Royal Montreal 16th, when it's not broken...

[Philippe Binette]

Two new holes have been added in my series of golf holes analysis including:

The 16th on the blue course at Royal Montreal was, before being modified considerably in 2005, definitely one of the best holes in the world for its architectural concepRecapturing certain angles of  the Cape Hole (5th) at Mid Ocean, the tee shot on this hole was so exciting that a player was thinking about it at the start of the back nine. You will see the hole, as designed by Dick Wilson on the first two images and the actual hole now. Sometimes, when something is not broken, don't fix it!

see the analysis at  http://www.inspirationgolf.com/untitled1.html (sorry for the name of the page)

the 10th at Fraserburgh is also shown on the site.

[Philippe Binette]

I guess posting at midnight on saturday is the way to keep stuff quiet 

[Sean Leary]

Phillipe,

What was the reason for the change? Shouldn't be a yardage deal I wouldn't think...

[Matt Kardash]

I have no problem with the addition of that greenside bunker. But I was not a fan of Rees changing the angle of the tee shot and adding that fairway bunker. Instead of making that landing area smaller for the longer hitter by adding a bunker it would have been even more clever if he would have made the landing for the longer hitter larger, providing the player who wishes to hit driver with a false sense of security. This way more players would be allured into hitting driver and thus more would probably hit it into the lake. And even if someone hits it way right down the theoretical wide fairway with the driver he still has a terrible angle and has to come over that really deep bunker. Now everyone lays up and it is nowhere near as exciting.

[Germain Pepin]

I like your work Philippe. Very interesting. Thanks to share with us.

[Robert Thompson]

Very intereseting Penguin. I didn't know you had a site -- and found that intriguing as well.

I wonder about Royal, and very much doubt the members got what they hoped for when they made the changes. Is it worthwhile changing a golf hole for a single week's event? How about changing a whole course for one event?

Anyway, I thought the 16th was a strong hole previously and don't understand the change. For many members, the front bunker would be far too difficult -- and I think the strategies at the course are one-dimensional.

[Philippe Binette]

I feel the members at RMGC didn't know what they were really in for when a redesign (it's not a restoration, more a reestoration) was decided.

To me, all they needed for the Presidents cup was 3 or 4 new tees, and renovate the fairway bunkers. Royal Montreal was great for its angles, narrow and deep greens making for small targets and rythm of the course.... all that is gone.

1997: Length 6750 par 70... winner -5 (4 inch rough that year)
2001: Length 6900 par 70... winner -16 (rough a grandmother could play out of)

it was a MATCH PLAY event, put the course at 7000 just to say so a let the players play.

[Yannick Pilon]

The funny thing is, for the sake of adding a few yards to the already good 15th hole, they eliminated the concept of the 16th, and in doing so, they also had to rebuild the third hole of the Red course to make room for the new back tees of the 16th....  That sounds like a HUGE waste of money....  And now there is a hole on the Red course that sticks out like a sore thumb....

I really wonder what was the main argument for doing all that?  There has to be something more than adding a few yards to the 15th....  Please!! Otherwise i just don't understand the change.

Nice work Phil.

YP

[Jeff_Mingay]

Yannick,

As goofy as it sounds to us, I think some times it's simply a matter of a club thinking it needs to make significant changes to the course simply because its been awarded a significant golfing event... without actually having good reason to do so.

I'm sure that there's often some prompting from those who awarded the club in question the event as well. 

[Philippe Binette]

exactly yannick...

I can imagine how weird the 3rd hole on the red looks. The Red course is the course to play now at RMGC. 4 and 5 are great holes

[TEPaul]

Wow, very interesting. I did not know the hole was once like that, but looking at the above it certainly seems to have made sense. This is very interesting to me because I can distinctly remember first standing on that tee about two years ago in the Lesley Cup Matches and feeling that the tee shot on that hole just didn't feel right at all. I think I recall thinking that the only real strategic consideration for a long hitter was if he planned to hit it straight he needed to gear it down with less club but if he wanted more distance he needed to go what felt like sort of ridiculously right. But then when one got out there the distance differentials just didn't seem to make enough difference to the second shot to matter anyway.

[JNC Lyon]

From the recent aerial, it appears that the club also got rid of Fitzsimmons Island.  The island was so-named for Canadian Pro Pat Fitzsimmons who drove his tee shot onto a tiny island just off the shore of the 16th fairway.  He waded/swam out to the island, played the ball, and made a 4.  That's one of those great stories from the World Atlas of Golf.

It is indeed strange that the club rearranged the holes as they did.  It appears that both the 15th and 16th holes became worse after the changes.  It is especially weird that they would change two of the final four holes on a course where the final four holes are the calling card.  I know I am stating the obvious here, but it is almost never a good idea to move classic green sites from their original locales.

[Philippe Binette]

Fitzsimmons island was gone before 2001 at least. (was probably there in 1997, can't remember)

the final four were as dramatic as a 4-hole finishing stretch could be... Rees Jones design definitely went the wrong way on this one, and on the revamping of 11,12 and 13... and 6... and the bunkering.