[Niall C]

Frank

From what I've read the St Olaf course that is now played, it is basically the Simpson changes over the winter of 1921 that were incorporated into the main course for one season before the 4th etc were built in the dunes in the winter of 1922 which resulted in a switch back to using the old 1st, 2nd etc with the Simpson holes becoming the St Olaf course.

A couple of questions for you;

1 - given your passion for Simpson and all would you reconsider making any changes to the St Olaf course in order to preserve his work ?

2 - while you've looked at expanding the St Olaf course, did you consider effectively incorporating some of those holes into the main course rather than more or less retaining the existing routing for the main course ?

Niall

[Frank Pont]

Niall,

good questions:

1. I have been for a long time been looking what could be done to expand the Olaf course to 18 holes but still keep as much of the original 9 holes intact. You could keep all original 9 holes of the Olaf course, but that would result in a slightly less good overall routing. The best I have achieved so far is 8 holes staying intact and one hole disappearing (the par 3 hole 5). That is not bad but you still lose some value... on the other hand you could gain some very good holes in the new 10 you would add.....

2. No, I would not want to change the bones of the main routing, I'm too much of a traditionalist for that.....

[Michael Tamburrini]

The holes to the left of the current 5th, 6th and 7th would be incredible.  I've spent many hours walking those dunes and imagining how holes would fit on them, it'd be fantastic to see. 

I'm curious Frank - was it your idea to move the tee of the 7th on the big course??  On your plans the new 4th hole on the St Olaf is pretty much where the current 7th tee has been moved to, so I doubt it.  I can see why it was moved (it's made the hole longer) but it's always felt at the wrong angle to me, and I thought it was a better hole when the tee was just to the left of the 6th.

I'd also love to see the new par 3 at the far end of the course incorporated properly into it, even if it means losing the 11th, 15th or 16th.  It's a beautiful little hole and, with the 13th tee having been moved next to it, it seems like it should be getting used permanently.

[Frank Pont]

The holes to the left of the current 5th, 6th and 7th would be incredible.  I've spent many hours walking those dunes and imagining how holes would fit on them, it'd be fantastic to see.  

I'm curious Frank - was it your idea to move the tee of the 7th on the big course??  On your plans the new 4th hole on the St Olaf is pretty much where the current 7th tee has been moved to, so I doubt it.  I can see why it was moved (it's made the hole longer) but it's always felt at the wrong angle to me, and I thought it was a better hole when the tee was just to the left of the 6th.

I'd also love to see the new par 3 at the far end of the course incorporated properly into it, even if it means losing the 11th, 15th or 16th.  It's a beautiful little hole and, with the 13th tee having been moved next to it, it seems like it should be getting used permanently.

Michael,

agree its great golf land, maybe a bit extreme, but with some good thinking a solid expanded Olaf routing should be possible. Have a try at it!  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58822.0.html

No not my idea at all, the change of the tee of hole 7 was an idea of the then greens chairman, and it got implemented after my last involvement with the club. It  takes a lot of character out of the tee shot, which always was about how much of the corner do you dare to bite off. It also causes a significant walk back from the 6th green. Not a smart change, but no doubt very popular with the low handicap players....

I am conflicted on the new par 3 hole. I designed and built it so obviously I like it, but I am not sure we should change the routing for it.

On a separate note it would help if the club stopped tinkering with the design of the new hole (for some reason they decided to close the middle green bunker, one that played a pivotal role in the defence of the green). If you do not understand something, the best thing to do is to ask de designer about its purpose, rather than start changing things.......  for those interested to understand the design story of the new hole here is the chapter I wrote on it in Paul Daley's latest GA book  https://www.dropbox.com/s/1qypwnaius2dwu4/GAV6_Sancraggs_31-1-13.pdf

[Thomas Dai]

Frank,

Thanks for posting the link explaining more about the background to hole 13a.

As to the 7th, shame the bunkers on the corner of the dog-leg were removed.

Off to post about St Olaf routing now.

atb

[Michael Tamburrini]

The holes to the left of the current 5th, 6th and 7th would be incredible.  I've spent many hours walking those dunes and imagining how holes would fit on them, it'd be fantastic to see.  

I'm curious Frank - was it your idea to move the tee of the 7th on the big course??  On your plans the new 4th hole on the St Olaf is pretty much where the current 7th tee has been moved to, so I doubt it.  I can see why it was moved (it's made the hole longer) but it's always felt at the wrong angle to me, and I thought it was a better hole when the tee was just to the left of the 6th.

I'd also love to see the new par 3 at the far end of the course incorporated properly into it, even if it means losing the 11th, 15th or 16th.  It's a beautiful little hole and, with the 13th tee having been moved next to it, it seems like it should be getting used permanently.

Michael,

agree its great golf land, maybe a bit extreme, but with some good thinking a solid expanded Olaf routing should be possible. Have a try at it!  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58822.0.html

No not my idea at all, the change of the tee of hole 7 was an idea of the then greens chairman, and it got implemented after my last involvement with the club. It  takes a lot of character out of the tee shot, which always was about how much of the corner do you dare to bite off. It also causes a significant walk back from the 6th green. Not a smart change, but no doubt very popular with the low handicap players....

I am conflicted on the new par 3 hole. I designed and built it so obviously I like it, but I am not sure we should change the routing for it.

On a separate note it would help if the club stopped tinkering with the design of the new hole (for some reason they decided to close the middle green bunker, one that played a pivotal role in the defence of the green). If you do not understand something, the best thing to do is to ask de designer about its purpose, rather than start changing things.......  for those interested to understand the design story of the new hole here is the chapter I wrote on it in Paul Daley's latest GA book  https://www.dropbox.com/s/1qypwnaius2dwu4/GAV6_Sancraggs_31-1-13.pdf

Thanks for that Frank, that was an interesting read.  I don't understand why they'd go to the trouble of filling in that bunker.  Even if it is universally unpopular for some reason, I wouldn't have thought that the hole gets enough use to warrant filling it in.

I really like the extra hole, were I king for the day I'd happily switch it with the 11th.  Not that the 11th isn't a nice hole, but it is a bit of a bottleneck and does get close to the 13th fairway and it could be removed from the routing without disturbing the flow.  That would also keep the 15th and 16th together.

BTW playing the 9th along the cliff would be a huge improvement.  And the tee shot would be better from the other side of the 8th.  The current tee is positioned more for the vista rather than the playing aesthetic though, and I'm unsure if this would be sacrificed regardless of how it may help the hole.

I'm going to have a look at that St Olaf routing tomorrow.  It'll brighten up my walk with the dog in the morning.

[Thomas Dai]

I'm going to have a look at that St Olaf routing tomorrow.  It'll brighten up my walk with the dog in the morning.

Michael and Frank,

When fido goes goes for his walkies would there be a chance of him taking/posting some photos of the St Olaf course, especially the 6th, 7th and 8th greensites?

As to the Championship course, I've always liked the 15th and 16th holes although I know many arn't so keen. I have long thought however, that there was some merit in combining the two holes into one. If angled correctly this would result in a short-ish par-4 that would play over the burn/chasm that lies to the right of the 16th green. Shame to lose the 15th & 16th though.

atb

[Frank Pont]

Thomas,

I have put the pics I have of the Olaf here

http://ivgd.smugmug.com/Golf-Architecture-Pictures/Scotland/Cruden-Bay/St-Olaf-Course/


On 15 and 16 an option would be to keep both par 3 holes, but build a new tee which makes 16 a driveable par 4 of 265 yards. That tee would be somewhere in the dunes behind the 14th green (the original position of the 15th tee before it got moved way back to the side of the 14th green). That way the members, many of whom dislike 15 and 16 can play the new par 4 hole and the new par 3 hole at the end of the property, and visitors can play the classic course with the old 15th and 16th hole (many will probably play 19 holes, including the new par 3)

[Thomas Dai]

Frank,

A combined 15th-16th as you describe would be very nice. Having it, and the par-3 between the 12th and 13th, would indeed give quite a few playing options. No bad thing in many ways.

As to the St Olaf photos. They are terrific. They would make a fine GCA photo tour in their own right. As much as I like the Championship course, I have always felt that the 6th on the St Olaf is the best hole of all the 27 (28) holes on the CBGC property, and that the 7th and 8th holes on the St-O are pretty impressive holes too. The 8th back into the prevailing wind plays damn tough.

atb

[Frank Pont]

Maybe we need to get Ally Mcintosh down to explain to the people at Cruden Bay how Carne was able to build another 9 holes for a very modest budget......

[Thomas Dai]

Maybe we need to get Ally Mcintosh down to explain to the people at Cruden Bay how Carne was able to build another 9 holes for a very modest budget......

+1

atb

[billb]

Okay, I have only played CB 4 times (2 consecutive days back in 1997). It was my absolute favorite of the 15 courses I played on a two week trip.

So I am certainly not an expert but regarding the new #9:
As was mentioned the walk from 8 green to 9 tee is already long and now it will be longer? "the extra 50 yards must be worth it" - really?
It is hard to tell from the drawing in the Mackenzie & Ebert proposal, but it looks like the tee shot is a forced carry to a fairway with a steep fall off to the left. It says "bank", isn't this a steep hillside?
Long uphill walk, forced carry, hazard left - recipe for frustrated golfers and slow play.

One thing I like about the current #9 is the total change of pace. You are deep in the dunes for the 6 previous holes and then you walk up the hill, get to the tee, see the castle in the distance, and have a wide open fairway in front of you - time to let the big dog eat! Yes, the hole needs work - blind tee shot and the green has extremely poor definition. This has likely already been considered, but could the existing fairway be leveled and a new slightly raised green be built?

The new #10:
Okay, I have a soft spot in my golfers heart for the #10 tee box. I had the course all to myself on a very nice late September afternoon. After enjoying the view of the bay and the golf course below me, I hit a nice solid 3 wood and watched as a small flock of seagulls flew underneath the golf ball.
The new #10 tee boxes won't have the same view or exposure.
Also the new tee boxes introduce another forced carry (across the ditch) and also brings into play the gunk to the right of the ditch. At least if you slice from the current tees it is a lateral hazard, not so from the new tees. More frustrated golfers and slower play.

Outside of the drainage ditch on 10, 11, and 13 are there any forced carries at CB? The penal nature of the proposed new tee shots on 9&10 just seem out of character.

Just my .02 worth.

[Sean_A]

Bill

I hear where you are coming from concerning 9.  The proposal is an obvious "solution" to a weak link, but the hole would still be a weak link imo.  #10, however, would be improved simply because of the angle of tee shot.  The burn has to be carried no matter what so that isn't an issue.  Although, I do take your point concerning crap right coming more into play and play possibly being slowed to look for balls.  It seems to me that no matter, these two holes transitioning over extreme terrain will always be less than ideal.  I spose its down to the club if they want to spend the money and still be left with some dissatisifaction. 

Ciao

[Ru Macdonald]

All this will come to a head in a EGM in the coming weeks. The proposals have been examined and scrutinised by members without any real issues. Members will now be asked to vote the changes through. Note #16 is much needed and will not change the character of the hole but only restore it's original design as an image from 1920s included in the proposal confirms.

As a member I will keep those interested upto date.

[Frank Pont]

All this will come to a head in a EGM in the coming weeks. The proposals have been examined and scrutinised by members without any real issues. Members will now be asked to vote the changes through. Note #16 is much needed and will not change the character of the hole but only restore it's original design as an image from 1920s included in the proposal confirms.

As a member I will keep those interested upto date.

Ru,

glad you found this Cruden thread after I responded to your PM asking for it. (fyi most people here consider it polite behaviour to answer a PM reply, especially if it includes a question back such as my reply did)

Two comments regarding the proposals.

1.  I would scrutinize carefully what will be done with fore-green and green of hole 16. The sand build up is almost all in the initial parts of the fore-green, quite a distance from the green. From the proposal I got the feeling the plan is to remodel both the entrance AND the green. I would be very very careful changing original Simpson greens, you never know what you will get in place of it. If you do go ahead make sure the original green has been surveyed in detail, so that you can always go back and restore the old green if the new one does not prove to be a success. This is not a hypothetical situation, I am dealing with at least 3 cases where a classic course wants to go back to their old green but does not have a detailed "before" survey of these greens...

2. Maybe the EGM would also be interested to hear from the committee why they felt it necessary to pay money to get the same advice they had already received 6 years ago for free....

[Brian_Ewen]

https://twitter.com/CrudenBayPro/status/498553242218135553

Tomorrow evening (7.30pm) a members EGM will take place for proposed course improvements presented by @golfarchitects

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()