a birdie opportunity or two among the final 3-4 holes of a round. The finishing holes should allow for a golfer to turn a good round into a career one or resurrect a round that may have started poorly or stagnated. Of course the beauty of strategic challenge and risk-reward later in the round is that the opportunity to royally screw up is also on the table.

In my opinion, a great nine holes can be assumed to be situated on some unique terrain and contain a collection of interesting holes that present strategic challenge and require thoughtful play. I’m also assuming that great does not necessarily equal pure difficulty. Risk - reward is often part of the “great” equation and I think it is better served as part of the back nine. I've run this idea past several folks I play golf with and most agreed that they would be much less likely to take on risk early in the round as opposed to later on. Of course the alternative thought process is that successful risk taking or challenging of the course early on can lead to a great round while early mistakes leave plenty of holes to recover. I fall into the line of thinking that wouldn't take a lot of early risks. For this reason I'm not sure that I would want to see the nines at Augusta National returned to their original configuration, for either tournament or member play. Whether its the final round of a major tournament or just a casual round with friends, the chances of taking risks to make birdies would be more likely to occur later in the round. Holes of great strategic merit thus might be played more cautiously or left unchallenged if they occur early in the round (assuming that is the only place they are found - this is not advocating meritless early holes, only reasoning that they could be better served on the back nine if a choice between nines had to be made).

[Jim Nugent]

A great back nine gives you something to look forward to the entire round. 

A great front nine can leave you vaguely disappointed, once you finish it. 

[Sean_A]

It doesn't matter to me which side is better so long as there are plenty of good holes.  I look at courses more in terms of stretches and it is rare for a very good stretch to last 9 holes.  Start easy and let the best holes slide in here and there.  Its always a plus to have enough holes so the finishing stretch is a goodun - especially the last.  Mind you, there is nothing wrong with an easy finisher to top off a great stretch.  TOC and N Berwick end pleasantly and I don't complain about that. 

The bottom line, a course can't be measured properly in terms of 9s.  I can recall thinking the back 9 of St Georges Hill was superior to the front 9, but many disagreed - so who can tell these things?

Ciao

[Mike_Clayton]

Tony Johnstone - the pro from Zimbabwe who grew up with Nick Price and McNulty and Leadbetter - played a World Cup a few years ago and was joined in the pro-am by the course's designer. It was a designer for whose work he had a particular dislike.

The said designer told him after the front nine 'well that is the entree, now for the main course'
Johnstone came straight back with 'I've already got food poisoning.'

[Bradley Anderson]

In the musical theatre they always put the best numbers in the first act.

[Ross Tuddenham]

How many very lopsided courses are there with one truly great nine and one poor nine?

I suppose if it was nip and tuck between the nines you would say the front nine. As that would mean a few weaker holes at the start of the back nine would be forgiven through the mood the front nine put you in.

But if it was truly lopsided then I don’t think it would matter.

[Niall C]

Why think of it in terms of back nine and front nine ? I think the most important part of the routing is the flow of the course, by that I mean looking at the sequence of the holes as a whole rather than in sections. Inevitably some holes are going to be better (how do you define better ?) than others but I think as long as the final few holes aren't a let down you don't mind where in the round the best holes are IMHO.

Niall 

[Kenny Baer]

It doesn't matter to me which side is better so long as there are plenty of good holes.  I look at courses more in terms of stretches and it is rare for a very good stretch to last 9 holes.  Start easy and let the best holes slide in here and there.  Its always a plus to have enough holes so the finishing stretch is a goodun - especially the last.  Mind you, there is nothing wrong with an easy finisher to top off a great stretch.  TOC and N Berwick end pleasantly and I don't complain about that. 

The bottom line, a course can't be measured properly in terms of 9s.  I can recall thinking the back 9 of St Georges Hill was superior to the front 9, but many disagreed - so who can tell these things?

Ciao

Well said; a golf course is a group of 18 holes with each hole its own entity.  I would not prefer 1 nine to be "better"; IMO golf courses should have a consistent flow and a sense of adventure.  With every "Great" course in the world I bet you could find intelligent GCA aficionado’s that think the front 9 is better and intelligent aficionados’ that think the back 9 is better.  The less than great courses are the ones that typically have 9 holes superior to any other 9 on the same course.

[Andy Troeger]

I don't think it makes a lot of difference--I'd prefer a balance of the best holes instead of having them all on one side or the other.

One round where I remember the sequencing being important was Shoreacres--there are many good holes but the most exciting part of the property is #10-15. We started on #10 and played those holes first, but that left a lot of golf left to be played afterward that wasn't quite at the high of that "starting" stretch. I think the flow would be better in the normal order where you get to those holes in the middle of the round and then only have a few left at the end. Without having played it, the same thing could likely be said for Augusta, where its #10-16 that often create the largest variety of scoring.

So my point there is that you don't want all the best holes right at the beginning. I would tend to say right at the end is only slightly better. If a course is only going to have one great stretch put it in the middle if possible.

[Kalen Braley]

Why think of it in terms of back nine and front nine ? I think the most important part of the routing is the flow of the course, by that I mean looking at the sequence of the holes as a whole rather than in sections. Inevitably some holes are going to be better (how do you define better ?) than others but I think as long as the final few holes aren't a let down you don't mind where in the round the best holes are IMHO.

Niall 

I think Niall really comes closest to how I feel.  It seems one should just try to identify the best 18 holes that can be routed together and go with that.  If it happens to be returning 9s, then the only decision is which 9 to make the front or back.

If it works out that one 9 is noticeably better than the other 9, then my preference would be to play the "better 9" last. Pasatiempo comes to mind for this.  That way you have something to keep your attention and anticipate while you're playing the "lesser" 9.... almost a teaser or appetizer of sorts before the main course.  And its no slight on the front 9 at Pasa because there are some excellent holes, but that back 9 is just epic IMO.

But if both 9's are fantastic like Pac Dunes, Ballyneal, CPC, etc, then I could care less which 9 I play 1st or last because its all awesome!!! 

[Tom_Doak]

For those who ask why break it into nines, it is just a fact that many projects require the ninth to return to the clubhouse, a setup which always leaves a choice.  If the ninth doesn't return, then I generally find the ebb-and-flow more important than how the course divides down the middle.

One of the reasons I asked the question is that Bill Coore thinks I should have started with the back nine holes at Barnbougle first, because the front is more dramatic.  My actual reason for the order was so you wouldn't have to play nine straight holes into the prevailing wind in the middle of the round (the whole course plays east-west among the dunes, in a prevailing wind from the west) ... so we started from the middle into the wind with four holes, turned downwind in the middle, and finished back into the wind.  But, in general I think I might biased in favor of a sexy front nine.

[George Pazin]

It doesn't much matter to me, although I will say I am tiring of the long brutal closer. My own preference would be a half par birdie hole to a half par bogey hole, if that makes sense.

Leave 'em with a smile.

[Bob_Huntley]

Tony Johnstone - the pro from Zimbabwe who grew up with Nick Price and McNulty and Leadbetter - played a World Cup a few years ago and was joined in the pro-am by the course's designer. It was a designer for whose work he had a particular dislike.

The said designer told him after the front nine 'well that is the entree, now for the main course'
Johnstone came straight back with 'I've already got food poisoning.'

Mike,

Not a golfing remembrance but Tony's  quick quip reminds me of the story from WWII ,circa 1943, of two squaddies in Cairo .

They are walking along a scummy street in the red light district and some old harridan puts her head out of the window and says
" Hello boys, do want to have a good time." The soldiers ignore her.

 She follows up with "I'll give yer something you've never had before."

One guy says to the other, "Gor blimey mate, leprosy."


Bob
 

[Bill_McBride]

Why think of it in terms of back nine and front nine ? I think the most important part of the routing is the flow of the course, by that I mean looking at the sequence of the holes as a whole rather than in sections. Inevitably some holes are going to be better (how do you define better ?) than others but I think as long as the final few holes aren't a let down you don't mind where in the round the best holes are IMHO.

Niall 

I made a similar response early in this thread and then realized Tom Doak really asked an either / or question.  But I share your feelings on this, and don't think it is ever a good idea to have one clearly superior nine.  Pacing and flow are more important in my opinion.

[Norbert P]

It's great to have a good front nine and good to have a great back nine.

[jeffwarne]

I think great finishes are overrated, and one of the unfortunate consequences of golf on television.   Courses should be designed for matchplay and too often great holes are wasted if the best holes are saved for last.  At least this is true for me since I am usually closed out by then.  

Prairie Dunes' arguably has a better front nine, as does Crystal Downs in my opinion.   The setup suits both courses well.  

I'd prefer a nice flow, but if I had to choose one over another, I'd take a stronger front nine.

being close out is mentioned several times on the thread.
Do you guys never press? Do you walk in when the original match is over?

Certainly having ing the original match closed out couldn't cheapen the thrill of an architecturally great 17th or 18th hole.

[Garland Bayley]

This is not musical theater! Matches don't finish on the front 9. Since the course is where matches are played, and those matches always finish on the back 9, I would prefer the better strategy and interest on the back 9, i.e., the better holes on the back 9. Note that difficulty has very little to do with quality. Any Jo Shmoe archie can make difficult holes.

That said, why are we discussing this? Probably, because some land available for building a course is not amenable for equal quality throughout a routing of all 18. The preference of course is for both nines to be great, but some land would require that one nine be sacrificed to the other nine. In that case, the better nine should be the back IMO.

[Marty Bonnar]

I've inadvertently found myself comparing a round of golf to various musical forms recently. I seem to most appreciate a course which presents a number of differing challenges within a context of some cohesion.
I'd guess the closest thing might be a Symphony. A number of movements with differing tempos and rhythms, but with a clear underlying common theme.

I like an opening Intro, Overture and Beginners which sets the overall feel for the Course. Let's compare that to the first three or four holes at North Berwick, say. Nothing outstanding, but fun, challenging and a sample of what's to come.

Then perhaps an exciting Allegro which expands upon those first themes and explores them further. Out to 8 or 9 at NB and the wildness is beginning and repeating landforms and challenges begin to establish and set the tone for the round.

Now a delicate minuet or dynamic scherzo which takes the theme and really kicks it up a gear. Shots over walls at 13, mad blindness at 14 and THE REDAN!!!

To close, a sexy Rondo. 16 over another wall to THAT Green and 17 over the skinnymalinky bunker and 18 with OB and the welcoming clubhouse in sight.

Only one extra request: Katherine Jenkins for our mezzo-soprano as my caddie...Hubbahubbahubba....drool

FBD.

[Bill Brightly]

I think there should be a balance between the nines, so much so that even the members and regular players debate which is better. I think there should be a few tough holes on each and a few breather holes.

Put differently, I think it is design WEAKNESS if there is a large difference between the nines.

The best example of the balance I prefer is Ridgewood, which has THREE equally good nines and I still can't decide which I like better. Each of the nines has at least 2 truly outstanding holes, hence the composite 18 that was used for the Barclays. So I would say that was part of Tillinghasts's genius, his ability to provide equally ineteresting nines.

[Dan Boerger]

If one nine has to be better, I prefer it be the back.

I prefer, however, both to be good to great and that there not be too much of a difference between the two nines.

One thing I've learned since I've been participating on this board is that there are plenty of people who are significantly more entertaining in the way they write ... so I can only state the course that I played the seemed to flow like a fine symphony was Seminole.

[Adrian_Stiff]

If one nine has to be better, I prefer it be the back.

I think Dan has summed up the way I feel perfectly.

[Bill Brightly]

Only one extra request: Katherine Jenkins for our mezzo-soprano as my caddie...Hubbahubbahubba....drool

FBD.
[/quote]

Aye, Marty, but will she be finding yer ball in the heather?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()