C&C have never done anything here. Not really great to compare. Greens in the UK are generally much more mundane, partly due to climate and partly due to budgets both during construction and afterwards.
I agree with Niall. Older doesn’t necessarily mean better. Better is better and that is in the eye of the beholder. The old guys sometimes didn’t even see what their greens looked like on opening, never mind them having listed status. Also, those old guys didn’t mind tearing up each other’s work, or better still having a second bite at the cherry themselves.
Routing changes aside, Courses naturally evolve through a variety of reasons, maintenance and natural such tree roots, Top dressing, bunker splash, shifting dunes etc. And how long do bunkers last? It’s not like the Road Hole Bunker can never be touched like some seem to suggest.
Depends on the culture of the Club. Some will say don’t touch anything ever and some will say standing still is going backwards.
All in all, Scottish committees are easy to give a kicking to, but their stewardship in terms of longevity seems to have held up pretty well.
A lot of the bolder features that looked great in the old photos changed because they were impractical and uneconomical to maintain, not through any great desire to remove artistic flair.
I also think there is a bit of snobbery whereby if the pet architects haven’t done the work, it gets slated regardless of what they leave in the ground.
Open courses have always pandered to the pro game. Because it’s Mr Ebert who seems to get the work, people seem overly quick to get on their case, when often they’re doing the best with the brief given, which is often satisfying issues other than the playing of the game.
We can also have favourite Holiday courses etc that we want to stay exactly like it was ‘when I was there on honeymoon back in 86’. Never mind that the green floods for the members every winter etc.
A clubhouse burning down is terrible for those involved but is potentially an opportunity to future proof and ruling stuff in and ruling stuff out at this early stage seems to be jumping the gun.
Ryan,
Appreciate you taking the time to chime in. Going back on your points:
- Although C&C haven't done anything in the UK, I would be surprised if what they may end up doing at Coul Links is anything as unimaginative as what I've seen M&E or Hawtree do. And I don't just want to single them out as I do think there is some good work that they do, but for example I think DJ Russell would be in the same camp (though his work is less known). Would a Doak comparison be better? Every green at Renaissance is better than any green at Balmedie, and Turnberry (with the exception of 8 and the hump in the back) to name two.
- While I can't blanket statement that older is better, I'd say in the UK, on the whole, the
great older courses are better than 99% of all golf courses in the world. So why risk the individual character, flow and originality of a course, all because you think a green can be made more strategic? Dr. Mackenzie knew this best. In Spirit of St Andrews he wrote about how detrimental tweaking a course can be. You will know this, but I found it fascinating that often he would stipulate in his contract that no one but the original architect or one of equal level could tweak a golf course after he finished. With the exception of a few I wouldn't trust many to carry out work at a place like Machrihanish.
- I agree that natural changes take place constantly, and I'm all for this. Mother nature is the best architect. Either you rebuild what was there, or you let mother nature take it's course, whichever is better. I'm fine with either of those scenarios when it comes to links courses.
- I agree that Mr. Hawtree and others get most of the gripes because of the high profile courses they work on (ie - Open courses) and appreciate that their briefs are different. But it doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is less enjoyable, less inspiring and less compelling. I don't want to seem like I dislike them, for I can only imagine the skill and expertise they have, that I don't. Equally, in the case of places like Machrihanish and Cruden Bay, I'd rather they stood up for what they know is right and advise the clubs that their courses can not be materially improved.
I take your point that the blame in this case should reside elsewhere, but either way, it doesn't justify what's being done to the great courses in the UK at the moment (on the whole).
- In terms of pet architects, you might be right, but I'd like to think it wouldn't matter. In fact, although I haven't met Mr. Ebert, I understand him to be a wonderful guy, and a knowledgable architect beyond anything I could ever dream to be. So my passion doesn't come from place of ill will. I only know what I see on the ground, and what I see (with not just M&E) is over-repetition, forced green design that feels fleeting. Genuine question: What is the best M&E green you've seen, and describe what makes it so great. There aren't many great modern UK greens I can think of. But I can think of about 20 off the top of my head that are all at least 50 years old.
On this, in the States, I think it's a different matter. Some of the work you and others have done is almost like a revelation. The greens feel fresh, original and...fun. So I do think it's not just age that matters.
- Interesting that you should bring up flooded greens for members. I was thinking to start a thread about conditioning over design. For example, I think the bathtub green at Cruden Bay is one of the marvels of the golfing world. I appreciate that for me, who plays it once a year, vs. members who play it every day, the view is completely different. I don't have to putt on dirt in the summer when it rains too much, whereas they do. But for me and my money, I'd rather putt on dirt than see them alter that green. Agree to disagree I suppose.