[Bryan Icenhower]

Saw this on twitter via Colton's feed  ...
@Flagstick: With approval by 95% of membership, architects Ian Andrew and Tom Doak will lead rebuilding of all 18 greens at St. George’s G&CC

[Ronald Montesano]

yaaah, dude...Ian had it on his FaBook feed too.

[Jon Cavalier]

This is such a fantastic course. I actually thought that most of the greens were pretty good and had plenty of interest, but following the much needed tree removal, this should elevate the course to an even greater degree.

[Howard Riefs]

Related coverage:

http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Tom-Doak-and-Ian-Andrew-to-rebuild-all-greens-at-St-George’s-this-summer/3143/Default.aspx

http://canadiangolfmagazine.com/st-georges-set-to-rebuild-all-greens-this-summer/

[Tom_Doak]

This is such a fantastic course. I actually thought that most of the greens were pretty good and had plenty of interest, but following the much needed tree removal, this should elevate the course to an even greater degree.

The greens ARE very good, and we don't intend to mess with that.  There are a handful where the drainage needs to be sped up a little bit to prevent ice damage, and a handful where we need to reduce the tilt slightly so that they have more available hole locations.  The only one we're really changing is the 3rd green, which we are moving back to Stanley Thompson's original location.

Also, I should mention that it's really Eric Iverson rebuilding the greens.  Neither Ian nor I is good enough on the equipment to get them all back the way they should be!

[Scott Warren]

Tom,

What's the difference between you and Ian softening some of St Georges' greens to get more hole locations and Hawtree doing the same on #11 at The Old Course?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

What's the difference between you and Ian softening some of St Georges' greens to get more hole locations and Hawtree doing the same on #11 at The Old Course?

Scott:

Thanks for your concern.  Here are the differences, as I see them:

(a)  St. George's is a great course; St. Andrews was sacred ground.  Maybe some people would differ with my assessment of that.  Three of the greens we are changing (#3, 4, and 15) were moved to new locations by Robbie Robinson in the 1960's to make the course harder; they are not Stanley Thompson's at all.

(b)  The club decided that they needed to rebuild all 18 greens to USGA specs.  Someone has to put it back together again, so then the question becomes, do you put them all back exactly the same?  That is not the same as deciding to tear up a green strictly for design intent.  "Leaving the contours alone" could be malpractice, just as much as changing them.  When an entire green is north of 5% slope, like the 12th at St. George's, it's pretty hard to just let it be, in light of the club's target for green speeds.

(c)  If you look back at all the threads about The Old Course, you'll notice I said much less about the work to the 11th green than I did about all the tweaks to the bunkers and new contouring around greens.  Such adjustments to greens are, unfortunately, happening everywhere now.  [I noticed they had done this quite a bit and done it quite well in the renovation of L.A.C.C. (North); they just didn't tell anybody about it.]  In general, I do not support those sorts of changes, but you do have to look at them case by case. 

(d)  I think Ian is the world's #1 fan of St. George's, and I'm not far behind him.  We believe we are there to help preserve what makes it great.  There is always going to be someone who disagrees with anything we do, and there will be plenty of soul-searching going on anytime we decide to change something.  In fact, that is one of the reasons we chose to work together here ... to hold each other accountable for any changes, or to be twice as strong in resisting unnecessary work.  We also got up the other night and explained our thinking to the entire membership.  I think that's a bit different dynamic than what happened at St. Andrews.

[Ron Csigo]

Awesome!  When is the work expected to start?  I think I saw in the article that crews will start digging greens up on July 8th.  Will all greens be taken out of play immediately? 

[Mark McKeever]

Best of luck to the club and membership!  St. Georges is already a fantastic course and I look forward to even more improvement.

Mark

[Jay Flemma]

Just to be clear, the one in Canada, not the one in Stony Brook

[Charlie Gallagher]

    What an amazing golf course this is on great land for golf. I was introduced to Thompson on this property last year and two days later got to play his wonderous design at Highland Links. No question after those two exposures Thompson is one of the greatest architects of the Golden age.
   When I think of St.Georges, the first hole that comes to mind is the 8th, one of the most natural long par 3's in the world. I still marvel that Thompson had the forsight to see that the green could be placed in a natural swale down hill from the tee that acts to partially hide the greens surface. It looks like a damn small target from the tee.  The friend I played it with and I experimented with short shots around the green after finishing out. The hanging bunker left of the green is a spot you don't want to play from.
   Any plans to change that green,  Ian and Tom? I thought it to be one of the most unique and perfect par 3's I have ever played.

[Ian Andrew]

Any plans to change that green

Charlie,

The grades are fine - a little steep but fine - so the contours will be preserved.

[Scott Warren]

Tom,

Thanks - I figured you'd have a good answer, I was interested to hear what it was.

[Mike Bowen]

Tom McBroom fired a few shots today through twitter in regards to the Restoration/Reno.

https://twitter.com/tommcbroom

"Toured St Georges today for 1st time sine the reno.  Very disappointed as course character negatively altered."

"# 3 green  over done w/ too many bunkers impacting mid-high handicap golfers.  Hole out of character with the course."

"#3 green almost as unpinnable as the old green with large uncharacteristic false front"

Wondering if anyone else has seen the course since the work?

[Jonathan Mallard]

Tom McBroom fired a few shots today through twitter in regards to the Restoration/Reno.

https://twitter.com/tommcbroom

"Toured St Georges today for 1st time sine the reno.  Very disappointed as course character negatively altered."

"# 3 green  over done w/ too many bunkers impacting mid-high handicap golfers.  Hole out of character with the course."

"#3 green almost as unpinnable as the old green with large uncharacteristic false front"

Wondering if anyone else has seen the course since the work?

Because he didn't get the job?

[Robert Thompson]

McBroom is a member and did interview for the job. Rarely do you see someone rip something so publicly after not getting the work.

[Paul_Turner]

Where is the new green relative to the old one?

[Mark Pavy]

Re McBroom's comments: Are the greens 30% bigger?

[Tom_Doak]

Re McBroom's comments: Are the greens 30% bigger?

Not even close.  Several greens were enlarged by a bit, but only the 16th and 18th would have been as much as 20-30%.  Perhaps he just didn't go too far from the clubhouse?  I have not read his comments other than what's posted here.

[Mark Bourgeois]

b)  The club decided that they needed to rebuild all 18 greens to USGA specs.  Someone has to put it back together again, so then the question becomes, do you put them all back exactly the same?  That is not the same as deciding to tear up a green strictly for design intent.  "Leaving the contours alone" could be malpractice, just as much as changing them.  When an entire green is north of 5% slope, like the 12th at St. George's, it's pretty hard to just let it be, in light of the club's target for green speeds.

I missed the news about the greens being changed at St George's. I accept I don't know the whole story but I'm disappointed to read this. Why did the club decide they needed to rebuild the greens to USGA specs? Beyond drainage / ice issues -- okay, I get that -- why is putting the greens back in question? Why is leaving the contours alone "malpractice"?

Why is it hard to "just let it be" -- why couldn't two of the strongest, most-respected voices for golf have stood up to the club's "target for green speeds"?

C&C flattening greens at Prairie Dunes, Gil Hanse (apparently) at LACC, Hawtree at The Old Course, and now Doak and Andrew at St G.

[Robert Thompson]

Closer to where it was initially before it was rebuilt. It is certainly more functional than the most recent one. It looks similar, but I'm not sure if Tom's mandate was to recreate the original or not.

Where is the new green relative to the old one?

[Robert Thompson]

Here's the third green now:

http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2014/11/24/course-preview-st-georges-reworked/

The old third green photo is also in the piece.

I'd add that Jim Barclay's book on the history of the course says this about the green: "There is a knoll 125 yards out, severely bunkered, over which the green is barely visible….The green is lightly trapped on the right and very severely on the left, and nestles into the side of a hill…"

"At the back of, and on both sides of the green were a total of five bunkers…"

[Mike Bowen]

Mr. Thompson,

I read your article and can I conclude that overall you are impressed with the renovations?

[Robert Thompson]

I'd say the changes make sense. No. 3 was a mess before. I was more concerned about the changes to 2 and 7, which I have seen, but haven't played. I'm intrigued at whether the changes work well or were necessary.

[Tom_Doak]

I'd say the changes make sense. No. 3 was a mess before. I was more concerned about the changes to 2 and 7, which I have seen, but haven't played. I'm intrigued at whether the changes work well or were necessary.

Robert:

What change were you concerned about on #2 ?  All we tried to do there was get a hole location up on the right shelf ... and get the green to drain a bit faster.  The front was actually too flat as it was.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()