[Ben Stephens]

Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?

surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.

Hi Tim


I don’t recall ever mentioning Rees Jones on this site. Being British, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an example of his work, unless he was involved in the Oxfordshire.


Is Hankley really one of the ‘great courses’ that should be left untouched?


Or is it a Course that whilst most golf golfers would be delighted to be a member, the Course doesn’t live up to the spectacular setting?


Had they got the Woodhall Spa gig, and done the same work, would you be lamenting the England Golf Blazers and old boy network on them getting a plum job?


From where I’m sitting, M&E, if you listen to people who assess what’s in the ground objectively, do good work, and employ skilled and experienced people to do it for them.


How many on the Open Rota did they have when they started out? I’d suggest 0.


Now they have seven out of ten, do they rest on their laurels, and say ‘our work speaks for itself’ or do they still work the hardest in terms of presentation and research?


Seems to me there’s a lot of sniping from those who should either get better, or get out.


Perhaps they can provide a list of commissions they’ve declined? As they suggest M&E should.


I read lots of the criticisms as tall poppy syndrome. Hankley is a case in point, there is nothing remotely of ‘doing more rather than less’ in their proposals. Otherwise they would be doing the greens and moving earth. As I said in my parody, they’re doing tree removal, widening fairways and restoring bunkers. Modest changes, in keeping with their brief and budget, that only the blinkered could say wasn’t an improvement.

Ryan,


Apologies - must have been a different Ryan I was thinking of from the Bethpage thread that is now resting in peace.


I am not objecting to work being done at Hankley - if it's felt by the membership that there are improvements that can be made, then I only hope they get the best that they can get. Based on the historical photos in the presentation, and the proposals in the video, I think the changes are certainly an improvement on what is there at the moment, but are short of what it could be if another outfit were given the opportunity (like CPD). Pont is a Colt expert, and I think they could be more faithful to the restorative nature of the project, if that's what they're going for. If not, then why are M+E using the historical photos?


This is an architectural website. I am only concerned about the architectural features of golf courses new and old. There seems to be thoughts that myself, or others are chummy with the ones that we praise and are therefore bitter and resentful towards M+E, Hawtree and those likes in the world. That is not the case. I've never met half the architects that I praise, and I have no reason to personally take offence with Mackenzie and Ebert. In fact, from everything I am told, Mr. Ebert is a wonderful guy and a sharp architectural mind who is well read and well studied. When I write some of these things, I don't like it, because I know how hard they work. I'm in the peanut gallery, and I have zero onsite experience or know how difficult it is to build something good.


With all that said, I'm looking around and I see great work coming from some places and wondering why all places can't be like that.


As you've said, I think those in the know (paging Mr. Lawrence) and others seem to think the M+E work is good, but I've never heard anyone come out and say incredibly flattering things about it either.


I'm not fighting against M+E - I'm trying to draw attention to the mediocrity that seems to be taking hold of courses (especially great ones) in the UK and what I see as homogenisation across the UK at the moment, mainly at the hands of one team.


As a final point - the argument that because they got the Open rota jobs they must be good is flawed. That's like saying Starbucks has the best coffee because they have the most shops. There is more at play when it comes to working with the R&A than just good work.


Final question: Answering honestly, do you feel what is being presented to Hankley is the best that the club can get, especially considering they're paying top pound?

My answer to your final question from a presentation standpoint - Yes but design standpoint - No

[Ryan Coles]

Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.

From your reply #27:
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Sadly, I've no way of knowing from your posts whether you believe what you are typing, but your reply to Tim suggests you do.

Hi John


Thanks for clarifying.


The post makes no reference to them being "the only" practice capable of making a professional and compelling case. Just the fact that they do, do it well, and still get criticised for it.


I'm mocking how M&E are are griped about over pages and pages on this website for doing their job well and taking the time to produce such high quality research and presentations. Take a look at the fantastic document they produced for Royal Portrush and lo and behold, they delivered what they said they would on time and on budget. Some purists don't like it, but I suspect the Members at Portrush, the Town and NI Govt would disagree.


It seems as if it's a case of there's no time or money to explain in advance what the Club's are getting, but there's always the money afterwards to change it if they don't like it. Committees are (or should be) cautious in spending other people's money. It's part of the job to explain and go through the process of Committee and Membership engagement. M&E seem to grasp this and the cumbersome nature of Club decision making and are adept at getting through it. Rather than gripe about this, perhaps those wanting the work should up their game in this regard.


If M&E did nothing in this regard and just said, go and see Turnberry and Troon and flashed the R&A tie, the same people would be moaning that they get jobs without even having to try. The fact that they have the prestige of R&A and Open links, and they are still prepared to produce such quality prep work and turn up to listen to nonsense from Members etc, I think speaks volumes for their understanding of their business.


In terms of their work, some will be better than others, that's life. But the bitterness in this thread about small, sensible, uncontroversial changes at Hankley shows that they can't really win in some people's eyes. Do a bit of bunker work, grassing lines and tree removal, over several years and they lack ambition and the site deserves better and they should have been bold. Make quite sweeping changes and they are deemed changing for changes sake and trashing heritage and cool features.


It would seem a more sensible position to therefore listen to the objective individual examples cited by Adam, Niall and many others, of examples of high quality work and judge each project on individual merit. By modern day standards, they are quite prolific, so on occasion it's quite plausible that some work won't be as good as elsewhere. No different to anyone else, past or present in that respect and internet forums rarely give thought to what the clients brief or budget was.


It's why I would rather listen to those who play golf, who play the courses, rather than those who play architects. Because it's clear to me that many here judge the work not based on what's in the ground, but based on their regard for who got hired to do it.


Just my opinion.

[Tim Gallant]

Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.

From your reply #27:
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Sadly, I've no way of knowing from your posts whether you believe what you are typing, but your reply to Tim suggests you do.

Take a look at the fantastic document they produced for Royal Portrush and lo and behold, they delivered what they said they would on time and on budget. Some purists don't like it, but I suspect the Members at Portrush, the Town and NI Govt would disagree.

The fact that they have the prestige of R&A and Open links, and they are still prepared to produce such quality prep work and turn up to listen to nonsense from Members etc, I think speaks volumes for their understanding of their business.

In terms of their work, some will be better than others, that's life. But the bitterness in this thread about small, sensible, uncontroversial changes at Hankley shows that they can't really win in some people's eyes. Do a bit of bunker work, grassing lines and tree removal, over several years and they lack ambition and the site deserves better and they should have been bold. Make quite sweeping changes and they are deemed changing for changes sake and trashing heritage and cool features.


It would seem a more sensible position to therefore listen to the objective individual examples cited by Adam, Niall and many others, of examples of high quality work and judge each project on individual merit. By modern day standards, they are quite prolific, so on occasion it's quite plausible that some work won't be as good as elsewhere. No different to anyone else, past or present in that respect and internet forums rarely give thought to what the clients brief or budget was.


It's why I would rather listen to those who play golf, who play the courses, rather than those who play architects. Because it's clear to me that many here judge the work not based on what's in the ground, but based on their regard for who got hired to do it.


Just my opinion.

Ryan,


Appreciate your position - my thoughts on a few selected passages of yours:


1st paragraph - If the sole barometer for success is whether they are reliable, then that's fine. I can't argue with that, but that doesn't make their work good. It just makes it...reliable


2nd paragraph - It seems that no one is better at doing this than M+E. Again, it doesn't make their ideas or design good. It just means they are good at selling what they have to offer.


3rd paragraph - In the case of Hankley (and others) it's not about whether we are lambasting them for doing more or less, it's about the seemingly recycled ideas and design recommendations that is increasingly homogenised. This idea of opening exposed areas of sand in select areas seems incredibly reminiscent of what they've done at Princes and Gullane 1. I saw Gullane 1, and the members so despised the changes that they actually let it grow back. That's objective opinion, not mine. I am sure there is historical evidence to suggest there was exposed sand on site (although they don't highlight this within their proposal), but it seems like they are cherry picking historical evidence where it conveniently suits their design ideas and disregarding it when it doesn't (in the case of the bunkers at 4 and 6).


4th and 5th paragraph - How do you know they have objectivity in this fight? I'll let the others speak for themselves, but I have always tried to remain objective when looking at the work of architects. In the Royal Liverpool thread, I think I was complimentary to the work Ebert did on the 15th at Troon. I know there are other spots that I complimented across the UK that they had a hand in. Muirfield is one of my favourite courses in the world, and has been touched frequently by Hawtree in the past. I still will be a proponent for restrained architecture when it comes to the great courses of the UK (which Hankley may or may not be), but I won't begrudge someone if they did something good just because I don't like they're other work. Look at DMK - by all accounts he has built some good things and bad. You have to judge everything in isolation. And in isolation, these changes at Hankley still don't look up to scratch.

[Ben Stephens]

Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.

From your reply #27:
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Sadly, I've no way of knowing from your posts whether you believe what you are typing, but your reply to Tim suggests you do.

Hi John


Thanks for clarifying.


The post makes no reference to them being "the only" practice capable of making a professional and compelling case. Just the fact that they do, do it well, and still get criticised for it.


I'm mocking how M&E are are griped about over pages and pages on this website for doing their job well and taking the time to produce such high quality research and presentations. Take a look at the fantastic document they produced for Royal Portrush and lo and behold, they delivered what they said they would on time and on budget. Some purists don't like it, but I suspect the Members at Portrush, the Town and NI Govt would disagree.


It seems as if it's a case of there's no time or money to explain in advance what the Club's are getting, but there's always the money afterwards to change it if they don't like it. Committees are (or should be) cautious in spending other people's money. It's part of the job to explain and go through the process of Committee and Membership engagement. M&E seem to grasp this and the cumbersome nature of Club decision making and are adept at getting through it. Rather than gripe about this, perhaps those wanting the work should up their game in this regard.


If M&E did nothing in this regard and just said, go and see Turnberry and Troon and flashed the R&A tie, the same people would be moaning that they get jobs without even having to try. The fact that they have the prestige of R&A and Open links, and they are still prepared to produce such quality prep work and turn up to listen to nonsense from Members etc, I think speaks volumes for their understanding of their business.


In terms of their work, some will be better than others, that's life. But the bitterness in this thread about small, sensible, uncontroversial changes at Hankley shows that they can't really win in some people's eyes. Do a bit of bunker work, grassing lines and tree removal, over several years and they lack ambition and the site deserves better and they should have been bold. Make quite sweeping changes and they are deemed changing for changes sake and trashing heritage and cool features.


It would seem a more sensible position to therefore listen to the objective individual examples cited by Adam, Niall and many others, of examples of high quality work and judge each project on individual merit. By modern day standards, they are quite prolific, so on occasion it's quite plausible that some work won't be as good as elsewhere. No different to anyone else, past or present in that respect and internet forums rarely give thought to what the clients brief or budget was.


It's why I would rather listen to those who play golf, who play the courses, rather than those who play architects. Because it's clear to me that many here judge the work not based on what's in the ground, but based on their regard for who got hired to do it.


Just my opinion.

Ryan,




Out of interest - have you played Hankley?


To me they are just brushing up/restoring someone else's design that was done almost a century ago not design it to take it forward into the 21st century. For me that does not improve the course very much and some of their ideas are questionable like the centre line bunkers and removing heather to widen the fairway to accommodate those bunkers it just looks rather odd and different to the rest of the course.


The high quality presentations tend to be a front sometimes and can brainwash certain clients or members because they look so good. Try and ignore the high quality presentations and closely see what they are proposing design wise it is weak its like food with great presentation but tastes pretty average.


I agree with Tim Gallant where he is coming from such as cookie cutters style bunkers they tend to look artificial. Have a look at the bunkers at Effingham - https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf


I have played Hankley twice and it was a disappointing experience having heard rave reviews from others and some on GCA prior to 2011 BUDA.


Our response to M+E proposals at Hoylake might be different and they have done some good work at Princes apart from the 7th and 8th on Himalayas which the water features are overcooked and doesn't look natural to me. Portrush is quite good, Turnberry is black and white, Troon the 15th fairway is better (as referred by Tim Gallant), Deal they have made improvements however I need to play it again to see it for myself.

Every architect has done good and bad stuff. IMO Hankley is one of their weakest proposals they have done (Burghley Park is another).

Have a look at other examples I name a few current ones such as:

- Tim Lobb at St Georges Hill and Woking is both a respectful design and has made improvements to the course by updating the bunkering, tees, removing trees and restoring heather. Here is a great movie explains one of the proposed changes at St Georges Hill- http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/ - See the bunkering cutting across the fairway for example. Tim is also working at Huntercombe

- Tom Doak and his crew on the Hotckin course at Woodhall which has gone up a couple of levels. It is astounding (even if its lost its bite however it is much more forgiving) that I am more keen to play it again as I know I won't lose too many balls as the damn trees have gone

- Andrew Green current work at Oak Hill and Inverness which has gone referred to the past and future - they look awesome and much more Ross like for the 21st century. https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en

I can't see Hankley following the others as per above with the proposals M+E have put forward it will be like another Effingham or RAC.

You have your opinion and might be a fan of M+E which I respect and I have mine which I am happy to share on GCA.


Ben

[Tim Gallant]

Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.

From your reply #27:
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Sadly, I've no way of knowing from your posts whether you believe what you are typing, but your reply to Tim suggests you do.

Hi John


Thanks for clarifying.


The post makes no reference to them being "the only" practice capable of making a professional and compelling case. Just the fact that they do, do it well, and still get criticised for it.


I'm mocking how M&E are are griped about over pages and pages on this website for doing their job well and taking the time to produce such high quality research and presentations. Take a look at the fantastic document they produced for Royal Portrush and lo and behold, they delivered what they said they would on time and on budget. Some purists don't like it, but I suspect the Members at Portrush, the Town and NI Govt would disagree.


It seems as if it's a case of there's no time or money to explain in advance what the Club's are getting, but there's always the money afterwards to change it if they don't like it. Committees are (or should be) cautious in spending other people's money. It's part of the job to explain and go through the process of Committee and Membership engagement. M&E seem to grasp this and the cumbersome nature of Club decision making and are adept at getting through it. Rather than gripe about this, perhaps those wanting the work should up their game in this regard.


If M&E did nothing in this regard and just said, go and see Turnberry and Troon and flashed the R&A tie, the same people would be moaning that they get jobs without even having to try. The fact that they have the prestige of R&A and Open links, and they are still prepared to produce such quality prep work and turn up to listen to nonsense from Members etc, I think speaks volumes for their understanding of their business.


In terms of their work, some will be better than others, that's life. But the bitterness in this thread about small, sensible, uncontroversial changes at Hankley shows that they can't really win in some people's eyes. Do a bit of bunker work, grassing lines and tree removal, over several years and they lack ambition and the site deserves better and they should have been bold. Make quite sweeping changes and they are deemed changing for changes sake and trashing heritage and cool features.


It would seem a more sensible position to therefore listen to the objective individual examples cited by Adam, Niall and many others, of examples of high quality work and judge each project on individual merit. By modern day standards, they are quite prolific, so on occasion it's quite plausible that some work won't be as good as elsewhere. No different to anyone else, past or present in that respect and internet forums rarely give thought to what the clients brief or budget was.


It's why I would rather listen to those who play golf, who play the courses, rather than those who play architects. Because it's clear to me that many here judge the work not based on what's in the ground, but based on their regard for who got hired to do it.


Just my opinion.

Ryan,




Out of interest - have you played Hankley?


To me they are just brushing up/restoring someone else's design that was done almost a century ago not design it to take it forward into the 21st century. For me that does not improve the course very much and some of their ideas are questionable like the centre line bunkers and removing heather to widen the fairway to accommodate those bunkers it just looks rather odd and different to the rest of the course.


The high quality presentations tend to be a front sometimes and can brainwash certain clients or members because they look so good. Try and ignore the high quality presentations and closely see what they are proposing design wise it is weak its like food with great presentation but tastes pretty average.


I agree with Tim Gallant where he is coming from such as cookie cutters style bunkers they tend to look artificial. Have a look at the bunkers at Effingham - https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf


I have played Hankley twice and it was a disappointing experience having heard rave reviews from others and some on GCA prior to 2011 BUDA.


Our response to M+E proposals at Hoylake might be different and they have done some good work at Princes apart from the 7th and 8th on Himalayas which the water features are overcooked and doesn't look natural to me. Portrush is quite good, Turnberry is black and white, Troon the 15th fairway is better (as referred by Tim Gallant), Deal they have made improvements however I need to play it again to see it for myself.

Every architect has done good and bad stuff. IMO Hankley is one of their weakest proposals they have done (Burghley Park is another).

Have a look at other examples I name a few current ones such as:

- Tim Lobb at St Georges Hill and Woking is both a respectful design and has made improvements to the course by updating the bunkering, tees, removing trees and restoring heather. Here is a great movie explains one of the proposed changes at St Georges Hill- http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/ - See the bunkering cutting across the fairway for example. Tim is also working at Huntercombe

- Tom Doak and his crew on the Hotckin course at Woodhall which has gone up a couple of levels. It is astounding (even if its lost its bite however it is much more forgiving) that I am more keen to play it again as I know I won't lose too many balls as the damn trees have gone

- Andrew Green current work at Oak Hill and Inverness which has gone referred to the past and future - they look awesome and much more Ross like for the 21st century. https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en

I can't see Hankley following the others as per above with the proposals M+E have put forward it will be like another Effingham or RAC.

You have your opinion and might be a fan of M+E which I respect and I have mine which I am happy to share on GCA.


Ben

Great examples Ben!


The Effingham bunkers are very reminiscent of what's been done at Bruntsfield.


Absolutely have to get Woking. And you're right about what Andrew Green is doing. Restorative in nature at Inverness, and the place feels like a Ross. I hope they get the US Open in the future.

[Thomas Dai]

Some interesting weblinks and thoughts above.
Given the way presentation technology is developing it won't be long before club members can 'play' the architects design proposals on an indoor simulator!
atb

[Sean_A]

It is hard (for me anyway) to criticize a club for using a safe pair of hands to execute a design plan. It is even harder to criticize an archie without knowing the brief, budget and constraints.  My only over-arching comments would be that much new work looks the same and that is mainly due to bunker treatment.  That in and of itself is not a problem unless a course has a heritage of distinction.  We can all argue about the meaning of heritage of distinction, but lets say Woodhall's distinction is a good few notches higher than Hankley's.  The bunker heritage at Woodhall was highly varied in placement and aesthetics and that was an important element to recognize for any designer. 

I say new bunker treatment is not a problem if courses begin to look alike, but that doesn't mean the work is ideal.  There can be an inherent financial risk by shooting for ideal in terms of maintenance, sustainability and build cost. Safe hands usually mitigates the risk.  All that said, often times the main issue I see with new bunkers is they are all pretty much the same size.  This issue shows up again and again when bunkers can be properly seen as on downhill shots or clustered around greens etc.  Additionally, with same size bunkering and the squiggly look, it is difficult to make the bunkers sit at different looking angles.  But I don't want to get all crazy about the matter because I don't know enough about any single project.  The best bunker job I have seen was at Aberdovey, although I did wonder about how they would hold up.  As it turns out, the club couldn't really afford to maintain those cool looking, ground hugging chunk bunkers.  So not many years later more money needs to be spent.  I hear the same about Tandridge in that many bunkers need to be reworked.

I guess all I am saying is there is design for all levels of clubs and ambitions and we shouldn't get too bogged down in aesthetics and instead first concentrate on placement.  Hell, most of the time I wish clubs would leave the bunkers as the last thing to upgrade and instead focus on greens, drainage and playability. 

Happy Hockey

[Ben Stephens]

Some interesting weblinks and thoughts above.
Given the way presentation technology is developing it won't be long before club members can 'play' the architects design proposals on an indoor simulator!
atb

+1 they can walk through a building by VR I think Harris Kalinka offer this for golf courses Robin has raved about it

[Ben Stephens]

Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.

From your reply #27:
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Sadly, I've no way of knowing from your posts whether you believe what you are typing, but your reply to Tim suggests you do.

Hi John


Thanks for clarifying.


The post makes no reference to them being "the only" practice capable of making a professional and compelling case. Just the fact that they do, do it well, and still get criticised for it.


I'm mocking how M&E are are griped about over pages and pages on this website for doing their job well and taking the time to produce such high quality research and presentations. Take a look at the fantastic document they produced for Royal Portrush and lo and behold, they delivered what they said they would on time and on budget. Some purists don't like it, but I suspect the Members at Portrush, the Town and NI Govt would disagree.


It seems as if it's a case of there's no time or money to explain in advance what the Club's are getting, but there's always the money afterwards to change it if they don't like it. Committees are (or should be) cautious in spending other people's money. It's part of the job to explain and go through the process of Committee and Membership engagement. M&E seem to grasp this and the cumbersome nature of Club decision making and are adept at getting through it. Rather than gripe about this, perhaps those wanting the work should up their game in this regard.


If M&E did nothing in this regard and just said, go and see Turnberry and Troon and flashed the R&A tie, the same people would be moaning that they get jobs without even having to try. The fact that they have the prestige of R&A and Open links, and they are still prepared to produce such quality prep work and turn up to listen to nonsense from Members etc, I think speaks volumes for their understanding of their business.


In terms of their work, some will be better than others, that's life. But the bitterness in this thread about small, sensible, uncontroversial changes at Hankley shows that they can't really win in some people's eyes. Do a bit of bunker work, grassing lines and tree removal, over several years and they lack ambition and the site deserves better and they should have been bold. Make quite sweeping changes and they are deemed changing for changes sake and trashing heritage and cool features.


It would seem a more sensible position to therefore listen to the objective individual examples cited by Adam, Niall and many others, of examples of high quality work and judge each project on individual merit. By modern day standards, they are quite prolific, so on occasion it's quite plausible that some work won't be as good as elsewhere. No different to anyone else, past or present in that respect and internet forums rarely give thought to what the clients brief or budget was.


It's why I would rather listen to those who play golf, who play the courses, rather than those who play architects. Because it's clear to me that many here judge the work not based on what's in the ground, but based on their regard for who got hired to do it.


Just my opinion.

Ryan,




Out of interest - have you played Hankley?


To me they are just brushing up/restoring someone else's design that was done almost a century ago not design it to take it forward into the 21st century. For me that does not improve the course very much and some of their ideas are questionable like the centre line bunkers and removing heather to widen the fairway to accommodate those bunkers it just looks rather odd and different to the rest of the course.


The high quality presentations tend to be a front sometimes and can brainwash certain clients or members because they look so good. Try and ignore the high quality presentations and closely see what they are proposing design wise it is weak its like food with great presentation but tastes pretty average.


I agree with Tim Gallant where he is coming from such as cookie cutters style bunkers they tend to look artificial. Have a look at the bunkers at Effingham - https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf


I have played Hankley twice and it was a disappointing experience having heard rave reviews from others and some on GCA prior to 2011 BUDA.


Our response to M+E proposals at Hoylake might be different and they have done some good work at Princes apart from the 7th and 8th on Himalayas which the water features are overcooked and doesn't look natural to me. Portrush is quite good, Turnberry is black and white, Troon the 15th fairway is better (as referred by Tim Gallant), Deal they have made improvements however I need to play it again to see it for myself.

Every architect has done good and bad stuff. IMO Hankley is one of their weakest proposals they have done (Burghley Park is another).

Have a look at other examples I name a few current ones such as:

- Tim Lobb at St Georges Hill and Woking is both a respectful design and has made improvements to the course by updating the bunkering, tees, removing trees and restoring heather. Here is a great movie explains one of the proposed changes at St Georges Hill- http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/ - See the bunkering cutting across the fairway for example. Tim is also working at Huntercombe

- Tom Doak and his crew on the Hotckin course at Woodhall which has gone up a couple of levels. It is astounding (even if its lost its bite however it is much more forgiving) that I am more keen to play it again as I know I won't lose too many balls as the damn trees have gone

- Andrew Green current work at Oak Hill and Inverness which has gone referred to the past and future - they look awesome and much more Ross like for the 21st century. https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en

I can't see Hankley following the others as per above with the proposals M+E have put forward it will be like another Effingham or RAC.

You have your opinion and might be a fan of M+E which I respect and I have mine which I am happy to share on GCA.


Ben

Great examples Ben!


The Effingham bunkers are very reminiscent of what's been done at Bruntsfield.


Absolutely have to get Woking. And you're right about what Andrew Green is doing. Restorative in nature at Inverness, and the place feels like a Ross. I hope they get the US Open in the future.

Inverness will show the world when it hosts the Solheim Cup in 2021


Here is a link to the latest incarnation


https://invernessclub.com/golf/

[Tim Gallant]

It is hard (for me anyway) to criticize a club for using a safe pair of hands to execute a design plan. It is even harder to criticize an archie without knowing the brief, budget and constraints.  My only over-arching comments would be that much new work looks the same and that is mainly due to bunker treatment.  That in and of itself is not a problem unless a course has a heritage of distinction.  We can all argue about the meaning of heritage of distinction, but lets say Woodhall's distinction is a good few notches higher than Hankley's.  The bunker heritage at Woodhall was highly varied in placement and aesthetics and that was an important element to recognize for any designer. 

I say new bunker treatment is not a problem if courses begin to look alike, but that doesn't mean the work is ideal.  There can be an inherent financial risk by shooting for ideal in terms of maintenance, sustainability and build cost. Safe hands usually mitigates the risk.  All that said, often times the main issue I see with new bunkers is they are all pretty much the same size.  This issue shows up again and again when bunkers can be properly seen as on downhill shots or clustered around greens etc.  Additionally, with same size bunkering and the squiggly look, it is difficult to make the bunkers sit at different looking angles.  But I don't want to get all crazy about the matter because I don't know enough about any single project.  The best bunker job I have seen was at Aberdovey, although I did wonder about how they would hold up.  As it turns out, the club couldn't really afford to maintain those cool looking, ground hugging chunk bunkers.  So not many years later more money needs to be spent.  I hear the same about Tandridge in that many bunkers need to be reworked.

I guess all I am saying is there is design for all levels of clubs and ambitions and we shouldn't get too bogged down in aesthetics and instead first concentrate on placement.  Hell, most of the time I wish clubs would leave the bunkers as the last thing to upgrade and instead focus on greens, drainage and playability. 

Happy Hockey

Great post Sean. Happy to accept your heritage of distinction, and think that can sum up what we're saying. If a club has it, don't ruin it. If it doesn't then fair enough - have at it. Whether a club has it, I suppose is at the descretion of the club, but even then, I think sometimes clubs don't realise what they have. If Mackenzie's proposal to alter a hole at NB is anything to go by, sometimes clubs don't know!


On bunker style - again, agree that placement is far more important than style. Do you have any thoughts on the proposed bunker on the 10th at Hankley on the right of the fairway?


I will just add that sometimes what seems like a stylistic change can indeed alter the shot value of an entire hole. For example, looking at that beautiful bunker at the 4th greenside from the historic photo, that looks intimidating and penal (particularly if the width is tighter than a normal bunker. The 3 split and proposed, while hazards, don't look particularly menacing.

[Sean_A]

Tim

I didn't get into much detail about Hankley because I don't know the course.  I have never heard much praise about the course from folks I trust so Hankley has never been a high priority.  Although, being a heathland course I assume the potential for that site is nearly off the charts even if fairly flat.  I would like to see the course, from pix Hankley certainly looks well above average. Plus, sometimes I disagree with trusted sources as was the case with Royal Wimbledon and RAC; incidentally both of which had fairly recent bunker renos which failed to impress me.   

I take your point about visual/psychological impact bunkers can present.  I would always be in favour of a few bunker wow moments just as is the case with greens and awkward holes.  I spose in this way I have never been fussed about consistency of design.  Good is good and I am inclined to be much more sympathetic to risk taking choices in design rather than the status quo choices...but I don't expect much more than status quo because of the nature golf clubs.     

I also take your point about clubs not knowing what they have or even what may be possible.  I know you were/are passionate about the bunker issue at NB, much more so than myself (being a grumpy old man).  I would be far more invested in a complete rethink of the bunker scheme/aesthetics and fairways.  Things have gone seriously astray, which I think can easily happen at old clubs.  This is where a good archie with fresh eyes can be of great service.   

Happy Hockey   

[Lou_Duran]

M & E have a huge advantage over the competition owing to their record over the years.  They are far along in the learning curve and can complete the due diligence, produce a professional presentation, and execute on the plan without shorting other clients.  If I was a fiduciary of a club, even if the budget was modest, they would be in my contact list.


As the story was told to me, a famous designer once asked another gca he was working with on a project why it took him so many visits to the site to complete his work.  The implication, as I understood it, was that perhaps his colleague was a bit slow.  I thought it amusing, and wondered if there might be some truth to it.

Lou,
Do you actually think it's advantageous for a club to have an architect make fewer visits? I feel that having the designer in the field as much as practical results in better, more individual work. You need to have talented people interpreting the plans/goals for the site, and who is better suited to that the designer?

Holding all other things equal (which is never the case) and within a relevant range, more visits are better than fewer.  My comments were in response to the notion that because M & E have so many projects, making high quality presentations take time from their "real" work, thus shorting their existing clients.


I can come up with many reasons why pondering over the work repeatedly in a long development cycle can be sub-optimal (how much more information do you gain by looking at a putt from every conceivable angle, and after a meticulous set-up routine before pulling the trigger, how does it affect performance?).


The facts are that we all do things in different ways, at different rates, and with different results.  Learning Curve theory is also impacted by the Bell Curve.  M & E, I suspect, can generate these thorough, professional presentations with relative ease at this time in their careers (I've seen experienced MAIs- property appraisers- with big shops turn out very high quality, 500+ page documents on complicated commercial property in less than a week whereas it took over a month from some small operators who normally do four page residential appraisals).


And in addition to the historical benefits alluded to by others, these presentations also serve as a baseline, a plan for the work.  I am a big believer in planning the work and working the plan.  With some flexibility for changes indicated as the project moves forward, they also provide a standard by which the work is evaluated. 


I am told that some architects are so known for their frequent site visits that the members hold their breaths and wallets until they're over.  Nothing is perfect in this world. 

[Michael Felton]

I agree with Tim Gallant where he is coming from such as cookie cutters style bunkers they tend to look artificial. Have a look at the bunkers at Effingham - https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf

Ben

Hi


Interesting that you bring up Effingham here. I'm a (overseas) member there. I haven't played it much since they did the work on it, but if you look at the 9th hole, they took it from an interesting tee shot where you either play safe up the right and leave a longer approach or you take on the bunkers on the left. If you clear them you have a much easier shot. The further right you leak it the longer the carry has to be, so it really encourages you to go for it. Now those bunkers are all in a straight line, which takes away all that strategy. Now what I do is aim it at the bunkers and hope I miss them. Laying up short of them leaves too far to realistically get home and so you're almost as bad off as if you are in the bunkers anyway. They're not carryable from the back tee. I think it's stupid now, but maybe that's just me. Colt had something in mind when he put those bunkers where they were.


I must confess that I hadn't realised just how cookie cutter those bunkers are. The two on the right for the tee shot on 17 look identical to each other. The folds of the lips are exactly the same.

[Ryan Coles]

Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.

From your reply #27:
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Sadly, I've no way of knowing from your posts whether you believe what you are typing, but your reply to Tim suggests you do.

Hi John


Thanks for clarifying.


The post makes no reference to them being "the only" practice capable of making a professional and compelling case. Just the fact that they do, do it well, and still get criticised for it.


I'm mocking how M&E are are griped about over pages and pages on this website for doing their job well and taking the time to produce such high quality research and presentations. Take a look at the fantastic document they produced for Royal Portrush and lo and behold, they delivered what they said they would on time and on budget. Some purists don't like it, but I suspect the Members at Portrush, the Town and NI Govt would disagree.


It seems as if it's a case of there's no time or money to explain in advance what the Club's are getting, but there's always the money afterwards to change it if they don't like it. Committees are (or should be) cautious in spending other people's money. It's part of the job to explain and go through the process of Committee and Membership engagement. M&E seem to grasp this and the cumbersome nature of Club decision making and are adept at getting through it. Rather than gripe about this, perhaps those wanting the work should up their game in this regard.


If M&E did nothing in this regard and just said, go and see Turnberry and Troon and flashed the R&A tie, the same people would be moaning that they get jobs without even having to try. The fact that they have the prestige of R&A and Open links, and they are still prepared to produce such quality prep work and turn up to listen to nonsense from Members etc, I think speaks volumes for their understanding of their business.


In terms of their work, some will be better than others, that's life. But the bitterness in this thread about small, sensible, uncontroversial changes at Hankley shows that they can't really win in some people's eyes. Do a bit of bunker work, grassing lines and tree removal, over several years and they lack ambition and the site deserves better and they should have been bold. Make quite sweeping changes and they are deemed changing for changes sake and trashing heritage and cool features.


It would seem a more sensible position to therefore listen to the objective individual examples cited by Adam, Niall and many others, of examples of high quality work and judge each project on individual merit. By modern day standards, they are quite prolific, so on occasion it's quite plausible that some work won't be as good as elsewhere. No different to anyone else, past or present in that respect and internet forums rarely give thought to what the clients brief or budget was.


It's why I would rather listen to those who play golf, who play the courses, rather than those who play architects. Because it's clear to me that many here judge the work not based on what's in the ground, but based on their regard for who got hired to do it.


Just my opinion.

Ryan,




Out of interest - have you played Hankley?


To me they are just brushing up/restoring someone else's design that was done almost a century ago not design it to take it forward into the 21st century. For me that does not improve the course very much and some of their ideas are questionable like the centre line bunkers and removing heather to widen the fairway to accommodate those bunkers it just looks rather odd and different to the rest of the course.


The high quality presentations tend to be a front sometimes and can brainwash certain clients or members because they look so good. Try and ignore the high quality presentations and closely see what they are proposing design wise it is weak its like food with great presentation but tastes pretty average.


I agree with Tim Gallant where he is coming from such as cookie cutters style bunkers they tend to look artificial. Have a look at the bunkers at Effingham - https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf


I have played Hankley twice and it was a disappointing experience having heard rave reviews from others and some on GCA prior to 2011 BUDA.


Our response to M+E proposals at Hoylake might be different and they have done some good work at Princes apart from the 7th and 8th on Himalayas which the water features are overcooked and doesn't look natural to me. Portrush is quite good, Turnberry is black and white, Troon the 15th fairway is better (as referred by Tim Gallant), Deal they have made improvements however I need to play it again to see it for myself.

Every architect has done good and bad stuff. IMO Hankley is one of their weakest proposals they have done (Burghley Park is another).

Have a look at other examples I name a few current ones such as:

- Tim Lobb at St Georges Hill and Woking is both a respectful design and has made improvements to the course by updating the bunkering, tees, removing trees and restoring heather. Here is a great movie explains one of the proposed changes at St Georges Hill- http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/ - See the bunkering cutting across the fairway for example. Tim is also working at Huntercombe

- Tom Doak and his crew on the Hotckin course at Woodhall which has gone up a couple of levels. It is astounding (even if its lost its bite however it is much more forgiving) that I am more keen to play it again as I know I won't lose too many balls as the damn trees have gone

- Andrew Green current work at Oak Hill and Inverness which has gone referred to the past and future - they look awesome and much more Ross like for the 21st century. https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en

I can't see Hankley following the others as per above with the proposals M+E have put forward it will be like another Effingham or RAC.

You have your opinion and might be a fan of M+E which I respect and I have mine which I am happy to share on GCA.


Ben

Ben


Yes, I have played Hankley. I think the only heath in that area I’ve not is Wentworth East, if in fact you could classify it as that.


You live in rarefied golfing atmosphere if you were very disappointed. Could it be better? Sure. It has huge potential and given the budget and appetite could be improved greatly. However, I and many others would be delighted to play golf at Hankley regularly.


It’s a very good course and if disappointed, I’d suggest not venturing to my neck of the woods as Hankley would comfortably be the best inland course in the 3 neighbouring counties. 


Had the Club wanted to, I’m sure M&E would make more sweeping changes and probably re-do the greens and surrounds, which as many highlight lack the interest of some of their neighbours.


As it is, it appears the brief and budget is quite modest, and the suggested changes make sense to me and will be an improvement.


Do the changes maximise the potential of the site? Of course not. Would a few million £ bring it up to the class of Walton Heath etc? Probably.


Hankley will probably always seem as a missed opportunity and could have been great. But then so is Broadstone and many others. Sometimes being very good is ok with the Club’s membership.

[John Mayhugh]

M & E, I suspect, can generate these thorough, professional presentations with relative ease at this time in their careers

And in addition to the historical benefits alluded to by others, these presentations also serve as a baseline, a plan for the work.  I am a big believer in planning the work and working the plan.  With some flexibility for changes indicated as the project moves forward, they also provide a standard by which the work is evaluated. 

I am told that some architects are so known for their frequent site visits that the members hold their breaths and wallets until they're over.  Nothing is perfect in this world.

Lou,


I agree that M&E are likely quite efficient at preparing plans & presentations. But I also wonder if doing so results in a lot of “cut & paste” type content. Several of us have expressed concern about a sameness to the work from place to place. Could their methodology explain this?


Of course, I have no idea how their execution of a project works, and assume most of us are in the same boat there. My comments are based on the info they or others have shared about the plans and results. Stated another way, I don’t care about what process they use - I am talking about the product.


Your anecdote about architects charging for site visits probably isn’t relevant for how the so-called GCA darlings work. I suspect that’s more of a big firm issue.

[Ben Stephens]

Ryan,




Out of interest - have you played Hankley?


To me they are just brushing up/restoring someone else's design that was done almost a century ago not design it to take it forward into the 21st century. For me that does not improve the course very much and some of their ideas are questionable like the centre line bunkers and removing heather to widen the fairway to accommodate those bunkers it just looks rather odd and different to the rest of the course.


The high quality presentations tend to be a front sometimes and can brainwash certain clients or members because they look so good. Try and ignore the high quality presentations and closely see what they are proposing design wise it is weak its like food with great presentation but tastes pretty average.


I agree with Tim Gallant where he is coming from such as cookie cutters style bunkers they tend to look artificial. Have a look at the bunkers at Effingham - https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf


I have played Hankley twice and it was a disappointing experience having heard rave reviews from others and some on GCA prior to 2011 BUDA.


Our response to M+E proposals at Hoylake might be different and they have done some good work at Princes apart from the 7th and 8th on Himalayas which the water features are overcooked and doesn't look natural to me. Portrush is quite good, Turnberry is black and white, Troon the 15th fairway is better (as referred by Tim Gallant), Deal they have made improvements however I need to play it again to see it for myself.

Every architect has done good and bad stuff. IMO Hankley is one of their weakest proposals they have done (Burghley Park is another).

Have a look at other examples I name a few current ones such as:

- Tim Lobb at St Georges Hill and Woking is both a respectful design and has made improvements to the course by updating the bunkering, tees, removing trees and restoring heather. Here is a great movie explains one of the proposed changes at St Georges Hill- http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/ - See the bunkering cutting across the fairway for example. Tim is also working at Huntercombe

- Tom Doak and his crew on the Hotckin course at Woodhall which has gone up a couple of levels. It is astounding (even if its lost its bite however it is much more forgiving) that I am more keen to play it again as I know I won't lose too many balls as the damn trees have gone

- Andrew Green current work at Oak Hill and Inverness which has gone referred to the past and future - they look awesome and much more Ross like for the 21st century. https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en

I can't see Hankley following the others as per above with the proposals M+E have put forward it will be like another Effingham or RAC.

You have your opinion and might be a fan of M+E which I respect and I have mine which I am happy to share on GCA.


Ben



Ben


Yes, I have played Hankley. I think the only heath in that area I’ve not is Wentworth East, if in fact you could classify it as that.


You live in rarefied golfing atmosphere if you were very disappointed. Could it be better? Sure. It has huge potential and given the budget and appetite could be improved greatly. However, I and many others would be delighted to play golf at Hankley regularly.


It’s a very good course and if disappointed, I’d suggest not venturing to my neck of the woods as Hankley would comfortably be the best inland course in the 3 neighbouring counties. 


Had the Club wanted to, I’m sure M&E would make more sweeping changes and probably re-do the greens and surrounds, which as many highlight lack the interest of some of their neighbours.


As it is, it appears the brief and budget is quite modest, and the suggested changes make sense to me and will be an improvement.


Do the changes maximise the potential of the site? Of course not. Would a few million £ bring it up to the class of Walton Heath etc? Probably.


Hankley will probably always seem as a missed opportunity and could have been great. But then so is Broadstone and many others. Sometimes being very good is ok with the Club’s membership.




Ryan


As you weren’t at BUDA 2011 at Hankley and Liphook the general consensus was that most that attended / took part were underwhelmed by Hankley based on the rave reviews beforehand and were surprised with Liphook in which most preferred out of the two.


Wow you sound rather unwelcoming it’s a free country after all we do have the choice to play where we would like to go to if welcomed by the club.


I don’t think you have a good understanding of ‘reading’ golf course design proposals and have been enticed by M+E work


I guess we will have to wait after the works has been done or go to Woodhall Spa to see what Doak’s team has done in 3 years.


Ben

[Ryan Coles]

Ben


I’m sorry that you misunderstood pretty much everything I’ve wrote.


I’m saying that being very disappointed with Hankley will lead to more disappointment playing courses in my rather barren area. Hankley knocks spots off 99% of courses. Not that you aren’t welcome to play them.


Re: understanding, you’re probably right.

[David McIntosh]

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.

I’m a bit late to the party here but Mark’s comments are spot on. I just watched the video and had an alarming sense of deja vu...I’ve heard much of this before.

The M&E presentations/proposals I’ve seen all contain the same smooth, polished, buzzword bingo, ‘cut and paste’ formula that seems to appeal to Greens Committees who want a tried and tested approach without having to take on risk or potential criticism down the line (if that’s the main concern, who can blame them for instructing the firm who consults at 70% of the current Open rota!).

Studying historical materials (and then deviating from these per the diagonal bunker on the 4th and scar bunker on the 6th at Hankley) and praising the heritage of the course seem to be stock moves. I was particularly disappointed with their proposals for the bunker on the 17th hole at North Berwick, which I believe were mainly Mackenzie, as the driver for the changes appeared to be ease of maintenance, optics and “fairness” rather than maintaining a key strategic bunker on the course. Frilly edged bunkers which were not in keeping with the rest of the course were also proposed, which I was not in favour of, (much like the waste area on hole 9 of Gullane #1, which has since reverted to its previous state due to its unpopularity with members).

I appreciate each course and proposed changes need to be judged on their own merits and I don’t want this to be viewed as a M&E bashing post purely for the sake of it. In the interests of full disclosure, I think the only course of theirs I’ve played where significant changes were made was Turnberry and there is no doubt in my mind that the course is better for it. However, I still feel that there was an opportunity to do more as Turnberry still has, in my view, a number of mundane holes which mean it isn’t anywhere near consideration as one of the world’s best, as it often is in various rankings.

[Ben Stephens]

Ben


I’m sorry that you misunderstood pretty much everything I’ve wrote.


I’m saying that being very disappointed with Hankley will lead to more disappointment playing courses in my rather barren area. Hankley knocks spots off 99% of courses. Not that you aren’t welcome to play them.


Re: understanding, you’re probably right.

Ryan


It’s more that we have difference of opinions this is what this forum is all about.


I do understand why you like Hankley and consistently similar holes long and tight rather than a bit of variation which some on this site prefer. Hankley is a strong course a definite top 100 in England


You have a luxury of top notch golf courses in your area within a 30 miles circle unlike most of us on GCA


Would I put Hankley in the bracket of Sunningdale, Ganton, Woodhall Spa and Notts - no but does it have the potential to be in that bracket - yes


I guess some of us have high standards based on where we have played and have used that as an indicator


This topic is more about what is being proposed for Hankley, what our opinions of the proposals are and does it improve the course - some say yes and others no


Ben

[Ben Stephens]

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.

I’m a bit late to the party here but Mark’s comments are spot on. I just watched the video and had an alarming sense of deja vu...I’ve heard much of this before.

The M&E presentations/proposals I’ve seen all contain the same smooth, polished, buzzword bingo, ‘cut and paste’ formula that seems to appeal to Greens Committees who want a tried and tested approach without having to take on risk or potential criticism down the line (if that’s the main concern, who can blame them for instructing the firm who consults at 70% of the current Open rota!).

Studying historical materials (and then deviating from these per the diagonal bunker on the 4th and scar bunker on the 6th at Hankley) and praising the heritage of the course seem to be stock moves. I was particularly disappointed with their proposals for the bunker on the 17th hole at North Berwick, which I believe were mainly Mackenzie, as the driver for the changes appeared to be ease of maintenance, optics and “fairness” rather than maintaining a key strategic bunker on the course. Frilly edged bunkers which were not in keeping with the rest of the course were also proposed, which I was not in favour of, (much like the waste area on hole 9 of Gullane #1, which has since reverted to its previous state due to its unpopularity with members).

I appreciate each course and proposed changes need to be judged on their own merits and I don’t want this to be viewed as a M&E bashing post purely for the sake of it. In the interests of full disclosure, I think the only course of theirs I’ve played where significant changes were made was Turnberry and there is no doubt in my mind that the course is better for it. However, I still feel that there was an opportunity to do more as Turnberry still has, in my view, a number of mundane holes which mean it isn’t anywhere near consideration as one of the world’s best, as it often is in various rankings.

David


I agree with you regarding Turnberry and have a copy of M+E booklet re proposals prior to the changes and Mr Trump is still making more tweaks to the course - makes you question why?


Cheers
Ben

[Gareth Williams]

After sitting back for a while I thought it might be worth responding here.

First off I have to say that reading some of the replies here made me recall why I (unfortunately) withdrew from visiting GCA and posting here. Namely that there are number of contributors that don't live in a world that I am familiar with as they seem to seek their own interpretation of perfection in every golf course they play, design, visit, critique and report on. Added to which I also got cheesed off with the rather unpleasant and lofty posts complaining about "access whoring" (what a delightful phrase that is....) which, for me, is a topic that if you are worried about (and are a member of/play at a highly revered golf club) should really be a little more accomodating about given this is, after all, a forum about the joy of fine golf courses. I'm always happy to host anyone at my club should they wish to experience the club for themselves but then maybe that is the exception?!

Moving on. I have zero issue with a constructive and well written review (based on actual "hands on" and current experience at the least and not just from the comfort of one's keyboard...) of Hankley Common as it is currently and how it could be in the future with the plans presented. I also have little interest in criticisms of MacKenzie and Ebert as I personally feel their work speaks for themselves....and they don't get the contracts they do by not knowing how to run a successful business model that seems to work for them, the R&A and past/present and future clients.

I have always felt (and long before being a member) that Hankley Common is a very under-rated and misunderstood course. There are, in my view, a few reasons for that.....one is the somewhat remote location which sits outside of the Berks/Surrey sand belt "sweet spot" that encompass, for example, Sunningdale/Swinley Forest/Wentworth/The Berkshire/The 3 W's of that closer geographical area. Furthermore the course is a bit of a "sleeping giant" (so to speak) as it is a very fine course by most people's estimation but, like many, could be better with some enhancement and changes to move with the times. What those changes actually end up being is for debate amongst the members, committee, greenstaff and, if engaged, M&E. I, for one, am thrilled at the prospect that "my" club is even interested in bettering what we have and that they are prepared to consult with the members and seek out a company of the statue of M&E. I have my own ideas for the changes to be suggested and will be sending those into the club this week in the hope that many other members also make the time to offer their own suggestions to enhance our golf course.

It will be interesting to see how these proposals develop and how the club find a way to implement them, both from a budget and logistic point of view...which is the unknown so far but is clearly part of a (I hope) exciting journey for the club. I truly believe that should the majority of changes be implemented as presented (with some tweaks/reviews of course) that it would move the club/course up closer to those that sit ahead of it rankings/general views of those that have played the competing courses that Hankley is compared to.

Change can be a "good thing" because, in this specific area, if you aren't moving forwards you are most likely to be moving backwards.....
 

[Gareth Williams]

In the original post, the "dedicated and very accomplished Head Greenskeeper who is ex Morfontaine" is my friend and former assitant Jon White. I don't understand why he should be referenced and not named.

In the presentation at the club Martin sought out Jon to specifically complement him for his work that his team have achieved in the last 2-3 years Steve. I can assure you he is held in THE highest regard by everyone at the club that sees the hard work and results that have been achieved by Jon and his guys.

Not least having to deal with 3-4 incidents of wanton vandalism of the course that would have closed most down whilst they were repaired!

[Ben Stephens]

After sitting back for a while I thought it might be worth responding here.

First off I have to say that reading some of the replies here made me recall why I (unfortunately) withdrew from visiting GCA and posting here. Namely that there are number of contributors that don't live in a world that I am familiar with as they seem to seek their own interpretation of perfection in every golf course they play, design, visit, critique and report on. Added to which I also got cheesed off with the rather unpleasant and lofty posts complaining about "access whoring" (what a delightful phrase that is....) which, for me, is a topic that if you are worried about (and are a member of/play at a highly revered golf club) should really be a little more accomodating about given this is, after all, a forum about the joy of fine golf courses. I'm always happy to host anyone at my club should they wish to experience the club for themselves but then maybe that is the exception?!

Moving on. I have zero issue with a constructive and well written review (based on actual "hands on" and current experience at the least and not just from the comfort of one's keyboard...) of Hankley Common as it is currently and how it could be in the future with the plans presented. I also have little interest in criticisms of MacKenzie and Ebert as I personally feel their work speaks for themselves....and they don't get the contracts they do by not knowing how to run a successful business model that seems to work for them, the R&A and past/present and future clients.

I have always felt (and long before being a member) that Hankley Common is a very under-rated and misunderstood course. There are, in my view, a few reasons for that.....one is the somewhat remote location which sits outside of the Berks/Surrey sand belt "sweet spot" that encompass, for example, Sunningdale/Swinley Forest/Wentworth/The Berkshire/The 3 W's of that closer geographical area. Furthermore the course is a bit of a "sleeping giant" (so to speak) as it is a very fine course by most people's estimation but, like many, could be better with some enhancement and changes to move with the times. What those changes actually end up being is for debate amongst the members, committee, greenstaff and, if engaged, M&E. I, for one, am thrilled at the prospect that "my" club is even interested in bettering what we have and that they are prepared to consult with the members and seek out a company of the statue of M&E. I have my own ideas for the changes to be suggested and will be sending those into the club this week in the hope that many other members also make the time to offer their own suggestions to enhance our golf course.

It will be interesting to see how these proposals develop and how the club find a way to implement them, both from a budget and logistic point of view...which is the unknown so far but is clearly part of a (I hope) exciting journey for the club. I truly believe that should the majority of changes be implemented as presented (with some tweaks/reviews of course) that it would move the club/course up closer to those that sit ahead of it rankings/general views of those that have played the competing courses that Hankley is compared to.

Change can be a "good thing" because, in this specific area, if you aren't moving forwards you are most likely to be moving backwards.....

Hi Gareth,


Thats a fair comment and good response from one that knows Hankley better than most on this forum. Everyone has different opinions of how things should be like on this forum. If Hankley is very happy with M+E thats ok and we all respect that on GCA, we still are intrigued to see how they pan out over the next few years plus what the members response is when the works are completed as there is a difference between visualisation and reality. What they are proposing overall will improve the course generally and i can see why you are excited about it as a member.


You have some personal suggestions to put forward which we on GCA would encourage to do so and other members hopefully will do so which could lead to further tweaks to M+E proposals which will be interesting to see how the design evolves. M+E certainly have a good reputation on tackling older courses and more respective of the past however are they good at doing new courses from scratch - I question that. Every design company has their own strengths and weaknesses.


Every designer would put forward different proposals with a few similar ideas. More important is what is right for the golf course and club.


We would appreciate seeing from an insiders view how the process has gone along and reasons for possible further tweaks. 


On a final note I feel its a pity that Hankley went with only one designer rather than two or three to come up with proposals so that members can see which one they prefer to go with. This could have given them a wider perspective and a number of options to choose from and also choose from a well known designer OR one/two lesser known designers. M+E are actually cornering the market which is fair dinkum I applaud the fact that they are doing well however it does feel that it can become repetitive at times if a large number of clubs choose the same designer.


Yours in golf
Ben

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()