Swinley without rhodos would be like a blonde without breasts.
MMM...Rhodo's are more like implants. They catch the eye but are not the real deal. Imported by Victorians they are environmentally unsound and in heathland they are officially a weed. I would side with Sean if they were everywhere but... I can live with them on these courses.
Anyone else think the small bunker at the front right of the seventh green is to stop balls running into that bank of Rhodo’s?
I wonder if this new accessibility will actually hurt Swinley and it may fall back in the rankings. I went to “Swinley Special” to see old photo’s there were very few poor quality. I consulted Darwin’s Guide to courses of GB&I and it’s not mentioned. Check out the Old golfing mags via the LA Foundation website and there’s not a single mention of the course. I suspect that part of the allure of the place was how little was known about it and how difficult it was to get on. Rye has a similar aura. Now it’s easier to get on will people start to question its place at the top table.
For my ability and the kind of golf I love its right up there, but if better golfers than me aren’t challenged will they stop rating the place so highly?
i.e. Are there a few too many blah drives? 5,6,7, 14,15,16?
With James (?) saying he kept his Driver in the bag in wet conditions, doesn’t that mark the place down a bit?
Two more questions
Should the fourth really be thought of as “redanish” – the tilt of the green being all wrong? Perhaps a discussion for another thread.
Did the look from the tee on 18th sit uneasily with what had gone before? Too fussy with the (New?) bunkers to the left and stream to the right.
Having said all that. “I’d go back there tomorrow, but for the work..."
Tony
We will have to agree to disagree about the rhodos.
I recall many people liking the stretch of 6-8 at least for its long avenue effect. The 6th along with the 5th may be the weakest two holes on the course, but it is a pity to say this because the 5th has a good green. In any case, I don't really like that long view up the hill for #s 6,7 & 8. It seems like something should be showcased - dare I say there should be a vista? The view just fizzles out, but what does become more noticeable is the road noise.
Scott
I want to spend a few minutes walking around the 8th and hitting shots to it. I have ended up in the same place, down right, everytime I played the hole.
It is wonderful that the trees don't really have any influence on the strategy of the holes - with the exception of the 12th. I didn't remember trees in really in play here before, but they are. Imagine back in the day when the corridors were even wider. Well, I don't think they were much wider, but now there are rhodos, bushes and the odd tree here and there. Below is evidence of their invasive nature.
I think the 9th was much wider left originally - essentially the width of the rhodos.
I am surprised nobody mentioned the 18th. I really like this hole and while the new bunkers could have been done better (one cans see how they really stand out from the green), at least the centre-line one is well positioned. My only real beef is I think they should have created fairway all down the left as a sort of red herring.
Does anybody think the 16th may play better as a par 5 with the tee shot needing to be shaped to have any chance of reaching the green in two? I also think the second might be more challenging. I was also thinking I wouldn't mind the 5th as a par 4 from tees below the back tees. It would bring the stupid pond in play off the tee.
Ciao