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.


Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Waverley.
« Reply #25 on: October 22, 2012, 08:29:41 PM »
That is one of your best paintings, Josh. Awesome.

And, as you say, the museum area they've put together at Waverley is super-cool.
jeffmingay.com

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Waverley.
« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2012, 12:09:52 AM »

First of all, one reason I belong to modern clubs is that I'm not a blue blood, with no familial connections to clubs of high repute.  Modern clubs need members, so they let the riff raff in.

...

Don't worry John. We all know you are a red blooded American male of the highest order. ;)
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Waverley.
« Reply #27 on: October 23, 2012, 10:47:59 AM »
John Kirk is right in that there aren't a lot of good, classic clubs on the western side of the Willamette.  I lived in Beaverton, and I played at Riverside (another Egan design) up by the airport to the NE of Portland.  It was a PITA to get to, but Portland GC and Oswego Lake had waiting lists and I needed to play!

Times have changed for the better with Pumpkin Ridge and the other clubs "out west".

Back to Waverly - Portland golf is fantastic in that clubs open their doors to members of other clubs whenever their members can't play due to an event.  I assure you that Waverly was always the first course to fill up on the reciprocity sheet.

Knowing Gil's work well, I can only imagine how great Waverly must be today.  Congratulations!

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Waverley.
« Reply #28 on: October 23, 2012, 03:47:25 PM »
Before

After

The green has been enlarged with a new front bunker about 8-10' deep, which replicates 1930s photos. The left front bunker lost a bay, the left rear bunker seems to be the same size and in the same position.

As JK said, this is the 9th hole, which tips out around 145.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 06:40:30 PM by Pete_Pittock »

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Waverley.
« Reply #29 on: October 23, 2012, 03:57:55 PM »
Before

After

The forward tee is short of this new bunker. In my cart drive past the bunker I didn't notice if there was another tee forward of it which could be used by senior women.

As John said this is the 5th hole a straigt-douglas fir lined par 5, with OB right the entire hole. I didn't play this from all the way back, and discussing it with a pro in the last hour he said that from there you almost need to shape the tee shot around the trees on the left.
.
 View from about 150 yds from the green shows a new bunker in the layup area.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 11:40:19 PM by Pete_Pittock »

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Waverley.
« Reply #30 on: October 23, 2012, 04:27:12 PM »
To add commentary, Peter's first pair of photos are the short par 3 9th hole, and his second pair of photos are the short par 5 5th hole.  The 5th hole is by far the narrowest, most claustrophobic hole in the course.

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Waverley.
« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2012, 11:57:28 PM »
The second hole at Waverley is a longish par 4 (430?) which fetaures a blind tee shot to a fairway which doglegs slightly right. Mature doug fir line the right side. The tee shot is visually the sane, and this is what you saw when you got 200 yds off the tee.

Now the trees on the left are gone, a new bunker for those down the right side and a new green about 40 yards further away which to me is better suited for an approach from the right side of the fairway.

The back left corner of the green is next to the OB Milwaukie Pioneer Cemetery. Bunker guarding left and a lot of movement in the putting surface. I think this is the Sunday pin. Sorry for the picture quality and quantity.

Of the 270 trees removed, I think most of them came from this hole, along with 3 and 4.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 11:59:30 PM by Pete_Pittock »