[Adrian_Stiff]

Ally - The popularity/Quality and Portrush Open is not linked as far as I am concerned. I agree it was a vote for the Open and change or no change. Also if the vote was change or no change the vote would clearly not have been 235-2.

I agree most cant see a hole until it is there, but equally most people trust. Martin Ebert is the man in favour that makes the changes for the Open championship courses and he does a very good job in the eyes of the majority, so members trust that MB knows best, the same as anyone trusts an architect to make their course better.

It is a matter of opinion if the rota courses have improved, we all have opinions. Birkdales 17th green was a cock up in my opinion, but the rest of the alterations are pretty good on the other courses, I like the new changes to the 15th at Troon, Turnberry is awesome, 11th green at TOC was essential for agronomic reasons, the hollow at the 7th also...2nd green would be a NO.

History shows that courses evolve and change, the Opens in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s 60s were no different.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally - The popularity/Quality and Portrush Open is not linked as far as I am concerned. I agree it was a vote for the Open and change or no change. Also if the vote was change or no change the vote would clearly not have been 235-2.

I agree most cant see a hole until it is there, but equally most people trust. Martin Ebert is the man in favour that makes the changes for the Open championship courses and he does a very good job in the eyes of the majority, so members trust that MB knows best, the same as anyone trusts an architect to make their course better.

It is a matter of opinion if the rota courses have improved, we all have opinions. Birkdales 17th green was a cock up in my opinion, but the rest of the alterations are pretty good on the other courses, I like the new changes to the 15th at Troon, Turnberry is awesome, 11th green at TOC was essential for agronomic reasons, the hollow at the 7th also...2nd green would be a NO.

History shows that courses evolve and change, the Opens in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s 60s were no different.

I agree with most of what you say, Adrian... and I'm sure the new holes on both courses will be excellent if previous, recent M&E work is the benchmark...

What I will reiterate is that there are "necessary" changes that are absolutely required at some of these classic courses IF they wish to take the carrot which is The Open Championship... and then there are the "extras", the changes that are made because the architect or the secretary of the R&A or the new hon-sec of each club just wants to leave more of his mark... It is these ones that I question, especially when it is these ones that are far less obvious to the average club member until it is too late....

[Paul_Turner]

Darwin's Portrush quote on Colt building himself a monument "more enduring than brass"  is rapidly becoming a sad joke.  I guess because the new holes (7 and 8 ) aren't long enough to replace 17 and 18 we lose another Colt green...

New Green on Dunluce 2nd!!    Where the hell is that going to go?  Up on the ridge or to the left and farther on?  If the new green site is to the left, I hope the club at least considers keeping the original green for regular play.  Pine Valley has two holes with dual greens 8 and 9 so it's one way of preserving the original too.

Dunluce 5th was one of the great holes without a bunker, why does everything have to conform?  How many bunkerless holes left on rota? 8 and 14 Dunluce,   1 and 18 TOC, 1 (3) Hoylake.

The article doesn't agree with what Jamie posted,  they have the current 17 and 18 Dunluce becoming 1 and 2 on Valley.  With Valley losing only 2 original holes.  

Or why not keep the original Dunluce routing for regular play and have the two new Ebert holes in play for the Valley (as 5th and 6th) and only switch for the Open.

But Jaime has 4 lost Valley holes (5,6, 17 and 18).  Why are they changing the Valley so much when it's not necessary for the Open changes and the current finish is an excellent stretch.

Many practicing architects are so not sanguine about changes to their own courses....but have no problem digging up classics for any kind of reason.
Changes have definitely been accelerated in past decade or so.

[Paul_Turner]

"The eighth and ninth greens, which were not holes designed by Harry Colt, will be changed. The eighth green will become a two-tier green while the (par-five) ninth will become a par-four, as it was in the recent Amateur Championship."

Looks like more changes to Dunluce.  This isn't correct about 8 and 9 not being designed by Colt and Morrison.  Those two holes were planned before the war but I think were constructed in house not by Franks Harris.  Another case of a famous club being unaware of their history.

The new second green will be a "replica" of the original to the left and farther on.

[Bill_McBride]

Darwin's Portrush quote on Colt building himself a monument "more enduring than brass"  is rapidly becoming a sad joke.  I guess because the new holes (7 and 8 ) aren't long enough to replace 17 and 18 we lose another Colt green...

New Green on Dunluce 2nd!!    Where the hell is that going to go?  Up on the ridge or to the left and farther on?  If the new green site is to the left, I hope the club at least considers keeping the original green for regular play.  Pine Valley has two holes with dual greens 8 and 9 so it's one way of preserving the original too.

Dunluce 5th was one of the great holes without a bunker, why does everything have to conform?  How many bunkerless holes left on rota?   1 and 18 TOC, 1 (3) Hoylake.

The article doesn't agree with what Jamie posted,  they have the current 17 and 18 Dunluce becoming 1 and 2 on Valley.  With Valley losing only 2 original holes.  

Or why not keep the original Dunluce routing for regular play and have the two new Ebert holes in play for the Valley (as 5th and 6th) and only switch for the Open.

But Jaime has 4 lost Valley holes (5,6, 17 and 18).  Why are they changing the Valley so much when it's not necessary for the Open changes and the current finish is an excellent stretch.

Many practicing architects are so not sanguine about changes to their own courses....but have no problem digging up classics for any kind of reason.
Changes have definitely been accelerated in past decade or so.

5 on the Valley is a beautiful par 4, why would they change it?   6 is a very difficult par 3.  I don't get it.

[Paul_Turner]

Colt's fine 2nd green that's going to get dug up.  Just to eke out 50 yds more length and a "proper par 5".   

[Adrian_Stiff]

I am gonna side with the R & A and Martin Ebert...there is a nice spot 50 yards further on.

Golf courses ARE NOT monuments.

[Frank Pont]

Golf courses ARE NOT monuments.

Clearly not with the R&A in charge.....

but seriously I agree with you partly in adding one word:

Most golf courses are not monuments

Portrush clearly is, at least for some of us.

[Ryan Coles]

It isn't a monument for the members. It's their Club and they are overwhelmingly in favour.

They seem to have done a great job managing and promoting their Club and having been in possession of all the facts, their decision should be respected.

The R&A can't be the whipping boys all the time. Adding courses adds greatly to their workload. I think it's great for the Championship and great for Portrush.

[Paul_Turner]

Monument or not the change to the 2nd is gratuitous and flies in the face of the club cherishing its Colt heritage (or claiming to). 

Anybody can find an alternate great green site on a links...it's not hard.  But will the 2nd hole play better than the Colt green for the members.  I doubt it.

[Frank Pont]

Ryan,

Don't get me wrong, I agree its great for Portrush to get the Open!

What I do not like is that the condition for getting the Open is that they change their course.
I seriously question how the course would play in the Open without all these changes.
My guess, having been involved in several Dutch Opens at Kennemer, ROyal Hague and Eindhoven, is just fine.

But we need to change, lengthen, improve !!!

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan,

Don't get me wrong, I agree its great for Portrush to get the Open!

What I do not like is that the condition for getting the Open is that they change their course.
I seriously question how the course would play in the Open without all these changes.
My guess, having been involved in several Dutch Opens at Kennemer, ROyal Hague and Eindhoven, is just fine.

But we need to change, lengthen, improve !!!

It's a minor quibble, Frank.

All things considered, its a no brainer.

If you can get more than half of a club's members to agree with something, you're doing well. To have all but two in favour, tells me that all but the hard of thinking could see that the plan was a sound one.

[Frank Pont]

I guess you have more faith in the insights of the average golf member than outspoken classic archies such Tom Simpson had  

And I do not see making major changes to a classic like Portrush as a minor quibble.

Portrush as it is would play just fine as a open venue. There are logistical issues (the tented village, VIP parking etc) but that's not the main thing. Its the arrogance that we need to change to improve.

Most of restoration work I do is undoing changes that were meant to improve.

I guess that's why I am so sad (even though I should be glad business wise because it means more work undoing things in the future )

[Ryan Coles]

I guess you have more faith in the insights of the average golf member than outspoken classic archies such Tom Simpson had 

And I do not see making major changes to a classic like Portrush as a minor quibble.

Portrush as it is would play just fine as a open venue. There are logistical issues (the tented village, VIP parking etc) but that's not the main thing. Its the arrogance that we need to change to improve.

Most of restoration work in undoing changes that were meant to improve.

I guess that's why I am so sad (even though I should be glad business wise because it means more work undoing things in the future )

Frank

In 20-30 years time they'll be voting to change your changes. It happens. It is the average Club members who employ you.

They are minor changes  in the overall scheme of the Open at Portrush. A better sense of perspective is needed.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Almost every golf course thinks it can be made better in the eyes of the people that matter, which is the owners either as a single or as a members clubs. Bunkers get added by one captain and taken away by another, it is what has happened for 100 years+.

Members have to trust that MB will make it better in the same way members have to Frank Pont that he will make the course better by his improvements. Trust is the key word, so far I have seen no mistakes by Martin Ebert, equally Frank's work is awesome on his UK restoration projects and if a Colt course contacted me I would be passing the work FPs way.

I can only think of one mess up in 40-50 years of the R & A tinkering and that is Birkdales 17th. One disaster in 40 years ain't really so bad.

The Open and almost any UK links golf course will always have a number of conflicting problems. Portrush have wanted the Open back for 60 years, there was almost the point that no one thought it could ever go there again, they have to cure the problems simple as that.

The changes at the Old Course were widely bad mouthed on here, it has not ruined it one iota in the minds of 99%.

[Scott Warren]

I am gonna side with the R & A and Martin Ebert...there is a nice spot 50 yards further on.

Golf courses ARE NOT monuments.

Adrian,
When you played Portrush, did you walk off that green and think "shame, what that hole really needed was another 50 yards"?

[Paul_Turner]

The Royal 17th (1st) hole and 18th(2nd) at Hoylake were screwed up by R&A and Ebert.  Greens with nothing in common with the rest of the course, much like the 17th at Birkdale.

Portrush is basically unchanged since just before the war when 8 and 9 were added when the clubhouse moved.  Only a few back tees and only a few extra bunkers.

I can understand they probably need the 17/18th for access and tents.  But why not just keep the changes to a minimum and only lose 5 and 6 Valley for the new holes.

If the second is too short as a par 5,  just call it a par 4 for the Open. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Paul - I just think that they think they are making it better. I don't think for one minute they think it is destruction.

I have never seen Hoylake before or after so can't comment on the internal contouring except that I have not heard anyone say that before. I have heard the 17th (as was and 1st for the Open) was better before, but that was a H & S/Logistics call as I remember with that green being in a better position pre the change.

I can't forsee a future Open Championship without some change from the previous one and I am pretty sure that has always been the case certainly back as far as the early seventies which are the ones I first started studying/watching.

[Rob Marshall]

I am gonna side with the R & A and Martin Ebert...there is a nice spot 50 yards further on.

Golf courses ARE NOT monuments.

Adrian,
When you played Portrush, did you walk off that green and think "shame, what that hole really needed was another 50 yards"?

If I remember correctly he has never played it or been to Royal Portrush.

[Scott Warren]

I am gonna side with the R & A and Martin Ebert...there is a nice spot 50 yards further on.

Golf courses ARE NOT monuments.

Adrian,
When you played Portrush, did you walk off that green and think "shame, what that hole really needed was another 50 yards"?

If I remember correctly he has never played it or been to Royal Portrush.

Really? I hope for the sake of his credibility that this is not the case!

[Scott Warren]

Rob - it appears you were on the money.

I don't know the courses at all, only from TV and Google Earth.

It's remarkable that someone who has never been to Portrush is pontificating about the wisdom of specific changes.

And someone who is a golf course designer himself. Bizarre.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Typical Journalist - Reads what he wants to see and make up.

I commented about trusting Martin Ebert. I commented there was a nice place to put the green 50 yards on from the posted photograph.

An apology would be nice.

[Scott Warren]

Typical Journalist - Reads what he wants to see and make up.

I commented about trusting Martin Ebert. I commented there was a nice place to put the green 50 yards on from the posted photograph.

An apology would be nice.

Adrian,

I'm comfortable with my comment, and that anyone who cares to re-read your contributions to the thread will form the same conclusion.

Let's start with you telling another poster that "What is more unbelievable is you thought 17 and 18 [at Portrush] were pretty anticlimactic".

As you put it yourself in your first post in this thread: "perhaps ... your opinions are not worth a ****".

PS - I've not been a journalist since mid-2012, but my ability to recognise bullshit remains intact.

[Ben Stephens]

I have to agree with Adrian on this

Golf is changing and evolving - the courses are having to change to adjust to the times

If Harry Colt was alive now he is more likely that he would be doing what Martin Ebert has been assigned to do it's the same with all elements of design that we strive to improve it

Overall the Dunluce Course will become better after eliminating the 17th and 18th holes in which reliable sources of mine have said that the finish lets the course down

The Valley is seen as a 'second' course and coltish purists want to keep it but the club overwhelmingly voted to have the open back at Portrush so have made the decision to redesign the course to accommodate future major championships as well as move the course onwards in the next 30 odd years

Scott - architects and golf course architects can see how a building, golf hole or golf course can be improved by looking at photos, aerial images and contour maps

My question to Colt is why didn't you build a green 50 yards further on with the available land in the background - maybe he did or the club didn't own the land then.

The main fact is that Portrush is moving on like Birkdale did in the 1960s by changing the course for better and it could be the best course in the whole of Ireland with these changes

[Ryan Coles]

The members shared the view about 17 & 18 being weak. The guy arguing against the changes, shared this view as well. Yet didn't want them changed anyway.

Left to the sort of unreasonable nimby ism in this thread, Colt wouldn't of been allowed to build a course in the first place. They'd have stuck to 9 holes.

As I've said before, the Course belongs to the members. Not Colt. No one would care a damn if they altered his design at Trevose, for example.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()