Michael
Looking forward to your comments i.e. first what’s wrong then how to correct these problems.
Melvyn
Melvyn, thank you for holding me accountable for my criticism. I offer the following thoughts, however random.
As you know restoration is not possible given that the new clubhouse and practice facility occupy land formerly utilized by holes 1,2,17,18.
A good, simple start would be to have the first hole (former 3rd) revert to its original length of 200 yards. Presently, at 326 from the tips, the unique green is now accessible with a simple pitch that too easily finds the correct side of the green, negating the strategic merit of the vertical ridge. From 200 yards, the player's first shot of the day will likely leave the opportunity to experience the full measure of this magnificent green.
We could then skip forward to the 10th. In a thread several years ago Paul Turner challenged the treehouse to identify the new hole among the first 11. Even I could quickly respond that it's the 10th, where the deep, pushed up, hour-glass shaped green could easily be featured on MTV's
I Love The 80's . Perhaps this would be a good spot to replicate the original 16th green (apparently once near the present 18th) which Tom Doak has specifically mentioned as being "wild." I believe Tom has a photograph of the 16th which he will hopefully post.
As for the much maligned 14th, 15th and 16th, I could improve each hole in one day if someone could teach me how to operate a dozer. Interestingly, I believe Tom McWood once indicated evidence of a hole between the current 13th and Eden Estuary with the tee near the present 13th green and green near the 7th tee. I'm not smart enough to understand if/how it would fit into the present routing, but it appears this is among the better ground for golf on the entire parcel, particularly if the 7th fairway is any indication.
There is only one thing worse than the mere presence of the pond at the 14th and that is its placement. With the exception of Moe Norman, only the foolhardy will attempt to drive the ball along side the pond as the advantage gained is negligible - the green is oriented to receive an approach from there but a 240 yards layup directly at the pond from the tee leaves only 110 yards in. I'd also wager that "fore" is often heard from the 14th tee given the dangerous proximity of the 15th green left of the 14th's landing area. The 15th green is vanilla with the four greenside bunkers inconsistent with the Colt holes, where no more than one greenside bunker is typically found. Again, this could be an alternative location for a replication of the original 16th green. The 10th and 15th stick out like sore thumbs in comparison to the absolutely stunning crossing one-shotters at 5 and 8 - perhaps my favorate spot in golf. I trust Doak's opinion of the original 16th, which leads me to support his conclusion on page 33 of
The Life and Work of Dr. Alister MacKenzie where he writes:
"Originally, all of its four short holes featured stunning contoured, outlandish greens, just as severe as some of those on The Old Course, if not more so. (In fact, they're actually more like the famous "Himalayas," the St. Andrews Ladies Putting Green that adjoins the second tee of The Old Course and which MacKenzie admired in
Golf Architecture. What's puzzling about these Eden course greens - today's first, fifth and 14th (perhaps an incorrect reference, Tom?) is that they are much more severe than anything Colt ever designed, before or after, and quite out of character for him."
Since MacKenzie was present during construction, at most his early philosophy and work enhanced the golf course - some suggest that no less than five of the original greens could be credited to him, and at a minimum it inspired him to the greatness that he later demonstrated as suggested by Tom Doak. Regardless, one could argue that to some extent The Eden is a seminal golf course in the history of architecture. Perhaps a stretch, maybe not.
The containment mounding right of the 16th hole is a stark juxtaposition with the balance of the golf holes at St. Andrews. To boot, it is clumsily manufactured. I also fail to see the merit of the two left hand fairway bunkers from the tee given the presence of the old railway line unless the intent was to save the big hitter who overcooks his draw from the tee.
Perhaps it was Neil Crafter who first criticized the principal's nose (small caps intended) bunker complex in the 17th fairway, noting that it's a pretty cheap knock-off considering the genuine article is only a stone's throw away at The Old Course's 16th.
How should these problems be corrected? I have absolutely no clue beyond the few suggestions above. That's why I'm a banker, not a golf course architect. But Justice Potter Stewart's line about pornography applies to poor golf course architecture as well: "I know it when I see it."
Mike