[Mac Plumart]

Scott...

You are right that if Shinnecock Hills, or any other top tier course in America, was maintained this way the members would be very upset.

I originally took your post to mean could American golfers who are used to Shinnecock level conditioning tolerate a round (or three) at Askernish and still enjoy it.  And hence my answer "Yes. Yes. Yes...if the greens were cut more often."

But I still do think this over manicured phenomenon is an issue with the golfing world.

[Scott Warren]

Misunderstanding then, I meant "would they want it at their home club?"

The conditioning of a rustic course is part of the charm, but I don't think it is the way forward for golf at large.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Scott

Be honest you know sweet FA about Askernish but still believe it offer no possibilities for golf. Yet  more importantly it has the potential for modern designers to study a real 19th Century course grow and develop right in front of their eyes.

Its how the modern game started, it offers an insight to the early Greens, the development of the course and the real nature of good routing. In other words it has the facility to teach us a few of the basics forgotten over time. A treasure trove of information both of past courses and how we might benefit today from some of the earlier practices.

It has so many possibilities, yet for a group who are meant to be dedicated to the game and GCA real interest is lacking.

As for GCA magazines, I would have expected far more passion or at least understanding as to the importance of the course is way beyond being associated with Old Tom Morris – so much for their real understand and rather suspect passion for the place in the modern history of the game 21st Century style.

As with so many things in this world we need to just open our eyes and minds to what we have.

Add to all that, the general reports that it’s also a great golf course and one wonders why there is so little interest by the Designers.

Conspiracy of Silence, not from this guy, but seemly a reluctance by the designers to go and see for themselves. The remoteness may well be the charm that actually makes it a steady success.

Melvyn

   
PS Colin  The course the RAF used was a newish 9 hole dating to the 1930’s while the Old Tom course of 1891 for Lady Cathcart was just over the crest further back, in other words two different courses. Read the history of the courses on the following link http://www.askernishgolfclub.com/history.php

[Colin Macqueen]

Melvyn,

Thanks for the link outlining Askernish's history. Much appreciated,
Colin

[Adrian_Stiff]

Melvyn - I dont think architects should flock to Askernish to see how is done at all. Askernish is a rare piece of land but thats not likely to crop up in everyday situations for us. As for the original question, I have opinions what I think of others work but its an opinion with caution because the real picture of an architects brief or restriction is often unknown.

[Scott Warren]

Melvyn,

I think rustic golf has much to offer within its niche. It has a place in the modern game, but I do not believe it if the future of golf.

My knowledge of Askernish is limited, as you'd expect from someone who has not visited the course.

How many times have you been to Askernish since the course was re-established?

[Ulrich Mayring]

Scott,

what you call bare patches on the fairway is simply broken ground / light rough that acts as a hazard you have to hit over or avoid. The fairway itself on your pictures seems perfect to me. Obviously, I cannot testify for the members at some club, but I can say this: even if there are bare patches on the fairway it is not a problem at all for the golfers I know as long as the playing characteristics are fine. On links fairways there is nothing wrong with brown.

As I said, the greens may be too slow, but that is nigh on impossible to tell from pictures. All I know is that links greens are usually far, far superior to anything else as far as true roll is concerned. Bad putters often complain about slow and true greens, because their opponents hole out everything

I'll say it right here: if you talk about bare patches in the fairway, then the conditioning at Deal two years ago during the BUDA matches was far, far inferior to what you show us from Askernish. There were not bare patches, but bare fairways. Not one of the golfers I spoke to had a problem with that.

Ulrich

[Robin_Hiseman]

Melvyn

This architect wants to see Askernish and will get there when the opportunity arises.  Many of us are interested to see it, but there are an awful lot of other courses worthy of a visit and only a finite amount of time.  We'll get there.  Just give us time.

Yuor last post to Scott made plenty of good points and raised a provocative but sincere point of view, but the first sentence was wholly unnecessary.  You can't have felt proud when that came off the keyboard, could you?

[John Mayhugh]

Let’s look to the course through the eyes of an architect or designer, not Joe Public or an excuse for a golfer who rates courses for the entertainment of Editors of Golfing Magazines – well they sell more magazines so make more money because many love to moan about the listings how did this get ahead of this or that’s not worthy of that position – totally pointless and waste of time, yet the important GCA of a course is ignored.

So why no article or detailed report on the course, its soil or its closeness to the heart of traditional game?  Is it possible that there is a conspiracy afoot, do the Associations want to kill the idea that courses to this quality can be built for £50,000 and maintained upon a shoestring budget? What is going on, this is the most important course in the history of the modern game and the architects and their Associations are keeping quiet.

Gentlemen, why the silence – you cannot afford to be silent or perhaps some of you have built just too many over expensive cockups that some have had to be modified before a year is up. Be complacent and watch your reputation slowly diminish.

Be honest you know sweet FA about Askernish but still believe it offer no possibilities for golf. Yet  more importantly it has the potential for modern designers to study a real 19th Century course grow and develop right in front of their eyes.

It has so many possibilities, yet for a group who are meant to be dedicated to the game and GCA real interest is lacking.

Conspiracy of Silence, not from this guy, but seemly a reluctance by the designers to go and see for themselves.



Does this sort of advocacy benefit Askernish?

[Kris Shreiner]

Scott,

Even the best of courses have periods where the presentation is less than ideal, no matter how much care or money is in the budget. I've seen courses from Pine Valley to SFGC, and some times conditions just aren't up to scratch. I've played Oakmont three times and have yet to see those greens at anything close to the frightening pace one reads about so often. I love lightening fast greens, but haven't felt deprived, recognizing that a number of factors often conspire to alter what could be.

If you think about course presentations from a practical and environmentally responsible manner, there are significant lessons to be learned from places like Askernish. Tolerating some daisies, occasional weedy patches,  bits of marginal turf, etc., especially to reduce chemical use, keep man hours and budgets within reason, and so on, IS the way forward for most facilities ability to survive, long-term. The idea that the American "pristine" model is the way to go is misguided. Where it is copied, maintenance costs escalate. There really is no way around that fact. Certainly, many factors and variables impact how a property is maintained, but the ethos of how places like Askernish approach what they present, and the methods they use, have some cross-over applications worthy of examination.

The more refined the presentation throughout, the more man hours and resources must be committed. Is that necessary? I don't believe so. Certain facilities have membership or client expectations of excellence and what it costs to maintain that level is just accepted. To apply that logic and extend in across the golf landscape will only hasten the declines we are experiencing currently. From my view a balanced approach seems best. Focus on the primary playing areas and give them major attention. So long as one can play the game in a safe environment, with reasonable quallity where most of the action is, it all the rest of it really needed for most facilities?

Cheers,
Kris

[Melvyn Morrow]

John

I have no financial ties to the club, I have no official connection to the club, I am, I though offering an opinion and raising some questions.

In this location we have a born again 19th century course on land that was first chosen in 1891 and has remained more or less unchanged apart from the pounding of the Atlantic and the offshore winds. Its hardly been touched or modified by man since it was last used as a course presenting I would have thought many interesting study points for all interested in the management of good quality golf course which offers real value for money and it would seem great golf.

In any other industry it would be defined as well worthwhile, perhaps even regarded as experimental archaeology, offering up unanswered questions related to the potential wear and tear, necessity of adding drainage, etc., and many more beside.

But no, what do we get, answers from people who can’t seem to see further than their nose, arguing points not relative to the original question. Yet this site talks about GCA , talks about trying to keep people in the game, keeping its own employed, yet seem so unwilling to trek up to inspect what to them is the unknown but which has attracting much worldwide attention. I thought a Conspiracy of Silence was preferable to being seen as not either interested or caring about keeping cost to a minimum.

You have every right to do or think whatever it is you want, as I have every right to voice my concerns. We may be missing a very interesting period in a development of what is effectively a 19th Century course but in the 21st Century. You can talk to the Askernish designer, and/or the builder or the whole Team to understand and perhaps learn something new, perhaps realise that even a remote located course can flourish, but necessary as the American Model but the homely Scottish one. After all golf is not all about money, it’s there for the enjoyment of the golfer, one should never forget that simple but important point.

Does this sort of advocacy benefit Askernish? – I do not know but I feel it raises some valid question for a site that claims a deep interest in GCA.

Melvyn 
   

[Scott Warren]

Melvyn,
You might have missed my question in all the text above: How many times have you been to Askernish since the course was re-established?

Ulrich,
No one had a problem with it? You can start with me and go from there. Mark Chaplin and I discussed a few times how unfortunate it was that the 10th and 11th holes were in that state.

Kris and Ulrich,
You appear to be missing my point. I am not condemning Askernish for not being in British Open condition. My initial post was in response to a claim that Askernish was the way forward for golf. Aside from the fact that there is very little of that sort of land available anywhere for new courses, I don't believe the golf world is prepared to accept a conditioning "roll-back".

[Garland Bayley]

...The guys at Askernish never needed earth movers, shaper or any expensive machinery as the design was good, built on land fit for purpose

True for the original rendition. But, would you not agree that it was improved by bringing in an earth mover?

Melvyn

Mark – what can I say, call me whatever you like; it just shows you for what you are.

Mark, are you a liberal arts major? Some people just have a different tendency to the way they use language, often related to how their brain works. Methinks, you just don't have the type of brain that understands Melvyn. My brain seems to match his and I don't see the objections so many make here.

[Garland Bayley]

Melvyn,

If you gauge the responses to your first post, it's obvious the tone was more instigation, than ecouraging, the sharing of thoughts. Mr. Brauer  and Mr. Andrew give the main reasons architects haven't yet offered more on Askernish regarding your questions. If they haven't actually been to the ground to see it, how could they accurately assess what's there?

You have had an affiniity for the place from the outset. I admire and respect your conviction that it is a significant course worthy of study. I totally agree! That said, Machrihansih Dunes, not far from your beloved Askernish, has equal, if not superior merit, on many of the same criteria you tout for Askernish.

It's construction operated under FAR more stringent environment constraints than Askernish's work. I spent time there at MD, walked the ground there repeatedly and followed that project closely. It got slammed by the press when it opened, primarily due to: the very rugged nature of the golf experience, blindness of some shots on holes, lack of definition in spots due to flora protection of rare, or endangered species that restricted mowing, and finally the biggest reason in my view, though you won't buy it... no quality caddie program!

The course is a bit of an untamed beast(YOU would love it!), especiallly when the wind is up and the weather is harsh. I would meld the difficulty of Carnasty (minus the on-course water hazards) and the rugged presentation of Brora, with the blindness of Prestwick. How's that sound to you for stepping up to the tee for a first go 'round, during a testing day, and heading out for what is probably the toughest walk in links golf!

To open a course of that challenge, with no quality caddie counsel to guide one around, and expect commercial success, is madness.

Back to Askernish. Give some time for archtiects to sample it. You are right to sing its praises, but others need to make the trek there to satisfy your hopes of recognition. There is no question that a more efficient, frugal way forward, when prudent, is the way to go. Askernish has many natural advantages, present in few other sites, that enabled this mantra to become a reality there. Let's also realize that the verdict on sustaining the course's economic viability is still out ... only time will confirm it, one way or the other.

Cheers,
Kris

Did MD need the scrutiny because they were more invasive to the environment than at A? If only 50k worth of work had been done at MD, would it have been so minimally intrusive as to not need scrutiny?

[Garland Bayley]

Melvyn,

If Askernish is the future of golf, could you let us know where to find the available land in the ideal climate in such abundance that it is the game's future to build rustic courses there?

What about the land in Nebraska/Colorado?  Could this type of course be built there?  Long Island?  Northern Michigan?  Oregon?

This type of course could be built in Oregon. How much did sheep ranch cost? Is it irrigated? Gearhart Golf Links was unirrigated until 1999 I believe. I think the implications of this is will the customers accept an unirrigated golf course?

Also, David M., I played Maidstone late last year...I don't think they had fairway irrigation then...and the course played brilliantly well.

Perhaps some of the principles employed at Askernish could be spread through out a broader cross section of the golfing world.

How is Askernish different from the following courses in terms of turf, climate, maintenance requirements and the like:

Is it the quantity of play that necessitates irrigation? Or, it is customer requirements?

The Old Course,
NGLA,
Maidstone,
Sand Hills,
Ballyneal,
Pacific  Dunes,
Kingsley

[Garland Bayley]

Scott...

but isn't that the whole problem?

Would a stereotypical country club golfer embrace Askernish?  No.

But I've heard so many complaints from so many different golfers about completely and utter non-sense that it is pathetic and makes me wonder if anyone understands what golf is.

I've heard lots of complaints about Ballyneal's greens.  Not the undulations, but the fact that the greens are fescue and bumpy.

I've heard complaints about courses being to fast and "bouncy."

I've heards greens are too hard...or too soft.

Bunkers are too pristine...bunkers aren't maincured enough.

Too many blind shots are The National and/or Dismal.

I heard about "circus" putts at Pinehurst #2.

Literally, I could go on and on and on.  

But I was fortunate enough to have a 1976 version of "The World Atlas of Golf" sent to me not too long ago.  Frankly, I look at it and/or read it every night.  One of the striking things to me about the book is the look of the courses.  Like you just said, if the supers of a course today presented his courses like the in the book (by the way, the best courses in the world)...they'd be fired.

And again...that is the whole problem.  Golf is a sport, played outdoors, in the arms of nature.  We need to get away from the stereotypical country club, PGA, fair is good, golf mantra and get the sport back to its roots.

People say that if someone designed a golf course like The Old Course today, they'd be fired.  What the heck kind of statement is that?  People have been flocking to St. Andrews for, literally, centuries to play golf on that ground...but if we built it today, we'd fire the guy.  Well, that tells me that we are idiots today...and we've lost our way.

We've totally lost our way.  A course is good if it gets a lot of members and makes money.  That mentality is begining to make me sick.

I totally believe that Melvyn is right.  Askernish should be studied.  Hell, I've only been golfing for 4 years...and I've been there.  It was one of the most interesting golf courses I've ever seen.  Many of its holes have made my "favorite 18" list.  It is worthy of study.  But very few have gone...why?

Also, if people have been golfing at St. Andrews for centuries and the greatest of the great architects rave about it...shouldn't this be a course every single architect should play, study, and play again and again and again...to figure out why people like it and continue to like it.  

I'll shut up now.  And I am typing off the cuff.  I hope it comes off the right way.  I ain't mad at you, Scott, at all.  I hope it doesn't come off that way.  That is not the intent at all.  I just have this gut busting passion for golf and golf course architecture and, like I said, I think we've really lost our way.  I think Askernish has some keys to getting us back on track.  Maybe not all the answers and/or magic keys...but some of them.

EDIT...by the way, those pictures you posted are SPECTACULAR!!!  Freakin' spectacular!!!

Amen to that brother Mac!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Garland

Wild thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bs6jN4H0g4 )
Black is Black (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGeFf_rIAVQ )
19th Nervous Breakdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU1kTuVSUOw )
Help (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t8MeE8Ik4Y )
Ticket to Ride (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY_6b4-N9Uo )
Trains Boats and Planes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSlz3RpSFVI )
Leaving on a jet plane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzVdEyHicz8 )
What a wonderful world (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5TwT69i1lU )

Melvyn (Harry’s Game - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75qzFOM4ayA&feature=fvsr )

[Mac Plumart]

Melvyn,

If Askernish is the future of golf, could you let us know where to find the available land in the ideal climate in such abundance that it is the game's future to build rustic courses there?

What about the land in Nebraska/Colorado?  Could this type of course be built there?  Long Island?  Northern Michigan?  Oregon?

This type of course could be built in Oregon. How much did sheep ranch cost? Is it irrigated? Gearhart Golf Links was unirrigated until 1999 I believe. I think the implications of this is will the customers accept an unirrigated golf course?

Also, David M., I played Maidstone late last year...I don't think they had fairway irrigation then...and the course played brilliantly well.

Perhaps some of the principles employed at Askernish could be spread through out a broader cross section of the golfing world.

How is Askernish different from the following courses in terms of turf, climate, maintenance requirements and the like:

Is it the quantity of play that necessitates irrigation? Or, it is customer requirements?

The Old Course,
NGLA,
Maidstone,
Sand Hills,
Ballyneal,
Pacific  Dunes,
Kingsley

Thanks Garland.  I'd LOVE to talk more in detail about these things.  I keep wondering if less irrigation/no irrigation is possible and why or why not?  Additionally, many other aspects of construction and basic accepted architectural principles are areas I'd love to discuss/get educated on.

[Garland Bayley]

A question I would like to know the answer to is how closely related are the development of Askernish and the work of Hackett at say Carne. I assume Carne is irrigated. If you take out the cost of installing irrigation, do the costs begin to be related? I.e., in the same ball park?

[Kris Shreiner]

Garland,

Good question! It had nothing to do with money spent. The MD team worked miracles with a Spartan budget. There had never been a course on the land and it had some VERY rare plant species on it. Given it was a SSSI (Special Site of Scientific Interest), Scotland's most protected designation(unless you're Trump) it got supreme scrutiny. Euan Grant, the current superintendent of Turnberry, was present from the early days there to oversee the grow-in with a small, but very talented team. He assisted Paul Kimber (I believe that was his name?) during what was a minute amount of earth-moving, when Kimber was on site, which was often, as he was part of David McLay-Kidd(sp?) golf design firm. An independent plant biologist was there constantly to "supervise."

I can safely say few, if any other project's have gone to the lengths they were required to in teasing the golf course from the ground under the constraints they operated under. Just simple mowing was prohibited in many places. No chemical spraying whatsoever was permitted for weed suppression. Many sites for features were off-limits. They had thousands of rabbits that they had to remove without mass extermination methods. You get the picture.

Despite the tremendous challenges, they fashioned a rugged, testing, throw-back links romp that will gain recognition in time.  It will  undoubtedly need some tweaking. While I walked the ground several times, I've not played the finished product, but hope to when I make my way to West Scotland next. I'll certainly hope to take in Askernish, the Machrie and some other remote gems as well.

Cheers,
Kris

[Mac Plumart]

When did the maintenance practices start to make everything look artifically lush and green?

As I mentioned, I've got a 1976 copy of the World Atlas of Golf and every course pictures has brown in the grass, bear spots in the fairways, ratty edges of greens.  I don't care if the course in question is Merion, Pinehurst, or Augusta National.  And let me tell you Augusta National 13, looks very different.  The pristine shockingly white sand bunkers are there, but not pristine with shockingly white sand.  The flowering bushes behind the green are not there.  The hole still looks amazing and there is an entire par dedicate on how to play it and 11 and 12, but it looks much more "normal" and natural.

I've heard it said that the average golfer didn't know he could have PGA like conditions on his golf course until Jack Nicklaus told him he could, but it looks like the PGA courses didn't have conditions like we have now either.

How much money is this kind of maintenance sucking out of the clubs/courses?  And how much true benefit is it providing the actually playing of the game?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mac

When did the maintenance practices start to make everything look artifically lush and green?

When it first rained. - there will be no charge for that important maintenance gem.

Melvyn

[RJ_Daley]

How about turning this on its head a little bit, and coming at Melvyn's challenge to consider this and that from the opposite end of the spectrum, as experienced and knowledgeable golf course architect's and designer's abilities and tendencies goes?  What DO they have to learn or why would there be some sort of code of silence about this one golf course resto, or revival of ancient links, logically speaking?

Let's say, Tom Fazio, Rees or RTJjr, or Jack's or Arnie's design companies - with their golf knowledge (or Ted Robinson for that matter!) had the exact situation that was presented to this restoration team at Askernish.  With the same parameters of site, climate, budget, mission to achieve total minimalism including no irrigation system, on donated land of a bygone original site of a course laid out by Old Tom, volunteerism crew and no business profit motive of the archie and crew, and simply directed to find pure old traditional golf, etc. - given those same circumstances, just how radically different do you actually think the efforts of these other GCAs would be by comparison to what was presented and achieved or revived there? 

About the only think I can see as something to learn is starting from different assumptions and expectations with a different financial model if you crave affordable golf on minimal conditions.  I like the basic premise of that.  Maybe I have some Scottish frugality in me?  But, the code of silence premise sounds meritless, and only more golfers with an exposure to something like Askernish could have any real impact on perception.  IN reality, a fraction of a millionth of golfers will get such exposure as a practical matter of what is possible for them to encounter at Askernish in their golf pursuits of a lifetime.   So how can there be any significant impact?

Melvyn, why don't you go review some of the fine post threads by others who have presented photo and commentary as they go around the course on tours of interesting golf courses, then post that and great photos about Askernish?  At least it would be more demonstrative than preaching without some tangible example of what points of design, maintenance or golf hole strategic merits, you revere and believe we should all know about.

[Scott Warren]

Melvyn,

Looks like you missed my question again.

Let's go for third time lucky.

How many times have you visited Askernish since the golf course was re-established?

[Melvyn Morrow]

This is land that in this day and age is rare to find and certainly to use as a golf course, yet many of the old Scottish courses started off on similar terrain.

I thought that it would be a point of interest to designers and Green Keepers not generally involved with links courses or this type of installation to view it and thus to get a close up look and feedback from the guys who did not object to get their hands dirty.

MY mistake was believing that professional who live off the industry would want to expand their understand and so their knowledge of this live and kicking course born out of the 19th Century, yet very much a course of the 21st Century which is getting brilliant reviews from nearly all that play the course. I would call it professional pride in always seeking and looking for answers that would help the designs, but perhaps I have come upon an industry whose professionals have seen it all before (first hand of course) and know all the answers.

Hence, I suppose its why we get so many template Holes and now waiting for a template of the Old Course. I am not that fortunate I am still learning on a day to day basis and expect to go on doing so until the day of my death, because I do not know it all or have all the answers.

Lets be honest, GCA with some of the modern courses speaks volumes for the industry’s quality since WW2 and clearly some feel there is little to learn re GCA from this course on South Uist.

I happen to think that this course on South Uist can teach us a thing or two about Golf Course Architecture.

Melvyn

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()