[Evan_Green]

Was wondering if anyone has any information or not on whether the club has decided to "renovate" this gem of golf course architecture.  

I'm really hoping that bill dies in committee...

[Ian Andrew]

Could someone far smarter than me provide a link to the previous thread. I seem to be lousy at the search part of this site.

Thanks,

Ian Andrew

[Gary Daughters]

Evan,

If done right the changes being proposed, as much as I know of them, will be a real improvement.

Cruden Bay is a magical golf course, but not such a monument that it cannot or should not be changed.  The 14-15-16 link has serious shortcomings.  That stretch may be interesting to those of us who play it once in a lifetime, once a year or once every five years.. but the members are over it and they are right.  It would've happened long ago were the logistics not so daunting.

Make change your friend.

[Evan_Green]

Gary

I'm all about making change my friend, but I have to respectfully diagree with you here....

In my opinion 14-15-16 are so unique they are worth preserving at all costs even if the replacement holes are "better". These holes are so unique and so quirky they simply must be preserved.

 In particular, I believe #14 to be one of the great quirky holes in the game. The bathtub green should be a national monument of Scotland. The hole is so unique, so quirky, so fair and gives so many options to the golfer. One of my all time favorite holes I have ever seen.

Regarding #15, should the blind shots at Prestwick also be obliterated because the members are "over it"? I know of no other hole quite like it. Where else do you get to hit across the side of a mountain and then ring the bell with the 50 foot long rope?

Also, what is wrong with #16? As far as I'm concerned its a very good tough par 3.

Gary, without those three holes Cruden Bay is not Cruden Bay in my opinion. 50 years from now they will be "restored" back to the way they are now.

In an age of triumphs in restorations/renovations of golf courses, in my opinion, this would be a quantum leap in the wrong direction with this gem of a course - one of the most unique in the entire world.

Alas, if everyone agreed on the site it would be boring...

Evan

[Evan_Green]

Could someone far smarter than me provide a link to the previous thread. I seem to be lousy at the search part of this site.

Thanks,

Ian Andrew

Ian-

Here's two threads on this:
A discussion on the changes
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=22594

Pictures I took of the four holes in question (and from the rest of the course):
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=22597

Hope that helps,
Evan

[Gary Daughters]

Evan,

Thanks for your response, and I do respect what you're saying.  But I disagree that altering the stretch we're talking about would cease to make Cruden Bay Cruden Bay.

I think that in and of itself quirk is a bit empty.  It's great, but it doesn't stand alone.  And quirk is really all that 14-15-16 amounts to.

I tried to photobucket some pictures to illustrate what I'm trying to say, but photobucket is spazzing out.  Anyway:

The drive on #14, to my mind, is sublime....



...But once you hit that good drive the approach is really a joke.  It can be putted.  It's nice to have a punchbowl green, but it's a bit like a serving of cotton candy at Disney World.



#15 .. the blind dogleg par-3.. is just tedious.  Again, Disney World.  The ratio of luck to skill on this par 3 is slanted too far toward luck, and after repeated play it must get old.  I've played the hole twice and by the second time it had worn on me.  Sorry no picture.

#16  A second straight blind par-3.  Again, that's really neat for novelty's sake, but to the members who play this as their golf course it's just tiresome.  Most well-struck shots funnel across the green into the depression behind it.  That's how the hole plays time and time again.



Pete Dye is an honorary member of Cruden Bay, and has sung the course's praises.  If it means anything, I picked up the phone and asked him about the proposed changes.  He is all for them.  

As you said.. nothing wrong with disagreeing.

[Gary Daughters]

Sean,

The 14th green certainly photographs well..




 .. but it strikes me as a musuem piece.  You have to like quirk to like Cruden Bay and believe me I love Cruden Bay.  I think the genius of the course is revealed where the extreme funk produces great golf.  Two lesser discussed examples would be #2, where the green is pitched way up and tucked away to the golfer's left:





and #3, where the approach offers multiple options and requires imagination and often luck:





Not 100% sure about this, but I believe the plan is to do away with #15, and to use some of that area for a new green for #14.  I'd be surprised if it's not a punchbowl in some form, if perhaps less dramatic than now.  Viewed from this angle the green would pushed farther into the background:



The new par 3 that's being talked about could be a real stunner.  

As for #16 we may need a ruling on this but only the tip of the flag, if anything, is visible in several pin locations and that's blind to me.

[SPDB]

If this is done it will be one of the real tragedies in golf architectural history. I thought the only thing being discussed was changes to the 10th hole, which I was kind of okay with.

[Gary Daughters]

"If this is done it will be one of the real tragedies in golf architectural history."

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with there.  Why do you think that?

[Gib_Papazian]

It literally sickens me that these holes would ever be changed. One of the high points of my last trip was that particular stretch of wonderous quirky amusement.

Frankly, it is a long way to Cruden Bay and one of the main reasons I was so insistent we went there was precisely for the purpose of playing those holes.

There was once a movement afoot to dismantle the Eiffel Tower, which would be a far less serious tragedy than this.

There is nothing in France worth getting into a lather about, but that's a discussion for another day.  

Cruden Bay is, well, Cruden Bay because of those holes; they define the golf course just as the Road Hole symbolizes St. Andrews.

I've got an idea! You know, I am sick of those blind tee shots at County Down and that stupid 15th hole at North Berwick - let's just "improve" those golf courses, too.  

The "members" at CB would be well advised to take a hard look at the tourism trade and the reasons so many visitors come to their little backwater and spend good money for shitty food and abysmal accommodations.

Take the unique character out of the golf course and you bring into play a dozen other places in Scotland far easier to get to - especially because the only thing near Cruden Bay is Cruden Bay.

"Its the golf course, stupid."

   

[RSLivingston_III]

Personally, I would consider this the same as changing 14, 15, 16 at North Berwick. Blowing up Morris' punchbowl? Are you kidding me??? Why not bulldoze a Frank Lloyd Wright house and put up a mcmansion?

Fix the clubs & balls and stop destroying great architecture.

[RSLivingston_III]

Maybe I need to plan a trip next spring to say goodby to the old girl.....just in case the powers-that-be pull a bonehead move and go forward with the changes.

[Paul_Turner]

It's a turnip-head idea.

Why do courses have to cave in and standardise?

Some of the holes are museum pieces, but that's the whole point.  

[Robert Thompson]

I played Cruden Bay for the second time in September with Ian Andrew. One of the reasons I was anxious to return was because of the series of holes on the back, including the 14th. Ian can attest that I spoke often of the punch bowl green and the fact that I didn't feel the hole was as strange as others had suggested. I do find 15 a little odd -- and I can see the reason members might want to adjust it. 16 seems fine.

The only issue I see with the holes is safety. Players tee up 15 right alongside 14 green, and it wouldn't take much for someone to hit into 15 tee. Similarly, it isn't hard to hit 16 tee on the blind shot to 15. It seems to me that these holes verge on dangerous -- but the course has been there for 100 years and it doesn't appear to have been too much of an issue.

I would have little issue with a change to 15 if the club could truly make it better without hurting the existing routing. Could they head to the dunes on the right and play down to the green? That would remove the need to alter 14 or 16.

That said, I would be very much opposed to anything that alters 14, especially the terrific green. Gary has said you can approach the green with a putter -- which is exactly the point in my mind. On a windy day, Ian and I watched the foursome behind us approach the green. Two flew it in, but two others landed it well short, only to have the balls roll down into the punch bowl and land near the hole. Fascinating to watch -- and it proved the holes offered options on the approach. I actually don't find the hole that quirky, and can't figure out why members, who play the course often, would have any issue with it.

Beyond that, I wonder about the merits of doing anything at all. When I've been there, guest play has been strong. I would guess that guest play accounts for a majority of the revenue the club takes in. Anything that might lead people to say, "I used to love Cruden Bay, but then they altered those holes on the back..." might lead people to simply not make the trip, especially since the course is out of the way anyway.

Who is scheduled to do the work? I hope it is someone who truly understands the nature of the course and what makes it fascinating, because there's a great likelihood that an architect could mess this one up quite easily.

[Gary Daughters]

Before you guys issue a fatwa, please consider that even though this thread is titled "update" the info I outlined isn't new and as of a year ago nothing to my knowledge was cast in stone.  Things may have changed, who knows?

Also keep in mind that Cruden Bay moves slowly.  I remember the pro saying the new clubhouse took 10 years to approve as the old one was falling down around the members' heads.

[Tom_Doak]

Personally, though I am on record as a big fan of Cruden Bay, I have mixed feelings about the holes and apparently a completely different set of mixed feelings than most of those who have posted before me.

I've always thought the tee shot on #14 was terrific but that the green was silly; that the 15th is a very tough golf hole and deserving of a place in the round (of course I once almost made a hole in one there); and that the 16th is the most disappointing hole of the three.

I went back early this spring to have a look in light of reading about the proposed changes, and I have to say that I just don't understand them.  I understand the impetus -- just walking backwards out to the 14th green on a busy day of play is to take one's life in one's hands, and I saw two near-decapitations of golfers on the 15th tee in less than a half hour of watching play.  There is also some cool terrain out beyond the 12th that looks like a golf hole, but some of it lies atop the North Sea pipeline; I wouldn't want to be the guy on the machinery there.

But I don't understand how they intend to make the 14th a playable hole with the green further back into the start of #15.  The gap between the hill on the left and the drop to the beach on the right is less than thirty yards wide, and unless a lot of earth is moved, the narrow part will remain blind from the fairway landing area.  To me, that would be just as silly of a golf hole as the current 14th, if not more so.

I have heard that some of the impetus for the proposed change to the course is also TO ADD LENGTH because they fear they are about to drop off the World Top 100 list.  This is the stuff that really frightens me.  They have got to understand that the reason they are ON the list is about character rather than challenge or length, and that they are risking destroying the former by trying to bring the latter into the realm of thousands of other courses around the world.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom Don't they mark pipelines in the UK? I would also thinK the pipeline company that owns it would give the landowner the depth specifications and surveyed locations to protect them from liablility. You can see I am jumping on the good golf hole laying there. I too love Cruden Bay and hope no changes are for the negative.

[ward peyronnin]

Gents,

At the risk of citing a possibly insubstantial point, i would submit that golf holes on a world top 100 that inspire such passion and polarity of opinion must be pretty damn special. So lets hope the voting members of CR ( alas not seasonal members like me) allow the debate to continue for a long time to come

[Brian Phillips]

I am surprised Frank Pont has not commented yet.  He is a regular reader here.  It is Frank that has received the job.

Brian

[Robert Thompson]

For those that don't know him, Frank works for David McLay Kidd's firm and is a member at Cruden Bay. He is also, according to one article I read, an expert on Harry Colt.

His bio is here:

http://www.dmkgolfdesign.com/resumes/frank.htm

He sounds like an architect who would have some sensitivity to the course. Hopefully he'll let us know what the plan is.

[Brian Phillips]

Robert,

Frank hasn't worked for David for years.  David just has not updated is website for donkeys.

Frank has worked on his own for at least two to three years.

See the link below for the Greens Convenors report:

http://www.crudenbaygolfclub.co.uk/greensreport.htm

[Adrian_Stiff]

Robert,

Frank hasn't worked for David for years.  David just has not updated is website for donkeys.

Frank has worked on his own for at least two to three years.

See the link below for the Greens Convenors report: Im not familiar with Cruden Bay (other than pictures), I do understand the relevance of histry but equally saferty issues are very much 2006. In respect of the 14th approach, would t be possible to modify that approach by excavating out the mound in front of that greem on order that the pin and the golfers on or walking to the next tee can be seen. It would still largely be blind and retain the punchbowl, but may go some way to helping. Ofcourse it may be a massive and impossible job Ive never seen the course.

http://www.crudenbaygolfclub.co.uk/greensreport.htm

[Brian Phillips]

For those that don't know him, Frank works for David McLay Kidd's firm and is a member at Cruden Bay. He is also, according to one article I read, an expert on Harry Colt.

His bio is here:

http://www.dmkgolfdesign.com/resumes/frank.htm

He sounds like an architect who would have some sensitivity to the course. Hopefully he'll let us know what the plan is.

I don't think anyone in the world is an expert on Colt, there just is not enough documentation around yet for anyone to call themselves an expert, not even Martin Hawtree...the closest I know is Paul Turner and even he does not like to be called that because he knows how much more there is to be collected about the man. Gil Hanse is another that never seems to get mentioned but I bet he knows a hell of a lot as it was him that researched much of Colt & Co. as well as drew some of the routings in the book.

Just because I wrote about him in Paul Daley's book doesn't make me an expert but I have had an interest in the man for years and rate him higher than MacKenzie as a person and as an architect.

Anyone who calls themselves an 'expert' on Colt is just kidding themselves and their clients...IMHO.. I am not saying that Frank has ever called himself an expert either.

[Gary Daughters]

Adrian S ..

Excellent find.  

Info would seem to indicate they're in agreement with TD that #14 green shouldn't be moved, though the approach would be altered.  Moderated, most likely.

[Philippe Binette]

The report says:
Addition of bunkers into the 2nd and 13th fairways at strategic locations...

Why the hell you'd need bunkers in the 2nd fairway at Cruden Bay...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()