DeVries at Sunningdale - hole 5 (pics)

[Michael J. Moss]

As promised, some images of our three renovated holes at Sunningdale. The motivation to finally do so is the neighboring thread that discusses the Kingsley Club's ratings anomaly, which to me has been really interesting. So as one who likes Mike's 9th at Kingsley - as well as Dornoch's 2nd, as pointed out by Michael Whitaker - I present the new 5th at Sunningdale. (360 yards from back tees, 330 yds. from members' tees.)

View from members' tee. Twin bunkers on right are on diagonal and are 245- 275 yds. From the back tee (approximately). Fairway drops down from ridge, so image makes hole appear foreshortened. Left greenside bunker not visible, but it's there! Two of three putting quadrants open up from right.



View of 5th green from approach area of 7th green. Side view – approach to green is from the right, so greenside bunker in view is the left one. Image shows the green’s 3-prong configuration (boomerang variant). Flag stick is back right.



View from the 6th hole women’s’ tee. Opposite view from last image. Play is now from the left so greenside bunker on right is the larger of the two. Note the large ridge separating each quadrant. Front pin area is easiest. Ridge allows player to curve putt from each area and backstop ball, etc.





Just a taste. More to follow after some downloading, uploading and other fun activities.

[Michael J. Moss]

Slightly closer up...

[Michael J. Moss]

...also, view of 7th green from 5th green - very foreshortened.

[Adam Clayman]

Exquisite !

Mahzel Tov to all the chavareem.

[Bill_McBride]

With the shorts but no long sox, I'm guessing this isn't the Sunningdale outside London UK!

But what is the ancient looking structure?  Where is this course with the good looking holes?

Thanks.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

This Sunningdale is in Scarsdale, NY.

When I played there recently, my approach shot landed in the left greenside bunker. Luckily the pin placement was up front and my bunker shot was good enough to save par. If the pin had been where it was in Mike's picture, I would have had to carry that buried elephant in the green.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36798.0/

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,25046.0/

[Steve Lapper]

Michael,

   Having just played there this past weekend for the first time since the 1970s, I was thrilled to see both the restoration and renovation of a club that left me with fond memories. Back in my high school days, I'd played two of my most memorable matches over on Underhill Rd and always had a fondness for the place (and it's great split hot-dogs at the shack!) You and membership should be rightfully proud of successfully navigating the club into the 21st Century.

   That said, the 5th hole left me a bit perplexed and my assessment was tame relative to others. My member hosts downright despised it. The caddies issued fearful warnings and the member foursome in front of us departed the green shaking their heads furiously in unison. Walking down the fairway, before seeing the green, I innocently postured that a short and strategic four-par is a charming feature of character and style!

   While I ALWAYS look forward to a challenging short four par (and made an extraordinary par* that day), I too walked off the green thinking that this hole was inconsistently difficult and unyielding. For us, the pin was in the far left "finger" quadrant and thus very, very difficult to approach from anything other than an attack-style 270+yd tee shot steered fearfully over the right fairway bunkers. Anyone unable to make such a shot was left with a very, very,very slim chance of making par and a highly elevated chance of bogey (even with near any decent tee shot in the fairway).

   The green is certainly of interesting shape and form, but also unquestionably difficult to hold when maintained at firmness and speed comparable to the other 17. Surely, the chipping area over the back helps, but the narrowness of the side (especially the left) "fingers" make recovery shots way too difficult for most all levels of amateurs (making those like Riveria's #10 or Oakmont's #17 seem enormous!!).

   I laude the bold and adventurous style of Mike DeVries work here and as stated before, think the entirety of the job is a huge, huge win, but I just couldn't get that hole out of my head and after listening to a group of members (inc. two single-digits) moan about it, I'd have to agree it is just a tad too harsh for what was intended to be strategic, fun, and potentially rewarding. Btw...I loved the work on 11 and the connected tee to 15.



* 260yd drive center of fairway, lob wedge to just over back of the green, chip to center (20 feet away from pinned finger)....bomb putt!

[Tyler Kearns]

Michael,

Once again, DeVries has come up with an intriguing green complex that demands some serious precision. My question revolves around the back tongue of the green, which appears to run away from the player on the approach. Can putts from the front tongue to the back tongue stay on the green with reasonable touch, or does one need a Crenshaw-esque stroke?

TK

[David Stamm]

Michael, are there more pics forthcoming?

[Mike_DeVries]

Michael,

   Having just played there this past weekend for the first time since the 1970s, I was thrilled to see both the restoration and renovation of a club that left me with fond memories. Back in my high school days, I'd played two of my most memorable matches over on Underhill Rd and always had a fondness for the place (and it's great split hot-dogs at the shack!) You and membership should be rightfully proud of successfully navigating the club into the 21st Century.

   That said, the 5th hole left me a bit perplexed and my assessment was tame relative to others. My member hosts downright despised it. The caddies issued fearful warnings and the member foursome in front of us departed the green shaking their heads furiously in unison. Walking down the fairway, before seeing the green, I innocently postured that a short and strategic four-par is a charming feature of character and style!

   While I ALWAYS look forward to a challenging short four par (and made an extraordinary par* that day), I too walked off the green thinking that this hole was inconsistently difficult and unyielding. For us, the pin was in the far left "finger" quadrant and thus very, very difficult to approach from anything other than an attack-style 270+yd tee shot steered fearfully over the right fairway bunkers. Anyone unable to make such a shot was left with a very, very,very slim chance of making par and a highly elevated chance of bogey (even with near any decent tee shot in the fairway).

   The green is certainly of interesting shape and form, but also unquestionably difficult to hold when maintained at firmness and speed comparable to the other 17. Surely, the chipping area over the back helps, but the narrowness of the side (especially the left) "fingers" make recovery shots way too difficult for most all levels of amateurs (making those like Riveria's #10 or Oakmont's #17 seem enormous!!).

   I laude the bold and adventurous style of Mike DeVries work here and as stated before, think the entirety of the job is a huge, huge win, but I just couldn't get that hole out of my head and after listening to a group of members (inc. two single-digits) moan about it, I'd have to agree it is just a tad too harsh for what was intended to be strategic, fun, and potentially rewarding. Btw...I loved the work on 11 and the connected tee to 15.



* 260yd drive center of fairway, lob wedge to just over back of the green, chip to center (20 feet away from pinned finger)....bomb putt!

Steve,

Many thanks for your thoughts and sincere expression on the 5th.  There were many discussions with various factions when we were building the green but it has still been an item of debate.  I am sorry to hear that the members and caddies already were dissing it before you got to see it for yourself. 

The individual targets are very small and difficult to hit if you fire directly at them.  The front lobe is much easier to acquire and putts over the ridge to the other sections are certainly doable.  I think because the players have a short iron in their hand, they feel compelled to attack the pin directly and think it should be easy.  Visually the left lobe is very deceptive, as the bunker and ridge on the green don’t provide a good clear definition of where to land the ball on the flat portion of the green – you actually have to aim left of the pin to do so and that looks like death from the fairway.  Hence, players aim at the flag and it hits the downslope and goes over into the shaved fairway cut – the chip back from there has numerous options.

Glad you like the 11th and 15th tee combo.  Ironically, we expanded the 11th green surface considerably when we redid that 2 years ago and there was considerable griping that I made it too easy (it is also a short par 4 of 330 yards).  Maybe I went too far the other way with #5?

BTW, how did you like the 6th and 7th holes from what you remembered before?

Best,
Mike    

[Michael J. Moss]

Closer up. Again, play is from the right. Foreground is the left finger with view of collection area.

Same but with front left bunker in view.


View from directly behind green. Describes drop-off into collection area.

Steve Lapper: I am glad your golfing memories of Sunningdale are good ones.

This green is a departure from what our members are used to, especially when one considers that our golfers are accustomed to playing greens that are basically, with a few exceptions, pancakes, or slightly tilted pancakes. Mike's charge was to add interest to our greens and the five that he renovated or redesigned have been given high marks in customer satisfaction. They are very, very good. That said, our 5th green does raise eyebrows, but I am hopeful that our higher IQ golfers will help explain it's many virtues. All clubs have a strong contingent of "scorecard and pencil" players. They like to take aim, fire, and then go on to the next hole. Mental exercise is not part of their golfing regimen, and now Mike has built a green that pokes them in the eye a bit. But I like gut-check nature of going for the left finger, or any of the quadrants. No second shot to this green will ever be struck with indifference again. One's tempo and grip pressure are affected on a shot that requires true precision with a wedge or sand wedge. But isn't that how the more skilled golfer is identified? And there is a payoff: to execute successfully is thrilling! If the assignment is too daunting, there is always the option of hitting to the front section and then rolling the ball over the ridge. It's not an unreasonable task and very doable. Part of the problem is that our golfers have never had to figure out a hole strategically. Over time they will realize that training the muscles between their ears is almost as important as honing their swing. To me, the 5th green is brilliant.

Photos of hole 6 to come.

[Michael J. Moss]

should have included these...

view of green from center of fairway.
 


pin high right of green
 

[Steve Lapper]

Michael,

   Having just played there this past weekend for the first time since the 1970s, I was thrilled to see both the restoration and renovation of a club that left me with fond memories. Back in my high school days, I'd played two of my most memorable matches over on Underhill Rd and always had a fondness for the place (and it's great split hot-dogs at the shack!) You and membership should be rightfully proud of successfully navigating the club into the 21st Century.

   That said, the 5th hole left me a bit perplexed and my assessment was tame relative to others. My member hosts downright despised it. The caddies issued fearful warnings and the member foursome in front of us departed the green shaking their heads furiously in unison. Walking down the fairway, before seeing the green, I innocently postured that a short and strategic four-par is a charming feature of character and style!

   While I ALWAYS look forward to a challenging short four par (and made an extraordinary par* that day), I too walked off the green thinking that this hole was inconsistently difficult and unyielding. For us, the pin was in the far left "finger" quadrant and thus very, very difficult to approach from anything other than an attack-style 270+yd tee shot steered fearfully over the right fairway bunkers. Anyone unable to make such a shot was left with a very, very,very slim chance of making par and a highly elevated chance of bogey (even with near any decent tee shot in the fairway).

   The green is certainly of interesting shape and form, but also unquestionably difficult to hold when maintained at firmness and speed comparable to the other 17. Surely, the chipping area over the back helps, but the narrowness of the side (especially the left) "fingers" make recovery shots way too difficult for most all levels of amateurs (making those like Riveria's #10 or Oakmont's #17 seem enormous!!).

   I laude the bold and adventurous style of Mike DeVries work here and as stated before, think the entirety of the job is a huge, huge win, but I just couldn't get that hole out of my head and after listening to a group of members (inc. two single-digits) moan about it, I'd have to agree it is just a tad too harsh for what was intended to be strategic, fun, and potentially rewarding. Btw...I loved the work on 11 and the connected tee to 15.



* 260yd drive center of fairway, lob wedge to just over back of the green, chip to center (20 feet away from pinned finger)....bomb putt!

Steve,

Many thanks for your thoughts and sincere expression on the 5th.  There were many discussions with various factions when we were building the green but it has still been an item of debate.  I am sorry to hear that the members and caddies already were dissing it before you got to see it for yourself. 

The individual targets are very small and difficult to hit if you fire directly at them.  The front lobe is much easier to acquire and putts over the ridge to the other sections are certainly doable.  I think because the players have a short iron in their hand, they feel compelled to attack the pin directly and think it should be easy.  Visually the left lobe is very deceptive, as the bunker and ridge on the green don’t provide a good clear definition of where to land the ball on the flat portion of the green – you actually have to aim left of the pin to do so and that looks like death from the fairway.  Hence, players aim at the flag and it hits the downslope and goes over into the shaved fairway cut – the chip back from there has numerous options.

Glad you like the 11th and 15th tee combo.  Ironically, we expanded the 11th green surface considerably when we redid that 2 years ago and there was considerable griping that I made it too easy (it is also a short par 4 of 330 yards).  Maybe I went too far the other way with #5?

BTW, how did you like the 6th and 7th holes from what you remembered before?

Best,
Mike    

Mike,

  Ignore any gripers about 11. It's a perfect example of positive architectural change. Once a blase and benign short four, it's now a visually deceptive and strategically brilliant play that can be wicked fun. As for the 5th, a few days of reflection leaves me believing the hole is creatively important enough to do little, if anything, to for a few years and then (and only then) re-examine the left lobe. Only that area plays unyieldingly difficult and might improve with a wee bit of softening in the future.

  6 was terrific! Good longer par fours should always place a demand premium on solid long-iron/hybrid play. I loved the semi-oblique opening to that hidden green and thought it shined as one of the course's best holes. I think it's an important component of line-of-charm to hide the target while still allowing for a fair play and ample reward to a well-struck shot.

  7 was one of my favorites of your work. A reachable, yet visually imposing, par five, the cross bunkering of the fairway demands a really well-placed and well-struck tee shot(pictures needed). If one is lucky enough to have successfully navigated that first stroke, the second is no party as the severe upslope and wild and tiered green and pit-like front bunker challenge even the best of plans. This is one really fun reachable five! Of course, I'm a bit biased as I had an eagle chance, but alas not-to-be. . I'd be happy playing that hole multiple times to find the different tricks of approach.

  Your work was exemplary and should help elevate Sunningdale to a higher perch in a very golf-rich neighborhood. Between you and Mike Moss, perhaps you guys might even think of publishing an informal tome: "The New & Old Sunningdale!"

[Michael J. Moss]

Recently found "before" pic of 5th green. View is from 6th tee. Notice "attractive" containment mounding surrounding green, a recurrent theme of remaining non-renovated greens. Don't ask me how they got that way.

[Mike_DeVries]

Steve,
Thanks for the thoughts -- much appreciated!

Mike,
Thanks for the posting of the photos!

[Adam Clayman]

Don't ask me how they got that way.

Michael,
 While I know how and who... Don't you think Sunningdale is a great example of lessons to be learned?

How normal above edumacated individuals can make such asinine mistakes when it comes to GCA?

For those not aware, this was an original Raynor that was disfigured almost immediately after a few seasons.

To assume that the East Coast mindset was routinely followed, even when it was in err, is not an over simplification of what actually happened across the country. Is it?

[Michael J. Moss]

Adam Clayman:

By way of a less than timely response, I'm going to cut and paste some commentary from  a 2006 post that talks about Sunningdale's history of membership tampering with their golf course:

The 1926 aerial says a lot about what transpired at Sunningdale. The original Seth Raynor designed course was opened for play in July 1918, but changes were a coming, and by 1926, we can literally see the presence of several design styles. In our less than organized archives, we found a note that went out to the membership dated November, 1920. In it we’re told of the addition of several new greens, some additional tees and bunkers all done “according to the plans of Mr. Travis.” At the time, the golfing experts at Sunningdale found the course deficient in that there were “too many blind shots.” I’m also inclined to agree with Mike (DeVries) who theorizes that Raynor’s course was probably too difficult. Among their remedies, they decided to lift the “Alps” green (number 6) out of the hollow (where the second shot was blind) and move it into view. This, however, shortened the hole some 80 yards and was done post-Travis, around the time when Robert White was being retained “to make any changes that the Green Committee deems necessary.” This last quote goes to the heart of what we see today at Sunningdale: right from the get go, we’ve had a series of decision makers who, like a woman addicted to cosmetic surgery, couldn’t help themselves in trying to “improve” their golf course.

Again, I agree with Mike, in that we have most of Raynor’s intimate original routing on a property with land that moves really well. But like an old hardwood floor that has been sanded too many times, our golf course has had most of the Raynor, Travis and Tillinghast rubbed out by committee. Therefore, there’s no sense in even talking about a restoration, sympathetic renovation, etc. So like the recent thread regarding George and Gil’s soon to be work at Sleepy Hollow, the main charge to our architect is to make our course look like a classic era course again.  I imagine Mike’s work will involve blowing up some green complexes and then starting over and in other cases expanding/reclaiming lost putting surfaces.  In a few cases Mike will be tasked with adding contour to some of the greens where it has mysteriously disappeared.

The real charge to our architect: make Sunningdale a course you’d want to play every day. I'm psyched to have Mike DeVries's involvement and can’t wait to turn him loose!
 
Well, with six holes now complete, there is a big difference between the new holes versus those which haven't been renovated. Among the six renovated greens, four are totally new and greatly, greatly improved. One might say the difference is like comparing chicken salad to chicken...

In terms of lessons lerned: we have finally placed ourselves in the hands of an architect who has the strength not to be led around by the nose. Will this eliminate all sniping and back bench antics - impossible. That happens at all club by members who "ran things better back in their day." But as the current Green Chairman, it's my view that decisions that affect our golf course are not made soley for our current members, but for our future members as well.  We have to position ourselves to make sure we can compete for the avid golfers in our neighborhood and not just cede them to some of our competitors. This was never an explicit policy but something we have slipped into by those who insist "we can never be a championship course, or our course is fine just the way it is, a terrific member's course." This to me is code for I  don't want to spend money, or I prefer an 'executive course' experience.

As this project progresses, and with the help of Mr. DeVries, I am quite confident we will get more than our fair share of prospective members whose decision to join a club is tied at least partly to the quality of their golf course.

Fairway bunker on hole five: This was submitted by an anonymous fan of ours (a clue...Hawk, Shaw. Thanks Adam!)