[John Mayhugh]

Frank Pont's Golfbaan de Swinkelsche opened less than a year ago, and a number of us visiting The Netherlands for Buda had an opportunity to visit the course.  Rather than comment at the end of Frank's original photo thread, I thought it made since to borrow his text and photos and have more of a hole by hole discussion.  Swinkelsche is the rare course that forced me to think on most every shot, and after playing it I'm sure I would go ahead and repeat many of my original mistakes.  It is a very entertaining challenge.

The original tour.  Note that the photos used in it (and many of the ones below) are from a grow-in period.  I'll supplement these where I can.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54736.0.html

Frank's overview (all his borrowed comments will be in italics):
Site is 220 acres, pure sand, used to be heathland until 1920 when it was converted to agricultural land.
Site was virtually flat, every landform you see on the golf course was created (I worked with a number of good shapers, led by Conor Walsh)
Site was bordered by forests on three sides, and five holes are routed through the forest. On these virtually no shaping was done.
Site was crossed by a creek that had been canalized, it now is again meandering.
I had to put a certain minimum amount of water in the site, stipulated by environmental authorities,  my preference would have been to have no water. Now water is concentrated in a few holes.  There are five tees, to let all handicaps have fun.

We moved about 600,000 cubic yards of sand, and put in a state of the art double/triple row irrigation system (that hopefully will be used as little as possible).
Greens are between 6000 and 900 square yards, and large areas around the greens were also finished with green mix (indicated on the strokesavers) sometimes as much as 1600 square yards.
Total cost of building the course was less than 2.5 million euro


In the tour that follows, I'll list the yardages (not meters) for the yellow (6400 total) and white (6800 total) tees. There is one set longer than these and shorter tees as well.

Hole 1, par 4, 389/410
A gentle starting hole, I let myself be inspired by the first hole of my home course De Pan, which has no bunkers. (that is a par 5, this is a par 4).  The further one gets on the fairway the extremer the undulations become, that is the only hazard of this hole next to the green defence.












I thought this was a fairly gentle opening hole, though the green runoffs and interior contours didn't make for easy scoring.  Given the shape of the green, the hole location should influence placement of your tee shot.

[ward peyronnin]

One feature of merit is that this hole serves the interest of being a difficult par/easy bogey opener.

The semi blind approach resulting from the gentle rise in elevation demands sharpened judgement or one will be in a collection area with a testy up and down from the back or sides.

Preserving the trees gives one a visual cue that is helpful but not quite a target as the trees are of a similar size and character

[Mark Pearce]

Like the first at De Pan, a fairly gentle introduction to the course.  As John says, this is a course where almost every shot demands thought.  The 1st may be the exception.  A fairly straightforward drive to a wide fairway is followed by a mid iron approach.  Unlike what is to follow, all the trouble is around the green.  The course is still very new and the greens were slow, I imagine that if and when they get fast the contours on this green will catch many out.  At the moment, as Ward says, easy bogey, tough par.  It gets you swinging and starts the journey.  The next couple of holes are going to see a real change of pace but you don't know that on the first.  Is the tee shot on 1 the most straightforward shot on he entire course?  I think it may be.

[Frank Pont]

The hole so far has played fairly easy the times I have played it. The hole is best played via the left side, whereby the one thing to avoid is the large hollow with rough at driving distance (ofcourse I have been in there 50% of the time). However the rough is so thin that you still have a chance of hacking it on to the green from here.

When the flag is left on the green its a fairly easy par, the back right pin is scary if you miss. In general you want to be short left of the green if you miss, then your up and down is easiest for all possible pin positions.

To make it easier for people who have not played the course (yet), here is the overview of the holes:

[Mark Pearce]

I've only played it once and I'm already familiar with that large hollow on the left....

I think we had a pin on the right, about half way back.  I missed the green on the right, just, and was faced with a really awkward little chip which would have been frightening had the green been quick.

[John Mayhugh]

I wish I had taken some photos around the green.  The area that Mark is talking about was a tough up and down indeed.

Here's one additional photo from back in the fairway.  You can see the undulations that Frank talked about.  Note also how much slope there is to the fairway on the right side.


As Ward indicated, the trees frame the green site but don't help a lot in aiming.  

Frank, there is a small area of tall rough in the fairway. This wasn't in your original photos posted.  Can you refresh my memory on how far from the tee it is?  

[Frank Pont]

The rough patch is about 40-50 yards from the centre of the green.

I have more detailed pics of the green at home, currently on the road at Copt Heath for member presentations, back home Friday late.

[Frank Pont]

Some more recent pics of hole 1, taken late summer 2013







And a closer look at the green, notice the deep short grass hollow right in front of the green, a similar even deeper hollow is behind the green right (can't see it on this picture). In general the best place to miss the green is left.

[John Mayhugh]

Thanks for the extra pictures, Frank.  Still hard to pick up some of the green contours.  This was a really good one.  You mentioned that the course was built on sand and you had to create all of the landforms.  I really like the restraint of leaving the green bunkerless.  Playing it shows you didn't need any.

[John Mayhugh]

Hole 2   Par 4, 474/483
A short par 5 with a strong dogleg left. The drive is essential here if you want to go for the green in two. The green is inspired by the organic rollercoasters at Machrihanish.









The second was quite a change after the seemingly straightforward 1st.  Looking at just the yardage, the green seems very reachable in two.  The combination of the tree line left and the bunkers scattered in the middle of the fairway made for the first head-scratching tee shot.  For most of us, the play seems to be keeping the ball between the first bunker on the right and then the next one on the left.  The line you take to do that really depends on how far you hit the tee shot. There's probably 40+ yards between the two - plenty of room, right?.  If you cannot successfully carry the first bunker (maybe 220 yards), then you'll end up needing to lay up with the second shot and contend with more bunkers doing so.

Approached from the right side, there is room to run the ball up.  Much tougher look from the left.



And another picture of the green from back left.  You can see the internal contours that Frank mentioned, as well as a perfect runoff for those that tried to reach the green in two.  

[Mark Pearce]

The tee shot on the second is a real change of gear.  Having not seen a single bunker on the first, you are presented with a sea of them.  Even having yardage charts and distance measuruing devices, it really isn't clear what the best tee shot is and a lot of thought is required.  After some thought I aimed to hit left of the first (rhs) bunker but short of the second bunker.  Others might go over the 1st bunker.  Perhaps the better play is to lay up short of the 1st bunker and play the hole as a three shotter.

From a decent drive, the hole feels reachable, even for a moderate golfer.  The green, however, is one that requires a sensible approach.  If I thought I had a tricky chip from the right side of the 1st green, it was nothing compared to what was left having missed the second right.  The better miss is undoubtedly left but there is water not too far away there, so the temptation to err right and leave the harder chip/pitch is strong.

Even as early in the round as this, the nature of the greens is becoming apparent.  There's a lot of movement in them and some wonderfully subtle shaping.  Position is going to be important all the way round.  They are not, however, over busy and feel as if they fit the land well.  In many ways they remind me of some of the better heathland courses.  

[Frank Pont]

Hole 2 was one that I spent a lot of time tinkering with both during design phase and when we were building. Originally holes 2 and 3 played in reverse order and direction, but when we were allowed to cut more trees in the area where the 3rd green is now, the decision to go with the current rioting was easy. The issue was that we had to go around an existing copse, which gave a rather narrow dogleg point. The hole could either be a long par 4 or short par 5. I opted for the last because I felt that it would play more fun, and would allow me to introduce some more hazards on the way.

Key in defending the hole was to get the fairway hazards right, especially in the dogleg corner. I wanted to introduce a lot of risk reward choices here by giving the player a wide fairway, and 3 bunkers where the further left he would aim, the better the shot into the green would become but the more a slight miss (ie a little hook) could quickly lead to disaster.

This is the view of the tee



This is the view from the far right side of the fairway towards the green, about 290m from the green.



This is the view from just right of the most right bunker, about 230 m from the green



This is the view you would have if a pro would have hit a monster drive over the tree corner





Now a number of views of the green, first one from the left from the adjacent fairway of the 3rd hole.



Here the green as seen from the right side, an area from where a lot of people will be chipping into the green.



And here the green as seen from behind on the right side



The green as seen from the tee of hole 3, right next to the second green.



The second green is a milder version of Machrihanish green 2, and as such everything feeds to the low bottom that runs across the green. Most shots into this green will end up in this lowest point. The most interesting pin positions are the ones at the (high) front of the green. If the pin is there it will be almost impossible even for the best players to make an eagle

[Frank Pont]

Here are some 3 d visualisations I made of hole 2 before we started construction. It shows nicely how building a golf course is an iterative process.

Initially I was very keen to defend the dogleg corner of the hole by placing all the bunkers there, but in practice that would have made it virtually impossible to cut the corner for most players.





Compare the views of the tee:





and the views from the outside dogleg:





The other big change were the position and the defence of the green. The green in the end moved some 15 m further to the left, and the defence of the green moved from one bunker on the right to two bunkers on the left. This made the long shot into the green harder and made the hole easier for the average player hitting a 3rd shot into the green from the right.

[Frank Pont]

To give a bit more information here is the drawing I made during the design phase of green 2:



In the past I had built my greens pretty much off the drawings I had made in the design phases of the projects. At Swinkelsche I dropped this method. First for all the greens (and actually most of the holes) in wooded areas where trees were felled before we could build, very little shaping took place. Instead we used the existing contours and amplified them only slightly here and there. That also meant that I did not make any green drawings, since I just used what was there. This was the case for greens 1, 3, 9, 12, 16 and 17.

For the other greens we used my green drawings as the initial iteration which the shapers would rough in using their GPS equipment on board. After that we would start refining and changing the green as we felt made sense. As such the actually built second green differs from the drawn green in that some more little pinnable areas were introduced at the beginning of the green. (of course the green bunkering also completely changed)

The same method was used for shaping all the landforms outside of the wooded areas. Keep in mind that everything outside the wooded areas was completely FLAT before we started. Once the rough shapes were created using GPS, we started refining and sometimes changing landforms to get what we wanted on the ground.

[Joe_Tucholski]

I really wish I had another chance at Swinkelsche.  Going back to the first hole I think I remember Frank saying the areas in the trees were generally left untouched, so the contours on the first green were mostly as the ground was found.  Pretty crazy considering most of the rest of course was manufactured  I can only imagine how the Netherlands would have been if it weren't for the farmers who flattened out the country.

[John Mayhugh]

I didn't remember Frank saying that about greens, but then I was pretty much just off the plane so was a bit drowsy.

Not surprisingly, the contours that nature provided were pretty good!

[John Mayhugh]

Hole 3    Par 4, 289/296
A short driveable par 4, but danger lurks. From the tee one thinks there is hardly any space to put the tee shot, but it is visual deception.







When I think of holes that I would like another shot at, this one leaps to the top of the list.  My group enjoyed quite a bit of discussion before, during, and after the hole and we reached no real agreement at how to play it.  The view from the tee is largely dominated by this bunker.


There's about 50 yards between it and this next group of bunkers.


The trees on the left are further left of the line of play than appears in the first photo.  From behind the green looking back:


For me, the smart play would be to hit it 170 off the tee, remain short of the big bunker, and then hit a wedge one.  I just cannot imagine ever doing that as there is too much temptation.  If you're successful in hitting it up close to the green, the green runs away from you, so short pitches aren't going to be easy.

[Frank Pont]

This hole was a lot of fun to design and build. It really splits into two half's, the second half of the hole  which was in the wooded area had little shaping done to it, again we amplified the existing shapes that were there (only exception is that Conor Walsh lifted the backside of the large fairway bunker by about 2 feet), whereas the first half was dead flat (it had been in use as a model airplane airfield) and had to be massively shaped to get it to fit with the second half of the hole.







The two main ideas of the hole were risk/reward and temptation. As John says it is very hard to stand on this tee and not use your driver, whereas the smart play is 6 iron and wedge. I have now played it about 10 times of which I hit driver 7 times....

If one is an accurate player there also is the opportunity to hit a 3 wood or hybrid left of the big bunker, but you have to be pretty confident to do that. If you do land in the large bunker it in most cases gives a good chance of getting on the green with a well executed bunker shot.



If the drive lands short the two last smaller bunkers have to be dealt with.





The green was almost literally draped onto the existing landscape. I had to think of the Colt sketch of the third hole at Eindhoven, where he wrote down "Do nothing, leave as is". The green slopes right to left and slightly front to back. A lot of three puts will be made here because the green looks flatter than it actually is.

[Adam Lawrence]

I liked this hole a lot. My one qualm is whether the back of the big bunker -- which is beautiful -- is too high. I find it slightly jarring in a gentle landscape to see sand above the level of the base of the trees.

When I was there two weeks ago, Frank and I had a chat about whether the small trees left of the green need to be removed. Unusually for me, I don't mind them - they add a bit of visual interest and they don't really interfere with play. If good grass can be established around them, then for me they can stay - obviously if not, they have to go.

[Mark Pearce]

I know what you mean about the big bunker, Adam.  However, the hole is made by that bunker and it needs to be intimidating.  A lower lip, suggesting that a ball it that bunker might still be put on the green might neuter the hole.  Something that hasn't been mentioned is the way the green runs away from the fairway.  With reasonably firm greens (and the greens were very firm when we played) even a wedge is likely to release, making getting the ball close a challenge.

[Adam Lawrence]

Agreed. I did wonder if the same effect could have been created with a lower lip by also lowering the ground in front of the bunker, but that obviously depends on water table/drainage issues.

[Sean_A]

Adam

Weird!  I too thought the height of the bunker didn't look right against the backdrop of trees and wondered if the bunker couldn't be dug out more than raised.

For guys who can fly the ball 250ish, is it a relatively easy shot to draw it well left out past the trees and get to approach back up the slope of the green from the rough - thus taking all the bunkers out of play (I know - theoretically) and still hit a driver?  I spose that is one reason why I would keep those trees if possible. Any thought to creating a bit of what I think would be blind fairway in that area with a nasty bunker?

Ciao

[Frank Pont]

Here are some construction pics of hole 3

First when we just roughed out the area of the green looking back towards the tees. This was way before any bunkers were built.




Further a picture after the bunkers were built, as seen from where currently the second green sits. It nicely shows the flat airfield transitioning into the area that had been shaped in the woods




And here is a picture where Conor had done rough shaping of the outlines of the big bunker.




Funny enough my initial comment to Conor when I first saw his outline for the large bunker was the same as yours in that I thought the bunker was too high. He then actually lowered it (by about a foot or so), and to be honest I am happy with the very dominant effect the large bunker has visually.

Below you see how much the top of the bunker is above the landscape that was there before we started.

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

That may be a possibility for very long players (remember the yardages on the planner are metres, not yards, so it's 230 yards to get past the big bunker).  You'd need to be very straight, however. a bit too far left will be in the trees, a bit too far right and you'll likely catch the bunkers nearer the green (though that may not be such a bad result).

[Frank Pont]

For guys who can fly the ball 250ish, is it a relatively easy shot to draw it well left out past the trees and get to approach back up the slope of the green from the rough - thus taking all the bunkers out of play (I know - theoretically) and still hit a driver?  I spose that is one reason why I would keep those trees if possible. Any thought to creating a bit of what I think would be blind fairway in that area with a nasty bunker?

Sean, there is a lot of room and good fairway grass on the left side of the green, the risk in hitting it there with a driver is that you will most likely be hitting the three trees left of the green, one of the reasons we left them there, creating uncertainty for the player. I did not consider a blind bunker, thought the hole was bunkered enough.

One thing that should be mentioned that this hole usually plays into the wind, so its really only driveable if its little to no wind.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()