News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Noel Freeman

Why did St. Enodoc change this?
« on: April 24, 2008, 11:39:47 AM »
I was chatting with a friend today when the topic of St. Enodoc came up.. In the Confidential Guide Tom Doak lamented not returning there as he had a magical day and I believe his low career round. 

When I first went to St. Enodoc it was with Russell Talley during the summer solstice.  We had played Westward Ho! where I was nearly trampled by the ponies and rushed to Rock/Padstow to see St. Enodoc in the gloaming of the summer sun.  Upon arriving, I found everything I find endearing about golf. Here is a course with maximum chaos.  Heaving sand hills, no straight lines or uniformity, no stability, just a twisting, contorted landscape.  Throughout the journey of playing the course the whole display is stirring.. The view over the brow of the first hole's sandhill displaying the merging of the Camel River into the Atlantic, the Himalayas, Bray Hill and its half moon shape, the church of St. Enodoc.  To me, St. Enodoc was a walk back into a timeless era and even at 6300 yards a pure pleasure in every step.  If ever I felt a course had a sense of permanence, it was here.  But as I've learned in life, everything is relative, even what we think eternal.  A few years ago I returned to St. Enodoc and played horribly with Paul Turner in tow.  That said, I was very exited to play the 16th, one of the best natural par 5s I've seen in the world, with nary a bunker.  I learned soon after that the club had hired Peter McEvoy to push the green back 40 yards and add bunkering in the name of length and to turn a 490 yard par 5 (par 4.5 they thought) into a "true" par 5.  Well with Mr. Turner as my witness I had a magical eagle on the hole.  Which brought me to this picture below taken during one of my visits.  Can you think of a more natural greensite?  Why would you change this hole?  This past week I saw some amendments to Royal Wimbledon which is little known here but had great potential to be a sleeping gem of a Harry Colt course. It was recently re-bunkered by an architect I won't name but I found the style anything but Colt.  I really wonder sometimes why old, venerable clubs which will hold no major events find the need to change the character of their courses.  Maybe I'm a luddite..  But like Tom Doak, I don't think I can return to St. Enodoc now.  Too much to miss.



my putt for eagle that I sunk



another pic of the old green



finally the view to a kill


Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did St. Enodoc change this?
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2008, 11:45:56 AM »
Tuco

I must admit that when I heard they were gonna move the green back I thought it was going back into the dunes to make this a proper par 5.  I am not sure why the club would pay to have the green moved 40 yards away from a good greensite which when the pin was far right was a hell of hole even if you layed up.  The hole is just as reachable as ever in the right conditions.  I think it is a mistake. 

Ciao

New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Why did St. Enodoc change this?
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2008, 01:04:46 AM »
Noel:

Perhaps Rich Goodale or Jeff Brauer will see this, and tell you how silly you are for not wanting to change and try to improve all golf courses all the time, and you can go off the deep end instead of me for a change.  ;)

I did get back there following the Painswick event a few years ago and was thrilled to see it again.  It's certainly one of my favorite places in golf ... reminds me quite a bit of Crystal Downs in some respects, and I hate to see it tinkered with for the same reasons.  If there was ever a course where having a "proper par 5" didn't really matter -- it's only par 69 anyway -- St. Enodoc is it.

I am tempted to say that the change was made partly because Peter McEvoy doesn't have enough new work to keep him fulfilled, even though we played with him at Painswick and he is a fine gentleman and a hell of a golfer (even if Rich and I managed to win our match!).
« Last Edit: April 25, 2008, 01:06:30 AM by Tom_Doak »

Ben Stephens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did St. Enodoc change this?
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2008, 03:20:46 AM »
I played St Enodoc a few years back before they made any changes to the course. Alongside Brancaster and Golf House Elie, it is one of the most fun golf courses I have ever played. First time I played I was 3 under on the front nine and 10 over on the back nine - 12, 13 and 14 ruined my card!

I would be interested to play the lengthened course to see whether Peter McEvoy has improved the course - the same with Martin Hawtree at Birkdale and Mackenzie + Ebert at Turnberry.

This brings up a question I have ....... Do the best golfers become the best golf course architects?

 

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why did St. Enodoc change this?
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2008, 09:30:39 AM »
Noel

We discussed this with a pic of the new green a month or two ago.  I haven't seen the new green, only photos from the website and it doesn't look to be nearly as interesting as the old.  A really poor decision  to change it in my opinion.

In recent years, I've seen far more holes spoiled than improved (even if just aesthetically).
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

Noel Freeman

Re: Why did St. Enodoc change this?
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2008, 11:07:34 AM »
Paul--you'd cry more to see what has become of some of the bunkers at Wimbledon.

Rich Goodale

Re: Why did St. Enodoc change this?
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2008, 02:41:39 AM »
Noel:

Perhaps Rich Goodale or Jeff Brauer will see this, and tell you how silly you are for not wanting to change and try to improve all golf courses all the time, and you can go off the deep end instead of me for a change.  ;)

I did get back there following the Painswick event a few years ago and was thrilled to see it again.  It's certainly one of my favorite places in golf ... reminds me quite a bit of Crystal Downs in some respects, and I hate to see it tinkered with for the same reasons.  If there was ever a course where having a "proper par 5" didn't really matter -- it's only par 69 anyway -- St. Enodoc is it.

I am tempted to say that the change was made partly because Peter McEvoy doesn't have enough new work to keep him fulfilled, even though we played with him at Painswick and he is a fine gentleman and a hell of a golfer (even if Rich and I managed to win our match!).

Tom

Noel's not being silly, just getting more nostalgic and crotchety as he ages.  We all want preserve the playing fields of our youth, particularly those on which we have earned a great victory.  Which is why the line I will draw in the sand will begin and end at Painswick!

Rich

PS--never been to St. Enodoc, alas.......

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back