[Ben Sims]

Are there any great courses that you can think of where the front nine is unquestionable better than the back nine?

And if you can name one, what specifically makes it better?

[Link Walsh]

Is there a lot of pressure from course owners/ clients on architects to have a better back nine, or at least have it be more exciting?  It seems like many of the courses built today are semi-private or public altogether.  With the economy the way it is and the fact that the game basically isn't growing in numbers right now, I could imagine owners wanting to have golfers leave the course with some fresh memories of why they want to come back and play again.        

[Garland Bayley]

Are there any great courses that you can think of where the front nine is unquestionable better than the back nine?

And if you can name one, what specifically makes it better?

Royal County Down. Read Ran's review.

[Ben Sims]

Link,

I would hope that owners and architects both want their golfers to return directly to the first tee.  Not the 14th.

[Garland Bayley]

Case Study: Friars Head

Do you route the front 9 in the potato field and the back 9 in the dunes to have a better finish? No! You route it so that you have comparable 9s.

As I indicated above, I think this only becomes and issue when there is not the option to balance the 9s. The players are not going to quit the match, because the front 9 is less inspiring. Whereas, the theater goer might leave after the first act if it is not inspiring. Therefore, when it comes to a situation where balance cannot be achieved, in golf favor the quality in the back 9.

[Kalen Braley]

I think ANGC really set the standard for this long ago.

As we know the 9's have been reversed since its original routing, and it begs the question why were they switched?  Because the original front 9 was thought to be the better collection of holes to provide for more drama/fun/excitement/lead changes/etc.  Or roughly translated they were the more interesting 9 holes and best saved for the end.

Game. Over.

[Tim Pitner]

As I indicated above, I think this only becomes and issue when there is not the option to balance the 9s. The players are not going to quit the match, because the front 9 is less inspiring. Whereas, the theater goer might leave after the first act if it is not inspiring. Therefore, when it comes to a situation where balance cannot be achieved, in golf favor the quality in the back 9.

Bayley,

I'm confused how your conclusion follows from your premises.  Doesn't your argument favor the quality in the front 9, much as Tom Doak was suggesting?

[Ben Sims]

Bayley,

Completely disagree.  I think that the architect can "get away" with lesser golf holes if his first half is routed and shaped in stellar fashion.  Interestingly enough, one of my favorite courses has a spectacular back nine with a good front nine, Pasatiempo.

But I still feel that a great wine (being the first thing you taste in a meal) paired with a good meal is easier to overcome than bad wine and great food.  But that's why we're human.  And I'm apparently a lush too.

[jim_lewis]

The outward nine at Cruden Bay blew me away. Outward nine, not so much. It has been nearly 20 years so I can't provide details.


Tom: I hope that every architect will do everything in his power to convince the owner that the ninth hole does not need to return to the club (nor the 18th for that matter). I have seen many courses whose routing could have been much better if it were built without regard to the location of the clubhouse. Examples: The ninth at Bandon Dunes may be the weakest hole on the course. I know that because any par 5 I can reach in two shots has to be a weak hole! The 18th at Barton Creek Foothills is one of the worst finishing holes in golf, presumably because they were determined to have the 18th green adjacent to the hotel. For that matter, I don't think either the 9th or the 18th are among the better holes at ANGC.

Jim Lewis

[Link Walsh]

Ben,

I understand what you're saying completely.  But a lot of golfers have grown up watching tournaments like the Masters and the Players Championship on t.v.  They see all the dramatic holes on the back nine and just kind of assume that's the way all courses should be.  I'm not saying it's right.  But how many courses advertise with photos from dramatic or (dare I say it) "signature holes" on the front side versus the back?  From a marketing standpoint, would course owners/ operators want to have golfers looking forward to playing those holes throughout the round and still have the memories fresh in their minds to discuss at the grill after the round?  I think it's like 2 or 3 years in a row here in America where more courses closed than opened.  I'm just curious if that ever comes up in discussions between architects and their clients.      

[Ben Sims]

Link,

Oh I forgot, NEWBIE MAFIA!!  Welcome to the site.

I think the phenoma that you mention is half the battle.  People aren't going to experience great golf architecture--the movement of land, contour, differences in grasses, when to putt vs. chip, etc.--until they get off their asses and stop thinking every course should close like a freight train just like the courses do at The Masters and The Players.  I am vehement that I shouldn't have to wait for two hours to get to the point on the golf course where it gets fun.  The concept of a signature hole having to be from the 16-18 stretch makes me want to vomit.

Jim,

Hmm, your question is an interesting one.  Since Tom started this thread after reading the latest Ballyneal thread, I wonder what Ballyneal would've been like if Tom and the guys weren't asked to return to the village area at the turn?

[Bill_McBride]

I think ANGC really set the standard for this long ago.

As we know the 9's have been reversed since its original routing, and it begs the question why were they switched?  Because the original front 9 was thought to be the better collection of holes to provide for more drama/fun/excitement/lead changes/etc.  Or roughly translated they were the more interesting 9 holes and best saved for the end.

Game. Over.

Actually, they switched the nines because the opening holes originally were down at the lowest part of the course and didn't warm up until later in the morning.  When the nines were switched, those holes weren't played until later in the morning and no frost problems.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think ANGC really set the standard for this long ago.

As we know the 9's have been reversed since its original routing, and it begs the question why were they switched?  Because the original front 9 was thought to be the better collection of holes to provide for more drama/fun/excitement/lead changes/etc.  Or roughly translated they were the more interesting 9 holes and best saved for the end.

Game. Over.

Kalen, to me I find 17 and 18 as the weakest holes on that back nine and equally 8 and 9 are weakish on the front side although 3-4 and 6 are just ok holes, the 1-7 is not as good as 10-16 tho. Although its only an opinion I have formed from the armchair.

[Link Walsh]

Thanks for the welcome Ben.  I'm right there with you on your opinion.  Even worse to me is when the last hole is the hardest par on the course.  Where's the fun in finishing with a long, difficult, uphill par 4 (just like Hazeltine next month...)?  

[Kalen Braley]

I think ANGC really set the standard for this long ago.

As we know the 9's have been reversed since its original routing, and it begs the question why were they switched?  Because the original front 9 was thought to be the better collection of holes to provide for more drama/fun/excitement/lead changes/etc.  Or roughly translated they were the more interesting 9 holes and best saved for the end.

Game. Over.

Actually, they switched the nines because the opening holes originally were down at the lowest part of the course and didn't warm up until later in the morning.  When the nines were switched, those holes weren't played until later in the morning and no frost problems.

Bill,

I like my version better even if yours makes more sense!!    

[Garland Bayley]

As I indicated above, I think this only becomes and issue when there is not the option to balance the 9s. The players are not going to quit the match, because the front 9 is less inspiring. Whereas, the theater goer might leave after the first act if it is not inspiring. Therefore, when it comes to a situation where balance cannot be achieved, in golf favor the quality in the back 9.

Bayley,

I'm confused how your conclusion follows from your premises.  Doesn't your argument favor the quality in the front 9, much as Tom Doak was suggesting?

I guess you would be confused if you thought most matches end 10 and 8 as opposed to 2 and 1.

[Garland Bayley]

I think ANGC really set the standard for this long ago.

As we know the 9's have been reversed since its original routing, and it begs the question why were they switched?  Because the original front 9 was thought to be the better collection of holes to provide for more drama/fun/excitement/lead changes/etc.  Or roughly translated they were the more interesting 9 holes and best saved for the end.

Game. Over.

Kalen,

It sounds like you are using medal play competitions for your conclusion. Since by far the majority of formal and informal competition is done with match play, methinks you give weak support for your reasoning.

[Garland Bayley]

Bayley,

Completely disagree.  I think that the architect can "get away" with lesser golf holes if his first half is routed and shaped in stellar fashion.  Interestingly enough, one of my favorite courses has a spectacular back nine with a good front nine, Pasatiempo.

But I still feel that a great wine (being the first thing you taste in a meal) paired with a good meal is easier to overcome than bad wine and great food.  But that's why we're human.  And I'm apparently a lush too.

Must be a beer drinker pretending he knows wine.

[Tim Pitner]

Bayley,

I was thinking that the end of a match creates its own excitement, thereby lessening the need for architectural excitement on the back 9.  A great front 9 can draw in the golfers while the match is still young. 

[Ben Sims]

Bayley,

Completely disagree.  I think that the architect can "get away" with lesser golf holes if his first half is routed and shaped in stellar fashion.  Interestingly enough, one of my favorite courses has a spectacular back nine with a good front nine, Pasatiempo.

But I still feel that a great wine (being the first thing you taste in a meal) paired with a good meal is easier to overcome than bad wine and great food.  But that's why we're human.  And I'm apparently a lush too.

Must be a beer drinker pretending he knows wine.

Now Bayley. Let's not hijack a good thread.  And if you're good I'll send you a bottle of Silverado's 2004 "Solo".

[Joe Hancock]

I thought the exemplary pic on page two of this thread displayed a terrific front 9....so good, I really don't care how good the back 9 is.

Joe

[Mike McGuire]

My home course has the front nine a the superior one and I prefer it that way. Standing on the first tee with a great nine in front of you is exhilarating. By the time you get to the back you are 5-6 over or 4 down and have lost interest anyway.

Also......If you only play nine you get the good one.

Play 27 and you get the good one twice.

If you have a great front nine you can forget how bad the back is sometimes until you are on 16 or something.

[Garland Bayley]

My home course has the front nine a the superior one and I prefer it that way. Standing on the first tee with a great nine in front of you is exhilarating. By the time you get to the back you are 5-6 over or 4 down and have lost interest anyway.

Also......If you only play nine you get the good one.

Play 27 and you get the good one twice.

If you have a great front nine you can forget how bad the back is sometimes until you are on 16 or something.

So what? My course has a much better back nine. Everybody in the know plays their 9 holes on the back. A lot of golfers get out and do the back before their front 9 tee time, which works out nicely for doing 27.

[Garland Bayley]

Bayley,

Completely disagree.  I think that the architect can "get away" with lesser golf holes if his first half is routed and shaped in stellar fashion.  Interestingly enough, one of my favorite courses has a spectacular back nine with a good front nine, Pasatiempo.

But I still feel that a great wine (being the first thing you taste in a meal) paired with a good meal is easier to overcome than bad wine and great food.  But that's why we're human.  And I'm apparently a lush too.

Must be a beer drinker pretending he knows wine.

Now Bayley. Let's not hijack a good thread.  And if you're good I'll send you a bottle of Silverado's 2004 "Solo".

Hey man, Robert Parker don't know Jack!

[Jason McNamara]

The other bonus of having a good front 9 - for those of us along the Gulf Coast - is that when those pop-up thunderstorms arrive out of nowhere*, you don't mind as much having to rush in from 8 or 10 or 12.

* Onshore flow sucks!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()