Wentworth - changes, video and opinions

[Paul_Turner]

I've seen a few old pics of 17 and it was much wider out to the right for the tee shot, so you could look around the dogleg.  Agree that it was never a great hole though. 

On another point, the chipping hollows/swales on 8, 9 and 17  looked straight out of TPC stadium course design.

[Sean_A]

Sean

Yes but I'm not sure that the winning score is the best measure of how difficult the course is.  The winner is a statistical outlier and defined by one player (or just a few tied players) and so vulnerable to random chance i.e  a streaky player or a lackluster final day for a few leaders.

If the course was truly much harder the average score should have shifted up.  With a quick look through the stats it didn't.

Paul

Yes, some folks go for that reasoning, but I disagree.  I prefer to measure a pro course by how the those who competed well shot.  Course toughness is always measured by the winning score and the reason we have seen so many changes to courses to protect par.  If the average scores were used courses would never be altered!  Nobody cares what the losers shot.   

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

I've seen a few old pics of 17 and it was much wider out to the right for the tee shot, so you could look around the dogleg.  Agree that it was never a great hole though. 

On another point, the chipping hollows/swales on 8, 9 and 17  looked straight out of TPC stadium course design.

I think the 9th green complex is an improvement Paul, not too sure on 17, there was always a big dip off to the right but the grass was kept longer. 8 is a mess though, I prefered that bit of buffer on the right, good to help save par but it was never going to help you make a birdie, it was easy to go a bit askew with the tee shot at 8 as it had so many options, so that buffer was nice if you got out of position.

[Brian Phillips]

Great points Adrian, you as well Adam.  Both make common sense and easy to read. Thanks.

[Ben Stephens]

I've seen a few old pics of 17 and it was much wider out to the right for the tee shot, so you could look around the dogleg.  Agree that it was never a great hole though. 

On another point, the chipping hollows/swales on 8, 9 and 17  looked straight out of TPC stadium course design.

I think the 9th green complex is an improvement Paul, not too sure on 17, there was always a big dip off to the right but the grass was kept longer. 8 is a mess though, I prefered that bit of buffer on the right, good to help save par but it was never going to help you make a birdie, it was easy to go a bit askew with the tee shot at 8 as it had so many options, so that buffer was nice if you got out of position.

Adi, I am not sure that the 9th green is an improvement - there have been a number of greens been raised in height in relation to the original - this has created raised fronts which has prevented balls running into the greens which has been a feature of the Old Wentworth. Aesthtically the course has improved but in terms of playability it has got worse in my view as it is now best played by an aerial game meaning the low running shot is not a viable option.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ben - Actually I have not seen 9 properly. As I remember it was in a hollow before and a bit invisible unless you were sub 150, I assumed from the pics I saw and TV this one had only come up a metre so the ball would run on.

[Jason Sloan]

Adam, of course I don’t think Ernie drew the plans for the greens, however, he was the one that was questioned because of the design (unless I missed the links to the interviews with Greg Letsche?).  If Ernie (or any member of his design team) would have been able to clearly articulate to Richard Caring how he could have his exciting “bit of theatre” on the 18th hole without diminishing, but even enhancing the strategy of the hole, he wouldn’t have to try to defend a design he knew was less than great.  I believe the ability to articulate to a client why one design iteration works better than another design iteration is an integral role of the architect.  In other words, the architect should be able to get the client to see past just what the design will look like (the pretty picture) and get them to understand how the design works from a golf course architecture point of view (strategy etc.).  Any good architect should be able to accomplish both the “pretty picture” and a golf course that is demanding and thought-provoking for the golfer in their designs.  If the architect exhibits their expertise to the client properly, the client will most likely (but not always) respond by acknowledging the architect’s skills and realize they should allow the architect to do what they were hired to do, design.  Which is eventually what happened, in this case it just occurred after the construction was complete (see quote below).  If the architect is able to do this then it limits the possibility for a less than stellar design to be blamed on a client that is “too engaged”.   

          "It has not gone down well with many of the players and in a series of interviews yesterday the 61-year-old multi-millionaire was     
           at pains to say he should have listened more to Els.   

           'Ernie was right, I was wrong,' he said. 'I think the green could be slightly lower, which is what Ernie wanted to do." 

 

Adrian, I agree with your sentiments.  Of course it can be debated whether making a golf course a “TPC course” is an upgrade or not.  I agree that “perhaps 18 could work with the stream back somewhere between 5 and 10 metres,” but I think it is a disappointment they didn’t get it right the first time.     

[B. Mogg]

The owner is KING not the architect, the king dictates, the architect is the servant but if he is not happy he should walk. Whilst every architect woud try and convince an owner its not always possible, I have been in this situation.. I walked.

Walking away from a job is often quoted as a "solution" for an architect who disagrees with the client. In reality it is not that easy to do, especially if you are someway into the project before the issues arise. Walking from a project at an advanced stage is not going to help you win future projects (you may be seen as "difficult"), will certainly mean you never work with that particular client again and in some cases may lead to you being sued.

Walking away is never easy to do....

[Paul_Turner]

Paul

 Course toughness is always measured by the winning score and the reason we have seen so many changes to courses to protect par.  If the average scores were used courses would never be altered!  Nobody cares what the losers shot.   

Ciao

Sean

Of course you're right that toughness is usually gauged by the winning score,... but it's just not an accurate way.  There's too much random error in the winning score for a whole slew of reasons and people have poor memories of past scores.

I know they had good weather this week, but the winning score of 278 isn't even really a statistical outlier.  Since the course was lengthened by about 300yds for the 2006 tournament,  the winning scores have been:  271, 280, 277, 271. 


The MASTERS is a good example of wild variation in winning score, sure some is due to weather, but random chance is a significant factor too:  -16, -12, -8, +1, -7, -12

[Paul_Turner]

I think the 9th green complex is an improvement Paul, not too sure on 17, there was always a big dip off to the right but the grass was kept longer. 8 is a mess though, I prefered that bit of buffer on the right, good to help save par but it was never going to help you make a birdie, it was easy to go a bit askew with the tee shot at 8 as it had so many options, so that buffer was nice if you got out of position.
[/quote]

Adrian

Adrian

I just don't think those smoothed out chipping hollows fit at Wentworth, you know the kind you find on a modern course usually with a metal drain cover at the bottom.

17th of course did have a fall off to the right but it wasn't all smoothed out.  I couldn't work out what they'd done on the left of the 17th green there's kind of a hollow and a ridge? coming in from the left.  It looked weird.

Re the 9th, I agree with Ben.  It was a predictable change because pros and some architects are obsessed with visibility and that green was kind of sunken.  I think it's quite lot higher now.

I wonder if someone who really knows the course well can comment on the less obvious changes to the greens.  From what I could tell:

1) Similar.  Less tilt?  I'm not sure.

2)  They've raised it to the pros can "see if they've had a hole in 1"  the dumbest reason I've ever heard.

4)  This looks similar but is the tilt less?  It looks like they may have added a slight longitudinal ridge?

5)  This was a great green and unusual with the front to back ridge.  The ridge is still there.  But is it the same?  The green looks a lot bigger, extending to the right.

6)  The old green was a tilted one but at grade.  Now it looks raised and they added some internal rolls?  Is it smaller too?\

7)  Great green and looks similar but extended further back to the right.

9)  Raised and chipping area added.  But what about the general contours?

10)  Similar

11) Similar but extended at the back.  Are there significant contour differences here too?

13)  As 11?

14)  Quite different.  Green much bigger and the ridge softened. The green looks to have lobes now which doesn't fit.

15)  Tilt the same?  They've added a lobe to the green on the left?