Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Sean_A on April 13, 2010, 06:59:17 PM
-
After the Other Muldoon came up trumps with his suggestion of Oxford I decided to follow his advice and pull up at Camberley Heath. Designed in 1913, fairly early in Colt's career, Camberley is a joy to play. However, I will get the bad points squared away immediately so as to try and not harp on the negative too much. First, the bunkering is a slop job. One will clearly see this as the tour progresses. Second, the pond on 16 - huh! Its a shocker. Mind you, the hole with or without a pond is drab. I think a great many of the "improvements" were made when a Japanese contingent owned the course, including the huge clubhouse and the mounding behind #3 when the underpass was built. I was struck by all the mounding around the course. I haven't seen another Colt course use this element so blatantly, mind you, much of this handiwork is diminished by tree growth which isn't too harsh, but it does annoy at times. On to the course.
#1 brings a promising start. The hole originally played from a tee perhaps 40 yards behind the present one in an area just in front of where the old clubhouse used to stand.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/937/29760105188_ede1efcb1a_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/937/29760105188_ede1efcb1a_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/835/28742189177_17ae6e6805_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/835/28742189177_17ae6e6805_b.jpg)
True to Colt's standards, all the short holes are a delight. The 2nd is particularly good because the green has two tiers and a ridge bisecting the green into left and right halves as well.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/931/28742188747_384f9fc2c8_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/931/28742188747_384f9fc2c8_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/841/28742184287_4901c19326_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/841/28742184287_4901c19326_b.jpg)
The three-shot 3rd is a terrific hole and the favourite of many. If one hits an average drive the alps-like hill poses an interesting dilemma.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/923/28742188537_5b36bf9e85_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/923/28742188537_5b36bf9e85_b.jpg)
The unmissable mounding behind the green is probably a visual block of nearby Chobham Rd.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/929/41822021640_ebb0491889_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/929/41822021640_ebb0491889_b.jpg)
We now cross under the Chobham Road for what is half the course. The walk pays off for the the 4th is a gem of a hole which is drivable, but not without its risks. I am not sure who did much of the work at Camberley, but it is obvious this green is new. I suspect the green was grade level at one time and leaning away from the fairway. The new green is quite good and I like how it angles from left to right.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/835/29760105038_0df0586c2f_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/835/29760105038_0df0586c2f_b.jpg)
Like the 3rd, #5 requires big hitting, but the card is rather miserly in only offering four shots to cover 495 yards. I spose this is as good a hole as any to point out the lack of attention to details, which while not deal breakers, are important in the experience of the course. Fairway lines, scrubby trees inside the main tree line and wishy washy bunkering are issues which the club need to sort out.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/841/28742188167_b26744053f_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/841/28742188167_b26744053f_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/922/43647803001_8fbb874604_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/922/43647803001_8fbb874604_b.jpg)
It is a shame the sixth comes so closely after the fourth for its another drivable two-shotter. Its set-up is rather similar to the 4th, legging left with oob down the left and bunkers everywhere.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/839/28742186527_9c5bb8f661_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/839/28742186527_9c5bb8f661_b.jpg)
I suspect this is a new green.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/919/29760104848_b2a518aba9_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/919/29760104848_b2a518aba9_b.jpg)
The following hole used to play straightaway, but a tee was placed near the lay-up area for the 6th hole which created a dogleg right. Its a better hole, but I am not sure it is worth the 100 yard walk. Perhaps if the bunkers were better integrated I would change my mind. The approach is deceptively uphill and dead ends into the fairway corridor of #10. This routing technique was used to great effect by Braid at Pennard.
The 8th is a solid benched-green par 3 with its aesthetics crossed a bit by the path.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/933/28760547737_36c1d8dced_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/933/28760547737_36c1d8dced_b.jpg)
The outward nine finishes with a shortish par 5 cutting up the head of a little valley. This is a hole Tom Simpson was involved in designing, but I fear it has been greatly altered.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/844/29760103518_5312a265d9_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/844/29760103518_5312a265d9_b.jpg)
The second isn't terribly onerous, but the player needs to keep right, near more curious mounds to earn the best angle of the approach. In recent years the green has been extended to accommodate more difficult hole locations.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/857/28760549337_294dffa8b7_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/857/28760549337_294dffa8b7_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/927/29778516018_18f4072766_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/927/29778516018_18f4072766_b.jpg)
Much like a links, the golfer is now at the furthest point away from the clubhouse. The property, which looks like an arched ballerina's foot, is not suitable for two loops of nine. However, Colt creatively designed a routing whereby one can play a perfectly flowing nine holes by jumping to the adjacent tee 13th after playing #3. Additionally, there are a few other opportunities to easily cut short a full round if so desired. The 10th is a double valley hole over heather and canting severely to the right. The photo below is taken from just shy of the first crest. Even from here the second dip isn't obvious.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/935/42725845155_1b8b3f22d7_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/935/42725845155_1b8b3f22d7_b.jpg)
A longish par 3, the 11th features a flat landing area short of the green. Often times for the British archies of Colt's era this sort of characteristic signals a front to back green.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/859/28742184857_811ddcea46_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/859/28742184857_811ddcea46_b.jpg)
The modest length 12th offers a break by playing over flat ground. The foliage to the rear of the green hides more huge mounding. There is also some wild stuff down the left. I know I keep hammering on about the mounding, but I found it to be incredible. If I didn't know Camberley Heath was a Colt course I would swear Fowler had a hand in its design. After crossing once again under the Chobham Road we play the final three-shotter. As on the tenth, heather cuts the 13th fairway in two and thus thwarts the flat belly from driving to the bottom of the hill.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/914/28742184647_f7c1d1f73c_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/914/28742184647_f7c1d1f73c_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/857/42912615484_188f2d4814_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/857/42912615484_188f2d4814_b.jpg)
#14 takes us back to the house. There are a handful of sloping front to back greens, but this short hole's green is the most severe of this type and thus explains the placement of the forward bunker. Notice the wee mound to the rear of the green. This is much more what I think of the typical Colt mounding which invariably frames greens.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/860/42725845425_48cfe30a31_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/860/42725845425_48cfe30a31_b.jpg)
The short, two-shotter 15th has a blind drive and plays to a corner of the course. It feels a bit like Colt ran out of room in this section of the property.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/834/28742184537_f6ea1bc0ac_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/834/28742184537_f6ea1bc0ac_b.jpg)
The 16th showcases what has to be one of the worst features I have ever seen added to a Colt course...enough said! Thankfully, the remaining two holes bring us home in style. The penultimate hole asks the golfer to play well left to earn a solid view of the hole by remaining on the same level as the green. However, this safe play isn't at all obvious! The play to the right is shorter, but must flirt with the bunker and it leaves an obscured approach.
The home hole is a doozy. It reminds me of a shortened version of St Enodoc's 10th! Is the play right or down the skinny strip of fairway to the left? Today this wasn't a difficult decision, but I can imagine the golfer leaning into a cold winter's wind and not coming up with the correct choice, if there is one. I don't imagine Colt thought golfers could carry the hill so the choice looks to be more limited back in his day.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/916/28742184367_f3278167ae_o.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/916/28742184367_f3278167ae_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/921/42725845225_2ab055133e_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/921/42725845225_2ab055133e_b.jpg)
The approach if one successfully carries the hill, although many can drive this green.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/856/42725845335_42e04a1a31_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/856/42725845335_42e04a1a31_b.jpg)
A look at Simpson's wild 18th green with the old house in the background. This green was some distance short and a bit right of the current green....which created more of a dogleg effect from the tee.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4833/44404537530_4b6d37cf40_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4833/44404537530_4b6d37cf40_b.jpg)
Camberley Heath rises wonderfully above the disjointed, sometimes misplaced bunkers and the odd feature or two which rankle. The routing is superb and affords all manner of holes; valley, double valley, up n' overs, flat, sidehill - did I miss anything? This course is a bit too inconsistent to be in the league with some of the well known courses of London, but I think Camberley Heath stands apart because of its very good 3s and 5s. The course does, however, seem to suffer from soft greens and for this reason I can't give it a 1*. If anything Camberley Heath demonstrates how deep the quality of golf around London is and that one needn't necessarily pay top whack for interesting, fun, quality golf.
If folks do decide to visit Camberley Heath, be sure to take a look at the trophy case behind the pro shop. There is a touching display of Molly Gourlay memorabilia. Several medals, paper clippings, posters etc are the mainstay of the collection. Sadly, no mention is made of Mrs Gourlay's architectural contributions at Ballybunion or County Louth, but one can't help but be impressed by her career as a golfer. Rumour has it that when Simpson made minor changes at Camberley Heath that Molly Gourlay was the supervising architect. 2014
Simpson and Gourlay supervising work..I wish I knew where.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/836/42912609244_ea7b41a0c6_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/836/42912609244_ea7b41a0c6_b.jpg)
Gourlay showing off her graceful swing.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7837/47261656551_be357cf98b_b.jpg) (https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7837/47261656551_be357cf98b_b.jpg)
Ciao
-
Sean,
I cannot believe I missed out on this! Today was ideal for golf, and tt looks like a fantastic layout. Like West Hill, Worplesdon, and Huntercombe, I had never heard about Camberley Heath until I got here. It appears to be very quirky. Is this true?
-
Sean--
I have greatly enjoyed this long parade of photo tours of UK courses. I am starting to think that there are no less-than-very good golf courses in the UK!
I for one would love to see the other 13 holes at Camberley Heath if you have the time to take us through them.
Cheers.
--Tim
-
I will try to finish the tour tomorrow.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Once again a great photo tour - and in spite of only 3 replies up to now is a real welcome thread among some of the OT’s out there - looking forward to the second 9.
I was interested on your comment “First, the bunkering is a slop job”.
Can you elaborate?
-
Nice write up Sean and good to bump into you after your round ;)
As I mentioned the previous owners of CH have, over the years, done quite a few things that have (to a point) ruined a nice little course/club.
The most obvious and awful change is the Koi Carp pond on the 16th hole. Picture the 18th at St. Andrews Old with a pond and fountain (and throw in a few gargoyles for good measure..) and you're about there for how inappropriate and ugly it is.....thanks to the Japanese owners.
Also the course feels far more "hemmed in" than years gone by as owners have sold off significant parcels of land for property development as means to supplement the club finances. This is especially evident for the front nine and around the turn.
It's only a small point but I hate the 15th hole and the stupid big mirror to see where you are driving - and if it is clear!! What's wrong with a bell?!?! As you rightly say Sean it does feel somewhat shoe horned in between the 14th and 16th.
Lastly the clubhouse is quite possibly the ugliest I have ever seen!! The "old" clubhouse was a classic home counties early 20th Century design not unlike those at the three W's. From recollection the old one was deemed a fire hazard, hence the addition of the new (current) one to replace it.
For me the 3rd is a wonderful hole and sets up so well - as do the 8th/9th and 10th. With a little work the course could be a lot better but it's one of the more interesting (and frustrating) courses in the immediate area.
-
Sean
I love your photo essays - definitely one of the best things about this site. Keep 'em coming.
I drive past Camberley Heath on a daily basis, yet have only played there once in 5 years of living here. I think that needs to be redressed this summer.
With regard to the giant mounds at the back of 3 and 12, I would think they have a lot to do with the adjacent tunnel under the road. Firstly, as a method of screening the dark black hole of the tunnel portals, but also as a means of getting rid of the spoil. I could be wrong, but that's my take on them.
-
Sean
Great tour as usual.
Although the entrance is wider, the 8th superficially looks similar to the 4th at Swinley. How do they compare (if at all)?
Thanks
Jon
-
It certainly does, Jon. Good pick-up.
-
Sean
Great tour as usual.
Although the entrance is wider, the 8th superficially looks similar to the 4th at Swinley. How do they compare (if at all)?
Thanks
Jon
Very different hole Jon.
The 8th at CH is played slightly down hill and it is a much longer hole than the 4th at Swinley Forest. Also the green at CH is quite an easy putting surface whereas the 4th at SF is anything but that.
For me the 4th at Swinley Forest is a far superior hole.
-
Once again thanks Sean.
What are the great relatively unsung Heathland courses I've yet to play?
Camberley, Hankley, Reigate Heath, Liphook, Blackmoor, Copt...
This looks a blast, one of the most photogenic courses (if you ignore the houses), but then who ever listens to their younger brother? ;)
If Adrian reads this perhaps he can persude Marc Haring to make a swansong on this site. I believe he was the Head Greenkeeper when the changes were forced on the course. I always enjoyed his contributions and it's sad he's given all this up.
-
Hi Sean,
I spent two days studying this course in preparation of our 'Colt' course we are currently building in Newcastle (UK). I too was quite taken by it, and the work the team at the Club are putting into the course. This is an original Colt design opened in 1913. It was built for £20,000. It is par 71, at 6426 yards (so not overly long), but there are some great contours and slopes that deliver some excellent shot values and put a premium on ball striking.
For me the stand out holes were the 2nd, 8th, 13th and 17th. The worst hole is the 16th (with the lake :()!!! )
There have been quite a number of changes to the course over the years, but there are still quite a number of Colt features on the course.
This course is well worth a visit and it was a privilege to visit. Good work with the photos, and bringing the course to the attention of more people.
scott
-
Well done Sean!
Another great photo tour. After having visited a couple of heathland courses last week - sadly no chance to play - I have a new appreciation of them. ;D
-
Once again thanks Sean.
What are the great relatively unsung Heathland courses I've yet to play?
Camberley, Hankley, Reigate Heath, Liphook, Blackmoor, Copt...
This looks a blast, one of the most photogenic courses (if you ignore the houses), but then who ever listens to their younger brother? ;)
If Adrian reads this perhaps he can persude Marc Haring to make a swansong on this site. I believe he was the Head Greenkeeper when the changes were forced on the course. I always enjoyed his contributions and it's sad he's given all this up.
Tony
You have to play Hankley.......
Gareth :)
-
Sean,
Once again a great photo tour - and in spite of only 3 replies up to now is a real welcome thread among some of the OT’s out there - looking forward to the second 9.
I was interested on your comment “First, the bunkering is a slop job”.
Can you elaborate?
John
Just look around the course and see how the bunkers differ in their appearance. I would also say the course has had many newish bunkers which add nothing except difficulty. There are still a handful of the old bunkers with heather. At the very least the club should try to blend the old with the new.
Robin
I think you are right regarding 3 and 12. Do you spose more mounding was added after Colt?
Jon
Gareth is right. Swinley's 4th and Camberley's 8th are really totally different holes. Besides the length difference, Swinley's is really a version of the Redan and Camberley's is a bench green that is rounded off.
Ciao
-
Sean -
Great stuff. Thanks. There is something so inviting about Colt's designs. He had the courage to understate. Something golf architecture lost along the way.
Bob
-
Sean,
Thanks for the photo tour. Camberley looks a fine course (apart from the 16th's pond!) and certainly worth checking out.
When your photos disappeared a couple of days ago, I had a look on Google Maps aerial of the course, and so was pretty amazed when you posted the photos of the 18th. Having seen it from above in 2D I just wasn't expecting that!
Cheers,
James
-
Thanks Sean - great looking course. Reminds me most of Woking and Swinley. There are some attractive looking 3-shotters. Now i must find out where it is so i can go and play!
-
Sean
Nice review!
That mound behind the 3rd is crazy big, but overall I didn't think the mounding was unique for Colt....Harborne has wild stuff on a few holes. I haven't seen Prestbury but I think it still has some heavy mounding on a few holes most notably the 13th ?
Meyrick Park has a lot of big mounds and Tandridge has some outrageous "tunnels of alpinisation" on 9th and 12th. Both are really worth checking out and a similar calibre to Camberley.
Par 5s were the standout to me. Which is unusual for Colt.
Steel redid the 4th. I can't believe the 6th greenside bunkering. They were completely redone about 10 years ago with heather faces and now its all gone!
There now looks to be quite a bodge of bunker styles.
You can easily spot the Steel bunkers on 4th and fronting the 8th. Curvy machine style that he's done elsewhere: Stoke Poges, Tandridge.
EGD did the modern looking redone bunkers on the 18th.
The 18th green was moved slightly with the new horrible clubhouse. The owners were (are?) clueless. The buggy paths were (are?) crazy.
Agree that the pond is the worst addition ever to a Colt course. It used to have a rock with a plastic heron on it, to keep the carp safe!
The bones of the course are gen
-
Another envy-inducing photo tour. Thanks.
I have to say I was not prepared for the pond on the 16th!
-
Sean
Nice review!
That mound behind the 3rd is crazy big, but overall I didn't think the mounding was unique for Colt....Harborne has wild stuff on a few holes. I haven't seen Prestbury but I think it still has some heavy mounding on a few holes most notably the 13th ?
Meyrick Park has a lot of big mounds and Tandridge has some outrageous "tunnels of alpinisation" on 9th and 12th. Both are really worth checking out and a similar calibre to Camberley.
Par 5s were the standout to me. Which is unusual for Colt.
Steel redid the 4th. I can't believe the 6th greenside bunkering. They were completely redone about 10 years ago with heather faces and now its all gone!
There now looks to be quite a bodge of bunker styles.
You can easily spot the Steel bunkers on 4th and fronting the 8th. Curvy machine style that he's done elsewhere: Stoke Poges, Tandridge.
EGD did the modern looking redone bunkers on the 18th.
The 18th green was moved slightly with the new horrible clubhouse. The owners were (are?) clueless. The buggy paths were (are?) crazy.
Agree that the pond is the worst addition ever to a Colt course. It used to have a rock with a plastic heron on it, to keep the carp safe!
The bones of the course are gen
Paul
To me the mounding is very different between Camberley and Harborne. Doc Hiseman is probably correct about #s 3 and 12, but check out this difference.
#10 Camberley
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/CAMBERLEY%20HEATH%20GC/13April2010103.jpg?t=1271321546)
#2 Harborne
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/HARBORNE/100_4431.jpg?t=1242462865)
#3 Harborne - much more typical of Colt.
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/HARBORNE/17July2009191.jpg?t=1248092796)
Do you know if Frank Bros built Camberley?
Yes, the 4th looks to me as if the green has been radically changed. I think it used to be a grade level one sliding front to back with the land. I suspect the 6th is also different. I know the two new pots short of the green used to be heathery bunkers.
The cart paths (possibly worse than the pond especially as Camberley has some of the best drainage of any heathland course - great grade drainage because of the routing), pond, new house and some archie changes came when the Japanese owned the course.
I was impressed with the great diversity of holes. I couldn't say the 3s, 4s or 5s particularly stood out as a group.
Ciao
-
Brian
I am glad you enjoyed the course. There is something magnetic about practically all Colt courses and Camberley is no different. I noticed things a bit more than the previous visit due to the slow nature of our round and they did niggle. For sure I think the aesthetic experience of Camberley could be greatly improved and I think for many this would greatly raise the profile of the course. I am not sure a better course near London can be had for Camberley's £49 fee. Less than £50 for quality golf is virtually unheard of around London with its bloated green fees.
I updated the tour - take a look.
Ciao
-
Thanks as always, Sean. (Increasingly, for me at least, the very best this site has to offer are these profiles). Yes, it is GOLF. What more could anyone want/expect?
Peter
-
Sean, thank you for the great descriptions and photos. Hard to believe there any "hidden gems" left, but apparently so. I'll just bang my "Harry Colt for the WGHOF" drum now and be off.
-
Thanks as always, Sean. (Increasingly, for me at least, the very best this site has to offer are these profiles). Yes, it is GOLF. What more could anyone want/expect?
Peter
Pietro
I seem to connect with you on these matters. We don't seem to need the best there is, just something thoughtful and a bit attractive. I recall writing the following about Cavendish and it applies to so much of Colt:
Can golf get any better than this for that price? Does golf need to be any better than this for any price?
Brian
I guess my highlights are more than one hole if I am to take my words above seriously. #s 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 13 and 18 are all fine holes which would grace most any course.
Thank you Jeff.
Ciao
-
Thank you for the excellent review, Sean.
I am planning a trip to Surrey in 2013 and will be sure to take Camberley Heath into consideration for the itinerary.
Due to budget restrictions we will probably have to pick from below the top shelf so any other tips on Surrey courses to play would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers.
-
Great photo essay, Sean. I missed this the first time around. What a beautiful golf course!
-
Steffan
What Brian said plus Huntercombe - its a strech to call it London, but worth some effort to find. I spose the same is true of West Sussex.
A few more which I am told by good folks are worth seeing.
Blackmoor and Hindhead - same neighbourhood as Liphook
Reigate Heath
Threadkiller - cheers.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Thank you for the input.
I'll be sure to take your advice into account when deciding the final itinerary.
Sorry for the slight hi-jack of the tread.
Now back to Camberley Heath ;)
-
I see Frank Pont is at it again. This time, it looks like a much needed bunker job for Camberley. I wonder if Frank can pursuade the club to lose the Koi pond ::)
http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Frank-Pont-to-oversee-restoration-of-Camberley-Heath-Golf-Club-course/3082/Default.aspx#.U1TtUPldXHQ (http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Frank-Pont-to-oversee-restoration-of-Camberley-Heath-Golf-Club-course/3082/Default.aspx#.U1TtUPldXHQ)
Ciao
-
Hi Sean,
Great presentation again! I'll add it to my ever growing list of courses that I have to play in the UK.
Even though I've been to the UK quite a bit the last few years the list seems to be growing faster
than I can tick them off...
Concerning Frank's involvement at Camberley, I'm pretty sure he'll try. At my former course
he expressed his feelings towards water on heathland courses quite clearly.
Actually, now that the Hoge Kleij has had some time to settle into its restoration, I'm really
happy about the way it turned out!
Cheers,
Jan
-
I see Frank Pont is at it again. This time, it looks like a much needed bunker job for Camberley. I wonder if Frank can pursuade the club to lose the Koi pond ::)
http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Frank-Pont-to-oversee-restoration-of-Camberley-Heath-Golf-Club-course/3082/Default.aspx#.U1TtUPldXHQ
Ciao
Sean, do not worry about the pond, its days are numbered.
-
As ever, superb review.
I played Camberley for the first and only time last year and found it to be a joy, the 2nd and the 18th immediately banked in the memory as two of my very favourite holes. Perhaps it has a few too many pedestrian holes to be held in higher regard but I for one think it provides a serious amount of fun.
Strangely enough, because it usually drives me mad, the mounding didn't offend. The pond on 16 however, though I knew it was coming, still stood out as an oddity.
-
Currently working on the bunker plan for the course, we have old aerials that clearly show that many bunkers have been added or repositioned, often not improving the holes.
The other interesting fact is that the club has information that many of the greens were flattened several years after Colt left because the members felt that some of the greens were too undulating. Obviously green 2 wasn't one of them....
Current course manager Nick Paris is doing a stellar job creating the conditions to get wider corridors, better viewing lines and the heather back around the course. He totally gets it.
-
How prescient that this thread should have been re-activated.
I will be visiting Camberley Heath in September as part of the MacKenzie team hoping to demolish the Colt mob for "The Partners' Salver".
I knew nothing of the place but it looks like we're in for a treat!
-
I see Frank Pont is at it again. This time, it looks like a much needed bunker job for Camberley. I wonder if Frank can pursuade the club to lose the Koi pond ::)
http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Frank-Pont-to-oversee-restoration-of-Camberley-Heath-Golf-Club-course/3082/Default.aspx#.U1TtUPldXHQ
Ciao
Sean, do not worry about the pond, its days are numbered.
Good news, the pond is an atrocity on an otherwise interesting and authentic course.
I don't suppose you could raise the 18th fairway by about 40 feet?
-
I see Frank Pont is at it again. This time, it looks like a much needed bunker job for Camberley. I wonder if Frank can pursuade the club to lose the Koi pond ::)
http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Frank-Pont-to-oversee-restoration-of-Camberley-Heath-Golf-Club-course/3082/Default.aspx#.U1TtUPldXHQ
Ciao
Sean, do not worry about the pond, its days are numbered.
Good news, the pond is an atrocity on an otherwise interesting and authentic course.
I don't suppose you could raise the 18th fairway by about 40 feet?
No, that would be more in line with the changes the former Japanese owners made to the course ;)
-
I see Frank Pont is at it again. This time, it looks like a much needed bunker job for Camberley. I wonder if Frank can pursuade the club to lose the Koi pond ::)
http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Frank-Pont-to-oversee-restoration-of-Camberley-Heath-Golf-Club-course/3082/Default.aspx#.U1TtUPldXHQ
Ciao
Sean, do not worry about the pond, its days are numbered.
Good news, the pond is an atrocity on an otherwise interesting and authentic course.
I don't suppose you could raise the 18th fairway by about 40 feet?
No, that would be more in line with the changes the former Japanese owners made to the course ;)
Thanks Frank.
Martin, I like the severe dichotomy of choices on the 18th; neither feels cozy. I always say that all courses need to make golfers feel awkward a few times a round.
Ciao
-
I see Frank is making heavy moves at Camberley, he even has his ugly mug posted about the place :D Anyway, lets hope he can sort some irritating bunkers out, the dreadful pond and clear up the greens a bit..they are too soft. See the updated tour.
Ciao
-
I see Frank is making heavy moves at Camberley, he even has his ugly mug posted about the place :D Anyway, lets hope he can sort some irritating bunkers out, the dreadful pond and clear up the greens a bit..they are too soft. See the updated tour.
Ciao
Updated tour, Sean? Am I being particularly stupid, blind or both? :D
-
Sean,
I will post the before/after photo montages I did for the club for the 4 par 3 holes we will be tackling this Autumn.
First is hole 2, maybe my favourite of the one-shotters, with hole 14.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10772736/GolfClubAtlas/CH%20hole%202%20before.jpg)
The current hole.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10772736/GolfClubAtlas/CH%20hole%202%20post.jpg)
The hole with restored bunkers and a lot of wood cleared. (my apologies for my limited skills with Photoshop, but I'm sure George Waters will make it look very nice in reality)
-
And here hole 14 before
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10772736/GolfClubAtlas/CH%20hole%2014%20before.jpg)
and after restoring the original seven bunkers
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10772736/GolfClubAtlas/CH%20hole%2014%20post.jpg)
-
Hole 11 now
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10772736/GolfClubAtlas/CH%20hole%2011%20before.jpg)
and after
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10772736/GolfClubAtlas/CH%20hole%2011%20post.jpg)
and hole 8 now
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10772736/GolfClubAtlas/CH%20hole%208%20before.jpg)
and after
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10772736/GolfClubAtlas/CH%20hole%208%20post.jpg)
-
Frank, where are you sending the water from that pond? Is it currently an irrigation pond?
-
Frank, where are you sending the water from that pond? Is it currently an irrigation pond?
The pond lies at the highest point of the property, and had to be sealed to keep the water there.
The ground water table is probably 60-80 yards deep.
So breaking the seal will take care of the water.
It isn't an irrigation pond either.
-
Not surprisingly, looking excellent. I do like Camberley. Particularly pleasing to see the simple measure of reintroducing fairway cut around the greens and thereby removing the horrible layered cut lines.
-
Frank
I am not convinced splitting the two bunkers left on #8 looks or will play better than what is in the ground now. What is the reason for the split?
Is there any plan for firming up the greens?
Ciao
-
Frank
I am not convinced splitting the two bunkers left on #8 looks or will play better than what is in the ground now. What is the reason for the split?
Ciao
Sean,
Historic pics show two bunkers left, one right. Shaping will be more irregular to what I show here.
I am at CH tomorrow evening, will ask about the greens.
-
Thanks Frank. I understand that you likely have a brief for certain work. However, I can't help but wonder if the focus can sometimes be misplaced. I understand the bunkering is a mish mash job, but to me the most important issues to consider are the soft greens and tree work. Assuming there is only so much money in the pot, getting the priorities straight is important. We talk about the bunker on 8 and that is incredibly low on any list of work I would think important to do at CH. I realize this is your livelihood, but I find it very surprising that greens and making sure sunlight hits the greens aren't the top priorities. Of course, that is coming from the PoV that bunkering is in the main about looks if the placement is going to be altered much. Focusing so much on bunkers is a worrying trend.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I'd usually agree with you on any style vs substance argument but I do think there's actually architecturally relevant benefit to replacing one rather bland oversized trap with two or three smaller and more penal offerings. And minor though it may seem, I suspect there are cost benefits to be had by not simply building one vast hazard after another. Those bits of turf between small bunkers represent a saving on sand.
-
I don't think this constant banging on about non existent firm conditions in England makes a lot of sense, particularly inland. When its been raining a lot, the course will be wet.
There are hundreds of courses in England, how many really drain better than Camberley?
Burnham is wet, surrey heaths are wet, where are these fabled dry courses?
Don't understand all the moaning. Golf in England is what it is. It is a green and pleasant land because quite frankly it rains a lot.
Forget the bunkers frank, renovate or restore the climate. Summer of 76 should do it.
-
Ryan
We actually haven't had much rain in recent weeks and the dry fairways are a testament to this at Camberley. In four visits, it was the same story; firmish fairways, and not so firm greens. There is a disconnect for sure and I am convinced that clubs can do better.
Paul
I much prefer the one bigger bunker (far from vast if you ask me) to two more circular bland bunkers, but then I would be happy with no bunkers on the hole...don't think they are necessary here. It seems to me, the bland circular bunkers are dealt with on the right, but re-created on the left ??? Perhaps a bit of heather on the tongues may help with the aesthetic...there are other areas where this could be done.
My comments must be taken in context of how much money is in the pot for course improvements and how to get the best bang for the buck. Without question, I would rather the greens be improved, trees be removed to help and some bunkers just filled in. With more money sort out the 16th. Removing the pond is a great first step, but the hole will be bland anyway unless there is a re-think. With more money work on the re-creating the bunker scheme. Bunkers to me seem to be what everybody goes ga-ga over, but course conditions should be the real grabber with limited funding available.
Ciao
-
Fair enough Sean, But what are the inland clubs that do consistently produce the conditions we prefer?
-
Fair enough Sean, But what are the inland clubs that do consistently produce the conditions we prefer?
Ryan
Very few, but I think this is mainly due to human error and/or lack of budget (which is human error as well). Basically, Brits have had golf too cheap for too long, at the expense of conditioning and playability with a lack of solid long term planning. Just look at the state of courses with trees not only mucking up play, but sound course management as well. I also wonder what is going on below the surface when I walk on spongy greens...and most courses have sponge to one degree or another...and this is coming from a guy who is quite selective in choosing where to play. Bottom line, I am becoming less tolerant of the rain card when course conditions are a talking point. That excuse can only go so far.
Ciao
-
Fair enough Sean, But what are the inland clubs that do consistently produce the conditions we prefer?
Ryan
Very few, but I think this is mainly due to human error and/or lack of budget (which is human error as well). Basically, Brits have had golf too cheap for too long, at the expense of conditioning and playability with a lack of solid long term planning. Just look at the state of courses with trees not only mucking up play, but sound course management as well. I also wonder what is going on below the surface when I walk on spongy greens...and most courses have sponge to one degree or another...and this is coming from a guy who is quite selective in choosing where to play. Bottom line, I am becoming less tolerant of the rain card when course conditions are a talking point. That excuse can only go so far.
Ciao
I go with the thought that they can't all be badly managed. I'm not sure your firm nirvana actually exists with any degree of consistency.
Totally agree about golf being too cheap. But Who pays for these increased budgets? You've made it pretty clear that you won't, be it through green fees or subs.
It ain't draining unless someone else is paying.
-
Ryan
I disagree about course management, the national tree issue should be enough to convince you as well that clubs have not done a good job in caring for their courses. I would also disagree with you where I am concerned. I would love to pay extra subs if I was told the greens would be improved and I could believe it. I would also pay more to visit drier courses...hell I do now...hence the reason I pay no attention to tons of cheap courses I could play. My firm nirvana is a dream, but its a dream which has the potential to come true with better course management. I have seen it happen at Alwoodley, Notts is making good strides, Hunstanton dramatically improved, same for Formby. It isn't easy, but with a good long term plan, practically every course in the country could be improved and never touch a bunker.
Ciao
-
Boy, am I glad this came to the top. As always Sean your posts are awesome!
-
Sean,
I am surprised you think golf is too cheap but if you feel this to be the case then you could always pay a few pounds extra as I am sure most clubs would not decline such a generous offer. However if you think that by paying more conditions will improve then I suspect you will be very disappointed. Poor management is rarely due to lack of money though is often caused by having too much.
I also do not think a lack of budget is the problem when it comes to soggy conditions but rather where the budget is spent. If all the money spent on irrigation went into decent deep land drainage then most courses would not be too wet during the playing season after taking into account the soil conditions.
My experience is that most courses maintained on ultra low budgets offer decent playing conditions tee to green through the summer though often not in the winter but then again inland golf is not really a winter sport except for those lucky few spots that are free draining enough. If it is just the greens that are wet then it probably is over watering but after a lot of rain the ground should be wet. I agree about the trees though.
Jon
-
Sean,
It was great to meet up with you on Sunday at Camberley Heath and I have to say that I agree completely with you about the priorities that the club should have.
Yes, the bunkering is a bit of a mish-mash and not up to the standard one would expect of such a stunning heathland setting. However, my beef is more with the condition and aesthetic appearance of the bunkers than with their positioning. I've had a good look at Frank's proposed changes and really can't see the point of many of them when sorting out the drainage in the existing bunkers would seem to be more important. Many were hard-pan.
The greens were horribly spongey in many places; and we haven't had a lot of rain. Another priority IMO.
I do get the definite impression that modern golf architects are a little bit obsessed with bunkering. Perhaps it is the simplest way of making obvious changes and thus justifying their fee. I suggested this to Ken on our long journey home to Cheshire and he just chuckled...
Personally, I am not that fussed with bunkering. On inland courses I find it all a bit artificial and would like to see other hazards used more widely.
Like carp ponds... ;D
Incidentally, I had a long chat with the captain of CH after dinner and he said that the majority of members actually like the carp pond, and more importantly it provides a lovely setting for photographs at the many weddings which are a main source of revenue for the club.
I suspect that Frank may just have a battle on his hands...
-
I don't think this constant banging on about non existent firm conditions in England makes a lot of sense, particularly inland. When its been raining a lot, the course will be wet.
There are hundreds of courses in England, how many really drain better than Camberley?
Burnham is wet, surrey heaths are wet, where are these fabled dry courses?
Don't understand all the moaning. Golf in England is what it is. It is a green and pleasant land because quite frankly it rains a lot.
Forget the bunkers frank, renovate or restore the climate. Summer of 76 should do it.
This is a bit of a myth. The actual annual rainfall in South East England is very low. London's average annual rainfall is 25.6 inches which is considerably lower than New York, Rome, Sydney for example. Certain parts of SE England (e.g. Essex) have annual rainfall figures that are practically desert. I think little and often would be the best way to describe rain for the Surrey / Berkshire heathland courses. A heathland course such as Camberley Heath - which I've never been to but would like to - should be reasonably dry most of the year.
Of course the further west and north you go is a different story - both Wales and Scotland have almost 3 times the rainfall of SE England. In fact, if Scotland had voted for independence, the UK average annual rainfall figure would have fallen considerably overnight!
-
Thanks Frank. I understand that you likely have a brief for certain work. However, I can't help but wonder if the focus can sometimes be misplaced. I understand the bunkering is a mish mash job, but to me the most important issues to consider are the soft greens and tree work. Assuming there is only so much money in the pot, getting the priorities straight is important. We talk about the bunker on 8 and that is incredibly low on any list of work I would think important to do at CH. I realize this is your livelihood, but I find it very surprising that greens and making sure sunlight hits the greens aren't the top priorities. Of course, that is coming from the PoV that bunkering is in the main about looks if the placement is going to be altered much. Focusing so much on bunkers is a worrying trend.
Ciao
Sean,
I understand your point and on many levels agree with you but although an architect can advise on such issues as the firmness of the course, really should imo and probably do as it is key to the architecture working, that kind of maintenance decision ultimately lies with the greens committee, course manager/greenkeeper and maybe agronomist if they use one does it not? The tree issue will be a constant compromise in most cases given planning laws and the majority of golfers love for wood as well. It is surely an extremely tough sell, golfers like trees and seeing their ball stopping quickly...
As for the bunkering, although as you point out in reality other than placement it has little effect on the playability of the course it does have a dramatic effect on the appearance, aura and therefore for many enjoyability of the golf course as a whole experience. It almost instantly gives the course a 'new' feel and blinds the masses into thinking the course is great. It's a superb marketing tool for the club, just think of all the new flyers and website photos!!! For a course like Camberley who are actively seeking more members and looking for more income after by the sounds of it some financial trouble, it is a great opportunity to make the course more attractive to the golfing masses.
The old saying goes 'Don't read a book by it's cover.' A bunker renovation on many levels is sprucing up the cover but we live in a world where to many the cover matters as most probably don't get the time or have the interest to really read what's inside.
-
Sean,
I too am a little surprised that you feel more money needs to be ploughed into courses. My own take is that too much money has been thrown at all the wrong areas and therein lies the problem. Firm and fast conditions for example have not demised because of a lack of investment. Those sprinklers didn't reduce costs. Mismanagement at committee level up and down the land is surely the issue, all undertaken in an attempt to replicate the PGA Tour. After all, how many old courses do you know that succeed because of a LACK of expensive tricks, rather than because of them?
And we'll have to agree to disagree about those larger bunkers vs more pot like affairs.
-
Tom
You are of course 100% correct. I do realize I am dreaming to think many archies would tell a club not hire him and instead spend the money in more critical areas such a greens improvement. It does, however, become exasperating to see something like this happen when it is clear (assuming a limited amount of money is available) the best bang for buck is the improving the greens...golfers like to play on dry greens all year round as well as admire lovely sand :D
I look forward to seeing the changes as I thought Frank did well at Broadstone and I like CH anyway just as I like practically any Colt course.
Paul
Okay, I don't mind a re-allocation of budget emphasis :D because I do agree that sometimes a lot money is poured into watering or the capability to water courses. I think this is a losing battle though when we consider Rye installed a watering system. Mind you, in the long term, more efficient (if used properly and sparingly I might add) watering systems could make a big difference in access to affordable water without "penalty" charges. I still think that day is coming in the UK when courses will be asked hard questions and many clubs will be caught between a rock and hard place unless they start a long term budget plan to replace inefficient systems.
Ciao
-
Of course the further west and north you go is a different story - both Wales and Scotland have almost 3 times the rainfall of SE England. In fact, if Scotland had voted for independence, the UK average annual rainfall figure would have fallen considerably overnight!
Ed,
the rainfall in Scotland also depends on where. For instance around the Moray Firth we have a lot less rainfall than on the west coast. This year has been fantastic and we have had very little rainfall leading to great playing conditions on many courses. Having said that we have had a day and a half of torrential rainfall which has only just stopped. My place has water lying in areas that I have never seen before even in the depths of winter but it should be fine by tomorrow I hope.
Sean,
irrigation systems are rarely used sparingly and when they are needed the most is exactly when water will be at its most valuable. You lament Rye installing an irrigation system yet also seem to promote them as necessary which is not the case unless you are chasing the Augusta green dream. I prefer a F&F, sun burnt affordable game to this and I thought you did too but...
Jon
Jon
-
Sean,
Before conceding defeat (and I understand exactly where you're coming from) I'm prepared to suggest that the battle for brown is not lost just yet. Equally however I do have to laugh when I read comments on this site which suggest that the minimalist movement has already won the war. 99% of club golfers in this country would still see a lack of green grass and receptive greens as a sign of poor quality. If there is to be a re-education of the average golfer then we are certainly only in the early stages.
-
Sean,
Before conceding defeat (and I understand exactly where you're coming from) I'm prepared to suggest that the battle for brown is not lost just yet. Equally however I do have to laugh when I read comments on this site which suggest that the minimalist movement has already won the war. 99% of club golfers in this country would still see a lack of green grass and receptive greens as a sign of poor quality. If there is to be a re-education of the average golfer then we are certainly only in the early stages.
-
Jon
Yes, I like weather dictated course conditions, but I am a realist. I am not saying clubs should be installing watering systems now, but they should be building reserves for that day when the water man knocks on the door and says unless your system is improved, there will be a penalty charge for access to water.
I really want to get back to Rye in the summer and see what the course looks like. Who knows, perhaps the club is well and truly using the system sparingly. Craig Disher seemed to think so and I trust his judgement because he probably plays more summer rounds at Rye than any man on earth. It might well be that in the way Rye uses the system they may still be a model club for water usage. Generally though, I agree with you, fancy watering systems are still watering systems. Its the water use philosophy behind the system which matters most...and we all know a club culture can shift very slowly and go unnoticed until someone starts shouting about soft conditions...it can set course conditioning back several years.
Paul
If I gave up on dry courses, I wouldn't be having this conversation. I think there is still a strong movement among top clubs to present their courses in a fairly lean manner.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Well good.
For a moment there I thought 'the cause' was loosing you. ;D
-
Regrettably I suggest we posting herein are in the minority when it comes to firmness and colour and visual aspects of golf courses. Our best chance of golf going 'our way' in the longterm is water shortages and water related costs, issues that may force clubs/courses to change. Until then, sprinklers on. Just saying.
atb
-
Sean,
yes, I agree with you and am relieved to see I had misunderstood what you were getting at. If I am not mistaken Rye has historically been a winter course and not so much played through the summer.
Thomas,
The problem with educating the masses is that the organisations (R&A plus the Home Unions) in a position to do so are not really committed to the good of the game in the UK. The R&A launched a scheme designed to promote sustainable golf in the UK which seems to have disappeared into the shadows as I have heard neither hide nor hair of it for the last two years. This is certainly not because the R&A does not have the finances nor is it due to lack of access to publicise its message to the masses so I have to put it down to a lack of motivation. They use UK golf as a cash cow to milk whilst spending far more energy on promoting golf in areas which have not historically seen the game. All very good and noble but it is to the detriment of golf here in the UK. I fear this will not change until the money flow slows to a point where something needs to be done. As with the distance the ball flies they have been inept in their handling of this situation to the detriment of all who love the game.
As for the home unions I should really say the SGU as I am unaware of what programmes the other home unions have. Any official body who openly says that there is an over capacity of golfing facilities and the number needs to be reduced obviously does not believe the game can grow. The program of Clubgolf they have embarked on is very noble but is clearly failing in growing the game but then again that is not it's aim but rather to get all kids in Scotland to try the game. Better would be to increase the number of juniors actively playing the game as a main hobby and increasing the number of families playing. But then again any national body who does not know how many facilities there are in it's region and have no interest in new facilities becoming members is not really going to succeed :'(
Jon
-
I have to confess to being the course manager of Camberley during the infamous Japanese debacle. :-\ In my defence, it was a total steamroller job where negotiation was non-existent. Spent about 3 years there in charge and couldn't get away quick enough from the place.
Life's rich tapestry and all that....
-
I don't think this constant banging on about non existent firm conditions in England makes a lot of sense, particularly inland. When its been raining a lot, the course will be wet.
There are hundreds of courses in England, how many really drain better than Camberley?
Burnham is wet, surrey heaths are wet, where are these fabled dry courses?
Don't understand all the moaning. Golf in England is what it is. It is a green and pleasant land because quite frankly it rains a lot.
Forget the bunkers frank, renovate or restore the climate. Summer of 76 should do it.
This is a bit of a myth. The actual annual rainfall in South East England is very low. London's average annual rainfall is 25.6 inches which is considerably lower than New York, Rome, Sydney for example. Certain parts of SE England (e.g. Essex) have annual rainfall figures that are practically desert. I think little and often would be the best way to describe rain for the Surrey / Berkshire heathland courses. A heathland course such as Camberley Heath - which I've never been to but would like to - should be reasonably dry most of the year.
Of course the further west and north you go is a different story - both Wales and Scotland have almost 3 times the rainfall of SE England. In fact, if Scotland had voted for independence, the UK average annual rainfall figure would have fallen considerably overnight!
All the rivers bursting and floods last winter was due to greenkeepers irrigation, clearly.
-
Sean,
yes, I agree with you and am relieved to see I had misunderstood what you were getting at. If I am not mistaken Rye has historically been a winter course and not so much played through the summer.
Thomas,
The problem with educating the masses is that the organisations (R&A plus the Home Unions) in a position to do so are not really committed to the good of the game in the UK. The R&A launched a scheme designed to promote sustainable golf in the UK which seems to have disappeared into the shadows as I have heard neither hide nor hair of it for the last two years. This is certainly not because the R&A does not have the finances nor is it due to lack of access to publicise its message to the masses so I have to put it down to a lack of motivation. They use UK golf as a cash cow to milk whilst spending far more energy on promoting golf in areas which have not historically seen the game. All very good and noble but it is to the detriment of golf here in the UK. I fear this will not change until the money flow slows to a point where something needs to be done. As with the distance the ball flies they have been inept in their handling of this situation to the detriment of all who love the game.
As for the home unions I should really say the SGU as I am unaware of what programmes the other home unions have. Any official body who openly says that there is an over capacity of golfing facilities and the number needs to be reduced obviously does not believe the game can grow. The program of Clubgolf they have embarked on is very noble but is clearly failing in growing the game but then again that is not it's aim but rather to get all kids in Scotland to try the game. Better would be to increase the number of juniors actively playing the game as a main hobby and increasing the number of families playing. But then again any national body who does not know how many facilities there are in it's region and have no interest in new facilities becoming members is not really going to succeed :'(
Jon
Jon
I think that is slightly wrong about the home unions. Broadly speaking they are telling the truth: there are too many Clubs. Nothing to do with growing the game, the game needs to grow to sustain what is already there. They are being refreshingly honest. On your other point, it would be welcome if they were equally honest about distance and said: the ball does go too far.
Speaking specifically of the R&A, my experience is that they do a great job and the officials and staff in areas such as course management and sustainability, offer the resource and advice to those who wanted. Steve Issac from the R&A has been great with my club in terms of advice, support and funding.
How "green" the Open is should also be a model to other major events.
-
Ryan,
yes the R&A and Steve Isaac are doing a great job inside the bubble they work in. However your post says it all. How 'green' is not the issue but how 'sustainable'. The fact that you do not understand what their programme is about having been so exposed to Steve Isaac and the R&A's message kind of suggests they have been pretty poor at getting it across.
It is the perception of the average golfer that needs to change however and the vast majority of those know nothing about the R&A's drive. I cannot recall the last time I read an article on their programme outside industry publications and I have never seen anything on club notice boards or in club journals. It is all good and well preaching to the converted but no good if they are a small minority.
Clubgolf's goals are all about growing the game and getting new people involved Ryan. Yet despite an increase in the overall population the attitude is the one you describe and one that will never work as we are seeing. You cannot win if you attitude is we have already lost.
Agree about the ball but once again this is typical. It is bad for the game but not been dealt with because it might make for an uncomfortable situation. Yet is a shrinking game good for all the golf ball producers? No! I suspect they too would be in favour of a reduction in the length of the ball if they thought it would lead to an increase in turnover for them.
Jon
-
Ryan,
yes the R&A and Steve Isaac are doing a great job inside the bubble they work in. However your post says it all. How 'green' is not the issue but how 'sustainable'. The fact that you do not understand what their programme is about having been so exposed to Steve Isaac and the R&A's message kind of suggests they have been pretty poor at getting it across.
It is the perception of the average golfer that needs to change however and the vast majority of those know nothing about the R&A's drive. I cannot recall the last time I read an article on their programme outside industry publications and I have never seen anything on club notice boards or in club journals. It is all good and well preaching to the converted but no good if they are a small minority.
Clubgolf's goals are all about growing the game and getting new people involved Ryan. Yet despite an increase in the overall population the attitude is the one you describe and one that will never work as we are seeing. You cannot win if you attitude is we have already lost.
Agree about the ball but once again this is typical. It is bad for the game but not been dealt with because it might make for an uncomfortable situation. Yet is a shrinking game good for all the golf ball producers? No! I suspect they too would be in favour of a reduction in the length of the ball if they thought it would lead to an increase in turnover for them.
Jon
Jon
Your comments about what I understand or don't is purely guess work on your part. You have no idea what my understanding is or isn't.
As for participation, there are numerous external factors which in my opinion far outweigh the so called attitudes of those within your bubble. Fashions and trends do and can change, demand for golf may well increase in the future. Here and now the facts are that supply outstrips demand. It is sensible for all concerned to recognise this fact. The Bodies should not be criticised for articulating this fact.
You cannot climb out of poverty by pretending to be rich.
-
Fair enough Sean, But what are the inland clubs that do consistently produce the conditions we prefer?
Walton Heath. And it's not on sand.
Notable because it's a rare exception.
Agreed.
Many others in Surrey? If not what hope do those on farmland have?
-
Ryan,
it is a shame you get all uppity when someone does not agree with you. You are correct that I do not know what you understanding is outside what you comment on in your replies. It could be that you have a better understanding beyond the 'green' issues in the R&A programme but chose to constrain your answer to just this small part. Why you would choose to do this I do not know but okay.
When talking about bubbles and so on it would be nice if you did the courtesy of reading what I wrote as the bubble I talk about is not mine.
Yes, trends and fashions do change and anyone wanting to sustain a business over a long term knows you have to adapt and pre-empt/create new trends if you are not going to go under. The R&A as well as the home unions are in a very good position to be a driving and creative force.
You are correct that you cannot climb out of poverty by pretending to be rich but neither is saying the decline of the game is a fact of life that we cannot stop going to help in any way. Supply does outstrip demand at the moment but this is not due mainly to too much supply but rather dwindling demand. Either there needs to be a cut in supply as the governing bodies seem to believe is the case. This is easy as it requires you to do nothing but do not forget it might be your job that goes. Otherwise it is necessary to grow demand which with a proven historical case of prior higher demand showing it is possible and a larger population than at the height of the boom means it should be realistic but of course not if you do not want to.
The bodies should not be criticised for articulating the facts and I am not doing this but they maybe criticised for not doing the required work to improve and grow the games situation.
Jon
-
Jon
Apologies for not being clear. By 'your bubble' I mean the one you referred to, not that you are encased in one.
I can only speak of England Golf and the various CGP's (County golf partnerships) my local one I believe has had some success, others nearby seem completely ineffective. I believe there are pockets of good work in certain regions. In my opinion it mostly comes down to money. England golf are dictated to by sport england on what their priorities should be. Individual clubs can be denied crucial funding and support if they don't tick the right boxes. Last year no junior coaching grants were available unless it was for new 18-24 years olds - just about the least effective age group from which to grow participation. Hence why their quotas and engineering dictated focus on this group. Net result, clubs did not even apply. Where I share discontent with the unions is their social media is largely retweeting group on style deals and inviting other clubs to send them their throat slitting offers. Of course there is no offers with affiliation fees.
I like your positive attitude Jon particularly around Club spirit and members rather than customers and I admire your optimism about future growth. It's just my experiences are different. Sports that are growing at the moment eg cycling all seem much quicker and offer more freedom and flexibility to the participant. It is difficult to convert the masses and of course many within the game don't want the masses.
Edit footnote as the above does read as if I'm defeatist, which I'm not. Of course we can and will by necessity have to grow demand.
-
Ryan,
I guess we are not so far apart as I thought.
The problem I see with the R&A is that when you talk to golfers about the sustainability program that the R&A have 99% have never heard of it. The R&A would have absolutely no problem getting the message out if they wanted to but seem satisfied to keep it confined to very exclusive circle of people. It is not enough for them to talk to club officials and employees they also should be talking directly to the average golfer. They love to blag about promoting golf in far flung corners of the world whilst all the time seem happy for their own house to crumble around them.
SGU's Clubgolf has not done anything for their membership as far as I can see. A lot of money spent but no real results. It was the wrong aspiration which was poorly thought out. There has been a lot of back slapping about how many children in Scotland have hit a golf ball but having achieved that what has it achieved in regard to dwindling numbers? Nothing!!! What they do not seem to understand is hitting a ball is not the same as taking up the game as a major pastime where you will participate regularly and hopefully join a club.
It is good to hear that some of the CGPs in your area are having some success.
Jon
-
Jon, Ryan et al,
If I may interject, perhaps your differences in perception stem from a fundamental difference which rears its head here in different forms over and over:
Jon is attempting to promote golf, pure and simple and not a metamorphosed version of it. If that pure product doesn't fly, so be it. Ryan on the other hand is addressing the reality that promoting golf in its, shall we say, purist form is not its quickest and most lucrative method of tapping into new markets. So ultimately we have to address the fundamental issue of whether we can tolerate promoting a watered down version of the game and making a success of it or whether we should be stick to our guns and attempt to re-educate the public about the virtues of the game we here all prefer. I note today that a former employer of mine is actively pushing footgolf. Think what you like but it's popular. I didn't like working for that employer. That's my position but not the position of the masses.
It's pop vs classical, haute cuisine vs McDonalds, test match cricket vs 20/20. Call it what you want but until we recognise the fundamental juxtaposition we're going to fail to address it.
-
Jon, Ryan et al,
If I may interject, perhaps your differences in perception stem from a fundamental difference which rears its head here in different forms over and over:
Jon is attempting to promote golf, pure and simple and not a metamorphosed version of it. If that pure product doesn't fly, so be it. Ryan on the other hand is addressing the reality that promoting golf in its, shall we say, purist form is not its quickest and most lucrative method of tapping into new markets. So ultimately we have to address the fundamental issue of whether we can tolerate promoting a watered down version of the game and making a success of it or whether we should be stick to our guns and attempt to re-educate the public about the virtues of the game we here all prefer. I note today that a former employer of mine is actively pushing footgolf. Think what you like but it's popular. I didn't like working for that employer. That's my position but not the position of the masses.
It's pop vs classical, haute cuisine vs McDonalds, test match cricket vs 20/20. Call it what you want but until we recognise the fundamental juxtaposition we're going to fail to address it.
I think there's something in this. All the access to golf programmes and the alternative formats that people within the game have tried to promote will only help golf if a decent proportion of the people who try them then move on to be regular players of the actual game itself (the exception might be Footgolf, which has the possibility to provide operators with a significant, sustainable stream of revenue from people who might never move on to picking up a golf club - but it brings with it its own set of management issues). I know the powers that be have thought about this issue - they are not solely concerned with the numbers of new people who try out their programmes - but it bears repeating.
-
I actually agree with Jon more than not.
What the game needs is more members. Or at least more regular participants. Not some kid with a plastic club, on one day, with a photo to the press x10,000. This is not "introducing 10,000 new people to the sport". It is gimmicky and does not really translate into participants. I've played cricket on the beach a few times, it doesn't make me a cricketer.
I like golf as it is. The game itself doesn't need to change, nor should it. A lot of the BS and stereotypes around it need to change. Even then, due to the cost, time and relative inflexibility, it will be bloody difficult for the sport to grow in the UK.
-
Ryan,
Clearly you're in the right camp but I don't agree with your assessment that the game needs more members. If clubs have more members, great but, as I see it, half the problem lies in overly high maintenance costs which then require a club to have 700 members just to break even. When you're set up with the bar that high just to stay open, you're set up for a fall. I used to work for a commercial operation just like that and its ugly. 1,000 members means no one is happy as there's a permanent struggle just to get a tee time. A his stage perhaps Jon's on little venture might not be a bad comparison. I don't know the ins and outs of it and don't want to speak out of turn but I suspect Jon's model has weathered the recession far better with far few golfers than the more commercial operations.
The bottom line is that until overheads are brought back in line with reality, and that means re-educating the masses as to just what proper golf looks and feels like, golf as it is, for a great many people, is unsustainable. Once upon a time only the lord of the manor and chums could afford to join the golf club. Those folk effectively paid hefty sums to keep the course quiet. That is no longer the case but, as the game has become ever cheaper, overheads have got ever greater. Something there has to give and I'll suggest the answer doesn't lie in having a four ball going off ever six minutes during each and every waking hour of daylight.
-
Ryan,
Clearly you're in the right camp but I don't agree with your assessment that the game needs more members. If clubs have more members, great but, as I see it, half the problem lies in overly high maintenance costs which then require a club to have 700 members just to break even. When you're set up with the bar that high just to stay open, you're set up for a fall. I used to work for a commercial operation just like that and its ugly. 1,000 members means no one is happy as there's a permanent struggle just to get a tee time. A his stage perhaps Jon's on little venture might not be a bad comparison. I don't know the ins and outs of it and don't want to speak out of turn but I suspect Jon's model has weathered the recession far better with far few golfers than the more commercial operations.
The bottom line is that until overheads are brought back in line with reality, and that means re-educating the masses as to just what proper golf looks and feels like, golf as it is, for a great many people, is unsustainable. Once upon a time only the lord of the manor and chums could afford to join the golf club. Those folk effectively paid hefty sums to keep the course quiet. That is no longer the case but, as the game has become ever cheaper, overheads have got ever greater. Something there has to give and I'll suggest the answer doesn't lie in having a four ball going off ever six minutes during each and every waking hour of daylight.
Paul
Of course that isn't the answer, but I think you may be citing extreme examples at either end of the spectrum. I've analysed the accounts of a number of clubs and I believe you'd be be surprised at how much expense is non discretionary for a golf club. Then factor in wages, NI and pensions and by the way, these are in the main, very modest at all bar the elite places (Have a look at BIGGA salary recommendation).
Out of interest, what specifically would you cut/reduce from a run of the mill english golf club. Which by the way is not one with 700 members. Try 450 - 550 tops. And not all of them full payers by any means.
To cite this board today, I was interested to read in the other thread that you salvaged a booking for your club. Are they being frugal in having a poor/cheap template based website absent of key facts and decent photography, or is it a false economy?
-
Well, let's start with the sprinklers. Beyond that, let's perhaps hold back on the endless hedge trimming and other neo-landscape gardening tricks ever kid straight out of greenkeeper school seems to want to demonstrate these days. I can live without a fairway shaped to look like the work of Picasso, particularly when that waste of time, effort and money only makes the course play worse.
Clearly you've seen account details where I haven't so I'd be interested if you can explain how one club can do perfectly well with 300 members and £25 green fees and another can struggle when those numbers are doubled. I genuinely don't have the answer but wonder whether the game as a whole hasn't got a lot to learn from Jon's sort of operation. Such examples, which you rightly point out are extreme, might well offer some solutions.
As for my club, you perhaps give me a little too much credit for securing a booking. I'm just a member and was simply trying to help out another GCAer. More broadly however, the club has experienced periods of poor and incompetent management over the years, as is so often the case with such clubs. I'm pleased to say however that we do now seem to have a general manager that knows his beans and, if he can keep the standard band of self appointed experts at bay which ever club seems to attract, should be able to do a good job.
-
Any updates on the work Pont has done?
Ciao