Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Sean_A on June 03, 2013, 09:41:49 AM
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4303/36033312971_58d6f95c2c_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4303/36033312971_58d6f95c2c_b.jpg)
Before playing, its always best to seek a weather update. Although judging by where this barometer is located in the corner near the sinks, the members of Worlington are not overly bothered.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4313/35359383503_2bb1f4f7ea_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4313/35359383503_2bb1f4f7ea_b.jpg)
The card of the course is somewhat confusing. The SSS and stroke indexes are treated as if this were an 18 hole course! Furthermore, a look at the stroke indexes will reveal a socialist tendency of the club. The 9 capper will, over the course of "18 holes", receive a shot on each of the nine holes! I don't believe the club should make any apologies or concessions for being a 9 holer. By my reckoning the card should read par 35; bogey 37 and SSS 36. Now we have to determine who plays against bogey and who against par...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4307/36033312771_d1f5024be8_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4307/36033312771_d1f5024be8_b.jpg)
The usually spot on James Finegan was quite dismissive of the opening hole, a sub 500 yard par 5 playing along the road. The club deems the road bothersome enough to issue Golfers Insurance with a paid green fee! Bunkers to the left crowd the fairway letting the golfer know he is in the game before hitting a shot. If playing downwind the green is within two blows, but 2 putting for a birdie is an entirely different matter.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4295/35359385693_7865bf09aa_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4295/35359385693_7865bf09aa_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4328/35359385853_a46e43c999_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4328/35359385853_a46e43c999_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4303/35774284990_cbf08bae52_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4303/35774284990_cbf08bae52_b.jpg)
#2. The photo below is taken from well in front of the tee.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4304/36033315431_e57d64b177_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4304/36033315431_e57d64b177_b.jpg)
A view of the domed par three green from the 3rd tee.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4329/35359385513_091409724e_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4329/35359385513_091409724e_b.jpg)
More to follow.
Ciao
-
Thanks for doing this photo thread. Tony Muldoon and I had talked about the need for one, and you beat him to it.
Though the road along the first fairway isn't busy, the OB on right and bunkers on the left make for an uncomfortable first swing. The green makes the hole. The back left hole location we got sure was not easy to get to with either a wedge or putter.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/mildenhall/DSC06028_zps588c3eb0.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/jmayhugh/media/mildenhall/DSC06028_zps588c3eb0.jpg.html)
-
(http://i1100.photobucket.com/albums/g410/brianmartinsheehy/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket/1-4.jpg) (http://s1100.photobucket.com/user/brianmartinsheehy/media/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket/1-4.jpg.html)
Sheehy sent this poor woman into the realms of BISTRO MATHEMATICS!
TOUR CONTINUED
#3: While slightly longer, the hole plays easier from behind the 2nd green rather than alongside it as Dickinson illustrates.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4326/35359385233_810d8b1db9_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4326/35359385233_810d8b1db9_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4297/35359385393_a98b053513_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4297/35359385393_a98b053513_b.jpg)
Given the narrow fairway, it is probably best if most golfers lay back. Further up the fairway things become dicey if one is off-target.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4320/35774284340_37abc6a4d8_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4320/35774284340_37abc6a4d8_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4302/35774284620_fe2e68bace_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4302/35774284620_fe2e68bace_b.jpg)
#4: Staying well clear of the trees down the right allows the blind bunkering to do its best.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4315/36033314851_3c4193883f_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4315/36033314851_3c4193883f_b.jpg)
As if being watched by a colossal pair of eyes, it is difficult to know which we should respect more; wood or sand. These bunkers do double duty with #s 4 & 6.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4308/35359385083_fd51eaf177_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4308/35359385083_fd51eaf177_b.jpg)
If we continue down the left, eventually a toll will be exacted. Notice the OOB to the rear and right of the green.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4297/35774284190_e3bb019041_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4297/35774284190_e3bb019041_b.jpg)
More to follow.
Ciao
-
Brian,
I would say it played about as firm as any of the other courses that I played on that trip (Brancaster, Hunstanton, Woodhall Spa). There were some wet spots outside of the fairways but generally very good considering the amount of rain there had been. I didn't realize that Mark had posted a tour as well - must have missed it.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48309.0.html
The second green is a tough, tough target. It's about 220 yards, and the green is sort of an overturned saucer. As Sean notes, there is dead ground short of the green, so it's tough to bounce one up. Long is no good either, and with the hole on the the right side the bunker makes for a tough recovery - either from it or over it. The photos do not do justice showing the elevation of the green.
These first two holes are a nice introduction to how intricate and clever the design is. The land isn't real exciting, but the course starts with two strong holes made so by the green complexes.
Sean, really wish you would go slow posting the remaining holes. It would be nice to see some comments before all the holes get posted. I imagine that the 5th will get plenty.
-
I’ve been searching through the literature.
Herbert Warren Wind described it as “..far and away the best nine-hole course in the world” to which Tom Doak added “and I must simply nod in assent.” Doak continues “The genius of the course is to see how the scarce natural features of the property are employed several times each within the nine.” “Every design student should spend some time pondering how well this course works.”
Incidentally there’s a common mistake about the date of Colt’s work repeated by Doak, Finegan etc. His report to the Club was in the 20’s and he made clear he hadn’t previously seen the course. The earlier date occurs in Colt & Co.
Normally I have lot of time for Finegan and he certainly went with high expectations “I could scarcely wait to get to the 1st tee. Alas, I walked off the 9th green profoundly disappointed. Four holes are prosaic, 1, 4, 7 & 9.” I think the clue is he apparently only played it once. My guess is he scored badly couldn’t see why and moved on in a bad mood.
He then speculates its reputation arises from those who were students at Cambridge (Doak sort of agrees with this sentiment and then awards it a nine!).
Steel said that if asked to choose a course on which to play the remainder of one’s golfing life, as long as he could choose two, one seaside and “my ideal inland retreat would, without and doubt, be Royal Worlington and Newmarket. Rather like St Andrews, at first sight it may not quite measure up to all the tributes paid to it but the more familiar it becomes the more the special quality of the golf becomes evident and never for a moment is one deterred by the thought of playing the same holes eight times in a weekend. Rather the opposite.”
The second “a long short hole whose green is about as hard to stay on as a policemen’s’ helmet”. (This line is stolen from Dickenson).
More to follow.
-
Yes, I believe Colt saw TS9 for the first time in 1920.
TOUR CONTINUED
As previously mentioned, the 6th shares a fairway with the 4th. After the "front" nine the effect of the trees down the right cause concern for the approach. As a counterbalance, one may find himself aiming much further left than previously. Trying to gauge where the bunkers are on this blind tee shot is perplexing. In the photo below one can see how the approach is endangered by the trees. Bailing way left off the tee has the knock-on effect of creating a longer 2nd and left greenside bunkers guard this avenue.
Just short of the green is zig-zag swale. A sympathetic soul drained what was a stream! I believe this water at one time ran to the left and behind the green. It then connected to the depression running shy of the 7th green. I wonder too if this same water course didn't traverse the 1st fairway and somehow join the ditch in front of the 3rd green?
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4303/36033313811_2051ed5fac_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4303/36033313811_2051ed5fac_b.jpg)
Let us briefly return to the 4th. The photo from the 5th tee clearly testifies to the meddlesome OOB not ten paces from the hole.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4323/36033314161_574fb9c12e_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4323/36033314161_574fb9c12e_b.jpg)
Our digression continues on the fifth....one photo does the job. However, it is interesting that recently some light has been shed on why this hole is awkwardly placed. It would appear that Dunn created a Short Course (which makes up much of the current Sacred 9) and a Long Course with holes beyond #s 3 and 4. The Long Course was abandoned by 1895, but the one hole which was saved and incorporated into the Short Course was the 5th. It has long been assumed that Colt was responsible for much of Worlington, but very few of his suggestions from the February 1920 report were actually implemented.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4291/36033314221_9c900fa77e_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4291/36033314221_9c900fa77e_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4303/35359384643_e862b4b089_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4303/35359384643_e862b4b089_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/845/43623784092_478035d17e_o.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/845/43623784092_478035d17e_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/933/43670338041_0b459a6569_o.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/933/43670338041_0b459a6569_o.jpg)
More to follow.
Ciao
-
Normally I have lot of time for Finegan and he certainly went with high expectations “I could scarcely wait to get to the 1st tee. Alas, I walked off the 9th green profoundly disappointed. Four holes are prosaic, 1, 4, 7 & 9.” I think the clue is he apparently only played it once. My guess is he scored badly couldn’t see why and moved on in a bad mood.
Tony:
I'm not sure this is fair to Mr. Finegan. I've read most of his books, including his detailed ones on the courses of Scotland, England/Wales, and Ireland, and I've never had the impression he lets his success, or lack of, at any particular course affect his judgement of the course. He loved Stonehaven, for instance -- a course many describe as goofy -- and had little time for Carnoustie, a course viewed by several folks as the best overall test in the championship rota. And, since you invoked Tom Doak in comparison, Mr. Finegan at least played the courses he wrote about; Doak in the CG rated some courses he had only walked.
-
Sean,
Glad you've finally managed to get to see Mildenhall! A wonderful course that may well be the most famous 9 hole course in the world but still suffers from it it seems as people only refer to it in this way and forget that its a good golf course in its own right. The club and clubhouse are equally wonderful. One of the old members came in for lunch after his first nine with his friend, leaving his golden retriever outside, and then proceeded to polish off a whole bottle of red on his own (his friend stuck to a pot of tea) before venturing out for his second nine of the day...
Also, I think the insurance may be more to do with the road that crosses the 9th? A car came bombing across in front of the 9th green when I played and he never saw me and I only saw him at the last minute.
Thanks for doing this photo thread. Tony Muldoon and I had talked about the need for one, and you beat him to it.
John,
You and Tony are hard to please...
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,43169.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48309.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/england/rwn/
;D
Cheers,
James
-
From an email a wrote to the club after they hosted me for a round in March:
I found "The Sacred Nine" to be absolutely a world class course, and no doubt worthy of a visit by anyone interested in golf course design. While it appears very simple, it is an extremely well thought out piece of architecture, as the property is barely large enough for 8 good holes, and you have 9 world class holes. Aside from the great greens and simple features which fit the land and produce great golf, one of the most charming features of the course is how social a game it becomes through the way the course has been routed. By playing over and across the previous greens, and the usage of shared fairways, the way one group of golfers interacts with not just the course, but the other golfers is wonderfully unique, and compliments the small and homely feeling of the membership and its clubhouse. Perhaps only The Old Course, with the its crossovers and shared fairways gets close, but due to the public nature, the homely feeling isn't the same. Royal Worlington and Newmarket also shares in the claim as being one of the best alternate shot courses, just adding to its genius and social atmosphere
-
TOUR CONTINUED
Leaving the secluded trio of holes behind we now make a run for home. It could fairly be said the last three holes are not quite of the same quality as the previous holes, however, all three are quite different and use hazards very well. The 7th is visually rather plain. If there can be only one over-riding criticism of Worlington it is the monochrome green of the course. There isn't much texture provided by heather, gorse or high profile bunkering. Consequently, a hole such as the 7th is often dismissed as common. In truth, it is a fine knob to knob par 3 with a considerable (many of the greens are generous in size) plateau green. Just shy of the green is a large, deep swale. In this photo the proximity of the 3rd green and two hidden bunkers is more apparent. Due to the compact nature of the design, The Sacred 9 exudes an ambience of bonhomie where holes comfortably bleed into one another.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4302/35359384393_cf1f3b2474_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4302/35359384393_cf1f3b2474_b.jpg)
The tee shot for #8. Notice the yellow tee marker in the middle of the chipping area for the previous green. Details such as this distinguish Worlington as a highly memorable course.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4312/35359384143_f407bbd0c3_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4312/35359384143_f407bbd0c3_b.jpg)
A rather crude gap was cut through the trench bunker. Not that a view of the flag shortens this mondo 460 yard par 4.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4325/36033313611_39394895b0_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4325/36033313611_39394895b0_b.jpg)
The final 50 or so yards leans through the green making an approach from the left a bit messy. Again, we have a great feature in that the slight scoop right of the bunker can entice golfers to use its shape in slinging a runner to a far left hole location.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4313/35359384333_8e77a0ea0a_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4313/35359384333_8e77a0ea0a_b.jpg)
The 9th demonstrates one of the most maddening aspects of maintenance; allowing trees to block a view, especially when one may be tempted to commit an indiscretion of judgement if the target can be seen. If one plays safely left the target can be seen and a more easily access a right side hole location. I am usually not an advocate of rough, but in this instance the hit or miss rough out left works well.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4292/35359383783_0dd1e42175_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4292/35359383783_0dd1e42175_b.jpg)
From the middle of the fairway shy of the road the approach is obscured. One knows the ground fronting the green rises to a lip, but it is challenging to gauge the correct landing spot.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4322/35359383933_346d8cdbbd_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4322/35359383933_346d8cdbbd_b.jpg)
In earnest I didn't know what to expect previous to arriving at Worlington and I certainly didn't expect to encounter three All England candidates (#s 2, 5 & 6) or such a strong connection to the early days of the game.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4328/35359383703_fd2f31ab84_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4328/35359383703_fd2f31ab84_b.jpg)
My first view of the course from the road raised the possibility of promise, but not overly so. The opening tee shot was somewhat engaging, but when reaching the third tee I was sold on The Sacred 9. 1* 2013
Colt's 1920 Report.
Page 1
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49739218061_2e36f8a67f_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49739218061_2e36f8a67f_b.jpg)
Page 2
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49739542127_6c503835a3_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49739542127_6c503835a3_b.jpg)
Page 3
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49738669878_3acd9f6616_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49738669878_3acd9f6616_b.jpg)
Page 4
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49739217926_b92fb3f06c_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49739217926_b92fb3f06c_b.jpg)
Ran's Review.
http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/england/rwn/ (http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/england/rwn/)
Suffolk courses
Thorpeness
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,70168.0.html (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,70168.0.html)
Flempton
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69788.msg1678711.html#msg1678711 (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69788.msg1678711.html#msg1678711)
Aldeburgh
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,70170.0.html (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,70170.0.html)
Woodbridge
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,70107.0.html (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,70107.0.html)
Ciao
-
Good tour, as usual, Sean.
-
Brian
The greens...for me, not as good as Beau Desert's or Woking's, but still of high quality. We didn't get to see them at their best, but I reckon if they roll at 9ish and are firmed up all havoc could break loose. One thing which bugged me about the greens, and this is a knit pick, there was a clear division between green and fairway. I would have preferred a bit more bleeding between green and fairway especially when the green is raised.
Yes, even with the course not terribly keen the ground game was in force. I remarked to Neil that if heathery bunkers could be strewn across the the deep dip shy of the green people would oooh and ahhh over this hole. I am shocked that Finegan completely missed the boat on Worlington. Calling the 7th "featureless" and "the overall terrain - a pleasant meadow - is of no distinction" is criminal. I thought there were loads of interesting features crammed into the design. I even liked the trees down the right of #s 4 and 6! Very clever they are.
Ciao
-
Sean - I loved the tour, as always, but I must ask... did you receive some type of archaic thesaurus for your birthday? ;D
-
Sean:
Thanks again for another wonderful tour.
I've looked at every thread here on GCA on Royal W&NM, tried to find notable writings of the course (including Darwin, Finegan and Doak), looked at aerials, and compared it to some of your other course tours. I haven't played it, of course, so take the following with as many grains of salt as you please.
Overall, I have to crib from replies #7 and 8 from this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48309.0.html
I just don't get it.
This is really the best nine-hole course in the world? Worthy of a Doak 9?
Some neat elements of quirk (teeing over greens, shared fairways, bunkers with multiple purposes). Interesting half-par holes, as Ran points out in his write-up: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/england/rwn/ Some very interesting greens -- they appear to be the strength of the course.
Hole #1 isn't all that different, it appears, than #2 at Merion East -- a par 5 early in the round with a road lining the entire side. Interesting to me that the hole swings away from the road at the end, diminishing some of the terror (and interest) that a green hard by the road might hold. #2 looks like a long, stout par 3 with an inverted tea-cup green -- solid, yes, but I've seen and played what appear to be much better versions of a long par 3 that requires more than iron play off the tee. #3 -- OK, there's a less cluttered view the closer one is willing to play near the forest right, but it's a hole of 361 yards -- most folks are coming into that green with a short iron. The green looks fairly benign. #4 -- a solid half-par hole, but with some hard-to-understand OOB quite near the green for those wishing to have at it with their second shot in hopes of a birdie/eagle. I like the use of the terrain directly in front of the green to "hide" it and make approaches more difficult, but this is hardly unique or bold or inventive, particularly on 100+ year old courses.
What to make of #5? I have a high tolerance for quirk. The narrowness and smallness of the green at 5 seems appropriate for a par 3 of less than 160 yards. There's nothing wrong with a hole that requires an exacting shot onto a small surface surrounded by trouble (see hole #6 on this thread I did of a course not long ago: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,49805.0.html) But the contours of the 5th green at R W&NM suggests its comes close to being over the top. If, as Ran points out in his thread, an accomplished golfer can hit this green off the tee and walk off with an 8, is that a sign of greatness, or something else? James Finegan was too polite to call it goofy: "As to its basic fairness, that's not a question I would care to debate."
#6 is a stout par 4 -- another half-par hole -- but the Principal's Nose bunker complex that Ran praises looks out of reach for all but the most Tiger-ish of golfers. It looks like a solid hole, but again nothing remarkable or something I haven't seen before. #7 -- again, some nice use of land to deaden a short approach. But at 163 yards, does it come into play all that often? The green, by R W&NM standards, looks dull. #8 -- some very nice bunkering schemes, and a fall-away green. This looks like a fine, tough half-par hole.
The course concludes on what appears to me a fatally flawed hole. More oddly placed OOB, meddlesome trees that ruin the tempting view (which a hole of this length should encourage), and a horrifically placed road (I get that they can't move it, and roads are integral parts of many courses; this one appears to be right where you wouldn't want one).
Subject of three GCA threads by three estimable reviewers, and a full review by GCA's founder, and admired by golf writers for nearly a century, R W&NM is certainly deserving of such scrutiny. I'm not sure I'd go out of my way to play it.
-
SA -
1) Yes, I'm sold on the Sacred 9. When I think of the Sacred I think of the Spirit. The ancient Greek work for Spirit is Pneuma, from which we get the word Breath. Is it a coincidence that the impression I get is of a course that "breathes", and that allows a golfer to breathe. (Even the visually 'plain' holes are part of that - nothing forced, nothing in your face). No, not a coincidence I think.
2) More excellent work from you. Thanks!
Peter
-
James,
I never claimed to be the most observant guy around! Your tour was active for about three days and reappeared for a couple more. Mark's, too, was active for about three days. It's not unusual for me to go without checking the site for a a few days, and when I do I rarely look at more than the first page. When people complain about off-topic threads or too many on a single subject, I understand as it can lead to threads like Mark's and yours disappearing too soon. Hopefully those checking out this one will go to the other tours and see the additional photos and comments.
Now to talk about the course.
The third fairway is tougher to find than it might seem from the pictures. The fairway is sort of hogs-backed, and if you try too hard to avoid the trees on right, you will have lots of trouble playing from the hollow on the left. The fairway gets narrower the longer your drive. A safe 220 yard tee shot has a 45 yard wide landing area and will leave you 150 in. If you want a short approach, you have to contend with a 25 yard landing area and serious trouble on both sides. The small bunker front left swallows poor approaches.
-
Pietro
Cheers. Dickinson's quote at the end is telling. I didn't find Worlington overly difficult, just more, much more nuanced than I expected.
Phil - thanks for the reply.
I didn't come close to capturing all that Worlington is or can be. That job is well beyond my powers. I do, however, feel I have done a very poor job of it if folks can't see Worlington at least hints at being special. It could be we are seeing eye to eye because I think the course is just about a Doak 7. Though I would need to see Worlington at near its best and worst to be completely happy with that assessment. Either at 6 or 7, this is one of my favourite courses I have seen. The quality is plenty good enough for me and there are elements which give it that extra fizz. In addition, the house is lovely and the green fee is reasonable.
1. Worlington's green trumps Merions's 2nd by quite a margin. Other than that, your analysis is quite accurate.
2. I generally dislike long par 3s, but in my experience this one is unique because the landing zone is blind. Its interesting when the smartest play on a short hole is possibly to not go for the green.
3. Yes, its a 225 lay-up and whatever iron from there. But the view from the tee is obscured and the fairway is fairly tight. Add in wind and we may not always have the opportunity to lay-up. I nutted a driver all of 220 yards (I expect in no wind it would have went a comfortable 250ish) and it wasn't even that windy.
4. I too couldn't figure out the OOB on the ditch right of the green. Be that as it may, for those banging home on this long par 4 the danger lurks. Very impressive hole which makes the golfer think about all the trouble. There isn't anyway to avoid taking on some hazard or another.
5. I discount anything Finegan writes about Worlington. He was having a bad day or something because he is so clearly mistaken about some of his dismissive comments that his review is tainted. The 5th is without doubt awesome.
6. I was much more respectful of this hole the second time round. Not really sure how best to play it. The double bunker you speak of is in play for players longer than myself (240ish hitter) or if conditions are firmer. Its a great approach because it must be spot on.
7. The plateau green can be troublesome if its firm or strongly downwind. It must be carried. The green as you say is flatish. If I had my way it would be combined with the third green - keeping the bunker between the two.
8. Is a solid hole as you say. Its easy to keep left away from the optimal angle left near the trees.
9. I disagree - the hole isn't fatally flawed. The trees should come down even if its just because they are ugly. Everything else is fine. The road, while a pain, combined with the OOB makes the hole.
Ciao
-
Phil,
I didn't care for the OB right and behind the 4th green and right or the 5th. I'm not sure why it's necessary in either of those cases.
As for the 9th, getting rid of the cluster of trees on the right would be nice as they are not very attractive. It's far from fatally flawed, though. For a short hole, the angle of the tee shot combined with the huge left to right slope of the green works perfectly. I can imagine some interesting changes in the outcome of matches on that hole.
-
Sean:
Thanks for the reply, and informative answers. My sense is that R W&NM is subtle, in a way that perhaps a Kington is not (bold, severely contoured land), and so the features that make it worthwhile may not come through in a photo thread, and probably are best (and perhaps only) appreciated by playing it. I'm fine with that, and withhold final judgement if and when I play it.
But Machrihanish -- a course I have played -- was rated as a Doak 7, and in candor I just don't see how R W&NM holds a candle to Machrihanish (and I don't discount R W&NM because its only nine holes; courses should be judged on what they present, either 9 or 18 -- or 12 ;)!) I don't see anything in the greens at R W&NM that isn't just as good (or better, in several cases, like #2) at Machrahanish. And while the front nine of Machrihanish is justly famous for the routing through the tumult of the dunes, the back nine has some wonderfully subtle holes, and a stout par 3 that looks just as good as the 2nd at R W&NM. Some argue Machrihanish ends weakly, but no more so than R W&NM, and the very last hole at Machrihanish has some interest and gambling options for matches that reach the final hole.
Sure, there is subtlety, but Ran's recent view of Royal St. David's (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/wales/royal-st-davids-golf-club/) truly shows how land that some might view as flat can display rumples and rolls that truly impact one's shot and lie, something I don't see much of at R W&NM. (I've looked at all of the GCA threads on R W&NM, and I don't see anything that dissuades me that Finegan's view of the terrain as a "pleasant meadow" is off the mark. One with a good golf course on it, but the description seems apt. And where do folks come off insinuating that he must have had a "bad day" when reviewing R W&NM? His reviews in his books have always struck me as even-handed; one of his virtues, it seems, as a reviewer is that he doesn't let conventional wisdom influence his views on a course.)
I'll conclude with this thought -- I'd rather play any 9 holes at Kington than R W&NM, based on your course reviews.
-
Phil
I like Machrihanish, but I don't think it is any better than Brora or Silloth and especially Pennard. I think of all of them as 6s with Pennard being the only one which I think threatens the neighbourhood of 7.
As you probably know, Kington is my favourite course on the planet...that I know of, yet I don't believe it better than Worlington. In fact, at the moment I would say if forced to pick the better course I would say Worlington pips Kington. But like you, if I had to choose to play one it would be Kington.
Concerning Finegan, well, we shall just have to disagree. I think he is miles wide of the target. That isn't the first time I thought this. His remarks about Pennard are wildly favourable to the point of being almost fantastical AND I LOVE PENNARD. Anyway, one can't agree with a reviewer all the time. I am not saying Worlington is worth a trip overseas just to see it, but I do think it is worth an overnight detour.
Ciao
-
This is a course that you can't judge from pictures or descriptions. It looks boring and relatively straight-forward. You have to play it. I don't think anyone who has played it ever came away less than impressed.
Ulrich
-
I agree with Ulrich - photos and descriptions don't impress nearly as much as a round there.
It's probably worth playing for the fifth hole alone. The green is less than 20 yards wide and around 40 yards deep, with serious run-offs on each side. To add to the challenge, the narrow green is also at a bit of an angle to the tee and a little uphill. If I were in a stroke play event, I might just opt to play just short of the green where there is more width and take my chances on getting down in no more than three. Here's one additional pic from behind the green.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/mildenhall/DSC06055_zpse93b299b.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/jmayhugh/media/mildenhall/DSC06055_zpse93b299b.jpg.html)
And a group from the front. Note the player putting from the hollow on the left. I think keeping on the green is more of a goal than up and down.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/mildenhall/DSC06059_zps8648c040.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/jmayhugh/media/mildenhall/DSC06059_zps8648c040.jpg.html)
-
Tucky
I too thought playing short on the 5th may pay dividends in the long run, but my idea of short is the front of the green. My first go was an indifferent 8 iron to the front which left a tricky putt up the steep slope. My second go I decided this wasn't a bad play. I flushed the same 8 iron (Neil wouldn't let me borrow his) to nearly pin high. It was obviously a lucky mistake because aiming for that back section of the green is really a hopeless play for someone of my rather limited abilities. No matter what one chooses to do off the tee, recovering from short of the putting surface is easier than being pin high left or right. Great, great hole.
Ciao
-
At quick glance I think RWN resembles Southampton Golf Club! (Or vice versa)
-
Tucky
I too thought playing short on the 5th may pay dividends in the long run, but my idea of short is the front of the green. My first go was an indifferent 8 iron to the front which left a tricky putt up the steep slope. My second go I decided this wasn't a bad play. I flushed the same 8 iron (Neil wouldn't let me borrow his) to nearly pin high. It was obviously a lucky mistake because aiming for that back section of the green is really a hopeless play for someone of my rather limited abilities. No matter what one chooses to do off the tee, recovering from short of the putting surface is easier than being pin high left or right. Great, great hole.
Ciao
Sean, John,
That is one of the great beauties of the hole. Short may be the safe play, but then you think its got no bunkers and I've only got an 8 iron 8) in my hands so I may as well go for it!
Phil M,
I can understand how from photos alone the magic of RW&N doesn't shine through. I think Sean's point, which Brian picks up on, about texture has a lot to do with it. If the hollow short of the 7th was full of gorse and pink heather with a couple of those quaint rough looking gravel paths winding through it, then it would be a lot more visually appealing and therefore easier to see the love heading its way???
Referring to Doak's analysis in the Confidential Guide, I wonder if he mixed up Woodhall Spa and Worlington? ;D One (RW&N) is about a 7 or 8 and worthy of inclusion in the Gourmets Choice. The other is worthy of a 9 (not me personally but an awful lot of people think so) but not really Gourmet material...
James,
I never claimed to be the most observant guy around! Your tour was active for about three days and reappeared for a couple more. Mark's, too, was active for about three days. It's not unusual for me to go without checking the site for a a few days, and when I do I rarely look at more than the first page. When people complain about off-topic threads or too many on a single subject, I understand as it can lead to threads like Mark's and yours disappearing too soon. Hopefully those checking out this one will go to the other tours and see the additional photos and comments.
John,
Yes, the likes of Mark Rowlinson and I don't have the star status of Mr Arble to keep our tours on the first page for several weeks... ;D
Cheers,
James
-
James:
Re. #7 -- I just don't see how that hollow is emblematic of greatness in golf course design/architecture on a hole of 160-some yards, regardless of what's there. My own bias toward course presentation would leave it the way it is, but I don't get what the big deal is with this feature. In front of a 400-some yard par 4 -- sure. But on a par 3 where nearly everyone will be playing it with an aerial shot?
-
Phil,
My point wasn't specifically regarding the architectural merits of the hollow, but referencing Sean's point about texture, and how it looks a bland as its currently presented and seen in Sean's photo.
The fact that this and other features look bland or aren't surrounded by eye candy (heather, frilly bunkers, sea views ::) ;) ) could possibly lead ones mind to wander away from the wonderful features elsewhere on the course. RW&N isn't always especially photogenic, the medium through which you are trying to interpret the course, and therefore possibly counts against it until its been seen in person??? 8)
Cheers,
James
-
James:
I understand that subtlety might "hide" the merits of the course. But I've also studied not just Sean's thread, but two others presented here on GCA on R W&NM, and to me they all show the same thing -- a course of some interest, with some very good greens, on a non-descript piece of land (a "pleasant meadow" ;)).
Compare the R W&NM threads to this one on Wild Horse, in Nebraska, also on a relatively flat piece of land, but one where I think the architectural merits really shine through, in a way that I just can't see (yet? ;)) in R W&NM.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48807.0.html
(My questioning of R W&NM isn't that it's necessarily a poor course; it strikes me as a pretty good one. But the standards for evaluating it, in my mind, are higher, given the reputation it carries.)
-
Sean & James,
Knowing what's smart and being tempted to do otherwise - even knowing the penalty for failure - is a great testament to the hole. I think I hit the green both plays, so that probably ruins me playing smart for at least ten rounds.
James,
I'm one who's had his fair share of photo threads disappear almost as quickly as they started. That's why I try not to post very many holes at once, hoping more people would have the chance to take a look. You and Mark both made the critical error of putting up all nine holes in the initial post. Without mentioning either carts or Tiger Woods, you were doomed to fall off the first page.
Gene,
That's very intriguing. I wonder if anyone who has played both could comment.
A couple more pics of the fifth.
This, from the 6th fairway, shows how much runoff there is on the left side. While on some holes the cut just off the green is too long, this one is just right.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/mildenhall/DSC06060_zps34b06493.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/jmayhugh/media/mildenhall/DSC06060_zps34b06493.jpg.html)
A little different angle from the front. Lots more room, but a putt to the back is tough.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/mildenhall/DSC06052_zpsfe3a6f51.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/jmayhugh/media/mildenhall/DSC06052_zpsfe3a6f51.jpg.html)
-
Let me start by saying. I'm not a fan of 9 hole golf courses. Not sure who coined the phrase 9 holes of golf is like sex without an orgasm. Sorry if that saying is inappropriate somehow it always stuck in my head as meaning it's a bad thing.
I would of never played this course if it weren't for GCA and Tony's brilliant organizing skills, no chance. However, after 27 holes I really started to appreciate it as I slowly started to figure out how to play it. My favorite holes were #2 and #5. Brilliant green complexes. I think one of the brilliant aspects of this course is that if you want to do well you are really forced to focus on playing the percentage shots unless of course you are really on then you can go for some of the risk rewards options present.
Here's an example of what I mean:
#1 reachable in two, but you have to be aggressive on your first swing of the day. The eminent danger right and the bunkers left easily make it a 3 or more shotter.
#2 for most it's a tough call to hit a 3 or 4 iron, or rescue or 3 wood to a tricky green like this. Then we faced a sucker pin position close to the bunker on the right. Too long is really trouble, short right leaves a tricky up and down. I'd say middle of the green is the safe option but saying and doing are different animals.
#3 as John states, tough drive that rewards really a shot that is a bit shorter to the wider part of the fairway. The approach however is tricky with a long iron and there are a few bunkers around.
#4 also driveable with two good shots but dare to risk going OB...play it safe and go for 3.
And so the course goes on. There is a clear safe high percentage route on nearly every hole and not really too many easy shots. The green complexes, less we forget where more than 50% of the game is played are absolutely in my opinion what makes this a great 9 holer. The first one I've ever seen and honestly hopefully the last ha ha....(ok that's joke, kind of)
I must admit I couldn't figure out the Doak 9 either and probably still haven't grasped it in it's entirety. Might need some more rounds in varying condition to follow that. One thing for sure is that I can still remember all 9 holes very very distinctly whereas when I compare it to Wood Hall Spa I can't remember 3 of it's holes off hand and it's a top ranked course somehow.
-
James:
I understand that subtlety might "hide" the merits of the course. But I've also studied not just Sean's thread, but two others presented here on GCA on R W&NM, and to me they all show the same thing -- a course of some interest, with some very good greens, on a non-descript piece of land (a "pleasant meadow" ;)).
Compare the R W&NM threads to this one on Wild Horse, in Nebraska, also on a relatively flat piece of land, but one where I think the architectural merits really shine through, in a way that I just can't see (yet? ;)) in R W&NM.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48807.0.html
(My questioning of R W&NM isn't that it's necessarily a poor course; it strikes me as a pretty good one. But the standards for evaluating it, in my mind, are higher, given the reputation it carries.)
But Phil, Wildhorse appears to have pretty frilly bunkers and lots of texture ;D I'm just teasing!
I can understand how from the photos the course does look a little bland and I actually imagine that most of those defending it here or singing its praises, wouldnt consider it worthy of a Doak 9 or the very very high praise it often gets. However, I think the course does deserve to be known as more that just the best 9 hole course in the universe, but the fact that so many esteemed judges of courses rate it so highly perhaps does send some peoples opinions too far the other way?
Why not pop over and give it a try and if you dont like it, Mr Arble will refund the cost of your whole trip... ;D
Cheers,
James
-
James:
Re. #7 -- I just don't see how that hollow is emblematic of greatness in golf course design/architecture on a hole of 160-some yards, regardless of what's there. My own bias toward course presentation would leave it the way it is, but I don't get what the big deal is with this feature. In front of a 400-some yard par 4 -- sure. But on a par 3 where nearly everyone will be playing it with an aerial shot?
Phil
The interesting thing about the 7th is it is basically a Short Hole as in CBM style. Take a look at Brancaster's 4th and the relationship becomes obvious...minus the flash sand etc. Now, that isn't to say that means the hole is great or that Shorts are great, but there is certainly pedigree involved.
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/Royal%20West%20Norfolk%20GC/075.jpg?t=1316380310) (http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/Royal%20West%20Norfolk%20GC/075.jpg?t=1316380310)
The only truly great holes at Worlington are 2 & 5, but thats quite a bit for a 9 holer, more than many very highly placed clubs can claim.
Ciao
-
Sean:
A nice thread on Shorts:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32870.0.html
I've played the first hole featured in the thread many a time, and to me it's a very good Short.
-
I can assure everyone I didn't get Royal Worlington mixed up with Woodhall Spa.
For me, the course that I'm most reminded of is Merion ... in that the layout fits the property so well. Both properties are fairly small and non-descript (by comparison with top 100 contenders) and yet they get every bit they can out of every feature. That, to me, is the epitome of great design and that, plus a great set of greens, is why it got the 9. I'm sure it doesn't compare in most people's eyes to the other 9's on my list, but that's a clue that I think you should study harder.
-
Tom
Yes, Worlington fits the property well, but if there is anything remotely close to a crowd the design fails for lack of space. There are too many areas where golfers must wait. Think of 2/3, 4/6, 5/4, 5/6, 7/3, 7/8 and the road. Get a day where there are two groups per hole and all hell would break lose. And before you go off half cocked, we are talking about 36 players - thats two groups per hole! In Mercan parlance Worly is a shooting gallery! Thankfully, all can be seen and anybody with an ounce of sense will figure out that danger lurks practically everywhere. While I like a compact design as much as anyone, Worly is a step too Painswickian in this regard. So, I wouldn't say Worly works as well as Merion in using space. I also wonder how much of the elements at Worly are man-made. I think there was a lot of building which happened to enhance the pleasant meadow.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Though the site is compact (maybe 42 acres), I didn't think of it as a shooting gallery at all. With the exception of 4 & 6 running parallel to each other and maybe someone trying to drive the greens on 3 or 9, the risk of getting hit is really on approach shots to greens. This means a chance to get a warning shouted at you and, hopefully, the person hitting the shot has a bit more control anyway. You wouldn't want to be out there when there were beginners playing every hole, but otherwise I think you would be fine, even on a busy day. I agree that the waiting on shots could be a hassle.
-
I can assure everyone I didn't get Royal Worlington mixed up with Woodhall Spa.
For me, the course that I'm most reminded of is Merion ... in that the layout fits the property so well. Both properties are fairly small and non-descript (by comparison with top 100 contenders) and yet they get every bit they can out of every feature. That, to me, is the epitome of great design and that, plus a great set of greens, is why it got the 9. I'm sure it doesn't compare in most people's eyes to the other 9's on my list, but that's a clue that I think you should study harder.
Tom:
Is getting "every bit they can" out of a particular piece of land a sign of greatness in design/architecture, if the land isn't great? I see little that is great -- and a Doak 9 is surely great ("...certainly one of the best in the world, with no weaknesses...") -- at R W&NM other than a handful of greens.
This course got every ounce out of the land as possible (it's on less than 100 acres, and covers some very turbulent land that presumably was hard to route on): http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41775.0.html but it's hardly what I'd call a "great" course. Fun, quirky, a blast to play -- but probably in the range of a Doak 4 ("... some very good courses that are much too short and narrow to provide sufficient challenge for accomplished golfers...") to a Doak 6 ("... definitely worth a game if you’re in town, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see..."), depending on one's taste and views on these things.
Sure, Merion East is similarly ingeniously routed as R W&NM, but isn't the land at Merion much better? The abrupt rise that creates the 3rd green, the rise and fall of the 4th fairway, the cant of the 5th fairway, the green of the 11th tucked into a corner, the hidden/blind 13th green, and notably the quarry and its impact on the final three holes -- yes, great routing, but a very good piece of land to create a course that most would call great.
-
I can assure everyone I didn't get Royal Worlington mixed up with Woodhall Spa.
For me, the course that I'm most reminded of is Merion ... in that the layout fits the property so well. Both properties are fairly small and non-descript (by comparison with top 100 contenders) and yet they get every bit they can out of every feature. That, to me, is the epitome of great design and that, plus a great set of greens, is why it got the 9. I'm sure it doesn't compare in most people's eyes to the other 9's on my list, but that's a clue that I think you should study harder.
Sorry Tom, I was only joking! ::)
Perhaps even though I've been defending the course, I too should revisit to study it more.
Cheers,
James
-
Sean,
Though the site is compact (maybe 42 acres), I didn't think of it as a shooting gallery at all. With the exception of 4 & 6 running parallel to each other and maybe someone trying to drive the greens on 3 or 9, the risk of getting hit is really on approach shots to greens. This means a chance to get a warning shouted at you and, hopefully, the person hitting the shot has a bit more control anyway. You wouldn't want to be out there when there were beginners playing every hole, but otherwise I think you would be fine, even on a busy day. I agree that the waiting on shots could be a hassle.
Tucky
I was referencing Worly compared to Merion. Merion is compact and gets away with it, just. I don't think Worly would if there was any sort of crowd on the course. So from this PoV, Worly is most certainly limited in what it can host. To some degree that is part and parcel of being a 9 holer...and partly why some people will never give 9 holers the same sort of respect. From this angle, I agree with them. The versatility of Worly is limited. However, if we are just talking just talking about a Sunday game, Worly works a treat if one doesn't mind the odd wait which is not uncommon on many well known courses in the UK.
Ciao
-
Two nines on the Sacred Nine or a round at Woodhall Spa
RW&N by a considerable margin, particulally with a clubhouse stop after 9 ;)
In fact, there were more unique and different holes in 9 at RW&N......
than in 18 at Woodhall Spa, which is indeed a very pretty spot, but is overwhelmingly repetitive from 11-17
-
Two nines on the Sacred Nine or a round at Woodhall Spa
RW&N by a considerable margin, particulally with a clubhouse stop after 9 ;)
In fact, there were more unique and different holes in 9 at RW&N......
than in 18 at Woodhall Spa, which is indeed a very pretty spot, but is overwhelmingly repetitive from 11-17
Jeff
Theres the rub, I think Woodhall has just as many really good holes as Worly and it is undeniably a prettier golf course, but it takes 18 holes to achieve this! I think of the two as very different animals, but then that would be the case for most any course compared to Worly. Regardless, I think even though Doak stretches things a bit, Worly is great, but Woodhall isn't.
Ciao
-
It made #1 outside the U.S.
http://golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2013-06/ranking-best-short-courses
-
It made #1 outside the U.S.
http://golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2013-06/ranking-best-short-courses
I see the Valliere is in there and behind Musselburgh? I heard Musselburgh was average at very best
It would be interesting to see how the Valliere would hold up against Royal Worlington - I have heard great things about the place.
I too would very much like to see the Valliere.
I think what you heard about Musselburgh is a bit harsh. There are some very good holes on the course - well worth seeing after a nearby game at Muirfield or NB considering the price. #s 1, 2, 4, 5 & 9 are all good holes. Geez, what do people expect when the fee is under £15 quid? Love it or hate it, like Westward Ho!, all folks should stop in for game.
Ciao
-
It made #1 outside the U.S.
http://golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2013-06/ranking-best-short-courses
I see the Valliere is in there and behind Musselburgh? I heard Musselburgh was average at very best
It would be interesting to see how the Valliere would hold up against Royal Worlington - I have heard great things about the place.
I too would very much like to see the Valliere.
I think what you heard about Musselburgh is a bit harsh. There are some very good holes on the course - well worth seeing after a nearby game at Muirfield or NB considering the price. #s 1, 2, 4, 5 & 9 are all good holes. Geez, what do people expect when the fee is under £15 quid? Love it or hate it, like Westward Ho!, all folks should stop in for game.
Ciao
Sean,
many people nowadays do not understand the concept of value for money. Old Mussleburgh is well worth the effort to play and great value for money.
Jon
-
Brian
If I have said it once I have said it 50 times. Unlike most, my feeling is that once we are talking about good and great courses I don't believe there is near the discrepancy in quality that many claim exists. People get into the experience and then attribute the course to be better because of it. But if it makes guys feel better about their pure objectivity and can humour them even - tee hee. For instance, how can one determine which is better, North Berwick or Muirfield? Its a waste of time - thats my story and I am sticking with it. I can say Muirfield is better, but so what if I prefer to play North Berwick? I look at other issues such as cost and experience and weigh them more or less equally. I think you weigh the experience/ambience/house (all one ball of wax) part much more than I do and thats fine because thats what is important to you. If it happens to be cheap as well bobs yer uncle.
I can say Musselburgh is not without a sense of experience if one likes history and plain jane presentation. Plus, one gets to play over a race course - very cool. I wouldn't say its the sort of place one would have to book in advance. Musselburgh is more about if the whim grabs ya then head over after ticking a box at a big gun. I would also say, much like Gullane #3, that for many it would be a more rewarding experience with a handful of clubs not to include a driver.
Ciao
-
I think you weigh the experience/ambience/house (all one ball of wax) part much more than I do and thats fine because thats what is important to you. If it happens to be cheap as well bobs yer uncle.
I definitely give big points to a place with a nice house when talking about my favourite places to play - I hope I can remove that from the equation when evaluating the golf course. As for ambience: well that's a tricky one as it's so intrinsic to the playing experience as to virtually be part of the golf course - if not necessarily something that can be designed.
I agree about the lack of discrepancy between good and great too - 100%. In fact I pretty much agree with all of what you say - but if I am asked my objective opinion on a course / to compare one course to another, then how much I paid is never gonna be a factor. But it will definitely come into the equation when considering how often I would go back.
BMS
Thats fair enough. True, there are some who will pay anything to play X course at least once, but if we are comparing courses (and more especially the experience of visiting a course/club), surely the green fee is a reasonable comparison point. As I always say, if it is purely an objective PoV concerning the quality of a design one is seeking to form, much more often than not one needn't bother paying a green fee. More can be learned about the quality of a design and how it works for all levels of golfers by watching others play and just walking around. I freely admit that in the vast number of circumstances this approach holds no appeal for me. Why - because for me golf is about fun, not studying architecture. I would hazard a guess that other than a quick stop in (if convenient), the vast majority of golfers aren't interested in doing this either - they want to have fun.
At the end of the day, its always better to know the tastes of person before being suckered into making recommendations. But if asked, its a bit churlish to not offer suggestions if you think you have some good ones to offer.
Ciao
-
Sean,
many people nowadays do not understand the concept of value for money. Old Mussleburgh is well worth the effort to play and great value for money.
Jon
Jon - come on - we all love a bargain, but money should not come into the equation when evaluating the best 9 holers in the world - I also don't know how you could come out with such a massive gneralisation about whether or not or how people evaluate value for money especially given current economic conditions.
Musselburgh beat out the Valliere in that magazine's rankings. Based on accounts I have heard of both places, I would be gobsmacked if that ended up being accurate - I don't give it a damn how much it costs to play both. And when arguing whether or not a course is any good, saying: "what do you expect for £x" doesn't add much value to the discussion in my opinion (no offence Sean!). Just give me a feel for its quality relative to others I've played and I'll make my own conclusions about value.
BMS,
I agree that when judging the GCA qualities of a course that money should not be part of the equation but I was replying to a comment by Sean where he specifically mentioned price. Also my use of the word 'many' does not constitute a 'massive generalisation' but rather is my experience of the situation.
You need to look at a comment in context. Maybe you should use your real name rather than hiding behind a façade.
Jon
-
No problem BMS, I was just about to edit my post but see I am too late.
Jon
-
I see that Links100 now has Worly in the World Top 200.
Ciao
-
Why aren't there more courses like this?
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7807_zpsijdgsels.jpg)
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7800_zpskvpxkz2e.jpg)
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7799_zpsibulaaza.jpg)
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7806_zps7pyixze1.jpg)
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7795_zps932t1dzx.jpg)
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7749_zpsjcagbyuu.jpg)
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7755_zpspqrizybh.jpg)
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7756_zpslgym2vx9.jpg)
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7763_zpscieqdleo.jpg)
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7770_zpspbndvq8d.jpg)
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7771_zpshu8dd7mu.jpg)
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7773_zpst9u9hwml.jpg)
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7745_zpsccwegmiu.jpg)
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7784_zps1brfsmnz.jpg)
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa363/TomKelly14/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/IMG_7819_zpslr3lb4tq.jpg)
-
I wonder if there's anyone who has played the Sacred Nine and also the new Sweeten's Cove course here in USA. A hole-by-hole "match play" type comparo would be cool.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=58527.0 (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=58527.0)
(http://www.sweetenscovegolfclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/hole3-2.png)
(http://www.sweetenscovegolfclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/hole7-2.png)
-
I have but it's too long since I was at Worlington to do a hole by hole. I need a revisit. Sweetens' greens are more dramatic, but it's a good comparison, as both properties are very gentle.
-
Adam,
That was my impression from photos, not (yet) having played either. A lot more movement in the Sweetens greens seems a plus for my taste. The climate and grasses at "Worly" seem a big positive. But the land looks remarkably similar.
-
I am planning on seeing Sweetens Cove by the end of June on my way in/out of Mississippi... I have seen The Sacred 9, along with Whitensville, and The Dunes... Sweetens would be a massive underdog v Royal Worlington and Newmarket.
-
What helps set the Sacred 9 apart is its connection with the orgins of the heathland revolution. While my point is not architectural, but I would argue it is just as important for the touring golfer. For golfers who love the historical aspect of the game, this connection is very powerful and helps to boost the general opinion of Worly. I know people think this sort of thinking is misguided, but I would counter that nobody is completely objective in these matters...so why not err on the cool side :D
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/006_zpse48800fa.jpg) (http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/006_zpse48800fa.jpg)
I love this diagram of the 3rd...mostly for how it depicts the 2nd green as a sombrero...anybody who has played the hole will understand the picture. BTW - anybody who has not yet picked up a copy of Dickinson's A Round of Golf Courses should do so NOW (right NOW). If you don't like the book, don't bother visiting the Sacred 9.
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/3Sacred9Sketch_zps6f4d5dd3.jpg) (http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/3Sacred9Sketch_zps6f4d5dd3.jpg)
Ciao
-
Is Mildenhall the most un-photogenic good course in the world?
-
Is Mildenhall the most un-photogenic good course in the world?
It's perhaps one reason that this course may be undeserving of a Doak 9 and its status (held by many) as the best 9-hole course in the world.
-
Is Mildenhall the most un-photogenic good course in the world?
It's perhaps one reason that this course may be undeserving of a Doak 9 and its status (held by many) as the best 9-hole course in the world.
A 9 always seemed very high to me. Although, if Doak was boosting the rating based on how well used the site is then I can see it. I suspect Doak thinks he couldn't really improve on the design given the machinery limitations of the day. I know he rarely talks about design "faults", reading between the lines it could be that Doak thinks the Sacred 9 is about as well designed a course as can be. To me though, well designed is different than the quality in the ground...still, no matter how I shake it, Worly is a great course.
Ciao
-
I have only played it twice, and while I loved it, I confess I think I might tire of it over time. Its extremely intricate, but lacks a bit of grandeur that I think I need to keep my attention. Perhaps that's just me.
-
Josh
That is interesting because the lack of grandeur isn't an issue for me. I guess for daily play, like a new car, once you played it enough (driven the car for a month)...its just your home course. Grandeur usually requires extra buck to support and maintain...I can do without that extra outlay.
Ciao
-
there are so many other threads that are moaning and groaning about the cost structure of their courses ... it would seem to me that the Sacred 9 cost structure would be exceedingly modest.
how can this model be applied to the North American golf?
-
Go back in time 100 years and pay for the land.
Build it in an ideal cool climate for low maintenance grasses.
Stick to nine holes.
Avoid getting carried away with eye-catching design features.
Voila! Good cost structure.
-
But how many Australians or Americans would be satisfied with a 9 hole course in reasonable but not great condition with a clubhouse that has all the luxurious trimmings of a motorway gas station?
IT is very much a trimmed down golf experience and that is to be applauded, but I fear that I for one have become too accustomed to my plump country club
-
Royal Worlington considered expanding to 18 holes. I believe they even purchased the property to do so, but they are clearly better off with just the most outstanding 9. I don't think the other 9 would have measured up to the holes they have.
-
But how many Australians or Americans would be satisfied with a 9 hole course in reasonable but not great condition with a clubhouse that has all the luxurious trimmings of a motorway gas station?
IT is very much a trimmed down golf experience and that is to be applauded, but I fear that I for one have become too accustomed to my plump country club
Can you explain what your 'plump country club' offers that is better from a PURELY golfing aspect?
Jon
-
But how many Australians or Americans would be satisfied with a 9 hole course in reasonable but not great condition with a clubhouse that has all the luxurious trimmings of a motorway gas station?
IT is very much a trimmed down golf experience and that is to be applauded, but I fear that I for one have become too accustomed to my plump country club
Can you explain what your 'plump country club' offers that is better from a PURELY golfing aspect?
Jon
It does absolutely nothing for me, personally, but there has to be some sort of constituency for 3,000 square foot locker rooms, servants greeting cars in the parking lot, three meals a day served on white tablecloths, poolside drinks service, weight rooms, shoe-shine service and all the other (ridiculous IMO) features of the typical "plump" USA country club.
None of which has anything to do with playing golf but lord knows tens of thousands of USA golfers are willing to pay for all that jazz. Very recently I took the decision to put my money where my mouth is and find a club that's closer to the "purely golfing aspect". So far I'm quite happy with the change. FWIW, the impact on my bottom-line cost has been around 40%. I know it's a sample of just two clubs but it gives a general idea of the proportion of cost that comes from golf vs. other stuff (although even my current club is probably more country-club-ish than many smaller UK clubs).
-
Personal taste, but I see no shame in saying that there is more to life than playing a course that someone has decided is a 9 on some arbitrary scale. Golf is not a contest of how many Doak points you have accumulated
Golf is an experience. Do I like my nice clubhouse, the grill, the pool, the amazing wine list, the good fellowship, the more amazing course vanishing over the hills in the distance. Shit yeh
Its good to be the king.
-
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/Royal%20Worlington%20and%20Newmarket%20GC/3Sacred9Sketch_zps6f4d5dd3.jpg
The sketch of the hole above looks very like a design MacKenzie used at Pitreavie and indeed I think that Tom D described a similar hole at Cavendish (?). Can anyone who has played RW&N and either of the other two comment whether there are any similarities ?
Niall
-
there are so many other threads that are moaning and groaning about the cost structure of their courses ... it would seem to me that the Sacred 9 cost structure would be exceedingly modest.
how can this model be applied to the North American golf?
Carl:
Well, one could reasonably argue it is at this course: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39987.0.html
It's a 9-hole course with a modest clubhouse, limited practice facilities, extremely modest green fees, and conditioning that's good but not great -- certainly playable for all but the snobbiest of conditioning snobs.
It's also a course hardly anyone knows about, compared to the Sacred Nine. I see little about the latter that makes it worth playing more -- or more worthy of its distinguished ranking -- than this little 9-hole gem tucked into a corner of Wisconsin.
-
Personal taste, but I see no shame in saying that there is more to life than playing a course that someone has decided is a 9 on some arbitrary scale. Golf is not a contest of how many Doak points you have accumulated
Golf is an experience. Do I like my nice clubhouse, the grill, the pool, the amazing wine list, the good fellowship, the more amazing course vanishing over the hills in the distance. Shit yeh
Its good to be the king.
Josh,
I understand what you are saying in the most though what you prefer has NOTHING to do with golf in the main. For me it is being able to play a fun game over an interesting course with good company is more than enough. If at the end of the round there is a cosy clubhouse with decent pint overlooking the course that's great but if not there will be a decent pub just down the road. I certainly don't need the pool or tennis courts or the ego trip of thinking I am king.
Jon
-
It surprises me that guys looking for good architecture can't find it at Worly. It proves to me that eye candy has a major impact on how architecture is perceived and therefore presented. I still think there is room in the world for thoughtful low key designs.
Ciao
-
It surprises me that guys looking for good architecture can't find it at Worly. It proves to me that eye candy has a major impact on how architecture is perceived and therefore presented. I still think there is room in the world for thoughtful low key designs.
Ciao
Sean,
unfortunately many people are all about the aesthetics and do not appreciate subtlety but rather worship the bombastic. Fortunately there are still many, many super low key courses in the UK with much to recommend them. I can think of a couple of dozen such courses within 1 hour's drive that would fit this bill with quite a few being 9 holers. I suspect the same can be said for clubhouses as well.
Jon
-
Once you get past conditioning (i.e. firm, dry, fast) the biggest single factor in my perception of a good golf course is the way various ground contours tie together to create the actual play of the ball on each hole. I think that sort of thing is extremely difficult to capture in pictures and even written descriptions often don't do justice.
So it's natural that a forum on the internet, especially one that describes courses all over the world, will end up creating an emphasis on thing you can see. Frilly edged bunkers, rough lines, trees, macro contours of the green complexes, tee boxes. Some of the most important elements of a course like RW&N we almost have to take on faith when someone who has played there tells us it plays wonderfully.
But any armchair critic (or supporter) of a course can bang on about whether the bunkers ought to be faced differently or if some tree or another ought to be cut down.
-
It surprises me that guys looking for good architecture can't find it at Worly. It proves to me that eye candy has a major impact on how architecture is perceived and therefore presented. I still think there is room in the world for thoughtful low key designs.
Ciao
Sean:
The standards for Worly are different -- no one here that I've seen (including myself) has claimed that the course isn't good. But it's viewed as great -- perhaps the best 9-hole course in the world, and a Doak 9 (lacking a 10 only because it's 9 holes, as Tom himself has said). Subtle or not (and I'm a huge fan of subtle, and a known critic of the too-bold and over-the-top design -- see my comments on Wild Horse, Flossmoor, Blackwolf Run River, and a few others), I see little at Worly that distinguishes it from any number of other 9-hole courses I regularly play.
-
Phil
I agree 9 is very high and as I said before, I think that is the archie in Tom speaking...which I can understand in terms of what the course accomplishes given the site and how little land was moved...The Sacred 9 is off the charts creative and punches at least two classes above its weight. For me, its a 7...in great company with nearly all of the very best courses in GB&I. I don't have a clue how Worly stacks up with other 9 holers...I don't play that many. But I will say you are very fortunate if you routinely play courses which are the equal of Worly.
Ciao
-
The standards for Worly are different -- no one here that I've seen (including myself) has claimed that the course isn't good. But it's viewed as great -- perhaps the best 9-hole course in the world, and a Doak 9 (lacking a 10 only because it's 9 holes, as Tom himself has said). Subtle or not (and I'm a huge fan of subtle, and a known critic of the too-bold and over-the-top design -- see my comments on Wild Horse, Flossmoor, Blackwolf Run River, and a few others), I see little at Worly that distinguishes it from any number of other 9-hole courses I regularly play.
Phil,
How did you manage to determine that the standards for Mildenhall are different?
You haven't played the course. You are judging it based on photos, and that is hard to do with more subtle features. Why, exactly, do you think those of us who have actually played the course are incapable of assessing its merits and honestly rating it? Where does our supposed bias come from?
-
The standards for Worly are different -- no one here that I've seen (including myself) has claimed that the course isn't good. But it's viewed as great -- perhaps the best 9-hole course in the world, and a Doak 9 (lacking a 10 only because it's 9 holes, as Tom himself has said). Subtle or not (and I'm a huge fan of subtle, and a known critic of the too-bold and over-the-top design -- see my comments on Wild Horse, Flossmoor, Blackwolf Run River, and a few others), I see little at Worly that distinguishes it from any number of other 9-hole courses I regularly play.
Phil,
How did you manage to determine that the standards for Mildenhall are different?
You haven't played the course. You are judging it based on photos, and that is hard to do with more subtle features. Why, exactly, do you think those of us who have actually played the course are incapable of assessing its merits and honestly rating it? Where does our supposed bias come from?
John:
This entire website is set up to judge courses based on photos. ;)
Sean questioned why folks (presumably on this thread...) weren't assessing the course as good. My comments on this thread have readily acknowledged what appears -- from photos -- to be a good course, perhaps even very good.
But Doak gave this thing a 9 -- for a 9-hole course, that's as high of a rating as he'll give (and I am generally a fan of Tom's assessments of courses, both in the Confidential Guide and here on GCA; he and I are of similar views on Milwaukee CC, to cite one example -- admittedly he knows that course better than I as Renaissance has done work there). There are other writings out there that have labeled Worly as perhaps the best 9-hole course in the world, and generally the best in GB&I.
That you and Sean view it differently than me -- in terms of its worthiness of high praise -- shouldn't come under criticism; we're all here for the exchange of frank commentary on golf courses. Your (yours and Sean's) views certainly carry greater weight than mine, since you've both played it, but I'm fine with that. If we limited all commentary on this site to things only seen or played in person, the site would be poorer for it. I think you and Sean are perfectly capable of assessing its merits; I just don't see why it should come in for such high praise.
My aim in commenting on it -- based solely on photos -- is partly to prompt better arguments from those who have played it on its merits. So far, I've read little of that, other than Sean's view of it as a 7 (down from Doak's 9), and commentators saying, essentially, you have to see it to appreciate it (which, few people seem to say about a course like, e.g., NGLA, a course full of subtlety -- according to those who have played it -- yet also one whose architectural bonafides are readily apparent to anyone who's viewed photos and writings of its extensively, as I have.)
And it's not like I'm out there, all alone, in thinking this course might be over-rated. Note the commentary on this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48309.0.html and read Finegan's take on the course in All Courses Great and Small -- those folks have played the course, and their views are more in line with mine than those of you and Sean.
-
Phil
You seem to use pix a bit different to how I do...and thats okay. I use pix to help decide if I may want to visit a course some day...not to determine if a course is great or a 7 or 9. When I look at pix of Worly I am very intrigued...thats why I played it. I have no beef if the pix don't do anything for you, but I do find it odd that guys who look at tons of pix can't figure out that Worly is an interesting looking course. I see plenty in the pix to get a very good idea of what exists...though pix never capture anything like all of the story...but then neither does a game or 5.
You bring up Finegan again...all I can say is he was dead wrong, drunk, didn't bother with windows or the sun was in his eyes. Bottom line, he missed the boat. Though to be fair...he didn't offer a Doak score...just negative comments.
Ciao
-
My aim in commenting on it -- based solely on photos -- is partly to prompt better arguments from those who have played it on its merits. So far, I've read little of that, other than Sean's view of it as a 7 (down from Doak's 9), and commentators saying, essentially, you have to see it to appreciate it (which, few people seem to say about a course like, e.g., NGLA, a course full of subtlety -- according to those who have played it -- yet also one whose architectural bonafides are readily apparent to anyone who's viewed photos and writings of its extensively, as I have.)
I'm starting to think you're just messing with us.
NGLA's greatness is far easier for people who have not played the course to recognize because it is incredibly more photogenic. It's one of the best looking, most exciting courses I've seen in photos or person. Sure, there's plenty of subtlety there, but it also makes a major impression either way. It's utterly unlike Royal Worlington & Newmarket in that regard.
As Sean said, there's plenty interesting in the photos of Mildenhall (at least to me), but you either can't or won't see this. That's ok - you can judge things however you like. It just seems odd for you to suggest that people who are big fans of the course (Doak, Ran, Sean, to name three) are somehow biased - the standards for Worly are different. - or incapable of properly assessing this course based on their tastes.
It's easy to understand why people might play Mildenhall and come away unimpressed. Maybe they like a bolder course. To each his own. You're the only person I've ever seen that suggests that being unphotogenic might be a reason to make the course undeserving of a Doak 9, though. I don't get that.
-
You bring up Finegan again...all I can say is he was dead wrong, drunk, didn't bother with windows or the sun was in his eyes. Bottom line, he missed the boat. Though to be fair...he didn't offer a Doak score...just negative comments.
Ciao
Sean:
It's good to see you maintaining the high standards of this discussion board, referring to the recently deceased Mr. Finegan as "drunk" or blinded by "the sun...in his eyes." Also good to see you didn't speculate, as you have in the past, that his judgement of the course was directly a result of scoring poorly on the course -- something he doesn't do anywhere else in any of his other books. But just as I haven't played Worly, perhaps you haven't bothered to read his books before passing judgement on his opinions of courses. Given that you've just speculated that one of the sport's most esteemed writers was inebriated while playing it, I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't....
You think highly of the course; I think it looks over-rated. We can disagree about that without you resorting to this kind of gutter-like debate. At least defend your views by assessing its architecture, rather than besmirching others who have disagreed with you.
-
Lighten up Phil...ever hear of a joke...which I thought would have been obvious. Just goes to show that one needs to be very careful about what is written on the web. Its a shame life is this way, but there you have it.
Ciao
-
I've not yet played Mildenhall and I have to agree that the photos on this and other threads don't inspire me to make the journey in the way that photos of many other courses do.
However, I have enough faith in the opinions of the likes of Messrs Arble, Rowlinson, Doak, and Dickinson to know that I need to see this place.
Sometimes pictures don't tell the full story...