Colt's Cunning CAMBERLEY HEATH

[Ryan Coles]

I don't think this constant  banging on about non existent firm conditions in England makes a lot of sense, particularly inland. When its been raining a lot, the course will be wet.

There are hundreds of courses in England, how many really drain better than Camberley?

Burnham is wet, surrey heaths are wet, where are these fabled dry courses?

Don't understand all the moaning. Golf in England is what it is. It is a green and pleasant land because quite frankly it rains a lot.

Forget the bunkers frank, renovate or restore the climate. Summer of 76 should do it.

[Sean_A]

Ryan

We actually haven't had much rain in recent weeks and the dry fairways are a testament to this at Camberley.  In four visits, it was the same story; firmish fairways, and not so firm greens.  There is a disconnect for sure and I am convinced that clubs can do better. 

Paul

I much prefer the one bigger bunker (far from vast if you ask me) to two more circular bland bunkers, but then I would be happy with no bunkers on the hole...don't think they are necessary here.  It seems to me, the bland circular bunkers are dealt with on the right, but re-created on the left    Perhaps a bit of heather on the tongues may help with the aesthetic...there are other areas where this could be done. 

My comments must be taken in context of how much money is in the pot for course improvements and how to get the best bang for the buck.  Without question, I would rather the greens be improved, trees be removed to help and some bunkers just filled in.  With more money sort out the 16th.  Removing the pond is a great first step, but the hole will be bland anyway unless there is a re-think. With more money work on the re-creating the bunker scheme.  Bunkers to me seem to be what everybody goes ga-ga over, but course conditions should be the real grabber with limited funding available. 

Ciao   

[Ryan Coles]

Fair enough Sean, But what are the inland clubs that do consistently produce the conditions we prefer?

[Sean_A]

Fair enough Sean, But what are the inland clubs that do consistently produce the conditions we prefer?

Ryan

Very few, but I think this is mainly due to human error and/or lack of budget (which is human error as well).  Basically, Brits have had golf too cheap for too long, at the expense of conditioning and playability with a lack of solid long term planning.  Just look at the state of courses with trees not only mucking up play, but sound course management as well.  I also wonder what is going on below the surface when I walk on spongy greens...and most courses have sponge to one degree or another...and this is coming from a guy who is quite selective in choosing where to play.  Bottom line, I am becoming less tolerant of the rain card when course conditions are a talking point.  That excuse can only go so far. 

Ciao   

[Ryan Coles]

Fair enough Sean, But what are the inland clubs that do consistently produce the conditions we prefer?

Ryan

Very few, but I think this is mainly due to human error and/or lack of budget (which is human error as well).  Basically, Brits have had golf too cheap for too long, at the expense of conditioning and playability with a lack of solid long term planning.  Just look at the state of courses with trees not only mucking up play, but sound course management as well.  I also wonder what is going on below the surface when I walk on spongy greens...and most courses have sponge to one degree or another...and this is coming from a guy who is quite selective in choosing where to play.  Bottom line, I am becoming less tolerant of the rain card when course conditions are a talking point.  That excuse can only go so far. 

Ciao   

I go with the thought that they can't all be badly managed. I'm not sure your firm nirvana actually exists with any degree of consistency.

Totally agree about golf being too cheap. But Who pays for these increased budgets? You've made it pretty clear that you won't, be it through green fees or subs.

It ain't draining unless someone else is paying.

[Sean_A]

Ryan

I disagree about course management, the national tree issue should be enough to convince you as well that clubs have not done a good job in caring for their courses.  I would also disagree with you where I am concerned. I would love to pay extra subs if I was told the greens would be improved and I could believe it.  I would also pay more to visit drier courses...hell I do now...hence the reason I pay no attention to tons of cheap courses I could play.  My firm nirvana is a dream, but its a dream which has the potential to come true with better course management.  I have seen it happen at Alwoodley, Notts is making good strides, Hunstanton dramatically improved, same for Formby.  It isn't easy, but with a good long term plan, practically every course in the country could be improved and never touch a bunker. 

Ciao

[Jeff Bergeron]

Boy, am I glad this came to the top. As always Sean your posts are awesome!

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

I am surprised you think golf is too cheap but if you feel this to be the case then you could always pay a few pounds extra as I am sure most clubs would not decline such a generous offer. However if you think that by paying more conditions will improve then I suspect you will be very disappointed. Poor management is rarely due to lack of money though is often caused by having too much.

I also do not think a lack of budget is the problem when it comes to soggy conditions but rather where the budget is spent. If all the money spent on irrigation went into decent deep land drainage then most courses would not be too wet during the playing season after taking into account the soil conditions.

My experience is that most courses maintained on ultra low budgets offer decent playing conditions tee to green through the summer though often not in the winter but then again inland golf is not really a winter sport except for those lucky few spots that are free draining enough. If it is just the greens that are wet then it probably is over watering but after a lot of rain the ground should be wet. I agree about the trees though.

Jon

[Duncan Cheslett]

Sean,

It was great to meet up with you on Sunday at Camberley Heath and I have to say that I agree completely with you about the priorities that the club should have.

Yes, the bunkering is a bit of a mish-mash and not up to the standard one would expect of such a stunning heathland setting. However, my beef is more with the condition and aesthetic appearance of the bunkers than with their positioning. I've had a good look at Frank's proposed changes and really can't see the point of many of them when sorting out the drainage in the existing bunkers would seem to be more important. Many were hard-pan.

The greens were horribly spongey in many places; and we haven't had a lot of rain. Another priority IMO.

I do get the definite impression that modern golf architects are a little bit obsessed with bunkering. Perhaps it is the simplest way of making obvious changes and thus justifying their fee. I suggested this to Ken on our long journey home to Cheshire and he just chuckled...

Personally, I am not that fussed with bunkering. On inland courses I find it all a bit artificial and would like to see other hazards used more widely.

Like carp ponds...  


Incidentally, I had a long chat with the captain of CH after dinner and he said that the majority of members actually like the carp pond, and more importantly it provides a lovely setting for photographs at the many weddings which are a main source of revenue for the club.

I suspect that Frank may just have a battle on his hands...

[Ed Tilley]

I don't think this constant  banging on about non existent firm conditions in England makes a lot of sense, particularly inland. When its been raining a lot, the course will be wet.

There are hundreds of courses in England, how many really drain better than Camberley?

Burnham is wet, surrey heaths are wet, where are these fabled dry courses?

Don't understand all the moaning. Golf in England is what it is. It is a green and pleasant land because quite frankly it rains a lot.

Forget the bunkers frank, renovate or restore the climate. Summer of 76 should do it.

This is a bit of a myth. The actual annual rainfall in South East England is very low. London's average annual rainfall is 25.6 inches which is considerably lower than New York, Rome, Sydney for example. Certain parts of SE England (e.g. Essex) have annual rainfall figures that are practically desert. I think little and often would be the best way to describe rain for the Surrey / Berkshire heathland courses. A heathland course such as Camberley Heath - which I've never been to but would like to - should be reasonably dry most of the year.

Of course the further west and north you go is a different story - both Wales and Scotland have almost 3 times the rainfall of SE England. In fact, if Scotland had voted for independence, the UK average annual rainfall figure would have fallen considerably overnight!

[Tom Kelly]

Thanks Frank.  I understand that you likely have a brief for certain work.  However, I can't help but wonder if the focus can sometimes be misplaced.  I understand the bunkering is a mish mash job, but to me the most important issues to consider are the soft greens and tree work.  Assuming there is only so much money in the pot, getting the priorities straight is important.  We talk about the bunker on 8 and that is incredibly low on any list of work I would think important to do at CH.  I realize this is your livelihood, but I find it very surprising that greens and making sure sunlight hits the greens aren't the top priorities.  Of course, that is coming from the PoV that bunkering is in the main about looks if the placement is going to be altered much.  Focusing so much on bunkers is a worrying trend.

Ciao

Sean,

I understand your point and on many levels agree with you but although an architect can advise on such issues as the firmness of the course, really should imo and probably do as it is key to the architecture working, that kind of maintenance decision ultimately lies with the greens committee, course manager/greenkeeper and maybe agronomist if they use one does it not? The tree issue will be a constant compromise in most cases given planning laws and the majority of golfers love for wood as well. It is surely an extremely tough sell, golfers like trees and seeing their ball stopping quickly...

As for the bunkering, although as you point out in reality other than placement it has little effect on the playability of the course it does have a dramatic effect on the appearance, aura and therefore for many enjoyability of the golf course as a whole experience. It almost instantly gives the course a 'new' feel and blinds the masses into thinking the course is great. It's a superb marketing tool for the club, just think of all the new flyers and website photos!!! For a course like Camberley who are actively seeking more members and looking for more income after by the sounds of it some financial trouble, it is a great opportunity to make the course more attractive to the golfing masses.

The old saying goes 'Don't read a book by it's cover.' A bunker renovation on many levels is sprucing up the cover but we live in a world where to many the cover matters as most probably don't get the time or have the interest to really read what's inside.

[Paul Gray]

Sean,

I too am a little surprised that you feel more money needs to be ploughed into courses. My own take is that too much money has been thrown at all the wrong areas and therein lies the problem. Firm and fast conditions for example have not demised because of a lack of investment. Those sprinklers didn't reduce costs. Mismanagement at committee level up and down the land is surely the issue, all undertaken in an attempt to replicate the PGA Tour. After all, how many old courses do you know that succeed because of a LACK of expensive tricks, rather than because of them?

And we'll have to agree to disagree about those larger bunkers vs more pot like affairs.

[Sean_A]

Tom

You are of course 100% correct.  I do realize I am dreaming to think many archies would tell a club not hire him and instead spend the money in more critical areas such a greens improvement.  It does, however, become exasperating to see something like this happen when it is clear (assuming a limited amount of money is available) the best bang for buck is the improving the greens...golfers like to play on dry greens all year round as well as admire lovely sand  

I look forward to seeing the changes as I thought Frank did well at Broadstone and I like CH anyway just as I like practically any Colt course.  

Paul

Okay, I don't mind a re-allocation of budget emphasis  because I do agree that sometimes a lot money is poured into watering or the capability to water courses.  I think this is a losing battle though when we consider Rye installed a watering system.  Mind you, in the long term, more efficient (if used properly and sparingly I might add) watering systems could make a big difference in access to affordable water without "penalty" charges.  I still think that day is coming in the UK when courses will be asked hard questions and many clubs will be caught between a rock and hard place unless they start a long term budget plan to replace inefficient systems.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Of course the further west and north you go is a different story - both Wales and Scotland have almost 3 times the rainfall of SE England. In fact, if Scotland had voted for independence, the UK average annual rainfall figure would have fallen considerably overnight!

Ed,

the rainfall in Scotland also depends on where. For instance around the Moray Firth we have a lot less rainfall than on the west coast. This year has been fantastic and we have had very little rainfall leading to great playing conditions on many courses. Having said that we have had a day and a half of torrential rainfall which has only just stopped. My place has water lying in areas that I have never seen before even in the depths of winter but it should be fine by tomorrow I hope.

Sean,

irrigation systems are rarely used sparingly and when they are needed the most is exactly when water will be at its most valuable. You lament Rye installing an irrigation system yet also seem to promote them as necessary which is not the case unless you are chasing the Augusta green dream. I prefer a F&F, sun burnt affordable game to this and I thought you did too but...

Jon

Jon

[Paul Gray]

Sean,

Before conceding defeat (and I understand exactly where you're coming from) I'm prepared to suggest that the battle for brown is not lost just yet. Equally however I do have to laugh when I read comments on this site which suggest that the minimalist movement has already won the war. 99% of club golfers in this country would still see a lack of green grass and receptive greens as a sign of poor quality. If there is to be a re-education of the average golfer then we are certainly only in the early stages.

[Paul Gray]

Sean,

Before conceding defeat (and I understand exactly where you're coming from) I'm prepared to suggest that the battle for brown is not lost just yet. Equally however I do have to laugh when I read comments on this site which suggest that the minimalist movement has already won the war. 99% of club golfers in this country would still see a lack of green grass and receptive greens as a sign of poor quality. If there is to be a re-education of the average golfer then we are certainly only in the early stages.

[Sean_A]

Jon

Yes, I like weather dictated course conditions, but I am a realist.  I am not saying clubs should be installing watering systems now, but they should be building reserves for that day when the water man knocks on the door and says unless your system is improved, there will be a penalty charge for access to water.  

I really want to get back to Rye in the summer and see what the course looks like.  Who knows, perhaps the club is well and truly using the system sparingly.  Craig Disher seemed to think so and I trust his judgement because he probably plays more summer rounds at Rye than any man on earth.  It might well be that in the way Rye uses the system they may still be a model club for water usage.  Generally though, I agree with you, fancy watering systems are still watering systems.  Its the water use philosophy behind the system which matters most...and we all know a club culture can shift very slowly and go unnoticed until someone starts shouting about soft conditions...it can set course conditioning back several years.  

Paul

If I gave up on dry courses, I wouldn't be having this conversation.  I think there is still a strong movement among top clubs to present their courses in a fairly lean manner.  

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Sean,

Well good.

For a moment there I thought 'the cause' was loosing you. 

[Thomas Dai]

Regrettably I suggest we posting herein are in the minority when it comes to firmness and colour and visual aspects of golf courses. Our best chance of golf going 'our way' in the longterm is water shortages and water related costs, issues that may force clubs/courses to change. Until then, sprinklers on. Just saying.
atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

yes, I agree with you and am relieved to see I had misunderstood what you were getting at. If I am not mistaken Rye has historically been a winter course and not so much played through the summer.

Thomas,

The problem with educating the masses is that the organisations (R&A plus the Home Unions) in a position to do so are not really committed to the good of the game in the UK. The R&A launched a scheme designed to promote sustainable golf in the UK which seems to have disappeared into the shadows as I have heard neither hide nor hair of it for the last two years. This is certainly not because the R&A does not have the finances nor is it due to lack of access to publicise its message to the masses so I have to put it down to a lack of motivation. They use UK golf as a cash cow to milk whilst spending far more energy on promoting golf in areas which have not historically seen the game. All very good and noble but it is to the detriment of golf here in the UK. I fear this will not change until the money flow slows to a point where something needs to be done. As with the distance the ball flies they have been inept in their handling of this situation to the detriment of all who love the game.

As for the home unions I should really say the SGU as I am unaware of what programmes the other home unions have. Any official body who openly says that there is an over capacity of golfing facilities and the number needs to be reduced obviously does not believe the game can grow. The program of Clubgolf they have embarked on is very noble but is clearly failing in growing the game but then again that is not it's aim but rather to get all kids in Scotland to try the game. Better would be to increase the number of juniors actively playing the game as a main hobby and increasing the number of families playing. But then again any national body who does not know how many facilities there are in it's region and have no interest in new facilities becoming members is not really going to succeed

Jon

[Marc Haring]

I have to confess to being the course manager of Camberley during the infamous Japanese debacle. In my defence, it was a total steamroller job where negotiation was non-existent. Spent about 3 years there in charge and couldn't get away quick enough from the place.

Life's rich tapestry and all that....

[Ryan Coles]

I don't think this constant  banging on about non existent firm conditions in England makes a lot of sense, particularly inland. When its been raining a lot, the course will be wet.

There are hundreds of courses in England, how many really drain better than Camberley?

Burnham is wet, surrey heaths are wet, where are these fabled dry courses?

Don't understand all the moaning. Golf in England is what it is. It is a green and pleasant land because quite frankly it rains a lot.

Forget the bunkers frank, renovate or restore the climate. Summer of 76 should do it.

This is a bit of a myth. The actual annual rainfall in South East England is very low. London's average annual rainfall is 25.6 inches which is considerably lower than New York, Rome, Sydney for example. Certain parts of SE England (e.g. Essex) have annual rainfall figures that are practically desert. I think little and often would be the best way to describe rain for the Surrey / Berkshire heathland courses. A heathland course such as Camberley Heath - which I've never been to but would like to - should be reasonably dry most of the year.

Of course the further west and north you go is a different story - both Wales and Scotland have almost 3 times the rainfall of SE England. In fact, if Scotland had voted for independence, the UK average annual rainfall figure would have fallen considerably overnight!

All the rivers bursting and floods last winter was due to greenkeepers irrigation, clearly.

[Ryan Coles]

Sean,

yes, I agree with you and am relieved to see I had misunderstood what you were getting at. If I am not mistaken Rye has historically been a winter course and not so much played through the summer.

Thomas,

The problem with educating the masses is that the organisations (R&A plus the Home Unions) in a position to do so are not really committed to the good of the game in the UK. The R&A launched a scheme designed to promote sustainable golf in the UK which seems to have disappeared into the shadows as I have heard neither hide nor hair of it for the last two years. This is certainly not because the R&A does not have the finances nor is it due to lack of access to publicise its message to the masses so I have to put it down to a lack of motivation. They use UK golf as a cash cow to milk whilst spending far more energy on promoting golf in areas which have not historically seen the game. All very good and noble but it is to the detriment of golf here in the UK. I fear this will not change until the money flow slows to a point where something needs to be done. As with the distance the ball flies they have been inept in their handling of this situation to the detriment of all who love the game.

As for the home unions I should really say the SGU as I am unaware of what programmes the other home unions have. Any official body who openly says that there is an over capacity of golfing facilities and the number needs to be reduced obviously does not believe the game can grow. The program of Clubgolf they have embarked on is very noble but is clearly failing in growing the game but then again that is not it's aim but rather to get all kids in Scotland to try the game. Better would be to increase the number of juniors actively playing the game as a main hobby and increasing the number of families playing. But then again any national body who does not know how many facilities there are in it's region and have no interest in new facilities becoming members is not really going to succeed

Jon

Jon

I think that is slightly wrong about the home unions. Broadly speaking they are telling the truth: there are too many Clubs. Nothing to do with growing the game, the game needs to grow to sustain what is already there. They are being refreshingly honest. On your other point, it would be welcome if they were equally honest about distance and said: the ball does go too far.

Speaking specifically of the R&A, my experience is that they do a great job and the officials and staff in areas such as course management and sustainability, offer the resource and advice to those who wanted. Steve Issac from the R&A has been great with my club in terms of advice, support and funding.

How "green" the Open is should also be a model to other major events.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ryan,

yes the R&A and Steve Isaac are doing a great job inside the bubble they work in. However your post says it all. How 'green' is not the issue but how 'sustainable'. The fact that you do not understand what their programme is about having been so exposed to Steve Isaac and the R&A's message kind of suggests they have been pretty poor at getting it across.

It is the perception of the average golfer that needs to change however and the vast majority of those know nothing about the R&A's drive. I cannot recall the last time I read an article on their programme outside industry publications and I have never seen anything on club notice boards or in club journals. It is all good and well preaching to the converted but no good if they are a small minority.

Clubgolf's goals are all about growing the game and getting new people involved Ryan. Yet despite an increase in the overall population the attitude is the one you describe and one that will never work as we are seeing. You cannot win if you attitude is we have already lost.

Agree about the ball but once again this is typical. It is bad for the game but not been dealt with because it might make for an uncomfortable situation. Yet is a shrinking game good for all the golf ball producers? No! I suspect they too would be in favour of a reduction in the length of the ball if they thought it would lead to an increase in turnover for them.

Jon

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan,

yes the R&A and Steve Isaac are doing a great job inside the bubble they work in. However your post says it all. How 'green' is not the issue but how 'sustainable'. The fact that you do not understand what their programme is about having been so exposed to Steve Isaac and the R&A's message kind of suggests they have been pretty poor at getting it across.

It is the perception of the average golfer that needs to change however and the vast majority of those know nothing about the R&A's drive. I cannot recall the last time I read an article on their programme outside industry publications and I have never seen anything on club notice boards or in club journals. It is all good and well preaching to the converted but no good if they are a small minority.

Clubgolf's goals are all about growing the game and getting new people involved Ryan. Yet despite an increase in the overall population the attitude is the one you describe and one that will never work as we are seeing. You cannot win if you attitude is we have already lost.

Agree about the ball but once again this is typical. It is bad for the game but not been dealt with because it might make for an uncomfortable situation. Yet is a shrinking game good for all the golf ball producers? No! I suspect they too would be in favour of a reduction in the length of the ball if they thought it would lead to an increase in turnover for them.

Jon

Jon

Your comments about what I understand or don't is purely guess work on your part. You have no idea what my understanding is or isn't.

As for participation, there are numerous external factors which in my opinion far outweigh the so called attitudes of those within your bubble. Fashions and trends do and can change, demand for golf may well increase in the future. Here and now the facts are that supply outstrips demand. It is sensible for all concerned to recognise this fact. The Bodies should not be criticised for articulating this fact.

You cannot climb out of poverty by pretending to be rich.