Royal Liverpool

[Niall C]

John


In the context of my post I was using the term preferred in terms of their work not their personality.


Putting in dunes in some ways is no different than putting in bunkers, you are still moving earth around to create an effect. The principle of fake dunes doesn't offend me but the reason and the quality of the work might. I can't comment on Formby and Burnam as I don't know what dunes you refer to at Formby and have never played Burnam.


I do recall the mounding they put round the 9th green at Troon wasn't, to my eye at least, that well done but it was entirely functional and done partly for the purpose of providing a viewing platform for spectators and partly to try and block the view of the caravan park behind. Everything else they did at Troon I thought was excellent, and that included creating a new stretch of fairway for the 15th (?) complete with varied and at times quite challenging undulations. I'd challenge anyone who didn't know they had done that work to play there and not say it wasn't as nature provided and that it also wasn't one of the best stretch of fairway on the course.


Niall

[Niall C]

Ally


Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy to read comment from you so don't self edit on my behalf. Just saying.


Ben


I don't know how these things work contractually but I have a vague recollection of with the Open courses (including courses used for qualifiers) that the R&A make suggestions and have a dialogue with the club. Those suggestions might involve ideas emanating from consulting architect and if the work goes ahead then R&A provide funding. Not sure who the architects are working for at that point but have heard that in some the club hasn't always gone along with the suggestions made, and the R&A accept that.


My earlier point to Ally about quality of work is that they wouldn't get repeat business if they weren't good at what they do.


Niall

Niall,




They did the same with Hawtree a decade ago.


Seems like the pro game has changed a lot recently meaning that the course needs to be updated more often.




Cheers
Ben

Ben


The R&A/clubs have been doing the same ever since probably the late 1880's when they upgraded Prestwick to 18 holes. The fallacy IMO is the notion that that hasn't been the case.


Niall

[Niall C]

A couple of things -
Erosion up the coast at Formby (see other threads), depositing of material at Hoylake
Nice sea view from the new par–3 green at Hoylake, nice sea views from the revised 7th at Dornoch and the revised 9th at Cruden Bay
Any linkage?
Atb

David


I'm one of the first to decry aesthetics being the prevailing reason for changes, but I think you are wide of the mark re Cruden Bay and Dornoch. Both holes are on remarkably similar landforms. If the object of the exercise was to simply create a view then they would simply have just cut back the gorse. However in both instances, IMO, they have attempted to create more interest. Before both were straight away holes whereas now they bring the "cliff" into play if you want to have the best approach in to the green. Have a look at MacKenzies "Golf Architecture" book and you will see he suggests a layout for a par 4 that uses a stream/burn running up the side of the hole in a similar fashion.


To me it's just good design and a fairly obvious thing to do. You might recall Frank Pont getting upset because he'd previously suggested something similar at Cruden Bay. Was Frank also just trying to create a view ?


Niall

[Niall C]

Niall,


I suppose this hits at the crux of the argument for or against. In the case of Royal Liverpool, it seems like there were changes in the past that ripped out the character (and challenge) of two of the best holes on the course in the name of fairness. And now, years later, one of those holes is seen as uninteresting (the 17th), and there is talk about removing it from the course all together. Whereas if the course was to have just been left alone once it was considered great, it would be pretty darn good. Why continue tweaking? You may succeed, but it's no guarantee.


The talk all of the sudden seems to be around challenging the good players, and being fair for all. But we know that's not what makes good golf architecture.

Tim


I suppose the glib answer is if they took the same approach you are suggesting to something like car production then we would still be running around in Model T Fords. Yes there have been a few Reliant Robins along the way but who can deny that modern cars are far superior to even 10/20 years ago ?


As for using the best players as the barometer, that has always been the case irrespective of what Mac or Colt might have said about the rabbits. Bear in mind also that these golden age guys that we now revere weren't born great architects, they had to learn there trade and often what you think of as being there work isn't necessarily so.


But more to the point, there are a lot of talented guys out there, including on this site, why would you want to restrict that talent ?


Niall

[Ben Stephens]

Niall,


I suppose this hits at the crux of the argument for or against. In the case of Royal Liverpool, it seems like there were changes in the past that ripped out the character (and challenge) of two of the best holes on the course in the name of fairness. And now, years later, one of those holes is seen as uninteresting (the 17th), and there is talk about removing it from the course all together. Whereas if the course was to have just been left alone once it was considered great, it would be pretty darn good. Why continue tweaking? You may succeed, but it's no guarantee.


The talk all of the sudden seems to be around challenging the good players, and being fair for all. But we know that's not what makes good golf architecture.

Tim


I suppose the glib answer is if they took the same approach you are suggesting to something like car production then we would still be running around in Model T Fords. Yes there have been a few Reliant Robins along the way but who can deny that modern cars are far superior to even 10/20 years ago ?


As for using the best players as the barometer, that has always been the case irrespective of what Mac or Colt might have said about the rabbits. Bear in mind also that these golden age guys that we now revere weren't born great architects, they had to learn there trade and often what you think of as being there work isn't necessarily so.


But more to the point, there are a lot of talented guys out there, including on this site, why would you want to restrict that talent ?


Niall

It is a similar trend in Architecture. The more established and larger practices (Foster and Rogers for example it seems to be AHMM at the moment) tend to win the big jobs whereas James Boon and I have set up our own small practices and are starting from the bottom up like a small fish in a ginormous ocean.


Well done to James on being nominated for house of the year in UK and being on TV hope it gives greater exposure for James to get more work and build up his practice.


 

[Tim Gallant]

Niall,


I suppose this hits at the crux of the argument for or against. In the case of Royal Liverpool, it seems like there were changes in the past that ripped out the character (and challenge) of two of the best holes on the course in the name of fairness. And now, years later, one of those holes is seen as uninteresting (the 17th), and there is talk about removing it from the course all together. Whereas if the course was to have just been left alone once it was considered great, it would be pretty darn good. Why continue tweaking? You may succeed, but it's no guarantee.


The talk all of the sudden seems to be around challenging the good players, and being fair for all. But we know that's not what makes good golf architecture.

But more to the point, there are a lot of talented guys out there, including on this site, why would you want to restrict that talent ?


Niall

Not restrict, but redirect! There are PLENTY of average courses that could use the help of these architects. I'm absolutely not against doing work to an existing golf course. I am maybe just more reserved when it comes to great golf courses. Wait 10 years and if the idea still seems like a good idea, then go for it! But why does it suddenly seem like all the great courses are no longer great in the eyes of greens committees and the R&A? As I've said, I think there is a higher value being placed on championship golf and fairness than I would want, but as Lou points out, my view is just that.

[Niall C]

Tim


That's my point, it's not all of a sudden, it's being going on more or less continuously. It's just that you've just become aware of it. That's the relative advantage of youth I suppose.


Niall

[Adrian_Stiff]

Most golf courses change every few years, it might be a new tee, a new bunker even a bunker removed but the GOOD FOLKS who own the course or are the committee SHOULD BE ALLOWED to do whatever they want. If they think it is better then do it.


Golf Clubs have masterplans and most want more length. The amount of courses where nothing has happened for 10 years would be a tiny percentage.


The new Hoylake hole looks an improvement to me, plus it allows more length on the two par 5s at the end if 600 is what is needed these days for a proper par 5 then it makes sense to have a tee that allows that. Most R & A Rota courses now have a 600 yarder.


Most people think the Ebert improvements at Trevose and B & B are very good. It has made their firm the ones to have. Just a fact of life, at B & B it is not much different than many have said for years but clubs often need that marquee name to big up their course. Not great news for an Adrian Stiff, Ally McIntosh or Ben Stephens but it is just the way it is.

[Tim Gallant]

Tim


That's my point, it's not all of a sudden, it's being going on more or less continuously. It's just that you've just become aware of it. That's the relative advantage of youth I suppose.


Niall

Niall,


I appreciate there have been a series of changes in the past, and that is my point. I'd say that more often than not, post golden age, there hasn't been a great golf course that has benefitted from these ongoing tweaks (that weren't restorative in nature) that have made the courses substantially better. And I'd put Turnberry in that group, but I know I'll be in the minority. I think I mentioned in the other thread why, so will save the text space.


All that being said - you are 100% right on the Troon changes to the 15th. Those are very well done. Not even I can take that away from M+E if that's who did the work.

[Adam Lawrence]

Martin's regular contractor, First Golf, and shapers Mike Smith and Marcus Terry, have done some outstanding work of this kind. The work done on the third and sixteenth at Royal Cinque Ports last winter by the same team is quite superb.

[Tom_Doak]

Championship courses are a different animal - if they want to host a championship, they feel pressure to do whatever is required of them by the governing body in charge.  It's hard to tell whether these ideas originate with the consulting architect or someone in power on the R&A championship committee - but they don't originate from within the club.

[Thomas Dai]

A couple of things -
Erosion up the coast at Formby (see other threads), depositing of material at Hoylake
Nice sea view from the new par–3 green at Hoylake, nice sea views from the revised 7th at Dornoch and the revised 9th at Cruden Bay
Any linkage?
Atb

I'm one of the first to decry aesthetics being the prevailing reason for changes, but I think you are wide of the mark re Cruden Bay and Dornoch. Both holes are on remarkably similar landforms. If the object of the exercise was to simply create a view then they would simply have just cut back the gorse. However in both instances, IMO, they have attempted to create more interest. Before both were straight away holes whereas now they bring the "cliff" into play if you want to have the best approach in to the green. Have a look at MacKenzies "Golf Architecture" book and you will see he suggests a layout for a par 4 that uses a stream/burn running up the side of the hole in a similar fashion.
To me it's just good design and a fairly obvious thing to do. You might recall Frank Pont getting upset because he'd previously suggested something similar at Cruden Bay. Was Frank also just trying to create a view ?

Not convinced Niall. For interesting golfing purposes the holes could have been routed that way a long, long time ago, way, way before the modern trend for “nice views”. I’ll let Frank speak for himself although it is curious that his CB idea wasn’t adopted but a similar one from someone else a few years later was.
Atb

[Ben Stephens]

Martin's regular contractor, First Golf, and shapers Mike Smith and Marcus Terry, have done some outstanding work of this kind. The work done on the third and sixteenth at Royal Cinque Ports last winter by the same team is quite superb.

There are other examples




John R Stutt was Braid's man to go to on site.


Gil Hanse has his Caveman Crew. 


Tom Doak has his faithful disciples.




I wonder how much of Martin Ebert projects that Mike Smith and Marcus Terry works on bearing in mind the number of projects they currently have the shapers can't possibly be on every site. 

[Ben Stephens]

Championship courses are a different animal - if they want to host a championship, they feel pressure to do whatever is required of them by the governing body in charge.  It's hard to tell whether these ideas originate with the consulting architect or someone in power on the R&A championship committee - but they don't originate from within the club.

+1

[Niall C]

Championship courses are a different animal - if they want to host a championship, they feel pressure to do whatever is required of them by the governing body in charge.  It's hard to tell whether these ideas originate with the consulting architect or someone in power on the R&A championship committee - but they don't originate from within the club.

Tom


You might be surprised what ideas float about various clubs/committees. The fact that they might not have been implemented before and that it takes the advent of a championship or the backing of the R&A/consultant to give the impetus for things to happen, doesn't mean that it hasn't been thought of before.


Niall

[Niall C]

A couple of things -
Erosion up the coast at Formby (see other threads), depositing of material at Hoylake
Nice sea view from the new par–3 green at Hoylake, nice sea views from the revised 7th at Dornoch and the revised 9th at Cruden Bay
Any linkage?
Atb

I'm one of the first to decry aesthetics being the prevailing reason for changes, but I think you are wide of the mark re Cruden Bay and Dornoch. Both holes are on remarkably similar landforms. If the object of the exercise was to simply create a view then they would simply have just cut back the gorse. However in both instances, IMO, they have attempted to create more interest. Before both were straight away holes whereas now they bring the "cliff" into play if you want to have the best approach in to the green. Have a look at MacKenzies "Golf Architecture" book and you will see he suggests a layout for a par 4 that uses a stream/burn running up the side of the hole in a similar fashion.
To me it's just good design and a fairly obvious thing to do. You might recall Frank Pont getting upset because he'd previously suggested something similar at Cruden Bay. Was Frank also just trying to create a view ?

Not convinced Niall. For interesting golfing purposes the holes could have been routed that way a long, long time ago, way, way before the modern trend for “nice views”. I’ll let Frank speak for himself although it is curious that his CB idea wasn’t adopted but a similar one from someone else a few years later was.
Atb

Yes, it could have been done that way years ago but it wasn't (as far as I know). Which by the way shows that not all classic architecture was perfect and a lot of it wasn't that strategic. Let me qualify those comments as far as CB is concerned by saying that Hawklaw has been changed and tweaked more than once.


But irrespective of M&E's motivation, and of the views behind the new greens (I hesitate to describe the views as being created as they are already there if anyone cares to look), do you not think the holes are better ? Do you not also think it adds greater variety to each course as the succeeding holes have been turned from right to left dog-legs to left to right which in both instances is not the norm ?


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Ah, but what nudged such “nice view” ideas, which may well have been bubbling quietly below the surface locally for quite a long time, along at this particular point in time to the extent that the work actually happened?
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

You might be surprised what ideas float about various clubs/committees. The fact that they might not have been implemented before and that it takes the advent of a championship or the backing of the R&A/consultant to give the impetus for things to happen, doesn't mean that it hasn't been thought of before.

Oh, yes, I can agree with that, in part.  There are tons and tons of ideas floating around golf clubs about how to change the course, and there is the old adage that even a blind squirrel can find an acorn, once in a while.  Being able to make the idea work, and fit in with the rest of the course, is the harder part of the equation.


The part I'd argue is whether the guy in power gives any weight to an idea unless he believes it was his own.   

[Ben Stephens]

Construction latest courtesy of Simon Haines' twitter feed


https://twitter.com/Hainesy76/status/1195460610009501697

[Thomas Dai]

Construction latest courtesy of Simon Haines' twitter feed
https://twitter.com/Hainesy76/status/1195460610009501697

Nice link Ben.
The same Twitter account also posted this old map of Hoylake.
atb

[Ben Stephens]

Construction latest courtesy of Simon Haines' twitter feed
https://twitter.com/Hainesy76/status/1195460610009501697

Nice link Ben.
The same Twitter account also posted this old map of Hoylake.
atb

Dai


I noticed that image as well. The current par 3 13th is the other way round in direction. So it seems that they are restoring the original direction of the hole but further out. Interesting to see the pond and large fronting bunker. Would have loved to play this version as it also has Dowie and Royal greens plus the diagonal ridge hazards.


Cheers
Ben

[Niall C]

The part I'd argue is whether the guy in power gives any weight to an idea unless he believes it was his own.   

and that Tom is what your next book should be about "Golf Architecture and How to Manage the Client !"


Niall

[Niall C]

Ah, but what nudged such “nice view” ideas, which may well have been bubbling quietly below the surface locally for quite a long time, along at this particular point in time to the extent that the work actually happened?
Atb

David,


As I said before, I think in both instances it was a fairly obvious thing to do. If you want you can argue the toss about what was the true motivation of M&E in recommending these ideas but are you seriously suggesting that they don't make these holes, and the succeeding ones better ? And yes maybe, as Tom suggests, the architect might be actually adopting someone else's ideas but I bet in most instances when an architect is engaged the first job at hand is to advise on existing proposals.


I'm conscious that I'm spending a lot of time on this thread (and others) defending M&E but I like to think that what I'm doing is actually defending modern day architects. Back in the day, the revered ODG's weren't at all squeamish in trampling over their contemporaries work if they thought they could produce something better eg. Simpson at Muirfield, and that turned out OK. Let's give modern day guys a chance.


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

This 1935 routing was recently posted on this Twitter account - https://twitter.com/joemmcdonne11
atb

[Kyle Casella]

There is a new video I saw on Instagram of the completed 17th at Hoylake. I can't embed it but worth a look. The sand looks very artificial and those paths    It will be interesting to hear feedback on how it plays...


https://www.instagram.com/p/B8wVXJkFJcF/