[PCCraig]

Thank you for the tour.


I feel like I could play Swinley Forest every day for the rest of my life and I would be completely satisfied.

[Sean_A]

David,

You don’t need to name them if you don’t wish…  but my experience in Ireland is that most of the links courses are still very fiery in the winter…. I can think of one or two that play a little softer but not convinced that is fairway irrigation’s hand.

All that said, there’s no doubt that you are right that it has played a role over the last 30 years in reducing that “runs forever” feeling you got on fairways as hard as stone.

Hard as stone fairways aren't really optimal conditions. Firm in direct relationship with greens and dictated by the weather/seasons is ideal. I do agree with David that fairways just shy of Swinley's greens were a bit wetter than expected. However it actually seems better to me than previously. That said, don't see anywhere near the same issues on links. In my experience of 30 years they have always drained far better than heathlands.

Ciao

[Brett Meyer]

Thomas,


You've got a lot more experience playing links courses in the winter than I do and over a much longer period of time. So I'll take you're word for it ;-)


But being an American who just lived in the UK for a few years, I was amazed (and grateful!) by their restraint in using irrigation. There were a few courses during dry spells where they had watered the greens and the areas a few feet in front of them too much, which prevented me from counting on a bounce into the green. But I just chalked this up to trying to keep the greens and their immediately surrounding areas alive. And even this wasn't an issue for me at Swinley Forest.


Maybe there's been some regress in the conditioning of British courses in recent years. I can't comment on that. But I can say that whatever's happened, it's still a much better situation than what we experience over here.

[Adam Uttley]

Great tour, Sean.


I understand the changes to the 7th were due to safety.  When the old rhododendron bush was there to the right of the green, it was really hard to take on that side of the green and most people invariably bailed out left.  Unfortunately the 8th tee is there and it is a blind shot so easy to inadvertently hit someone.  The removal of the rhododendron bush changes the line somewhat, and the mounds provide a little more protection….sometimes.




Regarding the 15th I think it was a lot better hole as a long 4 and was one of my favourite holes when played like that.  They softened that green recently too and the more severe slope was perfect to take a long iron and run it up.  A shot with a wedge is a horrible way to approach and doesn’t work with that green.  I understand the lengthening into a 5 was purely from chasing a bigger course par  .

[Niall C]

When I toured round with the head greenkeeper just over 20 years ago they were busy making changes then with a focus in taking out a number of trees to create vistas through the course. If I recall correctly they were prevented in taking out the rhodies as it was Crown land and they didn't have permission but I could easily have misremembered that.


I also recall that they had just redesigned/rebuilt one green but can't recall which.


Niall

[Tim Martin]

Sean-Terrific pictures especially the old interspersed with the current views. It’s up near the top of the list of courses I hope to play.

[John Mayhugh]

While conditions have improved dramatically over the past 10 years, features such as this hollow remain buried in rough. I notice the rear bunker was removed and it seems like mounding has been added.  I lost my ball in heather and rough not 3 yards off the green 

Sean,
Thanks so much for the recent photo tour. I played Swinley on my first golf trip to England (Buda 2009) and was hoping to get back there last year (and this year...sigh).

The good: commendable work opening up the course by tree and rhodo removal. That looks great.
I don't get the addition of mounding, though. Take away an interesting mound on 17 but add random ones behind greens. Does not make sense to me. And presentation on holes like the 2nd also is a head scratcher. Compare the hollow left of the green with my photo from 2009. Which hole would any sane person prefer to play?
sf 2 g2 by john mayhugh, on Flickr

[Sean_A]

While conditions have improved dramatically over the past 10 years, features such as this hollow remain buried in rough. I notice the rear bunker was removed and it seems like mounding has been added.  I lost my ball in heather and rough not 3 yards off the green 

Sean,
Thanks so much for the recent photo tour. I played Swinley on my first golf trip to England (Buda 2009) and was hoping to get back there last year (and this year...sigh).

The good: commendable work opening up the course by tree and rhodo removal. That looks great.
I don't get the addition of mounding, though. Take away an interesting mound on 17 but add random ones behind greens. Does not make sense to me. And presentation on holes like the 2nd also is a head scratcher. Compare the hollow left of the green with my photo from 2009. Which hole would any sane person prefer to play?
sf 2 g2 by john mayhugh, on Flickr

Tucky

It's a fine line between encouraging heather to grow and showcasing ground features. I would prefer more showcasing and less heather, but perhaps mine is a minority opinion. I would like to know more about the guiding principles of the recent work.

Ciao

[John Mayhugh]

Sean,
I like the idea of encouraging heather growth. But I don't see any reason for growing tall rough in that hollow near the green. Like you, I wonder about the goals.

[Brett Meyer]

I understand the changes to the 7th were due to safety.  When the old rhododendron bush was there to the right of the green, it was really hard to take on that side of the green and most people invariably bailed out left.  Unfortunately the 8th tee is there and it is a blind shot so easy to inadvertently hit someone.  The removal of the rhododendron bush changes the line somewhat, and the mounds provide a little more protection….sometimes.

I'm a bit surprised that this was an issue because from both personal experience and what I've heard about the course over the years, there's hardly anyone ever playing it. And while the back tee on 8 is close to the 7th green on the left, I wouldn't think that there'd be much danger for those on one of the forward tees over the green or to those on the 3rd tee behind the 2nd green (like John Mayhugh, I prefer the old look of the 2nd). Colt certainly knew how to put mounding around greens when he wanted it and if he didn't put any around a green, I'd be reluctant to add something that he didn't think necessary.


And like Sean, I have an issue with a lot of the heather planting. I agree that encouraging heather growth in the rough is a good idea, but I'm not a fan of the mass transplanting of heather around bunkers, mounds, and other features. I saw some of this when I was over there and have seen much more in pictures since. I get that clubs may be trying to strengthen their 'brand' as heathland courses and it's certainly pretty when it's in bloom, but it's not great to carry a greenside bunker by a few feet only to land in a patch of something that's even worse just beyond. With maybe one or two exceptions, the heathland courses around London had plenty enough heather 4 or 5 years ago.

[Thomas Dai]

A slight aside and generalisation perhaps but when trees/scrub/brush have grown up and out and effected playing lines etc and a tree/scrub/brush removal process takes place something is going to grow in their place be that long grass or heather or whatever.
At Swinley I did observe that the heather considerably deeper than I’ve experienced on other heathland etc courses. Heather etc can of course be cut, topped. I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t a seasonal issue involving topping, height of growth etc in relation to Swinley.
Atb

[Niall C]

David

I was going to make a similar point and that was probably there is no difference in maintenance regime between the two visits and that simply one photo was taken before the periodic clear out and one after. It doesn't look the type of area that could be done easily by a sit on mower and therefore regularly but then I'm not a greenkeeper.

As an aside, would I be correct in assuming that this was once a bunker that went all the way up around the green ?

Niall

[Sean_A]

David

I was going to make a similar point and that was probably there is no difference in maintenance regime between the two visits and that simply one photo was taken before the periodic clear out and one after. It doesn't look the type of area that could be done easily by a sit on mower and therefore regularly but then I'm not a greenkeeper.

As an aside, would I be correct in assuming that this was once a bunker that went all the way up around the green ?

Niall

I don't think the hollow on 2 was ever a bunker. But I do think to keep that area as low rough would require more maintenance than how it is presented now. The issue comes down to if this area is to be a playable recovery or hack it out area. I don't know what the orginal intention was, but I suspect it was meant to be more playable.


Ciao

[John Mayhugh]

Considering the hollow on 2 both plays better and looks better without tall grass, it would seem an obvious choice how to maintain it.

[Niall C]

Sean/John,


My point was that this is not the easiest (ie. cheapest) area to maintain in the way you suggest it should be maintained all the time. basically a question of budget I'd imagine.


Niall

[Tal Oz]

Brett, you and I may have played Swinley on or around the same date. July 2018. Seeing photos of the work done since then, plus the lack of major drought conditions shows how differently SF can play. Here's a photo of the approach to 2.

[Sean_A]

I understand the changes to the 7th were due to safety.  When the old rhododendron bush was there to the right of the green, it was really hard to take on that side of the green and most people invariably bailed out left.  Unfortunately the 8th tee is there and it is a blind shot so easy to inadvertently hit someone.  The removal of the rhododendron bush changes the line somewhat, and the mounds provide a little more protection….sometimes.

I'm a bit surprised that this was an issue because from both personal experience and what I've heard about the course over the years, there's hardly anyone ever playing it. And while the back tee on 8 is close to the 7th green on the left, I wouldn't think that there'd be much danger for those on one of the forward tees over the green or to those on the 3rd tee behind the 2nd green (like John Mayhugh, I prefer the old look of the 2nd). Colt certainly knew how to put mounding around greens when he wanted it and if he didn't put any around a green, I'd be reluctant to add something that he didn't think necessary.


And like Sean, I have an issue with a lot of the heather planting. I agree that encouraging heather growth in the rough is a good idea, but I'm not a fan of the mass transplanting of heather around bunkers, mounds, and other features. I saw some of this when I was over there and have seen much more in pictures since. I get that clubs may be trying to strengthen their 'brand' as heathland courses and it's certainly pretty when it's in bloom, but it's not great to carry a greenside bunker by a few feet only to land in a patch of something that's even worse just beyond. With maybe one or two exceptions, the heathland courses around London had plenty enough heather 4 or 5 years ago.

Brett

Given the forced carry to 7 green, I can see guys going long left when the course is keen. I am not dead set against mounding, but I think a better job could have been done.

Ciao

[Brett Meyer]

Brett

Given the forced carry to 7 green, I can see guys going long left when the course is keen. I am not dead set against mounding, but I think a better job could have been done.

Ciao

Although I also liked it for aesthetic reasons, a big part of the reason why I liked the simplicity of the 7th green was because of the difficulty of the approach. Shorter hitters will have to run something into the green because it's difficult to carry it up that hill and hold it on the green. It was also very easy to miss a little left because of the (formerly) lost ball hazard on the right. So, danger to those on the eighth tee aside, I thought that leaving the left side open made sense because the approach is difficult and there was a lot of reason to hedge left.


But also, if you hedged left and were strong with the approach, your ball could run out pretty far because there was nothing stopping it. If you missed a little left, the pitch was tricky, but not too hard. I just thought that it was a perfect setup because it gave everyone (who could carry the fairway bunker) a shot at the green and left you room to miss, but also gave you rope to hang yourself if you played safe and were too aggressive.


The mounds with their heather increase the penalty for playing for the green and being a bit inaccurate. So now on the long approach--which is most people because of the forced layup off the tee--the only miss is short. I haven't played the new version and maybe it's alright, but I though that the version that I played made a lot of sense and I loved it. It was probably my third favorite hole after 9 and 12. It was also the moment where the course really came alive for me and after some reservations on the first few holes, I knew that I was playing a great course.

[Sean_A]

Brett

Given the forced carry to 7 green, I can see guys going long left when the course is keen. I am not dead set against mounding, but I think a better job could have been done.

Ciao

Although I also liked it for aesthetic reasons, a big part of the reason why I liked the simplicity of the 7th green was because of the difficulty of the approach. Shorter hitters will have to run something into the green because it's difficult to carry it up that hill and hold it on the green. It was also very easy to miss a little left because of the (formerly) lost ball hazard on the right. So, danger to those on the eighth tee aside, I thought that leaving the left side open made sense because the approach is difficult and there was a lot of reason to hedge left.


But also, if you hedged left and were strong with the approach, your ball could run out pretty far because there was nothing stopping it. If you missed a little left, the pitch was tricky, but not too hard. I just thought that it was a perfect setup because it gave everyone (who could carry the fairway bunker) a shot at the green and left you room to miss, but also gave you rope to hang yourself if you played safe and were too aggressive.


The mounds with their heather increase the penalty for playing for the green and being a bit inaccurate. So now on the long approach--which is most people because of the forced layup off the tee--the only miss is short. I haven't played the new version and maybe it's alright, but I though that the version that I played made a lot of sense and I loved it. It was probably my third favorite hole after 9 and 12. It was also the moment where the course really came alive for me and after some reservations on the first few holes, I knew that I was playing a great course.

If we are forgetting the 4th, well then, I agree 😎.

Re the 7th, to me it's a much improved hole even if the mounding isn't terribly well done.

Ciao

[Brett Meyer]

Sean,


I'd agree that the 4th is the best hole in those first six but I don't get what all the fuss is about. It's a very pretty hole, but it doesn't demand anything really interesting; you just need to hit a high, soft iron. I suppose it calls for a bit of strategic thinking with club selection because short is better than long, but no more than dozens of other holes that aren't singled out as great. A draw might be slightly better than a fade, but this isn't too important.


Other than prettiness, the thing that stands out the most to me about the hole is how hard it is. The green is really small.

[Thomas Dai]

I'd agree that the 4th is the best hole in those first six but I don't get what all the fuss is about. It's a very pretty hole, but it doesn't demand anything really interesting; you just need to hit a high, soft iron. I suppose it calls for a bit of strategic thinking with club selection because short is better than long, but no more than dozens of other holes that aren't singled out as great. A draw might be slightly better than a fade, but this isn't too important.
Other than prettiness, the thing that stands out the most to me about the hole is how hard it is. The green is really small.

But how many can hit a high soft iron to a raised, angled green? Not many I suggest. And how do those who can’t play a high soft iron aim to play the hole, which was designed with older era equipment in mind?
Atb

[Brett Meyer]

But how many can hit a high soft iron to a raised, angled green? Not many I suggest. And how do those who can’t play a high soft iron aim to play the hole, which was designed with older era equipment in mind?
Atb

I agree that it's not an easy shot to pull off. But there isn't much room to land it short and run it up. You'd have to land it into the upslope in the small area between the front-right bunkers and the green surface.


So assuming everything was in the same place, it must have been an even harder hole in the early years. It's fine to have a hard hole and this one isn't nearly as severe as some, but the lack of ways to play it keeps it a bit lower on my list than it seems to on others'.

[Jason Topp]

Seems a little upscale for Sean A!


Terrific tour as always.

[Sean_A]

Seems a little upscale for Sean A!

Terrific tour as always.

The golfing gods permit me access to hallowed grounds a few times a year.

Brett

I take the view that the penal-strategic continuum is not about good or bad architecture. Golf needs all types of holes if variety is important. As penal par 3s go, Swinley's 4th is an exceptional example. The green is interesting. Its pretty. Sometimes there is a decent recovery shot available. My one complaint would be the heather is too deep, but that is a presentation issue rather than one of design.

Ciao

[Brett Meyer]

Brett

I take the view that the penal-strategic continuum is not about good or bad architecture. Golf needs all types of holes if variety is important. As penal par 3s go, Swinley's 4th is an exceptional example. The green is interesting. Its pretty. Sometimes there is a decent recovery shot available. My one complaint would be the heather is too deep, but that is a presentation issue rather than one of design.

Ciao

I agree with this; variety is important and we should think about each hole's role in the course at least as much as we think about it unto itself. And in this sense 4 works really well because (1) it comes in what is really a pretty easy opening stretch of holes and (2) it's the only really difficult par 3 on the course. 10 is longer, but there's also more room to run the ball onto that green. And you're right about the recovery; those front bunkers, especially the ones on the right, aren't that bad. You shouldn't make an X on Swinley's 4th.


But still, this hole often features on lists of the best par 3s in the world and while this one makes a fine contribution to the course, it doesn't have some really interesting feature or allow a variety of options. A 'best holes' list is an individual, not a team competition and a hole needs to have a few of these things to qualify.


As far as Colt par 3s, I think that a few lesser-known ones are on the level of Swinley's 4th. The 4th on Sunningdale-Old is just as pretty and has an interesting green. The 13th at Tandridge is also very pretty and creates interesting opportunities to run the ball in/kick it in from the left.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()