[Tim Gallant]

Sorry for the subject, but I feel like as a GCA community, we are asleep to what is happening in the UK&I at the moment.


To preface what I'm about to say, I need to give a bit of context. I love golf in the UK. I love the links courses, and heathland courses. From Scotland to England to Wales to N.I. and Ireland, there is so much quality, that I would happily play my golf here for the rest of my life and never complain....


So now that you know this doesn't come from a place of anger, but of concern, I need to ask: what the hell is happening to our great courses here in the UK?! While the pendulum in the US seems to have swayed back towards fun, playability, contoured greens, uniqueness, minimalism, naturalism, and originality, the UK is going in the other direction! It seems like up and down the coast, the best courses are getting assaulted by bad GCA work and bad GCA decisions, which is homogenising the best we have to offer. (Caveat: I am not trying to call out specific architects, and apologies if this seems like an assault on you). Some examples of things I have seen / heard:


- 20 yard wide fairways at North Berwick
- Remodelling of par-3s 8 & 17 at Swinley Forest
- Bunker work at Sunningdale Old, which looks like a cross between....who knows
- Green slope softening at places like St George's Hill
- General uninspiring and unoriginal work at places like Turnberry
- Making greens and holes at Royal Aberdeen more homogenous, most notably the 3rd.
- Bunker work at courses like The Old Course
- Won't mention Wentworth again...
- Praise of places like Adare Manor, which are the most unsustainable golf courses known to man.
- Consideration given to destroying beautiful original holes at Cruden Bay for 'championship' sake.


Ran and others beat the drum years ago, and at least had a hand in helping to educate about what good looks like in the US. Now, I feel like we are asleep here in the UK. And it's only set to get worse. As more and more who don't know better praise this work because it's new, more and more clubs will start to look at their neighbour and think 'We want some of that!'.


But are we really improving these courses? I don't think so. The only improvements I've seen at great courses is where a club has gone back to the original principle of what the course was when it opened: Alwoodley, Tandridge, and New Zealand (with bunker work) to name a few.


What's happening and what can we do? They say the first step to recovery is through acceptance. Can we accept that there is a lot of work happening at great golf courses around the UK that is not good?!

[Michael Wolf]

...you can add the ongoing bunker work at Royal St George's to your list

[jeffwarne]

Glad someone said it.
Seems the same architect is hired over and over again in the UK to bring a course to "championship" standards.
Ick-who knew Doctors could make one so sick

Awareness from GCA.com and multiple dedicated architects/writers helped stopped the poor trends of the 60's 70's 80's and early 90's here in the US.

A bit shocking that in the home of golf the trend is similar 30 years later, although anecdotally, I hear more critique of quirk amongst (non GCA.com) UK club members I've played with than I do here in the US, but mainly because we bastardized our quirk years ago or had none to begin with, and they have plenty to spare(please do)




Of course the natural response every time someone shoots lights out or drives a green no one has ever driven before, the knee jerk response is narrowing, which absolutely does NOT address the issue of scale being lost due to spineless governing bodies, conflict of interest tour players, and vain aging men seemingly clinging to their youth.(vowing to quit if a sensible return to scale is even suggested)

[Peter Pallotta]

Reminds me of what happened (or at least what the 'narrative' was as per American and GB&I magazines) in the 1910s and 20s etc:
At first the Americans were saying that they'd never produce great golfers until their courses were as good - and as testing - as those classic old ones in GB&I
But then, as Hagen and Sarazen and Jones came along and were winning everything, the Brits started saying that *their* courses were too easy and not up to snuff compared to the best of America's (new) championship tests.
That said, I don't think the developments that Tim is describing are caused by the same reason. I'd guess that it's less about golf & gca than it is about money, ie Americans are about the only golfers who can & will pay top dollar for what they want, so why not given them more of what *most* of them want. The big money moving forward won't come from the 'early adopters' like Jeff W and others here on gca.com

[Bernie Bell]

Geez, what little I know on the subject, which is next to nothing, would suggest that the membership at many of the places mentioned are not doing whatever they're doing for reasons that have anything to do with Americans.  Turnberry excepted of course.

[Thomas Dai]

Information spreads and there's that nagging "the grass is greener on the other side of the hill" semi-competitive feeling within some folks, influential folks. And then there's the "keeping up with the neighbours" effect.
And some of the best spreaders of information are, and have been, TV golf in colour, photos on social media and the ease of international travel, and these have had I suggest quite a bit to do with how things have morphed in the UK, not just architecturally but maybe even more so from a maintenance perspective.
For example, the way that over the last couple of decades in particular many of GB&I's higher echelon courses have become over-maintained and how a trickle-down effect has meant lessor courses want to follow this lead and the inter-club, inter-course manager rivalry that is generated as a result with nice/cool/pretty photos of work undertaken and maintenance practices being posted daily on social media amongst the greenkeeping profession (not that I'm picking on them as others within the 'golf business' do exactly the same!).
Some courses though, probably need the kick up the backside that such information flow has brought on. Not so much the quiet rural and rustic and quirky Clubs that we posting herein seem to like so much but other Clubs, especially inland ones, the ones that have done very little in the way of progressing their courses over the last few decades apart from planting loads and loads of trees.
atb

[Niall C]

A few observations/thoughts;

• courses in the UK, particularly the older ones have always evolved and continue to do so. As they say about the weather, if you don't like it wait 5 minutes because it will likely change.
• bunker styles are a fashion statement, and like fashion they are constantly changing. This is exacerbated because bunkers do have to be rebuilt periodically in any case.
• there has always been a particular architect of choice, and there has always been detractors for them. That includes Colt and that includes MacKenzie. Mark my words, one day some Frank Pont type will be making a healthy living restoring Martin Ebert's work to it's former glory.
• even the best architects make mistakes and so do the clubs who commission them. Bad design that doesn't work generally gets sorted fairly quickly.
• there's nothing to worry about, tomorrow the world will still be turning............... I hope !

Niall

[Kalen Braley]

I think Niall hit on the main point....fashion.  Cause the thing about fashion is, the most hideous style is always the one that was in fashion just before the new style emerges.

That and all these UK clubs apparently have wads of cash burning holes in thier collective pockets from all the foolish hit and run yanks over-paying!     So they gotta spend that money somewhere right?

[Sean_A]

When you are as old as the hills such as Niall and myself are (Niall is the older hill), one becomes philosophical about these matters. Holding onto notions of architectural protection/conservation is a luxury which rarely involves me or courses I will be playing often, if at all.  Change is rarely good...ah well...live and let live...all things must change....small beer...etc

Ciao   

[Paul Jones]

Tim,


Really good post.  I love Ganton, but think it would be even better if they would widen the fairways.  I was pleased to see the work that Doak was doing at Woodhall Spa.


I am guessing too many people in Great Britain are watching too much US Open golf.

[Ally Mcintosh]

When you are as old as the hills such as Niall and myself are (Niall is the older hill), one becomes philosophical about these matters. Holding onto notions of architectural protection/conservation is a luxury which rarely involves me or courses I will be playing often, if at all.  Change is rarely good...ah well...live and let live...all things must change....small beer...etc

Ciao   

Whilst I agree with this to a point (it might drive you mad if you don’t treat it pragmatically), Tim’s point is a valid one.


I don’t want to call a lot of the work bad (much of it is technically very good if somewhat in a style I don’t like). However, I will say that a lot if it is unnecessary.

[Sean_A]

When you are as old as the hills such as Niall and myself are (Niall is the older hill), one becomes philosophical about these matters. Holding onto notions of architectural protection/conservation is a luxury which rarely involves me or courses I will be playing often, if at all.  Change is rarely good...ah well...live and let live...all things must change....small beer...etc

Ciao   

Whilst I agree with this to a point (it might drive you mad if you don’t treat it pragmatically), Tim’s point is a valid one.

I don’t want to call a lot of the work bad (much of it is technically very good if somewhat in a style I don’t like). However, I will say that a lot if it is unnecessary.

Ally

Tim absolutely has a valid point, but what can one do?  I am not gonna lose sleep over things for which I have no control.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

I love to be a neighsayer but on this, I can't really agree.  There's some bad things going on but some good.  Scott MacPherson's Close House course couldn't have been built 20 years ago and it's great fun.  My home club had been narrowing fairways and growing rough for years.  In the last 5 fairways have widened by 50% and they're attacking the rough.  Just up the road, Frank Pont has been busy at Tynemouth and that's not top of his list of UK work.  By all accounts, the changes at Portrush have elevated an already great course.  I haven't seen the new work at Turnberry but the old course there was hugely overrated.  I opposed the work at TOC and even helped try to build a case against it.  But has it really changed anything about the way a great course plays?  The work at Swinley looks awful but, a few miles away, The Berkshire has been losing trees and widening corridors.

Bottom line?  Some bad, some good, life goes on.

[Tom_Doak]

A few observations/thoughts;

• there has always been a particular architect of choice, and there has always been detractors for them. That includes Colt and that includes MacKenzie. Mark my words, one day some Frank Pont type will be making a healthy living restoring Martin Ebert's work to it's former glory.
• even the best architects make mistakes and so do the clubs who commission them. Bad design that doesn't work generally gets sorted fairly quickly.
• there's nothing to worry about, tomorrow the world will still be turning............... I hope !

Do you mean the first bit excerpted the same as how a lot of Rees Jones' work from 15 years ago is now being ripped up to restore the older designs, by myself and some others?


If so, I guess that's okay, but I can tell you right now I'd rather these clubs would have just left things alone to begin with.  There is so much waste and it takes so much more effort to restore something once someone has dug it up. 


For example, in our restoration of Hollywood in NJ, we have not been able to restore the old 17th green because there is no trace of it in the ground anymore, and they don't have good enough pictures. 


Likewise, I'm going to try and restore the old 8th green at Yarra Yarra this winter - it was so cool that I made a small sketch of it when I first saw it thirty years ago, but that's not much to go on.


I guess they are keeping golf course architectural consultants fed and clothed, but they are doing an injustice to the courses themselves, and to the planet as a whole.

[Ryan Coles]

A really interesting thread and some excellent points made all round.


It seems to come down to taste. Ebert messing with Colt’s bunkers a crime. Doak altering the famous style of bunkers at Woodhall Spa primarily for maintenance reasons is applauded as sympathetic. Etc etc.


Architects have clearly designed unsustainable unmaintainable features and bunkering etc that Greenkeepers can’t work with. Yet design and changes in the hands of a greenkeeper alone, can see features neutered and playability impinged in the name of safety and maintenance.


The best examples seem to strike a balance between the two. The opening day black and white photos look great. But the huge pits and sandy wastelands after a few British winters are never going to endure on the modest budgets that courses in this country operate with.


I feel for the Swinley GK getting slaughtered on here. He’s done some fantastic work drying out the playing surfaces, encouraging finer grasses, clearing out trees and rhododendrons. Which is his job I guess. Clearly the Bunkers don’t look as we’d all like.

[James Brown]

Sorry for the subject, but I feel like as a GCA community, we are asleep to what is happening in the UK&I at the moment.


To preface what I'm about to say, I need to give a bit of context. I love golf in the UK. I love the links courses, and heathland courses. From Scotland to England to Wales to N.I. and Ireland, there is so much quality, that I would happily play my golf here for the rest of my life and never complain....


So now that you know this doesn't come from a place of anger, but of concern, I need to ask: what the hell is happening to our great courses here in the UK?! While the pendulum in the US seems to have swayed back towards fun, playability, contoured greens, uniqueness, minimalism, naturalism, and originality, the UK is going in the other direction! It seems like up and down the coast, the best courses are getting assaulted by bad GCA work and bad GCA decisions, which is homogenising the best we have to offer. (Caveat: I am not trying to call out specific architects, and apologies if this seems like an assault on you). Some examples of things I have seen / heard:


- 20 yard wide fairways at North Berwick
- Remodelling of par-3s 8 & 17 at Swinley Forest
- Bunker work at Sunningdale Old, which looks like a cross between....who knows
- Green slope softening at places like St George's Hill
- General uninspiring and unoriginal work at places like Turnberry
- Making greens and holes at Royal Aberdeen more homogenous, most notably the 3rd.
- Bunker work at courses like The Old Course
- Won't mention Wentworth again...
- Praise of places like Adare Manor, which are the most unsustainable golf courses known to man.
- Consideration given to destroying beautiful original holes at Cruden Bay for 'championship' sake.


Ran and others beat the drum years ago, and at least had a hand in helping to educate about what good looks like in the US. Now, I feel like we are asleep here in the UK. And it's only set to get worse. As more and more who don't know better praise this work because it's new, more and more clubs will start to look at their neighbour and think 'We want some of that!'.


But are we really improving these courses? I don't think so. The only improvements I've seen at great courses is where a club has gone back to the original principle of what the course was when it opened: Alwoodley, Tandridge, and New Zealand (with bunker work) to name a few.


What's happening and what can we do? They say the first step to recovery is through acceptance. Can we accept that there is a lot of work happening at great golf courses around the UK that is not good?!

Which fairways at North Berwick are 20 yards wide?  Maybe on 14, but I can’t think of others. 

[Ira Fishman]

A few observations/thoughts;

• there has always been a particular architect of choice, and there has always been detractors for them. That includes Colt and that includes MacKenzie. Mark my words, one day some Frank Pont type will be making a healthy living restoring Martin Ebert's work to it's former glory.
• even the best architects make mistakes and so do the clubs who commission them. Bad design that doesn't work generally gets sorted fairly quickly.
• there's nothing to worry about, tomorrow the world will still be turning............... I hope !

Do you mean the first bit excerpted the same as how a lot of Rees Jones' work from 15 years ago is now being ripped up to restore the older designs, by myself and some others?


If so, I guess that's okay, but I can tell you right now I'd rather these clubs would have just left things alone to begin with.  There is so much waste and it takes so much more effort to restore something once someone has dug it up. 


For example, in our restoration of Hollywood in NJ, we have not been able to restore the old 17th green because there is no trace of it in the ground anymore, and they don't have good enough pictures. 


Likewise, I'm going to try and restore the old 8th green at Yarra Yarra this winter - it was so cool that I made a small sketch of it when I first saw it thirty years ago, but that's not much to go on.


I guess they are keeping golf course architectural consultants fed and clothed, but they are doing an injustice to the courses themselves, and to the planet as a whole.

In the digital age, do architects and courses keep better records of what was in the ground before someone makes changes? If so, shouldn't that help restorations going forward?


Ira

[Jerry Kluger]

Let me ask this question not knowing if the premise to the question is applicable but what the heck:


Do some of the courses feel they must do this work in order to justify the increases in fees they are charging to visitors?

[Tim Gallant]

I love to be a neighsayer but on this, I can't really agree.  There's some bad things going on but some good.  Scott MacPherson's Close House course couldn't have been built 20 years ago and it's great fun.  My home club had been narrowing fairways and growing rough for years.  In the last 5 fairways have widened by 50% and they're attacking the rough.  Just up the road, Frank Pont has been busy at Tynemouth and that's not top of his list of UK work.  By all accounts, the changes at Portrush have elevated an already great course.  I haven't seen the new work at Turnberry but the old course there was hugely overrated.  I opposed the work at TOC and even helped try to build a case against it.  But has it really changed anything about the way a great course plays?  The work at Swinley looks awful but, a few miles away, The Berkshire has been losing trees and widening corridors.

Bottom line?  Some bad, some good, life goes on.

Mark,


You are right in that there is a lot of good work happening as well. However, there seems (at least to me) to be this pervasive thinking in the UK that is trying to make things more fair, and more challenging at the best courses, which as a result, is making things more homogenous, and generally, not as good.


To illustrate my point, I'll use Turnberry. Is it better than it was? Maybe. But if you showed me each of those greens in isolation, without backdrops or context, I would absolutely struggle to identify them as Turnberry greens. Whereas there are greens at Sandwich, etc, that I could easily identify as unique. Sure, the greens at Turnberry might be ok if looked at in isolation, but they are so devoid of character and inspiration, that I fail to see the changes they made as a real success. So is the measure of success of any work now, 'is it better than it was before'? I think we should be aiming higher than that.


And I suppose that is my point. There seems to be a push at lots of clubs to tweak greens, bunkers and holes without appreciating the uniqueness of what they have. That 17th green at Swinley was original, and beautiful. Now, as a stand alone hole, I wouldn't say it's bad per say, but it's not one of the best par-3s I've ever seen.


I do concede great work is happening. Reading the interview with Mr. Pennell was a joy, and I am genuinely excited to play Woking some day. I just wish most great clubs would be more sympathetic to what they have on the ground as a lot of work seems unnecessary. Either they are chasing fashions (hello blow out bunkers!) or trying to make things more fair/challenging. Most of the good work that is being done that I've seen has been restorative in nature - if not a true restoration, at least going back to the principles of the original design. Tackling tree encroachment, heather regeneration: good. Altering Colt greens because they seem 'unfair': bad.

[Adam Lawrence]

Not sure what you mean re flattening of greens at SGH Tim. I'm pretty close to what's going on there, and I'm not aware of any green levelling. The slope on the thirteenth was reduced, but that was done by Colt himself immediately after the course opened, after George Duncan had four putted it on opening day.

[Tim Gallant]

Not sure what you mean re flattening of greens at SGH Tim. I'm pretty close to what's going on there, and I'm not aware of any green levelling. The slope on the thirteenth was reduced, but that was done by Colt himself immediately after the course opened, after George Duncan had four putted it on opening day.

Adam,

You would know better than me, but I was thinking specifically of the 13th, 16th (which I believe they are contemplating reducing the severity of the false front?), and number 1. There may be others, but those were the ones my host pointed out.

[Tim Gallant]

I feel for the Swinley GK getting slaughtered on here. He’s done some fantastic work drying out the playing surfaces, encouraging finer grasses, clearing out trees and rhododendrons. Which is his job I guess. Clearly the Bunkers don’t look as we’d all like.

Ryan,


Thank you for the post. On your last point, I agree in that, I am sure they've done a wonderful job with tree clearance and managing invasive plants. But when you alter a hole by changing what's on the ground, to me there has to be a pretty darn good reason why, and should be an option only as an absolute last resort. If it was just a redo of a bunker in a style I didn't like, I could absolutely live with that, as it can be turned back. But when you take a wonderful greensite and flatten it, I start to question what's happening that we think this is ok.

[Tim Gallant]

Sorry for the subject, but I feel like as a GCA community, we are asleep to what is happening in the UK&I at the moment.


To preface what I'm about to say, I need to give a bit of context. I love golf in the UK. I love the links courses, and heathland courses. From Scotland to England to Wales to N.I. and Ireland, there is so much quality, that I would happily play my golf here for the rest of my life and never complain....


So now that you know this doesn't come from a place of anger, but of concern, I need to ask: what the hell is happening to our great courses here in the UK?! While the pendulum in the US seems to have swayed back towards fun, playability, contoured greens, uniqueness, minimalism, naturalism, and originality, the UK is going in the other direction! It seems like up and down the coast, the best courses are getting assaulted by bad GCA work and bad GCA decisions, which is homogenising the best we have to offer. (Caveat: I am not trying to call out specific architects, and apologies if this seems like an assault on you). Some examples of things I have seen / heard:


- 20 yard wide fairways at North Berwick
- Remodelling of par-3s 8 & 17 at Swinley Forest
- Bunker work at Sunningdale Old, which looks like a cross between....who knows
- Green slope softening at places like St George's Hill
- General uninspiring and unoriginal work at places like Turnberry
- Making greens and holes at Royal Aberdeen more homogenous, most notably the 3rd.
- Bunker work at courses like The Old Course
- Won't mention Wentworth again...
- Praise of places like Adare Manor, which are the most unsustainable golf courses known to man.
- Consideration given to destroying beautiful original holes at Cruden Bay for 'championship' sake.


Ran and others beat the drum years ago, and at least had a hand in helping to educate about what good looks like in the US. Now, I feel like we are asleep here in the UK. And it's only set to get worse. As more and more who don't know better praise this work because it's new, more and more clubs will start to look at their neighbour and think 'We want some of that!'.


But are we really improving these courses? I don't think so. The only improvements I've seen at great courses is where a club has gone back to the original principle of what the course was when it opened: Alwoodley, Tandridge, and New Zealand (with bunker work) to name a few.


What's happening and what can we do? They say the first step to recovery is through acceptance. Can we accept that there is a lot of work happening at great golf courses around the UK that is not good?!

Which fairways at North Berwick are 20 yards wide?  Maybe on 14, but I can’t think of others.

James,


I actually think 14 is one of the wider fairways! I was specifically thinking of 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 17. There may be points on those fairways that extend to 25 yards wide, but I have personally paced those fairways and seen 20/22 yard width.


The reason it doesn't stick out to most is that there is a very small semi-rough that borders the fairways on each side, at about 3-5 yards. So including this small semi rough, the fairways are closer to 30 yards (still tight tight tight!).

[Adam Lawrence]

Not sure what you mean re flattening of greens at SGH Tim. I'm pretty close to what's going on there, and I'm not aware of any green levelling. The slope on the thirteenth was reduced, but that was done by Colt himself immediately after the course opened, after George Duncan had four putted it on opening day.

Adam,

You would know better than me, but I was thinking specifically of the 13th, 16th (which I believe they are contemplating reducing the severity of the false front?), and number 1. There may be others, but those were the ones my host pointed out.

The first green has been entirely rebuilt. It was not a Colt green, but a Hawtree from the 1920s. The original was right on top of the hill and members complained about the severity of the climb. The replacement didn't drain properly, and was not in keeping with the rest of the course. And it certainly was not more contoured than the new one!


I haven't heard anything about possible works to the thirteenth green, though the bunkers have been reworked, or the sixteenth.

[Tim Gallant]

Let me ask this question not knowing if the premise to the question is applicable but what the heck:


Do some of the courses feel they must do this work in order to justify the increases in fees they are charging to visitors?

Jerry,


I am not sure it's because of the fees they are charging. I think it's probably a combination of increased visitor play (see Swinley), keeping up with the Jones' (see Nairn), and a false impression that they can make an already great course even better (Aberdeen).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()