Matchplay - Silloth vs Goswick

[Sean_A]

Mark

Not surprisingly I have the match far closer thus far. 

1. I think you are underselling the awkwardness of G's opener. I am not pressed to name a winner for each hole and would consider the opener a wash.

2. For sure, Silloth 1up.

3. Yes, but a close call. Silloth 2up.

4. Both have great greensites.  But, as is usually the case I will take the par 5 over 3s and 4s.  Its a very close call.  Silloth 1up.

5. Too close to call for me, though I haven't seen the new green at Silloth.  Both holes have features I really like...Silloth's go find the fairway drive and the ramp effect up to the green at Goswick.  Silloth 1up

6. Both are good holes, but I will plop for a good 5 over a 3.  All square.

7. Both are very good holes, but I really like Silloth's greensite.  Silloth 1up.

8. I didn't get a sense of the full picture of Goswick because the winter tee is radically different from the summer tee.  I do, however, like the green and how it is protected.  Silloth's medium par 4 is not one I am a fan of, but I can't choose a clear winner here.  Silloth 1up

Ciao

9. No debate...Silloth 2up.

10. I am quite a fan of Sillloth's 10-13 as it is a better mix of holes than any combo on the front nine.  Goswick's run too is very good. An awkward hole, Silloth's 10th turns heard left and at an odd distance.  Going for the green on this short 4 is possible, but potentially a kiss on the card.  Goswick's 10th is pretty straight forward, but tough.  I think for me, awkward golf is necessary so Silloth is 3up.

11. The caravan park doesn't bother me in the least on Silloth's 11th.  A very strong drive is required to make the corner of the hard dogleg.  The green too is interestingly cocooned in a ring of dunes visually spoiled by vegetation.  G's 11th is straight ahead over a very cool fairway, the centre of which looks to be scooped out.  The bunkers are well placed as well.  This is a tough call, but I will go with the cool shaping.  Silloth 2up.

12. This is a no brainer...G's great hole plays up and blindly over a large chasm.  Silloth 1up

13.  G's longish par 3 is played from high ground near the raised the chasm on #11.  Silloth's par 5 plays uphill then over a break in the fairway to a cool green which wouldn't be out of place at Pinehurst.  Enough talk.  Silloth 2up

14. Silloth's par five plays over a smallish hill is okay...I don't like it nearly as well as many do.  I think it matters not for Goswick's par 4 is a cracker.  The approach to a slightly sunken green is especially attractive and it is difficult to get close to a forward hole location.  Silloth 1up

15. G's short par 3 is excellent.  It plays downhill to horseshoe shaped green flanked by front bunkers.  However, Silloth's par 4 too is very good in a utilitarian sort of way. I think I will have to go for the sheer beauty of Goswick in this instance.  All square.

Ciao

16. I am not really a fan of either hole.  Silloth's 16th is too similar to the 12th, but G's 16th is uneventful.  Auto half; all square.

17. Another hole where I didn't get G's full treatment as the winter tee is well forward and left...creating a totally different hole to the summer version.  The drive plays into a pack of bunkers which is well out of reach as a par 5 from the summer tees.  Silloth's 17th is a pretty good par 5 with a slightly sunken green which may give a second shot just enough boost to get home.  The drive too is good as there is the opportunity to get a kick down the right.  However, th star of either hole has to be the tarmac path shy of G's green which is very much in play.  Against my nature I will call this hole a half because I didn't see G's full package.  Lets call this one a good bounce for Silloth!  all square.

18. G's is short par 4 played from a ridge into a mish mash of bunkers.  I played the hole as a par 3, but one which required a driver on the day so the net result compared to the summer version isn't much different.  Silloth's par 4 is something like a 100 yards longer with some gorse threating the tee shot.  Its not a looker, but the hole is well structured.  Its tough to love either hole much, but the views of G's 18th with the choice of going for broke wins out for me. 

Goswick takes the very close match 1 up.  Interestingly enough, and against gca.com popular opinion, this is just about how I would rank the two...Goswick pipping Silloth.  That said, I have only played each course once so I reserve the right to change my mind.  A summer play of Goswick will reveal much because I was completely smitten by the winter card.  Regardless, I like both courses quite a bit and count them among my top 30 or so favourite courses and that more than any fleeting ideas of best this or that is what brings me back. 

Ciao   

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,


I have not played Silloth so cannot comment on it from experience but is not the fact that it's punch seems to be all up front in a great first nine before it peters out over the back nine maybe a problem? Having played Goswick I really like it despite the compromised area around the clubhouse.


Jon

[Mark Pearce]

I tried an alternative approach and listed the holes at each course by length and then repeated this exercise.  Very briefly, the two shared the par 3s (Goswicks 2nd beat Silloth's 16th, Silloth's 12th beat Goswick's 9th) and Goswick was two up on the par 5s (Silloth's 13th beat Goswick's 17th but, in order, Goswick's 11th, 4th and 6th beat Silloth's 14, 17 and 5).  I had S9vsG15 as a half, for anyone interested.


The match was won, however, on the par 4s, with wins for S3vsG7, S1vsG3, S7vsG5, S11vsG10 and S18vsG16.  Goswick had wins at G1vsS8 and G8vsS15 but that means Silloth was 3 up on the par 4s and took the match 1 up.


I took lengths from the white tees.  It's interesting how this exercise makes some of the better holes compete (S9vsG15, S2vsG12, S4vsG14, S7vsG5).  I had three of those halved, with Silloth's 7th just winning against Goswick's 5th.

[Scott Warren]

Definitely the better way of comparing courses by match play IMO as similar types of holes are evaluated directly and I reckon you get a much more reliable feeling in your gut about which hole deserves to win or whether they deserve to halve.

[Jon Wiggett]

Definitely the better way of comparing courses by match play IMO as similar types of holes are evaluated directly and I reckon you get a much more reliable feeling in your gut about which hole deserves to win or whether they deserve to halve.

But is it? Is not the sum of a courses parts more important than the individual bits when judging its overall worth? Is not routing and flow of a course important? Is not doing it the way Scott suggest is better actually missing one of the most important and overlooked parts of good golf course architecture?

[Scott Warren]

Jon,


I’m not saying it’s an ideal way of comparing courses, I’m saying that if you’re “playing a match” between two courses, it’s more reliable to pair similar holes against each other rather than the 1st vs the 1st and so on.


Totally agree it overlooks some important aspects, but can also be a fun exercise.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,


I’m not saying it’s an ideal way of comparing courses, I’m saying that if you’re “playing a match” between two courses, it’s more reliable to pair similar holes against each other rather than the 1st vs the 1st and so on.


Totally agree it overlooks some important aspects, but can also be a fun exercise.

How do you reach the conclusion it is the 'more reliable' way. I understand it sounds nice but I do not understand the logic (if indeed there is any) behind it.


My point is that routing, rhythm and flow are just as important to the overall quality of a course not just the individual holes. If the match were which course has the better par 3s I could see your point but not if as in this case it is about which is the better course.


I may be a little pedantic in this but GCA is a discussion board about golf course architecture where as your post shows many just fail to grasp the importance routing, rhythm and flow play. It is what Mackenzie, Ross, Braid and any other good GCA grasps yet is ignored by so many even on here.


Jon

[Sean_A]

Jon,

I’m not saying it’s an ideal way of comparing courses, I’m saying that if you’re “playing a match” between two courses, it’s more reliable to pair similar holes against each other rather than the 1st vs the 1st and so on.

Totally agree it overlooks some important aspects, but can also be a fun exercise.

How do you reach the conclusion it is the 'more reliable' way. I understand it sounds nice but I do not understand the logic (if indeed there is any) behind it.

My point is that routing, rhythm and flow are just as important to the overall quality of a course not just the individual holes. If the match were which course has the better par 3s I could see your point but not if as in this case it is about which is the better course.

I may be a little pedantic in this but GCA is a discussion board about golf course architecture where as your post shows many just fail to grasp the importance routing, rhythm and flow play. It is what Mackenzie, Ross, Braid and any other good GCA grasps yet is ignored by so many even on here.

Jon

Jon

We must remember that routing is not really a topic for discussion where many people will know much about it in terms of the whys and hows.  Rhythm and flow are very subjective topics.  Your great rhythm may simply get a meh from me.  There is one example earlier with Ian.  He seems to think the present 9th is critical to setting up the back nine.  I don't buy that for a minute.  Its simply a difference of opinion, just as is the case with which holes are better etc. 

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon

We must remember that routing is not really a topic for discussion where many people will know much about it in terms of the whys and hows.  Rhythm and flow are very subjective topics.  Your great rhythm may simply get a meh from me.  There is one example earlier with Ian.  He seems to think the present 9th is critical to setting up the back nine.  I don't buy that for a minute.  Its simply a difference of opinion, just as is the case with which holes are better etc. 

Ciao

Sean,


you maybe correct about how few people understand routing even on this sight. Yes, to a certain extent rhythm and flow are subjective but only to a certain extent. In the end there are certain things that are required from all three factors which is when understood as is the case with Ross, Braid or Mackenzie means that they were able to produce high standard courses time after time.


Jon

[Scott Warren]

Jon,


I’m not saying it’s an ideal way of comparing courses, I’m saying that if you’re “playing a match” between two courses, it’s more reliable to pair similar holes against each other rather than the 1st vs the 1st and so on.


Totally agree it overlooks some important aspects, but can also be a fun exercise.

How do you reach the conclusion it is the 'more reliable' way. I understand it sounds nice but I do not understand the logic (if indeed there is any) behind it.


My point is that routing, rhythm and flow are just as important to the overall quality of a course not just the individual holes. If the match were which course has the better par 3s I could see your point but not if as in this case it is about which is the better course.


I may be a little pedantic in this but GCA is a discussion board about golf course architecture where as your post shows many just fail to grasp the importance routing, rhythm and flow play. It is what Mackenzie, Ross, Braid and any other good GCA grasps yet is ignored by so many even on here.


Jon

I understand and agree with your point about routing, as I said in my previous post. It's a shortcoming of the matchplay comparison between two courses.


What I said was that if you are going to compare two courses by way of hole vs hole matchplay, I reckon it's better to order the holes from shortest to longest so the comparison is between holes that are of a similar type (long three, mid-length four, long four/short five etc) rather than comparison the two 1st holes through to the two 18th holes.


This is because comparing 1 v 1 through to 18 v 18 is likely to create match-ups between, say, a short four and a par five or a wedge par three and a mid-length par four, where the basis for comparison between the holes has less foundation.

[Jon Wiggett]

Scott,


but that would be the same as saying it would be better to only compare tee-shots, chips and long putts of two opponents when they are playing a match. What you are doing is seeing which courses individual holes are the best when the point of the exercise is to find out which is the better course. 18 great individual holes will not always make for a great course.

[Sean_A]

Scott,

but that would be the same as saying it would be better to only compare tee-shots, chips and long putts of two opponents when they are playing a match. What you are doing is seeing which courses individual holes are the best when the point of the exercise is to find out which is the better course. 18 great individual holes will not always make for a great course.

This is getting whacky.  I don't follow the comparing shots golfers hit comparison.  Anyway, I am not sure the point of matchplay is to determine the best course.  I think it is a vehicle to discuss courses. 

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Scott,


but that would be the same as saying it would be better to only compare tee-shots, chips and long putts of two opponents when they are playing a match. What you are doing is seeing which courses individual holes are the best when the point of the exercise is to find out which is the better course. 18 great individual holes will not always make for a great course.

“It’s the routing, stupid!”


Jon,
If you are this determined to misunderstand and misrepresent what I’ve said, it’s probably best for me to just bow out of the discussion.

[Jon Wiggett]

Scott,


but that would be the same as saying it would be better to only compare tee-shots, chips and long putts of two opponents when they are playing a match. What you are doing is seeing which courses individual holes are the best when the point of the exercise is to find out which is the better course. 18 great individual holes will not always make for a great course.

“It’s the routing, stupid!”


Jon,
If you are this determined to misunderstand and misrepresent what I’ve said, it’s probably best for me to just bow out of the discussion.

Sean,


I believe I fully understand your comments and respect them. My comments to Scott had absolutely nothing to do with you or anything you have commented on so am somewhat confused at the Umbridge shown in your post.

[Jon Wiggett]

Scott,

but that would be the same as saying it would be better to only compare tee-shots, chips and long putts of two opponents when they are playing a match. What you are doing is seeing which courses individual holes are the best when the point of the exercise is to find out which is the better course. 18 great individual holes will not always make for a great course.

This is getting whacky.  I don't follow the comparing shots golfers hit comparison.  Anyway, I am not sure the point of matchplay is to determine the best course.  I think it is a vehicle to discuss courses. 

Ciao

Sean,


to address this post as apposed to the rather odd one that followed it.


You are quite correct that the point of this discussion might not necessarily be about which is the better course but as a vehicle to discuss the courses so maybe making comment on which course has the better first hole, second hole, etc.. is somewhat misleading if this is your point of view.

The analogy I was using was comparing golfers as apposed to courses. The qualities most people look at when comparing golfers are the various parts of their game such as driving, approach shots, chipping, bunkers, putting but judging the quality of a golfer is not just about these things but also ability to score, number of wins, number of big wins, performance under pressure' general demeanour etc....

With a golf course as I have commented on several times the quality of the course depends on the individual holes but also its routing, rhythm, flow, aesthetics of the course, etc....


By pairing holes which are similar to each other but totally ignoring therefor routing, rhythm, flow is akin to comparing golfers by only looking at individual parts of a golfers game.


To suggest that by comparing the holes of two courses that are most similar ignoring their placement within their respective courses is not a way you can look at the quality of a course only at the quality of individual holes.


Jon

[Tony_Muldoon]

Great work Mark. With only one play of each I just don't have the memory to comment across the courses.


But knowing your feelings for Siloth I think you've been remarkably fair.

[David McIntosh]

Great stuff Mark. Fine descriptions of the holes and I found myself eagerly awaiting each update to see how the match panned out.

I scored the contest remarkably similar to you and agreed with your outcomes on all of the holes on the front side. On the back nine my only differences were that I marginally gave Silloth the 10th and I couldn’t separate the 18th so went for a half there resulting in an unsatisfactory draw.

Using a boxing scoring methodology if I had to get off the fence, I would have Silloth winning on points. Whilst each course won the same number of holes to end my match all square, I felt that Silloth had more clear victories on certain holes (10-8 rounds if you like, or even a two knockdown 10-7 round in the case of the 9th) than Goswick managed during its back nine charge.

[David McIntosh]

Niall,

I have not played Silloth so cannot comment on it from experience but is not the fact that it's punch seems to be all up front in a great first nine before it peters out over the back nine maybe a problem? Having played Goswick I really like it despite the compromised area around the clubhouse.

Jon

Jon,

Silloth doesn’t exactly peter out on the back nine as there’s actually some good golf across holes 10-18. Rather, it has such an outstanding start through four holes then has other great holes at 7 and 9 which gives the back side a really tough act to follow. It’s very much like Royal Aberdeen in that respect and the back nine does contain perfectly good holes, including a superb one at 13.

In terms of the head to head, Silloth is unlucky that it starts to drop the pace (in comparison to the front nine) just as Goswick enters its strongest section, being holes 11-15 with four of those holes going to the latter. The second nine at Silloth would likely hold its own against a lot of courses, it just doesn’t when pitted against Goswick! Which, come to think about it, is similar to Goswick on the front nine when it struggles to keep up with Silloth’s brilliant start.

[Jon Wiggett]

David,


I wonder therefore if you flipped the 9s at Silloth whether it would win the tie. Having not played the one course I am not in a position to attempt this but it would be interesting to see if someone who has played both were to try it.

[Mark Pearce]

David,


I wonder therefore if you flipped the 9s at Silloth whether it would win the tie. Having not played the one course I am not in a position to attempt this but it would be interesting to see if someone who has played both were to try it.

Maybe that's next weekend's project....

[Mark Pearce]

Great stuff Mark. Fine descriptions of the holes and I found myself eagerly awaiting each update to see how the match panned out.

I scored the contest remarkably similar to you and agreed with your outcomes on all of the holes on the front side. On the back nine my only differences were that I marginally gave Silloth the 10th and I couldn’t separate the 18th so went for a half there resulting in an unsatisfactory draw.

Using a boxing scoring methodology if I had to get off the fence, I would have Silloth winning on points. Whilst each course won the same number of holes to end my match all square, I felt that Silloth had more clear victories on certain holes (10-8 rounds if you like, or even a two knockdown 10-7 round in the case of the 9th) than Goswick managed during its back nine charge.

Thanks, David.  10 is an interesting one.  My mind tells me that Silloth should win this but somehow, despite so many things that should make this a hole I love, for some reason I just don't. 


!8 was also difficult.  I would probably have given a half here but Goswick's is such a Marmite hole it just didn't feel right to score it that way.


I agree with you about Silloth's back 9.  On a first play it disappoints but much of that is because of what it follows.  11, 13 and 18 are very good holes and the others are all at least good.  Two nines like that would be a very good links course.  But the front nine is right up there with the very, very best....

[Duncan Cheslett]

I thought these matchplay exercises were just a bit of fun...




I've not yet played Goswick. If it comes even close to the quality of Silloth that is an omission I need to correct this year.


I am currently trying to justify to myself a membership at Silloth. At 2 1/2 hours away it is just a bit too far for regular Saturday trips.

[Jon Wiggett]

Duncan,


I am the other way round and need to get across to Silloth at some point. Goswick is a very good course and worth the effort along with several other courses in the area. Aren't Hoylake and Birkdale closer to you for your Saturday trips?

[Niall C]

Interesting chat about Silloth back nine. Possibly the two weakest holes on the course are the 10th and the 16th.

I know what Mark means about the 10th, it should be better and I think the reason why it doesn't quite work is that the dog-leg is too sharp. The green is reachable even for me but it's a blind drive over a small hill short of the green and to a green which is very well protected for the direct approach. Not exactly inviting. The other option is a lay-up out to the right. I say lay-up, as for me hitting a driver might be too long. There is merit in trying to hug the corner as a tighter line puts you up onto a plateau that allows you to see the bottom of the pin whereas a safer line further right means you can't see the green with only the top half of the pin visible.

I understand that at one point the club did clear out the scrub/gorse on the hill short of the green to make the green more visible from the tee and therefore more inviting to go for but I don't think it made any difference for most golfers. If it was me I'd turn that area into a waste bunker while filling in the two bunkers guarding the dog-leg as well as the front left bunker at the green. I'd then put in a new bunker 20 yards to the right of the two filled in fairway bunkers to provide a centre line hazard. To my mind, or at least for my game, that might make taking on the green more inviting while making the lay-up more interesting.

As for the 16th, I just can't see any comparison between it and the 12th. To equate the two is highly flattering to the 16th and doing the 12th a great dis-service. Where the 16th has a small flat green the 12th is larger and more contoured; the 16th's green is also crudely benched in with a severe slope to the front the practically negates the running approach (believe me I have tried and failed many a time) whereas the 16th allows a running approach although a cross slope on the left makes it tricky. All in all a much more interesting golf hole.

Niall 

[David McIntosh]

David,


I wonder therefore if you flipped the 9s at Silloth whether it would win the tie. Having not played the one course I am not in a position to attempt this but it would be interesting to see if someone who has played both were to try it.

Maybe that's next weekend's project....

Or one for this lunchtime....

I ran through this scenario and still had the match ending all square! I won't go into a hole by hole analysis but I started with Silloth 1 v Goswick 10 and Goswick was able to stem the Silloth tide a little better than in the conventional match up however Silloth still reached the turn 2 up. Goswick then went on to win the battle of the 'weaker' nines 2 up.

This says to me that the courses are incredibly evenly matched (as if that was even up for debate) and that the best of Silloth is better than its counterparts at Goswick however Goswick is a steadier performer throughout which means it fares well on the good (rather than great) holes. This high level analysis would seem to support Niall's suggestion that the highs and lows (although there aren't any real lows at Silloth, perhaps good-decent would be a better description) are more pronounced at Silloth whereas the dispersion between the great and the decent holes at Goswick is tighter.

Jon - you need to make a detour via Silloth next time you're passing!