News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WFW vs. WFE
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2010, 11:16:21 PM »
Kevin, All:

The characterization that Matt W. gave is essentially the one I'll agree with.

I phrase it this way:

...and this is if only if you're compelled to segregate them at all:

Par 3s - East, the slightest, misiniscule of edges because 13 and 17 E are two of singular experiences, and the West only has one of those - 10W...plus the generalized variety and (usually) four different clubs in your hand.

Par 4s - West, but with a bigger edge than the East has with the 3s.  1, 8, 17 and 18 W are four of the best par 4s anywhere, not just noteworthy or architecturally significant because they are 420+ and tough - they are all that - but because they are fair as well as visually arresting in a manner where the visual presentation both leads and deceives the golfer to proper lines of play.  I will modify Matt's remarks and say that #6 W is not a let-up, but it just puts shorter clubs in your hand than you have had for regulation play on the first five.  Full Disclosure- 6W is my favorite hole of the entire 36.  Also, 11, 14 and 15W are quality strategic holes that may not have enormous distance fright, but never fail to require three fine shots somewhere in the hole to get 4 or better.  I like the way 2W looks better than it plays and the same is true for 4W. 

For me, the East has only three Par 4s on the level of the West - #s 7, 15 and 16.  Of these, only #15 would be an extraordinary or exciting hole to watch elite players contest championships.   I appreciate #s 1, 9, 10 and 18 E a great deal - their gentle flat nature in and around the clubhouse and exciting wild greens are a veritable thesis on the sublime virtues of the WF EAST experience as distinct from the West, but while giving such great pleasure, it has to be admitted that they probably cannot be converted to the championship standards without much worse gimmick than what the USGA does already.  They're meant to be, and play as, pleasant holes - thank god it can be embraced!

Par 5s -
I think most would agree that only 4 E and 12 W are the only two "brilliant" holes of the eight par 5's, up to the standards of what Tillie has done with this genre elsewhere and the magnificence he executed with these two courses in toto.  12 East is close but the second shot does not command your attention, as a great three shotter should.  The crisp linear beauty, legendary vista and memorable green contours of 9W elevate it past its absence of testing distance - and it is usually a satisfying scoring pause at the conclusion of tough front nine.  2 East would be more agreeable to me if the second shot goals were more clearly defined for the first-time, inexperienced (of WFE) player.  It's well-known to me and I can play it or instruct its play just fine, but I know a lot of first-timers cannot appreciate what the shot is asking for.  16 W and 8 E are great Par 4.5 - just a chip away from the greatness of the the best in that genre...but they could be played with three seven irons and a putter if you are trying to make the card par.  5 West vexes me i n that it has properties of a superb three shotter, confounding driving angle to awkward slope, well-defended intimidating green, can be reached in two by many players...and there's even a bunker to guard a rough-troubled second shot...but it doesn't feel like an exciting exercise when your playing it.

cheers

vk 
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Neil Regan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WFW vs. WFE
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2010, 12:15:47 AM »

I also learned that my host had never lost a putting challenge on that green, until then.


Adam,

   I have lost more than a few putting challenges there, but seldom as decisively as to you.

   Here's a recent picture. I think the entire fairway can be considered as an extension of the green. It's probably as good as any example of what Tillinghast meant when he wrote as in the excerpt below.



« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 10:06:30 AM by Neil Regan »
Grass speed  <>  Green Speed

V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WFW vs. WFE
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2010, 12:53:19 AM »
Neil,

nice vista of 17E...I'm looking at the light and trees and the gloaming and I'm guessing this was taken about 5:30pm if the date is accurate.

but your point about approaches, in concert with the Tillinghast statement you excerpted is well-posited and well taken.

On the West, I feel the current presentation is faithful to these maintenance ideas (the integration of approach and green surface); most acutely on 1, 8, 9, 12, and 16.

On the East, where the exciting restoration of complete 1920s original putting surface area (which I cannot believe I've failed to mention in all these related posts) is eliciting this subtlety in almost all of the two and three shot holes.

cheers

vk
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Matt_Ward

Re: WFW vs. WFE
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2010, 01:21:44 PM »
VK:

Thanks for all your info and insights.

I have always been amazed that WF has only been seen through the prism of demands and difficulty -- the unique elements Tillie created for both courses is truly undervalued by so many people simply because they only recognize the demand side of the West Course.

The East is a solid layout although I see the first few holes as fairly benign.

Your experience with both courses has clearly helped open plenty of minds.

Kevin Pallier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WFW vs. WFE
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2010, 05:48:58 PM »
I think the entire fairway can be considered as an extension of the green.

Neil

That was one of the things I noticed on my visit to Winged Foot. How the fairways seem to seamlessly mold into the greens.

I spoke to the super about it and it was refreshing to hear that Tilli's decree is still being maintained today.

V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WFW vs. WFE
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2010, 08:42:08 PM »
Matt and all,

This has been an engaging thread and a pleasure.

I'll wind down my contributions by merely amplifying Matt and saying that WF has received such a championship, difficult reputation that folks (even those that play it more than a couple times a year) I believe have forgotten how much fun it is.

Played from an appropriate, sensible tee distance (for me about 6500 yards W, 6350 E) for your game and your partners', I can barely think of individual courses that are more fun to play than these two...satisfying is the better word.

As to the whole "VS." part of the thread, the West is the better championship test but the real truth is that there is no "VS" when it comes to the days spent at Winged Foot, just a Cheshire cat grin on the part of the players.

cheers

vk
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Matt_Ward

Re: WFW vs. WFE
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2010, 08:51:35 PM »
VK:

Agreed -- sadly TV and major events have a way in distorting perceptions so that they become permanent conclusions.

mike_beene

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WFW vs. WFE
« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2010, 09:15:10 PM »
is the split nature of the west routing evidence that it was the main course or at least the first thought out?Or is it just a quirk that has no meaning.The west having split nines has always bothered me.

V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WFW vs. WFE
« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2010, 10:33:04 PM »
Mike,

I think the most accurate answer would have come to come from those archivist and/or biographers of Tillinghast's private papers, not just his voluminous public writings.

The inside cover of Winged Foot's neat club history in 1984 shows the earliest routing plan I've seen of the property and it has both the East and West routings as they are today.  This is a very early plan, and suggests that from the get-go that there is wasn't a design priority for one or the other

The very first day they played - on June 16, 1923 (the formal opening would be in September) they played an amalgam of East and West holes that were closest to the clubhouse and most ready for play, further suggesting that both courses were being envisioned and executed simultaneously with at least no construction priority given to one or the other.

cheers

vk
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Kevin Pallier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: WFW vs. WFE
« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2010, 08:24:59 AM »
Kevin, All:

Par 3s - East, the slightest, misiniscule of edges.....

Par 4s - West, but with a bigger edge than the East has with the 3s......

Par 5s - I think most would agree that only 4 E and 12 W are the only two "brilliant" holes of the eight par 5's........ 

VK

Cheers for that  - I am going to have to refresh my memory on a couple of holes but appreciate your thoughts re: same.

Matt_Ward

Re: WFW vs. WFE
« Reply #35 on: November 08, 2010, 10:46:58 AM »
The aspect that gets so underplayed at WF is the driving dimension -- most concentrate on the pear-shaped fiercely protected greens.

The second dimension is how both courses really occupy fairly benign property -- from all the course I have ever played WF makes the very short list in having such superb golf on such fairly flat land -- especially when you consider the terrain of other Westchester County-based layouts.