They should start with using a bloody architect (and I don't mean Els, I mean his real architect) that has a clue with what he is doing.
Even if it was the owner's idea to raise the green it is the designer's responsibility to not go with what they want if it is totally wrong. Anyone who knows a little about architecture knew that the target was too small no matter who you are....
Just a joke that so much money can be used on such a poor design.
Here's Ernie before the tournament. Now all of a sudden, the 8th and 18th aren't so fantastic and it was all Caring's idea:
I feel like I can roll it straight into this week's BMW PGA Championship at Wentworth, a tournament that I'm really looking forward to. The Ernie Els Design renovations to the West Course are now complete and since the golf course reopened at the end of March I've heard nothing but positive feedback, both from the Club's members and some of the professionals who have already played practice rounds there. I can't wait to get there and tee it up for myself.
There are a couple of holes, such as the 8th and the 18th, where we've made significant changes and they look fantastic. But the key difference is the new greens and greens' complexes, which have been completely rebuilt to USGA spec to produce the world class putting surfaces that this tournament deserves. We've rebuilt all the bunkers on the golf course as well, so there's a lot more consistency in terms of their appearance and also the playability.
From London paper;
Els said he would make some changes for the 2011 PGA Championship, particularly the eighth and 18th holes.
"Definitely 18. I can show you the plans I drew for it at the get-go," said Els. "I'd also like to make changes on eight, I don't like the heather on the mounds there. "
"I'd even like to change the eighth green because that's another one I wanted lower. "
I'm confused. Was Ernie in charrge or not? Was he vetoed by the Powers that Be? Or...?
This seems to be a good case vs. hiring professional golfers to be "professional" golf course architects. It is the responsibility of the architect to design changes that will improve the functionality and playability of the golf course, not to just draw what an owner or investor tells them they want. I believe the architect should consider the owners desires and come up with creative iterations that incorporate those desires, until a final design that satisfies both is reached. The architect should be able to convince the owner, through their professional opinion, why their ideas may or may not work and see how another design may be more suitable. Not that owners don't have good ideas, because conceptually they may, however, it is the job of the architect to evolve that concept into a viable design that can be implemented and function properly. This is where a professional and experienced golf course architect's expertise becomes more valuable than the name of a professional golfer. It seems that Els allowed the owner to dictate the "design" instead of helping the owner to realize that, for example, the 8th green should be lower. At the end of a project an architect shouldn't have a list of changes they would like to make, such as the case of Els at Wentworth, the discrepancies should have been worked out during the design process or even during construction. Well, at least it is only grass, dirt, sand and water and not steel, concrete and glass. After all, it would be much harder to go back and lower the height of one level of an 18-story building...
Jason - Firstly I am not in favour of all the changes but with the exception of 8 and 18 I would give the thumbs up rather than the thumbs down to the New WENTWORTH as opposed the old one. Lets be honest about things as Sean points out Wentworth was no bright star before, 18 was not even a very good hole, 17 doglegs quite quickly at a strange distance, 16 was a bit blind, 14 an uphill short hole, perhaps you could be critical 10 was too hard maybe, and 7 and 8 were a bit random, being picky theres a bit of invisibility at 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 even 13. We know the greens were poor underneath, 25 years ago then then agronomist Martyn Jones advised them to rebuild but with two lucrative tournaments it was difficult. I can see that some of the greens maybe needed a retouch although I am not keen on the up in the air stuff.
The owner is KING not the architect, the king dictates, the architect is the servant but if he is not happy he should walk. Whilst every architect woud try and convince an owner its not always possible, I have been in this situation.. I walked.
Professional golfers see golf courses different to how we see them. They dont want quirk, they want predictable and they want fair. They hit to numbers now and they want consistent greens that stimp between 10 and 12. Mainly the just want good greens. TPC courses need to be far more penal than what is fun for a golfer above 3 handicap. I am more and more convinced we cant have golf courses that both can enjoy. If you are designing pr upgrading to a TPC course then the use of an Ernie Els makes a bit of sense as they are more experienced than a traditional golf course architect on their wants bearing mind the incredible change in pro golf ability in the last 10 years.
As for Wentworth and the need to toughen it up, well 10 under won in old money (12 being a 4), the greens were not perfect and unknown to all players, I woud say 18 played 2 shots harder over 4 rounds and 17 perhaps 1. The Old course had the abillity to keep you intrested in the tournament because a player could finish 3-3 or 6-6. A 6 shot potential drama at the finish line IMO was the real plus in Wentworth and thats been taken away. Perhaps 18 could work with the stream back somewhere between 5 and 10 metres and maybe that would restore a spectators intrest, 18 just took away the option as it was.