Royal Liverpool

[Niall C]

Ally


Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy to read comment from you so don't self edit on my behalf. Just saying.


Ben


I don't know how these things work contractually but I have a vague recollection of with the Open courses (including courses used for qualifiers) that the R&A make suggestions and have a dialogue with the club. Those suggestions might involve ideas emanating from consulting architect and if the work goes ahead then R&A provide funding. Not sure who the architects are working for at that point but have heard that in some the club hasn't always gone along with the suggestions made, and the R&A accept that.


My earlier point to Ally about quality of work is that they wouldn't get repeat business if they weren't good at what they do.


Niall

[Ben Stephens]

Ally


Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy to read comment from you so don't self edit on my behalf. Just saying.


Ben


I don't know how these things work contractually but I have a vague recollection of with the Open courses (including courses used for qualifiers) that the R&A make suggestions and have a dialogue with the club. Those suggestions might involve ideas emanating from consulting architect and if the work goes ahead then R&A provide funding. Not sure who the architects are working for at that point but have heard that in some the club hasn't always gone along with the suggestions made, and the R&A accept that.


My earlier point to Ally about quality of work is that they wouldn't get repeat business if they weren't good at what they do.


Niall

Niall,




They did the same with Hawtree a decade ago.


Seems like the pro game has changed a lot recently meaning that the course needs to be updated more often.




Cheers
Ben

[Lou_Duran]

Niall C,


It is my experience over many years that this DG is mostly interested in the "frank commentary" which devalues its necessary villains (often commercially successful designers and principals) while reflecting positively on its darlings.  I am acquainted with one of the former, which though agreeing to consider taking my questions for an interview on this site, noted that my hopes of it providing balance were perhaps naive and the endeavor was likely a waste of time for us both (I have come to the same conclusion and dropped the matter).


A few years earlier, I had proposed a similar project to one of our favored designers, probably one of the most gracious, thoughtful individuals I have met, and his reaction was akin to that of a priest entering an exorcism.  His kindest, succinct comments, to paraphrase: "It (golf architecture) is all subjective, a matter of preferences and opinions.  What I like may not be what you prefer.  Who is to say I have more correct insights?  Golf is a game to be enjoyed, not a philosophical, emotional struggle between right and wrong.  Who needs the conflict?"  I suspect that his analysis was voiced a few times before and I was left with no retort.


As to your last comment, when I visit an unfamiliar area, I look for restaurants with mostly full parking lots.  Yes, I have probably by-passed some new places that have yet to develop a clientele, but I can't think of ever being disappointed.


And in general, I suspect that a few here are looking more for personal affirmation than a frank discussion of the issues affecting golf and its architecture.  If one begins with "I really don't know" or "I have never seen the course" or, better yet, attempts to analogize golf to any number of other considerably different endeavors, perhaps the best thing to do is STOP.


Brad Klein once noted in this pages that some of his then raters seemed more interested in bringing attention to themselves than to doing their "job" while playing a course.  Whether for personal affirmation or to pass the time, the DG seems to be more of a social club than a forum to intelligently discuss a variety of topics pertinent to golf.  Fortunately, those old-timers who are still around have developed well-tested filters and generally skip the nonsense without missing too much of the valuable stuff.  I don't know how many times I've heard the lamentations of those who have taken their wit, knowledge, and interest elsewhere.  Perhaps this is just part of the natural cycle.


Ben,


Might it be that expectations have changed considerably in that time and most are evolving?  Have you thought how much the Golf Channel, YouTube, and other internet-based applications have accelerated this?  "Creative destruction", an anathema to some, immense opportunities to others.  Nothing new here.  It has been happening since the beginning of time.

[John Mayhugh]

My earlier point to Ally about quality of work is that they wouldn't get repeat business if they weren't good at what they do.

Niall,

This is a bit of an ad populum fallacy. The firm likely wouldn't get repeat business if their clients were not happy with the work performed, but that's not necessarily the same thing as the work being "good."

The criticism that I've read (and participated in) on here has been more along the lines of unnecessary work being done, work that doesn't respect the heritage of the design, or work that exhibits a sameness. It's completely possible that those that hired M&E do not share those concerns, hence they think more highly of the work than I might. Does that make it good?

[Ben Stephens]

Niall C,


It is my experience over many years that this DG is mostly interested in the "frank commentary" which devalues its necessary villains (often commercially successful designers and principals) while reflecting positively on its darlings.  I am acquainted with one of the former, which though agreeing to consider taking my questions for an interview on this site, noted that my hopes of it providing balance were perhaps naive and the endeavor was likely a waste of time for us both (I have come to the same conclusion and dropped the matter).


A few years earlier, I had proposed a similar project to one of our favored designers, probably one of the most gracious, thoughtful individuals I have met, and his reaction was akin to that of a priest entering an exorcism.  His kindest, succinct comments, to paraphrase: "It (golf architecture) is all subjective, a matter of preferences and opinions.  What I like may not be what you prefer.  Who is to say I have more correct insights?  Golf is a game to be enjoyed, not a philosophical, emotional struggle between right and wrong.  Who needs the conflict?"  I suspect that his analysis was voiced a few times before and I was left with no retort.


As to your last comment, when I visit an unfamiliar area, I look for restaurants with mostly full parking lots.  Yes, I have probably by-passed some new places that have yet to develop a clientele, but I can't think of ever being disappointed.


And in general, I suspect that a few here are looking more for personal affirmation than a frank discussion of the issues affecting golf and its architecture.  If one begins with "I really don't know" or "I have never seen the course" or, better yet, attempts to analogize golf to any number of other considerably different endeavors, perhaps the best thing to do is STOP.


Brad Klein once noted in this pages that some of his then raters seemed more interested in bringing attention to themselves than to doing their "job" while playing a course.  Whether for personal affirmation or to pass the time, the DG seems to be more of a social club than a forum to intelligently discuss a variety of topics pertinent to golf.  Fortunately, those old-timers who are still around have developed well-tested filters and generally skip the nonsense without missing too much of the valuable stuff.  I don't know how many times I've heard the lamentations of those who have taken their wit, knowledge, and interest elsewhere.  Perhaps this is just part of the natural cycle.


Ben,


Might it be that expectations have changed considerably in that time and most are evolving?  Have you thought how much the Golf Channel, YouTube, and other internet-based applications have accelerated this?  "Creative destruction", an anathema to some, immense opportunities to others.  Nothing new here.  It has been happening since the beginning of time.

Lou,




You are right the world wide web itself has accelerated means of extracting information in the last 25 years compared with before to the beginning of time thanks to the development of computers. There is higher expectations generally and it will get higher in the future.
 


Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Going back to Hoylake 


I have dug out the book - Hoylake A History of the Links by Anthony Shone and printed by Lathams 


On page 114 'Looking Ahead' mentions no scope in expanding the boundaries however on the sea side is naturally expanding.


This increases the amount of land for the club - the author mentions that building 1 or 2 holes on that land and putting 4 holes in the area of the last 6 holes. This is an interesting statement.


Seems like the club has thought of using the land and are now using it for the short par 3 by M+E.


Rye is another example and they have managed to build the Jubilee course on naturally expanding shoreline with the latest works by (surprise surprise!) M+E.

[Tim Gallant]

Wading in at last 


Reading this thread, I am conflicted, because I do think I am quite critical of M+E, and in this case, I am sure that they have been given a brief and are fulfilling the requirements. So it's not that I am entirely blaming M+E. And they might have the correct thinking that, 'hey, they're going to do this work anyways. And we know we can do a good job, so why not take it'. Fair enough.


I'll try not to rehash old points that we've discussed before, but I think our (my) frustrations come from the fact that what I value seems to be different to what the R&A, or indeed M+E value. I see a classic course and think, why change it. It's one of the best courses in the world, with wonderful unique characteristics that made it what it is today. Whereas, for the R&A and M+E, they see a course that could benefit from tweaks, which will ultimately mean a better Open Championship and better spectating. They're likely not wrong.


A final point: I know I don't know much when it comes to GCA and that's fine. I enjoy learning on this forum, and have learned a lot. I value reading posts from Ben, Niall and Ally on this and many subjects. But one thing I do know. There are a lot of guys making these decisions that know even less than me. And in these cases, it is my sincere hope that all architects are doing best by the club and course. It's idealistic yes, and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but I always hope that they, as trained experts, will always stand up for the course architecture before all else...even big championships.

[Simon Holt]

I had a good chat with members this year while playing in a club match.  We were at the 13th tee and unprompted, one of the members took me to the top of the dune behind us.  The sea has receded by a good 150 yards so there is plenty of room there on great links land.  He started to point out the options the club are thinking of.  Not all of which I can remember but it was more than 1 hole.


The driver (no pun intended) in terms of the Open is doing away with Open holes 1 and 2, and have the driving range there.  As it stands they use a nearby plot of council (?) land for the range during the Open and are somewhat at the mercy of that always being available.  If I was taking it all in correctly, those two holes (Open 1 and 2, Members 17 and 18) would cease to exist.


I'm not sure if any of this would be done before 2022 - they didn't seem to think it was anywhere near planning stage at that time but maybe things have changed.


All very much hearsay but there is plenty of land all the way down the coast from the Alps green to way beyond the 13th tee.

[Thomas Dai]

A couple of things -
Erosion up the coast at Formby (see other threads), depositing of material at Hoylake
Nice sea view from the new par–3 green at Hoylake, nice sea views from the revised 7th at Dornoch and the revised 9th at Cruden Bay
Any linkage?
Atb

[Ben Stephens]

Wading in at last 


Reading this thread, I am conflicted, because I do think I am quite critical of M+E, and in this case, I am sure that they have been given a brief and are fulfilling the requirements. So it's not that I am entirely blaming M+E. And they might have the correct thinking that, 'hey, they're going to do this work anyways. And we know we can do a good job, so why not take it'. Fair enough.


I'll try not to rehash old points that we've discussed before, but I think our (my) frustrations come from the fact that what I value seems to be different to what the R&A, or indeed M+E value. I see a classic course and think, why change it. It's one of the best courses in the world, with wonderful unique characteristics that made it what it is today. Whereas, for the R&A and M+E, they see a course that could benefit from tweaks, which will ultimately mean a better Open Championship and better spectating. They're likely not wrong.


A final point: I know I don't know much when it comes to GCA and that's fine. I enjoy learning on this forum, and have learned a lot. I value reading posts from Ben, Niall and Ally on this and many subjects. But one thing I do know. There are a lot of guys making these decisions that know even less than me. And in these cases, it is my sincere hope that all architects are doing best by the club and course. It's idealistic yes, and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but I always hope that they, as trained experts, will always stand up for the course architecture before all else...even big championships.

Tim


You do make very good points here.


As we don't know what is happening in the background only the R+A and M+E do the questions are:


Is the R+A or Royal Liverpool have strict brief/budget requirements is this limiting what M+E can do or the R+A are comfortable in what M+E propose based on their experience and dealings with them?


Or is it the R+A making recommendations and Royal Liverpool setting the budget and brief with grants from R+A? and the club are dealing directly with M+E on the recommendation of the R+A?


Or Royal Liverpool club members are institent on minimal changes and keep the look as per the other holes or they are the ones that want to make major changes to the course and having to ask the R+A to see if they would be happy with it?


Or M+E are sticking to a familiar style (safety first approach) ie what they think is right rather than think out of the box? so that they are not being challenged enough from a design standpoint from their peers?


Only R+A and M+E know the full story 




Going back to Royal Liverpool again


Having looked through the Hoylake Book by Anthony Shone. It is interesting to see both Fred Hawtree and Martin Hawtree reduced the amount of bunkers on the course in their proposals during their time/era. One example is the 17th (Open 1st) had a cluster of bunkers around the green designed by Donald Steel and company (assuming it is Tom and/or Martin also being involved) Martin Hawtree removed around half of them.


 
Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

A couple of things -
Erosion up the coast at Formby (see other threads), depositing of material at Hoylake
Nice sea view from the new par–3 green at Hoylake, nice sea views from the revised 7th at Dornoch and the revised 9th at Cruden Bay
Any linkage?
Atb

Well the company you are referring to Annual review is getting bigger and bigger as the years go by.

[Adam Lawrence]

I had a good chat with members this year while playing in a club match.  We were at the 13th tee and unprompted, one of the members took me to the top of the dune behind us.  The sea has receded by a good 150 yards so there is plenty of room there on great links land.  He started to point out the options the club are thinking of.  Not all of which I can remember but it was more than 1 hole.


The driver (no pun intended) in terms of the Open is doing away with Open holes 1 and 2, and have the driving range there.  As it stands they use a nearby plot of council (?) land for the range during the Open and are somewhat at the mercy of that always being available.  If I was taking it all in correctly, those two holes (Open 1 and 2, Members 17 and 18) would cease to exist.


I'm not sure if any of this would be done before 2022 - they didn't seem to think it was anywhere near planning stage at that time but maybe things have changed.


All very much hearsay but there is plenty of land all the way down the coast from the Alps green to way beyond the 13th tee.

They want to get rid of the Royal???

[Sean_A]

I had a good chat with members this year while playing in a club match.  We were at the 13th tee and unprompted, one of the members took me to the top of the dune behind us.  The sea has receded by a good 150 yards so there is plenty of room there on great links land.  He started to point out the options the club are thinking of.  Not all of which I can remember but it was more than 1 hole.


The driver (no pun intended) in terms of the Open is doing away with Open holes 1 and 2, and have the driving range there.  As it stands they use a nearby plot of council (?) land for the range during the Open and are somewhat at the mercy of that always being available.  If I was taking it all in correctly, those two holes (Open 1 and 2, Members 17 and 18) would cease to exist.


I'm not sure if any of this would be done before 2022 - they didn't seem to think it was anywhere near planning stage at that time but maybe things have changed.


All very much hearsay but there is plenty of land all the way down the coast from the Alps green to way beyond the 13th tee.

They want to get rid of the Royal? ??

It's not really the Royal anymore.

Happy Hockey

[Ben Stephens]

I had a good chat with members this year while playing in a club match.  We were at the 13th tee and unprompted, one of the members took me to the top of the dune behind us.  The sea has receded by a good 150 yards so there is plenty of room there on great links land.  He started to point out the options the club are thinking of.  Not all of which I can remember but it was more than 1 hole.


The driver (no pun intended) in terms of the Open is doing away with Open holes 1 and 2, and have the driving range there.  As it stands they use a nearby plot of council (?) land for the range during the Open and are somewhat at the mercy of that always being available.  If I was taking it all in correctly, those two holes (Open 1 and 2, Members 17 and 18) would cease to exist.


I'm not sure if any of this would be done before 2022 - they didn't seem to think it was anywhere near planning stage at that time but maybe things have changed.


All very much hearsay but there is plenty of land all the way down the coast from the Alps green to way beyond the 13th tee.

They want to get rid of the Royal? ??

It's not really the Royal anymore.

Happy Hockey

The Royal's Colt 1923 green was moved in 2003 for safety reasons. Imagine that happening on the 1st at Prestwick 


Wished I had played Dowie and Royal before these changes. To be fair new holes in the dunes would be far better and I for one would not really miss Holes 17 and 18 (Open 1 and 2) on the other hand it would make 16 become the permanent 18th and the first as it should be a more nervy drive.


Portrush have done exactly that

[Sean_A]

I would really miss the member 16th just as I would the member 1st if it were removed. To me these flat holes using the OOB so prominently are part of a major reason why Hoylake became famous. To lose Dowie and Royal was a major blow. To remove more OOB from the course would rip the guts out of the design.

Happy Hockey

[Tom_Doak]

The 13th is a hole I specifically praised for its firm links character and lack of reliance on sea views.

[Niall C]

Lou


Thank you for your comments which I enjoyed reading and I think I agree with much that you say and can identify myself in some of your comments. For sure this website has become a social  gathering place which is epitomised by events such as BUDA, and I'm very happy to partake. I'm also guilty as charged when it comes for looking for affirmation as obviously I know best anyway  .


I do however have my moments of genuinely seeking knowledge particularly for courses of interest that I've never played/walked, hence my presence on this thread. All good stuff.


Niall

[Niall C]

My earlier point to Ally about quality of work is that they wouldn't get repeat business if they weren't good at what they do.

Niall,

This is a bit of an ad populum fallacy. The firm likely wouldn't get repeat business if their clients were not happy with the work performed, but that's not necessarily the same thing as the work being "good."

The criticism that I've read (and participated in) on here has been more along the lines of unnecessary work being done, work that doesn't respect the heritage of the design, or work that exhibits a sameness. It's completely possible that those that hired M&E do not share those concerns, hence they think more highly of the work than I might. Does that make it good?

John


There can be many reasons for undertaking changes and I think the only one that I can think of as being unnecessary is making changes for the sake of it. I very much doubt that is the case with M&E. It seems to me they have enough quality work on without the need to change anything for the sake of it. As for whether it is any good or not, Lou's friend summed that up very well in saying it is all subjective. Personally I like a lot of what they have done and so do a lot of others.


The heritage argument however is more down my street. As I said to Lou I know little of this course but already I'm reading about previous changes being made here and there, and that to me is the heritage of most links courses which is constant evolution. If you look at M&E's changes as part of that cycle then maybe you wouldn't get upset about it. You never know, your preferred (living) architect might be along some time soon to restore the course to your preferred iteration 


Niall


 

[Thomas Dai]

A couple of things -
Erosion up the coast at Formby (see other threads), depositing of material at Hoylake
Nice sea view from the new par–3 green at Hoylake, nice sea views from the revised 7th at Dornoch and the revised 9th at Cruden Bay
Any linkage?
Atb

Well the company you are referring to Annual review is getting bigger and bigger as the years go by.

Actually I wasn't just referring to any particular company. I was also thinking about the seeming desire to have more and more holes with nice sea views.
atb

[John Mayhugh]

Niall,
I don't have a "preferred living architect," so your suggestion is misplaced. I don't understand the idea that criticism of work must be due to not liking an architect or someone else being a favorite - that is a bit of straw man. If someone such as Doak or Hanse gets less (or no) criticism about a restoration, perhaps it's because people feel their work is more respectful to the original. Or maybe it's easier for them to look good if they are simply fixing past errors and bringing back design elements that were hidden.

Of course links courses have changed over the years and will continue to change. One of the things that I love about golf in the UK is how well so many courses fit the land, with variety and quirk providing fun and memorability. Past efforts at modernization and improvement have taken away some of these things, and I fear that we will lose more. To be sure, inaction on equipment has provided an impetus (and maybe need) for change. I just would like to see the change be respectful of what originally made the course special/unique.

I have no way of knowing what remit M&E have been given at various places, but am commenting only on what's being proposed or has been implemented:

• To me, creating fake dunes at places like Formby and Burnham seems like change for the sake of change.
• To me, introducing sandy waste areas at Troon, St. Andrews New, Turnberry, Portrush, and now Hankley sounds like a fashion statement or step towards homogeneity. It may work quite well, but should it be implemented everywhere?
• To me, modifying greens like the 9th at Westward Ho! (a proposal that has seemingly now been dropped) doesn't show enough respect for the uniqueness of the course that is being worked on.

If folks would stick to prettying up bunkers and moving a few around, so what? It's only money, and easily reversed.

[Sean_A]

Tucky

I too worry about homogenization of classic courses, even the bits of classic courses which aren't classic. This is one of the worries of a few firms getting tons of tidy up work. I know at Burnham the work to date has been hit and miss.

The new back tee on 9 is horrendous.

The new 6th hole tee to green is good, but the cool and severe Hawtree green was sacrificed...so mixed results. Also, I am not convinced the changes were well thought out. For big hitters the hole is much easier. For 225ish hitters the hole is harder. I don't know for certain, but I think views on offer due to the new work may have played too prominent a role. Again, I don't know because I wasn't consulted!

I don't know how the work on #12 will turn out, but it is clear the fairway is being flattened.  It looks like the hole turning against the slope of the fairway is being eliminated and the fairway will be more like some others, playing between dunes. On the surface, this strikes me as a bad move because it reduces hole variety when all that was really necessary was to widen the fairway to allow for the reverse camber.

14 green is being softened. We shall see how that turns out.

I have to say all the work feels like "us guys in 2019 know what is best".

One cool aspect is the temporary 12th is using what was going to be the tee as a par 3 when this hole was altered in the 70s. This bay be the best short hole on the course and I hope the club keeps the tee.


Happy Hockey

[Simon Holt]

The 13th is a hole I specifically praised for its firm links character and lack of reliance on sea views.

Agree.  I've always thought it was the last of a stretch of very good holes and love the bunkering.  After that the course is very good at squeezing every bit of quality out of a flat piece of land.


Is this change one for the cameras or is it genuinely to get a better routing?  A few of the other post touch upon this, and it's maybe not the case at Hoylake, but we do seem to be drifting into the Instagram Age of Golf Course Design.  If a hole isn't photo worthy we all know that doesn't make it a bad hole - just not as good for marketing....

[Tim Gallant]

My earlier point to Ally about quality of work is that they wouldn't get repeat business if they weren't good at what they do.

Niall,

This is a bit of an ad populum fallacy. The firm likely wouldn't get repeat business if their clients were not happy with the work performed, but that's not necessarily the same thing as the work being "good."

The criticism that I've read (and participated in) on here has been more along the lines of unnecessary work being done, work that doesn't respect the heritage of the design, or work that exhibits a sameness. It's completely possible that those that hired M&E do not share those concerns, hence they think more highly of the work than I might. Does that make it good?

As I said to Lou I know little of this course but already I'm reading about previous changes being made here and there, and that to me is the heritage of most links courses which is constant evolution. If you look at M&E's changes as part of that cycle then maybe you wouldn't get upset about it.


Niall

Niall,


I suppose this hits at the crux of the argument for or against. In the case of Royal Liverpool, it seems like there were changes in the past that ripped out the character (and challenge) of two of the best holes on the course in the name of fairness. And now, years later, one of those holes is seen as uninteresting (the 17th), and there is talk about removing it from the course all together. Whereas if the course was to have just been left alone once it was considered great, it would be pretty darn good. Why continue tweaking? You may succeed, but it's no guarantee.


The talk all of the sudden seems to be around challenging the good players, and being fair for all. But we know that's not what makes good golf architecture.

[Sean_A]

Tim

Unless a complete rethink of Hoylake's routing was on the cards, the change at Royal was down to Open traffic flow and supposed H&S issues with the road so close to the green. The club made a decision to get the Open which is hard to fault given the club history. Unfortunately, I think the idea of changes which happen for hosting the Open for some reason spills over to other clubs which don't really need some of the work which is conducted. I have long said that it's too easy to blame the long ball for course changes. It is the nature of each succeeding generation to think they are more wise than previous generations. If the money is there it will be spent. We have already seen play out when the first surge of cash came to GB&I clubs due to visitors starting back in the 80s.

Happy Hockey

[Thomas Dai]

The 13th is a hole I specifically praised for its firm links character and lack of reliance on sea views.

Is this change one for the cameras or is it genuinely to get a better routing?  A few of the other post touch upon this, and it's maybe not the case at Hoylake, but we do seem to be drifting into the Instagram Age of Golf Course Design.  If a hole isn't photo worthy we all know that doesn't make it a bad hole - just not as good for marketing....

+1
Not just an Instagram Age of Golf Course Design either .. also an Instagram Age of Golf Course Maintenance.
atb