[Mark Fedeli]

The Forest Dunes thread got me thinking about how a reversible golf course would be a wonderful way for someone to better understand GCA.

In trying to determine their favorite of the two directions, as most will certainly do, a player will not be influenced by contrasting scenery, conditioning, marketing, or other distractions. Whether they know it or not, their decision will be based on the quality and strategy of the course as it is on the ground. Whether they know it or not, they will have learned something about GCA. That's good stuff.

[Frank Pont]

And its a very efficient use of less land to achieve two courses, that is what drew Tom Simpson to it.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I will be interested to see what (if any) are good reasons. I can think of a few 'ok' reasons but not enough to over-rule the 'superior' routing. Strangely one of our projects at the moment has the abililty to be played backwards fairly easily.

[Mark Fedeli]

And its a very efficient use of less land to achieve two courses, that is what drew Tom Simpson to it.

Frank, thanks for including the Simpson piece in the other thread. Will give that a good read tonight.

[Jim Nugent]

I will be interested to see what (if any) are good reasons. I can think of a few 'ok' reasons but not enough to over-rule the 'superior' routing. Strangely one of our projects at the moment has the abililty to be played backwards fairly easily.

That's my initial reaction too.  I think I'd rather have one better course, than two lesser ones.  Also, if one course is not as liked as the other, will the members really appreciate having two?  Or will they be pissed off at only being able to play their preferred course half the time? 

[Tom_Doak]

I will be interested to see what (if any) are good reasons. I can think of a few 'ok' reasons but not enough to over-rule the 'superior' routing. Strangely one of our projects at the moment has the abililty to be played backwards fairly easily.

That's my initial reaction too.  I think I'd rather have one better course, than two lesser ones.  Also, if one course is not as liked as the other, will the members really appreciate having two?  Or will they be pissed off at only being able to play their preferred course half the time? 

If one course is significantly better than the other and everyone thinks so, the course won't be played the other way around for long.  That's why they gave up reversing The Old Course at St. Andrews.  And that's why I would rather have waited to tell the world what we are trying to do at Forest Dunes ... if someone here hadn't leaked it.

However, I'm not sure it's always the case that one routing is far superior to others, if the ground is relatively flat and the views aren't extraordinary.  I think there is great potential for the holes to be very different from one another, and still be good in both directions.  Now I've just gotta pull it off.

[Jud_T]

From the peanut gallery it seems the prerequisite is subtly contoured ground without drop dead views.  If this is the case I see no reason why one would have to compromise or that both courses couldn't be equally good.  My question is would this potentially involve more dirt-moving, more shaping, more bunkering and more design time?

[Josh Tarble]

In my thinking, it's a no-brainer for a destination course.  Not only do you get 2 courses for the price of 1, but it almost forces guests to stay for an extra day.  Rather than playing both courses in one day, they need to stay and play the other routing another day.

Sure, one version will probably end up being better than the other, but that ensures people stay 2 days so they get to play their favorite direction.

I would think the only worry would be that both the forward and reverse are too similar.  If there isn't enough variety between the two, what's the point of two different courses?

[Mark Fedeli]

I will be interested to see what (if any) are good reasons. I can think of a few 'ok' reasons but not enough to over-rule the 'superior' routing. Strangely one of our projects at the moment has the abililty to be played backwards fairly easily.

The best reason I can think of, in addition to what Frank suggested, is the pure challenge of trying to create two great golf courses in one. Because it does have a connection to St. Andrews and the history of GCA, I think it's one of the great white whales of design.  

[Jim Nugent]

If one course is significantly better than the other and everyone thinks so, the course won't be played the other way around for long. 

In that case, better to go for the best single-course routing possible from the start. 

[Mike Bowen]

I don't know why people think there will be sacrifices made to make the course reversible.  It will obviously take a little extra work to route and get shaping correct, but I've played many greens that I thought would be equally fun if not more enjoyable to play to from a different direction.  As well there are many fairways that come to mind that would be the same.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Well there were no even 'okay' answers to convince me there.

I can see the sense for maintenance issues to rest ground, especially in the UK.

Having a different route each day will do less not more to attract visitors.

I think many architects have a romantic issue with a reversible course, I too kind of like the idea but whilst in one of our current projects a couple of pairs of holes reverse nicely, there are still a couple of  (whats the points). So we are not there for our ego's to try and make one we are there to do the best job. Of course if the client wants a reversible them that's different but I think it is a bad call.

I think less than 1% will worry if a course is reversible or not. I think it is highly likely that in trying to achieve a reversible course at some stage a compromise will pop in to the equation. Greens rarely play well from both sides but yes it does happen sometimes. I am not sure that can be achieved all 18 times. Backdrops to holes are part of great courses and so by definition a great backdrop for a hole either natural, man made or by time evolution is not easy to achieve in both plans.

That aside it is something to watch TD try an achieve and in a few years from now his comments will be interesting if he can pull it off. I have always loved the history of the routing of TOC and would like to play the reverse, but having walked it, it is to be honest a dog, as half the holes are pretty crap with the reverse 7th the only better hole IMO though a few get close to matching.

I hope I am wrong on this one, but IMO the answer to the original question..."the potential of reversible courses" is NOT MUCH

[Tom_Doak]

I think it is highly likely that in trying to achieve a reversible course at some stage a compromise will pop in to the equation.

Adrian:  This is ridiculous.  Every time you do a routing, you have to make compromises between golf holes.  I just have to make them forwards and backwards.  At least I'm not being asked to compromise because of housing, or other outside interests. 

For me, this project is all about the golf and how well it works -- just in two directions instead of one.

Architects who have never compromised shall cast the first stone 

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think it is highly likely that in trying to achieve a reversible course at some stage a compromise will pop in to the equation.

Adrian:  This is ridiculous.  Every time you do a routing, you have to make compromises between golf holes.  I just have to make them forwards and backwards.  At least I'm not being asked to compromise because of housing, or other outside interests. 

For me, this project is all about the golf and how well it works -- just in two directions instead of one.

Architects who have never compromised shall cast the first stone 

Tom - I probably did not explain that right. I mean more that an extra set of compromises set in. When you or any architect finalise their plans it is taking all things into consideration and a sacrifice here and there for a better one there. You now have more/twice to consider. I hope you can do it, but I think you will look at the thread in a few years time and say..."yeah I am not so sure it can be done really well".

[Frank Pont]

I think there is a value to a reversible course, especially when its a nine hole course that will never be able to expand to 18 holes.

The good news is there will be 3 examples in Europe and US to look at in a few years to see if it actually works.

[David Davis]

Have to say this is hard to imagine. Does it mean you stick with 18 greens on the course or do you have to have 19 for example? Maybe this is a stupid question. After playing Eugene CC, which I believe is the only course I've played where they switched the tees and greens at some point, I guess anything is possible. That seemed to have worked great there.

What's the value of it? Being able to offer the members a different view on a daily/weekly basis and keep the variation level high?

[Don Mahaffey]

I will be very surprised if it is not an absolute home run, and not just because it is different or a gimmick.
Talk about lay of the land, just think about the greens and bunkers, how they have to be seen and played from multiple directions.
I think it is a great opportunity to lay a "super" minimalist course onto the ground.

If there was ever a course screaming for fast fescue turf and unique lay of the land features this is it and I can't wait to see it.

[David Davis]

I will be very surprised if it is not an absolute home run, and not just because it is different or a gimmick.
Talk about lay of the land, just think about the greens and bunkers, how they have to be seen and played from multiple directions.
I think it is a great opportunity to lay a "super" minimalist course onto the ground.

If there was ever a course screaming for fast fescue turf and unique lay of the land features this is it and I can't wait to see it.

Ok that makes good sense if I put it into the perspective of Wolf Point and playing into the 18 greens from various directions. I was limiting my thoughts to US parkland courses. Cool, I'm on board with this now. Can't wait to see it.

[Mark Fedeli]

I will be very surprised if it is not an absolute home run, and not just because it is different or a gimmick.
Talk about lay of the land, just think about the greens and bunkers, how they have to be seen and played from multiple directions.
I think it is a great opportunity to lay a "super" minimalist course onto the ground.

If there was ever a course screaming for fast fescue turf and unique lay of the land features this is it and I can't wait to see it.

Well said, Don. Some of the cynicism I've heard surprises me. With all due respect to Adrian, my question is why NOT try it? It will be legendary if it can be pulled off, and what architect wouldn't want to be the one who did it? Sure, there is serious risk that both directions could suffer, and that's what makes the project all the more compelling. We should be cheering that this project actually exists and will be happening at a place like Forest Dunes.

Of course, we'll have to wait to see how it all turns out. But until then, I can't find many reasons not to be extremely excited.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I will be very surprised if it is not an absolute home run, and not just because it is different or a gimmick.
Talk about lay of the land, just think about the greens and bunkers, how they have to be seen and played from multiple directions.
I think it is a great opportunity to lay a "super" minimalist course onto the ground.

If there was ever a course screaming for fast fescue turf and unique lay of the land features this is it and I can't wait to see it.

Well said, Don. Some of the cynicism I've heard surprises me. With all due respect to Adrian, my question is why NOT try it? It will be legendary if it can be pulled off, and what architect wouldn't want to be the one who did it? Sure, there is serious risk that both directions could suffer, and that's what makes the project all the more compelling. We should be cheering that this project actually exists and will be happening at a place like Forest Dunes.

Of course, we'll have to wait to see how it all turns out. But until then, I can't find many reasons not to be extremely excited.

Why not, because only 1% of golfers are interested so it is not best commercial practice. I think it is likely that by trying to achieve a reversed routing the best possible routing will suffer. I think it is hard to build greens that sit correctly both ways, yes you could play to some with the green falling to the back...but how many times and its a chore, one will end a superior and it is likely it could have been better. Just my opinion. I hope TD can pull it off though. If he gets 90% of it right, it still means some days the customer is getting a bad rap.

[Andy Troeger]

I predict the course will be as polarizing as the comments on this thread. Some will still think it is a home run, others won't get it, others will get it but may not like it. I think it is absolutely worth trying (with someone else's money at risk!) and will make an effort to see the finished product, but will reserve judgement until that time.

I do hope the project avoids naming the courses "Course Name" and "Reverse Course Name" because I think the "Reverse" would immediately be seen as the inferior of the two, even if it is just as good.

[Mark Fedeli]

Why not, because only 1% of golfers are interested so it is not best commercial practice. I think it is likely that by trying to achieve a reversed routing the best possible routing will suffer. I think it is hard to build greens that sit correctly both ways, yes you could play to some with the green falling to the back...but how many times and its a chore, one will end a superior and it is likely it could have been better. Just my opinion. I hope TD can pull it off though. If he gets 90% of it right, it still means some days the customer is getting a bad rap.

Is the commercial aspect not somewhat mitigated by the fact that FD will now have 54 potential holes instead of 36? And how is the customer getting a possible bad rap some days any different from the customer not being able to play their favorite 18 of a 36 hole complex due to outings, maintenance, member play, inconvenient tee times, etc?

[PCCraig]

I think the biggest potential for reversible courses is for them to become gimmicks, very quickly.

[Jud_T]

Adrian,

Are 1% of golfers interested in more variety, lower land and maintenance costs and thereby lower greens fees?  Would 1% of golfers be interested in joining a club with 2 distinct golf experiences for the price of one? Obviously a lot of sites and clients wouldn't work for this and there are risks involved (as there are with any new course) and more design demands, but the upside potential is vastly greater than the downside IMO.  To say the chances of hitting a home run are virtually nil without having seen the property or the routing is downright curmudgeonly.

[Jon Wiggett]

Why not, because only 1% of golfers are interested so it is not best commercial practice. 

But practically all innovations are not interesting to people as before there is an example potential customers cannot understand what they don't know about. Seems to me that best commercial practice thinking leads to conformity and leads to the industry becoming like sheep BAAAA

Funnily enough my reversible layout was victim of this sort of thinking with the insurance industry saying it required insurance for each direction making it non-viable from a financial point of view.

Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()