[Noel Freeman]

I recently got back from a trip where I played Sunningdale Old and New as well as Woking.  Woking remains my favorite heathland to play not because it is as great architecturally as say the former courses or even St. George's Hill, but because it is the most cunning, the most delightful and to my mind has the best green complexes.  I also love the paradox of its start, facing the prospect of eagle right at the get go and then double bogey on the deliciously devious 2nd which is one of the best par 3s on the heath.  But I really must say, I always thought the old 16th was one of the weak links to a finish that left me wanting--that has changed. Tim Lobb who I met many years ago (and he won't remember me as my friend RT who introduced us does not work with him anymore) when he was at European Golf Design--now at Peter Thomson's outfit-- has built a wonderful new hole.  It measured approximately 147 yards but plays to the diagonal side of the curling pond (yes check out the curling stones in the clubhouse).  Fronted by 4 bunkers that are perfectly in sync with Woking's style of hazard and you have a "duck" of a hole as Patric Dickinson would say.  There is a short front bunker which must be flirted with if one attempts a run-up.  The spirit of the hole is perfectly after playing the wonderful short par 5 15th which has the best green on the course.  I think some may argue the green is too contoured as it is as wavy as a Lays chip but I found it fun to play and like what Tim did (It is in context with Woking's 7th, 13th and 15th greens).  The new hole makes the finish much stronger and I say bravo to the club.

with new back tees stretching the course to 6600+ par 70, Woking is even more of a must play and is the EASIEST course to play from central London.. 25 minute train ride + 5 minute cab ride = Heathland bliss.

The pro- Carl Bianco is a kind English gentleman as well..

[Dan Moore]

Noel,

Yes a lovely course.  I played just off the plane last April.  When I visited the greens were long and spongey after a harsh wet winter so I don't think I got to see them at their best.

Here are a couple of shots of the old and new 16th.

Old


New


And one of the 2nd.


And a couple showing the undulations on 15.

[Matt_Cohn]

Did they move it? I'm confused. Where did the house go?

[David Davis]

I too love the course. Played in June on a perfect day and it was in great shape. Nice and firm.

I don't think I"m as much of a fan of the new 16th as you guys may be. To me it feels really out of place in the classic layout. I would even edge towards calling it a bit of a miss fire. The hole is not a bad hole - and to be fair I've never seen the old 16th, for me it's just completely out of context with the rest. It seems to fit in some Florida parkland course. I did a double take just to make sure there were no crocs.

I did like the back right pin position on the hole when we played.

Again just to reiterate, not a bad hole alone, just not fitting at all. Classic course - modern hole IMO.

[Tom Kelly]

I too love the course. Played in June on a perfect day and it was in great shape. Nice and firm.

I don't think I"m as much of a fan of the new 16th as you guys may be. To me it feels really out of place in the classic layout. I would even edge towards calling it a bit of a miss fire. The hole is not a bad hole - and to be fair I've never seen the old 16th, for me it's just completely out of context with the rest. It seems to fit in some Florida parkland course. I did a double take just to make sure there were no crocs.

I did like the back right pin position on the hole when we played.

Again just to reiterate, not a bad hole alone, just not fitting at all. Classic course - modern hole IMO.

If it was dead ground instead of water would you still feel the same?

It is an improvement on the old hole imo.

[Adam Lawrence]

I too love the course. Played in June on a perfect day and it was in great shape. Nice and firm.

I don't think I"m as much of a fan of the new 16th as you guys may be. To me it feels really out of place in the classic layout. I would even edge towards calling it a bit of a miss fire. The hole is not a bad hole - and to be fair I've never seen the old 16th, for me it's just completely out of context with the rest. It seems to fit in some Florida parkland course. I did a double take just to make sure there were no crocs.

I did like the back right pin position on the hole when we played.

Again just to reiterate, not a bad hole alone, just not fitting at all. Classic course - modern hole IMO.

If you've seen the new sixteenth, you've seen the old one - the green is still there, on the right of the pond (which was built around a hundred years ago btw).

[David Davis]

I too love the course. Played in June on a perfect day and it was in great shape. Nice and firm.

I don't think I"m as much of a fan of the new 16th as you guys may be. To me it feels really out of place in the classic layout. I would even edge towards calling it a bit of a miss fire. The hole is not a bad hole - and to be fair I've never seen the old 16th, for me it's just completely out of context with the rest. It seems to fit in some Florida parkland course. I did a double take just to make sure there were no crocs.

I did like the back right pin position on the hole when we played.

Again just to reiterate, not a bad hole alone, just not fitting at all. Classic course - modern hole IMO.

If it was dead ground instead of water would you still feel the same?

It is an improvement on the old hole imo.

Tom, I think the answer is yes. It's not only the water, look at the bunkering and more specifically the number of bunkers also the green, to me it's just out of context.

Again I think the hole is fine. I just don't think it fits there. I guess I'm alone in this or not enough people have seen it.

[Noel Freeman]

I too love the course. Played in June on a perfect day and it was in great shape. Nice and firm.

I don't think I"m as much of a fan of the new 16th as you guys may be. To me it feels really out of place in the classic layout. I would even edge towards calling it a bit of a miss fire. The hole is not a bad hole - and to be fair I've never seen the old 16th, for me it's just completely out of context with the rest. It seems to fit in some Florida parkland course. I did a double take just to make sure there were no crocs.

I did like the back right pin position on the hole when we played.


Again just to reiterate, not a bad hole alone, just not fitting at all. Classic course - modern hole IMO.

If it was dead ground instead of water would you still feel the same?

It is an improvement on the old hole imo.

Tom, I think the answer is yes. It's not only the water, look at the bunkering and more specifically the number of bunkers also the green, to me it's just out of context.

Again I think the hole is fine. I just don't think it fits there. I guess I'm alone in this or not enough people have seen it.

I thought the bunker scheme worked fine in conjunction with the green site.. The front bunker is short so you can carry it and still bump it in. The other thing is that the shot is an 8 or 9 iron so the green is pinched in for a wayward shot.. I see it as finely suiting.. Just b/c the angle of the pond has changed does not make it a Floridian style one anymore than the original incarnation was..  The shot value is harder with the new one from my 1st play.

[Paul_Turner]

Noel

Mate! I haven't played the new green,  but it doesn't look like it fits in at all!   The way it's all pushed up from the surrounding flat ground (back of green, up the tree trunks).  

The old green blends in much better with its gradual rise up to the two trees at the back.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Paul,

This is how these sorts of change start -- the first effort sets up the second effort and pretty soon you're far from home with no path back.

[Sean_A]

Much ado over nothing?  Its a water hole, nothing special.  Hopefully not too much effort was put into the bunkers when drainage was the real issue.  To me, if the hole doesn't play drier the work was a waste.  That said, the bunkering does seem to suggest that the design is to mitigate the effectiveness of the water.  The same thing seems to be the case with the 6th.  I am puzzled as to why the water isn't better used as a hazard in both cases, but I am especially disappointed with #6. 

Ciao

[Tom Kelly]

Much ado over nothing?  Its a water hole, nothing special.  Hopefully not too much effort was put into the bunkers when drainage was the real issue.  To me, if the hole doesn't play drier the work was a waste.  That said, the bunkering does seem to suggest that the design is to mitigate the effectiveness of the water.  The same thing seems to be the case with the 6th.  I am puzzled as to why the water isn't better used as a hazard in both cases, but I am especially disappointed with #6. 

Ciao

I think whatever was designed and built the water was always going to be a problem. If the water is used as a hazard some would say it is in play too much and out of character with a 'true' heathland course, yet if it not in play as much your point of view is aired. It's a rock and a hard place.

I personally think it has been done well. I was slightly sceptical at first but I think the green is great fun and in keeping with the style at Woking, whilst the water has been used well to be a factor on the hole but without overly effecting play. The green is maybe slightly more raised than it would ideally be but that is more than likely down to drainage issues and the main reason for the hole being built in the first place, as well as the ponds existence.

[Ally Mcintosh]

the water has been used well to be a factor on the hole but without overly effecting play.

This would be my opinion.

[Tom Kelly]

I think whatever was designed and built the water was always going to be a problem. If the water is used as a hazard some would say it is in play too much and out of character with a 'true' heathland course, yet if it not in play as much your point of view is aired. It's a rock and a hard place.

I agree with this sentiment. They made the best of a bad lot and the fact that the water does not get anywhere near to the green renders it more or less incidental and so the hole has about as much of a Heathland style as it possibly could have given the land they were working with. I have no issue, per se, with a green being "out of character" if it's actually a good green - plus it's a very small green so it gives Tim Carte Blanche to design something interesting, which he did. My biggest objection is the long walk back it has necessitated. That will kill my buzz a lot quicker than the character of the hole...

As well as the drainage issues there were some H&S concerns with the old green and the road, hence the new green being moved away from that side which leads to the walk so another best of a bad situation one. Also keeping the old green meant the members didn't have to play to a temp green or just play 17 holes whilst it grew in, which was a bonus.

[Sean_A]

I guess I take the opposite view. If water (and in the case of Woking it isn't much) is there, why not embrace it as part of the design rather than trying to take it out of play?  St Georges Hill does the same thing on their water hole - its a dreadful hole.  Its strange that Woking should embrace the OOB on #4, yet shy away from using the water well on 6 and 16. 

Sheehy, I dislike walk backs as well, but I don't think 17 is better served as a shorter par 4.  The fall-away green is perfect for a longer approach.  If it was a flip wedge the quality of the green would be negated.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I guess I take the opposite view. If water (and in the case of Woking it isn't much) is there, why not embrace it as part of the design rather than trying to take it out of play?  St Georges Hill does the same thing on their water hole - its a dreadful hole.  Its strange that Woking should embrace the OOB on #4, yet shy away from using the water well on 6 and 16. 

Because a green placed hard against a pond looks like either:

a) the pond was placed to suit the green
b) the green was placed to suit the pond

Whereas a green and pond slight dislocated from each other - more often than not - looks like:

a) both sit naturally in to the landscape

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

Which is the water hole st SGH?  The 9th?  Why do you think it's dreadful?

[Sean_A]

I guess I take the opposite view. If water (and in the case of Woking it isn't much) is there, why not embrace it as part of the design rather than trying to take it out of play?  St Georges Hill does the same thing on their water hole - its a dreadful hole.  Its strange that Woking should embrace the OOB on #4, yet shy away from using the water well on 6 and 16.  

Because a green placed hard against a pond looks like either:

a) the pond was placed to suit the green
b) the green was placed to suit the pond

Whereas a green and pond slight dislocated from each other - more often than not - looks like:

a) both sit naturally in to the landscape

With pits of sand as the divider?  Thats a new one on me.

Mark - #14.  I can't understand why the water isn't better used.  As it is now, a duff goes in the water...not good design imo.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Lest us not forget, ponds are placed at low points... Greens generally aren't...

[Mark Pearce]

I thought the 14th was a good hole.  The pond catches a duff but also makes you think a bit about the shape of shot you want to play.  The water didn't seem out of place in any way, lots of heathland courses have small ponds around (Swinley on the 5th, for instance).

[Mark Bourgeois]

No! The 14th at SGH is a "whore in church" hole. Golf holes should not have life preservers on them.

[Sean_A]

Mark, Sean is referring to the 14th - a little pond short right  which is really out of place but ultimately inoffensive Sean? It may catch the occasional really short block but is largely out of play. I'd be glad to see the back of it mind you. I think the green itself makes the 14th a solid par 3 - plus it's pretty.

Sheehy

If inoffensive is the best you can come up with for a course the stature of SGH, then something has gone wrong.  I don't find the hole visually appealing either.  It just looks a bit of a mess, connector hole.  

Ciao

[Josh Stevens]

It was always the boggiest part of the course, so no surprise they have lifted it up.  It also from memory had some shading issues that didn't help.

Still, not sure they didn't bring the pond into play, there is a pond very much in play on the 18th so there is precedent

[RichMacafee]

I've seen the new 16th at Woking and I think it looks pretty natural in that setting personally.

I do think the green has one or two too many bunkers though. Given how many great single bunker greens there are at Woking, and how effectively the single bunker affects strategy on those holes, I think that's a style they could have emulated.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()