Royal County Down Front vs. Back Nine

[jwellefson1]

Alright everyone, just got back from a great trip where the highlight was playing at RCD for the first time. It was absolutely unreal and is now my favorite that I've played. However, like many others, it was clear the Front was the true spectacle. I didn't think that the back was bad, it was thought-provoking and testing, but frankly nothing could compare to the front. My question is do you think RCD

would benefit from reversing the nines? I think it would feel a little unnatural, considering the first would be a Par 3 and there would be a long walk between the nines, but it may erase some of the poor reviews based on the back nine. Just wanted to hear some of your thoughts

[duffer987]

Such is the nature of golf. People say similar things about the fronts or backs of Royal Aberdeen, Ballybunion, Portstewart for instance, among many examples. The what ifs don't really amount to much IMHO, you'd just have whatever the reverse argument is. And with RCD it's already regarded as one of the top whatever courses in the world... not a lot of room for improvement :)

It really is a case of - if my aunt had bollocks she'd be my uncle.

[Schley]

I was just there this past Thursday and didn't differentiate from back to front as it kicked my a**. It was just too penal for me as I spray my drives typically and with the wind being 20-25 mph it was just too hard to get in the fairway for me. The front has the water holes but jeez with the howling wind both sides IMO were beautifully tough.) Switch 9's who cares IMO, the course as a whole was very good, but too penal for the average golfer I believe.

[jwellefson1]

> @duffer987 said:

> Such is the nature of golf. People say similar things about the fronts or backs of Royal Aberdeen, Ballybunion, Portstewart for instance, among many examples. The what ifs don't really amount to much IMHO, you'd just have whatever the reverse argument is. And with RCD it's already regarded as one of the top whatever courses in the world... not a lot of room for improvement :)

> It really is a case of - if my aunt had bollocks she'd be my uncle.

 

Agreed, I just wanted to post the question :smile:

I think it's simply one of the absolute best, I've just heard a lot of complaints about the finish before and wanted to see if there's anyone out there who'd say yes.

[jwellefson1]

> @"Schley " said:

> I was just there this past Thursday and didn't differentiate from back to front as it kicked my ****. It was just too penal for me as I spray my drives typically and with the wind being 20-25 mph it was just too hard to get in the fairway for me. The front has the water holes but jeez with the howling wind both sides IMO were beautifully tough.) Switch 9's who cares IMO, the course as a whole was very good, but too penal for the average golfer I believe.

 

I was there Tuesday - we just missed each other! I get where you're coming from for sure, but I don't think it's too penal. It's incredibly difficult, but I had played better than I would've expected to be honest.

[duffer987]

> @"Schley " said:

> I was just there this past Thursday and didn't differentiate from back to front as it kicked my ****. It was just too penal for me as I spray my drives typically and with the wind being 20-25 mph it was just too hard to get in the fairway for me. The front has the water holes but jeez with the howling wind both sides IMO were beautifully tough.) Switch 9's who cares IMO, the course as a whole was very good, but too penal for the average golfer I believe.

 

Well if you typically spray your drives and it's blowing 20-25 mph, that's not really the course's fault ;)

It's no more demanding a course than Walton Heath Old IMHO - to use another example you recently played IIRC.

[Chanceman]

I was just happy to be there playing golf.

And the chowder was superb.