Like so many classic courses, the evolution of Hamilton Golf & Country Club is rich with interesting tidbits, decisions, and modifications throughout its impressive 100+ year history. In those edits, amendments, and alterations, notable architects have come through town to give their thoughts: Harry Colt, of course, kicked things off by designing the layout that opened in 1916, with his partner C.H. Alison following shortly after in the early 1920s to improve on Colt’s original concepts and make a couple edits himself. After that, an impressive—but lengthy—list of architects either advised or actually implemented their own touch on the layout, including (but not limited to) Stanley Thompson, Robert Trent Jones Sr., Thomas McBroom, and recently, Martin Ebert & Tom Mackenzie following their extensive overhaul of the layout over the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Some changes have helped improve the layout, others have shifted holes away from the original concepts presented. That begs the question: what is the best version of Hamilton Golf & Country Club?
To begin, we must define which architect did what, what version this article is referring to, or a specific time period where the hole really came into its own self. For a more detailed evaluation of what has occurred across those 100 years of change, click here, but for the purpose of this article, we are going to look at four very specific versions of the layout’s evolution:
Harry Colt’s version, circa 1914
It is very easy to look back at Colt’s version and see his vision considering Colt himself left eighteen individual hole sketches and an entire routing blueprint with the club. As Alison mentioned in his 1921 report speaking on behalf of his partner, the work had been carried out how the plan was envisioned.
1934 Aerial, Alison & Possibly Thompson edits?
The first-known aerial of the golf course provides a sharp contrast in spots to Colt’s bunker style: traded in are the big-scale bunkers with torn edges, replaced by creative shapes and smaller sizes in groupings. While speculative, it seems Thompson’s 1928 visit had the biggest influence on the course in this aerial, though Alison did move the 13th green to its current location and re-bunker the 8th, apparently.
2019 RBC Canadian Open version
With a nearly ninety year gap in the timeline, numerous architects made edits or alternations to the layout in that time. Most notably, Thomas McBroom moved the 7th green up the hillside to its current location, a handful of architects had their hands on the bunker array, and Robbie Robinson changed the 15th and 16th holes.
Mackenzie & Ebert Version, circa 2022
After Harry Colt’s original layout, Hamilton never had a full-fledged overhaul. Instead, the course had edits and tweaks from various architects throughout its history. That all changed in the COVID-19 Pandemic, when British architects Martin Ebert & Tom Mackenzie dramatically overhauled the entire layout, which is the version we see and play today. A cohesive product with a new bunker scheme and new greens is the final result, with the course distinctly M&E.
Which Version of Hamilton Golf & Country Club Is The Best?
Considering the routing is largely similar and the par has stayed the same (minus the 2nd, 11th, and 18th switching to par 4’s before the Second World War), it seems largely redundant to determine which version of Hamilton is the best as a single product. Instead, a hole-by-hole breakdown seems more fitting, and certainly more applicable to the changes. Please note, all relevant historical information can be found here, which traces the evolution of the property thorughout the years and discusses Martin Ebert & Tom Mackenzie’s renovation in detail.
Hole 1, par 4 | best version: Harry Colt, Circa 1914
The current opening hole is a very quality introduction to the golf course, but without question, a mean reverse camber tee shot around a pair of bunkers split up. The green, too, is elevated with a difficult pitch from any side.
Those features remain from Colt’s original hole: that reverse camber is brilliant because of the routing, and the green had a steep fall off left into the valley the hole skirts up the left-hand side. Colt’s bunker restraint, or rather, the purposefulness of those three bunkers is what makes this the better version. An aiming bunker up the left hides the hollow up the left that still remains (though overshadowed by the two fairway bunkers now), and an outside corner bunker helps steer the player in the right direction. The bunker short and left of the green hides the fall off left—still the case in some respect—but Colt’s restraint is a charming introduction that has some bite, but also allows the golfer to get into the round.
Hole 2, par 4 | best version: Harry Colt, Circa 1914
Colt’s overarching theme around his original layout is a heathland-inspired visually difficult layout. Granted, some of that brilliance has been voided with the advancement of technology and the aid of tools like Google Earth, Bushnell’s, GPS, Golf Canada app, etc—all for the betterment of the game or whatever, but without question, Colt’s original version is a much more spirited version of the 2nd hole.
As it stands now, the second is a lesser-than golf hole on property, largely occupying some of, if not the flattest land on property. Colt’s original hole had two aiming bunkers cut into the hillside the golfer carries—which you can still see the left one in the hillside as a grassy hollow—with two bunkers up the left bigger hitters could possibly carry. At just over 300 yards from the tee, two bunkers pinched the then-layup area on this used-to-be short par 5, with a single bunker flanking the left side and a very aggressive fall off behind the green that the 8th hole eventually plays over. The 2nd hole has unfortunately lost that playful edge Colt originally had in his mind, replaced for a much more prototypical North American championship golf hole.
Hole 3, par 4 | best version: Mackenzie & Ebert, circa 2022
The 3rd is likely the hole that’s changed the least since Colt originally stepped foot on property, but somewhere between Colt and Mackenzie & Ebert, the addition of a long-left bunker removed Colt’s original grassy hollow concept. The current green complex—the result of nearly eight re-builds over the years—has a unique shape and provides some interesting pins, and Mackenzie & Ebert’s decision to remove the left greenside bunker and only keep the short right one is more in line with what Colt imagined.
Hole 4, par 5 | best version: ???
Elements of various versions of this hole make up the best possible version: Colt’s original bunker scheme, yet again allowing the land do most of the talking on the tee shot in a similar way to the opening swing with the hollow to the left and as you get closer to the green the bunker scheme gets tighter. In particular, Colt’s bunkers and the angles they greet the golfer on are nothing short of brilliant, with them working short right to long left and another one awaiting over the right.
Yet, the additional length and new green location following William Diddel’s renovation adds some extra flair to the hole and the location isn’t better or worse than Colt’s, while Mackenzie & Ebert’s bunker array near the green and the aesthetics associated with their renovation add some challenge visually to gauge the proper line.
If I had to choose one, Colt’s seems to make the most sense to me, but with the current location of the green complex.
Hole 5, par 4 | best version: Alison/Thompson, circa 1934
Colt’s version was a charming hole up the hillside, but the addition of the new lower tee brought in a better, more intimidating angle, and allowed the bunker to the right of the original tee to somewhat become an aiming bunker (which you can still see as a grassy hollow in the rough). In the 1934 aerial, what we’ll assume is the handiwork of Stanley Thompson, Colt’s single bunker in the landing zone became three, which survived until Mackenzie & Ebert. The left bunker closer to the greenside on the higher-left side right where you want to play to is utter brilliance, with the lower right side falling away hard.
Hole 6, par 3 | best version: Harry Colt, circa 1914
There is no question the current par 3 is an impressive one-shot hole over the valley below, but Colt’s original par 3 with its two bunkers benched into the hillside as the golfer plays over them, is amazing and very unique. Some might argue for the 1934 version because of the addition of the left greenside bunkers, but the restraint shown on Colt’s original layout is absolutely superb.
Hole 7, par 4 | best version: Mackenzie & Ebert, circa 2022
Colt deserves a handful of credit for finding the current location of the 7th, but whoever added the two bunkers on this once-bunker-less hole on the left side of the tee shot deserves a heap of praise. Rather than a bunker-less hole navigating some of the most interesting land on property, with the almost sneak-attack-like affect of the original green’s knoll short and right hiding the surface from the right side, the hole is a bonafide banger now, with the preferred line of play directly over the two fairway bunkers on the high side. For those bailing away to the right, a bunker short and right of McBroom’s new green location immediately comes into play, and the addition of the left collection area makes this a demanding approach shot in.
Hole 8, par 3 | best version: Harry Colt, circa 1914
A tough choice, and in my mind, no wrong answer because the hole hasn’t changed that much, but Colt drew this hole at roughly 125 or so yards, and Hamilton lacks that great short par 3 so many other superb golf courses have. A single bunker flanks the left side and in Colt’s drawing, it looks like short is death.
Mackenzie & Ebert’s version is much more about the green complex than it is anything else with an interesting pin in the lower-left portion of the green and a difficult back middle flag, while the other two version are, in my opinion, less inspiring but only slightly.
Hole 9, par 4 | best version: Mackenzie & Ebert, circa 2022
Neck and neck between the two options of Colt (1914) and the current version, but giving the edge to Mackenzie & Ebert because the tee shot is an enjoyable attempt to hit the fairway and potentially squeeze it through the three bunkers. The green complex hasn’t moved, but it has that grandious feeling now, and that credit belongs to Mackenzie & Ebert. In hindsight, it was difficult to let go of Colt’s aiming bunker into the hillside where a swath of trees sit on the left side, but alas: some sacrifices have to be made in this experiment I suppose.
Hole 10, par 4 | best version: Harry Colt, circa 1914
The simplicity of the original Harry Colt hole edges it out slightly over the 2019 version, which was slightly overbunkered around the green and the left fairway bunker wasn’t in play. I struggle to see merit to the lower bunker on the right given the hole’s concept is to play to the upper left and gain the view. Speaking of, Colt’s drawing seems to suggest the front right bunker gaurding the green was terrifying, and that visual would be intimidating and interesting all at once.
Hole 11, par 4 | best version: Mackenzie & Ebert, circa 2022
A big, beefy par 4 swooping around the corner left, this has always been in contention for one of the weaker holes at Hamilton. Regardless, the current version’s new tee is one of the best tee balls in Ontario now from a new higher tee deck so that helps, and the outside bunkers make things difficult for those bailing away from the heroic angle in.
This is one of the most welcomed collection area additions to the left of the green, too. A difficult hole!
Hole 12, par 4 | best version: Harry Colt, circa 1914
Full confession: I am assuming that, considering Colt’s restraint here and the drawings on his original plan especially towards the back of the green, that the surface surrounds here were epic, so I’ll trust his judgement. The hole now, though, is good, with Mackenzie & Ebert’s two fairway bunkers up the right, and the 2019 hole was fine as well with its surroundings near the green. It has, and always will be as long as it occupies this plot of land, a fine hole regardless of which era or architect.
Hole 13, par 3 | best version: C.H. Alison, circa 1934
A bit of a “beggers can’t be choosers” situation, because Alison’s edits to Colt’s original hole now represent the current hole, but with a better bunker scheme, if a tad overzealous (given Alison’s style, this seems more than likely that Stanley Thompson or someone else instructed the bunkers here). That includes the long trench-style bunker left bleeding down the hillside and the two bunkers up the right, and the three top-shot bunkers, which is probably excessive, but alas. A brutally difficult hole, and the origin story of such challenge lies here.
Hole 14, par 4 | best version: Harry Colt, circa 1914
Of all the holes on property, this is the one I want to see restored. Granted, Mackenzie & Ebert somewhat restored the spirit of this hole: the bunker on the left is bigger and is visable from the tee as Colt wanted, while there is a bunker right behind the hillside hidden from the tee. The scar bunker fronting the entire front left portion is big and nasty now, too.
What is missing, though, is the hidden pot-style bunker in the landing zone, which I think would be such a wonderful addition to a golf course that is mostly out in front of you. Imagine the wicked home-field advantage members would have in interclub matches… or better yet, the daily variety for those who play here frequently? In my mind, this is the most obvious heathland inspired hole; a beauty no doubt.
Hole 15, par 4 | best version: Mackenzie & Ebert, circa 2022
Mixed feelings with the par 4, 15th, one of the most-evolved holes on property with its new green location and dramatically altered tee shot to the right. On one hand, Colt’s original hole was low-key and very subdued, but perhaps underwhelming considering this is realistically the least inspiring piece of ground here? However, the bunkers coming down off the hillside on 16 would have also come into play up the left side, but that brings in its own safety issues and complications.
So, for ease, best to keep it the same, which isn’t a bad hole by any means. A nice change of pace too considering the severe hook tee shots at the 1st, 7th, and 11th.
Hole 16, par 3 | best version: Harry Colt, circa 1914
With the 15th green moving, so too did the original angle of the 16th coming from just short of the 1st green on the East. This angle, working up the hillside and Colt’s bunker array, would be visually demanding and interesting, with left providing carnage. Some might argue this angle is awkward and less ideal than the current orientation, but I think the bunkers seemingly etched into the hillside like stairs working their way up to the green is more than enough reason to choose this over iterations that followed.
Hole 17, par 5 | best version: Mackenzie & Ebert, circa 2022
In the most aggressive change in Martin Ebert & Tom Mackenzie’s extensive renovation, the duo pushed the green back on the 17th some forty yards up the hillside. The 17th was a bit of a nothing-ish hole prior, and now, with a slew of bunkers coming into the green complex, it has a bit more teeth and strategic merit.
Colt’s original hole was restained and classy, but this is the rock solo heading home near the end of the song: it keeps golfers engaged and is one of the most positive changes in the renovation.
Hole 18, par 4 | best version: Harry Colt, circa 1914
In their 2022 renovation, Mackenzie & Ebert put the bunkers back into Colt’s original locations, though the shape changed to match with their specific aesthetic they were going for. However, Colt’s bunkers were drawn to such scale that it would be downright epic to see that in action, and the bunkers on Colt’s tee shot, with the right side preferred coming in over the bunker further away from the green than the bigger one up the left, with an alignment bunker tricking golfers into the better play, is a playful and cheeky way to end.
Realistically, though, this is among the least changed holes at Hamilton, joining the likes of the 3rd as somewhat close to Colt’s original vision.
Which version do you prefer? Harry Colt’s original vision for Hamilton is a heathland-adjacent layout around the hilly topography, playfully toying with the golfer and elegantly balancing restraint and aggression.
The current version is more relevant to the current game, with a uniformity to the golf course and an undeniable cachet when hosting events: as it showed on Thursday’s debut to the PGA TOUR, good shots were rewarded, bad shots were punished, but there was always a chance for a recovery shot to save a hole or a round. Ebert & Mackenzie’s changes no doubt modernized and brought the golf course to this century, though it remains a relatively short, easy golf course for TOUR standards.
Either or, which version do you prefer: Colt, Alison/Thompson, pre-renovation, or Mackenzie & Ebert?
