[Garland Bayley]

The par 5 fifteenth, the second and final three-shotter, once again leaves the pure linksland for the tee shot.  This is a relatively short par 5, but in the winter it still seemed awfully difficult to reach.  The real star of this hole is the green; it rests on a small plateau  and once again features little off-set tiers.

[Garland Bayley]

#16 is another tortuous long par 4, but its probably the best of this sort at Saunton.  While the two bunkers to the outside of the leg are very well placed, they aren't terribly attractive.  



The approach must hold a shelf cut off the left dunes.  Yes, its a tough shot, but ever so much fun.  

[Garland Bayley]

The penultimate hole is a long drop shot par 3.  Not a bad hole at all, but not as good as the other par 3s.

[Garland Bayley]

The home hole, wonderfully named Isaacs Slopes, apparently after the right dune in the drive zone, is a good one that finishes directly in front of the house, just as a golf course should.  







It had been about 18 years since my last visit to Saunton – too long by anyone’s count for Saunton is more than just good golf.  Not many courses in England are its superior and that is high praise indeed.  Three aspects of Saunton impressed me greatly.  First, while the threes and fives are not top notch, the variety and quality of the par 4s is outstanding.  There isn't a single one of the bunch I could could say is less then good. Second, I rather admired the restraint required to keep most of the tees on lower ground (or level with the green) as hill climbing for a set-piece view can become tiresome.  Finally, the variety of greens is unusually good for a links.  For these reasons, Saunton gets a bump up to 1*.

[Peter Pallotta]

Garland - thanks very much for that, it's fascinating to see the overhead juxtaposed with the golfer's perspective, just great.  Thanks!

Peter

[Garland Bayley]

Peter,

You are most welcome. Stay tuned for the West course update.

[Ben Stephens]

Guys,

If you use the Google Earth timeline - it shows that there have been a number of changes on the East Course particularly the bunkering. Hole 2 is a new green 30/40 yard beyond the old green.

Cheers
Ben

[Sean_A]

Ulrich

To the contrary, we had a lovely day for golf; about 12 degrees, light wind and no sun - thats heaven.

Brian

Yes, we played the West in severe fog the next day.  I don't think it quite hangs with the East, mainly because the greens on the East are more interesting, but also because I really liked the flat holes.  Strangely, I think the West has just as many really good holes as the East.

Boony

It was a shame to miss the fifth, but I have vivid memories of the hole.  Yes, the 8th is good without being one of the top holes on the course.  Fix the bunkering and 16 is all world!

Garland - cheers.

Others - cheers.

Ciao

[James Boon]

Ben,

I'm sure the first time I played Saunton, the 2nd was a long par 4 rather than the par 5 it is now and when we were there several years ago? That was a real tough opening with 1, 2 and 4 all tough long par 4s!

Cheers,

James

[Sean_A]

Boony

I don't think so.  When I first saw Saunton - about 20 years ago -  the 2nd was a par 5.  In Steel's book it is listed as a par 5 and that is 20 years ago.  I seem to recall reading that the par of the course went up (with added yardage) in the 50s (when it was worked on by Cotton?).  I seem to recall the 1st being a par 4 from the backs and a par 5 from the daily tee when I first played the course circa 1990 - or maybe the other way around.

Ciao

[James Boon]

Sean,

Looks like it depends on the tees and one of those good old quirky pars that doesn't listen to the yardage...

My yardage book from last time I was there shows the old 2nd as well as the new as an insert. The old was a 5 from the blues at 476 and whites at 445 while the yellows was a 4 at 426. Go figure? 

For Saunton as a "Championship" test, I would say a couple of par 4s at 478 and 476 to start would be a tougher test than a 478 par 4 then a "breather" par 5 be it 476 or 526? Notwithstanding discussions about the irrelevance of par obviously... 

Cheers,

James

[Sean_A]

Boony

What does your course planner say about #1? 

Ciao

[James Boon]

Sean,

Its all par 4, going 478 from the blues (2 yards less than the 2nd which used to be a 5?), 470 white and then 393 yellow. I've never played it from any other tee than the back one, even if the markers have been yellow.

Cheers,

James

[Pete Lavallee]

Indeed the new 2cnd green was being constructed back and to the left of the original when I played there in 2006. The original was still in play and even a short knocker like me was close to the green in 2 shots. I believe they were discussing moving the 18th green back and left also; is that the old 18 green seen in the photo short and to the right? There was also something being done to a bunker in front of the 15th green; perhaps it was it a central bunker that was moved?

[Garland Bayley]

I have read this thread a few times since playing the course.

Frankly I don't get it. It seems the biggest praise the course gets is for having lots of long par fours. Another noticeable aspect is that a good number of the greens are raised up from the fairway for the approach. Is the whole point of saying this course is good is because it is hard?
It certainly is not that entertaining, interesting, or memorable. Sean himself bemoans the flat fairways in his commentary. It may have the shortest green to tee walks of any course I've played, but that does not make a great course. Furthermore, futile searching for balls is a major feature. I played 16 links in south Wales and southwest England, and this is the least links like of all of them. So what gives? What am I missing?

Sean dis'es the par threes in his review. But the first two par threes are two of the most memorable holes on the course. What's wrong with the par threes?

I know several of us prefer the west course to the east, but Tom persists in rating the east higher than the west. Why?

[Sean_A]

GJ

I am surprised that you couldn't see the quality of 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 & 11 for starters.  Links not links?  So?

For me the West has just as many really good holes as the East, but say the "worst" six are not the quality of the East "worst" six. 

Its fine if you aren't impressed...its your money and time, but you will be hard pressed to find many who will agree with your thoughts concerning the East.   

Ciao 

[Marc Haring]

I've always thoroughly enjoyed the East. Mostly I enjoyed the approaches to the greens which often required a great deal of thought, often a case of trying to use a slope to check the ball or throw it towards the target. The flatter more marshy areas are reminiscent of RND's.

I have an idea that many of the changes made a few years ago were made by a Guy called Bob Knott who was a prominent county player of the area.

[Tony_Muldoon]

GJ

you will be hard pressed to find many who will agree with your thoughts concerning the East.  For me, Saunton East is about as close as it gets to great without being great.  That said, there are a lot of courses like this in GB&I...missing that whatever it is to get them over the hump.  

Ciao  

So I've played the West twice and the East once.  Whilst I prefer the former I wasn't that excited about either.  That said I am increasingly reluctant to make my mind up too Quickly (Mea Culpa - I was wrong re Porthcawl).  I've noticed on this and other threads that whilst they are both acknowledged as fine courses, many comments include a note of puzzlement as to why they aren't better loved?

I have also self diagnosed a quirky, little understood medical condition that I have named Flat Earth Golf Syndrome or FEGS for short.  Curiously whilst walking a golf course I have marked tendency to become ill at ease if the playing ground seems unaturally flat. Eminent Psychologists I have shared pint with say, "...but surely humps hollows and blindness should be what causes concern and agitation in the player"?  I am therefore at something of a loss but I have noticed FEGS being at the most acute where interesting dunesland and flat fairways lie side by side.   Therefore inland FEGS is rarely a problem.   My worst attacks so far were at Birkdale and The European Club, but there were definite stirrings at Saunton.




PS Garland is right about the rough. St Enedoc is the same. It can't just be high rainfall that accounts for the lack of Fescue and the invasion of all manner of weeds.  I have another syndrome relating to this......



Having said all that there is enough about the courses to draw me back and believe it can't be long before it becomes a central contender for a spring tour and a possible reassessment.  

[Garland Bayley]

"not only for the teasing drive, but also due to amateurishly raised green creating a tough target"

is what you have to say about three, Sean. What I see is a fairway that narrows forcing the average player to lay up off the tee. Is that a teasing drive? Other than being "amateurish", I don't find anything above average about the green. So yes, I don't see much of interest about three.

It's the only hole that is not a "brute" in the first four. Is that what's appealing?

[Sean_A]

"not only for the teasing drive, but also due to amateurishly raised green creating a tough target"

is what you have to say about three, Sean. What I see is a fairway that narrows forcing the average player to lay up off the tee. Is that a teasing drive? Other than being "amateurish", I don't find anything above average about the green. So yes, I don't see much of interest about three.

It's the only hole that is not a "brute" in the first four. Is that what's appealing?

Shortish par 4, long drive is a big plus because the green is a difficult target because its raised and not terribly large...but the fairway narrows the  deeper the drive.  Simple, to the point, good architecture...akin to fine steak n' chips.  I am sure you eat there where you come from 

Anyhow, if you see B&NC as better than Saunton, then we don't have much to discuss.  Good thing this isn't a union negotiation.

Ciao   

[Garland Bayley]

"not only for the teasing drive, but also due to amateurishly raised green creating a tough target"

is what you have to say about three, Sean. What I see is a fairway that narrows forcing the average player to lay up off the tee. Is that a teasing drive? Other than being "amateurish", I don't find anything above average about the green. So yes, I don't see much of interest about three.

It's the only hole that is not a "brute" in the first four. Is that what's appealing?

Shortish par 4, long drive is a big plus because the green is a difficult target because its raised and not terribly large...but the fairway narrows the  deeper the drive.  Simple, to the point, good architecture...akin to fine steak n' chips.  I am sure you eat there where you come from 

Anyhow, if you see B&NC as better than Saunton, then we don't have much to discuss.  Good thing this isn't a union negotiation.

Ciao   

It seems to me that good architecture uses something beside ball gobbling rough to enhance the architecture of a hole. Ball gobbling rough is usually considered bad architecture. The dunes are there. The fairway could be much wider with difficulty coming from having fairway extend into the dunes, and bunkers in the face of the dunes. You go to a golf course to play golf, not to spend all your time tromping around just off fairway looking for golf balls.

[Sean_A]

"not only for the teasing drive, but also due to amateurishly raised green creating a tough target"

is what you have to say about three, Sean. What I see is a fairway that narrows forcing the average player to lay up off the tee. Is that a teasing drive? Other than being "amateurish", I don't find anything above average about the green. So yes, I don't see much of interest about three.

It's the only hole that is not a "brute" in the first four. Is that what's appealing?

Shortish par 4, long drive is a big plus because the green is a difficult target because its raised and not terribly large...but the fairway narrows the  deeper the drive.  Simple, to the point, good architecture...akin to fine steak n' chips.  I am sure you eat there where you come from 

Anyhow, if you see B&NC as better than Saunton, then we don't have much to discuss.  Good thing this isn't a union negotiation.

Ciao   

It seems to me that good architecture uses something beside ball gobbling rough to enhance the architecture of a hole. Ball gobbling rough is usually considered bad architecture. The dunes are there. The fairway could be much wider with difficulty coming from having fairway extend into the dunes, and bunkers in the face of the dunes. You go to a golf course to play golf, not to spend all your time tromping around just off fairway looking for golf balls.

GJ

Well, ya got me there.  It seems practically everywhere grows rough these days.  I know part of the reason for this is poor winter weather, cost to cut the rough and crazy rules about stupid protected plants or birds or toads or ancient solidified shit (Saunton has some restrictions on what they can do)...its endless what the English will do in the name of the environment...but talk about building homes all over the place and its a different matter...build it and they will come...the island is sinking........   Still, I think clubs can do better...even B&NC.  Even with bad rough, I don't believe the architecture at B&NC compares very well to SE.  That said, I can understand if wide open golf is important to golfers, but that sort of design supported by the right maintenance is quite rare in my experience...probably because its costly if the weather doesn't cooperate.  Most British clubs aren't bloated with cash...and many of the ones that are, are championship links so they have different reasons for stupid rough.  Hence, for many places, the best time to play links golf is on a fine winter's day. 

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Watch your language! I thought ch+^$!@!*&%p was a four letter word around here when applied to links or course as a modifier.

[Ed Tilley]

I don't think I'd ever want to play Saunton in May or June. My understanding is that Saunton are incredibly restricted with what they can do to the rough and that it is just soul destroying, ball gobbling crap at times. Reading between the lines on their website, I think Saunton would like to cut it back quite a bit more than they can:

"Saunton Golf Course is situated on Braunton Burrows, a sand dune system which is the largest in England and vitally important for its plants and animals. In recognition of this the Burrows, and hence Saunton Golf Course, have been designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Unesco Biosphere Reserve.

The effect of this is that Saunton has to obtain consent from English Nature whenever we wish to carry out any significant works on the courses, which could be in danger of damaging the Burrows.We have had to agree a Course Management Plan with English Nature, which dictates exactly how we manage the land."

I've only been there in September and October and the rough was fine, as I imagine it is from late August to early April most years.

[Garland Bayley]

Thanks Ed, that's very interesting.

Did not the course predate all the environmental regs?

Apparently if they are under control of such regs then they aren't grandfathered in with their practices like they would be in the U.S. Not true?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()