What did the Pests make of Pennard?

[Tony_Muldoon]

I’m beginning to think Pennard divides golfers like no other course.


Today I got home to find a magazine on my doorstop listing the top 200 courses in GB&I and Pennard is not in it.
Sorry I have to say that again.
Today I got home to find a magazine on my doorstep listing the top 200 courses in GB&I and Pennard is not in it.


I’ve just called the bank and cancelled the Direct Debit - enough of that crap.

This was posted earlier today, and let’s call it the middle ground.


 “Other than the crazy hillsides, cows, and fierce wind making this course a lot of work it was unfailingly populated with memorable golf holes and great fun. I maintained that it is a course  one must play in a lifetime but one I would rather not play all the time. It felt like leaving a cave tour or ships deck after four hours upon quitting the links the ground was that tumultuous and the angles that baffling. “


I also spoke with the wonderful Mike The Pro.  He said that Pennard was put on the map by The Confidential Guide and by Jim Finegan. Indeed he added that within the past two years a very frail Finegan had detoured to play 9 holes at Pennard in a Cart on his way to see  Dundonald in Ayrshire.

In his book on Golf in England and Wales he arranged it so Pennard was the last course reviewed.

“I see no reason to back away from an unflinching conclusion: Pennard is a very great course, in my experience one of the twenty greatest in the world.”



So Pests what say you?


Here’s a link to Sean’s great tour of this holy ground.

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/pennard-golf-club

[David Stamm]

Well, I have it on my bucket list of courses. I very much would rather see Pennard than a good number of the rota courses.

[Tony_Muldoon]

David let me know when you plan to hit Heathrow.  I've driven past Heathrow at 7 am, played Pennard and then back again about 12 hours later. 

[Tony_Muldoon]

[Philip Gawith]

Tony, the concept that makes sense to me in relation to such courses is "soul" golf - as in, do these courses speak to your soul? Does it feel good to be alive walking around them, in virtue of the glory of the physical surrounds joined with the normal pleasures/frustrations of the game of golf and good company?

Many golf courses are fine to play, well designed etc, but they don't speak to your soul - and if you lack a golfing soul then you won't appreciate those that do qualify, considering them eccentric/unfair etc. For me Pennard has many memorables holes, most but not all of which are very good holes too - but over and above all of this, when the weather is fine, and you see the ruins, and the beach and the sea - it has to be up among the best golfing experiences.

I suppose you would test me if you asked me which i preferred to play - Pennard or St Enodoc. The latter also passes my test - a beautiful evening or morning round near the Camel estuary takes a lot of beating, but the two courses are very different.

BTW -the pics you have posted are not from the recent visit i don't believe - too yellow?

[Sean_A]

Spangles

I remember the day of your photos very well.  Pennard was firing on all cylinders and the wind was just as keen as for Buda - very, very difficult conditions.  Not to mention I had this giggling fool in one ear or the other the way round.  Jeepers, our good mate Richard still smiles when recollecting that day. 

Its a fair compromise to say Pennard isn't a course for every week.  The same could be said of a number of great courses.  I play maybe only six times a year at Pennard and I always cherish the calmer days because the course is entertaining enough to bring me joy.

Ciao

 

[Bill_McBride]

I suppose you would test me if you asked me which i preferred to play - Pennard or St Enodoc. The latter also passes my test - a beautiful evening or morning round near the Camel estuary takes a lot of beating, but the two courses are very different.

But that's the beauty of being an adventurous golfer - it doesn't have to be one over the other.  Golf is not monogamous!

Tony, the photos are great.  One of the wonderful things about that lunar landscape is that I have played Pennard twice, remember each hole individually, but couldn't recognize several of the holes you photographed.  (I suspect they are unrelated greens and vantage points)

[Craig Disher]

Tony,
How did you round up the cows before you played?

[Tony_Muldoon]

The table and chairs carefully arranged by Cleese, Chapman, Gillliam,  Idle, Palin and Jones?

 

Summer of 2006.   I'd never played in a real links wind until that day, the sudden silence on the 6th tree was overpowering!

 The wind must have been from the opposite direction, I recall Sean saying anything more than a 5i on 10 was "just nuts".


I find Pennard rising to the very top of my list,  the way it's both quirky and hard makes me think Pennard is to links as the Addington is to Heathland.

The day after BUDA we dropped our only child off to her first day at University.  BAM!  OUTCH!  SIGH!

My wife suggested we need a weekend away together, I smiled and said The Mumbles seems a nice place.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Tony,
How did you round up the cows before you played?

Oddly that summer they had managed to get the animals off.  I'm glad to see them back, at Clyne they said the fences were to keep horses off as they were the ones that damage greens.

[John Mayhugh]

Tony,
How did you round up the cows before you played?

Oddly that summer they had managed to get the animals off.  I'm glad to see them back, at Clyne they said the fences were to keep horses off as they were the ones that damage greens.

There may be some truth to that.




Thanks for posting the Pennard photos.  As Philip aptly points out, that is a really special place that speaks to the golf soul.  Not to mention it's an absolute blast to play in the wind!

[Mark Pearce]

It would probably make my list of 20 courses I'd most like to play again in the UK, maybe even my top 10.  Is it great?  I don't know but it's great fun and requires real shotmaking so I couldn't say it wasn't.

[Ben Stephens]

I guess Pennard is growing on me. It probably has the best set of medium length par 4's on any golf course I have played - 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were great holes as well as 14. 18 is probably underrated by others as it demands accuracy off the tee as every 18th hole should. I thought 7 and 8 were awesome due to the shape of everything - fairways and superbly shaped greens.

I can't help feeling that potential of the course is not really fulfilled despite the most stunning landscape and views for a golf course - the par 3's and par 5's (apart from hole 10 which was a nice 'longish' short par 5) plus hole 12 lets the course down in my opinion. I have played many courses with a great set of par 3's and par 5's that have been let down by the par 4's.

People rave about 16 - its probably due to the location of the green and the views - in my view the shape of the green is 'artificial' and not really suitable for a short par 5 and the long hitters would have a downhill lie which would be impossible to really stop on the green. I had a great third shot which I nearly holed (little down to luck) also I saw Wardo had a great shot which went miles away from the flag which he thought was unfair. I would prefer a green like the 5th at Porthcawl which is long and narrow rather than short and wide for this position.

The pro was great and very helpful. There are not that many club pros that have lived on the same golf course for most of their life and is so enthustatic about the course and can remember what the course was like in the past and the changes that were made in the last 30 to 40 years!

I for one would definitely go back to Pennard some time in the near future. My design teacher used to tell me - 'No design is perfect, make the most of it' so I will try and make the most of it to get back to show better appreciation for the course who knows maybe some of the par 3's will grow on me.

[Mark Pearce]

Ben,

We'll have to disagree about the par 5s.  I thought 4 was a really good hole.  Yes, it makes you uncomfortable on the tee.  Yes, the OOB can really threaten.  So what?  Life isn't supposed to be easy.  It should be (and was, even in that wind) easy to get up in three.  You long boys need to understand that not all par 5s should be easy to hit in two shots.

As to 16, it's really beautiful, to start with, off the tee.  Then it's a tough tee shot and a good second.  I don't get what you mean about the green.  Yes it's severe; but it's intended to be hit with a short iron (again, if you're going for it in two then why should you expect the benefit of an easy lie and an easy target to hit?)  The only questionable par 5 was 17, in my opinion.  I also disagree about 18.  I thought it (rather than 17) was the weakest hole on the course.  The only person I saw hit the fairway in three rounds was Jason and he did so by driving it in the right heather and getting lucky.  I saw irons hit the extreme right hand side of the fairway and end up in almost unplayable lies on the left.

[Ben Stephens]

Ben,

We'll have to disagree about the par 5s.  I thought 4 was a really good hole.  Yes, it makes you uncomfortable on the tee.  Yes, the OOB can really threaten.  So what?  Life isn't supposed to be easy.  It should be (and was, even in that wind) easy to get up in three.  You long boys need to understand that not all par 5s should be easy to hit in two shots.

As to 16, it's really beautiful, to start with, off the tee.  Then it's a tough tee shot and a good second.  I don't get what you mean about the green.  Yes it's severe; but it's intended to be hit with a short iron (again, if you're going for it in two then why should you expect the benefit of an easy lie and an easy target to hit?)  The only questionable par 5 was 17, in my opinion.  I also disagree about 18.  I thought it (rather than 17) was the weakest hole on the course.  The only person I saw hit the fairway in three rounds was Jason and he did so by driving it in the right heather and getting lucky.  I saw irons hit the extreme right hand side of the fairway and end up in almost unplayable lies on the left.

Mark,

As I did not bring my 'A" game (I brought my 'D+' game ) From the long hitter perspective - the par 5's were not good, it actually punishes the long hitter if it hit a great drive, on 4 there is no fairway and OOB or a tee!?!? and that green would be ridiculous if we played that hole downwind. 10 was the only good par 5 as it is a risk and reward drive for the long hitters. 16 is unfair as it is a steep downhill lie in the 300 yard territory try hitting a 9 iron on a steep downhill stance like an 8 iron 150 yards and try holding it on that green???

The game has moved forward - Pennard hasn't in terms of the par 5's. Brancaster has the best set of short par 5's none of them is over 500 yards and doesn't punish a long straight drive.

17 is ? maybe it would be better if the hole was broken up into two - firstly a par 3 and then a par 4 up to the current green which will take away the huge blind shot.

18 the club needs to look at widening it on the left creating a double shelf fairway like the 18th at Hunstanton (will take some pics as Im there this weekend) which will make the hole longer/fairer and the short cut route is more risky.
I saw Robin and Sean's ball in the middle of the fairway - you have to hit a nice fade to control the ball on the fairway these guys natural shot is a draw? 

Cheers
Ben

[Jon Wiggett]

The game has moved forward - Pennard hasn't in terms of the par 5's. Brancaster has the best set of short par 5's none of them is over 500 yards and doesn't punish a long straight drive.

Ben,

why would you want to punish a drive for being either long or straight? Yes, maybe you might make the central route more risky with say a bunker in the fairway middle, but this just makes the straight drive one side or the other of this hazard. Long might be challenged, but should it be punished except through a dogleg or through the back of the green. Can you elaborate your thoughts on this subject.

Cheers,

Jon

[Jason Topp]

The game has moved forward - Pennard hasn't in terms of the par 5's. Brancaster has the best set of short par 5's none of them is over 500 yards and doesn't punish a long straight drive.

Ben,

why would you want to punish a drive for being either long or straight? Yes, maybe you might make the central route more risky with say a bunker in the fairway middle, but this just makes the straight drive one side or the other of this hazard. Long might be challenged, but should it be punished except through a dogleg or through the back of the green. Can you elaborate your thoughts on this subject.

Cheers,

Jon

Jon:

I think Ben would agree with your premise.  At Pennard  - 17 takes driver out of your hands because gorse intrudes to a very narrow opening at driver length.  On 4 - I suspect a straight drive would take Ben out of bounds although that is not an issue for me.

[Sean_A]

Ben,

We'll have to disagree about the par 5s.  I thought 4 was a really good hole.  Yes, it makes you uncomfortable on the tee.  Yes, the OOB can really threaten.  So what?  Life isn't supposed to be easy.  It should be (and was, even in that wind) easy to get up in three.  You long boys need to understand that not all par 5s should be easy to hit in two shots.

As to 16, it's really beautiful, to start with, off the tee.  Then it's a tough tee shot and a good second.  I don't get what you mean about the green.  Yes it's severe; but it's intended to be hit with a short iron (again, if you're going for it in two then why should you expect the benefit of an easy lie and an easy target to hit?)  The only questionable par 5 was 17, in my opinion.  I also disagree about 18.  I thought it (rather than 17) was the weakest hole on the course.  The only person I saw hit the fairway in three rounds was Jason and he did so by driving it in the right heather and getting lucky.  I saw irons hit the extreme right hand side of the fairway and end up in almost unplayable lies on the left.

Mark,

As I did not bring my 'A" game (I brought my 'D+' game ) From the long hitter perspective - the par 5's were not good, it actually punishes the long hitter if it hit a great drive, on 4 there is no fairway and OOB or a tee!?!? and that green would be ridiculous if we played that hole downwind. 10 was the only good par 5 as it is a risk and reward drive for the long hitters. 16 is unfair as it is a steep downhill lie in the 300 yard territory try hitting a 9 iron on a steep downhill stance like an 8 iron 150 yards and try holding it on that green???

The game has moved forward - Pennard hasn't in terms of the par 5's. Brancaster has the best set of short par 5's none of them is over 500 yards and doesn't punish a long straight drive.

17 is ? maybe it would be better if the hole was broken up into two - firstly a par 3 and then a par 4 up to the current green which will take away the huge blind shot.

18 the club needs to look at widening it on the left creating a double shelf fairway like the 18th at Hunstanton (will take some pics as Im there this weekend) which will make the hole longer/fairer and the short cut route is more risky.
I saw Robin and Sean's ball in the middle of the fairway - you have to hit a nice fade to control the ball on the fairway these guys natural shot is a draw?  

Cheers
Ben

Ben

#17 takes driver out of one's hands if you aren't sure you can hit the neck.  Its there, but you better be damn straight. I have seen many guys hit it up the neck.

Again, #18 requires a fade.  There is nothng wrong with a prescribed drive when almost every other drive on the course is a driver's paradise.

There is no way I am buying that #16 green is unfair.  One must approach the green from the opposite side of where the hole is located on the green.  If that means it is better to layup on the second I can't see what is wrong with that.  I also can't see what is wrong with the severe putt from the back or the wrong side of the green once the player has gotten himself out of position.  It is a great hole because like the 4th, it is wide open off the tee, but there are definitely better sides of the fairway to be on. Remember, you played into a a good headwind.  Often times, this isn't the case.  

#4 has its problems, but that is nothing to do with the oob.  Hitting up the fairway proper is dangerous because it deadends into oob, but if you are willing to lay-up, it is by far the best angle of approach.  One can bang it long down the left, but be left with an awkward angle.  The green is very good for a short par 5 because it needles golfers not to be too aggressive with the approach (knowing that long is not clever) and this of course brings the right bunkers into play.  Its a very good hole and helps make up what I believe to be a unique set of par 5s.

#13 is a GREAT PAR 3.  So what if you can't see the left side of the green - its there.  I just wish they would make the dune short of the green more roughed up to create more tension in playing safe out to the left.  

I can fully understand if folks don't these aspects of Pennard, but to change them would be to change Pennard.  That would be wrong.

Ciao  

[Ben Stephens]

The game has moved forward - Pennard hasn't in terms of the par 5's. Brancaster has the best set of short par 5's none of them is over 500 yards and doesn't punish a long straight drive.

Ben,

why would you want to punish a drive for being either long or straight? Yes, maybe you might make the central route more risky with say a bunker in the fairway middle, but this just makes the straight drive one side or the other of this hazard. Long might be challenged, but should it be punished except through a dogleg or through the back of the green. Can you elaborate your thoughts on this subject.

Cheers,

Jon

Jon:

I think Ben would agree with your premise.  At Pennard  - 17 takes driver out of your hands because gorse intrudes to a very narrow opening at driver length.  On 4 - I suspect a straight drive would take Ben out of bounds although that is not an issue for me.

Jason - thank you - it is exactly what I thought.

Jon

On a day when my driver just flies it would go out of bounds if straight on the 4th hole therefore my instinct is to go left which is very close to the 7th and 9th tees which makes it dangerous. It would be nice if there was a fairway on the left with a central bunker like you suggested but it will be too close to the 7th and 9th tees. In other respects it takes the driver out of the bag and gives more favour to the shorter hitters and thats the same for the 17th which the club needs to cut back the gorse bushes in this windswept area to create a better/Fairer + strategic hole as opposed to penal.

Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Ben,

We'll have to disagree about the par 5s.  I thought 4 was a really good hole.  Yes, it makes you uncomfortable on the tee.  Yes, the OOB can really threaten.  So what?  Life isn't supposed to be easy.  It should be (and was, even in that wind) easy to get up in three.  You long boys need to understand that not all par 5s should be easy to hit in two shots.

As to 16, it's really beautiful, to start with, off the tee.  Then it's a tough tee shot and a good second.  I don't get what you mean about the green.  Yes it's severe; but it's intended to be hit with a short iron (again, if you're going for it in two then why should you expect the benefit of an easy lie and an easy target to hit?)  The only questionable par 5 was 17, in my opinion.  I also disagree about 18.  I thought it (rather than 17) was the weakest hole on the course.  The only person I saw hit the fairway in three rounds was Jason and he did so by driving it in the right heather and getting lucky.  I saw irons hit the extreme right hand side of the fairway and end up in almost unplayable lies on the left.

Mark,

As I did not bring my 'A" game (I brought my 'D+' game ) From the long hitter perspective - the par 5's were not good, it actually punishes the long hitter if it hit a great drive, on 4 there is no fairway and OOB or a tee!?!? and that green would be ridiculous if we played that hole downwind. 10 was the only good par 5 as it is a risk and reward drive for the long hitters. 16 is unfair as it is a steep downhill lie in the 300 yard territory try hitting a 9 iron on a steep downhill stance like an 8 iron 150 yards and try holding it on that green???

The game has moved forward - Pennard hasn't in terms of the par 5's. Brancaster has the best set of short par 5's none of them is over 500 yards and doesn't punish a long straight drive.

17 is ? maybe it would be better if the hole was broken up into two - firstly a par 3 and then a par 4 up to the current green which will take away the huge blind shot.

18 the club needs to look at widening it on the left creating a double shelf fairway like the 18th at Hunstanton (will take some pics as Im there this weekend) which will make the hole longer/fairer and the short cut route is more risky.
I saw Robin and Sean's ball in the middle of the fairway - you have to hit a nice fade to control the ball on the fairway these guys natural shot is a draw?  

Cheers
Ben

Ben

#17 takes driver out of one's hands if you aren't sure you can hit the neck.  Its there, but you better be damn straight. I have seen many guys hit it up the neck.

Again, #18 requires a fade.  There is nothng wrong with a prescribed drive when almost every other drive on the course is a driver's paradise.

There is no way I am buying that #16 green is unfair.  One must approach the green from the opposite side of where the hole is located on the green.  If that means it is better to layup on the second I can't see what is wrong with that.  I also can't see what is wrong with the severe putt from the back or the wrong side of the green once the player has gotten himself out of position.  It is a great hole because like the 4th, it is wide open off the tee, but there are definitely better sides of the fairway to be on. Remember, you played into a a good headwind.  Often times, this isn't the case.  

#4 has its problems, but that is nothing to do with the oob.  Hitting up the fairway proper is dangerous because it deadends into oob, but if you are willing to lay-up, it is by far the best angle of approach.  One can bang it long down the left, but be left with an awkward angle.  The green is very good for a short par 4 because it needles golfers not to be too aggressive with the approach (knowing that long is not clever) and this of course brings the right bunkers into play.  Its a very good hole and helps make up what I believe to be a unique set of par 5s.

#13 is a GREAT PAR 3.  So what if you can't see the left side of the green - its there.  I just wish they would make the dune short of the green more roughed up to create more tension in playing safe out to the left.  

I can fully understand if folks don't these aspects of Pennard, but to change them would be to change Pennard.  That would be wrong.

Ciao  

Sean

Drinkin’ Joe hit a hot drive on the 17th not knowing where exactly to go. He was in the gap and could not believe it.  

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree on our views of 13 and 16 – I thought 13 was a poor hole and too artificial did someone try to create half a dell hole??. I felt that the better green site is on the right of the green against the dune ridge which is a missed opportunity.

Lots of the shots to the greens on the back nine were blind which makes it hard to judge the distance and where to land the ball. 16 has a strong front to back downslope on front right which would be impossible to stop the ball downwind. Marmite comes into the equation – some love it some hate it which makes it interesting.

Pennard has more positives than negatives – but I can’t help thinking wow it could have been a lot better potentially one of the best golf courses in the world thanks to the amazing and unique site that is available. It has a great set of par 4’s really let down by the poor quality of the par 3’s and strange set of par 5’s

Look at Brancaster – it has a good set of par 4’s some great par 4’s, strong short par 5’s, great par 3’s of different distances whereas Pennard they seemed to be the same distance on 5, 11, 13 and 15. It’s like writing a symphony - getting the flow right – to me Pennard seems to stutter from the 12th onwards after a beautiful stretch from 6 to 11.

I would still play Pennard but would rather play Brancaster most of the time. They are both unique in their own right but for me one stands out more than the other. I am at Brancaster this week hopefully I will bring back some great pics.

Cheers
Ben

[James Boon]

Ben,

You shouldn't be so harsh on the course, especially one so old, for some of the issues you mention. Safety clearly wasn't a big issue to architects all those years ago, or not as big an issue anyway, as some make it today. Perhaps we should all go back to wearing red jackets? 

Tony,

What did I make of Pennard? I loved it! And as I've said on another thread, I think I'd rather play Pennard than Porthcawl any day, as its got far more character and is much more fun. There are some great holes, but its 7 that really stands out for me. It would be a great short par 4 without the view, castle and church, but just adding those elements makes it just awesome!

I can't wait to return!

Cheers,

James

[Sean_A]

Ben

For a guy who hits the ball as far as you do there shouldn't be a blind approach on the back nine, but if you are gonna spray it, then there can be loads of blinds shots.  Truth be told, on the front nine a long hitter shouldn't have any blind approaches either.  You must be in whinge mode -  take a pill! The blind shots of Pennard are largely a myth for a guy who can hit the ball 250.  For me, the approaches which are often blind are #s 1, 7, 12 and 14 (if one doesn't include seeing the flag as a visible hole).  Often times 7 & 12 are downwind and not at all blind after a proper drive.  #7 & 14 offer a view if ones lays back a bit.  In fact, both are drivable.  #3 isn't blind with a properly placed drive.  #6 isn't blind if down the right side - the flag is in view.  #1 requires a long drive for a view, but again, in the weather we had at Buda even with fairways not terribly keen, you should have been able to hit the ball far enough for a view of the green.  There are a load of blind approaches for the straight 200 yard hitter; #s 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 & 14(?).  

Ciao

 

[Ben Stephens]

Ben,

You shouldn't be so harsh on the course, especially one so old, for some of the issues you mention. Safety clearly wasn't a big issue to architects all those years ago, or not as big an issue anyway, as some make it today. Perhaps we should all go back to wearing red jackets?  

James

James,

I don't think I am being harsh about the course - I have given it praise as well as criticism 'nothing is perfect' - In the world we live in now there is so much power venured toward the victim if they are seriously injured after being hit by a golf ball. The designer if alive they are liable as well as the club. In those days when the course was designed there were fewer golfers - nowadays the traffic is busier and the distances the players are hitting the golf ball these day increases the chances of being hit. The potential lawsuits are huge that could bankrupt a club which I would not like to see.

I am up for quirkiness if it is safe and fair. Pennard has areas that is not safe and unfair. If this was recified it could potentially be a much better course.

As for the 7th and 8th they are both awesome holes loved them.

I would play Porthcawl more often than Pennard if given the choice by 7-3. Its a great Tom Simpson layout and the greens look more natural and visibile thant the ones at Pennard.

Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Ben

For a guy who hits the ball as far as you do there shouldn't be a blind approach on the back nine, but if you are gonna spray it, then there can be loads of blinds shots.  Truth be told, on the front nine a long hitter shouldn't have any blind approaches either.  You must be in whinge mode -  take a pill! The blind shots of Pennard are largely a myth for a guy who can hit the ball 250.  For me, the approaches which are often blind are #s 1, 7, 12 and 14 (if one doesn't include seeing the flag as a visible hole).  Often times 7 & 12 are downwind and not at all blind after a proper drive.  #7 & 14 offer a view if ones lays back a bit.  In fact, both are drivable.  #3 isn't blind with a properly placed drive.  #6 isn't blind if down the right side - the flag is in view.  #1 requires a long drive for a view, but again, in the weather we had at Buda even with fairways not terribly keen, you should have been able to hit the ball far enough for a view of the green.  There are a load of blind approaches for the straight 200 yard hitter; #s 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 & 14(?).  

Ciao

 

Sean

Our interpretion of blindness is different I mean the green itself that is visible from the fairway not the flag itself. Pennard has many greens that are blind and a few greens where the flag is blind.

I don't think I am whinging - there are positives about Pennard in my write up and there are world class holes there but the balance/flow of the course is up and down which is why it is not ranked higher in many rankings in Golf publications.

I respect your opinion and know is one of your favourites. Like the promotion of Painswick on GCA both Pennard and Painswick are overrated in my view and a bit of a let down overall. But the difference is that Pennard has massive potential to be even better Painswick hasn't.

Cheers
Ben

[Sean_A]

Ben

For a guy who hits the ball as far as you do there shouldn't be a blind approach on the back nine, but if you are gonna spray it, then there can be loads of blinds shots.  Truth be told, on the front nine a long hitter shouldn't have any blind approaches either.  You must be in whinge mode -  take a pill! The blind shots of Pennard are largely a myth for a guy who can hit the ball 250.  For me, the approaches which are often blind are #s 1, 7, 12 and 14 (if one doesn't include seeing the flag as a visible hole).  Often times 7 & 12 are downwind and not at all blind after a proper drive.  #7 & 14 offer a view if ones lays back a bit.  In fact, both are drivable.  #3 isn't blind with a properly placed drive.  #6 isn't blind if down the right side - the flag is in view.  #1 requires a long drive for a view, but again, in the weather we had at Buda even with fairways not terribly keen, you should have been able to hit the ball far enough for a view of the green.  There are a load of blind approaches for the straight 200 yard hitter; #s 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 & 14(?).  

Ciao

 

Sean

Our interpretion of blindness is different I mean the green itself that is visible from the fairway not the flag itself. Pennard has many greens that are blind and a few greens where the flag is blind.

I don't think I am whinging - there are positives about Pennard in my write up and there are world class holes there but the balance/flow of the course is up and down which is why it is not ranked higher in many rankings in Golf publications.

I respect your opinion and know is one of your favourites. Like the promotion of Painswick on GCA both Pennard and Painswick are overrated in my view and a bit of a let down overall. But the difference is that Pennard has massive potential to be even better Painswick hasn't.

Cheers
Ben

Ben, yes, that explains part of it.  I consider a hole not to be blind if the flag or any part of the green can be seen after a well struck drive in a good position.  I particularly like holes where a good positional shot that requires some distance is rewarded with a view of the target.  Pennard certainly has many of this sort of hole which are only blind for shorter hitters or for indifferent drives of the longer hitters. 

It could be true that both Ps are over-rated by GCAers, I certianly believe this to be the case for Painswick.  Still, I would most certainly recommend a fan of architecture see Painswick.  Any course which is unique should be seen if it isn't too much trouble because there are so very few out there.

Ciao