1st Hole at George Wright

[Brad Sheridan]

Does it exist as it was originally designed? If so it most definitely a 'handshake' opener. Should it be modified and if so, how?

[Pete Blaisdell]

Brad

  I will pass on to you what was told to me by Dan Hurley , former President of the New England GA and Massachusetts GA. Danny passed away on August 25 th and was one one of my best friends. Danny played George Wright many times and we conducted USGA qualifiers on a number of occasions.

  Never could understand why the the teeing area was so large. First off, the teeing area in it's original location was on the other side of the road and to the right. After WW II , THe tee was moved back and enlarged quite abit to accomodate tables and chairs for food and booze for the locals. This is what Danny , Ray Bump and a local named Benny Cissell told me . This was THE public course to play in Boston right from the start, no frills , just fun. The clubgouse, stone and concrete was a WPA project.

  I have always had a dream that if I ever won the lottery , I would put much money possible to make this course what it should be. Great routing, the course is one of the ten undeveloped public courses in the US. IT IS THAT GOOD. . I would not change much , perhaps four or five greens need to be recovered , some tweaks and angles changed and add a few back tees ( there's plenty of room ).

  Anyone who has the opportunity to play GW should. You can see what 's possible.

[Brad Sheridan]

Pete

Thanks for the information. It seems to me that the hole makes much more sense as a dogleg in either direction. It is interesting that the original tee set it up as a dogleg right. Assuming some of the trees weren't there it would make for a much more interesting tee shot. Further, it looks as if there used to be a bunker short left of the green. This would further the interest in that one would need to flirt with the bunkers off the tee or else need to deal with the short left bunker on the approach. I wonder if there is an old aerial to show how it was originally laid out.

[Cliff Hamm]

Pix always help.  One of the US Open worthy clubhouse and 3 of the first hole.  Taken a few years back when they were working on  it, likely for drainage.  Yes, it is weak and does not fit with the course.  On the other hand, are there others that think tree work is needed?

[Keith Durrant]

I always thought the 18th needed lengthening or reworking to make a stronger finish, as well.

Re. the first, could there be an opportunity in bringing the second tee back towards the cluibhouse and making the first hole a par 3,or finding room elsewhere for a par 3, if the second green became the first green as a par 5?

[Amol Yajnik]

The hole is slightly different from the pictures shown above.  They redid the entire fairway and tee boxes last year and it played as a 150 yard par 3 for much of the season.  There are now 2 fairway bunkers on the right side of the hole, and the fairway in the better shape than it had been in the past.  The bunkers help catch a number of balls from slicers that would have ended up in the rough or under the trees near the fencing on the right side of the hole.  FWIW, one would be surprised at how tough that hole plays since there is no place to warm up at GW, there are many "interesting" tee shots on that hole.  If one gets their ball in the fairway on #1, the second shot is pretty straightforward.

Regarding the suggestion of reworking #1 and #2: Work was also done on #2 in the past couple of years to add a new back tee box to add ~30 yards to that hole, as well as a fairway bunker on the right.  #3 had a new back tee box as well that added another 20-30 yards although it is seldom used on most days apart from tournaments, and the 2 bunkers around the green also had some work done to them.  I can't see any big changes to those holes occurring in the future.

Regarding #18: I do wonder if they could put in another tee box closer just behind the 17th green to extend that hole and make it more of a dogleg left.  Right now, a good player can just hit a tight little draw and easily have inside of 150 left for the second shot, there's not a ton of challenge for that type of player.

[Keith Durrant]

Looking at Google Aerial, the 1st still seems to play as a par 4.

Re. the first as a par 4, the strategy options do not seem satisfactory: bunkers and OOB down the right, both off the tee and at the green. One can hit down the left side with impunity and without really impairing your second shot?

[Evan Louden]

I have no problem with George Wright #1. I think it's a good handshake opener with plenty of width off the tee to get one's opening shot in play. On Monday the greens were rolling at what I would consider ideal speed. Just fast enough to make you worry about running putts by the hole too much. With that green speed and #1's decent back to front slope it's no pushover.

For me, the hole that I question is #13. Although I like the hole, I feel like it's totally out of character with the rest of the course. Serpentine fairway with water all down the left. Makes me think Jones not Ross.

~Evan

[Brad Tufts]

Evan...that was a solution to a problem that was likely beyond "stay-in-character" decision.  The original hole was routinely flooded on the left, so a pond was the solution.  Could it have been more elegantly-done?  Perhaps...but there still would have been a pond down the left.

I don't think Hole #1 needs to re-invent the wheel.  They have introduced a couple bunkers and fixed the drainage issue on the meadow that comprises the fairway.  I think #1 was always meant to be a warm up for the real start at #2.

There are some great holes out there, and the slow master plan has reclaimed some features.  It was a big step for GW to host the state publinks a couple years ago...go a few years back and the course was not in good enough shape for the rules of golf to be fairly followed in a state event.

Best par three? #8 in an upset over #17!
Best par four?  Almost too many candidates, but I will go with #5, followed by #9, #12, and #7.
Best par five?  There are only two, and they are neck-and-neck, but I will say #3 over #15 for the tee view.

[Evan Louden]

Brad,

I did hear from my playing partner that drainage was the reason they redid #13 and unfortunately it still doesn't drain that well.  He also told me that someone came in and stole the topsoil while they we're doing the redo and that's why it's still soggy. Not sure I believe that.

#5 is a really great hole. And not a bunker on it.

~Evan

[Keith Durrant]

GW has some thrilling blind tee-shots on the par 4s and par 5s, which makes it stand out from an average course, but the first and last holes could be stronger.

[Amol Yajnik]

As someone that fights a hook, #5 is always my nemesis hole at GW, I just can't tell myself to be content with a shot to the top of the hill and then a 200 yard shot into that green, and missing to the left at the top of the hill usually means a lost golf ball for me.  Still, I see the challenge in the hole and it makes the better player think before they hit their tee shot.

#7 is also a better hole since they redid the tee boxes and were able to move the back tees a little further back.  In years past I used to be able to catch the big downslope off the tee and get the ball all the way to the bottom of the hill and have wedge in, but this year it's been more of a 150-170 yard shot into that green since I can't get my ball to the downslope with the new tee.

It seems like we may need to have a Boston-area meeting at GW sometime next season if there is interest.  I've enjoyed the discussion of my home course on here.

[Richard Hetzel]

George Wright is definitely one of those courses that gets better the more you play it, and I say that with only having played it ONCE. Although the first hole is an easy opener, it's level of difficulty ramps up as soon as you step foot on the 2nd tee.

View of 2nd green, with the par 3 3rd hole in the background.

[Brad Tufts]

I think #5 is a great hole because it forces you to lay up to be in best position to hit a long-to-mid iron down the hill and bounce onto the green.  For a 420 hole, everyone wants to hit driver to chew up as much distance as possible, but it may be more prudent to hit it 220-230 to the top of the hill where the fairway is flat.

#7 is similar really, although the bomber can hit it down the hill, a much easier outcome than a driver putting you in great position on #5.

[Keith Durrant]

That picture is the 3rd green (par 5) with the 4th (par 3) behind.

[Mark McKeever]

That picture is the 3rd green (par 5) with the 4th (par 3) behind.

Agreed.  I thought I was losing my mind.

Mark

[Richard Hetzel]

I don't think Hole #1 needs to re-invent the wheel.  They have introduced a couple bunkers and fixed the drainage issue on the meadow that comprises the fairway.  I think #1 was always meant to be a warm up for the real start at #2.

Brad really sums this up best. Enjoy the simplicity of number one and the gallery watching you tee off there. Once you step on the tee box for number 2 it gets much, much more difficult to say the least. Great golf course.