The Future of Royal Dornoch--a Golf Club Atlas Survey

[James Boon]

Rich,


I've been lucky enough to play Royal Dornoch on many occasions be it family holiday as a kid, my own holiday or golf trip, or visiting my parents. I love the place. Its my favourite course! I have even visited one winter when I didnt get the clubs out but walked a few holes with my wife, before heading back for a warming hot chocolate in the clubhouse and looking out at that view...


The history of the clubhouse is an interesting one, like with most historic buildings, there have been additions good and bad...











But I feel that externally the current clubhouse does a decent job of pulling together all the past into a coherent and appropriate appearance. If I was analysing its architectural significance (quickly, late tonight, as an outsider) I'd say that its outlook onto the course and its setting in relation to the town and the 1st tee are key factors,much of the rest of the history of the architecture has been lost. But there appears to be a sound structure there and I'm sure the right architect with experience of working with old and existing buildings could come up with something rationalise or improve the internal layout a little? No need for something new and expensive and controversial (no matter what style is chosen it will be to someone), a polite renovation should do the trick.


As for the 7th, its got the best outlook of any tee I can think of and one of the best greens on the course. Sure the bit in between isnt the most picturesque or exciting and lacks the all important (overrated) wow factor, but I actually like its place and how it helps that part of the course flow. Plus the clearance of gorse behind the green already hints at a view of the sea which is more than enough for me. Leave it alone!


I must admit, though I dont see the need for the changes to 11, I'm not too bothered by them and dont mind the change of length and angle of the 12th tee shot. Having said that, again if I was a member, I would probably vote to leave alone.


Will be interesting to hear the outcome...


Cheers,


James

[Joel_Stewart]

I prefer the classic style clubhouse. 


The only thing I would do immediately is take down the obnoxious sign. 

[Andrew Simpson]

I prefer the classic style clubhouse. 


The only thing I would do immediately is take down the obnoxious sign. 

I don't think that's the best timing as it and the posts were renewed in the last 18 months :-)

[Andrew Simpson]

And yes, I think the sales pitch [it is a sales pitch] that #7 will be more beautiful is an appeal to the American golfer more than the locals.  For that matter, so is scaling up the clubhouse.  The members have all seemed quite comfortable there since I first saw it in 1982.

Sadly as I poorly mentioned before, my guess is that the changes are driven by the " nouveau riche" who have settled in the area in the last 20 years. Most of whom have strong ties to the US or the M25 area.
They are looking for improvements for them to look out over from the monstrosities they have built overlooking the course, killing the view on the back nine and being responsible for the re-routing of the 3rd so the hoi-poloi don't hit a ball in their garden. 
Or just coming from such places, simply know better.
The next step may well be a waterfall coming down the left of the 6th green!

[Stan Dodd]

I have not seen any responses from local members regarding the club house.  The golf club is a hub for the local community. Throughout the winter.  there are regular golf events as well as bridge club, quiz nights themed dinners etc.  As one of my local friends told me you know its a good night if you are still having after golf bevies when the bridge club arrives and a great night if you are still there when they leave.
But as they tell me, the current club house is very uncomfortable in the winter.  I think the local members would like a nice facility  that they can use  during the winter, comfortably.  And they have the cash cow of visitors fees to finance it. I don't begrudge them at all for wanting a nice and comfortable place for community activities when the circus leaves town.The current infra structure  is inadequate.  Rehabbing current building and also the Royal Golf for that matter,  will leave you with a 100+ year old building with all the electrical, plumbing, heating problems that come with that territory.  I think the powers that be at Dornoch would like to have as nice a facility as reasonably possible and serve visitors to a high standard.  I think the powers that be understand that they are caretakers of one of the great places in the world of golf.


As far as the changes to a classic  course, I was leery of the 3rd but it has been excellent and the new tee at the 13 is getting good reviews.  The changes to the 7th have been talked about  for a long time,  see Rich's My Home course piece.  I say go ahead.


The 8th I would not touch, it is a nice semi breather hole, though every hole a Dornoch can be a card wrecker.  It provides the short hitting senior, like myself, a chance to have a lofted iron to a green which is nice because if you turn into the wind there are not any lofted irons for me, maybe  one at the 12th.  Which bring me the the 12th... bull doze the current medal tee... the worst shot on the course and put a tee to the right of the 11th green.


In the end, if they never do another thing it will always be my favorite place to golf in the world.

[Tom Kelly]

Can I suggest that if you haven't already done so, you all read the full report on the changes in question as posted earlier in the thread before making any final judgements. There are definitely more than a few considerations mentioned that haven't been discussed on this thread. Whether all of these have been taken on by the club and are to be discussed in the AGM as the opening post notes is another matter.


https://issuu.com/mackenzieandebert/docs/visionforchampcoursevrdgc2015-07_di




Sean,


Gorse/whin removal on 17 is mentioned and so are changes to the fairway bunkering on the 5th. The 2nd has "No recommendations"

[Tom Kelly]

Clubhouse - something needs to be done but no overly enamoured with the proposals of a new build that I've seen!


7th - Can see the point but is it necessary? Financially viable or just an extravagance? I can see the benefit to the 8th being just as valuable to the 7th. Tom's comments in the report are interesting.


11th - Go for it, Tom's argument makes sense and the if the new tees and slightly re-aligned fairway on 12th are built as suggested it will make the 12th better too.

[Ryan Coles]

Royal Dornoch must have received a huge amount from the Bridport & West Dorset HMRC Case. If it is burning a hole, I'd rather they waste on the Clubhouse rather than potentially negatively impact the Course. The Clubhouse I find is unattractive and not particularly charming in the way that say Porthcawl is. It doesn't seem to have anything really going for it.


Charging what they charge these days, the others in that price bracket all seem to have better off-course facilities, so perhaps they have to keep up with the joneses in that respect. Personally I'd rather pay a lower fee and walk to a pub in town, than pay a higher greenfee and sit in a palace. A Castle Stuart type Clubhouse, which is about the best I've seen, would not work there. A larger version of the Kingsbarns style would perhaps be a more fitting style to my untrained eye.


I suspect the members will vote yes to Clubhouse, no to Course.

[Ian Mackenzie]

If YOU were designing this hole for the first time and saw the site, would YOU put the fairway 60m from the cliff and decide to leave all that lovely gorse in place?

For the most part, the par 4s at RD all favor a draw or at least chart a right to left tact.
The new 7th hole moves left to right and brings some variety to the routing. It also strengthens the 8th hole.

...

Cheers,
Ian

Ian:


I believe there is a difference between thinking about how I would design a hole if I saw a site, and thinking about whether to alter one of the ten best courses in the world.  I believe all architects should have respect for the best work that has come before them, and hesitate in thinking they are so smart they can always improve upon what's there.


Practically speaking, making such alterations is more likely to make a course fall out of the top ten than to move up.  Once you're up there, there is nowhere to go but down.


And yes, I think the sales pitch [it is a sales pitch] that #7 will be more beautiful is an appeal to the American golfer more than the locals.  For that matter, so is scaling up the clubhouse.  The members have all seemed quite comfortable there since I first saw it in 1982.

Tom -


Fair points for sure.
But, some perspective may he helpful.


RDGC's annual meeting is today and the topics debated above are on the agenda.
However, in order to vote, you MUST be present in person; no proxy or absentee voting at all.


So, it is reasonable to assume that the votes will be cast predominantly by local members who may have their own interests.


As for the clubhouse....the vote today is not to decide specifically on a new clubhouse, but rather to vote on whether moving forward with plans and detailed discussions is favored by the membership.


Stay tuned....


Cheers,
Ian

[Brian Freeman]

Any news on the vote?


I've played the course 5 times over two visits in 2010 and in June of this year and it is my favorite of any I have played in the world.  That makes me far from a qualified expert but I will offer my humble opinion after reading the other comments.


I can see the desire of some to update the clubhouse although it was more than adequate for our needs. I would hope if there are changes they are made primarily for the benefit of the members and locals and not for tourists like myself. The views of the course and sea from the upper level there and at the Royal Golf Hotel are stunning so I would recommend anything that maximizes that view while keeping with the peaceful, understated character of the town. Dornoch does not need a modernist Castle Stuart like building. 


As for the course, 7 tee is my favorite view there.  I've taken a picture up there every time I've played it and no two are the same.  The hole is a brute into the wind but good as is and at a good point in the routing.  I can see a good case to be made for either way. A new back tee on 8 would be an improvement if it is directly behind the existing and does not change the angle of play.


I would personally not change a thing about 11 or 12. I have not played the medal tee on 12 but I would think the angle and extra length might make it better for a scratch but less desirable for a 5-10 handicap.  12 is one of those great holes where you can make anything from a 3 to a 10[size=78%]. [/size]

[Ally Mcintosh]

I've discussed at length on here before why I can seem vehemently opposed to changes on some classic links courses and why others I applaud... It is very subjective, down to personal connections to each course, discussion around whether the "improvements" are just that - a significant improvement. And in general whether the changes just feel right.

However, if I'm a little more objective about it, it so often comes down to replacing individual putting surfaces on classic courses that have an already widely agreed great set of greens.

Let's face it. For better or worse, most modern designers don't build greens that look or feel the same as classic era greens. Most modern designers build greens that feel modern. So when plans centre around changing individual green complexes on world famous courses, I usually don't see the improvement.

Ironically, I usually see more worth in completely new holes. Hence the two new holes at Portrush were something I could see of great benefit. Yet I was most definitely disappointed at the decision to move back the wonderful 2nd green.

When it comes down to it, some courses are top of the pile in no small part because of their set of individual and world class greens. Dornoch is one of those.

(P.S. I'm sure someone can come on here and tell me that Dornoch's greens were modified in the 70's by x, y or z. If that is true, then we don't give enough credit to x, y or z.)

[Thomas Dai]

.......in order to vote, you MUST be present in person; no proxy or absentee voting at all.

It's an 'interesting' club constitution that permits this.


Atb

[Rich Goodale]

Can I suggest that if you haven't already done so, you all read the full report on the changes in question as posted earlier in the thread before making any final judgements. There are definitely more than a few considerations mentioned that haven't been discussed on this thread. Whether all of these have been taken on by the club and are to be discussed in the AGM as the opening post notes is another matter.


https://issuu.com/mackenzieandebert/docs/visionforchampcoursevrdgc2015-07_di




Sean,


Gorse/whin removal on 17 is mentioned and so are changes to the fairway bunkering on the 5th. The 2nd has "No recommendations"

Thanks, Tom


I carefully read all the M/E proposals when they were available a month or so ago, voted against all of them at the AGM last night, and won a few and lost a few.  C'est la vie.


Slainte


Rich

[Alexander MacDonald]

Very interesting thread and great to hear the opinions of each. The meeting was very cordial, with everyone having the Club's best interests in mind when stating points.


The clubhouse question, do we need one?, was a resounding yes. I voted yes purely because the present one is a mishmash of terrible add ons and really needs to be redeveloped in to a more usable space. I am completely against a new build behind the 18th, I think it would struggle to get planning anyway. Its a silly idea to take traffic in front of the 1st, or up from the beach passing the 18th, or across the existing 1st of the Struie. The Royal Golf, i can see the logic in it but totally appreciate the concerns raised by one or two Gents about the costings, repairs etc. That leaves me leaning towards a build.on the current site should the cost of the RGH be excessive and beyond the reach of the club.


The hole changes I voted as follows,
1st- moving small bunker over mound on right 30yds forward- i voted to leave alone. It was passed to be moved.


7th green being moved and green exactly replicated in new site and 8th Tees moved to present 7th green site- I voted leave alone, it was passed to be moved.


9th- bunker at approach to be added left of existing- voted for it, it was rejected


11th- new bunker added 17yds closer to green from existing right fairway bunker- voted against and it was voted to remain as is.


12th- existing unused medal tee to be removed, 11th green extended and new Tees for 12 located around existing medal tee, fairway approach relandscaped and rough more defined between 12/5- voted for it although I'm against the green being extended left, a pin over there above the big Greenside bunker would be horrendous on a hole that's clearly tough enough. It was passed


I voted against the changes to 7/8 purely because I think the holes are great as they are. They present a good challenge depending on wind and if I was advocating any change, it'd be to add bunkering down the right of 7th to draw the eye in from that side. If sea views are required, do away with the whin along the ridge. It's a pointless change in my mind and one that's pandering to a false notion that Dornoch has to change in order to 'keep up' with others. I believe it's special as it is, tweaks here and there are welcomed but wholesale changes like this, in my opinion, very dangerous and unneeded on a course that's comfortably one of the best. Improve on perfection, or ruin it?? Some changes [size=78%]will be carried out in-house, the 7/8th changes will be carried out when the money is there to be done by contractors. I just hope they don't ruin a course that is as close to architectural perfection as you're likely to get. [/size]

[Jon Wiggett]

Sad that the 7th will be changed as recreating the green precisely is just a pipe dream. This is a change that is just pandering to the 'awesome' crowd that will add nothing to the quality of the course and whose biggest effect will be to slow down the pace of play as people search for balls that have disappeared down the slope. If sea views are what is important then why not just cut down the whin?


Jon

[Ally Mcintosh]

So the changed greens were approved. What about other proposed changes / extensions / softening of greens? Such as the 8th and 14th?

Always amazes me that clubs with classic greens are so quick to approve "surgery" to existing greens with beautiful classic sweeps and slopes.

Conducting surgery on great links greens and making them look as good as before is one of the most difficult things to shape successfully.

Either way, the changes are in good hands with Tom MacKenzie.

[Charlie_Bell]

I don't know whether to be sad that the 8th will be changed, as it presents one of my favorite drives in the world, or to be indifferent because of the unlikelihood of my ever playing Royal Dornoch again.  I will cherish the memories, and I will likely read the reviews and pore over the pictures of the alterations with excessive care. 

[James Brown]

Thanks to the Dornoch members for sharing these details.  Good luck with all this upcoming work - sounds like a lot to me. 


I really hope the hotel stays intact.  It might be my favorite place in the world to stay and the dining room has the best combination of good food and awesome views of any golf property I can think of. 

[David McIntosh]

Alexander,

Thanks for letting us know the outcome of the votes - very interesting developments.

To give some context, I played both courses at Dornoch for the only time thus far back in March 2012 so my comments are from the perspective of a one-time visitor although I am looking forward to visiting again next month before any work will begin on the changes passed at the annual meeting.

I thought the style of the clubhouse fitted well into its surroundings and the upstairs bar/lounge clearly benefits from great views over the first tee and out to the firth. The bar was quite busy when I visited as football was being shown on the TV and there was, what appeared to be, a large group of members sitting down to lunch before heading out for a match. Members would be far better placed than me to say whether the dining facilities specifically need to be extended given typical levels of use throughout the year. I don't really remember the locker rooms and the pro shop was being renovated at the time of my visit. The current clubhouse site is a big plus and it would make sense for the club to make the most of what they already have by redeveloping the existing structure and applying a touch of paint where necessary rather than starting affresh with a new build somewhere else on the property or at the Royal Golf Hotel. As has already been said, I would hope that any clubhouse changes are made with members firmly in mind rather than purely for the benefit of visitors.

As far as the changes on the course are concerned, it's a shame that the 7th and 8th are to be changed. The 7th green was the most interesting feature on the hole and I liked both the tee shot on 8 and the angle at which the lower lever sits to the tee. Again, as has already been suggested, if the 7th is being realigned to promote sea views, couldn't these be achieved by removing the gorse bushes along the edge of the shelf? Were any concerns raised about stray balls raining down on the 10th and 11th holes if the 7th is relocated closer to the edge of the ridge? I'm not convinced that the proposed changes improves either hole, the same goes for the changes to the 11th green/12th tee, but it wasn't my decision to make.

David

[Tom_Doak]

Is this typically how master plans are done in the UK?  The membership votes on each individual proposal and winds up with some of what was proposed, but probably not all?  It seems like it would tend to lead to work that looks not quite done.


I don't know that I have ever heard of a club in the U.S. doing it the same way.  There is a committee process that sorts out the final recommendations, but I've never dealt with a "line-item veto".

[Ally Mcintosh]

Is this typically how master plans are done in the UK?  The membership votes on each individual proposal and winds up with some of what was proposed, but probably not all?  It seems like it would tend to lead to work that looks not quite done.


I don't know that I have ever heard of a club in the U.S. doing it the same way.  There is a committee process that sorts out the final recommendations, but I've never dealt with a "line-item veto".

Unfortunately I see this a lot, Tom.

The clubs are a lot to blame here though. High end links courses seem to be inviting well respected architects through their front door without a rock solid idea of why they really want them. They then give them free reign to come up with "ideas", most of which appear outlandish to a membership who has to vote. Taken in totality they would be thrown out most times so to ensure the club gets its money's worth, some get approved and some don't. Ironically, members can't visualise a re-shaped green so these often go through whilst there is outcry about repositioning a bunker, the result of which is clear for everyone to see.

Examples - I think Portrush and Turnberry will be all the better for accepting the wholesale changes (despite me being against a couple of the green redesign options with the former).

Whereas a course like Portmarnock - my home course - which has been immeasurably improved at a maintenance / vegetation clearing level by our head green keeper, is in danger of ruining its low-lying subtle architecture by picking and choosing small changes by a number of different designers over the last 15 years. Death by a thousand cuts.

[John Crowley]

Sad that the 7th will be changed as recreating the green precisely is just a pipe dream. This is a change that is just pandering to the 'awesome' crowd that will add nothing to the quality of the course and whose biggest effect will be to slow down the pace of play as people search for balls that have disappeared down the slope. If sea views are what is important then why not just cut down the whin?


Jon

Jon,


A few years ago, as relatively new RDGC member, some other members asked me, in a discussion of golf course architecture, "what could be done to improve the 7th?".


That got me thinking and I wrote a letter to the Green Convener. My point was that RDGC is "all about the sea", that hole 7 is named Pier and that the sea and the Embo pier are no longer in site while playing the hole. (From the medal tee there are spectacular views.)


My suggestion was simply to cut down (some of) the whins to open the vistas more to the sea and the pier.


Thanks for "seconding my emotion".


John

[Steve Salmen]

Late July I spent a week in Dornoch. My friends and I spoke at length about the changes. I'm indifferent about bunker at 1, bunker at 9, changes at 11. Not sure about 12.
As for 7 and 8 I was really keeping an open mind until I saw the 2 new holes at Royal Portrush, also being built by Mackenzie and Ebert. RP is very lucky to have 18 and 18 replaced by world class looking holes. I have no doubt they can improve 7 and 8 at RD, probably the weakest consecutive holes on the course.

[Bill_McBride]

Funny, I thought 8 was the most fun shot out there and loved the hole that gets one back off the heights. 

[Thomas Dai]

Wasn't the 7th given a tweak 10-15 yrs ago or was that just the green?



Atb