[Ben Stephens]

I am just making the point Colt did not have a D6, if he did he may have done things differently, Colt was disadvantaged.

Adrian,  I guess this is where we very fundamentally disagree, and where a lot of the discussion comes from.

Colt did so well and has built such outstanding courses for a large part because he got great sites, but as much because he DID NOT HAVE A D6.

Far from being a disadvantage, it was a huge advantage.

Where I can I am starting to use less and smaller equipment to do the work.

Frank

By using smaller equipment and less equipment takes longer to do the work in theory and would this put you out of pocket then??. We live in a much more commercial world than Colt and Mackenzie's time as there are more time constraints to do the job as well as growing seasons etc.

I have seen a guy with a D6 doing the work much quicker and better than another guy with a digger. It all depends on who is doing the construction job whatever the design proposal is. This is the same in the building construction world.

Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Having heard the initial proposals my initial conclusion would be that Portrush will be a better 36 hole course overall even if the loss of a few holes on the Valley enables to create a far better and stronger Dunluce Course

Read Tom Doak's Feature interview recently - Tom mentioned that the Dunluce's fairways are ridiculously narrow maybe there will be widening in the future scope of works as the course layout in general is to be strengthened.

Recreating Colt's 2nd green on the Valley 50-60 yards further on shouldn't be a problem with the technology we have.

 

[Frank Pont]

Ben,

I am talking about doing work on great courses on great sites. There I prefer to work with as small equipment as possible.

At my newbuild Swinkelsche, which was a completely flat site, is a completely different story. There we used D10's and a 150 tonne crane to do the heavy work.

But give me one of the great sites Colt had, and I am sure I would prefer not to use a dozer, but rather a digger and a sand pro.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Having heard the initial proposals my initial conclusion would be that Portrush will be a better 36 hole course overall even if the loss of a few holes on the Valley enables to create a far better and stronger Dunluce Course

Read Tom Doak's Feature interview recently - Tom mentioned that the Dunluce's fairways are ridiculously narrow maybe there will be widening in the future scope of works as the course layout in general is to be strengthened.

Recreating Colt's 2nd green on the Valley 50-60 yards further on shouldn't be a problem with the technology we have.

 

There won't be widening, Ben.

I was told a few years ago that the R&A recommend 20 to 25 yard wide fairways for their Open courses. May have changed but I doubt by much.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Frank - I agree in many ways with what you are saying re equipment;

Recently I bought a D2 (with a 6 way blade) and I would say it is a fantastic machine for building golf courses. Most civil engineers would laugh but for our industry especially where we are looking to recreate old type features it is perfect. I did ask on here if anyone had used one and most said it was too small or not used one, I would say you can push 1 tonne at a time. It would get the big thumbs up from me, I would like to practice myself and the same for Ben, I think for wannabe architects, if you could learn to shape using a range of blades it is a big step up for getting on the ladder.

We also added a D4 recently (6 way blade) and we have a D6 currently on hire. I am using Bobby Painter to shape. I would say a D6 can do 95% of a greens construction but it probably needs a smaller machine to finish it off. D6s are perfect for fairways.

My point re Colt or any ODG is that they did not have the bigger machinery we have today. Yes they had better sites but often on a great course there was still a bum/not so good hole, they learned to live with more blind shots, access to modern machines MAY have tarted up a sub standard hole into a better one. A lot of minimalist designers still move 100,000 cube, but it might just be on 3 holes re-enforcing my point that even on a great site 15 holes might fit snuggly but the other 3 need making.

[Paul_Turner]

It may be possible to replicate the contours of the 2nd green 50 yards on but they surely can't replicate how that green fits into the land and its surrounds.  And how approach shots will behave coming into the green, particularly on a links.

Unless you have a perfectly flat site it just doesn't work like that, there are far too many variables.

[Martin Toal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29190109

Picture 5: Aurora Borealis at Dunluce Castle, just beside RPGC.

[Ally Mcintosh]

As an overseas life member at Portrush I too was most concerned about the proposed changes to both courses for the reasons previously mentioned-before I reviewed all the details. I was in Portrush for two weeks in late July when the designs were unveiled to the members. After walking the proposed changes over the "hallowed ground" for the next fews days I was satisfied that the alterations will enhance the Dunluce for top level tournament play without hindering the members abilities. The alterations to the Valley course were my biggest surprise and will offer up 4 new holes that exceed the existing layout IMO - including the replacement of the much loved 5th and 6th holes.  

Im sure the members had the same arguments for change back in the late 20's when Mr Colt was brought in to drastically alter the already well regarded championship course. In the day the gutty ball and hickories were replaced by the rubber core ball and steel shafts the same as our present day equipment is destroying the classic courses. If these changes are executed as planned, Portrush is set for another few generations to come.

The Dunluce course will retain the existing 17 and 18th holes and will alter them with two other holes on a rotating basis. They will only be out of play for the Open every 10 or 12 years, when the tented city is required for The Open.      

At the Risk of Rambling On- here are a few of the proposed alterations.

1. Dunluce Course

# 1  Add 2 fairways bunkers on right side to tighten up landing area. Add small pot bunker front right of green.
# 2  New green 50 yds behind existing to extend to 577 yds. ( IMO should be another 50 yds longer due to downwind direction)
       Add fairway bunker left side landing area
# 4  New back tee to extend to 499 yds. New fairway bunker behind first left bunker.
# 5  Add 3 fairway bunkers right side to cut into corner.
# 7  New hole. Par 5, 572 yds. ( IMO should be another 30 yds longer) Played from elevated tee adjacent to # 6 green- played down into      
       valley of present day # 5 and 6 of the Valley course but close to the large dunes on the north side. "Big Nellie" bunker, now on # 17  
       will be re-created on the right side landing area in a huge dune bank. the green will be perched high in the dunes north of the
       Valley's 13th tee.
# 8  New hole. Par 4 435 yds. A dramatic par 4 played across a chasm with a severe dune fall off if missed left to an elevated green close
       to existing # 8 green.
# 12  ( Current # 10) Par 5 530 yds from new tee directly left of # 9 green in existing small parking lot whihc will be removed. Yardage
       may seem short for a championship par 5, but they intend to re-open the stream running across the fairway in low swale in front
       of the green as it was a half-century ago.
# 14 ( Currently # 12) new back tee to 464 yds. New fairway bunker on left side landing area. No need to touch the green site that Henry
       Cotton stated was " the best in the U.K."  
# 16 ( currently # 14- Calamity) New back tee to 230 yds.

Many other tweaks and most holes will have new back tees added for length to bring the championship card to 7,337 yds.
The practice ground for the Open will be located on the existing Valley holes # 4 and # 7.

2. The Valley course.

# 15  New par 3, 171 yds. tee set high in dunes just west behind existing # 16 green. Direction of play is towards the sea.
# 16  New par 5, 490 yds with new tee high in the primary dunes adjacent to the sea to play back to the existing # 17 fairway and then    
         play the rest of # 17 as is.
# 17  New par 3, 195 yds. from tee close to existing # 18 tee due west to original green site in the dunes now in the par 3 course
         which will be enlarged.
# 18  par 4 335 yds. tee in the primary dunes by the beach to new green site in from of the Rathmore clubhouse.

On paper, these are all exciting alterations. The total yardage will remain around 6,338.
Three holes on the par 3 course will be taken out of play to accommodate these changes.

Robin and I have just returned from a trip to Portrush, primarily to play but also to check out the changes.

Having now seen them for myself, I believe that the main changes - primarily the two new holes - will be an exciting improvement to the Dunluce. The loss of the 5th and 6th to The Valley course is a worthy sacrifice to the betterment of the main course. After all, as Robin pointed out, those two holes are as connected to the Dunluce land as they are to the Valley. I think The Valley can be improved in the process. I'd worry more about the loss of some of the land from the terrific small par-3 course that must be a great starting point for young juniors.

Might do a Google Earth overlay later and talk in more detail but the new 7th and 8th could be truly terrific holes. The other changes seem to be - understandably - a search for extra length and I'm not sure they will improve the course but in the context of The Open, the majority are probably and unfortunately needed. To pick out a couple however, the current 2nd green site is fantastic as is and does the 5th really need bunkers on the inside of the dogleg?

If the detail is done right, a great course will be made greater.

More later.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ally - Is there a lovely spot 50 yards further on from the present 2nd green that can make a great green?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally - Is there a lovely spot 50 yards further on from the present 2nd green that can make a great green?

There is a good spot further on that will be utilised to make the hole longer. It will make for a weaker hole in all but length / difficulty for it is not as good a green site as the present one. Clearly length / difficulty is what is needed for The Open.

The 2nd hole is one of the 4 or 5 best on the course in my opinion.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Below is a photo of the land that the new 8th hole will be placed upon. Jamie's descriptions above probably means this is taken from around the forward tees of the new hole. I thought the hole would play best doglegging left on a slight downhill after the turning point... But again taking Jamie's description, I suspect the green will be not too far off the line of the barber's pole in the distance. (incidentally this photo is taken from the back tee of the Valley 5th hole as it is currently)

[Jamie Pyper]

Ally;
You are correct to suggest that your last photo is taken at the spot of the forward tees for the new 8th hole. The championship tees will be farther back and to the left to create more of a risk-reward cape style carry to the fairway up on the higher elevation. One concern I had looking at the drawings was how flat the architects made the fairway appear. This section of the property has some of the most interesting undulations and rumple that could be utilized along with a natural spot for the green site around large dunes. I hope the architects retain some of this character and hope the flat fairway look was just a CAD graphic oversight.

[Paul_Turner]

That land doesn't look suitable for golf at all...  Won't it have to be completely bulldozered to get a fairway in there?

[Ally Mcintosh]

So to answer Paul and Jamie, the land for the new 8th fairway will have to be altered for it is far too severe to lay a fairway over. The question remains whether it will just have its peaks and troughs softened in situ or whether they will flatten the area in entirety and then reshape some contour in to it. I'm sure the CAD render didn't accurately reflect the final design though.

Paul - that won't be unlike some of the other fairways at Portrush, existing No.9 certainly... and I'm sure these architects will want to leave a fair amount of character in the new fairway... more than was left in at the current 9th when it was built for sure...

[Paul_Turner]

Ally

Yes 9 was built just before WW2 and I'm not sure Colt and Morrison supervised it...certainly it's a big difference in comparison with the 4th.  It was flattened too much but the natural undulations were fairly gentle anyway.

Plus Portrush was built on a budget that was "peanuts" so they didn't move much earth.

I can't see that any of the current fairways at Portrush were hewn from such severe terrain as that photo.  The risk is that they end up with a hole that are much more in the modern "terraform" vein....see Enniscrone and others.

Choosing a links routing in the 1930s meant finding somewhat natural fairway corridors rather than today where huge dunes can be altered at a whim.  But often you end up with a hole that has nothing in common with what was there before.  It'll be interesting to see if it fits.

The new 7th must follow the Valley 5th/6th fairways more closely and will likely need much less work. 

[Jay Flemma]

Change or not, better or worse, I can't wait to tee it up for the first time in Northern Ireland.  I might even be tempted to indulge in a Bushmills:)  (Just one)  It looks like everything a golfer could ever wish for.  The Open can't get here fast enough!

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally

Yes 9 was built just before WW2 and I'm not sure Colt and Morrison supervised it...certainly it's a big difference in comparison with the 4th.  It was flattened too much but the natural undulations were fairly gentle anyway.

Plus Portrush was built on a budget that was "peanuts" so they didn't move much earth.

I can't see that any of the current fairways at Portrush were hewn from such severe terrain as that photo.  The risk is that they end up with a hole that are much more in the modern "terraform" vein....see Enniscrone and others.

Choosing a links routing in the 1930s meant finding somewhat natural fairway corridors rather than today where huge dunes can be altered at a whim.  But often you end up with a hole that has nothing in common with what was there before.  It'll be interesting to see if it fits.

The new 7th must follow the Valley 5th/6th fairways more closely and will likely need much less work.  

In my opinion, the new 7th will need more work as it cuts through the back dune that cloaks the current Valley 6th green to create a new green site 100 yards further back.... The work on the 8th fairway could be relatively minor if they choose an old school construction methodology. When I say it is "severe", I mean from a maintenance perspective.... But they could get away with just softening some of the peaks and pushing that earth in to some troughs - that would leave the natural flavour of the land and would make a fairly wild mogul field of a fairway (I am saying this without walking up close to that land so making a guesstimate from about 100 yards away). That is small work and would have been done elsewhere on site for sure. I suspect they won't go that simple though.... Anyway, going on Jamie's descriptions alone (I have seen no plans), it will be something like this:



To my mind (again from one quick scan), the best holes that jumped out would be coming off 5 green behind 6 tees and then playing the next hole down the line of the main dune ridge to the valley 6th green... and then playing the picture I showed from the Valley 5th tee up to a turning point and doglegging left to a green site closer to 6 tees with the sea behind... then re-joining the course at 6... This would provide a congested area around 6 tees though... and whilst it could work for the golf course - at a push - it wouldn't work for spectators when thinking about tournaments... It would also give two long par-4's (or a short 5) rather than that long par-5 that they obviously crave.... Still, taken alone, it would give two cracking holes and less work. It would also space the threes out better... Something like this:

[Sean_A]

Ally

I normally don't like cross-overs when walking to tees, but your example allows the golfer to visit the shore twice...thats gotta be good.  I wouldn't have thought there would be spectating behind those tees ayway...

Isn't anybody concerned about losing one of the few pure Colt links in the world by mucking with the Valley? 

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

I fear Mr Colt comes a poor second to the allure of the Claret Jug.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally

I normally don't like cross-overs when walking to tees, but your example allows the golfer to visit the shore twice...thats gotta be good.  I wouldn't have thought there would be spectating behind those tees ayway...

Isn't anybody concerned about losing one of the few pure Colt links in the world by mucking with the Valley?  

Ciao

Taking your second question first, I thought I would be concerned... Given my stance on The Old Course and on other changes at classic courses that I have deemed "unnecessary"... But I was immediately excited by the potential of these changes when I saw them... and how the Dunluce really could be improved....

And whilst The Valley really is excellent, it is not in the same class as The Dunluce. Its green complexes are far simpler for one and the land it is laid upon is less good for the most part. The Dunluce's greens are the best set in Ireland - it is these that we should celebrate as supreme examples of Colt's work. Forgive me for asking (I genuinely don't know the answer) but why is The Valley "more" Colt than The Dunluce? What changes have occurred to the latter since Colt's time?

As for my little plan above, you would engineer a walkway behind 6 tees at a different level so it wouldn't feel like a crossover. There are perfectly natural tee pads in just behind for the new hole and the tee shot is down a soft notch in the dune valley so no work needed... In fact, at a push, you could keep the current Valley 5th green site there and still revert back to the two Valley holes once The Open has left town... But it would mean spectators would probably struggle to get in to that whole area, not just behind 6 tees... From a spacial point of view, I suspect the proposed plans (as guessed above) work better... Not sure they are better holes though...

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Ally

I normally don't like cross-overs when walking to tees, but your example allows the golfer to visit the shore twice...thats gotta be good.  I wouldn't have thought there would be spectating behind those tees ayway...

Isn't anybody concerned about losing one of the few pure Colt links in the world by mucking with the Valley?  

Ciao

Taking your second question first, I thought I would be concerned... Given my stance on The Old Course and on other changes at classic courses that I have deemed "unnecessary"... But I was immediately excited by the potential of these changes when I saw them... and how the Dunluce really could be improved....

And whilst The Valley really is excellent, it is not in the same class as The Dunluce. Its green complexes are far simpler for one and the land it is laid upon is less good for the most part. The Dunluce's greens are the best set in Ireland - it is these that we should celebrate as supreme examples of Colt's work. Forgive me for asking (I genuinely don't know the answer) but why is The Valley "more" Colt than The Dunluce? What changes have occurred to the latter since Colt's time?

As for my little plan above, you would engineer a walkway behind 6 tees at a different level so it wouldn't feel like a crossover. There are perfectly natural tee pads in just behind for the new hole and the tee shot is down a soft notch in the dune valley so no work needed... In fact, at a push, you could keep the current Valley 5th green site there and still revert back to the two Valley holes once The Open has left town... But it would mean spectators would probably struggle to get in to that whole area, not just behind 6 tees... From a spacial point of view, I suspect the proposed plans (as guessed above) work better... Not sure they are better holes though...

Wasn't the Valley completed after Dunluce and many years after Colt had worked at Portrush? If I recall, it was Anthony Brutus Babington (what a cool name; there's a hole at Royal Dublin with his name) that did much of the work along with the green's staff?

[Paul_Turner]

Donal

Ironically the Valley 5th and 6th are Babington holes and not Colt (built in the 1950s).  I was reluctant to post that fact here as it would give more ammunition for the changes (although it doesn't seem that GCA has any clout in shaping the debate).

The rest of the Valley was planned and built around the same time as Dunluce but I think Babington may have tweaked it through the years.

[Paul_Turner]

Ally

Are they definitely going to dig up Colt's 2nd green?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally

Are they definitely going to dig up Colt's 2nd green?

I don't really know anything about definites vs maybes, Paul.... We only played the two courses and read this thread to work out what is proposed. I had no interaction with the club or plans.

However, I suspect this change will happen, again in order to chase a longer par-5... I think this is a mistake (especially if they get their long 5 at the new 7th)... I love the current 2nd green. The flag is visible from the tee, it is sited beautifully over a roll in the land and it is spaced well away from the 10th fairway. This will change with the new site.... The idea that the current green complex will be "recreated" is stretching the truth of that term at best.

To the 5th and 6th being Babington holes, I did hear something about the new Valley holes being in essence older holes refound

[Paul_Turner]

yes I think that they lost yardage with replacing 17 and 18 with the two new holes....god forbid a shorter course for the pros, so they convince the members to destroy an original green.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()