[Gareth Williams]

As per the other Hankley Common thread (not that complementary in part I should add..... ) I wanted to share (as it's now in the semi public domain - link to follow in this thread) the recent plans presented by Martin Ebert at our club.

Just to give some context/background first. The club was proud to hold the UK Amateur championship this summer and the course was in fantastic condition as Conor Gough prevailed over Callum Farr 3&2 in the final over 36 holes. This event has spurred the club into thinking forwards on how best to present our course and the challenge it offers all standards of golfer.

The committee (driven by a very well regarded/active Club captain this year - and our Green Staff headed up by a dedicated and very accomplished Head Greenskeeper who is ex Morfontaine) decided to approach Ebert & Mackenzie to hear their ideas for the course and how best to improve it. These plans were presented to the committee in private first and then shared with members via an engaging presentation from Martin Ebert at the golf club. Martin started off by saying (or joking?!) he'd been at a similar event at Royal North Devon Golf club the same day and only 10 members turned up......we had around 180 members that came for the evening (via a ticket booking system to accommodate the numbers for the evening) Putting that into context - and how passionate the members are about our course - the AGM attracts around one third (at most) of the number that attended this evening.....

After a brief run through the history of Ebert & Mackenzie Martin shared with us that the work they do which is split between i) Renovation/updates and ii) New course design.....with the greater emphasis being on the former. He also talked through his work with the R&A where they consult on 7 of the 10 courses on the Open Championship Rota.

Moving onto Hankley Common Golf Club. Martin talked through each hole with an historical review, current view and then a series of proposed improvements, one by one. By and large these were very well thought out and the overall key point that they correctly identified in HCGC was that the bunkering was not up to the standard of the rest of the course and rather inconsistent. Put simply there are at least 4 differing styles of bunkers on the course and not all of them are consistent with a Heathland Braid/Colt course. It is said that Colt's work at HCGC was predominantly on the back nine holes but Martin correctly identified some inconsistencies in this view but there are some clear Colt hallmarks to be found and Mackenzie Ebert felt it was right to bring those to the fore once again.

Here is a link to the proposed plan and with commentary by hole;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhkyQFw42xc

There is a consultation period for Members to offer their own views on these proposed changes and then the club with assimilate that before getting into the logistics of what such work should be done/timings/costings/impact to the members/guests and the local environment.

I'd be very interested to hear the views of the GCA membership on this exciting initiative. I for one believe that if the majority of the changes are acted on - along with the club's very active general updating/improvements to the club/paths/surrounding area/ tree management plans - it will enhance the course/club significantly.....


Please keep your comments on here and this is being shared in confidence. Thank you.

[jeffwarne]

Great stuff Gareth
Played there last week-really enjoyed it.
I will say my one negative comment was the bunkering style feeling out of place in spots.
Looks like the consulting architects agree.
.
Restoring the width on a few holes would be nice (#1 comes to mind) which they also are addressing.
Not sure I quite get the "lowering the carry area in front of greens to increase visibility" on a few holes or the chopping up of existing larger tees into smaller ones but again there's no money in doing less,,,,

[Duncan Cheslett]

I’m intrigued as to why the club chose this particular firm to prepare such a report, and presumably to supervise any work done.



M&E are clearly flying high at the moment, but I wouldn’t have thought that their close association with the R&A and their huge workload with Open courses necessarily made them the best choice for somewhere like Hankley Common.


There  are many smaller firms who could do just as good a job and undoubtedly  devote more personal time to the project, as they are not stretched as thinly.


How much of Martin Ebert are you actually going to get?


I won’t even speculate as to relative costs...

[Ben Stephens]

I’m intrigued as to why the club chose this particular firm to prepare such a report, and presumably to supervise any work done.



M&E are clearly flying high at the moment, but I wouldn’t have thought that their close association with the R&A and their huge workload with Open courses necessarily made them the best choice for somewhere like Hinkley Common.


There  are many smaller firms who could do just as good a job and undoubtedly  devote more personal time to the project, as they are not stretched as thinly.


How much of Martin Ebert are you actually going to get?


I won’t even speculate as to relative costs...

Duncan




Good points


On twitter M+E have been looking for a CAD draughtsperson who lives near their office as part of their 'expansion'


I suspect the works will be done by the in-house green keeping team with little supervision from Martin Ebert. This is also the case at Notts which I hope Boony will drop in a comment.   


M+E own @golfarchitects on twitter i wonder if clubs google in golf architects and then M+E become the first line of google search. 




Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Hi Gareth,


Interesting comment below the you tube movie by HCGC

'Please see below the link to the presentation by Martin Ebert with a voiceover explaining his views on each hole.  You will hear there is mention of some changes to a few tees.  Please note that the Committee has already decided that, other than the forward tee on the 16th, any such changes will not form part of the planned works for the next several years, as we wish to focus at this time on the improvements which will benefit the greatest cross-section of the membership. The tees will be reviewed at a later time and in consultation with the membership.  Finally, the presentation mentions tree removal to the right of the 8th green.'

[Ben Stephens]

Hi Gareth




I have gone through the HCGC you tube video twice.


This is my honest and frank opinion


Firstly Hankley is a top notch club and the course is conditioned very well. However ........ (drum roll) ........




My initial view is that there are subtle changes mainly cosmetic to 'improve' the look of the course. If that was the case why didn't the club do it in house rather than employ M+E? or they want further reassurance from a well know golf course architect such as M+E?


I question why Martin Ebert/M+E is doing the following:


- Sandy areas in heather? surely the heather better off left untouched and new Sandy area or humps created within the grassed areas (fairway/first cut rough) would add more variety?


- Why are the majority of new bunkers are on the outside elbow of the dogleg left or on the right hand side of the fairway bearing in mind a lot of golfers tend to hit fades or slices. Alister Mackenzie tended to put bunkers on the inside dogleg and areas where the direct line to the green is.


- I personally think that some bunkers are pointless/wrong positions (current and new ones)


- the widened fairway and putting in two centreline bunkers quite far apart looks very odd to me for a heathland course. surely heather like features in the middle of the fairway with one small bunker in it or heather 'fingers' protruding either side of the fairway at different distances would fit with the look of the course creating shapes and risk/reward factor.


- the greens shapes are quite monotonous and there are no proposals to put small extensions put in interesting pin positions for big tournaments or main club events.


- The Braid par 3 7th is in a great location however the bunkers don't do it justice IMO they just don't seem to fit in naturally.


- lack of strategic holes proposed - Hankley is like an airstrip type of course which tends to be repetitive and boring.


- Why refer to the past referring to Colt and Braid so much the game has changed and evolved. I wonder what Colt and Braid would have done today - probably different to what they initially proposed.


My personal view is that Hankley has huge potential to be an even better course due to its acreage. This report does not give that option - was the brief by the greens committee limited to aesthetics and minor changes? or they left it open for Martin Ebert to come up with his proposals/ideas? (it seems to be one option for each hole - which tends to be one dimensional and gives members little choice) - I cite Andrew Green's work at Inverness as an example he has made a strong course even better and stronger based on images and aerial views. He put in around 2 or 3 new holes on extended land and upped the ante on the other holes. However Hankley may not have the budget or the confidence to do this. 


Is the budget limited to subtle or cosmetic changes to tees, bunkers, heather regeneration and tree removal? No reshaping of greens as they seem to be pretty identical in shape/outline all the way round from memory. No alternative ideas like creating 2 or 3 new holes that would really elevate the course. I suspect which is common at most English private clubs members are reluctant to major changes and tend to be happy with what they have got already.


I suspect a similar approach by Ebert will be carried out at Luffenham and M+E did some recommendations at Burghley Park in the noughties and Burghley are undergoing and have recently made changes to the course recently (Gordon Irvine supervising) when the original design ideas are really out of date by 10-15 years? (this is probably because they were building a new clubhouse then). Seems like Hankley will be not carrying out these works immediately but a few years later after further consultations with the members.


Whilst at BUDA Hankley/Liphook - Hankley was a bit of a disappointment for me having heard of rave reviews about it and Liphook was an eye opener and incredible experience. I am afraid if I had a choice I would still go to Liphook 9-1 or 8-2 times over Hankley and these changes for me are yeah yeah its ok not really something that would pull me back to play Hankley in a flash. don't get me wrong Hankley is still a strong golf course - Top 100 in England and I am sure others love playing it and it has a very good 18th hole which seems to be different to the other holes.


Cheers
Ben

[Mark Pearce]

I got about half way through the video last night and will watch the rest tonight.


What really struck me, however, was how much of it I'd heard before.  Take out some location and hole specific comments and it's the same presentation M&E gave to members of The Northumberland when they presented their report there.  There's obviously a checklist here: outstanding heathland (presumably /links/parkland) ground, great bones, bunkers tired and atypical, respect the heritage of the ODGs......


I am concerned that there;s a plain vanilla, one size fits all approach and that as more and more clubs follow the R&A lead, the UK is going to end up with an alarming amount of homogenization at many of our better courses.

[Ben Stephens]

I got about half way through the video last night and will watch the rest tonight.


What really struck me, however, was how much of it I'd heard before.  Take out some location and hole specific comments and it's the same presentation M&E gave to members of The Northumberland when they presented their report there.  There's obviously a checklist here: outstanding heathland (presumably /links/parkland) ground, great bones, bunkers tired and atypical, respect the heritage of the ODGs......


I am concerned that there;s a plain vanilla, one size fits all approach and that as more and more clubs follow the R&A lead, the UK is going to end up with an alarming amount of homogenization at many of our better courses.

Bang on Mark!


M+E seem to be the Amazon of golf course design in England/UK

I even have some of their course reports from a while back and Turnberry proposal - same style and approach. We need something different and quick!! 


Clyde Johnson looks like doing some neat work at Seacroft the opposite to M+E - elevating the course to another level working both ways to the past and the future - I am intrigued to see what is next there as it is still a long way to go. https://twitter.com/cunningolf and looks like Renaissance are working at Alwoodley.


The trouble is most top clubs tend to go with one option M+E rather than go out to tender and/or invite 2 or 3 architects/designers to come up with some proposals however they may not want to spend extra money. I think this is the right approach to allow members to choose which is their preferred option.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I don’t know whether M&E actually do use plywood templates for marking out bunker shapes to ensure absolute uniformity, but from their work at Delamere Forest it would certainly appear so!


I’m glad Clyde’s name has cropped up. He is exactly the kind of person I would choose for a job such as Hankley.

[Ben Stephens]

I don’t know whether M&E actually do use plywood templates for marking out bunker shapes to ensure absolute consistency, but from their work at Delamere Forest it would certainly appear so!


I’m glad Clyde’s name has cropped up. He is exactly the kind of person I would choose for a job such as Hankley.

But would Hankley take the 'risk' of employing Clyde?


There are so many other good golf course designers/architects its all about giving them the opportunity. The frustration is that so many clubs are risk averse and don't do sufficient enough research or be adventurous.

[Duncan Cheslett]

“Nobody ever got fired for buying  IBM.”



It’s a little sad when potentially better solutions are ignored.

[Robin_Hiseman]

The youtube film demonstrates why M&E are currently so successful. It is very well researched, beautifully formatted, graphically concise, thoughtfully conceived and well presented. I admire the quality of their promotional documents and understand why so many club committees appoint them. They deliver on their promises, build them well and nobody is offended by their proposals. It's a commercially sound business philosophy, bearing fruit throughout the land.


It won't be long before someone establishes an M&E golfing trail. You'll certainly never be too far away from one.

[Duncan Cheslett]

You make them sound a little like Wetherspoons, Robin.


🤣

[Robin_Hiseman]

Frankie & Benny is arguably more apposite. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

Frankie MacKenzie and Benny Ebert?


This could catch on!


 

[Ben Stephens]

The youtube film demonstrates why M&E are currently so successful. It is very well researched, beautifully formatted, graphically concise, thoughtfully conceived and well presented. I admire the quality of their promotional documents and understand why so many club committees appoint them. They deliver on their promises, build them well and nobody is offended by their proposals. It's a commercially sound business philosophy, bearing fruit through repetition throughout the land.


It won't be long before someone establishes an M&E golfing trail. You'll certainly never be too far away from one.

Agree Robin - makes me wonder if the club is playing more for the designs or the presentations itself 


It is clear, precise and simple. It does seem at present what most UK top clubs want to hear currently rather than be challenged with two possible options one simple and another out of the box which M+E don't offer. They have got the mindset of many clients right.


Their approach seems safety first. I am questioning aren't architects and designers supposed to challenge their clients to think outside the box or sit behind a desk producing repetitive schemes?

I question does it represent good value for money for a club getting the best out of the course where there is only minor tweaks which M+E probably charge a lot for. The club could have done this in house.


Their golden period won't last forever and there will be someone else after to replace them. IMO the Top USA clubs are way ahead of the UK clubs in terms of improving their courses design wise.


Another question is do they do the build well - do they have one contractor or a multiple group of contractors that they have in mind/or trust to carry out their design modifications? I always think that the best that the club gets out of the archie is that the archie is on site a lot during construction - how can M+E do this when they have such a large number of client the danger is that quality of work on site is being compromised. 

[Ben Stephens]

Frankie & Benny is arguably more apposite. 

Can't really remember the only time I went to Frankie and Benny's i have not been there for many moons 

[Ben Stephens]

Frankie & Benny is arguably more apposite. 

Can't really remember the only time I went to Frankie and Benny's i have not been there for many moons so you can imagine what I think of them 

[Duncan Cheslett]

In any line of business getting the sales pitch right is absolutely vital.


If M&E are doing a better job in this area than the competition good luck to them. It is up to their competitors to raise their game to a similar level.


My only experience of such a presentation was Ken Moodie’s at Reddish Vale. His was just as impressive as the M&E video for Hankley imo.


I get the impression though that the likes of Ken never got the opportunity to pitch to Hankley. It’s a pity - Ken’s another who would have done an excellent job. This is right up his alley.

[Ben Stephens]

In any line of business getting the sales pitch right is absolutely vital.


If M&E are doing a better job in this area than the competition good luck to them. It is up to their competitors to raise their game to a similar level.


My only experience of such a presentation was Ken Moodie’s at Reddish Vale. His was just as impressive as the M&E video for Hankley imo.


I get the impression though that the likes of Ken never got the opportunity to pitch to Hankley.

Thats why I am really looking forward to see Ken's course evolve at Houghton on the Hill. It is different to what it is in the area within 30-45 mins travel which I am familiar with and there is not many courses in this vicinity to get excited about.


M+E not necessarily are doing a better job in this area they are doing better Marketing aided by working on the Open courses and being the R+A preferred architects their website the first key words that pop up is 'classic golf design' which appeal to most.


Hawtree was the 'ones to go to' a decade ago wonder why their works is being reviewed again at some clubs. Luffenham is one example they used Hawtree a decade ago and now are using M+E. 


Clubs only realise the quality of the work produced after it is done whether they are happy with it or not.

[Thomas Dai]

The youtube film demonstrates why M&E are currently so successful. It is very well researched, beautifully formatted, graphically concise, thoughtfully conceived and well presented. I admire the quality of their promotional documents and understand why so many club committees appoint them. They deliver on their promises, build them well and nobody is offended by their proposals. It's a commercially sound business philosophy, bearing fruit throughout the land.

+1
The youtube film is thoroughly professional.
Whilst quibbling over specific ideas or suggestions or current fads can take place, from an overall perspective I can well understand why, if non-architecture enthusiast members have got the money, or someones's going to give them some money in relation to something that might happen in the future, the members would go down the M&E route. I do wonder though to what extent other routes are being explored.
atb

[Gareth Williams]

Appreciate the feedback....tough crowd however.....

As yet the membership does not know if (at all) any other design companies were approached but as Martin Ebert rightly said it is a "name business" when he referred to how the business really started in 2005.

Clubs will seek out the best known designers who's body or work speaks for itself and, by default golf clubs, are a conservative bunch so very unlikely to take a radical departure from what currently exists unless there is a real need to. Part of the clubs brief was that in approaching M&E we would want Martin Ebert specifically leading and not for the project to be delegated down within the company....and to date that is what we have got and it's all the better for it in my view.

I believe the brief for M&E would have been an open one and should they have suggested any major changes they would have done so. Furthermore the budgetary constraints are not openly known but I would "think" that radical changes/re-routing/new holes would not be financially possible or prudent to do so for the club - and, frankly, not needed. One of the considerations was for a change for the par 5 13th hole that would take it to the left of where it is now to get away from a public access footpath that runs parallel to the hole but, rightly so, it was decided not to do that as it would set presidence for other holes where there are further public paths/access (it is adjoining common land as the name suggests) and that would therefore involve wholesale changes that again would be difficult to justify in many ways. Also M&E needed to be somewhat respectful in that there has been a  lot of changes to the course in the last 5 years completed by the club.....some of those with success (bunkering on the 9th hole for example) and some that are still not right (the 4th green being the main culprit here......) after a few attempts - maybe a reason for consulting with someone of Martin Ebert's statue?

I have played golf at Hankley since 2008 and been a member for the past 4 years and my view has always been it is a fantastic Heathland course in an incredible Heathland location.....but the course could do with some enhancements to take it to the next level. There is no huge desire at the club to attract even more high profile events than this years British Amateur Championship so it is, I believe, about making more of what is currently in situ so it presents a more cohesive, pleasing and challenging game of golf.

I find the the comparison to Liphook rather ill judged and, in my own view having played both a lot ,without any real merit - sorry Ben!! Whilst it is a lovely course (with it's green complexes being of particular note) it is a vastly inferior layout/test of golf and with some very disjointed routing as well....and that's before you take into the account the surrounding road/rail noise and the very real danger in crossing the road to play the 15th/16th holes.

[Ben Stephens]

Appreciate the feedback....tough crowd however.....

As yet the membership does not know if (at all) any other design companies were approached but as Martin Ebert rightly said it is a "name business" when he referred to how the business really started in 2005.

Clubs will seek out the best known designers who's body or work speaks for itself and, by default golf clubs, are a conservative bunch so very unlikely to take a radical departure from what currently exists unless there is a real need to. Part of the clubs brief was that in approaching M&E we would want Martin Ebert specifically leading and not for the project to be delegated down within the company....and to date that is what we have got and it's all the better for it in my view.

I believe the brief for M&E would have been an open one and should they have suggested any major changes they would have done so. Furthermore the budgetary constraints are not openly known but I would "think" that radical changes/re-routing/new holes would not be financially possible or prudent to do so for the club - and, frankly, not needed. One of the considerations was for a change for the par 5 13th hole that would take it to the left of where it is now to get away from a public access footpath that runs parallel to the hole but, rightly so, it was decided not to do that as it would set presidence for other holes where there are further public paths/access (it is adjoining common land as the name suggests) and that would therefore involve wholesale changes that again would be difficult to justify in many ways. Also M&E needed to be somewhat respectful in that there has been a  lot of changes to the course in the last 5 years completed by the club.....some of those with success (bunkering on the 9th hole for example) and some that are still not right (the 4th green being the main culprit here......) after a few attempts - maybe a reason for consulting with someone of Martin Ebert's statue?

I have played golf at Hankley since 2008 and been a member for the past 4 years and my view has always been it is a fantastic Heathland course in an incredible Heathland location.....but the course could do with some enhancements to take it to the next level. There is no huge desire at the club to attract even more high profile events than this years British Amateur Championship so it is, I believe, about making more of what is currently in situ so it presents a more cohesive, pleasing and challenging game of golf.

I find the the comparison to Liphook rather ill judged and, in my own view having played both a lot ,without any real merit - sorry Ben!! Whilst it is a lovely course (with it's green complexes being of particular note) it is a vastly inferior layout/test of golf and with some very disjointed routing as well....and that's before you take into the account the surrounding road/rail noise and the very real danger in crossing the road to play the 15th/16th holes.

Hi Gareth,




Thats a good response and thank you for making us aware from a club members point of view and what has been going on behind the scenes which is a very interesting perspective.


Its ok to agree to disagree regarding Hankley and Liphook which are both very strong courses you are rather lucky there is a great number of quality courses within 30-45 mins drive from Hankley as well. You do make a valid point about Liphook's disjointed routing and crossings which might not appeal to some and Hankley's routing is better and safe.


For me Liphook just edges it over Hankley due to greater variation of the holes, better aesthetics and the quality of Croome's design which influenced Tom Simpson. Regarding Liphooks crossing to get to hole 15 is being 'resolved' and a few major changes to the holes and course configuration by putting a tunnel to get to those holes. The redesign is being done by (surprise surprise) M+E so I have reservations about what has been proposed.


Hankley is quite similar to a lot of heathland courses, how the holes are played feels quite repetitive it just needs something to stand out to enable it to be above other courses - if the members are happy with what they have got thats ok it has potential that not many courses is able to do so. I really liked the simplicity off the opening tee (why is Martin Ebert putting a fairway bunker??) and its where I first met the late Jim Goby and his swing and tee shot was an eye opener (Jim was around 5 ft 2 tall and was very competitive - how did he manage to beat Philip Gawith in the singles at Liphook) Plus the 18th is a great finishing hole.


Question - would you have preferred M+E to come up with more than 1 design proposal per hole?




Cheers
Ben

[Clyde Johnson]

Clyde Johnson looks like doing some neat work at Seacroft the opposite to M+E - elevating the course to another level working both ways to the past and the future - I am intrigued to see what is next there as it is still a long way to go. https://twitter.com/cunningolf and looks like Renaissance are working at Alwoodley.

Thanks for the shout-out Ben, but just to clarify: the consulting/shaping work at Alwoodley is independent of Tom and RGD. A club of that stature was willing to the task the risk, but then perhaps it was much less of a risk knowing I'd been trained and mentored by people who have the integrity not to suggest change for the sake of staying busy, to quietly go about improving the details, and to be bold on the odd occasion it is necessary!




Thanks also Gareth for posting this vid. Regardless of how you value the design proposals, it is easy to see why the layman would be impressed by such a presentation...very polished, and clear in outcome. It's a dilemma, because while I'm able to produce similar communication materials, I'd much rather be spending a clubs money where it matters...on the course!!

[Gareth Williams]

Clyde Johnson looks like doing some neat work at Seacroft the opposite to M+E - elevating the course to another level working both ways to the past and the future - I am intrigued to see what is next there as it is still a long way to go. https://twitter.com/cunningolf and looks like Renaissance are working at Alwoodley.

Thanks for the shout-out Ben, but just to clarify: the consulting/shaping work at Alwoodley is independent of Tom and RGD. A club of that stature was willing to the task the risk, but then perhaps it was much less of a risk knowing I'd been trained and mentored by people who have the integrity not to suggest change for the sake of staying busy, to quietly go about improving the details, and to be bold on the odd occasion it is necessary!




Thanks also Gareth for posting this vid. Regardless of how you value the design proposals, it is easy to see why the layman would be impressed by such a presentation...very polished, and clear in outcome. It's a dilemma, because while I'm able to produce similar communication materials, I'd much rather be spending a clubs money where it matters...on the course!!

Ok.


I don't actually know you, or your work Clyde (sorry about that) but why that rather smug/condescending reply please? Interested to hear a more constructive response perhaps.....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()