[Adam Lawrence]

This is interesting. Has been clear for some time there is momentum behind the idea of a Porthcawl Open. I still think the logistics would demand quite a lot of work to solve, both on the golf course and in terms of access.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/theopen/10297534/Royal-Porthcawl-in-line-to-be-Waless-first-Open-Championship-venue.html

[Thomas Dai]

I await developments with interest. Lovely course and place RPGC. Ever so friendly and ever so efficient in my experience.
All the best

[Greg Gilson]

My fingers are crossed. If they can make Hoylake work....surely they can do it at Porthcawl? I know its a long way from anywhere. I know there will be infrastructure issues. I know the road access aint great. But its a wonderful club & the course is more fun than half currently on the Rota (IMHO).

[Ally Mcintosh]

But will it be yet another course which starts to compromise its current design in chase of the grand prize?

[Sean_A]

But will it be yet another course which starts to compromise its current design in chase of the grand prize?

I spose the question is what is sacred at Porthcawl?  I can understand the argument at Hoylake for keeping the original Royal because of a long association between OOB and Hoylake - the course was justly famous for featuring OOB so heavily. Is there something sacred at Porthcawl or something that should absolutely not be altered?  Porthcawl has been worked on a ton over the years.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

But will it be yet another course which starts to compromise its current design in chase of the grand prize?

I spose the question is what is sacred at Porthcawl?  I can understand the argument at Hoylake for keeping the original Royal because of a long association between OOB and Hoylake - the course was justly famous for featuring OOB so heavily. Is there something sacred at Porthcawl or something that should absolutely not be altered?  Porthcawl has been worked on a ton over the years.

Ciao

What is sacred is that its generally been worked on to an architect's concept with the aim to improve the course (and yes, possibly toughen it)... as opposed to an R&A mandate to tiger-proof it.... Very different approaches for the most part

[Ben Stephens]

Not only it would be the first Open held in the Principality but also the first Tom Simpson layout!

Here is an old sketch I have found in the archives of Porthcawl 2020 Open drawn by me



Still think this version at Pyle and Kenfig would be better suited and the dunes as natural spectator viewing areas like Birkdale

[Adam Lawrence]

Ben, I think that Porthcawl staging plan you've drawn illustrates one of the key problems: your tented village is four or five times smaller than the real one would need to be.

They either need to use the whole of the current practice ground as tented village, and find somewhere else for a range, or they need to acquire (or rent) adjoining land. And where is the TV compound, press centre, etc, going to go?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Very nice, Ben.... How many of these "just for fun" master plans have you got lying around the place - you seem to come up with a new one almost every month?

[Frank Pont]

But will it be yet another course which starts to compromise its current design in chase of the grand prize?

It has already started, the R&A architects have replaced the previous archie.....

[Ben Stephens]

Very nice, Ben.... How many of these "just for fun" master plans have you got lying around the place - you seem to come up with a new one almost every month?

Cheers Ally! I have loads of design alternatives for golf courses and buildings in my head I am sure my partner in crime Mr Boon will testify. I could possibly do one for another 9 at Carne for fun to make it 2 x 18 holes lol  

This Porthcawl and P+K Masterplans were done many moons ago.

Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Ben, I think that Porthcawl staging plan you've drawn illustrates one of the key problems: your tented village is four or five times smaller than the real one would need to be.

They either need to use the whole of the current practice ground as tented village, and find somewhere else for a range, or they need to acquire (or rent) adjoining land. And where is the TV compound, press centre, etc, going to go?

I agree Adam having been to Muirfield for this year's Open and how much more commercial and practice areas they require these days has increased a lot.

I can see the R&A putting the hospitality areas south of the clubhouse and the tented village where I have indicated on my indicative plan.

For the other stuff like TV compounds etc there is plenty of scope in the surrounding areas because they are fields unlike Lytham and Hoylake which are more squeezed in and surrounded by housing. From my point of view Porthcawl is much more flexible and one wonders why the R&A are warming up going there??

[Ben Stephens]

But will it be yet another course which starts to compromise its current design in chase of the grand prize?

It has already started, the R&A architects have replaced the previous archie.....

Previous course designer was David Williams - he was responsible for the new 12th green.

I assume either Martin Hawtree or Tom McKenzie have been given the job

[Paul_Turner]

They softened the 5th and 9th greens, which is usually a bad sign.

Ben

Bad taste in removing Simpson's great 7th!  And the walk backwards for your 9th?

[Sean_A]

They softened the 5th and 9th greens, which is usually a bad sign.

Ben

Bad taste in removing Simpson's great 7th!  And the walk backwards for your 9th?

I too wondered about the 8th, why not just keep the current 7th hole?  

Ally

Wasn't significant work done to Porthcawl with an eye to host an Open?  

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

They softened the 5th and 9th greens, which is usually a bad sign.

Ben

Bad taste in removing Simpson's great 7th!  And the walk backwards for your 9th?

I too wondered about the 8th, why not just keep the current 7th hole?  

Ally

Wasn't significant work done to Porthcawl with an eye to host an Open?  

Ciao

The only work done recently that I know of was the softening of 5th and 9th greens and the removal of the green extension on 10... That might have indeed be done with an eye on current professional tournaments and might well have been instigated by the R&A...

Pure speculation but it seems to me that the R&A guiding hand has become a lot firmer in the last few years with regards to work needing done to its championship venues...

If Porthcawl was awarded The Open tomorrow, do you really think that we wouldn't see some wholesale changes; new bunker positions (pinched, tighter), tees outside the property, possible rerouting to fit infrastructure in? And do you think the chosen architect will be working without a fairly strict mandate?
 

[Sean_A]

I am disappointed to hear that the new back part of the 10th green was done away with.  Why?  The 12th green is new and its a goodun'. 

I think the reason Simpson was brought in to make changes was because Porthcawl was seriously considered for an Open.  Major championship play has always been a big reason to alter potential championship and championship links.  The architectural history of nearly all championship links is about change.  The issue is really about

1. Does the course have sufficient history/pedigree etc to warrant no change protection
2. What is the high point of the design and should it be the goal to restore courses to that level
3. Preserving the work of what we now recognize as great archies

I absolutely think more changes would occur if Porthcawl were chosen to host an Open.  I also think it likely that much of the change will not be to my liking.  But then high point architecture and championship golf haven't melded well together for at least my entire life.  Clubs have tough choices to make, go for ultimate glory in hosting an Open or sit back and enjoy status quo with arguably the course being better for it.  Porthcawl is not the sort of course I think worth fighting over in terms of drawing a line in the sand over no changes nor am I a member of Porthcawl so it doesn't worry me either way.  Regardless of my opinion about changes, it is inevitable especially where championship golf is concerned. 

Ciao 

[Ally Mcintosh]

I am disappointed to hear that the new back part of the 10th green was done away with.  Why?  The 12th green is new and its a goodun'. 

I think the reason Simpson was brought in to make changes was because Porthcawl was seriously considered for an Open.  Major championship play has always been a big reason to alter potential championship and championship links.  The architectural history of nearly all championship links is about change.  The issue is really about

1. Does the course have sufficient history/pedigree etc to warrant no change protection
2. What is the high point of the design and should it be the goal to restore courses to that level
3. Preserving the work of what we now recognize as great archies

I absolutely think more changes would occur if Porthcawl were chosen to host an Open.  I also think it likely that much of the change will not be to my liking.  But then high point architecture and championship golf haven't melded well together for at least my entire life.  Clubs have tough choices to make, go for ultimate glory in hosting an Open or sit back and enjoy status quo with arguably the course being better for it.  Porthcawl is not the sort of course I think worth fighting over in terms of drawing a line in the sand over no changes nor am I a member of Porthcawl so it doesn't worry me either way.  Regardless of my opinion about changes, it is inevitable especially where championship golf is concerned. 

Ciao 

I too liked that 10th green extension which was done by David Williams at the same time as the 12th green.

I agree with most all that you say below that. Many of these courses have been altered with a view to championships and it is indeed a fine balance. I just get the feeling that whilst that balance was in favour of productive and innovative changes at the behest of the club & architect in previous times, the scales have tipped the other way now. They no longer pull the strings.

[Adam Lawrence]

Ally - I know what you mean, but did you not feel the work to 10 and 12 was done pretty much entirely with a view to lengthening the course for championship play? If you identify yourself as a club that hosts championships, it seems to me that you've already accepted your course will adapt to suit as time passes.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally - I know what you mean, but did you not feel the work to 10 and 12 was done pretty much entirely with a view to lengthening the course for championship play? If you identify yourself as a club that hosts championships, it seems to me that you've already accepted your course will adapt to suit as time passes.

In a whole sense, I'm sure you are right, Adam... I'm not actually sure what was done to 10 though? Was there more length as well as the green?12 re-routed was just a straight out improvement, was it not (bearing in mind I didn't see Porthcawl pre-this work)?

The Old Course changes have left a scar....

I also happen to think there is a big difference between the two following scenarios:

1. Club decides it wants to be a championship venue so seeks out architect of club's choice to advise on possible changes that will help it achieve its aim. Club decides whether to approve changes that architect conceives...

or

2. Club is told that if it wants to host a certain championship, it will have to make changes. Choice of architect taken out of clubs hand and nature of work taken out of both club and architect's hands...

Now I'm not saying it is as simple as 1 or 2... there must be blurring of lines... It just feels to me (perhaps wrongly) that we have moved from more of 1 to more of 2...

[Sean_A]

Ally

No question the screw has turned essentially toward amateurs (read folks looking for ways to maximize profit and other non-golfing issues) having far more say in how courses are altered than they really should.  The penny dropped for me back in 2006 with Hoylake when a hole as famous as Royal could be altered.  As an aside, why should clubs expect to have the right to a design in which balls leaving the property is an essential aspect?  At least the new Royal is good without being particularly memorable, but that is Hoylake all over now.  

Still, all is done with the blessing of members and if members don't want to protect what they have there isn't much that can be done.

Ciao  

[Paul_Turner]

It's obvious that the pace of change to the Open venues has accelerated in the last 20 years or so.  The changes to Birkdale after the '91 Open were the start and then the flood gates opened...with each course getting the "treatment" as Dawson put it.

Porthcawl was plenty tough enough for Tiger and Co in the Walker Cup, on a course that was enjoyable for its members.  So with its new back tees it should be tough enough without any radical changes.  I can see why they lengthened the 12th eventhough the old green was a nice one.  

I guess the usual reasoning was applied to the 5th and 9th greens without considering that there are many great links greens just as severe.

Porthcawl is a unlike any other British links and is worth preserving and I hope it doesn't get chopped up just because it's Welsh.



PS I think the 12th or 17th would have to be the finishing hole (as Ben has)...a bit anticlimactic.

[Thomas Dai]

It's not necessarily just the desire of the Club or the R&A in wanting to hold The Open, or any other organisation wishing to hold a significant sporting event for that matter, at a particular location that needs consideration. There is also persuasion/pressure from other local bodies and political intervention as well to consider. It is difficult not to imagine that some degree of covert arm-twisting or encouragement does not go on behind the scenes.
All the best

[James Boon]

Adam,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I would love to see an Open at Porthcawl. Funny thing is that at Buda some years back I was a little underwhelmed by the place, but since then I keep thinking about it. Might be because a certain Welshman who has already contributed to this thread had built the course up to be something spectacular? With hindsight, I'd love to go back and give it another few rounds.

I've always thought that if the R&A want an Open at a certain venue, they will make it happen, no matter the logistical obsticles, as most of the current venues prove. The possibility of switching the 17th to the last hole would certainly help for grandstands etc. But my biggest concern would be the area around the 13th green, 14th tee, 16th green and 17th tee? I recall it as very crowded around there to be getting players and especially spectators to move around, or to put up smaller grandstands etc?

Very nice, Ben.... How many of these "just for fun" master plans have you got lying around the place - you seem to come up with a new one almost every month?

Ally, don't encourage him...   Afterall, he does want to get rid of the short 7th?  

Cheers,

James

[Bill_McBride]

I found #6 to be quite plain, but the 7th?  Why would anyone want to tamper with or do away with the 7th?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()