[Jeff Schley]

https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/change-for-changes-sake

Ally well done on this opinion piece, for raising the topic and stating your case. Some things that stand out:

• Aside from having their pick of the land, early course architects had one huge advantage over their modern equivalents; they weren’t bound by pre-conceptions of how a golf course should play and what it should look like. AGREE - although having your pick of land and no regulations is something I'm sure MK would have loved to have at Coul Links in Embo nowadays! 

• The same can be said with the look and feel. Presently there is a worldwide obsession (it has gone well beyond a trend) to build naturalised, frilly edged bunkers and open ‘waste’ areas. AGREE - manufactured natural features are not natural.

• Stylistically, work should be sympathetic to the individual links landscape that is presented, not a copy/paste answer to every problem posed. The new par-three fifteenth at Royal Liverpool is a spectacular addition but hopelessly out of tune with the elegant subtlety of one of England’s most understated classics, just one example of many where a dramatic photograph for the global audience is prioritised over harmony with the other seventeen holes. It would fit far more snugly in Ireland’s rugged west coast dunes, among the untamed blowouts and wild Atlantic Ocean. Disagree slightly - With your expert knowledge you can arrive at your conclusion, but will the average golfer (95% of them) have this thought in their mind ever? Also, wasn't this done to get a new back tee for the 18th? I haven't seen the new 17th, but the mounding does look a bit like point du hoc after allied bombing so a bit over the top.

• But my plea to clubs and architects alike is to pause and question the need before ploughing headfirst into major builds. Links land was formed over thousands of years and no hand of man can replicate the elements exactly. Respect the past and if work is agreed to proceed, remember that variety can be a welcome bedfellow to restraint. As Joni Mitchell once reminded us, “you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone”. AGREE - wholeheartedly, however as soon as green committees and club strongmen want to make their mark, they can't help themselves. Any change is theirs and try and improve through activity, not relishing curating what is already there.

EDIT:formatting always

[Mike Sweeney]

We’d be hard pushed to find anyone – save perhaps a direct descendent of Old Tom himself – that would argue that the changes these pioneers brought about did not vastly improve our links courses.


Ally,

Nice Melvin shoutout!! 

With my recent visit to Montauk Downs, I recognized the value of a great Greenskeeper. My guess is the "Bethpage Overflow" has helped the budget of Montauk, so they have better resources to hire staff and buy equipment. BUT, it was clear that you need a great Greenskeeper to keep the architectural changes at bay. That guy at Montauk knows his stuff...

[Tim Gallant]

A good article - Ally posted it himself here a few months back:


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67394.125.html

[Thomas Dai]

A very nicely written and thought provoking piece. Well done Ally.
Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

My compliments too, Ally: I thought that very well and smartly written. I found your nuanced 're-framing' of the first golden age most interesting: 

"By introducing the strategic school, the virtuoso architects of the roaring twenties were innovative with hole routings and hazard placements, but they were already moving away from lay-of-the land green sites to a more built solution, ‘modern’ design as Bernard Darwin called it"

What you describe seemed to be an emerging consciousness, dare I say even a self consciousness, about the art & craft of golf course architecture. I think the 'educated class' that included (earlier on) John Low and later Cambridge's Harry Colt must've played an important part in ushering in this new'modern' era - as it seems to me quite typical of university types (whether in music or film or religion or gca) to transmute the 'natural' into the 'normative'.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Peter,


Yes - These days, the Golden Age is considered as the epitome of natural design when really it was the first giant step on a path to building our golf courses rather than finding them. It was perfectly judged for sure. These guys did what they needed to do to create the best golf courses but didn’t do more than they needed to do (in essence, Tom Doak’s mantra in the modern era).


But green design and location was one area that fundamentally changed from the previous generation. And those green designs (often raised, visible, usually back to front slopes, water shedding) have become the template for all architects since in a macro-sense. It was very modern design.


It was the generation prior that were truly lay of the land. And this was what really instigated many of our quirky holes through GB&I. The golden age guys started to eradicate quirk.


Old Tom courses were examples of true minimalist design. Eddie Hackett is the only modern day equivalent. Eddie didn’t embrace quirk in the same way but he designed courses in such a way that the style was non-existent and therefore you can’t place them in any age. Ironically, his basic, very man-made looking detailing in the few places he did move earth only adds to the ageless feel.


It’s a good case study of why doing something (but knowing not to go too far and building it well) is usually needed to set up a good golf hole. That’s the Golden Age. And that’s why the heavy construction jobs that followed aren’t quite as good. They went too far… But I do pine for some of that really brave early stuff. The kind of stuff that people now mention - rather flippantly - that “you wouldn’t get away with designing that nowadays”.

[Sean_A]

Peter,


Yes - These days, the Golden Age is considered as the epitome of natural design when really it was the first giant step on a path to building our golf courses rather than finding them. It was perfectly judged for sure. These guys did what they needed to do to create the best golf courses but didn’t do more than they needed to do (in essence, Tom Doak’s mantra in the modern era).


But green design and location was one area that fundamentally changed from the previous generation. And those green designs (often raised, visible, usually back to front slopes, water shedding) have become the template for all architects since in a macro-sense. It was very modern design.


It was the generation prior that were truly lay of the land. And this was what really instigated many of our quirky holes through GB&I. The golden age guys started to eradicate quirk.


Old Tom courses were examples of true minimalist design. Eddie Hackett is the only modern day equivalent. Eddie didn’t embrace quirk in the same way but he designed courses in such a way that the style was non-existent and therefore you can’t place them in any age. Ironically, his basic, very man-made looking detailing in the few places he did move earth only adds to the ageless feel.


It’s a good case study of why doing something (but knowing not to go too far and building it well) is usually needed to set up a good golf hole. That’s the Golden Age. And that’s why the heavy construction jobs that followed aren’t quite as good. They went too far… But I do pine for some of that really brave early stuff. The kind of stuff that people now mention - rather flippantly - that “you wouldn’t get away with designing that nowadays”.

Cha ching.

Ciao

[Ben Stephens]

Ally




This is an interesting viewpoint however to me in some ways it is the antithesis of striving for design improvements. The iPhone keeps getting better should golf courses??. Its called design evolution. Sometimes designers come up with better solutions than past designers.


I think Portrush Duncluce is a much better course from my friends who are based in NI they have always said that the last two holes are a let down and the two new holes look pretty strong holes replacing short strong Colt holes on the Valley were they the 'Mona Lisa' something to really conserve - not really. The bigger picture is the economy of Portrush by having two Opens - is that more important than just saving two holes plus the Dunluce is a better and more fearsome course now suited for hosting the Open over the next 25 years. The Valley will always be second fiddle.


Hoylake to me is a bit bland and the new hole does spices up more interest like wise plus made for TV plus redirecting it to the sea. Princes' sandy waste areas is encouraged by the environment agency/Natural England and makes the course looks better aesthetically as well. Trevose is improving.


Tom Doak's work on Gunamatta course at the National in Mornington Peninsula - should Tom/Renaissance have left the course as it is? They also have added a few more holes at the Renaissance closer to the shoreline does it make the course better? 


Colt in his era question is was he respective of a past designer's work - unlikley he strived for improvement within his or club or equipment means. One wonders if Colt was alive now what would he do with some of the current courses? Should Murifield have left the Old Tom Morris layout as it is? they didn't and allowed Colt changed it quite drastically. Thats design evolution. The same happened at Birkdale, Carnoustie, Royal St Georges if they didn't change then would they host the Open now in its original form.


St Andrews is the Mona Lisa of golf courses and Prestwick did not evolve as it could have meant that it no longer hosts an Open is there scope for improvement at both - of course however its the powers in control at both chose not to do so other than lengthening it.




Cheers
Ben

[Ally Mcintosh]

Did you actually read the article, Ben? I’m not quite sure you’ve picked up on the gist of it.


Regards Portrush, the article more or less says exactly what you have said above.


What’s certain is that every potential change has to be evaluated on its own merit. There is no one size fits all.

[Ben Stephens]

Did you actually read the article, Ben? I’m not quite sure you’ve picked up on the gist of it.


Regards Portrush, the article more or less says exactly what you have said above.


What’s certain is that every potential change has to be evaluated on its own merit. There is no one size fits all.

Hi Ally,


I have read the article a few times. I just have interpreted it in a different way so hopefully I am clearer this time.


The title in some ways gives it away 'change for change sake?' and 'homogenisation' of the designs - to me is in 'some ways' antithesis of striving for design improvements. I would be pointing the finger at why architects/designers are all doing the similar approaches ie stuck in their own ways rather than new ideas ie thinking outside the box. There has been little design evolution in terms of Golf Course Design recently than other areas of Design. The word I would be using 'repetitiveness' to your 'homegenisation' 


Re Portrush - it was literally an extension of what you said in the article - it was in some ways a long term investment for not just the club but the whole town to create those new holes.


I agree with you regarding every potential or actual changes has to be evaluated on its own merit - however on the other hand there will be differences of opinions whether the previous or new version was better.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak's work on Gunamatta course at the National in Mornington Peninsula - should Tom/Renaissance have left the course as it is? They also have added a few more holes at the Renaissance closer to the shoreline does it make the course better? 

Hi Ben:


I agree with some of your points above, and disagree with others, but as it relates to my own work:


1.  The original Ocean course at The National wasn't very good, and it wasn't very popular among the members.  [The ladies liked it because there weren't too many men around.]  I was invited by the club to "fix" the problem holes, saw the opportunity to build a more natural course than the first version, and the club liked my plan.  Whether it's better or not is a matter of opinion, but the new course gets a lot more play than the old one did.


2.  For The Renaissance Club, the intention from the start [from both the client and from me] was to build some golf out in the dunes if they'd let us -- but that land was acquired AFTER the original planning permission was granted, and doing anything out there would have required going back to the planners and starting the whole process over again.  So, we resolved to build on the site we were permitted to build on, and then once we were done, go and ask for more.  I deliberately made the original design come back to the clubhouse at the 3rd green, and again at the 5th, so that if we did get planning permission for 2-3 holes in the dunes, we would be able to easily take some holes out of the routing to get back to a seamless 18.  [It got a little more complicated than that, because the new 9-10-11-12 were a four-for-two swap, but the client wanted to lose the original opening holes and not the present ones, so I had to build another par-3 hole for the new 15th.]


Note, too, we are still tinkering around with The Renaissance Club because none of us expected that it might become a long-term host for the Scottish Open, and that's become an important part of its identity now.  I hate some of the green-to-tee walks required by renumbering the holes for the tournament, but it's hard to fix that when the tournament is in mid-summer and the course needs to be perfect again for the next one!

[Ben Stephens]

Tom Doak's work on Gunamatta course at the National in Mornington Peninsula - should Tom/Renaissance have left the course as it is? They also have added a few more holes at the Renaissance closer to the shoreline does it make the course better? 

Hi Ben:


I agree with some of your points above, and disagree with others, but as it relates to my own work:


1.  The original Ocean course at The National wasn't very good, and it wasn't very popular among the members.  [The ladies liked it because there weren't too many men around.]  I was invited by the club to "fix" the problem holes, saw the opportunity to build a more natural course than the first version, and the club liked my plan.  Whether it's better or not is a matter of opinion, but the new course gets a lot more play than the old one did.


2.  For The Renaissance Club, the intention from the start [from both the client and from me] was to build some golf out in the dunes if they'd let us -- but that land was acquired AFTER the original planning permission was granted, and doing anything out there would have required going back to the planners and starting the whole process over again.  So, we resolved to build on the site we were permitted to build on, and then once we were done, go and ask for more.  I deliberately made the original design come back to the clubhouse at the 3rd green, and again at the 5th, so that if we did get planning permission for 2-3 holes in the dunes, we would be able to easily take some holes out of the routing to get back to a seamless 18.  [It got a little more complicated than that, because the new 9-10-11-12 were a four-for-two swap, but the client wanted to lose the original opening holes and not the present ones, so I had to build another par-3 hole for the new 15th.]


Note, too, we are still tinkering around with The Renaissance Club because none of us expected that it might become a long-term host for the Scottish Open, and that's become an important part of its identity now.  I hate some of the green-to-tee walks required by renumbering the holes for the tournament, but it's hard to fix that when the tournament is in mid-summer and the course needs to be perfect again for the next one!

Hi Tom,


Life would be boring if everyone agreed on everything


Re: Gunnamatta at the National judging from the aerial photos does look a more interesting course post your/Renaissance work. More importantly its how it plays on the ground and the background views which I will have to rely on others who have played it. I have played St Andrews Beach and the front nine of the Dunes (didn't play the back nine because of bad weather) in Mornington. There are differences of how each course played and SAB for was more playable and enjoyable to play. 


Always good to have forward thinking regarding long term plans - I have done similar work to make sure everything falls in place. I can understand your beef about the long walks especially the 16th to 17th tees at the Renaissance in Scottish Open format - it seems that the Scottish Open being at Renaissance more regularly on a annual basis wasn't planned for. These pros are pretty fit and used to long walks.
Having played there - a tee near the 16th green in Scottish Open format to the 17th green into a par 4 is awkward which would mean that 7th and 8th holes would have to be shortened and it would not work due to the land forms.


Hypothetical question - Muirfield if it was you would you make big changes to make course better if members asked you using the land nearer the shore (like Colt did with OTM course) or stick with the Colt plans?

[Tom_Doak]

Hypothetical question - Muirfield if it was you would you make big changes to make course better if members asked you using the land nearer the shore (like Colt did with OTM course) or stick with the Colt plans?

Muirfield is a 10 in my book [literally] so I wouldn't make big changes to it.


I don't believe they could get permission to use much of that land nearer the shore, due to the same environmental restrictions we had next door.  A lot of the land in the dunes is covered in mosses that can't be touched -- that's why the 9th at TRC is a par-3 with a 150-yard walk to the next tee, instead of a par-4 down to the shore.  But, if the land at Muirfield is buildable, I think they should just build however many holes they are allowed to.  It's a beautiful piece of ground, it deserves some golf.

[Michael Whitaker]

Ally - I enjoyed your article very much. Many of the top courses in the UK, especially the links, are signing up the same consultants for advice on “improvements.”  As a result, each of the courses is starting to take on the same look as all the others, resulting in a homogenization of styles and features. Those of us who attend the Buda and travel around the UK a fair amount have made this point often as we have seen this phenomenon progress.

A case could be made of what difference does this homogenization really mean when the vast majority of golfers don’t travel between courses and make comparisons. If the alterations are solid they should be able to stand on their own merit.

But, “uniqueness” is being slowly eradicated and that is not a good thing, I feel. 

[Mike_Young]

Ally,Enjoyed the article....

[Peter Pallotta]

Ally -

I've played the blues while thinking of nothing else but the sadness in my heart, letting my fingers move wherever instinct and the spirit took them; and I've played the blues properly, thinking about and playing only those notes that correctly fit within the standard C, F and G chord progression.
 
With the latter, the results are always good, and I almost never make a mistake; but if my wife is in the same room while I'm playing she just goes about her business, barely paying any attention.
 
With the former, the results are very uneven, and I make many mistakes, and I sometimes get lost and can't find my way back; but on occasion, when it all somehow comes together, the music is as great as I can play it, and my wife, in another room, has stopped dead in her tracks and come in to listen -- the soul of the blues coming through.

PS
(A rough analogy only, of course: I have neither the 'natural' spirit of Old Tom or Eddie Hackett, nor the 'normative' abilities of Colt or Mackenzie, both of whom had magnitudes more skill/talent at golf course architecture than I have playing the blues.)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()