Gallant GANTON GC

[James Boon]

Sean,

I briefly responded regarding width on your Alwoodley thread. I had a look on Google but didn't bother measuring. From the aerials Ganton certainly has some narrow fairways, especially 4 and 12, and some pinch points too, but then Alwoodley has a few pinch points also. In general Ganton was narrower from the aerials I'd say. However, I did say that I clearly can't be trusted to judge width as neither course felt narrow to me. Mark P mentions Notts earlier in the thread and perhaps I've become desensitised to narrow fairways through regular play, or perhaps I just counter being a short hitter with being a straight one (I did measure my drive on 11 that found the cross bunker though!   )

You mention 10 as a great hole? A decent par 3 but I didn't see anything especially noteworthy? Especially not with the quality of some of the other holes out there?

Cheers,

James

[Mark Pearce]

James,

I don't think Notts is narrow.  Narrower than Ganton? Yes.  Narrow?  No.  I think Sean and Brian think anything narrower than TOC is narrow, sometimes!

[Sean_A]

The front nine over, if I had to make one negative observation other than the lack of width (which like Muirfield I think may have been a feature from the very early days), I would say there is an element of sameness to some of the holes.  That is, bunkers cutting into fairways with the terrain falling away is a well used motif.

Onto the 10th, a great hole that isn't materially different from any other hole at Ganton.  Bunkers crowd the green, but the most important hazard may be the unreceptive green.  Judging the yardage between the somewhat obscured cross bunker and the hole is a test.  I suspect the front of the green and the area just shy hurry toward the rear of the green.  Trying to land the ball near the hole in the hope of a one hop stop requires skill that most players do not possess.  All is not perfect though, it is regretful to see a shadow cast across this most sublime scene.  It begs the question why? 




The 11th is a bit unusual for a few reasons.  First, there is noticeable elevation change.  Second, the tee shot is fully in view.  Well, I say fully, there is a pair of reachable cross bunkers about 100 yards short of the green which are out of sight (James Brown double entendre intended). 


Not in character for Ganton, the 12th is a greasy hole playing over (or around) trees and soft ground.  At some point in the distant past this was a par 3 played over trees so I guess at least some of the original intent has been re-introduced over time and likely unintentionally. 


The final par 5 features a straight forward penal drive; ferocious bunkers right, trees and rough left.  While the penal nature of the hole cannot be completely avoided, one can play short of the worst trouble and in the right conditions still reach the green.  The photo below is the result of a tee shot less than 10 yards from the fairway.


Below is a photo of Lee Trevino, possibly from the 1981 Sun Alliance PGA held at Ganton.  The lack of trees not only down the left but generally in the photo is marked difference from today's Ganton.  Also notice the bank of gorse in front of the tee!


Seemingly everybody's favourite hole, the short two-shot 14th, is a head scratcher.  With a head wind (while not quite a contrary wind, I believe not the prevailing direction) it was clear the left bunker could not be carried.  The choice off the tee was really about where to lay-up.  As they say, if one is going to lay-up then be sure to do so and I suspect playing off the spire of St Nicholas is a line of preference for many.  Once again, the fairway looks wide enough, but once again the land pulls shots right toward a blind bunker and a patch of trees which make an admirable hidey hole for under-age drinking. 




On the other hand, if the lay-up is tackled properly, approaching into a headwind must be a big advantage for the banana shape green is spare and quite elusive. 


More to follow.

Ciao
 

[Mark Pearce]

Brian,

If I were asked to identify the weakest hole on the course I wouldn't hesitate to name the 12th (and not the 18th, which others seem to dislike).  It doesn't feel like the rest of the course, partly because of conditioning (which, as you say, flows from the trees surrounding not just the green but bordering the fairway more tightly than anywhere else) and partly because of the awkward nature of the tee shot, where every other hole has a more straightforward (if challenging) test off the tee.

Sean,

It's a shame you played in the wind you did.  Whilst the 14th would still have been a great hole, it really reaches its potential in conditions which allow the green to be driven.  That can only really be done by carrying the LHS bunker and running the ball down.  It isn't straightforward, even then, it's a tight target and the way the green runs away makes it very difficult to hold.

[Brent Hutto]

14th hole, very cool. The days I was at Ganton, wind was always slight variations on hurting and hurting from the right. One round it was pretty much dead right to left which made the hole feel quite odd. That was the one day I tried getting over the bunker to drive it up around the green but I played too far right and ended up skirting the bunker instead (probably just as well as I lack the driver distance to make the carry without a helping breeze).

[Jon Wiggett]

It does appear as though the gorse on the left of 14 has grown in a lot since my last visit in 2003. I remember there being a good 10 yards of free room left of the bunker giving not only more options of laying up in the left semi with a better angled, though semi blind wedge down the back axis of the green but also allowing the sporting option of bouncing the tee shot round the left side of the bunker. Even in the winter and under softer conditions it was still not easy to fly the bunker and hold the green if playing down wind.

Jon

[Mark Bourgeois]

Brian, the 12th is a solid reverse dogleg. You are meant to challenge the far bunker and, yes, the gorse over there, regardless of the tree. The tree (and trees) could stand to go but the play should be to the outside of the dogleg for a more advantageous second shot.

The tree needs to go but it does not stand too much in way of the smart play. It may be seen as necessary to prevent an easier line by better players but better players should be able to call on a fade reliably, leaving the challenge for those who cannot do so. Or perhaps it's just one of those nostalgia things among the members, calling to mind the old wall of trees as you write, Sean.

Regarding this alleged lack of width, sounds like it's just a function of current conditions. Did any of you dial down the testosterone and go with less than driver?

Lastly, regarding 14: you're criticizing the hole because it played into a headwind, because the ground conditions were too firm and fast for your abilities, or because you didn't lay up properly? Why was it a 'head scratcher'?

[Sean_A]

Mark

I disagree about #12.  Seeing the green would perhaps entice people to play heroicly and/or foolishly. Besides, other than the far left tree, its a visual mess anyway.

#14 was a head scratcher because it was difficult to actually see what was the best shot to hit.  There was no clear idea in mind anyway.  After seeing the hole it is quite clear that in the same conditions one wants to lay well back with a more lofted club to avoid run-out to the right.  In essence, while the hole is straight, one wants to play it as a dogleg left and appropriately there is serious trouble down the right.  Downwind, none of that need be in one's thoughts.  I would absolutely take my chances with a driver.  

I didn't throttle back off the tee because I didn't know the course.  That said, to lay-back of all the troubling bunkers/pinch points would on most occasions leave very long approaches.  My criticism lies in the fact that I think many holes could easily be 10 yards wider and be better for it.  You seem to disagree and thats fine by me.  It would be interesting to know the widths of some of the landing areas such as on 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 13, 14 & 18.  Then factor in the lie of the land, blindness, density of rough, f&f conditions (which were very good) and wind (which was fine).  I think folks may be quite surprised.  

When I read a comment like that below I have to wonder if we are talking about the same course.  Choice on 16?  How wide is that fairway and it narrows in the drop down area.  Guys are actually trying to hit one side or the other?  That is a different game to any I know.   

...the 16th is a great example on how a green and pin placement can influence the decision of where to hit the tee shot.

Ciao  

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sean,

We disagree less than you think. I agree the tree (and trees) could go on 12; my point simply was that the optimal line is to the outside of the dogleg, tree or no tree.

And regarding width, I'm pretty dogmatic on that one so yes, more width, why not. That said, if it played as a narrow course for you that may be down to hyper F&F and / or the wind. But some holes regardless could use more width; I am thinking in particular of 4 but I'm sure there are others.

And laying up / negotiating bunkers: longer second shots, sure, but apparently you could have run the shots in.

Re your comments on 14: sounds like a great hole to me.

Brian I once played the course in a brutal westerly and while I didn't score well, I got around okay (by my standards). I am glad to see you are acknowledging that perhaps a few more goes around the course are necessary in order to make a judgment -- this actually is my major point in support of Ganton's greatness and why I personally like it so much. Just to take 14 as an example, there is a lot going on there and what is going on will vary according the day's conditions and the game the golfer happens to bring to the tee.

[Sean_A]

The optimal line on 12 depends on whether one wants to hit a draw, fade or dead straight either side if only the one tree were there.

I can definitely see where more plays could alter one's opinion of Ganton.  I don't think we had a hyper f&f day by any means, but the course was firm enough where run-out made a big difference and experience would have been beneficial.  I think the run-out was to the point where one could cut a fine line off the bunkers and still be in the opposite side rough.  In effect, one had to either carry the bunkers, be able to hit a shaped shot or lay-up to comfortably hold fairways; straight shots were very tight.  For me, that signals a course being quite tight if that sort of shot is called for too often.  On the other hand, Ganton is a championship course so it is to be expected there won't be a lot of spare room about to turn the shoulders - no?  If the championship deal is the accepted norm, I don't care for the design approach. 

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

When I read a comment like that below I have to wonder if we are talking about the same course.  Choice on 16?  How wide is that fairway and it narrows in the drop down area.  Guys are actually trying to hit one side or the other?  That is a different game to any I know.   

...the 16th is a great example on how a green and pin placement can influence the decision of where to hit the tee shot.

Ciao  

Sean,

I believe that comment was mine. Maybe 16 has narrowed dramatically but certainly if the pin was front of the green it was best to lay up on the drive with a three wood (for me) so as to avoid the potential downhill lie with a mid iron to a slightly raised green and no room to stop the ball. I was usually hitting a 3 or 4 iron in to the front pin trying to use the upslope at the start of the green to stop the ball. Because of the slight roundness of the front of the green and approach it was best to be on the same side of the fairway as the pin if you wanted to get real close.

If the pin was middle to the back of the green then a big drive with the hope of running to the flat area beyond the downslope left a much shorter shot in (7 or 8 iron) and it was best to be on the opposite side of the fairway to the pin.

I suspect that it takes multiple plays to discover many of the subtleties of such holes and I think a course is all the better for it. I find the idea that 'everything should in your face and obvious' a little one dimensional and lacking in finesse.

I suspect you need to play Ganton a few more times to really appreciate it.

Jon

[Sean_A]

15 & 16 are long two-shotters of which at least one will be a Herculean task for many to reach in regulation.  The 15th is a welcome relief to the smothering effect of the previous three holes. 


A lovely change of pace to the bunkering is the dip shy of the green which surely must see its fair share of action.


Marching side by side are the 16th and the entrance road, though the threat of going out of bounds is minimal.  This was the hole the American side seemed to like best during the 1949 Ryder Cup, though I suspect the hole had a more visual appeal without quite so many trees. 


Ganton's best land movement is on display for the approach.  The long shadows cast across the fairways succinctly makes my point concerning the trees. 


There are at least two reasons why the 17th fairway/green and 18th tee shot are cast-aways to the far side of the entrance road.  First, the "Sandpit of Vast Dimensions" must have been captivating, but it is long since a memory. Second, the 17th green site.


However, the green site remains.  Due to modern technology, I don't think the 17th is properly set up at 250 yards.  I say this because the domed green is an exceptional example of the type and would be better utilized if more golfers were forced to approach with a pitching iron.  If an extra 25 or so yards could found, when the hole is playing (what I believe is) into a contrary wind the difficulty of the green would be more pronounced. 


The denuding of the quarry probably ranks up there with the loss of such famous holes as the Maiden and Sandy Parlour. Unfortunately, the 18th is at best a mediocre finish without famed sand.  Rountree's excellent rendition of the 18th taken from Darwin's Golf Courses of the British Isles.


Dickinson's sketch of the 18th taken from the incomparable Round of Golf Courses.


An old photo taken from Horace Hutchinson's British Golf Links.


It is unfortunate that in essence what could be an all-world finish in 16 through 18 fails to live up to its promise.  Yet, Ganton is blessed with a plethora of fine holes so we mustn't be overly critical.  Combine historic (I believe Colt's work here in 1907 was the first time he was paid purely for architectural work) testing golf in comely surroundings with conditioning that in my experience is second to none, an attractive clubhouse bursting with character and Ganton must surely be counted among the best days out in England.  1*   2013

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

I am amazed at how the trees on the left of 16 encroach into play these days. It does make the hole look much narrower than I recall.

Jon

[Mark Pearce]

With the trees on the RHS of 12, those on the LHS of 16 are ones which would enhance the course by their removal.  16 is one hole which I do agree feels narrow.

[Sean_A]

Go back and look at the old photo of 13.  I think Ganton is a very different course today compared to 30 years ago.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

There may be some trees that have grown in the last 30 years but that picture of 13 looks even narrower than today, with that gorse on the left.  I generally agree that trees are a bad thing when they weren't there before the course and I agree with you that the removal of trees would, almost always, improve a course.  I don't think that means that Ganton is objectively narrow, though and I can think of other courses that could benefit more from tree removal (Huntercombe springs immediately to mind).

[Sean_A]

Mark

That gorse looks like it is further up than the two bunkers on the right - which are decent hits to reach.  The entire area short left of the gorse doesn't exist today - it is now blocked out by trees and god knows what else.  Plus, I think the short grass look 5-10 yards wider then.  The 13th is far and away much tighter today.  In fact, in th old photo you can see the start of veggie growth - there is a lone tree/bush just getting its legs. 


Though I agree that other courses could have trees removed, many other courses, but relatively few courses have the double situation of harsh bunkers...lots of harsh bunkers and harsh rough with trees.  I think Ganton's design is seriously compromised by the vegetation, not unlike many champ links with their overly penal set-ups.  

BTW - Tucky's excellent tour!

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,49143.0.html

Ciao

[John Mayhugh]

Though I agree that other courses could have trees removed, many other courses, but relatively few courses have the double situation of harsh bunkers...lots of harsh bunkers and harsh rough with trees.  I think Ganton's design is seriously compromised by the vegetation, not unlike many champ links with their overly penal set-ups.  

BTW - Tucky's excellent tour!

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,49143.0.html

Thanks for this tour and your thoughts on Ganton.  I spent a day there and enjoyed it greatly.  The vegetation that you refer to didn't keep me from liking the course a lot, but removal of some - especially gorse - would make it even better.  

You referenced my partial tour of Ganton.  I never go around to finishing that, much less moving on to Alwoodley.  I feel really lazy now.

[Sean_A]

The vegetation that you refer to didn't keep me from liking the course a lot, but removal of some - especially gorse - would make it even better.

I think this is the point that Sheehy and myself made.  What surprised me was that I had never heard a peep of how tight the course can play - I wasn't expecting it.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

It's interesting.  I had never thought of Ganton as tight.  I don't ever recall, in perhaps a dozen plays, losing a lot of balls.  On many holes the actual playing corridors are reasonably wide.  Particularly, I think, early in the round.  On reflection, a few holes are really quite tight but not, I think, unfairly so.  There's a difference between a hole where you might miss the fairway but still have a shot, albeit a tough one or a recovery and a hole where a small miss results in a lost ball.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm with Mark concerning the "tight" thing. There are certainly places where I'd agree that gorse or trees have encroached farther than ideal. I'd have no objection at all if some of that were gone the next time I visit.

But as I said before, the words "tight" or "narrow" never even entered my mind when I was playing there. I don't much care for the 18th hole but that's the single example I can think of that seems out of character. The rest of the course is a mixture of wide-open stretches interspersed with holes that have less room for error. It's not The Old Course. But maybe I just play far more truly "tight" courses than some of you guys who visit a lot of wide-open ones.

P.S. It almost seems like I have three mental categories and some of you only have two. I perceive some courses as "wide open", others and "tight" with the majority just "normal width". Ganton is in that middle category just like 80% of the course I've ever played. Maybe some people view it only as "wide" vs. "tight". Keep in mind I live in an area where there is pretty much no such thing as a golf course where you can see 6, 8, 10 other holes from any point on the course. To a lifetime "parkland course" denizen, a place like Ganton seems to have a wonderful scale and senses of openness, stretches or trees and gorse notwithstanding.

[James Boon]

It's interesting.  I had never thought of Ganton as tight.  I don't ever recall, in perhaps a dozen plays, losing a lot of balls.  On many holes the actual playing corridors are reasonably wide.  Particularly, I think, early in the round.  On reflection, a few holes are really quite tight but not, I think, unfairly so.  There's a difference between a hole where you might miss the fairway but still have a shot, albeit a tough one or a recovery and a hole where a small miss results in a lost ball.

Thank you! After a weekend with Sean and Brian going on and on about how narrow it was, I thought I was starting to crack up? 

Cheers,

James

[Mark Pearce]

For unrelated reasons I was just looking at Golf Digest's Top 100 courses outside the US.  Woodhall Spa was in at 23, Ganton at 29.  Can I just check that everyone posting on this thread who has played both would agree that Ganton is superior to Woodhall Spa?  For me, having played WS again in the spring, the gap between them is substantial.

[John Mayhugh]

For unrelated reasons I was just looking at Golf Digest's Top 100 courses outside the US.  Woodhall Spa was in at 23, Ganton at 29.  Can I just check that everyone posting on this thread who has played both would agree that Ganton is superior to Woodhall Spa?  For me, having played WS again in the spring, the gap between them is substantial.

Woodhall Spa may be more attractive, but I agree that Ganton is quite a bit better course.  I don't understand the rating difference either.

[jeffwarne]

For unrelated reasons I was just looking at Golf Digest's Top 100 courses outside the US.  Woodhall Spa was in at 23, Ganton at 29.  Can I just check that everyone posting on this thread who has played both would agree that Ganton is superior to Woodhall Spa?  For me, having played WS again in the spring, the gap between them is substantial.

The only way Woodhall Spa checks in at 23rd outside the US, is if you have panelists voting who have only played 22 courses outside the US.
It was pleasant enough,in fact I would say really good through 12 holes, and no doubt I caught it unseasonably soft, but it's seriously lacking in variety on the back nine, and with the wealth of great courses in the UK and Ireland, to say nothing of the rest of the world, #23 seems a bit generous.

I suspect more "research" is required