Of all the courses that I’ve documented on here, the one with which I probably have the longest history is the University of Michigan. I’ve been playing here for 20 years, since I started (or maybe even before—I can’t remember) as an undergrad here in the fall of 2003. Around that time, I had really wanted to play the course and was excited to finally have the opportunity because it was, and remained until recently, a private course. My initial view: very nice course, but nothing special. I didn’t prefer it to some of the other (at the time) top Michigan courses that I had played, like the Fazio Course at Treetops or Tom Doak’s Black Forest.

But the U of M course has gotten a lot of attention in recent years. Mike DeVries has done some work, taking out trees and bushes and expanding a few greens. And it’s gotten attention from the new set of social golf course influencers, namely the guys at No Laying Up on their Michigan tour. They and several of the guys I play with in Michigan love the course. The pedigree is certainly there; it’s a MacKenzie—Maxwell design on an interesting, hilly piece of property. And it has a fine set of greens including two unusual, sort-of horseshoe shaped greens on 6 and 14 that wind around a bunker.

Yet in the 20 years that I’ve been playing it, I’ve had one opinion of the course, which I’m now pretty convinced is unshakable, at least for the course in its current form: it’s a good golf course with a few very interesting greens and nice terrain, but nothing more. There are some good holes, but none stands out to me as a great one. And the trees, while not as bad as they used to be, are still awful. Several holes are made worse (in some cases substantially) by trees being way too close to the fairway (3,4,11,16,17). For all the talk of MacKenzie, Maxwell, and strategy, there’s mainly one thing that you need to do here and you need to do it on pretty much every hole: just hit the ball straight down the fairway. It’s occasionally a bit more complicated than that, but usually not.

I mentioned that the greens are pretty good and they are. A few are very interesting including the two horseshoe greens nos. 6 and 14 plus the greens on 4, 10, and 2 (if I’m being generous). The rest are good, but nothing special (I’ll get to the 3rd). And the bunkers definitely suggest MacKenzie—Maxwell in their shapes, but have none of the dramatic height/depth of their more famous works. I don’t know if that’s because they’ve become degraded over time and need to be restored or if they just didn’t build wild bunkers here perhaps because of the heavier soil. In any case the bunkering is good, but leaves something to be desired stylistically (and often in placement).

Some very knowledgable people think that I’m crazy for just thinking that this is a good course, but I know several others who share my views. In fact, until recently, this seemed to be the consensus: good course, maybe one of the better ones in Michigan, but nothing special, at least until they do a serious restoration. That was my view the first time I saw it and—despite a few years between visits and the belief each time I return that something will click for me and the greatness of the course will be revealed—it remains my view.

​
The first is a solid par 5. You can swing away off the tee because the bunker on the left is either too far out or you’re playing the wrong tees. The bigger issue is that two very ugly Siberian Elms (this species should be eradicated) in the right rough can partially block you if you push it.

It’s a simple layup as long as you don’t try to get within 75 yards of the green. The green is small but interesting; high in the center, sloping gently to its sides. Good starting hole with a subtle, but good green.

One of the shots that’s always stood out to me at U of M is the drive on the medium-long par 4 second. It’s straight uphill and blind; definitely not the type of shot you typically find on a US public course. It’s a very good driving hole because if you can get it about 250, you’ll hit the downslope and just have a short iron. But like many holes here, it’s not that wide and it doesn’t take much of a push to end up behind a landscaping tree on the right or a pull to end up in the junk on the left.

The par 5 third seems to be a favorite, mostly for its green site. I think that my favorite part is the drive. Again it’s pretty simple—you’ll be fine if you just hit it straight because you can’t go for the green in two. But there’s a decision to made about carrying the bunker on the right (225-240 depending on where they put the tips) and it’s better to be up the right side because it leaves a clearer view for the second.

The next two shots can be very awkward and it’s best to keep things simple. Unless you drive it 330 and get a mid or long iron into the green, don’t even think about going for it. Just hit a mid-iron straight ahead to the end of the fairway. If you try to cut the corner, you’ll end up in the spruce trees of death and spend 10 minutes looking for your ball…like one of my playing partners did when I played here once back in college.

The approach is uphill to a green benched on the side of a hill. A lot of people seem to love this green. I don’t understand why. Of everywhere in the immediate area where you could put a green, this looks like the worst spot, halfway up a hill requiring the construction of a massive ledge. To be fair, once you’re up there, the green itself is interesting, with a nasty little tier at the front-right.

But I’ve never been a fan of this green site and despite writing three paragraphs about it, I just don’t find this hole all that interesting. Yes it’s a good driving hole, but everything else is just awkward.

I’ve always liked the fourth hole but the encroaching trees on the right are a big problem. One thing that I always thought they’d do in a restoration here is remove the rough over the fairway bunker 40 yards short of the green so that you could run the ball on. Still haven’t done it. The green is very good; big with a lot of little rolls. But I’m not as impressed by it as I used to be and this is one hole that I think could (and should) be a lot better.

Five is a nice medium-length par 3 that used to be surrounded by big oak trees. I heard they lost those to disease or maybe a storm. It’s a very nice hole either way, with a green like one that has a high point in the middle and runs off to the sides.

Six is U of M’s most famous hole; the short par 4 with the horseshoe green. I’ve always liked this hole, but now I’m pretty sure that I don’t love it. It’s pretty easy if the pin is in the front because the green slopes toward most of the pin placements. It’s much more difficult and interesting if the pin is in the back. But unlike the superior horseshoe 7th green at Crystal Downs, you can’t putt from much of the front part to the back part. Vice versa works, but why would you ever be at the back of the green if the pin is in the front?

The downhill, yet blind medium-short par 4 seventh always gives people trouble. It’s easy to end up in the trees left and if you push it a little, a slope right of the fairway will push you toward junk/landscape trees right. Just pull an iron and hit it straight.

I’ve always liked the uphill par 3 eighth, which is probably my favorite of the course’s par 3s (I tend to like uphill par 3s). I think it’s a much more appealing hillside green site than the third and the bunkering is well-done, if nothing too special.

The par 4 ninth is one of the course’s better driving holes but it’s deceptive. You’d think that you’d want to skirt the fairway bunkers but no, the angle into the green is better from the right side of the fairway, near Ohio Buckeye trees. I’m a big fan of the Ohio Buckeye as a landscape tree but I have no idea why they planted so many of them here and at Radrick Farms. Maybe the tree farm guy was a closet Ohio State fan?

Ten is an uninteresting uphill drive and while the approach also isn’t too interesting, the green is. It’s big and receptive, but with a lot of little ridges. The pin placement on this day was in a little bowl at the back.

The par 5 eleventh exemplifies the main problem with U of M: too many trees too close to the fairway. And U of M probably has the worst planted species of any course that I’ve seen. Left of this fairway are Dawn Redwoods from China and Norway Spruce. These are awful tree species for a golf course because they suck up balls and completely block shots. As silly as it was to plant the symbol of their chief rival on their golf course, at least the Ohio Buckeye is native in the area.

Twelve is the course’s long par 3 and I guess it’s pretty good; there’s ample room to run the ball onto the green. But I’ve never seen the course play firm enough for this to work and I think that the ridge at the front-right is a bit too steep. It’s never been one of my favorite long par 3s.

The short par 4 thirteenth is more interesting and I did something that I’ve never done before on my most recent playing: play from the back tee that’s tucked into the trees. Really, it’s a good hole from anywhere because the massive fairway bunker on the left side makes you think about what you want to do with your drive. It’s easy just to lay up short and you’ll still have a short approach if you do. But there’s an advantage in taking it on as you can have a very short pitch. The green is a bit big and dull for it to be a great hole, but it is a good one.

Fourteen is the other horseshoe par 3. It’s a very nice green but I’m not sure that the horseshoe is contributing too much here; I’d probably like the hole more if the green were just the back two-thirds. That front part isn’t doing anything for me.

Fifteen is another medium-length par 4 and one that I’ve come to appreciate more over the years. It’s a very good hole because it makes you do something from the tee, namely keep your drive close to the spruce trees on the left. There’s a lot of room out to the right but the approach to the green is very awkward from there because it angles from front-left to back-right along a bunker.

Still, it’s a bit ironic that the main reason that this hole is good is because of spruce trees. The trees make it good because they can knock your ball out of the area and you can end up dead underneath them. That introduces much more risk to going up the left side than if there were deciduous trees or bunkers.

I don’t think that any of the last three holes here is on anyone’s list of favorites. Sixteen and seventeen are both straight-away par 4s with drives excessively cluttered by trees. The trees on seventeen are the worst on the course. Trees between the fairways completely obscure a very interesting joint fairway bunker.

A lot of people seem to like eighteen even less, but I’ve never minded it. I’ve always thought that it was a pretty good driving hole. If you keep it less than 260 from the tips, the fairway is huge. If you want to go further than that, you have to hit it straight. But you can’t go much further because the pond is about 325 out. Nothing about the approach is very inspiring, but it’s a solid long par 4 finisher.

So there’s my take on U of M. There’s a lot to like about the course; several good greens, a few very good holes, generally interesting terrain. But there really isn’t a moment here where I feel that the course is giving me something special. I don’t think that there are any great holes. And the trees, despite many being removed over the years, are still really bad. I can’t think of a course that has a worse collection of tree species than this one—even Forest Akers West at Michigan State, which is an actual arboretum!

I would not rule out that there’s a version of this course that’s a very good or even great course. It’s got the land for it. But that course is a long way off. This one needs a lot of tree removal and a lot of work on the greens and bunkers. I was excited a decade or so back when I heard that Mike DeVries was going to be working on the course. I thought that it would become the course that I hoped it could be. Unfortunately the changes haven’t done much to move the needle with me and I’m afraid that the course isn’t substantively different than it was when I started playing it 20 years ago.

How do I think it compares to other Michigan courses? I definitely prefer its sister course Radrick Farms just up the road. The terrain there is even better and while it may not be Pete Dye’s most strategically interesting course, it’s more interesting than this one. I drew (expected) heat for saying it, but I don’t think that U of M is much better than the crown jewel of Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation’s set of municipal courses, Leslie Park. That course is also on very interesting terrain and save for the fact that the greens aren’t as nuanced and there are 1 or 2 awkward holes, it compares favorably to this one.

For me, U of M doesn’t sniff Michigan’s top 10 public courses. It might be in the 25, but even that’d be close for me. In the greater Detroit area—which is certainly not a repository of the state’s best public courses—it’s probably in the top 5, but that’s it. I prefer 1-18 at Shepherd’s Hollow (but not 19-27) and it’s a close call with Blackheath, the Orchards, and Coyote Preserve. I’d probably take it over Calderone Farms. So that puts it in the 2-5 range; pretty good, but definitely not the lofty company in which some people I know—and whose opinions I respect—would have it.

Although I grew up only about an hour away from the border, I had never played golf in Ohio until June 2022. That might seem surprising at first but it really isn’t—unless you have access to the state’s numerous excellent private courses, where would you go? The Virtues (formerly Longaberger) east of Columbus is supposed to be good as are several Cleveland-area courses. But why would I make a 3 or 4 hour drive out there when the same drive in the other direction gets me to Forest Dunes, Treetops, and Arcadia Bluffs? Actually, the better question is why I hadn’t played golf in Indiana until 2021 because it has several excellent public courses worth the trip.

But when I got an opportunity to play a few northern Ohio private courses in June 2022, I was happy to take it. One of these courses was Sylvania Country Club, which lies about a mile from the Michigan border in the northwest suburbs of Toledo. This is an old Willie Park Jr. course which, I had been told, is on some of the best land in northern Ohio. Now you usually don’t think of northwestern Ohio as a place where you’d find great land for golf—I certainly don’t see much of it driving I-75 or I-80—but this course lies in and above the floodplain of the Ottawa River and even in a flat area, land tends to get a bit more interesting for golf around a river.

And the land here was not oversold—it’s one of the best looking forested golf course sites that I’ve seen. The property is long and narrow and the routing is mostly back-and-forth, but the big rolling hills make for repeatedly interesting holes, even though there’s only one fairway bunker and not a ton of strategic interest. I suppose that there are spots where if you’re familiar with the course, you might want to lay back or hit it a little further to get a flatter lie or a better angle. But generally, a straight ball down the middle will work here, even if that isn’t always because of partial or sometimes full blindness.

To me, the course presents an interesting case of how much you value different elements of golf course architecture. To simplify heavily, there are two ways to make an interesting golf course: one that starts with good land and generates interest from the aesthetic and shot making value that the landforms combined with a good routing create (uneven lies, blind shots, playing off slopes) but has fewer created elements and a second on less interesting land that generates interest though interesting bunker placement/shaping and contouring, especially on and around the greens. Obviously the best courses have both and many have neither, but consider this simplified scenario of two courses, one with good land and few designed elements and one with mediocre land but good designed elements.

Sylvania is certainly in the former category. Despite the architectural pedigree, there aren’t a lot of added elements here. In addition to having only one fairway bunker, the green side bunkering is fairly standard (but good) and the greens are good, but nothing special. The green pads are built up in a simple, but appealing way (similar to Park Jr.’s Battle Creek) but there are probably fewer interesting contours here than there. Still, I’m inclined to favor a good type one course like this over a similarly good type two course because it’s hard for the hand of man to match the originality of the hand of God (or whatever process you believe in). Courses like this will have a natural uniqueness because all good land is different and there will be a few shots that look and play different from anything you’ve seen before. I wouldn’t say that I’d always prefer a type one over a type two course, but I think that all else equal, they’re where my sympathy lies.


Having said that, Sylvania doesn’t start on interesting land; it starts in a floodplain. The 380 yard first isn’t an original hole—apparently the old first was where the driving range is now. The drive lacks distinction but the second plays uphill to a green cut into a hill at the base of an apartment building. Not the most exciting first hole, but solid and not too difficult.

The second is an awkward par 5 that criss-crosses the Ottawa River. It’s only about 260 to run into the river from the regular tees. Even if you put your drive right at the end of the fairway, going for it in two would require about a 240 yard carry over the river to a green without much bailout room. Best to play this hole conservatively.

But the first two holes aren’t really part of the course that I described above—Sylvania starts to get going with the par 3 third. This is an excellent, uphill par 3 of about 160 yards to a small green that pitches steeply from back-to-front.

And it gets even better with the 500 yard fourth. This hole starts with a completely blind over a hill about 80 yards in front of the tee—evidence that it was designed by an Englishman. But once you clear the hill, the rest of the hole sprawls out in front of you. It’s a beautiful sight, one that reminded me of the seventh hole on the Old Course at Sunningdale (also a Park Jr. course).

The landforms don’t just create beauty. Two hills cut into the fairway in the right side of the layup zone and you either need to carry these, which probably require you to get within about 120 yards of the green, or play out to the left, which will leave you an awkward angle. If you go for the green, two bunkers left keep you honest but mounds short and right of the green may allow you to kick one in. This is a fine example of great land making a great hole.

Fairway contours also generate the main interest in the long par 4 fifth. If you carry it about 250, your ball will kick forward. If not, you get stuck on a hill and have a long second shot. The green is open in front and will accept a long shot but as with several greens, the fairway mowing lines could be expanded here.

Apparently the flat, 170 yard sixth is non-original, which you might figure if you didn’t know because you basically have to walk from the green back to the tee for the seventh tee. But I appreciated the minimalist construction around the green, which I felt fit in well with the rest.

Seven has a choice of two tees—left, not far from the fifth green and right, closer to the sixth. While I assume that the former is the original, I prefer the latter. This makes the drive a dogleg right and either requires you to lay back, or hit a fade around a large oak tree (the only kind here) on the right. The fairway slopes a bit from right-to-left, so the fade really comes in handy here.

The approach is uphill to a ridgeline green and you really don’t want to go long.

The par 5 eighth is a simple driving hole, but the hole gradually narrows as you near the green. At about 550 yards, most won’t be able to go for it in two and the premium is on an accurate layup.

The weakness of Sylvania is its consecutive par 3s nine and ten, which play in the opposite direction across the Ottawa River. They’re both about 150 yards and feel like the same hole. A further detraction of the ninth is a green that is clearly massively shrunken from its original pad.

Eleven features the course’s only fairway bunker on the left, but it’s small and the fairway is wide, so it shouldn’t be much of an issue. Like number five, the bigger issue again is making sure that you reach the top of the hill, probably ~240 yards. The approach is downhill over a ditch to a green that pitches pretty good from right-to-left. It’s not a hard approach if you’ve cleared the hill but it would be if you haven’t.

While the contours of the land have played an important role in several holes so far, there’s none in which they’re a more integral part of what makes the hole than on the long par 4 twelfth. This is simply one of the best long par 4s that I’ve seen.

It’s another uphill drive and the hole clearly turns left. The slope suggests either playing a draw or hugging the left tree line. Doing one of these is more important that you’d think—it’s pretty easy to run out of room on the right if you push it. If you pull it off, your ball will kick forward and you’ll have a short to mid-iron. If not, you’ll be stuck up on the hill and have a long iron or fairway wood and it’ll require a solid second to carry a diagonal ditch that runs about 20 yards short of the green. A shot from the ditch is perfectly playable but obviously, you’d rather not be there. And it’s just much easier to avoid that if you’ve hit a good drive.

There’s a long walk back to the regular tees on the mid-length par 4 thirteenth and a really long one (>200 yards) to the tips. The land in this part of the course is tamer but you’ll need accuracy to avoid being blocked by trees left (jail) and right (more manageable). Apparently this green is also not an original but it sits very simply on the land and I liked its look.

Of all the holes on the course, the one that gave me the most ‘Park Jr. in England’ flavor was the fourteenth: a 220 yard partially blind par 3 over a ridge. I suspect that originally, this hole might have been completely blind but that the club cut a gap in the middle of the ridge, which they used to build up the walkway that leads to it. There’s just one bunker left and the contours allow you to feed you ball onto the green from the right, similar to Park Jr.’s seventh green at Stoneham near Southampton, England.

Great hole, but I’d like it even more if they filled the gap in the ridge to make it completely blind and moved a rock back and forth along the ridge to indicate the day’s pin placement. That’d be an all-world par 3.

Fifteen features another drive up-and-over a ridge. Best to position your drive up the left (near the spruce trees) to leave the best angle in.

Sixteen is another straight-away par 5 but features one of the more uncomfortable drives as trees pinch left and right in the driving zone. The second is mostly blind over a rise but like most holes here, you’ll be fine if you just aim (and hit it) down the middle.

Seventeen, another par 5, is an easier driving hole as long as you don’t push one to the right and get blocked by trees. If you do, it’ll be more difficult to carry the blind ditch that runs up about 70 yards short of the green. It’ll be easy for a decent length hitter to reach the green off a good drive but there are several bunkers short and you’ll need to make the full carry.

Eighteen is probably the toughest driving hole and maybe just the toughest par 4. It’s about 260 to the sycamore on the left and that’s just past where you’ll want to hit it. Anything down the right side will be blocked by a black walnut on the other side of the river. The approach is probably one club uphill and it’s all carry.

I mentioned at the outset that all else equal, I prefer a course like Sylvania which has good land and modest design over the opposite. The landforms make for a lot of interesting drives and lies than most courses that you’ll see. I didn’t say much about the trees, but they play an important role here too. More than most courses I can think of, they favor shaping off the tee without being too imposing. They’re also spaced far enough apart where if you hit it in them, you’ll often have a shot. Finally, they’re oaks, so they let in enough sunlight for grass to grow. The density of the grass is perfect because the course is mostly on high ground and these areas are unirrigated.

I do think that Sylvania would benefit from a few fairway bunkers because there are a few drives which lack interest—after all, great land and great design is better than great land and good design. More important is restoring the greens; there are several that have clearly shrunken from their original pads. I think that this would especially help with the par 3s around the river.

But Sylvania is a good, old course and we don’t have too many of these in the area. Hopefully the club will follow the recent restoration trend and bring some of these greens back to their original sizes and shapes.

Leading up to previous trips to the Pinehurst area in 2002 and 2019, I had never heard much about Southern Pines Golf Club. I had heard of the course; I knew that it was one of the other Donald Ross courses in Pinehurst. But it didn’t garner much attention as a course worth adding as the 4th or 5th course on a trip to the area. Same was true for Mid Pines in 2002; I had heard of it and knew that it was a Ross course, but no one seemed to think to much of it so it was lower on my list of Pinehurst area courses to see than Tobacco Road or Pinehurst no.8 (I still might have liked it more than the latter…).

But sometime after my 2019 visit (or maybe before; I don’t remember the timing), I had heard that the family that owned Pine Needles, which had bought Mid Pines and restored to being the outstanding course that it now is, had bought Southern Pines and was hiring Kyle Franz to give the course the same treatment that he had given Mid Pines and Pine Needles. That of course made Southern Pines a course that I’d have to come back and see—which I saw more as an opportunity than a burden because Pinehurst is only about 5 1/2 hours from where I live in DC and Pine Needles and Mid Pines alone were already always worth the trip to see. Although it’s getting hard to justify the cost to play no.2 because they make you stay at the over-crowded and overly expensive Pinehurst resort, a trip to the Pinehurst area is plenty justified without it.

Never having looked into playing Southern Pines before, I didn’t know much about the course. But I assumed that it’d be similar to Pine Needles and Mid Pines, crossing rolling but not-too-hilly terrain with more moderate greens than no.2. I assumed wrong. Despite the shorter overall yardage, this is a more severe course than either Pine Needles or Mid Pines. I’m not sure that the property is much hillier that Pine Needles, but the routing is much tighter (more like Mid Pines), meaning that most holes cover pretty steep terrain and—critically—that the green sites are more severe.

It’s that latter element that, to me, makes Southern Pines feel very different from either Pine Needles or Mid Pines. Many of the greens are sited on hillsides and the most notable—and different—thing about them is how many have false fronts, and how severe these are. Both Pine Needles and Mid Pines are well-suited to shorter hitters who need to use the ground to run their ball onto greens. Southern Pines emphatically is not. You need to play an aerial game here. And a very precise one at that; missing short can result in your ball running 25 yards back down a hill on several occasion. And missing long means that your next shot will probably run 25 yards down that hill…

I wasn’t expecting ‘severity’ to be the word that I’d associate with Southern Pines, but it is. It reminds me of Tobacco Road a bit in that while they don’t look similar and the design elements are quite different, there are a lot of shots that if you miss, it’s easy to run up a big score. I’m not a big fan of that. But my bigger issue with Southern Pines is the amount of times that you face the same scenario: an approach to a green with a severe false front and nowhere else particularly good to miss. By my count, this applies to at least 7 or 8 greens. So I came away with far less affection for this course than either Pine Needles or Mid Pines. But that doesn’t make it bad and, in a sense, is what makes it an essential part of a Pinehurst trip; variety is a good thing.


But one hole which certainly isn’t severe is the ~360 yard first. Ross opening holes tend to be a gentle handshake; this is a downright effeminate (sorry…) one.

Many can probably get pretty close to the green with their drive but I’d advise against this—bunkers pinch the fairway about 75 yards short of the green. Best to lay back to your favorite yardage; you definitely don’t want to leave your approach above the hole here.

The par 5 second plays up and over a hill and if you can get your drive running, you can easily get within distance to reach the green. And you should go for the long ball because there isn’t too much trouble.

The layup is simple; just leave it at the base of the hill about 90 yards short of the green. This is the first of many greens with a severe false front. I (fortunately) didn’t find out for myself, but if you miss your approach short, the ball might come about 90 yards back down the hill. Just tell your playing partners that you wanted to use the whole backstop for your layup…

By the 200 yard par 3 third, you’re definitely getting a sense of the precision required in hitting into these greens. The green is heavily bunkered, has a pretty good false front, and slopes pretty good from back-to-front. Front pins are tough although they’re in a shallow bowl that’ll hold your ball if you hit a good shot.

Four may only be about 385 yards (I don’t even remember seeing the 435 back tee that’s on the card…which is just as well), but it’s about the most difficult hole of that length that I’ve seen. The drive is tricky for someone who fades the ball with the bunkers on the right although there is some room between the first and second set.

The approach is one of the more uphill shots you’ll likely face this side of Cleeve Hill and Painswick and the green is quite shallow. Simply put, you need to hit a very precise iron here. Definitely don’t go at a left pin because this is where the green is at its narrowest.

At this point, there’s a choice of two holes that you can play next. There’s a par 5 which is the fifth hole on the card. Or there’s a short par 3 off to the left that’s apparently an old Ross hole that had been left fallow but has been revitalized, if not restored. It’s about 130 yards to a green that slopes pretty good from right-to-left and has a bowl at the left side. It’s a good hole, but it felt to me like something from one of the new par 3 courses that you’re supposed to play in bare feet. Maybe I would have liked it more if I had done that (or hit better shots…).

The real fifth hole is a long, downhill par 5. Actually it doesn’t play that long because there’s a massive downslope in the fairway that’ll bring your ball about 80 yards closer to the green.

From here, we have one of the course’s best approach shots. A waste area bisects the fairway ~100 yards short of the green and trouble runs up its right. But if you can carry this, you can run the ball all the way onto the green. The green slopes back-to-front but doesn’t have any of the severity at its edges that many of the others do. Plus it has excellent interior contour. Great hole.

While very difficult, I also thought that the long par 4 sixth was a great hole. The drive is very challenging and downright cruel to anyone who hits a draw. The bunker on the left is probably only about 250 from the tips, so you’ll need to hit a fade off it. The approach is gently uphill to a big green that does have a false front, but one that’s much less severe than others. It also has excellent interior contour.

Seven is a par 3 of about 195 from the tips where once again, you just have to hit the green. There’s a massive hollow short and the odds of hitting the green from one of the back bunkers are about as good as the odds of hitting it from the tee. I think this hole would work better from the ~160 yard middle tees. Ever par 3 here save for hole 5a was a 5 or 6 iron for me from the tips and making this one a bit shorter, especially given the severity of the green site, would add some variety.

Also difficult, but certainly not in need of any tweaking, is the 390 yard par 4 eighth. This is a very difficult driving hole with a bunker about 250 out on the right and a fairway that slopes away on both sides (into trees on the left).

Although it’s probably more notable for its beauty than its shot interest, the former is more than enough to make the approach an excellent one. Apparently you couldn’t see the lake right of the hole before because there was a forest. I’m as much a tree lover as anyone, but I can’t imagine that it wasn’t worth it to cut it down…unless there were old-growth longleaf pines or baldcypress down there.

Nine is another tough par 3 with a severe false front. Again, long is trouble but the front right bunker wasn’t too bad (although it’s a terrible shot to end up there).

The short par 4 tenth has a new tee just behind the ninth green which makes for a—to me—very pleasing semi-blind drive over a waste area. You’re advised to hit a conservative tee shot from here though as the fairway slopes pretty good from left-to-right and the angle means that you’re playing slightly down the slope. Another uphill approach to a heavily contoured green with a pretty good false front.

Now the reason that we played the alternate short par 3 fifth was that they were doing work on the short par 4 eleventh and it was out-of-play. Too bad; it’s one of the best looking holes on the course. At 325 yards, long hitters can go for the green and it’s a very interesting shot because you have to decide how much of the bunkers on the right you can carry. The ground feeds toward the green but if you pull it, it’s easy to run through the fairway into bunkers.

The 425 yard twelfth is in a flatter portion of the course and reminds me of something you might find on no.2 or Mid Pines. Bunkers encroach on the left, demanding an accurate drive. The approach is gently uphill over a waste area to a green with a gentler false front. There’s also an opportunity to kick one on using the high ground left of the green. This hole is much subtler than most others on the course but no less interesting.

Less subtle, but also interesting is the 420 yard thirteenth. Bunkers encroach on the right this time but there’s a bit more room.

However, it’s all about the approach here, which is the most unusual on the course. It’s downhill and the green is open in front, making this one of the few greens that you can run a ball onto. But there’s also a nasty mound in the front middle of the green that can kick your ball in any direction—including through the green as I unfortunately learned.

Fourteen is a bit more forgiving than the other par 3s. While there’s another severe false front, there’s much more room between the bunkers and you can use the slope in the left side of the green to feed the ball toward right pins. This was probably my favorite of the par 3s because you can play it in a greater variety of ways.

Fifteen is an excellent shorter (~500 yards) par 5. It’s a generous fairway and you’ll want to take advantage because if you hit a short drive here, you might have trouble carrying the cross bunkers ~80 yards short of the green.

Again, this green has a pretty good false front although I mind it less here than on some of the other holes because tee-to-green, this one isn’t so difficult. It’s a good type of hole to have a severe green site because you’re either going for it in two—in which case it’s reasonable to demand a solidly struck shot—or you have a short third…and the same applies.

Sixteen is an interesting short (315 yard) par 4. The fairway is quite wide if you layup, but narrows as you get closer to the green. Still, it’s not so narrow and I think it’s pretty sensible for long hitters to go for it here.

The green is narrow but deep. It’s best to be coming in from online with the green short but if you go for it, a pitch from the right also isn’t bad because the green tilts pretty good from left-to-right. A straight-forward, but well-conceived hole.

The seventeenth is also well-conceived, albeit a bit less straight-forward. The main difficulty here is with the drive; there are staggered bunkers left then right and you need an accurate drive to avoid them. It’s best to be in the right side of the fairway because the green opens up from this angle.

The approach is to what’s probably my favorite green on the course. While left and long are no good as the ground clearly slopes from back-left to front-right, the contouring short and right of this green is subtle and excellent; some of my favorite of any of Franz’s Pinehurst-area renovations.

Other than a par 3, a medium-short par 4 is probably the rarest type as a finisher, but Southern Pines’ is excellent. It’s one of the best driving holes on the course; it’s only about 220 to carry the bunker on the left but pull it at all and you’ll hit the trees, push it and the slope of the fairway will likely take it into the right bunkers. It’s a simple layup but hit driver and it demands either a very precise straight ball or a draw.

The approach is…yep, to another hilltop, false front green. I like this one in its own right for a finishing hole but by this point, it’s been a bit too much of the same thing for me.

And that’s my main criticism of Southern Pines: the approach shots lack a bit in variety. It’s a very good driving course, with a variety of views, bunker configurations, and slopes. But more than half of the greens are sited on hillsides with steep false fronts and bunkers around the rest making it a very demanding, but not varied test of iron play. 4 or 5 greens like this would be great but at least half of them are and I think that’s too much.

It just occurred to me that one of the issues might be that like on all of today’s restorations, there’s probably a lot more short grass around the greens than on the previous version. I don’t know for sure whether that’s true because I didn’t play the previous version, but I bet it is. And this might be a case where rough around the greens, or at least a few of them would have been better because it wouldn’t have resulted in so much severity.

Given the quality of today’s bermuda grass, I bet that even if there had been short grass around the green in Ross’s time, they would have played nothing like this—they would have been shaggier and the ball would have been more likely to hold up. So I suspect that I’d prefer the green complexes if they were somewhere between the current version and what I assumed the old version was—some surrounded by short grass, some with a bit more rough.

Although for me, the lack of variety and severity keep Southern Pines below Mid Pines and Pine Needles, they contribute to the overall variety in the Pine Needles stable of courses. I came here expecting something similar to Pine Needles and Mid Pines and certainly did not get that. Like I said, in terms of difficulty, it reminded me more of Tobacco Road. While that means that taken in itself, I don’t like Southern Pines as much as some of the other courses in town, it also means that it’s an excellent complement to them. Despite my criticisms, I still think that Southern Pines is an excellent course. And perhaps all the better that it’s different from its new siblings.

Like The Addington, Knole Park is the creation of architect JF Abercromby who didn’t leave us many courses, but what he left is distinctive. Even over years of tree growth and neglect, The Addington was still one of the London heathland courses most worth a visit and with the current restoration by Clayton, DeVries, and Pont, it will likely be one of the 4 or 5 best.

While a London area course—Knole Park is about a 15 minute walk from the Sevenoaks commuter stop, which is the first major station to the city’s southeast and probably one of its busiest—Knole Park is not a heathland course. I tend to think that heathland courses are a less distinctive type of course than they’re given credit for; the defining feature is that they have heather but several of the better ones, like St. George’s Hill, don’t have that much. They also tend to have a lot of Scots Pine trees although some like Walton Heath don’t have many of these. Nor is the terrain distinctive. What distinguishes a heathland course is that it’s on acidic soil. But this doesn’t matter for golf per se—what matters for golf is the terrain and I just don’t see a systematic difference across heathland and non-heathland courses.

So Knole Park isn’t a heathland course in that it doesn’t have heather and pines but like Abercromby’s other most famous (heathland) course, it does have wild terrain. Actually, Knole Park’s terrain is even wilder than The Addington although it’s of a bit less consequence for playing because this course is much wider and there’s less chance that the wild terrain will result in a lost ball.

Knole Park is in a giant deer park—they’re abundant throughout the course—and gets its name from its location on the grounds of the spectacular Knole House, which dates to the 15th century and is one of the 5 largest houses in England. Because the course is in a park, golfers are accompanied by many pedestrians on a day visit to Knole House and there are many on the paths that cross the course, especially at its closest points to the house (6th, 7th, 13th, 14th holes). I’m not exactly sure why, but I’ve always found this multi-purpose aspect of so many British courses very charming although it can sometimes be a nuisance for the golfer and dangerous (i.e. St. Enodoc’s tenth hole). This property is so broad and open however that in my multiple rounds, it was never an issue.

So that’s enough about the general features of the property, how about the course? It was one of my personal favorites in England although I’d hesitate to say that it’s one of the best. The reason I think I liked it so much is the property’s openness, which makes it very beautiful and, combined with the very challenging terrain, makes the golf feel adventurous. It’s a bit the same feeling that I got playing at Cleeve Hill, although the golf here certainly isn’t as adventurous. Although the openness is the main thing that you’ll remember, there are a few points where the course could use to be a bit more open, with landscape trees having narrowed the corridors of a few holes a bit too much. Apparently the property lost many ancient trees in a 1987 storm and some of these were probably replacements. But the course doesn’t need them because even treeless, the land is dramatic enough to ensure sufficient challenge.


Like The Addington, Knole Park starts on a par 3. Also like The Addington and several of the other courses that start on a par 3 in England, this apparently isn’t the original first hole. Although a par 3 isn’t my ideal start, this is a good one, ~190 yards to a green that’s open in front but has a diagonal series of bunkers from short-left to long-right.

The second hole is a straight-away, uphill par 4 of about 350 yards from the standard tees. There’s about an 80 yard walkback to a back tee that would make it a bit of a dogleg left. Two things are important here: one, don’t get your drive behind the massive oak tree left of the fairway; two, be sure to take enough club on the uphill approach.

I think I read somewhere that the first two holes at Knole Park were originally one hole, a par 5 playing to the second green. While I like both of the existing hole, I think that this hole would probably be an improvement. There’s be plenty of room to stick a par 3 somewhere else to make up for it.

One hole which you certainly wouldn’t want to replace is the 400 yard third, which is a great one. You play blind over a hill into a valley which houses a shared fairway between this and the fourth hole. But you can see the green from the tee so once you’re down there, it’s uphill to the green, which is cut beautifully into the surrounding hills. There’s a lot of trouble around this green in the form of little humps and hollows. Like the previous hole, you’ll probably need extra club for the approach.

The par 4 fourth is another hole that has been changed. The tee used to be just left of the third green, which created a blind shot over a big fern-covered (or as they’d say in England, ‘bracken-covered’) hill to the second half of the current valley fairway.

At some point, the tee was moved up the hill to the right of the third green, which creates a drive that crosses over the third fairway but gives a much better view. Despite my general affection for blind drives, having looked at the hole from the old tee (the pad is still there), I think it was a good change. It’s a very good looking drive from the current tees, with the fairway following the natural valley left to the green.

The problem with this hole is that it’s become choked-out by trees on the left and tick-filled junk on the right. The club could really use to lose the trees on the left—the drive would still be plenty difficult because a long hitter could clear the hill but a weak drive could get stuck on it.

There’s about a 120 yard uphill walk to the par 3 fifth tee. I wonder if there used to be another hole in here? In any case, the current par 3 is a solid and exacting one. You need a well-struck tee shot because the green sits on a hill and you can’t run one up.

While there are a few good ones in the first five, for me, Knole Park really gets going with the sixth hole, which is simply one of the most brilliant driving hols that I’ve ever seen. It’s hard to tell from the tee, but it’s a split fairway, one obvious one in the valley in front of you but another blind one over the hill running in the direction of the green.

The hill creates one of the great driving challenges that I’ve ever seen. If you don’t carry it, your ball will either get stuck on it or kick down into the low fairway. It’s a shorter carry over it to the left but if you don’t fade a drive on this line, you can run into the junk on the other side. If you go for the longer carry, you have to be careful not to let it leak right because the right side of the left fairway slopes down into the right valley fairway. There’s a small bunker near the end of the valley fairway, right where a drive kicking right from the high-left line is likely to end up.

While you have a good look at the green from anywhere in the left fairway, the approach from the valley is completely blind and must come over diagonal bunkers fronting the green at that angle. Although I didn’t get a picture, I was down there in one of my rounds and the view was very disorienting—I missed my aiming line for the green by about 20 yards!

While nothing too exciting, the seventh is a very pleasant short par 5 crossing an open landscape dotted by trees, some young some very old. The approach is semi-blind if you haven’t hit a long drive. The most important thing here is that you don’t let your approach leak too far right if going for the green because there’s a big wall guarding one of Knole House’s gardens.

Eight is a beautiful downhill par 3 that looks like it’s playing through a garden. Despite the beauty, it’s quite difficult; the green is deep but narrow and has a steep drop-off at its left. The right bunker is certainly no good as the green runs away from there.

Many would probably say that the course begins a bit of a weak stretch with the par 5 ninth. The ground is a bit tamer here and there isn’t so much to drum up interest between the tees and the greens. I actually think that the drive on nine is a pretty tough one. The bunkers on the right are 230 from the standard tees, 250 from the tips and cut pretty far into the fairway. There’s also marshy junk on the other side if you pull it.

I found the 170 yard tenth to be a lovely hole in its simplicity. But there’s a bit more trouble near the green than appears in the form of two bunkers left in addition to the obvious one on the right.

Certainly the most problematic hole at Knole Park is the ~430 eleventh. The hole probably doglegs 75 degrees to the right but it’s almost impossible to cut any of the corner because of the massive oak trees in the corner of the dogleg. So you only want to hit it ~240 out to the left. The longest hitters might be able to go over the trees but anyone who can do that should play the back tee at 485 yards, which I didn’t even know existed until I looked at the club’s website just now.

This is one of those holes that’d be much better if there were bunkers rather than trees on the corner of the dogleg. But these are some very large, old oaks and the tree-loving part of me that says ‘keep ‘em’ probably wins out over the good-golf-hole-loving part of me that knows it’d be a better hole without them.

After three perhaps less-than-great holes, we have three excellent ones. The 200 yard twelfth is excellent. There’s room short over the bunkers to run one on and the green is very unusual, with a ridge running through the back that creates a small back shelf. The back section is barely large enough for a pin placement (it’d be a fun one) and I wonder if this section was either larger and encompassed some of the area behind it that’s now rough or if it wasn’t part of the green in the first place. I’d guess the former.

The 325 yard par 4 thirteenth is very unusual, but in a good way. The drive is uphill, yet there’s a marsh/pond halfway up the hill on the right side starting at about 225. You either need to lay up short, which makes the approach very uphill, play to the left, which is narrow and means you’ll have to contend with a stunted old oak tree left of the green, or carry it, which takes about a 240 yard carry up a hill. It’s one of the more unusual driving holes I’ve seen, but it’s a very good one. It’s also one where the trees planted too close to the fairway on the left actually do a lot to make it interesting by making option (2) more difficult.

The fairway on the long par 4 fourteenth is wide open but its right side kicks right and it’s quite easy to end up in the rough on a downslope on the right. If you hit the fairway, you’ll have a good view of what’s probably both the course’s most picturesque and interesting approach. It’s a bit tough to run one up here but the shot plays about 25 feet downhill, so it’s probably one or two clubs less than usual.

I mentioned that the club should combine the first and second holes into a par 5 and stick a par 3 in somewhere else. My suggestion would be here, playing from just left of the fourteenth green down to the base of the hill behind the green, just to the right of the fifteenth tee. This would make for a hole of ~150 yards, which would add some variety to the par 3s, all of which currently require at least a mid-iron.

Knole Park’s most Addington-like moment in terms of severity comes at the par 5 fifteenth. It’s a very tough drive from the back tee; you need about 230 to carry the ridge on the right side but if you shy away to the left, you can get stuck behind a grove of trees on the left that starts at ~280.

It’s critical that you hit a good drive here because otherwise, you won’t be able to carry your second up the massive hill in front of the green. Google Earth say that it’s only about a 20ft. rise—it felt like at least twice that. If you go for it and don’t make the carry, your ball can run well off to the left. If you can’t make it, you’ll have to lay back to ~150 and have a shot that’s so uphill that you will wonder if you can even hit your short iron high enough. Very difficult hole for shorter hitters or those who miss their drive.

Sixteen completes Knole Park’s sextet of difficult par 3s (the shortest is #10 at 170 and the other five are all >190). This 200-yarder might be the most difficult of the bunch. The difficulty here is that if you miss your long-iron/hybrid by even a little bit, the ground is likely to carry the ball down the hill to the right, almost to the junk. But the bunker left is about 20 yards short of the green and you can use the ground past it to run one onto the green. It’s an excellent hole and I’d say probably the best of the par 3s.

Each of the par 3s at Knole Park is a good hole in its own right but as a set, they’re a bit too difficult and lacking a bit in variety, with 4 and 5-irons all day. I love courses with six par 3s but unfortunately this is a case of the whole being less than the sum of its parts. The Addington also has six par 3s and that set is superior to Knole Park’s (and almost any other course) in good part because of the variety of lengths.

The 540 yard par 5 seventeenth is a tricky driving hole because the fairway slopes gently away on the left and more steeply away on the right. It’s best to play this one just off the trees to the left because there’s a hidden string of bunkers on the right from 220-270.

The approach is downhill over a valley and you’ll need to be able to carry to with about 110 yards of the green to carry it. But we’re on high ground here and if you’re playing in the summer, the ball rolls a lot, making this hole play much shorter than the yardage. In one of my rounds, I had probably 230 to the green and cold chunked a 4-iron. I almost didn’t find the ball…because it had rolled all the way to the back of the green.

The 400 yard eighteenth features another of those lovely English drives: completely blind over a hill about 80 yards in front of the tee. Even though they could have put the tee on high ground left of the seventeenth green, they stuck it in this ditch near the boundary wall. I love it. I wish we had more drives like this in the US.

But that’s really the only interesting thing about the drive because the fairway is wide-open. The second shot…definitely not one of my favorites over a small pond. Altogether, not a very inspired finishing hole, especially for such an inspirational course.

Over two visits and four total rounds, I always found Knole Park to be one of the most enjoyable courses in the London area. It’s beautiful, a very pleasant walk, and there are several very nice holes (and one all-world one, the sixth). Reflecting on it a few years later though, it just doesn’t have the strengths of London’s best. The bunkering is fine, but nothing too special in its placement or shaping. Generally they’re a bit too small, not fitting the scale of the property. The shaping on an around the greens is also a bit weak. Now the London courses generally aren’t known for their greens contouring, but the best ones all have interesting mounds and hollows that create a lot of interest throughout. Unfortunately, Knole Park doesn’t have any of that.

Like The Addington, I suspect that Knole Park has become a bit degraded from Abercromby’s original course. It’d be interesting to see what this course looked like in its early years. Hopefully the club will have a look at this and consider making changes to get the course closer to its original presentation if it has in fact gotten away from this. One thing that it could definitely use is tree removal. There are plenty of stately old oaks that should remain, but too many landscape trees have been planted over the years and both interfere with several shots that would be plenty interesting without them and clutter the otherwise dramatic landscape.

Still Knole Park is one of the London area’s most pleasant courses, easy to get to from the city, and is a nice contrast in style to the more prominent heathland courses. If you’re spending some time in London and have an afternoon to get away to play some golf, I’d highly recommend it.

Another train ride well out into the south England countryside brings us to Royal Ashdown Forest, a course located on crown land, which apparently came with the stipulation that no artificial constructions can be made. It’s that condition which has created the course’s greatest source of fame: its lack of sand bunkers. Although as I’ve said before, I’m not much into historical golf course research and haven’t investigated it, this aspect of Royal Ashdown Forest is a puzzle to me because while there aren’t any sand-filled bunkers, there are all sorts of earthworks, including plenty of bunkers that just aren’t filled with sand. So unless the royal charter (or whatever the document is called) says ‘no sand’ specifically, I don’t really get the lack of sand.

But one thing that I believe in is that ‘less is often more’ and I like the idea of a course without sand. While most courses without sand don’t have it because they’re low-budget courses and don’t want the maintenance costs, this is certainly not the case with Royal Ashdown Forest. This is a serious club and the course is as stern as most of top courses in the London area. If you the architect are committed to not using sand, you’ll have to devise other ways to create interest, namely in the shaping of the ground to create interesting features. And there’s certainly a lot of this here, most (although not always) to great affect. But because so much of the shaping looks like shaping we typically find around sand bunkers, if you didn’t know that the course was sand-less, you might not realize it.

Probably the best thing about Royal Ashdown Forest is the land that it sits on: big and heavily rolling with some fantastic vistas across neighboring grazing land and beautiful streams that make for some interesting (and challenging) shots. This is certainly one of the most beautiful courses that I played in England. Couple that with some very interesting earthworks and a variety of green shapes and you have some seriously interesting golf. Would the course be better with a few sand bunkers? Maybe, but maybe not. I certainly didn’t miss them. There are a few architectural quirks that I could do without but the lack of sand isn’t at the top of the list.


Being English, the course must have its share of oddities. One of these comes at the first hole, a 350 yard downhill par 4 that crosses over the eighteenth hole. Long hitters can run out of room and into the trees on the left but the best play here is something controlled up the right. That’s because the green is steeply two-tiered from high-left to low-right. Being up the right side will allow you to play into rather than down the slope.

It’s possible to get lost on the way to the second as you have to walk about 175 yards down a neighborhood road. Once you get to the end of it, you come to a 385 yard hole with a very English (uphill and blind) drive. It’s important to aim up the right side of the fairway because it slopes left and you can run out of room there.

The approach looks like something that may have inspired Pete Dye: downhill to a green fronted by wooden boards. More an issue is that the green slopes back-to-front and that you don’t want to be long.

The short par 4 third gives you some teeing ground options: 315 yards and straight-away from a tee just behind the second green or a 100 yard walkback to a slightly more awkward 330 yard dogleg left. It’s a pretty simple hole in either case but the higher visual intimidation of the latter offsets the walkback and is probably the better of the two.

The green is surrounded by a variety of odd mounds. Not sure why this construction was ok but sand bunkers weren’t.

Although it’s another fairly short par 4, I liked the uphill fourth. The fairway narrows with a road and heather about 250 from the tips so again, a lay-up club is prudent. It’s a lovely uphill approach to a deep but fairly narrow green with a hedge at its left.

While the first few holes have been pleasant, none is really anything special. That starts to change with the downhill, 515 yard par 5 fifth. Feel free to swing away here (unless you tend to slice) because the green is quite reachable in two, even if the course isn’t playing firm.

The approach is a beauty, over a meandering stream about 15 yards short of the green. The stream is in the perfect place for those considering going for it. There’s a little room short so you don’t need a perfect shot, but it needs to be solid. The green is also over 100 ft. deep making it possible to hold from long distance. A very fine par 5.

And the short par 3 sixth is even better. About 120 yards to a deep but narrow green perched over a stream on the left and a hollow on the right, this is one of the best short par 3s that I’ve seen. Part of this is that the construction of the green is one of the best that I’ve seen, with both interesting interior contours and contouring at the edges.

You’d think that this would compete for the best sixth hole in the country but there’s a lot of sixth hole competition, with world class sixth holes at Knole Park, Sunningdale—New, and Royal North Devon.

The excellent golf continues with the mid-length, uphill par 4 seventh, which plays over the back part of the sixth green. It’s an excellent driving hole because if bold, you can cut off a lot of the junk (and it’s really nasty stuff) up the right. But the fairway slopes to the left and the hole doglegs right so if it’s firm and you pull it a bit, your drive could run into the woods on the left. Again, a conservative drive is prudent.

The green is a simple circle with a false front that sits in a lovely amphitheater.

Eight is another fairly short par 5 with lots of trouble. The fairway narrows to a ribbon at ~280 so again, you shouldn’t just bomb away. From here, regardless of whether you go for it or lay up, you have an interesting shot. The green is deep, but narrow and tucked in a hollow surrounded by all kinds of mess. I really wouldn’t suggest going for the green in two unless you have a very manageable shot because the green is small and the stuff right of it might as well be a pond. If you lay up, it’s far better to be up the left side.

Nine is an uphill, ~140 yard par 3 with a fairly large green. Should be simple but miss a bit short or a bit long and again, there’s all kinds of junk.

When most who’ve played it think back on Royal Ashdown Forest, they probably think most about the stretch 10-12. These are three of the most beautiful holes in the country and to my mind, three of the best.

The par 5 tenth is probably the weakest of this set. It’s a good driving hole; not too demanding with the trouble being obvious.

But it gets much trickier on the approach. The fairway rises to a peak ~130 yards short of the green and everything past that point is blind, making for an awkward lay up. This was also probably my least favorite green on the course, awkwardly cut into the base of a hill. Not a bad hole, but definitely not my favorite.

The 250 yard downhill par 3 eleventh though…definitely one of my favorites. I think that this is one of the best long par 3s in England. It’s about 50 feet down hill so it always plays much shorter than the yardage and if the ground is really firm, you’d have to land your shot well short of the green.

The greatness here (apart from the obvious beauty) is that the slope of the land requires you to be careful with the shape and placement of your shot. A bit too far right and you can get stuck in the heather. But something landing a bit too far left in the fairway will kick left. The right edge of the green is perfect for a straight ball that you want to run in while a fade would be best for those strong enough to carry all the way to the green.

The long par 5 twelfth is probably Royal Ashdown Forest’s most famous hole and for good reason: it’s in the top handful of best par 5s that I’ve played. While it was obvious from pictures that I’d seen before that the fairway slopes right-to-left, I didn’t realize just how severe the slope was. You can really hit a long ball if you can sling a draw but, especially if it’s dry, you have to be careful because you could run all the way down to the trees on the left.

While the hole is stunning and the drive is excellent, from a thinking golfer’s standpoint, the second shot might be the most interesting. The first issue is that if you haven’t hit a good drive, you’ll have difficulty carrying the junk that crosses the fairway from 130-170 short of the green. But even if this isn’t an issue, this second landing area is much narrower and the closer you get to the green, the more heather-covered mounds there are up the left. The more aggressive the second shot, the more precise you must be.

At this point, the course has been on quite a run. 5-12 is one of the better nine (well…eight) hole stretches that you’ll ever see. Unfortunately the course cannot keep up the pace in the last six, which contain several awkward holes that to me keep the course from being one of the top heathland courses.

Thirteen is probably my least-favorite of this bunch. It’s just an odd hole—and not in a good way. From the tips, it’s only about 240 to a road that crosses the fairway and you can’t go further than this because it’s all heather on the other side. But unless you hit it at least ~200 yards, you also don’t reach the fairway. Add in the fact that a tree and other junk block the left side of the hole from the tips pushing you out to the right (where you can get stuck behind more trees) and you have one of my least-favorite driving holes anywhere.

The approach and the green are nice, but they can’t save the hole from being one of my least-favorite--of a sample very biased toward great courses--in England.

After an almost 250 yard walk to the tee, the downhill, ~200 yard fourteenth is much better. It’s actually an excellent hole, capping off what might be a world-class set of par 3s. The main interest comes from all the odd humps and hollows surrounding the green. You have to be accurate, but the green is quite deep.

Fifteen is another awkward, but good short par 4. No matter where you drive it, the approach is blind to a large green in a hollow fronted by heather. Because I inexplicably didn’t take a photo of this lovely green, a screenshot from the video of the hole on the club’s excellent website will have to do.

I found the ~410 yard, uphill sixteenth to be pretty brutal in the soft conditions. You really need a long drive here but not too long because the fairway narrows at ~285 yards (certainly not an issue for me). The reason is that green is fronted by heather-covered mounds and you can’t run one on. While there’s a bit more room left on the approach, it’s hard to tell from the fairway because most everything up by the green is blind.

I didn’t love this hole in my two playings, but there’s plenty of room to lay up if you can’t carry to the green. And I guess there’s nothing wrong with the shot being very demanding for those who can.

Along with the twelfth, the long par 4 seventeenth appears to be Royal Ashdown Forest’s other hole most often cited as great. This is because of the heroic approach to a narrow green benched in the side of a hill, calling for a shot that uses the slope short of the green to run it on.

I respectfully dissent. I found the hole to be very awkward. The drive is completely blind with only an aiming marker to guide the way. But there’s trouble even if you hit the fairway because it slopes pretty good to the left and it’s easy to run into the junk on the left. I’d say that the best play is something a bit left of the aiming marker with a decent fade.

I also don’t think that the approach works as well in practice as it does in theory. The problem is that the land short of the green is too steep. It’s so steep that it isn’t maintained as fairway because balls would just collect at the low-end. I think that it’s also probably too steep to be able to judge the kick off it. On top of that, a maintenance path crosses in front of the green where you’d want to land the ball. Some people might find this charming in a St.Andrew’s-kind-of way. I just thought that it made an already-clunky shot clunkier. Like the tenth green, I also find this one awkwardly cut into too-steep a slope. So it may be one of many others’ favorite holes at Royal Ashdown Forest, but it certainly isn’t one of mine.

Unfortunately the course closes with another unusual hole that I don’t like. I can’t think of a hole that has less fairway in the places where you’d expect fairway to be and more in places that don’t. From the tips, it’s about 210 yards to carry the junk up the left side but then, like the thirteenth hole, only about another 30 until you ran into junk crossing the fairway. And most of the fairway is to the right of where it should be. Unless you’re in the leftmost part of the fairway, you’ll have an awkward angle to a green that runs diagonally front-left to back-right and could be blocked by trees on the right.

But looking at the hole on Google Earth, it looks like since my most recent visit (fall 2017), the club may have cut down all of the long grass that bisected the fairway and continued up the fairway up to the green. This simple fix would have made the hole substantially better although it looks like the left side is still long grass. Ideally, the fairway would be up to about 20 yards from the hedge next to the clubhouse because the left side is the best angle into the green. But I can understand that the club might not want to do that to save on their window replacement bills.

Royal Ashdown Forest gets a lot of very positive reviews from the likes of Tom Doak, Ran Morissett, and other well-travelled people. I think that I’m a bit less impressed. There’s no doubt that the course has a handful of the best holes in England and the shaping around the greens is unusual but very interesting and (for the most part) very good.

Still, there’s a lot of awkwardness here that the course could do without. Some of it might be simple to fix. It looks like the club may have already fixed the eighteenth hole. I think that fixing the thirteenth hole would just be a matter of some tree and brush removal on the left side (although that still wouldn’t make it a favorite). And maybe it’s just a matter of expanding some of the mowing lines (like around the sixteenth green) so that it’s easier to take advantage of some of the slopes and give some alternative routes to those who can’t pull off the preferred shot.

But these comments are ultimately nitpicky. It’s undeniable that Royal Ashdown Forest is an excellent course overall, certainly one that you should go see if you’re spending any time in the London area. I’m not sure how many other bunkerless courses I’ve played that were any good, so this is probably the best by default. But I’d throw out the ‘bunkerless’ novelty when thinking about this course. The variety of humps, hollows, and covering vegetation create at least as much interest and challenge as sand on other courses. So what you have is one of the most beautiful courses in England which, for its faults, has consistently interesting shaping with several great holes including a few that are likely among the best of their type in the world. Sounds pretty good to me.


Note: There’s also a full 18-hole relief course at Royal Ashdown Forest, the West Course, that’s also worth playing. The front nine has some very nice holes and while a few holes are short and awkward, there’s some interesting terrain and a few great shots on the back. For some reason, I didn’t take any pictures but if you’re doing a multi-round day at Royal Ashdown Forest—especially if you’re playing >36 holes—I’d consider doing a round on the West Course.

While no one seems to think it’s the best of the UK's inland courses, Woking has always been of special interest to golf course architecture enthusiasts outside of the UK. It’s notable as an early example of great redesign work, as members John Low and Stuart Paton went through the course hole-by-hole in the early 20th century, adding bunkers to make the holes more strategic and reshaping greens to make them more interesting. Many of these revisions (i.e. the centerline fourth hole fairway bunkers) remain interesting to this day and result is a course that, despite being on one of the less-interesting properties of the great heathland courses, is one of the most interesting.

Although Woking is an excellent course from tee-to-green, it’s most notable for its greens which are easily the best set of the London heathland courses and are perhaps the best set in the whole southeast England, with only those at Royal St. George’s and Royal Cinque Ports as competitors. Now great greens come in many forms—they can be large and wild like those at St. Andrews or smaller with a lot of smaller rolls like the sixteenth at Royal Cinque Ports.

But Woking’s green contours stand out as unique in my experience. While several are large and have more standard contours (like tiers), many are contoured unlike anything I’ve seen before, from the seven or eight small tiers of the twelfth green, to the hourglass-shaped tiers of the thirteenth green, to the bizarre nose-shaped tier that comes into the middle of the fifteenth green. And even some of the less contoured greens are genius in their simplicity and functionality—the green on the long par 4 seventeenth, falling gently from front-right to back-left, favoring a shot from the left side of the fairway is exemplary of this.

That sure sounds to me like a course that could contend for the top spot, even in a place with as many great courses as the London heathlands! But I don’t think that it’s quite up to the level of Sunningdale-Old, West Sussex, or Swinley Forest from tee-to-green and I think it lacks a bit of their beauty and charm as well. Having said that, I’m writing this review almost six years after my two visits to the course. I know that the club has been making a lot of improvements since, removing trees and adding heather (the club pro told me that if it were up to him, he’d turn it into Oakmont, removing all the trees!). So it’s possible that Woking has gained some ground on what to me were the top heathland courses since then.


Woking has a very unusual starting hole, but one that I really like—a 275 yard par 4 with a shallow green that falls away to the back. The drive is blind as far the last 60 or 70 yards of the hole but if you do the smart thing and hit it ~200 yards, you’ll be fine.

Problems start if you try to get it on or near the green. Bunkers left and trees/gorse pinch the fairway at about 225 yards. If you go for it, the ideal drive would be just over the right edge of the left fairway bunkers. The pro Carl (who has an outstanding guide on how to play each hole on the club’s website) told me that the best way to play this hole in the summer is to go over the green and pitch back uphill. Not my favorite hole as a starter, but an excellent hole in its own right.

While the first is a par 3 1/2 masquerading as a par 4, the second is a par 3 1/2 masquerading as a par 3—about 225 yards over a shallow valley with 2 bunkers short-right and a green with a tier running diagonally from front-left to back-right. While I don’t believe those elements have changed, my pictures don’t do the current hole justice as the club has removed the oak tree and the hedge left of the green (which Carl hated) which has been replaced by heather.

The long par 4 third has been singled out by Tom Doak and others as one of Woking’s best holes. It’s certainly difficult—the hole doglegs right but the fairway slopes right-to-left, so you really need to hit a good drive to get within decent firing range of the green.

You also need distance off the tee because the green is fronted by a bunker and, unless the conditions are firm, needs to be approached from the air. Unfortunately both times that I visited Woking—early spring and summer 2016—the course was soft. The green is small and almost cruelly contoured for such a long par 4.

Perhaps even more noteworthy is the short par 4 fourth, noteworthy for Low and Paton’s centerline bunkers between 240 and 260 from the tips. Although it may not matter so much these days, especially when the green is soft, the tilt of the green from left-to-right favors an approach from the right side.

This was the site of one of my prouder moments on a golf course. After stupidly driving it in  one of the bunkers in my second round, I knocked by ~110 yard approach to about 10 ft., drawing a round of applause from my gallery of 1 maintenance crew guy.

Five is another short (~360 yard) par 4 which again, shouldn’t be too difficult if you’re conservative off the tee. The fairway narrows between heather right and a bunker left at ~250. The real feature here is the wild 4-ish tiered green, of which I unfortunately don’t have a useful picture.

The 420 yard par 4 sixth turns the screws off the tee, with bunkers starting at 230 on the right and another at 260 on the left. This is undoubtedly Woking’s toughest driving hole. If you haven’t hit a good drive, the approach is very difficult because while the green is large, it’s fronted by a stream that meanders from its front-left to right. Unlike most of Woking’s other great greens, this one is great for its subtlety—you’re going to have to figure out what to make of a lot of little humps and bumps if you’re too far from the hole.

Seven is 160 yards to a green bunkered front-left and right. But again, the green is the star here and it’s different from any of the others. The primary features were mounds intruding into the putting surface left, right, and long. Putts across the middle of the green weren’t too hard but the mounds made most chips quite difficult.

The drive on the 445 yard eighth is one of the more generous on the course (but don’t miss right). The real challenge is the elegant uphill approach, over several heather-edged bunkers. The one left is a few yards short of the green and there’s definitely room to run the ball on. I remember this green being similar to eight in that it was large and full of subtle contours, although it also slopes back-to-front.

The 470 yard ninth is probably the most controversial hole at Woking and in talking with Carl, it seemed that they wanted to change it, but weren’t sure what to change it to.

I actually didn’t mind it. It is a very awkward drive, uphill with a large pine at the corner of the dogleg-left and a fairway sloping right toward a large oak tree on the right. Long hitters can carry the tree, but that requires a drive that’s near it’s apex at 225 yards—not easy for most of us. The rest of us need to be clever, either threading a drive, shaping a draw off the oak, or laying back. While the approach is very uphill, there isn’t trouble short so you can hit it from long range with a good shot.

It’s a very tough hole but it’s completely playable if you’re smart and execute reasonably well.

Ten is similar in length to seven but there’s even more of a premium on accuracy here—if you miss left, your ball could run well down the hill toward the woods. And if you miss right, your second from the bunkers could run well down the hill toward the woods…

Eleven, a par 4 of 400 yards, is just a very solid hole. It’s pretty clear from the tee what the main issue is here—the hole doglegs right but the fairway slopes (pretty good) to the left. You either need to work a fade or lay back. The approach is gently uphill to a well-defended green.

Carl thought that the drive on the 415 yard twelfth was a bit of a weakness and I agree. He thought that they should add some fairway bunkers, I suggested bringing the heather in on the right.

But maybe it makes sense that the drive is easy because the green is the wildest on this and probably almost any other course. It’s pretty hard to describe; broadly speaking, it’s sort-of three-tiered with a high left and low right side. But the green also slopes front-to-back and each broad section of the green has tiers within, creating six or seven sections. This green must be on any short list of the best greens in the world.

Yet as far as originality is concerned, the thirteenth green is right up there with it. This 435 yard par 4 begins underneath a large chestnut tree and doglegs left around a bunker at ~210 and some very thick heather. Like on nine, you can get stuck behind trees if you go too far up the right. This is one of Woking’s most challenging driving holes.

I suppose that the green could be described as a double plateau, with high tiers front-left and back-right. But on standard double-plateau greens, the middle of the green is just a trough. Not so here. The lower front-right and back-left sections fan out, creating bowls rather than a channel. I’m not sure that the back-left bowl is large enough for a pin placement, but there are several at the front-right. I’d love to see a 3-D diagram of this green. It may not be quite as interesting as the twelfth, but it’s second-to-none in originality.

The 550 yard par 5 fourteenth is a favorite because of the proximity of the green to the clubhouse and the local rule that you have to play a shot from the patio, proshop, roof or wherever else your ball might end up.

But the hole isn’t just about the green. It’s a challenging, diagonal drive over heather. If you end up in it, it’ll be tough to get past the fairway bunkers that encroach from the right at 350. The run into the green is wide-open and the hole shouldn’t be too hard if you hit a good drive. But don’t overshoot the approach!

Fifteen is another (shorter) par 5 with heather off the tee, this time mostly on the left. This is one of the tighter driving holes and again, if you hit a poor drive, you’ll have to carry a patch of heather that cuts into the fairway ~150 yards short of the green.

But while all of that is fairly interesting, it has nothing on the green, which is one of the most eccentric of all. Probably the simplest description of it is that it has a higher, horseshoe-shaped tier around the back with a big hump in the middle of the lower front tier. But this hump is sort-of connected to the back tier and I came to think of the green over the course of my four plays as like a face—the back tier is the forehead and the bump in the front is the nose, connected to the forehead by a lower bridge. Maybe I'm getting a bit carried away with the description, but there’s no doubt that the green is unusual and interesting…and great.

The par 3 sixteenth had just been completely redone before my visit. It used to play to a deep, narrow green right of the pond, but they built a new one left of the pond because people kept hitting cars on the road to the right of the old one. While it creates about a 110 yard walk to the seventeenth tee, I really liked the new hole. They clearly focused on replicating the wildness of some of the other greens although the bump in the back-middle of the green was really taking a beating from the lawnmowers and foot traffic. Hopefully they’ve figured that out since.

While most of the best holes at Woking are that because of heavily contoured greens, the 430 yard seventeenth is great because of its subtlety. In fact, this is one of the best subtle holes that I’ve played. It plays over flat ground and the only real features are two bunkers short and right of the green.

​But unless you’re a very long hitter, these bunkers entirely dictate how you should play the hole. They block the direct line of an approach from the right side of the fairway and the green also slopes slopes away from you at this angle, from front-right to back-left. This is one of the best examples of a lay-of-the-land, fall-away green that I’ve seen and to me, this hole represents a completely different gear for the course—creativity and greatness in subtlety rather than boldness.

The short par 4 eighteenth is a bit less demanding than some of what’s come before although you want to be careful not to use too much of the generous bailout area left off the tee—the green is three-tiered from high-left to low-right and it’ll be much more difficult from the left side of the fairway to play to left pins (which are also protected by two oak trees) or to stop your ball if playing to those in the center or on the right.

I wasn’t sure after six years how sharp my memory would be or how well the inspiration would flow in writing about Woking. Neither was an issue. I actually thought I had more pictures than I did because I’m remembering things of which I thought I had pictures, but didn’t. Still, more than any course I’ve played, I wish I had photographed Woking with a good camera rather than my iPhone because the greens deserve to be seen in as much detail as possible. The only course that I’ve seen with as much originality in the green contours is the South Course at Oakland Hills and we all know what company that course keeps (especially now with the Gil Hanse redo).

As for how Woking compares with its more local peers, I agree with the consensus that it’s the best of the 3 Ws. While it may be on the least interesting terrain of the 3, it obviously blows them away at the greens. But it might also be the best from tee-to-green. There aren’t a ton of fairway bunkers but several fairways pinch in critical spots while others have reverse cambers that demand thoughtful shaping. While Woking gets and deserves most of its attention for its greens, it’s a very good driving course.

Still, I’m reluctant to put Woking in the top 5 London-area heathlands, which for me would probably be the two Sunningdales, West Sussex, Swinley Forest, and St. George’s Hill. Now the first thing you’d notice about that group is that 4 of the 5 routinely make world top 100 lists, so it’s a pretty high bar (and the one that doesn’t—West Sussex—probably should). But those courses are all on more interesting terrain than Woking and have a bit more design interest from tee-to-green. It’s difficult to match the use of terrain as a driving challenge at St. George’s Hill, the fairway bunkering of West Sussex, or the tee-to-green variety and oddness of Sunningdale-Old.

Still, if you have to spend some mental energy thinking about why Woking might not quite be up to the standard of those courses, it’s clearly a great course. Many have noted that it’s one of the first courses an architecture enthusiast visiting London should see and I completely agree with that. As a practical matter, it’s also one of the easiest courses to reach from the city because most of the express trains going southwest run from Victoria Station straight to Woking Station, from which it’s just a short cab ride to the course.

Working my way through the 3 Ws of Surrey we come to West Hill, a Willie Park Jr. course which was the third of the three that I played but I felt the second-best of the bunch. I think that the general wisdom is that West Hill is the least of the three, with Woking first and Worplesdon second. But almost all would probably admit that it’s a fairly close race between them. Each course has substantial strengths. In the case of West Hill, the foundation is a very good, rolling property that results in several unusual but interesting holes and a few more standard, but indisputably excellent ones.

Like many of the other best English courses, West Hill looks fairly short on the card, stretching to just over 6,300 yards. But also like many of these ‘short’ English courses, the par is less than 70, in this case 69. I came to really like courses with par<70 because they all have at least 5 par 3s, which I’ve come to be convinced all courses should have. While many point to Augusta National’s mix of 4 par 3s, 4 par 5s, and 10 par 4s adding up to par 72 (with perfect alternation, at least on the front nine), my ideal is the Addington: 6 par 3s (of varying lengths), 3 par 5s, and 9 par 4s for a par of 69. Two of the best courses in England, Rye and West Sussex essentially have no par 5s for long hitters, which would make them par 67s.

But the focus here is West Hill, which has what’s probably the standard approach to par 69 of 5 par 3s and 2 par 5s. As typical in the neighborhood, the par 3s are an excellent and varied bunch, requiring everything from a short-iron/wedge up to a hybrid. But I would say that the class of the course is probably its set of 10 par 4s, which is quite varied. They range from drivable (13; and not just for the longest hitters), to brutally long (3, 14). There are several blind shots in the bunch and they often aren’t on the easiest holes (like the drive on 3). The course ultimately manages to squeeze a lot of interesting and varied golf into a very small property. It’s also one of the best conditioned courses that I played—I played in March and the greens were faster and the fairways in better condition than most courses that I played in the UK in the summer.


Having praised West Hill’s set of par 4s, unfortunately we start with its least praiseworthy: a 390 blind driving hole where the fairway runs out at about 260 and tumbles into a drainage ditch. Really you should only hit your drive about 240 because the fairway slopes steeply toward the ditch. The hole played fine in the winter but would be very awkward in the summer as you’d have to lay even further back to prevent the roll. You’d need 300+ to carry the ditch, so that isn’t really an alternative for most.

I also wasn’t too impressed with the 370 yard second but it is a good test of driving, with staggered bunkers right and left at ~225 and ~245. The approach is to a fairly wide green that looks like it has a lot of bunkers around it, but most of these are well back.

West Hill really starts to get going with the 470 yard third. This is just a great long par 4. Again, the drive is blind over a diagonal berm which conceals important information: that the fairway slopes left-to-right. A drive that leaks right can end up behind an oak tree or, if you push it right, could kill someone on the fourth green. So you need to either hug the left side or hit a draw.

I’d recommend (if capable) trying whichever of the two you can hit further because you’ll want as short of an approach as you can get. The second is over a creek to a small green that slopes pretty good from right-to-left. For good players, the creek should only be an issue if you pull your approach because it isn’t too tight to the green. The safe play is to hedge short and right.

Four is the first of 5 fine par 3s. This one plays about 200 yards from the tips, but the green is very receptive, both in terms of its opening in front and the slope. Just don’t miss right.

One of only two par 5s, the 500 yard fifth is a lovely up-and-over hole where you drive (hopefully) to the crest of a hill and then play your second downhill to the green. The fairway is bisected by heather at about 275 so long hitters will have to layup. But it was a perfect driving hole for me because you need to hit in the 240-250 range to have a view of the green on your second, putting a premium on a solid shot—as so many uphill shots do.

The approach is a beauty, running gently downhill to another receptive green. But there’s good challenge for those going for the green in the form of bunkers left and right about 40 yards short. The layup is wide-open but it’s a really good shot for those who can go for the green.

The 415 yard sixth features the third blind drive in the first six holes. It takes about 220 to crest the hill from the tips, making it a demanding drive for shorter hitters. For long hitters, the bigger issue (at least in the summer) is a blind bunker about 315 out. Although they could chew it up in the winter, I’d imagine that West Hill can be quite tricky for long hitters in the summer as there are a lot of places where they can run out of room.

The approach to the green is a beauty and demands a bit more accuracy than some of the previous ones.

Seven is a ~170 yard par 3, sternly bunkered at the front and front-right. The green isn’t particularly wide, so accuracy is required.

Although there are some very good holes in the opening stretch, the 400 yard eighth is where West Hill really started to come alive for me. It’s a good (and very attractive) driving hole with a bunker left at about 210 and then bunkers encroaching further down on the right. The approach is very challenging, fronted completely by bunkers. Still, if you’ve hit a good drive, it should be manageable because the green is deep and receptive.

Like most of the heathland courses, the greens aren’t a standout at West Hill. But there are exceptions, most notably the 175 yard ninth. Bunkers short right and left create some pressure (you really don’t want to go long), but the most interesting thing about the hole is the wandering tier in the middle of the green. It’s especially challenging to stick on on the small back tier but even if you do, you’re not going to have a flat putt.

I’ve seen many two-tiered greens and they’re usually not interesting because the tiers themselves are flat. That isn’t true here; both tiers have good interior contour, making this an excellent green.

Nine is an excellent hole. I think that the long par 4 tenth (420 yards) is even better. For me, this hole easily sits with some of the other great tenth holes in Surrey, like those at St. George’s Hill and the Old Course at Sunningdale. It’s a model of employing bunkering to create both strategy and deception.

The drive is a fairly narrow corridor through trees…actually I’m glad I played it in the winter because with leaves and firm fairways, it would be uncomfortably narrow. But the main driving feature is a small bunker about 270 yards out on the left. This is exactly where you want to drive it. From here, in typical Colt fashion (although he didn’t design it), there are staggered bunkers starting short-left and running up the right side of the green. The green is angled from front-left to back-right and is narrow. So an approach from the right side of the fairway, especially if you haven’t hit a long drive, is very difficult.

Eleven is a peculiar hole, but one that I like. The issue here is that it’s about 390 from the tips, but 240 is the absolute furthest you can drive it before the fairway runs out. There’s plenty of space short of this, although the fairway runs out a bit quicker on the left than the right.

Some may not love the semi-blind approach but it was one of my favorites. And that’s because the green is lay-of-the-land, something for which I’m a huge sucker. Given that the land slopes away here, the green also slopes away. So distance control is at a premium.

Interesting note: the fairway has rig-and-furrow shaping, long, shallow trenches. You also see this at Sunningdale and Liphook. This is a farming remnant. It adds character wherever you find it.

Now we come to a hole that I’d suspect is a favorite—yet the bane—of many: the drivable par 4 twelfth. And this one is really drivable—only about 280 from the tips. But there are bunkers absolutely everywhere starting at about 190 yards. The smart play is to pick a club that’ll keep you short of the bunkers on the left at about 220.

The green is another two-tier-er and the back tier is very shallow. I don’t remember how the rest of the green was (and unfortunately I didn’t get a close-up) but that’s probably because when the pin is at the back, it captures your full attention.

​Thirteen is the short par 3, only about 135 yards but to a well-bunkered green. Back-right pins are especially tricky here.

If there’s one hole at West Hill that people complain about, it’s probably the 450 yard par 4 four fourteenth. It’s just a very awkward hole. The reason is that it’s a short dogleg to the right; if you aim straight down the fairway, it runs out at about 230 yards. Aim at the edge of the tree line and hit it straight and you run out of fairway and into a bunker (protecting those on the sixteenth tee) at 250. So you need to hit something high along the tree line with a fade. Actually, it’s a really good challenge for good players and there is room if you pull it off.

Somewhat awkward drive aside, all must admit that the second is a beauty. There are several cross bunkers about 100 yards short of the green that can create a lot of trouble if you’ve hit a short drive. But the run into the green from there is wide open, befitting such a long par 4 with a difficult drive. I wish I had gotten a picture of the green because I remember is as another lay-of-the-land beauty, like eleven.

It’s a controversial hole, but I think it’s a good one.

I think there’d be more consensus that the 210 yard par 3 fifteenth is a very good hole. Nothing tricky here, you just need to hit a solid long-iron/hybrid to carry the diagonal stretch of bunkers that runs from short-left to long-right. The green is plenty large enough and open in front, but let it leak a bit right and you’ll be bunkered.

Like on one, you have to be careful not to hit your drive on sixteen too far because the fairway runs out into a ditch at about 275. But the hole is only 380 so you don’t need to go any further than about 250 anyway. The uphill approach to a green fronted by another string of diagonal bunkers running from short-left up its right side is one of the most attractive on the course.

The par 5 seventeenth (540 tips/510 yellow tees) has a bit of an awkward drive but this time you can see enough of what’s going on. The driving challenge comes in the form of staggered bunkers, about 230 out on the right and 250 out on the left. Again, the fairway runs out into heather, but not until about 290 this time.

The approach is semi-blind but you can see the one feature that you really need to know about: the right fairway bunker about 80 yards short of the green. Unless you’re going for the green, you should just layup short of it. From here, it’s a simple approach to a large green with plenty of room in front.

The 435 yard eighteenth is one of the toughest finishing holes in Surrey. And it’s not because of the drive, which is one of the most wide-open on the course. But although you can’t tell from the tee, it’s much better to be up the left-side than the right-side here. That’s because the green is narrow and well-protected at its right side.

I don’t remember the green as being particularly interesting but still, I wish I had gotten a closer picture. One of the most notable things about this green is that the practice green is just about 10 yards to its right. I wouldn’t be surprised if as many people hit the practice green with their approach as the real one (I did…).

It’s been awhile since I thought about West Hill (and six years since I played it) but going through my pictures, it clearly made an impression on me as I remembered a lot of what I thought about it at the time. I remembered thinking in my first round that the course got off to a slow start but then realizing that it was only the first two holes—no one would describe three or four as weak holes.

I would have sworn that because of the bunkering scheme, the course had been designed by Colt, but there’s no mention of any major architect other than Park having had a hand in the course. Knowing that, I guess that I can see Park’s hand in some of the lay-of-the-land green complexes and the willingness to allow blind shots. But the diagonal bunkering doesn’t really remind me of Park’s work on either Sunningdale’s Old Course or at Stoneham and it reminds me very much of Colt’s work at St. George’s Hill and on the Sunningdale New Course. Perhaps Park’s approach to bunkering changed depending on the site? I’ll leave that to the architectural historians.

I have a hard time getting too worked up about golf course architecture history but clearly I love analyzing golf course architecture. And whoever designed it, they did a fine job with West Hill. It’s very well bunkered and has great variety in the green complexes—some quite undulating with mounded edges, others fitting very simply in their surroundings. The holes fall over the land in a varied way as well with several uphill, blind shots but also many lovely downhill ones. Although there’s only one hole that I’d describe as world class (ten), there are a handful of very good par 3s and par 4s, each different from the other. All-in-all, it’s a course that I’d be happy to play regularly and certainly holds its own in a competitive neighborhood for great golf.

I’ve been meaning for awhile to write reviews of the famous ‘3 Ws’ of Surrey: West Hill, Woking, and Worplesdon. These courses, which are all neighbors, feature prominently on lists of the best courses in England and the best heathland courses. There’s been a lot of debate over ranking the three. Generally Woking comes out on top because it has, pretty indisputably, the best greens of the three. But my impression after a few plays of each is that it was also on the least interesting land of the three. Still, I’d agree with the consensus that it’s the best of them.

I’m starting with Worplesdon because my recollection after having played all three of them that my ordering would be Woking>West Hill>Worplesdon. But I didn’t play West Hill until a year after I played Woking and Worplesdon and there might have been some recency bias with respect to West Hill vs. Worplesdon because there was a lot that I liked about the former.

But there was also a lot that I liked about the latter. So my next three reviews are also going to be a test of whether going over all of it again, I feel the same way about the ordering. My memory of golf hole features tends to be pretty good, but it helps that I have a good set of pictures of all three. I also saw them all, at least for the first time, in late winter/early spring, so the conditions were comparable.
​
I’m not really into architectural history and I was under the impression that Worplesdon, like The Addington and Knole Park, was the work of J.F. Abercromby. But I saw a list recently of Willie Park Jr. courses that included it. Looking at the club’s website, it looks like Abercromby routed the course and Park Jr. shaped the greens and bunkers. There’s certainly a lot to like about both of these aspects of the course although I’ll also note at the outset that these greens and bunkers have a bit more flair than some of the other Park Jr. work that I’ve seen at Sunningdale and Stoneham. That makes me a bit suspect whether all of it is original but I certainly don’t want to do the research to find out. So I’ll leave aside the provenance of all of this and judge it on what I see to be its merits.

And that leaves a plenty enough interesting a task because there’s a lot of great stuff at Worplesdon. The course seems to be mostly known for its set of five par 3s and the back-to-back par 5s on the back nine. I certainly agree that the par 3s are a noteworthy set and that 11 and 12 are fine holes. But I actually think that some of the other holes might be even better. Generally, the bunkering is bold and there are several greens with some serious internal contour. Although they’re not as artistic as those at Woking, it’s probably one of the more challenging sets of greens of the heathland courses.


The first is a straight-away short par 4 that falls gently to the fairway then rises back uphill to the green. I didn’t take this picture from the tee but the bunkers on the left were about 240 to clear (from the ~6,450 yard back tees). On Google Earth, it looks like the club has added another bunker near the trees on the right, ~270 out.

I didn’t get a picture of the green but I remember it as large and interesting, sloping generally back-to-front.

I really like the 400 yard second hole. I’m a sucker for this kind of funky, blind drive where the blindness comes from a rise right in front of the tee. Most architects today would just have you walk 80 yards to the point where it isn’t blind. But anyone who has played the Addington won’t be surprised that Abercromby didn’t do that—he didn’t seem to care so much about helping golfers out.

It’s a great driving hole too because you can tell that the hole bends to the left and that there are trees right. So you’d suspect that you need to hit a draw. Yes. The fairway slopes left-to-right and if you don’t execute the drive, it’s easy to end up in the trees. This drive might get a bit hairy when things are firm in the summer but it worked very well in March. In winter/spring, there’s an issue of hitting it far enough so that you don’t get stuck on the side of the hill, which would make the uphill approach brutal.

Three is a mid-length, downhill par 4 with one main feature: a bunker in the center of the fairway about 290 out. This wasn’t an issue for me given the lack of bounce and I found the hole quite tame. But it would be an issue for long hitters and might be an issue for me in the summer because the fairway slopes toward it.

Four is the first of an excellent set of par 3s. Three of them are uphill, this one by far the most of the bunch. Google Earth says that it plays 11 meters uphill—so almost 40 feet! That seems right and I found that I had to take two extra clubs over the yardage. The green is shallow with a pretty good false front. Tough, but really good hole.

The first four holes are loop back to the clubhouse and the fifth tee is right next to it…which resulted in a 50 hole day for me because they started me here in my first round. It was a tough starting hole, much tougher than the first.

It’s probably the narrowest fairway on the course. There are bunkers on both sides of the fairway starting at 240 and the right rough is all heather. The approach is to a large, undulating green with an interesting dip running across the front. These stand out in my mind but apparently I didn’t take pictures of them. Worplesdon was one of the first courses that I played in the UK, so I was still learning about how to photograph a course.

And it looks like I didn’t take any pictures of the sixth, a short, left doglegging par 5. The fairway was pretty wide between scattered bunkers and the second was open, running downhill to the green. I remember it as being a pretty easy hole.

Its green surrounded by bunkers, I didn’t think that the par 3 seventh was an easy hole. Like several greens, this one is two-tiered and front pins are pretty accessible for a decent short iron player.

Eight is another fairly short par 4 with a semi-blind drive. There’s a bunker about 230 out on the left that you can’t see well. If you can carry it, you can probably get pretty close to the green in the summer.

This is another two-tiered green, probably the course’s most severe. I didn’t get a close-up, but you can even see the severity of the tier from about 150 yards out in the fairway. The back plateau is also quite small with death over the back. So it’s a tough hole with the pin in the back but should be pretty easy with it in the front.

Nine is another mid-length par 4 and a bit of an awkward hole. But it was an awkward hole that I still liked. The main trouble is down the right in the form of trees. Because that’s where the trouble is, you’d think that you’d want to cut this side for the best angle. Not true. You might be able to get closer to the green, but the best angle in is from the left because the green angles front-left to back-right around a bunker at its front right. It might be a bit too tight with leaves on the trees, but it worked for me.

Probably the best green on the course is on the short par 3 tenth. The shot over the pond is certainly one of the prettiest on the course but that’s nothing compared to the beauty of the green, which had multiple small tiers. I wish I had gotten a close-up of it.

The next four holes are on the other side of a two-lane highway which creates two of the most dangerous road crossings that I’ve seen on a golf course, with poor visibility on both sides and cars coming at 50+ mph. Now that they’ve rerouted Liphook to avoid was I thought was the #1 most dangerous road crossing, this walk from 10-11 is the most dangerous remaining one that I’ve seen on a golf course.

If you’ve survived and reached the eleventh tee, you’re in for the best stretch of holes on the course. The back-to-back par 5s eleven and twelve have received much praise. My praise is a bit more reserved. They’re both beautiful holes, but they’re not as interesting as many others that I’ve seen.

Actually, I think that the eleventh would be a very interesting hole for shorter hitters. The main feature on the drive is a bunker that cuts well into the right half of the fairway. But it’s only about a 215 yard carry.

The second is over a similarly prominent bunker, but it’s only about 375 to get past this one. After that, you just need to avoid a big oak tree in the right rough. The green is deep and probably better approached from the right, but I didn’t find the angle to be so important.

Twelve is a much tougher driving hole for longer hitters. This time there are several bunkers up the right side and it’s about 280 to pass them from the tips. It’s definitely reachable at 510…although not for me in late winter. If you’re laying up, it’s a bit of an awkward one to a blind landing area. But it’s plenty wide. I liked the trench bunker at the front-right of the green, which favors an approach from the left.

The ~190 yard par 3 thirteenth is both a beautiful and a great par 3. The green is narrow but deep and ringed with sand in the front half. I’ve seen recent photos and it looks like the club has made this into one continuous bunker around the front. I liked the look of the various odd bunkers before but perhaps this is a restoration. The green pitches pretty good from back-to-front with a tier in the back.

I thought that the long par 4 fourteenth (~460 yards), the last hole on this side of the highway, was the course’s best. There’s a pretty good amount of room off the tee but the hole turns gently left and you want to stay near the line of the left fairway bunker, which is about a 240 yard carry on its right side.

On the approach, the main feature is a bunker in the middle of the fairway about 30 yards short of the green. It definitely comes into play if you haven’t hit a long drive and if you’re in the right side of the fairway, it obscures the direct line to the green. I didn’t get a shot of the green unfortunately, but there are bunkers on both sides. This hole really rewards someone who keeps both their drive and approach on the straight and narrow.

The second road crossing isn’t as bad as the first because the visibility is better. But what’s unusual here is that we have about a 240 yard walk from the fourteenth green to the fifteenth tee. You don’t see that too often on British courses.

But it didn’t bother me because this only happens once and the hole on the other side, a short par 5, is a fine hole. Like eleven, the major feature here is a bunker up the right side that only takes about 215 to carry. But there’s much more danger here; if you hedge left, there’s junk up the left side of the fairway. So it’s best to go over the middle or the right edge of the bunker.

The land past the bunker runs downhill and you can have a pretty short approach into this green. If I remember correctly, I birdied it all three times that I played it. So it’s probably fair to think of it as a long par 4.

Like four and seven, sixteen is an uphill par 3. It’s a bit visually confusing because the two big mound of heather in front are about 40 ft. short of the green. I remember that the green slope back-to-front, but not any further details.

The 400 yard seventeenth probably qualifies as a sleeper hole. The visibility from the tee is a bit poor. You can see that there are multiple bunkers up the right, but not how far away they are. They progressively narrow the fairway at 210, 250, and 290 making this a good driving hole for everyone.

The approach to the green looks simple enough with standard bunkering at the front-right and left. But the green is another of the most interesting on the course, two-tiered but with the back, upper tier kind-of horseshoeing around the lower front one. Another green that I wish I had a picture of. This is probably one of the 3 or 4 best holes on the course.

I said at the beginning that I’d be reassessing the 3 Ws as I write about them because I haven’t thought about them in awhile. Thinking through Worplesdon, I’m realizing that the greens are a lot better than I remember…even though I didn’t get good pictures of any of them.

The eighteenth is an elegant long par 4 finisher. It’s quite easy off the tee but the approach is Colt-esque over diagonal bunkers that start 40 yards short of the green and run up its right side. These bunkers probably get as much action as any on the course.

I remember thinking at the time that I didn’t have much negative to say about Worplesdon and I did have a lot that was positive. I can see why I thought that. Although some of them have achieved some recognition, I think that the par 5s are a bit weak. Eleven could really use another 40 yards but there’s no room with houses behind the tee. Actually you could just call 6 and 15 par 4s, which would reduce the course to a tough par 69. But the par 3s are as good as advertised individually, if a bit similar to each other in length. And there are some excellent par 4s in the mix.

The bunkering is well-placed and beautifully shaped. There’s ample heather both around these bunkers and between the holes. I don’t know if the bunkers had been recently reconstructed and the heather added like I noted about Stoneham, but they looked very good. Thinking through my memories of each hole, the greens are better than I had remembered with my only criticism being that a few too many are two-tiered. Although I wouldn’t make too firm a judgment not having seen these courses for several years, I’d wager that they were one of the 5 most interesting sets on a heathland course.

So Worplesdon holds up very well in my look back and I wouldn’t be surprised if after reviewing West Hill next, that it moves to second place in my mind among the 3 Ws, which appears to be the conventional wisdom.

I haven’t written up any of the courses that I played in England in awhile but it’s time to dip into the back catalogue because there are some excellent ones that I’ve left off. I’ve decided to start with Stoneham, a 1908 Willie Park Jr. design because it’s easily the most under-appreciated of the bunch. The reason for this is simple: it isn’t in the London suburbs. It’s about two hours southwest, just outside of Southampton. But it’s a heathland course (or at least they’re trying to make it one by planting heather), so it belongs in the discussion with those. And among those in southeastern England, it certainly belongs in a discussion of which of these are among the best.

The first thing to note about this course is that it’s very hilly, hillier than all of the great London heathland courses except maybe St. George's Hill. But the routing makes beautiful use of this tough property. I’m always amazed that the old greats could take a difficult property like this and build something that’s completely walkable with several great holes and no bad ones that recent architects’ takes on easier properties can’t even accomplish one or two of these.

But part of the reason why Stoneham works so well is that Park, like all the great old British architects, was ok with building holes that we might find a bit suspect today. Extremely hilly corner of a property? Build back-to-back par 3s. Have a severe slope in the middle of the property? Eh, route a long par 4 along it…a weak drive will kick left and leave a long approach while a good one will kick forward and leave a much shorter one. There are, of course, some tricky uphill holes, but why is this frowned upon while marsh and ponds everywhere are ok? An uphill hole is a real test of hitting the ball solidly, which is an important skill.

There’s also an elegance to this routing, with the front nine working generally counter-clockwise around the outside of the property and the back nine moving back and forth across its interior. The whole property has tremendous contour and the course’s use of it reaches its zenith with a set of par 5s in the middle of the back nine that fall as beautifully over their stretches of land as any course that I’ve seen. Combine this with Park Jr.’s minimalist green construction (similar to his work at Sunningdale) and you have a course that’s as good an expression of its land as just about any that I’ve seen.

Note: This review draws several pictures from the club’s website, which has excellent pictures of the holes. Looking through these, I see that they’ve done a lot of work to the bunkers since my visit. Where this is significant, I’ll show both and discuss how I think the changes might have affected the holes.


Like Park Jr.’s Old Course at Sunningdale, Stoneham starts with a short par 5. It’s about a 200 yard carry to reach the top of the first hill. For good players, the bigger challenge is a bunker about 275 out on the left. While it looks just as close, the one on the right is 70 yards further out.

The approach is slightly downhill to a simple built-up green with bunkers at its front-right and left. It’s a pretty inviting first hole…as long as you hit it straight.

I thought that the ~190 yard par 3 second was the weakest on the course but looking at the website, it looks like they’ve redone the bunkering since I’ve been there. It looks much better now. Still, this land slopes away but the green is built-up to slope back-to-front, which I generally don’t like. I wonder if the green pad is original?

Three is a tough short par 4, tough because this time it takes almost 250 from the tips to clear the ridge in the fairway. The ball can also kick left if you’re in the left side, toward what centuries-old oak tree in the left rough. The first of many holes where the contour of the fairway plays an important role in how you need to think about your drive.

Another of these holes is the long par 4 fourth, the aforementioned long par 4 playing along a hill. This is a hole that you’d never see in the states. I played the course in May and it was tough because the fairway was soft enough that you weren’t guaranteed a kick to the base of the hill. With firm fairways in the summer, it might be tough to keep your ball from kicking forward into a creek 325 from the tee.

Whatever time of year it is, the gradually uphill approach to the lay-of-the-land green is one of the best in southeastern England.

Five is a somewhat-awkward 325 yard par 4. A long hitter could get pretty close to the green if they carry the bunker on the right with a fade. But it’s difficult to hit enough of a fade to keep yourself from ending up short and left of the green, which isn’t a place that I’d recommend; it’s a super-awkward pitch to a narrow green that slopes left-to-right. The smartest thing to do here is just hit it 200 yards from the tee, then hit a wedge. It’d be a bit less awkward if they trimmed the trees on the right, but I don’t mind the awkwardness as a complication for someone who’s playing the hole aggressively.

Six is another short par 5 (~500 yards, like most English par 5s) where the landing area is not visible from tee. The drive is awkward because there are hidden bunkers at 260 on the right and 290 on the left. Looking back at my pictures, I’m realizing that they’ve also changed the bunkering scheme here because when I played, the one on the right was further out.

But the most noteworthy thing about this hole was the awkward approach, which doesn’t look to have changed. Unless you can get it within about 50 yards of the green, you’ll be shooting blind from a valley. The bunkering around the green has changed a bit in style (more heather around them), but not in placement.

The par 3 seventh is an example of one of my favorite types of holes: a long par 3 where you can use the slope of the ground to run the ball on the green. This one is also semi-blind but you can tell from the general slope of the land off the tee enough about what’s going on. There’s a blind bunker short-left of the green but it’s not a bad spot if you end up there.

Eight is the second of the aforementioned back-to-back par 3s in the tough corner of the property. Like five and six at West Sussex, its a nice pair because seven is long (~230) while eight is medium length (~165). It appears that the club has done some work here since my visit, splitting the front bunker into two and adding heather around the edges.

The ~380 yard ninth is another nice example of ‘well, we’ll just have to do the best we can with the land’ and the result is an interesting hole. The fairway crests at about 250, then it’s all downhill into the green. But you have to be careful.

​I see that the club has added a bunker on the right since my visit, which makes the drive a bit tougher. At the same time, without the bunker, if you hit a push, it was possible to run into the woods on the right because the land right of the fairway slopes left-to-right.

Ten is another fine par 3, about 185 yards to a narrow green, which requires a precise mid-long iron shot.

I suspect that the 400 yard eleventh is one of the most controversial holes on the course because the approach is all carry over a stream valley to a very shallow green. I’m not a big fan of greens benched into hillsides like this, but it’s a different and more demanding kind of shot for this course. The bushes behind the green have been cleared and replaced with heather since my visit, definitely an improvement.

The par 5 twelfth begins the best three hole stretch on this course and one of the best that I’ve seen anywhere. It starts with another semi-blind drive, but one with plenty of room and no hidden bunkers (unless you can hit it into the cross-bunkers 350 out). Still, you either need to hit a draw or drive up the left side because the ball will run right into the trees if you miss over there.

The approach is one of the best-looking that I’ve ever seen, over beautiful cross-bunkers, down hill with the ground sweeping left-to-right. But you also need to be careful because if you get one running a bit right, there’s a big ditch filled with junk. And if you’re short and left, the angle into the green will be awkward. So it’s no dumb beauty.

Thirteen is the course’s drivable par 4, only 275 from the tips. Yet it’s seriously challenging if you get even a bit offline because the green is very narrow. This is actually one of the only holes that I’ve played that’s improved by its cart path—it provides the aiming point for the drive. Really, it’s probably best to lay back at least 50 or 60 yards here because it’s just such a difficult shot if you go for it and miss wide.

Fourteen, a par 5 of ~480 yards, is another beauty. The drive is not the course’s most interesting but the approach is both that and one of the course’s most beautiful. The great thing about the approach is how the land feeds into it. There’s a rise short and left of the green and if you haven’t hit the longest drive, you can still use this to feed the ball on. If you miss right, a valley catches your ball. It’s a very short and easy par 5 for long hitters but this option makes it a very interesting reachable par 5 for the rest of us.

This was one of my favorite holes in southeastern England.

This excellent back-and-forth stretch continues with the fifteenth, a 425 yard par 4. This is one of the toughest holes on the course because the fairway gets much narrow about 270 out and you’re likely to have a handing lie in the fairway. The green is open and receptive so if you haven’t hit your best, it might be smart to hedge to the front.

I loved the look of the trench bunker in front of the short par 3 sixteenth hole’s narrow green. Unfortunately the club has turned this into three small bunkers. Perhaps it creates aesthetic consistency with the other bunker renovations, but that isn’t a good enough reason to do it. Aesthetic consistency is important but when a feature looks good in its own right, it shouldn’t be changed just to improve aesthetic consistency across the course.

Seventeen, along with two and eighteen, is a lesser hole. The problem is caused by the trees just off the right side of the tee box. They block the right side of the fairway, pushing you to the left, where the club has planted some ugly American maple trees in the rough. I’d lose the first tree off the tee on the right and the ones in the left rough.

The approach is much better, over a winding stream with bunkers on the hill to the right. It’s one of the course’s loveliest green settings. It’s a shame that the drive is so awkward because this is otherwise a fine hole.

It looks to me like the short, uphill par 5 eighteenth has undergone some changes. It was a bit of a dull slog when I played it. But it appears that the club has removed all of the trees on the left to expand the practice area and has added two staggered fairway bunkers, 230 out on the left and 275 out on the right. This appears to have made it a much tougher, but much more interesting driving hole. It also looks like the club has added a bunker about 60 yards short of the green on the left, enhancing what had been a dull approach.

Unlike the other holes, where the changes haven’t made much of a substantive difference, it looks like the bunker additions and tree clearing have significantly improved this one.

Stoneham was a bit of a trek for me because it’s about 75 miles from London’s Victoria Station. Fortunately, there’s an express train that stops near here so it was only about four train stops and a short cab ride. Still an easy day trip. I’m glad that I did it because this course is a serious contender for a place at the lower end of the top tier of heathland courses with company like Walton Heath’s New Course and Woking. I preferred it to some of the other, more renowned heathland courses like the Addington (although renovations appear to have made it much better), Hankley Common, and Worplesdon.

What to say about Willie Park Jr.’s design style? It’s a bit more minimalistic than Colt’s, with less shaping around the greens. These greens tend to be simple, built-up pads, like those at Park Jr.’s Battle Creek CC in Michigan. Owing probably to the severity of the land, some of these are quite built-up, like the ninth.

I’m not sure what Park Jr.’s bunker style looked like though because the club has redone many of the bunkers. While the new bunkers look good in their own right, I suspect that they are not consistent with the original style. If I had to, I’d guess that the more trench-like bunkers like that (previously) on sixteen and those with built-up ridges in front of them, like the cross-bunker on twelve are original. These remind me of Fowler’s work at Walton Heath and a bit of some of the bunkers at Sunningdale, although again there, it’s difficult to tell what’s Park and what’s Colt.

Like old country club courses in the US, there’s been a lot of work recently on England’s classic courses. But unlike the US, where the trend has been to try to restore the original designs, there seems to be more ‘modernization’ in these English course renovations. I don’t think that I like it. While I’m fine with building bunkers in new places because the old ones don’t provide a sufficient challenge, I don’t understand why these renovating architects don’t try to shape these in the style of the originals. I’m not averse to modernization if what was there in the first place wasn’t great, but I don’t understand it when what was there probably was.

It seems like most of these clubs are enthralled with putting heather around the bunker edges to give their course the ‘heathland’ look because heathland courses are higher status than ‘parkland’ courses, always an issue in a country where status hierarchy is so important (which they try to downplay). As far as I can tell, there’s no fundamental difference between a heathland course and a parkland course except that the former has heather and a few more pine trees. Sure there’s an ecological difference—the former has acidic soil and the latter doesn’t—but that doesn’t matter much for golf in itself. There’s no systematic difference in the topography of these types of land. Some of these clubs are going overboard with the eye-candy heather, which can be functional in a bad way (you carry a bunker just to end up in it).

I’d prefer it if these renovations focused more on capturing the original styling of the bunkers. To me, it’s a bit ironic that the historically more progressive US is emphasizing restoration while clubs in the more historically-minded UK are modernizing. It’s a bit unfair that I’m putting this in my Stoneham review because Stoneham isn’t the worst offender (cough…cough…Swinley Forest). Most of the changes here appear to have improved their respective holes (though emphatically not number sixteen). Still, there aren’t too many notable Park Jr. courses in the UK and it would be nice if one of the best examples of his work there were presented in its original style.

Trying to book a tee time at the newly opened American Dunes earlier this year was a real lesson in just how much more popular golf, and in particular destination golf has become since the beginning of the covid pandemic. I had, of course, like every other golfer spent almost the previous year struggling to get tee times as I adjusted too slowly to the fact that now you need to know where you want to play and when well in advance. No more last minute Saturday morning bookings at your favorite course.

The plan was to arrange a booking for eight people because several of my golf buddy Bob’s friends had seen the extensive promotional material for American Dunes and wanted to come. It was early May. We were trying to book for the end of June, so this was 6-7 weeks out. All that I was able to get was a slot for two people on a Tuesday morning. This was just as well by me because it’s always irritating to plan for multiple people. And we were even able to get a second slot in the afternoon. So Bob and I made American Dunes the centerpiece of a short four course trip to southwestern Michigan (plus the Warren Course, Hawkshead, and the Ravines…don’t bother with the latter two).

Now American Dunes is different from your usual course because it was developed as a home and fundraiser for Folds for Honor, an organization that supports military veterans. This isn’t just some additional fact about the place, it’s its core. To enter the clubhouse from the parking lot, you walk through a concrete wall corridor with plaques that share stories of military men and women who died during our recent military conflicts. Everything here is infused with the military. At the beginning of the round, they give you a nickel and you’re supposed to throw it at the base of an air force memorial near the eighteenth tee, a tradition of some air force squadron. And all play on the course is supposed to stop for a minute of silence at 13:00 and a playing of taps, enforce by the golf carts shutting off. I thought that was a lovely idea…except that it didn’t happen.


Ok, that’s enough about the covid golf economy and the place itself. How about the golf course? It’s a new Jack Nicklaus design on the site of the old Grand Haven Golf Club. Grand Haven was supposed to be one of the better public courses in southwestern Michigan, but I never got a chance to play it. The new course follows mostly the same routing but is apparently very different in character. The old course was tree-lined and narrow. The new one is expansive and in the spirit of a lot of the destination courses built in the last 20 years, takes advantage of the sandy site, with extensive sandy waste areas. It was an excellent choice; the course looks good.

And the design elements? Also very good. This was a very ambitious project and they were clearly aiming to be one of the top public courses in Michigan. They have succeeded. There some drawbacks, most notably in the routing which has three ~125 yard walks between tees. But I thought that the design of the holes and the shaping throughout, including on and around the greens was excellent. It’s a bit more subdued than some of the other ‘New Nicklaus’ courses like nearby Harbor Shores (apparently; I haven't played it) or Old Corkscrew in Florida. But I think that that’s good. There’s plenty enough green-to-tee challenge. There’s no need for additional severity at the greens—although there are a few tricky ones.


Actually there’s one bad walk that I forgot about—to the first tee, which is probably ~300 yards. I think that I was the only person on the (full) course who was walking that day, so I just hopped on the back of Bob’s cart.

The first is a gentle handshake, a par 4 of about 350 yards. It’s not particularly generous off the tee, but you should probably only be hitting an iron anyway. The green is small and surrounded by mounds, which are there to hide the road that runs along the course. Don’t worry, you won’t see this kind of shaping around the green again.

Two is a somewhat awkward par 5 of about 500 yards from the ~6,700 yard ‘Valor’ tees, but one that I liked. It bends to the right around a pond but you actually want to go down the middle because if you hit it long enough to reach the green in two, an oak tree ~80 yards short of the green blocks a shot from the right side. It’s about 290 to the edge of the pond and if you hit it this far, you should be good.
​
If you’ve hit a short drive, the oak tree can cause trouble for the second. The limbs are high enough that you can go under and there’s plenty of room short and left. I liked the tree—it keeps you honest on the layup. The green slopes front-to-back, which I liked.

Three is a ~370 yard straightaway par 4 with a pond starting on the left at about 250. Definitely not my favorite hole but the small, subtle pushed-up green makes for a good challenge.

One of the clunky walks is up the hill to the short par 3 fourth. It’s probably ~100 yards on a direct line but that’s of course not what the cart path does. Like the 2nd at the Kingsley Club, I suspect that this hole is a bit polarizing. The green is deep but narrow, with deep bunkers at both sides. Over the green is death. But I didn’t mind this hole because if you miss the green a bit short, the pitch isn’t too hard. With new, very firm greens, you had to be careful but clearly the play here will be to hedge toward the front of the green.

I preferred this hole to Kingsley’s second because the bunkering is a bit less severe, but it’s also been awhile since I’ve been there.

There’s another walk back up the hill to the par 4 fifth but it’s worth it. Plus you can leave your bag next to the fourth green because you walk past it to get to the fairway.

This is probably the course’s signature hole and it’s one of the best par 4s in the state. It’s also pretty clear to see from the tee what’s going on; the green is online with the bunker that encroaches into the left side of the fairway. You can see that short and right of the green is a massive waste area hill…which means that if you bailout too far to the right, you’ll probably have a blind second shot. This is correct.

One more important feature is that even if you can’t carry the bunker on the left (maybe 240), there’s still a ledge in the fairway to its right that can feed the ball to the left where you’ll have a clearer approach. The green is big, undulating and again, slopes a bit back-to-front.

Six is a 520 yard par 5 that narrows at about the 250 mark. Everything is pretty much right in front of you here…just hit it straight. The green has a pretty good false front, so don’t be short. But it also slopes away to the back-left so don’t be too long if the pin is in the front. Tough green.

After another ~100 yard walk through a neighborhood we reach number seven, a fine ~170 yard par 3. The green is much wider on the right than the left and won’t be too difficult if the pin is right. It’s also probably best to hedge over here if the pin is left.

Eight is ~400 yards but you don’t want to go anymore than about 250 because of the pond. It’s better if you challenge the bunker and place your drive up the left side because then you’ll be able to play down the angle of the green. It’s much shallower across the pond if you’re coming in from the right.

Nine is a bit shorter than eight, doglegging right with a pond short and left of the green on the approach. There’s an obvious aiming point off the tee—the massive American flag, which is ~275 from the valor tees. But what you really want to do is either go over the edge of the trees on the right or hit a fade around them. There’s more room over there than you think and you won’t have to carry the pond from there.

The back nine starts with another ~400 yard par 4. It’s straightaway and the drive is fairly simple, but it’s best to be up the left side of the fairway because the green angles front-left to back-right and narrows.

While to this point, American Dunes has been a very good course with a few standout holes, it becomes an excellent one through the middle of the back nine. This starts with number eleven, a terrific short par 4. The drive is uphill into a saddle and if you can get your drive within about 100 yards of the green, you’ll pick a few dozen more yards from a downslope. The left side of the fairway collects balls but the further left you go, the less room you have before the end of the fairway.

The green is large, but very undulating and you don’t want to be long.

Twelve is another beautiful par 3, a bit of a reverse redan where you can use short grass short and left of the green to run the ball on. It’s an especially good idea to use this slope to get at back right pins.

In addition to being fine holes in their own right, the routing of this part of the course is particularly good, with just a few dozen feet of walking between each green and tee.

At 680 yards from the tips, thirteen is about the longest par 5 that I’ve ever seen. The valor tees are still ~600 yards and there’s a lot of trouble on the way. The fairway starts huge, but there’s long grass and broken ground in the middle of the fairway ~260 out from the valor tees. This makes it a pretty tough driving hole.

The second is also tough because it narrows between bunkers and you need to get within about 125 yards to have a decent view of the green. Fortunately if you don’t get your first two shots far enough to have a clear view, it’s pretty easy to feed your ball onto the green from short and right because it has pretty good front-right to back-left slope. An excellent long par 5.

Another medium-short par 4 (~365 yards), fourteen is the toughest driving hole on the course. Fairway bunkers are staggered with those on the right at 200 and 220, the one on the left at about 250, and the waste bunker through the fairway ~280. It’s important to hit it at least 240 to get it up to the flat, which improves the visibility on the approach.

It’s a very tricky green, with a spine running horizontally across and the back of the green sloping away. As with several of the greens here, you need to have good control over your approaches because it’s easy to run through the back on these fall-away greens.

There are no visibility issues on the 200 yard downhill par 3 fifteenth. But there is a wildly undulating, biarritzesque green that’s about 65 yards deep. Another very good hole in a very strong stretch.

Perhaps the best hole of all in this superb back nine stretch is the long par 4 sixteenth, which would certainly make my list of the best par 4s in the state. The fairway is generous, but the drive is uphill and you’ll need to hit it about 270 from the valor tees to have a good view of the green.

The approach is one of the great ones that I’ve seen on a par 4. A waste bunker bisects the fairway and you’ll need to be able to carry your approach within 40 yards of the green to cross it. It also runs diagonally from short-left to long-right so a miss right will likely catch it. But you should hedge left here anyway because the fairway feeds balls toward the green.

The par 4 seventeenth looks more challenging off the tee than it is because there’s fairway over the bunker in front of the tee. But it does narrow on the left around 250 and you’ll want to hedge a bit right. I didn’t get a photo of the green but again, it slopes away at the back.

While the back nine is one of the best in Michigan, it closes with the weakest, least original hole on the course: a straightaway 500 yard par 5 through trees with a pond running up the right side of the green. Maybe they could remove some of the trees and rough up the ground on the right to make it a bit more visually appealing.

My first thought after my two rounds at American Dunes was that it’s probably the best public course in the state. That may have been a bit generous, but it's a defensible claim. More than half of the holes, 4-6 and 11-17 are excellent and a few of those are certainly among the state’s best. There are also some good holes among the rest, especially 2 and 7. There are a few too many water holes and eighteen is very weak, but hole-for-hole, it stacks up well. There a few ~120 yard green-to-tee walks, but most of the routing is tight. It compares favorably to all but the tightest routings (Belvedere, Forest Dunes, the Loop).

I also thought that the course had and outstanding set of green complexes. The New Nicklaus courses tend to be overdone on and around the greens; too small with too many severe edges and often severe internal contours. But none of those is true here. The shaping always works with the natural contours, which creates great variety in the green complexes. There’s a lot of short grass around these greens, but not many severe run-offs. The detailing work here is excellent. There’s a lot of interior contour, but it’s never excessive. I especially appreciated that several of the greens fall away to the back, fitting their sites. We’ve come a long way from the 90s when no matter how severe the downslope, the green would be built up to slope back-to-front…with mounds behind it.

So American Dunes might be the best public course in the state. Every one of them has its weaknesses. So does American Dunes, but I feel that even these are lesser than Arcadia Bluffs (unwalkable), Greywalls (a few horrible greens), the Loop (again, overdone greens), and Arcadia Bluffs South (feels like it was designed by a computer). Forest Dunes is probably the other least-weak public course in the state, but it has the awful tenth hole. And there are as many good holes here as on any of those. It doesn’t compare to Wisconsin’s best public courses but as I like to say, the best public course in Michigan would only be the fifth or sixth best there. It’ll probably be just as hard to get a good tee time in 2022 and they’ve jacked up the rates (from $150 to $185), but it’s definitely worth it to play American Dunes.