Amsterdam April 17 2006
Dear ......,
Thanks for your extensive reply of April 11th, which gave me better insight
into the reasons why you are proposing to make the changes to Cruden Bay.
This might be a long letter so please take a comfortable seat before starting
to read it.
Before getting into the hole by hole discussion there are three important
general points I would like to make:
Firstly, what I miss in the approach of your club is a clearly spelled out long
term strategy. Somewhere in the beginning of your letter you write that
your “only remit is to take Cruden Bay forward”. However it never becomes
clear what this “forward” entails. When I work with historic clubs like
Cruden Bay, the first thing we do is define a short and concise 10 year plan.
In it we put forward the 3-5 key elements the club is trying to achieve with
the golf course in the next 10 years. Typically the document makes
statements about protecting the historic architecture, the natural
environment, making the course more strategic and enjoyable for the
majority of players whilst ensuring it remains a stern test for the best
players. It also states how trade offs between these goals should be made.
For example, if it is impossible to both keep the historic architecture and
provide a stern test for the best players then the historic architecture is
more important. Such a 10 year plan is extremely important because it gives
stability to the progress of the club and avoids the problem of consecutive
greens committees making opportunistic or unstructured changes.
The next step would then be to have the golf architect draw up a plan for
the course based on this 10 year plan, and not the greens committee.
Greens committees often are comprised of smart and ambitious people and
some very good golfers who have seen many famous links courses.
However that does not make them a good golf course architect, or as the
famous Bobby Jones stated:
“No man learns to design a golf course simply by playing golf, no matter
how well”.
The architect should take as the basis for his analysis the problems of the
course (eg. back up of people at the tee of the 15th hole), and not any
specific solutions proposed by the club.
Secondly on the issue of changes to the greens of Cruden Bay. I am sure your
comment that the course has had many changes made to it since Simpson
redesigned it in the 1920’s is very true. However, how many greens or green
sites were moved or significantly changed? I bet very few if any. The reason
for that is clear, namely that greens are the highest form of artistry of an
golf architect, or as Charles Blair McDonald once said:
“Putting greens to a golf course are what the face is to a portrait”.
Given that Simpson was one of the best architects who ever lived and
Cruden was among his best work, one could safely assume his greens are
definitely worth preserving. I do not know of a top quality restoring golf
architect who does not seek out all other possible avenues of change before
deciding to change a green by the likes of Colt, McKenzie and Simpson.
Therefore I was- and am shocked you are seriously contemplating to
completely change 4 of his 18 greens. Especially so since I am sure it is
possible to make certain improvements to the course without losing these
greens.
Thirdly on the subject of fairness, an issue that comes around a number of
times as the main reason for changing holes at Cruden, I would like to quote
HN Wethered, the writing partner of Tom Simpson:
“The chief virtues of the links may briefly be summarized as being: first,
that they should be difficult; secondly, that they should be pleasing to the
eye; thirdly, that they should be strictly economical in design; and lastly,
to be truly admirable they will probably incur in the general opinion the
accusation of being unfair”
I also strongly recommend you carefully read chapter 4 of The Anatomy of a
Golf Course, Tom Doak's classic book on golf architecture. The chapter which
is named Fair Play perfectly describes the discussions surrounding fairness.
Its gist becomes clear through the use of three small quotes from this
chapter:
“Scratch golfers believe they have special province to judge the fairness of
golf, because the accepted measure of difficulty – the par value of each
hole – is based on the scratch player’s expected score”
“The only hole rightly judged unfair is one the poorer golfer may never
finish”
“If the architect is sure to champion variety in his design, then criticism of
the course as unfair will be recognised as the venting of frustration. Every
course worth its salt prompts a certain amount of sour grapes”
Conclusion: Be very, very careful to use the argument of unfairness to
change a hole, in most cases the changes will eliminate the character of the
hole together with the “unfairness”….
Having covered these general points lets turn to specific holes:
Hole 4.
The problem seems to be like this: Some years ago the club decided to move
the back/medal tee to a new position (not clear why, but lets assume
because of the need to get more yards on the card…), now we have two
problems with the hole namely erosion to the new tee and the fact that
most people cannot play the hole decently from the new tee because for
most players the original design of the green makes it unsuited to receive
shots from such a great distance.
Maybe I am missing something here but the solution seems pretty obvious!!
Go back to the original tee. Most people will be able to hit the green again
and the erosion problem becomes less of an issue. Why make the choice to
change/give up one of the most beautiful greens and holes of the course
just to gain a couple of yards which only interests a couple of low
handicappers?
By the way; this is exactly the sort of question your 10 year plan should give
you guidance on!
Using my memory and analysing my pictures of the course (which of course
is not as good as being on the ground), the best thing to do would be to
lower the current normal tee by about 1.5 meters which will make it a much
larger surface so it can accommodate both the normal and medal tees. It
will also make the walk on and of from the green of hole 3 much easier. If
the club feels a somewhat longer back tee is needed, the tee could then
also be extended on the back left side (behind green 3).
Moving the bunker somewhat more to the middle of the green seems a good
idea, it looks like it might have been more right in the past (or just larger),
and for the better players it compensates for making the hole shorter.
Summarizing: don’t change the green, do change the tees and if needed the
bunker and ask yourself why more distance is so key on this hole….
Hole 15
I had to chuckle here when I read your comment about it being a bad hole,
and immediately thought of this famous Tom Simpson quote:
“I do not suggest for one moment that people are not entitled to express
their opinions as to what they like or dislike, but when they go the length
of saying that some particular hole Is good or bad, they are more often
than not influenced by some peculiarity of their own play”
It is clear you and a number of other members do not like the hole, but that
does not make it a bad hole. Nevertheless there are real problems with this
hole, namely the logistical problems of a backup during play at the tee of
15, the fact that the hole now is too long for many players and the fact that
this green does not hold the shots into it very well.
The logistics will only improve if we move the tee forward from its current
situation. Question: where was the original tee for this hole? Behind the
green of hole 14? This strikes me is an important input for any solution.
Bringing the tee back to that situation could resolve part of the problem (I
don’t see why it would make the hole more boring for most players, and you
could keep the back tee for the players yearning for length).
An alternative would be to move the green forward and to the right, raise it
so it becomes visible and make it more receptive to shots. This being one of
the least characteristic greens of the course a new green in this case might
be an acceptable solution. Also a combination of moving the tee forward
and moving the green to the right and raise it might also work. This however
is the type of detailed work the golf architect needs to do on the ground
before being able to come up with a recommendation.
Hole 14
Again I see problems brewing here when you are going to lengthen the
medal tee of this hole by 40 yards. Great for the long hitters, but disastrous
for the average player. Clearly another example of the need of a good 10
year plan.
Another issue it raises is the problem of medal tees and normal tees. With
the increasing differences in length between good and average players it is
becoming more and more difficult to have both play of the same medal
tees. A system like in Europe and the US with mens tees for handicap 10 and
over and mens back tees for handicap 10 and below seems a better way to
go.
But back to the hole. You write “playing to this green… is a complete
lottery. Playing this hole often you would realise that the same shot can end
up in completely different places each time” and “the approach shot to the
green… is probably the most frustrating and inconsistently rewarded shot at
Cruden Bay. The lie of the land is such that a poor shot is often rewarded to
a greater extent than a good shot”
Lets have Tom Simpson answer that one himself:
“Competitive golf is chiefly responsible for this tendency to design courses
on principles of absolute and relentless justice”
What more can I say. Maybe Simpson would advise you to start practicing
poor shots for this hole…
If you and the members are determined to change this hole, then don’t
lengthen it, don’t tamper with the unique and quirky bathtub green, but
maybe make the entrance into the bathtub somewhat more gentle and build
in a slight hollow and threshold before the green to stop less well played
shots into this green.
Hole 16
It seems unlikely that Simpson did not carefully think out this green and its
fore green given what he said about his greens:
“Every putting green should have a distinctive note, and the ground in front
of it should be carefully studied”
You state that the hole has become somewhat of a joke over recent years
because it is virtually impossible to hit. Of course the Simpson’s quote about
competitive golf and justice I just quoted at hole 14 also applies to this
hole. But in addition it should be mentioned that the fact that the 16th
green is very difficult to hit is not unique in the golfing world. The same is
true for most par 3’s at Rye, where it is said that the hardest shots are the
second shots to the green. And last I heard they weren’t about to go and
change/relocate the greens of the par 3’s at Rye…..
But something else you wrote about this hole really sparked my interest,
namely the fact that it might be one of the few holes in the world that have
become more-, and not less, difficult to play due to “better” golf balls, golf
equipment and maintenance.
Pause at this. If this is true any golf architect worth their mettle would want
to find out what exactly has caused this. And if we found out what it was
that has changed this hole, then lets change it back, so the hole can be
played again like it used to be played. Are we cutting the grass shorter than
we should? Are we hitting the wrong type of shot into the green? Is the angle
of the shot from the tee box into the green different than it used to be?
Make sure you know the reason why the hole has started playing differently,
and make sure there is no way to change that reason before you decide to
abandon a beautiful and historic Simpson green.
Hole 8
This hole has always been an interesting hole because of the fact it teases
the player to take more club in his hands than he probably (from a scoring
point of view) should. Key to the success of this hole is that as many of the
players as possible have the possibility to try to drive this green (on
occasion). So not only the low handicappers! Bringing the medal tee back
will take this essential character out of the hole.
The well known American architect Mike de Vries says about this:
“Courses often erroneously add thirty to fifty yards to a short par 4,
thereby taking away a reachable par 4 from the weaker player, while not
affecting the play of stronger players”
Again this hole shows the problem of the system of the general medal tee.
Using the US/European system I see no problem in moving a tiger tee for a
small portion of the players 30 yards back if they want (as long as it does
not make putting on the 16th hole dangerous), but don’t make the average
golfers suffer.
Hole 9
Without a doubt the weakest hole on the course. It is almost so weak you
would think Simpson put it there to make you realize how good most of the
other holes are.
Key to improving this hole is to make the drive and second shot (visually)
more exciting to the players. Moving the fairway left is a good idea. So is
introducing different fairway levels and if possible changing the hole into a
short par 5 by moving the tee back to the far right of the hole. Again all of
this would require more research on the ground to come up with definitive
proposals.
At the end of this letter, there are two more points I would like to make:
First let me state that I find it hard to understand that you are hesitant to
accept my offer to get actively involved in the process of further improving
Cruden Bay because I am an (overseas) member.
I have the exact type of knowledge and experience you need, and the
credentials to match it.
Furthermore, as an overseas member who visits the club only infrequently,
I have no special ties or loyalties to any specific group in the club.
And finally (and maybe not unimportantly for a Scottish club ☺), because I
love the course dearly and am slightly mad and I am willing to help you at
virtually no cost. What other reason for hesitation am I missing here?
The last point of this letter, and probably the most important, is the almost
philosophical question that clearly permeates through all of these
discussions:
Does your club deep down really want to have a historic Tom Simpson
course with all its quirkiness and unfairness?
Or does your club want to change the course to something else; for it to
become a longer, tougher and fairer championship course such as
Carnoustie.
That will definitely be possible through a number of dramatic changes, but
by doing so you will at the same time destroy the uniqueness of Cruden Bay.
Sadly the club, and most of the rest of the golfing world, will probably only
come to realise and regret this many years after the fact.
The choice is your and yours only, and I sincerely hope the club makes the
right choice…
With kind regards
Frank Pont