Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Melvyn Morrow on August 03, 2011, 12:29:16 PM
-
If not then why have we not had a detailed and fundamental debate about the design and build of Askernish Golf Course? No, not its remoteness but its GCA.
Let’s look to the course through the eyes of an architect or designer, not Joe Public or an excuse for a golfer who rates courses for the entertainment of Editors of Golfing Magazines – well they sell more magazines so make more money because many love to moan about the listings how did this get ahead of this or that’s not worthy of that position – totally pointless and waste of time, yet the important GCA of a course is ignored.
I am puzzled from the silence that comes from the professional classes who design and build our modern courses. I would have thought that Askernish would be a brilliant course to study, seeking knowledge on its…
Drainage or the lack of modern systems
Soil
Grasses
Greens
Traffic
and many more points closer to the hearts of designers and not forgetting Green Keepers.
Yet we have next to total silence on the structure of the land, the course, its sustainability, and other items that are so important regards maintenance – nevertheless any discussion always seems the be about its remoteness and is judged by a financial formula that do not apply in many places in Scotland let alone South Uist.
Ralph and his Team supported and assisted by Gordon Irvine, Martin Ebert (Architect), Chris Haspell (Green keeper) and Adam Lawrence (Editor, Golf Course Architecture), just to name a few have created the impossible, a golf course for £50,000 that so far has nearly everyone who has played it shouting about its quality.
So why no article or detailed report on the course, its soil or its closeness to the heart of traditional game? Is it possible that there is a conspiracy afoot, do the Associations want to kill the idea that courses to this quality can be built for £50,000 and maintained upon a shoestring budget? What is going on, this is the most important course in the history of the modern game and the architects and their Associations are keeping quiet.
Gentlemen, why the silence – you cannot afford to be silent or perhaps some of you have built just too many over expensive cockups that some have had to be modified before a year is up. Be complacent and watch your reputation slowly diminish.
This whether you like it or not is History in The Making, why have you not gone and seen for yourself and asked how they managed it, how they achieved what nearly every designers dreams of, producing a well know highly enjoyable golf course that is affordable to all.
I do not even hear any whispers, just silence with the exception of perhaps from the ever faithful John Garrity http://jgarrity2.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/askernish-who-needs-winter-rules/
Gentlemen, is there a conspiracy of silence? If not why are you not talking about it with your fellow Members.
Melvyn
-
I suspect that not many have actually been there. Those who have, like Tom Doak, did comment. If you have any additional information why not post it right here?
Personally, I would be interested in a breakdown of the £50000 figure. My current impression is that a lot of people have worked for free. Not sure what the lesson from that would be for building golf courses in a non-remote place without an OTM connection.
Ulrich
-
Ulrich
Its a simple question, why the silence over Askernish - and as for Tom D he has only given us a few lines.
I am not posting anything, the whole point of my question is what has happened at Askernish is rather important for GCA, but not many have been there perhaps not interested or is there another reason we do not know.
Apathy is not a subject to promote when you are seeking work in a recession, but I have just asked a question.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn
Uh, maybe it's because Tom is not being paid by you to provide all this exhaustive detail. Time is money, buddy.
I think your attitude is backwards...and I certainly do not think there is a conspiracy afoot!!!
Most of us are thankful these guys share with us what they do, they certainly are not obligated to.
Your post reeks of accusations. Moreover, you imply that if Tom et al are not willing to provide the "detail" you speak of, then something is rotten in Scotland.
You attract more honey with bees....
-
Melvyn
You are better placed than the vast majority on here to ask questions and discuss the design of the course. Can I suggest you raise a question about some aspect of the design such as its routing and the use of the dune system, or how much soil/sand was shifted to make features, how much of it was natural etc. That kind of opening gambit is going to get a much better response than your first post on this thread.
That post just seems to be spoiling for a fight, which is counter productive, unless of course............ ;)
Niall
-
Melvyn,
Your question has a lot of assumptions behind it. For just one example, you state that "what has happened at Askernish is rather important for GCA." Is what happened at Askernish rather important for golf? It may be, I don't know, but you stating it doesn't necessarily make it so.
-
Here is one thing that has always caught my attention...
One of the biggest costs of golf course construction is irrigation. Right?
But Askernish cost next to nothing to build. Right?
I assume it has no fairway irrigation...or very little.
How can that be possible? Is the land and climate simply that close to ideal for golf?
-
Now Mac, your heading very dangerously close to a discussion on the design elements of Askernish.
Links turf generally survives on a starvation diet which is why it is the way it is. While a lot of mainland links courses have irrigation, I think you will find that it will get used sparingly if it all in some places.
Niall
-
I think there are courses in the US that survived just fine for over a century without fairway irrigation. Isn't the built in fairway irrigation a relatively new feature at Maidstone? Does Newport even have a built in fairway irrigation?
-
Melvyn, you are stating that what has happened at Askernish is important for GCA. Could you elaborate
a) what exactly has happened at Askernish?
b) why that would be relevant for GCA in general?
With that background I think we might be able to evince one or the other professional opinion :)
Ulrich
-
Ulrich
I will leave that for you to work out, I am certain you will come up with something.
Melvyn
-
Rabbits can't talk.
Bogey
-
Rabbits can't talk.
Bogey
I don't know, Mike, the rabbits at Rustic Canyon are advancing pretty rapidly. I am pretty sure I saw them flashing some sort of hand signs across the 13th fairway last week, from one grouping to another. At this rate, I expect them to start speaking within a couple of months.
-
Niall
Not after a fight at all – no thanks.
I just asked a question why no real interest and as for specifics I did list five or six items . A course for that price and no major comments from the design world - tell me is that not strange.
Tom D enjoyed himself, others have too, Members here have submitted some interesting reports on their round, I am just seeking a designers review, his feelings,, could he learn anything form the site course etc,etc. But for a site like GCA.com we have had in real terms not professional reporting on the actual course and what it may offer other designers.
Why so much silence on Askernish and now attack upon me for asking a question that seems strange that it has not been previously answered.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn,
Your question was far better than the thread.
The issue is only two architects I know have stood foot on the course.
One no longer posts.
Is there a code of silence - no.
Are we held much more accountable for what we say - yes.
Ever notice how few architects post regularly?
-
Melvyn,
I don't think anyone has a code of silence.
But what is Askernish?
Thanks.
-
Mike
Its the future of Golf as we know it or thought we did
Melvyn
-
Melvyn, you are not doing Askernish and its people any favors if you blatantly refuse to give out any information and at the same time criticise the world at large for not discussing it.
Ulrich
-
Ulrich
I have asked a question, its not down to me to answer it too, that’s not the idea. What have I got to post to back up my question, a question is a question is a question give me some answers and I might be able to comment.
Melvyn
-
Mike
Its the future of Golf as we know it or thought we did
Melvyn
hmmmmm...concrete or asphalt paths? Club Car or EZ Go?
-
Mike
hmmmmm...concrete or asphalt paths? Club Car or EZ Go?
If only you where referring to golf.
elvyn
-
Melvyn,
I really don't know what to make of you. You have an extensive, exceptional even knowledge of early UK architects and architecture. You are generous to a fault in providing information to those with an interest. You are passionate about some of the most important issues in golf today.
But, you indulge in pots like those on here, clearly created with the sole intention of picking a fight. As Ulrich says, your refusal to answer questions here is madness and only serves to reinforce the effect this thread appears designed for, to prevent reasoned discussion of Askernish. If you are genuine, I wish you could understand how much damage posts like yours on this thread do to your cause. If, as I suspect from time to time, you are a troll, I wish you would troll elsewhere.
-
Melvyn, your question was why don't more course architects comment on Askernish. You said that something very important happened there and asked why it is not discussed more. Well, but you never stated WHAT EXACTLY it is that happened there and that GCA people should talk about.
You throw out a number of terms such as building costs, soil, traffic, drainage, sustainability etc. - but I fail to see what you are getting at. I'm sure there is a worthwile concept in your mind that bears discussion, but you need to spell it out clearly for the slower learners such as myself and those like Mark, who don't have their crystal ball handy :)
Ulrich
-
Melyvn,
No real code of silence, although we hate generally to comment on what we don't know about. And, I never have visited so I declined to comment.
-
I may be wrong...
..but it was my impression the reason why more people don't go is based primarily on its remote location and there only being 1 course within miles.
So I'm guessing there is no big conspiracy theory here Melyvn.
-
Ulrich
Askernish IMHO has been designed and built for an exceptional small about of money, it is being maintained again on a very small budget, yet the course has turned out to be – according to those who have played it more that enjoyable through to exhilarating, not to mention the wonderful routing.
This was done on land which lets just call it fit for purpose having no need for heavy earth moving equipment, no necessity to stripping back the land which attracted the designers there in the first place, then remoulding the whole surface into some fake amusement park idea of a golf course. What they originally saw, they kept – bit of a novel idea, don’t you think for the 21st Century.
Now IHMO, that is something special into day climate where we seem to have been accustom to building up a war chest of funds to pay for the whole process. First land destruction then the relaying of soil and seeding which in the end would have changed the natural nature of that original section that promised so much as a potential golf course. The guys at Askernish never needed earth movers, shaper or any expensive machinery as the design was good, built on land fit for purpose and at a cost that most clubs would give their second course for – is that’s not something special, that as a designers you would want to learn more from and to actually experience the land that accommodated this great course.
It’s not unique, it’s the way things were done but it’s there today in our faces, so we can learn – if we are interested first hand from the guys who took it upon themselves to achieve the near impossible.
It’s a golfing wonder and I am just surprised why Designers are not flocking to see, play and investigate first-hand what Askernish seem to represent.
The feedback is only via individual GCA.com members who have ventured there to play
Its history reborn and in the making at the same time, but who is really interested.
Trust that gives you all the information you seek.
Melvyn
Mark – what can I say, call me whatever you like; it just shows you for what you are.
Kalen, who knows you may well be right, but it got your attention - Marketing, boy can they teach you some tricks or is it?
-
Melvyn,
If Askernish is the future of golf, could you let us know where to find the available land in the ideal climate in such abundance that it is the game's future to build rustic courses there?
Could you explain how it can be done for fifty thousand quid without the crucial players donating their time and expertise?
Seems to me that Askernish is the exception, not the rule.
-
Melvyn,
If you gauge the responses to your first post, it's obvious the tone was more instigation, than ecouraging, the sharing of thoughts. Mr. Brauer and Mr. Andrew give the main reasons architects haven't yet offered more on Askernish regarding your questions. If they haven't actually been to the ground to see it, how could they accurately assess what's there?
You have had an affiniity for the place from the outset. I admire and respect your conviction that it is a significant course worthy of study. I totally agree! That said, Machrihansih Dunes, not far from your beloved Askernish, has equal, if not superior merit, on many of the same criteria you tout for Askernish.
It's construction operated under FAR more stringent environment constraints than Askernish's work. I spent time there at MD, walked the ground there repeatedly and followed that project closely. It got slammed by the press when it opened, primarily due to: the very rugged nature of the golf experience, blindness of some shots on holes, lack of definition in spots due to flora protection of rare, or endangered species that restricted mowing, and finally the biggest reason in my view, though you won't buy it... no quality caddie program!
The course is a bit of an untamed beast(YOU would love it!), especiallly when the wind is up and the weather is harsh. I would meld the difficulty of Carnasty (minus the on-course water hazards) and the rugged presentation of Brora, with the blindness of Prestwick. How's that sound to you for stepping up to the tee for a first go 'round, during a testing day, and heading out for what is probably the toughest walk in links golf!
To open a course of that challenge, with no quality caddie counsel to guide one around, and expect commercial success, is madness.
Back to Askernish. Give some time for archtiects to sample it. You are right to sing its praises, but others need to make the trek there to satisfy your hopes of recognition. There is no question that a more efficient, frugal way forward, when prudent, is the way to go. Askernish has many natural advantages, present in few other sites, that enabled this mantra to become a reality there. Let's also realize that the verdict on sustaining the course's economic viability is still out ... only time will confirm it, one way or the other.
Cheers,
Kris 8)
-
Scott
Whatever happened to being open minded and investigating all possibilities - oh no we do not do that we just stick to spending millions we do not have on courses built in mad locations for golf or as a second thought around a housing estate to sell houses. Alternatively we can build golf courses as just big shallow bunkers with a couple of strips of green, one being the Green or perhaps a lake with just a little island with a flag.
It’s a question of looking and pushing, of seeing and understanding how others have achieved greatness. You want any more answers may I suggest a trip to South Uist and ask ralph and his great Team who have done what many a great Design House has failed to do produce a great course on such a small budget.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn,
Go on then, what am I? In the past I have received PMs asking why I have supported you. You may not believe it but I really do value your contribution here and that is why I hope, probably foolishly, that at some point you will start at least to try to understand others here and to put your points across better. Perhaps I am wrong, though, and you really are a troll. I guess I may never know.
-
Mark
and its goodnight from this I Can't Believe It's Not Butter Troll
-
It’s a question of looking and pushing, of seeing and understanding how others have achieved greatness. You want any more answers may I suggest a trip to South Uist and ask ralph and his great Team who have done what many a great Design House has failed to do produce a great course on such a small budget.
Melvyn,
What I'd like to know is the market value of building Askernish.
If all of the experts who participated were paid their going rate for the level of involvement they had, how much would it have cost?
It's disingenuous to say the course only cost £50,000 when some of the most major budget items are more or less absent.
Whatever happened to being open minded and investigating all possibilities - oh no we do not do that we just stick to spending millions we do not have on courses built in mad locations for golf or as a second thought around a housing estate to sell houses. Alternatively we can build golf courses as just big shallow bunkers with a couple of strips of green, one being the Green or perhaps a lake with just a little island with a flag.
I asked you to direct me to all the available land where a course like Askernish could be built (and that includes getting government consent to build). Really, please do.
Not all modern courses are housing estate monstrosities, but perhaps if you played golf in the modern era or had made an effort to educate yourself about the 1995-2010 Golden Age you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements so often.
-
I love Askernish with a passion. I was very, very lucky that, during February 2006, Martin Ebert, who I only knew vaguely at the time, called me and invited me to go up to Uist the following month with him, Gordon Irvine and Chris Haspell (now super at Castle Stuart) to investigate the possibility of reinstating the course.
In March, I took a stupidly early flight to Glasgow in order to connect with the morning plane to Benbecula. It was snowing when we boarded the plane, which didn't bode well for a trip to the islands, but as we flew across the coast, the skies cleared, and we crossed Skye and the Minch with barely a cloud below us. We descended across Uist into Benbecula airport, with the lochans glinting in the sunlight, and were met off the plane by Ralph Thompson.
Ralph drove us straight to the site. Passing Askernish House and coming onto the machair, we all wondered what exactly we had come here for: the land was links to be sure, but fairly flat, with a _very_ basic golf green (the final green of the nine hole course then in play) surrounded by barbed wire, in front of us.
We drove out towards the water's edge, and, at the place where the seventh tee now sits, we had our epiphany. And then, we spent two magical days, brilliantly sunny though brutally cold, trudging through the dunes, trying to locate evidence of old golf holes and figuring out a routing for the course. The routing that Martin produced at the end of those two days has been fairly dramatically changed, but it's still the essence of the course.
I have only been back once since, with golf architects James Edwards and Forrest Richardson in tow, but hardly a day passes when I don't think of Askernish.
BUT
The course exists because a number of talented and far-sighted people - including but not limited to Gordon, Martin, Chris, David Withers, Mike Keiser, Tom Doak, Eric Iverson and others - were prepared to invest time, skill and money in it, with no prospect of a commercial return, and a number of writers, people like John Garrity, have helped to make the place better known. I will defend the sustainability of the Askernish project to the end, because, as I said on here a couple of days ago, so long as there are a small number of people on the island sufficiently interested in golf to keep mowing it, there will be a course there; and the stark, remote beauty of the place will always attract a number of visitors.
It is hard, though, to see how a course built by volunteers with donated equipment and located in a spot that, while more accessible than most might think, is relatively speaking the end of the earth, could be held up as any kind of model for the game or the industry as a whole. The Platonic form of golf, perhaps; but Plato is no model for today's society with good reason.
-
>:( ::)U :P
I'm not buying into that we should bow down to the architects that do post. This doesn't mean I don't appreciate their imput. If they want to tLk about their work and hopefully , their passion it makes GCA more fun for us all. One thing I do know is that the emperor sometimes has no clothes and all the opinions posted on site have some validity, irrespective of their occupation.
-
Melvyn,
If Askernish is the future of golf, could you let us know where to find the available land in the ideal climate in such abundance that it is the game's future to build rustic courses there?
What about the land in Nebraska/Colorado? Could this type of course be built there? Long Island? Northern Michigan? Oregon?
Also, David M., I played Maidstone late last year...I don't think they had fairway irrigation then...and the course played brilliantly well.
Perhaps some of the principles employed at Askernish could be spread through out a broader cross section of the golfing world.
How is Askernish different from the following courses in terms of turf, climate, maintenance requirements and the like:
The Old Course,
NGLA,
Maidstone,
Sand Hills,
Ballyneal,
Pacific Dunes,
Kingsley
-
Mac,
You've been to Askernish and you are familiar with some of America's finest clubs.
Would anyone you know tolerate - let alone want - Askernish-esque conditioning, or even anything close to it?
-
Yes. Yes. Yes. The only think they'd need to do different is mow the greens more frequently. The first round I had, the greens were rolling very, very, very slow and had these small little white flowers all over them. It was frustrating to putt on. But the next day, the greens had been mowed and they rolled faster than the ones at Crail Balcomie and it was great. I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.
The fairways were fine, in fact very cool. The rough...great. The routing...SPECTACULAR!!! The greens sites...cool as hell!!
So, that is it. Mow the greens more frequently and it would be accepted broadly.
-
Yes. Yes. Yes. The only think they'd need to do different is mow the greens more frequently. The first round I had, the greens were rolling very, very, very slow and had these small little white flowers all over them. It was frustrating to putt on. But the next day, the greens had been mowed and they rolled faster than the ones at Crail Balcomie and it was great. I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.
The fairways were fine, in fact very cool. The rough...great. The routing...SPECTACULAR!!! The greens sites...cool as hell!!
So, that is it. Mow the greens more frequently and it would be accepted broadly.
Mac,
I am seriously sceptical that the clubs we're talking about - most golfers, in fact, at any club - would tolerate, let alone want, the below style of maintenance/conditioning.
Don't get me wrong, I am sure Askernish is a hell of a lot of fun, the conditioning is part of the charm and it fills a niche - so does Brora. But I am certain that neither is a blueprint for the way forward in golf.
Can we have a show of hands from the Superintendents on here - who of you would still have a job if your course was presented like this?
(http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x335/jfkinn/DSCN0138.jpg)
(http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn267/jamesboon53/2009%2010%20Askernish/DSC05990.jpg)
(http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn267/jamesboon53/2009%2010%20Askernish/DSC06037.jpg)
(http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn267/jamesboon53/2009%2010%20Askernish/DSC06087.jpg)
-
Scott...
but isn't that the whole problem?
Would a stereotypical country club golfer embrace Askernish? No.
But I've heard so many complaints from so many different golfers about completely and utter non-sense that it is pathetic and makes me wonder if anyone understands what golf is.
I've heard lots of complaints about Ballyneal's greens. Not the undulations, but the fact that the greens are fescue and bumpy.
I've heard complaints about courses being to fast and "bouncy."
I've heards greens are too hard...or too soft.
Bunkers are too pristine...bunkers aren't maincured enough.
Too many blind shots are The National and/or Dismal.
I heard about "circus" putts at Pinehurst #2.
Literally, I could go on and on and on.
But I was fortunate enough to have a 1976 version of "The World Atlas of Golf" sent to me not too long ago. Frankly, I look at it and/or read it every night. One of the striking things to me about the book is the look of the courses. Like you just said, if the supers of a course today presented his courses like the in the book (by the way, the best courses in the world)...they'd be fired.
And again...that is the whole problem. Golf is a sport, played outdoors, in the arms of nature. We need to get away from the stereotypical country club, PGA, fair is good, golf mantra and get the sport back to its roots.
People say that if someone designed a golf course like The Old Course today, they'd be fired. What the heck kind of statement is that? People have been flocking to St. Andrews for, literally, centuries to play golf on that ground...but if we built it today, we'd fire the guy. Well, that tells me that we are idiots today...and we've lost our way.
We've totally lost our way. A course is good if it gets a lot of members and makes money. That mentality is begining to make me sick.
I totally believe that Melvyn is right. Askernish should be studied. Hell, I've only been golfing for 4 years...and I've been there. It was one of the most interesting golf courses I've ever seen. Many of its holes have made my "favorite 18" list. It is worthy of study. But very few have gone...why?
Also, if people have been golfing at St. Andrews for centuries and the greatest of the great architects rave about it...shouldn't this be a course every single architect should play, study, and play again and again and again...to figure out why people like it and continue to like it.
I'll shut up now. And I am typing off the cuff. I hope it comes off the right way. I ain't mad at you, Scott, at all. I hope it doesn't come off that way. That is not the intent at all. I just have this gut busting passion for golf and golf course architecture and, like I said, I think we've really lost our way. I think Askernish has some keys to getting us back on track. Maybe not all the answers and/or magic keys...but some of them.
EDIT...by the way, those pictures you posted are SPECTACULAR!!! Freakin' spectacular!!!
-
I can't speak to the conditions at Askernish, but when Scott asks if anyone over here would tolerate conditions close to Askernish, I default to the conditions we experienced at Pennard at last year's Buda as being somewhat similar? Pennard had spotty, rock hard dried out turf, sort of like cut down meadow grass, growing over the wild links terrain. Greens were in fairly good condition, but not nearly as good as Porthcawl. Even so, I'd take that type of golf course 10 times out of 10 over anything within 300 miles of me, every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Mac, I know you're with me. Who else? Find that sand seam down there in Georgia and do it, Mon!
-
No...I'm not subjected to a code of silence. I will be silent on something I have no real knowledge about.
-
I can't speak to the conditions at Askernish, but when Scott asks if anyone over here would tolerate conditions close to Askernish, I default to the conditions we experienced at Pennard at last year's Buda as being somewhat similar? Pennard had spotty, rock hard dried out turf, sort of like cut down meadow grass, growing over the wild links terrain. Greens were in fairly good condition, but not nearly as good as Porthcawl. Even so, I'd take that type of golf course 10 times out of 10 over anything within 300 miles of me, every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Mac, I know you're with me. Who else? Find that sand seam down there in Georgia and do it, Mon!
Pennard was great but they still kicked our asses!
-
Let me just say there is NOTHING in the USA to compare with the fun golf over shabby conditions of Pennard and Painswick, and I'll bet Ashkernish as well.
-
Adam, Melvyn,
Forgive me my ignorance but had Askernish fallen into disuse before yourself, Adam, and other knights rode to its rescue or was it still able to be played by the locals and air force personnel with a skeleton (voluntary?) ground crew looking after its low-level maintenance.
Scott,
I would imagine people would thoroughly enjoy courses set up a la Askernish. The Aussies I've played with in the outback (relatively speaking) at Bega and Tangambalanga were having a whale of a time on courses a darn sight rougher than the pictures you show. They were ecstatic that the sand greens had been done away with.
Mac, ..."these small white flowers" are beautiful wee daisies!
Cheers Colin
Cheers Colin
-
Melvyn,
Based on what I have learned here I hope someday my travels take me to experience Askernish.
It sounds like you are impressed both by the quality of the design and the very low cost of building the course.
I am sympathetic to your point of view. That said, what I would really like to know is the potential to replicate the good things about Askernish. If you believe it can be done and done repeatedly, by all means I would like to hear about that.
My last experience with quality affordable golf was at Common Ground, Tom Doak's course in Denver, Colorado. I thought the place was wonderful and a perfect model for what golf in America should be: fun, interesting, walkable, affordable, etc.
However, not many people here seemed to share my enthusiasm for the concept.
-
Melvyn:
Respectfully, I have to call in question the premise of your thread -- on two counts.
First of all, for most of the past three years, you have done a great job of opening our eyes to the fact that Old Tom Morris did much more construction work on his courses than most people think. But here you seem to be saying the opposite -- that it's better to have a course where "no dirt was moved". You seem to be undermining your own argument!
And second, if Askernish is a true restoration of the original Old Tom Morris course on the same site -- which it may or may not be, it's hard to tell without a good routing of the former course -- then the course would already have been "shaped" and it should be no surprise that it required zero earthmoving to restore its fairways and greens and get it ready for play. In fact, if it required much earthmoving, that would be a pretty strong sign that it wasn't a true restoration.
We have moved a few spoonfuls of earth in our recent work to the course, particularly at the seventh hole where the approach was so uneven. My take on that was that years and years of blown sand from the beach have been deposited in the end of that valley, so that the approach was much more bumpy than Old Tom would have left it -- which I guess is a matter of opinion and interpretation. But I find it funny that you're arguing that I am not enough of a minimalist at Askernish at the same time you're arguing that Old Tom was not just a stupid minimalist.
-
I can't comment on the course because I haven't yet seen it... It's near the top of my list and I hope to rectify that next year on an island hopping trip to Machrie and Machrihanish...
What I can comment on is someone who's name I have yet to see mentioned... There's a young fella there called John Kemp who was recently enough appointed Director of Golf I believe... This lad (at 25ish) has a golf bvusiness degree from Dornoch, has qualified through the EIGCA education program, has worked on the ground during the construction of The Castle Course and Castle Stuart and has spent a lot of the last couple of years helping out Gil Hanse's crew in the States... An avid lover of links golf, I can't help but think that he will be a good addition to the course staff... Anyone come across him yet?
As for the original question:
"Are Designers on GCA.com subject to a Code of Silence?"... Although Tom D. is an "on-the-record" guy and I'm full of admiration for that, it's a little more difficult for some, especially those who have yet to make a name... I can't help saying what I think when it comes to GCA but I often wish I'd kept my mouth shut...
-
Scott,
looking at your pictures above, what exactly is wrong with the conditioning there? Looks just about perfect to me, with the possible exception of the greens having to be mowed more often.
I've also played Brora last year and still don't know what all the fuss about rustic conditioning is about. That course was in better shape than 90% of the courses I ever played. Rough was down, Fairways rolled, greens were true - pray tell, what am I missing?
Ulrich
-
"I've also played Brora last year and still don't know what all the fuss about rustic conditioning is about."
Ulrich & Scott -
Aside from the electric wires surrounding the greens and the sheep & cattle grazing in the rough, I am not sure the course conditions at Brora can be considered to be "rustic" any longer. The tees, fairways, greens and bunkers have been pretty well groomed for a good number of years now. I do not think it is a stretch to say that the level of conditioning now at Brora is similar to what can be found at Golspie or Tain.
DT
-
David,
I don't think the level of conditioning is poor, but my comment to Mac was that the members of the clubs he namechecked wouldn't want/tolerate that.
What in your opinion would be the reaction to the Olympic Club being maintained on par with Golspie?
Ulrich,
How about the many bare patches in the fairways? Do we really think members of Shinnecock Hills, to choose one example, would be down with bare patches in the fairways and greens stimping at 7?
-
Scott...
You are right that if Shinnecock Hills, or any other top tier course in America, was maintained this way the members would be very upset.
I originally took your post to mean could American golfers who are used to Shinnecock level conditioning tolerate a round (or three) at Askernish and still enjoy it. And hence my answer "Yes. Yes. Yes...if the greens were cut more often."
But I still do think this over manicured phenomenon is an issue with the golfing world.
-
Misunderstanding then, I meant "would they want it at their home club?"
The conditioning of a rustic course is part of the charm, but I don't think it is the way forward for golf at large.
-
Scott
Be honest you know sweet FA about Askernish but still believe it offer no possibilities for golf. Yet more importantly it has the potential for modern designers to study a real 19th Century course grow and develop right in front of their eyes.
Its how the modern game started, it offers an insight to the early Greens, the development of the course and the real nature of good routing. In other words it has the facility to teach us a few of the basics forgotten over time. A treasure trove of information both of past courses and how we might benefit today from some of the earlier practices.
It has so many possibilities, yet for a group who are meant to be dedicated to the game and GCA real interest is lacking.
As for GCA magazines, I would have expected far more passion or at least understanding as to the importance of the course is way beyond being associated with Old Tom Morris – so much for their real understand and rather suspect passion for the place in the modern history of the game 21st Century style.
As with so many things in this world we need to just open our eyes and minds to what we have.
Add to all that, the general reports that it’s also a great golf course and one wonders why there is so little interest by the Designers.
Conspiracy of Silence, not from this guy, but seemly a reluctance by the designers to go and see for themselves. The remoteness may well be the charm that actually makes it a steady success.
Melvyn
PS Colin The course the RAF used was a newish 9 hole dating to the 1930’s while the Old Tom course of 1891 for Lady Cathcart was just over the crest further back, in other words two different courses. Read the history of the courses on the following link http://www.askernishgolfclub.com/history.php
-
Melvyn,
Thanks for the link outlining Askernish's history. Much appreciated,
Colin
-
Melvyn - I dont think architects should flock to Askernish to see how is done at all. Askernish is a rare piece of land but thats not likely to crop up in everyday situations for us. As for the original question, I have opinions what I think of others work but its an opinion with caution because the real picture of an architects brief or restriction is often unknown.
-
Melvyn,
I think rustic golf has much to offer within its niche. It has a place in the modern game, but I do not believe it if the future of golf.
My knowledge of Askernish is limited, as you'd expect from someone who has not visited the course.
How many times have you been to Askernish since the course was re-established?
-
Scott,
what you call bare patches on the fairway is simply broken ground / light rough that acts as a hazard you have to hit over or avoid. The fairway itself on your pictures seems perfect to me. Obviously, I cannot testify for the members at some club, but I can say this: even if there are bare patches on the fairway it is not a problem at all for the golfers I know as long as the playing characteristics are fine. On links fairways there is nothing wrong with brown.
As I said, the greens may be too slow, but that is nigh on impossible to tell from pictures. All I know is that links greens are usually far, far superior to anything else as far as true roll is concerned. Bad putters often complain about slow and true greens, because their opponents hole out everything :)
I'll say it right here: if you talk about bare patches in the fairway, then the conditioning at Deal two years ago during the BUDA matches was far, far inferior to what you show us from Askernish. There were not bare patches, but bare fairways. Not one of the golfers I spoke to had a problem with that.
Ulrich
-
Melvyn
This architect wants to see Askernish and will get there when the opportunity arises. Many of us are interested to see it, but there are an awful lot of other courses worthy of a visit and only a finite amount of time. We'll get there. Just give us time.
Yuor last post to Scott made plenty of good points and raised a provocative but sincere point of view, but the first sentence was wholly unnecessary. You can't have felt proud when that came off the keyboard, could you?
-
Let’s look to the course through the eyes of an architect or designer, not Joe Public or an excuse for a golfer who rates courses for the entertainment of Editors of Golfing Magazines – well they sell more magazines so make more money because many love to moan about the listings how did this get ahead of this or that’s not worthy of that position – totally pointless and waste of time, yet the important GCA of a course is ignored.
So why no article or detailed report on the course, its soil or its closeness to the heart of traditional game? Is it possible that there is a conspiracy afoot, do the Associations want to kill the idea that courses to this quality can be built for £50,000 and maintained upon a shoestring budget? What is going on, this is the most important course in the history of the modern game and the architects and their Associations are keeping quiet.
Gentlemen, why the silence – you cannot afford to be silent or perhaps some of you have built just too many over expensive cockups that some have had to be modified before a year is up. Be complacent and watch your reputation slowly diminish.
Be honest you know sweet FA about Askernish but still believe it offer no possibilities for golf. Yet more importantly it has the potential for modern designers to study a real 19th Century course grow and develop right in front of their eyes.
It has so many possibilities, yet for a group who are meant to be dedicated to the game and GCA real interest is lacking.
Conspiracy of Silence, not from this guy, but seemly a reluctance by the designers to go and see for themselves.
Does this sort of advocacy benefit Askernish?
-
Scott,
Even the best of courses have periods where the presentation is less than ideal, no matter how much care or money is in the budget. I've seen courses from Pine Valley to SFGC, and some times conditions just aren't up to scratch. I've played Oakmont three times and have yet to see those greens at anything close to the frightening pace one reads about so often. I love lightening fast greens, but haven't felt deprived, recognizing that a number of factors often conspire to alter what could be.
If you think about course presentations from a practical and environmentally responsible manner, there are significant lessons to be learned from places like Askernish. Tolerating some daisies, occasional weedy patches, bits of marginal turf, etc., especially to reduce chemical use, keep man hours and budgets within reason, and so on, IS the way forward for most facilities ability to survive, long-term. The idea that the American "pristine" model is the way to go is misguided. Where it is copied, maintenance costs escalate. There really is no way around that fact. Certainly, many factors and variables impact how a property is maintained, but the ethos of how places like Askernish approach what they present, and the methods they use, have some cross-over applications worthy of examination.
The more refined the presentation throughout, the more man hours and resources must be committed. Is that necessary? I don't believe so. Certain facilities have membership or client expectations of excellence and what it costs to maintain that level is just accepted. To apply that logic and extend in across the golf landscape will only hasten the declines we are experiencing currently. From my view a balanced approach seems best. Focus on the primary playing areas and give them major attention. So long as one can play the game in a safe environment, with reasonable quallity where most of the action is, it all the rest of it really needed for most facilities?
Cheers,
Kris 8)
-
John
I have no financial ties to the club, I have no official connection to the club, I am, I though offering an opinion and raising some questions.
In this location we have a born again 19th century course on land that was first chosen in 1891 and has remained more or less unchanged apart from the pounding of the Atlantic and the offshore winds. Its hardly been touched or modified by man since it was last used as a course presenting I would have thought many interesting study points for all interested in the management of good quality golf course which offers real value for money and it would seem great golf.
In any other industry it would be defined as well worthwhile, perhaps even regarded as experimental archaeology, offering up unanswered questions related to the potential wear and tear, necessity of adding drainage, etc., and many more beside.
But no, what do we get, answers from people who can’t seem to see further than their nose, arguing points not relative to the original question. Yet this site talks about GCA , talks about trying to keep people in the game, keeping its own employed, yet seem so unwilling to trek up to inspect what to them is the unknown but which has attracting much worldwide attention. I thought a Conspiracy of Silence was preferable to being seen as not either interested or caring about keeping cost to a minimum.
You have every right to do or think whatever it is you want, as I have every right to voice my concerns. We may be missing a very interesting period in a development of what is effectively a 19th Century course but in the 21st Century. You can talk to the Askernish designer, and/or the builder or the whole Team to understand and perhaps learn something new, perhaps realise that even a remote located course can flourish, but necessary as the American Model but the homely Scottish one. After all golf is not all about money, it’s there for the enjoyment of the golfer, one should never forget that simple but important point.
Does this sort of advocacy benefit Askernish? – I do not know but I feel it raises some valid question for a site that claims a deep interest in GCA.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn,
You might have missed my question in all the text above: How many times have you been to Askernish since the course was re-established?
Ulrich,
No one had a problem with it? You can start with me and go from there. Mark Chaplin and I discussed a few times how unfortunate it was that the 10th and 11th holes were in that state.
Kris and Ulrich,
You appear to be missing my point. I am not condemning Askernish for not being in British Open condition. My initial post was in response to a claim that Askernish was the way forward for golf. Aside from the fact that there is very little of that sort of land available anywhere for new courses, I don't believe the golf world is prepared to accept a conditioning "roll-back".
-
...The guys at Askernish never needed earth movers, shaper or any expensive machinery as the design was good, built on land fit for purpose
True for the original rendition. But, would you not agree that it was improved by bringing in an earth mover?
Melvyn
Mark – what can I say, call me whatever you like; it just shows you for what you are.
Mark, are you a liberal arts major? Some people just have a different tendency to the way they use language, often related to how their brain works. Methinks, you just don't have the type of brain that understands Melvyn. My brain seems to match his and I don't see the objections so many make here.
-
Melvyn,
If you gauge the responses to your first post, it's obvious the tone was more instigation, than ecouraging, the sharing of thoughts. Mr. Brauer and Mr. Andrew give the main reasons architects haven't yet offered more on Askernish regarding your questions. If they haven't actually been to the ground to see it, how could they accurately assess what's there?
You have had an affiniity for the place from the outset. I admire and respect your conviction that it is a significant course worthy of study. I totally agree! That said, Machrihansih Dunes, not far from your beloved Askernish, has equal, if not superior merit, on many of the same criteria you tout for Askernish.
It's construction operated under FAR more stringent environment constraints than Askernish's work. I spent time there at MD, walked the ground there repeatedly and followed that project closely. It got slammed by the press when it opened, primarily due to: the very rugged nature of the golf experience, blindness of some shots on holes, lack of definition in spots due to flora protection of rare, or endangered species that restricted mowing, and finally the biggest reason in my view, though you won't buy it... no quality caddie program!
The course is a bit of an untamed beast(YOU would love it!), especiallly when the wind is up and the weather is harsh. I would meld the difficulty of Carnasty (minus the on-course water hazards) and the rugged presentation of Brora, with the blindness of Prestwick. How's that sound to you for stepping up to the tee for a first go 'round, during a testing day, and heading out for what is probably the toughest walk in links golf!
To open a course of that challenge, with no quality caddie counsel to guide one around, and expect commercial success, is madness.
Back to Askernish. Give some time for archtiects to sample it. You are right to sing its praises, but others need to make the trek there to satisfy your hopes of recognition. There is no question that a more efficient, frugal way forward, when prudent, is the way to go. Askernish has many natural advantages, present in few other sites, that enabled this mantra to become a reality there. Let's also realize that the verdict on sustaining the course's economic viability is still out ... only time will confirm it, one way or the other.
Cheers,
Kris 8)
Did MD need the scrutiny because they were more invasive to the environment than at A? If only 50k worth of work had been done at MD, would it have been so minimally intrusive as to not need scrutiny?
-
Melvyn,
If Askernish is the future of golf, could you let us know where to find the available land in the ideal climate in such abundance that it is the game's future to build rustic courses there?
What about the land in Nebraska/Colorado? Could this type of course be built there? Long Island? Northern Michigan? Oregon?
This type of course could be built in Oregon. How much did sheep ranch cost? Is it irrigated? Gearhart Golf Links was unirrigated until 1999 I believe. I think the implications of this is will the customers accept an unirrigated golf course?
Also, David M., I played Maidstone late last year...I don't think they had fairway irrigation then...and the course played brilliantly well.
Perhaps some of the principles employed at Askernish could be spread through out a broader cross section of the golfing world.
How is Askernish different from the following courses in terms of turf, climate, maintenance requirements and the like:
Is it the quantity of play that necessitates irrigation? Or, it is customer requirements?
The Old Course,
NGLA,
Maidstone,
Sand Hills,
Ballyneal,
Pacific Dunes,
Kingsley
-
Scott...
but isn't that the whole problem?
Would a stereotypical country club golfer embrace Askernish? No.
But I've heard so many complaints from so many different golfers about completely and utter non-sense that it is pathetic and makes me wonder if anyone understands what golf is.
I've heard lots of complaints about Ballyneal's greens. Not the undulations, but the fact that the greens are fescue and bumpy.
I've heard complaints about courses being to fast and "bouncy."
I've heards greens are too hard...or too soft.
Bunkers are too pristine...bunkers aren't maincured enough.
Too many blind shots are The National and/or Dismal.
I heard about "circus" putts at Pinehurst #2.
Literally, I could go on and on and on.
But I was fortunate enough to have a 1976 version of "The World Atlas of Golf" sent to me not too long ago. Frankly, I look at it and/or read it every night. One of the striking things to me about the book is the look of the courses. Like you just said, if the supers of a course today presented his courses like the in the book (by the way, the best courses in the world)...they'd be fired.
And again...that is the whole problem. Golf is a sport, played outdoors, in the arms of nature. We need to get away from the stereotypical country club, PGA, fair is good, golf mantra and get the sport back to its roots.
People say that if someone designed a golf course like The Old Course today, they'd be fired. What the heck kind of statement is that? People have been flocking to St. Andrews for, literally, centuries to play golf on that ground...but if we built it today, we'd fire the guy. Well, that tells me that we are idiots today...and we've lost our way.
We've totally lost our way. A course is good if it gets a lot of members and makes money. That mentality is begining to make me sick.
I totally believe that Melvyn is right. Askernish should be studied. Hell, I've only been golfing for 4 years...and I've been there. It was one of the most interesting golf courses I've ever seen. Many of its holes have made my "favorite 18" list. It is worthy of study. But very few have gone...why?
Also, if people have been golfing at St. Andrews for centuries and the greatest of the great architects rave about it...shouldn't this be a course every single architect should play, study, and play again and again and again...to figure out why people like it and continue to like it.
I'll shut up now. And I am typing off the cuff. I hope it comes off the right way. I ain't mad at you, Scott, at all. I hope it doesn't come off that way. That is not the intent at all. I just have this gut busting passion for golf and golf course architecture and, like I said, I think we've really lost our way. I think Askernish has some keys to getting us back on track. Maybe not all the answers and/or magic keys...but some of them.
EDIT...by the way, those pictures you posted are SPECTACULAR!!! Freakin' spectacular!!!
Amen to that brother Mac!
-
Garland
Wild thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bs6jN4H0g4 )
Black is Black (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGeFf_rIAVQ )
19th Nervous Breakdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU1kTuVSUOw )
Help (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t8MeE8Ik4Y )
Ticket to Ride (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY_6b4-N9Uo )
Trains Boats and Planes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSlz3RpSFVI )
Leaving on a jet plane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzVdEyHicz8 )
What a wonderful world (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5TwT69i1lU )
Melvyn (Harry’s Game - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75qzFOM4ayA&feature=fvsr )
-
Melvyn,
If Askernish is the future of golf, could you let us know where to find the available land in the ideal climate in such abundance that it is the game's future to build rustic courses there?
What about the land in Nebraska/Colorado? Could this type of course be built there? Long Island? Northern Michigan? Oregon?
This type of course could be built in Oregon. How much did sheep ranch cost? Is it irrigated? Gearhart Golf Links was unirrigated until 1999 I believe. I think the implications of this is will the customers accept an unirrigated golf course?
Also, David M., I played Maidstone late last year...I don't think they had fairway irrigation then...and the course played brilliantly well.
Perhaps some of the principles employed at Askernish could be spread through out a broader cross section of the golfing world.
How is Askernish different from the following courses in terms of turf, climate, maintenance requirements and the like:
Is it the quantity of play that necessitates irrigation? Or, it is customer requirements?
The Old Course,
NGLA,
Maidstone,
Sand Hills,
Ballyneal,
Pacific Dunes,
Kingsley
Thanks Garland. I'd LOVE to talk more in detail about these things. I keep wondering if less irrigation/no irrigation is possible and why or why not? Additionally, many other aspects of construction and basic accepted architectural principles are areas I'd love to discuss/get educated on.
-
A question I would like to know the answer to is how closely related are the development of Askernish and the work of Hackett at say Carne. I assume Carne is irrigated. If you take out the cost of installing irrigation, do the costs begin to be related? I.e., in the same ball park?
-
Garland,
Good question! It had nothing to do with money spent. The MD team worked miracles with a Spartan budget. There had never been a course on the land and it had some VERY rare plant species on it. Given it was a SSSI (Special Site of Scientific Interest), Scotland's most protected designation(unless you're Trump) it got supreme scrutiny. Euan Grant, the current superintendent of Turnberry, was present from the early days there to oversee the grow-in with a small, but very talented team. He assisted Paul Kimber (I believe that was his name?) during what was a minute amount of earth-moving, when Kimber was on site, which was often, as he was part of David McLay-Kidd(sp?) golf design firm. An independent plant biologist was there constantly to "supervise."
I can safely say few, if any other project's have gone to the lengths they were required to in teasing the golf course from the ground under the constraints they operated under. Just simple mowing was prohibited in many places. No chemical spraying whatsoever was permitted for weed suppression. Many sites for features were off-limits. They had thousands of rabbits that they had to remove without mass extermination methods. You get the picture.
Despite the tremendous challenges, they fashioned a rugged, testing, throw-back links romp that will gain recognition in time. It will undoubtedly need some tweaking. While I walked the ground several times, I've not played the finished product, but hope to when I make my way to West Scotland next. I'll certainly hope to take in Askernish, the Machrie and some other remote gems as well.
Cheers,
Kris 8)
-
When did the maintenance practices start to make everything look artifically lush and green?
As I mentioned, I've got a 1976 copy of the World Atlas of Golf and every course pictures has brown in the grass, bear spots in the fairways, ratty edges of greens. I don't care if the course in question is Merion, Pinehurst, or Augusta National. And let me tell you Augusta National 13, looks very different. The pristine shockingly white sand bunkers are there, but not pristine with shockingly white sand. The flowering bushes behind the green are not there. The hole still looks amazing and there is an entire par dedicate on how to play it and 11 and 12, but it looks much more "normal" and natural.
I've heard it said that the average golfer didn't know he could have PGA like conditions on his golf course until Jack Nicklaus told him he could, but it looks like the PGA courses didn't have conditions like we have now either.
How much money is this kind of maintenance sucking out of the clubs/courses? And how much true benefit is it providing the actually playing of the game?
-
Mac
When did the maintenance practices start to make everything look artifically lush and green?
When it first rained. - there will be no charge for that important maintenance gem.
Melvyn
-
How about turning this on its head a little bit, and coming at Melvyn's challenge to consider this and that from the opposite end of the spectrum, as experienced and knowledgeable golf course architect's and designer's abilities and tendencies goes? What DO they have to learn or why would there be some sort of code of silence about this one golf course resto, or revival of ancient links, logically speaking?
Let's say, Tom Fazio, Rees or RTJjr, or Jack's or Arnie's design companies - with their golf knowledge (or Ted Robinson for that matter!) had the exact situation that was presented to this restoration team at Askernish. With the same parameters of site, climate, budget, mission to achieve total minimalism including no irrigation system, on donated land of a bygone original site of a course laid out by Old Tom, volunteerism crew and no business profit motive of the archie and crew, and simply directed to find pure old traditional golf, etc. - given those same circumstances, just how radically different do you actually think the efforts of these other GCAs would be by comparison to what was presented and achieved or revived there?
About the only think I can see as something to learn is starting from different assumptions and expectations with a different financial model if you crave affordable golf on minimal conditions. I like the basic premise of that. Maybe I have some Scottish frugality in me? But, the code of silence premise sounds meritless, and only more golfers with an exposure to something like Askernish could have any real impact on perception. IN reality, a fraction of a millionth of golfers will get such exposure as a practical matter of what is possible for them to encounter at Askernish in their golf pursuits of a lifetime. So how can there be any significant impact?
Melvyn, why don't you go review some of the fine post threads by others who have presented photo and commentary as they go around the course on tours of interesting golf courses, then post that and great photos about Askernish? At least it would be more demonstrative than preaching without some tangible example of what points of design, maintenance or golf hole strategic merits, you revere and believe we should all know about.
-
Melvyn,
Looks like you missed my question again.
Let's go for third time lucky.
How many times have you visited Askernish since the golf course was re-established?
-
This is land that in this day and age is rare to find and certainly to use as a golf course, yet many of the old Scottish courses started off on similar terrain.
I thought that it would be a point of interest to designers and Green Keepers not generally involved with links courses or this type of installation to view it and thus to get a close up look and feedback from the guys who did not object to get their hands dirty.
MY mistake was believing that professional who live off the industry would want to expand their understand and so their knowledge of this live and kicking course born out of the 19th Century, yet very much a course of the 21st Century which is getting brilliant reviews from nearly all that play the course. I would call it professional pride in always seeking and looking for answers that would help the designs, but perhaps I have come upon an industry whose professionals have seen it all before (first hand of course) and know all the answers.
Hence, I suppose its why we get so many template Holes and now waiting for a template of the Old Course. I am not that fortunate I am still learning on a day to day basis and expect to go on doing so until the day of my death, because I do not know it all or have all the answers.
Lets be honest, GCA with some of the modern courses speaks volumes for the industry’s quality since WW2 and clearly some feel there is little to learn re GCA from this course on South Uist.
I happen to think that this course on South Uist can teach us a thing or two about Golf Course Architecture.
Melvyn
-
I am confused who would in their right mind think the architects have a code of silence. I am not attacking you Mr Morrow, but I am baffled why you would make such a blanket statement. The architects on here discuss projects and courses to their own level of comfort. Obviously Tom Doak, Mike Young and Jeff Brauer among others are extremely candid and open. I am also confused why this course deserves any discussion much less significant architectural discussion. It may be a significant course but I have never heard of it.
-
But the million-dollar question is, Melvyn, how many times have you yourself been there since the course was re-established?
-
Melvyn, the more I read your posts, the more confused I am as to your approach to discussions with others. Relax a little, most of us enjoy this site and what we learn and share with others.
-
Mr Bernhardt
I am sorry you missed the few posts on the subject over the last 3 years, perhaps it may be worth a visit to understand my position. In the mean time please read the following links - that is if you are interested http://jgarrity2.wordpress.com/about/ http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,2049447,00.html and also the clubs web site http://askernishgolfclub.com/
Melvyn
-
Mr Bernhardt
It takes all sorts to make a world go round
Melvyn
-
Mel, one wag said; it doesn't take all types, there just are all types... ;) ;D
Certainly, Scott Warren's question is a fair one. How many times have you played that course? How intimately do you know the land and the old course that was neglected, and what can you tell us that was 'learned' from the restoration? Could a knowledgeable architect discern or see something others have missed? Do you think any architect would with hold any revelation they might encounter in experiencing Askernish? I tend to think, not.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I can be good at it with little effort. ::) I seriously don't think that there is all that much to learn about a minimalist project on 'land fit for purpose' as you like to say, where a course was already laid out on a routing by an iconic historical legend, applying principles that Old Tom learned from his own other original links exposure. Did the process teach anyone in the renewal project anything about construction techniques or how turf grows? Did it give them any further insight into the game's strategy that they hadn't been exposed to in their other experiences on those 'old sod links'? Did they learn the ball bounds and bounces on un-irrigated linksy soil with some manner of fescue or velvet bent turf? We already know most turf can go dormant, whether it is warm season or cool season turf, for the opposite of warm season experiencing too cold and going dormant, or cool being too hot, droughty and surviving, and that can promote some firm and fast ground game action.
Maybe those GCAs lucky enough to have seen and played Askernish feel it is what they expected, nothing new in construction technique, nothing new in strategy given the land and climate-soil-turf that it is played upon. And, nothing new in the growth characteristics of the species that comprises the turf sward on that ground in that climate.
Yet, that doesn't mean many (I imagine I among them) wouldn't love the whole aspect of Askernish links, and sing its praise for the minimalist and common affordability of what the entire modest concept offers those that can travel to experience it.
My favorite course has a certain proportional similar comparable set of common community development and accessibility, modestly budgeted for construction on land made available at a very cheap price, yet thrillingly well presented golf playing qualities laid out by wise golf savvy construction-designers. That of course being Wild Horse. But I think like Askernish, the unique aspects of modest budget, volunteer contributions, and site fit for purpose land are all fortunate and rare aspects that uniquely line up to allow for such uncommonly good yet modestly affordable golf.
-
RJ, I think you bring up some good points and ask some good questions. I've tried multiple times to get some constructive conversation going on some of the things that I think can/could be learned from Askernish (or Askernish-like courses), but I get next to nothing in return. I'll post some of my questions/post on here again in hopes of something of value coming out of it...but perhaps it is a dead-end street.
#1--
Here is one thing that has always caught my attention...
One of the biggest costs of golf course construction is irrigation. Right?
But Askernish cost next to nothing to build. Right?
I assume it has no fairway irrigation...or very little.
How can that be possible? Is the land and climate simply that close to ideal for golf?
#2
Melvyn,
If Askernish is the future of golf, could you let us know where to find the available land in the ideal climate in such abundance that it is the game's future to build rustic courses there?
What about the land in Nebraska/Colorado? Could this type of course be built there? Long Island? Northern Michigan? Oregon?
Also, David M., I played Maidstone late last year...I don't think they had fairway irrigation then...and the course played brilliantly well.
Perhaps some of the principles employed at Askernish could be spread through out a broader cross section of the golfing world.
How is Askernish different from the following courses in terms of turf, climate, maintenance requirements and the like:
The Old Course,
NGLA,
Maidstone,
Sand Hills,
Ballyneal,
Pacific Dunes,
Kingsley
#3
Melvyn,
If Askernish is the future of golf, could you let us know where to find the available land in the ideal climate in such abundance that it is the game's future to build rustic courses there?
What about the land in Nebraska/Colorado? Could this type of course be built there? Long Island? Northern Michigan? Oregon?
This type of course could be built in Oregon. How much did sheep ranch cost? Is it irrigated? Gearhart Golf Links was unirrigated until 1999 I believe. I think the implications of this is will the customers accept an unirrigated golf course?
Also, David M., I played Maidstone late last year...I don't think they had fairway irrigation then...and the course played brilliantly well.
Perhaps some of the principles employed at Askernish could be spread through out a broader cross section of the golfing world.
How is Askernish different from the following courses in terms of turf, climate, maintenance requirements and the like:
Is it the quantity of play that necessitates irrigation? Or, it is customer requirements?
The Old Course,
NGLA,
Maidstone,
Sand Hills,
Ballyneal,
Pacific Dunes,
Kingsley
#4
Thanks Garland. I'd LOVE to talk more in detail about these things. I keep wondering if less irrigation/no irrigation is possible and why or why not? Additionally, many other aspects of construction and basic accepted architectural principles are areas I'd love to discuss/get educated on.
#5
When did the maintenance practices start to make everything look artifically lush and green?
As I mentioned, I've got a 1976 copy of the World Atlas of Golf and every course pictures has brown in the grass, bear spots in the fairways, ratty edges of greens. I don't care if the course in question is Merion, Pinehurst, or Augusta National. And let me tell you Augusta National 13, looks very different. The pristine shockingly white sand bunkers are there, but not pristine with shockingly white sand. The flowering bushes behind the green are not there. The hole still looks amazing and there is an entire par dedicate on how to play it and 11 and 12, but it looks much more "normal" and natural.
I've heard it said that the average golfer didn't know he could have PGA like conditions on his golf course until Jack Nicklaus told him he could, but it looks like the PGA courses didn't have conditions like we have now either.
How much money is this kind of maintenance sucking out of the clubs/courses? And how much true benefit is it providing the actually playing of the game?
Cross your fingers, but don't hold your breath.
-
I now dismiss out of hand anything from Scott Warren, my reason, well what sort of individual does a search on me and my family even my mother, Uncle Etc.
Yes my connection to Old Tom, Hunters and other golfer are fine but my whole family for a blog site. We have just had weeks of Murdock and found what his papers have been doing then to find some sicko on GCA.com, researching my family is just plain out of order. The papers with all this crap have been hacking into people’s lives and phones just sickens me and I will not give these sicko the time of day.
The real question re Askernish which many have missed is what is not going on in the build, Mac seems the only one who seems to notice, but then he has a passion for the game so takes a real interest. As for other currently unused but similar sites, I know of six links that can be used in Scotland, are they remote like Askernish, no. I noticed them while I was doing my research. There must be an addition of close to 12 inland sites that offer some serious golf, again not remote. There are sites, yet with Askernish as I said a few times we have the opportunity to study the type of course that started golf on it worldwide march, to monitor the effect of wear, drainage, in other words the real guts of an original golf course.
Lack of interest, a Conspiracy or ignorance, you call it, but if we fail to understand what we can achieve when we face other different conditions in the future, then make certain where the blame lies.
One worry, which I voiced just a few weeks ago, I was concerned what Tom D might do at Askernish. While I have the uttermost respect for his work I was and I suppose am concerned that he may try and mould parts into what golfer believe they want today, instead of letting them get use to shapes and contours. Imagine it could have been a Redan like feature, but need changing to comply with the modern ease of play as apparently to daunting for the average golfer, now that would have been a crime – so lets hope your changes are nothing like that Tom, but I hope some take my point.
Missed opportunities are what it’s all about, but not my loss it may be yours though.
I will in future again minimise the details and information, as clearly wasted upon a group who believe lists and rating courses are somehow part of Golf Course Architecture.
To those interested, if you decide to go to South Uist, I do hope you will enjoy the experience, but do seek assistance from Ralph or one of his Team re information on the course.
Melvyn
-
You haven't visited Askernish since the course was re-established, have you Melvyn?
-
Melvyn,
Do you know Tom Doak's history? How he went to Scotland for a year to study golf courses while in grad school? I would suggest that he is most likely the person to have most internalized the lessons of Askernish even before having been there. Those lessons must exist to a certain extent at TOC at St. Andrews, at North Berwick, etc. He has even written here about considering doing what many believe to be his greatest course, Pacific Dunes, without irrigation, but didn't believe it could be sustained in the Oregon summer climate.
Part of the beauty of Pacific Dunes is that he pretty much used the land as he found it, land fit for a purpose. In doing so he ended up with things you don't see in most recent golf courses, back to back par 3s. Only two non par 4s on the front nine. Only two par 4s on the back nine.
Perhaps the "Code of Silence" is simply that all others have been trumped by Tom.
-
Garland
I was not being disrespectful to Tom D, in fact I agree out of all the new designers I have come across we seem share many of the same goals. Having said that, my point on Askernish related to the minor changes Tom suggested which was based upon what the market expects rather than let the market understand the nature of the course. Changes made to appeal to the public at large is what I believe was the reason behind these mods. However have we allowed enough time for the new golfers to Askernish to face these differences before making the changes, have we been too quick in anticipating the tastes of golfer venturing to South Uist.
I do not know, yet when these modifications are complete we will never know but I suppose we must bow to the knowledge and experience of a quality modern designer. And why not, he just happens to have that badge of honour in his first name ‘Tom’. My understanding of golf history the name ‘Tom’ seem to convey respectability and the badge of knowing what one is doing when playing and designing golf courses, so while I have the odd concern, I feel it has been done in all good faith.
Nevertheless, the very point of undertaking the changes takes away a little of what makes Askernish so attractive to golfers. Would another designer suggest cart/cart tracks to improve numbers? Would Askernish even consider the idea of compromising their course for more revenue? – whatever. But I do not have any fears in that direction. After all it’s the golf that’s the attraction, playing effectively a 19th Century traditional links course right out of the pages of history.
Melvyn
-
Mac:
Some of your questions about irrigation are germane, but some of your knowledge of the climate in various regions of America (or the world) is certainly lacking.
To actually build a course in the modern era without ANY fairway irrigation would be a very bold step. There are places where it's possible -- the west coasts of Scotland and Ireland would be among them -- once the course was established. But assuming it wasn't already populated with links turf, establishment of the grasses and grow-in would be a complete crapshoot. It could take two years, or it could take four, as it did in olden days. But in the interim, the business plan would be in suspended animation, and you would be well advised to keep people away rather than trying to attract publicity, in fear the course would get a negative reputation before it had a chance to become established.
In that respect, a contrast between Machrihanish Dunes and Askernish would be a useful discussion. I have not seen Machrihanish Dunes, and don't know if they were allowed to install fairway irrigation or not. But by making its grand opening early when the course was still struggling with maintenance issues, they set a negative feedback loop which is still ongoing. Askernish was perhaps spared from this because (a) it was so remote that only true believers made the trip in the beginning, and (b) as a strictly localized and low-budget restoration project, not promoting a modern designer, there were lower expectations, whereas Machrihanish Dunes came out swinging and telling the world how great it was, leading to questioning of the business plan.
What you are absolutely RIGHT to question is THE INTENSITY of irrigation designs on courses new and old. I would guess that irrigation budgets of new golf courses have grown 50% faster in my 30 years in the business, than overall construction budgets have grown. This was mostly a decision made by outsiders -- developers who were more interested in "instant maturity" for their housing sales than for golf, who were unwilling to wait a while for the roughs to grow in since those areas were their sales targets' back yards.
Somehow, though, that logic infected the golf business as a whole. Golf people swallowed the irrigation industry's argument that "more = better" and rationalized that more efficient irrigation saves water -- probably because a lot of people in the golf business thought that as costs escalated, their earnings would rise with the tide.
I have a friendly challenge with a friend at Toro to find me an example of a course which upgraded its irrigation system and actually uses less total water than before. I am pretty sure that savings are exaggerated, and that any savings are applied to watering an even larger area of the course.
-
my point on Askernish related to the minor changes Tom suggested which was based upon what the market expects rather than let the market understand the nature of the course. Changes made to appeal to the public at large is what I believe was the reason behind these mods. However have we allowed enough time for the new golfers to Askernish to face these differences before making the changes, have we been too quick in anticipating the tastes of golfer venturing to South Uist.
Melvyn:
You may be right about this. We are all quick to judge, and this basic judgment was made by Mike Keiser (who funded the minor changes to the course). Mr. Keiser would have suggested more changes than what were made ... I concentrated on certain holes which I thought were most important to the acceptance of the course.
Mike is not as much of a golf purist as I am [or certainly as you are]; however, he probably has more business sense than both of us combined. The problem with "not letting the market understand the nature of the course" is that the market isn't going there in great enough numbers to sustain it. Even I have only been there once, and I don't know that you've been any more than that! The story of its revival is a great one but it appeals to a limited audience, and indeed that story was undermining the story of what a great course it is. This I recognized because it took me ten years to figure out that the story of my own firm was not that we could build a course for less money, but that we could build great courses.
Next time I am back to Scotland, we shall play golf. I'll even make time to get to Bridge of Allan, if you will make time for a tour of The Renaissance Club.
P.S. I saw a magazine ranking when I was in the UK this past week which had Askernish as the #72 course in Scotland ... fifty places lower than my own course. I can comfortably insist they have that part wrong, though hopefully our changes to The Renaissance will allow it to gain in people's minds. We spent five years getting permits to build two tees in the dunes ... I think I agree with Ralph Thompson that sometimes it is a great advantage to be able to play dumb with the watchdogs!
-
Mac:
Some of your questions about irrigation are germane, but some of your knowledge of the climate in various regions of America (or the world) is certainly lacking.
To actually build a course in the modern era without ANY fairway irrigation would be a very bold step. There are places where it's possible -- the west coasts of Scotland and Ireland would be among them -- once the course was established. But assuming it wasn't already populated with links turf, establishment of the grasses and grow-in would be a complete crapshoot. It could take two years, or it could take four, as it did in olden days. But in the interim, the business plan would be in suspended animation, and you would be well advised to keep people away rather than trying to attract publicity, in fear the course would get a negative reputation before it had a chance to become established.
In that respect, a contrast between Machrihanish Dunes and Askernish would be a useful discussion. I have not seen Machrihanish Dunes, and don't know if they were allowed to install fairway irrigation or not. But by making its grand opening early when the course was still struggling with maintenance issues, they set a negative feedback loop which is still ongoing. Askernish was perhaps spared from this because (a) it was so remote that only true believers made the trip in the beginning, and (b) as a strictly localized and low-budget restoration project, not promoting a modern designer, there were lower expectations, whereas Machrihanish Dunes came out swinging and telling the world how great it was, leading to questioning of the business plan.
What you are absolutely RIGHT to question is THE INTENSITY of irrigation designs on courses new and old. I would guess that irrigation budgets of new golf courses have grown 50% faster in my 30 years in the business, than overall construction budgets have grown. This was mostly a decision made by outsiders -- developers who were more interested in "instant maturity" for their housing sales than for golf, who were unwilling to wait a while for the roughs to grow in since those areas were their sales targets' back yards.
Somehow, though, that logic infected the golf business as a whole. Golf people swallowed the irrigation industry's argument that "more = better" and rationalized that more efficient irrigation saves water -- probably because a lot of people in the golf business thought that as costs escalated, their earnings would rise with the tide.
I have a friendly challenge with a friend at Toro to find me an example of a course which upgraded its irrigation system and actually uses less total water than before. I am pretty sure that savings are exaggerated, and that any savings are applied to watering an even larger area of the course.
Very interesting, Tom; though narrow in approach. Would it be more accurate to say that people swallowed the industrial economist's argument that "more=better" and rationalized that more efficient X is always the answer? Isn't it just a societal issue manifesting itself in irrigation and several other aspects of the golf business?
Of course that is a ridiculous question for you to answer but you did tee it up for me quite nicely ;D
-
Tom,
I think you are right in that irrigation systems are more efficient, but most clubs end up watering more, or more often and useage doesn't go down.
The other trend is the upsizing of mainlines to provide 2X the normal water required, simply to assure that the course can be grown in in 12 weeks. In theory, that pipe capacity should never be used again, or only in summers like this one, assuming they have an unlimited supply of water, but sometimes systems are continued to be run at full bore.
I asked an irrigation designer why he piped a system in the NE to deliver over 50 million gallons a year when they were limited by regulation to 16 million gallons? It was designed to water everywhere on the worst night ever. The concept of slight browing seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird. They seem to believe that the max amount of water MUST be delivered in six hours a night, so the extended water window has gone away, too.
Used to be you would water in 8 hours, and extend to 12 on hot nights. Not perfect, but some compromise is necessary, IMHO. The annual debt service on the last $200,000 of irrigation would cover the number of rounds lost by closing the course early a few days a year.
-
The idea that an irrigation system with wall to wall tight spacing, oversized mainlines to maximize water availability and minimize water windows, and all the control bells and whistles is more “efficient” is a statement I have a hard time understanding or agreeing with. Yes, you can move a lot of water in a short time period, so maybe that is efficient, but maybe not when you consider that requires larger pumps, larger pipe, more heads, ….more of everything.
I think the mistake we sometimes make when these sorts of discussions come up here is to single out one facet of golf construction or maintenance, in this case irrigation. It’s an easy target as like TD mentions the cost of a new system has raised more then other construction costs. But, I wonder if sometimes that’s not the result of how and where we build our courses. When we decide to build a course in an arid area on rock and cap it with sand, we’re going to need more irrigation. When we create an artificial growing medium that is designed to be free draining, we’re going to need more irrigation. If there is one lesson I’ve learned, the hard way, that I wish I could somehow ingrain into every young turf student, don’t screw with the native soil unless you absolutely have to and even then be gentle. The drawback to modern turf science is we think we can repair any soil with the right additives. And we can, for the most part, in time, but the way we make up for that time is with more additives and water is the main one. The other part of that is modern turf science also teaches us to go down a road of fertility, chemical, and irrigation dependence when managing those disturbed soils, but that’s another story. Bottom line, the amount of water needed to establish and maintain a high quality golf turf is going to be higher when you’re growing turf in a non native soil. That’s a generalization for sure, but I believe correct in most cases. Its one reason I hold the great routers in such high regard. They move less earth which means we can care for their courses with fewer inputs in most cases.
I do believe we can do a better job in the industry by designing more site specific systems. We do see too much standardization with systems in the mid-west designed as if the course was in the desert, but that should be very easy to address.
Melvin, you’re wrong about golf industry professionals not having interest in learning about a course like Askernish. Most of us really do love golf and are always trying to learn more about how we can do better work. For me, I have great interest in the holistic approach to greenkeeping and how to incorporate some of the lessons of low input courses like Askernish into modern America greenkeeping. Just because we may not work exactly the same as they do there, or exactly as you think we should, doesn’t mean we’re not interested.
-
Awesome stuff guys!!
I know I just learned a bunch (and re-inforced past learning) in a quick spurt of time.
Sincerely...thanks!!
-
Tom
Thanks, yes love to talk and have a tour.
Don
Of courses I am wrong about the lack of interest and conspiracy, but take away a few posts, and then this thread is now getting interesting. Honest comments some of note. Great stuff.
Also thanks to Mac and my nutty big brother Garland
Melvyn
-
Don, Tom...anyone...educate me on this one here...
What would happen on this turf if you just mowed it tight to the ground and turned it into a fairway? Would it be playable?
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/dr2.png)
-
Mac:
The natural pasture grasses that are on site at Dismal River are a bit coarse for turning into good fairways.
We are trying to decide whether to mow them down on some holes and just slit-seed into them, or whether we have to kill the existing grasses and reduce them to dirt so we can smooth out a lot of the little pockets in the ground from years of cattle grazing etc. I'm not talking about smoothing the big contours here, just eliminating pockmarks the size of a silver dollar (or a computer mouse) that would make it hard to achieve tight turf without years of topdressing and overseeding.
That's the same dilemma that Askernish faces, and they are about the only course in the last 50 years to take the long and slow approach to fixing the problem, mostly because they didn't have the money to do it the other way. The down side is that it takes years before you can present your best face to potential customers, and the market makes judgments much too quickly for that.
-
I think, though I wouldn't 100 per cent swear to it, that the same applied at Machrihanish Dunes, although in their case the issue was not cash but regulation. If I remember correctly, only tees, greens and surrounds were fully seeded, the rest was mow-out and overseed.
-
That sounds like a bit of regulation run amok to me. Why permit a site, but impose restrictions that may make it unuseable for its intended purpose (presuming the native grasses cannot be made into fw?)
At Dismal River, its also a tough call, and even though Erin Hills supposedly slit seeded, the question becomes do you prepare the seedbed all at once, or do it over ten years time with heavy topdressing? I can see the merit in just stripping the grass, preparing the seedbed with gentle floating, and seeding in a mix. It just seems to fall under the category of "doing it right the first time." Of course, if seeding was commencing right now, it would be a tough time to grow grass in! Always some risk in taking a site down to bare soil, but less in the sand hills than elsewhere.
-
I have to say that I completely disagree, in respect of Machrihanish Dunes, Jeff. There is no way that property - which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and heavily protected, like virtually every remaining dune system in the UK (and Europe for that matter) - was going to be permitted for golf course construction in the normal fashion. It's true that Trump got his permission on another protected dune system, but he did so because of his own high profile and by blinding the politicians with the supposed amount of investment he was putting in the area.
There are lots of beautiful duneland properties around the British Isles and northern Europe, and it's hard not to see the potential for golf in them. If there's ever to be more golf built on these sites, it will have to be done alongside the environmental lobby, not in conflict with it. And that means embracing a lower impact model of construction.
A hundred years ago, how would our forefathers have built a golf course on a property like that? They would have refined it, bit by bit, over many seasons, improving the turf, changing the layout as they went. Maybe, for these special properties, if we were more prepared to think the same way, we would get somewhere?
I would like to see more links golf built, and I think that's the only way it will happen.
-
I have to say that I completely disagree, in respect of Machrihanish Dunes, Jeff. There is no way that property - which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and heavily protected, like virtually every remaining dune system in the UK (and Europe for that matter) - was going to be permitted for golf course construction in the normal fashion. It's true that Trump got his permission on another protected dune system, but he did so because of his own high profile and by blinding the politicians with the supposed amount of investment he was putting in the area.
There are lots of beautiful duneland properties around the British Isles and northern Europe, and it's hard not to see the potential for golf in them. If there's ever to be more golf built on these sites, it will have to be done alongside the environmental lobby, not in conflict with it. And that means embracing a lower impact model of construction.
A hundred years ago, how would our forefathers have built a golf course on a property like that? They would have refined it, bit by bit, over many seasons, improving the turf, changing the layout as they went. Maybe, for these special properties, if we were more prepared to think the same way, we would get somewhere?
I would like to see more links golf built, and I think that's the only way it will happen.
Adam:
That's an interesting take. However, I do question whether the strict definition of "low-impact" applied to Machrihanish Dunes [no soil disturbance except for 7 acres of greens] is really necessary? If we take the other approach at Dismal River, and all we do is to expose the soil and do finish work and re-seed it, is that really so different environmentally -- especially if your definition of what's good for the environment is the same 100-year horizon you just suggested?
The one thing I can say is that while many golf course architects would love to work on a project like Machrihanish Dunes or Askernish -- assuming there's enough money in it to pay them -- not many golf course DEVELOPERS would dare take on such a project. Perhaps the key facet of Askernish is that nobody was trying to make any money off it, and it was developed by and for the locals. That's so rare in this day and age, I can't even think of another example.
-
Our forefathers would have had, subject to the profile of the club/course and flexible budget, relayed thousands of yards of new turf. Of course the average new clubs did not have the funds but the councils and a few other clubs certainly did have access to money. I am of courses referring to work pre 1899.
Melvyn
-
Mac:
The natural pasture grasses that are on site at Dismal River are a bit coarse for turning into good fairways.
We are trying to decide whether to mow them down on some holes and just slit-seed into them, or whether we have to kill the existing grasses and reduce them to dirt so we can smooth out a lot of the little pockets in the ground from years of cattle grazing etc. I'm not talking about smoothing the big contours here, just eliminating pockmarks the size of a silver dollar (or a computer mouse) that would make it hard to achieve tight turf without years of topdressing and overseeding.
That's the same dilemma that Askernish faces, and they are about the only course in the last 50 years to take the long and slow approach to fixing the problem, mostly because they didn't have the money to do it the other way. The down side is that it takes years before you can present your best face to potential customers, and the market makes judgments much too quickly for that.
Perhaps the problem is that we have it all wrong when it comes to creating new golf courses.
Suppose Bandon Dunes did not exist. Suppose the city of Bandon decided that putting in a golf course as a fire break would be a good thing. Suppose they got a talented router to provide a routing on the land for the fire break, and they simply went through the slow process of "slit-seeding" and growing in slowly. Wouldn't they have a fine golf course that the locals could play for a small fee? Wouldn't it improve with age? Wouldn't the word get out that there was something great at Bandon? Wouldn't it be possible that eventually you would have a great golf boom in the Bandon area that would seem more great courses? Isn't this pretty similar to how we got the great courses in GB&I?
So Tom, when are you going to offer the routing services package to your companies offerings? ;)
-
Tom
Well said, that was one of the points I had hoped would be raised, Designed (to a point) and Built by the players, keeping those who seem to know or care little for our game well and truly out of the loop. Its only one, but a major lesson that world golf should learn IMHO from Askernish
It’s one of the most important lessons coming out of Askernish and I hope it might sink into the heads of these Developers that Golf comes first, the add-ons are just that ADD-ONs but up to now seems to control the standard of the course – a tail wadding the dog, that sort of farce.
Melvyn
-
Suppose Bandon Dunes did not exist. Suppose the city of Bandon decided that putting in a golf course as a fire break would be a good thing. Suppose they got a talented router to provide a routing on the land for the fire break, and they simply went through the slow process of "slit-seeding" and growing in slowly. Wouldn't they have a fine golf course that the locals could play for a small fee? Wouldn't it improve with age? Wouldn't the word get out that there was something great at Bandon? Wouldn't it be possible that eventually you would have a great golf boom in the Bandon area that would seem more great courses? Isn't this pretty similar to how we got the great courses in GB&I?
Garland:
This is pure fantasy. That ground sat there idle for years upon years, under different ownership. The town never showed any interest in buying it and developing it. And to actually develop the course would have required the land purchase, the irrigation system, and the commitment to maintenance that Mr. Keiser made.
A town is never going to make such a commitment in this day and age, on its own. Many towns don't even have enough money to provide basic services they have promised for our taxes, or to pay the benefits packages promised to town employees. And Bandon was way too small to make Bandon Dunes work as a local muni. They needed the outside play, which required the maintenance levels and the hotel and all the rest.
Funnily enough, the one project I've done which took the approach you suggest is The Sheep Ranch. It has stayed under the radar by design, but even if it hadn't, I can't imagine it would have transformed the town. And while we spent less than half a million building what's there ... the property cost $3 million I believe. So again, that's not an investment any towns today are going to make.
-
Suppose Bandon Dunes did not exist. Suppose the city of Bandon decided that putting in a golf course as a fire break would be a good thing. Suppose they got a talented router to provide a routing on the land for the fire break, and they simply went through the slow process of "slit-seeding" and growing in slowly. Wouldn't they have a fine golf course that the locals could play for a small fee? Wouldn't it improve with age? Wouldn't the word get out that there was something great at Bandon? Wouldn't it be possible that eventually you would have a great golf boom in the Bandon area that would seem more great courses? Isn't this pretty similar to how we got the great courses in GB&I?
Garland:
This is pure fantasy. That ground sat there idle for years upon years, under different ownership. The town never showed any interest in buying it and developing it. And to actually develop the course would have required the land purchase, the irrigation system, and the commitment to maintenance that Mr. Keiser made.
A town is never going to make such a commitment in this day and age, on its own. Many towns don't even have enough money to provide basic services they have promised for our taxes, or to pay the benefits packages promised to town employees. And Bandon was way too small to make Bandon Dunes work as a local muni. They needed the outside play, which required the maintenance levels and the hotel and all the rest.
Funnily enough, the one project I've done which took the approach you suggest is The Sheep Ranch. It has stayed under the radar by design, but even if it hadn't, I can't imagine it would have transformed the town. And while we spent less than half a million building what's there ... the property cost $3 million I believe. So again, that's not an investment any towns today are going to make.
Most people thought Mr. Keiser was engaging in pure fantasy too. ;)
-
I have to say that I completely disagree, in respect of Machrihanish Dunes, Jeff. There is no way that property - which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and heavily protected, like virtually every remaining dune system in the UK (and Europe for that matter) - was going to be permitted for golf course construction in the normal fashion. It's true that Trump got his permission on another protected dune system, but he did so because of his own high profile and by blinding the politicians with the supposed amount of investment he was putting in the area.
There are lots of beautiful duneland properties around the British Isles and northern Europe, and it's hard not to see the potential for golf in them. If there's ever to be more golf built on these sites, it will have to be done alongside the environmental lobby, not in conflict with it. And that means embracing a lower impact model of construction.
A hundred years ago, how would our forefathers have built a golf course on a property like that? They would have refined it, bit by bit, over many seasons, improving the turf, changing the layout as they went. Maybe, for these special properties, if we were more prepared to think the same way, we would get somewhere?
I would like to see more links golf built, and I think that's the only way it will happen.
Adam:
That's an interesting take. However, I do question whether the strict definition of "low-impact" applied to Machrihanish Dunes [no soil disturbance except for 7 acres of greens] is really necessary? If we take the other approach at Dismal River, and all we do is to expose the soil and do finish work and re-seed it, is that really so different environmentally -- especially if your definition of what's good for the environment is the same 100-year horizon you just suggested?
The one thing I can say is that while many golf course architects would love to work on a project like Machrihanish Dunes or Askernish -- assuming there's enough money in it to pay them -- not many golf course DEVELOPERS would dare take on such a project. Perhaps the key facet of Askernish is that nobody was trying to make any money off it, and it was developed by and for the locals. That's so rare in this day and age, I can't even think of another example.
Coming back to this thread I read Adams excellent posts and Tom equally excellent responses. Adam is so right baout the potential of the remaining dunescapes around northern europe and how they COULD be developed as golf courses. The way he describes is the low key, not for profit method used in olden days. Hard to see how that model can work where you get a group of enthusiasts putting in time and money to get a rudimentary course up and running, and one that may take years to properly come into its own.
I wonder if a middle way would be possible, working with the environmentalists in a more constructive fashion. Or has that gone out the window following Trump riding roughshod over the environmental lobby in Aberdeen ?
Niall
-
I think, though I wouldn't 100 per cent swear to it, that the same applied at Machrihanish Dunes, although in their case the issue was not cash but regulation. If I remember correctly, only tees, greens and surrounds were fully seeded, the rest was mow-out and overseed.
Adam,
If what you say is right, that must have been interesting ground to mow out because I know for a fact that up until a short while before construction of Mach Dunes, the site was used for grazing cows. I've got to think they would have had a lot more than the odd computer mouse size whole in the ground that Tom refers to in his other post.
Niall
-
While I wasn't there for the entire project, I followed it closely and walked the ground for several days in May'08, when the course was about 75% of the way finished. The ground was very rough in spots, though significant areas had excellent turf. Numerous cattle trails, thousands of rabbit holes, and the like all were in evidence, though often not directly in main areas of play.
There are some marked differences between Askernish, MD and the Trumposity Course. The rare plants are the main concern that heightened the restrictive nature of options during construction at MD. There were also some low areas at the MD site, that held water for significant periods, having almost a a meadow-like quality to them that were off-limits. Trump's land has more exposed sands in dune systems than MD, and while unique, couldn't be defended as easily environmentally, especially withThe Donald's influence and the purported economic attractiveness some embraced.
Additionally, MD is new, from scratch, with even tighter constraints than anything out there. MD was created as a profit-driver for hotel and real estate ventures, while Askernish has been more organic in having the wonderful support of those that have given significantly, of their time or resources, to continue a noble endeavor of local origins.
That said, the Machrihanish Dunes project should be lauded and studied as a model for collaborative, environmentally responsible course development. Certainly other architects have taken a similar approach, but MD's restrictions would have frustrated all but the most persistent archies. It nearly drove those that succeeded in pulling it off batty!
Sadly, it has not gotten its due to the degree it should have, mostly due to missed opportunties to deliver the presentation properly for what it is and could become, rather than sounding the trumpets and then have partakers dissatisfied with the experience.
I hope both Askernish, Machrihanish Dunes, and other projects having their qualities become more prevalent in the coming years. The game, and golf's acceptance as a good steward by non-golfers, would benefit greatly from taking such a course.
Cheers,
Kris 8)
-
Kris
Not sure I can agree with you that developing Balmedie was less questionable than developing Mach Dunes. I would ahve thought that it would be the other way round. Balmedie is (was ?) a more scarce and sensitive environment than Mach Dunes. By its very nature, ie. shifting sand system, any turfing or stabilisation would destroy whats there. At Mach Dunes, you just need to stop cutting the grass and you are more or less back to where you are.
Niall
-
I agree with Niall, if we look to the records we will note that very few courses are laid down upon thiese sands. look further north and we find Newburgh Links (see course map of 1896). The only other course was further north still at Collieston. South we get Muscar at Aberdeen. Now if the old timers did not build on this site we should take note and wonder why. But if the attatude is that money can resolve all difficulties then we have lost before we have begun.
Newburgh links
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/NewburghGCmap1896001-1.jpg)
The new at Balmedie
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/trump_golf_resort_aberdeen_g020310_3.jpg)
Niall I feel is spot on regards Balmedie IHMO, confirmed I believe by history and the lack of another course on any of these Links.
Melvyn
-
Niall and Melvyn,
Are we even bothering to read what I write? Trump's influence peddling is stated in the same sentence as to why this got approved.
It should NEVER have been permitted, I agree. No question, just on the scale of escavation and disturbance alone, it has far more disruptive influence than MD would ever have on its respective ground.
The wasteland nature of Trumposity also is easy to dismiss...it's just a bunch of sand don't you know. Trump has even had the audacity to says his efforts will improve on what nature had there! Endangered plants also usually have made a better case for protection than sandy areas.
MD worked IN COOPERATION with environmental professionals to RETAIN significantly what was there; conversly
Mr. Trump has not had that element and the sparse turf at Trump's site is even more reason it was land that should have been left alone. MD's ground has far better natural compatibility for golf than Trump's.
The challenges of Trump's site, and ground like it, are the main reasons it hsan't previously been attempted in those areas. There was simply better ground on offer, requiring less work to get golf links established, in earlier years. It's a different day, though I think Scots, like America and many other nations, have become a bit more susceptible to the snake oil of "jobs and growth" projects more so than the past.
Cheers,
Kris 8)
-
"Trump's land has more exposed sands in dune systems than MD, and while unique, couldn't be defended as easily environmentally, especially withThe Donald's influence and the purported economic attractiveness some embraced."
Yes Kris, I did read what you wrote and responded accordingly. The above is a direct quote from your post. You state clearly that Balmedie couldn't be defended as easily as Machrihanish on environmental grounds which was what I disagreed with. The fact that you added to that statement that the environmentalists were onto EVEN more of a loser at Balmedie because of Trumps influence is neither hear nor there, you clearly stated that Mach Dunes had a stronger environmental case than Balmedie.
Suggest that you might want to read what you write in future before jumping down anyones throat for (politely disagreeing) with you. Just my humble opinion.
Niall
-
Niall,
My question was hardly jumping down your throat. There are a number of other dunes systems in Scotland similar to Trump's ground, though that land is rather special. MD has plant species that grow almost nowhere else or nowhere else. MD got approved PRIMARILY because they agreed to work under the strictest cooperation EVER undertaken with any project I've heard about, or seen, anywhere in the world. One can debate on a hundred points as to what SSSI of the two has more "value", but on critical or rare species, it's a no contest. Those critera typically hold the most importance, along with the water-related issues, which MD also had greater sensitivity issues with than Trump's ground.
What is being allowed at Trump's site shows very little regard for what's there and the extensive, heavy equipment disturbance is further evidence no one else is too concerned about it either; again, every attempt possible to minimize impacts on the MD site was adhered to with DIRECT oversite by scientic professionals. That's why, in my view, and the evidence is rather compelling, despite a more critically sensitive site from rare or endangered plant species perspective than Trump's sandlands, permission was given for the MD project.
I respect your opinion and anyone else's. It didn't seem as if your or Melvyn's responses took what I wrote into account, and that is what I questioned. Nuff said.
Cheers,
Kris 8)
-
Nuff said ? Well actually Kris, I don't think so. When you basically start a post by questioning whether someone had bothered ie. couldn't be arsed, to read your post then I think that's jumping down there throat.
But anyway, back to the main point, which of the two is more environmentally sensitive. I guess its a wee bit like comparing apples to oranges after all at the Menie Links (Balmedie) you have a very rare landform with only a handful of such single sand sheets in the UK of which, according to Scottish Natural Heritage, is nationally and probably internationally unique on account of the scale and the dynamism of the sand sheet which covers much of the links. At Machrihanish you have, again according to SNH, a rare pyramidal orchid where MD is the only place it is found in the whole of Kintyre. Not quite on the same scale I woulsd suggest. Machrihanish also needs to be actively managed whereas Menie should have been left alone, and for that reason alone, the environmental argument for protecting Menie was far more compelling IMHO.
Nuff said ?
Niall