We've launched the new forums! Read more here

12 Holes vs 18 Holes

One of the options might be to change the standard design of courses from two nines (the front and back sides, with the "turn" being at the clubhouse), and instead design courses comprised of three sixes that all converge back at the clubhouse. That would make it easier for golfers to book a six, a twelve, or an eighteen hole "round" of golf. Management of the course would be more difficult, but not impossible. Our clubs nine hole, dual tee box (front nine/back nine) course seems to manage it. You just can't have some dull-normal at the starter's desk. It amazes me that none of the golf course architects seem to have tried this, but they are mostly pretty traditional and conventional minds. At least none that I know of have tried it. Maybe someone somewhere has. Avalon in Skagit County has three nines and they handle mixed routings easily.
 
Hey tehuti. Somehow I missed your post before I wrote mine. Sorry. Great minds converging, eh? Maybe THP needs a new thread lobbying for courses designed as three six hole "sides"?
 
Hecaviator said:
One of the options might be to change the standard design of courses from two nines (the front and back sides, with the "turn" being at the clubhouse), and instead design courses comprised of three sixes that all converge back at the clubhouse. That would make it easier for golfers to book a six, a twelve, or an eighteen hole "round" of golf. Management of the course would be more difficult, but not impossible. Our clubs nine hole, dual tee box (front nine/back nine) course seems to manage it. You just can't have some dull-normal at the starter's desk. It amazes me that none of the golf course architects seem to have tried this, but they are mostly pretty traditional and conventional minds. At least none that I know of have tried it. Maybe someone somewhere has. Avalon in Skagit County has three nines and they handle mixed routings easily.
Click to expand...
We also have a 9 hole course with front and back tees. White/yellow. You pay one green fee and play either 9 or 18. Pretty simple, it is well maintained, and I get my golf fix in a lot less time.
 
Hecaviator said:
Hey tehuti. Somehow I missed your post before I wrote mine. Sorry. Great minds converging, eh? Maybe THP needs a new thread lobbying for courses designed as three six hole "sides"?
Click to expand...
Great minds do think alike. I did the same thing. To me it's similar to the concept of the 27 hole courses where you choose which two segments you want to play to make up your 18. If the "standard" becomes 12 most people would play the 2 segments of their choice while the traditionalists can play all 3. Seems simple to me.
 
Solid arguments either way on this. I lean more traditional and definitely prefer 18. That being said we rarely take longer than 3:45 with a foursome. I’ve been playing for over 40 years, 12 holes would feel incomplete for me.
 
chpar4 said:
Solid arguments either way on this. I lean more traditional and definitely prefer 18. That being said we rarely take longer than 3:45 with a foursome. I’ve been playing for over 40 years, 12 holes would feel incomplete for me.
Click to expand...

Every time I would play a "12 hole course" I would probably be riding a heater on 10/11/12 and wonder what if....
 
I’d prefer a course with 3 sixes. Play 6, 12 or 18. Return to the clubhouse every 6 holes would probably drive a few more $ thru the snack shack and bar. Just sayin’
 
some chatter in another thread about offering less than 18 or even 9-hole rounds. golf rounds are up which is great, but i wonder whether the new crop of golfers will stick around if rounds take too long. jb mentioned 6-hole front and back, 12-hole overall. i like the idea of 6-hole sides, still preserving the possibility of a full 18-hole round but also the shorter, less expensive round that may fit into the lifestyle of a younger generation. also seems like this may open up the possibility for more f&b sales (less time playing, more time eating/drinking).
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
I really like this idea. As a beginner 18 holes is daunting. Love the idea of 12.
 
If the course is close, and I don't have to drive too far, I would certainly be open to 6 holes. Want to work on something at the range, then see if it translates, play 6 holes. Get the kids down and want to get on the course before the sun goes down, play 6 holes. For me, the more flexibility a course can offer, the better.
 
I have always liked the idea of 3 6s vs 2 9s but doubt something like that ever comes to fruition.
 
Never contemplated 3 6s vs 2 9s, but I'm onboard for it. I could see myself taking advantage of all three scenarios based on available time. I think if golf wants to grow and/or be more accessible, having a 6/12/18 option is more appealing than 9/18. If it just want to run through a quick 6, perfect. If I was already going to play 9, an extra 3 seems like a bonus. 18 is 18 in both scenarios.
 
I think it would be smart for designers to create courses that could be chopped up a bit more. With connections that could be made at different points.
 
I have, and would play a 12 hole round of golf. I actually play a few 11 & 13 hole rounds now.

However, I'm not so sure I would want to play a 12 hole round at previous 18 hole prices.
 
My thoughts are that golf is a front 9/back 9 format... playing more or less than a 9 hole or 18 hole "round" would just be playing some golf... No one really relates to, "I shot a 54 today..... on 12 holes."

I guess I think those that don't have time for 18 would just spend some time on the range or putting green and play 9...

Its nothing for my teenage sons to play hours on end of video games or watch a couple of movies, so I don't the time involved playing 18 for 5 hours is really discouraging them. Neither is 5-6 hours it takes my friends to load up their boat, drive to the lake and cruise around for 3-4 hours and return home... sure some people have personal docks and can just hop on their boat for a quick sunset cruise but there are people that live on courses that have that option as well.
 
I will stick with 18. Pace at my CC is a little under 4 hours, tee off 9am done at 1pm still plenty of time to do other things in a day.
 
chpar4 said:
Solid arguments either way on this. I lean more traditional and definitely prefer 18. That being said we rarely take longer than 3:45 with a foursome. I’ve been playing for over 40 years, 12 holes would feel incomplete for me.
Click to expand...

I can definitely understand the desire to play a complete round of 18 holes. However, I don’t know where you play or what time you play or if your course is public or private, but your time of 3:45 for s rounds is great. In my area, public courses are a 5+ hour round unless you play very early.
 
sposey013168 said:
I will stick with 18. Pace at my CC is a little under 4 hours, tee off 9am done at 1pm still plenty of time to do other things in a day.
Click to expand...

Under this format, 18 is still completely in play. Been mentioned a few times in this thread, it would be made up of the three "sixes".
 
McLovin said:
some chatter in another thread about offering less than 18 or even 9-hole rounds. golf rounds are up which is great, but i wonder whether the new crop of golfers will stick around if rounds take too long. jb mentioned 6-hole front and back, 12-hole overall. i like the idea of 6-hole sides, still preserving the possibility of a full 18-hole round but also the shorter, less expensive round that may fit into the lifestyle of a younger generation. also seems like this may open up the possibility for more f&b sales (less time playing, more time eating/drinking).
Click to expand...
JB said:
Under this format, 18 is still completely in play. Been mentioned a few times in this thread, it would be made up of the three "sixes".
Click to expand...
I still say why go to the trouble of re rating and redesigning courses. If you are pushed for time just play 9.
 
sposey013168 said:
I still say why go to the trouble of re rating and redesigning courses. If you are pushed for time just play 9.
Click to expand...

To me its about rethinking how the game evolves for the future as courses are crowded across the country and new people come to the game. I don't think anybody doubts that attention spans have shortened. See Instagram as an example. Golf rounds have become slower across the board, with little changing to the courses themselves. What was once a 4 hour round max, is now 5 as the norm.

With the ability to have 6, 12 and 18 holes available the masses each have something to enjoy.
 
I personally wouldn’t be too interested in playing a 12 hole course. I also don’t see golf becoming merely a retirement past time as referenced in the first post.
 
sposey013168 said:
I still say why go to the trouble of re rating and redesigning courses. If you are pushed for time just play 9.
Click to expand...

re-rating may not be necessary, at least at first. perhaps only allow handicap posting for 9-hole or 18-hole scores, not for the 6- or 12-hole rounds.

as far as redesigning, i can see that as a potential hurdle. not every course has the ability to reroute. but i think if the courses that can offer this and do it in a way that is intelligent and geared toward pace and enjoyment, it could be very successful.

not every course needs to and maybe even should participate. we already have somewhat of an unspoken demarcation between enthusiasts and casual golfers; it's called "price." i don't see too many newbies playing the $200 tracks in my area, or said differently i don't see a huge number of them to the point that they're backing up courses.

my other thought is where possible, the usga and other governing bodies could offer to help with the redesign costs. in exchange for the funding, the course would need to agree to offer junior programs, and maybe block out tee times for newer golfers and offer lower rates. let the governing bodies subsidize growth, instead of spending millions on stupid distance studies.
 
  • Love
Reactions: JB
Bernoulli said:
I can definitely understand the desire to play a complete round of 18 holes. However, I don’t know where you play or what time you play or if your course is public or private, but your time of 3:45 for s rounds is great. In my area, public courses are a 5+ hour round unless you play very early.
Click to expand...
Municipal course memberships and open to the public. As members we get preferred times. Our groups are the first 3-4 out on weekends. Definitely helps!
 
chpar4 said:
Municipal course memberships and open to the public. As members we get preferred times. Our groups are the first 3-4 out on weekends. Definitely helps!
Click to expand...

Your pace of play is still commendable. 3:45 for 18 is very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top