Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Gareth Williams on November 12, 2019, 01:43:09 PM
-
As per the other Hankley Common thread (not that complementary in part I should add..... :-[ ) I wanted to share (as it's now in the semi public domain - link to follow in this thread) the recent plans presented by Martin Ebert at our club.
Just to give some context/background first. The club was proud to hold the UK Amateur championship this summer and the course was in fantastic condition as Conor Gough prevailed over Callum Farr 3&2 in the final over 36 holes. This event has spurred the club into thinking forwards on how best to present our course and the challenge it offers all standards of golfer.
The committee (driven by a very well regarded/active Club captain this year - and our Green Staff headed up by a dedicated and very accomplished Head Greenskeeper who is ex Morfontaine) decided to approach Ebert & Mackenzie to hear their ideas for the course and how best to improve it. These plans were presented to the committee in private first and then shared with members via an engaging presentation from Martin Ebert at the golf club. Martin started off by saying (or joking?!) he'd been at a similar event at Royal North Devon Golf club the same day and only 10 members turned up......we had around 180 members that came for the evening (via a ticket booking system to accommodate the numbers for the evening) Putting that into context - and how passionate the members are about our course - the AGM attracts around one third (at most) of the number that attended this evening.....
After a brief run through the history of Ebert & Mackenzie Martin shared with us that the work they do which is split between i) Renovation/updates and ii) New course design.....with the greater emphasis being on the former. He also talked through his work with the R&A where they consult on 7 of the 10 courses on the Open Championship Rota.
Moving onto Hankley Common Golf Club. Martin talked through each hole with an historical review, current view and then a series of proposed improvements, one by one. By and large these were very well thought out and the overall key point that they correctly identified in HCGC was that the bunkering was not up to the standard of the rest of the course and rather inconsistent. Put simply there are at least 4 differing styles of bunkers on the course and not all of them are consistent with a Heathland Braid/Colt course. It is said that Colt's work at HCGC was predominantly on the back nine holes but Martin correctly identified some inconsistencies in this view but there are some clear Colt hallmarks to be found and Mackenzie Ebert felt it was right to bring those to the fore once again.
Here is a link to the proposed plan and with commentary by hole;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhkyQFw42xc
There is a consultation period for Members to offer their own views on these proposed changes and then the club with assimilate that before getting into the logistics of what such work should be done/timings/costings/impact to the members/guests and the local environment.
I'd be very interested to hear the views of the GCA membership on this exciting initiative. I for one believe that if the majority of the changes are acted on - along with the club's very active general updating/improvements to the club/paths/surrounding area/ tree management plans - it will enhance the course/club significantly.....
Please keep your comments on here and this is being shared in confidence. Thank you.
-
Great stuff Gareth
Played there last week-really enjoyed it.
I will say my one negative comment was the bunkering style feeling out of place in spots.
Looks like the consulting architects agree.
.
Restoring the width on a few holes would be nice (#1 comes to mind) which they also are addressing.
Not sure I quite get the "lowering the carry area in front of greens to increase visibility" on a few holes or the chopping up of existing larger tees into smaller ones but again there's no money in doing less,,,,
-
I’m intrigued as to why the club chose this particular firm to prepare such a report, and presumably to supervise any work done.
M&E are clearly flying high at the moment, but I wouldn’t have thought that their close association with the R&A and their huge workload with Open courses necessarily made them the best choice for somewhere like Hankley Common.
There are many smaller firms who could do just as good a job and undoubtedly devote more personal time to the project, as they are not stretched as thinly.
How much of Martin Ebert are you actually going to get?
I won’t even speculate as to relative costs...
-
I’m intrigued as to why the club chose this particular firm to prepare such a report, and presumably to supervise any work done.
M&E are clearly flying high at the moment, but I wouldn’t have thought that their close association with the R&A and their huge workload with Open courses necessarily made them the best choice for somewhere like Hinkley Common.
There are many smaller firms who could do just as good a job and undoubtedly devote more personal time to the project, as they are not stretched as thinly.
How much of Martin Ebert are you actually going to get?
I won’t even speculate as to relative costs...
Duncan
Good points
On twitter M+E have been looking for a CAD draughtsperson who lives near their office as part of their 'expansion'
I suspect the works will be done by the in-house green keeping team with little supervision from Martin Ebert. This is also the case at Notts which I hope Boony will drop in a comment.
M+E own @golfarchitects on twitter i wonder if clubs google in golf architects and then M+E become the first line of google search. ;D
Cheers
Ben
-
Hi Gareth,
Interesting comment below the you tube movie by HCGC
'Please see below the link to the presentation by Martin Ebert with a voiceover explaining his views on each hole. You will hear there is mention of some changes to a few tees. Please note that the Committee has already decided that, other than the forward tee on the 16th, any such changes will not form part of the planned works for the next several years, as we wish to focus at this time on the improvements which will benefit the greatest cross-section of the membership. The tees will be reviewed at a later time and in consultation with the membership. Finally, the presentation mentions tree removal to the right of the 8th green.'
-
Hi Gareth
I have gone through the HCGC you tube video twice.
This is my honest and frank opinion
Firstly Hankley is a top notch club and the course is conditioned very well. However ........ (drum roll) ........
My initial view is that there are subtle changes mainly cosmetic to 'improve' the look of the course. If that was the case why didn't the club do it in house rather than employ M+E? or they want further reassurance from a well know golf course architect such as M+E?
I question why Martin Ebert/M+E is doing the following:
- Sandy areas in heather? surely the heather better off left untouched and new Sandy area or humps created within the grassed areas (fairway/first cut rough) would add more variety?
- Why are the majority of new bunkers are on the outside elbow of the dogleg left or on the right hand side of the fairway bearing in mind a lot of golfers tend to hit fades or slices. Alister Mackenzie tended to put bunkers on the inside dogleg and areas where the direct line to the green is.
- I personally think that some bunkers are pointless/wrong positions (current and new ones)
- the widened fairway and putting in two centreline bunkers quite far apart looks very odd to me for a heathland course. surely heather like features in the middle of the fairway with one small bunker in it or heather 'fingers' protruding either side of the fairway at different distances would fit with the look of the course creating shapes and risk/reward factor.
- the greens shapes are quite monotonous and there are no proposals to put small extensions put in interesting pin positions for big tournaments or main club events.
- The Braid par 3 7th is in a great location however the bunkers don't do it justice IMO they just don't seem to fit in naturally.
- lack of strategic holes proposed - Hankley is like an airstrip type of course which tends to be repetitive and boring.
- Why refer to the past referring to Colt and Braid so much the game has changed and evolved. I wonder what Colt and Braid would have done today - probably different to what they initially proposed.
My personal view is that Hankley has huge potential to be an even better course due to its acreage. This report does not give that option - was the brief by the greens committee limited to aesthetics and minor changes? or they left it open for Martin Ebert to come up with his proposals/ideas? (it seems to be one option for each hole - which tends to be one dimensional and gives members little choice) - I cite Andrew Green's work at Inverness as an example he has made a strong course even better and stronger based on images and aerial views. He put in around 2 or 3 new holes on extended land and upped the ante on the other holes. However Hankley may not have the budget or the confidence to do this.
Is the budget limited to subtle or cosmetic changes to tees, bunkers, heather regeneration and tree removal? No reshaping of greens as they seem to be pretty identical in shape/outline all the way round from memory. No alternative ideas like creating 2 or 3 new holes that would really elevate the course. I suspect which is common at most English private clubs members are reluctant to major changes and tend to be happy with what they have got already.
I suspect a similar approach by Ebert will be carried out at Luffenham and M+E did some recommendations at Burghley Park in the noughties and Burghley are undergoing and have recently made changes to the course recently (Gordon Irvine supervising) when the original design ideas are really out of date by 10-15 years? (this is probably because they were building a new clubhouse then). Seems like Hankley will be not carrying out these works immediately but a few years later after further consultations with the members.
Whilst at BUDA Hankley/Liphook - Hankley was a bit of a disappointment for me having heard of rave reviews about it and Liphook was an eye opener and incredible experience. I am afraid if I had a choice I would still go to Liphook 9-1 or 8-2 times over Hankley and these changes for me are yeah yeah its ok not really something that would pull me back to play Hankley in a flash. don't get me wrong Hankley is still a strong golf course - Top 100 in England and I am sure others love playing it and it has a very good 18th hole which seems to be different to the other holes.
Cheers
Ben
-
I got about half way through the video last night and will watch the rest tonight.
What really struck me, however, was how much of it I'd heard before. Take out some location and hole specific comments and it's the same presentation M&E gave to members of The Northumberland when they presented their report there. There's obviously a checklist here: outstanding heathland (presumably /links/parkland) ground, great bones, bunkers tired and atypical, respect the heritage of the ODGs......
I am concerned that there;s a plain vanilla, one size fits all approach and that as more and more clubs follow the R&A lead, the UK is going to end up with an alarming amount of homogenization at many of our better courses.
-
I got about half way through the video last night and will watch the rest tonight.
What really struck me, however, was how much of it I'd heard before. Take out some location and hole specific comments and it's the same presentation M&E gave to members of The Northumberland when they presented their report there. There's obviously a checklist here: outstanding heathland (presumably /links/parkland) ground, great bones, bunkers tired and atypical, respect the heritage of the ODGs......
I am concerned that there;s a plain vanilla, one size fits all approach and that as more and more clubs follow the R&A lead, the UK is going to end up with an alarming amount of homogenization at many of our better courses.
Bang on Mark!
M+E seem to be the Amazon of golf course design in England/UK
I even have some of their course reports from a while back and Turnberry proposal - same style and approach. We need something different and quick!! ;D
Clyde Johnson looks like doing some neat work at Seacroft the opposite to M+E - elevating the course to another level working both ways to the past and the future - I am intrigued to see what is next there as it is still a long way to go. https://twitter.com/cunningolf (https://twitter.com/cunningolf) and looks like Renaissance are working at Alwoodley.
The trouble is most top clubs tend to go with one option M+E rather than go out to tender and/or invite 2 or 3 architects/designers to come up with some proposals however they may not want to spend extra money. I think this is the right approach to allow members to choose which is their preferred option.
-
I don’t know whether M&E actually do use plywood templates for marking out bunker shapes to ensure absolute uniformity, but from their work at Delamere Forest it would certainly appear so!
I’m glad Clyde’s name has cropped up. He is exactly the kind of person I would choose for a job such as Hankley.
-
I don’t know whether M&E actually do use plywood templates for marking out bunker shapes to ensure absolute consistency, but from their work at Delamere Forest it would certainly appear so!
I’m glad Clyde’s name has cropped up. He is exactly the kind of person I would choose for a job such as Hankley.
But would Hankley take the 'risk' of employing Clyde?
There are so many other good golf course designers/architects its all about giving them the opportunity. The frustration is that so many clubs are risk averse and don't do sufficient enough research or be adventurous.
-
“Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.”
It’s a little sad when potentially better solutions are ignored.
-
The youtube film demonstrates why M&E are currently so successful. It is very well researched, beautifully formatted, graphically concise, thoughtfully conceived and well presented. I admire the quality of their promotional documents and understand why so many club committees appoint them. They deliver on their promises, build them well and nobody is offended by their proposals. It's a commercially sound business philosophy, bearing fruit throughout the land.
It won't be long before someone establishes an M&E golfing trail. You'll certainly never be too far away from one.
-
You make them sound a little like Wetherspoons, Robin.
🤣
-
Frankie & Benny is arguably more apposite. ;)
-
Frankie MacKenzie and Benny Ebert?
This could catch on!
;D
-
The youtube film demonstrates why M&E are currently so successful. It is very well researched, beautifully formatted, graphically concise, thoughtfully conceived and well presented. I admire the quality of their promotional documents and understand why so many club committees appoint them. They deliver on their promises, build them well and nobody is offended by their proposals. It's a commercially sound business philosophy, bearing fruit through repetition throughout the land.
It won't be long before someone establishes an M&E golfing trail. You'll certainly never be too far away from one.
Agree Robin - makes me wonder if the club is playing more for the designs or the presentations itself ;D
It is clear, precise and simple. It does seem at present what most UK top clubs want to hear currently rather than be challenged with two possible options one simple and another out of the box which M+E don't offer. They have got the mindset of many clients right.
Their approach seems safety first. I am questioning aren't architects and designers supposed to challenge their clients to think outside the box or sit behind a desk producing repetitive schemes?
I question does it represent good value for money for a club getting the best out of the course where there is only minor tweaks which M+E probably charge a lot for. The club could have done this in house.
Their golden period won't last forever and there will be someone else after to replace them. IMO the Top USA clubs are way ahead of the UK clubs in terms of improving their courses design wise.
Another question is do they do the build well - do they have one contractor or a multiple group of contractors that they have in mind/or trust to carry out their design modifications? I always think that the best that the club gets out of the archie is that the archie is on site a lot during construction - how can M+E do this when they have such a large number of client the danger is that quality of work on site is being compromised.
-
Frankie & Benny is arguably more apposite. ;)
Can't really remember the only time I went to Frankie and Benny's i have not been there for many moons ;D
-
Frankie & Benny is arguably more apposite. ;)
Can't really remember the only time I went to Frankie and Benny's i have not been there for many moons so you can imagine what I think of them ;D
-
In any line of business getting the sales pitch right is absolutely vital.
If M&E are doing a better job in this area than the competition good luck to them. It is up to their competitors to raise their game to a similar level.
My only experience of such a presentation was Ken Moodie’s at Reddish Vale. His was just as impressive as the M&E video for Hankley imo.
I get the impression though that the likes of Ken never got the opportunity to pitch to Hankley. It’s a pity - Ken’s another who would have done an excellent job. This is right up his alley.
-
In any line of business getting the sales pitch right is absolutely vital.
If M&E are doing a better job in this area than the competition good luck to them. It is up to their competitors to raise their game to a similar level.
My only experience of such a presentation was Ken Moodie’s at Reddish Vale. His was just as impressive as the M&E video for Hankley imo.
I get the impression though that the likes of Ken never got the opportunity to pitch to Hankley.
Thats why I am really looking forward to see Ken's course evolve at Houghton on the Hill. It is different to what it is in the area within 30-45 mins travel which I am familiar with and there is not many courses in this vicinity to get excited about.
M+E not necessarily are doing a better job in this area they are doing better Marketing aided by working on the Open courses and being the R+A preferred architects their website the first key words that pop up is 'classic golf design' which appeal to most.
Hawtree was the 'ones to go to' a decade ago wonder why their works is being reviewed again at some clubs. Luffenham is one example they used Hawtree a decade ago and now are using M+E.
Clubs only realise the quality of the work produced after it is done whether they are happy with it or not.
-
The youtube film demonstrates why M&E are currently so successful. It is very well researched, beautifully formatted, graphically concise, thoughtfully conceived and well presented. I admire the quality of their promotional documents and understand why so many club committees appoint them. They deliver on their promises, build them well and nobody is offended by their proposals. It's a commercially sound business philosophy, bearing fruit throughout the land.
+1
The youtube film is thoroughly professional.
Whilst quibbling over specific ideas or suggestions or current fads can take place, from an overall perspective I can well understand why, if non-architecture enthusiast members have got the money, or someones's going to give them some money in relation to something that might happen in the future, the members would go down the M&E route. I do wonder though to what extent other routes are being explored.
atb
-
Appreciate the feedback....tough crowd however.....
As yet the membership does not know if (at all) any other design companies were approached but as Martin Ebert rightly said it is a "name business" when he referred to how the business really started in 2005.
Clubs will seek out the best known designers who's body or work speaks for itself and, by default golf clubs, are a conservative bunch so very unlikely to take a radical departure from what currently exists unless there is a real need to. Part of the clubs brief was that in approaching M&E we would want Martin Ebert specifically leading and not for the project to be delegated down within the company....and to date that is what we have got and it's all the better for it in my view.
I believe the brief for M&E would have been an open one and should they have suggested any major changes they would have done so. Furthermore the budgetary constraints are not openly known but I would "think" that radical changes/re-routing/new holes would not be financially possible or prudent to do so for the club - and, frankly, not needed. One of the considerations was for a change for the par 5 13th hole that would take it to the left of where it is now to get away from a public access footpath that runs parallel to the hole but, rightly so, it was decided not to do that as it would set presidence for other holes where there are further public paths/access (it is adjoining common land as the name suggests) and that would therefore involve wholesale changes that again would be difficult to justify in many ways. Also M&E needed to be somewhat respectful in that there has been a lot of changes to the course in the last 5 years completed by the club.....some of those with success (bunkering on the 9th hole for example) and some that are still not right (the 4th green being the main culprit here......) after a few attempts - maybe a reason for consulting with someone of Martin Ebert's statue?
I have played golf at Hankley since 2008 and been a member for the past 4 years and my view has always been it is a fantastic Heathland course in an incredible Heathland location.....but the course could do with some enhancements to take it to the next level. There is no huge desire at the club to attract even more high profile events than this years British Amateur Championship so it is, I believe, about making more of what is currently in situ so it presents a more cohesive, pleasing and challenging game of golf.
I find the the comparison to Liphook rather ill judged and, in my own view having played both a lot ,without any real merit - sorry Ben!! Whilst it is a lovely course (with it's green complexes being of particular note) it is a vastly inferior layout/test of golf and with some very disjointed routing as well....and that's before you take into the account the surrounding road/rail noise and the very real danger in crossing the road to play the 15th/16th holes.
-
Appreciate the feedback....tough crowd however.....
As yet the membership does not know if (at all) any other design companies were approached but as Martin Ebert rightly said it is a "name business" when he referred to how the business really started in 2005.
Clubs will seek out the best known designers who's body or work speaks for itself and, by default golf clubs, are a conservative bunch so very unlikely to take a radical departure from what currently exists unless there is a real need to. Part of the clubs brief was that in approaching M&E we would want Martin Ebert specifically leading and not for the project to be delegated down within the company....and to date that is what we have got and it's all the better for it in my view.
I believe the brief for M&E would have been an open one and should they have suggested any major changes they would have done so. Furthermore the budgetary constraints are not openly known but I would "think" that radical changes/re-routing/new holes would not be financially possible or prudent to do so for the club - and, frankly, not needed. One of the considerations was for a change for the par 5 13th hole that would take it to the left of where it is now to get away from a public access footpath that runs parallel to the hole but, rightly so, it was decided not to do that as it would set presidence for other holes where there are further public paths/access (it is adjoining common land as the name suggests) and that would therefore involve wholesale changes that again would be difficult to justify in many ways. Also M&E needed to be somewhat respectful in that there has been a lot of changes to the course in the last 5 years completed by the club.....some of those with success (bunkering on the 9th hole for example) and some that are still not right (the 4th green being the main culprit here......) after a few attempts - maybe a reason for consulting with someone of Martin Ebert's statue?
I have played golf at Hankley since 2008 and been a member for the past 4 years and my view has always been it is a fantastic Heathland course in an incredible Heathland location.....but the course could do with some enhancements to take it to the next level. There is no huge desire at the club to attract even more high profile events than this years British Amateur Championship so it is, I believe, about making more of what is currently in situ so it presents a more cohesive, pleasing and challenging game of golf.
I find the the comparison to Liphook rather ill judged and, in my own view having played both a lot ,without any real merit - sorry Ben!! Whilst it is a lovely course (with it's green complexes being of particular note) it is a vastly inferior layout/test of golf and with some very disjointed routing as well....and that's before you take into the account the surrounding road/rail noise and the very real danger in crossing the road to play the 15th/16th holes.
Hi Gareth,
Thats a good response and thank you for making us aware from a club members point of view and what has been going on behind the scenes which is a very interesting perspective.
Its ok to agree to disagree regarding Hankley and Liphook which are both very strong courses you are rather lucky there is a great number of quality courses within 30-45 mins drive from Hankley as well. You do make a valid point about Liphook's disjointed routing and crossings which might not appeal to some and Hankley's routing is better and safe.
For me Liphook just edges it over Hankley due to greater variation of the holes, better aesthetics and the quality of Croome's design which influenced Tom Simpson. Regarding Liphooks crossing to get to hole 15 is being 'resolved' and a few major changes to the holes and course configuration by putting a tunnel to get to those holes. The redesign is being done by (surprise surprise) M+E so I have reservations about what has been proposed.
Hankley is quite similar to a lot of heathland courses, how the holes are played feels quite repetitive it just needs something to stand out to enable it to be above other courses - if the members are happy with what they have got thats ok it has potential that not many courses is able to do so. I really liked the simplicity off the opening tee (why is Martin Ebert putting a fairway bunker??) and its where I first met the late Jim Goby and his swing and tee shot was an eye opener (Jim was around 5 ft 2 tall and was very competitive - how did he manage to beat Philip Gawith in the singles at Liphook) Plus the 18th is a great finishing hole.
Question - would you have preferred M+E to come up with more than 1 design proposal per hole?
Cheers
Ben
-
Clyde Johnson looks like doing some neat work at Seacroft the opposite to M+E - elevating the course to another level working both ways to the past and the future - I am intrigued to see what is next there as it is still a long way to go. https://twitter.com/cunningolf (https://twitter.com/cunningolf) and looks like Renaissance are working at Alwoodley.
Thanks for the shout-out Ben, but just to clarify: the consulting/shaping work at Alwoodley is independent of Tom and RGD. A club of that stature was willing to the task the risk, but then perhaps it was much less of a risk knowing I'd been trained and mentored by people who have the integrity not to suggest change for the sake of staying busy, to quietly go about improving the details, and to be bold on the odd occasion it is necessary!
Thanks also Gareth for posting this vid. Regardless of how you value the design proposals, it is easy to see why the layman would be impressed by such a presentation...very polished, and clear in outcome. It's a dilemma, because while I'm able to produce similar communication materials, I'd much rather be spending a clubs money where it matters...on the course!!
-
Clyde Johnson looks like doing some neat work at Seacroft the opposite to M+E - elevating the course to another level working both ways to the past and the future - I am intrigued to see what is next there as it is still a long way to go. https://twitter.com/cunningolf (https://twitter.com/cunningolf) and looks like Renaissance are working at Alwoodley.
Thanks for the shout-out Ben, but just to clarify: the consulting/shaping work at Alwoodley is independent of Tom and RGD. A club of that stature was willing to the task the risk, but then perhaps it was much less of a risk knowing I'd been trained and mentored by people who have the integrity not to suggest change for the sake of staying busy, to quietly go about improving the details, and to be bold on the odd occasion it is necessary!
Thanks also Gareth for posting this vid. Regardless of how you value the design proposals, it is easy to see why the layman would be impressed by such a presentation...very polished, and clear in outcome. It's a dilemma, because while I'm able to produce similar communication materials, I'd much rather be spending a clubs money where it matters...on the course!!
Ok.
I don't actually know you, or your work Clyde (sorry about that) but why that rather smug/condescending reply please? Interested to hear a more constructive response perhaps.....
-
Sorry if it came across as smug and condescending Gareth, it certainly wasn't meant to be. :-\
I'm happy to stay under the radar, though perhaps commenting on GCA isn't the way!? I wouldn't have bothered commenting if it wasn't to correct an inaccuracy that implicates others.
I'm very grateful for the start I've had in this business and like to record my genuine appreciation for that. At a club like Alwoodley - which holds such historical significance, architecturally speaking - it is important to yield a very light-hand, to say "no" when necessary. The club appreciates that, I think. Of course it's not just me capable of taking such an approach.
Just to reiterate, I was very impressed with the level of presentation. Communicating ideas well is a very important part of the job. I greatly respect M&Es ability in that. To that regard, because they are so good at that part, the interrogation of any design proposals (and implementation) risks becoming somewhat less consequential, do you not think? I'll leave those that really matter - you and the members - to decide on that.
Perhaps its the tight northerner in me, and/or the people I've been surrounded by - I'd just rather be keeping the spend on the paperwork to a minimum, and directing it to where it really matters. Of course it's difficult to do the second without a little of the first.
Your club has a very capable Course Manager in Jonathan White, and I'll look forward to seeing how the course evolves over the next few years. It is certainly a fine piece of heathland property that deserves more.
-
“...... it is easy to see why the layman would be impressed by such a presentation...very polished, and clear in outcome. It's a dilemma, because while I'm able to produce similar communication materials, I'd much rather be spending a clubs money where it matters...on the course!!”
+1. Well said Clyde.
Atb
-
Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?
Disgraceful.
A Club run by volunteers going with fellas with a track record of delivering what they say they will, on time and within budget?
What are they thinking?
And what are M&E thinking wasting time and money on these layman? Other than pay the bills they know nothing, why try and explain things in a professional way, so the layman have an idea of what they’re committing to?
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
-
Lot to think about, Ryan. ;) ;)
Gareth- I am sure that you've heard the observation about screwing a member's wife, drinking his whisky, but you better never criticize his club. For the record, I played HC twice at the 2011 Buda and enjoyed the course very much.
M & E have a huge advantage over the competition owing to their record over the years. They are far along in the learning curve and can complete the due diligence, produce a professional presentation, and execute on the plan without shorting other clients. If I was a fiduciary of a club, even if the budget was modest, they would be in my contact list.
As the story was told to me, a famous designer once asked another gca he was working with on a project why it took him so many visits to the site to complete his work. The implication, as I understood it, was that perhaps his colleague was a bit slow. I thought it amusing, and wondered if there might be some truth to it.
From the folks I've talked to who know Mr. Ebert, in addition to making a great presentation, he seems very genuine and is easily approachable. Some who are truly the pros from Dover ("Mash" reference) can project competence while being humble. I suspect that M & E's success, in addition to their enviable record and top shelf presentations, has also to do with the way they come across and how they deal with people.
-
Clyde Johnson looks like doing some neat work at Seacroft the opposite to M+E - elevating the course to another level working both ways to the past and the future - I am intrigued to see what is next there as it is still a long way to go. https://twitter.com/cunningolf (https://twitter.com/cunningolf) and looks like Renaissance are working at Alwoodley.
Thanks for the shout-out Ben, but just to clarify: the consulting/shaping work at Alwoodley is independent of Tom and RGD. A club of that stature was willing to the task the risk, but then perhaps it was much less of a risk knowing I'd been trained and mentored by people who have the integrity not to suggest change for the sake of staying busy, to quietly go about improving the details, and to be bold on the odd occasion it is necessary!
Thanks also Gareth for posting this vid. Regardless of how you value the design proposals, it is easy to see why the layman would be impressed by such a presentation...very polished, and clear in outcome. It's a dilemma, because while I'm able to produce similar communication materials, I'd much rather be spending a clubs money where it matters...on the course!!
Ok.
I don't actually know you, or your work Clyde (sorry about that) but why that rather smug/condescending reply please? Interested to hear a more constructive response perhaps.....
Gareth,
As you have not been on GCA for a while - Clyde Johnson is one of Tom Doak's proteges or lieutenants and has his own company Cunnin Golf based in St Andrews. He spent a year and half working on site at Tara Iti in New Zealand - stunning piece of work. He has been one of the shapers on the Hotckin Course at Woodhall Spa and numerous other Renaissance Golf Design work recently at St Patricks Rosapenna's latest course in Ireland.
Both Clyde and myself are able to do these types of presentations so I can see where Clyde is coming from knowing how long it takes to do that level of presentation with Photoshop or so and Cunning Golf/Renaissance prefer to put the clients money where it counts on the course rather than investing lot of time and money into presentations.
I earlier questioned whether it was good value for money ie subtle changes and lot of emphasis on the presentation. ;D
I can see why this approach was taken by M+E - so that it is clear and easier for the client/members to visualise what Martin Ebert is proposing.
Have you seen Renaissance work on the Hotchkin Course at Woodhall Spa? IMO Its many levels above what M+E are proposing with HCGC. They worked for one month per year in a three year 'window' with 3 or 4 shapers the amount of work is astounding in a short period of time and they have cleverly done it to intertwine the shaping by Tom's crew and the turfing work by the in house green keeping team. Plus it was late Oct early Nov meaning minimal interruption in play. The course now looks like it was done over 50 years ago.
Cheers
Ben
-
Clyde Johnson looks like doing some neat work at Seacroft the opposite to M+E - elevating the course to another level working both ways to the past and the future - I am intrigued to see what is next there as it is still a long way to go. https://twitter.com/cunningolf (https://twitter.com/cunningolf) and looks like Renaissance are working at Alwoodley.
Thanks for the shout-out Ben, but just to clarify: the consulting/shaping work at Alwoodley is independent of Tom and RGD. A club of that stature was willing to the task the risk, but then perhaps it was much less of a risk knowing I'd been trained and mentored by people who have the integrity not to suggest change for the sake of staying busy, to quietly go about improving the details, and to be bold on the odd occasion it is necessary!
Thanks also Gareth for posting this vid. Regardless of how you value the design proposals, it is easy to see why the layman would be impressed by such a presentation...very polished, and clear in outcome. It's a dilemma, because while I'm able to produce similar communication materials, I'd much rather be spending a clubs money where it matters...on the course!!
Clyde,
Is there any chance you can update the Seacroft GCA thread with the changes you have made and the reasons why?
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,55186.0.html
GCA - Seacroft is so underrated and has lot of bones to further improve the course I for one really look forward next time I play it as rather intrigued to see Clyde's work there.
-
Gareth
One the other hand maybe more information is needed on the presentation showing where certain players will be hitting the ball off the tee as it seems that there is no information on the video indicating the distances to the new bunkers off the tee. Does it favour the shorter hitter or the longer hitter?
Lou
Was it 2011 that BUDA was there?? crikey I remember people there that are no longer with us and it was the last time GCA's our dear leader played in BUDA who I had the privilege of playing with and I was impressed with his Mackenzie bag. I still have a polo shirt with Liphook simple logo on.
-
In the original post, the "dedicated and very accomplished Head Greenskeeper who is ex Morfontaine" is my friend and former assitant Jon White. I don't understand why he should be referenced and not named.
-
These beautiful proposal documents, that M&E are much admired for, not only serve as an essential source of information to the members, but also provide a valuable future historic document; a snapshot of the club in 2019 and a preservation of images from long ago, which might become lost if not compiled in a single document.
Many years from now, future golf architects and historians will be immensely grateful that M&E and the clubs that appointed them invested in such detailed, analytical documents. Nobody should be knocking Hankley Common or M&E for investing time and money in the production of such.
-
These beautiful proposal documents, that M&E are much admired for, not only serve as an essential source of information to the members, but also provide a valuable future historic document; a snapshot of the club in 2019 and a preservation of images from long ago, which might become lost if not compiled in a single document.
Many years from now, future golf architects and historians will be immensely grateful that M&E and the clubs that appointed them invested in such detailed, analytical documents. Nobody should be knocking Hankley Common or M&E for investing time and money in the production of such.
Robin,
You do make good points about the historical side.
One wonders whether the fee proposal that M+E put forward had historical research of the course included as well as design proposals for future course improvements with a drone flythroughs/images to allow for photoshop work ie before and afters which can be time consuming that Hankley were happy to pay for this. To allow non members to see it as well is credit to the club.
There is no in depth site analysis regarding the current course and other factors such as driving distances/landing areas which probably wasn't requested by the club or it is not M+E style. Others might do this and/or just have simple 2D sketches which James Edwards does pretty well.
It seems on this thread more people are really more focused on the quality of the presentation and past historical reference by M+E not about the course itself and its proposed changes which i think is more important. Hankley has the bones to be a much better course IMO. Gareth has iterated they have a low budget and members do not want major changes which is fine.
However I personally would have preferred less bunkers and more grass mounding with heather top/banks pinching the fairways and bunkers blending in with the heather like at Liphook as it looks more natural plus more variation in the green outline shapes.
Cheers
Ben
-
I'm curious about the proposed centerline bunkers for the 6th. They look really odd to me (being in a row) and don't seem to make sense on a fairway with a lot of tilt. As Ben noted, they also don't appear natural for a heathland site. Are there examples of this concept successfully implemented somewhere else?
-
I'm curious about the proposed centerline bunkers for the 6th. They look really odd to me (being in a row) and don't seem to make sense on a fairway with a lot of tilt. As Ben noted, they also don't appear natural for a heathland site. Are there examples of this concept successfully implemented somewhere else?
John
3rd (revised by M+E for 2018 Open) and 6th Carnoustie is the only one I can think of however the centre line bunkers are closer than the ones Martin Ebert has proposed for Hankley. I can't think of dual centreline bunkers on a heathland course.
Cheers
Ben
-
M & E have a huge advantage over the competition owing to their record over the years. They are far along in the learning curve and can complete the due diligence, produce a professional presentation, and execute on the plan without shorting other clients. If I was a fiduciary of a club, even if the budget was modest, they would be in my contact list.
As the story was told to me, a famous designer once asked another gca he was working with on a project why it took him so many visits to the site to complete his work. The implication, as I understood it, was that perhaps his colleague was a bit slow. I thought it amusing, and wondered if there might be some truth to it.
Lou,
Do you actually think it's advantageous for a club to have an architect make fewer visits? I feel that having the designer in the field as much as practical results in better, more individual work. You need to have talented people interpreting the plans/goals for the site, and who is better suited to that the designer?
-
Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?
Disgraceful.
A Club run by volunteers going with fellas with a track record of delivering what they say they will, on time and within budget?
What are they thinking?
And what are M&E thinking wasting time and money on these layman? Other than pay the bills they know nothing, why try and explain things in a professional way, so the layman have an idea of what they’re committing to?
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
My word, I think I might be in tune with Ryan for once. As Clyde said, it's hard to get to do the work if you don't put the effort into convincing folk you should be allowed to.
Niall
-
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
My word, I think I might be in tune with Ryan for once. As Clyde said, it's hard to get to do the work if you don't put the effort into convincing folk you should be allowed to.
Niall,
Surely you're more logical than that.
Mr. Coles suggests that M&E is the only firm that prepares a competent proposal. Absurd.
-
Robin:
An historian would thanks his lucky stars for such a document.
Anthony
-
Surely, Ryan wins the award for the most sarcastic post of the year. It's literally dripping from the screen.
-
An historian would thanks his lucky stars for such a document.
A very valid point, historical information is important.
I have seen hard copies of the kind of documents produced for such exercises though and would suggest, especially given the amount of information available on the internet etc and digital/drone photography, that a decent club historian (maybe with a bit of techie help and a decent printer) could probably put it together for free.
Atb
-
Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?
surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Ryan,
I wish your first point was the case, but sadly it’s not.
Have a look at the picture from the video below from the 4th hole:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065786557_84111801f2_n.jpg)
That is a genuinely unique, cool and interesting bunker in front of that green that is worth restoring. It has character, and would be a memorable moment in the round to try to fly that bunker. It’s a feature worth dying in a ditch for.
But where I think some of the frustration comes from, is what’s being proposed:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065573206_6f9785fbca_c.jpg)
It looks mailed in. It looks so devoid of character and so cookie-cutter that I don’t know how anyone could be excited by that. Appreciate these are only visuals, but it feels like I’ve seen those exact bunkers in the ground on holes that have been updated by M+E. And the same goes for the cool scar bunker to the right of 6 that Martin refers to in the video. That is a seriously cool feature. So why are they reflecting back on past if they’re not going to use it as a guide to follow?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065786507_a764e61d9d_w.jpg)
Now take those and contrast them with the bunkers that others have referred to at Woodhall Spa:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065785197_d250200c4b_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065572101_9c1307841a_c.jpg)
What a difference!
That’s what we’re arguing about. The above sums up why I keep harping on like a broken record. Hankley deserves better if they’re going to spend a lot of money to update their course. Lots of courses right now deserve better. It goes beyond mere styling, and has to do with cherishing the unique characteristics and features of a course & site, and letting people be excited to come to a certain course to see something they can’t see anywhere else!
As a side - I haven’t forgotten that you said you were going to post a thread on why Rees Jones courses are better than we give them credit for. Not being facetious, I am genuinely interested as admittedly, maybe I am too hard on Mr. Jones.
Photo credit: Mackenzie and Ebert and Clyde Johnson
-
Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?
surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Ryan,
I wish your first point was the case, but sadly it’s not.
Have a look at the picture from the video below from the 4th hole:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065786557_84111801f2_n.jpg)
That is a genuinely unique, cool and interesting bunker in front of that green that is worth restoring. It has character, and would be a memorable moment in the round to try to fly that bunker. It’s a feature worth dying in a ditch for.
But where I think some of the frustration comes from, is what’s being proposed:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065573206_6f9785fbca_c.jpg)
It looks mailed in. It looks so devoid of character and so cookie-cutter that I don’t know how anyone could be excited by that. Appreciate these are only visuals, but it feels like I’ve seen those exact bunkers in the ground on holes that have been updated by M+E. And the same goes for the cool scar bunker to the right of 6 that Martin refers to in the video. That is a seriously cool feature. So why are they reflecting back on past if they’re not going to use it as a guide to follow?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065786507_a764e61d9d_w.jpg)
Now take those and contrast them with the bunkers that others have referred to at Woodhall Spa:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065785197_d250200c4b_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065572101_9c1307841a_c.jpg)
What a difference!
That’s what we’re arguing about. The above sums up why I keep harping on like a broken record. Hankley deserves better if they’re going to spend a lot of money to update their course. Lots of courses right now deserve better. It goes beyond mere styling, and has to do with cherishing the unique characteristics and features of a course & site, and letting people be excited to come to a certain course to see something they can’t see anywhere else!
As a side - I haven’t forgotten that you said you were going to post a thread on why Rees Jones courses are better than we give them credit for. Not being facetious, I am genuinely interested as admittedly, maybe I am too hard on Mr. Jones.
Photo credit: Mackenzie and Ebert and Clyde Johnson
Tim,
I agree with you regarding the bunkers looking either cookie cutter or more natural looking which blends in better. I know which one I prefer.
Cheers
Ben
-
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
My word, I think I might be in tune with Ryan for once. As Clyde said, it's hard to get to do the work if you don't put the effort into convincing folk you should be allowed to.
Niall,
Surely you're more logical than that.
Mr. Coles suggests that M&E is the only firm that prepares a competent proposal. Absurd.
Hi John
Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.
-
Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?
surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Ryan,
I wish your first point was the case, but sadly it’s not.
Have a look at the picture from the video below from the 4th hole:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065786557_84111801f2_n.jpg)
That is a genuinely unique, cool and interesting bunker in front of that green that is worth restoring. It has character, and would be a memorable moment in the round to try to fly that bunker. It’s a feature worth dying in a ditch for.
But where I think some of the frustration comes from, is what’s being proposed:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065573206_6f9785fbca_c.jpg)
It looks mailed in. It looks so devoid of character and so cookie-cutter that I don’t know how anyone could be excited by that. Appreciate these are only visuals, but it feels like I’ve seen those exact bunkers in the ground on holes that have been updated by M+E. And the same goes for the cool scar bunker to the right of 6 that Martin refers to in the video. That is a seriously cool feature. So why are they reflecting back on past if they’re not going to use it as a guide to follow?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065786507_a764e61d9d_w.jpg)
Now take those and contrast them with the bunkers that others have referred to at Woodhall Spa:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065785197_d250200c4b_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065572101_9c1307841a_c.jpg)
What a difference!
That’s what we’re arguing about. The above sums up why I keep harping on like a broken record. Hankley deserves better if they’re going to spend a lot of money to update their course. Lots of courses right now deserve better. It goes beyond mere styling, and has to do with cherishing the unique characteristics and features of a course & site, and letting people be excited to come to a certain course to see something they can’t see anywhere else!
As a side - I haven’t forgotten that you said you were going to post a thread on why Rees Jones courses are better than we give them credit for. Not being facetious, I am genuinely interested as admittedly, maybe I am too hard on Mr. Jones.
Photo credit: Mackenzie and Ebert and Clyde Johnson
Hi Tim
I don’t recall ever mentioning Rees Jones on this site. Being British, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an example of his work, unless he was involved in the Oxfordshire.
Is Hankley really one of the ‘great courses’ that should be left untouched?
Or is it a Course that whilst most golf golfers would be delighted to be a member, the Course doesn’t live up to the spectacular setting?
Had they got the Woodhall Spa gig, and done the same work, would you be lamenting the England Golf Blazers and old boy network on them getting a plum job?
From where I’m sitting, M&E, if you listen to people who assess what’s in the ground objectively, do good work, and employ skilled and experienced people to do it for them.
How many on the Open Rota did they have when they started out? I’d suggest 0.
Now they have seven out of ten, do they rest on their laurels, and say ‘our work speaks for itself’ or do they still work the hardest in terms of presentation and research?
Seems to me there’s a lot of sniping from those who should either get better, or get out.
Perhaps they can provide a list of commissions they’ve declined? As they suggest M&E should.
I read lots of the criticisms as tall poppy syndrome. Hankley is a case in point, there is nothing remotely of ‘doing more rather than less’ in their proposals. Otherwise they would be doing the greens and moving earth. As I said in my parody, they’re doing tree removal, widening fairways and restoring bunkers. Modest changes, in keeping with their brief and budget, that only the blinkered could say wasn’t an improvement.
-
Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.
From your reply #27:
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Sadly, I've no way of knowing from your posts whether you believe what you are typing, but your reply to Tim suggests you do.
-
Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?
surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Hi Tim
I don’t recall ever mentioning Rees Jones on this site. Being British, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an example of his work, unless he was involved in the Oxfordshire.
Is Hankley really one of the ‘great courses’ that should be left untouched?
Or is it a Course that whilst most golf golfers would be delighted to be a member, the Course doesn’t live up to the spectacular setting?
Had they got the Woodhall Spa gig, and done the same work, would you be lamenting the England Golf Blazers and old boy network on them getting a plum job?
From where I’m sitting, M&E, if you listen to people who assess what’s in the ground objectively, do good work, and employ skilled and experienced people to do it for them.
How many on the Open Rota did they have when they started out? I’d suggest 0.
Now they have seven out of ten, do they rest on their laurels, and say ‘our work speaks for itself’ or do they still work the hardest in terms of presentation and research?
Seems to me there’s a lot of sniping from those who should either get better, or get out.
Perhaps they can provide a list of commissions they’ve declined? As they suggest M&E should.
I read lots of the criticisms as tall poppy syndrome. Hankley is a case in point, there is nothing remotely of ‘doing more rather than less’ in their proposals. Otherwise they would be doing the greens and moving earth. As I said in my parody, they’re doing tree removal, widening fairways and restoring bunkers. Modest changes, in keeping with their brief and budget, that only the blinkered could say wasn’t an improvement.
Ryan,
Apologies - must have been a different Ryan I was thinking of from the Bethpage thread that is now resting in peace.
I am not objecting to work being done at Hankley - if it's felt by the membership that there are improvements that can be made, then I only hope they get the best that they can get. Based on the historical photos in the presentation, and the proposals in the video, I think the changes are certainly an improvement on what is there at the moment, but are short of what it could be if another outfit were given the opportunity (like CPD). Pont is a Colt expert, and I think they could be more faithful to the restorative nature of the project, if that's what they're going for. If not, then why are M+E using the historical photos?
This is an architectural website. I am only concerned about the architectural features of golf courses new and old. There seems to be thoughts that myself, or others are chummy with the ones that we praise and are therefore bitter and resentful towards M+E, Hawtree and those likes in the world. That is not the case. I've never met half the architects that I praise, and I have no reason to personally take offence with Mackenzie and Ebert. In fact, from everything I am told, Mr. Ebert is a wonderful guy and a sharp architectural mind who is well read and well studied. When I write some of these things, I don't like it, because I know how hard they work. I'm in the peanut gallery, and I have zero onsite experience or know how difficult it is to build something good.
With all that said, I'm looking around and I see great work coming from some places and wondering why all places can't be like that.
As you've said, I think those in the know (paging Mr. Lawrence) and others seem to think the M+E work is good, but I've never heard anyone come out and say incredibly flattering things about it either.
I'm not fighting against M+E - I'm trying to draw attention to the mediocrity that seems to be taking hold of courses (especially great ones) in the UK and what I see as homogenisation across the UK at the moment, mainly at the hands of one team.
As a final point - the argument that because they got the Open rota jobs they must be good is flawed. That's like saying Starbucks has the best coffee because they have the most shops. There is more at play when it comes to working with the R&A than just good work.
Final question: Answering honestly, do you feel what is being presented to Hankley is the best that the club can get, especially considering they're paying top pound?
-
Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?
surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Ryan,
I wish your first point was the case, but sadly it’s not.
Have a look at the picture from the video below from the 4th hole:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065786557_84111801f2_n.jpg)
That is a genuinely unique, cool and interesting bunker in front of that green that is worth restoring. It has character, and would be a memorable moment in the round to try to fly that bunker. It’s a feature worth dying in a ditch for.
But where I think some of the frustration comes from, is what’s being proposed:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065573206_6f9785fbca_c.jpg)
It looks mailed in. It looks so devoid of character and so cookie-cutter that I don’t know how anyone could be excited by that. Appreciate these are only visuals, but it feels like I’ve seen those exact bunkers in the ground on holes that have been updated by M+E. And the same goes for the cool scar bunker to the right of 6 that Martin refers to in the video. That is a seriously cool feature. So why are they reflecting back on past if they’re not going to use it as a guide to follow?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065786507_a764e61d9d_w.jpg)
Now take those and contrast them with the bunkers that others have referred to at Woodhall Spa:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065785197_d250200c4b_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49065572101_9c1307841a_c.jpg)
What a difference!
That’s what we’re arguing about. The above sums up why I keep harping on like a broken record. Hankley deserves better if they’re going to spend a lot of money to update their course. Lots of courses right now deserve better. It goes beyond mere styling, and has to do with cherishing the unique characteristics and features of a course & site, and letting people be excited to come to a certain course to see something they can’t see anywhere else!
As a side - I haven’t forgotten that you said you were going to post a thread on why Rees Jones courses are better than we give them credit for. Not being facetious, I am genuinely interested as admittedly, maybe I am too hard on Mr. Jones.
Photo credit: Mackenzie and Ebert and Clyde Johnson
Hi Tim
I don’t recall ever mentioning Rees Jones on this site. Being British, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an example of his work, unless he was involved in the Oxfordshire.
Is Hankley really one of the ‘great courses’ that should be left untouched?
Or is it a Course that whilst most golf golfers would be delighted to be a member, the Course doesn’t live up to the spectacular setting?
Had they got the Woodhall Spa gig, and done the same work, would you be lamenting the England Golf Blazers and old boy network on them getting a plum job?
From where I’m sitting, M&E, if you listen to people who assess what’s in the ground objectively, do good work, and employ skilled and experienced people to do it for them.
How many on the Open Rota did they have when they started out? I’d suggest 0.
Now they have seven out of ten, do they rest on their laurels, and say ‘our work speaks for itself’ or do they still work the hardest in terms of presentation and research?
Seems to me there’s a lot of sniping from those who should either get better, or get out.
Perhaps they can provide a list of commissions they’ve declined? As they suggest M&E should.
I read lots of the criticisms as tall poppy syndrome. Hankley is a case in point, there is nothing remotely of ‘doing more rather than less’ in their proposals. Otherwise they would be doing the greens and moving earth. As I said in my parody, they’re doing tree removal, widening fairways and restoring bunkers. Modest changes, in keeping with their brief and budget, that only the blinkered could say wasn’t an improvement.
Ryan
Well......... in fact M+E were former protégés of Donald Steel and come from a strong engineering background and Donald had his contacts with the golf organisations as well being a well know golf reporter so have to say when they started they already had a couple of Open courses to begin with rather than 0 thanks to Donald’s hard work - it’s all about who you know. Had M+E did not work with Donald they would have struggled to be anywhere near they are now they have been a bit fortunate in some respects I guess they were in the right time and place for this to happen
I have not really seen a hand drawing of theirs before so this approach is the safe approach and they rely on other staff members to do so again they are fortunate to be able to do this and do have Donald Steel a lot to be thankful for
I personally don’t feel they have strong design background which is a personal opinion as their approach is precise and engineered but they do lack creativity having played their newly built courses like Stapleford or Heythrop which is ‘yeah yeah’ maybe they are better at working on historical top courses with strong emphasis on research and proposing subtle changes or one/two new holes to supposedly fit in with the others
I once spoke to Donald about future career in golf course design he encouraged me to do go to university’s do Architecture and come back to him when I have completed my course which I did however chose to go to work at an architectural practice so kudos to Donald for that advice
Re Tall Poppy Syndromes quip is a typical Aussie thing ;) you are always bashing the pommies for doing well.
For now M+E are rising on a crest of a big wave at the moment fair dinkum it won’t last forever golf will evolve as long as it exists
Every design company has their strengths and weaknesses should we keep the successful ones surrounded in cotton wool? Praise them every time they win a project? Some of us like their works and others don’t
-
Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?
surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Hi Tim
I don’t recall ever mentioning Rees Jones on this site. Being British, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an example of his work, unless he was involved in the Oxfordshire.
Is Hankley really one of the ‘great courses’ that should be left untouched?
Or is it a Course that whilst most golf golfers would be delighted to be a member, the Course doesn’t live up to the spectacular setting?
Had they got the Woodhall Spa gig, and done the same work, would you be lamenting the England Golf Blazers and old boy network on them getting a plum job?
From where I’m sitting, M&E, if you listen to people who assess what’s in the ground objectively, do good work, and employ skilled and experienced people to do it for them.
How many on the Open Rota did they have when they started out? I’d suggest 0.
Now they have seven out of ten, do they rest on their laurels, and say ‘our work speaks for itself’ or do they still work the hardest in terms of presentation and research?
Seems to me there’s a lot of sniping from those who should either get better, or get out.
Perhaps they can provide a list of commissions they’ve declined? As they suggest M&E should.
I read lots of the criticisms as tall poppy syndrome. Hankley is a case in point, there is nothing remotely of ‘doing more rather than less’ in their proposals. Otherwise they would be doing the greens and moving earth. As I said in my parody, they’re doing tree removal, widening fairways and restoring bunkers. Modest changes, in keeping with their brief and budget, that only the blinkered could say wasn’t an improvement.
Ryan,
Apologies - must have been a different Ryan I was thinking of from the Bethpage thread that is now resting in peace.
I am not objecting to work being done at Hankley - if it's felt by the membership that there are improvements that can be made, then I only hope they get the best that they can get. Based on the historical photos in the presentation, and the proposals in the video, I think the changes are certainly an improvement on what is there at the moment, but are short of what it could be if another outfit were given the opportunity (like CPD). Pont is a Colt expert, and I think they could be more faithful to the restorative nature of the project, if that's what they're going for. If not, then why are M+E using the historical photos?
This is an architectural website. I am only concerned about the architectural features of golf courses new and old. There seems to be thoughts that myself, or others are chummy with the ones that we praise and are therefore bitter and resentful towards M+E, Hawtree and those likes in the world. That is not the case. I've never met half the architects that I praise, and I have no reason to personally take offence with Mackenzie and Ebert. In fact, from everything I am told, Mr. Ebert is a wonderful guy and a sharp architectural mind who is well read and well studied. When I write some of these things, I don't like it, because I know how hard they work. I'm in the peanut gallery, and I have zero onsite experience or know how difficult it is to build something good.
With all that said, I'm looking around and I see great work coming from some places and wondering why all places can't be like that.
As you've said, I think those in the know (paging Mr. Lawrence) and others seem to think the M+E work is good, but I've never heard anyone come out and say incredibly flattering things about it either.
I'm not fighting against M+E - I'm trying to draw attention to the mediocrity that seems to be taking hold of courses (especially great ones) in the UK and what I see as homogenisation across the UK at the moment, mainly at the hands of one team.
As a final point - the argument that because they got the Open rota jobs they must be good is flawed. That's like saying Starbucks has the best coffee because they have the most shops. There is more at play when it comes to working with the R&A than just good work.
Final question: Answering honestly, do you feel what is being presented to Hankley is the best that the club can get, especially considering they're paying top pound?
My answer to your final question from a presentation standpoint - Yes but design standpoint - No
-
Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.
From your reply #27:
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Sadly, I've no way of knowing from your posts whether you believe what you are typing, but your reply to Tim suggests you do.
Hi John
Thanks for clarifying.
The post makes no reference to them being "the only" practice capable of making a professional and compelling case. Just the fact that they do, do it well, and still get criticised for it.
I'm mocking how M&E are are griped about over pages and pages on this website for doing their job well and taking the time to produce such high quality research and presentations. Take a look at the fantastic document they produced for Royal Portrush and lo and behold, they delivered what they said they would on time and on budget. Some purists don't like it, but I suspect the Members at Portrush, the Town and NI Govt would disagree.
It seems as if it's a case of there's no time or money to explain in advance what the Club's are getting, but there's always the money afterwards to change it if they don't like it. Committees are (or should be) cautious in spending other people's money. It's part of the job to explain and go through the process of Committee and Membership engagement. M&E seem to grasp this and the cumbersome nature of Club decision making and are adept at getting through it. Rather than gripe about this, perhaps those wanting the work should up their game in this regard.
If M&E did nothing in this regard and just said, go and see Turnberry and Troon and flashed the R&A tie, the same people would be moaning that they get jobs without even having to try. The fact that they have the prestige of R&A and Open links, and they are still prepared to produce such quality prep work and turn up to listen to nonsense from Members etc, I think speaks volumes for their understanding of their business.
In terms of their work, some will be better than others, that's life. But the bitterness in this thread about small, sensible, uncontroversial changes at Hankley shows that they can't really win in some people's eyes. Do a bit of bunker work, grassing lines and tree removal, over several years and they lack ambition and the site deserves better and they should have been bold. Make quite sweeping changes and they are deemed changing for changes sake and trashing heritage and cool features.
It would seem a more sensible position to therefore listen to the objective individual examples cited by Adam, Niall and many others, of examples of high quality work and judge each project on individual merit. By modern day standards, they are quite prolific, so on occasion it's quite plausible that some work won't be as good as elsewhere. No different to anyone else, past or present in that respect and internet forums rarely give thought to what the clients brief or budget was.
It's why I would rather listen to those who play golf, who play the courses, rather than those who play architects. Because it's clear to me that many here judge the work not based on what's in the ground, but based on their regard for who got hired to do it.
Just my opinion.
-
Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.
From your reply #27:
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Sadly, I've no way of knowing from your posts whether you believe what you are typing, but your reply to Tim suggests you do.
Take a look at the fantastic document they produced for Royal Portrush and lo and behold, they delivered what they said they would on time and on budget. Some purists don't like it, but I suspect the Members at Portrush, the Town and NI Govt would disagree.
The fact that they have the prestige of R&A and Open links, and they are still prepared to produce such quality prep work and turn up to listen to nonsense from Members etc, I think speaks volumes for their understanding of their business.
In terms of their work, some will be better than others, that's life. But the bitterness in this thread about small, sensible, uncontroversial changes at Hankley shows that they can't really win in some people's eyes. Do a bit of bunker work, grassing lines and tree removal, over several years and they lack ambition and the site deserves better and they should have been bold. Make quite sweeping changes and they are deemed changing for changes sake and trashing heritage and cool features.
It would seem a more sensible position to therefore listen to the objective individual examples cited by Adam, Niall and many others, of examples of high quality work and judge each project on individual merit. By modern day standards, they are quite prolific, so on occasion it's quite plausible that some work won't be as good as elsewhere. No different to anyone else, past or present in that respect and internet forums rarely give thought to what the clients brief or budget was.
It's why I would rather listen to those who play golf, who play the courses, rather than those who play architects. Because it's clear to me that many here judge the work not based on what's in the ground, but based on their regard for who got hired to do it.
Just my opinion.
Ryan,
Appreciate your position - my thoughts on a few selected passages of yours:
1st paragraph - If the sole barometer for success is whether they are reliable, then that's fine. I can't argue with that, but that doesn't make their work good. It just makes it...reliable
2nd paragraph - It seems that no one is better at doing this than M+E. Again, it doesn't make their ideas or design good. It just means they are good at selling what they have to offer.
3rd paragraph - In the case of Hankley (and others) it's not about whether we are lambasting them for doing more or less, it's about the seemingly recycled ideas and design recommendations that is increasingly homogenised. This idea of opening exposed areas of sand in select areas seems incredibly reminiscent of what they've done at Princes and Gullane 1. I saw Gullane 1, and the members so despised the changes that they actually let it grow back. That's objective opinion, not mine. I am sure there is historical evidence to suggest there was exposed sand on site (although they don't highlight this within their proposal), but it seems like they are cherry picking historical evidence where it conveniently suits their design ideas and disregarding it when it doesn't (in the case of the bunkers at 4 and 6).
4th and 5th paragraph - How do you know they have objectivity in this fight? I'll let the others speak for themselves, but I have always tried to remain objective when looking at the work of architects. In the Royal Liverpool thread, I think I was complimentary to the work Ebert did on the 15th at Troon. I know there are other spots that I complimented across the UK that they had a hand in. Muirfield is one of my favourite courses in the world, and has been touched frequently by Hawtree in the past. I still will be a proponent for restrained architecture when it comes to the great courses of the UK (which Hankley may or may not be), but I won't begrudge someone if they did something good just because I don't like they're other work. Look at DMK - by all accounts he has built some good things and bad. You have to judge everything in isolation. And in isolation, these changes at Hankley still don't look up to scratch.
-
Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.
From your reply #27:
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Sadly, I've no way of knowing from your posts whether you believe what you are typing, but your reply to Tim suggests you do.
Hi John
Thanks for clarifying.
The post makes no reference to them being "the only" practice capable of making a professional and compelling case. Just the fact that they do, do it well, and still get criticised for it.
I'm mocking how M&E are are griped about over pages and pages on this website for doing their job well and taking the time to produce such high quality research and presentations. Take a look at the fantastic document they produced for Royal Portrush and lo and behold, they delivered what they said they would on time and on budget. Some purists don't like it, but I suspect the Members at Portrush, the Town and NI Govt would disagree.
It seems as if it's a case of there's no time or money to explain in advance what the Club's are getting, but there's always the money afterwards to change it if they don't like it. Committees are (or should be) cautious in spending other people's money. It's part of the job to explain and go through the process of Committee and Membership engagement. M&E seem to grasp this and the cumbersome nature of Club decision making and are adept at getting through it. Rather than gripe about this, perhaps those wanting the work should up their game in this regard.
If M&E did nothing in this regard and just said, go and see Turnberry and Troon and flashed the R&A tie, the same people would be moaning that they get jobs without even having to try. The fact that they have the prestige of R&A and Open links, and they are still prepared to produce such quality prep work and turn up to listen to nonsense from Members etc, I think speaks volumes for their understanding of their business.
In terms of their work, some will be better than others, that's life. But the bitterness in this thread about small, sensible, uncontroversial changes at Hankley shows that they can't really win in some people's eyes. Do a bit of bunker work, grassing lines and tree removal, over several years and they lack ambition and the site deserves better and they should have been bold. Make quite sweeping changes and they are deemed changing for changes sake and trashing heritage and cool features.
It would seem a more sensible position to therefore listen to the objective individual examples cited by Adam, Niall and many others, of examples of high quality work and judge each project on individual merit. By modern day standards, they are quite prolific, so on occasion it's quite plausible that some work won't be as good as elsewhere. No different to anyone else, past or present in that respect and internet forums rarely give thought to what the clients brief or budget was.
It's why I would rather listen to those who play golf, who play the courses, rather than those who play architects. Because it's clear to me that many here judge the work not based on what's in the ground, but based on their regard for who got hired to do it.
Just my opinion.
Ryan,
Out of interest - have you played Hankley?
To me they are just brushing up/restoring someone else's design that was done almost a century ago not design it to take it forward into the 21st century. For me that does not improve the course very much and some of their ideas are questionable like the centre line bunkers and removing heather to widen the fairway to accommodate those bunkers it just looks rather odd and different to the rest of the course.
The high quality presentations tend to be a front sometimes and can brainwash certain clients or members because they look so good. Try and ignore the high quality presentations and closely see what they are proposing design wise it is weak its like food with great presentation but tastes pretty average.
I agree with Tim Gallant where he is coming from such as cookie cutters style bunkers they tend to look artificial. Have a look at the bunkers at Effingham - https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf (https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf)
I have played Hankley twice and it was a disappointing experience having heard rave reviews from others and some on GCA prior to 2011 BUDA.
Our response to M+E proposals at Hoylake might be different and they have done some good work at Princes apart from the 7th and 8th on Himalayas which the water features are overcooked and doesn't look natural to me. Portrush is quite good, Turnberry is black and white, Troon the 15th fairway is better (as referred by Tim Gallant), Deal they have made improvements however I need to play it again to see it for myself.
Every architect has done good and bad stuff. IMO Hankley is one of their weakest proposals they have done (Burghley Park is another).
Have a look at other examples I name a few current ones such as:
- Tim Lobb at St Georges Hill and Woking is both a respectful design and has made improvements to the course by updating the bunkering, tees, removing trees and restoring heather. Here is a great movie explains one of the proposed changes at St Georges Hill- http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/ (http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/) - See the bunkering cutting across the fairway for example. Tim is also working at Huntercombe
- Tom Doak and his crew on the Hotckin course at Woodhall which has gone up a couple of levels. It is astounding (even if its lost its bite however it is much more forgiving) that I am more keen to play it again as I know I won't lose too many balls as the damn trees have gone
- Andrew Green current work at Oak Hill and Inverness which has gone referred to the past and future - they look awesome and much more Ross like for the 21st century. https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en (https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en)
I can't see Hankley following the others as per above with the proposals M+E have put forward it will be like another Effingham or RAC.
You have your opinion and might be a fan of M+E which I respect and I have mine which I am happy to share on GCA.
Ben
-
Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.
From your reply #27:
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Sadly, I've no way of knowing from your posts whether you believe what you are typing, but your reply to Tim suggests you do.
Hi John
Thanks for clarifying.
The post makes no reference to them being "the only" practice capable of making a professional and compelling case. Just the fact that they do, do it well, and still get criticised for it.
I'm mocking how M&E are are griped about over pages and pages on this website for doing their job well and taking the time to produce such high quality research and presentations. Take a look at the fantastic document they produced for Royal Portrush and lo and behold, they delivered what they said they would on time and on budget. Some purists don't like it, but I suspect the Members at Portrush, the Town and NI Govt would disagree.
It seems as if it's a case of there's no time or money to explain in advance what the Club's are getting, but there's always the money afterwards to change it if they don't like it. Committees are (or should be) cautious in spending other people's money. It's part of the job to explain and go through the process of Committee and Membership engagement. M&E seem to grasp this and the cumbersome nature of Club decision making and are adept at getting through it. Rather than gripe about this, perhaps those wanting the work should up their game in this regard.
If M&E did nothing in this regard and just said, go and see Turnberry and Troon and flashed the R&A tie, the same people would be moaning that they get jobs without even having to try. The fact that they have the prestige of R&A and Open links, and they are still prepared to produce such quality prep work and turn up to listen to nonsense from Members etc, I think speaks volumes for their understanding of their business.
In terms of their work, some will be better than others, that's life. But the bitterness in this thread about small, sensible, uncontroversial changes at Hankley shows that they can't really win in some people's eyes. Do a bit of bunker work, grassing lines and tree removal, over several years and they lack ambition and the site deserves better and they should have been bold. Make quite sweeping changes and they are deemed changing for changes sake and trashing heritage and cool features.
It would seem a more sensible position to therefore listen to the objective individual examples cited by Adam, Niall and many others, of examples of high quality work and judge each project on individual merit. By modern day standards, they are quite prolific, so on occasion it's quite plausible that some work won't be as good as elsewhere. No different to anyone else, past or present in that respect and internet forums rarely give thought to what the clients brief or budget was.
It's why I would rather listen to those who play golf, who play the courses, rather than those who play architects. Because it's clear to me that many here judge the work not based on what's in the ground, but based on their regard for who got hired to do it.
Just my opinion.
Ryan,
Out of interest - have you played Hankley?
To me they are just brushing up/restoring someone else's design that was done almost a century ago not design it to take it forward into the 21st century. For me that does not improve the course very much and some of their ideas are questionable like the centre line bunkers and removing heather to widen the fairway to accommodate those bunkers it just looks rather odd and different to the rest of the course.
The high quality presentations tend to be a front sometimes and can brainwash certain clients or members because they look so good. Try and ignore the high quality presentations and closely see what they are proposing design wise it is weak its like food with great presentation but tastes pretty average.
I agree with Tim Gallant where he is coming from such as cookie cutters style bunkers they tend to look artificial. Have a look at the bunkers at Effingham - https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf (https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf)
I have played Hankley twice and it was a disappointing experience having heard rave reviews from others and some on GCA prior to 2011 BUDA.
Our response to M+E proposals at Hoylake might be different and they have done some good work at Princes apart from the 7th and 8th on Himalayas which the water features are overcooked and doesn't look natural to me. Portrush is quite good, Turnberry is black and white, Troon the 15th fairway is better (as referred by Tim Gallant), Deal they have made improvements however I need to play it again to see it for myself.
Every architect has done good and bad stuff. IMO Hankley is one of their weakest proposals they have done (Burghley Park is another).
Have a look at other examples I name a few current ones such as:
- Tim Lobb at St Georges Hill and Woking is both a respectful design and has made improvements to the course by updating the bunkering, tees, removing trees and restoring heather. Here is a great movie explains one of the proposed changes at St Georges Hill- http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/ (http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/) - See the bunkering cutting across the fairway for example. Tim is also working at Huntercombe
- Tom Doak and his crew on the Hotckin course at Woodhall which has gone up a couple of levels. It is astounding (even if its lost its bite however it is much more forgiving) that I am more keen to play it again as I know I won't lose too many balls as the damn trees have gone
- Andrew Green current work at Oak Hill and Inverness which has gone referred to the past and future - they look awesome and much more Ross like for the 21st century. https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en (https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en)
I can't see Hankley following the others as per above with the proposals M+E have put forward it will be like another Effingham or RAC.
You have your opinion and might be a fan of M+E which I respect and I have mine which I am happy to share on GCA.
Ben
Great examples Ben!
The Effingham bunkers are very reminiscent of what's been done at Bruntsfield.
Absolutely have to get Woking. And you're right about what Andrew Green is doing. Restorative in nature at Inverness, and the place feels like a Ross. I hope they get the US Open in the future.
-
Some interesting weblinks and thoughts above.
Given the way presentation technology is developing it won't be long before club members can 'play' the architects design proposals on an indoor simulator!
atb
-
It is hard (for me anyway) to criticize a club for using a safe pair of hands to execute a design plan. It is even harder to criticize an archie without knowing the brief, budget and constraints. My only over-arching comments would be that much new work looks the same and that is mainly due to bunker treatment. That in and of itself is not a problem unless a course has a heritage of distinction. We can all argue about the meaning of heritage of distinction, but lets say Woodhall's distinction is a good few notches higher than Hankley's. The bunker heritage at Woodhall was highly varied in placement and aesthetics and that was an important element to recognize for any designer.
I say new bunker treatment is not a problem if courses begin to look alike, but that doesn't mean the work is ideal. There can be an inherent financial risk by shooting for ideal in terms of maintenance, sustainability and build cost. Safe hands usually mitigates the risk. All that said, often times the main issue I see with new bunkers is they are all pretty much the same size. This issue shows up again and again when bunkers can be properly seen as on downhill shots or clustered around greens etc. Additionally, with same size bunkering and the squiggly look, it is difficult to make the bunkers sit at different looking angles. But I don't want to get all crazy about the matter because I don't know enough about any single project. The best bunker job I have seen was at Aberdovey, although I did wonder about how they would hold up. As it turns out, the club couldn't really afford to maintain those cool looking, ground hugging chunk bunkers. So not many years later more money needs to be spent. I hear the same about Tandridge in that many bunkers need to be reworked.
I guess all I am saying is there is design for all levels of clubs and ambitions and we shouldn't get too bogged down in aesthetics and instead first concentrate on placement. Hell, most of the time I wish clubs would leave the bunkers as the last thing to upgrade and instead focus on greens, drainage and playability.
Happy Hockey
-
Some interesting weblinks and thoughts above.
Given the way presentation technology is developing it won't be long before club members can 'play' the architects design proposals on an indoor simulator!
atb
+1 they can walk through a building by VR I think Harris Kalinka offer this for golf courses Robin has raved about it
-
Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.
From your reply #27:
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Sadly, I've no way of knowing from your posts whether you believe what you are typing, but your reply to Tim suggests you do.
Hi John
Thanks for clarifying.
The post makes no reference to them being "the only" practice capable of making a professional and compelling case. Just the fact that they do, do it well, and still get criticised for it.
I'm mocking how M&E are are griped about over pages and pages on this website for doing their job well and taking the time to produce such high quality research and presentations. Take a look at the fantastic document they produced for Royal Portrush and lo and behold, they delivered what they said they would on time and on budget. Some purists don't like it, but I suspect the Members at Portrush, the Town and NI Govt would disagree.
It seems as if it's a case of there's no time or money to explain in advance what the Club's are getting, but there's always the money afterwards to change it if they don't like it. Committees are (or should be) cautious in spending other people's money. It's part of the job to explain and go through the process of Committee and Membership engagement. M&E seem to grasp this and the cumbersome nature of Club decision making and are adept at getting through it. Rather than gripe about this, perhaps those wanting the work should up their game in this regard.
If M&E did nothing in this regard and just said, go and see Turnberry and Troon and flashed the R&A tie, the same people would be moaning that they get jobs without even having to try. The fact that they have the prestige of R&A and Open links, and they are still prepared to produce such quality prep work and turn up to listen to nonsense from Members etc, I think speaks volumes for their understanding of their business.
In terms of their work, some will be better than others, that's life. But the bitterness in this thread about small, sensible, uncontroversial changes at Hankley shows that they can't really win in some people's eyes. Do a bit of bunker work, grassing lines and tree removal, over several years and they lack ambition and the site deserves better and they should have been bold. Make quite sweeping changes and they are deemed changing for changes sake and trashing heritage and cool features.
It would seem a more sensible position to therefore listen to the objective individual examples cited by Adam, Niall and many others, of examples of high quality work and judge each project on individual merit. By modern day standards, they are quite prolific, so on occasion it's quite plausible that some work won't be as good as elsewhere. No different to anyone else, past or present in that respect and internet forums rarely give thought to what the clients brief or budget was.
It's why I would rather listen to those who play golf, who play the courses, rather than those who play architects. Because it's clear to me that many here judge the work not based on what's in the ground, but based on their regard for who got hired to do it.
Just my opinion.
Ryan,
Out of interest - have you played Hankley?
To me they are just brushing up/restoring someone else's design that was done almost a century ago not design it to take it forward into the 21st century. For me that does not improve the course very much and some of their ideas are questionable like the centre line bunkers and removing heather to widen the fairway to accommodate those bunkers it just looks rather odd and different to the rest of the course.
The high quality presentations tend to be a front sometimes and can brainwash certain clients or members because they look so good. Try and ignore the high quality presentations and closely see what they are proposing design wise it is weak its like food with great presentation but tastes pretty average.
I agree with Tim Gallant where he is coming from such as cookie cutters style bunkers they tend to look artificial. Have a look at the bunkers at Effingham - https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf (https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf)
I have played Hankley twice and it was a disappointing experience having heard rave reviews from others and some on GCA prior to 2011 BUDA.
Our response to M+E proposals at Hoylake might be different and they have done some good work at Princes apart from the 7th and 8th on Himalayas which the water features are overcooked and doesn't look natural to me. Portrush is quite good, Turnberry is black and white, Troon the 15th fairway is better (as referred by Tim Gallant), Deal they have made improvements however I need to play it again to see it for myself.
Every architect has done good and bad stuff. IMO Hankley is one of their weakest proposals they have done (Burghley Park is another).
Have a look at other examples I name a few current ones such as:
- Tim Lobb at St Georges Hill and Woking is both a respectful design and has made improvements to the course by updating the bunkering, tees, removing trees and restoring heather. Here is a great movie explains one of the proposed changes at St Georges Hill- http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/ (http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/) - See the bunkering cutting across the fairway for example. Tim is also working at Huntercombe
- Tom Doak and his crew on the Hotckin course at Woodhall which has gone up a couple of levels. It is astounding (even if its lost its bite however it is much more forgiving) that I am more keen to play it again as I know I won't lose too many balls as the damn trees have gone
- Andrew Green current work at Oak Hill and Inverness which has gone referred to the past and future - they look awesome and much more Ross like for the 21st century. https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en (https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en)
I can't see Hankley following the others as per above with the proposals M+E have put forward it will be like another Effingham or RAC.
You have your opinion and might be a fan of M+E which I respect and I have mine which I am happy to share on GCA.
Ben
Great examples Ben!
The Effingham bunkers are very reminiscent of what's been done at Bruntsfield.
Absolutely have to get Woking. And you're right about what Andrew Green is doing. Restorative in nature at Inverness, and the place feels like a Ross. I hope they get the US Open in the future.
Inverness will show the world when it hosts the Solheim Cup in 2021
Here is a link to the latest incarnation
https://invernessclub.com/golf/ (https://invernessclub.com/golf/)
-
It is hard (for me anyway) to criticize a club for using a safe pair of hands to execute a design plan. It is even harder to criticize an archie without knowing the brief, budget and constraints. My only over-arching comments would be that much new work looks the same and that is mainly due to bunker treatment. That in and of itself is not a problem unless a course has a heritage of distinction. We can all argue about the meaning of heritage of distinction, but lets say Woodhall's distinction is a good few notches higher than Hankley's. The bunker heritage at Woodhall was highly varied in placement and aesthetics and that was an important element to recognize for any designer.
I say new bunker treatment is not a problem if courses begin to look alike, but that doesn't mean the work is ideal. There can be an inherent financial risk by shooting for ideal in terms of maintenance, sustainability and build cost. Safe hands usually mitigates the risk. All that said, often times the main issue I see with new bunkers is they are all pretty much the same size. This issue shows up again and again when bunkers can be properly seen as on downhill shots or clustered around greens etc. Additionally, with same size bunkering and the squiggly look, it is difficult to make the bunkers sit at different looking angles. But I don't want to get all crazy about the matter because I don't know enough about any single project. The best bunker job I have seen was at Aberdovey, although I did wonder about how they would hold up. As it turns out, the club couldn't really afford to maintain those cool looking, ground hugging chunk bunkers. So not many years later more money needs to be spent. I hear the same about Tandridge in that many bunkers need to be reworked.
I guess all I am saying is there is design for all levels of clubs and ambitions and we shouldn't get too bogged down in aesthetics and instead first concentrate on placement. Hell, most of the time I wish clubs would leave the bunkers as the last thing to upgrade and instead focus on greens, drainage and playability.
Happy Hockey
Great post Sean. Happy to accept your heritage of distinction, and think that can sum up what we're saying. If a club has it, don't ruin it. If it doesn't then fair enough - have at it. Whether a club has it, I suppose is at the descretion of the club, but even then, I think sometimes clubs don't realise what they have. If Mackenzie's proposal to alter a hole at NB is anything to go by, sometimes clubs don't know!
On bunker style - again, agree that placement is far more important than style. Do you have any thoughts on the proposed bunker on the 10th at Hankley on the right of the fairway?
I will just add that sometimes what seems like a stylistic change can indeed alter the shot value of an entire hole. For example, looking at that beautiful bunker at the 4th greenside from the historic photo, that looks intimidating and penal (particularly if the width is tighter than a normal bunker. The 3 split and proposed, while hazards, don't look particularly menacing.
-
Tim
I didn't get into much detail about Hankley because I don't know the course. I have never heard much praise about the course from folks I trust so Hankley has never been a high priority. Although, being a heathland course I assume the potential for that site is nearly off the charts even if fairly flat. I would like to see the course, from pix Hankley certainly looks well above average. Plus, sometimes I disagree with trusted sources as was the case with Royal Wimbledon and RAC; incidentally both of which had fairly recent bunker renos which failed to impress me.
I take your point about visual/psychological impact bunkers can present. I would always be in favour of a few bunker wow moments just as is the case with greens and awkward holes. I spose in this way I have never been fussed about consistency of design. Good is good and I am inclined to be much more sympathetic to risk taking choices in design rather than the status quo choices...but I don't expect much more than status quo because of the nature golf clubs.
I also take your point about clubs not knowing what they have or even what may be possible. I know you were/are passionate about the bunker issue at NB, much more so than myself (being a grumpy old man). I would be far more invested in a complete rethink of the bunker scheme/aesthetics and fairways. Things have gone seriously astray, which I think can easily happen at old clubs. This is where a good archie with fresh eyes can be of great service.
Happy Hockey
-
M & E have a huge advantage over the competition owing to their record over the years. They are far along in the learning curve and can complete the due diligence, produce a professional presentation, and execute on the plan without shorting other clients. If I was a fiduciary of a club, even if the budget was modest, they would be in my contact list.
As the story was told to me, a famous designer once asked another gca he was working with on a project why it took him so many visits to the site to complete his work. The implication, as I understood it, was that perhaps his colleague was a bit slow. I thought it amusing, and wondered if there might be some truth to it.
Lou,
Do you actually think it's advantageous for a club to have an architect make fewer visits? I feel that having the designer in the field as much as practical results in better, more individual work. You need to have talented people interpreting the plans/goals for the site, and who is better suited to that the designer?
Holding all other things equal (which is never the case) and within a relevant range, more visits are better than fewer. My comments were in response to the notion that because M & E have so many projects, making high quality presentations take time from their "real" work, thus shorting their existing clients.
I can come up with many reasons why pondering over the work repeatedly in a long development cycle can be sub-optimal (how much more information do you gain by looking at a putt from every conceivable angle, and after a meticulous set-up routine before pulling the trigger, how does it affect performance?).
The facts are that we all do things in different ways, at different rates, and with different results. Learning Curve theory is also impacted by the Bell Curve. M & E, I suspect, can generate these thorough, professional presentations with relative ease at this time in their careers (I've seen experienced MAIs- property appraisers- with big shops turn out very high quality, 500+ page documents on complicated commercial property in less than a week whereas it took over a month from some small operators who normally do four page residential appraisals).
And in addition to the historical benefits alluded to by others, these presentations also serve as a baseline, a plan for the work. I am a big believer in planning the work and working the plan. With some flexibility for changes indicated as the project moves forward, they also provide a standard by which the work is evaluated.
I am told that some architects are so known for their frequent site visits that the members hold their breaths and wallets until they're over. Nothing is perfect in this world.
-
I agree with Tim Gallant where he is coming from such as cookie cutters style bunkers they tend to look artificial. Have a look at the bunkers at Effingham - https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf (https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf)
Ben
Hi
Interesting that you bring up Effingham here. I'm a (overseas) member there. I haven't played it much since they did the work on it, but if you look at the 9th hole, they took it from an interesting tee shot where you either play safe up the right and leave a longer approach or you take on the bunkers on the left. If you clear them you have a much easier shot. The further right you leak it the longer the carry has to be, so it really encourages you to go for it. Now those bunkers are all in a straight line, which takes away all that strategy. Now what I do is aim it at the bunkers and hope I miss them. Laying up short of them leaves too far to realistically get home and so you're almost as bad off as if you are in the bunkers anyway. They're not carryable from the back tee. I think it's stupid now, but maybe that's just me. Colt had something in mind when he put those bunkers where they were.
I must confess that I hadn't realised just how cookie cutter those bunkers are. The two on the right for the tee shot on 17 look identical to each other. The folds of the lips are exactly the same.
-
Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.
From your reply #27:
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Sadly, I've no way of knowing from your posts whether you believe what you are typing, but your reply to Tim suggests you do.
Hi John
Thanks for clarifying.
The post makes no reference to them being "the only" practice capable of making a professional and compelling case. Just the fact that they do, do it well, and still get criticised for it.
I'm mocking how M&E are are griped about over pages and pages on this website for doing their job well and taking the time to produce such high quality research and presentations. Take a look at the fantastic document they produced for Royal Portrush and lo and behold, they delivered what they said they would on time and on budget. Some purists don't like it, but I suspect the Members at Portrush, the Town and NI Govt would disagree.
It seems as if it's a case of there's no time or money to explain in advance what the Club's are getting, but there's always the money afterwards to change it if they don't like it. Committees are (or should be) cautious in spending other people's money. It's part of the job to explain and go through the process of Committee and Membership engagement. M&E seem to grasp this and the cumbersome nature of Club decision making and are adept at getting through it. Rather than gripe about this, perhaps those wanting the work should up their game in this regard.
If M&E did nothing in this regard and just said, go and see Turnberry and Troon and flashed the R&A tie, the same people would be moaning that they get jobs without even having to try. The fact that they have the prestige of R&A and Open links, and they are still prepared to produce such quality prep work and turn up to listen to nonsense from Members etc, I think speaks volumes for their understanding of their business.
In terms of their work, some will be better than others, that's life. But the bitterness in this thread about small, sensible, uncontroversial changes at Hankley shows that they can't really win in some people's eyes. Do a bit of bunker work, grassing lines and tree removal, over several years and they lack ambition and the site deserves better and they should have been bold. Make quite sweeping changes and they are deemed changing for changes sake and trashing heritage and cool features.
It would seem a more sensible position to therefore listen to the objective individual examples cited by Adam, Niall and many others, of examples of high quality work and judge each project on individual merit. By modern day standards, they are quite prolific, so on occasion it's quite plausible that some work won't be as good as elsewhere. No different to anyone else, past or present in that respect and internet forums rarely give thought to what the clients brief or budget was.
It's why I would rather listen to those who play golf, who play the courses, rather than those who play architects. Because it's clear to me that many here judge the work not based on what's in the ground, but based on their regard for who got hired to do it.
Just my opinion.
Ryan,
Out of interest - have you played Hankley?
To me they are just brushing up/restoring someone else's design that was done almost a century ago not design it to take it forward into the 21st century. For me that does not improve the course very much and some of their ideas are questionable like the centre line bunkers and removing heather to widen the fairway to accommodate those bunkers it just looks rather odd and different to the rest of the course.
The high quality presentations tend to be a front sometimes and can brainwash certain clients or members because they look so good. Try and ignore the high quality presentations and closely see what they are proposing design wise it is weak its like food with great presentation but tastes pretty average.
I agree with Tim Gallant where he is coming from such as cookie cutters style bunkers they tend to look artificial. Have a look at the bunkers at Effingham - https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf (https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf)
I have played Hankley twice and it was a disappointing experience having heard rave reviews from others and some on GCA prior to 2011 BUDA.
Our response to M+E proposals at Hoylake might be different and they have done some good work at Princes apart from the 7th and 8th on Himalayas which the water features are overcooked and doesn't look natural to me. Portrush is quite good, Turnberry is black and white, Troon the 15th fairway is better (as referred by Tim Gallant), Deal they have made improvements however I need to play it again to see it for myself.
Every architect has done good and bad stuff. IMO Hankley is one of their weakest proposals they have done (Burghley Park is another).
Have a look at other examples I name a few current ones such as:
- Tim Lobb at St Georges Hill and Woking is both a respectful design and has made improvements to the course by updating the bunkering, tees, removing trees and restoring heather. Here is a great movie explains one of the proposed changes at St Georges Hill- http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/ (http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/) - See the bunkering cutting across the fairway for example. Tim is also working at Huntercombe
- Tom Doak and his crew on the Hotckin course at Woodhall which has gone up a couple of levels. It is astounding (even if its lost its bite however it is much more forgiving) that I am more keen to play it again as I know I won't lose too many balls as the damn trees have gone
- Andrew Green current work at Oak Hill and Inverness which has gone referred to the past and future - they look awesome and much more Ross like for the 21st century. https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en (https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en)
I can't see Hankley following the others as per above with the proposals M+E have put forward it will be like another Effingham or RAC.
You have your opinion and might be a fan of M+E which I respect and I have mine which I am happy to share on GCA.
Ben
Ben
Yes, I have played Hankley. I think the only heath in that area I’ve not is Wentworth East, if in fact you could classify it as that.
You live in rarefied golfing atmosphere if you were very disappointed. Could it be better? Sure. It has huge potential and given the budget and appetite could be improved greatly. However, I and many others would be delighted to play golf at Hankley regularly.
It’s a very good course and if disappointed, I’d suggest not venturing to my neck of the woods as Hankley would comfortably be the best inland course in the 3 neighbouring counties.
Had the Club wanted to, I’m sure M&E would make more sweeping changes and probably re-do the greens and surrounds, which as many highlight lack the interest of some of their neighbours.
As it is, it appears the brief and budget is quite modest, and the suggested changes make sense to me and will be an improvement.
Do the changes maximise the potential of the site? Of course not. Would a few million £ bring it up to the class of Walton Heath etc? Probably.
Hankley will probably always seem as a missed opportunity and could have been great. But then so is Broadstone and many others. Sometimes being very good is ok with the Club’s membership.
-
M & E, I suspect, can generate these thorough, professional presentations with relative ease at this time in their careers
And in addition to the historical benefits alluded to by others, these presentations also serve as a baseline, a plan for the work. I am a big believer in planning the work and working the plan. With some flexibility for changes indicated as the project moves forward, they also provide a standard by which the work is evaluated.
I am told that some architects are so known for their frequent site visits that the members hold their breaths and wallets until they're over. Nothing is perfect in this world.
Lou,
I agree that M&E are likely quite efficient at preparing plans & presentations. But I also wonder if doing so results in a lot of “cut & paste” type content. Several of us have expressed concern about a sameness to the work from place to place. Could their methodology explain this?
Of course, I have no idea how their execution of a project works, and assume most of us are in the same boat there. My comments are based on the info they or others have shared about the plans and results. Stated another way, I don’t care about what process they use - I am talking about the product.
Your anecdote about architects charging for site visits probably isn’t relevant for how the so-called GCA darlings work. I suspect that’s more of a big firm issue.
-
Ryan,
Out of interest - have you played Hankley?
To me they are just brushing up/restoring someone else's design that was done almost a century ago not design it to take it forward into the 21st century. For me that does not improve the course very much and some of their ideas are questionable like the centre line bunkers and removing heather to widen the fairway to accommodate those bunkers it just looks rather odd and different to the rest of the course.
The high quality presentations tend to be a front sometimes and can brainwash certain clients or members because they look so good. Try and ignore the high quality presentations and closely see what they are proposing design wise it is weak its like food with great presentation but tastes pretty average.
I agree with Tim Gallant where he is coming from such as cookie cutters style bunkers they tend to look artificial. Have a look at the bunkers at Effingham - https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf (https://www.effinghamgolfclub.com/uploads/effingham/File/MandEEffinghamCaseStudy2018-06.pdf)
I have played Hankley twice and it was a disappointing experience having heard rave reviews from others and some on GCA prior to 2011 BUDA.
Our response to M+E proposals at Hoylake might be different and they have done some good work at Princes apart from the 7th and 8th on Himalayas which the water features are overcooked and doesn't look natural to me. Portrush is quite good, Turnberry is black and white, Troon the 15th fairway is better (as referred by Tim Gallant), Deal they have made improvements however I need to play it again to see it for myself.
Every architect has done good and bad stuff. IMO Hankley is one of their weakest proposals they have done (Burghley Park is another).
Have a look at other examples I name a few current ones such as:
- Tim Lobb at St Georges Hill and Woking is both a respectful design and has made improvements to the course by updating the bunkering, tees, removing trees and restoring heather. Here is a great movie explains one of the proposed changes at St Georges Hill- http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/ (http://harriskalinka.com/work/st-georges-hill-golf-club/) - See the bunkering cutting across the fairway for example. Tim is also working at Huntercombe
- Tom Doak and his crew on the Hotckin course at Woodhall which has gone up a couple of levels. It is astounding (even if its lost its bite however it is much more forgiving) that I am more keen to play it again as I know I won't lose too many balls as the damn trees have gone
- Andrew Green current work at Oak Hill and Inverness which has gone referred to the past and future - they look awesome and much more Ross like for the 21st century. https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en (https://twitter.com/greengca?lang=en)
I can't see Hankley following the others as per above with the proposals M+E have put forward it will be like another Effingham or RAC.
You have your opinion and might be a fan of M+E which I respect and I have mine which I am happy to share on GCA.
Ben
Ben
Yes, I have played Hankley. I think the only heath in that area I’ve not is Wentworth East, if in fact you could classify it as that.
You live in rarefied golfing atmosphere if you were very disappointed. Could it be better? Sure. It has huge potential and given the budget and appetite could be improved greatly. However, I and many others would be delighted to play golf at Hankley regularly.
It’s a very good course and if disappointed, I’d suggest not venturing to my neck of the woods as Hankley would comfortably be the best inland course in the 3 neighbouring counties.
Had the Club wanted to, I’m sure M&E would make more sweeping changes and probably re-do the greens and surrounds, which as many highlight lack the interest of some of their neighbours.
As it is, it appears the brief and budget is quite modest, and the suggested changes make sense to me and will be an improvement.
Do the changes maximise the potential of the site? Of course not. Would a few million £ bring it up to the class of Walton Heath etc? Probably.
Hankley will probably always seem as a missed opportunity and could have been great. But then so is Broadstone and many others. Sometimes being very good is ok with the Club’s membership.
Ryan
As you weren’t at BUDA 2011 at Hankley and Liphook the general consensus was that most that attended / took part were underwhelmed by Hankley based on the rave reviews beforehand and were surprised with Liphook in which most preferred out of the two.
Wow you sound rather unwelcoming it’s a free country after all we do have the choice to play where we would like to go to if welcomed by the club.
I don’t think you have a good understanding of ‘reading’ golf course design proposals and have been enticed by M+E work
I guess we will have to wait after the works has been done or go to Woodhall Spa to see what Doak’s team has done in 3 years.
Ben
-
Ben
I’m sorry that you misunderstood pretty much everything I’ve wrote.
I’m saying that being very disappointed with Hankley will lead to more disappointment playing courses in my rather barren area. Hankley knocks spots off 99% of courses. Not that you aren’t welcome to play them.
Re: understanding, you’re probably right.
-
What really struck me, however, was how much of it I'd heard before. Take out some location and hole specific comments and it's the same presentation M&E gave to members of The Northumberland when they presented their report there. There's obviously a checklist here: outstanding heathland (presumably /links/parkland) ground, great bones, bunkers tired and atypical, respect the heritage of the ODGs......
I am concerned that there;s a plain vanilla, one size fits all approach and that as more and more clubs follow the R&A lead, the UK is going to end up with an alarming amount of homogenization at many of our better courses.
I’m a bit late to the party here but Mark’s comments are spot on. I just watched the video and had an alarming sense of deja vu...I’ve heard much of this before.
The M&E presentations/proposals I’ve seen all contain the same smooth, polished, buzzword bingo, ‘cut and paste’ formula that seems to appeal to Greens Committees who want a tried and tested approach without having to take on risk or potential criticism down the line (if that’s the main concern, who can blame them for instructing the firm who consults at 70% of the current Open rota!).
Studying historical materials (and then deviating from these per the diagonal bunker on the 4th and scar bunker on the 6th at Hankley) and praising the heritage of the course seem to be stock moves. I was particularly disappointed with their proposals for the bunker on the 17th hole at North Berwick, which I believe were mainly Mackenzie, as the driver for the changes appeared to be ease of maintenance, optics and “fairness” rather than maintaining a key strategic bunker on the course. Frilly edged bunkers which were not in keeping with the rest of the course were also proposed, which I was not in favour of, (much like the waste area on hole 9 of Gullane #1, which has since reverted to its previous state due to its unpopularity with members).
I appreciate each course and proposed changes need to be judged on their own merits and I don’t want this to be viewed as a M&E bashing post purely for the sake of it. In the interests of full disclosure, I think the only course of theirs I’ve played where significant changes were made was Turnberry and there is no doubt in my mind that the course is better for it. However, I still feel that there was an opportunity to do more as Turnberry still has, in my view, a number of mundane holes which mean it isn’t anywhere near consideration as one of the world’s best, as it often is in various rankings.
-
Ben
I’m sorry that you misunderstood pretty much everything I’ve wrote.
I’m saying that being very disappointed with Hankley will lead to more disappointment playing courses in my rather barren area. Hankley knocks spots off 99% of courses. Not that you aren’t welcome to play them.
Re: understanding, you’re probably right.
Ryan
It’s more that we have difference of opinions this is what this forum is all about.
I do understand why you like Hankley and consistently similar holes long and tight rather than a bit of variation which some on this site prefer. Hankley is a strong course a definite top 100 in England
You have a luxury of top notch golf courses in your area within a 30 miles circle unlike most of us on GCA
Would I put Hankley in the bracket of Sunningdale, Ganton, Woodhall Spa and Notts - no but does it have the potential to be in that bracket - yes
I guess some of us have high standards based on where we have played and have used that as an indicator
This topic is more about what is being proposed for Hankley, what our opinions of the proposals are and does it improve the course - some say yes and others no
Ben
-
What really struck me, however, was how much of it I'd heard before. Take out some location and hole specific comments and it's the same presentation M&E gave to members of The Northumberland when they presented their report there. There's obviously a checklist here: outstanding heathland (presumably /links/parkland) ground, great bones, bunkers tired and atypical, respect the heritage of the ODGs......
I am concerned that there;s a plain vanilla, one size fits all approach and that as more and more clubs follow the R&A lead, the UK is going to end up with an alarming amount of homogenization at many of our better courses.
I’m a bit late to the party here but Mark’s comments are spot on. I just watched the video and had an alarming sense of deja vu...I’ve heard much of this before.
The M&E presentations/proposals I’ve seen all contain the same smooth, polished, buzzword bingo, ‘cut and paste’ formula that seems to appeal to Greens Committees who want a tried and tested approach without having to take on risk or potential criticism down the line (if that’s the main concern, who can blame them for instructing the firm who consults at 70% of the current Open rota!).
Studying historical materials (and then deviating from these per the diagonal bunker on the 4th and scar bunker on the 6th at Hankley) and praising the heritage of the course seem to be stock moves. I was particularly disappointed with their proposals for the bunker on the 17th hole at North Berwick, which I believe were mainly Mackenzie, as the driver for the changes appeared to be ease of maintenance, optics and “fairness” rather than maintaining a key strategic bunker on the course. Frilly edged bunkers which were not in keeping with the rest of the course were also proposed, which I was not in favour of, (much like the waste area on hole 9 of Gullane #1, which has since reverted to its previous state due to its unpopularity with members).
I appreciate each course and proposed changes need to be judged on their own merits and I don’t want this to be viewed as a M&E bashing post purely for the sake of it. In the interests of full disclosure, I think the only course of theirs I’ve played where significant changes were made was Turnberry and there is no doubt in my mind that the course is better for it. However, I still feel that there was an opportunity to do more as Turnberry still has, in my view, a number of mundane holes which mean it isn’t anywhere near consideration as one of the world’s best, as it often is in various rankings.
David
I agree with you regarding Turnberry and have a copy of M+E booklet re proposals prior to the changes and Mr Trump is still making more tweaks to the course - makes you question why?
Cheers
Ben
-
After sitting back for a while I thought it might be worth responding here.
First off I have to say that reading some of the replies here made me recall why I (unfortunately) withdrew from visiting GCA and posting here. Namely that there are number of contributors that don't live in a world that I am familiar with as they seem to seek their own interpretation of perfection in every golf course they play, design, visit, critique and report on. Added to which I also got cheesed off with the rather unpleasant and lofty posts complaining about "access whoring" (what a delightful phrase that is....) which, for me, is a topic that if you are worried about (and are a member of/play at a highly revered golf club) should really be a little more accomodating about given this is, after all, a forum about the joy of fine golf courses. I'm always happy to host anyone at my club should they wish to experience the club for themselves but then maybe that is the exception?!
Moving on. I have zero issue with a constructive and well written review (based on actual "hands on" and current experience at the least and not just from the comfort of one's keyboard...) of Hankley Common as it is currently and how it could be in the future with the plans presented. I also have little interest in criticisms of MacKenzie and Ebert as I personally feel their work speaks for themselves....and they don't get the contracts they do by not knowing how to run a successful business model that seems to work for them, the R&A and past/present and future clients.
I have always felt (and long before being a member) that Hankley Common is a very under-rated and misunderstood course. There are, in my view, a few reasons for that.....one is the somewhat remote location which sits outside of the Berks/Surrey sand belt "sweet spot" that encompass, for example, Sunningdale/Swinley Forest/Wentworth/The Berkshire/The 3 W's of that closer geographical area. Furthermore the course is a bit of a "sleeping giant" (so to speak) as it is a very fine course by most people's estimation but, like many, could be better with some enhancement and changes to move with the times. What those changes actually end up being is for debate amongst the members, committee, greenstaff and, if engaged, M&E. I, for one, am thrilled at the prospect that "my" club is even interested in bettering what we have and that they are prepared to consult with the members and seek out a company of the statue of M&E. I have my own ideas for the changes to be suggested and will be sending those into the club this week in the hope that many other members also make the time to offer their own suggestions to enhance our golf course.
It will be interesting to see how these proposals develop and how the club find a way to implement them, both from a budget and logistic point of view...which is the unknown so far but is clearly part of a (I hope) exciting journey for the club. I truly believe that should the majority of changes be implemented as presented (with some tweaks/reviews of course) that it would move the club/course up closer to those that sit ahead of it rankings/general views of those that have played the competing courses that Hankley is compared to.
Change can be a "good thing" because, in this specific area, if you aren't moving forwards you are most likely to be moving backwards.....
-
In the original post, the "dedicated and very accomplished Head Greenskeeper who is ex Morfontaine" is my friend and former assitant Jon White. I don't understand why he should be referenced and not named.
In the presentation at the club Martin sought out Jon to specifically complement him for his work that his team have achieved in the last 2-3 years Steve. I can assure you he is held in THE highest regard by everyone at the club that sees the hard work and results that have been achieved by Jon and his guys.
Not least having to deal with 3-4 incidents of wanton vandalism of the course that would have closed most down whilst they were repaired!
-
After sitting back for a while I thought it might be worth responding here.
First off I have to say that reading some of the replies here made me recall why I (unfortunately) withdrew from visiting GCA and posting here. Namely that there are number of contributors that don't live in a world that I am familiar with as they seem to seek their own interpretation of perfection in every golf course they play, design, visit, critique and report on. Added to which I also got cheesed off with the rather unpleasant and lofty posts complaining about "access whoring" (what a delightful phrase that is....) which, for me, is a topic that if you are worried about (and are a member of/play at a highly revered golf club) should really be a little more accomodating about given this is, after all, a forum about the joy of fine golf courses. I'm always happy to host anyone at my club should they wish to experience the club for themselves but then maybe that is the exception?!
Moving on. I have zero issue with a constructive and well written review (based on actual "hands on" and current experience at the least and not just from the comfort of one's keyboard...) of Hankley Common as it is currently and how it could be in the future with the plans presented. I also have little interest in criticisms of MacKenzie and Ebert as I personally feel their work speaks for themselves....and they don't get the contracts they do by not knowing how to run a successful business model that seems to work for them, the R&A and past/present and future clients.
I have always felt (and long before being a member) that Hankley Common is a very under-rated and misunderstood course. There are, in my view, a few reasons for that.....one is the somewhat remote location which sits outside of the Berks/Surrey sand belt "sweet spot" that encompass, for example, Sunningdale/Swinley Forest/Wentworth/The Berkshire/The 3 W's of that closer geographical area. Furthermore the course is a bit of a "sleeping giant" (so to speak) as it is a very fine course by most people's estimation but, like many, could be better with some enhancement and changes to move with the times. What those changes actually end up being is for debate amongst the members, committee, greenstaff and, if engaged, M&E. I, for one, am thrilled at the prospect that "my" club is even interested in bettering what we have and that they are prepared to consult with the members and seek out a company of the statue of M&E. I have my own ideas for the changes to be suggested and will be sending those into the club this week in the hope that many other members also make the time to offer their own suggestions to enhance our golf course.
It will be interesting to see how these proposals develop and how the club find a way to implement them, both from a budget and logistic point of view...which is the unknown so far but is clearly part of a (I hope) exciting journey for the club. I truly believe that should the majority of changes be implemented as presented (with some tweaks/reviews of course) that it would move the club/course up closer to those that sit ahead of it rankings/general views of those that have played the competing courses that Hankley is compared to.
Change can be a "good thing" because, in this specific area, if you aren't moving forwards you are most likely to be moving backwards.....
Hi Gareth,
Thats a fair comment and good response from one that knows Hankley better than most on this forum. Everyone has different opinions of how things should be like on this forum. If Hankley is very happy with M+E thats ok and we all respect that on GCA, we still are intrigued to see how they pan out over the next few years plus what the members response is when the works are completed as there is a difference between visualisation and reality. What they are proposing overall will improve the course generally and i can see why you are excited about it as a member.
You have some personal suggestions to put forward which we on GCA would encourage to do so and other members hopefully will do so which could lead to further tweaks to M+E proposals which will be interesting to see how the design evolves. M+E certainly have a good reputation on tackling older courses and more respective of the past however are they good at doing new courses from scratch - I question that. Every design company has their own strengths and weaknesses.
Every designer would put forward different proposals with a few similar ideas. More important is what is right for the golf course and club.
We would appreciate seeing from an insiders view how the process has gone along and reasons for possible further tweaks.
On a final note I feel its a pity that Hankley went with only one designer rather than two or three to come up with proposals so that members can see which one they prefer to go with. This could have given them a wider perspective and a number of options to choose from and also choose from a well known designer OR one/two lesser known designers. M+E are actually cornering the market which is fair dinkum I applaud the fact that they are doing well however it does feel that it can become repetitive at times if a large number of clubs choose the same designer.
Yours in golf
Ben