Would the game be better or worse off had 12 holes become the standard?

[Scott Champion]

I've just finished an article on alternative formats of golf (par 3 courses, courses of less than 18 holes, etc).


It got me thinking, would the game be in a better or worse state today had the 'standard' become 12 holes (per Rules of Prestwick) rather than 18 holes (per rules of The R&A)? Or alternatively, if there was no standard number of holes.


There's arguments for both, but I'm interested to hear different opinions on this. Perhaps you think the game would be no better or worse off.

[Scott Champion]

I haven't been to Shiskine yet, but talking to people that have, they say there isn't a feeling of being short-changed after playing 12 - rather, feeling compelled to play another 12. Perhaps this says more about the architecture than the number of holes

[Thomas Dai]

12 would be fine by me, as long as the individual holes were not lengthened to take in the full area of a current average length 18-hole course.
Atb

[John Kavanaugh]

It would be tragic if golf were only 12 holes. The decreased level of fitness required would allow me to compete at even higher body weights. Golf as it is now is the one thing that keeps me near 3 knots.

[Mike_Clayton]

Scott,


Sydney would have had a lot more good golf courses if the ones which only had room for 12 good holes had done 12 (and a great practice area) instead of so many trying to jam 18 onto land better suited to fewer holes.
But - think of all the great holes that wouldn't have been built. Every great course has 6 holes you wouldn't want to miss.
And - every 18-hole course has 12 holes - if you need to play quickly play 12. Of course it's not always practical but we get far too obsessed with 18 hole scores. Especially in Australia.

[V. Kmetz]

A fun speculation, but I think I have too much of a clouding bias with the 6 extra holes, and certainly my "better" is another man's "worse".... but here's a few thoughts:


1. Golf may have remained a more provincial, "backyard" game, with less commercial professionalism and standardization.

2. Because "12," a dozen, is such an embedded cultural number beyond golf (whereas 18 instantly brings the mind to golf), I speculate that courses/operators would have felt freer to distinguish themselves by varying the number of holes.

3. At a 12 Standard though, GCA/length-par may have been divided one of two general ways: either four of each (3, 4, 5) or ten "4s", one 3 and one 5.

4. It's my 18 bias speaking, but I do think a shorter number of holes would have made for more audacious, memorable architecture intentions with each of a shorter number.  We seem to accept, even on beloved 18 hole courses, a hole or two that is plain or seen everywhere; I think the tolerance for this would be less and the notion to make each hole unique, greater.

5. With the 1/3rd less acreage needed, we may have seen more "shore/links" courses in America and/or the reduction in poor inland properties (or their unfriendliest sections) should early GCA have otherwise developed as it did. One imperfect, anecdotal example is the nominal first/early/remaining US club, St. Andrews...they started at a makeshift 3 holes across from Reid's home in Yonkers, moved 300 yards northwest to a plotted course of 6 holes in Shonnard's meadow...both of those are on pretty flat hilltop land, but when they were compelled to go 1/3rd of a mile north to the "Apple Tree" 9-hole course, they were on a ski slope of that hilly section of Yonkers, a thing which didn't stop as they chose hilly sites in the next two moves...the Odell Farm 9hole course of the that "first" disputed National amateur, and the current course in 1897, which had it stayed at 9, and on that site, may have developed over the "flats" which encompass holes 4 - 8 and 14-18 and NOT the mounatineering side of the other holes.

cheers   vk

[John Kavanaugh]

There is no more 1/3 less acreage needed than 1/3 less cost. You still need the same infrastructure. I would guess that no one is taking a 1/3 pay cut.

[Tom_Doak]

There is no more 1/3 less acreage needed than 1/3 less cost. You still need the same infrastructure. I would guess that no one is taking a 1/3 pay cut.

True that.  A nine-hole course is maybe 75% as expensive to operate as an 18-hole course, because there are so many fixed costs.  However that does tend to keep them from spending much money on big clubhouses.

[Sean_A]

I am not convinced 12 holes would be a better standard as much as I am convinced there should be no standard.  I have long thought that for private courses, a 14-4, 13-5 or 12-6 split would be far more desirable than 9-9 assuming there are two starting points at the house.  Creating two very different number loops is imo ideal. 

Ciao

[David Davis]

I'm not sure who coined the phrase "9 holes of golf is like sex without an orgasm" but I like the phrase and have to admit I kind of feel this way as well. Unless I've already played 18 holes and get to play another 9 or perhaps a short course like The Reserve or Mulligan. (even though either of those last two aren't 9 holes)


If we were talking the original 12 at Prestwick as mentioned I'd be ok with that and if that was the number that had been followed throughout history I guess none of us would know the difference.


On the other hand if it's only about speeding up the game or due to time constraints then what I really want to know is how are they going to speed up baseball and cricket?

[V. Kmetz]

There is no more 1/3 less acreage needed than 1/3 less cost. You still need the same infrastructure. I would guess that no one is taking a 1/3 pay cut.

True that.  A nine-hole course is maybe 75% as expensive to operate as an 18-hole course, because there are so many fixed costs.  However that does tend to keep them from spending much money on big clubhouses.

I wasn't advancing or pondering bottom-line cost...just that appx 1/3rd less acreage might have made more shore/links properties a bit more attractive/feasible as choices, while also more emulative of Brit/Scot courses... and on inland courses less need to maximize or design to the boundaries of poor property (or poor sections of property) to get the other 6 holes into it.


cheers   vk

[Peter Pallotta]

I think with the 1/3rd smaller footprint might've come a different sense of overall scale.
I can't imagine many 12 hole mountain courses, or even a course like Sand Hills (let alone the sprawling, multi-course resort destinations).
The vistas would be too grand for the field of play. 
The 'architecture' would be even more important to & play a greater role in the total 'golf/golf course experience'.
The best architects past & present would shine even more brightly relative to their contemporaries: there'd be less window dressing with which to hide/disguise the mediocre golf hole or the disjointed & unwalkable routing.
Peter

 

[Tom_Doak]

Actually, now that I think about it, the positive would be that there would be fewer barriers to entry.  You could build a course on sites that are too small [not that you couldn't just build nine holes on them now], and you could build them for a bit less money. 


In theory, that means more competition -- and that usually leads to more diversity of product, which would be a good result.


But it would also be that much easier for courses to go bankrupt and disappear, with not as much invested in them, and smaller properties for which to find other uses.




P.S.  I still think this fascination with "12 hole courses" is ridiculous.  You could easily substitute "nine hole courses" and come to the same conclusions for all of the above, and nine hole courses are actually a thing; you don't have to change everyone's thinking about the game to build them.  But it's not a new gimmick, so these questions are all about 12 holes instead.


Had I not had to reschedule my overseas trip, I'd be playing golf today with Edwin Roald in Iceland, who is one of the biggest proponents of building non-traditional courses with however many holes make sense.  18 holes don't make as much sense in Iceland's small economy and short golf season ... although they do have 24 hours a day to play them in the middle of summer!

[Adam Lawrence]

Actually, now that I think about it, the positive would be that there would be fewer barriers to entry.  You could build a course on sites that are too small [not that you couldn't just build nine holes on them now], and you could build them for a bit less money. 


In theory, that means more competition -- and that usually leads to more diversity of product, which would be a good result.


But it would also be that much easier for courses to go bankrupt and disappear, with not as much invested in them, and smaller properties for which to find other uses.




P.S.  I still think this fascination with "12 hole courses" is ridiculous.  You could easily substitute "nine hole courses" and come to the same conclusions for all of the above, and nine hole courses are actually a thing; you don't have to change everyone's thinking about the game to build them.  But it's not a new gimmick, so these questions are all about 12 holes instead.


Had I not had to reschedule my overseas trip, I'd be playing golf today with Edwin Roald in Iceland, who is one of the biggest proponents of building non-traditional courses with however many holes make sense.  18 holes don't make as much sense in Iceland's small economy and short golf season ... although they do have 24 hours a day to play them in the middle of summer!

Right, but what is interesting about Edwin's idea is that we should not be fixated on nine, twelve, eighteen, whatever -- as you say Tom, he thinks a golf course should be as many holes as fit the site, and a round of golf can equally be any number of holes. It took me a little while to get my head round this, but I think it's quite smart. If, at pay and play courses, we could pay for however many holes we wanted to play, wouldn't that be a good thing?

[John Kavanaugh]

Pay to play whatever holes you choose reminds me of what happened to the music industry. I miss albums.

[George Pazin]

I've lost track of how many times I've paid for 9 and played fewer, and likewise for 18. Pay per hole is kinda silly, imho. It's not the owner's fault you don't have time for everything, and he shouldn't have to allocate resources to track you for what you do play. That's like a restaurant charging you less for not finishing your meal. Simply pay and walk off whenever and consider anything you don't play as paying it forward.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:


I've gotta agree with George and with John on the idea of paying for 11 holes of an 18 hole course, or whatever.


From a business standpoint the course owner only has so many starts to sell off the first tee.  If you want to play three holes - assuming they're the first three - that's 15 holes worth of revenue he can't make up, because there is nobody ready to take your place on #4.


I'm totally down with building an 11-hole course if that's how many good holes you've got room for.  God knows there are a lot of courses that were ruined by trying to squeeze in 18.  But, marketing them will not be an easy assignment.  Hell, look how many owners supposedly can't be talked out of 7000 yards and par 72 ... how are you going to talk them into 11 holes?

[jeffwarne]

Adam:


I've gotta agree with George and with John on the idea of paying for 11 holes of an 18 hole course, or whatever.


From a business standpoint the course owner only has so many starts to sell off the first tee.  If you want to play three holes - assuming they're the first three - that's 15 holes worth of revenue he can't make up, because there is nobody ready to take your place on #4.

Actually many private courses do this all the time-start players on a loop near the clubhouse to get ahead of larger groups or in front of families playing 3 holes.
A cleverly routed property with multiple loops and good active management could work, and holes early in a routing could be profited from and used late into the day.
Many courses already have a "back nine" rate for early starters as a way to maximize revenue on unused holes at prime time.


Seems a way to charge more $$ per hole on less than 18 hole rounds and minimize course downtime at peak times.
Would need to be well managed and minimal maintenance for it to work well.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sometimes it seems that we're either at the beginning of the end or at the end of the beginning: the game's first phase (from the codifying of the 18-hole round of golf to our present time) is coming to a close. The environment, time-pressures, income disparity, sustainability, demographics, technology, urbanization, young architects bursting with ambition and new ideas, bifurcation, the changing ethos/spirit of the game -- under these many pressures the old world is passing away before our eyes, the brave new world of golf & golf course architecture is being born as we speak. The first phase was not without its faults, to be sure, and I suppose it's all in the natural order of things, change being the only constant. But I'm already a little sad and nostalgic for the lost 'patterns' and 'rituals' and 'expectations' of golf's Golden Age (which, despite what Ran's 'timeline' suggests, has I think continued uninterrupted from some 150 years); and I wonder, with more than a little worry, what the game and the courses and the 'experience' will be like in golf's second phase (let's call it the Post-Renaissance Age). Then again, maybe I'm just being a worry wart; it does seem that those of you who know the industry best and who love the game most are looking forward to the future and all its possibilities.

   

[BHoover]

I have often thought that the game would be stronger if the standard was 7 holes and a big driving range and short game area.

[Mark Kiely]

The "Pay-Per-Hole" option is already in place at Mt. Woodson in the hills of Eastern San Diego County. Just heard about this recently:
https://mtwoodsongolfclub.com/egull/

[Duncan Cheslett]

The problem with having variable numbers of holes is that it would throw any handicap system into disarray.


12 holes is perfect. A 12 hole round needn't take much more than a couple of hours so would fit in well with modern lifestyles. If a full day's golf is required two 12 hole rounds is eminently do-able by everyone, and three rounds possible for many.


Many average 18 hole suburban courses could convert to 12 good holes, a decent practice facility, and sell off a few acres for housing to secure the financial future.


Handicap adjustment is simple - 2/3 of full handicap. Golf courses should as standard be either 9, 12, or 18 holes.


Make 12 holes one of the norms and I am sure we would see them proliferate. Reducing to 12 holes could be the saviour of many struggling clubs.


 

[Scott Champion]

This is where I see the most benefit for 12 hole courses moving forward.
So many clubs are struggling financially, losing members, increased operating costs etc. They are usually the weaker courses in an area and often on too little land. There's an opportunity for some of these courses to reposition themselves and diversify the golf they offer.

Assuming they’re in an area with development potential, they could develop a portion of the site to secure their financial future, and invest a percentage of the funds to improve the course - probably reduced to 12 (or any number) of holes. Add extensive practice facilities, and perhaps a par 3 or pitch and putt loop. All with the goal of improving their product and marketability to a wider range of golfers.
I know I'd take 12 good holes over 18 ordinary ones every day!

On the flip side, there is the risk that had 12 hole courses been the standard we might be talking about too many 12 holes courses having been built on only enough land for 9, 9 hole courses on only enough land for 6, and so on.

Wishfully, I hope it would have resulted better courses where the land influenced the number of holes - just as we let the land influence where the holes should be. Courses like Dunaverty come to mind. They have just enough attractive dunes land for about 12-13 holes - and that would have been a perfect fit for that site.

[Jeff Schley]

I don’t know about a standard, but I recall Jack Nicklaus talking 10 plus years ago about 12-13 holes becoming the norm.  I thought how in the heck is that going to happen.  I doubt it would considereding the status quo is strong of 9 or 18, thus why 12?  No good reason really I can think of.


I can see 9 hole rounds becoming more common and they make sense or families, kids, elderly, or busy people.  There are 9 and dine events at clubs each week around the country. 


Most high school matches are 9 holes as well, at least in the Midwest because of starting time and light.   I like courses with 27 holes as that gives you 3 different starting positions and you can get 3x’s the groups off from prime starting times as you could with 1 18 hole course.  The future?  I think so.

[Niall C]

I agree with Sean and others that it is about what the land is best suited for. How many really good nine holers in this country have been made into dull or uninteresting 18 holes just to get to that number. Back in the early days you had courses with all sorts of different numbers of holes until TOC became the standard. We'll never know if they were any good but you'd imagine they were the best they could do.

Niall