Royal Dornoch - New 7th hole in progress

[Mark Pearce]

what is all this naysaying, as if you own the club, geez
can't wait to play

It's discussion about GCA.  If you don't like it, this probably isn't the website for you.  Geez.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon:


I’m curious as to why you think the redesigned 7th hole will add 20 minutes to a round.


Mike

Mike,


two main reasons. Firstly, by moving the hole to the top of the ridge there will be a whole lot more balls going way down the slope causing more waiting time whilst balls are searched for. This happens way more than most think and a 10 minute search is not the exception despite the rules.


Secondly, because players coming for a once in a life time trip usually want individual and group photos at certain points of which the new 7th green will definitely be one. After the last put is despatched there will be a drawn out photo shoot taking place.


If you look at what has been done to the hole. If it were for improved views then the only thing blocking the views was the gorse and it would have been much cheaper, quicker and just as effective to have cut it down. Yes many lament about how boring the tee to green experience was but I am sure it would have been possible to have found some talented GCA with at least some vision to improve this area at a fraction of the cost and especially as there would have been a lot more width.


The only material improvement IMO has been the tee shot on the 8th which could have been done anyway as there was ample room behind the old 7th green.


The new 7th is more spectacular yes but is it better? Same green apparently and the ground the new hole goes over is more or less the same. The bunkering doesn't look anything special so at the moment I am a little perplexed at people thinking it will be.


I believe some would say 'golf porn' but I would put it more down to vanity.

[William_G]

what is all this naysaying, as if you own the club, geez
can't wait to play

It's discussion about GCA.  If you don't like it, this probably isn't the website for you.  Geez.

this is whining without any experience, and devalues the discussion
bunch of entitled opinions LOL
cheers

[Dan_Callahan]

I am a golf slut and enjoy pretty much every course I play. Having said that ... it eludes me why you would commit to building an entirely new hole on a top 10 course in the world (and my personal favorite) that doesn't significantly improve what was there before. Makes no sense to me.

[Niall C]

what is all this naysaying, as if you own the club, geez
can't wait to play

It's discussion about GCA.  If you don't like it, this probably isn't the website for you.  Geez.

this is whining without any experience, and devalues the discussion
bunch of entitled opinions LOL
cheers

No, I think Mark is absolutely correct. Whether you like the work or not, the discussion has been about the architecture, and as Mark has said this is a site that is all about golf course architecture. Your posts, both specifically in this case and also generally, seem to be more concerned with cheer-leading. While we all like to talk about our favourite courses and jump in when anyone questions there quality generally most folk do so with reference to the design of the course. You seem to be a notable exception to that which is a shame. I'd rather read your thoughts on why (or why not) the changes are worthwhile rather than you trying to simply shut down any views that you don't agree with.

Niall

[Niall C]

Dan,

I could argue that RDGC is not even top 10 in Scotland never mind the world but rather than get into that, and for the sake of this discussion lets accept that it is, would you not agree that the hole can be improved ? Also as others have said, the change has lead to moving the tee for the 8th which I tend to think improves that hole also, would you not agree ?

Niall

[John Mayhugh]

what is all this naysaying, as if you own the club, geez
can't wait to play

It's discussion about GCA.  If you don't like it, this probably isn't the website for you.  Geez.

this is whining without any experience, and devalues the discussion
bunch of entitled opinions LOL
cheers

Well you've set a very high bar for this discussion with your own contributions. 
Is your idea that praise for the work (that no one has seen completed) is fine, but criticism is not? What possible sense does that make?

[Lou_Duran]

I am a golf slut and enjoy pretty much every course I play. Having said that ... it eludes me why you would commit to building an entirely new hole on a top 10 course in the world (and my personal favorite) that doesn't significantly improve what was there before. Makes no sense to me.

The club has over 1k members, not a small number who have been there for decades through numerous changes.  The #7 project was considered over many years and was only undertaken under the guidance of experts in design and construction with a large majority endorsement of the members.  It doesn't make sense to me that it makes no sense to you.


I was asked by a member out of the blue (a stranger to me who started a conversation in the locker room) last year whether I thought that the RD's Championship course was truly a world top 4.  Knowing a bit about ratings and members, I skirted the issue with the same answer I offered a tourist at Trump Aberdeen when asked about the veracity of the plaque by the clubhouse (paraphrasing- "some believe that T-A is the finest links in ......), that it is certainly in the conversation.


My inclination is typically that if something works, don't mess with it.  At the same time, change is constant; if you are not getting better, you're declining.  The vast majority of the world's greatest courses have undergone many changes, some small, some like Augusta National, Pinehurst, Pebble Beach rather substantial.


To address Jon's earlier question and rather ludicrous prediction (adding 20 minutes to the round), golf is a highly visual game- why does a pond between the ball and the green on a 100 yard shot cause many golfers so much grief?.  Why does #7 at Pebble Beach or #17 at Sawgrass require so much additional care? 


The new #7 uses superior land by virtue of bringing the cliff into play in addition to the better visuals.  It is probably more windswept, and though I have not personally verified the infinity green aspect, the trouble around the green on the aerial appears closer than the old.  Depending on whether the club opts to mark the gorse right of the fairway as a penalty area as allowed by the rules, it could actually save time.


As to unduly delaying play, the club and its caddies do a good job of moving players along.  There are any number of picture opportunities throughout the course, and like CPC's #16 where some players hit balls until they get one on the course, this shouldn't be a problem at the new #7.  I suspect that even during visitor times, most 4-ball rounds will be completed in under 4:30.


 


 

[Sean_A]

Does anybody know why the club chose not to shape the fairway a bit more?

Sean -
 
My guess is it is because the ground in that area (under both the old and new 7th holes) is not "links-like" at all. There is virtually no sand (and very little topsoil) in the ground in that area. It is full of stones and rocks. I believe they had to spread a layer of sand and top soil on the new fairway to cover the stones and provide an adequate soil profile for grass to grow. Attempting to shape the new fairway would be quite difficult.

If you recall, all the bunkers on the old 7th hole are quite shallow. I suspect that is because the ground under those bunkers is very dense with stones and rocks.

DT 

P.S. The ridge of land under the 7th holes could well be part of an esker ("a ridge of stratified sand and gravel").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esker

On the surface it seems like a strange decision for a club that has plenty of dosh. I mean, that is essentially why the work is being done in the first instance...no?  The club has cash in the bank.  Couldn't a shitload of sand be dumped to facilitate whatever design idea came to mind?  Maybe there is a another reason why, if not, it seems like a lost opportunity to me. That said, it wasn't as if the old 7th had any real merit architecturally or historically.  It was a dull hole so trying to improve it, even if only for better views, is a positive step. 

Ciao

[Mark Mammel]

Lou-You have ticked off many important points. As a member at RDGC for 27 years, you are absolutely correct that this has been a source of long discussion and consideration. The back and forth is great, but I will reserve judgement until I get to actually play the hole. It has been interesting to watch it go in the last couple of years, and I think its addition will prove to be worthy of the rest of the course. As I mentioned earlier Dornoch is unusual in the willingness of the local custodians to continually assess the playability and design of the holes- and though there are many full members from overseas, we can not sit on the council or vote on issues unless we choose to attend the annual general meeting when these ideas are considered. Is it a fair question to ask why Pebble Beach redid the 5th hole, at tremendous cost, when the old hole "wasn't broke"? I think the answer for both changes rests in the playing experience for both the skilled and let's say enthusiastic golfer (me).

[Jon Wiggett]

It is interesting amongst all the mentions of how well thought out the change is and the super professional advice taken by the club the only question asked from a GCA point of view has remained unanswered. Pretty telling and maybe an answer in itself


I thought this was a website dedicated to discussing golf course architecture. Sorry my mistake it seem

[Dan_Callahan]

The club has over 1k members, not a small number who have been there for decades through numerous changes.  The #7 project was considered over many years and was only undertaken under the guidance of experts in design and construction with a large majority endorsement of the members.  It doesn't make sense to me that it makes no sense to you.

Hey, if the members like the new hole, more power to them. And admittedly I am forming an opinion based solely on photos. But from what I've seen, it is not at all obvious that the new hole improves much on the old hole. Seems like you could have achieved pretty much the same result by some minor tweaks to old #7. But what the hell ... it's not my home course. I'm simply stating an opinion. And like I said, it happens to be my favorite course in the world.

[Dan_Callahan]

Dan,

I could argue that RDGC is not even top 10 in Scotland never mind the world but rather than get into that, and for the sake of this discussion lets accept that it is, would you not agree that the hole can be improved ? Also as others have said, the change has lead to moving the tee for the 8th which I tend to think improves that hole also, would you not agree ?

Niall

Not even top 10 in Scotland? Huh? Ok ... beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that, I suppose ...

As for moving the tee on 8 ... I have no idea if that improves 8 or not. Or improves it enough to warrant building an entirely new hole. Or if there was no other way to relocate the tee on 8 without abandoning the old 7th. Seems to me like there was a decent amount of unused land out in that part of the property. Enough land to accommodate an entirely new hole. Leads me to think there was probably enough room to move 8 tee while keeping 7 intact if they really wanted to. But what do I know.

My only observation was that 7 was pretty bland, and they replaced it with a hole that looks ... pretty bland. Except for a nice view from the green, which it seems could have been achieved by clearing the gorse behind old #7.

Again, just an observation. I'll play there again, and I'll love it again.

[Lou_Duran]

Sean.


I suppose that it goes without saying that if there is no "dosh", there are no modifications.  Though the club had sufficient financials before C-19 to attempt an expensive new clubhouse project, the new 7th, I don't believe, was a matter of too much money burning a hole in the club's pocket.  Instead, it is part of an ongoing plan to improve the golf course.   I don't know why the poorly draining soil was not sand-capped, but my bet is that it would not have solved the issue and possibly created other problem.


Jon,


I don't know what answers you are seeking, but if you are unwilling to acknowledge that visual/sight characteristics are an important part of the "GCA point of view" you are missing a big part of the picture.  Interestingly, Torrey Pines- South gets criticized for not using the cliffs well (I mostly disagree).


Typically, I don't look forward to playing 7.  I am just trying to get by the hole with no more than bogey.  I wish I could have played the new 7th last September as it was inviting and looked ready to go.  Orienting the hole some 15° to 20° further to the south may create different playing conditions with the normal west wind.  In my reading, routing with respect to the direction of the prevailing winds is an important part of GCA. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Lou,


no I don't believe the view has much to do with the quality of the GCA of a golf course but then judging by your opinions about Torrey Pines neither do you. But given that by removing the gorse the old 7th would have had exactly the same views what is better about the new from a GCA point of view?


There seems to be certain subjects on this site where people are unable/afraid to have an honest, open discussion about or make any sort of criticism at all. Dornoch is one of those and it is a shame as it just make a 'dumb blonde' out of this website.

[Tim Gallant]

I have no side in this conversation, and will reserve judgement on the hole until I (hopefully) get to play it one day.


That said, this quote kept standing out at me in this context, and I wonder if we still believe the below is true:


We must be allowed to ease the tension at occasional intervals for our sanity, so that our brains may cool and our hearts expand with renewed life and freedom. We must count on at the very least one indifferent hole in a round; to be quite on the safe side, we will allow an additional half of indifference as well, for the sake of extra relief. The course we think of should be noble in spite of its defects, as perfection throughout would be a monument of chilly precision incapable of inspiring us or of stimulating our jaded imagination. - Tom Simpson

[Sean_A]

Tim

It is an interesting concept isn't it? Make the course worse to make it better

To me it reads like a built in excuse for some indifferent golf. In any case, Dornoch has one or two more indifferent holes, the 18th perhaps coming too late for mental relief 😎.

Ciao

[Tim Gallant]

Tim

It is an interesting concept isn't it? Make the course worse to make it better

To me it reads like a built in excuse for some indifferent golf. In any case, Dornoch has one or two more indifferent holes, the 18th perhaps coming too late for mental relief 😎.

Ciao

Sean,


Well said. To be fair, I've kind of cherry-picked the quote a bit. I think he was mainly referring to not wanting every hole to be like the 17th at St Andrews, which he says is a perfect hole. He sites the Alps hole at Prestwick as being indifferent, so I'm not sure I can even get on board with his premise after that 

[Sean_A]

To be indifferent about Prestwick 17 is a odd opinion because it strikes me as a classic marmite hole.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Jon

I think you are being more than a little harsh in characterising the changes as being only to provide a view. Bringing in the cliff edge as a line of hazard both on the right hand side and at the rear far more than a line of gorse flanking the fairways wide of the rough. The hole gives the option to play safe by going up the left and having a more difficult second or alternatively brave the danger of going over the cliff on the right to get a better line in.

The infinity green aspect isn't just (or even) to provide a view but to intimidate the player in to being short with their approach.

Niall

[Niall C]

Lou-You have ticked off many important points. As a member at RDGC for 27 years, you are absolutely correct that this has been a source of long discussion and consideration. The back and forth is great, but I will reserve judgement until I get to actually play the hole. It has been interesting to watch it go in the last couple of years, and I think its addition will prove to be worthy of the rest of the course. As I mentioned earlier Dornoch is unusual in the willingness of the local custodians to continually assess the playability and design of the holes- and though there are many full members from overseas, we can not sit on the council or vote on issues unless we choose to attend the annual general meeting when these ideas are considered. Is it a fair question to ask why Pebble Beach redid the 5th hole, at tremendous cost, when the old hole "wasn't broke"? I think the answer for both changes rests in the playing experience for both the skilled and let's say enthusiastic golfer (me).

Mark

I don't know where you get the idea that RDGC is any different to other Scottish/UK clubs in tweaking their courses. I'd suggest that any club that hasn't done so would be the rarity rather than the other way round.

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Anyone like to advise (or speculate) why when he re-routed the course after WW2 George Duncan didn’t route the 7th closer to the cliff edge? Presumably views were important back then too?
Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,


if the land was being grazed which is almost certain then there would have been far less gorse and so you would have had the views anyway.


Niall,


thanks for the reply and thoughts. I would agree with entirely should it be the case of choosing safe and left or dangerous and right. There certainly was the opportunity to do something along these lines. From the couple of times I have had a good look at the new hole I do not believe this to be the case though and with the additional bunkers on the left this does not seemed to back that up. I am very surprised at the lack of width and the fact that the challenges of  drop to the right and bunkers on the left do not impinge upon 'the line of charm'. The old 7th was pretty much an infinity without the gorse at the back.

[Bryan Izatt]

When I first played the 7th hole more than 15 years ago, the fairway was abysmally narrow with dense gorse on both sides - a lost ball hell.  Subsequently they widened the corridor by 30-40 yards when they eradicated gorse on a number of holes more than 10 years ago.  So that was some improvement.  The new relocated hole is substantially wider by another 30 to 40 yards on the second part of the hole,  That should be a further improvement to pace of play and playability of the hole.


Jon, re your comment about 10 minute searches for lost balls, I know of no one who would enter a heavily gorse infested area looking for a ball.  It would be death by a thousand spikes for at best an unplayable lie.  Not to mention that the right of the new 7th is a very steep drop off.  As is the case today, if you hit it in the gorse most would play a provisional and move on with little delay.


Lou, with regard to the "normal" wind, the wind is as you say most frequently from the west, but only a little less common to be from the ESE.  In that regard I don't think there is a single "normal" wind direction.  As you play there more often you'll get a better sense of the variety of wind directions.  By the way, the 7th is currently oriented a little East of NE while the new 7th is oriented about 10° further to the East, so closer to ENE.  The West wind would therefore be a quartering helping wind for the most part - helping right hand slicers over the cliff into doom. 


As for the design of the hole, it appears to offer the same features and playing options as the old 7th - that are no clearly  or even subtlety discernible better or worse options.  The two bunkers on the left are likely too far out for us hackers to reach, but are too short to interfere with the long hitters.  Risking a drive up the right side near the cliff edge does not obtain a better angle to the green for a long second shot.  The bunker guarding the right side of the green is larger than the bunker guarding the left side.  It would appear that a drive down the middle would be the best bet.  Now, if the fairway bunkers were moved more to the middle and the right green-side bunker were removed in favour of some contouring then maybe a Carnoustie Hogan's Alley type of hole could have been created.  The infinity green may add some intimidation for the second shot, but I would imagine that most players would be short of the green regardless because of the length of the hole.


The improved views will add to the aesthetics of the course - as long as you don't mind the caravan park out past the 8th green, 9th tee. 

[Marty Bonnar]

I mean, there it is:

They certainly seem to have duplicated the green site, with identical bunkers. The two fairway pots still leave me cold. There doesn’t appear to be much in the way of strategy, but I’ll wait until I play it before we go there.
F.