If the front 9 is the much better 9...

[John Foley]

is the routing flawed?

My question is based upon the idea that the round is a journey (or a song / movie / symphony) where it builds to a crescendo then leaves witness with great deal of satisfaction in the end.

Does a course whose back 9 not have the same build up, does not drive the same emotions from the player, constitute a flawed routing?

[Mike Nuzzo]

depends on how good the 9s are
it wouldn't be my goal, but could be the best possible course
so I say no

If Pacific Grove had their 9s switched - I'd prefer it - one could just go play 9 then leave

[Ronald Montesano]

You know how "Hotel California" goes on for another 60-90 seconds after the lyrics end...Is that bad architecture?

[Brad Tufts]

I've always thought this is interesting when you consider than many links layouts are oriented parallel to a pair of dune ridges the adjacent to the ocean.

Some layouts go out along the ocean for 9 before returning on the inland side (like Royal Aberdeen), while some go out on the inland side and come back along the ocean (like Royal Dornoch). Some twist in the middle, with both nines touching the ocean at some point (Castle Stuart, Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes).

Maybe the modern links have corrected the Golden Age links issue of having only one showcase 9?

[Jaeger Kovich]

Fenway in Westchester County, NY always seems to be well liked and highly rated. The holes 1-6 on front 9 is routed on one side of the clubhouse with the remainder of the course set on the other more severe side of the property. While there definitely is no room to cross over or intertwine the two sides on the smaller, eastern side of the clubhouse, it certainly makes for a very good start and better front 9, although I'm sure some will argue about how great a starting hole #1 is.

[JNC Lyon]

You know how "Hotel California" goes on for another 60-90 seconds after the lyrics end...Is that bad architecture?

No, because that 60-90 seconds constitutes one of the great guitar solos in rock.

To the main point, an ideal routing for me is one that gets the most out of the land that's there.  If that means an incredible front nine and a decent back nine, that's fine.  However, I'm guessing that most great routings will have some sort of balance to them.  If a routing is top-heavy, I might argue that it's weak, not because it's top-heavy, but because the architect didn't get the most out of the site.  I'd say the same thing about a bottom-heavy routing too--it always bothered me when the 18th hole was the so-called "signature" hole, because it seemed the architect put a lot into that one hole and just ignored the rest of the golf course.

[Andy Troeger]

Spyglass Hill is often cited as an example of a "flawed routing" because the best holes are at the beginning of the course. I'm not really convinced there's a better option, however. Flipping the nines would put those holes in the middle of the course, but could make them seem disjointed from the rest of the property even more than the current setup. I also think the forest holes are of a high quality, however, so that helps.

Lancaster CC in Pennsylvania is a course where, to me, the front nine makes the course. The stretch from #3-7 is truly unique compared to the rest of the course, which is still good but more subtle. I believe that property was acquired later, however, so it goes to show how courses evolve over time. It still blends together very well, and the back nine is strong enough to hold up its end of the bargain.

[Tim Nugent]

Flipping the 9's at SGH's would make it more interesting for me.  Just knowing those dunes holes are coming would be a nice aspect to look forward to. But you are right, they would be in the middle of the round.  To correct what people deem a SGH's flaw would have required the whole routing to be reversed (switaching green ant tee locations) so 18 green would be #1 tee and #1 tee - #18 green.  Then you would end up with a CPC routing. And, if you were to go that far, the clubhouse should be above the current 2nd hole and the hole #'s moved back 1 (1, 18,17,,...Etc.)

The one course I wold like to just switch the 9's is Crystal Downs. I just like the flavor of the front 9 better than the back.  I wonder if the stout #1 & 2 were #10 & 11 would fit better and what impact there would be knowing that #8 was lurking ahead for the whole round?  Downside would be #9 as a finishing hole.  For some reason  I just have never been able to get my head around Par 3 starting or finishing holes. 

[Jud_T]

Many would say this is the case at Kingsley, but it works just fine for me as is, particularly as the back is the harder and longer nine.

[Adam Clayman]

It usually means the config was switched, so yes. Unless, the opinion that the it's flawed is flawed.

Plenty of examples out there.

[Garland Bayley]

depends on how good the 9s are
it wouldn't be my goal, but could be the best possible course
so I say no

If Pacific Grove had their 9s switched - I'd prefer it - one could just go play 9 then leave

Why would you be so satisfied with playing the inferior 9?

[JNC Lyon]

Spyglass Hill is often cited as an example of a "flawed routing" because the best holes are at the beginning of the course. I'm not really convinced there's a better option, however. Flipping the nines would put those holes in the middle of the course, but could make them seem disjointed from the rest of the property even more than the current setup. I also think the forest holes are of a high quality, however, so that helps.

Lancaster CC in Pennsylvania is a course where, to me, the front nine makes the course. The stretch from #3-7 is truly unique compared to the rest of the course, which is still good but more subtle. I believe that property was acquired later, however, so it goes to show how courses evolve over time. It still blends together very well, and the back nine is strong enough to hold up its end of the bargain.

Andy,

Spot on regarding Lancaster.  The front nine is definitely stronger than the back nine, mostly because holes 3 through 7 are so unique.  And yes, that property was acquired later (in fact, I believe those holes were the last Flynn ever built).  However, I would say the routing there is anything but flawed.  In fact, except for the shoehorned par-five 13th, the routing is extremely clever, running in a series of circles to catch all of the property's landform's in the right places.  So what if the front nine is stronger?  Those are a great set of golf holes, but the back nine isn't a letdown.

Why does the front nine being better than the back nine work at Lancaster?  Because Lancaster's routing gets the most out of the property as it can, letting the great holes fall where they may.  Having a dramatic finishing hole doesn't hurt its cause, either.