[Ran Morrissett]

Many golfers (especially Americans) are great fans of Cruden Bay. I am too though I am unconvinced that it offers better golf than Royal Aberdeen down the road. Regardless, both are excellent.
 
Without doubt, part of Cruden Bay’s appeal lies with its unique features. There is the hard to stereotype drivable eighth and the sunken bathtub green at the fourteenth. The blind par three fifteenth over the brow of a dune isn’t a favorite but the huge landform captured within the center of the seventeenth fairway is. Added all together, and throw in some classics like the par five sixth and dogleg seventh, and you have a course that is immensely fun to play. Obviously, plenty of Americans develop an attachment to this brand of exciting golf as they elect to join as an overseas member.
 
The fact that a course can exert that much appeal should surely be the hope of any club (though I realize sometimes it isn’t).
 
Given everyone’s high opinion re: Cruden Bay, my question is
 
1) could you imagine a more fun course being built on that land today if any living architect was given the same untouched land that Simpson first had?
 
2) if so, what architect(s) do you think most likely to build a course that much fun?
 
I ask question number two in particular because it was suggested last night at a dinner party that Mike Strantz would be the answer if he were still alive. Mike 1) was excellent at routing holes, 2) wasn’t afraid of building a green like the fourteenth at Cruden Bay (and he knew it would attract criticism ala the thirteenth at Tobacco Road), and 3) welcomed the occasional blind shot. Who else? Jim Engh builds punchbowl greens. Brian Silva is like me and appreciates it’s a game not to be taken too terribly serious and he likes to build fun shots that can play out slowly along the ground. Baxter Spann delivered big time some quirky features at Black Mesa. What about these guys?

Any architect would relish the opportunity that Simpson had. However, in this day and age of building courses/holes that don’t court controversy, would any living architect be able/willing to produce a course that matches the lasting charm of Cruden Bay? Obviously, there are several architects that are building world class courses in dunes right now. Indeed, some like Ballyneal I prefer to Cruden Bay. Maybe even a better course would emerge? What say you?

Cheers,

[Sean_A]

Whats this?  Our leader posing questions?  Shouldn't you be up in the tundra hashing out details?

First off, I would suggest that Simpson didn't have pristine land to work with.  A lot was there that he and Fowler inherited.  Second, I think if the course were to be completely redeveloped I would fully expect the new course to retain some funk (its starting to be popular these days) and still be better than the original because there is some excellent land being eaten up by the relief course that could be used.  Third, how is it that you mention Cruden Bay without talkingabout that terrific 1-2 punch of #s 3 & 4.  Fourth, I think there are many archies who would do a fine job with Cruden Bay.  I would like to see a relative unknown get a break.  Perhaps someone like KB Moran?  He seems to relish providing fun golf without risking losing touch with keeping the game simple. 

BTW I tend to agree with you.  I don't think the golf is any better at CB than Aberdeen, though CB is quite a bit cheaper so it gets the nod.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Ran

Unfortunately, your main premise is flawed in that Simpson (I assume you mean Tom, rather than Archie, who worked on the original alyout with Old tom Morris) had anything but a blank canvas to work with.

Old Tom and Archie S. conceived the 14th "Punchbowl" green 30 plus years before Tom S. got his hands on the land.  Other OTM/AS parts of the course existing today include:

--the 2nd green
--the 6th green
--the 7th green
--the 9th hole
--the 10th hole
--the 12th hole
--the 13th hole (today a combination of two OTM holes)
--the 14th green
--the 15th hole (designed as 150 yards with less blindness)

I'm happy to give Tom Simpson his due, but not when it is not due him.  What makes you think it was he who was solely responsible for the magic of Cruden Bay?

Cheers

Rich

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ran

Although I understand your question (1) you are wrong, Tom Simpson did not have untouched land. A course had existed on the same land since1897, and was extended by 630 yard is 1908, before the 1926 redesign by Fowler & Simpson

The Fowler & Simpson course then retained the basic routing of the holes as well as many of the holes and greens (ten may have direct connection to the original course).

Having said that the course was modified or redesigned but was never a new design on virgin land.  Fowler & Simpson already had one of the best courses in Scotland to work on, but their input modernised and rightly reinstated Cruden Bay as still one of Scotland best courses.

As for your second question, I will refrain from nominating another designer, until you define the word fun or perhaps more appropriate a course for the American or UK style of golf.

[TEPaul]

Richard and Melvyn:

It does not matter if there was a course at Cruden Bay before Simpson or who was involved before Simpson. Ran Morrissett said Simpson designed and built the course on virgin land so that's what happened.

By the way, you two are suspended from GOLFCLUBATLAS.com for a week!

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks for reminding me of my place, oh glorious one.  I will say that Simpson did do some very good work at Cruden Bay.  And, as for who today would be the man for that job, well, he'd have to be a self-promoting little twit with a cigarette holder and a beret, arriving in a chauffeur-driven Bentley.  If you only had a Bentley......

[TEPaul]

"I will say that Simpson did do some very good work at Cruden Bay."

Oh you would, would you?

Do you really believe that or are you just saying that in some obsequious attempt to brown-nose Ran Morrissett after insulting him by actually questioning the credibility of his Simpson assumption?

If you define "fun" for Melvyn so Ran doesn't have to do it maybe you can get your suspension reduced from a week to a day or so. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Well, I can't talk for Richards but Viva Scottish Golf,
the home of real true original golf with a long history.
One day I will come over the pond and teach you how
to play the true game - Scotland For Ever, Freedom
for Scottish Golf, No Surrender.   

As for Tom Simpson - don't have much time for him.

[paul westland]

The academic query fascinates, however; what is the current state of affairs there? I recall a previous posted photograph showing 14.  Serious digging going on.  Better put it back, mates! 
The St Olaf nine offers it's own pleasures, inside the loop. Purism is it's own reward.
Certainly, upon arrival at Cruden Bay, the tableau before you from the clubhouse does inspire like few others.

[ed_getka]

I think many of the architects that are admired here could do a good job with the Cruden Bay land. I have only had one 36 hole day so I am not even remotely an authority. However, I would say the course could be improved simply by adding some more interesting greens. Having played CB after Dornoch, I couldn't help think that CB could be even better with some of the greens from Dornoch.
    Of architects' work I have seen I would say Doak, DeVries, C&C, Hanse could all do at least as good of a job, while still keeping the course very enjoyable and fun. IMHO, of course.

[Rich Goodale]

Ran

Getting back to your original question, it should really be re-phrased something to the effect of:

1.  Which living architect would have taken Old Tom Morris' routing up over and around the big hill (current holes holes 8-15)?; and
2.  Which living architect would have stuck with Old Tom Morris' routing up over and around the big hill, as Simpson and Fowler did in 1926?

Is ask the latter question because I have always believed (and said so on here) that Cruden Bay could have been a much better course if S&F had abandoned holes 8-15 and used the great rolling linksland over which the 9-hole St. Olaf's course exists to fill out their 18.  IMO it could have been as great as Dornoch if that decision had been made.

So, which living architect would have the cojones to go to a high profile golf club and tell them that they had to almost completely redo their well regarded course?

Finally, don't we have a living laboratory going on now relative to some of these questions in thwork that our own, Frank Pont, is now undertaking at Cruden Bay?

Rich

[Yancey_Beamer]

Cruden Bay is  my favorite course,anywhere.
However if some genius could redesign the 16th green so it could hold a shot I would be most appreciative.

[John Moore II]

My only thought on the question in general (I have never played or really seen the course) is that I find it difficult to say what an architect would have done with the land as it originally existed since I would think that it is quite difficult to know what was originally there. If we knew exactly what the land looked like prior to construction, perhaps we could say whether or not something better could be done, without that, I find it difficult to answer.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think this is a Doak opportunity to shine. However I wish one of you that know Mayacama better than I reflect on whether the routing there was as creative as the up over and around the hill at CB.

[Anthony Gray]

  Who designs the FUN courses today is defind by what is fun. What is fun at Cruden Bay is its uniqueness and playability. Today there is too much a demand for length. Could you design it today? Two drivable par 4s on the same course. Back to back par 3s. The 16th is often overlooked but it is a par 3 that is better played bouncing the ball in. If Cruden Bay opened today would it crack the top 100? What owner whould want Cruden Bay? The owners today seem to want more of a championship course. Hats off to Castle Stuart for designing a fun course. Pacific Dunes has two short par 4s and back to back par 3s, even 5 par 3s and is fun. But it is atypical today. I like Diamante alot because of its uniqueness.

  Anthony

 

[Michael George]

Ran:

In answer to your question, I think it would have to be a newer architect willing to take these risks.  The most accomplished architects today (ie. Doak, Coore, Dye, etc..) would have problems designing such a unique golf course for multiple reasons:

(1) The client has a pre-conceived notion about what he is getting for the high fee of the architect and would likely not be willing to take the risk.  If you hire Doak or Coore and have a nice piece of property, you know that you are going to get a special golf course (it may not be top 100, but it will be a great course).  Most clients simply don't want to take the risk when it could be subject to criticism.

(2) The architect may be unwilling to take these risks.  The most accomplished architects want to build on their successes.  If the risks were not accepted well, they would have a mark on their record.  This would make it harder for them to command their fees in the future.  For instance, I cannot think of a course designed by Doak or Coore in the last 10 years that has not be well received (their courses may have closed but it was not due to the golf course).

Just my thoughts.  Don't know if I am right, but would love the input on these thoughts from those in the industry. 

Thanks.
   

[Niall C]

  Who designs the FUN courses today is defind by what is fun. What is fun at Cruden Bay is its uniqueness and playability. Today there is too much a demand for length. Could you design it today? Two drivable par 4s on the same course. Back to back par 3s. The 16th is often overlooked but it is a par 3 that is better played bouncing the ball in. If Cruden Bay opened today would it crack the top 100? What owner whould want Cruden Bay? The owners today seem to want more of a championship course. Hats off to Castle Stuart for designing a fun course. Pacific Dunes has two short par 4s and back to back par 3s, even 5 par 3s and is fun. But it is atypical today. I like Diamante alot because of its uniqueness.

  Anthony

 

Anthony

Next time your in Scotland you want to get out more. Courses with several driveable par 4's abound as do courses with back to back par 3's. A couple of nights ago I played Cullen which has a grand total of TEN par 3's with 4 in a row at one point, two of which play over sea stacks and the other two circa two hundred yards plus. Oh, and there's also a couple of driveable par 4's. Whats not to like as you might say.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

(2) The architect may be unwilling to take these risks.  The most accomplished architects want to build on their successes.  If the risks were not accepted well, they would have a mark on their record.  This would make it harder for them to command their fees in the future.  For instance, I cannot think of a course designed by Doak or Coore in the last 10 years that has not be well received (their courses may have closed but it was not due to the golf course).

   

I've heard this a lot lately, and I don't agree.

I have gotten a bit more conservative in my green contours in the last 3-4 years, because we tried to work on the edge of the precipice at Sebonack, and both the client and the superintendent went back on their word about how they would maintain the course, and it's no fun the way they do it.  I'd rather that didn't happen again.  But, if I had a client I didn't think would ever go that route, I would not mind building the sort of wild features we built at Ballyneal or Barnbougle, which are as out there as anything at Cruden Bay.

If another, less experienced architect was going to be more daring than Bill Coore or myself, it would be because he had a client that was more daring than ours ... or because he was over-reaching, and will probably live to regret it.  There are some very good recent examples of that, which I don't have to name.  Perhaps Melvyn could name one of them for me.

[Tim_Weiman]

Michael,

From personal experience I can back up Tom Doak by re-telling a story I’ve told here at least a few other times.

About five years before Barnbougle was built I suggested someone ought to go against the trend of bigger and longer to build something really small – a really short par 3, a “little devil”.

There really wasn’t much enthusiasm for the idea.

But, when the right opportunity came, Tom went with the concept and designed the now somewhat famous 7th hole at Barnbougle, a true “little devil”.

By the way, my original desire to see a “little devil” built came from #8 at Ballybunion and the #9 at Whitemarsh Valley near Philadelphia.

[Brian_Ewen]

Anthony
Next time your in Scotland you want to get out more.

+1

[Niall C]

To my mind the outstanding part of CB is the first 6 or 7 holes. I wouldn't spend any time changing those holes. The weak parts as far as I am concerned are the climb up to the 9th (?) and the 9th itself. I can understand why its like that which is to get round the bottleneck below. That takes me on to the second major weakness of the course (as far as I am concerned) and thats the stretch of holes that play through the bottleneck starting with the par 5 with the green largely hidden by the giant mound followed by the bathtub green hole which in turn is followed by a couple of blind par 3's. While a little bit of quirk is good, that much is just a pain in the arse.

Question therefore to the architects, and allowing them the leeway of not having modern safety rules to apply to, is there anyway of coming up with a routing that avoids having to go over the top ie. have holes going both ways on the land below, and at the same time takes care of the rubbish sequence of holes that exist at the bottleneck ?

Niall

[Michael George]

Tom and Niall:

Thanks for your replies.   

Another question:  I would imagine that the two most important conditions to you building a great golf course are:  (1) good site, and (2) good client.  While I realize the 2 are probably interchangeable, which do you feel is more important?   

Would you rather design a course for Donald Trump on a sandy coastline (where he demands an artificial waterfall behind the 18 green) or a course for Mike Keiser in the midwest? My apologies to the Trump fans, but it seems that his attitude toward golf courses is the anthesis of why I love the game and golf course architecture.

Also, based on your successes, have you seen a change in clients attitude toward taking risks on the course?  Have the higher costs of building a course lessened a client's appetite for taking risks?

Thanks.
     

[Melvyn Morrow]

Michael

IMHO the best courses have been the result of a good site, good designer and a client that gave the designer a free hand.

A little bit of GCA knowledge is great on the Clients side but he has decided to the pay the Man In The Know, so let him get on with it. Otherwise why pay out all that money and interfere in something that in real terms you know little about.

Again IMHO the last 80 years or so clients have laid down obstacles due to their ignorance of GCA or because it’s just the side issue of the project. Give the Designers a chance, after all he is the one will all the experience and knowledge.

I fear for many decades now clients are just using the game as a prop to promote their core business and what turns out as a golf course is of no interest to them as long as the rest sells and thus makes money. Alas the world is left with so many compromised sites that in truth may not be worth the effort of modernising, certainly some which have been built within housing complexes.

Please note that I put my faith in the designers, as ultimately they know what is right and what is wrong. It’s that inward commitment to themselves and the industry which I stand by in the belief that producing a course fit for purpose is their driven intention, hence wanting to be a designer.

For myself I want to see the whole course used, by that I mean the fairways, its hazards as well as the Green and their ring of traps. Each part makes the whole far more attractive to a golfer. Weaken one and first the Hole is lost, weaken more than one and the course is compromised and ineffective as a golf course. That’s why we need to do something regards the ball travel, by removing 2/3 of the course from the game makes it an expensive Drive & Putt course.

Give the Designers Freedom of Choice, so poor ones will slowly disappear but that will leave the good to hopeful flourish.

Melvyn

[Tom_Doak]

Niall:

I can't believe it's not blindingly obvious that there is no routing option at Cruden Bay along the lines you suggest.  The 14th and 15th fairways are single-file between the beach and the hillside -- it's barely wide enough for one fairway, and certainly not for out and back.  They did have the option of not using the property for holes 9-15, and just using the St. Olaf course land in the middle to make up 18 holes on the near side of the pass, but I'm sure it would not have been as much fun.


Michael George:

If you have a good client, he'll probably be willing to listen to the need to find a good piece of ground.

[Chris DeNigris]

Can't help but think that Mike Strantz might have worked with OTM and co at CB in a former life...I know Strantz took a lot of inspiration from BBO and other great Irish links but I can't recall if he spent much or any time in the Aberdeen area?

When I played CB I thought of him and Tobacco Road (I'm sure this comparison has been made in the numerous TR threads) and to some extent RNK. To me he will always be the epitome of American funk, quirk, fun and overall uniqueness. He would have had a blast working at that site.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()