Sitwell Park

[Andy Levett]

Sitwell Park (1913) in South Yorkshire was the first course Dr Alister MacKenzie built for a private client rather than for a committee and for this reason, says Tom Doak in his MacKenzie biography, was the first time the doctor had the “money and freedom to let his ideas run wild”.

Unfortunately those ideas – particularly some steeply contoured greens – were a little too wild for the tastes of the time and the client, the eccentric baronet Sir George Sitwell, ordered the greens flattened, making the course dull according to a disgusted MacKenzie.

So Sitwell Park  is an interesting footnote, at least, in the story of golf architecture – and one many have heard of but few seem to have played. I was curious to see what remained and after some encouragement on this board from Toms Doak and Paul made the trip yesterday.

The famous historic picture is of the 18th green. My interest was first piqued when I  saw a version of it in Geoff Shackelford’s Masters of the Links and it also appears in Tom Doak’s excellent MacK biography (but incorrectly captioned '140-yard short hole').





And this is  the hole today in close-up and another where I combined 2 shots after  realising  back home none of the ones I took showed the whole area of the old green:








So the current green is just the top shelf, with some of the slopes in front intact but maintained as fairway. As for the hollow where the caddie is standing with the flag in the old pic I’m really not sure, though my best guess is that big tree is there now. I have to point out that without knowing what was there before you would say the current green is fine – the pic below doesn’t really show the milder but tricky slopes that still exist.





MacK's  bunkers are a big loss – just that uninspiring oval thing is there now, which is the style throughout the course.

One real curiosity on the 18th is the hazard crossing the fairway, which would have been old-fashioned even back in 1913. I wonder if an irate Sir George had it put in - as the sort of thing one found on what he considered a ‘proper’ golf course? Here it is…





I’m curious which of the short holes was the notorious 140yarder. I did pics of all of them, all greens mild rather than wild. This one, the 5th,  is my guess – it just looks like someone flattened an amazing putting  surface  on an inspiring green site. I can post the others if anyone is interested.





Having said all that, Sitwell Park is still a good course. The greens and bunkers may have gone but it is still a MacKenzie routing on a good though not outstanding site.

The site slopes down from the clubhouse, in the bottom corner very steeply so that the parallel 15 and 16, for example, look very similar from overhead but play completely differently – 15 a tough slog uphill, 16 an appealing hit-and-hope blind second. A study of the card suggest many of the holes are very similar – all the 3s between 167 and 188 from the back, most of the 4s either very short or very long, but in reality all are different and most are memorable.

The best portion of the site is the run of 4,5,6,7 where MacKenzie makes the most of extremely undulating wooded ground. Here’s the downhill 4th – just 275yards but do you dare go for it? And if you are going to bail out how and where?  





We were short of time both before and after the round so didn’t have the chance to seek out and talk to anyone who knew about the history of the course (if indeed there was anyone there). But my gut feeling is that Sitwell Park has actually not changed that much over the years, with the crucial  exceptions of the greens and bunkers.

It could probably be restored to MacKenzie’s vision, at a price, but that of course is a matter for the members.

[Tom_Doak]

Andy,

Thanks for your reconaissance mission.

I have always been under the impression that MacKenzie's 18th hole at Sitwell Park was a par-3 of 140 yards, so if that's an error, it wasn't the caption writer's fault.  Are you sure it wasn't played as a par-3 at one time?

The landscaping in back of the green is atrocious, another testament to the taste of the Sitwell Park membership!

[TEPaul]

Andy:

Remember-- I think we asked you to find us one of Sir George Sitwell's grandsons so we could string him up. Did you forget to do that for us? Sir George isn't around anymore and somebody in his family is going to have to pay for what he did to Alister's initial creativeness. These things cannot be allowed to happen, not then, not now--somebody is going to have to be tortured for this!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Andy,
Thanks for posting the photos.

I am amazed anew every time I see a greensite like the one shown in the old photo of Sitwell. It must have been so much fun to play.<--- (There's a novel idea,  )

[Andy Levett]

Tom Doak
I don't know for sure the 18th was never a par 3.
Currently the 17th is a par 3 and the 18th plays 435yards up the hill to the clubhouse parallel with the 1st. The routing would have had to change significantly.
The feeling I got from playing the course and looking at an aerial was that the routing was one thing about the course that hadn't changed. It seemed too good not to be MacKenzie, though of course I could be kidding myself.

Tom Paul
Sir George's descendants are to be found a few miles to the south at Renishaw Hall in Derbyshire but any posse you send out will have to pay to get in as tourists and suffer a tour of Sir George's  gardens before revealing their true purpose.
One thing I just found out - Sir George  is credited as architect of a course himself. It's called Renishaw Park, 6262 yards, par 71.
I had never heard of it but reproduce a capsule review from the UK Golf Today website:
"A course of 2 contrasting nines.Front nine rolling parkland with undulating greens. Back nine much flatter with 4 par 5's. Always in excellent condition with the fastest greens in the area."

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Andy, Great stuff!

The very first picture in Golf Architecture is as stated:

"The 140-yard Short Hole at Sitwell Park: A fiercely criticised green that has become universally popular."

From the looks of it from your great images, it looks to be the site of the 18th, with the bunker slopes cut down as well as the ingenious green contours. Much of the work looks eeriely similar to Pitreavie, another Mac course that has probably met the knife more times then known. What a shame!

[JohnV]

I love the look of this green and am sorry that it is gone.  Has any modern green come closer to this than the 17th at Bandon?  When I first saw that green, I immediately thought of this picture.  Probably not quite as severe, but close in concept.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Looking at the photos, I think I may have discovered what is left of the original crestline, back of the green. I hvea placed a vry light red "X" on what I think are two, still exisiting trees. Look directly up from that and follow the crest, and it looks pretty close. Andy, you did a pretty decent job of getting the image close to the spot where it was taken, and given the difference in aspect of the lenses of both cameras, and of both pictures, it looks to me that the original green was knocked down, flattened out and the remainder used for fill in the front right.

Looking at the image of the current hole from the tee, you can see that there is quite a massive movement and tie-in, from the right bunke, and further right, softening the hill. This could be further proof of a MacKenzie-trait that I know of, where he would make a uphill target seem downhill through deception.

If indeed that was it, Hopefully Tom can comment if this is correct or not, it seems like it was quite a task for that day--construction wise.

[Andy Levett]

Tommy
My pics flatten the contours. When you are actually there you are in no doubt it is an uphill target (though I did come up short with what I thought was a good approach). The bunker  short of the green that's gone now would also decieve the eye I guess.

The green is also much more obviously THAT green when you see it in person. While we were playing the course I was expecting it to be one of the par threes but when we got to the tenth tee, which is close to the 18th, it really jumped out at me.

It looks from my pics like the big slopes leading up from the centre foreground to the back level are much tamer now but they actually seemed pretty much the same on the ground.  As I said, it's a fault of my images so I've started a thread asking for advice on taking better pictures for next time.

Cheers