News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.



Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Damage to Limerick GC
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2014, 04:33:40 AM »
Darragh,

welcome to the group. I would not worry to much about the damage as it looks to be mainly trees which can be cleared away quickly. Whether it looks better with or without the trees is a matter of opinion though you will find very little love on GCA for mass tree plantings.

Give it 6 months and you will struggle to remember how it looked before.

Jon

David Minogue

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Damage to Limerick GC
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2014, 06:58:52 AM »
I have been a frequent player of this course over the past 12 years on and off as I reside in Limerick. Regarding the trees, everyone got hit in the south I have been speaking with so Limerick GC isn't alone there.

The golf course was in bad need of a tree maintenance program, little has been done on the large trees since I have been playing there and they have been lucky that no injuries have occured over time. The fact is many of the trees were creating problems for the turf on the tees, greens and other playing areas with the large ammounts of shade and reduced airflow. This could be a good thing, there will be reduced disease pressure and the turf will no doubt improve from it.

Darragh your comment about Mackenzie in my opinion is laughable, I have researched this fact which the golf club claim he did work there while he was in the area doing work at Lahinch. In the clubs centenary book they claim that Mackenzie visited the club and made recomendations but there is no factual evidence, just hear say. If the club were actually concerned about restoring the so called Mackenzie holes on the course they wouldn't have spent all that money building a clubhouse instead.

Cheers.

« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 07:00:33 AM by David Minogue »

Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Damage to Limerick GC
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2014, 08:22:38 AM »
May end up being a blessing in disguise.  Country Club of Buffalo lost hundreds of trees in a freak October Ice Storm, and it opened the membership's eyes to how cluttered it was before. 

In some of those pictures, I see clumps of 8-9 trees where 2-3 fell.  Wouldn't 6 remaining trees  (if not 1 or 2) still provide enough of a challenge? 

Trees can overwhelm a course without anyone noticing.  I just pulled out pictures from my own house that were 5 years old, and the tree encroachment was astonishing.

Ryan Coles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Damage to Limerick GC
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2014, 09:20:13 AM »
The dislike of trees on here is one of the things that I've found surprising.

Tree clearance to regenerate heather and open up a heathland course, I totally get, same with air circulation and turf health, but at a Club like mine, the beauty of the mature trees is one thing the course has going for it. To see it now in winter, leafless, only emphasises that.

Clearing them would not add strategy, it would remove it.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 03:19:29 PM by Ryan Coles »

Darragh Garrahy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Damage to Limerick GC
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2014, 11:42:51 AM »
Thanks for your responses.

I should have said I am also of the school of thought that eschews tree lined fairways for other defensive strategies. I strongly believe there should always be room for recovery and a display of recovery skills, rather than a chip out.

My sadness was surrounding the age of the trees, the fact that the course is out of action till May and so on. It's a great loss but, as you have all said, it will recover and may indeed be a greater, more varied challenge when the dust settles.

Dave: this is from the Limerick GC website:
 Limerick decided to avail themselves of the services of Dr. McKenzie. He visited the course in the autumn of 1927 and submitted plans laid out in two stages. The first stage was considered essential and consisted of laying down six new greens. The second stage was termed non essential and seemed to consist of building new tees to lengthen the course and the siting of bunkers, and the Minutes of the A.G.M. in February 1928 record that approval was given to go ahead with MacKenzie’s plans provided the cost did not exceed £800. It is unfortunate that no record could be turned up of any drawings of the proposed changes or indication of what greens were built to MacKenzie’s plan. The Minutes of committee meetings refer only to the plans and an old Greens Committee Minute Book ends records at precisely that point without explanation. It has been established that when the present clubhouse was occupied in 1966 four tea-chests full of files were incinerated thus wiping out the facts that could flesh out the minutes as recorded. The only information available was gleaned from a report in the Limerick Leader of 14th April 1928 on the results of the first competition run on the altered course. It stated that the course was 800 yards longer than the year before putting it at 5,433 yards approximately The most likely greens in MacKenzie’s plan would be the old 6th, present 7th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 15th and 16th because these all have mounds which were a trademark of MacKenzie’s work.

I have never heard anything that suggested he didn't visit and recommend changes while in the area, but I would like to have you elucidate your reasoning for dismissing the idea.

Thanks,
Darragh

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Damage to Limerick GC
« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2014, 12:45:02 PM »
Darragh your comment about Mackenzie in my opinion is laughable, I have researched this fact which the golf club claim he did work there while he was in the area doing work at Lahinch. In the clubs centenary book they claim that Mackenzie visited the club and made recomendations but there is no factual evidence, just hear say.


David:

Of course you are entitled to your opinion -- and you did state it was just your opinion -- but please remember that "absence of evidence" is not the same thing as "evidence of absence".  Dr. MacKenzie often made one-day consulting visits to clubs and followed up with sketches of his proposals, some of which were carried out, and some of which weren't.  It would be more likely than not for him to have stopped through Limerick.

I went to see the course last year (a day after Mulranny) because I only recently learned of MacKenzie's possible involvement from a friend.  There's no way to be definitive, but I did think that several of the green complexes looked similar to MacKenzie drawings of other courses.

Darragh Garrahy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Damage to Limerick GC
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2014, 02:35:23 PM »
Look forward to putting up some pics in a few months when the course emerges again.

How did you find the course Tom?

Darrragh

David Minogue

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Damage to Limerick GC
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2014, 05:02:38 PM »
Darragh and Tom,

Maybe I was a bit strong to dismiss that Mackenzie did work at Limerick Golf Club, as I have said earlier I have researched the facts.

The paragraph which Darragh plucked from the website is an excerpt from the clubs centenary book, I am not saying Mackenzie didn't advise or even visit the club but there is no physical evidence either plans or on the ground of what he done. In the centenary book it states that the greens which Mackenzie designed are no longer in existence due to the clubs multiple changes and re-routings over the past 80 years since.

I am only going on the facts which I have researched and that is the evidence on what I am making my opinion on.