Glorious GOSWICK: 2023-24 Winter Tour

[Ally Mcintosh]

Looking at these last few posts, let me ask a question:


- How does making the 18th a par-3 eradicate the original problem, namely the internal OOB on 1?


The only way you can do that - whilst leaving the 9th - is to either relocate the 17th green (not desirable) or reorientate the 18th by walking off left of 17 and playing to 18 from a completely different angle.

[Simon Barrington]

Played it for the first time this year and was really impressed, a club clearly doing well (as the installation of M&Es favourite wide grass irrigated paths attests too).

In terms of the routing and issues around the Clubhouse area, it must be that the near 500 yard long practice area must be leased, otherwise why not use that land in some way?

One solution to the internal OOB, congestion etc. is:

- Add the new short drop-down Par-3 from tees to the right and above/over the 6th Green (retaining that) into the corner adding a new green built behind the current 7th Tees.

 - Add new tees to the right of the current 8th green (using or just in front of current 9th tees) and play from there (immediately) after that hole to the current 1st green (a much straighter hole)

- Then play the current 18th immediately after this (straightened) current 1st (better transistion and flow versus walk from current 17th)

- Remove the current 9th from the routing, but keep as practice chipping/pitching area & current 1st tees could be integrated into that.


Then renumber/order the holes as follows:

1st < Start at current 10th
2nd-8th < The current 11th through 17th
9th < Current 2nd (better flow)
10th-13th < Current 3rd through to 6th
14th < New Par 3
15th & 16th < Current 7th & 8th
17th < Current 1st (straightened from tees right of current 8th Green near current 9th tees)
18th < Current 18th (Can be played either as now as short 4, or Par 3)

The flow greens-to-tees would be far better, and can lose the internal OOB on current "forced dog-leg" 1st (as well as the "protective" copse if desired)

The only small downside to that solution is the two "halves" would be split 8 Holes North/10 Holes South of Road, as they are now physically but not in numbering.

The second starting point would be up the road a little at the 9th (Par 3, current 2nd).
But it's not at all unusual for older courses not to be even split, and small price for the advantages.

Cheers

[Mark Pearce]

That's an interesting suggestion, Simon, and does sort of make sense.  Though the current 10th would be a brutally hard opener.


Ally, I think you're making the same point about making 18 a par 3 that I made - if anything, that would make the internal OoB even more necessary.


As to the practice ground, I *think* the club owns it but it is as flat as a pancake and the land to the East is such great land that moving holes from that land to the flat land would be a retrograde step, in my opinion.  It's not that there isn't land to do something about the area around the clubhouse, it's knowing what to do without losing some of the better holes.

[Simon Barrington]

That's an interesting suggestion, Simon, and does sort of make sense.  Though the current 10th would be a brutally hard opener.

Ally, I think you're making the same point about making 18 a par 3 that I made - if anything, that would make the internal OoB even more necessary.

As to the practice ground, I *think* the club owns it but it is as flat as a pancake and the land to the East is such great land that moving holes from that land to the flat land would be a retrograde step, in my opinion.  It's not that there isn't land to do something about the area around the clubhouse, it's knowing what to do without losing some of the better holes.

Thanks.

I would guess scoring on both current 1st and 10th are pretty similar, they have very different challenges.

But if wanting a touch of easing on current 10th as an opener, having said that I'm peronally agnostic on the "gentle handshake" theory, then could play from across the road as a medium 4, rather than 420 from backs.


You are right, the forward (as Par 3) tees on current 18th are more in danger from bombers off the current 1st tee, hence OOB required even more if shortened.

The current 18th short Par 4 a "gettable" 268 yards is quite a challenge, much more claustrophobic in terms of greenside protection than the rest of the course (but probably numbers of bunkers have fallen elsewhere?) it's a genuine question as a finishing hole, gamble, stick or twist. It's not even an easy pitch if laying up, so I like it as a determining hole (of card or match). Hence keeping it as that in my suggestion.


Yes the practice is flat as flat can be, so would be play from rather than play towards it, if needed.


It's a fine stretch of golf up there, certainly on my list for a return visit.
Dunstanburgh Castle I really enjoyed, some really clever understated holes, and Bamburgh Castle great fun & views.
Need to try out Alnmouth Village, Warkworth & Newbiggin on the way up I'm told.
Eyemouth, Magdelene Fields & Seahouses apparently have some features well worth a visit too.

Cheers

[Sean_A]

Played it for the first time this year and was really impressed, a club clearly doing well (as the installation of M&Es favourite wide grass irrigated paths attests too).

In terms of the routing and issues around the Clubhouse area, it must be that the near 500 yard long practice area must be leased, otherwise why not use that land in some way?

One solution to the internal OOB, congestion etc. is:

- Add the new short drop-down Par-3 from tees to the right and above/over the 6th Green (retaining that) into the corner adding a new green built behind the current 7th Tees.

 - Add new tees to the right of the current 8th green (using or just in front of current 9th tees) and play from there (immediately) after that hole to the current 1st green (a much straighter hole)

- Then play the current 18th immediately after this (straightened) current 1st (better transistion and flow versus walk from current 17th)

- Remove the current 9th from the routing, but keep as practice chipping/pitching area & current 1st tees could be integrated into that.


Then renumber/order the holes as follows:

1st < Start at current 10th
2nd-8th < The current 11th through 17th
9th < Current 2nd (better flow)
10th-13th < Current 3rd through to 6th
14th < New Par 3
15th & 16th < Current 7th & 8th
17th < Current 1st (straightened from tees right of current 8th Green near current 9th tees)
18th < Current 18th (Can be played either as now as short 4, or Par 3)

The flow greens-to-tees would be far better, and can lose the internal OOB on current "forced dog-leg" 1st (as well as the "protective" copse if desired)

The only small downside to that solution is the two "halves" would be split 8 Holes North/10 Holes South of Road, as they are now physically but not in numbering.

The second starting point would be up the road a little at the 9th (Par 3, current 2nd).
But it's not at all unusual for older courses not to be even split, and small price for the advantages.

Cheers

Thanks Simon

I recall a member talking about this alternative in the house over a drink. It seemed to be already dismissed because of the loss of an easy two tee start. It is interesting that I have seen people play 17 to 2 while we were on 3 tee. So folks are definitely starting on 10 and then skipping 1 & 18 if there is no space to jump in on 1 then come back down 18. Not a bad solution if short of time.

It would be fairly easy to move the 18th tee near the 17th green to create a different angle par 3. Unless you are long, loads of players lay up on 18 and then play it as essentially a par 3 anyway. Never cared for 18 as a par 4 with its current bunker configuration.


Eyemouth is terrible.

Ciao

[Simon Barrington]

Thanks Simon
I recall a member talking about this alternative in the house over a drink. It seemed to be already dismissed because of the loss of an easy two tee start. It is interesting that I have seen people play 17 to 2 while we were on 3 tee. So folks are definitely starting on 10 and then skipping 1 & 18 if there is no space to jump in on 1 then come back down 18. Not a bad solution if short of time.

It would be fairly easy to move the 18th tee near the 17th green to create a different angle par 3. Unless you are long, loads of players lay up on 18 and then play it as essentially a par 3 anyway. Never cared for 18 as a par 4 with its current bunker configuration.

Eyemouth is terrible.
Ciao

Thanks for saving me a trip to Eyemouth!
On reviewing an on-line video it looks a 1-hole wonder (or should I say "calendar" hole)...I'll have to have words with the person who recommended it!

I think what you observed from player behaviour (small sample of course) is interesting, and example of humans finding the most natural way (as per the recent path/strategy post on here). It makes me think I might be onto something logical.

Of course Par is somewhat an arbitrary concept, at 268yds some might say it's a "Par 3", but "Bogey 4" in the old sense, anyway, but it is a very tight long shot for sure.

Even though the Goswick scorecard apparently makes more of Par than (the absent) yardage!

My view is somewhat informed by one of our group shaping their tee-shot to only 8 feet behind the flag from the rear tee, threading it past the surrounding bunkers. Then others trying and failing (badly)

I thought the intrigue of the longer player being both tempted and so challenged in this day and age (and that if they failed it could easily result in Bogey or Double Bogey depending on which greenside bunker they may have found next time) was unusual/rare. To have that on the last when mental fortitude is most required makes it even more interesting IMHO.

There is already a forward tee playing at c.140yds in the area you describe, beyond the exposed sand depression, and one further back at c.200 yds nearer the line of the 17th Green.

I agree the design of bunkering is very akin to Braid's preference on the shortest of one-shot holes (many examples still exist in that vein).

As per "Advanced Golf" (1908):

"First of all take the very shortest hole, such a one that of 120 yards which was mentioned in the last chapter.
By far the best way of making this hole as good and difficult as it ought to be, is by placing a small green in the centre of a nest of pot bunkers completely surrounding it...
...But the passage of admission to the green should be very narrow, and should be flanked on either side by bunkers that would be certain to catch the ball that was not quite straight. An opening of twelve yards' width is quite sufficient...
...On either side of it there should be large pot bunkers touching its very edge, and beyond it there should be a series of smaller pots reaching almost the whole way round."

As you say the effective lay-up for most creates the shortest of approaches anyway, but I quite like that there is enough jeopardy from the current 268 yardge to tempt the modern player into big mistakes. Make it longer and they won't even try, make it shorter and the differing utility (upside versus laying up as most will do) disappears.

Even though that may not have been the intention of lengthening (if that is what occured over the years?) perhaps it was to chase yardage or more likely to avoid players having to stand and tee-off from a "killing zone" from the 1st tee?

So, I do like the resulting and unusual challenge, but for general play perhaps the Par 3 is preferable...(if they have changed the line of the current 1st that is)

Cheers

[Sean_A]

Simon

There is definitely no bang for the walk back so far as I am concerned. It’s a hole purely for guys who can carry the bunkers, which is what…250ish? But then I don’t like the bunker scheme for a 3 or a short 4…it’s a lot of sand for one dimensional use. For mine, 18 is one of Goswick’s weakest holes and I am usually a big fan of short 4s. We shall have to agree to disagree on the merits of 18.

Ciao

[Simon Barrington]

Simon

There is definitely no bang for the walk back so far as I am concerned. It’s a hole purely for guys who can carry the bunkers, which is what…250ish? But then I don’t like the bunker scheme for a 3 or a short 4…it’s a lot of sand for one dimensional use. For mine, 18 is one of Goswick’s weakest holes and I am usually a big fan of short 4s. We shall have to agree to disagree on the merits of 18.

Ciao

Hello Sean,

As per my previous post:

"So, I do like the resulting and unusual challenge, but for general play perhaps the Par 3 is preferable...(if they have changed the line of the current 1st that is)"

For general play a short hole c.140y is the right approach, but ONLY if they have tweaked the current 1st so these teeing grounds are no longer in danger.

It is a strong short one-shotter with the surrounding hazards, James Braid was not averse to severity on the shortest hole on his courses as a test. It was most likely designed as such by Braid, the hole certainly fits his style for such a hole and usage elsewhere.

But when they have higher ability events, including the Open Qualifying there's nothing wrong in retaining the the option of a longer but drivable hole as a closing challenge (and who cares whether they call it a "Par 4" or "Par 3" as those descriptions are merely arbitrary benchmarks anyway)

Overall the congestion in this area is caused by a historic loss of land (& holes) and only additional land can really solve all their issues, if they own the huge practice field then perhaps M&E can get shaping that into a more interesting landscape?

Cheers