[Craig Disher]

I think we agree about the rough in front of the large bunker. My point is that it turns into fairway as you move back towards the tee - at least in 1943.

I found a photo I'd posted a while ago. It was taken from the new tee and shows the drive is not completely blind - areas of the fairway are visible and there are key landmarks that help in aiming. There is a lot of space to drive into - as I said before, the distance to the road directly over the bunker is over 320 yards. Notice the small ridge line in the thick rough under the bush to the right of the bunker. I think that is the ridge that defined the left side of the fairway in the 1943 aerial. The green is on a line directly over the top of the large mound right of the bunker. The putting surface of the 10th green is partially visible below the golfers on the right.

There is a house with a white dormer on the left of the photo. It is above a small mound in the fairway.  That line is well to the left of the preferred line which is between the bunker and the large mound and towards the bush on the ridge. The distance to the road on the line to the white dormer is almost 190 yards. From the current tee to the same point is about 165 yards and the angle of error from the preferred line is smaller. That tells me that the risk of hitting onto the road is actually greater from the current tee but because of the appearance of driving towards the road rather than along it, the assumption is that the new tee is more dangerous. The geometry shows that's not so.



More width certainly would be necessary if the new tee temporarily replaces the current one. It's probably axiomatic that more width is needed for a hole where the drive is diagonal into the fairway. With the drive on the 8th now directly towards the green (I played a match yesterday and my opponent nearly drove the green), the only defense for the hole is a narrow fairway. Oddly, there is more fairway space on the right which is by far the preferred area for the approach.

[Sean_A]

Thanks Craig

We shall still have to agree to disagree about the danger.  I can easily see a hook bashing those houses.  Whether the tee is more dangerous, I don't know, but I suspect not because one is playing parallel to it rather than hitting toward it.  Of course, if the fairway is widened to accomodate the right tee, that brings the road more into play...

None of it matters much, I was just trying to figure out a way to utilize the large bunker.  For sure, using the right tee would invite many folks to play safely left then be faced with the bunker.  Long boys could go over the top, but I can still imagine that large bunker (especially if moved a bit right) coming into play off the tee.  Perhaps the well placed lay-up could have an up the gut (between the would be large bunkers) approach.  There is no question I like your idea of a diagonal drive better if the bunkering and fairway were tweeked.

Ciao

[Craig Disher]

Sean,
Littlestone Week is currently on with competitions - primarily 4-ball - each day. I played today and was thrilled when I saw that the new tee on 8 was put in play for the week. The tee itself is surprisingly large - it was rebuilt professionally at substantial cost and adds a bit more length than I originally thought. In my group, the best player attempted to play to the gap between the mound and the bunker and hit too far right into long grass on the side of the mound. The second player took on the mound and left it on top. Another player played an iron to the gap and left a 170 approach from the middle of the fairway. I hit the best drive of the group, about 230 through the bunker/mound gap and finished in the left semi about 100 yards short of the green. Regarding the road - I now know you're wrong  .  About 120 golfers played from the tee today and the road was never at risk. The hole is more difficult - the earlier configuration allowed a topped drive hit straight to bound down the center of the fairway leaving a short iron approach - and worse, the drive challenge is the same for every hcp. The new drive takes some care in planning and will be different for every player. I would probably never take on the mound but the option is there for stronger players - and the reward is significant. It's  clear that more fairway is needed on the left - and probably the right too. The mound would also need to be thinned out - a ball hit on the right side is almost certainly lost.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Sean, the story of the lost fairway left of the "red herring" bunker on the 16th is a sad tale.  That alternate fairway (now knee high gunch) was the inspiration for the Lido hole and the "Littlestone" hole at Old Macdonald.  Like several holes at Rye, the alternate fairway at Littlestone was apparently lost to increasing motor vehicle traffic on the adjacent road. 

Bill,

Like Sean and yourself, I assumed that the alternative fairway had existed in the past, but according to CBM, it didn't.

He wrote the following in Scotland's Gift:

The fourth hole at the Lido I consider the finest two-shot hole in the world of golf, but fully 90 percent of golfers will have to play it as a three-shot hole. I absorbed the idea from the sixteenth hole at Littlestone, but the Littlestone Club never took advantage of the remarkable natural opportunity they had there of making a separate fairgreen among the dunes, where there was a perfect setting for it, a fairway set in the dunes some thirty to thirty-five yards in width and 100 yards long, with a carry from the tee of 190 to 200 yards. Heaven knows when a player would get out of the rough if they didn't make this narrow fairgreen among the dunes, but once they did they had a wonderful driving iron or brassie shot to the green, which was on an eminence some fifteen to twenty feet above the fairway, with a deep bunker across the face of the green some forty yards from the hole. The bunker at Littlestone was about fifteen feet deep.

[Craig Disher]

Dónal,
I believe CBM was referring to the original 16th, not the MacKenzie version which was installed in 1924 (I'll think again if someone can verify that CBM visited Littlestone between 1924 and the publication of SGG in 1928). It is clear from the 1943 aerial that the dunes area he was referring to (on the left of the fairway above the 3 diagonal cross bunkers) was cleared to a much larger extent than now. I think it's likely he was recalling the original 16th from memory and hadn't seen the revised version. Evidence for that is his reference to the deep bunker in front of the green. That feature was unique to the old green; MacKenzie's green doesn't have one.

[Sean_A]

I really need to get back to Littlestone more often.  Over many years I am slowly appreciating the design more.  On this trip I really noticed the greens.  They aren't wild or anything, but there is plenty of movement.  See the updated tour

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,53049.msg1218558.html#msg1218558

Ciao

[Craig Disher]

Sean,
We've had this discussion before but I'm still convinced that the loss of so many bunkers simplified the course to such an extent that much of the original architecture was lost. The 3rd is a good example. Recall that it was altered from a straight hole to a slight dogleg left with a bunker at the turn. I never understood the rationale although the member who led the decision insisted that it was MacKenzie's idea - forgetting that MacKenzie's plan had been lost. I don't think he would have purloined the only copy. The original hole can be seen in these two obliques which date from the early 30s. The first shows the huge bunker that stretched across the dune in front of the tee. The tee was still in the valley and to the right rear of the 2nd green (fill from the notch in the dune on the 2nd hole was used to build the current tee box). The next photo shows the rest of the fairway with the fishhook array of bunkers stretching from the right of the green around to meet the left side of the fairway. The two left fairway bunkers challenged the favored line - from the right the diagonal line of bunkers and alignment of the green would have made for a more difficult approach. All the fishhook bunkers, save two, are gone; their remnants are still very visible. I just think it's a better hole and would stick in your memory a lot better.

[Niall C]

Great stuff Sean and Craig. Having now played the course a couple of comments;

Bunkers - in general terms I agree with Sean regarding having too many bunkers and that in some cases a bigger bunker can do the job better than a number of small ones. However in the old black and white photo that Craig posted, bunkers C and D would presumably be aligned from further down the fairway and from that direction would likely give the appearance of being part of a single and far larger bunker complex than they actually were. I think it was either Robin or Christophe who did a photo tour of Duff House Royal that shows that trick to great affect.

MacKenzie plans - there are others who are more qualified to comment but I believe that MacKenzie's draftsmanship was fairly basic and he sometimes used others to create a more presentable version of his ideas where it was required for presentation purposes. It might be the Littlestone plan doesn't exist because what he produced was not the sort of quality deemed good enough to stick on the wall or to preserve for posterity. It might have been more a working drawing type of thing that would possibly have been chucked away at the completion of the job.

Niall 

[Tony_Muldoon]

I've come to the conclusion that "a course you can play every day for the rest of your life", is likely the highest praise you can give.  Little stone I s a post e r child for that.


Jim Goby told me that t h e reason why Littlestone stood up better than RSG, RCPGC and Princes in the oPen qualifiers was the subtly of the greens.  I greatly regret not toasting Jim last weekend.


Finally, I agreed with James 6 is another all world hole. That makes three.


Double finally, there were not many members to be seen last weekend, so many wouldn't have seen this is one of the most welcoming club s I've been lucky enough to visit.


Go play Littlestone.

[Sean_A]

Sean,
We've had this discussion before but I'm still convinced that the loss of so many bunkers simplified the course to such an extent that much of the original architecture was lost. The 3rd is a good example. Recall that it was altered from a straight hole to a slight dogleg left with a bunker at the turn. I never understood the rationale although the member who led the decision insisted that it was MacKenzie's idea - forgetting that MacKenzie's plan had been lost. I don't think he would have purloined the only copy. The original hole can be seen in these two obliques which date from the early 30s. The first shows the huge bunker that stretched across the dune in front of the tee. The tee was still in the valley and to the right rear of the 2nd green (fill from the notch in the dune on the 2nd hole was used to build the current tee box). The next photo shows the rest of the fairway with the fishhook array of bunkers stretching from the right of the green around to meet the left side of the fairway. The two left fairway bunkers challenged the favored line - from the right the diagonal line of bunkers and alignment of the green would have made for a more difficult approach. All the fishhook bunkers, save two, are gone; their remnants are still very visible. I just think it's a better hole and would stick in your memory a lot better.

Craig

You could well be right.  Its difficult to make a comparison from aerials without having played the early version.  That said, the club seems hesistant to widen fairways as it is.  With a huge number of extra bunkers comes the necessity for more width...a luxury most clubs don't seem able to deliver. 

Regardless of what could be, I was glad to see the course again...it is better than memory suggested.  I think Littlestone is arguably top 40 England. 

Concerning the 9th.  Why isn't the white tee on the left and the yellow tee right?  It seems to me the shot is more difficult from the left tee.

Ciao

[Craig Disher]

Craig

You could well be right.  Its difficult to make a comparison from aerials without having played the early version.  That said, the club seems hesistant to widen fairways as it is.  With a hugh number of extra bunkers comes the necessity for more width...a luxury most clubs don't seem able to deliver. 

Regardless of what could be, I was glad to see the course again...it is better than memory suggested.  I think Littlestone is arguably top 40 England. 

Concerning the 9th.  Why isn't the white tee on the left and the yellow tee right?  It seems to me the shot is more difficult from the left tee.

Ciao

Sean,
I've played the course so often knowing where the old bunkers were (most locations are still visible) that I appreciated how much purpose had been put into their placement. The best example is the center line bunker on 18 that comes into play with a 25+ mph wind; it also had a strong psychological impact even though it should have been easily avoided. Clearly it was removed because of members' complaints. Why so many of the fairways were shifted and caused original bunkers to become obsolete is lost to history. I have another view of the course from the same photo which shows the 1st and 18th fairways as one large expanse with a drainage ditch separating them. The ditch connected to the two small bunkers and right depression surrounding the 1st green - both of which were completely sand-filled - and continued in front of the 2nd tee. Restoring a lot of these old features - many designed by MacKenzie - would only enhance the course.

You're right on 9. It makes no sense to me either. The only setup that is easier from the left is having the hold located behind the two bunkers on the right.

[Sean_A]

Craig

You could well be right.  Its difficult to make a comparison from aerials without having played the early version.  That said, the club seems hesistant to widen fairways as it is.  With a hugh number of extra bunkers comes the necessity for more width...a luxury most clubs don't seem able to deliver. 

Regardless of what could be, I was glad to see the course again...it is better than memory suggested.  I think Littlestone is arguably top 40 England. 

Concerning the 9th.  Why isn't the white tee on the left and the yellow tee right?  It seems to me the shot is more difficult from the left tee.

Ciao

Sean,
I've played the course so often knowing where the old bunkers were (most locations are still visible) that I appreciated how much purpose had been put into their placement. The best example is the center line bunker on 18 that comes into play with a 25+ mph wind; it also had a strong psychological impact even though it should have been easily avoided. Clearly it was removed because of members' complaints. Why so many of the fairways were shifted and caused original bunkers to become obsolete is lost to history. I have another view of the course from the same photo which shows the 1st and 18th fairways as one large expanse with a drainage ditch separating them. The ditch connected to the two small bunkers and right depression surrounding the 1st green - both of which were completely sand-filled - and continued in front of the 2nd tee. Restoring a lot of these old features - many designed by MacKenzie - would only enhance the course.

You're right on 9. It makes no sense to me either. The only setup that is easier from the left is having the hold located behind the two bunkers on the right.

Craig


As I say, it is difficult to grasp the concept of why so many added bunkers made for a better course, particularly when the fairways are so much narrower today.  Regardless, I still don't understand the need for small bunkers immediately adjacent to large bunkers.  Though I do like the idea of more central bunkers. 


Ciao

[Craig Disher]

Craig


As I say, it is difficult to grasp the concept of why so many added bunkers made for a better course, particularly when the fairways are so much narrower today.  Regardless, I still don't understand the need for small bunkers immediately adjacent to large bunkers.  Though I do like the idea of more central bunkers. 


Ciao

With the current bunkers, the defense of the course is the thick rough, narrow fairways, and a few of the green sites, like 6, 15 and 17. The old aerial shows virtually no rough but many large bunkers. What do you do with a hole like 18? It's dead flat with an interesting green. The fairway bunkers are easy to avoid so the only worry as you proceed to the green is the thick rough on the left and right. The old bunkers are cleverly placed and to avoid them requires playing a series of safe shots that take you away from the best line to the green. 

[Sean_A]

Craig

If the fairway bunkers are easy to avoid on 18 then so too must the rough    I take your point and would certainly welcome wider fairways, more efficiently placed bunkers and of different sizes, but not necessarily more bunkers.  I don't believe a well designed course needs anything close to an average of 4-5 bunkers per hole.  Littlestone has plenty of ground features to carry the design a long way.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()