Architecture(?) at the Glen (East Links, North Berwick)

[Carl Johnson]

In another discussion going on now [http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41221.0/], there are several comments about the architecture at the Glen.

Tom Doak: "The Glen (North Berwick East) is also an option.  On a sunny day it's just beautiful, and it is not as bad as everyone says ... it's not great architecture but the routing is quite good."  And, "Carl: Beware, there are haters of the East Links on this site."

Rich Goodale: "The Glen has eye candy, but limited architectural interest, and is more slog than fun."

Please help me out here -- I'm trying to learn.  Why is the the Glen "not great architecture" and of "limited architectural interest"?  What's missing?

The Glen's course impressed me as a simple course, very well laid out (routed) and very playable.  I had no idea who the "architect" was and have not tried to find out.  However, it seems to me that whoever laid it out did a very good job of taking what was there and not messing it up.

Regarding my personal golf playing experience, expectations may have something to do with enjoyment of the course.  On our group's visit to East Lothian we added the Glen as a "fill-in" after booking at the ususal suspects.  We expected nothing and were pleasantly surprised to say the least.  It's not what I would call a typical links course, being more along the lines of Irvine Bogside or Crail Balcomie, but still a very creditable course.  We played on a very clear day late in the afternoon in a very, very cold wind, yet did not find the course a slog at all and had a lot of fun.  (By way of contrast, later in the trip we played Lundin (Fife) with great expectations and were somewhat disappointed.)

[Bill_McBride]

Carl, your post pretty much says it all.  

How well do you remember the individual holes that take you out to the end of this out and back course?  I thought that was definitely the weakest part of the course, including the turning at the end and the start of the inbound half until you got back on the headland.  

In my personal experience, the less I remember of the individual holes and how they fit into the overall routing, the weaker the course in my personal evaluation.  The Glen was a good walk, I remember some of the holes but not half, and I loved the finish.  So to me it's about a 4, enhanced by the fact that it's in East Lothian with great views down over that lovely town.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Carl

Beware of architectural snobs – if carts, distance aids & rangefinders are acceptable to those – lets call them golfers, then they have no right to preach architectural quality to anyone. The simple fact is that they miss most of the GCA wasting their time riding and reading all these aids to notice any form of architecture. So my friend your opinion is as good as the next person, the real proof of the pudding is did you enjoy your round, nothing else matters.

What is that old saying, one mans meat is another’s poison. Some tolerance with a little discretion may be allowed if they dislike Greens surrounded by lakes, otherwise their opinions are as valid as their lake Greens.

Do I jest, perhaps just a tiny bit.

Melvyn   

[Rich Goodale]

Carl

I'm hardly a Glen expert, but to me most of the course consists of fairly blah holes up on a high meadow.  Think the 9th at Cruden Bay repeated over and over again, with far too many greens which seem to be just mowed pieces of ground on flattish land.  That being said, it is a fun course, mostly due to the views and is good value for money.  All I was saying on the other thread is that relative to its lofty company in East Lothian it is nearer the back than the front of courses one should seek out and play.  Overall it is both elevated and let down by the quality of the land, which is not naturally good for golf.   Now if some modern arhictect were able to bring a few D9's driven by talented shapers, something interesting could be made up on that bluff, but I doubt that the Council could afford it, and Melvyn might have an apoplectic fit, so I'd vote against any change.

Rich

[Melvyn Morrow]

No not I, Rich, although I might have to find that old sniper rifle, get some new IR scope and play the old game of shooting the rabbits on the course. However, after the depleted uranium bullet hits there won’t be much left. Love the rabbits when they use their 4 wheel drive vehicles, adds that little bit more fun, like getting out of a deep penal bunker. Every golf bag should have 14 clubs and one’s Barrett M107 .50 Cal snipers rifle

I believe in being humane when it comes to architects, although I am still seeking my First Doak 10 from outside GB&I

Melvyn

[Carl Johnson]

Carl

I'm hardly a Glen expert, but to me most of the course consists of fairly blah holes up on a high meadow.  Think the 9th at Cruden Bay repeated over and over again, with far too many greens which seem to be just mowed pieces of ground on flattish land.  That being said, it is a fun course, mostly due to the views and is good value for money.  All I was saying on the other thread is that relative to its lofty company in East Lothian it is nearer the back than the front of courses one should seek out and play.  Overall it is both elevated and let down by the quality of the land, which is not naturally good for golf.   Now if some modern arhictect were able to bring a few D9's driven by talented shapers, something interesting could be made up on that bluff, but I doubt that the Council could afford it, and Melvyn might have an apoplectic fit, so I'd vote against any change.

Rich

Rich,

Thanks for the observations.  I agree with your assessment of the greens, and also with your overall assessment that "it is a fun course, mostly due to the views and is good value for money . . . [and] that relative to its lofty company in East Lothian it is nearer the back than the front of courses one should seek out and play."  I also understand the analogy to no. 9 at Cruden Bay, a unique hole at that course which I regard, sitting where and how it does, as a perfect piece of "architecture."  Yet I also found somewhat more variety at the Glen than you may have. Regarding the land and "architecture," when we talk about architecture, do we mean "great architecture" is only the result, however achieved, or the process of taking what you're given in the way of land and making the best of it with the resources (money) you have available?  Answering this question myself, I'd say it simply depends on your point of view.  I lean toward the process side, and in that respect give some credit to the Glen's designer(s), but cannot disagree with those who are more result oriented.  I wonder how you and others see this issue.

Carl