The topics on the survival of clubs and courses under construction got me thinking about nine-hole courses. I know the topic has been discussed on here before, but I think it bears some consideration again.
This summer, I got the chance to play Champion Hills Golf Club with John Foley. Champion Hills is a new nine-hole layout just Southeast of Rochester designed by Upstate New York architect Barry Jordan. The developer at Champion Hills originally wanted 18 holes, but he decided that 9 holes would be more feasible for now. The course, completed at the beginning of this year, is very well done.
Jordan, who is also a consulting architect at Donald Ross's Teugega in Rome, New York, definitely knows his stuff. There two great short par fours at 4 and 9 that make great use of centerline bunkering. Another hole, the wooded par five 7th, uses a centerline bunker for the tee shot. 5, my favorite hole on the course, is a long par three to modified Reverse Redan green. Jordan packed a ton of architecture into this nine-hole, par 33 layout. I don't think there is one dull hole out there. The course also takes little time to play and is in a great location as a small private club.
I would play Champion Hills over several other well-established private courses in Rochester. Jordan put a great amount of effort into every hole at Champion Hills. It seems as though a nine-hole course puts extra pressure on an architect to make every hole as distinctive and fun as possible.
Why aren't more architects and clubs building courses like this? The biggest complaints about today's game are that it takes too long to play and costs too much money. A course like Champion Hills solves these problems. Why isn't it the solution in more places?