Royal Liverpool

[Brian_Ewen]

https://twitter.com/golfarchitects/status/1192919384978862081


The view from the new 17th green site at Royal Liverpool. Construction gets underway on Monday

[Ally Mcintosh]

Dare I ask who? And why?

[Clyde Johnson]

No Ally...!


They can't be talking about "The Royal" hole? Even with the 17th in The Open configuration that would mean a pretty sizeable re-alignment of not just that hole?

[Thomas Dai]

New 17th greensite? Have I missed a previous announcement?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3855895,-3.1941405,852m/data=!3m1!1e3
atb

[Jim Sherma]

Is this the 17th of the open routing that ended on the regular par 5 16th? Or the old Royal hole that was originally the 18th prior to the clubhouse being built?

[Sean_A]

No Ally...!


They can't be talking about "The Royal" hole? Even with the 17th in The Open configuration that would mean a pretty sizeable re-alignment of not just that hole?

I am confused as well. Is the par 3 in the corner by Stanley Road going to be altered or removed?

Happy Hockey

[Clyde Johnson]

As per twitter:


"This was an idea generated by Alistair Beggs of The R&A to provide more drama at the end of The Open. A short par 3 with danger all around."

[Duncan Cheslett]

Also...


"Yes, this will play as the 17th in The Open. It is the Club 13th or Open 15th flipped over and also allows the Open 18th to be made much longer producing a proper par 5."


It looks like the 18th tee (Open routing) will be moved back into the area of the current 17th green. and a new 17th short hole built with its greensite in the dunes.

On the normal routing these are the 16th and 15th respectively.

The Open 18th will potentially now be a par 5 of over 600 yards - around 400 yards to the corner of the dogleg! Anyone attempting to reach the green in two faces a very tight long drive followed by a 250-300 yard shot over OOB.

Sounds good to me!

[Jeff Schley]

Well progress is subjective and certain to be controversial messing with such historic courses.  I played there in September and really thought the closing holes which went in opposite directions, the 17th is a bear into the wind and 18, while downwind does have OB right and quite a few deep bunkers to the left of the green.  I simply had to take an unplayable as I was too close to the face. As totally flat as the course is with a healthy wind and whisky grass it will play as a formidable foe.

[Ally Mcintosh]

What other work is going on there? According to the same twitter account, they have already built “two new greens in two weeks”.


Again, I can’t say if this is good or bad, not knowing the reasoning.


But it certainly seems like M&E are acting like spoilt kids in a sweetie shop these past couple of years.

[Thomas Dai]

But it certainly seems like M&E are acting like spoilt kids in a sweetie shop these past couple of years.

..... and spending other people’s money!
Atb

[jeffwarne]

But it certainly seems like M&E are acting like spoilt kids in a sweetie shop these past couple of years.

Nobody's sweating an OB Cop with 7 iron in their hands.....
The impotent governing bodies and apathetic/apolgetic bystanders have allowed an environment where such change is a requirement of courses wishing to remain championship relevant (which to any in the rota is the ONLY relevance that matters)

[Ally Mcintosh]

Oh don’t get me wrong - the doors of the sweetie shop have been thrown open to them. It’s just that they are emptying the shelves without restraint.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Just FYI Alistair Beggs (used to be?) a member here.  He played in the Hoylake BUDA including a famous crushing of a well loved figure representing the overseas team.


I believe that as well as being a professional agronomist he's an ex Captain of Royal Liverpool and presented the Claret Jug last time out.

[Ben Stephens]

Oh don’t get me wrong - the doors of the sweetie shop have been thrown open to them. It’s just that they are emptying the shelves without restraint.

Mackenzie and Ebert have done pretty well whether we agree on their designs or not. Like Norman Foster and Richard Rogers they have strong marketing tool, client list and where they have worked in the past.

Its all about time and place. They were in the right time and place plus have very strong connections/reputations. 

Royal Liverpool is adapting to the current way the game is being played. The course in 1967 would have been torn apart by todays pros and I like the idea of a short par 3 17th facing the sea - probably a first in the Open and finishing with a more challenging 18th hole.

I heard that Martin Ebert has been working on Luffenham Heath and is due to do a presentation next week for proposed changes which Hawtree carried out in the last decade. 

I have to applaud M+E and they have worked hard to get where they are now as a company even that we may or may not agree with what they put forward in their design proposals. Their work on Hirono has been unlike any other work they have done in UK - it looks a great restoration from the pics.

[Ally Mcintosh]

They’ve done too well, Ben. That’s the point.


Not that they have so many clients. That is the prerogative of each club. Just that the work at each club tends to more rather than less.


Sometimes architects need to tell clubs that nothing needs to be done. As for Royal Liverpool, I don’t know the course well enough. Maybe the work going on there is both necessary and wise.

[Matt_Cohn]

Like this?

[Ben Stephens]

It could be the layout that Matt has drawn however the photo shows the location being further up on other side of the path in marshy land as a short par 3. So it could be on the left hand side of the Open 14th and Club 12th - maybe it will be a 19 hole course similar to Kingston Heath.


Royal Liverpool have made a number of changes especially the 17th green and one par 3 on the front nine.

[Ben Stephens]

They’ve done too well, Ben. That’s the point.


Not that they have so many clients. That is the prerogative of each club. Just that the work at each club tends to more rather than less.


Sometimes architects need to tell clubs that nothing needs to be done. As for Royal Liverpool, I don’t know the course well enough. Maybe the work going on there is both necessary and wise.

James Boon has told me that Martin Ebert has been at Notts recently as well.


Donald Steel did a lot of work for the R&A and Tom/Martin were his lieutenants, then it was Hawtree for a period and now M+E. Its a familiar picture if you are the R&A preferred golf course architect most UK clubs will follow that which I call the Pied Piper effect. Someone else will be chosen in future and ride on that crest of wave.


Was it Frank Pennink before Donald Steel that got a lot of work? going further back Braid and Colt are other examples


Similar to EGD for Tour events and Ryder Cup due to their links to the European Tour as evident at Celtic Manor, Marco Simone as well as the tournament set up for courses such as Gleneagles and Le Golf National. 


Rees Jones being given the moniker 'The Open Doctor' was a favourite for USGA at the time and he managed to get more project work due to this given 'role'.


These companies have done pretty well in their own regard and that is something others can aspire to be.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Here's me getting drawn in to a discussion again.

First of all, M&E are cleaning up on links course consultations - They have far, far more courses on their books than the Open Rota courses. No doubt this is a knock-on from being R&A favoured (the R&A have a lot to answer for here).... And disappointed though I am with this, my main question is why all of these courses need substantial changes rather than the architect saying "why change anything?"

I have a secondary concern that the type of solution seems remarkably similar at almost all of these courses.

Enough. I don't know the reasons and I don't know the courses well enough in many cases.

[Sean_A]

Sure Ally. I don't know reasons either and changes are happening at my club using half this team. That said, the holes aren't of a long standing pedigree. I would prefer club consultation prior to money spent to alter the architecture bones. Instead, it is my perception that a few members talk with an archie, come up with a plan and put in for changes. That isn't to say that some good has come of this, but my main concern is when fairways or greens are flattened. I don't know if this was the case, but I hope ideas which explored the retention of contours and slope were considered. Of course I don't know because the members weren't consulted. Guys just say its better and expect everyone to take that at face value.

On the face of things Hoylake is different because of its Open tradition. Who knows what sort of pressure is applied by the R&A. I suspect only a very small number!

Happy Hockey

[Ben Stephens]

Here's me getting drawn in to a discussion again.

First of all, M&E are cleaning up on links course consultations - They have far, far more courses on their books than the Open Rota courses. No doubt this is a knock-on from being R&A favoured (the R&A have a lot to answer for here).... And disappointed though I am with this, my main question is why all of these courses need substantial changes rather than the architect saying "why change anything?"

I have a secondary concern that the type of solution seems remarkably similar at almost all of these courses.

Enough. I don't know the reasons and I don't know the courses well enough in many cases.

R+A (or the Secretary) can be monotonous at times the direction should be towards them why are they employing M+E? its probably that it is a safe relationship and someone they trust rather than entrust the job to some what they see is a 'gung ho' and they do not want to be challenged it would seem.


Peter Dawson tended to veer towards Martin Hawtree and in this case Martin Slumbers is veering towards M+E. Also M+E are members of the R+A (correct me if I am wrong) and Martin Ebert has been known to be referee at R+A events so it can be a case of looking each other and self interest. Its always about dipping in your toes in a bigger pond.


Also we need to ask why are the clubs employing M+E? would they prefer to pay less fees and get just as good an archie who is EIGCA member or pay premium for M+E? or is M+E a good way for a club to market that they have worked on the course to attract more golfers to play their course because it has been improved by M+E.


Are clubs aware of EIGCA or are archies not promoting themselves well enough? M+E have a strong marketing tool where they work and it does put them in advantage - clubs would say who is the best and all the evidence tends to point towards them like Braid Pennink and Steel in their heyday.


I personally would have preferred the R+A to let the clubs choose their archie based on their requirements/suggestions however that seems not to be the case and it is safety first for them.


Seacroft is a notable exception they have taken on Clyde Johnson and it seems to have taken the course leaps and bounds yet they are working on it long term which is a good approach IMO. The other is Royal Dublin who have just enlisted Clayton, DeVries and Pont to look at their course that Hawtree worked on in the last decade.

[Niall C]

Here's me getting drawn in to a discussion again.

First of all, M&E are cleaning up on links course consultations - They have far, far more courses on their books than the Open Rota courses. No doubt this is a knock-on from being R&A favoured (the R&A have a lot to answer for here).... And disappointed though I am with this, my main question is why all of these courses need substantial changes rather than the architect saying "why change anything?"

I have a secondary concern that the type of solution seems remarkably similar at almost all of these courses.

Enough. I don't know the reasons and I don't know the courses well enough in many cases.

Ally


With respect, I think you are being a bit disingenuous in claiming to getting drawn into a discussion, after all it is you who initiated the discussion on M&E; their workload; their share of the market etc., not only on this thread but pretty well every thread that is a discussion on work being undertaken by them.


I've got to think that they wouldn't be getting all this work simply because Martin Ebert has an R&A blazer and his company is pretty good at marketing. I haven't seen enough of their work to say whether there is an over and over recurring similarity of design other than bunker styling similar to the way the ODG's had their preferred looks, but happy to say that what I have seen has largely been good or very good.


Niall 

[Ally Mcintosh]

More a reference to the frank commentary thread than this one, Niall. I will make sure to say no more.

[Ben Stephens]

Here's me getting drawn in to a discussion again.

First of all, M&E are cleaning up on links course consultations - They have far, far more courses on their books than the Open Rota courses. No doubt this is a knock-on from being R&A favoured (the R&A have a lot to answer for here).... And disappointed though I am with this, my main question is why all of these courses need substantial changes rather than the architect saying "why change anything?"

I have a secondary concern that the type of solution seems remarkably similar at almost all of these courses.

Enough. I don't know the reasons and I don't know the courses well enough in many cases.

Ally


With respect, I think you are being a bit disingenuous in claiming to getting drawn into a discussion, after all it is you who initiated the discussion on M&E; their workload; their share of the market etc., not only on this thread but pretty well every thread that is a discussion on work being undertaken by them.


I've got to think that they wouldn't be getting all this work simply because Martin Ebert has an R&A blazer and his company is pretty good at marketing. I haven't seen enough of their work to say whether there is an over and over recurring similarity of design other than bunker styling similar to the way the ODG's had their preferred looks, but happy to say that what I have seen has largely been good or very good.


Niall

Niall,


Sometimes people do get the job because it all about who you know not necessarily the best designer. The most powerful marketing tool is word of mouth so that is what might have come across in the R+A.


Has the R+A tendered out the design work to enable companies to bid for the work as per public buildings. Not one evidence of this happening.


M+E have worked at


2022 Hoylake
2020 Sandwich
2019 Portrush
2018 Carnoustie
2016 Troon


Also Turnberry (is that on the rota)


so they are pretty dominant in that respect for the time being - I say fair dinkum to them and it will be interesting to see what they do at Hoylake in the coming months.


There is only one real short par 3 - Postage Stamp so I am interested what sort of short par 3 they come out at Hoylake.