Changing the order of holes

[Mike_Clayton]

The Composite Course at Royal Melbourne has been played in wildly different orders in recent tournaments, mainly for logistical reasons - but the members always go back to the regular numbering
Tournament play aside, are there any established courses that have and significantly changed the order of holes for non-tournament play?

[Scott Warren]

Mike,

Cypress Lakes in the Hunter Valley made a significant change a few years back.

The course originally opened with a par five that required a 160-yard water carry from the tee, followed by a long par three over a hillside of thick vegetation.

Those holes are now the 14th and 15th, with the old back nine now played first and the two loops that made up the old front nine now played in reverse order (ie. using old hole numbers the course now plays 10-18, 6-9, 1-5).

[David_Tepper]

Didn't Ballybunion change the order of play when the new clubhouse was built there 30+ years ago?

[Scott Warren]

Did National Golf Links not do something similar? Do I recall correctly that it originally started out by Shinny and the current 10th was the 1st, then the hole numbers changed when they built the new clubhouse over by the water?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Didn't Ballybunion change the order of play when the new clubhouse was built there 30+ years ago?

From 1926 to 1985 (I think), Ballybunion played its first as the 6th in the same sequence thus finishing with the two long par-5's (4 & 5)...

There must be numerous other examples...

Isn't Banff in Canada a famous re-sequence?

[RichMacafee]

Didn't Ballybunion change the order of play when the new clubhouse was built there 30+ years ago?

Yes. The clubhouse used to be where the current hut is, and the current 6th was the 1st.

This is not quite the same as changing the order of holes - it's still keeping the same sequence and flow, just with a different start and finishing point.

[Sean_A]

Didn't Ballybunion change the order of play when the new clubhouse was built there 30+ years ago?

Yes. The clubhouse used to be where the current hut is, and the current 6th was the 1st.

This is not quite the same as changing the order of holes - it's still keeping the same sequence and flow, just with a different start and finishing point.

You lost me Rich. Isn't changing the order of holes an exercise in re-numbering without making any actual architectural alterations?

Ciao

[Matthew Rose]

Banff used to start at what is now the 15th and end at the 14th, I believe.

Medinah did when they built that new 18th hole and changed the old 17th to the 13th and a few others.

[Cristian]

Hilversumsche comes to mind. In recent years the order was changed, probably to minimize the crossings of the public footpath. Players were returning to the clubhouse after 14 rather than 9 holes. Until 1965 this was the original routing, if I remember correctly. This change for tournament play was not yet the case when you played here in the dutch open, I believe.

Augusta is of course another famous example, but as with some of the other examples mentioned, that was not for tournament play. Wasn't also Hoylake played in a different sequence when the Open was last played there?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Didn't Ballybunion change the order of play when the new clubhouse was built there 30+ years ago?

Yes. The clubhouse used to be where the current hut is, and the current 6th was the 1st.

This is not quite the same as changing the order of holes - it's still keeping the same sequence and flow, just with a different start and finishing point.

You lost me Rich. Isn't changing the order of holes an exercise in re-numbering without making any actual architectural alterations?

Ciao

I know where Rich is coming from completely.

When you re-sequence the holes in the same order of 18 (just dunted along a bit), it isn't quite the same as completely re-sequencing and therefore walking from one green to a different tee-site - one not originally intended.... In the case of Ballybunion, you always walked from green to the intended tee.

A good one is County Louth / Baltray which alsoi changed from the Tom Simpson routing because of a new clubhouse in the 80's...

Original routing ran:

Front nine: 4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3
Back nine: 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,10

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Didn't Ballybunion change the order of play when the new clubhouse was built there 30+ years ago?

From 1926 to 1985 (I think), Ballybunion played its first as the 6th in the same sequence thus finishing with the two long par-5's (4 & 5)...

There must be numerous other examples...

Isn't Banff in Canada a famous re-sequence?

Ally,

Ballybunion moved the clubhouse long before that, as I played it in July/August 1985. I think it may have been done in the late 60s or early 70s. I'll see if I can dig out the actual date somewhere.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Didn't Ballybunion change the order of play when the new clubhouse was built there 30+ years ago?

From 1926 to 1985 (I think), Ballybunion played its first as the 6th in the same sequence thus finishing with the two long par-5's (4 & 5)...

There must be numerous other examples...

Isn't Banff in Canada a famous re-sequence?

Ally,

Ballybunion moved the clubhouse long before that, as I played it in July/August 1985. I think it may have been done in the late 60s or early 70s. I'll see if I can dig out the actual date somewhere.

Yes - Looking at notes, it appears to have moved position after land purchase in 1971 with new clubhouse built in 1993...

[Mike_Clayton]

Christian,

Hilversum is a good example. I remember we played there in 1980 and when we came back it was completely different. The par 3 away from the clubhouse went from 15 (?) to 10 from memory.

[Adam Clayman]

You lost me Rich. Isn't changing the order of holes an exercise in re-numbering without making any actual architectural alterations?

Ciao

Sean, Bannf is one course where the different sequence has a huge impact on the Architecture. Specifically the flow. So RichMacafee, your statement couldn't be further from the truth.

It's becoming more and more apparent that the influence of hole by hole analysis, is detracting fromthe evaluation and analysis of the whole.

[David Harshbarger]

They are reversing a mid-nine change in order at Philly Cricket Wissahickon.  The routing has to be compact enough to make a change like that feasible. 

   This is such a cool property. I was fortunate to play it on the 8th of June with two members. I can't wait to see the restoration of Hell's half acre on 4 and the quarter acre bunkering on 14. It will also be neat to experience the new tee and green reconstruction on 15, the redan. I'm trying to imagine the existing 7th as a long par 4. It's a stout test now, I'm certain it will be even better next year after it reopens.

Congratulations to the members for having the vision and patience for the transformation.

We will likely return the course to the original routing. 1-2-3-7-8-9-4-5-6. Tough opening seven!

That was the routing for the first 30 years or so. The reason for the change is lost to history.

[Greg Gilson]

Richard/Mike, Old Course at National (Australia) same type of change as Ballybunion (Old) when they built the new courses & "clubhouse". I know that's probably not an answer to the question you're asking.

PS. Mike, nice work on the Greg Norman "Australian Story" that aired tonight.

[John Mayhugh]

Did National Golf Links not do something similar? Do I recall correctly that it originally started out by Shinny and the current 10th was the 1st, then the hole numbers changed when they built the new clubhouse over by the water?

That change worked out rather well.

[Cristian]

Christian,

Hilversum is a good example. I remember we played there in 1980 and when we came back it was completely different. The par 3 away from the clubhouse went from 15 (?) to 10 from memory.

Yes the hole numbers you mention are correct. Interestingly for the Dutch open the routing has changed back to where the par3 away from the clubhouse is the 15th, as before 1965, whereas the members since 1965 play it as the 10th.

For the most recent dutch open the course played: 1,2,3,13-17,4-12,18. This is by my knowledge the old routing of before 1965. The loops 4-12 and 13-17 have been flipped to arrive at the clubhouse after 9 holes at the expense of slightly longer tee to green walks on some holes. Did you notice a relevant difference between the two routings?

[Jim Nugent]

Congressional changed its configuration a few times for tournament play.  I don't know what happened for members, though. 

[BCrosby]

Hoylake is another example.

[Pete_Pittock]

Reserve Vineyards North (Cupp)
Using todays routing as 1-18, the old routing was
10,11,12,13,14,15,  7,8,9 1,2,3,4,5,6, 16,17,18. They traded out a mid lenght par 4 which was about 150 yards from the proshop because of better control. Most of the time there is a starter with a radio. Plus a delaying par 3 2nd. The new first hole, a reachable par 5 does have its tee next to the practice green. With a easy opener and a difficult second we still back up on the second tee

[Bill Brightly]

Saucon Valley changes the rotation on the back nine of their Old Course for USGA events such as the US Sr. Open and US Women's Open. There is an inside three-hole loop and an outside six-hole loop for normal member play, but they swap this for events because the regualr 18th hole is too close to the clubhouse to allow for 18th hole grandstands. I wish SVCC would keep the event routing!

[Sean_A]

Hoylake is another example.

Bob

It was the other way around.  Hoylake changed the order of holes for both the Men's & Women's Opens, but member play is still the traditional sequence starting with Course as the first hole and Stand as the last.  

Adam

Its debatable if architecture actually changes with a change in the sequence of holes.  What do folks think about this?  I can see it either way if depending on what people define as architecture.

Ciao

[D_Malley]

I always wanted to change the sequence of our back nine at Paxon Hollow, with the purpose of improving pace of play.

the current routing has the two par 3's on 15 & 17 (16 is a 300yrd par 4).

if we were to change the sequence to 10,11,12,16,15,13,14,17,18.

the 13th and 16th tees are right next to each other.

this would put two longer more challenging par 4's in between the two par 3's.

My thought is that this may help to spread out the groups better so there would not be as much waiting on the par 3's.

for those of you familiar with our course, let me know what you think?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Adam

Its debatable if architecture actually changes with a change in the sequence of holes.  What do folks think about this?  I can see it either way if depending on what people define as architecture.

Ciao

The only thing that changes is the flow... Which is incredibly important of course.

Rich's point was if the sequencing is different (as opposed to just shifted numbers) then this is a bigger change... Because you are changing green to tee walks as well as flow...

It's all architectural really... Even if there is no physical change to the land and individual holes.