front nine vs back nine

[Hacker James]

I don't know what the typical differences in terms of difficulty are on course design but the last course I played, I had a terrible front nine (+13), but recovered on the back nine (+5). I always thought the back nine played harder, narrower fairways e.t.c., but I notice on the scorecard it is 311 yards shorter than the front.  But in looking at what I've been doing, it sorta makes sense, as distance seems to be my greatest weakness. (that and putts not dropping).  68.3/121  3125 yds  2814 yds (Par 72). 

[WUTiger]

The Foulis brothers designed lots of early 1900s courses in the Midwest. Their rule of thumb: six hard holes, six moderate holes and six easy holes.

As for front and back, it varies by architect. Some older courses have a 36-34 layout, possibly so that a shorter back nine with more par 3s would put less stress on tired golfers.

For Normandie Golf Club in St. Louis, the No. 1 Par 4 (446 yards) is the #1 HDCP. The idea was, it got easier after that first one. (Normandie is a Foulis design)

Modern layouts may be influenced by the HDCP assignment rules. I skimmed a booklet on rating golf courses for stroke and slope ratings. Several curious guidelines existed, such as a not designing No. 9 or 18 as #1 HDCP, because the stroke gave the less-skilled player an unfair advantage in a golf match. Other curious guidelines also.

[Hacker James]

I suppose so. Topography plays a role as well. Winding creeks, valleys, road sides make for narrow fairways, then on the wider spots, they need to crowd 2 fairways (going opposite directions) very close to each other in order to fit them in.  Often, the only thing that separates the fairways is a tree line and cart path. One could probably say the same for most courses. I only thought it a disparity that the back nine, although in my mind's eye more difficult, I did much better. Then again, the ride from #9 to #10 was sort of a "reset" like you are given a second chance. 

[CarlSpackler]

As they say... it ain't over until it's over. 

Way to hang in there and recover. 

[Hacker James]

16 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

As they say... it ain't over until it's over. 

Way to hang in there and recover. 

Thanks!

[Gator Hazard]

My home course (Northdale) the front nine is harder than the back nine in my opinion. #2 is rated the hardest. #5 you have to carry 130 yards of water par three and if over club you end up in the swamp so it's psychological. #8 has the hardest green to read and it can give you nightmares. Many a three putt on that and par 5 #9 have a right window off the tee to hit it in. A little too left and you just added 50 yards to the hole since it doglegs right. Too right you clip the tree branches and might not find your ball. A little inside of that and you may find your second shot blocked by a huge tree that is there. To make it even more interesting you have to carry a creek to another small landing green on other side.

The back 9 has the signature par 5 with lots of water but that's pretty much it for those holes. I die when they start us on ten first. 

All in in all think it depends on the course. I played a goat track with 4 par threes on front nine and then the back nine was crazy in comparison. 

[jkelley9]

I don't believe I've seen a consistency of courses I've played where the back nine is tougher than the front. But then again I haven't played a HUGE number of courses or anything. And 90% were all in NC.

[Kalnoky]

At least three of the golf courses I've played were built and rebuilt in phases spanning several years. I find the newer holes are generally easier to play (bigger greens, smaller trees, etc.). Usually the back 9 is newer.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Kalnoky

[Valleygolfer]

Our course claims to have a more difficult back 9 vs the front however I feel like the front is considerably harder than the back. I frequently come in with a 43-45 on the front and 38-41 on the back. I'm not real sure what Donald Ross' strategies were but I have not seen a gradual decrease in difficulty in his tracks.