Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ben Stephens on October 16, 2009, 11:29:34 AM
-
Dear GCA
Article about Road Hole to be extended for 2010 Open - FYI
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/golf/8310879.stm
-
Seems a bit silly to mention it played to the same yardage in 1900 as in 2005....of all the holes to lengthen why choose this one? Wasn't it already the most difficult hole on the course relative to par?
It also played as a par 5 in 1900 as well, I didn't see any mention of that!! ;) Yes yes I know "par" is meaningless.
But in light of this comment "This change will ensure that the hole plays as it was originally intended" -R&A chief executive Peter Dawson. As a par 5 in 1900 wouldn't many have had short iron approaches for thier 3rd? These same short iron approaches that they now seeminlgy loathe?
-
I cant really imagine where this +35 yard tee is going, maybe you can now hook it round the hotel. The 17th has played tough for always and still will. Adding length to this one seems like the work of the pickleheads. They dont like the fact the it can be reached with two irons? Why not do something with the ball !!!!!!!!!!!
-
WOW-now I know there is no god....I assume the member's tee will be unchanged for us mere mortals....
-
Adrian, it said this in the article!! Having been there, not sure if it makes any sense or not though.
"I would make a tee just beyond the railway line on the other course," he had said. "It would restore this drive to its former value."
Cotton had been talking about the Eden Course, which is now the practice range, where the new tee will be constructed, increasing the length of the Road Hole to 490 yards.
-
I was just thinking about how lengthening this hole makes a lot of sense (although less sense than a ball rollback).
The hole lost all connection to its history when it became an iron off the tee and a short iron into the green. It was particularly embarassing that they narrowed the fairway down to nothing to prevent it becoming a driver wedge hole.
-
Ok, one of you "CADD" experts needs to draw this on an aerial because the 16th green has to be in the way. And I can't see how moving it to the west of the 16th green can possibly work.
-
I've attached the following aerial showing 35 yards behind where it looks the back tee is now
-
Kalen - GREAT, thanks for posting. That was fast. It has been a few years and I had it envisioned a little differently.
-
Kalen- I am not sure thats the right angle though, that line looks more like to the 1st tee. I guess the must be 35 yards there without interfering with the 16th...will restruck viewing though and make ST A even worse to watch.
-
I would rather have a longer tee and a bigger fairway rather than thinning the fairway like last time.
-
There is space, but it's got to make the flow of spectators round that corner of the course - and especially the sixteenth green - even harder than before.
I don't really approve, but anything has to be better than the stupid collar of rough across the fairway that just shrieked 'WE ARE THE R&A AND WE HAVE SURRENDERED OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO GOVERN THIS GAME.'
Adam
-
Regarding the great Road Hole and it's influence on Championship Golf, this reminds me of a debate that was had a while ago regarding the RH bunker in anticipation for the '05 Open --
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,1922.0/
It is interesting when 'they fool around' with classic golf holes.
Thanks, Rob
-
Why isn't Melvyn fighting this one instead of worrying about what Tiger is doing? Should be right up his alley? Even down his alley, in fact.
This seems pretty out there. Though I've never played, seems pretty against what I imagine St. Andrews to be.
-
Why isn't Melvyn fighting this one instead of worrying about what Tiger is doing? Should be right up his alley? Even down his alley, in fact.
This seems pretty out there. Though I've never played, seems pretty against what I imagine St. Andrews to be.
Clint - you think hitting a wedge into the Road Hole is what St Andrews should be?
-
Fits right in with the 2nd and 14th tees.
Roll back the freaking ball. Please.
-
They could lengthen the 18th too. After all it was not a drivable green back in the day. Put the tee in the middle of the road. In fact just get rid of the road altogether and move the 17th green back. If the Egyptians and Russians could move Abu Simbel for Aswan, the R&A can move the Road Hole green and bunker. And rebuild the railroad. Install a steam whistle and record some train sounds that will play at random times to keep the golfers on their toes, just like they had to be in the old days.
-
When a hole has a 4.6 scoring average, if memory serves this is what the average was with the last BO there in '05, why the need to make it even tougher ?
If it's not broken why the need to "fiix" it ?
-
When a hole has a 4.6 scoring average, if memory serves this is what the average was with the last BO there in '05, why the need to make it even tougher ?
If it's not broken why the need to "fiix" it ?
Because the hole as it played in the last Open was tough but only because it was tricked up in a fashion directly contrary to the principles that make the course the model for most quality golf course architecture that has followed.
The course should be very strategic with an agressive tee shot taking on the OB being rewarded with a shorter approach from a better angle. Instead, strategy is pretty much dictated by the way they altered it to a layup off the tee short of where the fairway narrows and then an approach. The reason the scoring remained high is because they narrowed the fairway to 12 yards (or whatever it was) in order to prevent long drivers from having a short wedge approach.
St. Andrews should be the epitome of strategic golf that presents difficult choices but the possibility of making an agressive choice. Lengthening the hole and widening the fairway recaptures that. I would not be surprised if the scoring average goes down with the changes, but the hole should improve.
-
I think it is a good move.The tee will be more out of play for 16 than it is now.Most plays in to 16 are coming at an angle because to go straight puts you tight to the OB.
-
It's only my opinion and carries no weight, but I will say 'Forgive them Old Tom for they know not what they do'. Certainly, Peter Dawson seems totally in charge of a sinking ship.
The R&A and Peter Dawson played with the Open last year, now they are messing about with The Old Course. I would not mind if I believed it was for the overall improvement of the course, but I am willing to bet it is all about money yet again. The R&A are good at making money but very poor when it comes to knowing what they are doing.
They bought 6 Pilmour Links, my grandmother’s home and where my father grew up, yet what have they done to it but destroy the rear and turn the house into old offices. No clear plan or imagination, in fact they were going to extend it to the back of Old Tom’s shop but the family managed to stop them. Therefore, we should not expect too much from them regards the course. It’s a question of real forward planning and understand what they are trying to achieve. My feeling is that they don’t really know themselves, they are slow they dither and should have grasped the nettle years ago – as Bill so reasonably put it ‘ Roll back the freaking ball. Please’. Alas Bill they have not woken up to that possibility yet and I swear as I have said before that some Members still believe Old Tom is still alive, One day the penny may drop and they may remember that they once were in charge of the game. Regrettable I fear their days are numbered and quite rightly so.
The answer I feel rests with the ball or as some call it ‘roll back’. The distance the ball travels will maintain the current lengths of courses rather than force clubs to keep adding yardage to their holes and the expense that places on each club. It’s an easy cop out to keep extending, no cost to the R&A but to everyone else and ultimately the poor golfer who has to foot all the bills. However very clever to place the blame on old Henry Cotton if its not liked.
Bring the game into disrepute, maybe the charge that either wakes them up or ends this nightmare. The day must be near when that charge will be placed at their door.
Actually, I do not want to say, “Forgive them Old Tom for they know not what they do”, they do know what they are doing but don’t realise the error of their ways.
Adam posted “'WE ARE THE R&A AND WE HAVE SURRENDERED OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO GOVERN THIS GAME.'” , yes I go alone with that and totally endorse it, however I would love to see them take real control and do what is required to save the game we know today as golf. The talent is there to do the job, so come on lets have a total reshuffle of the Team with people that will listen and know what is good for the game, not just the R&A.
The answer I feel rests with the ball or as some call it ‘roll back’. The distance the ball travels will maintain the current lengths of courses rather than force clubs to keep adding yardage to their holes and the expense that places on each club. It’s an easy cop out to keep extending, no cost to the R&A but to everyone else and ultimately the poor golfer who has to foot all the bills.
Melvyn
-
When a hole has a 4.6 scoring average, if memory serves this is what the average was with the last BO there in '05, why the need to make it even tougher ?
If it's not broken why the need to "fiix" it ?
Agreed
-
I would not be surprised if the scoring average goes down with the changes, but the hole should improve.
This is one of the most astute comments I have ever read on GCA.com.
Yes, the hole will improve (especially with the widening of the fairway in the new landing zone), but if the average score of #17 over the course of the tournament does indeed drop, would the R&A consider the change a success? My guess is "no".
-
What's annoying me the most is the seemingly uncaring desecration (okay, maybe a bit strong, but!) of the adjacent courses in the name of 'improving' the Old Course.
If TOC is actually SO poor at providing a Championship venue, then why not go elsewhere or build a new one? Or just blow apart one of the adjacent courses and remake TOC as a NEW Championship venue? THEN AGAIN!!!! why not just frikkin fix the ball and/or the clubs to suit. Have the R£A (sic) really NO IDEA? I begin to think more so. Yet, I know so many members who care. Where is the disconnect?
Ah, but the Eden has been so raped and ravished that another despoilment won't hurt her any more, will it? WTF is Eddie when he's needed? Kicked upstairs to the European Tour or simply 'disappeared?' St Andrews. Once again. I despair. FWIW.
FBD.
-
The R&A have absolutely no qualms with forcing changes on our classic links. Hoylake being the most blatant. But all of them have been altered apart from Troon and Muirfield. Muirfield will no doubt go under the knife in the next year or two, with bunkers being added to tighten the entrances.
It would have to be a radical change in the ball to make a difference that's meaningful. Something like reducing the max ball mass by 30%
-
The irony/tragedy/comedy of this latest desecration is that the R£A (I like that Marty!) has now regressed (with the collusion of the Link$ Tru$t) to putting a tee on a driving range that used to be the opening and closing holes of a great golf course (The Eden) that they desecrated to put in that driving range!
Where are Monty Python when we need them.... :'(
-
I think it is a good move.The tee will be more out of play for 16 than it is now.Most plays in to 16 are coming at an angle because to go straight puts you tight to the OB.
I have not played TOC, but are they going to make the 17th Tee a highly unusual OB for the 16th? If not, it seems to me that this change will alter the character of the 16th totally, as immediately to the right of the green is not OB anymore.
-
Chistian
The character of the 16th was changed from its original "design" many years ago when they created that OB to the right. ~100 years ago James Braid had to play his ball off the (then) railroad track on his way to one of his 5 Open wins. Also, the same problem has been extant on the 14th for the past 5 years, where the back tee is now on the Eden Course. Not sure what the ruling for a topped drive would be, however.....
Rich
-
I would not be surprised if the scoring average goes down with the changes, but the hole should improve.
Why do you think scoring may go down?
-
I think this is an excellent move, provided the landing area is of reasonable width. The setup last time was a debacle.
-
If this is an excellent move then an even more excellent move would be to put it back another 70-100 yards and again play the hole as a par 5 in a major championship. They've got the room to do it, it won't take any extra time for the pros to play as they're banked up anyway. The Hotel could then hold centre stage in the world's newest Alps hole.
-
I was just thinking about how lengthening this hole makes a lot of sense (although less sense than a ball rollback).
The hole lost all connection to its history when it became an iron off the tee and a short iron into the green. It was particularly embarassing that they narrowed the fairway down to nothing to prevent it becoming a driver wedge hole.
Jason
I totally agree with you. To me this move is a fairly benign in terms of the kind of changes that happen elsewhere. It will make the hole play a bit more like it was before. Why all the shrieking at the R&A on this, I really don't know. Its a "no brainer" as they say in the colonies.
As for the width of the fairway, I would actually widen it on the left to give the players a bail-out but one which gives them a much harder shot in due to the road hole bunker. As I write this I realise I'm arguing for widening a fairway, oh dearie me, obviously too many drinks last night.
BTW, the new tee is going to be located over the OB line. So do the players start the 17th with a penalty shot ?
Niall
-
If this is an excellent move then an even more excellent move would be to put it back another 70-100 yards and again play the hole as a par 5 in a major championship. They've got the room to do it, it won't take any extra time for the pros to play as they're banked up anyway. The Hotel could then hold centre stage in the world's newest Alps hole.
Excellent suggestion Sean!
Another alternative would be to play it from the forward tees as a long par three.....now that would test their metals!
-
Why not move the hotel 20 yards to the right and put a pond infront of the green and then make the hole a par 2 to reduce the amount of birdies...
-
why not build a balcony tee off the hotel and hold long drive championships? :'( :'(
-
Niall
I believe that the R&A, being the Governing body of our Game of Golf has caused most of our current problems by their inability to react or to utilise the new technologies dating back to events after WW1. This was the period, you may recall through your searches when much was discussed about the ball. The R&A being left well behind the USGA and never seem to have caught up let alone taken control of the situation.
The answer has never been the need to extend the length of each hole or to strive ever forward to 8,000 – 10,000 yard course. Two rounds of 10,000yards each that is a challenge. The answer is in the ability to understand and take control of the new technologies, incorporate them within the game without the need of vast financial commitments in minor/major course modifications.
I keep asking myself and others why is it only golf that has to change its playing fields. We have not seen much change in Football (UK & American), Rugby, I believe that also applies to Tennis, Basketball, Baseball to name but a few, so why do we accept it in Golf?
Pray tell me what real advantage do we get by constantly increasing the length of our courses apart from great big bills to undertake the work. The answer is none, the control of the game has slipped out the back door or perhaps I should say the equipment manufactures sneaked in without the Governing Bodies noticing and have taken the real control of the game. Its their need to sell equipment that drives the constant changing of our courses, they are keen to see ball travel increase, as last year equipment is now out of date and will not give the same help in hitting the fairway in say two. They, the equipment manufacture are in control. Try to change the rules and guess what you may have a court case on your hands. So much for some manufacturers caring about the game millions love, its just down to pure money and our Governing Bodies never saw it coming. There is a simple way for the Governing Bodies to regain the initiative, ask the golfers to boycott those manufacturers that will not work with us. Lost orders always send an alarm call to the shareholders so taking our Governing Bodies to court will just add to their loss of sales. No sales, no money for legal costs. Yet we need to work with all ,if possible, the manufactures, the courses, the governing Bodies and last but certainly not least the Average Golfer. No I would and do not include the professionals, they have gone alone with them being paid by the manufacturers (a simple and clear conflict of interest).
We have the Technology (as an old TV show use to say), so rather than rebuild courses why not control and incorporate it within the equipment, maintaining the status quo. IMHO, the game needs consistency, that in twenty years time I can play the same courses and still be able to evaluate my game, on a hole-by-hole basis, but with these (what appear to be) constant changes its impossible. However, I can still judge how my athletics compare, the long & high jumps, all distance and other field events (rather poor compared to my teens).
Why do we need to keep increasing our courses - is it perhaps that our Governing Body just donot care, because that is the message I get. They seem to want to control the cash and seem to have forgotten their responsibility of MAINTAINING the game of Golf. Perhaps the biggest shame is that they have experience and quality individuals who know the game and have the ability to control the game by fast and prompt action, alas, they may never get the chance.
I am looking forward to the time when the Links Trust feels the need to lengthen the 1st Hole on TOC, utilising the same train of thought as the Road Hole by deciding to pull back the 1st Tee by 20-35 yard. Wonder if the R&A will agree so readily to that one.
Burying your head in the sand (in this case the Road Hole Bunker) is no way to behave if you are meant to be Governing the Game of Golf. Then why should the R&A break with this tradition, perhaps, just perhaps for the sack of Golf, the game, which you have a responsibility to protect.
School Report on the R&A
Inattentive on the core subject matters, however skilful on generating money.
When Tested on the core subject seem to have learnt very little over the last term of 100 years
Concerns as to it having a future on its core subject in golf but expect will do well away from the game
Needs to vastly improve its communicative skills or may find itself alienated from the game of golf.
Like a Policeman when we need one they are never there, wonder if that will be the epitaph for The Royal & Ancient. I sincerely hope not, I would dearly love to see them face up to the current problems with real strength and determination to put Golf back into the Game. If they did, I would go as far as to forgive them for what they have done to my father’s old home 6 Pilmour Links (Old Tom’s old house and the home where Young Tommy died). Let me tell you that is a massive gesture of forgiveness on my part.
Melvyn
-
BTW, the new tee is going to be located over the OB line. So do the players start the 17th with a penalty shot ?
Sure, just like they already did - 2005 - on #2 (tee on the Himalayas) and #14 (tee on the Eden course). ;D
-
Melvyn
One thing I've learned from looking through the archives that the ever increasing distance of the golf ball and changes to equipment has been a constant concern right through the ages and not just after WW1 and now.
You've clearly got your own personal reasons for not liking the R&A but I think it unfair to blame them for allowing every innovation which you don't agree with. I can still recall learning the game with as a young sprog when I was given a random collection of cut down hickories with leather strap grips and finding it near impossible to get the bloody ball of the ground. Not all innovation is bad IMHO.
What the R&A is proposing brings the hole more in line with the way your ancestor had it playing, and it does so without requiring to bugger about the rest of the course or any other course for that matter. An elegant solution when all things considered.
Niall
-
Niall- I think the problem with this new 17th tee, is it does bugger up 16 a bit for the purpose of viewing and ofcourse extends the OB. I suppose you could make a case that no one goes out of bounds on 16 anyway with the second shots. With mowing surely the intent of the second shot could be preserved so as the players were hitting mid irons say 180-200 out, which for good players is what its all about. If they hit an iron to get to the same place as this new +35 tee, this could be the final straw in the usefulness of the old lady if there is no roll back and in all honesty probably 95% of ALL courses for the top end players.
-
Adrian
It will be interesting to see what will happen next year. Taking the tee back 35 yards could maybe add 50/60 yards onto the hole as players might not be able to cut the corner so much. It will also test their mettle that bit more as its harder to make an agressive play ie. tighter line off the tee, with the driver in your hand rather than a long iron which I guess is the design intent as well.
But you're right, there's not much more that could be done before technology "advances" make it a completely different hole to what it was/is.
Niall
-
I do find it a touch ironic in light of the above comments, that Old Toms acceptance of a better ball was really where the whole arms race started. ;D
-
Here is what the pros think of the Road Hole extension proposal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/golf/8312686.stm
Cheers
Ben
-
Can someone remind me how many & how many times do the Pro’s play TOC each year.
Just trying to balance the revenue, they pay against the non-professionals golfers. I would, at a guess say it is not that much compared to the ordinary golfers, so why the hell are we changing the course for The Open. Not being a private course is it right to tinker for the sake of a few?
My view – leave it well alone and control the distance the ball travels – an issue nearly a century old and getting worse not to mention bloody expensive having to keep modifying the courses.
Kalen
As for the balls, have you ever seen a feathery ball, what it looks like if wet and after being well hit. Not forgetting they were also very expensive. The Gutta Percha gave stability to the ball for half a century and kept the price down.
Melvyn
-
How often are the Open tees used for daily play?
-
Just trying to balance the revenue, they pay against the non-professionals golfers. I would, at a guess say it is not that much compared to the ordinary golfers, so why the hell are we changing the course for The Open. Not being a private course is it right to tinker for the sake of a few?
How often are the Open tees used for daily play?
Never - they're only used for professionals and amateurs in the Links Trophy (which has a handicap cutoff of +2). They are not changing the course for anyone else. For Melvyn to suggest they are "tinker[ing] for the sake of a few" is laughable and false.
My view – leave it well alone and control the distance the ball travels – an issue nearly a century old and getting worse not to mention bloody expensive having to keep modifying the courses.
A completely unrealistic position. If the USGA and R&A decided this minute that they wanted to roll back the ball, there is no prospect of the new ball regime being in place by the time of next year's Open.
Hopefully by the time of the next St Andrews Open (2015), they'll have done what they must do, and new tees, ridiculous mowing lines etc won't be necessary.
-
Chris
You have totally confused me by your statement
“They are not changing the course for anyone else. For Melvyn to suggest they are "tinker[ing] for the sake of a few" is laughable and false”
If they are not changing the course for anyone else then why is my comment ‘for the sake of a few’ laughable and false’. It seems to me that is precisely what is being done.
‘completely unrealistic position’ Sorry Chris, how can it be, I would not expect things to change overnight. Using a little common sense, we cannot keep extending our courses for The Few. Golf is for all golfers, not just the lucky few who make a living off the professional game. I believe that not taking control and saving our current and old courses is a completely unrealistic position. That is what happens when you put money before the game.
To do nothing but pamper the Professionals is a dereliction of duty.
Melvyn
PS My concern is for the game and the ordinary golfers not the professionals who live off it do not come into play IMHO until we have catered for the average golfer who tends to foot the final bill for all the changes etc. They are the real share/stock holders of the game and the power force who should have a say in what is done to their courses.
-
Chris
You have totally confused me by your statement
“They are not changing the course for anyone else. For Melvyn to suggest they are "tinker[ing] for the sake of a few" is laughable and false”
If they are not changing the course for anyone else then why is my comment ‘for the sake of a few’ laughable and false’. It seems to me that is precisely what is being done.
I'm not sure what is confusing Melvyn. The 'tinkering' involves building a new tee, which will be used for a couple of weeks each year. It won't have any impact whatsoever on those who play the course the other fifty weeks. The cost of building that tee will be a minuscule part of the tournament budget.
‘completely unrealistic position’ Sorry Chris, how can it be, I would not expect things to change overnight. Using a little common sense, we cannot keep extending our courses for The Few. Golf is for all golfers, not just the lucky few who make a living off the professional game. I believe that not taking control and saving our current and old courses is a completely unrealistic position. That is what happens when you put money before the game.
Thanks for taking what I said out of context...
How can it be? Lets start with some simple mathematics - according to the official website of the Open Championship, there are 269 days until play commences at St Andrews. Rolling back the ball is simply not a viable option in the context of that tournament (which is the subject of this thread, after all). I fully agree that the R&A and USGA should take control and save our traditional courses...but unfortunately they don't have a time machine - its too late for the 2010 Open.
PS My concern is for the game and the ordinary golfers not the professionals who live off it do not come into play IMHO until we have catered for the average golfer who tends to foot the final bill for all the changes etc. They are the real share/stock holders of the game and the power force who should have a say in what is done to their courses.
In general I would agree with you, but not on this occasion - this change has no impact on the average golfer.
-
Chris
Excuse me but it would seem we agree. As for time scale for changes I have not stated any and would not expect much to be done by 2010 – come on mate we are dealing with the R&A.
I do not see why you thought my comment was laughable and false, but that’s your right.
My interest is the game. The Professionals are the elite who at times, I wonder if they are deserving of the money they receive. That with the thought of what is being done to our old courses for the privilege of watching them, well I believe that is questionable. As for the cost, be it minor or not I feel it would be more appropriate to offer golfers a free day of Golf on TOC than spend or waste (depending upon your point of view) the money for something that will only be occasionally used. Why not some compensation for spending money on the Pro’s, why not give something back to the poor sods who pay a lot of money to play TOC – why not have a few free days of golf for Mr & Mrs Average Golfer - don’t they deserve to be considered or are they just to be regarded as the financiers of the game for the privileged few.
I am trying to look at the overall picture relating to the game of golf, I have little time for the PGA, for they tend to look after themselves.
Melvyn
-
Niall,
An extra 35 yards will not add 50-60yards. I have never seen any pro have any difficulty whatsoever in clearing the hotel. In fact I remember Clarke and Westwood having a bit of fun drawing it over and around the hotel in a practice round.
-
Perhaps some of you more familiar with the Old Course can comment on this. With several holes being lengthened for the 2005 Open, isn't it now the case that many drives now need to be hit in a direction that passes over the previous green? Isn't the whole character of the course being altered, when one starts making these very slight changes in the routing?
It's quite clear why the R&A are making these changes; the Road Hole does not play the way it used to. Isn't this an admission on their own part that they have lost control of the game of golf? Be prepared to see more tinkering of the Old Course in the coming years, as the R&A needs the Open at St. Andrews. It would be a real own goal by the R&A, if at some stage, it was decided that the Old Course would not host the Open, due to it's inability to test the professionals. But that day will come, unless the R&A take action. In some ways, the R&A are just putting off the inevitable.
On the practical side, there must be a limit as to how much more they can stretch the Old Course (and the other courses on the Open rota).
Be thankful that it's only the length of the course that is being altered. At least the course can be shortened if they ever take some decision on the ball issue. It would be a terrible situation if they started moving bunkers or reshaping the greens on the Old Course.
Dónal.
-
A report from a newspaper from Dec 1898 on the R&A performance in looking after the game
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/ReportonTheRA16-12-1898_edited.jpg)
No change there, I suppose they are constant in their failing to act, that's now over 101 years - fine record of care IMHO
Melvyn
-
Perhaps some of you more familiar with the Old Course can comment on this. With several holes being lengthened for the 2005 Open, isn't it now the case that many drives now need to be hit in a direction that passes over the previous green? Isn't the whole character of the course being altered, when one starts making these very slight changes in the routing?
It's quite clear why the R&A are making these changes; the Road Hole does not play the way it used to. Isn't this an admission on their own part that they have lost control of the game of golf? Be prepared to see more tinkering of the Old Course in the coming years, as the R&A needs the Open at St. Andrews. It would be a real own goal by the R&A, if at some stage, it was decided that the Old Course would not host the Open, due to it's inability to test the professionals. But that day will come, unless the R&A take action. In some ways, the R&A are just putting off the inevitable.
On the practical side, there must be a limit as to how much more they can stretch the Old Course (and the other courses on the Open rota).
Be thankful that it's only the length of the course that is being altered. At least the course can be shortened if they ever take some decision on the ball issue. It would be a terrible situation if they started moving bunkers or reshaping the greens on the Old Course.
Dónal.
Donal- I agree totally that the R&A by having or trying to do what they are doing have effectively lost control of governing the game.
Many of the newer tees drive over corners of greens or intrude onto the other courses, I guess the 10th could go back another 50 yards, 8 and 9 aswell, infact I am suprised 8 has never been put back. The 15th and 16th are long walk backs and would intrude a lot if they were tees more in general use. I cant quite get the 17th extension, are we going to see a 100 yard add on to the 18th next so it crosses 17. The 'intent' of the old lady is being destroyed in my opinion not 'restored' as would be their statement.
-
Perhaps some of you more familiar with the Old Course can comment on this. With several holes being lengthened for the 2005 Open, isn't it now the case that many drives now need to be hit in a direction that passes over the previous green? Isn't the whole character of the course being altered, when one starts making these very slight changes in the routing?
It's quite clear why the R&A are making these changes; the Road Hole does not play the way it used to. Isn't this an admission on their own part that they have lost control of the game of golf? Be prepared to see more tinkering of the Old Course in the coming years, as the R&A needs the Open at St. Andrews. It would be a real own goal by the R&A, if at some stage, it was decided that the Old Course would not host the Open, due to it's inability to test the professionals. But that day will come, unless the R&A take action. In some ways, the R&A are just putting off the inevitable.
On the practical side, there must be a limit as to how much more they can stretch the Old Course (and the other courses on the Open rota).
Be thankful that it's only the length of the course that is being altered. At least the course can be shortened if they ever take some decision on the ball issue. It would be a terrible situation if they started moving bunkers or reshaping the greens on the Old Course.
Dónal.
Donal, none of those new Open tees require a drive over the previous green, but they did have to go outside the boundaries of the course to do so. Luckily the Links trust own the neighboring land. #2 is on the Himalayas, #14 is on the Eden course. I guess the new #17 will be on the practice ground that was the Eden but not sure.
-
Perhaps some of you more familiar with the Old Course can comment on this. With several holes being lengthened for the 2005 Open, isn't it now the case that many drives now need to be hit in a direction that passes over the previous green? Isn't the whole character of the course being altered, when one starts making these very slight changes in the routing?
It's quite clear why the R&A are making these changes; the Road Hole does not play the way it used to. Isn't this an admission on their own part that they have lost control of the game of golf? Be prepared to see more tinkering of the Old Course in the coming years, as the R&A needs the Open at St. Andrews. It would be a real own goal by the R&A, if at some stage, it was decided that the Old Course would not host the Open, due to it's inability to test the professionals. But that day will come, unless the R&A take action. In some ways, the R&A are just putting off the inevitable.
On the practical side, there must be a limit as to how much more they can stretch the Old Course (and the other courses on the Open rota).
Be thankful that it's only the length of the course that is being altered. At least the course can be shortened if they ever take some decision on the ball issue. It would be a terrible situation if they started moving bunkers or reshaping the greens on the Old Course.
Dónal.
Donal, none of those new Open tees require a drive over the previous green, but they did have to go outside the boundaries of the course to do so. Luckily the Links trust own the neighboring land. #2 is on the Himalayas, #14 is on the Eden course. I guess the new #17 will be on the practice ground that was the Eden but not sure.
Bill what you say is true but many of the new teeing areas are definitely in range for a miss hit approach shot. Tiger will not be on his best behaviour if he gets hit by someone in a later group.
Apparently the preferred route for many pro's on 17 is to go long and left and chip up from there. This means the R&A can’t use the slightly longer set of tees area on 18. I played my last round with the 18th longer for me than it will be for the flat bellies.
Perhaps someone with better knowledge or an aerial can check. I believe that they will be walking back to their tees on 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and now 17. Once upon a time TOC was the inspiration to the world of what a golf course might be.
-
The 18th actually used to be longer, there was a tee at 380 yards that I think a big scoreboard goes there now. This tee was toward the 1st green.
Quite a few holes on the front nine do drive over the edges of the greens, especially if you are aiming more centrally, the 10th does aswell and the 16th goes over the corner of 15, it probably does not matter for the Open, if it was normal play it would be a no-no.
-
Bill / Tony:
There is a good link to TOC on the PGA European Tour web page.
http://www.europeantour.com/default.sps?pagegid=%7BAEFB93B0%2DEFF5%2D4C05%2DAB0F%2DFD08D947D944%7D&eventid=2009082&infosid=29&displaycourse=1
It may not be 100% accurate, but it looks like the 12th green/13th tee and 15th green/16th tees are a bit too close for comfort. I don't think it would be safe to putt on the 15th while a player even as good as Tiger is teeing from the 16th. Also, the majority of the tee shots on 16 are hit to the left.
Adrian:
I agree. This would only be allowed in pro and top amateur events.
Dónal.
-
I really don't understand what they are trying to accomplish. Currently, they play to the are just before the "neck" 250-260 yds. If the move the tee back they are still hitting to the same place, just with a bit longer club. When I played, I hit a 5 wood over the hotel cause I couldn't get my driver up that fast. I wish I could of played from further back, with driver, the hole would have played much shorter.
Instead of changing something that will have little or no impact on scoring, they should leave the tees alone and consider temporarily building up the hotel/signage. Then they could just remove it after the Open as to not impact the public. Wasn't the inital premise was to have to hitaround the train barns? By eliminating the "over" route, they would have to shpe it around the corner. Too striaght and your'e in the gunch, overcook it and it's OB (and in someones pint).
And since they seem intent on making eevery tee a walkback, lets put #18 next to the #17 fairway bunker. That would put Grannie Clark's Wynd at about 300. Still a very easy high iron/wedge for the pros and wouldn't do much to impact scores but...hey.. it would be longer!
-
I hate to admit it, but I'm really starting to side with Melvyn here...The pros are mucking up our game completely. Between the arms race for distance, making all our classic courses obsolete, lift-clean-and place and 5 hour rounds, someone has got to take charge of this thing...
-
I really don't understand what they are trying to accomplish. Currently, they play to the are just before the "neck" 250-260 yds. If the move the tee back they are still hitting to the same place, just with a bit longer club. When I played, I hit a 5 wood over the hotel cause I couldn't get my driver up that fast. I wish I could of played from further back, with driver, the hole would have played much shorter.
This "neck" and narrow strip of fairway leading to the green looks awful. What are they up to??
Dónal.
PS. Today I was promoted from Newbie to Jr :D
-
Don’t worry Dónal, we will still treat you as a newbie and forgive you your sins for a little longer.
Melvyn
-
Niall,
An extra 35 yards will not add 50-60yards. I have never seen any pro have any difficulty whatsoever in clearing the hotel. In fact I remember Clarke and Westwood having a bit of fun drawing it over and around the hotel in a practice round.
Sean
Perhaps. If they are long enough to stay on the same line as before but I imagine they will be playing more at an angle and therefore playing away from the hole more hence 35 yards becomes 50 or 60. Remember its easier to take a tight line with a 3 wood or long iron but how many pro's are going to take the tiger line with a driver in their hand, especially at a blind hole ?
Niall
-
I hate to admit it, but I'm really starting to side with Melvyn here...The pros are mucking up our game completely. Between the arms race for distance, making all our classic courses obsolete, lift-clean-and place and 5 hour rounds, someone has got to take charge of this thing...
Jud,
I'm not seeing how this is the pros fault...they just play with the technology given them.
Its the ruling bodies that are at fault for not taking the bull by the horns and standing thier ground on what is and isn't allowed. We have clear examples of other sports that have done this like baseball.
Furthermore, if all of the Tours would stand up to thier stars and not give in to thier whining and sniveling about green undulation, green speeds, conditioning, perfect and fair setups, etc, etc....then ultimatly they would stop complaining because in the end they have no where else to play.
The tour players are no different than a 3 yr old child....they will try to get away with everything and anything in the abscence of good-parenting and being told no on occasion.
-
Jason:
I read you answer and can remember seeing aerials in which the fairway area was narrowed appreciably as per your statement in response to my question.
But, my issue remains -- why the need for even greater distance?
OK -- so they widen the fairway to an appropriate amount -- 25-30 yards and let it go at that. Yes, some of the boys can hit driver and if they hit it soundly and on the direct line can have a short iron -- even a SW at times but so what? How many more birdies would be made given the demands the existing approach presents?
Here's what people forget -- if conditions allow for it -- the score will be low -- see Tiger's total in 2000 -- however, if conditions become more demanding the result is the scoring one saw with JD's win in '95. It's time for people to get off the scoring phobia -- The Open is always related to the elements.
Gents:
For those who are championing the ball rollback option it's akin to seeing Loch Ness -- never going to happen. If people were to read comments from former USGA equipment guru Frank Thomas they would note that in his mind - the limits of just how far the ball can go is already taking place -- see corresponding driving distance figures on the PGA Tour.
The time for a correction has long since past -- and for the well meant / well intentioned folks here arguing for a ball rollback the idea that not only equipment companies will do so willingly and that the bulk of the golfing audience will accept such a remedy is truly a stretch in my mind. Elvis has indeed left the building ...
-
[/quote]
Matt: I'm not sure the point of my post sunk in with you. For me, scoring average is irrelevant. What is important is having an interesting decision off the tee and then another interesting decision for the approach. Squeezing the fairway off the tee limits options off the tee to one - a layup. Increased driving distance reduces the interest on the approach. Thus, if there is no ball rollback, I favor lengthening the hole and widening the fairway. As I indicated in my initial post - those changes might result in a reduction in scoring average. Nonetheless, if players approach the hole using a variety of strategies, I would view the change as an improvement.
I tend to agree with your view that the cat is already out of the bag as far as driving distance and that the damage has largely already been done. Nonetheless, I would still prefer a rollback than to force the world's best to play the Old Course by walking backwards and to the right after finishing each hole.
-
Jason:
Scoring average is relevant but I do agree that the R&A's manipulation of the hole allowed for such a situation to happen in '05. The hole would still play tough if they opened up slightly the fairway corridor previously mentioned because the target one is attempting to hit is not e-z by any means, as you well know.
If you want an "interesting decision off the tee" then allow the fairway width to be something in which the top players will possibly go with driver -- say 25-30 yards at a minimum. The idea that the hole needs to be lengthened and at the same time still neck the fairway width to what it was in '05 is inane in my mind.
Top pros aren't stupid -- give them a 50/50 chance with the driver and there will be those who will opt to go with it. If there's no real gain that can be made they will lay back and as a result the inherent joys of such a hole are completely aborted through man's ignorant hand.
You say "(I)ncreased driving distance reduces the interest on the approach." Really? How bout the fact that it takes a certain tee shot -- both the line of attack and overall distance gained from hitting it correctly. If such a player is able to do so (no automatic by any means) -- then they should, IMHO, benefit from a much easier angle / distance to the green -- even if that means 2-3 players will hit PW or something close to that. Even with that the nature of the hole and the accompanying pressure in playing it down the stretch of any Open can immobilize just about any player.
Let me point out again -- that overall distances gained off the tee have stabilized in the most recent data -- over the last 4-5 years.
By the way -- as I said before -- the R&A and USGA get too hung up on scores at times. TOC is a layout that in so many ways is dictated by wind and current weather conditions. When Daly won in '95 there wasn't the low scores because of Mother's Nature involvement. When the wind dropped in 2000 Tiger and a number of other players went to town. Both events were well received and enjoyed by most golf fans.
I guess we just see things a bit differently but I can thoroughly understand where you are coming from.
The rollback you and others are advocating is a wonderful concept but I believe the gains made just after the introduction of such balls as the Pro VI and ProVIx are now stablized if one were to assess the most recent data. If the wherewithal to minimize spin control is effectuated, as many believe it will, the net effect will be able to make players adjust in more meaningful ways than just a simple rollback of distance, in my opinion.
-
Let me point out again -- that overall distances gained off the tee have stabilized in the most recent data -- over the last 4-5 years.
Matt you are ignoring so many things with this comment.
- As was pointed out on another thread the Pro's are now frequently using their 3W off the tee, often for a 275 yard carry and that is recorded as a driver figure. There is a certain irony in this. When it first became clear how far the ProV1 generation of balls flew a number of well known figures in Golf called for a minimum loft on Drivers, shorter shafts and smaller heads. Today courses play so short that Pro golfers frequently choose to ignore the driver on holes that were designed as a test for the big dog.
- A couple of years ago I was watching when they announced Tiger hit the green with a 9i from 180 yards. I.e. it’s not just about the driver.
- Many pro tour events are a succession of Driver (3W ;) ) / wedge holes. Even in the right conditions, the 17th TOC.
- The next generation of players will be even straighter with the Driver. That is what they’ve been brought up on.
- Optimisation continues.
Measuring the driver distance on two holes a week is irrelevant to the argument. So keep pointnig that out but it doesn't address the problem. The haskell came in prior to WW1 but it's true effect on courses became clear in the 1920's and 30's. We've had the Pro V1 and optimisation for less than a decade and the ramifications on course design are becoming ever clearer and they haven't finished tinkering with the courses have they?
-
Niall,
If I get the argument for change correctly then they will be lengthening the hole in lieu of tightening the neck. So there won't be as much rough to drive into with what will probably still be only a 3 wood in their hands.
I could actually understand their strategic objective if they did move the tee back 70-100 yards because this would leave the pros with something more than a 8i in.
If what you say is true and there is a net 50 yard effect (which I don't believe is right), the only players effected will be the shorter hitters.
Tony,
That line in to the left of the road hole is a beauty for a low single figure golfer when the pin is anywhere behind or left of the bunker. I only managed to convince one of the players I caddied for to use it but it worked a treat..
-
Let me point out again -- that overall distances gained off the tee have stabilized in the most recent data -- over the last 4-5 years.
The rollback you and others are advocating is a wonderful concept but I believe the gains made just after the introduction of such balls as the Pro VI and ProVIx are now stablized if one were to assess the most recent data.
[quote/]
Matt, why does the fact "the gains have stabilized" remove the need to roolback the ball?
People are not saying the ball should be rolled back because it keeps getting longer every year. No, the problem is that is already goes too far without any further increases and therefore to preserve the game and the courses we play on, the ball needs to be rolled back.
Do I think it will ever happen? No way. But I wish it would anyway.
-
Here's an aerial of a 490 yard 17th that preserves the angle of the tee shot. The tee could be accommodated easily by rerouting the RR path around it to the west or by just playing over it. The turning point is 300 yards, so the narrowing of the fairway isn't really in the LZ. The fairway could be widened in that neck. Seems to me that that those than carry it 300 yards will bound on and through the fairway into the rough anyway. Those bailing left with a 3 wood or long iron would be faced with a second shot over 200 yards, although much of the length discussion is academic since it is often windy there. Into the wind, they don't need to move the tee back. With the wind, it's going to be a short and easier second, unless they drive it through the fairway into the rough.
To the wailers of desecration, could you look at the aerial and tell me how the tournament tee is a desecration of #2. Can you even see it. It is arguably more out of range of the first green than the old #2 tee; it doesn't require a drive across an edge of the first green. So what if the players of the open championship have to walk back to it. Does it ever get used other than in major tournaments? Have any of you actually played the tournament tees? Have you seen any of them? Most, if not all, are pretty much out of sight and out of mind for us regular people playing the visitor tees. At worst they are low profile desecrations. Nobody seems to consider the road hole bunker a desecration and it has been rebuilt a number of times and looks quite different than it used to.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/StAndrews17.jpg)
-
Bryan,
I think most of us agree that this particular tee in and of itself isn't much of a problem, it's just a question of where does it all end and is anyone going to take control of the situation...
-
I think that graphic shows how silly it is. Now viewing is further restricted for green 16. The pickleheads are doing all they can to make the old lady redundant.
-
I got the impression that many on here don't like this particular tee. For me, the tournament tees on any and all holes on TOC are not an issue. You can't generally see them when playing. They don't disfigure the course. And, I'm never going to play them. So what's the issue? It all ends when the powers that be at golf courses decide that they don't need extra length to protect par from a minuscule percentage of their playing population.
-
For those who like stats, I have done some research into the difficulty of the Road Hole over the past few Open Championships.
1970= 4.62
1978= 4.82
1984= 4.79
1990= 4.65
1995= 4.62
2000= 4.71
2005= 4.63
In all of these Opens, this hole was the most difficult on the course. I suspect the new tee will preserve this holes infamous difficulty. But will it make it more interesting? No less interesting I would think.
And, what will the average score on the hole be in....
2010=????
(NB- I think it is interesting that the hole played harder in 2000 than 1995 considering the improvements in equipment by then and the much better weather in 2000.)
scott
-
Scott:
Looking at your statistics, I'm wondering why the tee is necessary to preserve the hole's difficulty? The scoring average for the last event was 4.63, same as 1970 and 1995.
I gave the writer from The Times of London a juicier quote about it this morning.
-
Scott:
Thanks for posting the stroke average / re: 17th Hole. As Tom D mentioned I don't see the need to simply add more yards for the sake of yards. Simply open up the driving area so that players will give thought to actually using the driver. Sometimes the simplest cure is the most obvious one and one which is not unnatural.
Tony:
Allow me to try to answer your last comments ...
Too many people get panicky about overall distance and simply weigh in with the likes of Bubba Watson, J B Holmes, and others of this type. You would think that EVERYONE is hitting the ball 300+ yards on the fly all the time. That is not the case.
Tony, let's be clear who is using the 3-metal clubs you referenced. It's the already longest 5% of the players -- the rest are reaching for the big stick. In regards to player's loft -- usually you see them hitting 9.5 with a length of roughly 45 inches.
ANGC simply overreacted to throwing out quality holes for inane corrections (see the 11th as just one example) because Hootie got a knock in his shorts that Lefty crushed a tee shot and had a very short pitch to the green. Big freakin deal -- one guy does something and then all of sudden we need to panic and make the false assumption that everyone is doing likewise.
In regards to distances -- check out the current stats and compare them to the last 4-5 years after the inclusion of balls like the ProVI and others of similar kind. No doubt there was a jump when it was introduced but the median distance since that time has barely moved up.
You also make the case that Tiger hit 9-iron from 180 yds. OK. Was that downwind? Was that because of a flyer? Was it because he was hitting from an elevated target to a green below him? You make it sound that such shots are routine time after time. I've seen Tiger finesse a six-iron from a flat lie with a bit of wind in his face from 140 yards.
Tony, the bulk of players still hit driver when called upon -- let's pry open the door a good bit more than simply cherry picking Tiger, Bubba, JB Holes, Lefty and then proclaiming so sort of overall problem. The strong will always be stronger. I don't doubt that today's drivers allow for an easier time to hit the ball straighter -- but you completely missed my point that minimizing the spin capability of a ball will certainly return some form of shot control in the mixture instead of simply bombing away with impunity as is the case now. Without 100% certainty on spin the players will have to be more aware of what the ball will do when landing and when pins are then tucked coming in from such locations will be anything but certain.
Last thing Tony -- the world of golf is not falling apart. Check out the scores and what's been shot over the last 10-15 years. Yes, I agree we need to measure for a bit more time here but the idea that all of the boys are cranking it out there 300+ yards is wonderful stuff along the lines of "the world is ending" fear.
The 17th at TOC is a very demanding hole -- I'd prompt more players to try to hit driver than what was done with the course set-up in '05 -- let the players play and let's see what happens now that the spin factor will clearly be different than in the last few years.
Thanks for your thoughts ...