Open at Portrush

[Ally Mcintosh]

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.

Hey Ben - I think I've probably made my views clear in my previous posts.

With that in mind, do you not think Colt placed his second green where it is because it is the best green site, in view from the tee and exquisitely positioned just over a natural, diagonal roll in the land.

From the photo, I agree there seems to be a good site further back (although what's not obvious is that it starts to encroach on the line from the 10th tee). Does it have that natural roll of the land though? Maybe, maybe not...

[Sean_A]

I have sympathy with Paul's outrage at what is being done to both courses to host an Open.  On the other hand, not many clubs can let go of the prestige of hosting an Open.  I think its a great shame, but almost inevitable that courses will be changed not for the better as some claim (although both courses may turn out better), but to hold an event.  Paul mentions reducing par on the 2nd rather than pushing dirt around...couldn't agree more (in fact, why not knock off 3 shots to par and the problem of challenge is solved).  The hole is good the way it is, if anything, it should be made wider, not longer....that goes for practically the entire course. 

It is obvious there are many (most people) who don't believe there are courses which should be protected.  I think this is a mistake and very short-sighted.  The problem is, how do we get clubs to understand what they have when they have an original Colt, Dr Mac, Simpson....I always say, its human nature to want to change things and any excuse will do if people are hell bent on the idea of change. 

I only hope the changes are so good that I will eventually forget about Valley 5 & 6.  That is a tall order for an archie to accomplish.

Ciao 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Omelettes and Eggs come to mind and those two holes on the Valley course look great holes. Yes loss is a shame but if it can be better then that is best practice. It will be opinion if its better or for the worse.

If the powers that be could just introduce a tournament ball then the need to change would be far less a factor.

Real sympathy should be given to the many 6000 yard club courses that have tees already back to property limits and bunkers situated perfectly for 1979.

The more recent threads seem to suggest that the loss of 5 and 6 of the valley will be replaced with 17 and 18 from the present Dunluce. That jerks the valley up quite a bit in terms of length and puts a bit of History into the valley.

[Frank Pont]

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.

They ARE altering Colt's design at Trevose, (a lot of the original sand face bunkers have been revetted in recent years, and a new green built 50 yards past the original, sounds familiar?)

[Ed Tilley]

Omelettes and Eggs come to mind and those two holes on the Valley course look great holes. Yes loss is a shame but if it can be better then that is best practice. It will be opinion if its better or for the worse.

If the powers that be could just introduce a tournament ball then the need to change would be far less a factor.

Real sympathy should be given to the many 6000 yard club courses that have tees already back to property limits and bunkers situated perfectly for 1979.

The more recent threads seem to suggest that the loss of 5 and 6 of the valley will be replaced with 17 and 18 from the present Dunluce. That jerks the valley up quite a bit in terms of length and puts a bit of History into the valley.

Replacing 5 & 6 with 17 and 18 on the Dunluce may add length but, if that is the plan, it takes 2 high quality, fun and challenging holes and replaces them with 2 of the least interesting holes on the Dunluce. The Valley is never going to hold championships so it doesn't really need length. Short, driveable par 4s with good risk / reward are much underused and 5 on the Valley is a classic. 6 is more than enough challenge for anyone.

Can I ask - maybe it is in the thread but I can't see it. Why do they need to get rid of 5 & 6 - are they using that land for new holes on the Dunluce? Or is it that they think the course would be "better" without?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ed - They will lose 17 & 18 of the Dunluce when they stage the Open that area is for the tented village. The intention is to replace them with two new long holes over the land that 5 & 6 of the Valley are on. They are still undecided if to include them as hole pre Calamity (16 on the new route) or after the 5th.

[Adrian_Stiff]

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.

They ARE altering Colt's design at Trevose, (a lot of the original sand face bunkers have been revetted in recent years, and a new green built 50 yards past the original, sounds familiar?)

Frank - Most people here in the West Country think Trevose is a much better course for the changes made to the bunkers and in particular the revetting has made it more of a links are the sort of comments that I hear.

[Adam Lawrence]

Adrian - bunkers aside, have you seen the new green that has been built for the 13th at Trevose? I am almost certain you wouldn't defend that!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian - bunkers aside, have you seen the new green that has been built for the 13th at Trevose? I am almost certain you wouldn't defend that!

Adam - No I have not seen it. My last Trevose visit was c1985, I remember the first 4 holes only and everything a bit up and down after that.

[Ben Lovett]

I am not a fan of the new 13th at Trevose. I know they are experimenting with sand faced bunkers and hopefully will move down that route.

[Adam Lawrence]

I should add that Jonathan Wood, the course manager at Trevose, is doing an excellent job. The course had been allowed to get out of hand, it was soft and meadowy. He has firmed it up and is getting on with the longer term job of transitioning back to desirable grasses.

[Ben Lovett]

I would agree plus he is working on building mounds between 13 and 15, which should be an improvement on a relatively flat area.

[Paul_Turner]

Most times the members aren't presented with the preservation option. 

My bet is that the members at Trevose had no idea that their sand faced bunkers were some of last survivors of this style with just about every other links conforming to the circular revetted pot.  Perhaps they wouldn't care and still change but they just aren't hearing the other side of the debate.

Back to 2nd at Portrush.  I've played that hole perhaps 15 times and the land forms are similar beyond the current green but the members should be highly skeptical if they have been promised an exact replica green 50 yds farther on.....they will be destroying a Colt original green.

50 yds isn't going to make any appreciable difference to the pros scores.  But I can see how it was sold:

1)  We've taken the tee as far back as we can (for Irish Opens).

2)  We've lost 50 yds in yardage by replacing 17 and 18 with the new holes.  So we need to regain it somewhere.

3) It's too short particularly with prevailing down wind, and we can't call it a "par 4" because we're doing that with the 9th.  Can't only have 2 par 5s.

4)  Colt would have lengthened and we can build a replica green.

[Adam Lawrence]

Trevose is proprietary, so in this case the point is moot. But I know what you mean, Paul.

[Frank Pont]

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.

They ARE altering Colt's design at Trevose, (a lot of the original sand face bunkers have been revetted in recent years, and a new green built 50 yards past the original, sounds familiar?)

Frank - Most people here in the West Country think Trevose is a much better course for the changes made to the bunkers and in particular the revetting has made it more of a links are the sort of comments that I hear.

Adrian,

I loved Trevose, it was the favourite of our group on a recent trip to the west country. The conditioning was very good, clearly Jonathan Wood is doing a great job maintenance wise. However its possible to restore the original Colt style sand bunkers AND have most people in the west country think its a better course.



Most people have no clue, the

[Rob Marshall]

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.

My thinking exactly. He's never been on site and attacks the opinion of someone who has actually played the course an you owe him an apology?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Rob - Get real with the facts: You said you felt underwhelmed by the 17th & 18th on Dunluce. You then went on to say you did not want them changed. It does not matter if I have played Portrush or not, I do not know why some people think you have to have played a course to make a comment. Scott Warren has always struggled to read what is in front of him, all the things he brought up are wrong. My comment about newer architects he has taken wrongly, it is not a slant on old or new ones, I am just making the point Colt did not have a D6, if he did he may have done things differently, Colt was disadvantaged. SW saw something different in my comment. My point re the 2nd green came when a photo was posted, there looks a cool site 50 yards back. SW and myself have never got on, if he apologised that might go some way to a repair but he won't because he probably still does not think he is wrong and did not interpret my comments wrongly.
I will take your advice re The Eglington Hotel.

[Rob Marshall]

Rob - Get real with the facts: You said you felt underwhelmed by the 17th & 18th on Dunluce. You then went on to say you did not want them changed. It does matter if I have played Portrush or not, I do not know why some people think you have to have played a course to make a comment. Scott Warren has always struggled to read what is in front of him, all the things he brought up are wrong. My comment about newer architects he has taken wrongly, it is not a slant on old or new ones, I am just making the point Colt did not have a D6, if he did he may have done things differently, Colt was disadvantaged. SW saw something different in my comment. My point re the 2nd green came when a photo was posted, there looks a cool site 50 yards back. SW and myself have never got on, if he apologised that might go some way to a repair but he won't because he probably still does not think he is wrong and did not interpret my comments wrongly.
I will take your advice re The Eglington Hotel.

Adrian,
It is you who needs to get real with the facts. Here is what I said:

"Seems a little extreme to me to make all those changes to  a classic course. I played it last year and I did think that 17 and  18 were pretty anticlimactic, but completely replace them? I also played the Valley and loved it.  Neat little fun course. Had pint with a member who's Parents have a house on the Dunluce.  Gave us some history of the course and tales of Darren, Graeme, and Rory.  Would love to go back."

And here is your reply:


"Seems absolute common sense to me and 235 - 2 was the vote. What is more unbelievable is you thought 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimatic."

I simply find it odd that you can find my comment "unbelievable" when you have never played the course or seen the site. Those are the "real" facts. Take care and you are wise to follow my opinion of the Eglington Hotel.

 
 

 
  
 

[Frank Pont]

I am just making the point Colt did not have a D6, if he did he may have done things differently, Colt was disadvantaged.

Adrian,  I guess this is where we very fundamentally disagree, and where a lot of the discussion comes from.

Colt did so well and has built such outstanding courses for a large part because he got great sites, but as much because he DID NOT HAVE A D6.

Far from being a disadvantage, it was a huge advantage.

Where I can I am starting to use less and smaller equipment to do the work.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Frank, I think it was an advantage that they used the better sites years ago, but there must have been times when with modern earthmoving they could have made things better.

[Adrian_Stiff]

[/quote]You think it seems a little extreme to make those changes so they can have an Open? Perfect Sense to me. It makes no difference if I have played Portrush or not I went by what you said..17 & 18 being anti-climatic but then you dont want them replaced.

Adrian,
It is you who needs to get real with the facts. Here is what I said:

"Seems a little extreme to me to make all those changes to  a classic course. I played it last year and I did think that 17 and  18 were pretty anticlimactic, but completely replace them? I also played the Valley and loved it.  Neat little fun course. Had pint with a member who's Parents have a house on the Dunluce.  Gave us some history of the course and tales of Darren, Graeme, and Rory.  Would love to go back."

And here is your reply:


"Seems absolute common sense to me and 235 - 2 was the vote. What is more unbelievable is you thought 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimatic."

I simply find it odd that you can find my comment "unbelievable" when you have never played the course or seen the site. Those are the "real" facts. Take care and you are wise to follow my opinion of the Eglington Hotel.

 
 

 
  
 




[/quote]

[Rob Marshall]

[/quote]You think it seems a little extreme to make those changes so they can have an Open? Perfect Sense to me. It makes no difference if I have played Portrush or not I went by what you said..17 & 18 being anti-climatic but then you dont want them replaced.

Adrian,
It is you who needs to get real with the facts. Here is what I said:

"Seems a little extreme to me to make all those changes to  a classic course. I played it last year and I did think that 17 and  18 were pretty anticlimactic, but completely replace them? I also played the Valley and loved it.  Neat little fun course. Had pint with a member who's Parents have a house on the Dunluce.  Gave us some history of the course and tales of Darren, Graeme, and Rory.  Would love to go back."

And here is your reply:


"Seems absolute common sense to me and 235 - 2 was the vote. What is more unbelievable is you thought 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimatic."

I simply find it odd that you can find my comment "unbelievable" when you have never played the course or seen the site. Those are the "real" facts. Take care and you are wise to follow my opinion of the Eglington Hotel.

 
 

 
  
 

[/quote]

I never said I didn't want them changed nor do I really care. I'm not a member. I simply thought it was extreme to make ALL those changes to a classic course. If you don't think that the 17 and 18 are anticlimactic, I find it odd that you would think they were climatic when you've never seen them. IMO you would need to play the course or at least see the course to make that statement.

That said,   If you thought that it was unbelievable that I thought they were anticlimactic and I thought they should remain untouched, you probably should expressed yourself a little better as your statement is exactly as I quoted.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Rob - I do think they are a bit anti-climatic, I can see they are on the least interesting ground. I suspect the Dunluce will end up being a better course for the loss of 17 & 18 and the two new ones replaced in the eyes of most people. I think it was said at a fairly early stage the 16th green (present) was the best location for grandstands etc. TBH I cant be arsed with talking about who said what. I probably did bite at you with the 'unbelievable comment' and for my snappyness I will apologise.

[Ryan Coles]

Can Frank, Scott, Rob or Sean, assess and comment on the actual specifics of the changes?

I'd be interested in the architectural merits or otherwise of the changes, rather than just ''it's Colt, it can't be changed.''

[Rob Marshall]

Rob - I do think they are a bit anti-climatic, I can see they are on the least interesting ground. I suspect the Dunluce will end up being a better course for the loss of 17 & 18 and the two new ones replaced in the eyes of most people. I think it was said at a fairly early stage the 16th green (present) was the best location for grandstands etc. TBH I cant be arsed with talking about who said what. I probably did bite at you with the 'unbelievable comment' and for my snappyness I will apologise.

 Thanks Adrian.  No worries.