[JNC Lyon]

I had the great pleasure of playing Willie Park's Huntercombe today.  I enjoyed a fine round with GCAers Philip Gawith, Sean Arble, and Tony Muldoon.  After a fun round that included driving rain and glorious sunshine, I am compelled to reflect on the golf course a bit:

The layout is quite unlike anything I have ever seen.  The course possesses 13 bunkers and one tiny water hazard.  It relies almost exclusively on ground contours for interest and defense.  The course is littered with hillocks, chocolate drops, and basins that make for very unique hazards.  Going in, I was not sure that I would find this appealing.  However, the grass bunkers define the holes as well as any sand bunkers might.  They present a variety of recovery options as well.  We speculated that these features also present fewer maintenance issues. 

The green complexes at Huntercombe were among the best I have seen.  Some rely on one simple but bold contour for challenge.  Others are draped across the land with no evidence of man's hand.  Of the three great courses I have seen in England (Huntercombe, Sandwich, and Swinley Forest), Huntercombe contains my favorite set of greens.  I have never seen anything like the greens at 4 or 13.

Huntercombe compared VERY favorably with Swinley Forest.  If pushed, I would have to say I preferred Huntercombe by a bit.

Huntercombe needs to be discussed among the best courses in the London area.  Hell, I had not heard of the course until last month!  It never gets mentioned or worshipped in the way that Swinley, Sunningdale, Pulborough, or Woking are on this site.  I am guessing this has something to do with the location away from the main heathland belt.  However, I suspect that the course is too subtle for most people at first glance.  Huntercombe takes a bit of studying to understand its challenge and appeal.  Clearly the course was influential among early English architecture.  I took a glance at the winners of the club medal championship.  One name, listed five times, was Colonel C. K. Hutchison, architect of Pulborough.

Why is Willie Park not appreciated as one of the great Golden Age architects?  This question kept re-entering my mind as I made my way around Huntercombe.  I would love to hear some thoughts on that one.

A few favorite holes:

#1: I thought it was great to start with a 150-yard par three.  This hole is very unique, with a semi-blind tee shot that might require the player to land the ball short of the green in the summer months.  It is a very unusual and inspiring start.

#2: A great example of sidehill architecture.  Normally, the golfer tries for the high side of the fairway for the best angle into the green.  However, this hole requires the player to challenge the boundary fence on the lower left side of the fairway to gain a good angle into the green.  The following hole employs a similar strategy, albeit with a wilder green.  These two holes possess the only major elevation change on the course, and they energize the golfer early in the round.

#4: The greensite here is first rate.  The green is two-tiered, falling from a high left tier to a low right tier.  Depending on the pin placement, the golfer can face a wide open pitch to the higher tier or an obscured approach to the punchbowl of the lower tier.  The construction of the green itself is very simple.  The variety that it yields is very complex.

#13: Another wild greensite.  The green angles from front left to back right.  It is almost entirely obscured by a small ridge that runs across the front of the green.  This simple ridge makes the approach unsettling, maddeningly deceptive, and tons of fun.

#15:  I just loved the punch bowl green on this par three.  It is another hole that clearly favors the ground game over the air game.

#16: A very good short par 5 with two centerline hazards.  First, the grass bunker in the middle of the fairway is exactly where the longer hitter wants to place his drive.  Second, the deep hollow 20 yards of the green forces the player to hit a solid long approach to reach the green in two shots.  Another wild green.

#17: Very short at 270 yards, this par four contains the only pushed-up green on the course.  It takes a very nervy pitch to find this green.  I am not sure that the hole is particularly strategic.  Nevertheless, I absolutely loved the look of the green.  My personal favorite on the course.

Overall, I am just a huge fan of the English attitude towards golf.  I much prefer it to the American version of golf.  The dog bowl outside of the Huntercombe clubhouse is something one would never see at a premier American club.  I think American golf is all the worse for it.

[Mark Pearce]

I think you need to pay more attention to this board if you don't think Huntercombe gets love here!  I'm not sure I agree it's superior to Swinley, though.

I'm also interested in your choice of the best green sites.  For me, 3 is a wonderful green site, far more challenging and subtle than the fun but rather one-tricked 4th.  Also, 13 is a good green but isn't 10 a more challenging green site?  Over all, though, your basic premise is right, Huntercombe is a seriously good golf course.

[JNC Lyon]

Mark,

I definitely like the 3rd green there.  I think it makes great use of the land opens up to all sorts of shots on the approach.  However, I am not sure it is better than the 4th.  The two levels at the 4th create two distinct approach shots into the green.  It is almost as if the hole has two different greens!  The high left pin opens up from the left side of the fairway, but it presents more difficult recovery options for the misplayed shot.  The low right pin is set in a bowl that is less accessible for a running approach, but less challenging for the short game.  The player will be compelled to hit completely different shots based on the hole location.  The player will also have to seek different sides of the fairway depending on where the hole is placed.  A high left pin is better approached from the left, whereas a low right pin is better approached from the right.

I just do not see the 3rd as having the same type of variety.  No matter where the hole is located on the third, the player will seek to find the left side of the fairway.  Once the player reaches the optimal position in the left side of the fairway, the play is then to play a second out to the right and let it feed left towards the hole.  I still like the strategy of the 3rd.  However, the green at 3rd does not present as much variety as the green at the 4th.

I cannot say I was a huge fan of the green at the 10th.  Today the hole merely required a solid iron shot into the center of the green.  It was no different than many, many other par three holes.  I was not a huge fan of the hole's set up from the tee.  I found the 10th to be the least distinctive hole on the course.  Perhaps my impression of the 10th would change in firmer, faster conditions.  Even so, I believe the 13th would be fare even better under such conditions.  It would be a delight to play a bouncing approach into the 13th.

[TEPaul]

JNC:

I've never seen it but I would just love to. However, the arch-golf architectural critic Wayno Morrison said it was just wonderful and if he really likes something it's just got to be really good.

[Michael Whitaker]

JNC - I think all aspiring architects should be required to visit Huntercombe to learn what great work can be done with an average piece of property. There is not a single hole on Huntercombe that could not be reproduced on another site... it could be the ultimate template for a low cost course.

[Sean_A]

JNC

I am pleased you thought the course was worth while seeing.  I think it is quite unique and superb overall concept for good golf.  I only wish they would take out a ton of trees.  Some stunning exterior and interior views are cut off.  I wouldn't say it is a better golf course than Swinley, but I would take ay Huntercombe over Swinley 7-5 - the course is that special.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32228.msg633321/#msg633321

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"... it could be the ultimate template for a low cost course."


That's ironic. Wasn't Huntercombe considered to be, at the time it was created, one of the most expensive inland courses of its time to make?

[Sean_A]

"... it could be the ultimate template for a low cost course."


That's ironic. Wasn't Huntercombe considered to be, at the time it was created, one of the most expensive inland courses of its time to make?

Tom

I don't know why the course would have been terribly expensive to build, but we have to remember that it was one of the first to inland courses be "properly" designed so from that angle, I spose it would have been expensive.  True, Park did shove dirt about and probably a decent amount for the day.  However, I don't think he had tree clearing or drainage issues to deal with.  I think the project went belly up because houses were never built and I am not quite sure why this phase of the plan never took off.  I can only assume the location wasn't anything like convenient for the well to do.  Surrey had location over Huntercombe in spades - at least as far as the monied Londoners were concerned.  Plus, it wasn't too long before there loads of choices around Surrey and so Huntercombe was never going get going in the same manner.  To be honest, from architectural PoV, it was probably for the best.  

John

I know what you are saying about the 4th vs 3rd green, but the 3rd is more about pin point accuracy.  It is very hard to gauge the distance and amount of kick down off the right - especially as one has to be aware of the oob down the left.  The 4th is far easier to deal with even though there is a massive tier in the green, but one shouldn't really get caught on the wrong tier and that is why I love the idea of it being drivable par 4 - its much easier to be on the wrong tier if going for it.  Indeed, I would consider shortening the hole to make it more readily drivable.

#10, well, lets just say I disagree with you.  That is a great green complex that works beautifully in tandem with the front bunker.  Not terribly unlike the 12th, the player has the choice of being aggressive or steering clear of the bunker.  Unfortunately, you caught the hole on a wet day, but often times if one is aggressive over that bunker the front to back slope of the green just carries the ball too far and sometimes into the trees to the rear. All that said, perhaps the most challenging aspect of the green is when someone hits it hole high and is left with that left to right breaker.  The set of par 3s at Huntercombe is incredibly varied, but I think the 10th is the best of the lot.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

John,

I think Sean has a very important point when he points out that you played the course in wet conditions.  In summer a ball pitching in the middle of the 10th green is through the back (unless you're a very good player, with a high ball flight and spin and hit a very pure shot!)  Similarly, that higher left pin position on 4 doesn't suit a shot from the left of the fairway, i think, the best shot being a pitch and run from the right side, since the danger of running through and ending up on the lower level is removed.  That green at 3 requires real precision when the course if firm and fast.

Sean,

In terms of preference we may not be far different.  I can't be certain on my plays out of ten figure between Huntercombe and Swinley but it wouldn't be far from 5 and 5.

[JNC Lyon]

Sean and Mark,

I suppose I would need to take a second look at the 10th.  I can see that hole would be much different in F & F conditions.  However, the interior contours of the green just did not excite me.  I much preferred the 1st and the 15th as one-shotters.  The 15th was my favorite of the four.

I also found that the left side of the fairway opened things up perfectly for the left pin.  I drove it left and was able to hit a pitch and run to within ten feet.  I think that such a shot would be less comfortable from the right side of the fairway.  All in all, I was just thrilled that a short four like the 4th encouraged a running approach.  The way in which the fairway "steps down" onto the green makes the running approach very possible.

[Mike Cirba]

John,

Thanks for your thoughts on Huntercombe.

Given that it only has not even three handfuls of bunkers, and a single water hazard, I'm completely intrigued as I'm beginning to think my ideal course would have no artificial bunkering, and only use ground contours.

That being said, I'm curious to hear how those scant bunkers at HC are utilized?   Are they primarily fairway or greenside?   Are they intrusive and require carry, or are they low-end "protection" or "saving" bunkers that prevent balls from taking the natural grade and cascading far from the target?

Any insight you can provide is appreciated....great to hear you got over to see it!   Any other courses on your itineary?

[Tony_Muldoon]

Great fun thanks guys.  

So 13 bunkers,  with 3 on 17 and 2 on 11 means one bunker on every other hole for the rest. Beautiful restraint.
So how many greens fall away from front to back ?(or side )


Re the building costs.  It was started after Suningdale and opened before it. Some of the crew building it, performed overtime after a day at Sunningdale.  I can’t say I’ve heard it was that expensive.

[Sean_A]

John,

Thanks for your thoughts on Huntercombe.

Given that it only has not even three handfuls of bunkers, and a single water hazard, I'm completely intrigued as I'm beginning to think my ideal course would have no artificial bunkering, and only use ground contours.

That being said, I'm curious to hear how those scant bunkers at HC are utilized?   Are they primarily fairway or greenside?   Are they intrusive and require carry, or are they low-end "protection" or "saving" bunkers that prevent balls from taking the natural grade and cascading far from the target?

Any insight you can provide is appreciated....great to hear you got over to see it!   Any other courses on your itineary?

Mike

Out of 13 bunkers I would say 3 are wing bunkers and the rest are front and centre.  The best bunkers are the single centre-line bunkers at the front of green #s 10 & 12.  Though #14 has a sneaky bunker short of the green on the tiger line as well.  Tony was the first chap I have ever seen in the crossing bunkers of #11.  I believe a centre-line bunker short of #8 green was taken out, but that is a hard hole anyway.  Even so, I might be inclined to say put it back in just because if its gonna be a beast we may as well make it a full on beast.

Go to the link I provided to get a better idea of the bunkering.

Ciao

[Mike Cirba]

Sean,

How did I miss that thread? 

I think I'm in love!!

[Tom MacWood]

TEP probably thought the course was expensive to make because it resulted in the financial ruin of Willie Park II.

As Tony points out the course was built relatively quickly, especially in comparison to courses like Sunningdale and Walton Heath, which were built on very difficult sites. The problem at Huntercombe was the grandiose plan and its awkward location. There was huge initial investment in land, over 1000 acres in total, including a large manor house on the estate, and most of that money came straight from WPII. And although the course received rave reviews it was not easily accessible from London and as result always struggled to attract members. With club struggling obviously the planned land development never fully got off the ground and Park had an albatross hanging around his neck.

Here is the original layout of the course:

[JNC Lyon]

Mike,

The misdirection bunker on the outside of the dogleg left 18th and the two crossing bunkers on the 11th are the only fairway bunkers.  The remaining ten guard the approach shot in some way.  Believe it or not, I think the cross would be better if a few more bunkers (such as the one right of 16 or short of 5) were eliminated!

Several of the bunkers define the holes well.  The three fronting bunkers on 17 defend a drivable par four and make for a distinctive approach shot.  As Sean says, the two centerline bunkers at 10 and 12 define the strategy of those holes.  These are the holes where the bunkers are the primary feature or hazard on the hole.  Most of the other bunkers take a back seat to grass hollows or green contours in terms of interest.  

The grass hollows are, in my opinion, preferable to bunkers.  They are more playable for high handicappers and nearly as penal as bunkers when the rough is up.  Additionally, the grass hollows possess roll-downed turf faces that define the course handsomely.  Sean's pictures in the other thread show this very well.

I think I might agree with you about ground contours as an ideal hazard.  I think architects use bunkers as a crutch to define holes when they should be used sparingly.  This is particularly true on inland courses like Huntercombe.  I cannot wait to see Royal Ashdown Forest, which possesses zero bunkers!

So far, I have had chance to play Swinley Forest and Sandwich among the great British courses.  I found all three to be equally unique and enjoyable.  I have plans to play several others (Deal, Rye, North Berwick, Dornoch, Woking, Burnham, to name a few) before I leave in May.  I thought I would only play a few times in my semester here, but I've become addicted to the British form of the game.  You will see my thoughts, opinions, reflections and criticisms of the great English courses in the upcoming weeks.  

[Mike Cirba]

John,

That's terrific...good for you!

We should plan to play some golf after your semester, and I'll look forward to hearing your reports in the interim.

[JNC Lyon]

My take on the tree situation at Huntercombe:  There are few trees, if any, that interfere with playing angles.  Most troubles occurs if one drives it offline.  I would trim back a few overhanging trees that might affect tee shots.  Other than that, I had very little issue with how the trees affected the playability of the course.  That being said, I was less thrilled that any shot that sailed into the trees might be lost in a tangle of gorse and underbrush.  The club would do well to tidy up a few of the forest areas, though not so much as to give the course an unnatural look.

As Sean states above, the worst trees were the ones that blocked the long views on the first few holes.  The par three first would be even more tremendous if it featured a westward view towards Oxford.  Just imagine if all of the trees behind the green were gone!  All the golfer would see on the opening tee shot would be a lone flag flapping in the breeze against an endless skyline.  It would make the opening hole that much more thrilling.

[JNC Lyon]

John,

That's terrific...good for you!

We should plan to play some golf after your semester, and I'll look forward to hearing your reports in the interim.

Mike,

Sounds good, I will keep you posted.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said:
"TEP probably thought the course was expensive to make because it resulted in the financial ruin of Willie Park II."



No, TEP did not probably think that or anything like that or ever say anything like that.

What is primarily interesting to me about a course like Huntercombe regarding its expense and the time it took to build it as well as the amount of man-made "building" that was done there, compared to the courses that came before it, is if it was in fact the most expensive or one of the most expensive courses to build inland compared anything that came before it, particularly inland. And what is also primarily interesting to me is if that fact was a significant realization to those who studied it and would come to build other inland courses around the world after it? That alone could serve to make Huntercombe a most significant golf course or golf course project in the evolution of golf architecture both before it and to come after it, in my opinion.

And something also tells me Tom MacWood may have no realization of why this might be significant and probably never has had, and perhaps never will have.

[Philip Gawith]

John, glad you enjoyed what you saw. It is a shame you will not be around to play it when it is a bit firmer since that does introduce a different dimension to some of the holes. If you play the course a lot, then the 3rd is the hole you fear a bit, and the 4th is the one where you hope for birdie. My own view is that the 3rd green is wonderfully distinctive and it is just very difficult to get a par when the green is firm - the chips and putts are very difficult. The 4th is  much tougher when the flag is on the bottom but even when it is on top it is a bit of a sleeper. And you are right to point out that it is nice to have the option of the chip and run to get the ball close.

The local lore is that the 10th is the green on which you never concede a putt. It does not have a lot of internal shape or contour, but as Sean says, if you get a side hill putt it is very difficult. My own favourite is the 13th green simply for the wonderful camouflage and distinctive shape. I am also a big fan of the 1st which is very difficult in summer.

[Sean_A]

TEP probably thought the course was expensive to make because it resulted in the financial ruin of Willie Park II.

As Tony points out the course was built relatively quickly, especially in comparison to courses like Sunningdale and Walton Heath, which were built on very difficult sites. The problem at Huntercombe was the grandiose plan and its awkward location. There was huge initial investment in land, over 1000 acres in total, including a large manor house on the estate, and most of that money came straight from WPII. And although the course received rave reviews it was not easily accessible from London and as result always struggled to attract members. With club struggling obviously the planned land development never fully got off the ground and Park had an albatross hanging around his neck.

Here is the original layout of the course:

Tommy Mac

Thanks for posting that old map.  The interesting thing about it is one can't tell if the hollows were meant to have sand or not.  If one didn't know the course he would assume there was a ton of large centre-line bunkers.  Of course, it looks like these many of these hollows still exist and it does show how pervasive they are in directing play.  Its difficult to see, but the course used to start with the present day 14th, the hole starting in the lower left of the map and heading out toward a house then turning left.  The clubhouse - an old manor house type deal - was across the street and I doubt one would have had a view of the 1st tee or 18th green. 

I am also intrigued by the trees.  When was this map done and is it possible Park Jr planned tree planting?  I think some of the old trees must have been there when the course was built, sort of like the original idea of a parkland course with really only large specimen trees used. 

Finally, there look to be hollows out of play of the course.  This suggests that at least some of these hollows may have been pre-existing or perhaps Park changed things around a bit here and there. 

Ciao

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I had the great pleasure of playing Huntercombe last year after a gap of 39 years. I'm afraid I didn't do it justice. In fact I did it great injustice. But I could not help being reminded of all the subtleties it possesses and how much character is put into what on the face of it is a fairly unremarkable site. I don't care whether it is a great natural course or something totally unnatural if it delivers this much character in something that is not forced unnaturally from its terrain.

[Tony_Muldoon]

From the Club History

" There were more sand bunkers on the early course: for example, the cross bunker at the first; in the far end of the hollow on the left of the 3rd; on the left of the 4th; short of the green at the back of the 8th green; on the left of the 14th fairway; on the left of the 16th green; in front and left of the 18th green”

The book said finding  sand was a problem. “The main source was in the left-hand part of the hollow in front of the 18th green....Some of the many grass pots and hollows  on the course are sand bunkers...some were dug as grass bunkers. Some have been on the common from time immemorial. The may be remains of old diggings for sand, gravel or flints.”


Sean how many greens do you  count as falling towards the rear?

[Sean_A]

From the Club History

" There were more sand bunkers on the early course: for example, the cross bunker at the first; in the far end of the hollow on the left of the 3rd; on the left of the 4th; short of the green at the back of the 8th green; on the left of the 14th fairway; on the left of the 16th green; in front and left of the 18th green”

The book said finding  sand was a problem. “The main source was in the left-hand part of the hollow in front of the 18th green....Some of the many grass pots and hollows  on the course are sand bunkers...some were dug as grass bunkers. Some have been on the common from time immemorial. The may be remains of old diggings for sand, gravel or flints.”


Sean how many greens do you  count as falling towards the rear?

Tony

In one form or another

#s 1, 2, 3 (back third of green), 4, 6, 8 (back tier), 9 (in places), 10, 11 (in places), 12, 13, 16 (in places), 17 (in front). 

I suspected some of those hollows were there before golf was involved.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()