[Clyde Johnson]

Sorry if it came across as smug and condescending Gareth, it certainly wasn't meant to be.   


I'm happy to stay under the radar, though perhaps commenting on GCA isn't the way!? I wouldn't have bothered commenting if it wasn't to correct an inaccuracy that implicates others.

I'm very grateful for the start I've had in this business and like to record my genuine appreciation for that. At a club like Alwoodley - which holds such historical significance, architecturally speaking - it is important to yield a very light-hand, to say "no" when necessary. The club appreciates that, I think. Of course it's not just me capable of taking such an approach.

Just to reiterate, I was very impressed with the level of presentation. Communicating ideas well is a very important part of the job. I greatly respect M&Es ability in that. To that regard, because they are so good at that part, the interrogation of any design proposals (and implementation) risks becoming somewhat less consequential, do you not think? I'll leave those that really matter - you and the members - to decide on that.

Perhaps its the tight northerner in me, and/or the people I've been surrounded by - I'd just rather be keeping the spend on the paperwork to a minimum, and directing it to where it really matters. Of course it's difficult to do the second without a little of the first.

Your club has a very capable Course Manager in Jonathan White, and I'll look forward to seeing how the course evolves over the next few years. It is certainly a fine piece of heathland property that deserves more.

[Thomas Dai]

“...... it is easy to see why the layman would be impressed by such a presentation...very polished, and clear in outcome. It's a dilemma, because while I'm able to produce similar communication materials, I'd much rather be spending a clubs money where it matters...on the course!!”

+1. Well said Clyde.
Atb

[Ryan Coles]

Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?


Disgraceful.


A Club run by volunteers going with fellas with a track record of delivering what they say they will, on time and within budget?


What are they thinking?


And what are M&E thinking wasting time and money on these layman? Other than pay the bills they know nothing, why try and explain things in a professional way, so the layman have an idea of what they’re committing to?


I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.

[Lou_Duran]

Lot to think about, Ryan. 


Gareth- I am sure that you've heard the observation about screwing a member's wife, drinking his whisky, but you better never criticize his club.  For the record, I played HC twice at the 2011 Buda and enjoyed the course very much.


M & E have a huge advantage over the competition owing to their record over the years.  They are far along in the learning curve and can complete the due diligence, produce a professional presentation, and execute on the plan without shorting other clients.  If I was a fiduciary of a club, even if the budget was modest, they would be in my contact list.


As the story was told to me, a famous designer once asked another gca he was working with on a project why it took him so many visits to the site to complete his work.  The implication, as I understood it, was that perhaps his colleague was a bit slow.  I thought it amusing, and wondered if there might be some truth to it.


From the folks I've talked to who know Mr. Ebert, in addition to making a great presentation, he seems very genuine and is easily approachable.  Some who are truly the pros from Dover ("Mash" reference) can project competence while being humble.  I suspect that M & E's success, in addition to their enviable record and top shelf presentations, has also to do with the way they come across and how they deal with people.   

[Ben Stephens]

Clyde Johnson looks like doing some neat work at Seacroft the opposite to M+E - elevating the course to another level working both ways to the past and the future - I am intrigued to see what is next there as it is still a long way to go. https://twitter.com/cunningolf and looks like Renaissance are working at Alwoodley.

Thanks for the shout-out Ben, but just to clarify: the consulting/shaping work at Alwoodley is independent of Tom and RGD. A club of that stature was willing to the task the risk, but then perhaps it was much less of a risk knowing I'd been trained and mentored by people who have the integrity not to suggest change for the sake of staying busy, to quietly go about improving the details, and to be bold on the odd occasion it is necessary!




Thanks also Gareth for posting this vid. Regardless of how you value the design proposals, it is easy to see why the layman would be impressed by such a presentation...very polished, and clear in outcome. It's a dilemma, because while I'm able to produce similar communication materials, I'd much rather be spending a clubs money where it matters...on the course!!

Ok.


I don't actually know you, or your work Clyde (sorry about that) but why that rather smug/condescending reply please? Interested to hear a more constructive response perhaps.....

Gareth,

As you have not been on GCA for a while - Clyde Johnson is one of Tom Doak's proteges or lieutenants and has his own company Cunnin Golf based in St Andrews. He spent a year and half working on site at Tara Iti in New Zealand - stunning piece of work. He has been one of the shapers on the Hotckin Course at Woodhall Spa and numerous other Renaissance Golf Design work recently at St Patricks Rosapenna's latest course in Ireland.

Both Clyde and myself are able to do these types of presentations so I can see where Clyde is coming from knowing how long it takes to do that level of presentation with Photoshop or so and Cunning Golf/Renaissance prefer to put the clients money where it counts on the course rather than investing lot of time and money into presentations.

I earlier questioned whether it was good value for money ie subtle changes and lot of emphasis on the presentation.

I can see why this approach was taken by M+E - so that it is clear and easier for the client/members to visualise what Martin Ebert is proposing.

Have you seen Renaissance work on the Hotchkin Course at Woodhall Spa? IMO Its many levels above what M+E are proposing with HCGC. They worked for one month per year in a three year 'window' with 3 or 4 shapers the amount of work is astounding in a short period of time and they have cleverly done it to intertwine the shaping by Tom's crew and the turfing work by the in house green keeping team. Plus it was late Oct early Nov meaning minimal interruption in play. The course now looks like it was done over 50 years ago.   

Cheers
Ben




 

[Ben Stephens]

Clyde Johnson looks like doing some neat work at Seacroft the opposite to M+E - elevating the course to another level working both ways to the past and the future - I am intrigued to see what is next there as it is still a long way to go. https://twitter.com/cunningolf and looks like Renaissance are working at Alwoodley.

Thanks for the shout-out Ben, but just to clarify: the consulting/shaping work at Alwoodley is independent of Tom and RGD. A club of that stature was willing to the task the risk, but then perhaps it was much less of a risk knowing I'd been trained and mentored by people who have the integrity not to suggest change for the sake of staying busy, to quietly go about improving the details, and to be bold on the odd occasion it is necessary!




Thanks also Gareth for posting this vid. Regardless of how you value the design proposals, it is easy to see why the layman would be impressed by such a presentation...very polished, and clear in outcome. It's a dilemma, because while I'm able to produce similar communication materials, I'd much rather be spending a clubs money where it matters...on the course!!

Clyde,


Is there any chance you can update the Seacroft GCA thread with the changes you have made and the reasons why?


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,55186.0.html


GCA - Seacroft is so underrated and has lot of bones to further improve the course I for one really look forward next time I play it as rather intrigued to see Clyde's work there. 

[Ben Stephens]

Gareth


One the other hand maybe more information is needed on the presentation showing where certain players will be hitting the ball off the tee as it seems that there is no information on the video indicating the distances to the new bunkers off the tee. Does it favour the shorter hitter or the longer hitter?


Lou


Was it 2011 that BUDA was there?? crikey I remember people there that are no longer with us and it was the last time GCA's our dear leader played in BUDA who I had the privilege of playing with and I was impressed with his Mackenzie bag. I still have a polo shirt with Liphook simple logo on.

[Steve Okula]

In the original post, the "dedicated and very accomplished Head Greenskeeper who is ex Morfontaine" is my friend and former assitant Jon White. I don't understand why he should be referenced and not named.

[Robin_Hiseman]

These beautiful proposal documents, that M&E are much admired for, not only serve as an essential source of information to the members, but also provide a valuable future historic document; a snapshot of the club in 2019 and a preservation of images from long ago, which might become lost if not compiled in a single document.


Many years from now, future golf architects and historians will be immensely grateful that M&E and the clubs that appointed them invested in such detailed, analytical documents. Nobody should be knocking Hankley Common or M&E for investing time and money in the production of such.

[Ben Stephens]

These beautiful proposal documents, that M&E are much admired for, not only serve as an essential source of information to the members, but also provide a valuable future historic document; a snapshot of the club in 2019 and a preservation of images from long ago, which might become lost if not compiled in a single document.


Many years from now, future golf architects and historians will be immensely grateful that M&E and the clubs that appointed them invested in such detailed, analytical documents. Nobody should be knocking Hankley Common or M&E for investing time and money in the production of such.

Robin,


You do make good points about the historical side.


One wonders whether the fee proposal that M+E put forward had historical research of the course included as well as design proposals for future course improvements with a drone flythroughs/images to allow for photoshop work ie before and afters which can be time consuming that Hankley were happy to pay for this. To allow non members to see it as well is credit to the club.


There is no in depth site analysis regarding the current course and other factors such as driving distances/landing areas which probably wasn't requested by the club or it is not M+E style. Others might do this and/or just have simple 2D sketches which James Edwards does pretty well. 


It seems on this thread more people are really more focused on the quality of the presentation and past historical reference by M+E not about the course itself and its proposed changes which i think is more important. Hankley has the bones to be a much better course IMO. Gareth has iterated they have a low budget and members do not want major changes which is fine.


However I personally would have preferred less bunkers and more grass mounding with heather top/banks pinching the fairways and bunkers blending in with the heather like at Liphook as it looks more natural plus more variation in the green outline shapes.




Cheers
Ben

[John Mayhugh]

I'm curious about the proposed centerline bunkers for the 6th. They look really odd to me (being in a row) and don't seem to make sense on a fairway with a lot of tilt. As Ben noted, they also don't appear natural for a heathland site. Are there examples of this concept successfully implemented somewhere else?

[Ben Stephens]

I'm curious about the proposed centerline bunkers for the 6th. They look really odd to me (being in a row) and don't seem to make sense on a fairway with a lot of tilt. As Ben noted, they also don't appear natural for a heathland site. Are there examples of this concept successfully implemented somewhere else?

John


3rd (revised by M+E for 2018 Open) and 6th Carnoustie is the only one I can think of however the centre line bunkers are closer than the ones Martin Ebert has proposed for Hankley. I can't think of dual centreline bunkers on a heathland course.


Cheers
Ben

[John Mayhugh]

M & E have a huge advantage over the competition owing to their record over the years.  They are far along in the learning curve and can complete the due diligence, produce a professional presentation, and execute on the plan without shorting other clients.  If I was a fiduciary of a club, even if the budget was modest, they would be in my contact list.


As the story was told to me, a famous designer once asked another gca he was working with on a project why it took him so many visits to the site to complete his work.  The implication, as I understood it, was that perhaps his colleague was a bit slow.  I thought it amusing, and wondered if there might be some truth to it.

Lou,
Do you actually think it's advantageous for a club to have an architect make fewer visits? I feel that having the designer in the field as much as practical results in better, more individual work. You need to have talented people interpreting the plans/goals for the site, and who is better suited to that the designer?

[Niall C]

Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?


Disgraceful.


A Club run by volunteers going with fellas with a track record of delivering what they say they will, on time and within budget?


What are they thinking?


And what are M&E thinking wasting time and money on these layman? Other than pay the bills they know nothing, why try and explain things in a professional way, so the layman have an idea of what they’re committing to?


I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.

My word, I think I might be in tune with Ryan for once. As Clyde said, it's hard to get to do the work if you don't put the effort into convincing folk you should be allowed to.


Niall

[John Mayhugh]

I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.

My word, I think I might be in tune with Ryan for once. As Clyde said, it's hard to get to do the work if you don't put the effort into convincing folk you should be allowed to.


Niall,
Surely you're more logical than that.
Mr. Coles suggests that M&E is the only firm that prepares a competent proposal. Absurd.

[Anthony Gholz]

Robin:


An historian would thanks his lucky stars for such a document.


Anthony

[Robin_Hiseman]

Surely, Ryan wins the award for the most sarcastic post of the year. It's literally dripping from the screen.

[Thomas Dai]

An historian would thanks his lucky stars for such a document.

A very valid point, historical information is important.
I have seen hard copies of the kind of documents produced for such exercises though and would suggest, especially given the amount of information available on the internet etc and digital/drone photography, that a decent club historian (maybe with a bit of techie help and a decent printer) could probably put it together for free.
Atb

[Tim Gallant]

Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?

surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.

  Ryan,


I wish your first point was the case, but sadly it’s not.


Have a look at the picture from the video below from the 4th hole:





That is a genuinely unique, cool and interesting bunker in front of that green that is worth restoring. It has character, and would be a memorable moment in the round to try to fly that bunker. It’s a feature worth dying in a ditch for.


But where I think some of the frustration comes from, is what’s being proposed:





It looks mailed in. It looks so devoid of character and so cookie-cutter that I don’t know how anyone could be excited by that. Appreciate these are only visuals, but it feels like I’ve seen those exact bunkers in the ground on holes that have been updated by M+E. And the same goes for the cool scar bunker to the right of 6 that Martin refers to in the video. That is a seriously cool feature. So why are they reflecting back on past if they’re not going to use it as a guide to follow?





Now take those and contrast them with the bunkers that others have referred to at Woodhall Spa:










What a difference!


That’s what we’re arguing about. The above sums up why I keep harping on like a broken record. Hankley deserves better if they’re going to spend a lot of money to update their course. Lots of courses right now deserve better. It goes beyond mere styling, and has to do with cherishing the unique characteristics and features of a course & site, and letting people be excited to come to a certain course to see something they can’t see anywhere else!


As a side - I haven’t forgotten that you said you were going to post a thread on why Rees Jones courses are better than we give them credit for. Not being facetious, I am genuinely interested as admittedly, maybe I am too hard on Mr. Jones.



Photo credit: Mackenzie and Ebert and Clyde Johnson

[Ben Stephens]

Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?

surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.

  Ryan,


I wish your first point was the case, but sadly it’s not.


Have a look at the picture from the video below from the 4th hole:





That is a genuinely unique, cool and interesting bunker in front of that green that is worth restoring. It has character, and would be a memorable moment in the round to try to fly that bunker. It’s a feature worth dying in a ditch for.


But where I think some of the frustration comes from, is what’s being proposed:





It looks mailed in. It looks so devoid of character and so cookie-cutter that I don’t know how anyone could be excited by that. Appreciate these are only visuals, but it feels like I’ve seen those exact bunkers in the ground on holes that have been updated by M+E. And the same goes for the cool scar bunker to the right of 6 that Martin refers to in the video. That is a seriously cool feature. So why are they reflecting back on past if they’re not going to use it as a guide to follow?





Now take those and contrast them with the bunkers that others have referred to at Woodhall Spa:










What a difference!


That’s what we’re arguing about. The above sums up why I keep harping on like a broken record. Hankley deserves better if they’re going to spend a lot of money to update their course. Lots of courses right now deserve better. It goes beyond mere styling, and has to do with cherishing the unique characteristics and features of a course & site, and letting people be excited to come to a certain course to see something they can’t see anywhere else!


As a side - I haven’t forgotten that you said you were going to post a thread on why Rees Jones courses are better than we give them credit for. Not being facetious, I am genuinely interested as admittedly, maybe I am too hard on Mr. Jones.



Photo credit: Mackenzie and Ebert and Clyde Johnson

Tim,


I agree with you regarding the bunkers looking either cookie cutter or more natural looking which blends in better. I know which one I prefer.


Cheers
Ben

[Ryan Coles]

I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.

My word, I think I might be in tune with Ryan for once. As Clyde said, it's hard to get to do the work if you don't put the effort into convincing folk you should be allowed to.


Niall,
Surely you're more logical than that.
Mr. Coles suggests that M&E is the only firm that prepares a competent proposal. Absurd.

Hi John


Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.

[Ryan Coles]

Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?

surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.

  Ryan,


I wish your first point was the case, but sadly it’s not.


Have a look at the picture from the video below from the 4th hole:





That is a genuinely unique, cool and interesting bunker in front of that green that is worth restoring. It has character, and would be a memorable moment in the round to try to fly that bunker. It’s a feature worth dying in a ditch for.


But where I think some of the frustration comes from, is what’s being proposed:





It looks mailed in. It looks so devoid of character and so cookie-cutter that I don’t know how anyone could be excited by that. Appreciate these are only visuals, but it feels like I’ve seen those exact bunkers in the ground on holes that have been updated by M+E. And the same goes for the cool scar bunker to the right of 6 that Martin refers to in the video. That is a seriously cool feature. So why are they reflecting back on past if they’re not going to use it as a guide to follow?





Now take those and contrast them with the bunkers that others have referred to at Woodhall Spa:










What a difference!


That’s what we’re arguing about. The above sums up why I keep harping on like a broken record. Hankley deserves better if they’re going to spend a lot of money to update their course. Lots of courses right now deserve better. It goes beyond mere styling, and has to do with cherishing the unique characteristics and features of a course & site, and letting people be excited to come to a certain course to see something they can’t see anywhere else!


As a side - I haven’t forgotten that you said you were going to post a thread on why Rees Jones courses are better than we give them credit for. Not being facetious, I am genuinely interested as admittedly, maybe I am too hard on Mr. Jones.



Photo credit: Mackenzie and Ebert and Clyde Johnson

Hi Tim


I don’t recall ever mentioning Rees Jones on this site. Being British, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an example of his work, unless he was involved in the Oxfordshire.


Is Hankley really one of the ‘great courses’ that should be left untouched?


Or is it a Course that whilst most golf golfers would be delighted to be a member, the Course doesn’t live up to the spectacular setting?


Had they got the Woodhall Spa gig, and done the same work, would you be lamenting the England Golf Blazers and old boy network on them getting a plum job?


From where I’m sitting, M&E, if you listen to people who assess what’s in the ground objectively, do good work, and employ skilled and experienced people to do it for them.


How many on the Open Rota did they have when they started out? I’d suggest 0.


Now they have seven out of ten, do they rest on their laurels, and say ‘our work speaks for itself’ or do they still work the hardest in terms of presentation and research?


Seems to me there’s a lot of sniping from those who should either get better, or get out.


Perhaps they can provide a list of commissions they’ve declined? As they suggest M&E should.


I read lots of the criticisms as tall poppy syndrome. Hankley is a case in point, there is nothing remotely of ‘doing more rather than less’ in their proposals. Otherwise they would be doing the greens and moving earth. As I said in my parody, they’re doing tree removal, widening fairways and restoring bunkers. Modest changes, in keeping with their brief and budget, that only the blinkered could say wasn’t an improvement.

[John Mayhugh]

Please direct me to the passage where I say such a thing, as I don’t recall typing it.

From your reply #27:
I just can’t understand why M&E get all the work, surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.
Sadly, I've no way of knowing from your posts whether you believe what you are typing, but your reply to Tim suggests you do. 

[Tim Gallant]

Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?

surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.

Hi Tim


I don’t recall ever mentioning Rees Jones on this site. Being British, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an example of his work, unless he was involved in the Oxfordshire.


Is Hankley really one of the ‘great courses’ that should be left untouched?


Or is it a Course that whilst most golf golfers would be delighted to be a member, the Course doesn’t live up to the spectacular setting?


Had they got the Woodhall Spa gig, and done the same work, would you be lamenting the England Golf Blazers and old boy network on them getting a plum job?


From where I’m sitting, M&E, if you listen to people who assess what’s in the ground objectively, do good work, and employ skilled and experienced people to do it for them.


How many on the Open Rota did they have when they started out? I’d suggest 0.


Now they have seven out of ten, do they rest on their laurels, and say ‘our work speaks for itself’ or do they still work the hardest in terms of presentation and research?


Seems to me there’s a lot of sniping from those who should either get better, or get out.


Perhaps they can provide a list of commissions they’ve declined? As they suggest M&E should.


I read lots of the criticisms as tall poppy syndrome. Hankley is a case in point, there is nothing remotely of ‘doing more rather than less’ in their proposals. Otherwise they would be doing the greens and moving earth. As I said in my parody, they’re doing tree removal, widening fairways and restoring bunkers. Modest changes, in keeping with their brief and budget, that only the blinkered could say wasn’t an improvement.

Ryan,


Apologies - must have been a different Ryan I was thinking of from the Bethpage thread that is now resting in peace.


I am not objecting to work being done at Hankley - if it's felt by the membership that there are improvements that can be made, then I only hope they get the best that they can get. Based on the historical photos in the presentation, and the proposals in the video, I think the changes are certainly an improvement on what is there at the moment, but are short of what it could be if another outfit were given the opportunity (like CPD). Pont is a Colt expert, and I think they could be more faithful to the restorative nature of the project, if that's what they're going for. If not, then why are M+E using the historical photos?


This is an architectural website. I am only concerned about the architectural features of golf courses new and old. There seems to be thoughts that myself, or others are chummy with the ones that we praise and are therefore bitter and resentful towards M+E, Hawtree and those likes in the world. That is not the case. I've never met half the architects that I praise, and I have no reason to personally take offence with Mackenzie and Ebert. In fact, from everything I am told, Mr. Ebert is a wonderful guy and a sharp architectural mind who is well read and well studied. When I write some of these things, I don't like it, because I know how hard they work. I'm in the peanut gallery, and I have zero onsite experience or know how difficult it is to build something good.


With all that said, I'm looking around and I see great work coming from some places and wondering why all places can't be like that.


As you've said, I think those in the know (paging Mr. Lawrence) and others seem to think the M+E work is good, but I've never heard anyone come out and say incredibly flattering things about it either.


I'm not fighting against M+E - I'm trying to draw attention to the mediocrity that seems to be taking hold of courses (especially great ones) in the UK and what I see as homogenisation across the UK at the moment, mainly at the hands of one team.


As a final point - the argument that because they got the Open rota jobs they must be good is flawed. That's like saying Starbucks has the best coffee because they have the most shops. There is more at play when it comes to working with the R&A than just good work.


Final question: Answering honestly, do you feel what is being presented to Hankley is the best that the club can get, especially considering they're paying top pound?

[Ben Stephens]

Tree removal? Widening fairways? Studying the original design and looking to restore features lost in the passage of time?

surely Committees will take the risk and give the work to the current favs on GCA on a nod and a wink.

  Ryan,


I wish your first point was the case, but sadly it’s not.


Have a look at the picture from the video below from the 4th hole:





That is a genuinely unique, cool and interesting bunker in front of that green that is worth restoring. It has character, and would be a memorable moment in the round to try to fly that bunker. It’s a feature worth dying in a ditch for.


But where I think some of the frustration comes from, is what’s being proposed:





It looks mailed in. It looks so devoid of character and so cookie-cutter that I don’t know how anyone could be excited by that. Appreciate these are only visuals, but it feels like I’ve seen those exact bunkers in the ground on holes that have been updated by M+E. And the same goes for the cool scar bunker to the right of 6 that Martin refers to in the video. That is a seriously cool feature. So why are they reflecting back on past if they’re not going to use it as a guide to follow?





Now take those and contrast them with the bunkers that others have referred to at Woodhall Spa:










What a difference!


That’s what we’re arguing about. The above sums up why I keep harping on like a broken record. Hankley deserves better if they’re going to spend a lot of money to update their course. Lots of courses right now deserve better. It goes beyond mere styling, and has to do with cherishing the unique characteristics and features of a course & site, and letting people be excited to come to a certain course to see something they can’t see anywhere else!


As a side - I haven’t forgotten that you said you were going to post a thread on why Rees Jones courses are better than we give them credit for. Not being facetious, I am genuinely interested as admittedly, maybe I am too hard on Mr. Jones.



Photo credit: Mackenzie and Ebert and Clyde Johnson

Hi Tim


I don’t recall ever mentioning Rees Jones on this site. Being British, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an example of his work, unless he was involved in the Oxfordshire.


Is Hankley really one of the ‘great courses’ that should be left untouched?


Or is it a Course that whilst most golf golfers would be delighted to be a member, the Course doesn’t live up to the spectacular setting?


Had they got the Woodhall Spa gig, and done the same work, would you be lamenting the England Golf Blazers and old boy network on them getting a plum job?


From where I’m sitting, M&E, if you listen to people who assess what’s in the ground objectively, do good work, and employ skilled and experienced people to do it for them.


How many on the Open Rota did they have when they started out? I’d suggest 0.


Now they have seven out of ten, do they rest on their laurels, and say ‘our work speaks for itself’ or do they still work the hardest in terms of presentation and research?


Seems to me there’s a lot of sniping from those who should either get better, or get out.


Perhaps they can provide a list of commissions they’ve declined? As they suggest M&E should.


I read lots of the criticisms as tall poppy syndrome. Hankley is a case in point, there is nothing remotely of ‘doing more rather than less’ in their proposals. Otherwise they would be doing the greens and moving earth. As I said in my parody, they’re doing tree removal, widening fairways and restoring bunkers. Modest changes, in keeping with their brief and budget, that only the blinkered could say wasn’t an improvement.

Ryan


Well......... in fact M+E were former protégés of Donald Steel and come from a strong engineering background and Donald had his contacts with the golf organisations as well being a well know golf reporter so have to say when they started they already had a couple of Open courses to begin with rather than 0 thanks to Donald’s hard work - it’s all about who you know. Had M+E did not work with Donald they would have struggled to be anywhere near they are now they have been a bit fortunate in some respects I guess they were in the right time and place for this to happen


I have not really seen a hand drawing of theirs before so this approach is the safe approach and they rely on other staff members to do so again they are fortunate to be able to do this and do have Donald Steel a lot to be thankful for


I personally don’t feel they have strong design background which is a personal opinion as their approach is precise and engineered but they do lack creativity having played their newly built courses like Stapleford or Heythrop which is ‘yeah yeah’ maybe they are better at working on historical top courses with strong emphasis on research and proposing subtle changes or one/two new holes to supposedly fit in with the others


I once spoke to Donald about future career in golf course design he encouraged me to do go to university’s do Architecture and come back to him when I have completed my course which I did however chose to go to work at an architectural practice so kudos to Donald for that advice


Re Tall Poppy Syndromes quip is a typical Aussie thing you are always bashing the pommies for doing well.


For now M+E are rising on a crest of a big wave at the moment fair dinkum it won’t last forever golf will evolve as long as it exists


Every design company has their strengths and weaknesses should we keep the successful ones surrounded in cotton wool? Praise them every time they win a project? Some of us like their works and others don’t 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()