Brora--preserve it or improve it?

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

One of the things that first got me hooked on this site was the fact that the Morrissetts "got" Brora, which was fairly rare up until a few years ago for anybody who resideed outside the town.  It is classically minimalist, fun golf.  The fact that Braid designed it without taking recourse to numerous site visits just adds to its mystery and its charm.

Nevertheless, every time I have played it recently (most recently last month) I wonder at what it might be.  As good and as fun as it is, the green complexes are mostly simplistic and there is oodles of land throughout the course that could be utilised to make changes, if changes were wished to be done.  My mind boggles when I think of what could be done if Doak or Phillips or Hanse or Bunkerhill or Harbottle (or even one of those unmentionables from the "dark side".....) could do if given free rein.

Going back to a fairly recent thread, it is the epitome of the golf course as a "palimpsest"--i.e. something that could be "written over" and (hopefully!) "improved."

I have two complex questions for the treehouse:

a.  For those who have played it, could Brora be "improved" and how?

b.  Even if it could be "improved" should it be, or should it be preserved as a monument to the minimalism (and limited budgets) of the first "Golden Age."

I'll start off with one possibility under a. above:

1.  Create a new long par-3 1st hole teeing off from the current putting green and heading out towards the harbor across the rough "practice area" to the right of the current 1st tee

2.  Amalgamate the 17th and 18th into a brutish 600 yard or so par 5.

Any other thoughts, under either question?

[Mike Leveille]

Rich:

The questions you present are tough for me, in that, although I have only played Brora once, I loved it as is just for what it is (if that makes sense), but you are right that the green complexes are fairly simple and there is plenty of land there to make changes that could improve the course in some folk's minds.  I would probably fall on the side of leaving it basically as is, not necessarily as a monument to minimlaism but simply because it is loads of fun as is, and is still a fairly decent test with a par of 69.  If I want a full-blown championship test I can always drive down the road to RD (although, truth be told, I did no better relative to par at Brora than I did at RD).

Your suggestion for a new par 3 first hole is intriguing.  I am trying to visualize the spot of land you are refrring to, and I am picturing a decent length par 3 with the harbor on the right of the green and the beach on the left (perhaps I have that wrong).  Not sure that is the shot I want to start the day off with.  I probably prefer the gentle and short current first hole to get you off and running.  If you were to have a par 3 first as you described, where does the tee go on the par 4 second (now the first)?  

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Mike

Same 1st (now 2nd) tee.  There is loads of room in the practice area for a green out by the harbor (probably 50-60 yards behind the now 1st tee--and, of course, for those who have not seen it, there is a good 100+ yard walk from the clubhouse to the 1st tee).

I love Brora too.  Just really bringing this possibility up as a hypothetical/thought experiment--similar, maybe, to the situation/thought processes that must have gone through the minds of the members at Shinnecock when they decided to bring in Flynn and others to give their piece of ground a course that better approached its potential.

Rich

[David_Tepper]

Rich-
I was under the impression that Brora GC has already begun contemplating the possibility of upgrading/improving their golf course. Am I mistaken about this? I believe that Ronan Rafferty has been working on renovations to the course in Wick and has also been in contact with Brora regarding possible changes to the course. I could be dead wrong about this. Do you have any idea how serious the grazing rights issue is at Brora?
By the way, I would love to see Golspie find a way to incorporate the idle links land beyond the 7th hole into their golf course.
DT  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
I have not played nor ever even seen the course so my opinion on this matter is not tainted by a love of the course nor knowledge of its architectural merit.  

I suspect everyone agrees that Flynn did a great job at Shinnecock.
My home course is an overwrite by Raynor and he created something that did not exist before he did his work.

Brora seems to have escaped the "we can make a better course on this property" syndrome. Folks there seem content in what they have and it would appear that they feel no need for change.
"What if" is fun to contemplate but what happens when it starts to take on a life of its own. I'll bet there isn't a course in the world that couldn't be made "better" in some fashion or other, but who decides whether or not it has been made better, or just different?

To me it seems logical to leave the old girl alone. She has made it this far, why not let her go on in peace?  

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

David

I'm aware of the Rafferty connection, but I think it is just a bit of tweaking, rather than a complete makeover.  I could be wrong, of course, but Ronan's comments in the recent Golf World Top 100 issue seemed to support my gut feeling.  He said:

"I'm not into designing golf courses.  My specialty, I hope, lies in going along to an established golf course and suggesting subtel, but effective ways of improving waht's already there."

My understanding re: the grzing rights is that the club has pretty well won the "Battle of the Cattle."  Look for the course to be pretty well critter free in the not so distant future.

You're right about Golspie, too, but you're gonna have to evict the dirt bikers that control that land.  And, of course, there is land between there and Dornoch, on the othe side of Loch Fleet, which is the best links land you or I or anyone else will ever see...........

[Mike Hendren]

Paging Tom Doak:  If Rees can do some pro bono work, why can't you.  Otherwise,  please leave Brora alone until I get a chance to get there.  

Regards,

Mike

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Jim

You re-pose my essential question well--in effect, should we "improve" our good and great courses, just because we can?  If we should not, why?  Why is that attitude not just an act of hubris, trying to freeze time at the particular moment you or I happen to live in?  What if the people at your club had taken the same attitude and decided to not hire Raynor for a re-do?  Would that have been a "better" solution?  Maybe, maybe not.

I do, however, think we are being intellectually dishonest if we say that what our ancestors did in remodelling and improving tracks like Shinnecock and Muirfield and Dornoch and The Old Course and Pinehurst #2 was right but if we or our children do it today or tomorow to these or other courses it is somehow, de facto, wrong.

BTW--you can get a good understanding of the architectural merits, or lack thereof, of Brora from the fine pictures which are posted on this site under "Courses by Architect."

[bodgeblack]

Preserve it.

Whilst not ideal when looking at it from an architectural point of view I believe that simply adds to the charm of one of Scotlands most fun golf courses.

Is it there to provide a rounded examination of your golf? Would any changes really enhance the enjoyment of those that play it week in week out?  

[BCrosby]

Rich -

I've never played Brora, but I'm not sure the criteria you use for deciding to tinker with Brora are the same you would use for courses like TOC, Shinnie, RD or Muirfield. Brora has nothing like the historical pedigree of those courses. And historical pedigree matters.

These kinds of decisions are made very day in non-golf architecture. Some buildings are preserved for their historical interest. Some that are equally old, aren't. Decisions about which ones to "save" and which ones can be changed or destroyed are often difficult. But we make them.

I don't see why this same analysis couldn't be applied to historic golf courses.

Bob

Bob    

  

[Bob_Farrell]

I have fond memories of playing Brora 2 years ago. With the wind up at about 15  knots or so in mid-October I found it to be a most enjoyable course. (And I never got chased by any of the cows either!)

I have to agree with a number of the posts here. Any course can be changed but at what cost, and in many cases, for what reason other than for the sake of change.

Some of the minimalist courses in Scotland are fun becasue they are that way. I thought that about Wick, although I think some changes are due there to preserve it from the elements in its low lying state. Golspie was another. I thought there was a lot of room for them to do soem things with the course, but it was fun playing it as it was.

Perhaps I'm middle of the road here because of the changes I saw in my home course here in NJ, many of which were very good, and several of which were very poor. The end result...a different course. Better? In some ways. Worse? in some ways. Trade off? None. Bottom line? Indifference.

Soem things are better left untouched

BF

[ChipOat]

All golf courses can be improved;  the good ideas aren't thought of right away.

The risk is that the "improvers" bugger it up.

Brora's charming but improvable.  Unfortunately there's a practical issue here:  who pays for it and what's the likely payback period?

Given the chronic sub-standard economy in the Scottish Highlands, this is a more important question than in Fife, Ayrshire or the other mainstream parts of golfing Scotland.

Dornoch will get the incremental greens fees from their investments in the property; would Brora?

[Billy64]

Rich

Why on earth would you want to change a classic piece of history like Brora? To my mind some of Braid's finest work. This is not one of your typical ho-hum resort courses you find up down and all around the US of A. Those are the type you can change over night and none of the members notice the differance

No, no my friend, this is Gods country. Don't even think about it

Billy

[Andy Levett (Guest)]

Rich
Since I started lurking here early this year your's is one of the names I recognise and always enjoy reading, plus I have played Brora a grand total of twice and you have presumably many more times...but 17 and 18 seem fine as they are.
18 is such a tough par in most conditions the fact it's a par 3 (is that your objection? You never really said) doesn't matter.
Starting with a par 3 is apparently frowned upon for pace of play reasons ( I learned that from this site) and as the current first, which would become the second, is a short par 4, would that not exacerbate matters?
I also thought the current first was an perfect opening hole in that you  stood there not having a clue where to hit it but fairly confident anywhere would be okay.

[D. Kilfara]

Rich, I think your question is a very good one, and indeed one to which there is not a single correct answer. Personally, I think it should be left the way it is, but there's a strong argument to the contrary. Brora could be a great championship course instead of a great local course - among the ways this could be done are:

--let the rough grow (i.e. the sheep and cows would have to be denied access)
--build more pot bunkers in strategic places (esp. in the landing areas off the tee)
--build new tees to the rear and outside of the existing ones (the easiest and most painless way to add length)
--re-site several greens to more exciting locations (esp. on the outward half, on some of the interesting land between the current course and the shoreline)
--remodel all of the existing greens to add contour and interest where such contours wouldn't look out of place

Another option would be to start over, using the existing land but not necessarily any of the existing golf course - but if you want to do that, I'd rather see you try really hard to find a different parcel of linksland in the first place. It isn't as though Brora is so close to the beaten tourist path that you'd try really hard to use the existing land just for that reason.

I suppose a way to figure out whether such changes would be attempted is to ask the following question: for every Shinnecock remodeling job which works, how many others don't? (I have no idea myself...) I suppose even defining whether a remodeling job "works" would be difficult - would Augusta National, another course which I think fits the current parameters of discussion, qualify as a success or a failure? If three out of five major remodeling jobs on previously good-but-not-otherworldly courses are deemed to be successes, is it worth the 40% risk of butchering what you have to try and improve it? 20% risk? 10%? Hmmm...maybe the amount of difficult questions you have to even ask before you start considering this issue answers the original question, if you follow me.

Cheers,
Darren

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Bob C

You are right that Brora does not have Shinnecock's "pedigree" and yet that pedigree did not stop Shinny from being completely remodeled not that many years after it hosted the first US Open.  Are we smarter today than they were then, or just exhibiting a form of NIMBY if we insist that our great courses remain nearly exiactly what they are or were when we know or knew them best?

Billy

I'm using Brora as a hypothetical example of a very good course that could (IMHO) be improved.  Until fairly recently (in historical terms), courses regularly "improved" themselves.  Why should we stop now?  If you could build a truly great Tom Doak (say) course on top of Braid's very good one, would that be a plus or a minus for us afficionados of GCA?

To put it another way, is the architectural legacy of any course (just using Brora as an example) more important than trying to best exploit the potential of the land as a place to play golf?

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Darren

Very good points all.  I might argue with your 40% failure rate on major remodels (IF you take into account all the jobs that came about in the early part of the last centruy to account for the greater distance of the Haskell ball), but it is a fact that s**t does happen.  As for ANGC, I'm of the opinion that most of the changes made have been for the better, although some of the orignial stuff had a lot more character, from what pictures I've seen.

Andy

I pulled the 1st and 18th idea out of my hat, as it were, just for an example.  Darren's ideas are more practical and would be more likely to be adopted if the club even decided to make some major changes (which I very much doubt they would do, at least in this century).  Nevertheless, while 18 is a very demanding finisher, if combined with 17 it would be even more memorable.  And, there is the litttle personal problem I have in that no matter how far I hit my drive down the 17th fairway I don't have a clue how to get my next shot on that green............ .  As for your opening par 3/pace of play issue, because the current 1st is driveable under many wind conditions by many, and virtually all wind conditions by a few, the normal practice at that hole is to not allow play off the tee until the green is clear, at least in competitions.  I could argue that inserting a new short opening hole might actually speed up play, but I could be wrong, and in any case, speed of play is generally not a problem at Brora.

Rich

[D. Kilfara]

Rich - I wasn't suggesting that 40% of all remodeling jobs are failures, but rather wondering where the cutoff point was between "Let's go for it" and "Let's not risk ruining a good thing". Should you risk it if there's a 40% chance of "failure"? A 20% chance? A 10% chance?

Those are just theoretical numbers. Of course, it's not as black-and-white as that. Some people think that Augusta has changed for the better in the last 20 years, some that it's changed for the worse. If it were to be designed, some people will like the "new Brora" (hmmm...sounds like "New Coke"!), some people will dislike it simply because it's not the old Brora, and some people will prefer the old Brora on merit (architectural or otherwise). I'd feel pretty confident about liking a redesigned Brora by Tom Doak, would reserve judgment on a redesigned Brora by Tom Fazio, and would feel not at all confident about liking a redesigned Brora by Ted Robinson. But people who love Fazio and like Robinson will feel differently. And Joe Sixpack will swim downstream wherever the magazine stories and ranking lists point him once the course has been re-done and re-dusted.

I guess the point of all of this is this: golf course architecture, like many other things in modern culture, wasn't subject to anything like the kind of scrutiny 50-100 years ago that it is today. Who was talking about the redesign of Muirfield while it was being done, and whether or not the older version was worth preserving? If anyone, it was a very select group, and there weren't magazine articles discussing it (were there?) and website discussion groups debating it. The very nature of modern society would be a reason to keep the "old" Brora, methinks - a major redesign would only bring the harsh glare of critical spotlight upon Brora, and some people would wind up not liking Brora, whereas the current course elicits almost exclusively favorable comments from the few who go there.

Cheers,
Darren

[Jim_Kennedy]

I'm using Brora as a hypothetical example of a very good course that could (IMHO) be improved.  Until fairly recently (in historical terms), courses regularly "improved" themselves.  Why should we stop now?  If you could build a truly great Tom Doak (say) course on top of Braid's very good one, would that be a plus or a minus for us afficionados of GCA?

To put it another way, is the architectural legacy of any course (just using Brora as an example) more important than trying to best exploit the potential of the land as a place to play golf?

Rich,
If Brora was improved you would lose the Brora you know and
seem to enjoy. Is that an improvement? Shouldn't the reno/resto equation include the merits of the subject course in light of its place in history?
Is it an improvement if Tom Doak built a great course over Brora or is it the loss of an interesting and perhaps significant portion of golf's fabric? I think the latter.

At Hotchkiss, Raynor wrote over a course that would not be called significant in any way. He built a uniquely routed course with several amazingly good holes and this is also the place where he met Charles Banks. It added to the historical quilt, it did not diminish it. Could the same be said about a total rewrite at Brora?
  

[BCrosby]

Rich -

I think you missed my point. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

You asked whether it was inconsistent to suggest changes to Brora and at the same time oppose changes to more famous historic courses.

My point was that because Brora lacks a historic patina, one ought to be more willing to improve it. On the other hand, we should be less willing to change a course with a distinguished petigree like TOC or Shinnie. (I have no views as to the merits of changes to Brora. Never played it. Just making a point about your analytic framwork.) In short, you can plump for changes to one course and oppose changes to another without contradiction.

The White House and a storefront in Georgetown may have been built in the same year, but we are willing to change the storefront and would raise hell about changing the appearance of the White House.

Being reticent about changing older courses that have been important in the history of the game and in the same breath supporting changes to other courses that lack a comparable historic interest is ok.

In fact, someday we may decide that some courses have been so important to the history of the game that we want to keep them as we find them today. We may decide that "improving" these courses to meet the modern power game is not worth the destruction of historic (albeit obsolete) architecural features. Exhibit A - Prestwick.

Supporting improvements to Brora is not inconsistent with that view.

BTW, all this makes me regret that I skipped Brora during my trip to Scotland last summer.

Bob

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

All good comments

While I really like Brora, better links courses have been "written over" in the past, few of which had as good natural land forms as Brora does.  That, in itself, however, does not mean it would be right, of course.

I'm still thinking of this issue.  I didn;t strat the thread with any sort of agenda, just a long term feeling that Brora was a place where one could make quantum improvements, if the club so wished.

Relative ot htre arguments which say, in effect, why not spend the time and effort somewhere else, as there are many equally good virgin "links" in Scotalnd, Ireland, and even Mullen Nebraska.  Well, one of the reasons for thinking otherwise is that land with a "history" is often more interestin than land which has lain fallow for eternity.  There are reasons that Brora has a golf course today.  Because of that golf course it has an infrastructure whcih would support any "improvements."  Because it has a history, even a course which almost completely overwrote Braid's work would still have some "patina" to it.  Just as at Dornoch people still relate to Joyce Wethered's time there, even though most of the holes she played, most of the time, are NLE, people at Brora could still relate to Jimmy Miller, 50-100 years from now, even if the holes on which his legendary feats were accomplished were now largely invisible even to the trained eye.

If off on holiday for a week, so if nobody feel slighted (or relieved) if I do not respond to any further comments on this (or any other thread).

PS--Bob C--when you finally get to play Brora, plesa do not tell them about who started this thread!

[Slag_Bandoon]

  It would be interesting to hear from Jimmy Miller on this one.  The place is great fun and interesting and I can't remember any shortcomings but the greens could be tweeked with roiling for interest and ball action without losing its minimalistic appeal or Braid character.  There is plenty of land around and I suppose they could dramatize it some by putting some greens or tees closer to the sea but that doesn't make it a better course, just allows better exposure to the natural elements of the area.  Is there enough land to pack in two golf courses?   Sacrilege!  

 A side note... I noticed a lot of houses for sale in the area so I'm not sure of the financial fortitude of the area.  Perhaps a downturn from the North Sea oil exploration of the recent past?   Drink Clynelish! Golf Brora!

 "Like flies to the jam pots, they were just passing through.
  So let's all come willing now, spend a schilling now..."  IA

[Ran Morrissett]

An intriguing question, full of twists and turns.

In short, I would vote to do nothing as I judge the odds of an overall better course being the result as less than 1 in 10.

On the one hand, Braid did his customary two day stake job, so the green complexes could be likely improved upon. And the course has plenty of room and probably several new tees should be added to help insure that the player needs to hit a full variety of clubs/shots into the greens. In addition, several well placed bunkers might help, though the EXCELLENT topography makes the need for bunkers less of a concern.

However, in terms of major surgery, I don't see the need as his routing is first rate, with the very good holes evenly spread throughout the course (3,5,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 and 17). In general, Braid's routing took full advantage of the natural contours, at least that is my recollection. Any drastic change in routing would jeopardize one or more very good holes (i.e. there is no weak 3 or 4 hole stretch that could obviously be improved upon, with the 1st and 16th the only real candidates). For instance, Rich, when you suggest combining 17 and 18, well there goes one of the all-time great links holes in the 17th when you do that.

I vote to leave it alone.

Cheers,

[henrye]

Rich.  I think this question will depend on whether one lives in the vicinity and plays the links regularly or if they are a visitor from afar.

I have no doubt that both Brora and Golspie could be "improved" and even show up on those all economically important top 100 lists, but what do the people in the area want?  I think the result would be another golf tourist destination of championship golf links with $100 green fees.  The locals would no longer be able to play their local course in relative obscurity.

If not for their close proximity to Royal Dornoch, most people would never have even heard of these links.  Bringing in a big name architect and changing these courses would I think change the entire region.  I'm sure we could all swoon at the increadible new championship links' of the highlands, but is that what the people want?

[redanman]

To even consider "improving" Brora is sacrelidge.  Brora is truly unique and historic.  Every course does not need to be Muirfield or Carnoustie.

Posing the question here to me is absurd.  Even after thinking on it for a few days, I have nothing more to say except....

"Depends on what you definition of 'good' is".