[Philip Gawith]

I came today late in life to Swinley Forest for the first time. Quite often this course is compared with Huntercombe (where I am a member). Both are short, both are very traditional clubs (though Huntercombe not as grand as Swinley - more military, fewer Dukes!), both representing some of the best of golf course architecture.

I was struck, though, by actually how different they are. Some of the difference are obvious - Swinley has plenty of bunkers and heather, and Huntercombe has little of either. But there are other factors, notably Swinley is a much more visual course than Huntercombe. It occupies a much better site, more akin to the topography of The Berkshire, or Sunningdale Old than to Huntercombe. Put differently, there is quite a lot of elevation change and quite a lot of vista, whereas Huntercombe is mostly flat and hence mostly without vista, though there are good views from the second hole. Huntercombe does not have holes like the 5th, 9th and 12th at Swinley which have the sort of sweep that makes a golfer's heart leap.

Swinley also has much wider playing corridors than Huntercombe. I hit driver 7 or 8 times at Swinley and at Huntercombe i will very seldom hit it more than twice - and that is mostly because the penalty for being wild is too severe (often a lost ball).

Although Swinley has good greens, i think is the one area where Huntercombe more score better, though i have not thought through the issue carefully.

I have tried the old Ran trick of playing the two courses matchplay against each other. I scored it Huntercombe 9 to Swinley 8 - and i could not decide on the 14th. The detail was as follows:

1 - H
2 - H
3 - H
4 - S
5 - S
6 - H
7 _ H
8 - H
9 - S
10 - S
11 - S
12 - S
13 - H
14 - not sure, maybe S
15 - S
16 - H
17 - S
18 - H

I obviously know Huntercombe much better so maybe i have been biased in places. But it is interesting that whereas the matchplay test tells me there is not so much in it, I have no doubt that Swinley has much more impact on the golfer. I think this is for two main reasons. First, it has a number of real stand out holes (I would single out 4,5,9,12,15 and 17) whereas Huntercombe has few holes which blow you away in such an obvious way. Second, Swinley has what i would call the "soul" factor - meaning that it has the visual impact such as to lift the soul! This is partly down to the site, partly down to impact holes, partly due to the width and the sense of expanse. My fair weather golfing wife was taken with Swinley in a way she is not taken with Huntercombe - and i can see why, even if i regret it!

Finally - and with all respect to others who have photo'd the course - i think part of the reason i was surprised was that i had been given to understand that this was a "small", quaint course. This is partly due to length, partly due to culture and how people write about this. But I also think that the course has often been shot in low light - and with frames that are a bit narrow. So I was absolutely not expecting to have a sense of scale and openness - indeed, of quite a large property. Nor was i expecting it to be so visual. It may be short but it is not small or short of impact!

My only regreat is that on a beautiful day i did not have my camera. The consolation is that following a brutal winter the course was probably at its ugliest. I hope i can get back there when the gorse and the flowers are in bloom.

Huntercombe will of course continue to hold my affections, but my eyes have certainly opened to a contender!


Philip

[JNC Lyon]

A few thoughts on this comparison:

1) Swinley tends to get more press than Huntercombe.  I think this is due in part to Swinley's location.  It is in the heath belt southwest of London.  It is in the same region as Sunningdale, Berkshire, and Wentworth.  Location will either overshadow courses and shut them out from press (see Fox Chapel in Pittsburgh or Fenway in Westchester) OR it will bring them into the limelight.  Swinley's location has the latter effect.  This statement is no slight on Swinley.  However, Swinley Forest in the heath belt will get more attention than Huntercombe in the hills of Oxfordshire.

2) Swinley's look is very appealing.  Despite being only 6,000 yards, it is built on a grand scale.  Holes such as 7, 9, 10, 12, and 15 possess big features and are just gorgeous.  Furthermore, there is a real sense at Swinley that one is away from everything.  The train passes by the first few holes, but after that it is off to the woods.  I could not imagine a more relaxing place to enjoy a game.  Most importantly, the location and land allowed Colt to execute a great routing.  One never has to walk more than 20 yards to reach the next tee.  The holes sweep up and down the land gracefully.  Several external factors conspire to make Huntercombe's routing weaker.  These include the road that bisects the course, the flat land after the first four holes, and a small property.  Swinley's routing is superior to that of Huntercombe.

3) Swinley's strengths are in its par threes and its long par fours.  Colt is a master designer of par threes, so it is no surprise that the five at Swinley are tremendous.  The long holes at 7, 9, 12, 15 and 16 are all solid.  I could not ask for more out for 400-plus two shotters.  Yet Huntercombe overshadows Swinley on the short fours and the fives.  Swinley's 11th was one of my favorites, but the third lacks imaginative bunkering or a compelling green.  In contrast, the 4th, 11th, and 17th at Huntercombe are all engaging.  The green at 4 is my favorite on the property.  The 11th is a bit of a black sheep, but I loved the punchbowl green tucked into the trees.  The 17th is a superb green complex.  One wonders how Park built it in 1901.  The fives? Swinley's lone three shotter at the 5th is very inspiring, whereas, Huntercombe's 6th and 16th feature great centerline hazards that challenge all levels of golfers.

4) The greens at Huntercombe are more interesting and wild than those at Swinley.  Many in golf--indeed, many on this site--hold disdain for greens that are overly wild.  Huntercombe has a few greens that border on the extreme.  Yet these are the types of greens that make a golf course great.  The greens at Swinley are very good.  Yet I got the impression that Colt played it safe on a few of them.  The greens at 12 and 15 are phenomenal, but most of the others seem to be missing something.  On the other hand, Huntercombe's greens were inspiring from the beginning.  The first is the first of several fall-away greens.  I can only imagine these greens being maddening in the summer.  The valley green at the second, the sidestep greens on three and four, the bold, two-tiered eighth, the rippling 13th, the punchbowl 15th, and the pushed up 17th? All of these captured my imagination in a way that even Swinley's best greens did not.

5) Huntercombe's use of mounds, grass bunkers, and centerline features is very imaginative.  It gives the course a sense of uniqueness that I did not quite see at Swinley Forest.  Holes like 1-4 and 15-17 at Huntercombe are downright thrilling to play.  They gave me a thrill that, for the most part, I did not get at Swinley.  Only 9, 11, and 12 at Swinley really compared to those seven holes at Huntercombe.

I suppose I have rambled on a bit.  I like both courses a lot.  Overall, the quirks, wild greens, and sheer originality of Huntercombe place it higher than Swinley Forest in my book.

[Scott Warren]

Philip,

You sure got an amazing day for it!

The visual factor, I think, is an important one and you're on the money.

The pine, the heather, the sand... Swinley has all those beautiful contrasting features.

One factor of so many grassed hazards at Huntercombe is visual subtlety/minimalism. I think it was Sean who compared it to the "road map of bunkers" other courses present, where the good areas and bad areas are easy to identify. At Huntercombe the colour you see almost exclusively is green, which dazzles the eye a bit less, I guess, but makes for a fun experience navagating your way around.

[Sean_A]

I largely agree with all that has already been written, but somehow, I reckon these courses are not miles apart in their quality.  I actually have the matchup scored

1. H
2. H
3. H
4. S
5. Push
6. H
7. Push
8. H
9. S
10. Push
11. S
12. S
13. Push
14. H
15. S
16. H
17. S
18. S

A TIE.  Though I can certainly see where Swinley's playability, beauty and green to tee aspect beat Huntercombe and in truth make it a better course. Swinley is one of the lower ring greats of England, but I still prefer the funk and uniqueness of Huntercombe.  What Huntercombe has can't be found anywhere else whereas Swinley is really part of a chain of wonderful heathland courses which share an AWFUL lot of characteristics, lovely characteristics to be sure, but they are still a shared.  Plus, I can spend three days at Huntercombe three times for the price of one day Swinley.  I know many don't take much notice of this sort of thing, but being affordable will always be important to me because golf is just a game and it really is silly to be paying mortgage size green fees.    

All this said, if Huntercombe really embraced its design heritage and cleared out about 80% of trees it would well and truly be a national treasure that would rival the quality and pleasure of nearly all other courses in England that I know of.

Ciao  

[Mark Chaplin]

I'm sure Lord Gawith of Huntercombe could manage to join SF.

[John Mayhugh]

I figured Huntercombe was really good, but to see it discussed like this.......can't wait to see it.

[Scott Warren]

Though I know both courses only by a 36-hole day, both are quite fresh in my mind as they were both within the past month. My matchplay score is:

1 H
2 H
3 H
4 S
5 S
6 H
7 Tie
8 Tie
9 S
10 S
11 S
12 S
13 H
14 Tie
15 S
16 H
17 S
18 Tie

Swinley - 8
Huntercombe - 6
Tied - 4

Swinley has higher highs, but also lower lows. Huntercombe to me is more like Walton Heath (Old), where there is nothing that absolutely knocks you on your back, but also very few dud moments.

That said, I have Swinley as a 4/5 (worth an overnight trip/detour) and Huntercombe as a 3.5 (make a daytrip to see).

EDIT - I didn't study PG and SA's choices closely before doing my own. Interesting that there is a lot of similarity in what we have all gone with.

[Philip Gawith]

Very interesting to hear the different perspectives - all well made. I must take a closer look at the respective favourites in the matchplay game. I think I am with Sean that Huntercombe is more distinctive in the sense that Swinley is obviously very much representative of the heathland tradition. And we can only wonder at what Huntercombe would look like with 80% of the trees removed. I am fairly confident, however, that this will not happen in our lifetimes. The same features that have prevented the club messing with its heritage will probably prevent it felling  trees - though it is also true that the local authorities have a stronger voice in this discussion than they should have and they definitely believe that chopping trees is sacrilege.

I would just reiterate my initial point - I found Swinley very different in scale and impact from what I had imagined. I think this is because its image is drawn more from the club - quaint/fogeyish/eccentric etc - than from the course, and is indeed significantly at odds with the visual reality of the course.

Mark - one at a time please! I will do my best for you, but the challenges of the class system are considerable!

[BCrosby]

Philip -

I mostly agree with the comments above in terms of course match-ups, but I think they miss what struck me most in playing the two courses last year.

It is that they felt like two different eras of gca, even though their construction dates aren't separated by very many years. Huntercombe and SW have golfing atmospheres that are very much unlike each other, with Swinlely hinting at the future of gca, while Huntercombe recalls a prior era. (I'm speaking strictly about the on-course atmospherics, not the club atmospherics, which is another topic entirely.)

It was a contrast I found fascinating and that I have thought about often since.

Bob   

[Philip Gawith]

Bob - that is a fascinating perspective, and you are right, they are broadly of an era (Huntercombe 1901, Swinley 1909). Can you elaborate a bit on your point about seeing the past in Huntercombe and the future in Swinley?

[BCrosby]

Philip -

As noted, it was about atmospherics.

SW's bunkers are sculpted into the terrain; pains are taken to meld them with their suroundings. It's an aesthetic you don't see much at HGC, where many bunkers still show their cop forbears. They come up from ground level rather than "emerging" out of it. Bunker edges also tend to be more straightline at HGC.

Likewise greens. At SW they tend to be elevated a bit from their immediate surrounds; that bit of elevation means that bunkers can be built into the green platform, rather than dug at green level and placed next to the putting surface. To paraphrase John Low, the bunkers at SW "eat" into the green in a way they don't at HGC. (Which is why the 17th (?) green at HGC struck me as an anomaly. Is that a new green?)

(Many have noted that for a first time player it was something of a jolt going from the first three holes to the balance of the course. Those holes are wildly idosyncratic. My comments above relate mostly to the next 15 holes. I'm still at a loss for words about those opening holes. Wow.)

The foregoing is not meant as a criticism of H. To the contrary, it is one of the reasons to go out of your way to visit H, even if on a rainy, cold and windy day during which you take full advantge of a long-hitting playing companion to get you through the round.


Bob       

[Sean_A]

Philip -

I mostly agree with the comments above in terms of course match-ups, but I think they miss what struck me most in playing the two courses last year.

It is that they felt like two different eras of gca, even though their construction dates aren't separated by very many years. Huntercombe and SW have golfing atmospheres that are very much unlike each other, with Swinlely hinting at the future of gca, while Huntercombe recalls a prior era. (I'm speaking strictly about the on-course atmospherics, not the club atmospherics, which is another topic entirely.)

It was a contrast I found fascinating and that I have thought about often since.

Bob   

Bob

Yes, I have long expounded on this idea and I hinted at it with my description of Huntercombe being unique while Swinley is not.  I think Huntercombe doesn't really look back because it was probably a bridging course between Victorian and what I now think of as modern architecture with Colt sealing the deal on naturalizing Park's design ideas.  I have long believed that Park's Sunny Old probably looked more like Huntercombe before Colt came in. 

Ciao   

[BCrosby]

Sean -

Are you and I on the same meds? I ask because it's not possible that two people on GCA with full use of their senses might agree on anything.

Bob

[Philip Gawith]

Thanks Bob - yes I see what you mean. Even my untutored eye could quickly tell there was a bit more action going on from the architect at Swinley. Would be fascinating if one was every able to prove Sean's point about what the first version of Sunningdale Old looked like - I am sure you are right. I also like your description Sean of Huntercombe having transitional GCA status - just adds to the allure!

Scott - you are right how similar the judgements are between you, me and Sean re the courses. I would not have believed the overlap could be so high - gives me faith!

[Bill_McBride]

I also had that feeling that a round at Huntercombe was like a history lesson in early GCA, but perhaps the best of the early designs and the start of a new era.  I think this was primarily due to the marvelous greens mentioned above.

I can't compare because I haven't played Swinley, but it must be a great one to be favorably compared to Huntercombe.

[BCrosby]

Another reason HGC should be seen as a transitional course (trust me Sean, we will find other points of disagreement down the road, so don't get bummed out by all the comity here ) is that Park used cop-like c/l bunkers not to catch tops, which was one of their main purposes on Victorian courses, but to set up strategic choices, a al Low/Paton at Woking, whose course revisions pointed the way to latrer sga.

There are lots of interesting historical cross currents in play at HGC.

Bob

[Sean_A]

Another reason HGC should be seen as a transitional course (trust me Sean, we will find other points of disagreement down the road, so don't get bummed out by all the comity here ) is that Park used cop-like c/l bunkers not to catch tops, which was one of their main purposes on Victorian courses, but to set up strategic choices, a al Low/Paton at Woking, whose course revisions pointed the way to latrer sga.

There are lots of interesting historical cross currents in play at HGC.

Bob

Bob

Yes, I agree that the centre-line hazards at Huntercombe are used more in the strategic sense than penal sense.  It would be interesting to know if Park and Low/Patton communicated.  I think Park finished Huntercombe before revision work started at Woking, but of course Low (like Park) was around for seemingly ever before the "heathland revolution".  Even so, I think Park deserved front and centre attention for at least Huntercombe being the first course to really show what was possible.  It could be that Low/Patton were inspired by Park and encouraged to revamp Woking.

Ciao   

[Tony_Muldoon]

Outstanding guys, very cool observations.  So far all the discussion has been on bunkers, what about the greens? 


Huntercombe's seem bolder and as we noted recently many slope away from the approach.  Swinley's are better protected but subtler in slope. Colt was known to not to like extreme slope and in those years greenkeeping was also taking giant steps with better mowers available?

Unless someone wants to beat me to it, this week I'll start a new thread on Colt's changes to Sunningdale.

[BCrosby]

Tony -

The greens at Huntercombe are wild indeed. Some entire greens are tilted beyond anything I've ever seen. Others have different plateaus at much higher (or lower) elevations than other portions of the green, to the point that one is left without hope of two-putting.

I await with anticipation your Sunnigdale treatise. If there is a course that needs a good architectural history, Sunningdale is it. Old and New.

Bob

[JNC Lyon]

Outstanding guys, very cool observations.  So far all the discussion has been on bunkers, what about the greens? 


Huntercombe's seem bolder and as we noted recently many slope away from the approach.  Swinley's are better protected but subtler in slope. Colt was known to not to like extreme slope and in those years greenkeeping was also taking giant steps with better mowers available?

Unless someone wants to beat me to it, this week I'll start a new thread on Colt's changes to Sunningdale.

I am compelled to reply and bump this thread after your Sunningdale thread, Tony.

I loved the greens at Huntercombe.  The first four greens are all wild and superb.  The 8th is a beautiful take on the typical two-tiered green.  I read somewhere that this was inspired by a hole at Musselburgh.  The 11th, 13th, and 17th are very cool is well.  After a few weeks to mull things over, my very favorite green at Huntercombe is the sunken green at the 15th.  Looking at this green and its waves in the late afternoon sun was sublime.

How different were these greens in style from the originals at Sunningdale, do you reckon?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()