Mike Clayton (6)

16 South.

There is much debate at the club on the pros and cons of the changes made by Mike Clayton on 16, 17 and 18. Previously, these were a strong par 3, a very strong par 4 and shortish par 5. The strong 16^th and 17^th have effectively been sacrificed in order to have the elevated tee on 18, thereby reducing it to a par 4.

Rather than discussing the merits or otherwise of the changes to these 3 holes as a whole, I’m going to stick to discussing each hole individually. I have no problems with 16; I think it is a good, strong par 5 that generally rewards good shots and punishes bad shots.

17 South.

In its original form, Mike Clayton’s 17^th had a number of flaws. A ridiculous 2-tiered green and insufficient landing area in the back part of the green combined with punitive rough close to the back of the green being the most obvious.

I think any green should offer the chance of being able to putt the ball close to the hole from any part of the green. If you are on the green, it should not be physically impossible to get the ball close to the hole. Very difficult is fine, but impossible is stupid. That goes for 8 South as well.

The recent changes made by the club have not only improved the hole, but demonstrate that Mike Clayton is not the paragon of all things golf at the club that some people seem to think.