Thoughts on Golf Course Routings

For the purpose of this treatise, we will assume the discussion is for a new golf course project. Routing the golf course is the first step into design. Traditionally speaking, a par 72, 18 hole golf course will contain ten par fours, four par fives and four par threes, with each nine including five par fours, two par threes and two par fives. There are exceptions, of course, with the most common being a, 18 hole course with either a par 71 or par 70.  In the case of a par 71, one might exchange a par 4 for a par three or a par five for a par four, which will leave one of the nines as a par 35. In the case of a par 70, either of the above situations will occur on each of the nine holes.

It is also not overly uncommon for a par 72 golf course with one nine that strokes in at 35 and the other in at 37. Sometimes, for optics or whatever, par 72 is desired. Other less common routings might include one of the par 36 nines consisting of three each par threes, par fours and par fives.

Moving further into the routing process the two nines will operate either as independent loops, what we call returning nines, or it will become one long loop, or a continuous routing. The returning nines is the more modern method; holes 1 and 10 leave the clubhouse and holes 9 and 18 return to the clubhouse. The obvious advantages include:

Driving traffic through the clubhouse for food, drinks and supplies mid round. A course with a solid and easily accessible grille and pro shop really benefits.

It also provides more opportunities for the staff watching over patrons to track progress. This is particularly crucial in a public facility where speed of play helps profitability.

Returning nines can also be helpful in the sense that if it ever becomes necessary to close one nine, patrons can still play the other nine.

The cons for returning nines might include the need for a lot more space around the clubhouse that is dedicated to golf. Walks from the parking lot might get longer and practice area locations might become more remote in relationship to the pro shop.

The continuous loop is, in simple terms, leaving the clubhouse at hole 1 and not returning until the 18th green.  The round feels more like a journey. It is the old way. The Old Course at St. Andrews is a great example of a continuous routing.

There are infinite variations too. Sometimes a routing might find its way back to the clubhouse at hole 6, or 11. Sometimes the golf course might return to the clubhouse three or four times through the round. Six-hole loops are also interesting. Ideally, in a continuous loop situation, the course might be connected in a way that allows a player to play nine holes without a long ride in or out.

Contiguous golf. Over the last several decades, new golf has been driven by real estate. This has led to a preponderance of golf courses where each hole is surrounded by homes. This scenario can be done well, but it rarely is. Ancient golf and courses from the Golden Era were contiguous – just a glob of pure golfness. 

When routing a golf course, the goal should be to string together a series of holes in a way that is interesting and diverse and that challenge usually lies in what the property has to offer with regard to contour and natural features. This is one of the aspects of golf design that is so fascinating… and challenging. Ideally, a site will have mild to moderate contour. Severe sites (one that is very steep) might drive the cost of constructing the course by 2x of what it might take to build a golf course on a gently rolling site. Severe sites can also cause limitations in routing the golf, and by this, I mean at some point the construction a hole will become cost prohibitive. What happens most commonly on severe sites is the golf starts to become disconnected, leaving long rides or walks between holes.

The connection between a green and the subsequent tees should be as short as possible. Approach the layout from the perspective of a walker. How quickly can the player get to the next tee? A better question to consider might be how quickly can the player get to the middle tees (since the overwhelming percentage of patrons play the middle tees)? During the layout process, make adjustments to the centerlines so the middle tees are the closest to the green. This is easier to accomplish with direction changes, but it can also be done with consecutive linear holes by shifting the following tee line left or right of the previous green site. An added bonus being the golf course is set up to add length in the future, if it becomes necessary.

Heavy residential development makes the connections between golf holes tricky. Ultimately, the client will dictate the residential density. In this situation, collaboration with the land planner is essential and hopefully, it will be possible to string together several holes between road crossings or other elements that might impact the connections.

There are no rules for organizing par, per se’. The lay of the land often has more influence on par sequence than anything else. However, interesting golf is usually the result of a nice mix of par and designers tend to have favorites. One designer might believe that the final three holes should include a par three, a par four and a par five – not necessarily in that order. Another might prefer the final hole to be the number 1 handicap hole (hardest) and so on. There are more opinions than options for sequencing par.

Our sequencing is almost always influenced by the topography. We study the land and explore multitudes of potential routings. And there are different ideals for public and private golf. For instance, in a public setting we might try to push the first par three to a place later in the round – perhaps hole 4 or hole 5. Since par threes in public golf tend to be a place where groups can stack up. Moving the par three later in the round gives the groups time to find a rhythm and space out (hopefully… this is public golf after all).    

When routing a golf course, ideally, we like to have a diverse mix of yardages. One epic short par four, one or two very long par fours, one very long par five and one reachable par five, one short par three and one long par three. Also in an ideal situation, the long and short par fives will fall within the same nine holes, as will the short and long par threes. And if possible, the long and short par fives will be on the opposite nine of the long and short par threes. We have found that this combination helps with balance.

Additionally, we consider the prevailing wind. Whenever possible, the long holes will play into the wind and the short holes will play downwind, ensuring the long holes almost always play long and the short holes short. Uphill and downhill not only plays a role in the length of the holes but should also be balanced, when possible.

Doglegs should balance too, when possible. Of the par fours and par fives, in perfect circumstances, a routing will achieve a balance of right turns, left turns and straight holes. The math dictates that one of the three will be one short, say, five doglegs left, five straight and four doglegs right.

There is much discussion regarding the necessary length for a golf course these days. Since the debut of the Titleist Pro V and the modern improvements in driver technology trailing close behind, length discussion has become quite contentious. Golf architect William Flynn (1890-1944) once quoted “soon golf courses will need to be 8,000 yards”. I’m not sure he thought it would take 9 decades, but nonetheless Flynn appears to have been quite prophetic. The length of a golf course is worthy of its own discussion and so we will leave it for now.