[Ally Mcintosh]

It is my firm belief that high dunes were not initially seen as "good for golf"... For some fairly obvious reasons...

Nowadays, with a general need for the dramatic ruling our heads in almost everything we do (not only in golf), the higher the dunes, the better the golf course...

When did these trends change?... And why?

[Scott Warren]

Good thread Ally. I wondered a similar thing lately when I read a post on here (I forget who wrote it) that X Course was "not a true links because the dunes are not big enough". Looking forward to seeing what the brains trust thinks.

[TEPaul]

Ally:

I'm not sure what you mean by the higher the dune the better for golf nowadays. What are some examples you're thinking of that indicate that?

There's a dune or dune bunker at Royal Port Rush that's probably the biggest damn dune or dune bunker I ever saw in my life but I think it's all naturally occuring. It's so damn big I really do wonder if most modern architects had to deal with it a lot of them might try to minimize it.

And that makes me think of that massive dune or dune mound in front of Friars Head's 10th green. When I first met Coore he pulled a bunch of snapshots out of his back pocket of the raw site and the one he wanted to talk about was that massive dune mound. He just straight asked me if I THOUGHT  it would be possible to keep something that big on the course and use it for something? All I remember saying is that I sure hoped so. I had no idea at all what it might be used for if they did keep it but I sure didn't visualize at that time that they'd essentially put a really huge par 3 green mostly behind it. My first thought was that it might be used as something to hit a blind tee shot over on a par 4 or par 5.

[Sean_A]

Ally

I don't know, Burnham was famous for its dunes way back when.  I would think most people back around the turn of the century would have wanted land not too dissimilar to TOC - which was seen as ideal, but there were exceptions from the start.  

So far as pushing into dune country which early archies like OTM would sometimes avoid, Colt has to be one of the first to really use them systematically in a modern sense (meaning use them but keep blind shots to a minimum - unlike the previous generation) of plateau greens.  This guy Colt was good - real good.

I have long felt that serious dunes are only good in a limited amount so as to add a bit of variety as they tend to restrict the width of play OR create blind shots.  This is why I was SO impressed with with how the ridges at Rye are utilized.  Blind shots are but a few and the often times the width is only limited by the club's decisions with rough.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tom, Sean,

It's not a definite science I know and things changed very early on (and there were exceptions before that)... But I think that Sean is right in saying people first looked for the flatter, more rumpled sites such as TOC.... The more subtle sites... Take Ireland - Portmarnock was seen as perfect...  Ballybunion actually had to be persuaded in 1926 that they'd bought the wrong land (inland) and told to resell it and buy the dunes... Charles Gibson wanted to leave his new holes at Lahinch on the other side of the Liscannor Road (where the Castle Course currently is) and the only reason the club hired MacKenzie in 1927 was because they had rental problems with that side of the road... Rosapenna was on flatter land etc... etc...

Construction techniques is the obvious reason why...

As for Tom's bunker at Portrush, I think everyday golfers want dunes nowadays (the bigger the better) but in reality, they want their holes routed through valleys or off high drop-shot tees... like Royal Birkdale... So where I can see you wondering whether a "feature" might need minimised, the overall landscape still fits under "the bigger the better"...

It's quite a loose thread this one - take it where you will...

Maybe the question should be "IS there a trend?"... I think there's certainly evidence but it may not be conclusive

[Jamie Barber]

Is it that now, we have machinery to move the land easily and at will, so sites with large dunes can be manipulated to suit course routing, whilst still retaining the theatre of the large dunescape?

Whereas courses on flatter land require less hard landscaping and hence (I guess) would have been more amenable to building courses when only man and horse power were available?

Hence I guess the conjecture is that the desire for large and theatrical sites grows as does our ability to construct courses on them? But how you prove this is/is not the case?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Absolutely agree with everything you say there Jamie... Construction techniques is the big answer... But are there any more?...

And are there any more examples that would provide evidence?...

[Jamie Barber]

... or a counter argument - a site with dramatic dunes which has been flattened for a golf course?

[TEPaul]

Ally:

I don't think there's much question but that many architects today may look for the dramatic in architecture and certainly dramatic natural sites and landforms (huge dunes or mounds or whatever) can provide that kind of architectural (visual) drama.

But I also think with some architects that kind of thing can get to a point of diminishing returns in the over-all (particularly with those architects one might consider on the "minimalist" side of things).

The point is if land and landforms get too big in certain topographical landform and natural feature ways it creates some very real problems for them such as basic routing and landform use for golf and its various necessities.

Of course in the old days when architects had so much less ability to move earth compared to today's architects these kinds of things were generally total show-stoppers with the use of that kind of land and features for sites for golf.

[Ron Farris]

Just spoke with my wife.  She says size is always relative. .
Consider the dune size at various Sand Hills golf courses and the Ballyneal are choppy (steeper) and appear large, but the course walks well.  Sandhills GC has dunes that are softer (more rounded) than the choppy, steeper dunes at Ballyneal.  The Prairie Club has even move sublte dunesland.  If you consider the elevation changes while playing the courses it would be my guess that they wouldn't differ by more than 10 feet.
 #13 at Prairie Club during construction.  Better photos on their website.
While looking for potential sites in the Sand Hills of Nebraska, we looked for soft very navagitable dunes with larger dunes outside of play zones for visual.



Are the dunes at the New Course at Ballybunion too big for good golf?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Thanks Ron... and Tom,

Personally, I think there is a requirement for the dramatic amongst most of today's golfers.... Undoubtedly, architects and knowledgable fans see that smaller undulations can make better golf...  But I'm not sure that is obvious to all... especially in Britain and Ireland...

Are we overlooking some wonderful sites in Britain & Ireland because everyone wants to find the high dunes?... which are inevitably SSSI's and cannot be touched (with some exceptions)?

Looking back at the olden days, I think the movement of earth is the big one but my belief is this... First courses on fairly flat, subtle land... Golfers / architects naturally looked for more dramatic sites... Eventually this resulted in the scales being tipped with courses actually being built on land unsuitable for good golf... until construction techniques improved when many of these courses were altered to improve visibility...

Apologies if coherence has gone out of the window...

[Scott Warren]

One of Ron's comments struck me firmly and made me think of Deal.

RCP is a golf course often referred to as "flat", despite its at times steep undulations of up to 10ft. I wonder if the land upon which RCP is built was considered "flat" when Hunter set to work in the early 1890s.

[TEPaul]

Ally:

Regarding what you are saying or asking on this thread (or what I think you are saying or asking) I should tell you the following:

When I was dealing with Bill Coore on that project I've referred to on this website as "the Ardrossan project" (which was the proposed move of my golf course, GMGC, a 1916 Ross, to Ardrossan Farm), that particular land was not the only site Coore and I looked at for golf (or the move of GMGC). We also looked at a portion of what was the John Dupont estate that was maybe 400 acres down the street from me (do you remember John Dupont who shot that famous Olympic wrestler on his place and went to jail for murder?).

Bill sort of liked the site on the Dupont place because some of it had some pretty cool topographical wrinkles and rolls on various fields that weren't all that big, but I also showed him a couple of hundred acres on a big farm across the street from me that I thought was just so beautiful and so interesting topographically but when we walked back to my house Bill really surprised me when he said that site across from my house sure was beautiful but he felt the rolls of the landforms were so big that golf would just get lost in it.

So there you go----one man's opinion.

Actually, this is turning into a most interesting subject, don't you think, Ally?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I do Tom,

That is interesting.... I think we are seeing a reversal with some of the modern greats (courses and architects), especially in the States...  It's also noteworthy that it is always these courses that are the ones referred to when there is talk of returning golf and architecture to it's natural roots... Never the Doonbegs or The European Clubs, or for that matter Bandon Dunes (which I'm led to believe is the most dune-like course in Bandon?)...

As far as I can see, the "old school natural" argument = rumples (whether indeed natural or expertly shaped)...

[Niall C]

Ally

I suspect that we started getting hooked on the aesthetics around about the time when construction allowed us to not only build on dunes but also club and ball technology made it easier to get the ball up in the air and to travel further. If you want to pick a date for when it started going this way I would go for after WW1.

Sean mentioned Colt and I think he played his part. There was an excellent thread a couple of months ago about Colt at Montrose where he redesigned the course to utilise the dune system whereas before the holes were below the dune system. If I recall Colts design wasn't too successful which suggests that construction hadn't quite cracked it back then.

Niall

[Sean_A]

I know I hammer on about this, but the idea of dunes and modern golf always brings Hillside to mind.  That newish back nine through the dunes is so thoroughly a modern idea that I don't think it would have occurred to old timers to do this without some sort of twist or by keeping it to a minimum. 

Perhaps the use of dunes also became vogue when people started to really get on top of drainage issues.  I think blindness was also a reason for following valleys in a drive down or flat and approach up system. 

All I know is I really welcome breaks from high dune golf down to flatter areas and I think this variation can make a course.  Enniscrone pops up an a great example of this.  While the new holes are good, they have a feel overall of much of a muchness.  Its the original Hackett holes in combination with the new holes which really make Enniscrone shine in my book.  A lot of my favourite courses have this blend, but I freely admit to being more impressed with fine flat golf than I am with fine large dunes golf.  That said, the problem most archies fall into when hitting the flatter areas is to plaster the ground with bunkers rather than try to accentuate what neat little land forms that do exist or maybe getting a bit creative.  Instead, we usually get "the number of bunkers on this part of the course reflect the less interesting aspect of the land" nonsense.   

Ciao     

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean,

Do you think that holes consistently playing through valley areas surrounded by dunes can become as oppressive as holes that are tree lined with no space on either side? Sometimes I see relatively flat grounded holes through big dune valleys and think "couldn't something a bit more interesting have been done here?"

I liked that Tom Simpson / Bernard Darwin anecdote on Rye's 9th hole that somebody (you?) dug up about Darwin and the committee thinking that they had found a great hole through the dune valley and Simpson belittling it as straightforward, obvious and boring.

Not wanting to get off topic, but the trees thing is really annoying me at the moment. Whereas I think more people in the States understand keeping trees to a minimum because they are striving for links looks, clubs in the UK and especially Ireland are complacent with links golf and think inland courses MUST be heavily planted all around... There are two specific newish courses in Ireland that I loved the mix of mature trees with open areas of fescue and views. Each of these I have just visited again and have been astounded to see small trees coming up in almost every area which weren't noticeable on course opening. They look terrible and even when finally mature (in 25 years time), they will enclose the courses in to yet another tree lined nothingness...

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Do you think that holes consistently playing through valley areas surrounded by dunes can become as oppressive as holes that are tree lined with no space on either side? Sometimes I see relatively flat grounded holes through big dune valleys and think "couldn't something a bit more interesting have been done here?"

I liked that Tom Simpson / Bernard Darwin anecdote on Rye's 9th hole that somebody (you?) dug up about Darwin and the committee thinking that they had found a great hole through the dune valley and Simpson belittling it as straightforward, obvious and boring.

Not wanting to get off topic, but the trees thing is really annoying me at the moment. Whereas I think more people in the States understand keeping trees to a minimum because they are striving for links looks, clubs in the UK and especially Ireland are complacent with links golf and think inland courses MUST be heavily planted all around... There are two specific newish courses in Ireland that I loved the mix of mature trees with open areas of fescue and views. Each of these I have just visited again and have been astounded to see small trees coming up in almost every area which weren't noticeable on course opening. They look terrible and even when finally mature (in 25 years time), they will enclose the courses in to yet another tree lined nothingness...

Ally

There is no question in mind that holes running through dunes can be over-done despite the glory of the land.  The problem is usually that of width because its difficult to expect a club to cut down rough up the face of the dunes - besides all this would do is effectively create endless fairway because balls are contained.  This in a nutshell is where Hillside has it badly wrong on its back 9. Enniscrone, TEC, Burnham, Birkdale, Portstewart and Aberdeen are other examples that really border on excessive dune valley golf and would probably have benefited with a bit more deviation from this style of design.  Luckily, all have many compelling holes and therefore get away it.  To me, ideal terrain to cover much of a course is what we find at TOC, and parts of Deal and Princes.  I have always had a love of flatish golf and am more impressed by good architecture on flatish land than on hilly land. All this said, one aspect of dunes golf which I really enjoy are the nob to nob par 3s, but then this is essentially playing across the line of dunes rather than between them.

So far as the 9th at Rye, the hole certainly spills left and effectively loses its dune valley containment - so I would disagree with T Simpson.  The left dune is so far left that the valley effect is negated.  Plus, the green is very cool with the land leading up to it very tricky.  In the pic below we can see the strong right to left cant of the terrain.
 

Ally - don't get me started on trees.  In the past year I have seen so much great Colt architecture compromised that it is no wonder these hidden gems aren't better known.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean,

With regards to Rye, I believe it was his idea to slightly skew the green site on 9 as opposed to laying it in the valley... This all from memory from some posts only about a month ago...

We should probably take trees back to another thread...

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

It is my firm belief that high dunes were not initially seen as "good for golf"... For some fairly obvious reasons...

Nowadays, with a general need for the dramatic ruling our heads in almost everything we do (not only in golf), the higher the dunes, the better the golf course...

When did these trends change?... And why?

Unfortunately, too often we hear the complaint that this course or that course isn't dramatic, in the way that Birkdale and Ballybunion are. I think that many excellent courses are under appreciated because of this. I personally think Royal Dublin is an excellent course, but it's always faulted for being too flat. Muirfield also gets some criticism, yet the Old Course mostly (but not totally) gets away with being flat. I'm not sure how huge sand dunes add strategy and variety to a golf course. Is it possible that the towering dunes at Ballybunion disguise some of its weaknesses?

I have no idea when these trends changed. With regard to the general golfer, perhaps when glossy golf publications became more popular. I suppose the trend changed for the GCA when it became possible to move these dunes.

Why? Were the high dunes the only links land that became available, simple because they weren't an option up until then?

Sean,

Do you think that holes consistently playing through valley areas surrounded by dunes can become as oppressive as holes that are tree lined with no space on either side? Sometimes I see relatively flat grounded holes through big dune valleys and think "couldn't something a bit more interesting have been done here?"

I liked that Tom Simpson / Bernard Darwin anecdote on Rye's 9th hole that somebody (you?) dug up about Darwin and the committee thinking that they had found a great hole through the dune valley and Simpson belittling it as straightforward, obvious and boring.

I must say that I really enjoy holes through valleys, but I could accept that playing a course with nothing but valley hole after valley hole, might be monotonous to some. As long as the hole itself gives the player options, then I don't see anything wrong with it. It would be preferable if some holes went perpendicular to the valley or managed to use it in a different way, perhaps playing laterally or down to the valley, or up to a plateau.

It's not a definite science I know and things changed very early on (and there were exceptions before that)... But I think that Sean is right in saying people first looked for the flatter, more rumpled sites such as TOC.... The more subtle sites... Take Ireland - Portmarnock was seen as perfect...  Ballybunion actually had to be persuaded in 1926 that they'd bought the wrong land (inland) and told to resell it and buy the dunes... Charles Gibson wanted to leave his new holes at Lahinch on the other side of the Liscannor Road (where the Castle Course currently is) and the only reason the club hired MacKenzie in 1927 was because they had rental problems with that side of the road... Rosapenna was on flatter land etc... etc...

The Rosapenna case is very interesting. At one stage, much of the course ran over the flat land north of Rosapenna Lough and then around behinf the hotel, with perhaps only 3-4 holes in the valley. Was the rest of the valley inaccessible in the 1890s? It was only when Colt redesigned the course in 1913, that the valley holes were extended to the edge of the St. Patrick's links where the 5th green is. Regarding what Niall mentioned about Colt and Montrose, I have wondered for a while if Colt perhaps made a mistake and moved too much of the dunes in the valley at Rosapenna. Why didn't he use the flatter land where the new Strand course is located? Perhaps Colt thought the land around the coastguard station was more interesting and exciting.

Dónal.

[Rory Connaughton]

Sean:

  With respect to the back 9 at Enniscrone, I think that the only hole where the "dune valley" is limiting is 14 where the channel absolutely dictates play. 13 is short enough to allow a number of options off the tee (ie short or up and over to the green) and on 15 and 16, the real danger isn't the dunes to the right but the impenetrable marram grass in the low lying area between the fairways and beach.

Donal:

  Don't you think that Royal Dublin suffers from the fact that Bull Island is essentially man made and, therefore, even the more subtle dunes and hillocks that evolved over time up the coast at Portmarnock and Portmarnock Links have just not developed?  I think its a testament to the quality of the course that it is as highly regarded as it is considering the limitations on the ground.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

  With respect to the back 9 at Enniscrone, I think that the only hole where the "dune valley" is limiting is 14 where the channel absolutely dictates play. 13 is short enough to allow a number of options off the tee (ie short or up and over to the green) and on 15 and 16, the real danger isn't the dunes to the right but the impenetrable marram grass in the low lying area between the fairways and beach.

Donal:

  Don't you think that Royal Dublin suffers from the fact that Bull Island is essentially man made and, therefore, even the more subtle dunes and hillocks that evolved over time up the coast at Portmarnock and Portmarnock Links have just not developed?  I think its a testament to the quality of the course that it is as highly regarded as it is considering the limitations on the ground.

Rory

1-4 all cruise through dunes.  The dunes come back at 12 and 13, but there is enough funk there that I don't consider those "valley" holes and are a nice way to head back into the dunes for 14-16.  I think there is enough going on with these dunes holes to keep ones attention especially at 15.  Though the first 4 holes wear on me a bit even though they are good as separate entities.  For me though, what makes the dunes holes work is the break of 5-10 (11 essentially takes the player back into the dunes) and the funky 12 & 13.  Despite all the glorious dunes, I think the best hole could be #5. 

Ciao 

[Jon Wiggett]

If you are ever playing Birkdale you might notice the odd post stuck on top of a dune (there used to be one to the left of the 3rd fairway). As I understand it this/these post/s were marker posts for a previous routing that traversed many of the dunes rather than staying in the valleys like the course of today.

[Rory Connaughton]

Sean:

  I think, upon further review, that I misunderstood the post to which I responded.  Full disclosure, I am an overseas member at Enniscrone and recall your great series on Mayo and Sligo and fondness for the course.  I too really enjoy No. 5 and, in fact the entire stretch of 5-10. 7 and 10 grow on me more and more every time I play them.  I think our perspective is basically the same especially as it relates to 12 and 13.  I stand by my comment that 14 is too limited by dunes as is the tee shot on 2.  Right of the landing area on both holes are chasms that if you find your way in, there is really nothing to do but hack out.  I think that you are right that the middle section of the course actually makes the dunes holes work as well as they do.

[mike_malone]

 Am I correct that classic era duned courses have blind shots off of the tee but there is ample room to roam without severe penalty and that only the newer courses have restricted landing areas ? I am thinking of Ballybunion and Royal County Down as classic courses and Enniscrone (new holes) and Carne as new courses. Sean makes a good case that Portstewart might be too restricted.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()