News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


T_MacWood

Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« on: April 28, 2005, 10:18:32 PM »
Some say this is the best nine hole course in the world...what are its attributes? Does it deserve to be mentioned with best inland 18's?

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2005, 10:45:10 PM »
Mark Rowlinson, among others, is your man for that question. If you search the archives, Mark did a photo and write-up presentation of the course if memory serves.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2005, 10:51:28 PM »
That is one of my favorite golf courses ever ... utterly simple and yet there are 5-6 great holes in the nine, and no poor ones.

It's really just a 60-acre farm field with modest undulations and a row of pine trees down the middle.  But it is a terrific set of greens and most of the holes are of the half-par variety:  short 5's, long 4's, short 4's, and three excellent short holes.

It doesn't really remind me of any inland course in the USA, and it is not that scenic so a lot of people would miss the point entirely, but I really believe it is right up there with Merion as far as getting every last ounce of interest out of a site.

T_MacWood

Re:Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2005, 11:17:23 PM »
TD
From what I've read, the course sits on sandy loam...is that right? What does the ground contribute (if anything) to the greatness of the design?

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2005, 11:25:50 PM »
Tom - I assume you are aware of Ran's review, updated recently I believe.

T_MacWood

Re:Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2005, 11:30:19 PM »
I didn't know that...thanks.

Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2005, 09:49:18 AM »
I do not think the review was updated, just the photos, which were mine from a trip there this past May.

"favourite golf courses ever" and "utterly simple" were two quotes I might have used, had Tom not already taken them. I am amazed at how wonderful the course is on such a non-descript piece of land. It is an amazing tribute to the golf course, which would be an idyllic model for a small private course on limited acreage. The subtleties are so dramatic that repeated loops never get tiring and the day I was there everyone was playing alternate shot - 'to keep things fast'.

It is very near Cambridge, which is a ridiculously pretty university town. A little out of the way on the typical England golf trip, but well worth a look.

To your final question Tom, I would consider it among the finest courses in the world, inland or seaside.

T_MacWood

Re:Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2005, 01:38:21 PM »
Ben
Your positive opinion is one shared by many over the years...going back to Darwin. You said the ground is non-descript, but it must have some subtle interest...no?

What course would you compare Worlington's terrain to? GCGC?

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2005, 04:14:40 PM »
Tom,

Worlington is much more than a golf course; it is an experience.  It's rather like dining in hall at High Table at one of the smaller Cambridge colleges.  It may be a small college, but there are half a dozen Fellows sitting within earshot who can (and will) challenge every statement made by the visitor, genially, but ruthlessly.  If you do not have Patric Dickenson's description I'll let you have one - this is, however, not an offer to break the copyright laws by putting it on general release on GCA - perhaps the best description of Mildenhall you will ever read.  

Mildenhall is possibly the finest 9-hole course in the world (I have no knowledge of potential contenders for the title outside the UK) simply because it uses only that part of the site which enjoys brilliantly-draining subsoil - gravel, I think, but it plays like a links, so it might be sand.  Apparently there is - or has been - room to expand to 18 holes but because the surrounding land is not of the same kind it has never been done.

Don't expect something spectacular.  The ground probably doesn't change level by more than 10 feet anywhere.  The bunkers are not flashed up, the greens are hardly raised above the surrounding land (even the 5th) more than a few feet, you are never intimidated on any shot.  Yet it is a wonderful examination of all departments of the game, especially the approach shot.  Given that the greens are some of the truest in the UK, especially in winter, and are naturally (as opposed to tricked-up) quick they are one of the finest examinations of approach work that I know of.  Do not compare it in scale with St Andrews or Newcastle, but the touch required is similar.  It is probably the course with the greatest subtlety and most understatement in England.  Those of you brought up on true gentlemen will understand the nature of the creature: always wears a collar and tie but will scythe through you if you do not meet the unwritten, but understood, criteria precisely.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2005, 04:16:30 PM by Mark_Rowlinson »

Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2005, 07:21:44 PM »
Ben
Your positive opinion is one shared by many over the years...going back to Darwin. You said the ground is non-descript, but it must have some subtle interest...no?

What course would you compare Worlington's terrain to? GCGC?

Tom,
Sadly I have not been to Garden City, so the comparison is only from photos, which is probably what led you to ask. Non-descript was a poor choice of words, subtle is much better. The gentle contours create an incredible number of shots, from the approach to the short par five fourth hole, which begs the golfer to go at the green in two, but any hard low shot will probably not hold the green. The fifth is a tremendous green complex that deflects the ball off to either side of the green.
One of my favourite feature is the bunker at essentially 7 o'clock, in line with the white stake.

That bunker sits in a clever location that can be shared on both holes. Plus, for a relatively short nine-holer, the demands on a wide variety of shots are outstanding.
It has to be among the few courses I would suggest people who are interested in architecture seek out.

TEPaul

Re:Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« Reply #10 on: April 30, 2005, 04:21:04 AM »
Ben Dewar said;

“The subtleties are so dramatic that repeated loops never get tiring.”

Ben:

The phrase “dramatic subtleties” is enough of an interesting contradiction in terms it’s inspiring me to go there just to see them!

Tom MacWood said;

“What course would you compare Worlington's terrain to? GCGC?”

Tom:

That sounds like a great analogy and sure got me thinking about the lack of ‘visuals” at GCGC----one of the most interesting and subtle over-all features of the course, in my opinion. The ground is basically flat (the Hempstead Plain) with subtle little rolls and breaks----man-made I guess as they’re mostly sort of sunken bunkering and such with some compensating low level mounds. Ran made an interesting observation while we were at GCGC that even with the flat land of the course almost all the tees are dead flat on natural grade that serves to make many of the visuals even subtler or even imperceptible. (On #7 everything is so flat from the tee even the fescue rough ahead of you obscures some ground visuals).

For some reason recently I’ve become a huge fan of golf architecture that dials down on obvious architectural or strategic  “visuals” that only serve what I consider to be the “art principle” applied to golf architecture of “Emphasis”---- eg leading the eye to the most important part like precisely where one should hit the ball. To me that gets to be too obvious architectural and strategic “shot dictation”. It seems like some of the really old architecture just doesn't do that---perhaps because back then they never thought much or anything about something like that. In that sense it just seems far more natural to me on that kind of flat land.

If Worlington is that way, as GCGC appears to me to be I think I’ve got to get to Worlington because I want to find architecture that dials down on architectural "visuals" that way. I'd like to see much more of that done in the future---again because it seems more natural to me and I think it serves the purpose of making golfers study the land much more for obvious reasons.

But I think I also recognize that wanting to dial down on architectural visuals today (to get away from the landscape architecture "art priniciple" of "Emaphasis" (leading the eye to the most important part like where one should hit the ball)) puts me in the vast, vast minority---perhaps even amongst what we consider to be the good renaissance architects of today.


« Last Edit: April 30, 2005, 04:26:29 AM by TEPaul »

Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« Reply #11 on: April 30, 2005, 12:55:43 PM »
The subtleties do shine through, continuously. I cannot imagine too many courses that could present something different that many times. The par three fifth for example could be played a number of ways and the difficult eighth gives you a few offsetting options as well.

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2005, 01:09:07 PM »
Tom,

I couldn't find the 'British Courses' entry through the search facility, so here's the link for those who, like me, have to go about it the long way:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=14775

Mark.

T_MacWood

Re:Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2005, 12:13:26 AM »
Mark
Thanks for the link...great information. The pictures remind me of Garden City.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2005, 12:14:18 AM by Tom MacWood »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Royal Worlington and Newmarket
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2005, 09:38:26 AM »
The Sacred Nine—A Short Story

From Routing the Golf Course (John Wiley & Sons, 2002)

"It seems to me that not many people are building nine-hole golf courses anymore. This is quite a shame when you consider that it often happens that 18-hole layouts get forced into a site where nine wonderful holes would have made for a much better finished course. Might nine holes have been more practical? Oh sure, you can find the occasional newly built nine-hole course, but more often than not, there on the clubhouse wall is proudly hanging the plans for the “rest of the course” — the nine that will be built next year, or maybe the year after that . . . if financing comes through.

Down a narrow country road just outside Cambridge, England, the shady canopy of great trees suddenly opens to a field of golf flanked by a rather small and quiet-looking clubhouse. Here, finally, is the unassuming home of the Royal Worlington and Newmarket Golf Club. Not just nine great golf holes, I would learn, but a story of golfing contradictions and brilliant proof that the so-called standard of 18 holes can be overcome, providing your heart and attitude are in the right place.

“We don’t get too caught up by the fact it’s a nine hole course,” says Miles Elliott, the club’s esteemed captain. The club’s position on the matter is one of curiosity as to why visitors seem so preoccupied with the number of holes. At Worlington, you see, what matters are the aspects of golf that have become less and less dear to the hearts of newer clubs and especially, I am sad to relate, the influential Americans who are busily building the game.

Royal Worlington is a social club. The members relish their traditions and respect what is going on in each of their lives. Golf, albeit important, is merely a vehicle for the more cherished routine of arriving, slipping away from the rest of the world, camaraderie, friendly competition, and, certainly not least, celebrating the moment.

Lest I forget, Worlington is made up of nine fascinating and excellent holes. It is, after all, a golf club. Although not linksland, the inland site is a rare swath of sandy soil that flows through woodlands and opens onto great fields. One should hardly care how many holes there are on the course characterized by Bernard Darwin as “the sacred nine.” That is exactly the point Mr. Elliott was making.

“Our philosophy must just be different,” he relates. “There are rituals here that are cherished by the members and it is these which define our club.” Among the rituals are the Pink Jug, a club drink — and also the club’s icon — that approximates lemonade, but in its own special way. Occasionally, visiting guests are taken aback when told about Worlington’s unbreakable rule that all groups play only as foursomes — that is, match play between two groups of two where one ball is played by each of the groups. The foursome requirement allows Worlington’s nine-hole rounds to be finished in one hour and 20 minutes, or just more than two and a half hours for a twice-around, 18-hole match. Imagine what the feasibility analysis of a modern club would look like if it were to embrace such a format. In essence, Worlington’s nine holes is almost twice as efficient as most eighteens. But I seriously doubt that efficiency is the top priority here.

In a day when most people find it difficult to find time to play 18 holes of golf, it is quite odd that golf course architects, developers, and the financing community find it difficult to escape the temptation to build 18-hole courses almost exclusively. Yes, there are alternatives. And they are more real than we would like to admit."

— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back