[Paul_Turner]

http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Changes-planned-for-County-Louth/2567/Default.aspx

Simpson's lovely 5th green probably going under the knife   by a Scandanavian firm I was unaware of.

Does every classic Irish links have to be changed?

[Frank Pont]

Paul, work is being done by Philip Spogaard, who is a good architect, but has no experience with Tom Simpson courses yet.

 I must say I would also hope that more architects would push back their clients when they request changes to classic greensites because the putting isn't to their liking.

Funny enough one of the three new greens they will tackle is a green (the second) that has been changed by another architect before (was this work of Tom MacKenzie?), and obviously wasn't a success

Whatever they do I hope at least they will make a detailed survey of every green before they change anything. The price of such surveys have come down massively in price with the latest scanning technology, its about 500-1000 euro per green. Such a before survey would give the world a document of what the original greensite looked like and would allow the club to go back to the original if the renovation dis not pan out in a few years. (I am facing such situations with at least half a dozen clients of mine that have renovated greens in the past, are regretting it, but now do not have any record of the original other than faded polaroids.... Tragic)

[Ally Mcintosh]

I am delighted for Philip.

The only really sensitive work I see here is the 5th green because it really is a fantastic par-3 and is a Simpson original. The 2nd was altered a few years ago (as stated in the article) and I don't believe the 17th is a green to treasure. It has been changed over the years. The hole used to play at right angles to the one that's there now and it is noticeably the weakest of the four par-threes, the others being uniformly excellent. Its only redeeming feature is its length so as long as a stern test is maintained and the new green is in keeping with the rest of the course.

Ally

[Ken Kearney]

Paul,

The answer to your question ought to be "NO" of course... but alas...
I am very familiar with Baltray GC and although not intimately attached to the 2nd or 17th, the green complex at the 2nd hole offers some very exciting golf. I would be devastated to hear that the 5th green in to be tampered with. It is a stunning hole and like no other that I have played. When the ground runs fast, as it does as Baltray, only a superbly struck shot will hold the green.... but the hole is emminently playable and fantastic fun.
I will be interested to see what becomes of this. 


Best,
KK

[Aidan Bradley]

Baltray Hole #5

[Carl Nichols]

The 5th is a great hole.  But if the following quote from the article is really true, is it at least reasonable to consider doing something?:

Spogárd said the heavy undulations of the fifth green, an original Simpson creation, left only a small pinnable area, and, because of the amount of play, the green struggles. His plan, he explained, was to expand the green, creating more space for hole locations. “We don't want to change one of Simpson's greens any more than we have to, and the plan is in tone with his philosophy,” he said.

[Ivan Morris]

We'll have to wait and see, won't we? All of those Baltray par-3s are special including the maligned 17th. Try finding that elusive target into the wind with a 3-iron and a good score in your sights. Actually, all of Baltray's par-3s need a bit of wind to make them play really tough and, being Ireland that's usually not a problem. I have no knowledge of Mr. Spogaard but wish him the best of fortune. It's not his problem but why not an Irish architect?

[Frank Pont]

I'm sure the Mona Lisa would also be a lot better visible to all the many visitors in the Louvre if we just enlarged it by 50%... of course we don't do that because it would be considered vandalism.

So if we don't do that, then why do we feel free to change important historic Simpson, Colt, Fowler greens just because they "struggle with the amount of play".

One of the things most impressive deeds of Tom Simpson was that when he was called in to Ballybunion for advice he told the club to not change a thing because he thought the course was perfect.

We need more golf architects who like Simpson have the balls to tell the current custodians of the classic golf courses just that .......

[Michael Goldstein]

But unfortunately, Frank, there is the Ego.

PS, Small world: I'm in an office here in NZ with an old classmate of yours called Jelle!

 

[Paul_Turner]

Thanks Aidan, at least we have a nice photo of the original if it is changed.  The contours don't look all that severe to me.

Claiming a green is too small and needs more pin positions is a common reason to force through change.  But can't we have a "postage stamp" green now and again; and how does it compare to Troon's Postage Stamp in pinnable area, which must get at least comparable traffic?

Claiming "the plan is in tone with his philosophy" could mean anything. Incremental changes like this tend to water down the architecture...each architect thinks he can improve the a course and it hardly ever works!  Hope the club reconsiders.

[Sean_A]

Here is the fifth as seen from near the tee - courtesy of Scott.  Played from the forward tees I think the hole is fine.  Much more than 150 yards and the hole can become silly.  From memory I think in my few goes it was 150 yards - maybe a bit less which is no great loss.  Perhaps the club should consider shortening the hole rather than altering the green.


Ciao

[Sean Leary]

The 5th is a great hole.  But if the following quote from the article is really true, is it at least reasonable to consider doing something?:

Spogárd said the heavy undulations of the fifth green, an original Simpson creation, left only a small pinnable area, and, because of the amount of play, the green struggles. His plan, he explained, was to expand the green, creating more space for hole locations. “We don't want to change one of Simpson's greens any more than we have to, and the plan is in tone with his philosophy,” he said.

See Prairie Dunes, second hole. Coore and Axland did the work and it is excellent. Maybe we should find out more before we determine that it will be bad.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Gents, whilst I too am a huge fan of the 5th and would hate to see change if not absolutely necessary, I have to believe that this was instigated within the club rather than by the architect... After all, it is not wholesale change that he has been brought in to oversee... The 2nd green has been unpopular with some since it was changed 6 years ago... and the 17th has long been the basis of discussion around change / improvements.... So why alter the famous 5th unless it is for greenskeeping / agronomic reasons?.... Ivan, why not an Irish architect... who would you have chosen?... I think Philip will do a fine job... I've already offered him a little Tom Simpson research that I'd done on the course but I know he's a fan anyway... Frank - Simpson did advise a number of changes at Ballybunion but it's true that he advised leaving much of it alone... Quite a bit of that advice was function of budget though...

[Sean_A]

The 5th is a great hole.  But if the following quote from the article is really true, is it at least reasonable to consider doing something?:

Spogárd said the heavy undulations of the fifth green, an original Simpson creation, left only a small pinnable area, and, because of the amount of play, the green struggles. His plan, he explained, was to expand the green, creating more space for hole locations. “We don't want to change one of Simpson's greens any more than we have to, and the plan is in tone with his philosophy,” he said.

See Prairie Dunes, second hole. Coore and Axland did the work and it is excellent. Maybe we should find out more before we determine that it will be bad.

I normally don't worry too much about modernization, but in the case of Simpson work, I think it should be avoided.  There is so little of his work in the ground that losing even one great green is too much.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

I don't recall the course getting that much play.  It still is underrated in my opinion.  How many rounds do they do?

[Frank Pont]

Gents, whilst I too am a huge fan of the 5th and would hate to see change if not absolutely necessary, I have to believe that this was instigated within the club rather than by the architect...

Ally, that is exactly the point, you often get brought in by clubs who want you to do things they really should not be doing. I could give you many examples I encountered in the past. That is then the ultimate test of the process skills of a good restoring architect to convince their client they really should be focussing on the really important things.... in the case of Baltray maybe rather restoring Simpsons original bunkering style.....

[Frank Pont]

Frank - Simpson did advise a number of changes at Ballybunion but it's true that he advised leaving much of it alone... Quite a bit of that advice was function of budget though...

Ally, I seem to recall it was one or two bunkers he wanted added.

From all I have read about him I seriously doubt that (Rolls Royce) Simpson ever took money matters into account when advising his clients....

[Ally Mcintosh]

Frank,

It's hard not to agree with your first point regards restoration architects advising alternate work that may be considered more important. With no idea what the brief was here though, I can't comment. The bunker style at Baltray is something that I think could and perhaps should be tackled in the future.

Regards Ballybunion, excuse me. I didn't mean budgetary issues with Simpson. It was the club themselves who were short of cash when they brought him there in 1937. They were looking to improve the 1926 Fred Smith design for the Irish Amateur. Simpson did indeed say that the course was already fantastic in its present shape but changes that he advised and were implemented straight away included re-siting and re-building of the greens at 7, 9 & 13 as well as redesign of two other greens, the 3rd being one. He also did some re-bunkering. A 1960 aerial I have of the course shows some very distinctive Simpson shapes. Finally, he suggested the rerouting of 16th (and knock-on 17th) by placing the green in its current location instead of two straight away holes. Because the club were short of money he said this should be left for a later date. The change was eventually implemented without Simpson's supervision in the late 50's.

Rgds,
Ally

[Ivan Morris]

Ally - I'm not that foolish to name the Irish architect I would choose to make those changes at Baltray especially as Stopgaard has the job. Let him get on with it. Thank you for clarifying those 'minimal' Ballybunion changes recommended by Simpson in 1937, which were done piecemeal over the next twenty years or so. I've been playing golf at Ballbee since 1961 and became a member in 1962. The biggest (disagreeable) change I see in all of that time is how progressively 'luxurious' and 'in-landy' the fairway and rough grasses have become. I also miss the wild flowers! One change that I'd love to see at Ballybee is a new 18th - what a poor finish to a great round of golf! When the hole was the 13th it wasn't so bad but as an 18th...................it's awful!   

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally - I'm not that foolish to name the Irish architect I would choose to make those changes at Baltray especially as Stopgaard has the job. Let him get on with it. Thank you for clarifying those 'minimal' Ballybunion changes recommended by Simpson in 1937, which were done piecemeal over the next twenty years or so. I've been playing golf at Ballbee since 1961 and became a member in 1962. The biggest (disagreeable) change I see in all of that time is how progressively 'luxurious' and 'in-landy' the fairway and rough grasses have become. I also miss the wild flowers! One change that I'd love to see at Ballybee is a new 18th - what a poor finish to a great round of golf! When the hole was the 13th it wasn't so bad but as an 18th...................it's awful!   

Ivan,

Regarding Ballybunion 18th, if you wish to help persuade the club that they should restore what Simpson called "the greatest cross-bunker I've ever seen" then please do get in touch. Can you remember it? It was a very different and wonderful looking diagonal hazard in 1960, that's for sure.

Re-Baltray, Philip will do what is right. He may not have Frank's experience of working with Simpson courses but he certainly has the historical passion. The past is important to him.

[Frank Pont]

Ally, thanks for the detailed info on Ballybunion, it sure is a lot more changes than I remember reading about, just shows you one can't trust everything one reads.

On Philips work at Baltray as usual the proof will be in the pudding. However if he really is as serious about Simpson and history as you say he will get the original greens surveyed in detail before he starts changing them. If he skips that step he doesn't pass my test of really caring for the past....

[Carl Nichols]

I don't recall the course getting that much play.  It still is underrated in my opinion.  How many rounds do they do?

No idea.  But when I was there three years ago, it was much busier than several other courses in that neck of the woods.

[Tom_Doak]

I see architects making decisions like this all the time ... and I wonder if the work is really necessary or they just convince themselves that it is.  There are too many architects trying to make a living right now, and they are easy marks for these sorts of decisions.

But to single out Philip Spogard, just because he doesn't post here, is entirely wrong.  Jesus, there are dozens of architects who make their whole living changing other people's courses, and some of them are considered beyond criticism here because they are "restoration experts".

That said, I did play the 5th at Baltray not that many years ago.  I thought it was a terrific hole, and precisely BECAUSE the green was small and demanding.  So I think the club are playing with fire making a change.  Is it any busier now than it always has been?  Or is the problem that the green is faster now?

[Adam Lawrence]

Philip does post here. However he's on the architects' study tour of Long Island at the moment (National yesterday, Maidstone today), so I suspect he's had better things to do that reading GCA!

[Frank Pont]

Tom,

As I see it the key purpose of these posts here isn't to single out Philip, but rather to seriously question the trend that many classic greens are being changed throughout Europe, without surveying them beforehand, thereby leaving no record of a very important part of the classic golf course and maybe even more important allowing no way back in a few years if the change wasn't a success. It is a "sin" that has been committed throughout Europe many times by various established and sometimes even famous UK, European and American architects.

On your other point, I think no architect should be beyond criticism, be him a ""restoration expert" or a famous American designer. Its not who you are, or what your reputation is but what you actually do that counts. Any good architect will always be open to criticism, even if it hurts, because its the only way he will truely learn.... there is a great article from the 1920's that was attributed to Max Behr called "The need for criticism" (a reprint appears in one of Geof Shacklefords books)  which makes this point much more eloquently.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()