PGA Centenary, Gleneagles

[James Boon]

I recently caddied for my brother in the Scottish PGA Championship at Gleneagles and managed to take a few pictures, which I thought some of you may like to see.

Hole 1


Hole 2


Hole 3


Hole 4


Hole 5 Tee Shot


Hole 5 Approach


Hole 6


Hole 7 New green by DMK


Hole 9


Hole 11


View from behind new 12 Green (Not yet in play) looking back down fairway


Hole 13


Hole 14


Hole 15


Hole 16


Hole 17 (tee in foreground)


Hole 18


Apologies that I've not got a decent picture of all holes, but its not easy taking photos when caddying...

I have been to Gleneagles before to play James Braid’s Kings and enjoyed Philip Gawith’s recent thread and photos of the Kings:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35227.0.html
I was therefore looking forward to my second trip to Gleneagles to see the new Nicklaus course, though I hadn’t enjoyed my previous experience of a Nicklaus course at Carden Park in Cheshire. I eventually left the PGA Centenary at Gleneagles somewhat ambivalent. I loved the setting and I’m really looking forward to the Ryder Cup there, but the course itself just didn’t quite do it for me.

Firstly, it’s a monster of a course! It plays well over 7,000 yards off the back tees, but the Scottish Pros played off some tees a little further forward on the second round as the course was playing so tough. There are 5 sets of tees, so if I was to play myself I would be able to play it a little shorter, but if you combine the length of the course with the length of overall walk, its tough, and boy is it a long walk!

There are several long walks, often uphill, from a green to the next tee, which seems to show how much faith Gleneagles now puts in buggies! Unfortunately, I prefer to carry and try to carry even when a course expects me to use a buggy. Now I was carrying a tour bag which isn’t easy, but if I’d been carrying my own bag, the walk would I’m sure, have had a negative effect on my golf. The Scottish PGA even put on a buggy service for players and caddies, from the second green to the third tee as its such a long walk.

Jack Nicklaus is quoted as saying that the course is over “the finest parcel of land in the world, I have ever been given to work with.” Now this may be true, the setting is stunning, but if it was such a fine parcel of land, what does it say about his abilities as a golf course architect if Dave McLay Kidd been appointed to come in and make so many changes? For those of you interested I’ll try and sum up some of the key changes so you can see how much DMK has come in to do. If anyone can expand on or put me right on any of these then please do so:

   Original      New      Notes regarding current or proposed
1   4   426   4   426   Larger bunker short right of green removed.
2   5   516   5   516   Gleneagles website lists this as a 436 par 4 but I think this is a website error?
3   4   431   4   431   
4   3   239   3   239   
5   4   461   4   461   
6   3   201   3   201   
7   4   410?   4   468   I think this was previously a much straighter hole of approx just over 400 yards. It has been changed to a 468 yard dogleg right, that has been in play for some time.
8   4   419   4   419   
9   5   564   5   564   
   36      36      
10   3   208   3   208   
11   4   350   4   350   
12   5   503   4   480?   This is currently a short but uphill par 5 with a slight dogleg to the left. There is a new green built short and right which will make it a straighter long par 4.
13   4   449   4   481   This was a downhill dogleg right but has now been changed to a dogleg left that is now in play.
14   3   196   4   320   This was a par 3 but has been changed to a short par 4 which is again now in play.
15   4   463   4   463   
16   5   543   5   543   
17   3   194   3   194   
18   5   533   5   533   
   36      36      
   72      72      

As I said, that’s my interpretation of the recent and proposed changes. I may have missed something or there may be more changes planned?

I think this should prove interesting for the Ryder Cup as on the back nine are 2 par 4s which could be driveable, making for great matchplay! Firstly the 11th which is 350 uphill, with a green behind a small valley with a stream at the bottom, if the tee was put forward it could tempt some players to go for it. Secondly the 14th, which is a much flatter par 4 of about 320 yards, so I imagine most would be tempted to go for the green. Also two par 5s in the last three holes should make for some interesting finishes in matchplay.

I’d be interested in hearing other peoples thoughts?

Cheers

James

Ps a few more links…
http://www.dmkgolfdesign.com/portfolio-gleneagles.aspx
http://www.gleneagles.com/golf/courses/pga-centenary-course

[Richard Hetzel]

Oustanding pictures, thanks. That looks like one helluva course!

[Philip Spogard]

I played the course a couple of years ago and found it very ordinary. With so many good courses in Scotland I wouldn't recommend it.

[Joe Hancock]

I played the course a couple of years ago and found it very ordinary. With so many good courses in Scotland I wouldn't recommend it.

That's an interesting statement, in that, by these pictures only, my response was "Why does golf have to be any more complicated than this?"

It looks like something that everyone can play, and yet the hazard placements look like they could enhance the pin positions greatly. I like the simplicity of the mowing lines (edges) as well.

I'm not at all arguing your opinion, especially since you've played it. I just had a different reaction (maybe?) than what you posted, or at the very least I was appreciating some of it's ordinary-ness, in comparison to some of the more visually busy courses we see nowadays.

Joe

[Marty Bonnar]

James.
the 4th, previously played over a Pine Valleyesque ocean of sand, was called the 'Gowden Beastie'. I believe they are thinking of renaming it: 'Gowden Beastie? - you must be 'Kidd'ing' 

FBD.

[Mark Pearce]

It looks a decent course, but those pictures odn't inspire in the way Philip's pictures of the King's inspire and I don't believe that's a function of the photography.