Where is the frank commentary on Martin Hawtree's re-design work?

[David_Elvins]

There has been a lot of talk on here about the ethics of making changes to The Old Course.  

But way too little so far on the appropriateness of Martin Hawtree making changes to The Old Course.  

Personally I can't think of too many worse architects to put in charge of making sympathetic changes to one of the world's great golf courses.  

His re-design work I have seen at Kooyonga, Yarra Yarra, Royal Melbourne, Burnham and Berrow, and Birkdale show he has absolutely no ability to conduct sympathetic renovations without imposing his style onto a course.  Only his work at Sunningdale barely gets a pass mark and there is some average stuff there too.  

What are others thoughts on his re-design work?  What other holes has he re-designed poorly?  And why does GolfCLubAtlas continue to give this (very nice) man a free pass or a whack with a wet piece of lettuce?  

[Frank Pont]

I can only speculate, but maybe it has to do with H's very strong relationship with the R&A, and then esspecially Mr Dawson.
Very few people seem to want to make enemies inside the higher reaches of the R&A, even R&A members themselves.

I have seen mixed results of H's work.

His work at De Pan was dreadfull, of the three greens he changed two are very bad, most architects I bring to see the Pan laugh when they see the new 5th green.

Similarly his work at Belvoir Park was rather poor, maybe Ken Kearney can say more about that (he took over the job from H).

The bunker work at Sunningdale was mixed, although it was better than what was there before, it has a high level of repetitive cookie cutter work with a lot of straight visual lines on the bottom edges of the bubkers because no collection areas were built before the greens.

I have heard good things about his work at Bearwood Lakes.

I guess like anything the quality of work depends on which of his associates does the actual work.

One of the biggest issues I have with his work on historic courses is the lack of respect for what is there. When restoring courses my philosofy is that anything one does has to blend in in such a way that it is hard even for the experts to see where work has been done. H does not pass that test.

Disclaimer: I am a direct competitor of H, so this no doubt influences my opinion

[Jud_T]

One of the biggest issues I have with his work on historic courses is the lack of respect for what is there.

Sounds like the perfect guy to redo the Old Course.... 

[Sean_A]

I think Lahinch was largely successful though I think taking out the 11th was a mistake.  The club should have found some way to keep this hole full-time.

I know many don't like Burnham's 6th, but the more I play it the more I am convinced its a wonderful hole.  Tough as nails green which looks deceptively benign.  I could be  MH was responsible for the work done in the 70s to create #s 12 & 13 - both good holes.  He would have been fresh to the practice about this time.    

The work at Dooks looks to be a big improvement - though I haven't seen it in person.

Sunny Old is a mixed bag.  Did H do the work on The New?  

As always, I would stress that folks shouldn't be too critical of an archie unless they know exactly what the remit was.  

Ciao

[Stephen Britton]

Here's what I wrote on the other thread.

Re: Big Changes Planned for the Old Course; Hawtree to Do the Work
« Reply #95 on: Today at 03:17:42 AM » Quote Modify 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Oh god... If this turns out anything like the changes he made at RMGC the Old Course is doomed"

"Somebody GPS it now so it can laser grade back the original contours once the R&A see what a mistake they've made"

I was working on the crew at RM when the Hawtree changes were implemented. It was a debacle. I've mentioned on here several times that the 2 or 3 changes he made to the 15th east green were disgraceful. Everyone involved were scratching their heads and quite frankly laughing... One of the main problems was he was never on-site and a lot of the communication was through email and photos... 

[Frank Pont]

As always, I would stress that folks shouldn't be too critical of an archie unless they know exactly what the remit was. 

Ciao

Sean, I do not agree, the archie can and should say no if he is not in full agreement with what the club has given him as remit.

FYI, a significant part of the initial work I have at a new client is working on convincing the client to change the remit so that it makes sense for the situation

[Jim Colton]

One of the biggest issues I have with his work on historic courses is the lack of respect for what is there.

Sounds like the perfect man for the Old Course job. Gulp.

[Sean_A]

As always, I would stress that folks shouldn't be too critical of an archie unless they know exactly what the remit was. 

Ciao

Sean, I do not agree, the archie can and should say no if he is not in full agreement with what the club has given him as remit.

FYI, a significant part of the initial work I have at a new client is working on convincing the client to change the remit so that it makes sense for the situation

Frank

That is an honourable PoV.

Ciao

[Tony Ristola]

Didn't he do some Colt related work in Canada?

[Tom_Doak]

David:

Where is the frank commentary on any architect's work?  That is indeed part of the problem here ... that no architect will say for attribution whether someone else is doing good work or not.

I suspect Martin Hawtree is not thrilled to see my name involved in this, since I'm working on a well-known course down your way where he was formerly the consultant.  But that's not the issue here ... my stand is that NO architect should be proposing significant architectural changes to The Old Course, period.  It's only the definition of "significant" that we will have to debate, and I hope that debate doesn't wind up watering down what we can agree on.

My brother is an archaeologist.  He started into that business with great intentions, only to find out that in practice, if you get a reputation as an archaeologist who finds stuff that stops projects, no one will hire you to check out the sites they want to build on.  Similarly, some golf clubs look for architects who are willing to do whatever the greens chairman has already decided upon.  We all know that's sometimes the case, but few are willing to ever say anything about it, for fear they might be taking themselves out of the running for an important job somewhere down the line.

It's amazing how few are willing to make a reputation for saying what they really think and standing behind it.

[Paul_Turner]

Didn't he do some Colt related work in Canada?

Yeah he redid Toronto.  There are threads on this in the archives.

[Robert Thompson]

Interestingly he rebuilt two greens at Toronto and the work is quite good. The bunkers are too busy -- but the club likes the work with the exception of two holes (9 and 17) where he just went crazy adding bunkers.

My perspective, given limited access to his work (Lahinch, Sunningdale, Dooks, Tarandowah, Toronto) is that his tendency, at least in his original work, is to over-bunker things and make them too penal. I've heard he doesn't play golf (though I don't know if in fact this is the case) -- which might explain it.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I'm absolutely fascinated by golf architects and course superintendents who don't play golf. That's an amazing fact to me.

Anyway, further to Robert's post, the (new) micro-contouring around many of the greens at Toronto is much "busier" in my view than the (new) bunkers. As soon as I heard about the proposal to re-contour areas near the greens at St. Andrews, I thought about Hawtree and co.'s work around the greens at Toronto...

I think the art of contouring is one of the most overlooked aspects of golf architecture. It can be great or...

[Paul_Turner]

Robert

Sad that the Toronto members like what he did on the 7th.  It looked like he took a giant waffle iron and applied it  to the hillside.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Paul,

I was fortunate to play Toronto Golf Club this summer. I still think it's a great place. And, I can assure you that the modified hillside at #7 has melded into the landscape much better than it originally looked in the grow-in photos that were circulating.

I can't compare redoing this hillside with messing with the Eden green at St. Andrews, either. That's for sure.

[Mark Saltzman]

Robert

Sad that the Toronto members like what he did on the 7th.  It looked like he took a giant waffle iron and applied it  to the hillside.

Paul,

I'll second what Jeff said.  The tiering of the land looks reasonably natural.  I think the change makes sense as, practically speaking, a decent percentage of the members couldn't get back up that hill after walking (rolling?) down!

I don't have the knowledge to speak to the quality of his work at Toronto, but my understanding is that he chose not to perform a restoration but a sympathetic restoration instead.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I know what you're saying Mark, but I should also point out that I don't necessarily agree with re-shaping a natural hillside into a staircase, in most cases, so that members can get back up the aforementioned hill after hitting and searching for a terrible tee shot. These types of contrived features quickly make a "classic" course look not so "classic".

That said, I still think the hillside at Toronto's 7th hole has softened up A BIT since it was turned into a staircase of sorts.   

[Mark Saltzman]

I know what you're saying Mark, but I should also point out that I don't necessarily agree with re-shaping a natural hillside into a staircase, in most cases, so that members can get back up the aforementioned hill after hitting and searching for a terrible tee shot. These types of contrived features quickly make a "classic" course look not so "classic".

That said, I still think the hillside at Toronto's 7th hole has softened up A BIT since it was turned into a staircase of sorts.   

Agreed, Makes sense to me. 

For those interested, a picture from this August...




No way this guy's ball stops where it did if not for the new tiering...

[Keith Phillips]

I like what Hawtree did at Toronto - widening the fairway and adding the center-line bunker on 12 was a great improvement, and he added several other bunkers 'in the fairways', something this group typically applauds.   I hadn't seen the course pre-Hawtree, but can say that members are very happy with the work that was done.  In contrast to a prior post (perhaps on the other topic), my understanding is Hawtree basically moved into Toronto for the work and was very hands-on, perhaps the reason 'client satisfaction' is so high.

[Paul_Turner]

The zoomed view of the same hole,  before it was jazzed up.  Was this really necessary? I know which one fits Toronto better.

[Tim_Weiman]

David,

I really liked Burnham and Berrow during my one visit more than ten years ago. Can you tell me what changes were made by Hawtree?

[Mike Nuzzo]

I favored the previous playing conditions.
And the turf conditions too:  note the turf in Paul's picture as compared to the now steeper parts above.
Cheers

The zoomed view of the same hole,  before it was jazzed up.  Was this really necessary? I know which one fits Toronto better.

[David_Elvins]

David,

I really liked Burnham and Berrow during my one visit more than ten years ago. Can you tell me what changes were made by Hawtree?

Tim, (and Sean),

I think that that the mounds framing Hawtree's sixth green are clumsy and not in keeping with the other holes on the course (or traditional links courses in general).  And I agree with you, Tim, Burnham and Berrow is one of the best courses I have seen, which is partly why the work is so bad, it has no place on a great course.  When working on the world's great courses there should be an expectation that the architect has great attention to detail and gets all the work done well.  Merely providing a green that plays well (as Sean contends) is not enough IMO. 

[Sean_A]

The zoomed view of the same hole,  before it was jazzed up.  Was this really necessary? I know which one fits Toronto better.

Paul

To be honest, the biggest problem by far is the cart path.  

The bunkering looks fine - if unnecessary - at least the right bunker.  

I don't mind the new hillside assuming it is more functional for golfers.

Tim

The current generation  of Hawtree redid the 6th hole making it more of a proper dogleg around broken ground.  He also created a severe green with essentially a very small target  area.  Most members I speak with don't like it - they think its too severe.  I like it though because Burnham only has a few severe greens.

David

The offending hole.


There are other areas of mounding at Burnham's greens -- remember Colt was into rear mounds marking the edge of greens in a big way. Additionally, I would say the mounds are essential to the strategy of the 6th.  The green is so severe that the mounds actually save shots from running in the shit.  Now, I don't care for the gulley between the green and mounds - ala Nicklaus style.  I would prefer a more gentle grade linking the two areas,  but that is only my opinion.  Shit, if it were up to me I would investigate what the view behind the green looks like and consider knocking that entire dune down if it is attractive.  But then there is a public footpath back there and long shots could endanger walkers and the lack of a barrier could "encourage" the walkers to walk across the course.  These are all tough calls to make and I can't say one or the other is correct.

#9 - Colt work - same gulley issue between green and dunes


#13 - FW Hawtree work
 

#14 - Pennink work - recently the mounding on the right was made a bit more playable


#15


#16


#17 - Colt work


Ciao

[David_Elvins]

Sean,

The problem with photographers these days is that they never take photos from the (common) line of play. 

[Tags:]

Tags: