Wentworth

I have heard a few of the pros's complaining how tough the course is, compared to what it was before Els redesigned it, must admit i like to see it tough for them to make pars, rather than some of the birdie feasts we see in most tour events.

This proves that most courses can be made to play tough with the right design, and I would love to see more of these courses used in Tournaments

Do you think courses should be made tougher or is it just me?

Toughen them up please. Too many tournaments where we see ridiculous scores winning them, this is why my favourite major is and always will be the US Open, as you can see they are using every ounce of their talent to produce a good score and they have to beat the course both physically and mentally instead of just over powering them like is the norm for the wide open expanses they call stadium courses.

Wentworth looks magnificent from the comfort of my armchair. It'll probably yield a winning score of about 8 or 10 under and that's about right in my book for a par 71. Certainly anything easier makes one sense a lack of challenge.

I always enjoy the US Open, though sometimes the USGA loses the plot with course set-up. Certainly don't want to see a Major-type tournament become a birdie-fest.

Can someone with a better memory than me confirm if all of wentworths greens were originally built on raised mounds?

Mac not all greens are raised now! So the answer is no! 4, 5 and 8 are not raised nor are 1d,16 or 17!

I like to see the professionals challenged, so tougher courses for them, as far as I am concerned.

I also like it when a course or the weather 'bites back' and everyone is levelled out.

I see the par at Wentworth has been reduced by one this year, to 71. The 12th has been turned into a par 4 apparently. Does anyone know if the 12th is being played from the regular tee, or is has the tee been moved forward a bit? I remember the stream being widened in front of the green a few year ago to make it a harder per 5 - now it's a par 4.

When I first played it, Wentworth was a par 74 - or it was most days. The 1st and 15th were both par 5s. The tee on the 15th could be moved forward to make it a par 4.

So I guess I have to ask - was it worthwhile making all these changes to the course - which are disliked by most of the members - or would it just have been better to leave it as it was and call it a par 70 or par 68, by turning some or all of the par 5s to par 4s?

I've played the West course periodically over the years, and I'm pretty sure I've liked it less each time I've played it.

George1507 wrote:So I guess I have to ask - was it worthwhile making all these changes to the course - which are disliked by most of the members - or would it just have been better to leave it as it was and call it a par 70 or par 68, by turning some or all of the par 5s to par 4s?

What does it matter what they decide is the par? It's the same course for everyone.

You could make all 18 holes par3 and have a leaderboard of +20 or +30; you could make them all par5s and have -30s and -40s.

At the end of the day for the tournament it doesn't matter what par. It all comes down to scoring better than everyone else

Toughest driving course that I've played by a mile. If you can't work the ball long off the tee and put it in the right place then getting to those pins is just so tough.

Great to see a proper challenge for the pro's without having to rely on stupidly thick rough or ridiculously fast greens - the natural layout is the challenge in itself which can only be a testament to the designers...

I've just got back from Wentworth, from the scoring of some of the groups it is playing very tough this year. Leaders are -6, cut was +4 when I left. One group I saw was a combined +27!!
From memory, I think the tee on 12th has been moved forward a bit to reduce it to a par 4.

I like the changes made to 18 the hole certainly needed toughening up and plays like a risk reward Par 5 should, whilst I'm not against 12 being made into a par4 as it was too easy as a 5, I don't think they needed raise the green in the way they did simply changing the Par of the hole with no changes would have changed the way scores panned out as it was no longer as easy birdie! Instead now they have made a green that is nigh on impossible to hold a long iron shot

The 18th doesn't look like risk and reward. It just looks like a dull par 5 where just about everyone is laying up.

Quiros played it risk and reward after his 8 on 17. It can be done.

I don't understand why they've installed the water in front of 18 to make it look like a moat; too penal for the shot the owners (presumably) want the golfers to play; something more like the 15th at Augusta, perhaps without the severity of slope, would have kept the hazard of the water but better balanced any risk/reward.
As it is, it looks out of place, on my TV screen at least, and doesn't serve the purpose for which it was designed.

George1507
Not sure the owner was to concerned about the members, the changes to the course is to attract PGA events.

I think that it was Harrington that said it didn't suit his eye, some of the Pro,s might not play it next year by saying the course is to tough.

I like to see pro,s making good bogie's instead of easy birdies

It can be played as risk reward simpy in that its not a long par 5 and easily reachable for all the guys in 2 and of they go for it then it can payoff or go against them as it has done for a few of them, some of the changes are what would say is half good! in that changing par on 12 not a bad idea as it was an easy 5 but no need raise the green, much like 18, the lake in front is a good idea but there is too much elevation, same at 8.

I don't think it's a risk reward hole, because the drive is so tight.

Before that bunker was put in down the right, players had the option of hitting a driver down the right hand side to leave a shorter second shot. With bunkers left and right, it's just not worth hitting a driver any more, so the second shot is too long. Even if you do, the chances are the ball will run through the green because there isn't enough slope up the green to stop long irons or woods.

Having just seen what happened to Lee Westwood, I think the green needs to be reworked yet again. It's too elevated, and the water on the left is very close - at least don't have the green sloping that way too, so that good shots can't screw back into the drink.

Sorry Ernie, you've mucked it up even more.

George: agree with you. They either need to do something to improve the 'risk and reward aspect'; i.e. move the tee forward and make it a decent par-4, or do something about the green or the water. What happened to Westy was pretty harsh tbh, almost a joke really, because his pitch shot wasn't that bad. Using the 18th as the play-off just exacerbates the situation in its current state.

Don't really get the point of the bunker down the right i'd definately agree on that point, the issue they have created is that the risk reward aspect is there, but the risk isn't worth it, because you have to take a risk off the tee and again with the approach. I like the idea of the added water to 18 it needed something, but the elevation aspect as well is pretty pointless not only on 18 but all the greens that they have elevated because none are designed to stop long irons on.

I Think the issue is the coplete overhaul they gave the hole course when all it really needed was slightly tweeking on the 18th hole, the rest of the changes really don't get the point of them

Agree with most of the above, "green complex" just incongruous.
I hoped Westwood would win but he's only got himself to blame, not Ernie. Missed putt first time round then giving Luke the chance to hit first in the play-off, always the risk Lee was going to have to hit the perfect approach, and he was unable to do it.

Kwini i dont think his approach was poor. It was pretty much the identical landing spot to luke and span poorly.

If they are going to retain the 18th this way i would hope they would set it up to hold a wedge like that away frpm the bank a bit more. Otherwise it is a bit of a lottery

Personally I think the solution is to fill in the ditch that crosses the fairway and re-do the fairway bunkers so that players can attack off the tee setting up a realistic chance to go for it in 2.
Before all the changes, an eagle eagle finish was possible (and often happened!) which had a dramatic effect on the leaderboard. Now it's par par most of the time

The idea is right the architecture is wrong.
I find it hard to believe they got it so wrong, total bodge up of ideas between owner and architect.

LondonJonnyO wrote:Kwini i dont think his approach was poor. It was pretty much the identical landing spot to luke and span poorly.

If they are going to retain the 18th this way i would hope they would set it up to hold a wedge like that away frpm the bank a bit more. Otherwise it is a bit of a lottery

I disagree with you LJ - if you look at where luke landed he was right of the flag, Westy was over the flag ie. to far left... it was a risky shot from Westwood that didn't quite work, he should have known he would spin it and therefore where to land it.

In reality Luke put enormous pressure on Westy with his superb wedge shot & unfortunately for Westy his shot was a fraction off.

I have to say - I didn't really know who to support, both great golfers - I guess it came down to Luke being a better scrambler in the end, he just hung in there.

D4S - Westwood had the length to go for it in 2. He could have hit driver and then he would probably have been left with a 5-iron. He chose to lay up.

Therefore it was a real risk-reward hole.

GWR. A shot hit at the flag, or over it, which spins should never be punished. It was online. Over the hazard by a large margin. And dropped in pin high.

That's just poor as far as I'm concerned.

The hazard should penalise a poorly struck shot, or one which is offline.

All Lee was punished for there was hitting it pure and at the stick.

GWR-Golfer wrote:D4S - Westwood had the length to go for it in 2. He could have hit driver and then he would probably have been left with a 5-iron. He chose to lay up.

Therefore it was a real risk-reward hole.

He couldn't have hit driver because he would have ended up in the ditch that crosses the fairway about 320 off the tee. It runs down into the ditch so anything longer than about 280 risks getting wet. I watched quite a few groups go down the 18th on Friday and not a single person hit driver. Those that did go for it in 2 were hitting 3 wood and that green is definitely not designed for a 3 wood 2nd shot.

LJ,
I just said he didn't hit the perfect shot, no more, no less. It's the pros' responsibility to control their spin and he didn't do it; punishment certainly didn't fit the crime.
He got it spot on first time round though.

Kwini that's the thing. It didn't tear back into the water... It dropped in pretty much dead weight at pin high. I think that going over the stick and having that happen is a bit harsh.

That said. The putt on the 18th in regulation was a bit poor as well.

Still. 3rd ever Englishman to top the rankings. Bit of an English golfing renaissance going on at the moment. Gotta love that.

The probelm with 18 is the combination of the drive and the second shot. The pros will ony take on the second shot if they drive to a certain area on the fairway. From the tee this area is very difficult to find with trees, rough, bunker and potential block out to the right and bunkers and rough down the left. Taking enough club off the tee to reach the right spot means having enough club to reach the bunkers left and means taking a tight line right which brings all the trouble on the right into play. Most of the pros don't fancy the odds of making both shots when they are so good from 80-100 yards anyway.

Erne can't do anything about the dog leg. He should keep the back tee, but open up the tee shot a little more to take some of the risk away from the tee shot. He should make the second a little easier to give the pros more reward and modify the left side of the green so that a ball hitting the green and spinning back a little will stop on the edge.

They appear to have unlimited funds and 12 months for "take 3" next year.

drive4show wrote:

GWR-Golfer wrote:D4S - Westwood had the length to go for it in 2. He could have hit driver and then he would probably have been left with a 5-iron. He chose to lay up.

Therefore it was a real risk-reward hole.

He couldn't have hit driver because he would have ended up in the ditch that crosses the fairway about 320 off the tee. It runs down into the ditch so anything longer than about 280 risks getting wet. I watched quite a few groups go down the 18th on Friday and not a single person hit driver. Those that did go for it in 2 were hitting 3 wood and that green is definitely not designed for a 3 wood 2nd shot.

D4S - good point, it's not obvious from looking on the TV that it's like that. It does become a pitching contest then...... all the more reason that I believe Westwood played the wrong shot, he must have known the slope of the green and practiced the pitch in.

LondonJonnyO wrote:GWR. A shot hit at the flag, or over it, which spins should never be punished. It was online. Over the hazard by a large margin. And dropped in pin high.

That's just poor as far as I'm concerned.

The hazard should penalise a poorly struck shot, or one which is offline.

All Lee was punished for there was hitting it pure and at the stick.

Still disagree with you. What about Augusta then? it seems that every hole in Augusta requires the player to put the ball onto the green at a particular spot.

Also Westwood must have seen Donald's shot & he must have practiced pitching into the green. BTW I'm a big fan of Westwood - I just think he played the wrong shot.

Of course he knew that that was a risk, but he's a human being not a robot. Donald played a sublime shot. There was plenty pressure on Westwood to make it and even top professionals can't play precisely the right shot at will every single time it is required, otherwise they'd all be shooting 58's every round and golf would be very boring indeed.

It was the equivalent of a penalty shoot out and was decided by a moment of brilliance and a bad bit of luck.

Does sound that the 18th needs to be re-looked at again tho'

The difference is that the greens at Augusta don't reject well struck shots. They might lead them away from the hole if not hit with precision... but there is always the chance of a recovery. With that shot the penalty is far more severe than the crime of being a foot to the right on landing deserves.

A well struck wedge should not be lead off the green for pitching in line with the flag in my opinion.

Well, it still creates drama which is what you need from an 18th hole.
Contrast it to the dreary and disappointing 18th at the Old Course and suddenly Wentworth doesn't seem so bad after all.

On sunday we saw Eagles (from Billy Bunter Lowry), Birdies, Pars and Bogies.
That's enough to change the outcome of a tournament and is something you couldn't say about a lot of tournaments and venues.

All the 18th needs is the first fairway ditch covered over - that shouldn't take too much effort, should it?

GWR-Golfer wrote:Does sound that the 18th needs to be re-looked at again tho'

Yes, I think there is lots of room for improvement. All the ingredients for a great finishing hole are there, just in the wrong proportions.

I should be on Masterchef

drive4show wrote:

GWR-Golfer wrote:Does sound that the 18th needs to be re-looked at again tho'

Yes, I think there is lots of room for improvement. All the ingredients for a great finishing hole are there, just in the wrong proportions.

I should be on Masterchef

In that case screw the curry on thursday in a few weeks. It's all round to D4S' place for a three course michelin standard meal which will then be panned by Greg Wallace for not having enough custard on it.

D4S, In order to be on that show you'd only have to repeat what the thin bloke said and then as the fat bloke suck the chrome of the fork.

Hateful, hateful talentless fat git.

Super

you always make me laugh with your obsession with bloaters

I'm pleased to report that if we get the chance to meet up when we come up for the Tassie, none of us are porkers!

drive4show wrote:Super

you always make me laugh with your obsession with bloaters

I'm pleased to report that if we get the chance to meet up when we come up for the Tassie, none of us are porkers!

Wear a fatsuit for the hell of it. And eat a pie on the course.

I'm surprised Mac hasn't been getting on to me in his usual Guardian style and getting offended on other peoples behalf.

Reminder to self. Must not be fattist or gingerist.


Forget it, life wouldn't be so much fun if you couldn't laugh at them.

super_realist wrote:Reminder to self. Must not be fattist or gingerist.

If people weren't meant to be gingerist then god would never have given us hairdye.... Or Chris Evans as a reason to use it.

I think the 18th is almost there now, there has to be some element of risk going for a par 5 in two, and the old hole didn't have that.

The run off is a little tough though, I think that#s the reason the players didn't go for it in two - even if you hit the green, theres a high chance your ball will run off into the water. The ones that did go for it aimed right and took there chances, the rest see it as just as likely to get up and down from 100 yards.

Level out the left side of the green and grow a fringe a bit and that would do it.

I think the designers have got it spot on. At the moment 18 is too hard to reach in 2 for the majority of pro's... however with advances in technology we will probably see everyone going for it in 10 years time. There needs to be an element of future-proofing, you can't spend millions every year redesigning a course.

17 and 18 were perfectly good finishing holes for donkeys years before Caring(ironic)got his meddling hands on it.Fantastic courageous shotmaking by the best players could yield two 3s.Now its play safe.

raycastleunited wrote:I think the designers have got it spot on. At the moment 18 is too hard to reach in 2 for the majority of pro's... however with advances in technology we will probably see everyone going for it in 10 years time. There needs to be an element of future-proofing, you can't spend millions every year redesigning a course.

No they haven't. Any par 5 where you have a longer 2nd shot than tee shot is never going to produce attacking golf.

Like I said before, fill in the ditch that crosses the fairway at 300 yards and then you'll have a good risk/reward hole.

dynamark wrote:17 Fantastic courageous shotmaking by the best players could yield two 3s.Now its play safe.

Not really. There was no risk with the old holes, so everyone had a go. Now at least players have to make a decision

good point d4s