[Jud_T]

I have to say that given the choice of lesser evils, that History may very well view Trump as a better steward of the game than Dawson.  Of course, that isn't saying much...

Jud

Possibly one of the dumbest posts I've ever read on here.

Niall

Actually it pales in comparison to your blind defense of changing contours at The Old Course, at the behest of your boy Dawson.  Trump, tool that he may be, is already displaying more reverence for Turnberry than Dawson did for the most important course in the history of the game.  And we're not even discussing the incompetence shown on technology or the glacially slow movement on single sex Open venues, but I digress....

What I did was point out to the likes of you that Peter Dawson did not make the decision on the changes, they were made by a committee consisting of members of the Links Trust, the R&A and from memory local politicians. The R&A representation on that body was in the minority and I don’t even know for certain whether Dawson represented the R&A at those meetings. What I think we can readily suppose is that the changes were debated at the relevant R&A committee and the R&A view agreed with the R&A rep on the decision making body reflecting that view. As an aside, I also pointed out that the Old Course has continually evolved since first laid out and including throughout the 20th century and what is happening now might fairly be seen as part of that evolutiion.

So you're saying that he's not merely incompetent, but incompetent AND powerless.  
  
Many of the single sex clubs that you refer to are either partially responsible or directly responsible for the inception, running and hosting of the Open and did so when it was far from a money making venture. The revenue from the Open is now the most important source of funding for the R&A. If you take the time to read the R&A annual review you will note that it provides £5m a year to their Working for Golf programme which undertakes a range of golf education and development activities aimed at grassroots level amongst others and including provision of public access facilities. That’s the organisation Mr Dawson plays a part in running.

fyi- Donald Sterling gives to charity.  Doesn't exempt him from public scrutiny.

The clubs themselves no longer play a part in running the Open but many of them provide their courses for the championship. You describe them as single sex venues when it would be more accurate to say they are single sex clubs. I know of none that don’t welcome women as guests or visitors and many have happily hosted womens events including Royal Troon which recently hosted the Helen Holm Trophy as it does every year. I’d suggest their record for accessibility stacks up fairly well to many a high end country clubs.

Very magnanimous of them.  Do they serve tea and finger sandwiches at the turn for the gals?

Finally, you may wish to reflect that you are posting on a site that reveres the golden age of golf course architecture.
Niall

I'm not the one casually justifying bastardizing TOC to protect par in the Open as simply another stage in the evolution of the course.

*edited to remove insulting comments

[Steve Okula]

Mr. Mucci,

Sorry to bother you, but I am curious to know how you came to the conclusion that there was a need to build a hotel at Turnberry?

Who's need?

Respectfully,

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mr. Mucci,

Sorry to bother you, but I am curious to know how you came to the conclusion that there was a need to build a hotel at Turnberry?

Who's need?

Respectfully,

Hint:  When a hotel is at full capacity, what does that tell you about the "NEED" for that hotel ?

P.S.

Jud, get your own color ink and stop stealing mine

[Mark Chaplin]

Turnberry is an old British Rail hotel as is Gleneagles. The course was built as part of a resort and it would be true to say 100 years ago the course needed the hotel. Obviously things change but Mr Beeching ensured the railway no longer exists.

You can be assured the opening of the course and hotel had nothing to do with wealthy, rupert bear trouser wearing Americans  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Turnberry is an old British Rail hotel as is Gleneagles. The course was built as part of a resort and it would be true to say 100 years ago the course needed the hotel. Obviously things change but Mr Beeching ensured the railway no longer exists.

You can be assured the opening of the course and hotel had nothing to do with wealthy, rupert bear trouser wearing Americans  

Mark,

You'll have to forgive the morons and MIT's.

The course/s and the hotel and the railway are inextricably entwined.

Turnberry was probably the first golf resort in the world

Steve Okula and Ben Cowan seem to be wildly ignorant of Turnberry's fascinating history, including it's service during WWII.

[Patrick_Mucci]

''If there was so much available, suitable, affordable housing nearby, why was there the need to spend a fortune to build a hotel ?
Did the words "demand" or "need" ever enter your mind.
Did it ever occur to you that there was a lack of quality, convenient housing in the area, contrary to your claim, and that's why they built the hotel ?

And, after the hotel was long operational, why would the owner spend 60,000,000 to build an addition to the facility ?''

The owner must of been listening to yahoo's on this side of the pond that Luxury is the only way to go!  

Demand now is another term for ''loose credit'', ''easy money''.  

There was no "loose credit" or "easy money" when the spa was built.
You need to get your chronological house in order.
Get the "FACTS" FIRST, then try to form a logical argument

Obviously the owner can't tell a bubble from a piece of gum.  

There was no bubble

It is up for sale, so obviously the market deemed him wrong!

You're wrong again.

The hotel was built in 1904.
A subsequent owner who built the spa was a Japanese firm, a firm that acquired the hotel about 75 years after it opened.
They subsequently sold the hotel. 

Have you ever stayed in a Hampton Inn, or is that slumming it?  
If people visit the course for the hotel, I don't want to play behind them on the course, waiting on every shot!

You have so much to learn and I only have limited times available.

[BCowan]

''why would the owner spend 60,000,000 to build an addition to the facility ?''

So in 1979, $60 million was spent on addition???   When did the Keynesian's come to power?  They had made there way into the Japanese economy too..

[Patrick_Mucci]

''why would the owner spend 60,000,000 to build an addition to the facility ?''

So in 1979, $60 million was spent on addition???  

NO, in 1991.

When did the Keynesian's come to power?  

1945-1973 and again in 2008.

They had made there way into the Japanese economy too..

Turnberry is in Scotland and the Spa was built in 1991.

In 1997 the Japanese sold their interest in Turnberry to an American group that continued to invest in the property.

Then, they sold it to the Dubai interests.

And now, enter the "Donald" stage left !

I have no doubt that the "Donald" will spruce the property up.

He now has several major courses in the U.K. to go with his courses in the U.S.

Seems to me that he's trying to do his best to promote golf at his courses.

Join one, play them all !

Sounds like a sound marketing strategy to me.

[Steve Okula]

Mr. Mucci,

Sorry to bother you, but I am curious to know how you came to the conclusion that there was a need to build a hotel at Turnberry?

Who's need?

Respectfully,

Hint:  When a hotel is at full capacity, what does that tell you about the "NEED" for that hotel ?

P.S.

I only asked a question. Please forgive my "wild ignorance" '(was that really necessary?). I was laboring under the illusion that one way to escape ignorance was to ask questions.

So it seems there is a fire sale of a luxury hotel at full capacity.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mr. Mucci,

Sorry to bother you, but I am curious to know how you came to the conclusion that there was a need to build a hotel at Turnberry? [/b]

DEMAND

The railroad created the first golf resort of it's kind with rail service to the front door.

The hotel has remained a popular resort/hotel for 110 years.

If there was no need, it would have been closed decades ago

Who's need?

Resort vacationers and golfers

Respectfully,

Hint:  When a hotel is at full capacity, what does that tell you about the "NEED" for that hotel ?

P.S.

I only asked a question.

No you didn't, your motives extended far beyond inquisitiveness.
And, you and I both know that.

Please forgive my "wild ignorance" '(was that really necessary?).

Yes

I was laboring under the illusion that one way to escape ignorance was to ask questions.

Depends on one's motives, doesn't it.

So it seems there is a fire sale of a luxury hotel at full capacity.

In your ignorance, you seemed to have skipped a century and a decade.

You initially asked words to the effect of: "why the need to build the hotel".
And you asked that question, blindly ignorant of the circumstances surrounding it's creation in 1904.
You were obviously ignorant of the facts behind the hotel's creation and probably unaware that it was built 110 years ago.

Now, with your last question, you conveniently skip ahead 110 years to 2014 and ask why the hotel was sold "in a fire sale"

Surely, even one as ignorant as you understands that circumstances change over 110 years, as do capacity levels.

Try not to be so obviously disingenuous.

[Steve Okula]

Mr. Mucci,

Sorry to bother you, but I am curious to know how you came to the conclusion that there was a need to build a hotel at Turnberry? [/b]

DEMAND

The railroad created the first golf resort of it's kind with rail service to the front door.

The hotel has remained a popular resort/hotel for 110 years.

If there was no need, it would have been closed decades ago

Who's need?

Resort vacationers and golfers

Respectfully,

Hint:  When a hotel is at full capacity, what does that tell you about the "NEED" for that hotel ?

P.S.

I only asked a question.

No you didn't, your motives extended far beyond inquisitiveness.
And, you and I both know that.

Please forgive my "wild ignorance" '(was that really necessary?).

Yes

I was laboring under the illusion that one way to escape ignorance was to ask questions.

Depends on one's motives, doesn't it.

So it seems there is a fire sale of a luxury hotel at full capacity.

In your ignorance, you seemed to have skipped a century and a decade.

You initially asked words to the effect of: "why the need to build the hotel".
And you asked that question, blindly ignorant of the circumstances surrounding it's creation in 1904.
You were obviously ignorant of the facts behind the hotel's creation and probably unaware that it was built 110 years ago.

Now, with your last question, you conveniently skip ahead 110 years to 2014 and ask why the hotel was sold "in a fire sale"

Surely, even one as ignorant as you understands that circumstances change over 110 years, as do capacity levels.

Try not to be so obviously disingenuous.

Why am I getting blue ink? That's worrying.

You said there was a need for the hotel, without explaining why. So I asked.

If you want to consider me disingenous, that's your prerogative. Really, I'm just lazy. It was easier to ask you than to research the entire history of the Turnberry resort.

[Niall C]

Turnberry is an old British Rail hotel as is Gleneagles. The course was built as part of a resort and it would be true to say 100 years ago the course needed the hotel. Obviously things change but Mr Beeching ensured the railway no longer exists.

You can be assured the opening of the course and hotel had nothing to do with wealthy, rupert bear trouser wearing Americans  

Mark,

You'll have to forgive the morons and MIT's.

The course/s and the hotel and the railway are inextricably entwined.

Turnberry was probably the first golf resort in the world

Steve Okula and Ben Cowan seem to be wildly ignorant of Turnberry's fascinating history, including it's service during WWII.

Patrick

Cruden Bay predates Turnberry by at least a decade although the Cruden Bay hotel no longer exists and the course is owned by the club. Can't recall exactly when the hotel at Turnberry was developed but possibly similar timescale as Gleneagles.

Niall

[Niall C]

I have to say that given the choice of lesser evils, that History may very well view Trump as a better steward of the game than Dawson.  Of course, that isn't saying much...

Jud

Possibly one of the dumbest posts I've ever read on here.

Niall

Actually it pales in comparison to your blind defense of changing contours at The Old Course, at the behest of your boy Dawson.  Trump, tool that he may be, is already displaying more reverence for Turnberry than Dawson did for the most important course in the history of the game.  And we're not even discussing the incompetence shown on technology or the glacially slow movement on single sex Open venues, but I digress....

What I did was point out to the likes of you that Peter Dawson did not make the decision on the changes, they were made by a committee consisting of members of the Links Trust, the R&A and from memory local politicians. The R&A representation on that body was in the minority and I don’t even know for certain whether Dawson represented the R&A at those meetings. What I think we can readily suppose is that the changes were debated at the relevant R&A committee and the R&A view agreed with the R&A rep on the decision making body reflecting that view. As an aside, I also pointed out that the Old Course has continually evolved since first laid out and including throughout the 20th century and what is happening now might fairly be seen as part of that evolutiion.

So you're saying that he's not merely incompetent, but incompetent AND powerless.  
  
Many of the single sex clubs that you refer to are either partially responsible or directly responsible for the inception, running and hosting of the Open and did so when it was far from a money making venture. The revenue from the Open is now the most important source of funding for the R&A. If you take the time to read the R&A annual review you will note that it provides £5m a year to their Working for Golf programme which undertakes a range of golf education and development activities aimed at grassroots level amongst others and including provision of public access facilities. That’s the organisation Mr Dawson plays a part in running.

fyi- Donald Sterling gives to charity.  Doesn't exempt him from public scrutiny.

The clubs themselves no longer play a part in running the Open but many of them provide their courses for the championship. You describe them as single sex venues when it would be more accurate to say they are single sex clubs. I know of none that don’t welcome women as guests or visitors and many have happily hosted womens events including Royal Troon which recently hosted the Helen Holm Trophy as it does every year. I’d suggest their record for accessibility stacks up fairly well to many a high end country clubs.

Very magnanimous of them.  Do they serve tea and finger sandwiches at the turn for the gals?

Finally, you may wish to reflect that you are posting on a site that reveres the golden age of golf course architecture.
Niall

I'm not the one casually justifying bastardizing TOC to protect par in the Open as simply another stage in the evolution of the course.

*edited to remove insulting comments

Jud

Reading your response makes me wonder why I bothered editing my own post to take out the insults. I should have left them in because you clearly are a twat.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

The Turnberry Hotel dates to 1904, with a direct rail link.
The Turnberry Hotel was/is a grand hotel, a resort.

The railroad also built a hotel at Cruden Bay in 1899, but I'm not sure of the scope and uses of the hotel at Cruden Bay, and whether it was a resort

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why am I getting blue ink?

To separate it from green ink.

That's worrying.

Only if your motives were disingenuous

You said there was a need for the hotel, without explaining why. So I asked.


Baloney,
The hotel has been there for 110 years and served those traveling to play golf just like at Gleneagles, Cruden Bay, Bandon, Streamsong, Doral, Kohler and other golf destinations.

If you want to consider me disingenous, that's your prerogative.

Yes, and I'm exercising that prerogative.
YOU and I both know you were being disingenuous

Really,
I'm just lazy.

A quinella ? In addition to being disingenuous

It was easier to ask you than to research the entire history of the Turnberry resort.

Baloney, you were being a wise guy and disingenuous, another quinella.

[Jud_T]

I have to say that given the choice of lesser evils, that History may very well view Trump as a better steward of the game than Dawson.  Of course, that isn't saying much...

Jud

Possibly one of the dumbest posts I've ever read on here.

Niall

Actually it pales in comparison to your blind defense of changing contours at The Old Course, at the behest of your boy Dawson.  Trump, tool that he may be, is already displaying more reverence for Turnberry than Dawson did for the most important course in the history of the game.  And we're not even discussing the incompetence shown on technology or the glacially slow movement on single sex Open venues, but I digress....

What I did was point out to the likes of you that Peter Dawson did not make the decision on the changes, they were made by a committee consisting of members of the Links Trust, the R&A and from memory local politicians. The R&A representation on that body was in the minority and I don’t even know for certain whether Dawson represented the R&A at those meetings. What I think we can readily suppose is that the changes were debated at the relevant R&A committee and the R&A view agreed with the R&A rep on the decision making body reflecting that view. As an aside, I also pointed out that the Old Course has continually evolved since first laid out and including throughout the 20th century and what is happening now might fairly be seen as part of that evolutiion.

So you're saying that he's not merely incompetent, but incompetent AND powerless.  
  
Many of the single sex clubs that you refer to are either partially responsible or directly responsible for the inception, running and hosting of the Open and did so when it was far from a money making venture. The revenue from the Open is now the most important source of funding for the R&A. If you take the time to read the R&A annual review you will note that it provides £5m a year to their Working for Golf programme which undertakes a range of golf education and development activities aimed at grassroots level amongst others and including provision of public access facilities. That’s the organisation Mr Dawson plays a part in running.

fyi- Donald Sterling gives to charity.  Doesn't exempt him from public scrutiny.

The clubs themselves no longer play a part in running the Open but many of them provide their courses for the championship. You describe them as single sex venues when it would be more accurate to say they are single sex clubs. I know of none that don’t welcome women as guests or visitors and many have happily hosted womens events including Royal Troon which recently hosted the Helen Holm Trophy as it does every year. I’d suggest their record for accessibility stacks up fairly well to many a high end country clubs.

Very magnanimous of them.  Do they serve tea and finger sandwiches at the turn for the gals?

Finally, you may wish to reflect that you are posting on a site that reveres the golden age of golf course architecture.
Niall

I'm not the one casually justifying bastardizing TOC to protect par in the Open as simply another stage in the evolution of the course.

*edited to remove insulting comments

Jud

Reading your response makes me wonder why I bothered editing my own post to take out the insults. I should have left them in because you clearly are a twat.

Niall

There's little argument there.  The real question is why you're so emotionally invested in defending the status quo of Dawson and the R&A changing every classic Open venue to defend a number or the Open venues that have all male memberships in this day and age yet continue to profit from their association with the Tournament.  By comparison, Trump looks like Mother Theresa on a bad hair day.

[BCowan]

There is no reason to criticize events that make a profit, the non profit PGA tour is a prime example of cronyism.  The other funny thing is people complaining about ''all men clubs'', and ''Chicago'' has their fair share of them.  If an organization decides to rent from one of them, it is their own damn business.  It is your business to boycott the event and turn down invitations to play ''All men clubs''.  That is what principled people do in a free society.  Those courses don't have to implement recommendations to change their courses if they don't want to host the Open.  It is the same for over here, many courses have been ruined for Majors, but it is their right to be ignoramuses.  

[Jud_T]

 Those courses don't have to implement recommendations to change their courses if they don't want to host the Open.  

Agreed.  However, thinking that they don't want to continue to host the Open and garner the status associated with it is naivite of the highest order.

It is the same for over here, many courses have been ruined for Majors, but it is their right to be ignoramuses.  

Agreed.  But it's our job to point out the level of their ignoramousness.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If a course/club makes over $ 1,000,000+ from hosting an Open, why wouldn't the course/club want to hold the Open ?

View it from the perspective of prestige and a reduction in your dues/capital expenditures.

Every time the USGA announces an Open venue, guest play skyrockets.

[Niall C]

Niall,

The Turnberry Hotel dates to 1904, with a direct rail link.
The Turnberry Hotel was/is a grand hotel, a resort.

The railroad also built a hotel at Cruden Bay in 1899, but I'm not sure of the scope and uses of the hotel at Cruden Bay, and whether it was a resort

Patrick

Are you sure of that date for the hotel ? The reason I ask is because the course only really got going c.1905 (?), 1906 or around about that time when Willie Fernie laid it out. Not sure there was even a rail link at that point and therefore I doubt they put the hotel in first. Speaking off the top of my head so could easily be wrong.

With regards to Cruden Bay, it didn't even exist as Cruden Bay until the railway company built the course/hotel as the nearby village and harbour was and still is known as Port Errol. From the outset the course was there to service the hotel as a tourist attraction.

Niall

[Niall C]

just looked it up on line and the first official Fernie course was 1901, the rail link 1905 and the hotel opened 1906 which on all counts puts it behind Cruden bay.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

The Turnberry Hotel dates to 1904, with a direct rail link.
The Turnberry Hotel was/is a grand hotel, a resort.

The railroad also built a hotel at Cruden Bay in 1899, but I'm not sure of the scope and uses of the hotel at Cruden Bay, and whether it was a resort

Patrick

Are you sure of that date for the hotel ? The reason I ask is because the course only really got going c.1905 (?), 1906 or around about that time when Willie Fernie laid it out.

I'm pretty sure that construction began on the course and the hotel in the same year, 1904/5

Not sure there was even a rail link at that point and therefore I doubt they put the hotel in first. Speaking off the top of my head so could easily be wrong.

The rail link was the critical piece.

If you look to Scotland and the U.S. the railways and the rail companies paved the way for golf course development.

With regards to Cruden Bay, it didn't even exist as Cruden Bay until the railway company built the course/hotel as the nearby village and harbour was and still is known as Port Errol.

From the outset the course was there to service the hotel as a tourist attraction.

Careful !  Steve Okula will begin asking why there was a need for a hotel in those parts.

[Niall C]

Jud

Re Dawson and the R&A - no real emotional attachment. Never met the guy nor likely to but what irks me is the lazy knee jerk reaction (my interpretation) of many on here in blaming him for just about everything such as the TOC changes for example. Of course neither Dawson or his organisation should get a free pass, and they should be held to account, but in doing that you should consider the evidence and the evidence with regards to TOC changes points to it being a collaborotive decision between two bodies, the Links Trust and the R&A, having taken the advice of a professional consultant. Dawson certainly fronted up the announcement of the changes but the committee procedures as outlined in the Links Trust annual reports show it he might not even have been involved let alone having the sole decision.

With regards the changes being made to Open venues, I firmly don't believe they are doing it to defend a number as you put it. That would be virtually impossible at an event that is so weather dependant. What they do is tinker with thim to make them a challenge befitting the best golfers in the world. They have always done this since the days when the new Muirfield course got an overhaul for not being up to snuff, from when Fowler and Low put in bunkers in TOC etc. Indeed what happens today is pretty mickey mouse compared to what used to happen back in the golden age when MacKenzie redesigned 4 or 5 holes at Prestwick amongst other changes ahead of the 1925 Open, when Braid constructed 80 bunkers at Troon for the 1923 Open plus the 50 bunkers he put in at Carnoustie for the 1926 Open. In comparison TOC has had a light touch.

Whether the changes are good or not I've no strong views but I do firmly believe that TOC is not a monument set in stone. It is a living breathing entity that has constantly evolved over time. Every time they rebuild the bunkers they change the contours, every time they sand the greens they change the contours, every time they rip out gorse they change the contours, every time they returf worn areas they change the contours etc. if you are interested in its evolution and haven't already got Scott MacPhersons book I would firmly recommend it.

Niall

[Niall C]

Patrick

The rail link was the critical issue as far as the hotel is concerned but I think I'm right in saying that the course was initially built by the Marquis of Ailsa who owned the land and the nearby Culzean Castle. A golf course was first muted in the 1890's and I think that there may have been a fairly rudimentary one built then.

Interestingly they got there first green keeper from the Cruden Bay course in Alex Weir.

I assume you looked at the same Turnberry website as I just did and I'm surprised that they claim to be the first purpose built golf resort. They may well be the oldest surviving but thats another matter.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

The rail link was the critical issue as far as the hotel is concerned but I think I'm right in saying that the course was initially built by the Marquis of Ailsa who owned the land and the nearby Culzean Castle.

Niall,

I think the railroad bought the land from the Marquis and put him on the board.
It's my understanding that the RR built the golf course concurrent with the hotel

A golf course was first muted in the 1890's and I think that there may have been a fairly rudimentary one built then.

Interestingly they got there first green keeper from the Cruden Bay course in Alex Weir.

I assume you looked at the same Turnberry website as I just did and I'm surprised that they claim to be the first purpose built golf resort.
They may well be the oldest surviving but thats another matter.

Isn't Trump's family from Scotland ?

Maybe that's where he picked up the habit 

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()