News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« on: December 30, 2018, 03:24:29 PM »
Came across this link on social media - http://www.mackenzieandebert.co.uk/AnnualReview2018 - and thought it might be of interest.
Busy boys!
Atb

Ryan Coles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2018, 03:30:50 PM »
I remember reading their comprehensive Royal Portrush plan.


Committees love a shiny brochure. Could be one of the reasons they’re so in vogue, they have the best marketing literature.

Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2018, 02:51:02 AM »
Ryan their research is superb they can often present aerial pictures of holes from the 1930s, 1940s and later to show how holes have changed over the years.


I’m a fan of much of Martin Ebert’s work buy it can get very familiar with multiple clubs following a similar path.
Cave Nil Vino

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2018, 03:08:18 AM »
Ryan their research is superb they can often present aerial pictures of holes from the 1930s, 1940s and later to show how holes have changed over the years.


I’m a fan of much of Martin Ebert’s work buy it can get very familiar with multiple clubs following a similar path.


Mark,


What are they using the research for?


As far as I can tell, none of the courses they are working on are anything close to a restoration, not that I believe they should be.


You will know best with regards to Deal. Are they restoring some elements there?


EDIT: Having looked through the first 50 pages, I can see some restoration of fairway lines at Deal and proposed restoration at Hirono.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 04:15:32 AM by Ally Mcintosh »

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2018, 04:13:05 AM »
Ryan their research is superb they can often present aerial pictures of holes from the 1930s, 1940s and later to show how holes have changed over the years.


Here is an example of this type of work linked from the Saunton GC website plus reference to a few others - see - [size=78%]https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/60040459/saunton-historic-report-2017-07[/size]
The Saunton one I’ve seen also comes in book form, it’s a large ‘coffee table’ book extremely well presented in colour and black and white with comparisons and analysis.
A great historical record, although I wonder as to the price, especially when an enthusiastic amateur member with some computer knowledge can produce something not dissimilar.
Atb


Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2018, 07:14:15 AM »
At Northumberland they relied mostly on old aerial photos, as much as anything for look and feel.  No suggestion that it was to be a restoration.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2018, 09:11:44 AM »
I am neither a fan of rectangular tee boxes, nor of manicured "bare sand areas" with shrubs inside. Even less so on links courses.

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2018, 12:41:10 PM »
Ulrich -

Of the 50 or so links course in GB&I that I have played, I can't recall ever seeing one that didn't have rectangular tee boxes.

DT

Matthew Essig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2018, 01:13:03 PM »
I'm interested to see what the review of the Eden course produced and what changes they want to pursue. I hope they can make some of the boring newer holes feel a little more like the wild, bold older holes and their greens!
"Good GCA should offer an interesting golfing challenge to the golfer not a difficult golfing challenge." Jon Wiggett

Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2019, 03:33:35 AM »
Matthew unfortunately I never got to see the Eden plans, I think some would like to see the range go in the reverse direction and lose the Balgove and get back the land for the Eden but that obviously won’t happen. I’d like to see the Balgove remodelled into a better short course. The 14th, 15th and 16th on the Eden are on old farmland so much earth movement will be required to blend in better with the opening 13 holes.


At Deal the 3rd has needed changing for 30 years plus to separate golfers and dog walkers, fortunately there has never been a serious injury but it was on the cards. The tees have been moved 40 yards to the left and extended. Members will play around 520yds and the back tee will be 575yds. Play should actually speed up as few will be waiting for the green to clear. I think the blind landing area past the cross bunkers for second shots will need widening to the left or there will be much searching for balls when the rough is up. I might have to get “lost” if I’m cutting the semi and give us an extra band of light rough!!


16 is a partial restoration bringing back at old area of fairway into play, the width of the second shot landing area will increase by 25 yards. Bunkering has been strengthened considerably with two bunkers in the driving zone being enlarged by 3 or 4x  and 2 new bunkers going in plus a new pot bunker in the landing zone. The driving area bunkers will allow for more forward progress than the deep pots they replace. An already great short par 5 should be even better.


Over the years the club has adopted around 50% of Martin’s proposals.
Cave Nil Vino

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2019, 09:48:09 AM »
I never realized how much work they have done. What an impressive list of accomplishments and upcoming projects.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2019, 09:32:57 AM »
At Northumberland they relied mostly on old aerial photos, as much as anything for look and feel.  No suggestion that it was to be a restoration.

"look and feel" is a good way to describe it. I've never really quite understood the requirement to get things back to exactly as they were before as even the best laid out courses could be improved upon.

Niall

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #12 on: January 02, 2019, 09:40:17 AM »
I am neither a fan of rectangular tee boxes, nor of manicured "bare sand areas" with shrubs inside. Even less so on links courses.

Ulrich

Ulrich

To echo David's comments, you will travel a long way before you find an old traditional links that doesn't have rectangular tee boxes. I think that's one of those things that you at least subconsciously pick up on when you play a links. I find it reassuring.

Re the waste bunkers, I kind of agree with you. There was a lot more sand on courses back in the black and white era. I don't have a problem trying to recreate that but it doesn't work well (IMO) unless you let it go to seed as it were (is that a contradiction ?). Maintaining sandy waste areas on links kind of defeats the purpose IMO.

Niall

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2019, 09:45:42 AM »
I am neither a fan of rectangular tee boxes, nor of manicured "bare sand areas" with shrubs inside. Even less so on links courses.

Ulrich

Ulrich

To echo David's comments, you will travel a long way before you find an old traditional links that doesn't have rectangular tee boxes. I think that's one of those things that you at least subconsciously pick up on when you play a links. I find it reassuring.

Re the waste bunkers, I kind of agree with you. There was a lot more sand on courses back in the black and white era. I don't have a problem trying to recreate that but it doesn't work well (IMO) unless you let it go to seed as it were (is that a contradiction ?). Maintaining sandy waste areas on links kind of defeats the purpose IMO.

Niall


I think we need to take a slightly longer-term view of these open sand areas. What are they going to look like in five years is a much better question than do we like them now.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2019, 09:54:56 AM »
[size=78%]I think we need to take a slightly longer-term view of these open sand areas. What are they going to look like in five years is a much better question than do we like them now.[/size]



I go along with this and have said so before on other threads.
The longer term maintenance aspects and how such will be handled would seem to be significant.
Maybe though, it’s all just a sneaky, cunning built-in obsolescence plan, so that archetect/constructor folks get the opportunity to come back in a few years and renovate/refurbish things once again (sic!). 😀
Atb

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2019, 10:01:20 AM »
Adam/David

I think that was my underlying point about them, they shouldn't be maintained if they are to be "proper" sandy waste areas. Leave them to nature. Given they tend to be getting put in on courses that are more affluent and therefore bigger maintenance budgets with the corresponding more manicured look probably goes against that.

Niall

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2018 MacKenzie and Ebert annual review
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2019, 10:07:36 AM »
I wouldn't assume that they are going to be more manicured going forward.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.