Pennard

[Ian Andrew]

Pennard



The 7th hole at Pennard

Sean Arble wrote, “Pennard: I don't believe I have ever fallen in love with a course as quickly as I did with Pennard.  A wonderful old time course that doesn't get nearly its due as a master design which is as strategic as they come.  Don't let the raw, primitive features deceive you - this is top notch golf despite its patchy conditions.”

If there was ever a day last week that I felt that I completely missed something I was supposed to get, it was the afternoon playing Pennard. I was very excited to play there (I confess expectations may have been the problem). I did find the love for many holes such as the 7th (an absolute favourite from the trip), 8th, 11th, 12th (reminded me of #3 at Cruden Bay in reverse) 14th (new back tee was fun), and 16th.

I thought it was on an awe inspiring site, but unlike Sean I’m not as convinced the architects got the most out of it. There were many odd moments including some like the 17th which made no sense at all. I found I was always inspired by the small things like some of the punchbowl green sites or some great ground contour, but I never found the love for the overall course.

I was left to wonder how things might have turned out if an architect like Colt was given the opportunity to work on that site.

I look forward to Sean’s explanation of what I clearly missed. I also encourage any of you who have played there to tell me about your thoughts and particularly about the advantage of playing a few more times. I assume that actually may be the biggest reason I missed some of the things others enjoy.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

What kind of sense did you get of how much or how little of Pennard was actually manufactured (shaped by man)?

[Sean_A]

Ian

You may or may not want to check out a thread I started due to your comments.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44087.0/


From your Blog:

I was really looking forward to playing Pennard. I’ve always embraced some of the more controversial golf course designs and have never been troubled by blind shots or holes that are difficult to play due to some quirky features. I kind of embrace them. As long as the green site justifies the blind tee shot or the design accommodates the complications involved I’m quite happy to deal with a hole that requires discovery or an element of faith in my play. My top 10 courses include Royal County Down, Prestwick and North Berwick which all have unconventional holes.

Pennard is a golf course that makes me wonder if there can be too much quirk. There were a number of great holes like the 7th and 16th which featured some quirky features, that worked wonderfully because the holes were interesting to play, but also there was an opportunity to manage the more unusual features of the holes. But at Pennard, so many holes went beyond being quirky and in the case of a hole like the 17th simply cross the line into bad design.

The setting for Pennard is spectacular and you must play this course just to see the incredible views and golfing terrain. This is one of the most interesting links sites that I have seen.

The problem is with the routing and architecture. There are too many blind tee shots, too many safety issues, too many places where the grade falls the opposite way of the dogleg, too many steep slopes that run any shot into trouble, too many holes where there is no place to play to. I look at a course like Porthcawl that has all of those features, but the holes were enough well designed to accommodate them. The course is also so well routed that the rest of the holes provide some balance to the round. I think you can have quirk, but it can’t all be quirky, because at a certain point it moves from charming to disappointing. With a great architect Pennard would have been a much better course.  


It is ironic that you mention Colt because his sort of design is exactly what I wouldn't want to see at Pennard!  IMO. there are enough Colt inland courses and links to get a flavour of his design principles and concepts.  The site at Pennard is wild enough (which makes me ask how the heck blind shots were to be avoided without significant dirt moving?) that I believe the right approach of hands off was taken by Braid.  Mind you, he likely had no choice.  

#17: Yes, from a design perspective it is a poor hole.  To be honest, I don;t know how to play the hole unless it is downwind.  Mind you, it has been altered from the Braid original enough that it could make a huge difference.  Interestingly, a new tee is being put in on that outcrop to the right and back of the current tee which should bring back some of the Braid intent of the drive banging into the side of the hill rather than trying to go over it.  None the less, 17 is for many the most memorable hole and even I have grown to appreciate it if only because it is one of two drives which is prescribed at Pennard - the 18th being the other.  The rest of the course is left entirely up to the player how he wants to go about his business.  For sure, there are best ways to go about one's business, but strategic golf is all about the options both laterally and aerially and nobody could say Pennard is short on options.  

BLIND SHOTS: Yes, there are many blind shots - probably too many and likely for a good reason - the course is over 100 years old.  However, I believe that there is only one blind shot which entails real trouble - the 17th and that is why I think this is a poor hole from a design perspective.  Most of the blindness is good design or inconsequential unless one is uncomfortable about blindness.  

#1 blind approach to a punchbowl green.  Not so unusual nor difficult.  Yes, the approach was softened just shy of the green to make the run-up a bit easier.  

#3 is a blind approach only if the player drives his ball out of position - very good use of blindness.

#4 Going for the green in two is very dangerous because of the trouble beyond the green which runs front to back.  One doesn't have to take this shot on even if it is a short, TEMPTING par 5 - good design.  Laying up often leaves a blind third but one can hit a putter to that green!

#6 is a blind approach of one is out of position off the tee - good use of blindness.  

#7 is a blind approach unless one can hit a long drive past a huge dip.  Long ball gets an advantage of seeing something - good design.  

#8 Blind drive, but wide open out there.  

#9 Blind drive, but wide open out there.  

#12 is only blind if going for the green off the tee.  Not my favourite hole, but it was still a great idea to use this land because it leads to the 13th - a fantastic par 3 that used to be blind.

#14 is a blind drive, but wide open out there.  

REVERSE DOGLEGS: Not my favourite type of concept and along with the blindness part of the reason #17 is head shaker.  The other reverse dogleg is #9.  However, that camber takes the ball to a better position for the approach.  The inside of the dogleg is dead duck.  We must remember that the hallowed Hoylake has two very well thought of reverse doglegs on the back nine and drifting to the optimum line of attack will likely be met will with an ever increasing array bunkers.  I spose you include the 18th as a reverse leg because of the severity of the right to left terrain.  For sure one must hit a fade into that hill to hold the fairway.  I have always thought an upper fairway should be built where the right rough is.  You are left with a longer, but flatter approach.  All that said, I like the approach and don't really mind the drive because there are only two drives on the course where the shot has to be hit a certain way.  The 2nd shot on 16th is also a reverse dogleg, but there is so much room out there that it doesn't really matter.

I am not sure what is meant by the following comments:

"too many steep slopes that run any shot into trouble"

"too many holes where there is no place to play to"

"too many safety issues"

So far as I know, none of these comments have ever been an issue except for the 17th being too steep of a slope for the drive especially when blind.  Yes, 17 is a freak of penal nature in that water nor oob are an issue, but it is dead easy to lose a ball.  

While I can readily accept your opinions (many people hold the same opinions) I wonder if you looked at the course from a golfer's perspective or an archie's perspective.  For sure Pennard is a polarizing course, but that is the essence of its charm and exactly why the land needed to be totally respected and built around.  To be honest, imo, the course isn't all that crazy and after a few years playing it I began to see the ultimate strategies involved in playing Pennard.  Pennard is a classic example of "yes, you are fine over there, but..."  Pennard is one-off and a course that likely wouldn't be built in this day and age - which is a great shame.  

A word of advice, never visit Painswick nor Perranporth.  If you couldn't get yer head round Pennard those two courses will give you a headache.

Ciao



  








    

[Bill_McBride]

I think Pennard is a lot like Painswick in that they are both way out of your normal expectations of what a golf course will usually be.  I don't think Braid did any shaping other than leveling out green sites and flattening teeing areas.  It's like playing on the moon.  I really don't get or like #17 either, but only played it once and butchered it pretty badly.  I love playing golf courses that feel like time capsules, and that's really how you have to approach these unique gems.

I can't wait to get back to Pennard for the Buda in September, maybe I'll solve the Rubic's cube that is #17!

[Ian Andrew]

You may or may not want to check out a thread I started due to your comments.

I enjoyed your thread a lot (except for the part when people assumed my thoughts for me). I'm never going to learn anything from people agreeing with what I say, so it’s nice to be called out on an opinion. The blog was written right after I finished and Pennard which followed Porthcawl and may have been a factor in the reaction. I also loved Southerdown the afternoon before too.

I'm not suggesting you change the course, like you implied, I wonder more of what if. As an architect, that’s what we tend to do when we see a site that “we think” does not meet the level of the opportunity. Whether I’m total off-base or not that’s how I felt about Pennard after playing the course.

Interestingly I don't mind blind shots with my five favourites to play being NLGA, St. Andrew’s, Prestwick, North Berwick and Royal County Down! If you look at that list, you can see why I was looking forward to seeing Pennard. I actually admire a reverse camber like the 9th, I’ve always talked fondly of Flynn’s Philadelphia courses where he pushes you by doing so. I loved the 12th at Pennard. I play well looking at a stone in the dune or a post at the top of the hill, that’s never bothered me ever.

But I do wonder if there is a point where it becomes too much. The course may be 100 years old, but that doesn't excuse a routing from being good or bad. So are courses like Garden City and Prestwick but they work far better “in my mind.” Even things I could see like the 10th landing left me perplexed on how to play that hole other than a short lay-up.

I'm still not convinced that the routing Pennard is the best one. Every blind shot at Royal County Down is justified by an excellent hole beyond. I can say the same for Pennard. There were lots of cool green sites and some really great holes, but the sum of the parts was not there for me.

Of course, I expect I just simply did not get the place on the first go around.

[Ian Andrew]

Ian:

What kind of sense did you get of how much or how little of Pennard was actually manufactured (shaped by man)?

Tom,

There was a little around a few greens, but much is how you would have found it which is pretty cool.

[Sean_A]

You may or may not want to check out a thread I started due to your comments.

I enjoyed your thread a lot (except for the part when people assumed my thoughts for me). I'm never going to learn anything from people agreeing with what I say, so it’s nice to be called out on an opinion. The blog was written right after I finished and Pennard which followed Porthcawl and may have been a factor in the reaction. I also loved Southerdown the afternoon before too.

I'm not suggesting you change the course, like you implied, I wonder more of what if. As an architect, that’s what we tend to do when we see a site that “we think” does not meet the level of the opportunity. Whether I’m total off-base or not that’s how I felt about Pennard after playing the course.

Interestingly I don't mind blind shots with my five favourites to play being NLGA, St. Andrew’s, Prestwick, North Berwick and Royal County Down! If you look at that list, you can see why I was looking forward to seeing Pennard. I actually admire a reverse camber like the 9th, I’ve always talked fondly of Flynn’s Philadelphia courses where he pushes you by doing so. I loved the 12th at Pennard. I play well looking at a stone in the dune or a post at the top of the hill, that’s never bothered me ever.

But I do wonder if there is a point where it becomes too much. The course may be 100 years old, but that doesn't excuse a routing from being good or bad. So are courses like Garden City and Prestwick but they work far better “in my mind.” Even things I could see like the 10th landing left me perplexed on how to play that hole other than a short lay-up.

I'm still not convinced that the routing Pennard is the best one. Every blind shot at Royal County Down is justified by an excellent hole beyond. I can say the same for Pennard. There were lots of cool green sites and some really great holes, but the sum of the parts was not there for me.

Of course, I expect I just simply did not get the place on the first go around.

Ian

Prestwick is nowhere near as rambunctious as Pennard.  On the terrain scale Pennard is likely a 7 and Prestwick is more like a 5 - just about perfect for golf.  

I don't know.  If you didn't care for Pennard on the first go I am not sure a few more goes would make much difference.  Sure, you would probably learn where to go to mitigate the blindness, but the blindness is still present.  One either likes them, tolerates them or doesn't.  I don't even notice the blindness except for the blasted 17th.  Its a total non-issue for me and was from day one.

I honestly don't know how Braid was gonna route Pennard to make it more visible (without creating a terrible walk - remember with all that wild terrain Pennard is an excellent walk) without moving TONS of dirt and spending serious cash.  Which brings me back to my original thoughts, why would an archie want to recreate a Porthcawl (or whatever) when the land is screaming out for a Pennard.  I think Braid did well to get the 18 he did as the site isn't large and there are public walking paths cutting through in several places.  To be fair, some of the clever bits of the routing are not down to Braid - they are later changes.  The one great tool repeated a few times at Pennard is greens running dead end into a higher fairway creating a sort of T junction.  

I can recall B Klein stating there was nowhere to go on 10 with the drive.  That comment still astonishes me because I have seen (and done it myself many times) many people shape a wood with the right to left contours over the land bridge.  I can't see how a guy with loads of experience such as Klein couldn't see that shot - it is staring dead straight at the golfer as teaser.  Jeepers, there is even a pole there showing the line for a draw!  As I say, astonishing.

The one recent course I can think of which is somewhat similar to Pennard is Carne and it too is polarizing.  My intuition tells me that archies would love to get in there and muck about.  

Ciao  

[Kyle Henderson]

I have nothing to add to this discussion other than to nominate it as a prime example of how discussions SHOULD be carried out in this forum.

-Civilized discourse
-Substantiated, rational arguments
-Agreement to disagree without denegrating the opposing views point (other than the expression of bafflement at a few of Mr. Klein's opinions).

Kudos, gentlemen.

[Tom Dunne]

When I first read Ian's comments I was a little disappointed as I am something of a Pennard cultist, but now I can happily situate them in the context of this course's wonderful ability to provoke interesting conversation. Ian, nothing in your post is really "wrong" as far as I can see, it's just all in the interpretation. Pennard is sui generis and defies expectations on so many levels. Could the course be better? Maybe, but those moments of dissonance and irrationality are part of what I love about it. I think Pennard wears its flaws more lightly (less self-consciously) than most other courses. The public trails, the animals, the ruins of the castle, the primitive joy of playing over that wild land--that stuff might not be nuts-and-bolts golf architecture, but I think it makes Pennard greater than the sum of its parts. I can think of few courses that have as powerful a sense of place.

Playing Pennard on the same day as Porthcawl is a pretty stark contrast. The temptation is to compare the two, but they're apples and oranges in terms of formality, presentation, and aspiration.

[Ian Andrew]

My intuition tells me that archies would love to get in there and muck about.  

On the contrary, I've never said that I have an interest in changing it - I just don't see the architecture being as good as you see it. I've tried to explain what my reaction and been very up front about the context of the day. Unfortunately the blog comments you copied were written right after I finished my round and I think the first post here was much more accurately worded than the blog was.

I did actually enjoyed the experience more than it likely comes across and I think my main issue was of expectation. All indications were this was something special, and while very unique and even brilliant in spots, I'm not seeing what others do.

If its an old world charm and a window into the turn of the century, then I get people's feelings for the place.
That I get. I was looking for more and quite possibly that was my mistake.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

I'm on record as loving Pennard, even though I only gave it a 6 in The Confidential Guide, because I understood that many would share the objections you've raised.  But one thing you said really struck me:

I just don't see the architecture being as good as you see it.

I am not sure Sean has ever said he loves the architecture of Pennard.  He loves the setting and the naturalness, and he loves the GOLF.  There may have been a better way to route some of those holes to overcome some of the weaknesses you see ... but I like the whole place so much that I've never even tried to think about how I might have done it differently.  As you say, there are enough great golf holes and beautiful views to keep me happy, and [to me] there is always something to do for your next shot.

It is funny that Sean compared Pennard to Carne, because I take an opposite view of the two ... I love the former but I find the latter over the top [and also, the construction work clashing with the naturalness of the setting].  Perhaps the real difference though is that I discovered Pennard when I was 21, and didn't see Carne until I was 35 and had stronger ideas about what should or shouldn't be done architecturally.  So, this discussion has been a good reminder for me that the end product is really the golf and nothing more.

[jeffwarne]

Ian:

I'm on record as loving Pennard, even though I only gave it a 6 in The Confidential Guide, because I understood that many would share the objections you've raised.  But one thing you said really struck me:

I just don't see the architecture being as good as you see it.

I am not sure Sean has ever said he loves the architecture of Pennard.  He loves the setting and the naturalness, and he loves the GOLF.  There may have been a better way to route some of those holes to overcome some of the weaknesses you see ... but I like the whole place so much that I've never even tried to think about how I might have done it differently.  As you say, there are enough great golf holes and beautiful views to keep me happy, and [to me] there is always something to do for your next shot.

It is funny that Sean compared Pennard to Carne, because I take an opposite view of the two ... I love the former but I find the latter over the top [and also, the construction work clashing with the naturalness of the setting].  Perhaps the real difference though is that I discovered Pennard when I was 21, and didn't see Carne until I was 35 and had stronger ideas about what should or shouldn't be done architecturally.  So, this discussion has been a good reminder for me that the end product is really the golf and nothing more.

Goodness gracious,.....
if you don't love Pennard-you definitely have a different view of golf than me/
Perranporth and pennard were about a 10 for me as far as golf fun.
In fact, Pennard is one of two courses(brora being the other) I've ever replayed on my "run ragged " itineraries.
Almost all holes were playable and excitinng if you shaped the ball accordingly.
I found 17 to be the ultimate risk reward hole.

[Bill_McBride]

I found 17 to be the ultimate risk reward hole.

3 or 7?   

[George Pazin]

I have nothing to add to this discussion other than to nominate it as a prime example of how discussions SHOULD be carried out in this forum.

-Civilized discourse
-Substantiated, rational arguments
-Agreement to disagree without denegrating the opposing views point (other than the expression of bafflement at a few of Mr. Klein's opinions).

Kudos, gentlemen.

I'll second this.

Can't help but note the reason, imho: Ian is a thoughtful poster who responds to Sean's ideas, and doesn't take the thoughts as a personal attack, but rather as an opportunity. We can all learn from this.

Can't also help but note that Pennard has risen on my wish list as a result of the debate.

[Jud_T]

Sean,

Pennard, Painswick and Perranporth all just shot up my must play list with a bullet! 

[jeffwarne]

I found 17 to be the ultimate risk reward hole.

3 or 7?  

in two rounds I made both

[Bill_McBride]

I found 17 to be the ultimate risk reward hole.

3 or 7?  

in two rounds I made both

"Ultimate" it is!   What are you doing in September?   

[Sean_A]

My intuition tells me that archies would love to get in there and muck about.  

On the contrary, I've never said that I have an interest in changing it - I just don't see the architecture being as good as you see it. I've tried to explain what my reaction and been very up front about the context of the day. Unfortunately the blog comments you copied were written right after I finished my round and I think the first post here was much more accurately worded than the blog was.

I did actually enjoyed the experience more than it likely comes across and I think my main issue was of expectation. All indications were this was something special, and while very unique and even brilliant in spots, I'm not seeing what others do.

If its an old world charm and a window into the turn of the century, then I get people's feelings for the place.
That I get. I was looking for more and quite possibly that was my mistake.

Ian

Thanks for being a good sport and taking my comments in the way they were meant.  I tend to be a straight shooter and perhaps because of this clumsy style I am sometimes misunderstood.

My mucking about comment was more from the PoV of a first build rather than a rebuild. 

I completely understand why you would be underwhelmed with Pennard, many people are.  Your opinions taken as a whole are most certainly a reasonable stance.  Not many courses are like Pennard and it is easy to see why folks think its ott.  Pennard is ott and the 17th may quite literally be the last straw for many a patient person.  However, my stance is that Pennard is exactly what the land called for and that it would be an awful shame to have some other less unique design on that property - which is what is most often produced the more archies push dirt around. 

Tom D

Yes, I do think Pennard is a very good course architecturally because I don't believe most of the often cited weaknesses are weaknesses.  They are more differences of opinion and I fully accept that mine is a minority opinion.  Is Pennard as good architecturally as any number of great courses - no.  But as you hint, as a total package of a golf course, Pennard has very few peers. 

Kyle

I didn't mean to be overly harsh to B Klein, but saying there is nowhere to go on #10 is a comment that doesn't bare any relation to reality. 

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

I didn't mean to be overly harsh to B Klein, but saying there is nowhere to go on #10 is a comment that doesn't bare any relation to reality. 

Ciao

I'll admit I was a bit confused by that tee shot as well, couldn't really tell what was going on down there my one play but could see the green up above way left.  I hit a 4 iron down to the bottom, 3 wood up the hill and it was a pretty routine par.

What is the expert play?   

[Ian Andrew]

The fun of this thread is that I’m looking back at the holes in much greater detail than I did at the time I wrote my blog.

I’m bound and determined toget what I missed. I’m liking more tan I first remembered as I consider more details to what I saw. I definitely would go play it again the next time I go to Wales (I loved the trip). As I said, I feel liked I missed something that I was expecting to enjoy a great deal. Maybe I’m just getting old and grumpy!

Here’s my take…

1. loved the green site, liked the hole
2. hole's still not in play – mounds on new hole look contrived
3. the dune on the left is a nice diagonal off the tee, shot in is plain
4. don't get the five unless the landing is actually the 7th tee Although the second shot is more interesting
5. solid three
6. one of my favourite green sites, worth the blind tee shot to enjoy
7. best hole on the course - one of the best on the trip
8. another wonderful hole
9. loved the reverse cant and the green setting into the left dune as well - clever
10. no clue where you hit anything but a lay-up, green is obviously new, cross-fall in landing is tough
11 great hole – great false front
12. I liked the hole – unusual but charming – pitch is fun from left
13. I don’t get this one, the setting on the right was so much better – I just don’t get the choice
14. Another really great hole – new back tee is pretty neat – undulation in the landing are super
15. nice hole, not a fan of the tiers in the green
16. fantastic hole – love the tee shot a lot – and the second - green expansion looked “stuck” on the side of the old green
17. vomit inducing cross-slope into gorse (twice) – if that’s a favourite for some then there’s an even better hole for them to play down in the gorse to the right.
18. can’t hit a fairway that doesn’t exist right – decent green site

Thoughts on where I’m soooooo (for Matt ) wrong…..?

[Ian Andrew]

If I don't respond over the next two days - it's only because I'm out of country.
Its not because I'm a suck and definately not because I'm disinterested.

....and Sean...thanks I'm enjoying this

Tom,

I get your point - its all about the golf you play.
I wonder if I had my head up my ass looking for the wrong things and complertely missed this one.
We all know I'm capable.

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, a real pleasure to read - thanks gents. You should take "The Sean and Ian Show" on the road. Anna Rawson could be the sidekick. Guests could include Tom D and Pat Mucci.I'll warm up the audience with impersonations of the ODGs - my Herbert Fowler killed out in Poughkeepsie.  Also, I suddenly understand Sean's other thread on this so much better. Pity I posted on that one before reading this -- I could've seemed so well-informed and Pennard-ishy. If and when a time comes when the world no longer has a high place for Pennard, golf course architecture will have died, and the spirit of the game too. I sometimes fear we've become addicted to perfection. May I still have (no - may I learn to have) the fresh eyes of a child when I first set them upon Pennard, hopefully in Sean's company and carrying a half set of old Hogan blades and wearing a cable-knit sweater. Afterwards, one single glass of bourbon, and a single cigarette.
Peter

[Bill_McBride]

The fun of this thread is that I’m looking back at the holes in much greater detail than I did at the time I wrote my blog.

I’m bound and determined toget what I missed. I’m liking more tan I first remembered as I consider more details to what I saw. I definitely would go play it again the next time I go to Wales (I loved the trip). As I said, I feel liked I missed something that I was expecting to enjoy a great deal. Maybe I’m just getting old and grumpy!

Here’s my take…

1. loved the green site, liked the hole
2. hole's still not in play – mounds on new hole look contrived
3. the dune on the left is a nice diagonal off the tee, shot in is plain
4. don't get the five unless the landing is actually the 7th tee Although the second shot is more interesting
5. solid three
6. one of my favourite green sites, worth the blind tee shot to enjoy
7. best hole on the course - one of the best on the trip
8. another wonderful hole
9. loved the reverse cant and the green setting into the left dune as well - clever
10. no clue where you hit anything but a lay-up, green is obviously new, cross-fall in landing is tough
11 great hole – great false front
12. I liked the hole – unusual but charming – pitch is fun from left
13. I don’t get this one, the setting on the right was so much better – I just don’t get the choice
14. Another really great hole – new back tee is pretty neat – undulation in the landing are super
15. nice hole, not a fan of the tiers in the green
16. fantastic hole – love the tee shot a lot – and the second - green expansion looked “stuck” on the side of the old green
17. vomit inducing cross-slope into gorse (twice) – if that’s a favourite for some then there’s an even better hole for them to play down in the gorse to the right.
18. can’t hit a fairway that doesn’t exist right – decent green site

Thoughts on where I’m soooooo (for Matt ) wrong…..?

The only way to hit that 18th fairway is to hit a strong cut, great driving hole.

[Paul_Turner]

Ian

I think you just over analyzed the course.  It's not really a course to sit and ponder a definite strategy for each hole because the terrain is so wild and random chance plays a big part.  But that's one of its great strengths , the player nearly always has interesting shots even if they aren't "architecturally correct".  And it's not as if the random chance is unappealing...it's pure old style golf.

It's such a great walk too, I can't think of a course that's a better walk and that's a huge plus for me.  (Similarly Cruden Bay which some poor souls get all ranking mentality about.)

I think Pennard is far less severe than say Carne which has 50 ft dunes to contend with.  You won't lose many balls at Pennard;  even in a strong wind you can steer a way round in two figures.

I don't understand your dislike of 10th?

PS Colt did a small amount of work here and drew up a plan but Braid got the job.  I doubt Colt's course would have been much softer though...he wasn't into softening fairway contours much (none of these guys were).

[Sean_A]

The fun of this thread is that I’m looking back at the holes in much greater detail than I did at the time I wrote my blog.

I’m bound and determined toget what I missed. I’m liking more tan I first remembered as I consider more details to what I saw. I definitely would go play it again the next time I go to Wales (I loved the trip). As I said, I feel liked I missed something that I was expecting to enjoy a great deal. Maybe I’m just getting old and grumpy!

Here’s my take…

1. loved the green site, liked the hole
2. hole's still not in play – mounds on new hole look contrived
3. the dune on the left is a nice diagonal off the tee, shot in is plain
4. don't get the five unless the landing is actually the 7th tee Although the second shot is more interesting
5. solid three
6. one of my favourite green sites, worth the blind tee shot to enjoy
7. best hole on the course - one of the best on the trip
8. another wonderful hole
9. loved the reverse cant and the green setting into the left dune as well - clever
10. no clue where you hit anything but a lay-up, green is obviously new, cross-fall in landing is tough
11 great hole – great false front
12. I liked the hole – unusual but charming – pitch is fun from left
13. I don’t get this one, the setting on the right was so much better – I just don’t get the choice
14. Another really great hole – new back tee is pretty neat – undulation in the landing are super
15. nice hole, not a fan of the tiers in the green
16. fantastic hole – love the tee shot a lot – and the second - green expansion looked “stuck” on the side of the old green
17. vomit inducing cross-slope into gorse (twice) – if that’s a favourite for some then there’s an even better hole for them to play down in the gorse to the right.
18. can’t hit a fairway that doesn’t exist right – decent green site

Thoughts on where I’m soooooo (for Matt ) wrong…..?

Ian

I don't have much to disagree about which makes me wonder how you came to your conclusion unless you are saying the course is good, but no world beater.  If so, that is fair enough and likely the thoughts of most.  

#1: Odd to start with your back to the beach, but an alright hole.    

#2: I have no idea why they mucked with this hole - busy body nonsense that has turned into a disaster.  

#3: Great approach if hole is right - between the bunkers.  Very difficult to gauge the landing zone for the drive.  Its sounds odd, but the right side of the fairway beyond the bend needs bunkering.  Guys blast it over the left and often go through the fairway without a care in the world.

#4: Probably my favourite drive on the course because it is a wide open affair.  Yes, with a tailwind I head toward 7 tee as down the fairway oob is lurking, but the best position is down the fairway - take your choice.

#6: Blind drive?  Did you play the 6th at Pennard?  Green site is superb.

#s 7-9: Yep.

#10: Follow the contours.  If the hole is downwind this hole is reachable in two, but you risk the slop left and right of the land bridge.

#11: I think the most under-rated hole at Pennard and one of my all-time favourite par 3s.

#12: I am not a big fan, but I understand its function.

#13: Another wonderful par 3 and it used to be blind as the dune shy of the green used to be higher.  A green to the right is a possibility, but it would be a much easier hole as everything from the green kicks that way.  Of course, when recovering from the right (very common) its a dicey chip/putt back up the slope.  Don't tell anybody, but the best play is to aim well left of the right part of the green (which is where the flag is usually tantalizingly and cleverly placed).  Even if you miss left it is a fairly easy recovery.

#14: I struggle with this hole when it is downwind.  You just have to accept the ball will go to the back of the green and you will likely be faced with a long putt.  I would like to see a bunker short of the green where weak approaches roll back to, but perhaps that would be too much of a risk for most and they would never go for the front flag.

#15: I like the hole (as I do all the par 3s), but it is the flattest on the course and the tiers could have been more sympathetically built.  

#16: I am not as high on this hole as most because It is too easy to have a lash at the green in two.  The drive is wide open and the so long as you err to the left missing the green is not a problem - missing right is an nightmare.  That said, the greensite is outstanding.  

#17: Shock, horror, but if downwind one hell of a lot of fun.  

#18: I like it, but you have to hit a cut into the hill.  Not a terribly onerous ask given the many wide open tee shots at Pennard.  During a particularly dry spell in high summer it can be an impossible ask, but this is rare and if this is the case, the rubbish down the left won't be bad.  I would like a top fairway to the right, but that may be a bit dangerous due to the driving range.  The approach is superb because like the 6th, there is a ridge in front of the green which makes it difficult to run one on.

For me, Pennard is great for many reasons.  There are so many great holes and a few unique holes: #s 4, 6-9, 11 & 16.  That is seven great holes by my count and can't really think of many courses with that many quality holes.  Another cool thing is other people name other holes as greats - so there is one heck of a load of solid golf.  I also like how the front nine has the best of the holes, but the back nine has the best of the views.  The walk is excellent (especially for such a rugged site) and the routing brings the golfer along the sea edge of the course on three separate occasions; #s 6 & 7, 12-14 and 16 & 17. I can't point to any one set of holes and say they are weak; the 3s, 4s and 5s as sets are all very good.  There are a load of great green sites with the entire array of green styles from funky, to flat, to punchbowl to plateau to shelf.  The land and weather dictate the strategy so the course plays differently a lot of the time.  Finally, the beauty of Pennard gives me that good feeling like very few other courses can.    

Ciao