I'm looking into installing a course on a fairly wooded piece of land that also includes a river and some small streams. The city has already expressed interest in the idea and I don't think that funds will be terribly hard to come by as there are multiple businesses (sponsors) in the immediate area. From walking through several times I can see that a lot of work is going to be needed to shape the fairways and clean up dead wood that has accumulated. The total area of the park is 103 acres, but unfortunately camping areas, sports fields and playgrounds take up a large part of that area, right in the middle of the area. I still haven't landed on a definite # for how many acres will actually be usable, but I'll post that information when I get it. From eyeballing it several times it seems like I'm going to be faced with this dilemma...

Install a shorter easier (beginner friendly) 18 hole course or a longer more challenging 9 hole course?

I'm going to be honest I have an extreme bias in this situation towards a longer 9 hole course and here are some reasons why.

We already have 2 18 hole courses within 25 minutes that have SSA's below 50 (I think they are something like 47.2 and 45.9). These are beginner friendly courses with the exception of a few holes on each course were there is a possibility to lose a disc in a lake. To build another course like this would, to me, seem redundant.

Cutting back on basket cost will allow more of the $ to go towards quality signage and tee-pads, it may even be enough to allow for multiple tee-pads and pin positions. This could possibly allow for a shorter set of tees and pin placements to accommodate beginners.

My thinking is why not create a difficult blue-gold level 9 hole course with multiple par 4's and possibly some par 5's? A nine hole course with the goal of getting an SSA up around 33 or so.

Has this kind of thing been done before? What do you think the possible pro's and con's of this type of course would be? Is it feasible to have 2 tees, 2 pin positions and actually arrive at fair red-white-blue and gold level ratings?

All you course designers out there... What are your thoughts?

Not knowing the lay of the land, I don't know if this is practical or not, but why not both?

There used to be a course around here (since been pulled) that was originally designed as a 9-hole course. Later on, 9 baskets were added that essentially cut each existing hole in half. What it became was a versatile course that could be played as an 18-hole course (pretty much putter only...lots of 150-200 foot holes) or, by skipping the new baskets/tees, as the original 9-hole course.

It all depends on what the land yields, but if you can design it in such a way that holes can be easily combined, you could get something similar. Basically, design your 9-hole course with the idea that somewhere along each fairway, you can drop a basket and tee and create two holes out of the same space. It gives you that shorter, family-friendly layout while giving the more advanced player a bit more of a challenge than they can find at other area courses.

After determining your "limitations" (land able-to-be-used and funding), one of the first things a course designer should do is determine "the course's purpose". Is this to be a course which challenges the very best in the world? A training course for young children? And if somewhere inbetween, shading to which side? Without this there is a great chance s/he will waffle on design(s) and end up with something that "tries to be everything to everyone" but ends up being luke warm (in all regards) instead.

Karl

Why not just make a 12 hole course...with say 4 long, 4 mids, and 4 shorts. To me there is no reason courses have to be 9s or 18s only. If the land can only fit 12, 13 or 16 really good holes, I'd rather play that than 18 bad holes.

Just my .02 of course!

Part of the reason for being limited to either 9 or 18 holes is due to the way most baskets are packaged. Many companies sell their baskets in groups of either 9 or 18 (with an additional practice basket).

I agree, I would much rather see 7-12 great holes rather than 18+ decent to poor holes.

Good advice thus far. To answer Karl, I think that the target level of this course should be a 950 or "blue" level. As previously stated there are plenty of easy courses in the area already.

One of the main issues I see in this area when I play in different leagues is the lack of multiple shots. So many of the courses here are so open that you could throw a hyzer, anhzyer tomahawk, hook thumber or roller on every hole. I'm exaggerating slightly, but this is really a problem. What I notice is that someone can develop one single shot, (most obviously go with the hyzer) and still manage to score well on the course. This instills in the local players a false sense of accomplishment and hinders them from continuing to develop new shots.

That being said I think we need a course that forces 1-2 lines (taking into account different throwing styles RHBH, LHBH, RHFH, LHFH) and then punishes errant throws. All too often I see players with a terrible tee shot at a local course who are then able to still have a relatively easy up and down for par... once again adding to the lack of shot development.

However, here's the issue. I for the most part know what I think this area needs, but what about the parks and rec department? What if they're looking for another easy course design? How can I pitch the idea that in the long run this will be better for the park and the sport?

Stick to your guns! Money saved on extra baskets to pay for extra tee pads, benches, trash cans tee signs, sleeves etc. is the way to go. A great course with multiple tee pads can accommodate the whole range of player skill levels. I think the mentality that a course either needs to be "beginner-friendly" or "championship" is false, a great course is both.

I will also always argue against 12 hole courses. A 12 hole course is a good 9 hole course that got ruined by cramming in 3 more baskets. Golf courses come in 9 hole increments. Period. The only exception is "practice courses" that have less than 9 holes and don't count as courses in my book. I think it's important to maintain the traditions in the golf lineage, except when there's truly a compelling reason to break from tradition. I see absolutely no compelling reason to cram in more baskets to make a 12, 19, 21, 24, or some other number.

It appears you've made up your mind (nothing wrong with that) regarding "multiple shots", i.e. some par-4s, so go with the 9 'longer' holes.

Understand though that your...
"That being said I think we need a course that forces 1-2 lines (taking into account different throwing styles RHBH, LHBH, RHFH, LHFH) and then punishes errant throws. All too often I see players with a terrible tee shot at a local course who are then able to still have a relatively easy up and down for par... once again adding to the lack of shot development."
...may be met with distain (not from me) but from others whom believe there should never be a "forced" line(s).
To be fair though, since you inferred that there is need to 'expand player's horizons regarding shot selection', your course takes on (at least in part) a "teacher's course" or a course whose theme is one of "multiple shot selection". And there's nothing wrong with that either...just as long as you know what YOU want to provide (the dg'ers).

Karl

I see absolutely no compelling reason to cram in more baskets to make a 12, 19, 21, 24, or some other number.

I guess to each their own on this. But I've played some really good 21 and 24 hole courses....That the extra holes were not crammed in! The course in Odessa started as an 18 hole course, the city acquired more land near the course and opened it up to the DG club...so they added 3 more holes. Big Spring started as an 18 hole course, more landed opened up so they added 9 more making it a 27 hole course. I think Crowley up in the DFW area was another odd hole count course that was a good course.

He stated he could have a short 18 hole course or a long 9 hole course. 12 or 14 or even 10 holes might be perfect for the land to be used so that all levels or players can get some enjoyment out of it. I'd rather play a 12 hole course that had a good mix of holes and shots over a 9 hole course that is all 900' shots just because "we needed to fill the land".

In my opinion the course should fit the land in whatever hole count fits, you should not be limited to only 9 hole increments.

However, here's the issue. I for the most part know what I think this area needs, but what about the parks and rec department? What if they're looking for another easy course design? How can I pitch the idea that in the long run this will be better for the park and the sport?

You know what the area needs; educate the P&R. Explain how the more difficult design will better fit their goals. Look at the master plan, it'll say something like "meet the present and future recreational needs of the residents". If the residents already have two easy courses to play, then what they need more is a more difficult course.

Hey Everyone,

Thought I'd keep you posted and let you know what's up with the course I was talking about.

After some discussion with the Parks and Rec and a few other important people I was able to convince them that a quality 9 hole course would be better in the long run than a squished and forced 18. The only thing they asked was that I keep the short pads to the short pins beginner/family friendly. Which I feel I did pretty well since all but 2 holes are 170-230 ft.

The plan is to have 9 holes with two tee-pads and two pin placements per hole. I'm aiming for about a par 30. The terrain is moderately to heavily wooded with mostly flat to moderate elevation changes. I have a rough first draft of the course mapped out and took some rough measurements today that I just added up in excel.

Long to Long = 3554
Long to Short = 2942
Short to Long = 2570
Short to Short = 1999

I think you could go even shorter on your short to short with one 125 footer in there. My GF (and many others) just started and can't throw more than 60-70 feet with decent form (no snap yet). A 125 footer is at least one shot at a 3. Getting your short to short down to 1850+ by shortening only the tees would bring your short to long under 2500 which would be fine.

Thanks for the advice Chuck. That's probably a good idea, sometimes I get over excited and forget that there are people who throw that short. My brother is 13 and can bomb it about 340 ft so he's not exactly a short tee kind of player anymore. It was easier to use him as a short tee reference back when he was 11. : )

There are at least 2 holes that I could easily shorten without making them "filler" or boring. I'll look into that. Thanks again Chuck, I appreciate all the advice you've been passing on to me and everyone else reading these threads.