Princes

[Sean_A]

Reading the thread about what would you do with links land like St. Andrews brought up Princes.  Somebody wasn't very kind in their remarks.  From memory, that seems to be the concensus here, Princes is not impressive.  Princes is invariably compared with Deal and Sandwich.  I am not sure this is a valuable comparison because all three are very, very different.  For those that have played the course, what are your thoughts and why?  This is not a sucker question in the least.  I will say upfront that I admire Princes very much.  

Ciao

Sean

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Unfortunately, I don't know what Prince's was like before WWII, but it suffered heavily during that war and I can only imagine that the dunes were flattened a good deal.  Therefore, Prince's is a less imposing canvas than Royal St George's with which it shares a boundary fence.  I think, too, it was conceived to be in a more modern style - easier to maintain - and the bunkering and moundwork is subdued.  Also, the fairways tend to run between and below the surviving dunes (in the manner of Royal Birkdale, which also doesn't get much enthusiasm from some on this site), not across them (as might be the case at Ballybunion).  However, Peter Alliss has written of Prince's, 'the result is probably the most likely course in England to be added to the Open Championship rota.'  It hasn't been and probably won't be, but I've enjoyed playing there in the past - I've not played there for at least 30 years although I did look in in the winter of 1999 as I was passing and I felt a twinge of nostalgia for it.

[BCrosby]

Sean -

Prince's is simply not in the same architectural league as its neighbors Sandwich and Deal. Take any design category and Princes comes in third of three.

I did enjoy playing the course, however. I only played 18. The nine closest to the Channel I found somewhat dull, which was a good thing because we played it in 30 mph winds. The 18 just inland I thought was a much more interesting design.

The shame of it is that pre-WWII Prince's was well thought of and oftern viewed as comparable to Sandwich. Which is saying something. But, alas, for whatever reason there was no attempt made to restore the course after it was torn up during the war.

Bob

[johnk]

Sean,

I played 27 holes at Princes on a very windy and somewhat wet day.  I haven't played Deal.  Certainly Princes is not RSt.G, but I thought it has some great links holes.  I think the Himalayas was the shorter, sportier, less linksy of the 3 nines - but nice par 3s, a good warm up for the 2 big nines.  Of the other two nines, I thought the holes were as good as the land they were on, which in some cases were very good.  Number nine, coming back to the house on the Shore(I think) was a great example of using the hummocks. Most of the greens seemed pretty plain.

The fact that the big nines are called the Dunes and the Shore brought a smile to my face... (i.e. MPCC has the same names for its 2 course)

Another thing about Princes was that it had a very unprententious club atomosphere (for that part of Kent , I thought.  I was supposed to play at Deal that day, but due to a ladies fixture, I couldn't.  The Deal pro shop just called over to Princes, and I got hooked up with a Euro mini-tour player.  Couldn't have been friendlier, lunch at the turn, etc.  It was a great experience.

BTW, next time I'm in the UK (probably next spring), I'm calling you, because I want to come back to Pennard!

[Tony_Muldoon]

Sean I'd like to hear you make the case FOR Prince's.  What are the outstanding holes and I'll try and post some pictures of them later (i'm currently computerless at home so it will be a while).  What else appeals to you about the Club - it's a sentiment you've expressed afew times now?  If it didn't have such illustrious neighbours how would it be recieved and what might it be compared to?

[Brian_Ewen]

Guys
Sorry but Princes is the one I havent seen out of the three .

Is it possible that the three 9's put people off ? .

I have played a few three 9's courses overseas and none had an 18 hole flow through them .

Maybe the courses were poor , or I am just unable to adjust to what I am used to .

Are all three 9's open every day ,and can you pick which 9's you want to play ? .

Regards
Brian

[Tony_Muldoon]

Thanks Sean I too love playing Princes and if I could get my mates to be a little less lazy then I could play it a lot more.  I believe you are right when you say it's more than the sum of its parts.

What it shares with its neighbours is a lovely part of the world in which to play golf.  It has a mild local climate with some very exotic plants in the rough and I've enjoyed a round of golf there in my shirtsleeves in February (2 days after suffering 18 temporary greens in Essex!). The wind mostly comes off the sea, the white cliffs of pegwell bay, the birds…..

Another draw for me is it’s the nearest links course to London (that you can get on at the weekend (in the mornings) as a non member). One hour past the Blackwall Tunnel and you’re in another world. It’s certainly a welcoming place and the history adds to the experience.  I’ve only walked parts of the other two and so I can’t compare, but for me it’s both accessible and enjoyable.  Prices have risen recently but at £70 for 27 or £80 for 36 at the weekend it’s VFM. Play 36 holes and after 27 you get the choice of which 9 to play again.

I think there are some great holes that test and reward and I will try and post the pictures soon.  But for me the question that remains is not so much how it compares to the other two but does it make full use of the terrain it sit’s on?   Mark has pointed out how it tends to run in channels between the dunes and some of the standout holes are the ones that buck this trend (e.g. the best par 3 for me is the 7th on Himalayas and I also always look forward to the Shore 6th.).   This means that too many of the par 4 seem too similar – even if they are al pretty good in their own rights.  The odd blind shot would have been welcome. Or more elevation change – the tee shot on the Himalayas 9th is the only significant shot like that.   I would have liked to see some of the par 3’s play from one set of dune’s to the other – would have been fun.  Did they loose the opportunity to do this by opting for 27 instead of 18?

However the more you analyse it the more it detracts from the experience and I agree it’s a fun place to visit and I look forward to returning, somehow it is much more than the sum of its parts and others should try it for themselves.