Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Paul_Turner on June 03, 2009, 10:50:19 PM
-
One of Canada's oldest courses is getting a redo by Martin Hawtree. On his website the work is stated as "renovation/restoration" but from his other work I suspect it will be much more renovation than pure restoration and likely to involve quite a lot of changes, see: Birkdale, Lahinch, Belvoir Park, Royal Dublin, Melbourne, Burnham, De Pan, St George's Hill, Sunningdale.
Anyway I reckon the course could do with a bunker redo (too clean and a bit boring) but it should be based on what was there in the past, not on a generic "Colt" bunker. Moving or altering greens is unwarranted in my opinion, even the ones that aren't original Colt/Alison are good (2nd) or excellent (16th)
Anyway, this is how it looks now:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto4-1.jpg)
4th..thought of a redan type
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto4a-1.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto2-1.jpg)
2nd
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto2a-1.jpg)
2nd fall off
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto3-1.jpg)
3rd
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto3a-1.jpg)
3rd approach
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto5-1.jpg)
5th
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto6a-1.jpg)
6th
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto7-1.jpg)
7th
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto9-1.jpg)
9th
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto9a-1.jpg)
9th
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto10-1.jpg)
10th
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto11-1.jpg)
11th
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto12-1.jpg)
12th
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto13-1.jpg)
13th
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto14-1.jpg)
14th
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto15-1.jpg)
15th
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto15a.jpg)
15th
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto16-1.jpg)
16th
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto16a-1.jpg)
16th green
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto17-1.jpg)
17th
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Toronto/Toronto18-1.jpg)
Home
-
The placement of some of the fairway bunkers - ie) jutting into the fairway or even cross fairway - is interesting.
I do not recall seeing that at any of the TO courses that I have played.
Is this unique to TGC, or Colt's efforts in the area, or just indicative of the courses I have played (which is certainly not all inclusive)?
-
Paul
Toronto looks to be an interesting course. You are right, the bunkering is rather visually ineffectual and could do with some revision. I don't know why the club is altering greens, but if that is what they are going to do, Hawtree isn't a bad candidate for the job. By all accounts his work at Lahinch and Royal Dublin is outstanding. I know the tid bit of work he did at Burnham is very good, it took him a while to get there, but he did in the end. Birkdale's changes looked very good on telly last year. Sure, in the case of Birkdale and Burmham there are doubters, but for sure the 6th green at Burnham is outstanding and the par 5 17th green looked to be great during the Open. The worst charge I hear against Hawtree is that he doesn't keep the new stuff similar to the old stuff. To me this is a load of hogwash. What counts is if, given his mandate, he created something good and thought provoking. Hawtree certainly does this in spades.
Ciao
-
I was just reading about this in Ontario Golf. Here's their take on it. Sounds like a little bit of both renovation and restoration.
"ENGLISH TEE
Although it dates back to 1867, making it North America’s third-oldest golf club, Toronto Golf Club’s lasting imprint was left by England’s Harry S. Colt, who laid out the present-day course in 1912. So perhaps it’s appropriate that the refurbishing of the highly lauded course has been entrusted to another Englishman, Martin Hawtree—a man not unfamiliar with Southern Ontario, having designed Tarandowah Golfers Club, which won Ontario Golf magazine’s Best New Course in 2008.
To prepare for renovations, Toronto Golf Club—one of two Colt designs in Canada, the other being Hamilton G&CC—will be shutting down for play on July 2 and will reopen in the spring of 2010. Its nine-hole Watson Course will remain open throughout the renovations.
“It’s a bold step for this club,” says general manager Glenn Smale, noting the project went out for tender in November and came back under budget. “Basically we’re trying to restore the Colt flavour by tweaking the course.” That includes a little bit of everything: a new irrigation system, bunker relocation and removal, breaking up some tee decks to make the course more playable for high handicaps, fairway realignment, new fescue grasses on the fairways and elsewhere, as well as improving the views throughout the course. “Martin’s knowledge of what Colt was doing has been a great help,” Smale says. “There’s no one in the world who understands Colt better.” —BRENT LONG"
-
Sean
No I disagree Hawtree should keep the greens in character with the rest of the course...that was my problem with the 6th at Burnham and I just from TV the 17th at Birkdale. The 7th at Belvoir Park, 5th at Pan are examples of poor Hawtree greens that don't fit.
Bryan
I don't know the details but if the objective is to "restore the Colt flavour by tweaking the course" it's a rather vague statement and could mean anything. If you were doing a proper restoration, the first stop would be to research how the course has evolved, there are plans drawn by Colt of Toronto so that would be a starting point...simple bunker removal and relocation isn't "restoring Colt flavour" and obviously changing the contours of original greens isn't either.
And obviously I disagree the quote from the course manager "There’s no one in the world who understands Colt better.” ;)
-
Ok I found out which green are being changed:
The 2nd which is a Watson greens I believe. So how does Hawtree "restore" this green? Is there photo evidence of the originals or will it be his interpretation of a suitable "Colt" green?
The was a Shell's Wonderful World of Golf match played in the 1960s but I'm not sure if this was prior to the changes. It still would be worth watching to see how the course has evolved.
But original greens, the 11th and 15th will also be changed which is really bizarre. They both have great sites and steep pitch. This isn't restoring Colt flavour...it's removing it!!
On the positive side you can see that some of the fairway lines are way too narrow so if they plan to open the course up that would be good in my opinion. I guess also felling some trees to open up the course more would be good too...but the course isn't at all claustrophobic as it is now.
Will the bunker redo look much like the new bunkers at Sunningdale or those at Belvoir Park? Or will it be based on what Colt and Alison actually built at Toronto?
-
Sean
No I disagree Hawtree should keep the greens in character with the rest of the course...that was my problem with the 6th at Burnham and I just from TV the 17th at Birkdale. The 7th at Belvoir Park, 5th at Pan are examples of poor Hawtree greens that don't fit.
Paul
IF an archie is gonna be brought in to make changes, I like to look at the work based in the context of the changes themselves rather than what someone's guess of what Colt (or anybody for that matter) would have wanted or done. The debate for me is more about are the changes necessary (I am highly skeptical of spending money on courses which are already deemed good or great unless the goals of a club change - if this is the case I would question why the goals have changed) and less about making the changes in character with what existed previously or what someone thinks Colt would have approved of - its a pointless exercise because it all comes down to opinion anyway. To me its more about quality and variety then adhering to an ODG's blue print, but importantly,there are exceptions.
For instance, Burnham's 6th green is perhaps the best green on the course because of how it plays and the variety it lends to the course. It is far better than what existed previously - which was created by Martin's father. However, that hole isn't terribly old anyway. None of the members I know dislike the green because it's character is different to the previous green or the other greens. They dislike it because its difficult to approach.
Another example is St Enodoc's new 16th green. Is it in character with the other greens? - possibly, it depends on one's opinion. What is certainly different is the bunkering style which I think a great improvement on the other holes. Is the green good? - yes. Was it necessary to spend the money to build a new green? - absolutely not. I think it was a waste of money because the old green was good too.
Hoylake's Royal is another example. I think it is a good green. Not necessarily in keeping with the other greens, but I think better than most on the course and certainly better than the old Royal green once we accept that the club needed to alter the site due to its goal of hosting an Open. People can argue about this, but the club has a rich tradition of hosting championships and sacrificing a bit of history to keep their Open history moving forward was worth the sacrifice. Such is the reality of the world we live in and golf course design isn't immune from this reality, nor has it ever been. The great championship courses of the GB&I have been in near constant fluctuation for about 100 years. Nothing stands still, though I can sympathize with you in that sometimes they should.
Ciao
-
Hole 10 at Toronto Golf Club; early days.
(http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u340/jeff_mingay/toronto10.jpg)
-
Sean
I guess we'll disagree on the merits of those two greens and why the changes were necessary.
But I agree with your point re St Enodoc and as the greens 2,11 and 15 at Toronto are already excellent, the changes are unnecessary and could be a costly mistake. I do think Hawtree will be "interpreting" Colt rather than researching fully. So then it just comes down to his opinion.
-
Sean
I guess we'll disagree on the merits of those two greens and why the changes were necessary.
But I agree with your point re St Enodoc and as the greens 2,11 and 15 at Toronto are already excellent, the changes are unnecessary and could be a costly mistake. I do think Hawtree will be "interpreting" Colt rather than researching fully. So then it just comes down to his opinion.
Paul
Hawtree's entire life can be seen as research on Colt or any other UK based archie. The guy has been in the business for 35 years and in that time has likely seen any Colt design concept that exists over a great many Colt courses and often times had a chance to dig into the ground of these many Colt courses. In short, he likely has forgotten more about Colt's work than most other archies ever knew. But then if one cannot accept that clubs control courses and archies are the instrument of the clubs, it is likely that one will never think Hawtree can do good work on an ODG's course.
Ciao
-
Sean:
I completely disagree with your assessment that architects are the instruments of clubs.
Frequently, architects talk clubs into doing stuff they never would have considered otherwise.
-
Sean:
I completely disagree with your assessment that architects are the instruments of clubs.
Frequently, architects talk clubs into doing stuff they never would have considered otherwise.
Tom
Its simple, who signs the cheques and who cashes the cheques? Because a club hires an archie doesn't mean it abdicates the stewardship of the course. The club should do loads of research themselves on the course and archies before even talking to one or making any decisions on what "needs" to be done to the course and why. If the club did their job properly I think most restoration/renovation/redo archies would be out of business for lack of work because so much stuff is done unnecessarily, but whose fault is it if a club is talked into doing work that isn't best for the long term of the course and club? I am sorry, archies sell a service and it is the job of the club to decide if it wants the service. Its cut and dry and no different from any other business service. Its one thing to be lied to and quite another to make a bad decision.
Ciao
-
Jeff -
thanks much for the picture of the 10th in the old days. Just fyi (but as you probably know), Arnold Haultain of "The Mystery of Golf" fame was a member at Toronto from 1894 to 1930 (I think he moved back to England at that point). I wrote General Manager Smale to ask if AH had ever written anything about the course, and he was kind enough to write back -- unfortunately "we‘ve looked through minute books and found nothing". I wonder if anyone has ever read anything by AH on the course. Reading The Mystery of Golf, I like to imagine that if AH ever thought about architecture AS architecture, he was thinking "Colt".
Peter
-
Sean
I guess we'll disagree on the merits of those two greens and why the changes were necessary.
But I agree with your point re St Enodoc and as the greens 2,11 and 15 at Toronto are already excellent, the changes are unnecessary and could be a costly mistake. I do think Hawtree will be "interpreting" Colt rather than researching fully. So then it just comes down to his opinion.
Paul
Hawtree's entire life can be seen as research on Colt or any other UK based archie. The guy has been in the business for 35 years and in that time has likely seen any Colt design concept that exists over a great many Colt courses and often times had a chance to dig into the ground of these many Colt courses. In short, he likely has forgotten more about Colt's work than most other archies ever knew. But then if one cannot accept that clubs control courses and archies are the instrument of the clubs, it is likely that one will never think Hawtree can do good work on an ODG's course.
Ciao
Some of that is true, the bottom line is that on some courses that Hawtree has consulted on have resulted in work that isn't Colt like and doesn't fit....the bunker on the 8th green at St George's Hill is the most obvious example.
And Tom is definitely right about architects putting ideas into club committee's heads. We've seen time and again.
-
Sean
I guess we'll disagree on the merits of those two greens and why the changes were necessary.
But I agree with your point re St Enodoc and as the greens 2,11 and 15 at Toronto are already excellent, the changes are unnecessary and could be a costly mistake. I do think Hawtree will be "interpreting" Colt rather than researching fully. So then it just comes down to his opinion.
Paul
Hawtree's entire life can be seen as research on Colt or any other UK based archie. The guy has been in the business for 35 years and in that time has likely seen any Colt design concept that exists over a great many Colt courses and often times had a chance to dig into the ground of these many Colt courses. In short, he likely has forgotten more about Colt's work than most other archies ever knew. But then if one cannot accept that clubs control courses and archies are the instrument of the clubs, it is likely that one will never think Hawtree can do good work on an ODG's course.
Ciao
Some of that is true, the bottom line is that on some courses that Hawtree has consulted on have resulted in work that isn't Colt like and doesn't fit....the bunker on the 8th green at St George's Hill is the most obvious example.
And Tom is definitely right about architects putting ideas into club committee's heads. We've seen time and again.
Paul
My position on blaming archies for clubs' poor management is all above.
I agree about the 8th at St Georges Hill. I think the bunkering looks atrocious and like a giant puzzle intended for 2 year olds to fit together, but I don't think he has changed how the hole is played. I don't know what Hawtree's mandate was. Perhaps the he was told to keep sand in the pits first and foremost. Personally, I think sand blowing onto fairways/greens was a bit of a problem with some Golden Age courses. Hence we see how sand and fairway are clearly defined these days. I prefer the messy look for a sandy/heathy site, but I don't pay the bills.
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/ST%20GEORGES%20HILL/100_4163.jpg?t=1242294697)
Post your old photo of #8 to provide a contrast.
Ciao
-
Sean:
I'm missing something here.
I agree with you that ultimately, clubs are responsible for what happens to their courses, even though 90% of clubs don't really understand what they are getting into on a renovation, and how little a set of plans has to do with what gets built.
But on the one hand you give the architect in this case credit as "a salesman," but when he's done work you don't like you give him a pass on it by saying "I don't know what his mandate was." You seem to have a no-fault policy toward architects. If you're going to give them any credit for their creativity, then you also have to give them the blame when they build something not so good, don't you?
-
Sean:
I'm missing something here.
I agree with you that ultimately, clubs are responsible for what happens to their courses, even though 90% of clubs don't really understand what they are getting into on a renovation, and how little a set of plans has to do with what gets built.
But on the one hand you give the architect in this case credit as "a salesman," but when he's done work you don't like you give him a pass on it by saying "I don't know what his mandate was." You seem to have a no-fault policy toward architects. If you're going to give them any credit for their creativity, then you also have to give them the blame when they build something not so good, don't you?
Tom
I am not giving the archie credit for being a salesman. He could sell a pile of junk. That doesn't make the junk any better, but the club is still responsible unless they were mis-sold.
I don't give Hawtree a pass for SGH #8. I think it looks dreadful and reflects badly on him and the club. All I am saying is that perhaps Hawtree was caught in a corner with some sort of compromise. I don't know and this is why I am often reluctant to say bad things about archies - I don't know all the restraints they had. In general, we are much better off talking about the work produced rather than the archies who produced it. My main point is that the archie is not the be all and end all when it comes to architectural decisions on older courses, yet this is how most tend to look at these sorts of things.
Ciao
-
Tom Macwood asked me to post this:
Sean Arble said: "Hawtree's entire life can be seen as research on Colt or any other UK based archie. The guy has been in the business for 35 years and in that time has likely seen any Colt design concept that exists over a great many Colt courses and often times had a chance to dig into the ground of these many Colt courses. In short, he likely has forgotten more about Colt's work than most other archies ever knew."
The same could be said of Rees Jones with Tilly, Ross, et al. and look at the wreckage he has left behind. There is no substitute for thorough historical research. A golf architects style can vary dramatically based upon the evolution of his style over time, the construction associate, the site, the clients demands, etc. Most of Colt's American courses were built by Carters; most of Colt's British courses were built by Franks-Harris Bros
-
Sean
From looking at a lot of old golf course photos, I'm not sure the whole maintenance argument vs sand faced bunkers holds. A bunker like the 8th at SGH was very close to as designed until 15 years ago, roughly.
-
Tom Macwood asked me to post this:
Sean Arble said: "Hawtree's entire life can be seen as research on Colt or any other UK based archie. The guy has been in the business for 35 years and in that time has likely seen any Colt design concept that exists over a great many Colt courses and often times had a chance to dig into the ground of these many Colt courses. In short, he likely has forgotten more about Colt's work than most other archies ever knew."
The same could be said of Rees Jones with Tilly, Ross, et al. and look at the wreckage he has left behind. There is no substitute for thorough historical research. A golf architects style can vary dramatically based upon the evolution of his style over time, the construction associate, the site, the clients demands, etc. Most of Colt's American courses were built by Carters; most of Colt's British courses were built by Franks-Harris Bros
Tommy Mac channeling thru Paul T
Are you trying to compare Hawtree to R Jones?
I am not suggesting that archies shouldn't conduct proper research. Are you suggesting Hawtree doesn't/won't conduct research? I think it best to carefully consider what one states about archies when one doesn't know the full story. Without knowledge of what the client's demands are and intimate knowledge of projects, it is pre-mature to blame archies for what is often short-comings in aesthetics. Its far too easy and simplistic to blame archies for perceived (afterall, we are still talking about matters of opinion) short-comings.
Ciao
-
Sean:
How many excuses do you want to provide for us architects in advance:
1) No one here will EVER know what the club's mandate was or wasn't. Even if the architect tells us after the fact, he might not be telling it like it was.
2) It's all a matter of opinion anyway.
I guess we might as well shut down the web site, since the above seems to preclude anyone having a contrary opinion on anything.
-
Sean:
How many excuses do you want to provide for us architects in advance:
1) No one here will EVER know what the club's mandate was or wasn't. Even if the architect tells us after the fact, he might not be telling it like it was.
2) It's all a matter of opinion anyway.
I guess we might as well shut down the web site, since the above seems to preclude anyone having a contrary opinion on anything.
Tom
Whoever said anything about a contrary opinion? If I don't like re-do work I will say so, but that is quite a bit different from pointing a finger squarely and directly at the archie and laying blame. I said folks shouldn't necessarily blame archies for work done to courses. First, they are not in control of decision - making unless they sign the cheques. Second, most folks most of the time don't know the details of a project. These aren't excuses, just facts of life - often times facts that purists just can't deal with. Often times, in their eyes, no re-do work will be good enough if they are that set in keeping original work. I am very skeptical of re-do work, but I also understand that it has been going on since before the term golf architect was invented and it will continue to go on precisely because most of what we talk about is based on opinion - no?
Ciao
-
A couple of quick notes on this.
1) there are several greens, as noted, that are not Colt originals. I don't think that is the issue here -- I think the issue is the original greens.
2) two of the greens -- 11 and 15 (both Colt greens) -- are being moved for "safety" considerations apparently. The entrance road to the club is off a busy street and the entrance pulls alongside the 15th green and near the 5th green and 6th tee. The 6th tee is being relocated so it doesn't hit over the entrance road, and therefore will end up near to where the 15th green is. Therefore they are moving the 15th green, a Colt original. This is a damned shame. There is talk in the club of how the greens will be lasered and replicated, but I think that is unlikely. I might be proven wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it.
3) the first hole is also being altered to play closer to the ravine on the right, but the green stays in place. In other places cross bunkers, new bunkers and other features are being added, along with a lot of fescue. Let's be clear -- these are not features that are being returned to their original state. They are new features.
4) I have to wonder whether the lure of using a British born architect is one of the reasons Hawtree is at Toronto. There's a notion that he "gets" Colt better than a Canadian or American architect who would simply use the historic info, of which there is plenty.
5) Hawtree's original design, Tarandowah, two hours from Toronto, is quite good. I have no axe to grind here -- but I am concerned.
-
Martin Hawtree used a safety audit to move greens at Royal Melbourne East recently.
Is this a coincidence? What do you reckon Tom Doak?
No way is there a safety issue at Toronto. The greens have been there almost 100 years and now there's suddenly a safety issue?
2011 is the course's 100 year anniversary and the club will then have a course that's less authentic to the original than ever before.
-
As I've stated on another thread recently, Toronto Golf Club possesses the most historically significant golf course design in Canada.
Ian Andrew and I, as co-authors, (proudly!) contribute an essay addressing this topic to the next volume of Paul Daley's Golf Architecture, A Worldwide Perspective series. Moreover, Toronto is a fantastic golf course, as is (aside from perhaps some prudent bunker and tree work, restorative-based alteration to grassing lines, etc.)
I'll leave it at this.
-
Sean
from Tom Macwood again,
Sean
The Rees example was brought up because he matched your qualifications for Martin to a T. 35 years being exposed to Colt or Tilly does not necessarily translate into accuracy or sensitivity. There is no substitute for thorough research. The other thing they have in common are fathers who knew a thing or two about REMODELING & RENOVATION. The apple usually doesn't fall too far from the tree.
Actually a better comparison would be Ron Prichard. Hawtree bills himself as THE Colt man, just as Prichard is THE Ross man. They've both latched on to prototypical style that they repeat from course to course no matter what was originally there. On the positive side we have plenty of Ross courses to go around in these parts, and certainly a few will be spared from Rossification, unfortunately I only count four Colt designs in all of N. America (Toronto, Old Elm, PVGC & Hamilton), and IMO Toronto was the closest to original and the best candidate for preservation and/or restoration.
-
Paul, Not only is Toronto one of the limited number of actual Colt-designed courses in North America... see above: As you know, it's Canada's National Golf Links.
-
A couple of quick notes on this.
1) there are several greens, as noted, that are not Colt originals. I don't think that is the issue here -- I think the issue is the original greens.
2) two of the greens -- 11 and 15 (both Colt greens) -- are being moved for "safety" considerations apparently. The entrance road to the club is off a busy street and the entrance pulls alongside the 15th green and near the 5th green and 6th tee. The 6th tee is being relocated so it doesn't hit over the entrance road, and therefore will end up near to where the 15th green is. Therefore they are moving the 15th green, a Colt original. This is a damned shame. There is talk in the club of how the greens will be lasered and replicated, but I think that is unlikely. I might be proven wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it.
3) the first hole is also being altered to play closer to the ravine on the right, but the green stays in place. In other places cross bunkers, new bunkers and other features are being added, along with a lot of fescue. Let's be clear -- these are not features that are being returned to their original state. They are new features.
4) I have to wonder whether the lure of using a British born architect is one of the reasons Hawtree is at Toronto. There's a notion that he "gets" Colt better than a Canadian or American architect who would simply use the historic info, of which there is plenty.
5) Hawtree's original design, Tarandowah, two hours from Toronto, is quite good. I have no axe to grind here -- but I am concerned.
Robert
So there's no way this could be termed a "restoration" to Colt's flavour. All the features being added are new...or is any of it based on the original routing plan at all?
I don't see where they can move the 15th green? Will it be short and to the left of the original (are they planning to put the tee further back to compensate)? As is, it's a strong, long par 4 and is being dug up all because of a drive across the entrance drive for the 6th!?
There are lots of Colt courses in the UK that have shots over roads/driveways within the course boundaries: St George's Hill, Moor Park, Royal Belfast, Prestbury, Calcot Park, Camberley Heath, Wentworth has loads of them.....
But I wonder if the Toronto members are aware of this?
-
2) two of the greens -- 11 and 15 (both Colt greens) -- are being moved for "safety" considerations apparently. The entrance road to the club is off a busy street and the entrance pulls alongside the 15th green and near the 5th green and 6th tee. The 6th tee is being relocated so it doesn't hit over the entrance road, and therefore will end up near to where the 15th green is. Therefore they are moving the 15th green, a Colt original. This is a damned shame.
Thank god they're not touching the 5th green. It's wonderful, although I have shanked an approach over the road on that one. The 15th is one of the best holes on the course, so I sure hope he doesn't screw it up.
Not sure what the issue is with the 11th green. Seems pretty safe to me. To be fair, while Toronto is great fun, it is nowhere near one of Colt's best. There are a bunch of weak holes there and hopefully they focus on those. 1, 2 & 3 are a pretty bland start.
-
Sean
from Tom Macwood again,
Sean
The Rees example was brought up because he matched your qualifications for Martin to a T. 35 years being exposed to Colt or Tilly does not necessarily translate into accuracy or sensitivity. There is no substitute for thorough research. The other thing they have in common are fathers who knew a thing or two about REMODELING & RENOVATION. The apple usually doesn't fall too far from the tree.
Actually a better comparison would be Ron Prichard. Hawtree bills himself as THE Colt man, just as Prichard is THE Ross man. They've both latched on to prototypical style that they repeat from course to course no matter what was originally there. On the positive side we have plenty of Ross courses to go around in these parts, and certainly a few will be spared from Rossification, unfortunately I only count four Colt designs in all of N. America (Toronto, Old Elm, PVGC & Hamilton), and IMO Toronto was the closest to original and the best candidate for preservation and/or restoration.
Paul
I don't know if Hawtree bills himself as "the Colt man". I am only saying that he has one heck of a lot of experience with Colt courses and with older courses in general.
This safety issue at Toronto is the EXACT sort of thing I am talking about where the club may be issuing specific instructions to mitigate a situation. One can hardly blame Hawtree if the club feels the current situation is unsafe. Additionally, if the club believes the current situation is unsafe, they will sort it out using some archie- resulting in a bottom line of original bits of the course altered. Hawtree can either accept the situation regardless if he believes it to be accurate or he can pass on the work and let someone else get the commission. At some point, even extreme purists must accept that sometimes changes are made which have no bearing on the quality of the existing architecture. Its a fact of life however regrettable it may be that nothing remains the same (even though I would like to see some courses museumized if you will). Sometimes, these changes are good and proper (ie Hoylake's Royal to get an Open) and sometimes the changes are made for poor reasons even though they may turn out ok (ie St Enodoc's 16th - just a waste of money). Its down to the individual clubs to make these decisions. If you feel strongly that the club is making a mistake with one of N America's true gems, write to the club and explain your position. Who knows, if a few influential people get on board you may be able to influence the outcome of this job.
Tommy Mac
It still sounds to me like you are trying to slap Hawtree with the Rees brush. You can make comparisons, but I think they are well wide of the mark.
Ciao
-
Interesting discussion. Reminds me of some of ye olde discussions on renovation vs. restoration. Even Banquo's ghost has re-entered the fray!
Sean generally speaks sense, even though the purists and those with a vested intest in keeping courses intact (i.e. currently practicing architects) tend to disagree. The fact is that somebody (whether it be an individual or some sort of collective) owns each and every golf course in the world, and generally have the right to do with them what they want. Sometimes they "improve" courses sometimes they "worsen" them, although honest and informed men and women can disagree as to which verb is accurate in all cases. I tend to think that Martin Hawtree is one of the good guys operating in this field, even though some might not like some of his work that I have seen.
The crux of the issue is what rights can we, who have no vested interest in Toronto GC, exercise if we don't think that what the club may or may not be doing is, from our point of view, correct? Other than the right to free speech, I can't think of any. As Sean says, it's up to the owner(s) of the club to decide what to do and when with their property (ubless it is somewhat protected otherwise under the law, e.g. Historical Monument, ecologically sensitive areas, etc.).
If this is the case, "we" need to move the argument well beyond the "just because" phase (e.g. Nothing should be done because it is a Colt!) or the character assassination by association phase (e.g. Hawtree is evil because Rees Jones is evil and both had golf course architects for fathers). I would ask quesions such as the following to be discussed in this thread:
1. What is the background to this news. Other than being a relatively intact Colt and Haultain's former playground, how good, instructive or historical is Toronto GC? Why is the club thinking of change?
2. What changes are being contemplated? Is Robert Thompson's list below comprehensive?
3. Why are any of those changes unwelcome? Is it just because something of Colt's is being changed, or are there specific architectural issues with the changes regardless of their historical context?
Rich
PS--Paul T. I was at Royal Melbourne East a few weeks ago and can't remember my fellow players mentioning any greens being moved by Hawtree. Not that they were completely enthusiastic as to what he was doing, to be sure.....
-
Sean
from Tom Macwood again,
Sean
The Rees example was brought up because he matched your qualifications for Martin to a T. 35 years being exposed to Colt or Tilly does not necessarily translate into accuracy or sensitivity. There is no substitute for thorough research. The other thing they have in common are fathers who knew a thing or two about REMODELING & RENOVATION. The apple usually doesn't fall too far from the tree.
Actually a better comparison would be Ron Prichard. Hawtree bills himself as THE Colt man, just as Prichard is THE Ross man. They've both latched on to prototypical style that they repeat from course to course no matter what was originally there. On the positive side we have plenty of Ross courses to go around in these parts, and certainly a few will be spared from Rossification, unfortunately I only count four Colt designs in all of N. America (Toronto, Old Elm, PVGC & Hamilton), and IMO Toronto was the closest to original and the best candidate for preservation and/or restoration.
Paul
I don't know if Hawtree bills himself as "the Colt man". I am only saying that he has one heck of a lot of experience with Colt courses and with older courses in general.
This safety issue at Toronto is the EXACT sort of thing I am talking about where the club may be issuing specific instructions to mitigate a situation. One can hardly blame Hawtree if the club feels the current situation is unsafe. Additionally, if the club believes the current situation is unsafe, they will sort it out using some archie- resulting in a bottom line of original bits of the course altered. Hawtree can either accept the situation regardless if he believes it to be accurate or he can pass on the work and let someone else get the commission. At some point, even extreme purists must accept that sometimes changes are made which have no bearing on the quality of the existing architecture. Its a fact of life however regrettable it may be that nothing remains the same (even though I would like to see some courses museumized if you will). Sometimes, these changes are good and proper (ie Hoylake's Royal to get an Open) and sometimes the changes are made for poor reasons even though they may turn out ok (ie St Enodoc's 16th - just a waste of money). Its down to the individual clubs to make these decisions. If you feel strongly that the club is making a mistake with one of N America's true gems, write to the club and explain your position. Who knows, if a few influential people get on board you may be able to influence the outcome of this job.
Tommy Mac
It still sounds to me like you are trying to slap Hawtree with the Rees brush. You can make comparisons, but I think they are well wide of the mark.
Ciao
Sean
But it's nonsensical. How can a tee shot suddenly have a safety issue after 100 years of use? It's a driveway to the course and doesn't get much traffic at all.
Martin Hawtree did the exact same thing at Melbourne with a "safety audit".
I doubt it was much of an issue at Toronto until Martin Hawtree did the same at Toronto. Certainly the Canadians I know who played the course a lot didn't think so.
Claiming that there's a safety issue at the 11th at Toronto is just bizarre.
-
Paul. I don't think moving the tee on 6 is that big of a deal. It is a little awkward hitting over the road and I could see a car getting hit, but one could still hit a car even after moving the tee. The issue would be altering the 5th or 15th green, and it sounds like they want to alter the 15th. I truly think 15 is one of the better holes on the course, but who knows, he might make it better. I can't imagine hitting onto the road approaching 15, so I don't see the liability. I do, however, see the danger on 5, because I've hit it onto the road there - there's just no way I would ever want to see them change that hole or green.
Rich. A few years ago I know a numbers of the members had new course envy, but they absolutely loved their club. I also know a few who are members of multiple clubs and almost all of them think that there second club is a better golf course. I've told them, they're nuts, but opinions are just that. Toronto is a historical golf club (one of North America's first) and they made the effort to bring in the best golf architect in the world at the time to design them a new course. So it has historical significance up here. The course is great fun to play, but falls well short of some of Colt's great courses. They have some strong holes and some which are less so.
I hope Ian Andrew feels at liberty to give his comments, because he certainly would have many more insights than I.
-
Rich
I have a much higher opinion of TGC than Henry, I'd put Toronto close or in my top 10 of Colt's courses...I've see about 80.
The canadian guys on the website often think of it as their "NGLA" i.e. the first really top notch course in the country.
Imagine the hoopla on here if NGLA was moving its greens :D
I can't see how Hawtree could make 15 better because the only option I can think of is short and left.
-
Thanks, Henry. I appreciate your own passion for the course. Do you think that what is being done will minizize the fun factor of the course? If so, maybe that is an argument to be made against the restoration. My own home club, Aberdour, added about 800 yards 35+ years ago (well before I became a member). Those who know the old course thnk that it was a far better one than the new one, even though only 3 holes were replaced and another 3 modified slightly. Fun can never be overrated.
Rich
-
Robert
So there's no way this could be termed a "restoration" to Colt's flavour. All the features being added are new...or is any of it based on the original routing plan at all?
I don't see where they can move the 15th green? Will it be short and to the left of the original (are they planning to put the tee further back to compensate)? As is, it's a strong, long par 4 and is being dug up all because of a drive across the entrance drive for the 6th!?
There are lots of Colt courses in the UK that have shots over roads/driveways within the course boundaries: St George's Hill, Moor Park, Royal Belfast, Prestbury, Calcot Park, Camberley Heath, Wentworth has loads of them.....
But I wonder if the Toronto members are aware of this?
I should have explained -- the safety issue isn't so much with the road coming in through the course, but with cars that might have to stop outside the club before turning in. Apparently there has been at least one accident involving a car waiting to turn into the club as someone teed off. That said I don't see any safety issue with 11 -- but apparently one was cited.
As for the significance of Toronto, it is a very important course and club for many reasons, a lot of which I don't think the club members even understand.
-
Sean
from Tom Macwood again,
Sean
The Rees example was brought up because he matched your qualifications for Martin to a T. 35 years being exposed to Colt or Tilly does not necessarily translate into accuracy or sensitivity. There is no substitute for thorough research. The other thing they have in common are fathers who knew a thing or two about REMODELING & RENOVATION. The apple usually doesn't fall too far from the tree.
Actually a better comparison would be Ron Prichard. Hawtree bills himself as THE Colt man, just as Prichard is THE Ross man. They've both latched on to prototypical style that they repeat from course to course no matter what was originally there. On the positive side we have plenty of Ross courses to go around in these parts, and certainly a few will be spared from Rossification, unfortunately I only count four Colt designs in all of N. America (Toronto, Old Elm, PVGC & Hamilton), and IMO Toronto was the closest to original and the best candidate for preservation and/or restoration.
Paul
I don't know if Hawtree bills himself as "the Colt man". I am only saying that he has one heck of a lot of experience with Colt courses and with older courses in general.
This safety issue at Toronto is the EXACT sort of thing I am talking about where the club may be issuing specific instructions to mitigate a situation. One can hardly blame Hawtree if the club feels the current situation is unsafe. Additionally, if the club believes the current situation is unsafe, they will sort it out using some archie- resulting in a bottom line of original bits of the course altered. Hawtree can either accept the situation regardless if he believes it to be accurate or he can pass on the work and let someone else get the commission. At some point, even extreme purists must accept that sometimes changes are made which have no bearing on the quality of the existing architecture. Its a fact of life however regrettable it may be that nothing remains the same (even though I would like to see some courses museumized if you will). Sometimes, these changes are good and proper (ie Hoylake's Royal to get an Open) and sometimes the changes are made for poor reasons even though they may turn out ok (ie St Enodoc's 16th - just a waste of money). Its down to the individual clubs to make these decisions. If you feel strongly that the club is making a mistake with one of N America's true gems, write to the club and explain your position. Who knows, if a few influential people get on board you may be able to influence the outcome of this job.
Tommy Mac
It still sounds to me like you are trying to slap Hawtree with the Rees brush. You can make comparisons, but I think they are well wide of the mark.
Ciao
Sean
But it's nonsensical. How can a tee shot suddenly have a safety issue after 100 years of use? It's a driveway to the course and doesn't get much traffic at all.
Martin Hawtree did the exact same thing at Melbourne with a "safety audit".
I doubt it was much of an issue at Toronto until Martin Hawtree did the same at Toronto. Certainly the Canadians I know who played the course a lot didn't think so.
Claiming that there's a safety issue at the 11th at Toronto is just bizarre.
Paul
Its not for me to decide a club's safety issues.
One thing I find very interesting in this discussion is that it seems "ok" to shift about the non-Colt bits of the course. I would ask two questions.
1. Are these bits of good quality?
2. Can the non-Colt bits be made significantly better fairly easily and cheaply?
If the answers to these questions are yes and no, what the heck difference does it make if Colt's name is on the work or if Joe Blogg's name is on the work? As Rich suggests, unless this course is VERY EXCEPTIONAL (meaning probably less than 15 courses world wide), using Colt's name as part of the argument doesn't cut it. The argument has to be about what is relevant to the club. Afterall, grandpa's hammer has had two new heads and three handles, but we still call it grandpa's hammer and so it is with Toronto. No matter the changes, it is still Toronto GC. Purists have to be reasonable in these debates or risk being seen as wing nuts because from a purists PoV it doesn't matter who does the work, what matters is that a course or they love and respect is being altered. If this is the case, in the purists eyes the club has to be seen as 100% responsible and not the archie.
Ciao
-
Sean: The Watson greens are out of character with the others on the course. He paid little attention to what was there, a common trend even today. So Hawtree wants to return them to something more "Colt Like" -- I'm hoping he does a good job. However, there's clearly a concern about exisiting Colt greens -- two of which are among the best on the course.
As for the quality of Toronto, I'd say it is very strong. If it were not a super quiet private club, I'd suggest more people would have seen and heard about it.
-
Robert-
I concur. When the ASGCA met in Toronto a few years back, we played TGC and I was really impressed having heard practically nothing about it going in. Traffic on the entry road seemed almost non-existent. Also, the lobster bisque at lunch was the best I've had, before or since!
-
Sean
Re-read my first post and you can see that I actually quite like the 2nd and 16th Watson greens. I don't remember them being out of character, as Rob states, but I could be wrong. I never saw the Colt originals and not sure if anyone at the club remembers them? However the 2nd is certainly not as good a hole as the other two that are having greens changed, 11 and 15.
So what's so sacrosanct about World Top 15? Why stop there? What about world class holes on lesser courses? And who gets to decide? You? Rich?
The 11th and 15th are super holes that have stood the test of time (100 years) on an historically important course. They deserve to be preserved. It's as simple as that.
-
I think the contrarians seem to think that any hole can be improved and so why not just go ahead and try it...like an endless experiment with no stopping.
Doesn't the original architect's opinion hold any weight?
Don't we like to play on historic courses that famous players of the past played? And play courses that famous designers built, as is?
-
The club should do loads of research themselves on the course and archies before even talking to one or making any decisions on what "needs" to be done to the course and why.
Sean - while I agree that this should happen, I would bet that in reality it rarely does - perhaps an archie like Tom, Ian or Jeff could step in and relate some of their experience. This will only happen if the Green(s) Committee takes a real interest in maintaining the historical authenticity of the club and I am guessing that is rare. I also know from first-hand experience that not all architects will even do much, if any, research on their own - unfortunately they are not all as diligent as those who post here.
-
The was a Shell's Wonderful World of Golf match played in the 1960s but I'm not sure if this was prior to the changes. It still would be worth watching to see how the course has evolved.
I was shocked to see that TGC last hosted the Canadian Open in 1927 - usually newsreels or TV tapes can be a good source of historical info but that will likely not be available from 1927 or earlier.
-
I think the contrarians seem to think that any hole can be improved and so why not just go ahead and try it...like an endless experiment with no stopping.
Doesn't the original architect's opinion hold any weight?
Don't we like to play on historic courses that famous players of the past played? And play courses that famous designers built, as is?
Paul
If you are thinking of me when you use the perjorative term "contrarian," please use what I think I am, a "realist" in the future. Thanks in advance. ;)
Rich
-
Sean
Re-read my first post and you can see that I actually quite like the 2nd and 16th Watson greens. I don't remember them being out of character, as Rob states, but I could be wrong. I never saw the Colt originals and not sure if anyone at the club remembers them? However the 2nd is certainly not as good a hole as the other two that are having greens changed, 11 and 15.
So what's so sacrosanct about World Top 15? Why stop there? What about world class holes on lesser courses? And who gets to decide? You? Rich?
The 11th and 15th are super holes that have stood the test of time (100 years) on an historically important course. They deserve to be preserved. It's as simple as that.
Paul
There is nothing special about a world top 15. I threw the number out to suggest that there ain't many courses (and not by any means necessarily the top 15) in the world that could qualify for some sort of mythical preservation status - even in a dream world. I also fully understand that the folks who decide this sort of thing are the memberships.
Despite your pleading, there is nothing as simple in architecture as you make it out to be. You could very well be right that a few holes deserve to be reserved. In truth, I tend to side with you where change is concerned though I admit my motives are far more utilitarian than yours. The point I am making is that in the real world, there are very, very, very few holes which will be preserved because they are those holes. To actually make a case, you need to go much deeper than to just say they are Colt holes. What about these holes makes them more special than the other 350-400 holes of Colt's? For cryin out loud, there are a great many holes on this planet with more historical importance than anything Colt could have done in Toronto that have been altered.
I don't think I am a contrarian, just realistic. No, I don't like to see good old courses torn apart, but mainly because I think its often a waste of money. Colt understood the strategic importance of the game as well anybody involved in golf so I think it highly unlikely that later folks will improve on his strategic elements, but architecture is about much more than strategy and often times these extraneous elements aren't revealed until a much later date. Furthermore, we often don't know what the original's archie's opinion is about later a element. It is high presumptive to believe anyone knows what an ODG would and do about situations that occur today.
Ciao
-
[/quote]
Paul
There is nothing special about a world top 15. I threw the number out to suggest that there ain't many courses (and not by any means necessarily the top 15) in the world that could qualify for some sort of mythical preservation status - even in a dream world. I also fully understand that the folks who decide this sort of thing are the memberships.
Despite your pleading, there is nothing as simple in architecture as you make it out to be. You could very well be right that a few holes deserve to be reserved. In truth, I tend to side with you where change is concerned though I admit my motives are far more utilitarian than yours. The point I am making is that in the real world, there are very, very, very few holes which will be preserved because they are those holes. To actually make a case, you need to go much deeper than to just say they are Colt holes. What about these holes makes them more special than the other 350-400 holes of Colt's? For cryin out loud, there are a great many holes on this planet with more historical importance than anything Colt could have done in Toronto that have been altered.
I don't think I am a contrarian, just realistic. No, I don't like to see good old courses torn apart, but mainly because I think its often a waste of money. Colt understood the strategic importance of the game as well anybody involved in golf so I think it highly unlikely that later folks will improve on his strategic elements, but architecture is about much more than strategy and often times these extraneous elements aren't revealed until a much later date. Furthermore, we often don't know what the original's archie's opinion is about later a element. It is high presumptive to believe anyone knows what an ODG would and do about situations that occur today.
Ciao
[/quote]
Sean
Basically I'm skeptical that Toronto suddenly needs some major redesign work after 100 years of those holes playing just fine.
Of course there are lots of factors involved that determine whether the architecture is preserved, but still, good quality architecture has a better chance than mediocre or poor. People enjoy playing quality golf holes. And I'm much less pessimistic than you here...lots of golf holes are well preserved because of their quality, not just very.,very few.
As I've written in previous posts, it's not just that it's a Colt course (although obviously I'm biased here). It's the first top quality golf course in Canada (I'm told by Ian Andrew and others) and lead the way for other architects like Stanley Thompson. Longevity and tradition does matter, 1911 is pretty old in the scheme of GCA in America.
You wrote What about these holes makes them more special than the other 350-400 holes of Colt's?
I thought the photos spoke for themselves but here goes ...the original holes that are going to be dug up: The 11th with no bunkers (you'd automatically like it) has a very attractive green perched on the hill below the clubhouse and it's the perfect foil to the 10th and 12th. The 10th is lumpy bumpy with lots of traps, the 12th works around a curved depression. For 11th Hawtree plans to move the green left and add bunkers in the hillside.
The 15th is the strongest par 4 on the back nine, tee shot is down over cool terrain, the green is on natural raise and is strongly pitched, greenside bunkers are deep in extreme. If this green site has to be brought closer, which I think it has to be, then it's just a weaker hole, I can't see an alternative green site that's nearly as good.
The 2nd is less interesting but I thought the green with its false front and fall away back left was nice.
You wrote: " For cryin out loud, there are a great many holes on this planet with more historical importance than anything Colt could have done in Toronto that have been altered."
Not to Canadian golf course architecture historians there aren't.
Your wrote: "It is high presumptive to believe anyone knows what an ODG would and do about situations that occur today."
I agree and I don't do this. Does Martin Hawtree? It's a good sales pitch.
How far does your pragmatism stretch? If you saw a JCB tearing up Beau Desert, would your first reaction be "shit this club is wasting a lot of money"
-
Paul
There is nothing special about a world top 15. I threw the number out to suggest that there ain't many courses (and not by any means necessarily the top 15) in the world that could qualify for some sort of mythical preservation status - even in a dream world. I also fully understand that the folks who decide this sort of thing are the memberships.
Despite your pleading, there is nothing as simple in architecture as you make it out to be. You could very well be right that a few holes deserve to be reserved. In truth, I tend to side with you where change is concerned though I admit my motives are far more utilitarian than yours. The point I am making is that in the real world, there are very, very, very few holes which will be preserved because they are those holes. To actually make a case, you need to go much deeper than to just say they are Colt holes. What about these holes makes them more special than the other 350-400 holes of Colt's? For cryin out loud, there are a great many holes on this planet with more historical importance than anything Colt could have done in Toronto that have been altered.
I don't think I am a contrarian, just realistic. No, I don't like to see good old courses torn apart, but mainly because I think its often a waste of money. Colt understood the strategic importance of the game as well anybody involved in golf so I think it highly unlikely that later folks will improve on his strategic elements, but architecture is about much more than strategy and often times these extraneous elements aren't revealed until a much later date. Furthermore, we often don't know what the original's archie's opinion is about later a element. It is high presumptive to believe anyone knows what an ODG would and do about situations that occur today.
Ciao
[/quote]
Sean
Basically I'm skeptical that Toronto suddenly needs some major redesign work after 100 years of those holes playing just fine.
Of course there are lots of factors involved that determine whether the architecture is preserved, but still, good quality architecture has a better chance than mediocre or poor. People enjoy playing quality golf holes. And I'm much less pessimistic than you here...lots of golf holes are well preserved because of their quality, not just very.,very few.
As I've written in previous posts, it's not just that it's a Colt course (although obviously I'm biased here). It's the first top quality golf course in Canada (I'm told by Ian Andrew and others) and lead the way for other architects like Stanley Thompson. Longevity and tradition does matter, 1911 is pretty old in the scheme of GCA in America.
You wrote What about these holes makes them more special than the other 350-400 holes of Colt's?
I thought the photos spoke for themselves but here goes ...the original holes that are going to be dug up: The 11th with no bunkers (you'd automatically like it) has a very attractive green perched on the hill below the clubhouse and it's the perfect foil to the 10th and 12th. The 10th is lumpy bumpy with lots of traps, the 12th works around a curved depression. For 11th Hawtree plans to move the green left and add bunkers in the hillside.
The 15th is the strongest par 4 on the back nine, tee shot is down over cool terrain, the green is on natural raise and is strongly pitched, greenside bunkers are deep in extreme. If this green site has to be brought closer, which I think it has to be, then it's just a weaker hole, I can't see an alternative green site that's nearly as good.
The 2nd is less interesting but I thought the green with its false front and fall away back left was nice.
You wrote: " For cryin out loud, there are a great many holes on this planet with more historical importance than anything Colt could have done in Toronto that have been altered."
Not to Canadian golf course architecture historians there aren't.
Your wrote: "It is high presumptive to believe anyone knows what an ODG would and do about situations that occur today."
I agree and I don't do this. Does Martin Hawtree? It's a good sales pitch.
How far does your pragmatism stretch? If you saw a JCB tearing up Beau Desert, would your first reaction be "shit this club is wasting a lot of money"
[/quote]
Paul
As I stated many times, I too am highly skeptical of supposed "necessary" changes and I suspect this could well be the case at Toronto. My challenge to you was to come up with a reasoned argument as to why Toronto shouldn't be altered without relying on "well, its a Colt course" and you made a good start. However, it isn't me you have to convince with your arguments, its the board at Toronto.
When I stated my thoughts about being presumptive that was with the idea of changing the architecture purely for architecture's sake. If there are other compelling reasons to alter a course, then of course, the club and archie have to make the best of a bad situation. However, that isn't to say that they are bound to slavishly copy what was there or other Colt design ideas because we don't know if Colt would have done that if he were in the same position.
Unless the club was improving drainage, tearing out trees or improving the bunkering, then yes, my first reaction would be the club is wasting money trying to improve on the design ideas at Beau Desert. That doesn't mean its perfect, but its easily good enough and its highly risky to entrust a board with re-design concepts.
Again, all my musings get back to one simple fact. Clubs are the stewards of their courses. It does nobody any favours to point at archies and level blame there unless they have lied are produced an inferior product. Not all archies see things the same way - and thank god they don't.
Ciao
-
Sean
Re; Beau Desert, you have no heart! I bet even Rich wouldn't be so stubbornly pragmatic....JCB on Dornoch.
All
Has anyone see the Shell's WWG of Toronto? Does it predate the Watson changes? I guess there must be a few members who remember back to before then.
If the club really wants to move the 6th tee beyond or away from the road....why not sacrifice length on that hole and leave 15 green alone?
But if Hawtree is serious about returning original features he could recoup that length by restoring the original 6th green site. On Colt's original plan he has the 6th green on the ridge that you cross on 7th; it's a spectacular site. The current 6th green is excellent; but not in as dramatic a position. It was created by Alison in the 1920s, not sure why he did the change; I'll re-read the report. You would probably have to move 7th tee a bit?
The current breakdown of greens: Colt: 1,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,14?,15,17,18 Alison: 6,13,14? Watson: 2,16
-
Sean
Re; Beau Desert, you have no heart! I bet even Rich wouldn't be so stubbornly pragmatic....JCB on Dornoch.
Paul, if they had used a JCB on Dornoch this winter I wouldn't have minded, but they used some sort of Mad Max machine that tore out every vestige of vegetation on acres of the course. When I'm next up there in August I'll try to find out who was the renovation archie in charge. My money is on Dick Cheney.... :'(
-
Paul, The Shell's match between Marlene Streit and Mickey Wright, at Toronto Golf Club, was filmed in 1967.
I just flipped through the club's history book quickly but didn't find any mention of the Watson changes. Cornish and Whitten show that Watson did work at Toronto GC in 1962 and '68.
-
Hawtree's work at Royal Melbourne East has been mentioned, and he has now parlayed that into work at Kooyonga in Adelaide and Yarra Yarra in Melbourne. This work too has come out of his production of a 'safety audit'. So it would appear that Hawtree, in addition to being a Colt and Mackenzie expert, is also one in regards to Alex Russell and H L Rymill! Hawtree's work at Kooyonga was mostly unsupervised by him and does not fit particularly well into the fabric of the course.
I can't really comment on Toronto as I have never seen the course, I think the Canadians have cause for a little concern as to the end result.
Neil
-
I know Martin to be a good man with a great pedigree. I knew his father and that friendship was a reason I stuck to my passion for golf design. I have never visited Toronto GC, but the photos here certainly make it appear that there is much to behold — and also a lot of adjustment that might benefit the course.
Tom D. — I support your contesting of the architect/club association. I am very often amused at what people "think" they know has gone on, and how much they "know" about the nuances of the work we do at existing clubs. However, I do take some exception to the notion that you cannot (sometimes) create a set of decent plans for a remodel, renovation and/or restoration. While much does happen and play out in the field work, we have been involved in work where very detailed plans (for some areas) have been developed and proven extremely reliable. I don't think you can say that — across the board — plans have little usefulness when it comes to work on an existing course.
-
Neil
I think a safety audit is complete BS unless something has fundamentally changed i.e. with routing, housing. My god, Painswick would have half its holes closed!
Jeff
So perhaps there's a chance that the original 2nd and 16th greens are on tape, if the redo work was done in '68. There used to be a Shell website where you could order tapes of the more obscure matches, but it seems to have disappeared.
The reports by Colt and Alison (individually) from 1913(Colt), 1920 and 1927 (Alison) are interesting reading. Using these with the original Colt routing plan (1911) you can piece together most of the development of the course until Alison left the continent. Some of it's hard to be sure of and most of the recommended changes involve steadily bunkering the layout....tightening it up.
They are both somewhat critical of the original landscaping work, both architects emphasize that they want natural looking sand faced bunkers with a rugged appearance. Colt uses "torn out" to describe the appearance he wants, a term he also used at Pine Valley and Hamilton. His famous bunker at the 8th at St George's Hill is the ultimate "torn out" ridge to produce an awesome bunker...that's the effect he wants at Toronto too. Alison has some sketches along the same lines, showing irregular faces of bunkers with the sand high up.
I pretty sure that the photo that Jeff Mingay posted is from just after initial construction and you can see why the bunkers were unsatisfactory to Colt if he wanted sand faced...
(http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u340/jeff_mingay/toronto10.jpg)
I haven't seen an later pics of Tornonto.
Anyway I'm sure that Martin Hawtree plans to build sand faced bunkers similar to the recent redo work at Sunningdale, but I don't know how much these will resemble what was left by the time Alison had finished with Toronto. And I also have no idea where he intends to move some and add some?
(Form the 1913 report Colt did want an addition of a bold "torn out" bunker to the 11th front hillside, so perhaps that what hawtree has in mind?)
-
Paul says — "I think a safety audit is complete BS..."
OK. Interesting perspective.
What do you tell the club who is paying a higher risk premium? That they should just keep on paying that higher premium?
What do you tell the 24 year old chap who lost his right eye to an errant ball? That a safety analysis by a qualified golf course architect is BS?
I am not suggesting that every club needs a safety audit, but I do feel there is value in such an appraisal if it is conducted with a balanced approach.
-
Paul
I can't believe you site Painswick! The back to back par 5 scenario is the most dangerous thing I have ever encountered on a course. It is total madness and there is no question I would alter these holes if given the opportunity. All the other crossovers work alright though because you can see what is going on. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect golfers to use common sense before hitting, but to do so they have to be able to see players heading toward them in a shared fairway.
Ciao
-
Paul says — "I think a safety audit is complete BS..."
OK. Interesting perspective.
What do you tell the club who is paying a higher risk premium? That they should just keep on paying that higher premium?
What do you tell the 24 year old chap who lost hiss right eye to an errant ball? That a safety analysis by a qualified golf course architect is BS?
I am not suggesting that every club needs a safety audit, but I do feel there is value in such an appraisal if it is conducted with a balanced approach.
Forrest
You conveniently edited my comment! I think it's BS for holes that have cleary worked just fine for a long time....unless something has fundamentally changed. Nothing has changed at Toronto.
It seems some architects can find safety issues easier that others and push work through on that basis. And you're never going to eliminate accidents .
Sean...You've never gotten Painswick
-
Paul,
The reports you cite, submitted by Colt and Alison subsequent to initial construction of the course, are invaluable and telling; especially if the intent is to restore and preserve Mr. Colt's vision. How many old clubs possess this type of report, written by the original golf architect (or associate), subsequent to initial construction of the course? Not many I presume. Toronto Golf Club has three!
-
Paul — The time passed without an accident can be a valuable gauge...but it is almost always not scientific. Certainly there are measures taken in extreme cases (crossover holes) that make the design as "safe" as possible. Still, a safety audit can be very valuable...regardles of whether you are trying to preserve or changing a course.
-
Jeff,
Have I never given you a copy of the reports?
HenryE,
I can't - I have my reasons.
Paul,
I've been thinking about 14 green for a while.
It used to play from the crown of the hill on #13 to the 14th green site.
I know the hole was "turned 90 degrees by Alison" - when 13 was lengthened - I think you have that plan.
I don't remember any note of the green being rebuilt by Alison - although he definately built 13 at the time.
The surrounds and bunkers were rehaped while Bob Brewster was superintendent - under the guidance of Rene Murylaert.
Again I don't recall the green being done - but that was possible - but I still think unlikely.
-
Jeff,
Have I never given you a copy of the reports?
HenryE,
I can't - I have my reasons.
Paul,
I've been thinking about 14 green for a while.
It used to play from the crown of the hill on #13 to the 14th green site.
I know the hole was "turned 90 degrees by Alison" - when 13 was lengthened - I think you have that plan.
I don't remember any note of the green being rebuilt by Alison - although he definately built 13 at the time.
The surrounds and bunkers were rehaped while Bob Brewster was superintendent - under the guidance of Rene Murylaert.
Again I don't recall the green being done - but that was possible - but I still think unlikely.
Ian
I think Colt's angle was more impressive to this hole than Alison's since it brings the gulley into play more. But Alison's change was worth it: extend the 13th and build such a cool green. How close is the 14th green to the gulley at the back? I hope Hawtree plans to clear the brush/trees from behind that green it would be more impressive.
From the Alison report in 1920 the 13th green angle looks different from what's there now (less side on). When he returns in 1927 he asks for it be pushed further on and I think that's when the current green was built?
(Colt must have visited in 1914 too when he was at Hamilton...but no report?)
-
From the Hawtree website:
Hawtree have just finished hosting a small Harry S. Colt Tour for a contingency from Toronto Golf Club, a Harry Colt course opened in 1912 that will go through an extensive renovation project this summer. Also attending were the selected golf course contractor who will perform the specialized works on the Toronto Golf Club. Other invitees included Rinkven Golf Club, Belgium, who is currently having an audit performed by Hawtree on their 36-hole golf course. The Colt tour included St. George's Hill, Sunningdale Golf Club, and Swinley Forest Golf Club as well as Tom Simpson’s creation, New Zealand Golf Club.
I think it's a reasonable assumption that Hawtree will try to make Toronto more heathland in character, particularly from the bunkering point of view since this was what the firm focused on at those English clubs. I hope they don't go down the St George's Hill route when it comes to the bunkers.
-
One man's opinion of the work at Toronto.
http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2010/06/23/course-review-toronto-golf-club-renovation/
Ciao
-
Those round traps 20 yards off the fairway at 15 , are they before or after the work of Hawtree...
I hope it was before