feature – Ultra Golfing

Pebble Beach restores a signature feature on its famed 18th hole

admin — Fri, 01 May 2026 04:03:55 +0000

If a tree falls on the fairway of a famous golf hole, does anybody notice? They sure do.

They also notice when it gets replaced.

On Thursday, Pebble Beach Golf Links posted photos of a fresh addition to its 18th hole, where a second cypress tree has been planted, replacing one that toppled during a Dec. 11, 2014 winter storm. The work restores a feature that had long complicated tee shots and layups on the fabled par-5 finisher.

The replacement tree came from the 17th hole at nearby Spyglass Hill. It now stands in the same spot once occupied by the storm-felled tree, roughly 30 yards closer to the green than its companion pine.

Ranked 15th on GOLF’s list of Top 100 Courses in the World, Pebble Beach opened in 1919 and has evolved over more than a century of life, undergoing tweaks both subtle and significant. In 1997, for instance, Jack Nicklaus was hired to build a new par-3 5th hole, a change that brought the hole to the edge of the bluffs overlooking Stillwater Cove.

Since 2010 alone, the course has undergone a slew of additional refinements — longer tees on the 2nd and 9th holes, restored bunkers, and recontoured greens designed to revive classic features and open up new hole locations.

The tree planting comes as Pebble fine-tunes the course ahead of the 2027 U.S. Open, which it will host for a record seventh time.

This is not the first time an iconic tree has been replaced at Pebble. In 2002, an 80-foot Monterey cypress was planted beside the 18th green, taken from the 1st hole to replace the original, which had died of pitch canker disease. That replanting — digging a giant hole, maneuvering a giant root ball into place — was something of a spectacle.

But it played out with less immediate fanfare in the age before Instagram.

Source link

TPC Sawgrass 12th, 16th to feature subtle changes for 2026 Players

admin — Sun, 08 Feb 2026 00:49:30 +0000

PONTE VEDRA BEACH, Fla. – The banging of hammers, thumping of jack hammers and beeping of forklifts at the Players Stadium Course at TPC Sawgrass signal that March and the Players Championship are right around the corner. Just 55 days until balls will be in the air if you’re counting at home.

As the build-out continues in earnest, there are some subtle but noticeable changes to the home of the Tour’s flagship event at Pete and Alice Dye’s house of horrors. Two-time Players champion Davis Love III was called in to help develop a master plan a few years ago to restore some of the stronger Dye features along with Steve Wenzloff, who headed up the Tour’s in-house design team, Jeff Plotts, TPC Sawgrass director of golf course maintenance and Stephen Cox, a PGA Tour rules official. [Wenzloff and Plotts retired from the Tour late last year.]

Love said the team is studying photographs from the mid-1980s in order to reestablish some of the quirky features that got removed from the course over the years, after players complained that TPC was too hard and bordered on unfair. “Weird shapes, palms in bunkers, and putting back a lot of the contour in the greens that was taken out in the previous renovations when green speeds went up,” he explained.

Two changes should be noticeable to longtime fans of the course , one of which was deliberate and the other not so much. The first is to No. 12, which underwent wholesale changes a decade ago that removed a large mound to a semi-blind short par-4 and converted it to a more strategic, drivable par-4 with water down much of the left side beginning at the green. It added another potentially eagle-producing risk-reward challenge, which was unveiled at the 2017 Players.

“No. 12 needs a lot of study,” Love said. “I liked the original hole but now we have a lake and not a hill.”

A new fairway bunker was installed on the right side this summer, better framing the driving zone while catching stray tee shots that drift in its direction. Wenzloff said having a bunker as a hazard for errant drives at the hole had been contemplated as far back as 2016, when the hole was originally reimagined.

“We opted for the consistency of a recovery from a grassy hollow, thinking it would provide more resistance to scoring than sand,” Wenzloff said. “Through years of evaluating the hole, we concluded it needed more visual balance.”

“I felt like you couldn’t see any sand on the right side of the hole, so we decided to build a bunker in a natural spot up against a couple of palm trees,” Love said.

Added Cox: “It just asks a different question from the tee now. The bunker on the right is more of a sightline bunker, more from an aesthetic standpoint and not to make the hole play necessarily harder.”

They also brought the water back closer to the tee and installed a bulkhead along the edge of the bunker, a move Dye, who died in 2020, likely would have approved of (though he would have pushed to make it even more penal). “Pete wanted to bring the water all the way back to the tee to enhance the visual of it,” Wenzloff said.

The other change is the loss of a major limb to the iconic tree at No. 16, which was a thorn in the side of players playing their second or third shot at the reachable par-5. The limb in question fell down Aug. 21, not due to a storm but rather internal decay. Visually, it’s a different look, but its absence likely won’t impact the flight of the second or third shot. It may provide better odds of success for those choosing to go low with a chip-and-run shot when stuck in that awkward distance of being too close to the tree to loft it over. Cox said the Tour is having an arborist check the health of the tree and its life expectancy given its strategic importance. Notably, the limb that hangs over the fairway, creating indecision and swatting down its share of misguided shots, remains intact.

Of the loss of the limb, Love said, “we can always move one in there,” and noted he did just that last year as part of a renovation of another Dye gem, Harbour Town Golf Links, site of the RBC Heritage, at the fifth hole to make the second and third shot play like it did before they moved the green.

The Tour’s team has been picking off small projects at TPC Sawgrass each summer to spruce up the Stadium Course – predominantly infrastructure work such as moving a cart path from No. 1 green to No. 2 tee last year – in order to reduce the scope of work in case a larger renovation occurs. That date has been in flux and could change with the involvement of new leadership, but currently has a placeholder of 2028 that isn’t far off.

“The majority of the work will be done in 2028 when we ultimately close the golf course down,” Cox said. “We know the lifespan of our greens is coming to an end. Some of our bulkheads are ready to be replaced. We know that we have a short window for doing any major construction work. It’s basically a month in June and we get a lot accomplished during that time, whether it be agronomic-related or competitive enhancements, but for major construction work, it handcuffs us. The plan is to close for a longer stretch in 2028, potentially through October-November and allow enough time that our overseeding goes down to be ready for March.”

Bringing back more of what made TPC Sawgrass unique should be a welcomed addition in the years to come.

“We do seem to be leaning into quirky and some of the bolder Pete Dye features that have been lost,” Cox said.

Source link

SPECIAL FEATURE: IS LONDON ABOUT TO LOSE GOLF COURSES – Golf News

admin — Mon, 19 Jan 2026 17:45:20 +0000

Golf News has been speaking to Ian Barnett, Group Land and Development Director at LRG, about how London’s latest planning proposals could have far reaching consequences for golf clubs across the country.

London’s emerging planning policy has put golf courses firmly in the spotlight. As part of the consultation on the new London Plan, the Mayor has suggested that some areas of Metropolitan Open Land, including certain golf courses with limited public access and low recorded biodiversity value, could be assessed for release for housing.

According to Barnett, this is not just a London issue. He believes it is a strong signal of how national policy could evolve and of the difficult choices that golf clubs across England may face in the years ahead.

The question for many owners is whether this represents a slow squeeze on courses at the edge of towns and cities, or a genuine opportunity to secure the long term future of their clubs.

A shift in thinking around open land

Golf courses have long occupied an uncertain position in planning policy. Many sit within the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land.

While they are clearly developed in practical terms, they often function and appear like open countryside. For decades this has resulted in strong policy protection and limited scope for change.

The London Plan consultation marks a subtle but important shift. While overall protection for Metropolitan Open Land remains, the Mayor is asking whether all such land is performing the function for which it was designated.

Some golf courses are not accessible to the wider public and some have relatively low recorded ecological value compared with other forms of open space.

Blue Mountain in Bracknell was redeveloped for 400 homes

These are the sites the Mayor has identified as potential candidates for redevelopment, subject to strict requirements around public access, biodiversity enhancement, high quality design and a significant proportion of affordable housing.

At a national level, changes to the National Planning Policy Framework introduce the concept of the grey belt within the Green Belt.

This refers to lower performing Green Belt land, often previously developed or compromised in character, where housing may be acceptable if clear rules are met on affordable housing delivery, infrastructure provision and public green space.

Taken together, Barnett sees a clear pattern emerging. Well located open land on the edge of settlements that performs poorly against policy objectives is now being actively reconsidered, provided development can deliver tangible public benefits. Many golf courses fall into this category.

What this means for golf club owners

Barnett says that clubs tend to react to this issue in one of two ways. Some see development as an existential threat to their club.

Others see headline land values and assume that securing planning permission will be straightforward and highly lucrative. In his view, both positions are overly simplistic.

The most realistic opportunities often sit between these extremes. For some clubs, full relocation from an increasingly urbanised site to a more suitable location on the edge of town or in a rural setting can be transformational.

Residential development on the original site can fund a new course with better facilities and a more sustainable long term future.

The debate is already playing out on the ground. Golf News recently reported on proposals affecting Ifield Golf Club in West Sussex, where land has been identified for potential housing of 3000 homes as part of wider local plan discussions.

Another example Barnett points to is Basingstoke Golf Club, where he advised on the planning, disposal and relocation of the club.

After exploring several options, the club successfully relocated to an existing course at Dummer on the opposite side of the M3. Housing development on the former site is now well underway.

The Caversham is the new home of Reading Golf Club

Another example is Blue Mountain Golf Club in Bracknell Forest. Surrounded by housing and identified as having development potential, the site was redeveloped to include a Golfplex entertainment centre, driving range, clubhouse and parking, alongside 400 new homes, community sports facilities and a new school.

The club now has a viable long term base, the local authority has secured housing and infrastructure, and land value has been realised in a planned and structured way.

In other cases, partial redevelopment has been the preferred solution. At Maidenhead Golf Course, land has been allocated for around 2,000 homes while retaining a golf offer, and at the former Reading Golf Course, development and green space have been planned together.

In these situations, releasing part of the land has allowed clubs to reinvest in the remaining course and often improve the quality of the golfing experience.

Maidenhead GC

The importance of site specific analysis

Barnett is clear that not every golf course is suitable for development. The starting point, he says, should never be land value assumptions, but a detailed understanding of planning policy as it applies to that specific site.

Key considerations include whether the course lies in the Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land or open countryside, how the local plan treats that designation, the recorded biodiversity value of the land, levels of public access, proximity to services and transport, and the scale of local housing need.

Ian Barnett

In London in particular, the Mayor’s reference to limited biodiversity value has already prompted objections from environmental groups, many of whom point to the wildlife interest of golf courses.

As a result, Barnett stresses that robust ecological assessment is essential before any strategy is developed.

Early specialist advice can make a critical difference. A strong planning and land team will assess local plans, housing targets, infrastructure commitments and emerging policy changes.

They will identify constraints such as landscape, heritage or environmental designations and benchmark land values and delivery prospects to manage expectations among members or shareholders.

What we do know is at the planning map around golf courses is changing. London’s proposed approach to MOL and the national grey belt policy are part of a wider shift.

Source link