Opportunity at Machrihanish ?

[Frank Pont]

I just got around to reading this thread and can't believe that ANYONE would want to change Machrihanish in any way! Having just played it yesterday for the 7th time, it is pretty close to the best experience I can think of for many of the reasons that this board apparently want to change!

Tim, a lot of my work is stopping golf clubs from doing stupid things, and me offering my services to the club was not in trying to change the place but in making sure it stays unique. I'm a restorer, most of the changing of classic courses around GBI is being done by a select few who seem to be a lot less humble about their capabilities to improve on these classics than I am....

[Tim Gallant]

I just got around to reading this thread and can't believe that ANYONE would want to change Machrihanish in any way! Having just played it yesterday for the 7th time, it is pretty close to the best experience I can think of for many of the reasons that this board apparently want to change!

Tim, a lot of my work is stopping golf clubs from doing stupid things, and me offering my services to the club was not in trying to change the place but in making sure it stays unique. I'm a restorer, most of the changing of classic courses around GBI is being done by a select few who seem to be a lot less humble about their capabilities to improve on these classics than I am....

Frank,


Great to hear and I believe that to be the case. I have seen the great work you did at Tandridge and would think the course would be in great hands with someone like you even if only to ensure it stays unique!

[Tom_Doak]

The more and more I see different great golf courses, the more I am convinced that you might be able to improve a golf hole, but it is incredibly difficult to improve an already great golf course. More often than not, architects of the day say that they know better, only to destroy sacred ground in the name of strategy and options without stopping to think about the flow and character of the golf course.

I wonder if anyone in the UK has ever heard the expression, "Leave well enough alone."


The difficult part is deciding when is well enough.  There are lots of mediocre to bad courses in the world that would benefit from a redesign, and may cease to exist some day without one.  But all the attention goes to those who can claim they consult for "11 of the top 100 courses" in whatever list, so they keep making small tweaks to those.


My position has always been that small changes are usually counterproductive, because of the inability of the new architect and contractor to make their work blend in seamlessly with the older stuff -- thus a distraction that counteracts whatever gain there may be from the design change [which is all subjective anyway].  If you really think you have a great golf course, you shouldn't let someone talk you into changes like that.  But that's what separates the really great courses from the wannabes, and these days, it seems like nearly all of them are wannabes.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ally,


having reread my reply I see that it does come across a little harsher than intended. Whilst I agree with you about tinkering I also believe that clubs need to think about the larger picture. Re: your example of turning down work changing courses. It would be good if a club would first ask a GCA for an opinion on the course in relation to what it's purpose is. In my experience club committees have grand schemes whilst the membership is quite happy with the status quo.


Matt,


your points are well made and make sense except that I believe it is for the membership of a club to decide what is the correct course of action. I agree with you about the bunkers at NB being an improvement.


On another course RDGC I am very sceptical about the alterations to the 7th which is in my opinion a very important piece in the rhythm and flow of the course which is something the course already struggles with. No doubt the new hole will more spectacular, possibly it might be better as an individual hole (though I have my doubts) but the danger is it will worsen an already poor course rhythm which would be detrimental to the course as a whole. On the flipside, I think the 8th hole will be improved by the changes.


Jon

[Ryan Coles]

The more and more I see different great golf courses, the more I am convinced that you might be able to improve a golf hole, but it is incredibly difficult to improve an already great golf course. More often than not, architects of the day say that they know better, only to destroy sacred ground in the name of strategy and options without stopping to think about the flow and character of the golf course.

I wonder if anyone in the UK has ever heard the expression, "Leave well enough alone."


The difficult part is deciding when is well enough.  There are lots of mediocre to bad courses in the world that would benefit from a redesign, and may cease to exist some day without one.  But all the attention goes to those who can claim they consult for "11 of the top 100 courses" in whatever list, so they keep making small tweaks to those.


My position has always been that small changes are usually counterproductive, because of the inability of the new architect and contractor to make their work blend in seamlessly with the older stuff -- thus a distraction that counteracts whatever gain there may be from the design change [which is all subjective anyway].  If you really think you have a great golf course, you shouldn't let someone talk you into changes like that.  But that's what separates the really great courses from the wannabes, and these days, it seems like nearly all of them are wannabes.

Tom


On that basis, although from reports the changes have been very successful, would Woodhall Spa have been better to engage you for the Bracken Course rather than the Hotchkin?

[Ben Stephens]

The more and more I see different great golf courses, the more I am convinced that you might be able to improve a golf hole, but it is incredibly difficult to improve an already great golf course. More often than not, architects of the day say that they know better, only to destroy sacred ground in the name of strategy and options without stopping to think about the flow and character of the golf course.

I wonder if anyone in the UK has ever heard the expression, "Leave well enough alone."


The difficult part is deciding when is well enough.  There are lots of mediocre to bad courses in the world that would benefit from a redesign, and may cease to exist some day without one.  But all the attention goes to those who can claim they consult for "11 of the top 100 courses" in whatever list, so they keep making small tweaks to those.


My position has always been that small changes are usually counterproductive, because of the inability of the new architect and contractor to make their work blend in seamlessly with the older stuff -- thus a distraction that counteracts whatever gain there may be from the design change [which is all subjective anyway].  If you really think you have a great golf course, you shouldn't let someone talk you into changes like that.  But that's what separates the really great courses from the wannabes, and these days, it seems like nearly all of them are wannabes.

Tom


On that basis, although from reports the changes have been very successful, would Woodhall Spa have been better to engage you for the Bracken Course rather than the Hotchkin?

From a source of mine the Bracken course is the next job after the Hotchkin course works has been completed. There is more work to do with the Bracken as there are more issues with it than the Hotchkin and there was also a par 3 course in the works not sure how it has materialised. Anyway the Pitch and Putt course is the most fun course at Woodhall Spa!

[Ally Mcintosh]

The more and more I see different great golf courses, the more I am convinced that you might be able to improve a golf hole, but it is incredibly difficult to improve an already great golf course. More often than not, architects of the day say that they know better, only to destroy sacred ground in the name of strategy and options without stopping to think about the flow and character of the golf course.

I wonder if anyone in the UK has ever heard the expression, "Leave well enough alone."


The difficult part is deciding when is well enough.  There are lots of mediocre to bad courses in the world that would benefit from a redesign, and may cease to exist some day without one.  But all the attention goes to those who can claim they consult for "11 of the top 100 courses" in whatever list, so they keep making small tweaks to those.


My position has always been that small changes are usually counterproductive, because of the inability of the new architect and contractor to make their work blend in seamlessly with the older stuff -- thus a distraction that counteracts whatever gain there may be from the design change [which is all subjective anyway].  If you really think you have a great golf course, you shouldn't let someone talk you into changes like that.  But that's what separates the really great courses from the wannabes, and these days, it seems like nearly all of them are wannabes.

Tom


On that basis, although from reports the changes have been very successful, would Woodhall Spa have been better to engage you for the Bracken Course rather than the Hotchkin?

Ryan, I’m sure Tom will answer this but my understanding is that his team were removing trees, altering fairway lines and sight lines and reworking the bunker faces in situ. It is more a touch of mascara rather than plastic surgery.


It sounds sympathetic to me.


Tom is more referring to construction works in local areas.  I see a club’s willingness to continue like this as death by a thousand cuts. The character is changed bit by bit until the course is unrecognisable from both the original and the natural landscape.


From a personal perspective, when working in a small area, I much prefer to take away rather than build. Far easier to tie the work in seamlessly.

[Mark Pearce]

I would be astonished if anyone could do any work at all on the Bracken without improving it.  I have always thought the Hotchkin is a little over-rated but there's no doubt that the contrast between 18s at Woodhall Spa must be greater than any other 36 hole club anywhere.  If Tom is going to do work on the Bracken that can only be excellent news.

[Niall C]

Oi, this thread is about Machrihanish !!! (where's the stamping your feet emoji ?)

Tom

This is the land of the "leave well enough alone". It seems to me that we go in for far less major reconstruction than you do in the US. Lack of budget and lack of interest probably accounts for that. There are times however when a bit of change might be merited and it is as well being alive to that. Of course, as you say, deciding whether the change is worth while is the trick.

Niall

[Niall C]

With regards to design pedigree I'd point to the example of Carnoustie. A great course, most would agree, with a roll call of many great architects who have had a hand in it ranging from Allan Robertson, Old Tom Morris, Willie Park Jnr, James Braid, Tom Simpson and MacKenzie Ross as well as in more recent times Martin Ebert. However it was James Wright, the then greens convener, who with no architectural pedigree at all who gave us Carnoustie's famed finish.

Should we discard his work because of his lack of pedigree or should we take a leaf out of Ryan's book and simply judge his work on it's merits ?

Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut    That blind squirrel had the balls to change Braids finish to wide spread acclaim. He also brought in Simpson to consult.

[/size]I'd say more often than not, the results are not great. But we don't see that because we only focus on the one's that were a success. For every story like this (and Woking) there are dozens more like Montrose, where the course and greens were tweaked and revamped to what we have today - a good, but not great links course. It could still be great if not for continual tweaks (outside of those required for coastal erosion). [size=78%] Courses often get labelled Colt courses or Braid courses when in actual fact what they are are a collection of different ideas and work from various people (mostly amateur I'd suggest) over a number of years. Montrose might be a good example. From memory that was the course that Colt rerouted in the dunes (which are now washing away) but they quickly reverted back to the original routing (Adam - please confirm). As much as no one talks about the things that the amateurs got wrong, equally we don't tend to see that things that the ODG's didn't get quite right, and that is because they get changed.

[/size]I like to think I am open to seeing great updates to great courses irrespective of the name or pedigree, but all I can go on is what i've seen. So there are two possibilities:[size=78%]

[/size]1. I am right and a majority of the recent changes that I've seen in the UK to great courses don't materially improve the course[size=78%] How recent ?

[/size]2. I overlook the good updates and only focus on the bad ones either because I don't know, or because it doesn't suit my agenda.[size=78%] Very possibly

[/size]I believe it's the former, but am open to it being the latter, in which case you and Ryan would be correct.  I recognise you and Ryan are likely much more well-versed than I am, in which case, I'm happy to be talked off the ledge, but I'd love to see concrete examples of (greens specifically) changes in the last 80 years to great courses that made the course substantially better. Better in this case being defined by Dr Mackenzie that the course and hole should provide the most amount of pleasure for the most amount of golfers and have the power to last. With this definition, pleasure comes from repeat plays on greens that favour originality; providing genuine inspiration to all that play. [size=78%]
[/size]

[David McIntosh]

Niall,

It’s widely acknowledged that the last two holes are a let down, particularly after what precedes them, so I completely get the reasoning behind your proposals. A gentle opener will be more readily accepted whereas the same hole playing as a finisher would no doubt be criticised as weak. From that perspective your proposed change would  improve the ebb and flow of 99 out of 100 courses however Machrihanish may be one of the few exceptions where this wouldn’t work (as well) due to the iconic opening hole/drive as was discussed earlier in this thread.

One of the main reasons for my previous comment about not making significant changes was driven by my recollection of the land on that part of the course and the tightness to the road on the left - I wasn’t convinced the holes could be improved significantly enough to make the changes worthwhile.

I must say though that I have some gaps in my memory of the course from my one play (which is very unlike me and mainly relates to the middle section of the course) and really should get back to see it again. I didn’t remember there being a dune to the right of the 17th green and thought everything was fairly flat in this area of the course until climbing up to the 2nd green. I tried to take a look at this but couldn’t find any pictures to get an idea of the dune you’re referring to. I do remember thinking the 17th was a better hole than the 18th although neither are much to write home about.

With 18, I remember the current green being quite a walk away from the pro shop and the practice putting green being right beside the shop. The added length wouldn’t be an issue but I don’t remember much elevation change between the 18th green and the practice green, although that may just be my memory failing again, as with the 17th! Relocating to the practice green would undoubtedly improve the hole as it would create more angles and would be a better finishing spot as opposed to concluding the round in the middle of nowhere as is the case with the current green. I discounted this as a viable option though given the proximity to the road, hotel etc and assumed that they moved the green away from there and to the existing location due to health and safety concerns.

An alternative solution to please the majority of parties perhaps would be to retain the 1st as is, build a new short hole between the current 8th and 9th (as Adam suggested) and then manufacture the stronger, more interesting hole you refer to somewhere between the 17th tee and current 18th.

[David McIntosh]

Niall,

I wasn’t fully aware of the work M&E did in shifting the 15th at Troon but have just checked out the brochure on their website and it appears to be an impressive piece of work to remove the blind tee shot (not essential in my view but clearly was their remit following player feedback at the previous Open) and reshape the former fairway into dunes. I haven’t played the course so can’t offer a personal view on how this fits in with what was there before but will certainly look out for it when I do eventually get to Troon.

On the subject of re-dos, I think you’re right that major restorations/renovations/reconstructions etc are more prevalent in the US, certainly more so than in the UK. I’m sure there will be some I’ve overlooked, but the only one I can think of that I’ve played is the new Turnberry and I thought it was certainly an improvement on the previous layout. Clearly any changes at Machrihanish wouldn’t be as wholesale as at Turnberry but at least it gives some comfort that the results can be positive even when classic courses go under the knife.

[Tim Gallant]

With regards to design pedigree I'd point to the example of Carnoustie. A great course, most would agree, with a roll call of many great architects who have had a hand in it ranging from Allan Robertson, Old Tom Morris, Willie Park Jnr, James Braid, Tom Simpson and MacKenzie Ross as well as in more recent times Martin Ebert. However it was James Wright, the then greens convener, who with no architectural pedigree at all who gave us Carnoustie's famed finish.

Should we discard his work because of his lack of pedigree or should we take a leaf out of Ryan's book and simply judge his work on it's merits ?

Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut    That blind squirrel had the balls to change Braids finish to wide spread acclaim. He also brought in Simpson to consult.

I'd say more often than not, the results are not great. But we don't see that because we only focus on the one's that were a success. For every story like this (and Woking) there are dozens more like Montrose, where the course and greens were tweaked and revamped to what we have today - a good, but not great links course. It could still be great if not for continual tweaks (outside of those required for coastal erosion). [size=78%] Courses often get labelled Colt courses or Braid courses when in actual fact what they are are a collection of different ideas and work from various people (mostly amateur I'd suggest) over a number of years. Montrose might be a good example. From memory that was the course that Colt rerouted in the dunes (which are now washing away) but they quickly reverted back to the original routing (Adam - please confirm). As much as no one talks about the things that the amateurs got wrong, equally we don't tend to see that things that the ODG's didn't get quite right, and that is because they get changed.

[/size]I like to think I am open to seeing great updates to great courses irrespective of the name or pedigree, but all I can go on is what i've seen. So there are two possibilities:[size=78%]

[/size]1. I am right and a majority of the recent changes that I've seen in the UK to great courses don't materially improve the course[size=78%] How recent ?

[/size]2. I overlook the good updates and only focus on the bad ones either because I don't know, or because it doesn't suit my agenda.[size=78%] Very possibly

[/size]I believe it's the former, but am open to it being the latter, in which case you and Ryan would be correct.  I recognise you and Ryan are likely much more well-versed than I am, in which case, I'm happy to be talked off the ledge, but I'd love to see concrete examples of (greens specifically) changes in the last 80 years to great courses that made the course substantially better. Better in this case being defined by Dr Mackenzie that the course and hole should provide the most amount of pleasure for the most amount of golfers and have the power to last. With this definition, pleasure comes from repeat plays on greens that favour originality; providing genuine inspiration to all that play. [size=78%]
[/size]

Niall,


I'd say any changes within the last 80 years.


To your point on Montrose, I think it illustrates the heart of what I'm possibly trying to get at. Yes, improvements can be made any any course, but once you set a precedent, there's no going back. Montrose must illustrate this point, because what's on the ground now isn't great (though certainly not bad!). It may not have all been Harry Colt or a famous architect that does the good work, but under the banner of 'continual' improvements, a course will eventually do work that isn't good. It's inevitable. Look at Augusta.


So the cut off then becomes, when do you stop to make the changes? For example, if Cape Wickham thought they could amend 3 holes, would I have the same issue? In a part, no. Mainly because in my head, Cape Wickham represents the here and now, which can be replicated in similar fashion. But you can't build another Machrihanish. No matter how one tries, it just can't happen because thinking and tools are different.


While it's all up for debate, I'd say any course that's over 20/30 years old (ie - standing the test of time) and is considered great should probably be left alone.

[Adam Lawrence]

Re. Montrose. It was a clusterfuck. Colt told them to rebuild the course in the dunes in about 1913, they did and then they got buyers' remorse and by the middle 20s they were all saying 'Let's go back to the old course'. Marty Bonnar went to Montrose and spent a day digging through the papers of the town council for me. I feel for Colt -- he had a very capricious client there!

[Tom_Doak]

Niall:


Why not just reroute the whole course while you're at it?  They built a disappointing back nine away from the water, most modern architects would have the sense to save the water views for the end.  It's a beautiful piece of land, I'm sure I could lay out a better course.


** Of course, I am being sarcastic, to make a point:  if you're going to start making changes, where do you stop?

[Ben Stephens]

Niall:


Why not just reroute the whole course while you're at it?  They built a disappointing back nine away from the water, most modern architects would have the sense to save the water views for the end.  It's a beautiful piece of land, I'm sure I could lay out a better course.


** Of course, I am being sarcastic, to make a point:  if you're going to start making changes, where do you stop?

I would agree with you Tom (even if I have never been to Machriehanish!!) but rely on Google Earth  - I keep thinking is there a better course out there which a number of people on this site know that would be my reaction rather than look at the current one. St Enodoc for example there is a much better course there if the far holes 11,12 and 13 were eliminated and use the older Braid holes which the Holywell course covers

[Tom_Doak]

I would agree with you Tom (even if I have never been to Machriehanish!!) but rely on Google Earth  - I keep thinking is there a better course out there which a number of people on this site know that would be my reaction rather than look at the current one. St Enodoc for example there is a much better course there if the far holes 11,12 and 13 were eliminated and use the older Braid holes which the Holywell course covers

Ben:


Of course you would think that; you're a young golf course architect who is looking to make his mark, and what better way to do it than on a beautiful piece of ground?  And there will always be many, many others who fit the same description.


But how would you like it if the next kid thirty years from now decided to make his mark on YOUR course?

[Niall C]

David

Re the ground to the right of 17th, you could very well be right and my memory, which is dodgy at the best of times, could be wrong. In any case I don't think it would take much to create a bit of elevational change (maybe dune is the wrong word to use) and certainly you wouldn't want anything too dramatic given the surrounding land.

Re positioning of 18th green and adjacent road - I agree it's an issue but perhaps not an insurmountable one given how quiet it is.

Niall

[Niall C]

Niall:


Why not just reroute the whole course while you're at it?  They built a disappointing back nine away from the water, most modern architects would have the sense to save the water views for the end.  It's a beautiful piece of land, I'm sure I could lay out a better course.


** Of course, I am being sarcastic, to make a point:  if you're going to start making changes, where do you stop?

Tom

I appreciate the point you are making. However can I suggest it's not about where you draw the line but who makes the decision about where to draw the line. Should the members/club be able to decide or should it be all about the original architect ? Should a young buck like Ben turn down a job because it might upset another architect ?

Adam

I know we've discussed this before but I thought the rumbles about Colt's work started much sooner after it was done. Either way it does show that these guys had missteps along the way eg. MacKenzie at Hazlehead.

Tim

Again, how do you know what changes have been made in the last 80 years ? The next time you're at one of these classic old links, see if you can find an old codger who's been there from the year dot and ask him what changes have been made in his time and I suspect you will be surprised by the answer.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

I appreciate the point you are making. However can I suggest it's not about where you draw the line but who makes the decision about where to draw the line. Should the members/club be able to decide or should it be all about the original architect ? Should a young buck like Ben turn down a job because it might upset another architect ?

Niall:


I understand, it's about who makes the decision.


Ultimately, the owners of the course [the members or a private owner] decide what they want to do.  But many "restoration" projects are sold to the members under false pretenses by a small committee, and sometimes so are redesign projects.


Leaving it to the young buck's conscience is less effective.  Between the pressure to make a living, and his own confidence, he is almost always going to be in favor of doing work to a course.  I personally have turned down jobs because I thought a committee wasn't respecting the original design, on several different occasions . . . but they have never yet failed to find another guy to execute their wishes.

[Niall C]

Tom

Noted. As an aside, I wonder how much work in the UK is done in the name of restoration and how much is done because it was what the architect thought best given the brief he/she was given ? It seems to me that the restoration craze hasn't really hit the UK as yet to the same extent as the US but not being in the biz I could very well be wrong in that regard.

As a matter of interest, your work at Woodhall, is that a restoration ?

Niall

[Tim Gallant]

Niall:


Why not just reroute the whole course while you're at it?  They built a disappointing back nine away from the water, most modern architects would have the sense to save the water views for the end.  It's a beautiful piece of land, I'm sure I could lay out a better course.


** Of course, I am being sarcastic, to make a point:  if you're going to start making changes, where do you stop?

Tom

I appreciate the point you are making. However can I suggest it's not about where you draw the line but who makes the decision about where to draw the line. Should the members/club be able to decide or should it be all about the original architect ? Should a young buck like Ben turn down a job because it might upset another architect ?

Adam

I know we've discussed this before but I thought the rumbles about Colt's work started much sooner after it was done. Either way it does show that these guys had missteps along the way eg. MacKenzie at Hazlehead.

Tim

Again, how do you know what changes have been made in the last 80 years ? The next time you're at one of these classic old links, see if you can find an old codger who's been there from the year dot and ask him what changes have been made in his time and I suspect you will be surprised by the answer.

Niall

Niall,


I don't think I do. The only basis I have is what I've personally seen and heard from members who know the courses better than I do. In those instances, I have spoken to members / read books / seen photos of what a course was like previously and now see what's on the ground. Most of the time I wish they'd left it alone.

Think of the total disasters alone:

Wentworth
Stoke Park
Eden Course

It's tough to ask members what they think of changes to their own course. It's like when people go on holiday to Italy. No one is going to say they had a bad meal, even if it's true. But as you say, it's up to the members, and if they're satisfied, then you can say it's better. But in this instance, I have no club and only want what's best for golf course architecture.

[Jon Wiggett]

I don't think I do. The only basis I have is what I've personally seen and heard from members who know the courses better than I do. In those instances, I have spoken to members / read books / seen photos of what a course was like previously and now see what's on the ground. Most of the time I wish they'd left it alone.

Think of the total disasters alone:

Wentworth
Stoke Park
Eden Course

Tim,


I agree completely re your three examples. Wentworth in particular has been totally ruined. However, your standpoint seems to be that of no change so condemning them to ruined mediocrity. I doubt this is really the case though.


In relation to Machrihanish. You are against changing it because you seem to think it is an original classic but it is in no way the same course as was there to begin with. It has changed in the past and should be changed in the future to suit circumstances.


Jon

[Tim Gallant]

I don't think I do. The only basis I have is what I've personally seen and heard from members who know the courses better than I do. In those instances, I have spoken to members / read books / seen photos of what a course was like previously and now see what's on the ground. Most of the time I wish they'd left it alone.

Think of the total disasters alone:

Wentworth
Stoke Park
Eden Course

Tim,


I agree completely re your three examples. Wentworth in particular has been totally ruined. However, your standpoint seems to be that of no change so condemning them to ruined mediocrity. I doubt this is really the case though.


In relation to Machrihanish. You are against changing it because you seem to think it is an original classic but it is in no way the same course as was there to begin with. It has changed in the past and should be changed in the future to suit circumstances.


Jon

Jon,


I appreciate that Mach has evolved, but I don't think it, or any great course in the UK has gotten that much better from continual tweaks. Either it wasn't a great course before, and therefore, I say tweak away (because if you mess up, you're only messing up an average course at best), or it was a great course and the tweaks made it the same or worse. I fail to see more than a few anomalies where this isn't the case.

[Thomas Dai]

This and the Alwoodley thread seem to be coming together somewhat.
A point worth making about changes, alterations, refurbishments, renovations or whatever we wish to call them is the maintainance practices.
There might be desire to change, alter, refurbish, renovate the design and some features but what about going back to original or at least earlier period maintenance practices, specifically fairway mowing lines, green shrinkage etc. Probably no need for diggers and dumpers to do this. Just some research and revised mowing patterns in the first instance. And of course a long time ago there were no bunker rakes and that meant a different kettle of fish as regards bunkers etc.
Atb