Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Sean_A on August 03, 2012, 04:03:59 AM
-
The clubhouse has a certain kerb appeal with the illusion of a large rear garden.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4356/36249479820_03099d1208_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4356/36249479820_03099d1208_b.jpg)
It was often the case that clubs were decimated by the loss of members in WWI.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4360/35811080564_67d6a3602f_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4360/35811080564_67d6a3602f_b.jpg)
Nearly lost in time, it is difficult to believe that Littlestone was once a premier club in England. At one time, then Prime Minister, HH Asquith served as Club Captain while the Leader of the Opposition, A Balfour was the Club President! HS Colt and the glamorous one club golfer come magician, Gloria Minoprio (whose famous outfit worn at the 1933 English Ladies Amateur is exhibited at the British Golf Museum) were on the club rolls. Not far from Romney Marsh, the course isn’t likely to be stumbled upon. The club and village take their name from stone markers placed to help navigate the Rother Estuary; Greatstone and Littlestone. Though one wouldn’t immediately guess it, Littlestone rests on reclaimed land which is now squeezed between housing. The course, originally built in 1888 to the design of Laidlaw Purves (who also designed the original course at Royal St Georges), grew with the coastal village which was founded as a resort for the well to do. Littlestone-on-Sea has an air of faded wealth and the attractive beach-front houses serve as a reminder of Victorian and Edwardian times when the area flourished.
In addition to Mr Purves, James Braid, Alister MacKenzie, Frank Pennink, Donald Steel and Peter Alliss all had a hand in the development of the course. It is clear that the pre- WWII bunker scheme has been drastically altered. Perhaps as many as 50 bunkers were removed and the variation in size greatly reduced. I wouldn't advocate for more bunkers, but I think varying sizes would help distinguish the holes from each other. One other aspect worth mentioning is the location of the 16th tee has been altered, making the left fairway bunker a red herring for all but the longest of hitters.
Situated on fine, well draining land, Littlestone has hosted many women’s championships including the 2005 British Ladies Amateur. In the past 30 or so years, the challenge Littlestone presents has been recognized by the R&A. Consequently, the course was selected as a site for Final Open Qualifying on several occasions. In a twist of fate, Littlestone hosted The President’s Putter in 1963 when Rye’s links were covered in snow.
The first is a fair enough starter, drivable, but dangerous for the player coming straight from the bar. I say dangerous because of the often cruel rough surrounding the fairways and some greens. Like many clubs, English Nature prohibits cutting rough in various places, however, I find it hard to believe the club actually cuts to the full extent allowed. This is a great shame because the design deserves to be fully appreciated.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4375/36476513642_33a50ea852_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4375/36476513642_33a50ea852_b.jpg)
The second also plays downwind. A burn and large dune cross the fairway. At one time the second was blind, but Dr Mac had the idea of cutting a gap of which I am indifferent. For mine, the course picks up on the third. The fairway is perhaps a bit narrow for a blind drive, but the second requires a precise long iron/wood.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4381/36507706721_66e7ece9aa_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4381/36507706721_66e7ece9aa_b.jpg)
#4 turns back toward the house and can play into a fierce wind. There is nothing terribly dramatic about the hole, but it isn't any the worse for that. A look at the green from the 5th tee. The links has an austere beauty which belies its location.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4389/36645547035_3e5d1965ab_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4389/36645547035_3e5d1965ab_b.jpg)
If one gets a good drive away, the three-shot fifth is reachable in two, but fairway bunkers are lurking for all manner of drives. The fine set of short holes opens its account on the 6th. Beyond the right bunker the green narrows down to make a rear hole location tough to access.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4384/36645546325_529ec18e12_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4384/36645546325_529ec18e12_b.jpg)
The next is another reachable in two par five. Dead straight, the 8th takes us to the far end of the property. If one senses that he had better make his score on these first eight holes he would be correct. Littlestone can play very tough from here to the house. Similar to Rye in spots, the fairway cut lines could do with some attention.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4374/35836653743_a066df17ee_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4374/35836653743_a066df17ee_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4362/35836653633_151b8268bc_o.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4362/35836653633_151b8268bc_o.jpg)
With the wind off the right, the ninth is cracking par 3.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4405/36645546065_0b7d238ef8_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4405/36645546065_0b7d238ef8_b.jpg)
A closer look at the precisely placed bunkers leaving just enough room to squeeze between.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4345/36507704711_24926a1d25_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4345/36507704711_24926a1d25_b.jpg)
More to follow.
Ciao
-
Sean
Looking forward to the rest of your course profile. I really like Littlestone - two or three of holes would stand up very well against the best.
-
LITTLESTONE TOUR CONT.
There are some good holes on the front nine, but the back nine is superior both in terms of architecture and terrain. As holes turn in all directions, crosswinds too become much more of a factor except for the closing trio of holes. As luck or as Dr Mac would have it, #s 16 & 17 are arguably the best two holes and at least the penultimate hole can stand up with the very best of par 3s. However, in a brisk wind, the back nine can feel a bit of slog - much was my experience.
The 10th turns back on #9. With a quartering head wind this seemingly benign hole can play havoc with the capper's game.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4333/35836651733_b6b44e0184_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4333/35836651733_b6b44e0184_b.jpg)
Trying to gain a view of the green often means hitting toward no man's land on the left and hoping the wind does its job. Usually, the player will find his ball shoved well right to a blind a spot. Below is a look at the green after a perfect drive.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4355/36507704031_0126aa4248_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4355/36507704031_0126aa4248_b.jpg)
#11 turns once again and favours a right to left ball. A burn runs down the left, in previous times there used to be fairway both side of the water. It is a shame the fairway was narrowed, even so, this is excellent use of water. The green as seen from the 12th tee. Littlestone does have its moments of serene beauty.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4383/35836651553_7597fae8c7_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4383/35836651553_7597fae8c7_b.jpg)
Continuing to reward players who can work the ball in the wind, the twelfth turns back once again. Into a decent wind this hole is pure brutality. Many golfers will be contending with this forward bunker on the second shot.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4380/35836650453_de6a04f098_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4380/35836650453_de6a04f098_b.jpg)
Yes, once again, we turn back on ourselves for 13. A blind drive with harsh wind is all this hole needs to unsteady the nerves. If one isn't clocking their driver on every one these holes, the par 4s essentially play like par 5s.
More to follow.
Ciao
-
Sean - looking forward to the rest of your comments.
I have a German aerial of Littlestone taken during WWII that shows LGC fairly well. The current course follows the same routing. The greens are in the same locations but some of the tees have been moved - 2nd and 16th for example. But the most dramatic difference is the number of bunkers. Over 50 have been removed and the remaining ones have shrunk significantly. The best example of that are the 2 small bunkers fronting the 1st green. In 1943 a long bunker covered the entire front and right side of the green, following a dry ditch - no more run-on shots to the green. Without the defense provided by the early bunkers, it's not a surprise that the teeth of the course is now the rough.
Hawtree Ltd. has been working on a master plan for the course which should be available soon. I'm anxious to see it.
-
Sean,
I had the pleasure of Littlestone last October as a guest of the wonderful late Jim Goby. I took plenty of photos but it was an overcast day and I found a much better thread of pics by Craig so didn't bother posting mine.
The 6th and 8th were two favourite holes as were the 16th and 17th so I especially look forward to your pictures of those!
Cheers,
James
-
Sean:
I played Littlestone this Spring. A very nice course with a very nice routiing. A few absolutely great holes. Terrible bunkering...
I can't remember which hole (maybe 12 or 13?) but they were re-building one bunker. I was hoping that this was a sample for the membership to appreciate and move forward with a bunker restoration/renovation. I think the course has the "bones" or skeleton of a very, very good course.
Bart
-
Sean,
I had the pleasure of Littlestone last October as a guest of the wonderful late Jim Goby. I took plenty of photos but it was an overcast day and I found a much better thread of pics by Craig so didn't bother posting mine.
The 6th and 8th were two favourite holes as were the 16th and 17th so I especially look forward to your pictures of those!
Cheers,
James
When I think of Littlestone I always remember Jim Goby. What a great golfer and gent. We were lucky to see him at the last Buda. He couldn't join us the last day of our trip at Littlestone, but was nice enough to drive out and meet us at the 15th and walk the rest of the way home on that superb finish.
-
Littlestone is a wonderful fun course. It has great par 3's. Infact I find an analogy with Crail to the north. Crail is a delightful course with great par 3's who shares a proximity with TOC and other high profile courses. Littlestone also shares the neighborhood with Rye and to a lessor degree RSG.
-
Bart
I found the bunkering to be fine. They aren't a talking point for the course, however, there are some superbly placed bunkers.
Craig
As you likely know, I am not a fan of mega-bunkering and I think 50 more bunkers would be just that. Mind you, I suspect there was quite a bit more width back in the day to accommodate the bunkers. I would be interested in seeing the aerial - is it possible to post?
LITTLESTONE TOUR CONT.
#14 is another fine par 3 that can play very long. We must remember that courses are constantly changing. This is the same hole, but the visual difference in its presentation can be astonishing.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4436/35836649663_3887b31a01_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4436/35836649663_3887b31a01_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4372/36507703211_e1ff034c54_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4372/36507703211_e1ff034c54_b.jpg)
By the time the 15th is reached, most golfers will long for some respite from the cross winds. Well, that will have to wait one more hole, but thankfully the 15th is a fairly short par 4. The strategy of the hole is somewhat similar to the 11th except the bunker gives away the tiger line to the golfer whereas the water down the 11th doesn't give any clues away.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4373/36507702691_08d63bf5a0_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4373/36507702691_08d63bf5a0_b.jpg)
FINALLY, at the 16th the cross wind abates. All the golfer has to do now is summon a sound swing with wind battering his face as if is stood in a wind tunnel. Its only a matter of time before any golfer will crack under this strain. The saving grace of this ungodly treatment is the quality of #s 16 & 17. The 16th was the model for CB Macdonald's Channel Hole (Lido's 4th - which no longer exists). Sadly, the hole as originally conceived no longer exists, yet what remains is by any standard excellent. The fairway bends left around a red herring bunker then heads uphill over cranky ground to a plateau green. Into a strong wind, even two laser strikes will expose many a golfer as wanting.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4434/36249483720_5b384cb358_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4434/36249483720_5b384cb358_b.jpg)
#17, a Dr Mac special, is I believe, Littlestone's best hole.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4410/35836646723_e414659bc6_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4410/35836646723_e414659bc6_b.jpg)
The green is incredibly small.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4381/36249481620_8c9910c16b_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4381/36249481620_8c9910c16b_b.jpg)
Many believe the three-shot 18th to be a bit non-descript, but the bunkering and raised green (very similar to Cavendish's raised 14th) add plenty of interest.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4420/36476514442_1b42424923_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4420/36476514442_1b42424923_b.jpg)
I am pleased to have become reacquainted with Littlestone after another several year absence. Once again, I must say the course is better than I remembered and no less difficult. I am warming to Littlestone and certainly think it can hold its own with many venerable courses. For a course to lay claim to greatness it must possess great holes and in #s 16 & 17 Littlestone has them. If the intrepid traveller should make it to Littlestone the effort will be rewarded with a fine day's golf on a gem of a course. 2017
Ciao
-
Sean,
Thanks for the photos! I had the chance to play Littlestone in May and had a wonderful time. I thought 16 and 17 were world class and 18 got me as I drove into a fairway bunker. I will certainly go back when visiting Deal again.
-
Sean, the story of the lost fairway left of the "red herring" bunker on the 16th is a sad tale. That alternate fairway (now knee high gunch) was the inspiration for the Lido hole and the "Littlestone" hole at Old Macdonald. Like several holes at Rye, the alternate fairway at Littlestone was apparently lost to increasing motor vehicle traffic on the adjacent road.
-
Nothing like an overcast sky to take the zing out of photos...must have been a difficult day to shoot.
Bart, what makes the bunkering terrible?
Sean, might the superintendent listen to a plea to rearrange the fairway cut lines?
-
Sean - looking forward to the rest of your comments.
I have a German aerial of Littlestone taken during WWII that shows LGC fairly well. The current course follows the same routing. The greens are in the same locations but some of the tees have been moved - 2nd and 16th for example. But the most dramatic difference is the number of bunkers. Over 50 have been removed and the remaining ones have shrunk significantly. The best example of that are the 2 small bunkers fronting the 1st green. In 1943 a long bunker covered the entire front and right side of the green, following a dry ditch - no more run-on shots to the green. Without the defense provided by the early bunkers, it's not a surprise that the teeth of the course is now the rough.
Hawtree Ltd. has been working on a master plan for the course which should be available soon. I'm anxious to see it.
Craig,
You should post that if possible...would be really interesting to see.
Cheers
-
Sean,
I'm not suggesting that adding 50 bunkers would be a good idea, but one of the problems with the site - a huge piece of land as expansive as RSG - is that it's mostly flat with few significant dunes. If all the holes can't play over the dunes, how do you create interest? It's clear from the aerial that the old bunkers created angles that tightened up the course and asked for more thoughtful play. The old bunkers that weren't removed were larger and more natural in shape. This photo taken after MacKenzie's work on 8 shows how much larger the originals were. Now the sand is confined to circular pits a couple yards across and the bunker site to the right of the green is really unfortunate.
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/cadcaddo/Littlestone/old8.jpg)
Here's a crop from the 1943 aerial. It shows most of the 16th and the end of the last 200 yards of the 3rd. The 3 bunkers set in diagonal across the 16th are still there but they've become little circular pits, one of which is nearly completely surrounded by long rough. The aerial shows they were larger and more natural - possibly as irregular as the ones on 8. The horseshoe ring of bunkers fronting the 3rd green have been replaced by a single small bunker far from the green and the right greenside bunker. The old arrangement looks a lot more interesting to me. An historical artifact - the 16th green that MacKenzie replaced - can be seen to the right of the current one. Its bunkers are still visible.
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/cadcaddo/Littlestone/1943lufta.jpg)
Bill - I don't think the story about the 16th and the road is correct. As you can see from the aerial, the coastal road is far from the 16th. I don't see how it would have been affected by playing up the left of the fairway.
-
Nothing like an overcast sky to take the zing out of photos...must have been a difficult day to shoot.
Bart, what makes the bunkering terrible?
Sean, might the superintendent listen to a plea to rearrange the fairway cut lines?
Ronald:
If you look at the old pictures and compare the bunkering as is there now, you wouldn't need to ask the question. Poor scale, poor condition, not as strategic as they could be. It appears that Craig (who is much more familiar with course) agrees that improved bunkering would highlight an already good course...With great bunkering, I think Littlestone could be on par with other courses just below the truly great links.
Bart
-
Craig, that road may have been moved. There must be something to the alternate fairway story for both the holes at the Lido and Old Macdonald to be named "Littlestone" and feature an alternate fairway.
Perhapsps someone of a true historical bent, rather than my faux version, can respond!
-
I had the pleasure of playing Littlestone during a proper British summer three years ago. Everything was browned out and the course played fantastically. I may be misremembering, but the members I played with told me something to the effect of "we only water the greens when absolutely necessary and never water the fairways."
16, 17, and 18 are an absolutely fantastic finishing stretch. 17 was one of my favorite holes from my tour of England. The thing I remember most is that from that elevated tee, with the beach in view to the left and the golf course stretching out behind and to the right on a sunny summers' day, I felt like I was in a place where golf was meant to be played.
-
Last week I had a memorable time at Littlestone. It was my last night before life as a working man and having just moved to the area I was desperate to try some Kentish links. I couldn't find the club at first and so when I arrived, with darkness approaching, I ran (literally) around 18 holes.
I had the course to myself, bar some dog walkers, and some beautiful light. I thought it was a fantastic layout, with the course building and building to a final crescendo. It was very playable, the fairways were wide but rewarded strategic placement. I felt the green surfaces could have been improved but then again the green fee was good value. The variety in approaches to the greens was also a highlight and I felt that this was a course where lots of different styles fitted and could fit together well. I would be excited to see the Hawtree suggestions.
-
Sean,
I'm not suggesting that adding 50 bunkers would be a good idea, but one of the problems with the site - a huge piece of land as expansive as RSG - is that it's mostly flat with few significant dunes. If all the holes can't play over the dunes, how do you create interest? It's clear from the aerial that the old bunkers created angles that tightened up the course and asked for more thoughtful play. The old bunkers that weren't removed were larger and more natural in shape. This photo taken after MacKenzie's work on 8 shows how much larger the originals were. Now the sand is confined to circular pits a couple yards across and the bunker site to the right of the green is really unfortunate.
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/cadcaddo/Littlestone/old8.jpg)
Here's a crop from the 1943 aerial. It shows most of the 16th and the end of the last 200 yards of the 3rd. The 3 bunkers set in diagonal across the 16th are still there but they've become little circular pits, one of which is nearly completely surrounded by long rough. The aerial shows they were larger and more natural - possibly as irregular as the ones on 8. The horseshoe ring of bunkers fronting the 3rd green have been replaced by a single small bunker far from the green and the right greenside bunker. The old arrangement looks a lot more interesting to me. An historical artifact - the 16th green that MacKenzie replaced - can be seen to the right of the current one. Its bunkers are still visible.
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/cadcaddo/Littlestone/1943lufta.jpg)
Bill - I don't think the story about the 16th and the road is correct. As you can see from the aerial, the coastal road is far from the 16th. I don't see how it would have been affected by playing up the left of the fairway.
Craig
Thanks for posting!
I agree, some bunkers should be larger and more in the golfer's face. That said, I don't care for the bunker configuration shown for #8. Why can't the large bunker be moved more online with play and be done with it? Why the need for a nest of bunkers when one will do the job? This is one of my pet peeves!
An a secondary note, we discussed how the 8th played more from near the road after a drive which was played (dangerously I thought) toward the road. This picture doesn't seem to reflect this, but the big bunker seems to be placed in a manner which suggests pla should be coming from further left. In fact, all the bunkering strikes me as making more sense from a further left fairway. When was that fairway shifted? I am thinking Dr Mac created this hole, but shortly afterwards the fairway was shifted because of the road. Whats the story?
Ciao
-
Sean,
The large bunker with the sleepers at the back is probably an leftover from the pre-MacKenzie course. Large pits that size can be seen filled in all over the course. Eventually, it too was filled in. My guess is that the smaller bunkers to the right of the large one were MacKenzie additions. They are necessary to the hole, unlike the large one which is too far left to have much influence on play. The left fairway edge in 1943 was on the left side of the large bunker and appears to be defined by a ridge that begins 100-150 yards from the green. The aerial also shows a small tee box near the current one and a cleared area to the right of the 7th green where the newly prepared tee is located. If it weren't for the proximity of the 10th green, I think the new tee improves the hole. It forces a safer drive to the less desirable side of the fairway and rewards the riskier blind drive over the large dune (and unfortunately over part of the 10th green). From then until now the fairway hasn't shifted, it's shrunk from the left giving a single option for the drive. If the original tee was near the road, it doesn't make sense to me that the fairway would have been more open on the left nearer the road. A wider fairway on the left does make sense is if one is aiming diagonally at the road and trying to steer the ball more to the right. A long drive towards the road would have needed some additional space. And then there's the matter of the fairway bunker hidden from view on the road tee but very visible from the new tee. There are no other hidden bunkers on the course.
It's unfortunate that the MacKenzie report which we assume described all his changes has been lost - or never been found.
-
Craig
I am not sure you are correct. In the photo you show, the fairway seems to run into the right side of the large bunker - the left side has rough tight against it. Though I would guess that the other three bunkers down the left look very Dr Macish. Yes, the large bunker is oddly placed unless the fairway comes more from the left, though I think that is a very dangerous set-up. Playing blindly over a dune and #10 green toward a road which is comfortably reachable can't make a lot of sense. I can see it being a more fun hole, but not very responsible on the part of the club.
Why do you spose Dr Mac didn't just move/enlarge the big bunkers? Using 8 as an example, it makes no sense to me to add three bunkers when the bold bunker just needs to be tweaked to do the job. Look at where the 2nd left bunker is, why not just add it to the big bunker and retain the bold character of the hazard? I spose the same could be said for the right greenside bunker. Why not use that hillock to house a bold bunker instead of having two smaller ones? It could well be that Dr Mac had his hands tied, but when I see that old photo my first thought is the bunkering is a mess.
Ciao
-
The fairway line can be seen in the aerial - which I'm too lazy to crop and post. I'll get to it later. The line runs along the left edge of the large bunker then turns towards the first smaller fairway bunker. What you see in the ground photo is the area where the fairway line has turned back to the right.
The distances from the new tee to the road are sufficiently long that unless you yank a drive left, the road isn't in play. The same yank would put the ball on the road from the current tee. From the new tee to the road , playing directly over the hidden bunker (which I believe was the intended line), is 323 yards. The line from the new tee to the green, playing over the large dune, is left of the 10th green. I think the road from the new tee isn't an issue at all - it just appears to be one. It's certainly less in danger than the road on Rye's 1st, 3rd, and 10th holes. The 10th green is more of a problem but it's also within easy range of the current tee. From the current tee, the green is a 161 yard slice away. At least from the new tee those on the green and on the tee can see each other.
-
Craig
I can only guess that we are talking about different things or your idea of fairway is long grass-tee hee. In this photo it sure looks like long grass on the ridge is banging into the large bunker.
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/cadcaddo/Littlestone/old8.jpg)
The big difference between tees is one can clearly see from the current tee. From the far right tee it is totally blind and thus easier to pick an incorrect line too far left and one is already aiming at the road. I am imagining a line from the right tee directly toward the first houses across the street. I don't know the yardage, but I have to guess it doesn't take a huge error to carry the boundary and bounce into the houses. Then of course there is the 10th green. I am not huge worrier about safety, but even I would think a set up where what, a 225 yard drive can hit the road and bounce toward houses is going to be a litigation nightmare. Imagine the club's position in court when it is shown that a deliberately blind tee was introduced in which two danger spots are easily reachable for a large percentage of golfers. Not good my friend.
Anyway, why do you spose Dr Mac created/left behind this odd bunker configuration?
Ciao
-
Sean,
If the ground photo extended more to the left, you'd see the fairway line angling in towards the first bunker. The long grass you see is a patch between the left of the small bunker and the front of the large one. The large bunker originally fronted a green which MacKenzie moved to the right making the bunker obsolete. I think the club just hadn't taken time to remove it. The photo is from 1924 shortly after the changes were made. There might be evidence in the club minutes but it's very tiresome to wade through them - very little on the course but lots on accounts and food complaints.
I don't buy the liability/danger argument. There is as much, if not more, risk of planting a drive on the road from the current tee as there would be from the new tee. The natural line for the player on the new tee is not anywhere towards the short carry to the road. Taking a natural stance towards the hidden bunker, the nearest line to the road is almost off the golfer's back. If the drive from the new tee takes the "blind" line, the road is over 300 yards away. Too bad we didn't have time to explore these ideas.
-
Okay, we shall have to agree to disagree about the rough banging into the large bunker and the danger element of driving blindly toward a road and with a green in the way.
Now, about the blind drive, it seems to me for this to really work the fairway would have to be widened considerably. As it is now, the fairway is fairly narrow and to then come across it diagonally and blindly, seems a bit much. Thoughts?
Ciao
-
I think we agree about the rough in front of the large bunker. My point is that it turns into fairway as you move back towards the tee - at least in 1943.
I found a photo I'd posted a while ago. It was taken from the new tee and shows the drive is not completely blind - areas of the fairway are visible and there are key landmarks that help in aiming. There is a lot of space to drive into - as I said before, the distance to the road directly over the bunker is over 320 yards. Notice the small ridge line in the thick rough under the bush to the right of the bunker. I think that is the ridge that defined the left side of the fairway in the 1943 aerial. The green is on a line directly over the top of the large mound right of the bunker. The putting surface of the 10th green is partially visible below the golfers on the right.
There is a house with a white dormer on the left of the photo. It is above a small mound in the fairway. That line is well to the left of the preferred line which is between the bunker and the large mound and towards the bush on the ridge. The distance to the road on the line to the white dormer is almost 190 yards. From the current tee to the same point is about 165 yards and the angle of error from the preferred line is smaller. That tells me that the risk of hitting onto the road is actually greater from the current tee but because of the appearance of driving towards the road rather than along it, the assumption is that the new tee is more dangerous. The geometry shows that's not so.
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/cadcaddo/Littlestone/DSC_0922a.jpg)
More width certainly would be necessary if the new tee temporarily replaces the current one. It's probably axiomatic that more width is needed for a hole where the drive is diagonal into the fairway. With the drive on the 8th now directly towards the green (I played a match yesterday and my opponent nearly drove the green), the only defense for the hole is a narrow fairway. Oddly, there is more fairway space on the right which is by far the preferred area for the approach.
-
Thanks Craig
We shall still have to agree to disagree about the danger. I can easily see a hook bashing those houses. Whether the tee is more dangerous, I don't know, but I suspect not because one is playing parallel to it rather than hitting toward it. Of course, if the fairway is widened to accomodate the right tee, that brings the road more into play...
None of it matters much, I was just trying to figure out a way to utilize the large bunker. For sure, using the right tee would invite many folks to play safely left then be faced with the bunker. Long boys could go over the top, but I can still imagine that large bunker (especially if moved a bit right) coming into play off the tee. Perhaps the well placed lay-up could have an up the gut (between the would be large bunkers) approach. There is no question I like your idea of a diagonal drive better if the bunkering and fairway were tweeked.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Littlestone Week is currently on with competitions - primarily 4-ball - each day. I played today and was thrilled when I saw that the new tee on 8 was put in play for the week. The tee itself is surprisingly large - it was rebuilt professionally at substantial cost and adds a bit more length than I originally thought. In my group, the best player attempted to play to the gap between the mound and the bunker and hit too far right into long grass on the side of the mound. The second player took on the mound and left it on top. Another player played an iron to the gap and left a 170 approach from the middle of the fairway. I hit the best drive of the group, about 230 through the bunker/mound gap and finished in the left semi about 100 yards short of the green. Regarding the road - I now know you're wrong ;) . About 120 golfers played from the tee today and the road was never at risk. The hole is more difficult - the earlier configuration allowed a topped drive hit straight to bound down the center of the fairway leaving a short iron approach - and worse, the drive challenge is the same for every hcp. The new drive takes some care in planning and will be different for every player. I would probably never take on the mound but the option is there for stronger players - and the reward is significant. It's clear that more fairway is needed on the left - and probably the right too. The mound would also need to be thinned out - a ball hit on the right side is almost certainly lost.
-
Sean, the story of the lost fairway left of the "red herring" bunker on the 16th is a sad tale. That alternate fairway (now knee high gunch) was the inspiration for the Lido hole and the "Littlestone" hole at Old Macdonald. Like several holes at Rye, the alternate fairway at Littlestone was apparently lost to increasing motor vehicle traffic on the adjacent road.
Bill,
Like Sean and yourself, I assumed that the alternative fairway had existed in the past, but according to CBM, it didn't.
He wrote the following in Scotland's Gift:
The fourth hole at the Lido I consider the finest two-shot hole in the world of golf, but fully 90 percent of golfers will have to play it as a three-shot hole. I absorbed the idea from the sixteenth hole at Littlestone, but the Littlestone Club never took advantage of the remarkable natural opportunity they had there of making a separate fairgreen among the dunes, where there was a perfect setting for it, a fairway set in the dunes some thirty to thirty-five yards in width and 100 yards long, with a carry from the tee of 190 to 200 yards. Heaven knows when a player would get out of the rough if they didn't make this narrow fairgreen among the dunes, but once they did they had a wonderful driving iron or brassie shot to the green, which was on an eminence some fifteen to twenty feet above the fairway, with a deep bunker across the face of the green some forty yards from the hole. The bunker at Littlestone was about fifteen feet deep.
-
Dónal,
I believe CBM was referring to the original 16th, not the MacKenzie version which was installed in 1924 (I'll think again if someone can verify that CBM visited Littlestone between 1924 and the publication of SGG in 1928). It is clear from the 1943 aerial that the dunes area he was referring to (on the left of the fairway above the 3 diagonal cross bunkers) was cleared to a much larger extent than now. I think it's likely he was recalling the original 16th from memory and hadn't seen the revised version. Evidence for that is his reference to the deep bunker in front of the green. That feature was unique to the old green; MacKenzie's green doesn't have one.
-
I really need to get back to Littlestone more often. Over many years I am slowly appreciating the design more. On this trip I really noticed the greens. They aren't wild or anything, but there is plenty of movement. See the updated tour
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,53049.msg1218558.html#msg1218558
Ciao
-
Sean,
We've had this discussion before but I'm still convinced that the loss of so many bunkers simplified the course to such an extent that much of the original architecture was lost. The 3rd is a good example. Recall that it was altered from a straight hole to a slight dogleg left with a bunker at the turn. I never understood the rationale although the member who led the decision insisted that it was MacKenzie's idea - forgetting that MacKenzie's plan had been lost. I don't think he would have purloined the only copy. The original hole can be seen in these two obliques which date from the early 30s. The first shows the huge bunker that stretched across the dune in front of the tee. The tee was still in the valley and to the right rear of the 2nd green (fill from the notch in the dune on the 2nd hole was used to build the current tee box). The next photo shows the rest of the fairway with the fishhook array of bunkers stretching from the right of the green around to meet the left side of the fairway. The two left fairway bunkers challenged the favored line - from the right the diagonal line of bunkers and alignment of the green would have made for a more difficult approach. All the fishhook bunkers, save two, are gone; their remnants are still very visible. I just think it's a better hole and would stick in your memory a lot better.
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/cadcaddo/Littlestone/holenr3a_zpsuiwrrmkl.jpg) (http://s99.photobucket.com/user/cadcaddo/media/Littlestone/holenr3a_zpsuiwrrmkl.jpg.html)
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/cadcaddo/Littlestone/holenr3b_zpsowkf09gs.jpg) (http://s99.photobucket.com/user/cadcaddo/media/Littlestone/holenr3b_zpsowkf09gs.jpg.html)
-
Great stuff Sean and Craig. Having now played the course a couple of comments;
Bunkers - in general terms I agree with Sean regarding having too many bunkers and that in some cases a bigger bunker can do the job better than a number of small ones. However in the old black and white photo that Craig posted, bunkers C and D would presumably be aligned from further down the fairway and from that direction would likely give the appearance of being part of a single and far larger bunker complex than they actually were. I think it was either Robin or Christophe who did a photo tour of Duff House Royal that shows that trick to great affect.
MacKenzie plans - there are others who are more qualified to comment but I believe that MacKenzie's draftsmanship was fairly basic and he sometimes used others to create a more presentable version of his ideas where it was required for presentation purposes. It might be the Littlestone plan doesn't exist because what he produced was not the sort of quality deemed good enough to stick on the wall or to preserve for posterity. It might have been more a working drawing type of thing that would possibly have been chucked away at the completion of the job.
Niall
-
I've come to the conclusion that "a course you can play every day for the rest of your life", is likely the highest praise you can give. Little stone I s a post e r child for that.
Jim Goby told me that t h e reason why Littlestone stood up better than RSG, RCPGC and Princes in the oPen qualifiers was the subtly of the greens. I greatly regret not toasting Jim last weekend.
Finally, I agreed with James 6 is another all world hole. That makes three.
Double finally, there were not many members to be seen last weekend, so many wouldn't have seen this is one of the most welcoming club s I've been lucky enough to visit.
Go play Littlestone.
-
Sean,
We've had this discussion before but I'm still convinced that the loss of so many bunkers simplified the course to such an extent that much of the original architecture was lost. The 3rd is a good example. Recall that it was altered from a straight hole to a slight dogleg left with a bunker at the turn. I never understood the rationale although the member who led the decision insisted that it was MacKenzie's idea - forgetting that MacKenzie's plan had been lost. I don't think he would have purloined the only copy. The original hole can be seen in these two obliques which date from the early 30s. The first shows the huge bunker that stretched across the dune in front of the tee. The tee was still in the valley and to the right rear of the 2nd green (fill from the notch in the dune on the 2nd hole was used to build the current tee box). The next photo shows the rest of the fairway with the fishhook array of bunkers stretching from the right of the green around to meet the left side of the fairway. The two left fairway bunkers challenged the favored line - from the right the diagonal line of bunkers and alignment of the green would have made for a more difficult approach. All the fishhook bunkers, save two, are gone; their remnants are still very visible. I just think it's a better hole and would stick in your memory a lot better.
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/cadcaddo/Littlestone/holenr3a_zpsuiwrrmkl.jpg) (http://s99.photobucket.com/user/cadcaddo/media/Littlestone/holenr3a_zpsuiwrrmkl.jpg.html)
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/cadcaddo/Littlestone/holenr3b_zpsowkf09gs.jpg) (http://s99.photobucket.com/user/cadcaddo/media/Littlestone/holenr3b_zpsowkf09gs.jpg.html)
Craig
You could well be right. Its difficult to make a comparison from aerials without having played the early version. That said, the club seems hesistant to widen fairways as it is. With a huge number of extra bunkers comes the necessity for more width...a luxury most clubs don't seem able to deliver.
Regardless of what could be, I was glad to see the course again...it is better than memory suggested. I think Littlestone is arguably top 40 England.
Concerning the 9th. Why isn't the white tee on the left and the yellow tee right? It seems to me the shot is more difficult from the left tee.
Ciao
-
Craig
You could well be right. Its difficult to make a comparison from aerials without having played the early version. That said, the club seems hesistant to widen fairways as it is. With a hugh number of extra bunkers comes the necessity for more width...a luxury most clubs don't seem able to deliver.
Regardless of what could be, I was glad to see the course again...it is better than memory suggested. I think Littlestone is arguably top 40 England.
Concerning the 9th. Why isn't the white tee on the left and the yellow tee right? It seems to me the shot is more difficult from the left tee.
Ciao
Sean,
I've played the course so often knowing where the old bunkers were (most locations are still visible) that I appreciated how much purpose had been put into their placement. The best example is the center line bunker on 18 that comes into play with a 25+ mph wind; it also had a strong psychological impact even though it should have been easily avoided. Clearly it was removed because of members' complaints. Why so many of the fairways were shifted and caused original bunkers to become obsolete is lost to history. I have another view of the course from the same photo which shows the 1st and 18th fairways as one large expanse with a drainage ditch separating them. The ditch connected to the two small bunkers and right depression surrounding the 1st green - both of which were completely sand-filled - and continued in front of the 2nd tee. Restoring a lot of these old features - many designed by MacKenzie - would only enhance the course.
You're right on 9. It makes no sense to me either. The only setup that is easier from the left is having the hold located behind the two bunkers on the right.
-
Craig
You could well be right. Its difficult to make a comparison from aerials without having played the early version. That said, the club seems hesistant to widen fairways as it is. With a hugh number of extra bunkers comes the necessity for more width...a luxury most clubs don't seem able to deliver.
Regardless of what could be, I was glad to see the course again...it is better than memory suggested. I think Littlestone is arguably top 40 England.
Concerning the 9th. Why isn't the white tee on the left and the yellow tee right? It seems to me the shot is more difficult from the left tee.
Ciao
Sean,
I've played the course so often knowing where the old bunkers were (most locations are still visible) that I appreciated how much purpose had been put into their placement. The best example is the center line bunker on 18 that comes into play with a 25+ mph wind; it also had a strong psychological impact even though it should have been easily avoided. Clearly it was removed because of members' complaints. Why so many of the fairways were shifted and caused original bunkers to become obsolete is lost to history. I have another view of the course from the same photo which shows the 1st and 18th fairways as one large expanse with a drainage ditch separating them. The ditch connected to the two small bunkers and right depression surrounding the 1st green - both of which were completely sand-filled - and continued in front of the 2nd tee. Restoring a lot of these old features - many designed by MacKenzie - would only enhance the course.
You're right on 9. It makes no sense to me either. The only setup that is easier from the left is having the hold located behind the two bunkers on the right.
Craig
As I say, it is difficult to grasp the concept of why so many added bunkers made for a better course, particularly when the fairways are so much narrower today. Regardless, I still don't understand the need for small bunkers immediately adjacent to large bunkers. Though I do like the idea of more central bunkers.
Ciao
-
Craig
As I say, it is difficult to grasp the concept of why so many added bunkers made for a better course, particularly when the fairways are so much narrower today. Regardless, I still don't understand the need for small bunkers immediately adjacent to large bunkers. Though I do like the idea of more central bunkers.
Ciao
With the current bunkers, the defense of the course is the thick rough, narrow fairways, and a few of the green sites, like 6, 15 and 17. The old aerial shows virtually no rough but many large bunkers. What do you do with a hole like 18? It's dead flat with an interesting green. The fairway bunkers are easy to avoid so the only worry as you proceed to the green is the thick rough on the left and right. The old bunkers are cleverly placed and to avoid them requires playing a series of safe shots that take you away from the best line to the green.
-
Craig
If the fairway bunkers are easy to avoid on 18 then so too must the rough 8) I take your point and would certainly welcome wider fairways, more efficiently placed bunkers and of different sizes, but not necessarily more bunkers. I don't believe a well designed course needs anything close to an average of 4-5 bunkers per hole. Littlestone has plenty of ground features to carry the design a long way.
Ciao