Winged Foot East--Shell's WWOG

[Peter_Herreid]

I have been trying to catch as many of these as I can, using TIVO (which is great for watching tournament golf, BTW, live, plausibly live, delayed, or otherwise), and had the pleasure of seeing the DL III-Justin Leonard match from 1998 (?) at Winged Foot East.

A few observations...
1)  Looked like the East has many of the same shot values as the West (from my recollection of the 97 PGA), and many of the green complexes seemed to be similar.  There was only a brief comment that the East is shorter than the West by a fair bit...

Is that true?  Does the West course have any significant different landforms to influence its design, when compared to the East?

2)  It was hard to tell from the telecast, but were the two courses always distinct, with the same 18 holes each currently has?   Or were the 36 holes combined differently at some point in the past?

3)  I loved that there was just that little extra "run-out" on chips and putts that adds that extra 12-18" curl, for example, on the shots pros are so good at now

4)  Would there have been a significant difference in the density of the trees 5 years ago than there might be now?  Those helicopter shots made it look like the courses were densely shrouded in trees, but the ground-level shots didn't reflect that.  There appeared to be playing avenues around and under the trees from the rough...

5)  I have no problem with a "specimen tree" that nuances, but does not necessarily mandate, a way to play a hole.  Winged Foot East, particularly on a couple of shorter par-4's, seemed to have a few wonderfully placed oaks that nuanced the playing to a particular corner of a green/hole location from a particular point in the fairway.

6)  Are there any stylistic differences between the West and East courses that would be of additional interest?

Discuss amongst yourselves....

[Mike Benham]

Peter -

Sorry, I can't respond to any of your questions on WF but I did want to chime and say that these WWOG shows are quite enjoyable.  From Jack Whittaker's monologues, the history of the course and watching 2 players over 18 holes is quite interesting.  

It  is even more fun to watch when it is a course that you have played or walk yourself.  Daly and Couples played at Crosswater (aired a few weeks ago) and I was amazed at some of the shots that they hit ... and how far ...

[Daniel_Wexler]

Peter:

I can tell you that the hole sequencing has never changed-- both routings are as they were on opening day.  Interestingly, while the West has been considered the "longer" course for decades, I recall that some tees had been added to the East prior to that Shell episode, stretching it beyond 6,800 yds.  Once upon a time (1923), the East measured 6,631 yds, the West 6,697.  The West had been lengthened to 6,771 by the time of the 1929 US Open, and it has essentially continued expanding since.

Growing up in the immediate vicinity, I can recall frequently being told that the membership was more or less evenly divided as to which layout they favored.  For me it was always the East, which offered a bit more variety and some truly remarkable green complexes.

I had the opportunity to discuss this subject at length with the late Dave Marr a few years back and at the very least, he certainly enjoyed the East equally to the West.  Citing the severity of a number of green complexes, he said "When you miss a green, the West is a bogey course.  The East is a double bogey course."

Additionally, I mentioned that Tom Doak only rated the East a six, saying that it "is sorely lacking for great holes"-- to which Marr, without a moment's hesitation, replied: "Ask him if he kept score."

He was the greatest.

DW

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Peter,

The east has lived in the shadow of its big brother for years.

Many think that if the west wasn't there, that the east would be rated much higher.

It's an excellent golf course, but doesn't have the tournament pedigree that the west has.

Play it if you can.

[Peter_Herreid]

Thanks to all who've been responding to this topic!

We've had a number of threads over the last couple of years, where we've debated the best 36 hole complexes, but I'm guessing it would not be too much of a stretch to say that Winged Foot-West and East would be the pair that are closest to each other in terms of character and quality, within a single complex.

Winged Foot East looked tantalizing to me, at least on TV, which often numbs the subtleties of many of these older courses.

Perhaps an interesting debate related to a recent topic would be:

If given the chance to play ten rounds at Winged Foot, what would your split be between the West and the East?

I suspect the ratio may well be closer to 5:5, than the Pacific Dunes:Bandon Dunes ratio folks have been tossing out....

Peter

[Paul Richards]

Peter:

First, let me tell you I am a bit biased because WF West is in my Top 5 of American courses.  That being said, I played the East course the following year after first falling in love with the West, and was so stoked to think that the West's little brother would be so similar and many told me that it was as good or better!

Instead, I hate to say, I found it disappointing and a real let-down.  Nothing about it is anywhere as memorable as the Big course.  It's a fine course, in it's own right, but IMHO it doesn't belong anywhere close to where I've seen it on many of the lists.  

To take the other side of your argument, if the East were the only course at Winged Foot, I don't think it would be respected nearly as much as it is now, because I really think that the West course brings it up rather than knocks it down in people's opinion of the place.

Maybe it was all the hype - maybe it's just me - but the three of us that played it were all disappointed with the East.

I'm sure I will get skewered for saying this, but if I was offered the chance again, I would play 10 times on the West and 0 times on the East.

[Matt_Ward]

I am a big fan of WF because it presents real golf and real challenges -- in an INTENSE manner. The West NEVER suffers fools.

The East clearly benefits in having such a "big brother" but I take issue the course is really ont he "lite" site. The greens are very demanding and should you miss with your iron play you'd best be quite nimble in your recoveries because you will be tested.

Paul R:

You must be "smoking" a variation of the same wacki tobaci that Tommy "I am the Emperor" proclaimed during his 10-0 support of rounds of play for Pac over Bandon Dunes. Let me just say that I do believe Pac & Bandon are the better duo over WF / West & East but the margin is closer than the distance between Affirmed and Alydar.

At the East you don't get the major league length that adds to the intensity. The West can maul you faster than any pit bull. The East picks off strokes from people "believing" the course is so much easier. You can get very careless whenever you short side yourself.

I don't doubt the ferocious nature of the West and believe it is like matching wits against Darth Vader. I don't doubt the qualities of the East, but I will admit that having the layout included among the top 50, as it is on many polls, is pushing the qualities a bit much. Still a supreme 36-hole day for any who want to be tested to the max ...

[SPDB]

Although the west is clearly the better of the two, the East course possesses much better terrain and natural features. That is the reason, I presume, why there are some who enjoy playing it more than the West. Although I don't concur in that opinion, I can certainly see the wisdom in it.

[Paul Richards]

Matt:


Maybe you are correct, on second thought.  I'll change it to 9-1.  Better?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Peter, Matt, et. al.,

You have to remember that the West has been worked on extensively since 1959 and that the East has had few, if any amendments over the last 40 years.

Most tournaments on the West are also conducted with par being altered to 70 vis a vis # 9 and # 16, which helped with the TEST reputation

There may be more variety in the holes on the East as well.

Anybody who has played the West in the spring knows how long it really is.

Now that I think of it, I can't remember any substantive changes to the East in the last 40 years other than the tree on # 10 dying.  Can someone list any changes to the golf course ?

[Daniel_Wexler]

Patrick:

Several changes....but perhaps most outside of the 40-year window.

1) Several fairway bunkers -- few even remotely in play by modern standards -- are missing.  Off the top of my head, the 4th, 7th, 9th, 10th and 11th all come quickly to mind.

2) The bunkering around the 3rd green has been somewhat altered (the first hazard on the right is not original).

3) I believe there was once a bunker long of the 4th green (but my evidence is mixed on this point)

4) The 6th green complex has been substantially altered, and the changes were made post-1957.  Surprisingly, only left/back-left bunker is original.  The other three (including the monster on the right) are relatively modern additions.

5) The 17th, of course, is a bit mysterious.  Tilly wrote specifically of greenside sand and several older members and staff have apparently recalled its presence -- but I've got a 1926 aerial in which the green was already sand-free.  Very short-lived, perhaps....

Also, your point about the conversion of #9 and #16 on the West during Majors is well worth remembering.  If the East is played with #2 and #8 similarly transformed, it gains A LOT of teeth.

Also, the variety aspect is, I think, frequently overlooked by those who consider brute difficulty and greatness to somehow be synonymous.  The East has the club's two shortest holes (the 3rd and 13th-- the latter being one of my all-time favorites) and the two longest (the 4th and 12th).  Though I certainly enjoy the West, it's unrelenting difficulty bores me-- at least relative to the variety-laden East.

DW

[TEPaul]

Peter Herreid;

From your first post;

"5)  I have no problem with a "specimen tree" that nuances, but does not necessarily mandate, a way to play a hole.  Winged Foot East, particularly on a couple of shorter par-4's, seemed to have a few wonderfully placed oaks that nuanced the playing to a particular corner of a green/hole location from a particular point in the fairway."

Peter;

The subject of trees and their use in golf architecture has always been controversial, particularly on this website.

However, I think it's very important when considering classic architects and their architecture to consider carefully what they intended to do with trees in their designs. There's no question whatsoever what Tillinghast intended to do with trees in his architecture on certain of his courses.

How do we know that now? Because thankfully, Tillinghast wrote about it and in a great deal of detail. To a lesser degree William Flynn did too.

This is not to say either of them advocated using trees in their designs everywhere but on certain sites (obviously those sites where they found interesting trees) they did use them in their architecture and yes their options and strategies too.

This is not to say that everyone will like what they proposed with their occasional use of trees in their architecture but at the very least those (particularly those who study architecture) should strive to understand what they did and said and intended to do occasionally regarding trees in architecture.

Not to do that seems to me just another indication of lack of respect for a quality architect and what he intended to do. I see it as no real difference, although at the other end of the spectrum, from the opinion of people who propose that trees should be planted all over a golf course where trees were NOT intended to be used in design--like ANGC.

On either end of the spectrum--ie, those who plant up courses where trees were not intended and those who propose removing trees on courses where trees were intended, I see no difference in attitude. Both ends of the spectrum indicate to me that those people are not willing to show an understanding or respect for the thinking of the original architect.

And in the case of the courses mentioned architects Bob Jones/Alister MacKenzie (ANGC) and Tillinghast (Winged Foot) are about in the same boat regarding their reputations and standing in the world of architecture.

And also one will see from Tillinghast's own voluminous writing that occasionally he conceived of golf holes and strategies where trees were meant to be used a bit more than in just a nuancy way. Trees were occasionally used to be the hinging point of real strategies and options not just nuances in those options and strategies.

[Paul Richards]

redanman:

Thanks!  I didn't think that looked right.

It has now been corrected.

[TEPaul]

redanman said:

"There are many trees seen in the 1923 set of photos in the book which are canopied, compared with full, bushy, sometimes spruce and other unplayable evergreen trees in the "Today" set of pictures in my 1984 edition which is much more density than exists today."

A very fine point on your part. There're are a number of things detrimental to fine and beautiful specimen trees that can even be central to golf strategies such as lightening, excessive wind, and stupid people who think all inland courses should look like linksland courses.

While not quite that detrimental to really nice specimen trees stupid trees themselves can still be quite detrimental. There's a big very beautiful one quite far behind #5 at Shinnecock that's now displayed in all its glory that no one has seen from #5 in decades!

So very fine point!

If less than 1000 word posts are too much for you try scanning them but of course you'll miss some nuancy and subtle points.