News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Frank Pont

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2006, 03:25:19 PM »
Sorry for chipping in late to this discussion, but I've been very busy with restoration work on several courses and even more with my 3 months old son...

My involvement with renovation work at Cruden started with  a letter to the greens committee expressing my great worry at some of the things I had read in their latest greens letter. I literally wrote:

"Does your club deep down really want to have a historic Tom Simpson course with all its quirkiness and unfairness? Or does your club want to change the course to something else; for it to become a longer, tougher and fairer championship course such as Carnoustie. That will definitely be possible through a number of dramatic changes, but by doing so you will at the same time destroy the uniqueness of Cruden Bay. Sadly the club, and most of the rest of the golfing world, will probably only come to realise and regret this many years after the fact."

From reading this I think it is quite clear that, unless there are compelling reasons to do so, I am against changing a historic course, and esspecially historic greens.

At Royal Hague (a Dutch Colt links), where I am involved in rebuilding 18 greens, we made painstaking efforts to rebuild the original greens as precisely as possible. The greens that had been modified were built more in a similar style to the existing original greens. Furthermore the greens were only rebuilt because it was agronomically impossible to get the quality of the existing greens up to acceptable quality levels due to the fact that their buildup was wrong (clay).

But back to Cruden. The main issue with 14 en 16 in my view lies in the fact that the turf of the foregreen/approach is not good enough. Both holes need a foregreen/approach that has a high turf quality. Simpson (and also Colt and MacKenzie) were adament that a foregreen should be as good as the green and react similarly.

The problem with the approach before 14 is that the ground is full of thatch and therefore can't be mowed well enough anymore. Therefore the idea is to make the area around the directional post of better turf and more receptive to a bump and run shot. The other issue is that the green bunker on the right is way out, and therefore probably should be moved more inward.

On 16, funny enough according to the members this hole appears to be playing harder than it used to... a very interesting fact given that the game should be easier due to better equipment etc. The hole is no beauty from the tee (it is also rather blind) but requires a very subtle shot to get the ball on the green and keep it on the green (the area to land it is probably 4 m2). The problem here probably is that people are playing the wrong shot (you need to land the ball at least 10 yards short of the green), and also that the soil/turf under the foregreen is too firm and uneven which causes the ball to behave erratic.

Hole 15 was the biggest surprise for me, namely according to old pictures hanging in the clubhouse the hole in the past was NOT BLIND, but rather very visible from the tee. The historic tee was located against the dunes on the right side behind green 14, and was only later relocated to its current position to gain length....

Another surprise was that green 8 is not original anymore, the original green was washed away many years ago in a flash flood.

Focus of my work will be to take a close look at foregreens (see above), tee locations (a lot are built up more than necessary, and there are some interesting new tee postions possible at holes such as 7, 9, 10 and 13), bunker locations (many of the current fairway bunkers have bcome completely out of play, and therefore have no strategic role anymore; goal is to bring fairway bunkers into play for ALL players) and restore green side bunkers.

I am meeting the members this upcoming weekend to discuss matters, so do not want to go in to much into details of proposals, but rest assured I am very concerned in maintaining the history and the character of Cruden Bay (it is no coincedence I am an overseas meber).

I will keep you updated on any progress we make....

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2006, 03:46:22 PM »
Good luck Frank...

enviously green,

Brian ;)
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Gib_Papazian

Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2006, 04:57:02 PM »
Frank,

The important thing to remember in cases like Cruden Bay, is that your role is one of curator and not artist . . . IMNSHO.

You seem to get that quite clearly.

Once you've straightened out CB, how about if you take a drive to North Berwick and have a chat with David Huish?

I recall telling him that the Redan Bunker had drastically grown in from its original dimensions and he looked at me like I was a daft American.

"But Mr. Papazian," he said, "the Redan bunker has *always* been that way - and I've been here since the 50's."

Sheesh, I guess the golf course must only be 50 years old . . .  

The Redhead and I had a drink upstairs with the new club secretary, an awfully nice man who had just arrived from England. We talked about the bunker and he asked me to send him an old photo (from the Bahto collection).

I did it the moment we got home and I'm wondering if anything became of it? After having a look at the photo, he promised to bring it to the attention of David Huish and the committee.

Now, that would be worth restoring.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2006, 04:58:00 PM by Gib Papazian »

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2008, 04:40:00 PM »
Frank Pont/Others:

What is the status of the changes at Cruden Bay?


Sorry for chipping in late to this discussion, but I've been very busy with restoration work on several courses and even more with my 3 months old son...

My involvement with renovation work at Cruden started with  a letter to the greens committee expressing my great worry at some of the things I had read in their latest greens letter. I literally wrote:

"Does your club deep down really want to have a historic Tom Simpson course with all its quirkiness and unfairness? Or does your club want to change the course to something else; for it to become a longer, tougher and fairer championship course such as Carnoustie. That will definitely be possible through a number of dramatic changes, but by doing so you will at the same time destroy the uniqueness of Cruden Bay. Sadly the club, and most of the rest of the golfing world, will probably only come to realise and regret this many years after the fact."

From reading this I think it is quite clear that, unless there are compelling reasons to do so, I am against changing a historic course, and esspecially historic greens.

At Royal Hague (a Dutch Colt links), where I am involved in rebuilding 18 greens, we made painstaking efforts to rebuild the original greens as precisely as possible. The greens that had been modified were built more in a similar style to the existing original greens. Furthermore the greens were only rebuilt because it was agronomically impossible to get the quality of the existing greens up to acceptable quality levels due to the fact that their buildup was wrong (clay).

But back to Cruden. The main issue with 14 en 16 in my view lies in the fact that the turf of the foregreen/approach is not good enough. Both holes need a foregreen/approach that has a high turf quality. Simpson (and also Colt and MacKenzie) were adament that a foregreen should be as good as the green and react similarly.

The problem with the approach before 14 is that the ground is full of thatch and therefore can't be mowed well enough anymore. Therefore the idea is to make the area around the directional post of better turf and more receptive to a bump and run shot. The other issue is that the green bunker on the right is way out, and therefore probably should be moved more inward.

On 16, funny enough according to the members this hole appears to be playing harder than it used to... a very interesting fact given that the game should be easier due to better equipment etc. The hole is no beauty from the tee (it is also rather blind) but requires a very subtle shot to get the ball on the green and keep it on the green (the area to land it is probably 4 m2). The problem here probably is that people are playing the wrong shot (you need to land the ball at least 10 yards short of the green), and also that the soil/turf under the foregreen is too firm and uneven which causes the ball to behave erratic.

Hole 15 was the biggest surprise for me, namely according to old pictures hanging in the clubhouse the hole in the past was NOT BLIND, but rather very visible from the tee. The historic tee was located against the dunes on the right side behind green 14, and was only later relocated to its current position to gain length....

Another surprise was that green 8 is not original anymore, the original green was washed away many years ago in a flash flood.

Focus of my work will be to take a close look at foregreens (see above), tee locations (a lot are built up more than necessary, and there are some interesting new tee postions possible at holes such as 7, 9, 10 and 13), bunker locations (many of the current fairway bunkers have bcome completely out of play, and therefore have no strategic role anymore; goal is to bring fairway bunkers into play for ALL players) and restore green side bunkers.

I am meeting the members this upcoming weekend to discuss matters, so do not want to go in to much into details of proposals, but rest assured I am very concerned in maintaining the history and the character of Cruden Bay (it is no coincedence I am an overseas meber).

I will keep you updated on any progress we make....

Twitter: @Deneuchre

Andrew Hastie

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2008, 01:00:02 AM »
I was talking to Frank about a month ago and he said he is busy building a spare hole at Cruden Bay. From what I understand it will play between 12th and 13th holes. There is a little bit of information on Frank's site.

http://www.infinitevarietygolf.com/




Brian_Ewen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2008, 04:43:18 AM »
But ... :o

Surely that photo on Franks homepage is of the 14th greensite ?

Dont tell me Cruden Bay has caved in ?
« Last Edit: January 25, 2008, 04:44:14 AM by Brian_Ewen »

Gary Daughters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2008, 07:15:38 AM »

Extrapolating Dutch from German is risky, but the blurb on Frank's website seems to refer to the rumored/planned par three between #12 and #13 that Tom and I both referenced in the discussion months back.

It seems curious that Frank made no mention of the new hole in his response to the treehouse, and that the blurb on his website didn't make mention of the turf issues he discussed at length here.  

I'll go back to the website and see if maybe I missed something.  

Obviously there's more to this unless they're planning to have 19 holes.
THE NEXT SEVEN:  Alfred E. Tupp Holmes Municipal Golf Course, Willi Plett's Sportspark and Driving Range, Peachtree, Par 56, Browns Mill, Cross Creek, Piedmont Driving Club

Brian_Ewen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2008, 07:35:28 PM »
Well I am not in Scotland just now , but I e-mailed around and one friend informed me that the 14th fairway is being dug up to eliminate the blindness of the approach to the green .

I find this news sad , disappointing , and depressingly Scotland 2008  :-\

« Last Edit: January 25, 2008, 07:38:15 PM by Brian_Ewen »

Robert Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2008, 08:03:27 PM »
You know this is a real shame. I could understand wanting to alter the 15th, cause I think it was actually a liability issue with the location of the tee and the greens proximity to the 16th tee, but I was always fond of the 14th. The bathtub green was quite intriguing and there were several ways to play the approach shot -- I know because I watched a group behind us and there were four shots. Two bounced into the green and two came in on the fly. It struck me in my two times round Cruden Bay that this hole had tons of charm and character, though I must admit to being mixed on the 15th.

Frank Pont's point is interesting -- Cruden Bay will never be Carnoustie, but the club could easily damage what makes it interesting by making these alterations. And lets me clear -- clubs like Cruden Bay likely bring in a bulk of their revenue from people from North America willing to shell out 70 quid to play the course. If they find it is just another links, then it would be a lot easier to stay near St. Andrews and not make the drive up the coast.

This saddens me.
Terrorizing Toronto Since 1997

Read me at Canadiangolfer.com

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #34 on: January 25, 2008, 08:14:53 PM »
I think some sand build up was removed (blown in from the sea) but the green is still blind?
« Last Edit: January 25, 2008, 08:17:34 PM by Paul_Turner »
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

RSLivingston_III

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #35 on: January 25, 2008, 08:19:59 PM »
This is terrible news... ???
Ugly americanization run amuck.
I have a bottle of the Cruden Bay house whiskey I have been saving since 2001. Guess it's time to open it and have a salute to the perfection that was.
"You need to start with the hickories as I truly believe it is hard to get inside the mind of the great architects from days gone by if one doesn't have any sense of how the equipment played way back when!"  
       Our Fearless Leader

Ian Andrew

Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #36 on: January 25, 2008, 08:21:46 PM »
I'll be there in the first week in April - I'll take photos - its hard to be sure what your looking at in this one image.

Gary Daughters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #37 on: January 26, 2008, 09:34:01 AM »
Ian,

I am fully certain that photo shows the area fronting the 14th green at Cruden Bay.  

A photo on Pont's website also shows what appears to be a tee to green view of the par 3 to be, as yet unexcavated (at least in the picture).

http://www.infinitevarietygolf.com/Pages/crudennewpar3.html

These developments square with what I was told by members and confirmed by the Club Pro when I was at Cruden Bay in 2005.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2008, 09:47:31 AM by Gary Daughters »
THE NEXT SEVEN:  Alfred E. Tupp Holmes Municipal Golf Course, Willi Plett's Sportspark and Driving Range, Peachtree, Par 56, Browns Mill, Cross Creek, Piedmont Driving Club

ward peyronnin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2008, 10:21:09 AM »
While they have they have the excavotor there why don't they dig up the mound on 17 to see if they would find those Saxon warrior bones under there. It is unfair and unsightly anyway and does not support quality turf.

I am a member but it must have got past me. Who triggered these changes? Robbie the pro or a green commitee chair or a vote of the home members or the captain? Someone must be the driving force?
"Golf is happiness. It's intoxication w/o the hangover; stimulation w/o the pills. It's price is high yet its rewards are richer. Some say its a boys pastime but it builds men. It cleanses the mind/rejuvenates the body. It is these things and many more for those of us who truly love it." M.Norman

Brian_Ewen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2008, 11:59:47 PM »
Ward
I cant believe a member of Cruden Bay would use the word "unfair" ?

The driving force behind these changes ?

Too much money in the bank and not a clue what to do with it .

IMHO
« Last Edit: January 27, 2008, 12:02:00 AM by Brian_Ewen »

Mark Bourgeois

Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #40 on: January 27, 2008, 12:52:01 AM »
Word on the street was they did it to generate posts on GCA.com...specifically to lure Mr. Peyronnin out of the woodwork!

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2008, 10:55:55 AM »
Ian,

I am fully certain that photo shows the area fronting the 14th green at Cruden Bay.  

A photo on Pont's website also shows what appears to be a tee to green view of the par 3 to be, as yet unexcavated (at least in the picture).

http://www.infinitevarietygolf.com/Pages/crudennewpar3.html

These developments square with what I was told by members and confirmed by the Club Pro when I was at Cruden Bay in 2005.

The land behind the 12th could make for a terrific par 3 playing down to the water a la Pebble's 17th. I assume it would replace the current 15th, which would not break my heart even though I don't like to mess with "tradition" and there's always a danger of the new hole not necessarily being better. I totally don't understand changing 14, a unique hole and greensite that one looks forward to playing when at Cruden Bay.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2008, 10:56:36 AM by Doug Wright »
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Gary Daughters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Any update on Cruden Bay?
« Reply #42 on: January 29, 2008, 11:59:04 AM »

Doug,

You'd better check your open-mindedness, lest you're willing to set up with Salman Rushdie.
THE NEXT SEVEN:  Alfred E. Tupp Holmes Municipal Golf Course, Willi Plett's Sportspark and Driving Range, Peachtree, Par 56, Browns Mill, Cross Creek, Piedmont Driving Club

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back