Old Courses with new holes - better or worse?

[Jerry Kluger]

The discussion of GB & I ratings got me thinking about whether new holes at old courses made them better or worse.  I think the new holes at Royal Portrush certainly are a positive as the old 17 & 18 were not the best finishing holes and the new ones made the overall course better.  I played Liphook last year and I really liked the new holes but they were obvious as being new and some would argue that they diminished the quality of the course. ( It was my first time there so I never saw the original holes.)

[Jim Hoak]

In my opinion the new (2000) 5th hole at Pebble Beach was a great improvement over the old hole.  They say that the new location is where they originally wanted to to put the hole when the course was built in 1919, but the homeowner wouldn't allow it.

[mike_beene]

I am struggling to come up with many examples. Help me with some you are referencing: Inverness has seemingly done this twice;the US Open course in Wisconsin something Hills;Pinehurst 2 but that was a long time ago; Pebble on the 5th might qualify.
Are you thinking of a course acquiring more land and loosening up the routing?Or more a redo in the confines like Congressional?

[Sean_A]

The grandaddy of Old courses could do with a new hole.

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

The 1997 land swap between the Pfizer Corporation and Shennecossett GC resulted in the golf course getting a piece of land bordered by the convergence of Long Island Sound and the Thames River while giving up an inland tract. Despite the newly claimed piece of property with water on the perimeter the old Donald Ross holes were better IMO.

[Mike_Trenham]

Merion East - 10-13 - turned it into a masterpiece.


Gulph Mills - 7-14 - a mixed bag, lots of very good additions also easy to wonder if some of what was lost would be better today.


Lanacaster CC - holes on south side of property were added later by Flynn and are some of the best.


Bookside Country Club (Allentown) - New holes to accommodate new clubhouse don’t fit well and are not as good as the original holes.


Steel Club - added nine holes because Hill nine was too difficult create a Frankenstein kind of feel to the round.


Biderman - Gil Hanse changed 17 and 18 to accommodate an expanded range around 2003, change was not universally loved by the members, maybe if he was a bigger name then it would have been better received.


Concord - lost a few good holes to development, replacements were a detriment and it looks like they have finally addressed it in a much better way.


St Davids - shortened 9 from short par four to long par three with a very good new green, lost hole was probably a great modern day drivable par 4 with one of the courses best greens - reconfigured 17 and 18 to accommodate practice range - a bit awkward but it works and with out question saved the club (my home course).

[Tom_Doak]

Liphook has new holes?  Why?


Most older courses in the UK have evolved over time and have seen some changes, from Muirfield's four routings to Dornoch's addition at the far end in the 1940's, and nobody would suggest going back to the earliest version of these.


In contrast, changing one or two holes on an old course today has decidedly more mixed results.  Part of the problem is simply that when building a hole with modern equipment it is hard to make it look the part, in particular, to get the scale of the features right.  You can pick out every bunker Tom Fazio has changed at Riviera, because they were all built with a big exacvator and are all too big and too deep compared to the old ones.


I went and saw the new 7th hole at Royal Dornoch last year, and it is hard to argue that it is either a better hole or a worse hole.  It's essentially the same hole . . . though the green and left side bunker are not executed quite the same . . . in a different orientation to bring the view of the Dornoch firth much more into play.  Many visitors will argue that this is a great change, but to me it was entirely unnecessary, and indicative of the obsession with rankings and tourist dollars.  I doubt the members see it as any different.

[Mike Hendren]

The Tunnel holes at Plainfield are weak.

[Sean_A]

Liphook has new holes?  Why?

Most older courses in the UK have evolved over time and have seen some changes, from Muirfield's four routings to Dornoch's addition at the far end in the 1940's, and nobody would suggest going back to the earliest version of these.

In contrast, changing one or two holes on an old course today has decidedly more mixed results.  Part of the problem is simply that when building a hole with modern equipment it is hard to make it look the part, in particular, to get the scale of the features right.  You can pick out every bunker Tom Fazio has changed at Riviera, because they were all built with a big exacvator and are all too big and too deep compared to the old ones.

I went and saw the new 7th hole at Royal Dornoch last year, and it is hard to argue that it is either a better hole or a worse hole.  It's essentially the same hole . . . though the green and left side bunker are not executed quite the same . . . in a different orientation to bring the view of the Dornoch firth much more into play.  Many visitors will argue that this is a great change, but to me it was entirely unnecessary, and indicative of the obsession with rankings and tourist dollars.  I doubt the members see it as any different.

Are any changes ever necessary? Perhaps the odd rare incidence. It's in the nature of people to change things and it's often the case that folks don't admit the two real reasons for change. There is money available and folks with access to the money wanted change.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Never been to Liphook but I thought the reason that they had a partial redesign was because part of the course was taken to build a road but could be wrong.


Niall

[Sean_A]

Never been to Liphook but I thought the reason that they had a partial redesign was because part of the course was taken to build a road but could be wrong.

Niall

There was a very dangerous road crossing which included a long green to tee walk. There was a plan to build a tunnel under the road, hence the rebuild. However, with the new design the road crossing is much safer and more direct so a tunnel hasn't been built. I can't say any of the new holes are really good, but the flow of the design is better. Add that to the better road crossing and I think the rebuild is successful. I do, however, think the newer stuff could have been better. It's safe design.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Liphook has new holes?  Why?

Most older courses in the UK have evolved over time and have seen some changes, from Muirfield's four routings to Dornoch's addition at the far end in the 1940's, and nobody would suggest going back to the earliest version of these.

In contrast, changing one or two holes on an old course today has decidedly more mixed results.  Part of the problem is simply that when building a hole with modern equipment it is hard to make it look the part, in particular, to get the scale of the features right.  You can pick out every bunker Tom Fazio has changed at Riviera, because they were all built with a big exacvator and are all too big and too deep compared to the old ones.

I went and saw the new 7th hole at Royal Dornoch last year, and it is hard to argue that it is either a better hole or a worse hole.  It's essentially the same hole . . . though the green and left side bunker are not executed quite the same . . . in a different orientation to bring the view of the Dornoch firth much more into play.  Many visitors will argue that this is a great change, but to me it was entirely unnecessary, and indicative of the obsession with rankings and tourist dollars.  I doubt the members see it as any different.

Are any changes ever necessary? Perhaps the odd rare incidence. It's in the nature of people to change things and it's often the case that folks don't admit the two real reasons for change. There is money available and folks with access to the money wanted change.

Ciao

Changes can be necessary but I agree that in general, necessary changes (which are usually small) can act as an excuse for unnecessary changes, sometimes for the better, often times not:




https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/change-for-changes-sake

[Brett Meyer]

Never been to Liphook but I thought the reason that they had a partial redesign was because part of the course was taken to build a road but could be wrong.

Niall

There was a very dangerous road crossing which included a long green to tee walk. There was a plan to build a tunnel under the road, hence the rebuild. However, with the new design the road crossing is much safer and more direct so a tunnel hasn't been built. I can't say any of the new holes are really good, but the flow of the design is better. Add that to the better road crossing and I think the rebuild is successful. I do, however, think the newer stuff could have been better. It's safe design.

Ciao

That old road crossing between 14 and 15 at Liphook was frightening. Cars coming blind from around a curve behind a bridge on the right at 60 mph. Worplesdon has some pretty gnarly road crossings too, but I thought this one was far worse. I heard that a woman getting killed prompted the change.

The loss of the 14th green is unfortunate because it was one of the best in southeast England. But I can't fault the club for making changes to eliminate that road crossing, even if the new holes aren't as good. And they killed the old 10th hole, which was by far the weakest on the course.

[Tom_Doak]

The loss of the 14th green is unfortunate because it was one of the best in southeast England. But I can't fault the club for making changes to eliminate that road crossing, even if the new holes aren't as good. And they killed the old 10th hole, which was by far the weakest on the course.

It sounds like they had to do the work, but any solution that eliminates a great hole by a great designer is a real shame.  Did they survey it properly so it can be revived somewhere else?

[Edward Glidewell]

Pine Lakes in Myrtle Beach was designed by Robert White in 1927. At some point in the past 10-15 years (I think) they eliminated a couple of holes (I believe to either build a new road or expand an existing one) and built two new ones as replacements. The new holes aren't bad, but they're out of character with the rest of the course. It's easy to tell they were built separately and they really mess up the overall flow. It feels like you wandered off onto a separate golf course.

[Carl Johnson]

Pine Lakes in Myrtle Beach was designed by Robert White in 1927. At some point in the past 10-15 years (I think) they eliminated a couple of holes (I believe to either build a new road or expand an existing one) and built two new ones as replacements. The new holes aren't bad, but they're out of character with the rest of the course. It's easy to tell they were built separately and they really mess up the overall flow. It feels like you wandered off onto a separate golf course.

I agree with the "out of character" problem.  At my club that is solved by the new holes being one and two, so you get then out of the way first and then on to old ones, 16 in a row.

[Sean_A]

Never been to Liphook but I thought the reason that they had a partial redesign was because part of the course was taken to build a road but could be wrong.

Niall

There was a very dangerous road crossing which included a long green to tee walk. There was a plan to build a tunnel under the road, hence the rebuild. However, with the new design the road crossing is much safer and more direct so a tunnel hasn't been built. I can't say any of the new holes are really good, but the flow of the design is better. Add that to the better road crossing and I think the rebuild is successful. I do, however, think the newer stuff could have been better. It's safe design.

Ciao

That old road crossing between 14 and 15 at Liphook was frightening. Cars coming blind from around a curve behind a bridge on the right at 60 mph. Worplesdon has some pretty gnarly road crossings too, but I thought this one was far worse. I heard that a woman getting killed prompted the change.

The loss of the 14th green is unfortunate because it was one of the best in southeast England. But I can't fault the club for making changes to eliminate that road crossing, even if the new holes aren't as good. And they killed the old 10th hole, which was by far the weakest on the course.

I miss the 11th. The green was tough, but just about worked as a short hole. I am not convinced the combined and reworked old 10 & 11 works very well. It's a very severe green for the approach.

Ciao

[Brett Meyer]

I miss the 11th. The green was tough, but just about worked as a short hole. I am not convinced the combined and reworked old 10 & 11 works very well. It's a very severe green for the approach.

Ciao

Did they keep the old green complex or change it? I agree that it was outstanding but with the narrowness, it was almost too difficult even for a 160 yard par 3! I thought that green might work better if the combined hole were a short par 4 but I don't know the length of the new hole or if they changed the green.

I'm going to get to travel to London again for work and one of my top priorities is to get back to Liphook. Easily the second-best set of greens among the London heathland courses for me (after Woking). Hopefully the new greens are of similar quality.

[Enno Gerdes]

Surprised no-one has mentioned the new 15th/17th at Hoylake yet. Sure it'll get a lot of attention in a few months. For those who have played it: does it make the course better or worse (or neither)? From pictures, it looks great, but a little out of character for the course.

[Adam Lawrence]

Surprised no-one has mentioned the new 15th/17th at Hoylake yet. Sure it'll get a lot of attention in a few months. For those who have played it: does it make the course better or worse (or neither)? From pictures, it looks great, but a little out of character for the course.

A little???

[Enno Gerdes]

Surprised no-one has mentioned the new 15th/17th at Hoylake yet. Sure it'll get a lot of attention in a few months. For those who have played it: does it make the course better or worse (or neither)? From pictures, it looks great, but a little out of character for the course.

A little? ??

Well, maybe a bit more. Haven't seen it in real life, and I find it hard to judge just based on pristine golden-hour drone shots.

[Tom_Doak]

Well, maybe a bit more. Haven't seen it in real life, and I find it hard to judge just based on pristine golden-hour drone shots.

I haven't seen the new hole, but the fact that you are even talking about "pristine golden-hour drone shots" would mean it is very out of character for Hoylake! 

[Ben Stephens]

Surprised no-one has mentioned the new 15th/17th at Hoylake yet. Sure it'll get a lot of attention in a few months. For those who have played it: does it make the course better or worse (or neither)? From pictures, it looks great, but a little out of character for the course.

A little? ??

Adam,


have you seen a movie on social media of a good bunker player hitting the ball out of the front deep bunker on the new par 3 at Hoylake - he got a 10 as his ball landed on the slope in front area of the green and kept falling back in. Will we see another Bjorn moment in this years Open?


https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/watch-golfer-has-bunker-nightmare-on-royal-liverpools-new-par-3


Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Never been to Liphook but I thought the reason that they had a partial redesign was because part of the course was taken to build a road but could be wrong.

Niall

There was a very dangerous road crossing which included a long green to tee walk. There was a plan to build a tunnel under the road, hence the rebuild. However, with the new design the road crossing is much safer and more direct so a tunnel hasn't been built. I can't say any of the new holes are really good, but the flow of the design is better. Add that to the better road crossing and I think the rebuild is successful. I do, however, think the newer stuff could have been better. It's safe design.

Ciao

That old road crossing between 14 and 15 at Liphook was frightening. Cars coming blind from around a curve behind a bridge on the right at 60 mph. Worplesdon has some pretty gnarly road crossings too, but I thought this one was far worse. I heard that a woman getting killed prompted the change.

The loss of the 14th green is unfortunate because it was one of the best in southeast England. But I can't fault the club for making changes to eliminate that road crossing, even if the new holes aren't as good. And they killed the old 10th hole, which was by far the weakest on the course.

I miss the 11th. The green was tough, but just about worked as a short hole. I am not convinced the combined and reworked old 10 & 11 works very well. It's a very severe green for the approach.

Ciao

https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/tom-mackenzie-begins-second-phase-of-liphook-rerouting - has a diagram of the proposed changes


New 11th - old 12th has a new green further on like 50 yards extra

[Ben Stephens]

Sheringham 7th and 8th holes were redone a long while back.


Luffenham 9th 11th and 12th are 'new holes' even though they are around 80 years old. The original 3 holes in a field south of the existing course boundary were lost to the war effort and club hasn't even restored them back - if they did it would be a far better course IMO.


The New course at St Andrews had a lot of changes by Colt - having read an article provided by Melvyn a while back I felt, from reading the article and trying to place where the old green were, that the OTM course was better.