Sean
I can see your reasons for not changing the 3rd, it is nice and cute where it is. Burnham is the nearest championship course to me and there has always been the 'could it hold the Open' question to us locals. Of course for that it would need to get near to 7000 yards and probably be a 70 par. Even if the other infrastructure is there its not easy to get B & B up to this length, mainly because i think the 1st would need to be shortened to accomadate stands, so yes some of my tee extensions were merely very back tees....but back tees at 4 or 5 holes could really stiffen this course up and i agree with you about the left side of 16 does look a bit of a kharzi, 16 could be better with a rework, the whole in from the right is a bit of a mess and the green might be outside normal limits of fairness.
When the course was reworked as you know the 12th used a simalar tee and drive alligned more up the hill then into the new green. Then 78-c92 the 13th was a short 5, probably 480. I know ive hit a 9 iron second there and also played it where you cant make the gulley. I think they have put the tee back 30 yards in the last 10 years but ive not seen the new one my last round at burnham would have been 1992.
The 14th rework involved the building of a new green on the original site of the old one, the old 14th tee was immediately left of the 15th fairway but woud have been on land that now may be houses or certainly close to it. From the tee you saw half the flagstick. I only ever played the hole in a weekend 72 hole competition and I do not remember the bunkering, but I do remember it was as tough /tougher hole than 17,and def remember it was from the opposite direction, and what you need to remember pre 78 was after the church 12th a further par 4 13th of about 400 yards went roughly the same direction as 12 and 15. There was quite a walk maybe 100 yards from the church green to the old 13th tee. It may be that the old 13th tee is still there behind the church somewhere, you probably will find the leylandii 9they wil be in someones garden) and they were immediatey behind the old 13th green. All in all I think B&B is better for the 78 changes, the old 6th was marginally better than todays although the new 6th is more visible and my opinion may be a minority one. 12 & 13 are better and 13 is a stand out hole. I think 14 could be better, I would have liked a thin fairway toward the right half of the green that offered an option.
Adrian
Burnham is the closest links to where I live - 1.5 hours door to tee. I would love to be a country member there, but they say I live too close - 88 miles when the minimum is 100 miles.
I don't think Burnham could ever dream of making any changes other than a wholesale redesign which would enable an Open to be held there. It doesn't bother me as I would take Burnham over nearly every Open venue any day.
Jeepers! Now you are talking about altering the 16th green! What am I gonna do with you? That is a great green and a prime example of why I don't want anybody messing with Burnham to make it a fairer test for "championship" play. I say let championships go elsewhere. Who needs em?
While I never played the pre-1978 course, I have to believe the current course is better. Though I would have liked to see the old 6th. Having the tee on the ridge to the right of the 5th sounds interesting and I now understand why the fairway was the way it was before the recent changes. There is no question that the current tee shot is awkward and a difficult one to execute.
While I think the current 14th is a cracker, the old one sounds as though it may have been better. I wouldn't mind there being more of a bounce in play off the right dune onto the green, but why quibble eh?
Thanks for explaining the 14th to me. Something doesn't jive with the maps in the club history though. The history details the old 12th going to the left of the church. The 13th, a par 3 going from a point to the right of the old "church" 12th directly toward what are now houses and the 14th going from a point about 140 yards past the old "church" 12th green to a green which is now certainly houses just to the left of the pub out by the maintenance area. There must have been some changes to meet your description between the 1938 course and the 1978 course. Perhaps this is a change Alison made which wasn't well documented. The 14th is the only hole in the architectural history which I haven't been able to fully understand. I would be interested in playing a game and having a bit of a walk with you so you could show me exactly how this part of the course worked.
As I say, no matter how you slice it, Burnham is a great course.
Ciao
Sean, couple of things. Im not actually saying a new 16th green, but there are some ridges that can swing the ball off the front of the green and those ridges are on the upper tier, that ridge 'lessened' would stop that, the ridge in the green I like, although the green is a bit small for pinning but thats a minor critique.
B &B has changed a lot the original Taylor layout hardly has a remaining hole, the course used to use land left of the current 18th, but thats going back some.
Im not sure if you misunderstood my description of the old 6th but the old 6th green is still there intact, when you stand on the 13th tee it is maybe 150 yards immediately to your right. When you played the old 6th you walked left to the 7th tee, in fact the current 7th tees are fairly new and so the hole is played as a dogleg rather than much straighter as pre 78. The newer 6th was formed on completely new land and was opened before the 12th-13th changes, maybe 76, i do not know this for a fact but this might have been the sea in 1938, The sea at burnham was much nearer in the 70s and give it a few more years they might get another loop of nine and be able to make the channel course an 18. Frank Pennink has a picture of the old 6th in his book just the greensite I think. the fairway of the old 6th has largely been destroyed by the creation of the current 13th, but ifyou take a walk from the 13 tee down to the old green you might be able to make out the last 60 yards or so.
The old 14th was no stunner and the new one is not worse, i dont agree with you that 14 is a stunner, clearly for me the weakest par 3 of the set, although the other 3 are magnificent. You mention dont mess with Burnham, but Sean in 1978 it was messed with and the result is at least as good/probably better. Courses evolve and change can often lead to a better course. I dont think for one moment Burnham could hold a modern open, but maybe it could have.
Im looking forward to meeting you in the spring and measuring progress by pints.