[Ben Stephens]

Why replicate something when you could have something potentially better.


This hole was presented by Tom Mackenzie and the Course Manager of RDGC at the BIGGA Harrogate Golf Course Architecture Symposium earlier this year. It was ok but from a design point of view I was not impressed and a bit frustrated with that view the hole could have been a lot better possibly a more strategic hole with the new width they have.


Taking to another GCA-er and his club had something similar and he said it was more down to the brief set out by the club and I have been in a similar position with one of the projects I had worked on. The client or club has the main say in approach and choice of designer.


I would say most clubs are resistant to major changes or think out of the box and take a safety first approach on designer(s) which has been the case at RDGC and many other clubs. 


On the other hand the new RDGC clubhouse is interesting its a case of marmite some like it and others don't the same goes for golf holes


 

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon W. -

As I have mentioned here before, from an architectural stand point, the new #7 will be very similar to the old #7. However I believe the experience of playing the new #7 will be enhanced.

You are welcome to dismiss it as "golf porn" or "dumb blonde-ism," but the reality is the surroundings of a golf course and the views on offer can impact how a golfer perceives and enjoys a round of golf. Would teeing off on the Old Course be as thrilling if there was a MacDonald's hamburger stand behind the first tee instead of the R&A clubhouse? I doubt it.

Several times you mentioned a view could have been provided by simply cutting down all the (considerable!) gorse on the right side of the fairway. As you can see from the aerial photos, the right side of the old #7 fairway is 50 to 75 yards away from the edge of the upper level. The view from the old fairway would be in no way as expansive and thrilling as it will be from the new fairway.

The fact is, for a relatively modest sum, the club has been able to provide a more exciting (and likely more memorable) experience.


Regarding the changes planned for the 8th hole, they could not be done if the 7th hole was not moved.

DT

David,


firstly although I did use the phrase 'golf porn' in relation to the 7th I certainly did not call it 'dumb blonde-ism' as you seem to imply. I fully appreciate that the experience will be enhanced but I was enquiring about the architectural side of the alterations. I did not set out to criticise the alterations but to try and ascertain what the effect of them would be from a GCA point of view. It is funny that in the past the hole is always maligned for it's pedestrian nature but very, very rarely if ever for the lack of views and yet now the wonderful views is being pushed as the big improvement yet the lack of them was not a problem apparently before.
 
As mentioned in a previous post I hope a good part width leading up to the bunkers is maintained to add some improvement to the strategy off the tee.



The alterations on 8 could have been done as there was plenty of room  behind the old 7th and though the angle might have been a tad different the end result would have been the same.


Just to clarify one other point I am not criticising RDGC in any way. I think they are a premium club setting a standard of excellence. I am purely interested in the 7th hole's architectural aspects.

[Sean_A]

Why replicate something when you could have something potentially better.

This hole was presented by Tom Mackenzie and the Course Manager of RDGC at the Golf Course Architecture Symposium. It was ok but from a design point of view I was not impressed and a bit frustrated with that view the hole could have been a lot better possibly a more strategic hole with the new width they have.

Taking to another GCA-er and his club had something similar and he said it was more down to the brief set out by the club and I have been in a similar position with one of the projects I had worked on. The client or club has the main say in approach and choice of designer.

I would say most clubs are resistant to major changes or think out of the box and take a safety first approach on designer(s) which has been the case at RDGC and many other clubs. 

On the other hand the new RDGC clubhouse is interesting its a case of marmite some like it and others don't the same goes for golf holes

I did wonder why a dogleg left wasn't created.

Ciao

[Ben Stephens]

Why replicate something when you could have something potentially better.

This hole was presented by Tom Mackenzie and the Course Manager of RDGC at the Golf Course Architecture Symposium. It was ok but from a design point of view I was not impressed and a bit frustrated with that view the hole could have been a lot better possibly a more strategic hole with the new width they have.

Taking to another GCA-er and his club had something similar and he said it was more down to the brief set out by the club and I have been in a similar position with one of the projects I had worked on. The client or club has the main say in approach and choice of designer.

I would say most clubs are resistant to major changes or think out of the box and take a safety first approach on designer(s) which has been the case at RDGC and many other clubs. 

On the other hand the new RDGC clubhouse is interesting its a case of marmite some like it and others don't the same goes for golf holes

I did wonder why a dogleg left wasn't created.

Ciao

Sean


Thats what I also thought more of a risk and reward tee shot rather than a benign one.


Cheers
Ben

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon

It's fine if you don't accept the hoped for visual improvements on 7 and the new tee on 8 as real improvements. However, that is but one opinion.

Ciao

Sean,


I have never said that. I accept the 7th will have better views than before my point was that it was the gorse not the position of the hole that was the problem. As for the 8th tee I have ALWAYS said that the 8th is improved by the new tee and have made this point on a quite a few occasions.


As I mentioned to David in my last post the 7th has always been criticised as a pedestrian hole and not for the lack of views. An entirely new hole has been built which has not addressed the pedestrian nature of the hole but rather replicated it as far as I can gather. I just find that odd though I think that Ben's post is probably near the mark.

[Niall C]

Why replicate something when you could have something potentially better.

Ben

That sums up my thoughts concisely. If all they are trying to do is shift the hole over so they can have better views then I'd question whether it is worth the effort not to mention the aggravation and risk of getting it wrong.

In my mind the opportunity was to build a fairly classic design with the top of the embankment on the right acting in the same manner as say the OB on the 16th at TOC or the 4th at Woking. The more you hug this danger line then the better the line of approach. Maybe the current/new green design can work in that respect but there is a lot of emphasis on the left hand bunker and I'm not sure it will be man enough.

Personally I'd have started from scratch in terms of the green design but even if I went with replicating the contours I'd have left out the right hand bunker as that, using the design concept I'm talking about, would partially negate the benefit of hugging the right hand side with the drive. It also strikes me as being a bit of a saving bunker in that it could potentially stop shots getting into worse positions ie. over the edge of the embankment.

I'm not a fetishist for excessive width but I do think you need some spare room on the left for the cautious golfer, as after all risk and reward doesn't really work if you have no choice but to take the risk. In that respect the left hand fairway bunkers are perhaps designed to provide a pinch point to separate the risk taker and the safety player, much in the same way as the bunkers at Woking referred to above. Perhaps that is the intent ? I just wish they hadn't gone with perfectly circular pots. Why not give it a bit of shape for interest sake ?

As an aside, on the width and looking at the aerials, I suspect the fairway isn't quite as wide on the right as it appears. I suspect the gorse line shown in the aerials is part of the way down the embankment.

Niall 

[William_G]

The cost to a club like Dornoch is nothing. The hole has no real architectural pedigree nor is one of the highlights of the course. The views will be improved and if the the infinity green comes off perhaps significantly. This work is small beer. I am astonished at the resistance. Do people really care that much or is the a case of faux outrage? Move on, the story was never much to speak of anyway.

Ciao

+1


MP,


So you understand what is self evident in my post or golf?


Geez


Play much golf?


Cheers

[Mark Pearce]

The cost to a club like Dornoch is nothing. The hole has no real architectural pedigree nor is one of the highlights of the course. The views will be improved and if the the infinity green comes off perhaps significantly. This work is small beer. I am astonished at the resistance. Do people really care that much or is the a case of faux outrage? Move on, the story was never much to speak of anyway.

Ciao

+1


MP,


So you understand what is self evident in my post or golf?


Geez


Play much golf?


Cheers

Strangely, yes.  And I have played with, and consider myself to be a friend of several of the posters on this thread, on both sides of the argument.  In fact, I enjoy golf with members of this board so much that I have organised several GCA events and participated in far more and look forward (Covid willing) to joining several of this thread's contributors at BUDA this year.  I'm sure this topic will come up over a beer.  What the other contributors all have in common is a willingness to engage in debate, in particular about golf course architecture.  Each of them has, in this thread, actually discussed the architecture, which you steadfastly refuse to engage in the discussion of.

As to "what is self evident in [your] post or golf", that question doesn't make sense on a basic level, but what was "self evident" in each of your posts was that you don't want to discuss architecture and are unwilling to consider and respond to other points of view.

Seriously, I'd repeat my earlier suggestion that if discussion of golf course architecture upsets you so much, and leads you to get personal, you might want to reconsider whether this is the board for you.

[David Davis]

I'm surprised more people aren't excited about these changes. That 7th hole which Jon W and I discussed extensively after the last time we played for me is a very average and awkward hole with a pretty cool green. If you almost rebuild the green but add the view, because you can and it's there, while at the same time shortening the walk up the hill thus actually improving slightly walkability and adding a much better hole, it would seem a win win.


One thing is for sure, nobody ever walked off the course saying 7 was the my favorite hole. However, that might well happen for the new version.


I'm not exactly sure what the changes for 8 will be, but I really like the old hole with one major exception, which is the fact that 17 was basically the exact same tee shot with almost the same approach into the green. What for me is too much repetition for a course that many people put in the world top 15. So if they also change the angle of the tee shot or something enough to keep it a great hole while added more variation for me that's a hugely successful tweak and then they even made use of a view that has always been there but was grown over with bush.

[William_G]

"I'm not exactly sure what the changes for 8 will be, but I really like the old hole with one major exception, which is the fact that 17 was basically the exact same tee shot with almost the same approach into the green"

plus one David.

[James Boon]

I certainly look forwards to the end of the lockdown and being able to return to Royal Dornoch and see / play the new 7th. Dornoch has and always will be one of my favourite courses, whether the old hole remained, its a new but similar hole with views or if it had been a new strategic masterpiece on the ridge!


My concern with what they have done isn't related to the end result of that hole, its related to the thought process that a hole that was perceived to be weak, has been totally removed and changed for something new and spectacular.


Was the old 7th the best hole on the course? No! However, did the old hole contribute to the greater whole of the experience of the course? For me it did!


There is an excellent run of holes from 3 to 6 that essentially run along the edge of the dune ridge, interacting with the ridge in a number of ways, before you climbed up to the 7th tee. There was a great stopping point, and I'm sure for many a photo opportunity, to take in what they had just played but also the glimpse down the coast of the middle of the back nine and the golden sand of the beach beyond. Then, in contrast to all that you entered the gorse lined corridor of a tough long par 4 where the landforms or view arent what you had just experienced, so despite being tough were in some way a breather, before a very good green. After this was the tee shot on 8, still very much part of the character of the 7th but with a drive over into the unknown, until you got to the edge of the ridge and looked down over the crumpled fairway of the 8th below and the view beyond the 9th tee to Embo and beyond. All of this was part of the ebb and flow of the course and something we see on great courses everywhere.


It seems to me that rhythm has been replaced with a desire for another spectacular hole at Dornoch, which already has plenty of those.


This makes me think of Trump Aberdeen where there was clearly a desire to have one spectacular hole after another which has been very successful. However I felt the overall experienced was effected by this and I left wishing there had been just one hole with a punchbowl green or a blind tee shot or approach. Subtle, in the way of many classic courses, rather than brash?


Now it feels that Dornoch has felt it needed to go along similar lines of omitting the subtle change in the flow for a more spectacular setting and I'm worried it will set a precedent? Other clubs, perhaps not in as good a financial situation as Dornoch, will feel they need to follow and get rid of perfectly good holes, that they consider their lesser holes, in the quest for the spectacular?


Think of it another way (not sure if this analogy will work but here goes). You may be a fan of a certain band and yet only have their Greatest Hits album. Full of crackers and worthy of your love. However if you dont have a collection of their various albums, each one setting those hits in the context of the music scene at the time and the bands position within it, you are missing out on quite a lot! Especially what I have referred to above as the subtle ebb and flow. There is nothing wrong with liking or wanting the Greatest Hits album (I've plenty myself) but I wouldnt want to consign the original albums to the scarp heap either.


Cheers,


James

[Ally Mcintosh]

For me, James gets to the crux of the matter with his 2nd paragraph about the thought processes that remove something perceived to be weak and replace it with something new and spectacular.


I find when thinking of these situations that the first question should always be “why was the hole where it was in the first place?”. There may be a good reason or there may be none. It may be that the “best” solution was missed by the original architect. But what is key is that you leave all sense of ego at the door and fully understand all angles of what you are suggesting.


Now, Tom MacKenzie is a lifelong member at Dornoch so there is no way we can accuse him of hit ‘n’ run architecture in this instance. He clearly has toyed with this change for years and therefore in his mind, it is clearly a change for the positive.


From a distance, I’d tend to agree (although crucially I haven’t spent enough time on the course to really know). One thing I always try and avoid in the routing choices I’ve made on the few courses in my portfolio is to come straight back down again after climbing. I feel that a climb should result in some time spent on top and that that time should be worth it / of interest. The 7th and first 200 yards of 8 represents that “time up high before descending” and it didn’t feel massively rewarding. Like the 9th at Cruden Bay (the exact same solution by the exact same architect), maybe this change will help.


Still not sure it was necessary but there’s no way the course will be weaker for it. The 7th wasn’t a “breather” hole. It was long and quite scary.

[William_G]

to the point that all holes don't need to be fantastic.......


PV has 18 signature holes


5 at Pebble was weak


any excellent designer always optimizes each hole of the course on the "site"


Ally,


the 7th may have been long and straight, but scary? we aren't selling clicks here, LOL


Happy Mother's Day 

[Ally Mcintosh]

William,


Any 450 yard hole where you are dead left and right along the whole length qualifies as scary in my book.


I agree that every architect optimises each hole on a site. That usually doesn’t mean dialling up the drama everywhere he can, not that I think that comment is relevant in this instance.

[William_G]

William,


Any 450 yard hole where you are dead left and right along the whole length qualifies as scary in my book.


I agree that every architect optimises each hole on a site. That usually doesn’t mean dialling up the drama everywhere he can, not that I think that comment is relevant in this instance.

additionally, that hole is downwind with the prevailing, and the fairway was fairly wide as was the green site 


yes, this hole is a remodel, and RDGC is not a design and build course whatsoever, yet I'm glad the vision was there by those at RDGC to optimize the site for 2 holes

[Ally Mcintosh]

William,


Any 450 yard hole where you are dead left and right along the whole length qualifies as scary in my book.


I agree that every architect optimises each hole on a site. That usually doesn’t mean dialling up the drama everywhere he can, not that I think that comment is relevant in this instance.

additionally, that hole is downwind with the prevailing, and the fairway was fairly wide as was the green site 


yes, this hole is a remodel, and RDGC is not a design and build course whatsoever, yet I'm glad the vision was there by those at RDGC to optimize the site for 2 holes

Not sure what the first part of your second paragraph means? You could be right with the second part.


My point was that the 7th didn’t play a part as a “breather” hole. It was tough.

[Jon Wiggett]

I too think James is spot on. I also thought David gave a well thought out response. In effect the 7th has been replaced with the same hole but just a little closer to the edge. The course is not worse for it but is it better? Well not for me but then the pleasure of playing a golf course is playing it and not the views which can be great but are part of the walk not the game.


Just to address the idea that the 7th plays downwind usually. There are some on here that have played the course more than the 50 odd times I have but my experience is it plays into the wind more than downwind. It is usually two good blows to get to the green. It was not a great hole but it was a solid hole and as James pointed out helped much with the rhythm  of the course.

[William_G]

Jon,


When did you play the new hole(s) that leaves you unimpressed or indifferent?


The joy, engagement and beauty of golf is empirical, if not please start another topic. 

Cheers

[Bryan Izatt]

According to historical wind data from the Dornoch Aerodrome, the wind is most frequently from the west, but only a little less common from the ESE.  In that regard I don't think there is a single prevailing wind direction.  The 7th is currently oriented a little East of NE while the new 7th is oriented about 10° further to the East, so closer to ENE.  The West wind would therefore be a quartering helping wind while the ESE wind would be quartering into you and slightly more so on the new hole.

Re the "scary" aspect of the 7th hole, maybe 15 years ago it was even more scary before they widened the corridor by 30 to 40 yards.  In those days the corridor was no more than 45 to 50 yards wide.  Imagine a flat hole that is 50 yards wide with OB stakes straight down both sides.  For some of us, even after the corridor was widened it was still a scary drive and a more scary second where the corridor got narrower near the green.

To quote from our dear departed friend Rhic Goodale, who wrote the book on Dornoch,  "the drive on the 7th was extremely foreboding, and it was very easy to run up double figures on the hole."

[Thomas Dai]

Below are Rich’s thoughts on the 7th hole as stated in one of his ‘In My Opinion’ pieces about RDGC - https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/the-architectural-evolution-of-royal-dornoch-golf-club/
Atb


“After the climb up to the 7th tee Duncan built one ordinary but very difficult hole. It used to play as a long and seemingly impossibly narrow pathway through gorse, a la the 11th at Troon. With the gorse cut back to speed up play these days, it is just a long hard slog. Not a bad hole, but one of the least appealing at RDGC. Some cognoscenti have thought about building a new green long and to the right of the current one, at the edge of the hill down to the lower linksland, making it a par 5 and giving us a spectacular seascape green to aim at. This may happen one day.”

[David Davis]

James, Ally and Jon,


I like the rhythm argument James brings up, and you guys concur with but I find it hard to completely agree with here. As I mentioned, how much shorter is the walk now already? 50 meters perhaps (it's a guess). Agree that was a very scary hole for me with a shoot of 450 yds with OB (on both sides?). Replace it with a similar length hole with a beautiful infinity green that's opened up so more elements will affect play in accordance with the rest of the course mind you and I'm not sure how you could argue that the course would not be improved if not hugely improved. That's like arguing without the dark you can't appreciate the light. Heck if you want the dark in terms of architecture go play Trump Aberdeen first, then come to Dornoch. I mean really guys. James you compared that new hole with Trump Aberdeen, but first you would need to raised the tees up onto a 50 ft created dune play down over a ravine to the fairway then at the end play back up another 30 meters to the green over 15 pot bunkers. I actually had to laugh because you compared them.


I like to see a club make the most of the site they are given and if I took the blue print of what you guys were saying and put that onto my home course, maybe no change is necessary there either, or I could argue this is the case. While I greatly respect all 3 of your opinions I'm surprised you feel so strongly about this change, especially given the hole being lost, er well moved.


Don't tell me you guys would also argue that it was a shame to move the tee boxes at Cruden Bay on #9 (and to a lesser extent 10) due to the added wow factor and drama that comes from it.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Hi David,


You may be mistakenly referencing me above. My points - mainly positive - were very different to the ones you are referring to.


I was pointing out that if a routing has to take you on a climb, it is beneficial that what you are asked to do at the top of that climb feels worth it. I’m not sure the old 7th did. Hopefully the new 7th will.

[David_Tepper]

Thomas D. -

Thanks for reminding us of the wisdom of Mr. Goodale. As was often the case, it is hard to argue with his comments.


To the best of my knowledge, the tee box (for the yellow & white markers) for the new hole is in the same place as the tee box for the old hole. It has merely been rotated to line up with the new fairway.

I had the opportunity to spend an afternoon with Mark Parsinen at Castle Stuart while it was under construction. He told me his inspirations for Castle Stuart were Royal Dornoch and Cruden Bay. He also told me if he could change one thing at Dornoch (where he had been a member for a number of years) it would be to move the 7th hole to where it now is.

DT 

[Mark Mammel]

"David Davis
Don't tell me you guys would also argue that it was a shame to move the tee boxes at Cruden Bay on #9 (and to a lesser extent 10) due to the added wow factor and drama that comes from it."

I would also argue that it was a shame to move the 10th tee at Cruden Bay, as it does not improve the wow or the tee shot, and also the 1st tee that was sacrificed when the new posh modern clubhouse was built. But life is change and it is still an amazing golf experience I look forward to revisiting.

[William_G]

According to historical wind data from the Dornoch Aerodrome, the wind is most frequently from the west, but only a little less common from the ESE.  In that regard I don't think there is a single prevailing wind direction.  The 7th is currently oriented a little East of NE while the new 7th is oriented about 10° further to the East, so closer to ENE.  The West wind would therefore be a quartering helping wind while the ESE wind would be quartering into you and slightly more so on the new hole.

Re the "scary" aspect of the 7th hole, maybe 15 years ago it was even more scary before they widened the corridor by 30 to 40 yards.  In those days the corridor was no more than 45 to 50 yards wide.  Imagine a flat hole that is 50 yards wide with OB stakes straight down both sides.  For some of us, even after the corridor was widened it was still a scary drive and a more scary second where the corridor got narrower near the green.

To quote from our dear departed friend Rhic Goodale, who wrote the book on Dornoch,  "the drive on the 7th was extremely foreboding, and it was very easy to run up double figures on the hole."

interesting, only played the wider version

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()