[Mark Brown]

I've only played each once but the apparent disparity of design styles between WF-West and SFGC has always baffled me. I loved SGGC's openness, bunkering and variety of green sites, and was much less enamored with the seemingly sameness of many of Winged Foots challenges, particularly the greensites, many of which consisted of a raised green with fairly deep bunkers on each side of them.

Having only played them once, I'm not even attempt to comment on this subject, but would love to hear some discussion of each course and some comparisons. Anyone out there to answer? That's a stupid question. Please have at it.

[PThomas]

Mark -- 2 interesting courses to compare...I haven't played either, but your question makes me wonder what if I had the choice to play one of the two, which would I pick...

from my past readings, etc., I take it WF is a brute, a very difficult course, which is not to say it isn't a very good course

SFGC, which I knew far less about before joining GCA, because there has been far less written about it -- I get the impression it's less demanding, more fun, and a great experience with its clubhouse, etc...

if asked to choose between the two, my gut would tell me to pick SF...but know we get into the issue of the last 6 holes there which, from what I've read on GCA, are a pretty big letdown...if they weren't picking it would be a less difficult decision...Doak gives both courses a 9...it would be interesting to here what Doak score others would give to these courses

[Tommy Williamsen]

Reddanman is correct in my estimation.  Having played a couple dozen of Tilly's courses, his style is not a cookie cutter.  He uses the land as well as anyone.  He lets the land dictate his style.
The Upper Course at Baltusrol is more like Baltimore cc than it is the lower course.  The Upper anad Lower are on different pieces of property.  The Upper plays along the MT while the Lower is lower and not effected as much by the mt.  Winged Foot east and west , however are similar.  On the other hand Somerset is unique as is San Fransisco GC.  I think the common thread is a similaity of bunkering around the green.  I have to say I find Tilly in my top three of golden architects.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Thinking about the lack of knowledge about Tilly and his lack of popularity among the masses, it is probaly due to the number of very private clubs he designed.  It is difficult to get on most of his courses.

[Matt_Ward]

Mark / Paul, et al:

I have had the opportunity to play both of the aforementioned courses a few times -- Winged Foot (both layouts) a good deal more since I live in that part of the woods.

In simple terms -- people don't care for Winged Foot because it doesn't massage the egos. It is a very I-N-T-E-N-S-E course and you need to be on full throttle to handle the myriad of challenges encountered.

Paul -- WF / West is more than a brute of a course and for you to weigh in without personally playing it is sort of putting the cart before the horse. How do you take a position on the merits / lack thereof of a course if you have not personally played either of them?

Winged Foot West was created by Tillie on instructions to provide a "man's size course." He did that without question. For a parksland type layout the degree of demands is steady from the 1st tee to the hole out on #18. There is "fun" at Winged Foot but the degree of demands and need for certainty of shotmaking are more thoroughly explored and tested.

The key at WF / West is dealing with the approach shots because the targets -- on the whole -- are quite small and vexing with a range of internal contours that will baffle even the most gifted of chipper and putters.

Many people who come to Westchester and play WF, QR and Fenway are usually seduced by the charm of the last two. In my mind -- Fenway is Winged Foot / lite. It offers the same vexing nature greens, but the demands off the tee and with the approach shots are less rigorous.

SFGC is a superb course but it will clearly "entertain" the masses much more than Winged Foot. Does that make SFGC the better overall course? I'm not buying that part of it because the 36 holes at Winged Foot are a supreme illustration of Tillinghast at his best. Winged Foot never suffers fools willingly or easily.

If you want the country ride where you can take in all the elements without being taxed then SFGC is the place to be. If you care for the hairpin turns like Daytona then Winged Foot will give you plenty of "track" and then some.

[PThomas]

Hi Matt  -- I tried to make the following point in my prior post, but perhaps not clearly enough:  my thoughts on the 2 courses are based only on what I've read and heard discussed here...I hope to someday experience both...it seems as if each course has a different personality from the other...of course,  that kind of variety is what makes golf great!

thanks

pt

[Evan_Green]

Mark-

Some differences between the two:

- SFGC has much better natural terrain than does WFW

- Given the flattish land at WF, I think the notion of smaller than average, raised green sites with gaping, penal bunkers is brilliant. Frankly, I dont understand why more courses have not been built this way or are not being built this way on similarly average pieces of land.

- The mandates given by those that commissioned Tilly were somewhat different (WF told Tilly to build a "man sized course") - whereas SFGC doesnt seem to have been built for that purpose

- As far as openness is concerned- few sights in golf are more magical in my experience than the view from the first tee and the clubhouse at SFGC over the vast expanse of the course- WF is much less open, but it is vastly improved as a result of the tree removal the club has done.

- I dont think there is that much sameness at WFW- yes small, raised greens with nasty bunkers, but each green complex is different- there is a great deal of strategy involved.

- SFGC is much more user friendly both in terms of being less demanding, more open, more visually spectacular, but the challenge of WFW is something to behold. If you can play well at WF, the feeling of accomplishment is really something special.


- As stated, the difference between the two coures are great, and if you played both courses without knowing who designed them, it would be virtually impossible to know it was the same designer- i think this is what makes tilly so great

- Finally, there is something to be said of the history of Winged Foot- Bobby Jones et. all

[Evan_Green]

Also significant about these two courses is that they include 2 of the worlds truly great par 3 holes:

7 @ SFGC

10 @ WFW

Tilly was truly a master of the one shotter

[Tom_Doak]

As Evan says, the two are very different sites.  At Winged Foot Tillinghast inherited a lot of trees and he didn't cut them all down, although the club has planted a thousand more since then.  SFGC was essentially a big tilted pile of sand when he started.

Which you prefer depends on what you look for in a golf course.  If your opinion leans toward the tougher test of golf, stay on the East Coast; if you lean toward aesthetics and a bit more fun, go west, young man.

The discussion about Tillinghast's style is intriguing.  I don't think any great architect is as predictable as you all pretend they are ... although I've heard Rees Jones talk at length about how he's got Tillinghast's style nailed on several restorations.  However, I don't think Mr. Tillinghast's courses are really dramatically different from one another ... SFGC and Somerset Hills are the most different because they were earlier in his career and the most different sites.

[Evan_Green]

Another interesting difference between the two courses is the bunker shaping.

While SFGC has more "flourishing" , wildly shaped bunkers i.e. the bunker in front of #3 green, the bunkers on 10 etc.) while the bunkers at WFW are more tamely shaped. However, those at WFW are often deeper and more penal than those at SFGC.

Tom, I think it would be very interesting to hear what some of the ways Rees Jones thinks has Tillinghast's style down...

[Mike_Cirba]

The discussion about Tillinghast's style is intriguing.  I don't think any great architect is as predictable as you all pretend they are ... although I've heard Rees Jones talk at length about how he's got Tillinghast's style nailed on several restorations.  

I would be surprised if the members at Quaker Ridge agreed with his contention.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()