Open at Portrush

[Clyde Johnson]

Frank, I almost started that thread...I was sure the number of two-tiered, original Colt greens is/was pretty close to zero! Any other examples/pics?

Cheers, Clyde

Not sure why anyone would want to change that eighth into a two-tiered green?   

+1
I thought the 8th was one of the most interesting holes on the property.

2-tiered certainly does not remind me of Colt. (Calling Frank Pont)

Two tiered greens are very rare for Colt but do exist, eg the second at Tandridge and B5 at Kennemer. The famous par 3 at St. Cloud also has two tiers.

Usually they are used when the green is on a severe (side) slope where a tiered green was necessary to build a green without massive eartmoving.

[Jamie Pyper]

Frank, I almost started that thread...I was sure the number of two-tiered, original Colt greens is/was pretty close to zero! Any other examples/pics?

Cheers, Clyde



Actually Clyde you only have walk 200 yards to the east of #8 to find another Colt two-tiered green - # 5 - White Rocks is a beauty. 

[Lyndell Young]

I agree Clyde #8 green fit well to me ,not sure the reasoning for the change.As for 17and 18 they were nondunes holes so I guess they thought they could get away with it since they seem different than the rest of the layout.JMO

[Ally Mcintosh]

Adrian,

You take the common sense view, one based on the commercial aspects and highlighting what is important to the outside-GCA golfing world (i.e. the vast majority)… This is absolutely sensible and it is incredibly difficult to argue against the numbers in the members vote…. Portrush clearly needed space for the infrastructure and if the best solution was to use 17 & 18 and build two new holes, then I find it hard to argue against that decision, unfortunate as it is for those who don’t wish to see two Colt courses further changed. They want The Open back – so would I if it were my club.

What I raise my eyebrows at – and remember I don’t know the course well enough to comment in this particular case – is the continued tinkering with classic courses for no good reason…  The original design intention & style is undergoing death by a thousand cuts on many of these courses. Why do we need to adjust greens, change ground contours and re-bunker to a more homogenous, “modern” scheme, basically coming up with ideas to create work and try and prove that things can always be better?... I have watched and followed this on many classic courses and it is often to the detriment and consistency of the course.

I have to check myself when I write these things that I’m not being hypocritical… I feel that I am not… The only time I have been asked to consult on a classic course (and not one in the league we are talking either), the committee advised me that they wanted to completely re-route a section of the course (4 holes)… After my two visits to date, we are currently at one new green site (same route) + one new tee…. It didn’t need the work and they needed saving from themselves…

I am pretty agitated on this topic at the moment after seeing some outrageous suggestions being pitched at my own club also.

Ally

[David Davis]

I'm afraid the humility required to leave well alone is not a quality the R&A are looking for. Better to tamper than to consider the notion that a guy 100 years ago might just have known his stuff better than anyone around today.

Lets just be glad the R&A brass are not the custodians of the old Dutch master pieces hanging in the Rijksmuseum.

Frank, I think several of them could use refinishing and modernizing, perhaps the addition of some varied brush strokes and some more added quirkiness. Maybe even some abstract geometric shapes.

[David Davis]

I have a little more faith than the rest of you. I'm not a fan of 17 and 18 but love the course. I believe the changes to be in good hands. E & M take care of about 6 of the 9 Open rota courses right now and I can't think of anything that's been done that's so extreme to have ruined any of these classic courses. I'm sure there are those that might argue this and if so I'd like to hear some specific examples.

I'm very pleased with the decision to bring the Open there and equally as happy that the changes are in the hands of E & M. I was truly worried about the possibility of them ending up in the hands of Hawtree.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I have a little more faith than the rest of you. I'm not a fan of 17 and 18 but love the course. I believe the changes to be in good hands. E & M take care of about 6 of the 9 Open rota courses right now and I can't think of anything that's been done that's so extreme to have ruined any of these classic courses. I'm sure there are those that might argue this and if so I'd like to hear some specific examples.

I'm very pleased with the decision to bring the Open there and equally as happy that the changes are in the hands of E & M. I was truly worried about the possibility of them ending up in the hands of Hawtree.

As I said David - death by a thousand cuts.

Each committee hires a new architect to make (nominally small) changes, ends up with a few more changes than they'd originally expected and 50 years and 6 committees later, you have seven different styles on the course and we end up looking at old photos and going "look how different it was then!"

[Clyde Johnson]

Good spot Jamie - It was that example that stopped me from starting the thread . The way the rise climbs/wraps around around the corner of the grassy chasm to the right is simple yet elegant. It is safe to say that the fifth must be Colt's best situated two-tier green! I would still be interested in any other examples…?

Frank, I almost started that thread...I was sure the number of two-tiered, original Colt greens is/was pretty close to zero! Any other examples/pics?

Cheers, Clyde



Actually Clyde you only have walk 200 yards to the east of #8 to find another Colt two-tiered green - # 5 - White Rocks is a beauty. 

[Tony_Muldoon]

I believe the changes to be in good hands. E & M take care of about 6 of the 9 Open rota courses right now and I can't think of anything that's been done that's so extreme to have ruined any of these classic courses. I'm sure there are those that might argue this and if so I'd like to hear some specific examples.

David that's a strange way to support your mates. I throw another question back to you. Can you give examples of where they have enhanced the reputation of a course?    Or any new courses they've built with a stellar reputation?


A factor that hasn't been discussed is that the vote also indicates that  there is clearly no love from the members for 17 and 18.   It's a moot point about the best way of sorting that out. 

M&E have already been consulting there for more than half a decade and made changes to those holes.  Apparently to no avail.

[Adam Lawrence]

I believe the changes to be in good hands. E & M take care of about 6 of the 9 Open rota courses right now and I can't think of anything that's been done that's so extreme to have ruined any of these classic courses. I'm sure there are those that might argue this and if so I'd like to hear some specific examples.

David that's a strange way to support your mates. I throw another question back to you. Can you give examples of where they have enhanced the reputation of a course?    Or any new courses they've built with a stellar reputation?

I think Turnberry is significantly better for the changes Martin Ebert made there before the 2009 Open - specifically the new championship tee and fairway extension on the tenth and the shift of the fairway on the sixteenth to the left (which was done with the aim of creating room to extend the seventeenth tee backwards after Eduardo Romero reached the green with a drive and a sand wedge during the Senior Open but which imo really improved the hole). I think Martin's recent changes to Troon will also be judged a big success.

[David Davis]

I believe the changes to be in good hands. E & M take care of about 6 of the 9 Open rota courses right now and I can't think of anything that's been done that's so extreme to have ruined any of these classic courses. I'm sure there are those that might argue this and if so I'd like to hear some specific examples.

David that's a strange way to support your mates. I throw another question back to you. Can you give examples of where they have enhanced the reputation of a course?    Or any new courses they've built with a stellar reputation?


A factor that hasn't been discussed is that the vote also indicates that  there is clearly no love from the members for 17 and 18.   It's a moot point about the best way of sorting that out. 

M&E have already been consulting there for more than half a decade and made changes to those holes.  Apparently to no avail.

Tony,

How's life? Which mates are you speaking of? You guys or M&E? I honestly, don't know/well actually remember all the changes being made at these courses even after I've read about them or seen them post renovations. However, I know that a lot of care goes into making sure that nothing too drastic is done that is out of character of the course and the set of greens as a whole. That's more than I can say about Hawtree for example (since I mentioned him) and yes I can give specific examples close to my heart on that one. The fact, I can't with regards to M&E is only a good sign. However, I ask as some of you are perhaps more detailed, knowledgeable and critical than I am.

While I don't know a lot of architects quite as well as M&E, what I do know is that the respect and intention to preserve classic courses is as high with those guys as anyone I've ever met. For me that's a very good sign when taken in light of the situation where the R&A might be on the side of drastically lengthening these courses and looking to modernize to the point of creating "more challenging" courses for future Opens or perhaps even protecting par and risking changing the very nature of the members experience there. I imagine it's a difficult balance to manage all the varied interests and I do believe M&E are very good at this too.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I believe the changes to be in good hands. E & M take care of about 6 of the 9 Open rota courses right now and I can't think of anything that's been done that's so extreme to have ruined any of these classic courses. I'm sure there are those that might argue this and if so I'd like to hear some specific examples.

David that's a strange way to support your mates. I throw another question back to you. Can you give examples of where they have enhanced the reputation of a course?    Or any new courses they've built with a stellar reputation?

I think Turnberry is significantly better for the changes Martin Ebert made there before the 2009 Open - specifically the new championship tee and fairway extension on the tenth and the shift of the fairway on the sixteenth to the left (which was done with the aim of creating room to extend the seventeenth tee backwards after Eduardo Romero reached the green with a drive and a sand wedge during the Senior Open but which imo really improved the hole). I think Martin's recent changes to Troon will also be judged a big success.

Thank you Adam I have played the changes and they are fine.  We could debate all day if they enhance Turnberry's reputation.





I've asked a similar question a couple of times on here and I remain unconvinced that their greatest talent isn't getting the patronage of influential old men. I have seen the lovely plan booklets they present to various clubs and they seriously worry me. They are full of ...'you could do this and perhaps later that ...and maybe a second bunker here. '  At Porthcawl there's a suggestions for what changes should take place before and what might take place after the Senior Open.   Now this might be wise but it strikes me it's also very dangerous.  It allows the possibilities for change to be almost unending, if you can't offer a best solution then tinkering is inevitable.

What do they really think?   When Colt was asked to help the solve the problem of increasing traffic on the road through Rye he reputedly replied "Move the road".  At another well known course they presented their report, walked the course and the changes made are the suggestions of the Chairman. Will they resign as consultants?   Common guys you are professional advisors! Do the two new holes you have designed at Portrush improve the course most if they sit in the front 9 or in the back 9?  It can't be both.






David at least Hawtree can say I dramatically improved Lahinch and Dooks.

[Jamie Pyper]

As an overseas life member at Portrush I too was most concerned about the proposed changes to both courses for the reasons previously mentioned-before I reviewed all the details. I was in Portrush for two weeks in late July when the designs were unveiled to the members. After walking the proposed changes over the "hallowed ground" for the next fews days I was satisfied that the alterations will enhance the Dunluce for top level tournament play without hindering the members abilities. The alterations to the Valley course were my biggest surprise and will offer up 4 new holes that exceed the existing layout IMO - including the replacement of the much loved 5th and 6th holes.  

Im sure the members had the same arguments for change back in the late 20's when Mr Colt was brought in to drastically alter the already well regarded championship course. In the day the gutty ball and hickories were replaced by the rubber core ball and steel shafts the same as our present day equipment is destroying the classic courses. If these changes are executed as planned, Portrush is set for another few generations to come.

The Dunluce course will retain the existing 17 and 18th holes and will alter them with two other holes on a rotating basis. They will only be out of play for the Open every 10 or 12 years, when the tented city is required for The Open.      

At the Risk of Rambling On- here are a few of the proposed alterations.

1. Dunluce Course

# 1  Add 2 fairways bunkers on right side to tighten up landing area. Add small pot bunker front right of green.
# 2  New green 50 yds behind existing to extend to 577 yds. ( IMO should be another 50 yds longer due to downwind direction)
       Add fairway bunker left side landing area
# 4  New back tee to extend to 499 yds. New fairway bunker behind first left bunker.
# 5  Add 3 fairway bunkers right side to cut into corner.
# 7  New hole. Par 5, 572 yds. ( IMO should be another 30 yds longer) Played from elevated tee adjacent to # 6 green- played down into      
       valley of present day # 5 and 6 of the Valley course but close to the large dunes on the north side. "Big Nellie" bunker, now on # 17  
       will be re-created on the right side landing area in a huge dune bank. the green will be perched high in the dunes north of the
       Valley's 13th tee.
# 8  New hole. Par 4 435 yds. A dramatic par 4 played across a chasm with a severe dune fall off if missed left to an elevated green close
       to existing # 8 green.
# 12  ( Current # 10) Par 5 530 yds from new tee directly left of # 9 green in existing small parking lot whihc will be removed. Yardage
       may seem short for a championship par 5, but they intend to re-open the stream running across the fairway in low swale in front
       of the green as it was a half-century ago.
# 14 ( Currently # 12) new back tee to 464 yds. New fairway bunker on left side landing area. No need to touch the green site that Henry
       Cotton stated was " the best in the U.K."  
# 16 ( currently # 14- Calamity) New back tee to 230 yds.

Many other tweaks and most holes will have new back tees added for length to bring the championship card to 7,337 yds.
The practice ground for the Open will be located on the existing Valley holes # 4 and # 7.

2. The Valley course.

# 15  New par 3, 171 yds. tee set high in dunes just west behind existing # 16 green. Direction of play is towards the sea.
# 16  New par 5, 490 yds with new tee high in the primary dunes adjacent to the sea to play back to the existing # 17 fairway and then    
         play the rest of # 17 as is.
# 17  New par 3, 195 yds. from tee close to existing # 18 tee due west to original green site in the dunes now in the par 3 course
         which will be enlarged.
# 18  par 4 335 yds. tee in the primary dunes by the beach to new green site in from of the Rathmore clubhouse.

On paper, these are all exciting alterations. The total yardage will remain around 6,338.
Three holes on the par 3 course will be taken out of play to accommodate these changes.



 

  






 




  

[Tony_Muldoon]

Thanks Jamie, interesting.



You can just make out the changes to 17 and 18 proposed in 2008.   At that point M&E advised the club that to be considered Championship standard it needed to grow to 7250 yards.  Seems like inflation continues.

 

[Sean_A]

Jamie

You state the Valley will lose 5 & 6 and that four new holes will be built.  Which other holes are to be canned?

Is it possible that playing down to the Valley Links for one hole then back up to the upper links will be a bit of a slog? 

I am very sad to see one of the best short yardage combos (Valley 5 & 6) of which I am aware get canned.  That said, the new holes do sound promising.

Ciao 

[Scott Macpherson]

M&E have already been consulting there for more than half a decade and made changes to those holes. 

Tony, Adam,

As I understand it, Donald Steel was the consultant architect for Royal Portrush and when he sold his company to M&E, they carried on as the club's consultants. I am not sure of the time frames involved, but that's how they came to be the architects in charge of these (and previous) works.


Scott

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian,

You take the common sense view, one based on the commercial aspects and highlighting what is important to the outside-GCA golfing world (i.e. the vast majority)… This is absolutely sensible and it is incredibly difficult to argue against the numbers in the members vote…. Portrush clearly needed space for the infrastructure and if the best solution was to use 17 & 18 and build two new holes, then I find it hard to argue against that decision, unfortunate as it is for those who don’t wish to see two Colt courses further changed. They want The Open back – so would I if it were my club.

What I raise my eyebrows at – and remember I don’t know the course well enough to comment in this particular case – is the continued tinkering with classic courses for no good reason…  The original design intention & style is undergoing death by a thousand cuts on many of these courses. Why do we need to adjust greens, change ground contours and re-bunker to a more homogenous, “modern” scheme, basically coming up with ideas to create work and try and prove that things can always be better?... I have watched and followed this on many classic courses and it is often to the detriment and consistency of the course.

I have to check myself when I write these things that I’m not being hypocritical… I feel that I am not… The only time I have been asked to consult on a classic course (and not one in the league we are talking either), the committee advised me that they wanted to completely re-route a section of the course (4 holes)… After my two visits to date, we are currently at one new green site (same route) + one new tee…. It didn’t need the work and they needed saving from themselves…

I am pretty agitated on this topic at the moment after seeing some outrageous suggestions being pitched at my own club also.

Ally

Ally I think they are NOT monuments to Harry Colt or anyone else, they are perceived by the people that matter that they can be improved by the changes. The general opinion of Wentworth is still that it is better than before. I agree its not just the GCA wackos (I am one too) that think its for the worse in the Wentworth case. When you look at the RP situation there is quite a lot of anti change and anti valley course change....for the people the mattered it was 1%.
1% opinions are crackers people. Leaving golf courses without any change may be romantic but its not practical.
These golf courses are working products and (perhaps sadly) they do need to change now the flatbellies hit 9 irons 200 yards.
There is always room to make things better, if you score 59 theres that putt that lipped for a 58.

I agree Turnberry is much better for Martin Ebert's improvement. You can't see the join at 16 which is a compliment. Other peoples work I may discuss over a beer.

[Frank Pont]

I remain unconvinced that their greatest talent isn't getting the patronage of influential old men.

As I understand it E is (or at least was) a long time member of the R&A championship committee. If that is true it seems odd that his firm should be given the majority of the jobs of renovating the Open venues.

In any industry I have worked in that would be seen as a big conflict of interest, whereas in the golf world nobody in or outside the R&A seems to care.....

[Tom Kelly]

The new holes M&E are doing on the Annesley Links at RCD look exciting.

Have they even been given any decent land to build a course from scratch on?

[Will Lozier]

Royal Portrush new routing:

http://www.golftoday.co.uk/global_golf_post/2014/portrush_open.html

[Jamie Pyper]

Jamie

You state the Valley will lose 5 & 6 and that four new holes will be built.  Which other holes are to be canned?

Is it possible that playing down to the Valley Links for one hole then back up to the upper links will be a bit of a slog? 

I am very sad to see one of the best short yardage combos (Valley 5 & 6) of which I am aware get canned.  That said, the new holes do sound promising.

Ciao 

Sean;

Regarding 4 new holes on the Valley. Coming out of play will be existing holes #5, #6, #18, and#17 will be altered to a dogleg par 5.
The present #5 and 6 are two great back to back holes, but from the drawings and specs I've seen, the new final four holes, all new or modified, will be a fantastic finish.

Regarding playing down to the valley then back up again on the two new Dunluce holes as a slog - both tees and greens are close to the same elevations, with only the par 5 fairway in the lower valley. If they come out as proposed, I believe players will be too busy breathing in the "wow" factor to consider them a slog.
 
 

[Sean_A]

Jamie

Thanks.  The Valley doesn't finish in an entirely satisfactory manner with another drop shot 3 nowhere near the house and 17 is good, yet not something which lingers as something special.  So no huge issue there other than a rare original Colt links getting chopped up  .  5 and 6 though, the deal is they come as a pair and replacing this pair will be very difficult.  Only a hands on visit will confirm the quality of the new holes and hope to visit sooner rather than later, but I have my doubts 

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Adrian,

Are you suggesting that popularity is a measure of quality?

Better start dishing out those Michelin starts to McDonalds then.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Paul - I loosely would say that popularity is a measure of quality, but it has to be factored and its certainly not the only measure of quality. Popularity is more a good indicator of success.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Paul - I loosely would say that popularity is a measure of quality, but it has to be factored and its certainly not the only measure of quality. Popularity is more a good indicator of success.

But Adrian - In this case, the members have voted because they want The Open, not because they have any idea of what the final new holes will look like. Getting The Open trumps all and that is completely understandable.

But it still amazes me that 90% of club golfers look at a blank piece of land and cannot visualise a golf hole. Even once it's shaped, most people struggle. Only once the flag is in the ground do they see it.

So make no mistake, the vote is not based on the "quality" of the proposed holes.

That said, I expect that quality to be high. M&E have done some great work, especially more recently and I have no doubt - without even knowing the courses particularly well - that the new holes will up the drama / wow factor and that this will prove extremely popular. Whether they nail the detail to the extent that the new holes blend seamlessly with the current design is yet to be seen.