[Sean_A]

Yes, I too would disagree with Mark & Bill.  To me the trees eliminate what should be some great interior views.  Not only that, but imo, just as with bunkers, there should be solid justification for trees.  Its fair enough if one likes what I call the green wall look, but to be honest I think this is often because these folks don't really understand how terrific trees can look when allowed to stand alone.  Huntercombe has many wonderful specimen trees buried amongst garbage.  Finally, I do think there are playability issues not only with trees, but also because the club doesn't keep the undergrowth clear thus all but eliminating the great recovery shot.  Bottom line, I shouldn't be walking down shaded fairways in winter when the sun is shining.  Houston, we have a problem.

1. Rip out trees behind the green and thin them down the right.

2. Rip out trees behind the green.

3. Rip out trees behind the tee and between 3 & 4 all the way up to the green and create a double fairway.

4. Thin trees down the left (between 4 & 5).

5. Remove single tree in middle of fairway.

6. Thin trees down the left (between 6 & 18) all the way to the green.  I hate the new trees down the right, but modern safety ideals dictate they must be there.

7. Rip out trees down the left.  There is little no space to shape a ball on this hole. 

8. Rip out trees behind the green. Thin trees down the left between 8 & 9.

9. Thin trees down the right.

10. Rip out trees behind the green; thin trees down the left. 

13. Thin trees down the left.

15. Thin trees down the left.

17. Thin trees behind and left of the green.

18. Thin trees down the right.

I would also consider cutting down all or most of the gorse found in front of tees.

All this said, I don't think there is a hope in hell of a badly needed tree management program even if the club wanted it. 


Tom P

I too think Huntercombe, Sunningdale, Woking and New Zealand were all very important courses in the evlution of inland design.

Giles

I would very much like to have a game with you at Huntercombe.  I never fail to enjoy myself. 

Kris

I don't know how busy Huntercombe is.  Their membership is not small,  but smaller than most clubs, somewhere between 400 and 500.  I can say the club plays fast golf - too fast for me, but luckily they don't mind going through.  The club does get a lot of the old boy societies, the same societies which visit the big guns around London, but Huntercombe is distinctly laid back in comparison to those clubs.  Most in the know, know Hunterecombe is special and rightly deserves its place at the table with the big guns. 

Ciao

[JNC Lyon]

I agree with pretty much everything that has been said above.  The trees at Huntercombe do not really encroach on the playing angles, and you do not get a sense of claustrophobia from playing the course.  However, it would be nice to see some views opened up.

The hole where the trees bother me the most is the FIRST.  Here, you have a very unique opening hole: a short, downhill, semi-blind par three.  The green is very difficult, and the blind nature of the hole can be unsettling at first view.  Deception and discomfort abound on this brilliant opener.  Yet the trees behind the green block out great long views behind the skyline green and undermine the hole's greatness. Imagine if the only view the golfer had on the first was the top of the flag waving against a blue sky over gorse bushes.  Instead, trees insulate the hole and create a sense of comfort that is contrary to the hole's purpose.  These trees behind the green really should be cut.

I am never opposed to tree cutting of any sort, and the loss of a few trees could only help Huntercombe.

Kris,

You really should see Huntercombe.  The course is definitely not a tree farm in the form of Oak Hill.  The trees don't overshadow the architecture one bit.  As Tom Paul points out, the course is very influential for inland architecture, and seeing as it was built in 1901, it is really one of the first of its kind.  The golf course is also tremendous, with several wild greens, 7 or 8 greens running front to back, and great use of center-line hazards.  It also proves that golf courses do not need to have lots of bunkers to be strategic.  Every hole at Huntercombe has some strategic aspect to it.  On top of all of that, the course and club have great fun, where a brisk, relaxed round is the norm.  I cannot say enough good things about Huntercombe.

[Bill_McBride]

I've only seen and played the course the one time (and jet lag afflicted at that  ), but I was enchanted by the entire experience and didn't feel the trees ever impinged on playing, even as poorly as I was striking the ball that day.

Every course, or most all in my experience, could do with some tree thinning.  My point had to do with playability, not opening up views.

[Kris Shreiner]

Thanks men for the insights and remarks. Let me say, we must caution against wholesale tree removals,  just to gain maximum views, etc.
I'm not implying thats what some were saying, I'm just giving my take as someone who has been heavily involved as an arborist.

While specimen trees certainly have their place, except for special circumstances, several others should be also be left. Disease or maturity eventually will take a tree. Replacing them with something of equal stature isn't easy or cheap. Trees can grow alone, but they often like company, just like we do.

There is no question a tree management program, with arborist collaboration, can be done in a cost-effective, practical manner. Generally, the annual costs are reduced, as it it spread out, but the big benefits are better turf and playing presentation, as well as an safe, attractive setting for the folks who frequent the club or facility.

LP, I will have Huntercombe on my list when making the London orbit. Perhaps you can find yourself over as well and we'll do a North-South Swing!

Cheers all 

[Sean_A]

Kris

A golf course is not an arboretum and should never be viewed in anything like that light.  IMO the goal with trees is most often to create a better atmosphere around the course and that is done with specimen trees which need space to be properly appreciated.  Of course some will die over time, but that doesn't mean there can't be a planting regime to replenish the wonderful trees over time - sort of like a rotation system, but with proper trees rather than quick growing trees which add no aesthetic value to the course.  Thinning trees at Huntercombe would allow for better playability (essentially no lost balls, little time spent looking for balls), better aesthetics (including a better walk in the park experience), better air circulation and more sunlight to hit my shoulders on a cold winter's day.  Folks should head over to St George's Hill and see their tree management and how much better it is than Huntercombe's - and SGH has housing issues to contend with whereas Huntercombe does not. 

Ciao

[Giles Payne]

I agree that the trees could do with some more thinning - it is a constant battle at the club because there are so many. It may not be obvious but the course has had a concerted effort to clear out some areas. Areas to back of the 2nd,the right side of the 5th and to the right side of the 9th have been opened up a bit (although I think that more could be done) and this has revealed interesting mounding that had been hidden in the undergrowth and trees. I suspect that there are other examples around the course that could be revealed, for instance around the back of the 11th.

There has been a concerted effort to open up the ares around the tees to try and improve the light and the as the members have felt that the tees have sometimes been a little untidy.

There is work done every winter on the trees and undergrowth with thinning and clearing so it will be interesting to see where the main focus is this year.  I have noticed more action in recent years and I hope it will continue, unfortunately it is not our style as a very conservative club to make drastic or dramatic changes.

[Philip Gawith]

I am absolutly with all that Sean (and others) say about thinning the trees at Huntercombe. The course would be immeasurably improved. Giles is correct that the club has made progress in recent years towards thinning some of the undergrowth but there is still a long way to go. There are still too many places where the undergrowth is prohibitive - and this inhibits the otherwise admirable 'quick golf" instinct (which is not OTT at Huntercombe like at some courses).

Generally the club has been well served by its conservatism since this is what has allowed the course to remain largely unaltered. But there is no question that when it comes to trees there is a bit of a "trees are sacred' attitude. Committee members will say also that their freedom of manouevre is limited further by the attitudes of the South Oxfordshire council who appear to be pretty hand's on when it comes to trees, partly I believe because the course is common land. But as Sean observes, this is surely just a matter of education - I am not aware that this group of adminstrators knows something special about trees that has escaped the leadership of St George's Hill, Woking, The Addington, not to mention many stories US courses like the National, Oakmont etc.

I think the membership is maybe bigger than Sean thinks - possibly closer to 800. But it certainly does not feel like that since the main informal room where golfers meet to eat and drink only takes about 30 people and is seldom full. I think it is quite evenly fraternised through the week with lots of older members (and membership is on the old side) playing during the week. I think the course manages traffic quite effectively because it is possible to tee off on 1,6 and 12.

[Robin_Hiseman]

My mother-in-law is fabulous!

Thanks to her visiting this weekend, I was, for the first time in a very long while, able to get out on a weekend afternoon for a twilight game.  By 3.30pm, I'd narrowed the choice down to the local Oak Park (£25), North Hants (£40), or Huntercombe (£37).  I chose Huntercombe.  By 4.30pm I was in the car park at Huntercombe and by 4.45pm, was picking the ball out of the cup on the 1st, having succumbed to what must be the customary 3-putt for first time visitors.

Like many on here, I'd been aware of Huntercombe's existence for a very long time and can recall several journeys down to Reading during my days with Hawtree in the early 90's and sneaking a quick peak to the right, as I sped past the course.  Not since then have I had occasion to visit, but it has long been on my radar and being as it lies less than 30 miles and 50 minutes from my front door...and it was a lovely day, it seemed an opportunity too good to pass up.

Some have commented on here that this is a course that all golf course architects should visit before plying their trade and having now seen it, wholeheartedly endorse that opinion.  It was a truly wonderful golfing experience and is the kind of course that I could happily play on a regular basis for the rest of my days.  Messrs Gawith and Payne of this parish are very fortunate indeed.

There are not many courses that hold my attention for every shot of 18 holes, but Huntercombe did that admirably.  Unaccompanied as I was, I was grateful for the little course planner that forewarned me of some of the hidden hazards. It kept me out of a lot of mischief.

From the air or on plan, Huntercombe does not have the grandeur of its esteemed heathland neighbours in the South, but it packs a great deal into its modest acreage and the sheer intricacy of the design, with its plethora of humps, moguls, hollows and ridges
is a masterclass in the art of creative golf architecture.  The greens are quite something to behold.  For me, the 3rd takes the prize for the best green.  I don't want to admit how close I came to putting out-of-bounds!

Of the courses i've seen, i'd say Huntercombe reminds me most of Berkhamsted, with a splash of Addington and Tadmarton Heath thrown in.  I've not played Royal Ashdown Forest, but I expect that would be similar too.  I never felt too constrained by the trees, but understand and agree that it would be for the best if plenty of the clag between the specimen trees were cleared out.  There was just so much to take in that it is going to take a few visits to get a handle on just what this course has to offer.  Highlights for me were the 2nd, with its brilliant use of sloping terrain and a simply stunning view across the Vale, the 3rd and 4th for their wacky greens, the 7th for its intricate mounding and the 16th, which I felt was a great design for a very short par 5.  I tanked a drive way down the middle with a touch of fade, only to find my ball in an impossible position in the deep crater mid fairway.  Playing out backwards, I then had an all-or-nothing carry to the green over the deep pit, which I made and completed in par.  17 is also a great little hole and a startling contrast to what has gone before.

More than the course, the whole club seemed to have just the right atmosphere and would I am sure have been a lovely place to linger, had I not been so keen to get in as much golf as I could before the sun set.  As it was, I went around the first 5 again in the dusky sunlight and will long remember the feeling of great contentment as I walked down the 2nd fairway and was suddenly, after hours in the woodland, greeted with that fabulous view to the far horizon.  Even Didcot Power Station looked lovely in that light.

Huntercombe deserves to be recognized far better than it is.  It is much more than a museum piece of how golf architecture was once planned, it is a guide to how we should all be thinking about courses in the future.  It has a deep quality that has endured for more than a century, yet there are courses being built today whose appeal wanes before one has even finished playing.  Maybe not in the top echelon, but one of England's very finest courses nevertheless and a required visit for anybody with an interest in golf design.     

[Bill_McBride]

Robin, on the spot comments about Huntercombe's relevance today.  One thing I really loved was the "clubhouse" loop of 1-5.   All excellent and fun holes and what a great way to spend a late afternoon hour. 

[Michael Whitaker]

"Huntercombe deserves to be recognized far better than it is.  It is much more than a museum piece of how golf architecture was once planned, it is a guide to how we should all be thinking about courses in the future.  It has a deep quality that has endured for more than a century, yet there are courses being built today whose appeal wanes before one has even finished playing.  Maybe not in the top echelon, but one of England's very finest courses nevertheless and a required visit for anybody with an interest in golf design."

Robin,

I am so glad to see these comments from you! I agree wholeheartedly about Huntercombe being a guide to how courses could (should?) be built today. The interesting thing about Huntercombe is that the land is relatively unspectacular... most of its holes could be reproduced on virtually any reasonable piece of property. This is highly positive praise in my book as most "great" courses today are determined as much by their sites as the imagination of the architect.

There are a good number of architects working today who can create an outstanding course from an interesting site. Some architects will only accept a job if the site lends itself to an exceptional outcome. How many can create a Huntercombe?

[Robin_Hiseman]

Mike

Exactly!  I think the answer is relatively few and certainly not those who've never seen it.  And yet it is all so absurdly simple, which is what makes it great.

I don't think it is wholly down to a lack of imagination on the part of architects, but more that modern design is always compromised by the perceived need for courses to be very easy to maintain.  I admired the severity of the featuring at Huntercombe, but have been on many a construction site where such severe features would never make it onto the ground, as they could not be mown with a ride on machine.  The modern construction process also tends to smooth things out, which is why we so admire the modern courses where sharp features make it through construction. 

I know that in the past my own desire for sharp featuring has not made it onto the ground.  When everything was built and mown by hand it was just accepted.  Not so nowadays. 

[John Mayhugh]

Mike

Exactly!  I think the answer is relatively few and certainly not those who've never seen it.  And yet it is all so absurdly simple, which is what makes it great.

I don't think it is wholly down to a lack of imagination on the part of architects, but more that modern design is always compromised by the perceived need for courses to be very easy to maintain.  I admired the severity of the featuring at Huntercombe, but have been on many a construction site where such severe features would never make it onto the ground, as they could not be mown with a ride on machine.  The modern construction process also tends to smooth things out, which is why we so admire the modern courses where sharp features make it through construction. 

I know that in the past my own desire for sharp featuring has not made it onto the ground.  When everything was built and mown by hand it was just accepted.  Not so nowadays. 

Robin,
Thanks for your thoughts.  Interesting to think that modern courses endure compromises to simplify something simple like mowing, yet often overbuild with artsy bunkers.  Saving money in the wrong places it seems.

I now want to see Huntercombe even more.

[Philip Gawith]

Robin - how nice to read those fine words, especially from a pro!

 I was actually there yesterday and the guy in the pro-shop mentioned you had asked after me and i saw your name in the book. Indeed i was on the course until 8.05pm - I am sorry I missed you. But now that your appetite has been whetted, perhaps i can lure you back! You have an open invitation - and I am around most of August if you are keen, otherwise in the autumn.

BTW the back right flag on the first is the hardest pin to get to, so 3 putts pretty standard, even if you have played the hole. Actually, the greens were a bit on the slow side, albeit reasonably true.

Philip

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Robin - loved your comments. I'd love you to profile Berkhamsted some day - I have no reason to be near it, but that you mention it in the same breath as Huntercombe gets me excited. I used to love it and so does Peter McEvoy.

[Robin_Hiseman]

John

Greenkeepers hate walking!  I recall a discussion we had whilst I worked at Hawtree that explained why the bunkers on 70's UK golf courses were so far away from the green and it was simply for the reason that this enabled them to get the gang mowers between the green and the bunkers! Thankfully, things have changed since then, but it is still a persistent battle between creativity and maintainability.  Everything has a cost and when margins are tight, quick and simple maintenance is crucial.

Philip

We must have just missed each other as I came off 18 green at 7.40pm and went straight to Tee 1 again and played until 8.45.  I would love to come back and will PM you when I can.  Thank you for the invitation. 

Mark

Been looking for an excuse to go to Berkhamsted again for a long time.  I thought it played like Pine Valley without the bunkers when I first went there, but perhaps Woodhall Spa is a closer relative, now my experience has broadened.  Still a wonderful and a quintissentially British golf course.  Would love to do a write up on it.  In fact, would enjoy getting back into writing about golf, having not done so for a few years.

[Sean_A]

Very fine Doc.  You always have a partner should you decide to play Huntercombe again.  I am like a moth to a flame with that place.  What do you spose it is which holds raters back from including Huntercombe in the top 100 of GB&I? 

Ciao

[Robin_Hiseman]

Sean

Because they've never heard of it.  For example, nobody else at our office knew the course exisited.  I'm going to arrange a day trip for them to correct that.  I've not seen a course in the last 10 years (since Tobacco Road) that has so profoundly impressed me.

When you see some of the courses that are routinely included in the Top 100 rankings, it is sheer negligence on the part of the ratings panels that Huntercombe is overlooked.  Maybe it doesn't mean anything to the club, for they know what they have is very special indeed, but it surely is worthy of inclusion on merit. 

I'd be delighted to see you there.  Perhaps the seeds of an outing have been sown.

Doc

[James Boon]

Robin,

Huntercombe, as with New Zealand where I played last week, certainly do fly under the radar for the greater golfing world. Part of me thinks its a real shame as courses such as these are a delight and should be enjoyed by all, the other part likes the idea that they aren't over run. Its a bit like when my wife and I went to the Outer Hebrides a few years ago. We really enjoyed it, especially how quiet it was, but most people wouldn't have thought to go there. Then a few months later there was a programme on TV about the islands and how beautiful they are and we just screamed at the TV, "Stop telling everyone!" 

Thanks for bumping this thread. I really must head back that way!

Cheers,

James

[Michael Whitaker]

I think Huntercombe should be the cornerstone of the 2013 Buda Cup.

[JNC Lyon]

I think Huntercombe should be the cornerstone of the 2013 Buda Cup.

Sign me up!

I've discussed Huntercombe on here a bunch of times.  I've never seen a course quite like it, relying almost entirely on ground contours for defense, a wide variety of green complexes, a very intimate routing, playable for all, a first-class club, etc. etc.  Anyone who has not seen it needs to put it on their radar for their next trip to England.

[Bill_McBride]

I think Huntercombe should be the cornerstone of the 2013 Buda Cup.

Are we never to return to Scotland, laddy?   

[Tony_Muldoon]

Of course we will Bill but only after we've viisted Ireland.

I thnk that makes Huntercombe Buda  XV?

[Michael Whitaker]

Of course we will Bill but only after we've viisted Ireland.

I thnk that makes Huntercombe Buda  XV?

Tony - I forgot about Ireland!!!!! Yes, that would make Huntercombe 2014 at best. Wow, don't we have a lot of good golf on the horizon!

Bill - Where would you like to go in Scotland? I'd like to see the "Big Macs" - Machrihanish and Machrie... especially after Turboe's glowing comments on Machrie. He just returned from a two-week+ fantasy trip that took in more great courses than you can imagine, and Machrie was the highlight of his trip. High praise indeed! Maybe we could add Askernish for a truly old school Buda.

[Mark Pearce]

I'm not sure a 2-ball course, no matter how good a 2-ball course, would make a good base for BUDA.

[Bill_McBride]

I'm not sure a 2-ball course, no matter how good a 2-ball course, would make a good base for BUDA.

We played a four ball right after lunch last year. 

Deal worked out okay!

Maybe Huntercombe, Woking and a third, assuming details could be worked out for 24. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()