[Jim Hoak]

I searched and couldn't find this topic discussed before--
In playing today on a somewhat-busy course, we were asked if we minded going off the 10th tee.  Some of our players said that they really hated playing a course out of the order of the numbered holes; others like me said that it didn't matter to us at all.
My question is what most of the posters on here think?  Does it bother you to accommodate a busy course to go off a tee other than the 1st tee?  Is the 10th tee better than some random tee as you might have in a Shotgun tournament?
For the architects, do you design a course with the intent to have players play it in numerical order?  For example, does your course build to where the number 18 hole should preferably be played last?  Or are the holes independent of each other enough to where the order of play is immaterial or at least not really critical?   

[Tom_Doak]

Yes, we design courses to be played in order, or at least I do ... and I have never built one where I designed 1&10 and 9&18 to be interchangeable just because they might start on both nines, as they do in Myrtle Beach.  (To me you are giving up too much variety that way.)


I don't mind starting at the tenth if it means less waiting on people, but on some courses it does mess with the enjoyment of the round.  I once started on the 10th at Cypress Point, and getting to the coastal holes early in the round was very weird!

[John McCarthy]

I find 10s much harder than 1s.  Gentle handshake v slap in face. 


Also many times I am playing superior private courses I am playing during charity outings, where I am not spending the most money, so off the 10th I go.  Which I get

[Daryl David]

I play a couple of private courses occasionally that are never crowded but they always seem to have groups start all over the course. After warming up, the staff will tell you to head out to 4 or 7 or 12 etc.  At one course, it took around 8 plays before I actually started on number 1. Very disorienting not to mention screwing up your halfway house hotdog or taco. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I greatly prefer to play off the first hole, to the point where I'll ask if we might be able to swap tee times with someone else or wait a little to go off the first, but if it's at all a pain or we'd be waiting on people or anything like that, I'll go off #10. There are far worse things in the world, so I try to keep perspective. On some courses, it matters more or less than others.

[Steve Burrows]

I have always thought of this fixation on the architect's intent for sequencing as a crucial part of the overall experience of a given golf course to be somewhat over-rated.  Please know that I am not trying to undermine the expertise of the designer.  But if individual holes should not be so rigidly designed as to have only one prescribed path to the hole, then surely being bound by a rigid sequence of holes 1-18 need not be adhered to in order to have an enjoyable, rewarding day on a golf course.


For example, when I had the opportunity to play Kingston Heath about 10 years ago, I started on the first hole but nothing else was in order.  I played the tournament routing rather than the original routing (with a further caveat that the 19th hole was in play rather than the 15th due to maintenance reasons; note that my host nevertheless allowed me to hit a shot into the 15th).  Was I deprived of anything truly mind-altering by playing out of the originally intended sequence?  Can anyone honestly make a case that my day would have been objectively better if I would have played in the standard routing?

[mike_beene]

I much prefer starting at one. Courses that flip the nines every decade or so confuse me a little. If I were routing a course and could find a way I would make either 9 or 10 a par three as a way to stop future flippers of nines. I also don't like the Hoylake move of 17-18 to 1 and 2, or even the Broadmore flip of 7 and 11.

[Duncan Cheslett]

The first three times I played Delamere Forest we were told to start on the 10th, as is the custom there for visitors. I've quite never understood why - the course is normally completely empty! I became so accustomed to playing the course this way that it still seems the "right" way to me. When I play the holes in the standard order it feels wrong.


Similarly at Prestbury, I played in 3 or 4 shotgun starts from various tees before finally playing the course from the 1st. I still have no clear idea in my mind of how the course unfolds - just an almost random collection of holes!


I discovered that playing the holes out of order can work to one's advantage while at Reddish Vale. If drawn against a low handicapper in an inter-club match I would suggest starting on the 6th to avoid queuing. This meant that the first 3 holes played were Stroke Index 4, 7, & 2 respectively. I could be three up before my opponent realised what had hit him!   

[Mark Chaplin]

At a Worplesdon we often start on 1 and 5, 1-4 are a fairly gentle start and IMHO the weaker cluster of holes in the course. Starting at 5 gives a tough two shotter from the off, you cross Tom Doak’s “four lane highway” earlier in your round and you finish with my least favourite holes, I’d take the first every time.

[James Boon]

I suppose I'd rather start on the 1st as thats how its designed by the architect, but will happily play off another tee to avoid a long wait on the first. This is common at Notts (Hollinwell) as the tee isnt often busy, but when it is we will often tee off on the 4th, also by the clubhouse. Though the 4th was the original 1st in Willie Park Junior's 1901 original layout...


When I played the early rounds of the GCA Knockout this year, we played at Berkhamstead and for both rounds teed off on the 10th as members were on the 1st. We actually all preferred it this way around and suspect it may have originally been designed that way, but at some point somebody decided they didnt want to be starting on a par 3 so they switched the nines.


I wonder if there are any out and back links courses where there is a small car park at the far end to allow people to tee off on the 10th is the 1st tee is busy? I have a vague recollection of a rough car park out near the 10th /12th at Deal for instance? Now that would make for quite a change!


Cheers,


James

[Sean_A]

Sandwich has a car park which allows for a different starting point. 

I am not too fussed about where I start so long as it doesn't make the hardest walking come late in the round.  I recall when first playing Kington I started on the 6th several times.  It was a revelation to eventually start on the 1st and get all the climbing out of the way early.  I like the course far more with the numbering.

Ciao

[Simon Holt]

It doesn't bother me in terms of enjoyment but in terms of the flow/balance of a round architecturally I've found it really does make a difference; especially at the classics where starting at the 10th probably wasn't a consideration at inception.


I played Kawana starting at the 10th and was completely underwhelmed with a short par 3, to a pretty bland green site (we played to the right hand green that day).  Whereas when we got to play 1, I was "wow!" as it really starts with a bang and in that sense, the 10th would have been a perfectly solid hole in the overall balance of the round. 


In retrospect I was overly harsh on my assessment of the 10th because of starting there.  Similarly, 9 is a nice hole but not comparable to 18 as a finisher.  The point being that the mid-point of the round at 9 and 10 is fairly tame, whereas 1 starts strong and 18 finishes with a gorgeous hole backed by the hotel and lined with Cherry Blossoms.


The same happened at Hirono.  The 10th hole there is excellent in it's own right, but it's a tough opener, whereas 1 is a nice ease you into the round kind of hole.

[Thomas Dai]

It shouldn’t make a difference in medal play but in amateur stableford and matchplay it can have an effect in relation to the SI on holes and which player gets shots where.
I noticed that two tee starts were used in the Dunhill Links. It would be pretty annoying to travel a long way, pay a lot of money and find yourself starting/finishing out in the country at TOC rather than on the 1st/18th. Same at Carnoustie.
Overall much nicer from the 1st. Playing the course as it was (probably) intended to be played/routed and then there’s the flow of the routing factor.
Atb

[Jeff Schley]

It doesn't bother me in terms of enjoyment but in terms of the flow/balance of a round architecturally I've found it really does make a difference; especially at the classics where starting at the 10th probably wasn't a consideration at inception.


I played Kawana starting at the 10th and was completely underwhelmed with a short par 3, to a pretty bland green site (we played to the right hand green that day).  Whereas when we got to play 1, I was "wow!" as it really starts with a bang and in that sense, the 10th would have been a perfectly solid hole in the overall balance of the round. 


In retrospect I was overly harsh on my assessment of the 10th because of starting there.  Similarly, 9 is a nice hole but not comparable to 18 as a finisher.  The point being that the mid-point of the round at 9 and 10 is fairly tame, whereas 1 starts strong and 18 finishes with a gorgeous hole backed by the hotel and lined with Cherry Blossoms.


The same happened at Hirono.  The 10th hole there is excellent in it's own right, but it's a tough opener, whereas 1 is a nice ease you into the round kind of hole.

Great description Simon and I hope to join the Rising Sun OC outing when they have it next in a few years.

[Tim Martin]

I don’t mind starting on 10 but am not a big fan of beginning on a random hole in a shotgunned situation. I would think this option isn’t utilized much with a true out and back routing as now you have to get the players out to the middle of the golf course versus nines that return to the clubhouse.

[A.G._Crockett]

Yes, we design courses to be played in order, or at least I do ... and I have never built one where I designed 1&10 and 9&18 to be interchangeable just because they might start on both nines, as they do in Myrtle Beach.  (To me you are giving up too much variety that way.)


I don't mind starting at the tenth if it means less waiting on people, but on some courses it does mess with the enjoyment of the round.  I once started on the 10th at Cypress Point, and getting to the coastal holes early in the round was very weird!

Tom,

I don't know if you are acquainted with Bill Bergin, but he is an old friend with whom I have gotten to play several of his designs and redesigns.  The first time we were going to play one of his courses, as part of an outing for some guys from our church that Bill had organized, the pro shop was going to send us off #10.  Bill was just insistent that the group get to see the course in the order that he had designed it, and we did.  It mattered to him a lot, and so I've always sort of assumed it ought to matter to me, even if I don't necessarily see it.

At UNC-Finley (Fazio), where I play most of my golf now, they will start play on the 10th on Tuesdays and Thursdays during the summer to equalize play and traffic on the bent grass greens due to people only playing 9 holes.  #1 and #2 are great starting holes; #10 and #11 are two of the toughest par 4's on the course, and the only good thing about starting there is that they are out of the way.  #10 is especially uncomfortable because it calls for a hard fade off the tee; that's one thing when you are two hours into the round, another entirely when you are hitting your first shot of the day.  To your point above, in no way are #1 and #10 interchangeable, and it goes even beyond just the first hole there.

[Ira Fishman]

At the couple of courses I play regularly, it does not matter to me whether I tee off of 1 or 10. However, when visiting a course for the first time, particularly one I had gone through some planning to play, I would insist if I could on teeing off on Number 1 because I do want to experience the course as intended. But ironically at one of my regular courses, Ross had the nines originally in the other order so if I had played it only from Number 1, I would have missed the original intent.


Ira

[JHoulihan]

When playing at SV-original Sand Valley earlier this July, I played holes #1 to 18. There was a starter letting players off both 1 and 10 tees. I did not get any official reason why but my caddy said my particular loop was his first all summer in the original 1-18 order. I did like holes 8 and 9 but felt that holes 16-17-18 felt like a better/stronger grouping.


Justin

[Jim Nugent]

Yes, we design courses to be played in order, or at least I do ... and I have never built one where I designed 1&10 and 9&18 to be interchangeable just because they might start on both nines, as they do in Myrtle Beach.  (To me you are giving up too much variety that way.)

NGLA originally started with what is now #10: they flipped the nines quite early on, after a fire.  Do you think the course would work better as first laid out? 

Same question about ANGC, though I'm guessing that at least for the pro's, the routing they settled on creates more drama. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

Same question about ANGC, though I'm guessing that at least for the pro's, the routing they settled on creates more drama.

I believe they flipped the nines at Augusta because of early morning shade problems at Amen Corner. Another couple of hour's sunlight was beneficial to that particular part of the course.

[Niall C]

When I was member up at Moray one of the joys of the place was that as well as the 1st you could start at the 3rd as there was car park adjacent to the tee, and also out at the 12th/13th where there was another car park for a practice chipping green. From this location you could also jump onto the second course and with the two courses intermingling in part you could jump from one to the other if you wished. Ideal for a quick knock on a summers evening.

That said, I was a member at Moray. If I was going somewhere as a visitor I'd want to play off the first, especially at classic golden age courses that still had a rhythm and flow about them. My one play at Valderamma I started off the 10th. Somehow felt like a second class citizen playing off the 10th.

Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

At my one play on Crystal Downs, my host had us start on #10. I didn't question it of course, and I hope I hid my disappointment -- but I'm still a little sad that I didn't get to play it off #1. 
It's the same reason I don't play different sets of tees throughout the round -- either a good architect intended the holes to play in a certain way and a certain order, or he didn't. If he did, I'm not enjoying fully the fruit of his labours, and I prefer not to assume that he didn't.   
P

[MLevesque]

At Yale the starter will often invite singles to start on 3 or shuttle them to 4 to bye pass slower groups already on the course.  While the 3rd and 4th hole are more challenging than the "handshake" first, it beats a sure 5 hour round behind a a few foursomes of guests and playing 1 and 2 is a nice way to end a round after getting beat up (usually) by 18.

[Ira Fishman]

It is hard to imagine playing a more difficult hole as an opener than Yale Number 4.


Ira

[Greg Smith]

I hate going off the 10th tee; often it seems those early back nine holes are a crucial stretch in the overall design and bam! they're done.

Strangely enough, I enjoy shotgun starts and scramble formats.  That's usually the way I end up playing nice courses, because my access there is normally through a charity wing-ding.   Somehow, messing up the order matters less when you REALLY mess it up.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()