[Phil McDade]

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?

[James Boon]

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??? 

Cheers,

James

[Phil McDade]

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.)

[John Mayhugh]

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.


A little different angle from the front. Lots more room, but a putt to the back is tough.

[David Davis]

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 Boon]

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  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... 

Cheers,

James

[Sean_A]

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. 

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

[Phil McDade]

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.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[Sean_A]

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

[John Mayhugh]

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.

[Phil McDade]

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.

[James Boon]

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_A]

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

[jeffwarne]

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

[Sean_A]

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

[Carson Pilcher]

It made #1 outside the U.S.

http://golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2013-06/ranking-best-short-courses
 

[Sean_A]

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

[Jon Wiggett]

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

[Sean_A]

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

[Sean_A]

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

[Jon Wiggett]

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

[Jon Wiggett]

No problem BMS, I was just about to edit my post but see I am too late.

Jon

[Sean_A]

I see that Links100 now has Worly in the World Top 200.

Ciao

[Tom Kelly]

Why aren't there more courses like this?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()