Hawtree Changes to Muirfield.

[Paul_Turner]

I'm not sure if this has been detailed anywhere on GCA?

The changes are much the same as those completed and proposed for The Old Course.  I haven't seen them but from various aerials, descriptions etc, I think this is about right:

I'm ignoring the new back tees.

1st:

- New driving bunker added left fairway at about 300.

- Depression added front left of the green

- The green looks a bit longer now.  Has it had a small section added at the back?

2nd

- Three v old greenside bunkers filled in.  One added closer to the front right corner.  Another added midway up the green on the right.

- It looks like the back left corner of the green may have been extended.

3rd

- Right greenside bunkers have supposedly been taken closer to the green but from aerials this doesn't look right.  The shapes have been changed though to simpler circles

-More hollows added (3) back right of the green

4th

-Colt cross bunker filled in.  Blah!  Don't they remember the pros struggling to carry it in the gale of the final round in 2002?

5th

- Other than the tee I can't see any change here.

6th

- Even more humps and hollows added short and left of the green

- Front right greenside bunker brought closer in.  This is sort of a restoration because the old bunker was originally much bigger.

- Green extended quite a lot at the back.  This is sort of a restoration but I don't think the green ever went quite that far back.

7th

- Other than tee I can't see any change.

8th

- I can't believe they filled in two ancient bunkers in the crook.   The whole charm of the hole is the minefield of traps there.

- Added bunker on right side of green.

- Humps and hollows added short left?

9th

This is basically the same as the bunker changes at The Old Course 2nd

-  Two ancient bunkers (back to year dot at Muirfield) filled in and "relocated" closer to the green.

10th

- Fairway slightly reshaped out to the left (not quite as straight a hole now).

- Two old fairway right bunkers filled in and replaced by three circular pots, the old bunkers were lozenge shaped.  Two of the new pots look to be in similar position as the old bunkers,  or possibly slightly to the left.  One of the bunkers is farther out.

- Green looks extended at front right.

11th

-New bunker on the right side at 320  (is this a restoration of an old bunker?)

-Left bunker has actually been brought closer to tee at 270

12th

- Right greenside bunker brought closer into corner of green

- Colt bunker filled in short and left.   Replaced with a another Hawtree hollow.  Why?

13th

-Tee only change.

14th

- Front right greenside bunker enlarged to eat into green more.  Or possibly bunker moved slightly.

- Hawtree hollows added to left of green?

15th

- Greenside left bunker relocated closer to green.  Can't see any other changes.

16th

-Can't see any changes.

17th

-Other than tee, no change.

18th

-Island bunker had sand area widened.

Other than the length changes, I don't think any of the above will make a jot of difference in how the pros score.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been more about this too, Paul....

Or that the "R&A to spend $16m upgrading the 9 Open courses" headline wasn't pounced upon (it being a year or two old now but reposted somewhere recently)...

Muirfield had a lot of work done to it... I haven't seen it nor do I know the course well enough to comment...

[Paul_Turner]

An average of 1.7 Million per course for these kind of changes.

What a complete ripoff!

[Sean_A]

I must say all the changes seems strange to me.  Do clubs fear the R&A will strike them from the rota if the work isn't done?  Its not like there are tons of courses that can step up as replacements.  I gotta believe the clubs feel the changes are for the better and if free...

Ciao

[Paul_Turner]

Going further on 16Million

What have we got for that huge investment at our Open courses?   Some new greens, bunkers repositioned and some new bunkers, mounds/hollows added.

How can any of this amount to 16Million?

How much should a job like the changes at Muirfield above cost?  $100K?
 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Here's a link to the article again... One year old.... Couple of choice quotes in it too...

http://www.pga.com/news/european-tour/ra-spends-16-million-toughen-and-tighten-all-british-open-courses

[Paul_Turner]

I think Sean nails it.  If the project is "free" to the club then it's much more likely to be approved.

But how does the R&A go about deciding who gets the job and how much it will cost.  Does it go out to bid?

As for Dawson:

"Almost all the changes at Muirfield, apart from the ninth tee, you would not notice them,"

Then why spend such astronomical amounts?

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

It is the same story as it was at St. Andrews; they do it because ... they can.  Both the USGA and the R & A have made it clear over the years that you have to submit to their infinite architectural wisdom in order to host a major championship.  They've given up even pretending that it's the club's will to make such changes ... they dictate what the changes will be.

I have never, ever understood the logic of it.  All the changes illustrated above might change the winning score for the Open by a couple of strokes, max.  Why do they care so much about the winning score?

[Thomas Dai]

Not sure about Muirfield but some Open rota courses, like Lytham, have installed permanent underground TV cabling systems.
All the best.

[Brent Hutto]

Give most people enough of "someone else's money" to spend and they will find a way to spend it. When there is no cost-benefit consideration whatsoever, it's easy to dream up spurious "benefits" such as changing the score at the Open by a stoke or two.

In the case of USGA/R&A monkeying with championship venues I suspect they are indulging in the illusion of control over things that in fact they have no control over whatsoever. With enough money in your pocket it's easy to imagine that reality can be fine-tuned to suit your whims just by throwing around some of that money.

[John Kavanaugh]

Paul:

It is the same story as it was at St. Andrews; they do it because ... they can.  Both the USGA and the R & A have made it clear over the years that you have to submit to their infinite architectural wisdom in order to host a major championship.  They've given up even pretending that it's the club's will to make such changes ... they dictate what the changes will be.

I have never, ever understood the logic of it.  All the changes illustrated above might change the winning score for the Open by a couple of strokes, max.  Why do they care so much about the winning score?

Why does Brad Klein suggest changes to every new course he observes?  It has nothing to do with score.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Paul:

It is the same story as it was at St. Andrews; they do it because ... they can.  Both the USGA and the R & A have made it clear over the years that you have to submit to their infinite architectural wisdom in order to host a major championship.  They've given up even pretending that it's the club's will to make such changes ... they dictate what the changes will be.

I have never, ever understood the logic of it.  All the changes illustrated above might change the winning score for the Open by a couple of strokes, max.  Why do they care so much about the winning score?

Why does Brad Klein suggest changes to every new course he observes?  It has nothing to do with score.

Does Brad pay the club to let him make the changes that he wants?

[Ronald Montesano]

Interesting that the one quote suggests you wouldn't notice the changes. I saw a quote that more or less said "we had a Harry Colt course; now we have a Martin Hawtree course."

http://www.golfworldmagazine.com/golfworld/20130708/?pg=38#pg38

[Tom_Doak]

Interesting that the one quote suggests you wouldn't notice the changes. I saw a quote that more or less said "we had a Harry Colt course; now we have a Martin Hawtree course."

http://www.golfworldmagazine.com/golfworld/20130708/?pg=38#pg38

I guess that's what passes for journalism in the 21st century ... not taking a side at all.

[John Kavanaugh]

Paul:

It is the same story as it was at St. Andrews; they do it because ... they can.  Both the USGA and the R & A have made it clear over the years that you have to submit to their infinite architectural wisdom in order to host a major championship.  They've given up even pretending that it's the club's will to make such changes ... they dictate what the changes will be.

I have never, ever understood the logic of it.  All the changes illustrated above might change the winning score for the Open by a couple of strokes, max.  Why do they care so much about the winning score?

Why does Brad Klein suggest changes to every new course he observes?  It has nothing to do with score.

Does Brad pay the club to let him make the changes that he wants?

Does the USGA and R&A pay the clubs for changes?  I'm would guess that Brad and other critics get great satisfaction is seeing their opinions implemented.  Please, let's not be so shallow that we think that money is more intoxicating than power.

[Brent Hutto]

Paul:

It is the same story as it was at St. Andrews; they do it because ... they can.  Both the USGA and the R & A have made it clear over the years that you have to submit to their infinite architectural wisdom in order to host a major championship.  They've given up even pretending that it's the club's will to make such changes ... they dictate what the changes will be.

I have never, ever understood the logic of it.  All the changes illustrated above might change the winning score for the Open by a couple of strokes, max.  Why do they care so much about the winning score?

Why does Brad Klein suggest changes to every new course he observes?  It has nothing to do with score.

Well aside from the fact that presumably Brad K. would not suggest changes to the Old Course...

...you do have a good point. For that matter half the GCA'ers I've ever played golf with have expressed opinions about how this or that feature of the course we're playing might be better or different.

The operational distinction is between "Those with an opinion and an ability to spend a million dollars" versus "Those with an opinion and no ability to spend a million dollars", presumably.

[Paul_Turner]

Ronald

A pretty bad and imprecise article by Whitten.  Hawtree's changes to the 3rd at Carnoustie were much greater than any of the above. 

Reminds me of the Whitten article before Hoylake's Open. 

And the Alistair Brown quote is daft.  A club secretary of such a prestigious should understand his course better.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Paul:

It is the same story as it was at St. Andrews; they do it because ... they can.  Both the USGA and the R & A have made it clear over the years that you have to submit to their infinite architectural wisdom in order to host a major championship.  They've given up even pretending that it's the club's will to make such changes ... they dictate what the changes will be.

I have never, ever understood the logic of it.  All the changes illustrated above might change the winning score for the Open by a couple of strokes, max.  Why do they care so much about the winning score?

Why does Brad Klein suggest changes to every new course he observes?  It has nothing to do with score.

Does Brad pay the club to let him make the changes that he wants?

Does the USGA and R&A pay the clubs for changes?  I'm would guess that Brad and other critics get great satisfaction is seeing their opinions implemented.  Please, let's not be so shallow that we think that money is more intoxicating than power.

As far as the R&A, yes: http://www.pga.com/news/european-tour/ra-spends-16-million-toughen-and-tighten-all-british-open-courses

And you are of course correct about power -- actually, that's Doak's point. I suppose to make the power play really work the R&A would need to get the club to pay for the changes.

[John Kavanaugh]

Paul:

It is the same story as it was at St. Andrews; they do it because ... they can.  Both the USGA and the R & A have made it clear over the years that you have to submit to their infinite architectural wisdom in order to host a major championship.  They've given up even pretending that it's the club's will to make such changes ... they dictate what the changes will be.

I have never, ever understood the logic of it.  All the changes illustrated above might change the winning score for the Open by a couple of strokes, max.  Why do they care so much about the winning score?

Why does Brad Klein suggest changes to every new course he observes?  It has nothing to do with score.

Well aside from the fact that presumably Brad K. would not suggest changes to the Old Course...

...you do have a good point. For that matter half the GCA'ers I've ever played golf with have expressed opinions about how this or that feature of the course we're playing might be better or different.

The operational distinction is between "Those with an opinion and an ability to spend a million dollars" versus "Those with an opinion and no ability to spend a million dollars", presumably.

Brent,

That goes back to Tom Doak's point that they change it because they can.  We, of this site, have no right to opine that we would do any different.  The 14th at Bandon Dunes is the most public example of change for critics sake.  We see it everyday on this site and in most cases from under qualified people after one quick visit without a likely return.

This is just another flaw in the human condition that we can either accept, ignore or attempt to explain away.  It is agronomical herpes.

[Tom_Doak]

Well aside from the fact that presumably Brad K. would not suggest changes to the Old Course...

...you do have a good point. For that matter half the GCA'ers I've ever played golf with have expressed opinions about how this or that feature of the course we're playing might be better or different.

The operational distinction is between "Those with an opinion and an ability to spend a million dollars" versus "Those with an opinion and no ability to spend a million dollars", presumably.

Brent,

That goes back to Tom Doak's point that they change it because they can.  We, of this site, have no right to opine that we would do any different.  The 14th at Bandon Dunes is the most public example of change for critics sake.  We see it everyday on this site and in most cases from under qualified people after one quick visit without a likely return.

This is just another flaw in the human condition that we can either accept, ignore or attempt to explain away.  It is agronomical herpes.

John:

I agree with everything you've said, except ... a consulting architect has a bit of professional responsibility not to let his ego run amok.  I work with a lot of historic old courses, and I do not pursue or even suggest ideas to change the holes, if they are counter to the nature and history of the course.

What keeps me in check, of course, is that I've had plenty of opportunities to satisfy my ego in my own original designs, so there is no need to impose it upon others' designs.  That is why I am sometimes suspicious of the architects who have achieved the status of "restoration experts."  Nothing that has been done to Muirfield or St. Andrews is about restoration, but Hawtree's historical expertise and family history is somehow supposed to justify his changes.

[Ronald Montesano]

... a consulting architect has a bit of professional responsibility not to let his ego run amok.  

"Professional responsibility," in my eyes, is called personal and professional humility. Arrogance and a fear of one's own demise/being forgotten lead many of us astray.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Paul

It's too bad Whitten either lacks one of the most important skills of a good columnist or due to laziness chooses not to demonstrate it: represent both sides of an argument if not completely accurately at least fairly. Instead, he resorts to simplistic caricatures of positions held by those who do not share his opinion. For godsakes at least represent the opposition's position before you slay it. Whitten's serial create-a-strawman-then-knock-it-down columns make for tiresome reading.

He would get absolutely sledged at Oxford Union.

[Brent Hutto]

Paul

It's too bad Whitten either lacks one of the most important skills of a good columnist or due to laziness chooses not to demonstrate it: represent both sides of an argument if not completely accurately at least fairly. Instead, he resorts to simplistic caricatures of positions held by those who do not share his opinion. For godsakes at least represent the opposition's position before you slay it. Whitten's serial create-a-strawman-then-knock-it-down columns make for tiresome reading.

He would get absolutely sledged at Oxford Union.

I'm trying to picture an alternate reality where the late Christopher Hitchens a) were still alive, b) cared a whit about golf, c) chose to weigh in on this rather esoteric topic of which we are so obsessed.

[Paul_Turner]

Does anyone know if the great 11th green was recontoured as Whitten claims? 

And if so, what was done to it?

[Adam Lawrence]

Paul

It's too bad Whitten either lacks one of the most important skills of a good columnist or due to laziness chooses not to demonstrate it: represent both sides of an argument if not completely accurately at least fairly. Instead, he resorts to simplistic caricatures of positions held by those who do not share his opinion. For godsakes at least represent the opposition's position before you slay it. Whitten's serial create-a-strawman-then-knock-it-down columns make for tiresome reading.

He would get absolutely sledged at Oxford Union.

Everyone gets sledged at the Union these days, unless they're a topless model...