Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Bill Gayne on August 31, 2014, 08:01:02 PM
-
Summary of changes and approval at General Membership meeting.
http://www.irishgolfdesk.com/news-files/2014/8/30/royal-portrush-votes-yes-to-the-open-and-dunluce-changes-235-in-favour-just-2-against
-
I wonder if Dawson is hoping M&E will employ him next year? He obviously fancies himself as a Golf Course Architect and Trump said he'd suggested M&E for Turnberry. There's nothing like starting at the top.
Anyone know if his Job Description is available for inspection?
-
I am going to take a visit this October for a couple of days to spend some time with the two courses before they go under the knife.
It seems to me that given the opportunity to evaluate a classic course, many (most?) architects can't help themselves in advising more changes than are necessary or even desirable. I have seen too many plans for superfluous change to some very classic courses over the past year. Enough to be a little depressing. And although usually driven by committees wanting to make a difference, in each case the architect has taken it a few steps further in his recommended alterations.
Note I do not reference Portrush in the above sentences - I don't know the course well enough. Hence my planned visit.
-
I wonder if Dawson is hoping M&E will employ him next year? He obviously fancies himself as a Golf Course Architect and Trump said he'd suggested M&E for Turnberry. There's nothing like starting at the top.
Anyone know if his Job Description is available for inspection?
FWIW Martin Ebert has been advising Turnberry for many years.
-
never played it, but gosh it looks a gorgeous piece of land from the air. That faded khaki colour and all those crumples. Like being on the moon
-
Not sure why anyone would want to change that eighth into a two-tiered green? ::)
-
does it perhaps smack of the 17th at Birkdale. a tad out of place?
-
Great news for Portrush and Northern Ireland.
235 - 2 was the vote in favour. Not great news for the minor head, perhaps some of you will learn that your opinions are not worth a ****. I expect if GCA.com would have been allowed to vote the margin would have been less convincing.
-
Great news for Portrush and Northern Ireland.
235 - 2 was the vote in favour. Not great news for the minor head, perhaps some of you will learn that your opinions are not worth a ****. I expect if GCA.com would have been allowed to vote the margin would have been less convincing.
Adrian
To be honest, I am far more concerned with the preservation the Valley Links. I am not sure what the final plans are, so I don't know how I would have hypothetically voted 8)
Ciao
-
perhaps some of you will learn that your opinions are not worth a ****.
Classy.
-
Not sure why anyone would want to change that eighth into a two-tiered green? ::)
+1
I thought the 8th was one of the most interesting holes on the property.
2-tiered certainly does not remind me of Colt. (Calling Frank Pont)
-
What I find interesting is that this will be the course the members play when its finished. According to an attendee of the meeting, the current 17 and 18 will be left as practise holes. It sounds like the general consensus is that the new holes will fit in after 13 so there is the option of a two tee start from 1 and current 10.
Since the changes are now inevitable, at least the finished article will be for everyday play and not just for The Open every 10 years.
The new par 5 on the back 9 will be a beefy one; over 600 yards by all accounts.
-
Anyone know if RPGC actually 'own' The Valley course (and the adjacent par-3 course for that matter) and permit others, like Rathmore GC members and pay-n-play folk, the opportunity to play over it or is The Valley/par-3 course actually owned by the local municipal authority?
I'd be somewhat peeved if I was a Rathmore GC member or pay-n-play player and found that the lovely Valley course that I'd been playing on for decades was going to be changed and that some of it was now going to effectively 'disappear' and be incorporated into the private RPGC-Dunluce course.
Just curious.
atb
-
Seems a little extreme to me to make all those changes to a classic course. I played it last year and I did think that 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimactic, but completely replace them? I also played the Valley and loved it. Neat little fun course. Had pint with a member who's Parents have a house on the Dunluce. Gave us some history of the course and tales of Darren, Graeme, and Rory. Would love to go back.
-
Seems a little extreme to me to make all those changes to a classic course. I played it last year and I did think that 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimactic, but completely replace them? I also played the Valley and loved it. Neat little fun course. Had pint with a member who's Parents have a house on the Dunluce. Gave us some history of the course and tales of Darren, Graeme, and Rory. Would love to go back.
Seems absolute common sense to me and 235 - 2 was the vote. What is more unbelievable is you thought 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimatic.
-
Anyone know if RPGC actually 'own' The Valley course (and the adjacent par-3 course for that matter) and permit others, like Rathmore GC members and pay-n-play folk, the opportunity to play over it or is The Valley/par-3 course actually owned by the local municipal authority?
I'd be somewhat peeved if I was a Rathmore GC member or pay-n-play player and found that the lovely Valley course that I'd been playing on for decades was going to be changed and that some of it was now going to effectively 'disappear' and be incorporated into the private RPGC-Dunluce course.
Just curious.
atb
97.2648% sure it's all owned by RPGC. Ramore is a lovely Club who have (limited) rights to play on The Valley and can play Dunluce once a month (83.276% sure of that one). To be a member I think you have to live in Portrush (area) (89.443%). An undisclosed but "significant" percentage of RPGC members primarily reside in Belfast.
At least until he bought a gaff in Florida, their Weekend Medal was regularly won by a Mr G McDowell. What ever he wins for that would sit very nicely beside the replica US Open trophy that he keeps 71.63%/(kept 100%) in the Ramore silverware display case.
-
Seems a little extreme to me to make all those changes to a classic course. I played it last year and I did think that 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimactic, but completely replace them? I also played the Valley and loved it. Neat little fun course. Had pint with a member who's Parents have a house on the Dunluce. Gave us some history of the course and tales of Darren, Graeme, and Rory. Would love to go back.
Seems absolute common sense to me and 235 - 2 was the vote. What is more unbelievable is you thought 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimatic.
I just don't see the need for extreme changes to a course that is fantastic. Voting to have to the tournament is a no brainer. Like the president of the club said the two no voters must have been joking. 17 and 18 were the two weakest holes on the course IMO. If they were two of the best why would they be talking about replacing them for the championship? Just for tents? After getting the crap kicked out of me from the 5th hole to 16th. 17 and 18 were a welcome relief but I wouldn't build two new holes to replace them.
-
Not sure why anyone would want to change that eighth into a two-tiered green? ::)
+1
I thought the 8th was one of the most interesting holes on the property.
2-tiered certainly does not remind me of Colt. (Calling Frank Pont)
I'm afraid the humility required to leave well alone is not a quality the R&A are looking for. Better to tamper than to consider the notion that a guy 100 years ago might just have known his stuff better than anyone around today.
-
I'm afraid the humility required to leave well alone is not a quality the R&A are looking for. Better to tamper than to consider the notion that a guy 100 years ago might just have known his stuff better than anyone around today.
Lets just be glad the R&A brass are not the custodians of the old Dutch master pieces hanging in the Rijksmuseum.
-
Not sure why anyone would want to change that eighth into a two-tiered green? ::)
+1
I thought the 8th was one of the most interesting holes on the property.
2-tiered certainly does not remind me of Colt. (Calling Frank Pont)
Two tiered greens are very rare for Colt but do exist, eg the second at Tandridge and B5 at Kennemer. The famous par 3 at St. Cloud also has two tiers.
Usually they are used when the green is on a severe (side) slope where a tiered green was necessary to build a green without massive eartmoving.
-
Anyone know if RPGC actually 'own' The Valley course (and the adjacent par-3 course for that matter) and permit others, like Rathmore GC members and pay-n-play folk, the opportunity to play over it or is The Valley/par-3 course actually owned by the local municipal authority?
I'd be somewhat peeved if I was a Rathmore GC member or pay-n-play player and found that the lovely Valley course that I'd been playing on for decades was going to be changed and that some of it was now going to effectively 'disappear' and be incorporated into the private RPGC-Dunluce course.
Just curious.
atb
97.2648% sure it's all owned by RPGC. Ramore is a lovely Club who have (limited) rights to play on The Valley and can play Dunluce once a month (83.276% sure of that one). To be a member I think you have to live in Portrush (area) (89.443%). An undisclosed but "significant" percentage of RPGC members primarily reside in Belfast.
At least until he bought a gaff in Florida, their Weekend Medal was regularly won by a Mr G McDowell. What ever he wins for that would sit very nicely beside the replica US Open trophy that he keeps 71.63%/(kept 100%) in the Ramore silverware display case.
Here's the trophy cabinet just inside the main entrance to the Rathmore GC clubhouse. As I was taking this photograph a chap came up to me and mentioned how he was the current holder of the larger crystal-glass trophy (near bottom right) that was presented by G-Mac to be played for by the club members. I think he said it was called (not surprisingly) the 'G-Mac Trophy'. He also indicated to me the contents how many bottles of Magners he had managed to fill the trophy with. It was quite a significant number.
atb
(http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s661/thomasdai/P1010187_zps13e0b3cf.jpg)
PS - "Lets just be glad the R&A brass are not the custodians of the old Dutch master pieces hanging in the Rijksmuseum." Great line Frank.
-
Not sure why anyone would want to change that eighth into a two-tiered green? ::)
+1
I thought the 8th was one of the most interesting holes on the property.
2-tiered certainly does not remind me of Colt. (Calling Frank Pont)
I'm afraid the humility required to leave well alone is not a quality the R&A are looking for. Better to tamper than to consider the notion that a guy 100 years ago might just have known his stuff better than anyone around today.
Modern architects results are better because we now have machines to move problems that previously they lived with. The minor opinion maybe leave alone but things move on and courses change they always have done when better opportunities become available or even sometimes situations constrict. Historically and statistically there are very few of the 3000+ GB&I courses that have not had some surgery in the last 25 years, extend that to 50 years, 75 and then 100 and it really is a very small percentage without a routing change. Perhaps an interesting exercise is what GB & I top 100 course have not had the knife. Hardly any golf course owner or members club want to stay static, almost always there is something to make better in the opinions of the people that matter.
-
Seems a little extreme to me to make all those changes to a classic course. I played it last year and I did think that 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimactic, but completely replace them? I also played the Valley and loved it. Neat little fun course. Had pint with a member who's Parents have a house on the Dunluce. Gave us some history of the course and tales of Darren, Graeme, and Rory. Would love to go back.
Seems absolute common sense to me and 235 - 2 was the vote. What is more unbelievable is you thought 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimatic.
I just don't see the need for extreme changes to a course that is fantastic. Voting to have to the tournament is a no brainer. Like the president of the club said the two no voters must have been joking. 17 and 18 were the two weakest holes on the course IMO. If they were two of the best why would they be talking about replacing them for the championship? Just for tents? After getting the crap kicked out of me from the 5th hole to 16th. 17 and 18 were a welcome relief but I wouldn't build two new holes to replace them.
Certain areas are key to the jigsaw. To make RP work for an Open several things had to be done. So you have to take all the plus and minus and weigh that up versus staging the championship. The best two to chop were obviously 17 and 18. Reason being not enough space around these holes to finish and the area was great for the tented village. I don't know the courses at all, only from TV and Google Earth. I would have thought that two holes on the Vallley course could have housed two new holes for the Dunluce and the loss of the up and back Valley holes could be substituted by 17 and 18 from the Dunluce to the valley. They have obviously looked at all the differing scenarios, but change was inevitable for the championship to return it was not going to work as it was, simply because of the logistical and commercial importance. Open championship courses tick logistical and commercial boxes first.
-
Modern architects results are better because we now have machines to move problems that previously they lived with.
What's ironic is that you never hear this sort of self-gratifying statement from the modern architects who are actually building courses comparable to the best of the ODG courses.
And I'd be really happy for the modernists to have their courses and stay away from the classics (seeing as they seem to care quite little for their qualities), but of course they want not only to build brawny, uncharismatic "championship courses", they want to drag the classics kicking and screaming past some arbitrary length and par as well.
I'm thinking of joining a church so I can pray more meaningfully that The Open never, ever returns to Deal.
-
Seems a little extreme to me to make all those changes to a classic course. I played it last year and I did think that 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimactic, but completely replace them? I also played the Valley and loved it. Neat little fun course. Had pint with a member who's Parents have a house on the Dunluce. Gave us some history of the course and tales of Darren, Graeme, and Rory. Would love to go back.
Seems absolute common sense to me and 235 - 2 was the vote. What is more unbelievable is you thought 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimatic.
I just don't see the need for extreme changes to a course that is fantastic. Voting to have to the tournament is a no brainer. Like the president of the club said the two no voters must have been joking. 17 and 18 were the two weakest holes on the course IMO. If they were two of the best why would they be talking about replacing them for the championship? Just for tents? After getting the crap kicked out of me from the 5th hole to 16th. 17 and 18 were a welcome relief but I wouldn't build two new holes to replace them.
Certain areas are key to the jigsaw. To make RP work for an Open several things had to be done. So you have to take all the plus and minus and weigh that up versus staging the championship. The best two to chop were obviously 17 and 18. Reason being not enough space around these holes to finish and the area was great for the tented village. I don't know the courses at all, only from TV and Google Earth. I would have thought that two holes on the Vallley course could have housed two new holes for the Dunluce and the loss of the up and back Valley holes could be substituted by 17 and 18 from the Dunluce to the valley. They have obviously looked at all the differing scenarios, but change was inevitable for the championship to return it was not going to work as it was, simply because of the logistical and commercial importance. Open championship courses tick logistical and commercial boxes first.
You find it "unbelievable" that I found 17 and 18 anticlimactic, yet you've never seen or played the course. Hopefully someday you are lucky enough to get there. Just don't stay at the Eglington hotel.
-
Frank, I almost started that thread...I was sure the number of two-tiered, original Colt greens is/was pretty close to zero! Any other examples/pics?
Cheers, Clyde
Not sure why anyone would want to change that eighth into a two-tiered green? ::)
+1
I thought the 8th was one of the most interesting holes on the property.
2-tiered certainly does not remind me of Colt. (Calling Frank Pont)
Two tiered greens are very rare for Colt but do exist, eg the second at Tandridge and B5 at Kennemer. The famous par 3 at St. Cloud also has two tiers.
Usually they are used when the green is on a severe (side) slope where a tiered green was necessary to build a green without massive eartmoving.
-
Frank, I almost started that thread...I was sure the number of two-tiered, original Colt greens is/was pretty close to zero! Any other examples/pics?
Cheers, Clyde
Actually Clyde you only have walk 200 yards to the east of #8 to find another Colt two-tiered green - # 5 - White Rocks is a beauty.
-
I agree Clyde #8 green fit well to me ,not sure the reasoning for the change.As for 17and 18 they were nondunes holes so I guess they thought they could get away with it since they seem different than the rest of the layout.JMO
-
Adrian,
You take the common sense view, one based on the commercial aspects and highlighting what is important to the outside-GCA golfing world (i.e. the vast majority)… This is absolutely sensible and it is incredibly difficult to argue against the numbers in the members vote…. Portrush clearly needed space for the infrastructure and if the best solution was to use 17 & 18 and build two new holes, then I find it hard to argue against that decision, unfortunate as it is for those who don’t wish to see two Colt courses further changed. They want The Open back – so would I if it were my club.
What I raise my eyebrows at – and remember I don’t know the course well enough to comment in this particular case – is the continued tinkering with classic courses for no good reason… The original design intention & style is undergoing death by a thousand cuts on many of these courses. Why do we need to adjust greens, change ground contours and re-bunker to a more homogenous, “modern” scheme, basically coming up with ideas to create work and try and prove that things can always be better?... I have watched and followed this on many classic courses and it is often to the detriment and consistency of the course.
I have to check myself when I write these things that I’m not being hypocritical… I feel that I am not… The only time I have been asked to consult on a classic course (and not one in the league we are talking either), the committee advised me that they wanted to completely re-route a section of the course (4 holes)… After my two visits to date, we are currently at one new green site (same route) + one new tee…. It didn’t need the work and they needed saving from themselves…
I am pretty agitated on this topic at the moment after seeing some outrageous suggestions being pitched at my own club also.
Ally
-
I'm afraid the humility required to leave well alone is not a quality the R&A are looking for. Better to tamper than to consider the notion that a guy 100 years ago might just have known his stuff better than anyone around today.
Lets just be glad the R&A brass are not the custodians of the old Dutch master pieces hanging in the Rijksmuseum.
Frank, I think several of them could use refinishing and modernizing, perhaps the addition of some varied brush strokes and some more added quirkiness. Maybe even some abstract geometric shapes.
-
I have a little more faith than the rest of you. I'm not a fan of 17 and 18 but love the course. I believe the changes to be in good hands. E & M take care of about 6 of the 9 Open rota courses right now and I can't think of anything that's been done that's so extreme to have ruined any of these classic courses. I'm sure there are those that might argue this and if so I'd like to hear some specific examples.
I'm very pleased with the decision to bring the Open there and equally as happy that the changes are in the hands of E & M. I was truly worried about the possibility of them ending up in the hands of Hawtree.
-
I have a little more faith than the rest of you. I'm not a fan of 17 and 18 but love the course. I believe the changes to be in good hands. E & M take care of about 6 of the 9 Open rota courses right now and I can't think of anything that's been done that's so extreme to have ruined any of these classic courses. I'm sure there are those that might argue this and if so I'd like to hear some specific examples.
I'm very pleased with the decision to bring the Open there and equally as happy that the changes are in the hands of E & M. I was truly worried about the possibility of them ending up in the hands of Hawtree.
As I said David - death by a thousand cuts.
Each committee hires a new architect to make (nominally small) changes, ends up with a few more changes than they'd originally expected and 50 years and 6 committees later, you have seven different styles on the course and we end up looking at old photos and going "look how different it was then!"
-
Good spot Jamie - It was that example that stopped me from starting the thread ;). The way the rise climbs/wraps around around the corner of the grassy chasm to the right is simple yet elegant. It is safe to say that the fifth must be Colt's best situated two-tier green! I would still be interested in any other examples…?
Frank, I almost started that thread...I was sure the number of two-tiered, original Colt greens is/was pretty close to zero! Any other examples/pics?
Cheers, Clyde
Actually Clyde you only have walk 200 yards to the east of #8 to find another Colt two-tiered green - # 5 - White Rocks is a beauty.
-
I believe the changes to be in good hands. E & M take care of about 6 of the 9 Open rota courses right now and I can't think of anything that's been done that's so extreme to have ruined any of these classic courses. I'm sure there are those that might argue this and if so I'd like to hear some specific examples.
David that's a strange way to support your mates. I throw another question back to you. Can you give examples of where they have enhanced the reputation of a course? Or any new courses they've built with a stellar reputation?
A factor that hasn't been discussed is that the vote also indicates that there is clearly no love from the members for 17 and 18. It's a moot point about the best way of sorting that out.
M&E have already been consulting there for more than half a decade and made changes to those holes. Apparently to no avail.
-
I believe the changes to be in good hands. E & M take care of about 6 of the 9 Open rota courses right now and I can't think of anything that's been done that's so extreme to have ruined any of these classic courses. I'm sure there are those that might argue this and if so I'd like to hear some specific examples.
David that's a strange way to support your mates. I throw another question back to you. Can you give examples of where they have enhanced the reputation of a course? Or any new courses they've built with a stellar reputation?
I think Turnberry is significantly better for the changes Martin Ebert made there before the 2009 Open - specifically the new championship tee and fairway extension on the tenth and the shift of the fairway on the sixteenth to the left (which was done with the aim of creating room to extend the seventeenth tee backwards after Eduardo Romero reached the green with a drive and a sand wedge during the Senior Open but which imo really improved the hole). I think Martin's recent changes to Troon will also be judged a big success.
-
I believe the changes to be in good hands. E & M take care of about 6 of the 9 Open rota courses right now and I can't think of anything that's been done that's so extreme to have ruined any of these classic courses. I'm sure there are those that might argue this and if so I'd like to hear some specific examples.
David that's a strange way to support your mates. I throw another question back to you. Can you give examples of where they have enhanced the reputation of a course? Or any new courses they've built with a stellar reputation?
A factor that hasn't been discussed is that the vote also indicates that there is clearly no love from the members for 17 and 18. It's a moot point about the best way of sorting that out.
M&E have already been consulting there for more than half a decade and made changes to those holes. Apparently to no avail.
Tony,
How's life? Which mates are you speaking of? You guys or M&E? I honestly, don't know/well actually remember all the changes being made at these courses even after I've read about them or seen them post renovations. However, I know that a lot of care goes into making sure that nothing too drastic is done that is out of character of the course and the set of greens as a whole. That's more than I can say about Hawtree for example (since I mentioned him) and yes I can give specific examples close to my heart on that one. The fact, I can't with regards to M&E is only a good sign. However, I ask as some of you are perhaps more detailed, knowledgeable and critical than I am.
While I don't know a lot of architects quite as well as M&E, what I do know is that the respect and intention to preserve classic courses is as high with those guys as anyone I've ever met. For me that's a very good sign when taken in light of the situation where the R&A might be on the side of drastically lengthening these courses and looking to modernize to the point of creating "more challenging" courses for future Opens or perhaps even protecting par and risking changing the very nature of the members experience there. I imagine it's a difficult balance to manage all the varied interests and I do believe M&E are very good at this too.
-
I believe the changes to be in good hands. E & M take care of about 6 of the 9 Open rota courses right now and I can't think of anything that's been done that's so extreme to have ruined any of these classic courses. I'm sure there are those that might argue this and if so I'd like to hear some specific examples.
David that's a strange way to support your mates. I throw another question back to you. Can you give examples of where they have enhanced the reputation of a course? Or any new courses they've built with a stellar reputation?
I think Turnberry is significantly better for the changes Martin Ebert made there before the 2009 Open - specifically the new championship tee and fairway extension on the tenth and the shift of the fairway on the sixteenth to the left (which was done with the aim of creating room to extend the seventeenth tee backwards after Eduardo Romero reached the green with a drive and a sand wedge during the Senior Open but which imo really improved the hole). I think Martin's recent changes to Troon will also be judged a big success.
Thank you Adam I have played the changes and they are fine. We could debate all day if they enhance Turnberry's reputation.
I've asked a similar question a couple of times on here and I remain unconvinced that their greatest talent isn't getting the patronage of influential old men. I have seen the lovely plan booklets they present to various clubs and they seriously worry me. They are full of ...'you could do this and perhaps later that ...and maybe a second bunker here. ' At Porthcawl there's a suggestions for what changes should take place before and what might take place after the Senior Open. Now this might be wise but it strikes me it's also very dangerous. It allows the possibilities for change to be almost unending, if you can't offer a best solution then tinkering is inevitable.
What do they really think? When Colt was asked to help the solve the problem of increasing traffic on the road through Rye he reputedly replied "Move the road". At another well known course they presented their report, walked the course and the changes made are the suggestions of the Chairman. Will they resign as consultants? Common guys you are professional advisors! Do the two new holes you have designed at Portrush improve the course most if they sit in the front 9 or in the back 9? It can't be both.
David at least Hawtree can say I dramatically improved Lahinch and Dooks. ;)
-
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.
-
Thanks Jamie, interesting.
You can just make out the changes to 17 and 18 proposed in 2008. At that point M&E advised the club that to be considered Championship standard it needed to grow to 7250 yards. Seems like inflation continues.
(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f174/Muldoon3/Portrush/Img1312.jpg) (http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Muldoon3/media/Portrush/Img1312.jpg.html)
-
Jamie
You state the Valley will lose 5 & 6 and that four new holes will be built. Which other holes are to be canned?
Is it possible that playing down to the Valley Links for one hole then back up to the upper links will be a bit of a slog?
I am very sad to see one of the best short yardage combos (Valley 5 & 6) of which I am aware get canned. That said, the new holes do sound promising.
Ciao
-
M&E have already been consulting there for more than half a decade and made changes to those holes.
Tony, Adam,
As I understand it, Donald Steel was the consultant architect for Royal Portrush and when he sold his company to M&E, they carried on as the club's consultants. I am not sure of the time frames involved, but that's how they came to be the architects in charge of these (and previous) works.
Scott
-
Adrian,
You take the common sense view, one based on the commercial aspects and highlighting what is important to the outside-GCA golfing world (i.e. the vast majority)… This is absolutely sensible and it is incredibly difficult to argue against the numbers in the members vote…. Portrush clearly needed space for the infrastructure and if the best solution was to use 17 & 18 and build two new holes, then I find it hard to argue against that decision, unfortunate as it is for those who don’t wish to see two Colt courses further changed. They want The Open back – so would I if it were my club.
What I raise my eyebrows at – and remember I don’t know the course well enough to comment in this particular case – is the continued tinkering with classic courses for no good reason… The original design intention & style is undergoing death by a thousand cuts on many of these courses. Why do we need to adjust greens, change ground contours and re-bunker to a more homogenous, “modern” scheme, basically coming up with ideas to create work and try and prove that things can always be better?... I have watched and followed this on many classic courses and it is often to the detriment and consistency of the course.
I have to check myself when I write these things that I’m not being hypocritical… I feel that I am not… The only time I have been asked to consult on a classic course (and not one in the league we are talking either), the committee advised me that they wanted to completely re-route a section of the course (4 holes)… After my two visits to date, we are currently at one new green site (same route) + one new tee…. It didn’t need the work and they needed saving from themselves…
I am pretty agitated on this topic at the moment after seeing some outrageous suggestions being pitched at my own club also.
Ally
Ally I think they are NOT monuments to Harry Colt or anyone else, they are perceived by the people that matter that they can be improved by the changes. The general opinion of Wentworth is still that it is better than before. I agree its not just the GCA wackos (I am one too) that think its for the worse in the Wentworth case. When you look at the RP situation there is quite a lot of anti change and anti valley course change....for the people the mattered it was 1%.
1% opinions are crackers people. Leaving golf courses without any change may be romantic but its not practical.
These golf courses are working products and (perhaps sadly) they do need to change now the flatbellies hit 9 irons 200 yards.
There is always room to make things better, if you score 59 theres that putt that lipped for a 58.
I agree Turnberry is much better for Martin Ebert's improvement. You can't see the join at 16 which is a compliment. Other peoples work I may discuss over a beer.
-
I remain unconvinced that their greatest talent isn't getting the patronage of influential old men.
As I understand it E is (or at least was) a long time member of the R&A championship committee. If that is true it seems odd that his firm should be given the majority of the jobs of renovating the Open venues.
In any industry I have worked in that would be seen as a big conflict of interest, whereas in the golf world nobody in or outside the R&A seems to care.....
-
The new holes M&E are doing on the Annesley Links at RCD look exciting.
Have they even been given any decent land to build a course from scratch on?
-
Royal Portrush new routing:
http://www.golftoday.co.uk/global_golf_post/2014/portrush_open.html
-
Jamie
You state the Valley will lose 5 & 6 and that four new holes will be built. Which other holes are to be canned?
Is it possible that playing down to the Valley Links for one hole then back up to the upper links will be a bit of a slog?
I am very sad to see one of the best short yardage combos (Valley 5 & 6) of which I am aware get canned. That said, the new holes do sound promising.
Ciao
Sean;
Regarding 4 new holes on the Valley. Coming out of play will be existing holes #5, #6, #18, and#17 will be altered to a dogleg par 5.
The present #5 and 6 are two great back to back holes, but from the drawings and specs I've seen, the new final four holes, all new or modified, will be a fantastic finish.
Regarding playing down to the valley then back up again on the two new Dunluce holes as a slog - both tees and greens are close to the same elevations, with only the par 5 fairway in the lower valley. If they come out as proposed, I believe players will be too busy breathing in the "wow" factor to consider them a slog.
-
Jamie
Thanks. The Valley doesn't finish in an entirely satisfactory manner with another drop shot 3 nowhere near the house and 17 is good, yet not something which lingers as something special. So no huge issue there other than a rare original Colt links getting chopped up :'(. 5 and 6 though, the deal is they come as a pair and replacing this pair will be very difficult. Only a hands on visit will confirm the quality of the new holes and hope to visit sooner rather than later, but I have my doubts ;)
Ciao
-
Adrian,
Are you suggesting that popularity is a measure of quality?
Better start dishing out those Michelin starts to McDonalds then.
-
Paul - I loosely would say that popularity is a measure of quality, but it has to be factored and its certainly not the only measure of quality. Popularity is more a good indicator of success.
-
Paul - I loosely would say that popularity is a measure of quality, but it has to be factored and its certainly not the only measure of quality. Popularity is more a good indicator of success.
But Adrian - In this case, the members have voted because they want The Open, not because they have any idea of what the final new holes will look like. Getting The Open trumps all and that is completely understandable.
But it still amazes me that 90% of club golfers look at a blank piece of land and cannot visualise a golf hole. Even once it's shaped, most people struggle. Only once the flag is in the ground do they see it.
So make no mistake, the vote is not based on the "quality" of the proposed holes.
That said, I expect that quality to be high. M&E have done some great work, especially more recently and I have no doubt - without even knowing the courses particularly well - that the new holes will up the drama / wow factor and that this will prove extremely popular. Whether they nail the detail to the extent that the new holes blend seamlessly with the current design is yet to be seen.
-
Ally - The popularity/Quality and Portrush Open is not linked as far as I am concerned. I agree it was a vote for the Open and change or no change. Also if the vote was change or no change the vote would clearly not have been 235-2.
I agree most cant see a hole until it is there, but equally most people trust. Martin Ebert is the man in favour that makes the changes for the Open championship courses and he does a very good job in the eyes of the majority, so members trust that MB knows best, the same as anyone trusts an architect to make their course better.
It is a matter of opinion if the rota courses have improved, we all have opinions. Birkdales 17th green was a cock up in my opinion, but the rest of the alterations are pretty good on the other courses, I like the new changes to the 15th at Troon, Turnberry is awesome, 11th green at TOC was essential for agronomic reasons, the hollow at the 7th also...2nd green would be a NO.
History shows that courses evolve and change, the Opens in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s 60s were no different.
-
Ally - The popularity/Quality and Portrush Open is not linked as far as I am concerned. I agree it was a vote for the Open and change or no change. Also if the vote was change or no change the vote would clearly not have been 235-2.
I agree most cant see a hole until it is there, but equally most people trust. Martin Ebert is the man in favour that makes the changes for the Open championship courses and he does a very good job in the eyes of the majority, so members trust that MB knows best, the same as anyone trusts an architect to make their course better.
It is a matter of opinion if the rota courses have improved, we all have opinions. Birkdales 17th green was a cock up in my opinion, but the rest of the alterations are pretty good on the other courses, I like the new changes to the 15th at Troon, Turnberry is awesome, 11th green at TOC was essential for agronomic reasons, the hollow at the 7th also...2nd green would be a NO.
History shows that courses evolve and change, the Opens in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s 60s were no different.
I agree with most of what you say, Adrian... and I'm sure the new holes on both courses will be excellent if previous, recent M&E work is the benchmark...
What I will reiterate is that there are "necessary" changes that are absolutely required at some of these classic courses IF they wish to take the carrot which is The Open Championship... and then there are the "extras", the changes that are made because the architect or the secretary of the R&A or the new hon-sec of each club just wants to leave more of his mark... It is these ones that I question, especially when it is these ones that are far less obvious to the average club member until it is too late....
-
Darwin's Portrush quote on Colt building himself a monument "more enduring than brass" is rapidly becoming a sad joke. I guess because the new holes (7 and 8 ) aren't long enough to replace 17 and 18 we lose another Colt green...
New Green on Dunluce 2nd!! ??? Where the hell is that going to go? Up on the ridge or to the left and farther on? If the new green site is to the left, I hope the club at least considers keeping the original green for regular play. Pine Valley has two holes with dual greens 8 and 9 so it's one way of preserving the original too.
Dunluce 5th was one of the great holes without a bunker, why does everything have to conform? How many bunkerless holes left on rota? 8 and 14 Dunluce, 1 and 18 TOC, 1 (3) Hoylake.
The article doesn't agree with what Jamie posted, they have the current 17 and 18 Dunluce becoming 1 and 2 on Valley. With Valley losing only 2 original holes.
Or why not keep the original Dunluce routing for regular play and have the two new Ebert holes in play for the Valley (as 5th and 6th) and only switch for the Open.
But Jaime has 4 lost Valley holes (5,6, 17 and 18). Why are they changing the Valley so much when it's not necessary for the Open changes and the current finish is an excellent stretch.
Many practicing architects are so not sanguine about changes to their own courses....but have no problem digging up classics for any kind of reason.
Changes have definitely been accelerated in past decade or so.
-
"The eighth and ninth greens, which were not holes designed by Harry Colt, will be changed. The eighth green will become a two-tier green while the (par-five) ninth will become a par-four, as it was in the recent Amateur Championship."
Looks like more changes to Dunluce. This isn't correct about 8 and 9 not being designed by Colt and Morrison. Those two holes were planned before the war but I think were constructed in house not by Franks Harris. Another case of a famous club being unaware of their history.
The new second green will be a "replica" of the original to the left and farther on.
-
Darwin's Portrush quote on Colt building himself a monument "more enduring than brass" is rapidly becoming a sad joke. I guess because the new holes (7 and 8 ) aren't long enough to replace 17 and 18 we lose another Colt green...
New Green on Dunluce 2nd!! ??? Where the hell is that going to go? Up on the ridge or to the left and farther on? If the new green site is to the left, I hope the club at least considers keeping the original green for regular play. Pine Valley has two holes with dual greens 8 and 9 so it's one way of preserving the original too.
Dunluce 5th was one of the great holes without a bunker, why does everything have to conform? How many bunkerless holes left on rota? 1 and 18 TOC, 1 (3) Hoylake.
The article doesn't agree with what Jamie posted, they have the current 17 and 18 Dunluce becoming 1 and 2 on Valley. With Valley losing only 2 original holes.
Or why not keep the original Dunluce routing for regular play and have the two new Ebert holes in play for the Valley (as 5th and 6th) and only switch for the Open.
But Jaime has 4 lost Valley holes (5,6, 17 and 18). Why are they changing the Valley so much when it's not necessary for the Open changes and the current finish is an excellent stretch.
Many practicing architects are so not sanguine about changes to their own courses....but have no problem digging up classics for any kind of reason.
Changes have definitely been accelerated in past decade or so.
5 on the Valley is a beautiful par 4, why would they change it? 6 is a very difficult par 3. I don't get it.
-
Colt's fine 2nd green that's going to get dug up. Just to eke out 50 yds more length and a "proper par 5".
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/IMG_6073_zps4e030005.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/paulturner/media/IMG_6073_zps4e030005.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/IMG_6071_zpsed2bdcab.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/paulturner/media/IMG_6071_zpsed2bdcab.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/IMG_6069_zps1ab2e147.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/paulturner/media/IMG_6069_zps1ab2e147.jpg.html)
-
I am gonna side with the R & A and Martin Ebert...there is a nice spot 50 yards further on.
Golf courses ARE NOT monuments.
-
Golf courses ARE NOT monuments.
Clearly not with the R&A in charge.....
but seriously I agree with you partly in adding one word:
Most golf courses are not monuments
Portrush clearly is, at least for some of us.
-
It isn't a monument for the members. It's their Club and they are overwhelmingly in favour.
They seem to have done a great job managing and promoting their Club and having been in possession of all the facts, their decision should be respected.
The R&A can't be the whipping boys all the time. Adding courses adds greatly to their workload. I think it's great for the Championship and great for Portrush.
-
Monument or not the change to the 2nd is gratuitous and flies in the face of the club cherishing its Colt heritage (or claiming to).
Anybody can find an alternate great green site on a links...it's not hard. But will the 2nd hole play better than the Colt green for the members. I doubt it.
-
Ryan,
Don't get me wrong, I agree its great for Portrush to get the Open!
What I do not like is that the condition for getting the Open is that they change their course.
I seriously question how the course would play in the Open without all these changes.
My guess, having been involved in several Dutch Opens at Kennemer, ROyal Hague and Eindhoven, is just fine.
But we need to change, lengthen, improve !!!
-
Ryan,
Don't get me wrong, I agree its great for Portrush to get the Open!
What I do not like is that the condition for getting the Open is that they change their course.
I seriously question how the course would play in the Open without all these changes.
My guess, having been involved in several Dutch Opens at Kennemer, ROyal Hague and Eindhoven, is just fine.
But we need to change, lengthen, improve !!!
It's a minor quibble, Frank.
All things considered, its a no brainer.
If you can get more than half of a club's members to agree with something, you're doing well. To have all but two in favour, tells me that all but the hard of thinking could see that the plan was a sound one.
-
I guess you have more faith in the insights of the average golf member than outspoken classic archies such Tom Simpson had ;)
And I do not see making major changes to a classic like Portrush as a minor quibble.
Portrush as it is would play just fine as a open venue. There are logistical issues (the tented village, VIP parking etc) but that's not the main thing. Its the arrogance that we need to change to improve.
Most of restoration work I do is undoing changes that were meant to improve.
I guess that's why I am so sad (even though I should be glad business wise because it means more work undoing things in the future :) )
-
I guess you have more faith in the insights of the average golf member than outspoken classic archies such Tom Simpson had ;)
And I do not see making major changes to a classic like Portrush as a minor quibble.
Portrush as it is would play just fine as a open venue. There are logistical issues (the tented village, VIP parking etc) but that's not the main thing. Its the arrogance that we need to change to improve.
Most of restoration work in undoing changes that were meant to improve.
I guess that's why I am so sad (even though I should be glad business wise because it means more work undoing things in the future :) )
Frank
In 20-30 years time they'll be voting to change your changes. It happens. It is the average Club members who employ you.
They are minor changes in the overall scheme of the Open at Portrush. A better sense of perspective is needed.
-
Almost every golf course thinks it can be made better in the eyes of the people that matter, which is the owners either as a single or as a members clubs. Bunkers get added by one captain and taken away by another, it is what has happened for 100 years+.
Members have to trust that MB will make it better in the same way members have to Frank Pont that he will make the course better by his improvements. Trust is the key word, so far I have seen no mistakes by Martin Ebert, equally Frank's work is awesome on his UK restoration projects and if a Colt course contacted me I would be passing the work FPs way.
I can only think of one mess up in 40-50 years of the R & A tinkering and that is Birkdales 17th. One disaster in 40 years ain't really so bad.
The Open and almost any UK links golf course will always have a number of conflicting problems. Portrush have wanted the Open back for 60 years, there was almost the point that no one thought it could ever go there again, they have to cure the problems simple as that.
The changes at the Old Course were widely bad mouthed on here, it has not ruined it one iota in the minds of 99%.
-
I am gonna side with the R & A and Martin Ebert...there is a nice spot 50 yards further on.
Golf courses ARE NOT monuments.
Adrian,
When you played Portrush, did you walk off that green and think "shame, what that hole really needed was another 50 yards"?
-
The Royal 17th (1st) hole and 18th(2nd) at Hoylake were screwed up by R&A and Ebert. Greens with nothing in common with the rest of the course, much like the 17th at Birkdale.
Portrush is basically unchanged since just before the war when 8 and 9 were added when the clubhouse moved. Only a few back tees and only a few extra bunkers.
I can understand they probably need the 17/18th for access and tents. But why not just keep the changes to a minimum and only lose 5 and 6 Valley for the new holes.
If the second is too short as a par 5, just call it a par 4 for the Open.
-
Paul - I just think that they think they are making it better. I don't think for one minute they think it is destruction.
I have never seen Hoylake before or after so can't comment on the internal contouring except that I have not heard anyone say that before. I have heard the 17th (as was and 1st for the Open) was better before, but that was a H & S/Logistics call as I remember with that green being in a better position pre the change.
I can't forsee a future Open Championship without some change from the previous one and I am pretty sure that has always been the case certainly back as far as the early seventies which are the ones I first started studying/watching.
-
I am gonna side with the R & A and Martin Ebert...there is a nice spot 50 yards further on.
Golf courses ARE NOT monuments.
Adrian,
When you played Portrush, did you walk off that green and think "shame, what that hole really needed was another 50 yards"?
If I remember correctly he has never played it or been to Royal Portrush.
-
I am gonna side with the R & A and Martin Ebert...there is a nice spot 50 yards further on.
Golf courses ARE NOT monuments.
Adrian,
When you played Portrush, did you walk off that green and think "shame, what that hole really needed was another 50 yards"?
If I remember correctly he has never played it or been to Royal Portrush.
Really? I hope for the sake of his credibility that this is not the case!
-
Rob - it appears you were on the money.
I don't know the courses at all, only from TV and Google Earth.
It's remarkable that someone who has never been to Portrush is pontificating about the wisdom of specific changes.
And someone who is a golf course designer himself. Bizarre.
-
Typical Journalist - Reads what he wants to see and make up.
I commented about trusting Martin Ebert. I commented there was a nice place to put the green 50 yards on from the posted photograph.
An apology would be nice.
-
Typical Journalist - Reads what he wants to see and make up.
I commented about trusting Martin Ebert. I commented there was a nice place to put the green 50 yards on from the posted photograph.
An apology would be nice.
Adrian,
I'm comfortable with my comment, and that anyone who cares to re-read your contributions to the thread will form the same conclusion.
Let's start with you telling another poster that "What is more unbelievable is you thought 17 and 18 [at Portrush] were pretty anticlimactic".
As you put it yourself in your first post in this thread: "perhaps ... your opinions are not worth a ****".
PS - I've not been a journalist since mid-2012, but my ability to recognise bullshit remains intact.
-
I have to agree with Adrian on this
Golf is changing and evolving - the courses are having to change to adjust to the times
If Harry Colt was alive now he is more likely that he would be doing what Martin Ebert has been assigned to do it's the same with all elements of design that we strive to improve it
Overall the Dunluce Course will become better after eliminating the 17th and 18th holes in which reliable sources of mine have said that the finish lets the course down
The Valley is seen as a 'second' course and coltish purists want to keep it but the club overwhelmingly voted to have the open back at Portrush so have made the decision to redesign the course to accommodate future major championships as well as move the course onwards in the next 30 odd years
Scott - architects and golf course architects can see how a building, golf hole or golf course can be improved by looking at photos, aerial images and contour maps
My question to Colt is why didn't you build a green 50 yards further on with the available land in the background - maybe he did or the club didn't own the land then.
The main fact is that Portrush is moving on like Birkdale did in the 1960s by changing the course for better and it could be the best course in the whole of Ireland with these changes
-
The members shared the view about 17 & 18 being weak. The guy arguing against the changes, shared this view as well. Yet didn't want them changed anyway.
Left to the sort of unreasonable nimby ism in this thread, Colt wouldn't of been allowed to build a course in the first place. They'd have stuck to 9 holes.
As I've said before, the Course belongs to the members. Not Colt. No one would care a damn if they altered his design at Trevose, for example.
-
My question to Colt is why didn't you build a green 50 yards further on with the available land in the background - maybe he did or the club didn't own the land then.
Hey Ben - I think I've probably made my views clear in my previous posts.
With that in mind, do you not think Colt placed his second green where it is because it is the best green site, in view from the tee and exquisitely positioned just over a natural, diagonal roll in the land.
From the photo, I agree there seems to be a good site further back (although what's not obvious is that it starts to encroach on the line from the 10th tee). Does it have that natural roll of the land though? Maybe, maybe not...
-
I have sympathy with Paul's outrage at what is being done to both courses to host an Open. On the other hand, not many clubs can let go of the prestige of hosting an Open. I think its a great shame, but almost inevitable that courses will be changed not for the better as some claim (although both courses may turn out better), but to hold an event. Paul mentions reducing par on the 2nd rather than pushing dirt around...couldn't agree more (in fact, why not knock off 3 shots to par and the problem of challenge is solved). The hole is good the way it is, if anything, it should be made wider, not longer....that goes for practically the entire course.
It is obvious there are many (most people) who don't believe there are courses which should be protected. I think this is a mistake and very short-sighted. The problem is, how do we get clubs to understand what they have when they have an original Colt, Dr Mac, Simpson....I always say, its human nature to want to change things and any excuse will do if people are hell bent on the idea of change.
I only hope the changes are so good that I will eventually forget about Valley 5 & 6. That is a tall order for an archie to accomplish.
Ciao
Ciao
-
Omelettes and Eggs come to mind and those two holes on the Valley course look great holes. Yes loss is a shame but if it can be better then that is best practice. It will be opinion if its better or for the worse.
If the powers that be could just introduce a tournament ball then the need to change would be far less a factor.
Real sympathy should be given to the many 6000 yard club courses that have tees already back to property limits and bunkers situated perfectly for 1979.
The more recent threads seem to suggest that the loss of 5 and 6 of the valley will be replaced with 17 and 18 from the present Dunluce. That jerks the valley up quite a bit in terms of length and puts a bit of History into the valley.
-
I've said before, the Course belongs to the members. Not Colt. No one would care a damn if they altered his design at Trevose, for example.
They ARE altering Colt's design at Trevose, (a lot of the original sand face bunkers have been revetted in recent years, and a new green built 50 yards past the original, sounds familiar?)
-
Omelettes and Eggs come to mind and those two holes on the Valley course look great holes. Yes loss is a shame but if it can be better then that is best practice. It will be opinion if its better or for the worse.
If the powers that be could just introduce a tournament ball then the need to change would be far less a factor.
Real sympathy should be given to the many 6000 yard club courses that have tees already back to property limits and bunkers situated perfectly for 1979.
The more recent threads seem to suggest that the loss of 5 and 6 of the valley will be replaced with 17 and 18 from the present Dunluce. That jerks the valley up quite a bit in terms of length and puts a bit of History into the valley.
Replacing 5 & 6 with 17 and 18 on the Dunluce may add length but, if that is the plan, it takes 2 high quality, fun and challenging holes and replaces them with 2 of the least interesting holes on the Dunluce. The Valley is never going to hold championships so it doesn't really need length. Short, driveable par 4s with good risk / reward are much underused and 5 on the Valley is a classic. 6 is more than enough challenge for anyone.
Can I ask - maybe it is in the thread but I can't see it. Why do they need to get rid of 5 & 6 - are they using that land for new holes on the Dunluce? Or is it that they think the course would be "better" without?
-
Ed - They will lose 17 & 18 of the Dunluce when they stage the Open that area is for the tented village. The intention is to replace them with two new long holes over the land that 5 & 6 of the Valley are on. They are still undecided if to include them as hole pre Calamity (16 on the new route) or after the 5th.
-
I've said before, the Course belongs to the members. Not Colt. No one would care a damn if they altered his design at Trevose, for example.
They ARE altering Colt's design at Trevose, (a lot of the original sand face bunkers have been revetted in recent years, and a new green built 50 yards past the original, sounds familiar?)
Frank - Most people here in the West Country think Trevose is a much better course for the changes made to the bunkers and in particular the revetting has made it more of a links are the sort of comments that I hear.
-
Adrian - bunkers aside, have you seen the new green that has been built for the 13th at Trevose? I am almost certain you wouldn't defend that!
-
Adrian - bunkers aside, have you seen the new green that has been built for the 13th at Trevose? I am almost certain you wouldn't defend that!
Adam - No I have not seen it. My last Trevose visit was c1985, I remember the first 4 holes only and everything a bit up and down after that.
-
I am not a fan of the new 13th at Trevose. I know they are experimenting with sand faced bunkers and hopefully will move down that route.
-
I should add that Jonathan Wood, the course manager at Trevose, is doing an excellent job. The course had been allowed to get out of hand, it was soft and meadowy. He has firmed it up and is getting on with the longer term job of transitioning back to desirable grasses.
-
I would agree plus he is working on building mounds between 13 and 15, which should be an improvement on a relatively flat area.
-
Most times the members aren't presented with the preservation option.
My bet is that the members at Trevose had no idea that their sand faced bunkers were some of last survivors of this style with just about every other links conforming to the circular revetted pot. Perhaps they wouldn't care and still change but they just aren't hearing the other side of the debate.
Back to 2nd at Portrush. I've played that hole perhaps 15 times and the land forms are similar beyond the current green but the members should be highly skeptical if they have been promised an exact replica green 50 yds farther on.....they will be destroying a Colt original green.
50 yds isn't going to make any appreciable difference to the pros scores. But I can see how it was sold:
1) We've taken the tee as far back as we can (for Irish Opens).
2) We've lost 50 yds in yardage by replacing 17 and 18 with the new holes. So we need to regain it somewhere.
3) It's too short particularly with prevailing down wind, and we can't call it a "par 4" because we're doing that with the 9th. Can't only have 2 par 5s.
4) Colt would have lengthened and we can build a replica green.
-
Trevose is proprietary, so in this case the point is moot. But I know what you mean, Paul.
-
I've said before, the Course belongs to the members. Not Colt. No one would care a damn if they altered his design at Trevose, for example.
They ARE altering Colt's design at Trevose, (a lot of the original sand face bunkers have been revetted in recent years, and a new green built 50 yards past the original, sounds familiar?)
Frank - Most people here in the West Country think Trevose is a much better course for the changes made to the bunkers and in particular the revetting has made it more of a links are the sort of comments that I hear.
Adrian,
I loved Trevose, it was the favourite of our group on a recent trip to the west country. The conditioning was very good, clearly Jonathan Wood is doing a great job maintenance wise. However its possible to restore the original Colt style sand bunkers AND have most people in the west country think its a better course.
Most people have no clue, the
-
Typical Journalist - Reads what he wants to see and make up.
I commented about trusting Martin Ebert. I commented there was a nice place to put the green 50 yards on from the posted photograph.
An apology would be nice.
Adrian,
I'm comfortable with my comment, and that anyone who cares to re-read your contributions to the thread will form the same conclusion.
Let's start with you telling another poster that "What is more unbelievable is you thought 17 and 18 [at Portrush] were pretty anticlimactic".
As you put it yourself in your first post in this thread: "perhaps ... your opinions are not worth a ****".
PS - I've not been a journalist since mid-2012, but my ability to recognise bullshit remains intact.
My thinking exactly. He's never been on site and attacks the opinion of someone who has actually played the course an you owe him an apology?
-
Rob - Get real with the facts: You said you felt underwhelmed by the 17th & 18th on Dunluce. You then went on to say you did not want them changed. It does not matter if I have played Portrush or not, I do not know why some people think you have to have played a course to make a comment. Scott Warren has always struggled to read what is in front of him, all the things he brought up are wrong. My comment about newer architects he has taken wrongly, it is not a slant on old or new ones, I am just making the point Colt did not have a D6, if he did he may have done things differently, Colt was disadvantaged. SW saw something different in my comment. My point re the 2nd green came when a photo was posted, there looks a cool site 50 yards back. SW and myself have never got on, if he apologised that might go some way to a repair but he won't because he probably still does not think he is wrong and did not interpret my comments wrongly.
I will take your advice re The Eglington Hotel.
-
Rob - Get real with the facts: You said you felt underwhelmed by the 17th & 18th on Dunluce. You then went on to say you did not want them changed. It does matter if I have played Portrush or not, I do not know why some people think you have to have played a course to make a comment. Scott Warren has always struggled to read what is in front of him, all the things he brought up are wrong. My comment about newer architects he has taken wrongly, it is not a slant on old or new ones, I am just making the point Colt did not have a D6, if he did he may have done things differently, Colt was disadvantaged. SW saw something different in my comment. My point re the 2nd green came when a photo was posted, there looks a cool site 50 yards back. SW and myself have never got on, if he apologised that might go some way to a repair but he won't because he probably still does not think he is wrong and did not interpret my comments wrongly.
I will take your advice re The Eglington Hotel.
Adrian,
It is you who needs to get real with the facts. Here is what I said:
"Seems a little extreme to me to make all those changes to a classic course. I played it last year and I did think that 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimactic, but completely replace them? I also played the Valley and loved it. Neat little fun course. Had pint with a member who's Parents have a house on the Dunluce. Gave us some history of the course and tales of Darren, Graeme, and Rory. Would love to go back."
And here is your reply:
"Seems absolute common sense to me and 235 - 2 was the vote. What is more unbelievable is you thought 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimatic."
I simply find it odd that you can find my comment "unbelievable" when you have never played the course or seen the site. Those are the "real" facts. Take care and you are wise to follow my opinion of the Eglington Hotel.
-
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, I think it was an advantage that they used the better sites years ago, but there must have been times when with modern earthmoving they could have made things better.
-
[/quote]You think it seems a little extreme to make those changes so they can have an Open? Perfect Sense to me. It makes no difference if I have played Portrush or not I went by what you said..17 & 18 being anti-climatic but then you dont want them replaced.
Adrian,
It is you who needs to get real with the facts. Here is what I said:
"Seems a little extreme to me to make all those changes to a classic course. I played it last year and I did think that 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimactic, but completely replace them? I also played the Valley and loved it. Neat little fun course. Had pint with a member who's Parents have a house on the Dunluce. Gave us some history of the course and tales of Darren, Graeme, and Rory. Would love to go back."
And here is your reply:
"Seems absolute common sense to me and 235 - 2 was the vote. What is more unbelievable is you thought 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimatic."
I simply find it odd that you can find my comment "unbelievable" when you have never played the course or seen the site. Those are the "real" facts. Take care and you are wise to follow my opinion of the Eglington Hotel.
[/quote]
-
[/quote]You think it seems a little extreme to make those changes so they can have an Open? Perfect Sense to me. It makes no difference if I have played Portrush or not I went by what you said..17 & 18 being anti-climatic but then you dont want them replaced.
Adrian,
It is you who needs to get real with the facts. Here is what I said:
"Seems a little extreme to me to make all those changes to a classic course. I played it last year and I did think that 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimactic, but completely replace them? I also played the Valley and loved it. Neat little fun course. Had pint with a member who's Parents have a house on the Dunluce. Gave us some history of the course and tales of Darren, Graeme, and Rory. Would love to go back."
And here is your reply:
"Seems absolute common sense to me and 235 - 2 was the vote. What is more unbelievable is you thought 17 and 18 were pretty anticlimatic."
I simply find it odd that you can find my comment "unbelievable" when you have never played the course or seen the site. Those are the "real" facts. Take care and you are wise to follow my opinion of the Eglington Hotel.
[/quote]
I never said I didn't want them changed nor do I really care. I'm not a member. I simply thought it was extreme to make ALL those changes to a classic course. If you don't think that the 17 and 18 are anticlimactic, I find it odd that you would think they were climatic when you've never seen them. IMO you would need to play the course or at least see the course to make that statement.
That said, If you thought that it was unbelievable that I thought they were anticlimactic and I thought they should remain untouched, you probably should expressed yourself a little better as your statement is exactly as I quoted.
-
Rob - I do think they are a bit anti-climatic, I can see they are on the least interesting ground. I suspect the Dunluce will end up being a better course for the loss of 17 & 18 and the two new ones replaced in the eyes of most people. I think it was said at a fairly early stage the 16th green (present) was the best location for grandstands etc. TBH I cant be arsed with talking about who said what. I probably did bite at you with the 'unbelievable comment' and for my snappyness I will apologise.
-
Can Frank, Scott, Rob or Sean, assess and comment on the actual specifics of the changes?
I'd be interested in the architectural merits or otherwise of the changes, rather than just ''it's Colt, it can't be changed.''
-
Rob - I do think they are a bit anti-climatic, I can see they are on the least interesting ground. I suspect the Dunluce will end up being a better course for the loss of 17 & 18 and the two new ones replaced in the eyes of most people. I think it was said at a fairly early stage the 16th green (present) was the best location for grandstands etc. TBH I cant be arsed with talking about who said what. I probably did bite at you with the 'unbelievable comment' and for my snappyness I will apologise.
Thanks Adrian. No worries.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29190109
Picture 5: Aurora Borealis at Dunluce Castle, just beside RPGC.
-
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.
-
Ally - Is there a lovely spot 50 yards further on from the present 2nd green that can make a great green?
-
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.
-
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)
(http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y468/mcintoshgolf/Portrushnew8thHole_zpscf120a39.jpg) (http://s1276.photobucket.com/user/mcintoshgolf/media/Portrushnew8thHole_zpscf120a39.jpg.html)
-
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.
-
That land doesn't look suitable for golf at all... Won't it have to be completely bulldozered to get a fairway in there?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
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:
(http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y468/mcintoshgolf/PortrushNewPlans1_zpsb757b224.jpg) (http://s1276.photobucket.com/user/mcintoshgolf/media/PortrushNewPlans1_zpsb757b224.jpg.html)
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:
(http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y468/mcintoshgolf/PortrushNewPlans2_zps5ff99162.jpg) (http://s1276.photobucket.com/user/mcintoshgolf/media/PortrushNewPlans2_zps5ff99162.jpg.html)
-
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
-
I fear Mr Colt comes a poor second to the allure of the Claret Jug.
-
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...
-
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?
-
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.
-
Ally
Are they definitely going to dig up Colt's 2nd green?
-
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
-
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.
-
What is happening to the current 7 and 8 on the Dunluce? It doesn't look like they are being built over or played across in anyway. Will they just allow them to be grow over or keep them as spare / practice holes. I thought the old 8th was a fantastic hole so it would be a shame to completely lose it.
-
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.
Thanks Paul. Well, that changes my thinking quite a bit. I thought The Valley was pure Colt which is very rare (not sure one example even exists) for links. Still, 5 & 6 will be very difficult to replace. In fact, I would go so far say to say that if a tandem of short yardage for 7 par is not somehow introduced as a replacement it will be a loss which cannot be properly replaced. I don't think either of the two is the best hole on the course, but as a pair they are stunning, very unusual and for me the biggest highlight of The Valley. :'(
Ciao
-
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.
Thanks Paul. Well, that changes my thinking quite a bit. I thought The Valley was pure Colt which is very rare (not sure one example even exists) for links. Still, 5 & 6 will be very difficult to replace. In fact, I would go so far say to say that if a tandem of short yardage for 7 par is not somehow introduced as a replacement it will be a loss which cannot be properly replaced. I don't think either of the two is the best hole on the course, but as a pair they are stunning, very unusual and for me the biggest highlight of The Valley. :'(
Ciao
So it sounds like the Valley will play more or less the same round to the current 16th (new 14th once 5th and 6th are removed). There will then be a new par three played uphill towards the sea followed by a par 5 played from the main dune ridge down in to the valley and green site of the current 17th. Then a new par three 17th along the main dune ridge by the sea to an existing green site from the par 3 course. Finally A new 18th playing as a 335 yard par 4 from the ridge inland to the clubhouse. Actually sounds like a good plan to me. Overall yardage remains the same. Unfortunately they will be reducing the par 3 course from 9 to 6 holes though.
-
Does anyone have recent photos of the land that shows the work in progress? Love too see the equipment being used, dirt work, and updates on the progress.