[Philip Gawith]

What does the treehouse think of this course? I made my debut there today on a rather dank, London day. I was pretty impressed - a very vibrant, attractive club/clubhouse - and certainly the best good golf very close to the centre of London (probably only about 5 miles from the West End).

The club has a great history going back to the times when they used to share a course with London Scottish, but the current course goes back to 1907 when it was built. Interestingly -  and this is a topic in itself - the course was designed by Willie Park jr, but then seriously redesigned around 1924 by Harry Colt (just as with Sunningdale Old). I wonder, in passing, what it was about Willie's courses that Colt did not like. Were they deficient, or was Colt just an imperialist, or were the new clubs slave to fashion and he was the name of the day. After all, it is not as if Park could not then, and subsequently, build very good courses - Huntercombe, Olympia Fields, Maidstone etc.

Anyway, the course itself is an interesting mix with about two-thirds (the top part of the course) showing distinct heathland features (the soil, the heather) while the other third (towards the bottom of the course) is more parkland in nature. Overall, the amount of trees give it more of a parkland character.

A couple of points that struck me:

- the wide fairway corridors, and relatively broad fairways - not something I associate with London courses (though St George's Hill is an exception).
- an interesting spaghetti style routing (at one point the 1st green, 2nd tee, 5th green/6th tee and 12th green/13th tee are all fall within  a circle of about 200 yard diameter.
- a lot of elevation change makes for some great views, and lot of seconds played to elevated greens (some resemblance to St George's Hill which also has a lot of elevation change).
- some very muscular par fours, including the brutish 12th. Other good ones include 1-4 and 15.
- a good set of one shotters albeit a few look quite similar.
- I did not especially see the hand of Colt. There were none of the diagonal/string of pearl bunkers that you see at Sunningdale and St George's, and certainly the bunkering overall does not have the impact of these courses or Muirfield.
- some interesting and varied greens, but maybe not a big feature of the course.

What do others think? For anyone who lives in central London it would be a very nice club to belong to. I think you would enjoy the course without putting it in the top rank.

Philip

[Paul_Turner]

Philip

I haven't played it but from photos the par 3s always looked very much Colt to me (I think the 17th was changed by the middle Hawtree at some point).  The plateau greens had some serious bunkers torn out of the front ridges.

It looks pretty impressive in older pics.  But Howard Swan remodeled the bunkers  in the last couple of years and, again from photos, did a real bodge job in my opinion.  Truly bad.

[Paul_Turner]

Philip

Here's a pic of one of the par 3s (the first one?) at Royal Wimbledon 1934

[Stuart Hallett]

Hi Paul & Philip,

Bunker work on older courses is very tough to get right. I personally think that the closer we get to original construction methods, the better chance we have of obtaining the look. It should be IMO a labour of love, but that's not very profitable for construction guys, neither understood by club committees.

I'd say that you need to set out bunkers on plans to begin with, but then sculpt "in the dirt" as Kidd says. If a contractor follows plans with modern techniques then it's nearly always going to drift in terms of style.

[Noel Freeman]

Phillip-

I was out there this spring.  I must admit, I was very impressed during the front 9 especially after playing the holes around Caesar's Camp.  Russell Talley had told me the par 3s were especially strong and the first two did not disappoint.  I really didnt see any bunkering issues until the back 9 where I feel saw some of Harold Swan's handicraft.  I really found that bunkering style a bit offsetting to my eye and called Paul Turner and Ran to describe the course..  I think #15 was the most egregious of all of them.  The back 9 really wore on me a bit as well (11 and 12 are fine).  The terrain isnt as exciting as the front and a bit more lowland (not heathy--holes 15-16) and the course went down a few notches.  The par 3s also seemed to get a bit repetitive form me as per full carry and need mid irons with a hint of fade.  that was just my impression..

There are some terrific holes-- I especially like #2, #6 which is the drivable par 4, #7 and 12..

I played Worplesdon the next day and while Woking is the cream of the 3 W's, I'd still put Royal Wimbledon below West Hill (below Worpy) on that list..  To me, it is just missing something, restored bunkering true to Colt would help but I just feel the terrain is not full heathland so it misses something.. I think if Paul were to play here, he would say it is like Tandridge (Colt) in some ways.. A good course, very solid but there are better places to play around London-town

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Philip, You've played Coombe Hill, I think. How do you compare R Wimledon and Coombe Hill?

[Philip Gawith]

Mark, yes I have played both. I am a bit hazy in my memory on Combe Hill, but I think RWGC is the pick of the two. I think the terrain is more interesting and I remember more strong holes at RWGC - but I would like to play both again to be a bit more certain of  my judgements.

I broadly agree with what you say Noel - first nine is the better ,not  really heathland ( to be fair, i don't think they make this claim) etc. It is not in the absolute top rank, but being able to get to your course in 30min has a lot to recommend it ! I think the club knows that the bunkering on 15 has not worked and i was told that they were likely to do something about it next year. I also agree with you re the short holes favouring the mid-iron fade - but it is also the case that they, especially 5 and 13- are good looking holes.

Thanks for the picture Paul - yes that is definitely the 5th. I am not sure the bunker on the left is still there. I think you are right that the short holes are the ones that have most Colt in them by virtue of the bunkering - and maybe that was my original point: by virtue of the look of the modern bunkering it does not really look that typical.

[Paul_Turner]

Philip

Is the green still that wide?  It looks enormous in the old pic, the pin looks to be tucked in the far right corner.

[Philip Gawith]

No its not Paul. According to yardage chart it is 26 yards long. I would think the green in the old picture is twice that length - if you cut it off above the heads of the golfers in the picture, that would approximate to the modern green (I think). What a shame, what a loss!

[Philip Gawith]

I had another visit to Royal Wimbledon this past weekend. Here are a few pictures. I did not mention in my last post that the clubhouse has had quite a big upgrade. Sometimes this news would make the heart sink, but in this case they have done a great job of keeping the history and the charm which the facilities have in abundance. Add to this a memorably large practice putting surface next to the clubhouse and excellent outdoor facilities as well, and the club really is a very attractive place to visit. That is before you get to the course which has already been discussed. The opening four holes - all quite stern two-shotters - present a stiff challenge to any round, especially the first which is one of the tougher holes you will face in starting a round.



Opening tee shot - 15 yards in front of the clubhouse! Note the OB stakes which are now very close on the right. Whether to rejig this hole is a very live topic.



A view of the first green from the corner showing the large dip in front of the green.



Tee shot on second....you can see the green in the far distant left, behind the bunkers



And approach to two.



The third  - tee shot from high down into a dip followed by approach to elevated green. This is a feature of a number of holes on this side of the property where the fairways are on flat land, but tees and greens are up high.



Approach to third green..



Tee shot on dog's leg fourth



which plays up to this elevated green



5th - first of a handsome group of short holes, albeit this and 13 are similar in shape, design and need to carry the ball all the way to the hole.



Tee shot on the short blind 6th - needs a 200 yard tee shot and then a wedge, but the green is heavily fortified and it is harder than it looks. A bit like the 11th? at Sunningdale Old.



This is the approach....



This is the short 8th - about 220 yards and needing to feed the ball in from the left. A difficult hole.



Tee shot on the short uphll 9th -about 350 yards. The shape and angle of the green favour an approach from the right - but not so easy to get the tee ball there!



Approach to the par 5 10th - the three shotters (this and the 7th) are not among the better holes - run parallel and straight up and down the same hill.



The approach to 11 - a good downhill two shotter



Tee shot on 12 - stroke one and for a reason. Requires a fade off the fairway and a long drive before....



being faced with this second shot of likely around 200 yards



The short 13th - similar to 5 but still a handsome, and demanding hole.



Approach to 14 - a two shotter that swings downhill first and then sharply right.



15th - attractive hole on the bottom part of the course. PErhaps a signal of Colt style bunkering?



16th - another hole from a high tee to a high green with flat fairway in between.



the last short-hole, 17 - a long, thin target and tee ball nearly always falls short.



Homeward bound - the 18th is only around 340 yards, but the drive is blind and requires a draw to get close to the green. An excellent match-play hole that holds out hopes of easy pickings but often deceives cruelly!



The clubhouse, with putting green on the left.

[Paul_Turner]

Thanks Philip. 

Is this from the "copy and paste" school of remodelling?

[Bill_McBride]

There's  good bit of Donald Ross design on display there, with the drives down into the valley and approach shots up to the elevated greens.  I do wish we saw more central bunkering.

As you say, Philip, that's a less course in the greater London area, but would be a welcome addition to most parts of America!

[Philip Gawith]

That is a fair comment Paul! And certainly the bunkering does not have the rough majesty of the early picture you posted - but then it seldom does I suppose. I think of the 8th at St George's hill, which is still a great looking hole, but not as it was in the early days.

Do you see much Colt in the course as it is today?

Bill - I think you would find it a very congenial club to belong to, not to mention convenient. It is 20 min drive from my house and the list of decent golf courses 20 min from where i live is about - one!

[Sean_A]

Philip

Thanks for the pix.  I think the course looks really good.  I am particularly mindful of the colouring.  I was at Beau today and I have never seen it lusher.  Has there not been much rain in London?

Ciao

[Philip Gawith]

London has been pretty dry for the past two weeks or so Sean. I think you were at Huntercombe recently ( I was there y'day) and it looks similar to London - quite brown but with quite a bit of green as well (though in the case of Huntercombe maybe as much from dew?). I agree with you re BD from my recent visit. i may post a few pics.

[Paul_Turner]

That is a fair comment Paul! And certainly the bunkering does not have the rough majesty of the early picture you posted - but then it seldom does I suppose. I think of the 8th at St George's hill, which is still a great looking hole, but not as it was in the early days.

Do you see much Colt in the course as it is today?

Philip

Yes, see your photo below...the humps and bumps around the greens are typical.

[Scott Warren]

I really enjoyed Royal Wimbledon yesterday, but as many have said above, some holes are quite samey, which despite them being really good holes, and very eye-catching and attractive in most cases, wears on you a little.

5, 13 and 17 are very similar one-shotters. Interestingly, they occupy a piece of land about 500m x 50m, which takes in the side-hill and three ridges where the greens are set. 5 and 13 play in the same direction, with 17 playing back from the other end of the piece of land to a green that's back edge meets the back edge of 17.

Likewise, 3, 15 and 16 have strong resemblance, from the elevated tee to a low fairway to an elevated green, the placement of fairway traps and the 45 degree angle of the green, protected on the inside by a bunker. All very good holes, but three of the same...

What I did like, which I didn't get the feeling of through Philip's pics (and may not have captured through mine), was how few flat lies there are around the greens. Even on the safe side, it was rare to find a kind, level chipping area. It added a lot of interest to missed greens because the dips, ridges and grass bunkers weren't too severe, but significant enough that you had to think hard about the best route to the flag.

I liked the reachable par fours at 6 and 9 - all the more that 6 is about 235m tee to green as the crow flies, yet defends itself without using a single bunker.

The clubhouse really is something else, with its sprawling lawn dotted with picnic benches overlooking a practice putting green that must have about 30 holes cut. When I arrived in the early afternoon there were women, men, children and dogs all around, many enjoying lunch and a pint while the kids played putting games and the dogs lazed in the sun. It seemed a really friendly, well-utilised club, and in such a beautiful part of town it's not hard to understand why. In a crazy, busy place like London it really did feel like a sanctuary.

Here are the three very similar par threes side-by-side:

5


13


17 (from a bit of an angle, bunkers front the green)


And the three carbon copy par fours (one mirrored)

3


15


16


And some photos of the cool contouring around the greens:

2nd green, short left - this grass bunker reminded me of many I saw at Canterbury


4th green on the safe miss left-hand side (approach shot shown by Philip above)


Short left of the 6th green


11th green, which falls away at both sides


12th green. This bunker reminbded me of all those sepia photos of men in three piece suits and flatcaps posing with hickory-shafted implements ill-suited for escaping such a large bunker!

[Philip Gawith]

Thanks for adding pics and comments Scott. Re the similarity of holes - certainly 5 and 13 are pretty similar, but i think 17 is a fairly different hole to the eye, and to play. Still you are right to point out how close they all are on the property - indeed RW must be nearly unique for the spaghetti junction you get to after the 2nd green where you also have the tee to 3,5 and 13, and obviously greens to 4 and 12 as well. i also enjoyed your focus on the greens which i did not really do in any detail. It was one of those days where fitting in with my host was more important than getting all the pics!

You are right also to stress the clubhouse environment which is extremely appealing, especially on a fine day. And in winter there is more than enough indoors to keep you happy.

[Scott Warren]

I had the benefit of playing alone and being behind two fourballs. So there was plenty of time for pics!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()