Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: ANTHONYPIOPPI on November 23, 2012, 09:58:02 AM
-
According to the press release, bunkers will be expanded (Road Hole) added, removed and relocated. Greens will be recontoured, including a softening of the back of the 11th.
http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1001/significant-changes-to-the-old-course-for-the-2012-open-championship
-
“The work will widen the Road Bunker on the 17th hole by half a metre at the right hand side and recontour a small portion of the front of the green to enable it to gather more approach shots landing in that area.
“A new bunker will be created on the right of the 3rd fairway and another on the left of the 9th fairway 20 yards short of the green. Bunkers will be repositioned closer to the right edge of the 2nd green and the right of the 4th green. A portion of the back left of the 11th green will be lowered to create more hole location options.”
Signs of the apocalypse or no big deal?
-
That's great...I no longer have to purchase the naming rights to a constellation or star trillions of light years away. Now I can purchase the naming rights to a new bunker on the old course.
-
No good in my opinion. The course is a challenge in the right conditions...unless you need to put a number on the word "challenging", a number that is what, less than 12-under-par over four rounds? Just when I thought the R&A had the right formula for the Open, they want to start scientifically determining where they can "toughen up" TOC! :( Let the course work as it should...offer up great scoring in calm conditions and a firm challenge when the weather shows up. Bummer.
Cheers
-
Boo. Hiss. Catcall.
-
Shifting and filling in bunkers... whatever, fine. That's been happening for hundreds of years at the Old Course. But lowering the back of the 11th green?!!! That's a bit concerning to me, personally.
-
Shifting and filling in bunkers... whatever, fine. That's been happening for hundreds of years at the Old Course. But lowering the back of the 11th green?!!! That's a bit concerning to me, personally.
Agreed on the bunker issues-there is a history of revision there
I'm guessing the recent assaults on par from anchoring are going to result in recontouring many classic greens.
Glad the R&A and USGA are being proactive on this issue.
Great putting could ruin the game, to say nothing of safety issues from long putt celebrations.
Of course they could focus on the fact that many of their putts are for eagle after driving 350 ::) ::)
oops, forgot that they solved that by changing grooves on all 12 wedges.
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
-
Personally, I'd like to know what an acute spur formation is. Does it relate to calcium deposits or other bone issues? Can you walk it off?
-
As we all know, the road hole bunker had been remodeled, reshaped and raised and lowered several times. Even Old Tom tinkered with position of bunkers, shapes, and reconstruction.
But, as Jeff says, re-contouring the greens is beyond what has ever been done in history (at least as I understand it).
There has to be a line that should not be crossed. But, I am not certain who or how that line can be defined and enforced. Or, is it a moving line? Tradition seems to be a large consideration. We can't actually go to intent, since TOC evolved and is not one designer's intent. We need to examine the quotes and literature of the legendary Old Course golfers, about how they played a certain hole in competition, even ask the caddies who have both been there many years, and who can relate stories handed down to them by older caddies, regarding how various holes were played, to evaluate if a tweaking is in order.
But, it has always been referred to as a natural golf course that is subject to the elements of winds, temps, precipitation, that have random effects on scoring from easy to brutal, moreso than most all other courses, and how that is the tradition of golf that should dictate that this one course, TOC, should not be subject to whimsical tweaking.
It is said how so many of the golden era architects were students and products of their experiences at TOC. From MacKenzie to Ross, to visitors like Tillie, and even Des Muirhead had developed a reverence and body of memories that informed their sense of the game, its fields, and how it was meant to be played.
-
I don't care who the architect is, I don't care the reason (even if it means returning pin positions that have disappeared over the years due to green speeds).... The work may be extremely subtle - we may hardly ever notice... I've given the benefit of the doubt before to the slight reworking of a few classic greens.... But this is The Old Course. And this is the 11th and 17th greens, the two most iconic ones out there.... And they are being changed for 4 days every 5 years.... WRONG.
-
The same architect will come back in 5 years time to "recontour" the "recontoured".
I can accept repositioning of bunkers (but I don't like it), but all this softening, and recontouring and and making more hole locations is BS.
On the 7th, the large depression in the landing area of the fairway will be filled in and a slight mound created.
Why? So it'll end up like Birkdale?
On the 17th, the Road Bunker will be widened by half a metre at the right hand side and a small portion of the front of the green will be recontoured to enable it to gather more approach shots landing in that area.
Why? To gather more shots where?
-
It seems to me that the only reason for softening the 11th green is so green speed on the course can be increased. When I worked on the crew at the Old Course for the 2000 and 2005 Open Championships, the greens ran at about 10 feet, four inches in the morning. Must faster than that and the 11th would be come a problem since the 11th is exposed to wind and dries out quicker.
After watching the Dunhill Links Championship this year, it seemed that players were putting defensively to the back flag location thinking that if they missed the cup, the ball could end up down in the approach. To me, that green seemed to be rolling faster than I have ever seen.
There hasn't been a need for new flat locations in decades, why now?
Anthony
-
I don't care who the architect is, I don't care the reason (even if it means returning pin positions that have disappeared over the years due to green speeds).... The work may be extremely subtle - we may hardly ever notice... I've given the benefit of the doubt before to the slight reworking of a few classic greens.... But this is The Old Course. And this is the 11th and 17th greens, the two most iconic ones out there.... And they are being changed for 4 days every 5 years.... WRONG.
+1!
-
How many pin positions do you need for a tournament of four days?
That is actually more an argument for everyday play, where the strain on certain parts of the course is much higher.
Ulrich
-
I must admit I'm not a huge fan of said architect's renovations, however, to be fair to him I've not seen his best work, I've only seen his worst which is bad enough to honestly cares me...
He's probably a member of the R&A but I can think of at least one other architect I'd rather see entrusted with this honor/honour and I'd much quicker trust with it as well.
-
...And apart from all said already, there were moves, applauded by the R&A and I believe realised last year, to designate The Old Course a "World Heritage Site"...
-
Have I just awoken from a coma to find that today is April 1?
-
I must admit I'm not a huge fan of said architect's renovations, however, to be fair to him I've not seen his best work, I've only seen his worst which is bad enough to honestly cares me...
He's probably a member of the R&A but I can think of at least one other architect I'd rather see entrusted with this honor/honour and I'd much quicker trust with it as well.
David:
The problem is that most of the architects you'd trust to do such work might say no. And apparently the R & A have already made up their minds to move forward in spite of what anybody else thinks.
I'm saddened. But it's been inevitable for years that the R & A would eventually figure they needed to mess with The Old Course, after they had to mess with all the other Open venues, because they couldn't mess with the equipment companies.
They ought to just move The Open to Trump Aberdeen and leave the Old Course alone.
-
Wow!
-
A disgrace. Who actually decides to go through with this (names)? How does the R&A have such control over The Old Course?
In hindsight it was obvious: after Muirfield of all places, caved in and allowed the R&A to dictate to them.
I remember there was an outcry in St Andrews when the Road bunker was altered a number of years back, why nothing now?
-
I must admit I'm not a huge fan of said architect's renovations, however, to be fair to him I've not seen his best work, I've only seen his worst which is bad enough to honestly cares me...
He's probably a member of the R&A but I can think of at least one other architect I'd rather see entrusted with this honor/honour and I'd much quicker trust with it as well.
I'm saddened. But it's been inevitable for years that the R & A would eventually figure they needed to mess with The Old Course, after they had to mess with all the other Open venues, because they couldn't mess with the equipment companies.
They ought to just move The Open to Trump Aberdeen and leave the Old Course alone.
+ 100
-
My first reaction was - sacrilege. But, then I referred to Scott Macpherson's definitive treatise on the evolution of the Old Course and I was reassured by his comments that all golf courses are living things that evolve. These 'alts' are being undertaken as an 'evolving' process by arguably the most self-effacing and circumspect golf architect on the Planet (and Lord knows, I have had my private tiffs with Martin) but I am reassured that nothing too dramatic or scary is about to occur and when complete will make sense. Small changes can be harder to visualize than big ones - so, for now, I'm curbing my tendency to get over-excited.
-
Given that Martin Hawtree had no qualms with digging up his own grandfather's greens at Birkdale, I'm doubtful that he's lost much sleep with this decision. And he's changed a lot of classic golf courses in the past 10-15 years. Sunningdale, Toronto, Royal Dublin, Lahinch, Belvoir Park, Dooks, Muirfield, R Melbourne
So self effacing/modest but actions speak louder.
-
One of the criticism' of Hawtrees work at Trump, even from some of those that raved about the course, was regarding the green fringes and I note that he is proposing to do quite a lot of work round the greens at TOC. Could be a brave move for all concerned. If you are looking at making some quite radical or significant changes on TOC surely nows the time to do something with the ninth. A bunker short on the left doesn't really tickle it IMO.
And just trying to put this into some sort of historical perspective, apart from refacing and reshaping of bunkers along the way, when was the last time TOC actually had any bunkers added, 1906 ? Any got Scott Macphersons book handy ?
Niall
-
Brian,
I'm sure more knowledgable experts will answer you but in my experience this is absolutely the case. Not only with measurements, but also with surveys, sketches and detailed photos and these days even satellite photos.
I've personally seen many of these. Not that I can read a map but they were explained to me. However, since they change with nature and time restoring something back to way it's been naturally altered by nature IMO must be extremely unlikely. Although of that I'm not 100% certain, maybe modern technology would allow a brilliant shaper with highly detailed photos etc to do so.
-
The filling in of the large depression on the 7th makes sense. Replacing it with a slight-medium mound will disperse the results of the drive improving turf quality in that area and iadding variety to the approach
-
Just curious, but is it industry standard practice for an architect to take accurate measurements of the dimensions / co-ordinates etc of any feature they intend to alter so that the club may use it as a reference point in the future should they wish to do a restoration? Do clubs tend to demand it?
They should have that data, Brian, as they bought a very high resolution 3-D data base of the course from my publisher in 2005-6.
-
The illing in of the large depression on the 7th makes sense. Replacing it with a slight-medium mound will disperse the results of the drive improving turf quality in that area and iadding variety to the approach
But I love that depression on the 7th... It's what nature put there and it makes the approach harder from a lower position... I know that it is an absolute nightmare for the crew because of the number of drives that finish there (and hence divots) but it is part of the fabric of the course.... I don't know - I feel really sad about this announcement... I've been pragmatic about almost all other courses because I know how much they've actually changed over time... But The Old Course is special... I'd rather it remain a museum piece than try and stick with the times, especially when those times aren't necessarily where you want to end up...
-
The course is owned by the Links Trust, not the R&A, so that's the body that would have to authorise any work. I assume the R&A (and all the othe St As clubs) have representation on the Links Trust, but I don't know its exact makeup.
-
Niall,
You ask "…when was the last time TOC actually had any bunkers added, 1906 ?"
As far as I can ascertain from Scott's book on the 9th. hole Boase's Bunker was added to the centre of the fairway between 1913-1920 and in 1920-24 on the 4th hole a bunker was cut next to Student's Bunker.
Cheers Colin
-
Peter Dawson back in 2004
"We haven't had a repeat winner in the last 10 years. Greg Norman [in 1993] was the last who'd won before. And that is slightly concerning. There is a much bigger pool of players able to win now, but it sometimes makes one wonder if the golf courses are set up too difficult for one player to stamp his authority. Of course, it's easy with hindsight to criticise a course set-up; it's very difficult in advance to know whether we've done the right thing."
And yet now he wants to toughen every Open course up.
Really I think a lot of these guys should be up for Python's Upper Class Twit of The Year Award.
-
Hi,
In my 2007 book on the Old Course, I wrote on p168 that I thought the R&A or Links Trust would be 'justified' in adding some new bunkers. I said that because others in charge of TOC had made those decisions during previous periods of dynamic change. The myth that the book fairly cleared disproved was that the Old Course has never changed. The truth is that the very opposite is true. The course has always evolved. We often live in this little bubble and are unaware of the changes because either, A) they happened a long time ago, or B) they happen very slowly. Both of these situations were true in the case of TOC.
In you can accept that premise, then the question is 'what changes are appropriate'? We will all have our different opinions. You could argue that the first green and burn could be better designed to make the hole more Strategic (Joshua Crane made this suggestion many years ago), the nine green could be improved, do we fill in the dip on the 7th landing area, soften the back edge of the 11th or add some bunkers on the 3rd. The R&A and Links Trust would have gone through all these questions and done what they believe is correct.
I understand that people naturally fear change. We can believe that the R&A and Links Trust know the golfing world will be watching and that they are acting with caution. But the beauty of golf course design is that nothing needs to be permanent. If a new bunker doesn't work out, it can be filled in. Of course that is not quite as easy on the greens, but possible.
In regards to the 11th green. I would really like the pin position on the left side of the green to come back into play. It has been lost to us during the Open Championship because the Green often gets up to 10.5 or 11 on the stimp. That is too fast when the slope on the green is about 4.5% where the hole should be cut. There are two ways to get this position back. 1) slow the green speed down so holes can be cut on the slope, or soften the slope. It seems we are getting an idea that the R&A want to bring this great hole position back into play (remember Bobby Jones in 1921??) and I welcome that.
It is impossible to stop TOC course evolving (Grass grows, sand blows, gorse is removed) and I believe, as I wrote 6 or 7 years ago, time had come to reexamine the play strategy's and bunker locations. Some renovation work on TOC is overdue and I welcome this news. Now let's see how it works out.
Scott
-
Just curious, but is it industry standard practice for an architect to take accurate measurements of the dimensions / co-ordinates etc of any feature they intend to alter so that the club may use it as a reference point in the future should they wish to do a restoration? Do clubs tend to demand it?
They should have that data, Brian, as they bought a very high resolution 3-D data base of the course from my publisher in 2005-6.
It's been measured many times in many ways, summer 2008
(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f174/Muldoon3/st%20andrews%20new/th_StAndrews2009076.jpg)
Agree why change anything until you've done something about the 9th. Improve that and people might think you knew what you were about.
Dawson is the man who could have stopped this but instead of thinking why is it we've had to add tees on two other courses to allow us to keep playing the Open over TOC, he/they think the solution is to fiddle with the two most famous greens there. If Anthony is right and it's being done to allow faster greens, then one Open soon they are going to look very foolish.
-
When did this say the changes where going to be made? I need to know when I need to get there before.
-
The course is owned by the Links Trust, not the R&A, so that's the body that would have to authorise any work. I assume the R&A (and all the othe St As clubs) have representation on the Links Trust, but I don't know its exact makeup.
Adam,
sorry, but not correct. The Course is owned by the people of Fife through Fife Council. The Links Trust is the body ENTRUSTED (HA!) by them to look after the Links. There is a management committee at the Links Trust and there is a Tournament Committee at the R&A who jointly come up with all of these most wonderful and splendid improvements to the old lass, so hurrah for them and us!
MB.
-
When did this say the changes where going to be made? I need to know when I need to get there before.
Read the article cited in the opener of this thread, Phase one is this winter, phase two next winter. Details of each phase are spelt out.
-
I thought a quote that was on Geoff Shackelford's website was worth putting up on this thread.
"...there will come a point in time where they will have to slow it down because we can't play Merion anymore. You can play U.S. Amateur but a professional I think would probably shoot a little lower scores than they did. St. Andrews, if they have to change the course there to accommodate us, then you know things are changing."
--Tiger Woods
-
Zowie! I am not convinced this is a clever plan. I am seriously concerned about:
#11: So the big boys gain a hole position, but the rank and file lose an even better hole location. Yes, I am talking about the same spot. At normal green speeds which is nearly every day of the year (TOC's greens are far from quick), that left hand spot is usable. So the back gets softened (and what does this mean for the front of the green?), taking away much of the interest for that location on daily play.
#7: That depression is awesome. If one can carry it he gets a huge turbo kick, if not its a blind approach. Of course, the turbo kick could also take the tee shot all the way to Shell, or worse, just shy of it on the down slope.
General edge of green recontouring. Why?
The one positive is the 17th. Its a good trade off between making the bunker bigger and thus a bit less likely to have a pig lie and the green feeding more balls in that direction. I like the sound of this change.
A huge concern is TOC is going under the knife - why wouldn't the 9th be looked at from a fresh perspective? Why not build a special short par 4 instead of the snoozefest that currently exists?
Ciao
-
A little more info from The Scotsman:
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/golf-old-course-changes-are-to-protect-it-from-59-1-2654218
F.
-
Hi,
In my 2007 book on the Old Course, I wrote on p168 that I thought the R&A or Links Trust would be 'justified' in adding some new bunkers. I said that because others in charge of TOC had made those decisions during previous periods of dynamic change. The myth that the book fairly cleared disproved was that the Old Course has never changed. The truth is that the very opposite is true. The course has always evolved. We often live in this little bubble and are unaware of the changes because either, A) they happened a long time ago, or B) they happen very slowly. Both of these situations were true in the case of TOC.
In you can accept that premise, then the question is 'what changes are appropriate'? We will all have our different opinions. You could argue that the first green and burn could be better designed to make the hole more Strategic (Joshua Crane made this suggestion many years ago), the nine green could be improved, do we fill in the dip on the 7th landing area, soften the back edge of the 11th or add some bunkers on the 3rd. The R&A and Links Trust would have gone through all these questions and done what they believe is correct.
I understand that people naturally fear change. We can believe that the R&A and Links Trust know the golfing world will be watching and that they are acting with caution. But the beauty of golf course design is that nothing needs to be permanent. If a new bunker doesn't work out, it can be filled in. Of course that is not quite as easy on the greens, but possible.
In regards to the 11th green. I would really like the pin position on the left side of the green to come back into play. It has been lost to us during the Open Championship because the Green often gets up to 10.5 or 11 on the stimp. That is too fast when the slope on the green is about 4.5% where the hole should be cut. There are two ways to get this position back. 1) slow the green speed down so holes can be cut on the slope, or soften the slope. It seems we are getting an idea that the R&A want to bring this great hole position back into play (remember Bobby Jones in 1921??) and I welcome that.
It is impossible to stop TOC course evolving (Grass grows, sand blows, gorse is removed) and I believe, as I wrote 6 or 7 years ago, time had come to reexamine the play strategy's and bunker locations. Some renovation work on TOC is overdue and I welcome this news. Now let's see how it works out.
Scott
Scott
Many thanks for putting it into perspective. Its been clear to me from researching old mags that many if not most of the old classic courses have always changed and interesting to note that the Old Course is no different in that respect. If you had asked me a few years back whether this was a good thing I would probably have been like a number of people on this thread and decried it but now I take a more relaxed view. As you say, its only working in dirt, and not as though the work can't largely be undone if not satisfactory.
Niall
-
Anyone who visits GCA regularly should own Scot's book on TOC. As Scott notes above, there were any number of changes to the course thorugh about 1905. There were earlier, quite dramatic changes in the 19th century. After 1905 the pace of changes slowed considerably. But TOC is not now, nor has it ever been, a magical by-product of purely natural forces.
That doesn't mean that Hawtree's changes are a good idea. I'd like to know more about them. But opposing any changes to TOC based on the notion that it has never been changed is to badly misread its history.
A note on the 9th. John Low conducted a number of surveys of favorite holes in Nisbet's Golf Year Book before WWI. Interesting is that the 9th at TOC was one of Low's and others' favorite par 4's. Low liked the 9th because of the interesting strategic choices posed by its (almost) c/l bunker.
A century on, with vastly different balls and. equipment, etc, such views of the hole are almost inconceivable. I'm not sure modern players even take notice of the little pot that Low thought made the hole so good.
Bob
-
Niall, whilst Scott has done more research and has more knowledge about the changes to the old course than any of us, I'm afraid I don't agree with his perspective on this one.... Apart from all the changes highlighted in this thread, there are at least four other green surrounds that will be reshaped to provide more undulations... WHY?... These changes are squarely aimed at The Open championship and many of them will have no effect whatsoever in increasing scores - as if that really matters anyway... The micro-undulations at TOC are the best of the world. It is a place of study and worship for every golf course architect and every golf course in the world owes it some debt...
-
Hitler made some changes as well. Doesn't mean they bear repeating.
-
Niall, whilst Scott has done more research and has more knowledge about the changes to the old course than any of us, I'm afraid I don't agree with his perspective on this one.... Apart from all the changes highlighted in this thread, there are at least four other green surrounds that will be reshaped to provide more undulations... WHY?... These changes are squarely aimed at The Open championship and many of them will have no effect whatsoever in increasing scores - as if that really matters anyway... The micro-undulations at TOC are the best of the world. It is a place of study and worship for every golf course architect and every golf course in the world owes it some debt...
Ally
I agree, as far as I'm aware The Old course greens and surrounding contours have not been significantly altered in well over a century but it's now deemed that they can be "improved".
And you are right, the chances of these changes making any difference in the scores is miniscule. So the Peter Dawson's justification of toughening up the course has no merit at all.
-
Bob
Iteresting comments about the 9th. I wonder if back in Low's day it was a c/l bunker and that perhaps in the intervening period the left handside has been cleared out to widen the plying area ? As you say, I really should get Scott's book.
Ally
I was commenting on the principle of change but let me say that I tend to agree with you about the need to change the green surrounds. It seemed to me that the surrounds were the biggest challenges forthe pro's last time round eg. the front pin position on the 16th during the last Dunhill being a classic example.
The one that I'm really not sure about is changing the contours to the front of 17. Not everyone is approaching that green with a short iron and while the play to short right isn't a bad idea, I personally would like to have a real choice.
Niall
-
Here's a thought
Give 'em a Titleist balata(or 1990 TOUR edition)
and maintain daily mowing heights
and go play golf
-
I'm surprised the locals aren't more up in arms over this. This is the last straw IMO and is in fact a sign of the apocolypse. The 11th and 17th greens? SERIOUSLY? To hell with the Pro Tour, this course is the most precious thing we have as a link to the origins of the game of golf and should be treated as a living museum not as a meal ticket for Hawtree or Rees....
-
Part of the essential vocabulary of any really good restoration golf course architect is the word NO when proposals like this are put forward by clients....
Hope to get the job in 10 years time to change the green (surrounds) back to how they were, just like the three greens that H changed at De Pan will be changed back to their old state in the next few years...... at least at the Old Course we will have detailed surveys of the old situation
-
Scott Macpherson's is a very intelligent, thoughtful post from a scholar on this very subject. Though, suggestion to alter the 11th green still gives me the creeps.
-
Part of the essential vocabulary of any really good restoration golf course architect is the word NO when proposals like this are put forward by clients....
Hope to get the job in 10 years time to change the green (surrounds) back to how they were, just like the three greens that H changed at De Pan will be changed back to their old state in the next few years...... at least at the Old Course we will have detailed surveys of the old situation
When you've just designed "the best course in the world", no doubt you can do no wrong
Perhaps the R&A is "bellyproofing" the Old Course
-
Vis is a vis the Links Trust, overall control is vested in the Trustees, as one might assume. There are seven Trustees, three of which are apointed by Fife Council and three of which are appointed by the R&A. I'm not sure how they decide on the 7th Trustee, but I assume there is joint responsibility between the Council and the R&A.
Vis a vis the changes, I've long felt that in terms of pin positions the 11th has been a one (or maybe two) trick pony. As Scott McP. said, they need one back left that they can practically use when the green speeds are at Open standards. Vis a vis the 17th, I think there are going back a bit to what the road hole bunker and surrounds used to be before they completgely re-did the bunker 5 years or so ago. It is a good idea. As for the other ideas, I haven't looked at them in any great depth, but as a general princiipal I think that, IF the Links Trust wants to keep the Old Course as an Open Course, they probably have to make some changes. The course has gone through many changes over the past 150-200 years, and I doubt that anybody on this forum (now that Naccarato has gone) would prefer to play the 1838 version than what we have today, or might have tomorrow....
Rich
-
I'm going to stand on the 11th green and choke out anyone who tries to change it.
Scott I'm not afraid of change.
One of the most memorable shots of my life was to the back left pin at 11 - for us regular players.
The hole was perfect or perfectly imperfect - whatever your point of view.
Golf is perfect as it is, it doesn't need to be perfect for everyone, it can't be.
I'm not kidding about the choking part.
-
Perhaps it's time for a petition.
I have written a note to Dr. Hawtree, and now I will write to the presidents of the various architects' societies around the world, asking them to take a stand on this matter. I will be happy to post the responses here. If they wish to lead opposition to the idea of changing the contours of The Old Course, then I will happily sign on.
If they don't want to take a stand on this as a group, then I will start the petition myself, and ask every golf architect in the world to take a stand, one way or the other. It is up to the professionals in the field to stand for something. If the contours of The Old Course can be changed on the advice of just one architect who thinks he knows better, then there is nothing sacred in golf architecture, and all our work is consigned to be destroyed by future generations that think they know better (or are pressured to agree).
I'll put down Scott Macpherson on the side of the enablers. I want to say "History will show he was wrong," but when you're on the side of erasing History, conveniently, you are also covering your tracks.
-
Count me in, Tom.
-
Perhaps it's time for a petition.
I have written a note to Dr. Hawtree, and now I will write to the presidents of the various architects' societies around the world, asking them to take a stand on this matter. I will be happy to post the responses here. If they wish to lead opposition to the idea of changing the contours of The Old Course, then I will happily sign on.
If they don't want to take a stand on this as a group, then I will start the petition myself, and ask every golf architect in the world to take a stand, one way or the other. It is up to the professionals in the field to stand for something. If the contours of The Old Course can be changed on the advice of just one architect who thinks he knows better, then there is nothing sacred in golf architecture, and all our work is consigned to be destroyed by future generations that think they know better (or are pressured to agree).
I'll put down Scott Macpherson on the side of the enablers. I want to say "History will show he was wrong," but when you're on the side of erasing History, conveniently, you are also covering your tracks.
well said
Dr. Hawtree, the Open doctor, 4COL
-
Perhaps it's time for a petition.
I have written a note to Dr. Hawtree, and now I will write to the presidents of the various architects' societies around the world, asking them to take a stand on this matter. I will be happy to post the responses here. If they wish to lead opposition to the idea of changing the contours of The Old Course, then I will happily sign on.
If they don't want to take a stand on this as a group, then I will start the petition myself, and ask every golf architect in the world to take a stand, one way or the other. It is up to the professionals in the field to stand for something. If the contours of The Old Course can be changed on the advice of just one architect who thinks he knows better, then there is nothing sacred in golf architecture, and all our work is consigned to be destroyed by future generations that think they know better (or are pressured to agree).
I'll put down Scott Macpherson on the side of the enablers. I want to say "History will show he was wrong," but when you're on the side of erasing History, conveniently, you are also covering your tracks.
Tom,
I think such a study would be very admirable and also very very interesting. I would like to see "take a stand, one way or the other." numbers.
Also, your second paragraph, second sentence "If the contours of The Old Course can be changed on the advice of just one architect who thinks he knows better, then there is nothing sacred in golf architecture, and all our work is consigned to be destroyed by future generations that think they know better (or are pressured to agree)" asked a very pertinent question and it is a shame it takes TOC to bring it to the forefront. My bet is a large majority of the "practicing" architects lean toward "they know better".
-
Count me in, Tom.
Me too. Vote early, vote often! "Sacrilege" is not too strong a word.
Not only would the change contemplated defang the 11th green (and the only great Eden green), it would also take some of the teeth out of the Reverse Course hole played from the 13th tee to the 11th green over Hill Bunker. That is a brute into the wind.
-
Tom,
I think you might find some support from the Greenkeepers as well:
BIGGA Contact
John Young
Position:Scottish Regional Administrator
Email:johnyoung@bigga.co.uk
Be interesting to learn where they stand on these changes.
-
One of the the trickiest shots in golf is putting or deft chipping from the back left of the 11th green to a pin position front, middle, left. It would be a shame if this shot is lost for the sake of finding more pin positions.
I regularly have “deep discussions” with greenkeepers that pin positioning is not all about maximising the greens surface. Certainly there should be enough pin positions, however a large portion of greens are internal contours, feed ins, tie ins, etc and are as important as the pin positions.
It sounds as though the softening of the contours around the greens is an ease of maintenance issue. Already over the last few years the Links Trust have been ironing out the contours around the edges of the bunkers, removing any quirky movement so the triplexes can make a perfect cut. Is this the next step – what follows after that?
I believe if one follows the road of maintenance perfection then it inevitably leads to dumbing down of the course. Good maintenance yes, but not at the cost of historical quirk.
If Tom Doak is willing to champion a “higher” authority to preserve the historical features of classic golf courses then I’ll be a willing helper.
-
One of the the trickiest shots in golf is putting or deft chipping from the back left of the 11th green to a pin position front, middle, left. It would be a shame if this shot is lost for the sake of finding more pin positions.
I regularly have “deep discussions” with greenkeepers that pin positioning is not all about maximising the greens surface. Certainly there should be enough pin positions, however a large portion of greens are internal contours, feed ins, tie ins, etc and are as important as the pin positions.
It sounds as though the softening of the contours around the greens is an ease of maintenance issue. Already over the last few years the Links Trust have been ironing out the contours around the edges of the bunkers, removing any quirky movement so the triplexes can make a perfect cut. Is this the next step – what follows after that?
I believe if one follows the road of maintenance perfection then it inevitably leads to dumbing down of the course. Good maintenance yes, but not at the cost of historical quirk.
If Tom Doak is willing to champion a “higher” authority to preserve the historical features of classic golf courses then I’ll be a willing helper.
John, I did not read that they will be softening contours around greens - more that they will be introducing new / more undulations in an erroneous attempt to toughen up the surrounds. I know how that is going to end up and I don't like it. I am annoyed by this one and am willing to sign any petition against it.
-
Tom
Of course I would sign a petition.
Much of this boils down to the Fred Hawtree quote I posted a short time (an opinion to which Martin clearly subscribes to):
"Golf course architects on the whole, and in public at least, are very courteous when describing each other's work but they start from the firm conviction that they could have done it as well or better themselves."
Looking at the Martin Hawtree's work at Royal Dublin et al. I think it's likely he's planning to add micro undulation on those green peripheries . The contours are interesting but don't have much in common with the surrounding land forms.
-
Scott and Rich make good points, however to make changes for the OPEN is wrong, the 59s will come from the Dunhill event played each year, when pros play not even from the Medal tees! To me it is no problem what they shoot, as long as it is on the Old Course that we can play the rest of the year. Sure we can't play the Open tees, but we can play to the same greens and out of the same bunkers.
Rich is correct too that if the town, and the Trust, want to keep having the OPen, they have to go along with the R&A and Peter Dawson. They are caught between a rock and a harder place to be sure. The R&A is also caught as they won't make the necessary equipment rule changes required to protect the ancient game.
Can't wait to see photos of Hawtree standing on the 11th green, with Trump pointing back towards the tee!
Where's the petition?
-
Rich is correct too that if the town, and the Trust, want to keep having the OPen, they have to go along with the R&A and Peter Dawson. They are caught between a rock and a harder place to be sure. The R&A is also caught as they won't make the necessary equipment rule changes required to protect the ancient game.
If the town and the Trust are really feeling financial pressure to go along with whatever the R & A says, that is a new level of b.s. I had never before contemplated.
I can just see that headline: "Royal & Ancient deems St. Andrews no longer fit for Open Championship."
-
Rich is correct too that if the town, and the Trust, want to keep having the OPen, they have to go along with the R&A and Peter Dawson. They are caught between a rock and a harder place to be sure. The R&A is also caught as they won't make the necessary equipment rule changes required to protect the ancient game.
If the town and the Trust are really feeling financial pressure to go along with whatever the R & A says, that is a new level of b.s. I had never before contemplated.
I can just see that headline: "Royal & Ancient deems St. Andrews no longer fit for Open Championship."
Actually, it would be "R&A leaves St. Andrews due to lost balls"
-
Tom, I'm in as well
-
Tom.
In.
At Woodlands last year a few us us got together during the Presidents Cup - and someone asked where the ball should be 'taken back to"
John Huggan had a good answer. 'Take it back to where it was when they started adding tees to the Old Course that are not even on the Old Course' 2,9,14 and 17 from memory.
-
http://nooooooooooooooo.com/
-
The economic benefit to Kent from the 2011 Open was measured at £77m. The Open at St Andrews every 5 years cannot be sniffed at.
The Links Trust Trustees are 3 R&A nominees, 3 from Fife council, the local MP and a nominee from the Scottish Government.
-
Can we do a hostile takeover of the R&A? Seriously - this is incompetence of monumental proportions.
-
Part of the awe of the old course is its natural state
who cares what the score is, as long as the best player of the four rounds wins, then what's the difference?
-
I'd imagine that St. Andrews would do just fine without the Open. Unfortunately that's probably what it's going to take for the R&A to go to a tournament ball.
-
Tom Doak, good on you for taking a stand.
Its really sad that the governing bodies would rather disfigure our great courses, instead of addressing the source of the problem they're seeking to fix (the equipment).
-
Hi All,
Well there are some interesting comments coming in. Let me stay that I don't consider myself an expert on TOC – Just a fan (who happens to have written a book on it).
Tom – It's an interesting idea to try and line people up on this discussion, but if you want to do that, you need to clearly establish the question before you start putting people in camps. (NB– Soon Scotland is going to is going to have a referendum on Independence, and there is alot of debate about how the question is to be framed... so this is quite topical here)
This subject always raises, and rightly so, questions about equipment, but it is probably more helpful that they are put to one side so we don't muddy the waters. So is your question;
A) Is it right that The Old Course should be changed for the Open Championship? or
B) Should any changes ever be made to The Old Course ever again? or
C) Is it right that bunkers can be adjusted on The Old Course?
D) Should Greens contours be adjusted on The Old Course?
E) Something else...........etc etc
My answer to these questions changes depending on the slant.
I have little issue with the idea of adjusting bunkers based on the historical precedent established, but I react with much greater caution to the idea of adjusting the greens, green contours, green approach or surrounds undulations etc. So, have a think about the single question you want to pose and then please let me tell you what camp I am in.
Cheers,
Scott
(PS- Mike Nuzzo; I guess that when you played the 11th hole and the flag was on the left, it wasn't during the Open Championship? They put it there occasionally when the greens are running less than about 8 or 9 and it is a great pin – and my point was two fold; A) let's get it back, B) what's the fascination with green speeds? You will know also that the application of sand over time can change contours. Who is to say that sand from the estuary, Hill Bunker, topdressing etc has not made these contours steeper over time? (I am not sure we will ever know the answer to that question))
-
Does anybody know if there is more detailed language with respect to the Links Trust's mission? Here is what is on the Old Course website:
St Andrews Links is the home of golf where enjoying golf is taken seriously.
We are committed to quality and excellence by:
- Maintaining the best traditions of golf at St Andrews
- Ensuring value in everything we do
- Being a fair and responsible member of the community
- Providing facilities of the highest standard
- Satisfying golfing expectations
Peter Forster, Chairman of Trustees
Dr John Mills, Chairman of Links Management Committee
Euan Loudon, Chief Executive
The Trust was established by the St Andrews Links Order Confirmation Act 1974
-
Scott, your last post is good, well done, but I find myself in the camp that says that there should be no changes to TOC for the Open, and none of these proposals can add anything to the experience for the tens of thousands of regular punters who play the course for the other 4 years and 51 weeks.
Tom, I will support your petition.
-
Perhaps it's time for a petition.
I have written a note to Dr. Hawtree, and now I will write to the presidents of the various architects' societies around the world, asking them to take a stand on this matter. I will be happy to post the responses here. If they wish to lead opposition to the idea of changing the contours of The Old Course, then I will happily sign on.
If they don't want to take a stand on this as a group, then I will start the petition myself, and ask every golf architect in the world to take a stand, one way or the other. It is up to the professionals in the field to stand for something. If the contours of The Old Course can be changed on the advice of just one architect who thinks he knows better, then there is nothing sacred in golf architecture, and all our work is consigned to be destroyed by future generations that think they know better (or are pressured to agree).
I'll put down Scott Macpherson on the side of the enablers. I want to say "History will show he was wrong," but when you're on the side of erasing History, conveniently, you are also covering your tracks.
Tom, I just called Ran and had me re-insistuted to specifically post on GCA for two things, this and the post on Robin Nelson.
Consider me "IN" on any petition or other. Its time to go to battle. (If that's what its going to take)
Stir Up The Echos......
-
First of all thank you Scott Macpherson for playing the role of moderate advocate for the defence. Those issues you raise are likely to be used by the proponents of these changes to justify these, IMHO, poor decisions.
I firmly believe these changes need to be firmly resisted.
Great to see Tom Doak taking the stand he is and others from the GA side of things getting on board there.
To ensure any changes don't forever adversely change a place we hold dear I suggest:
- Decide what we truly oppose as Scott highlights, what position would we accept. What process would we propose to in future produce any changes to TOC
Set up a Facebook site and also develop a twitter hashtag. For those outside Australia sorry but #destroyingthejoint is already taken.
Tom continue with his work on the GA side.
One of our Greenkeeping contributors take up the cudgel and do the same within their professional community.
One of our Media contributors do the same from that constituency (It would be great to have the endorsement of a Peter Alliss or IBF)
Someone with access to the players get those that are architecturally minded involved (i.e Woods, Ogilvy, Weir, Furyk etc)
Someone on the ground in Fife make contact with the St Andrews Golf Clubs and try to get them and the local community onboard to put pressure on the MP and Links Trust representatives.
I have one or two access points to the caddies but someone else may have greater pull there.
-
Tom – It's an interesting idea to try and line people up on this discussion, but if you want to do that, you need to clearly establish the question before you start putting people in camps. (NB– Soon Scotland is going to is going to have a referendum on Independence, and there is alot of debate about how the question is to be framed... so this is quite topical here)
This subject always raises, and rightly so, questions about equipment, but it is probably more helpful that they are put to one side so we don't muddy the waters. So is your question;
A) Is it right that The Old Course should be changed for the Open Championship? or
B) Should any changes ever be made to The Old Course ever again? or
C) Is it right that bunkers can be adjusted on The Old Course?
D) Should Greens contours be adjusted on The Old Course?
E) Something else...........etc etc
My answer to these questions changes depending on the slant.
I have little issue with the idea of adjusting bunkers based on the historical precedent established, but I react with much greater caution to the idea of adjusting the greens, green contours, green approach or surrounds undulations etc. So, have a think about the single question you want to pose and then please let me tell you what camp I am in.
Cheers,
Scott
Scott:
You are right, of course, that where you stand should depend on what, exactly, is the question. And I think it's high time for a good discussion of that subject, which I will start in another thread right now.
For the next week or so, I will hold out hope that the various associations of golf architecture and greenkeeping will see fit to address the subject with regard to St. Andrews. I don't always have to be in the front row ... in fact, I usually sit in the back to hurl my bombs ;) But in this case, I will gladly move up to the front lines if need be to make the case for something I believe in strongly.
-
I'm in, Tom.
-
I'm in, Tom.
Mac, I believe many of us are in. But what exactly do WE need to do. I posted on Tom's thread as well.
What can WE as enthusiast do? How can WE truly make a difference?
Let me know and I'll do my best.
Bart
-
Bart, I'll opt to follow Tom's lead and help in anyway he suggests.
-
Tom's last paragraph is:
"The only thing I know for sure is that if The Old Course at St. Andrews is changed, the rest of them aren't even worth arguing about. The ghosts of 100 years of golf architects have believed The Old Course to be above the fray, and they will be watching to see what their descendants do to preserve it."
I think a useful way to think about such issues is in terms of burdens of proof. Before deciding to change a historically significant course, proponents of changes must overcome a presumption against changes. There might sometimes be good, convincing reasons to make changes. But the presumption, absent such clear and convincing reasons, is that historic courses should not be changed architecturally.
I can think of no course where that burden of proof is higher than The Old Course.
Note that different kinds of changes ought to have different burdens. For example, stretching tees might have a lower burden. Recontouring greens and surrounds ought to have a prohibitively high burden if the course, like TOC, is important enough.
That hierarchy of burdens is largely driven by (a) the permanence of the proposed change (can it be easily undone after a tournament?) and (b) its effect on everyday play (new Open tees will not be played by punters).
That is, the closer the changes come to being structural, permanent changes that affect everyone, the higher the burden they must carry.
Or perhaps there are other, better ways to argue against the kinds of changes to TOC that are under consideration. But I'm pretty sure that hand waving and moral outrage aren't enough to give pause to the powers that be.
Bob
BTW, where is the R&A Green Committee on this?
-
I'm really confused by the R&A. They flew an R&A employee all the way over to Philly to participate in a restricted golf ball players' test at my golf club a few years ago. That's not a cheap flight. (There were also about 5 USGA guys present)
I had lunch with the gentleman who told me the data proved the benefits of the restricted flight ball, but the R&A would never go for it. When I asked about a "tournament ball", he gave a snarky answer - that they already had a tournament ball, and you could buy it in the stores today.
Let me call the kettle black - Is it the threat of lawsuits from Titleist, Nike, etc. that's causing the R&A and USGA to wimp out?
-
Tom, I just called Ran and had me re-insistuted to specifically post on GCA for two things, this and the post on Robin Nelson.
Consider me "IN" on any petition or other. Its time to go to battle. (If that's what its going to take)
Stir Up The Echos......
GCA Post of the Year, 2012 ;)
-
The Nacc is back! Sort of...
-
Here's the letter that went out this morning:
To:
Bob Cupp, President, American Society of Golf Course Architects
Rainer Preissmann, President, European Institute of Golf Course
Architects
Graham Papworth, President, Society of Australian Golf Course Architects
John Young, British and International Golf Greenkeepers Association
Gentlemen:
I was horrified yesterday to read of the changes proposed to The Old
Course at St. Andrews. No longer content just to add back tees for
championship play, the club and its consulting architect, Martin
Hawtree, have planned to move bunkers, add contouring around the
greens, and soften slopes in other places prior to the next Open
championship.
I have felt for many years that The Old Course was sacred ground to
golf architects, as it was to Old Tom Morris and C. B. Macdonald and
Harry Colt and Alister MacKenzie before us. It has been untouched
architecturally since 1920, and I believe that it should remain so. I
understood this to be the feeling of many other architects who attended
the World Forum on Golf Architecture in St. Andrews, three years ago.
I don't believe it should be IMPOSSIBLE to change The Old Course, or
any other historic course. But I think it should be a lot harder than it
currently is, where only the management of the club and any consulting
architect they hire have to agree. I think that the default position
should be that such an international treasure should be guarded, and
that there should be a high burden of proof that changes need to be
made, before they can be made.
I feel strongly enough about this to stick my neck out on it, and make
the case publicly to everyone I know, including and especially contacts
in the media. In fact, one of the reasons I have never applied for
membership in your organizations is the desire to speak my mind about
such things without having to arrive at a consensus first. However,
contrary to popular perception, I have no desire to step over you on
this matter if you are interested in taking the same stand.
I propose to make a petition to the Royal & Ancient Golf Club
expressing that as a golf course architect, I feel that The Old Course
is sacred ground, and that architectural changes should not be made to
it unless necessary for the maintenance and health of the course. I
would like to know from each of you individually, whether you are
interested in participating in this movement, and whether your
organizations might be interested in participating as well.
Sincerely,
Tom Doak
Renaissance Golf Design Inc.
-
Tom,
Bravo!
-
Despite my ongoing battle with Rob Rigg and MHM on FB, I concur with Ian Andrew and support it all.
-
You should have put this as an appendix
(http://rayuzwyshyn.net/dovzhenko/DovzhenkoImages/Zvenyhora/mona-duchamp.jpg)
Atleast Duchamp did it on a copy/re-print
Ps. not to offend anyone. I'm also saddened by the potential destruction of golfing history
-
Tom,
Bravo!
Ian:
Since you are an actual member of one of those organizations I addressed, I would appreciate your support in seconding my thoughts to the hierarchy there. [And I would make the same appeal to Neil Crafter and Mike Clayton as well.] I suspect that, in the ASGCA in particular, my sentiment is less likely to lead to action precisely because of my own non-member status, unless there is a lot of support from the ranks of the membership.
-
Well done Tom Doak for making the first move.
Hopefully a consensus can be found between the various golfing organisations, so a strong lobby can urge a debate at a political level with the goal to protect classic golf courses under the law.
There aready exists a classification for historical buildings in Scotland.
However I know of no Preservation Order or Classification of a golf course, with respect to it’s historical significance.
A move should be made at a political level, supported by the leading Scottish Golf organisations (SGU, SPGA, R&A etc) to pass the necessary law through the Scottish Parliament, so the controlling instruments are in place.
There already exists an organisation “Historic Scotland” which through their laws, regulations, guidelines, experts, committees and subcommittees pass judgement on any proposals for alterations. Why not a sub committee within this organisation?
I checked the fife.gov.uk and there are no applications for permission to make any alterations to the Old Course.
Could it be that the Links Trust are in breach of Fife Councils Planning requirements?
If the Machrie had to submit a Planning Application for alterations , then why not St.Andrews?
The Golf Courses themselves may not be happy with an attempt to diminish their decision powers , however in the long run it is in their interests as well as in the interests of maintaining Scotland’s rich golfing legacy.
So now for some politics and lobbying.
-
Beautiful letter, Tom. Perfect.
And, for whatever it's worth, I also encourage Ian and others who are members of the organizations Tom has written to support and promote his position on this important matter.
Tom mentions the media, too. I also hope that some prominent golf writers who feel the same about these proposed changes to the Old Course write about it with an opinion rather than as (another) news item.
-
Oh god... If this turns out anything like the changes he made at RMGC the Old Course is doomed...
Somebody GPS it now so it can laser grade back the original contours once the R&A see what a mistake they've made.
-
Tom - I can imagine that the response you'll receive, either to this letter or to the one you send the R&A, might read something like this:: "We appreciate you sharing your heartfelt views, and in respecting your position as one of the world's leading architects sincerely value the opinions you expressed regarding potential changes to The Old Course. If we have understood your views correctly, however, it would appear that you are not so firmly set against ANY changes being made to The Old Course as you are to some/all of the SPECIFIC changes we are currently contemplating, under the expert direction of Mr. Hawtree. If this is indeed the case, we would welcome hearing your views on the merits or disadvantages of these specific changes, or any others you think we should be considering. We look forward to your continuing the dialogue, and, again, thank you for writing".
If something like that does come back, how would you respond? (I hope you understand why I am asking).
Peter
-
Tom
Good letter.
There are two main arguments that need to brought home to Dawson and others.
First, the Old Course's unique standing means today that its historical importance outweighs its importance as a tournament venue. For that reason preservation (to the extent reasonably possible) is more important than making it suitable for professional competitions.
(To the Rich's question, "what, exactly, should be preserved"? The starting point is the course that MacKenzie drew with such care the winter of 1922/23. There have been few structural changes since then other than new medal tees. If bunkers are now cleaner, if turf is better, etc., that's fine. None of that has changed in any material way the architecture of the course post early 1920's.)
Second, if the Old Course and other important historic courses are under threat from a new, longer pro game, that is almost entirely the fault of Dawson and other golf administrators. It signals that the game's leaders have failed to carry out one of their main duties. Which alone would be bad enough. To then ask important historic courses to pay the price for the omissions and errors of the game's leadership gives new meaning to the term 'brazen'.
Bob
-
Couldn't the R&A counter with Mussleburgh's historical stature, rather than The Old Course, and say that the Open can be moved to Kinsbarns or some other modern venue, if the Links Trust is unwilling to allow for cosmetic surgery?
-
Regarding Bob's second point: it is valid, but I will not live to see the day when a CEO comes clean and says that he/she is totally responsible for poor decisions and is actively in pursuit of a return to the proper way of doing things.
-
The letter of Tom to the golf architecture bodies is good but will have no effect. Tom doesn't have much confidence in the ASGCA, and the EIGCA has never taken any stance that would be confrontational to any of its members (or the R&A), let alone when it is one of its senior members, a Fellow even. So this will not yield anything.
It is also very important to know when the work will commence, since whatever we do has to have enough power to stop things before the work starts. Once the work has started it will be much tougher to stop it.
Therefore I think we need to already start on plan B.
In my view the only thing that might stop the R&A is a combination of the following:
- significant backlash from the press
- significant backlash from R&A members
- petition of enough well known golf architects
- petition of enough famous pro golf players
I have already emailed all the R&A members I know, and would suggest all of you do the same.
Same with getting this in front of the press, we have to make sure its gets in as much serious press as possible as soon as possible.
I do not know how to get famous golf players to endorse the petition, maybe others on this forum have connections there?
FP
-
Frank,
Yours are very good thoughts and suggestions. I think you make good points. I also think that it should NOT be very difficult to find backing in the press, as well as with well-known golf architects and pro golfers.
And, it would also surprise me if a majority of R&A members are really in favour of these proposed changes... especially at the 11th.
-
Brad Klein....Ron Whitten...Joe Passov...Alistair Tait...Scottish golf writers...these are the fellows you need to enlist, then.
-
Frank's correct and I certainly have no faith in the EIGCA doing anything to stop the changes; it's contrary to their incentives.
I hope the press can dig and critique into why this whole process is opaque and down to a few individuals behind closed doors making decisions about a publicly owned treasure. John Huggan usually has his ear close to the ground for Scottish golf matters, perhaps he can get some answers.
Dawson basically just announces what's going to happen with a few lines of cursory explanation.
I think there has to be a backlash from the locals to stop it.
-
Personally I think the press is our best bet. Once this gets some airtime it will be easier to get pro's reactions etc. Time for Brad, Jay et al. to earn their pay :). Anyone have any contacts at the Golf Channel? Getting this on Golf Central would be a big step in the right direction. Jeff Rude? Charlie Rymer? Time to pull out all the stops and call in all your chits. This very issue may determine whether this site has real value and influence or is only so much mental masturbation.
-
There is nobody less inhibited about aiming a kick at The R & A when I think it is deserved - but not this time. In the interest of injecting some balance. I'm one golf journalist who won't support this campaign or write about it. It's gone way over the top. So there! My info is that a 'wedge' of influential locals who play the course on a daily/weekly basis are in favor. How many of you aggravators have played TOC more than once or twice, to justify being so indignant and sure of yourselves?
-
In the interest of injecting some balance. I'm one golf journalist who won't support this campaign or write about it. It's gone way over the top. So there! My info is that a 'wedge' of influential locals who play the course on a daily/weekly basis are in favor. How many of you aggravators have played TOC more than once or twice?
Ivan:
I've played The Old Course a lot more than twice. I've probably played in 20 times, and walked it 50 more.
-
Ivan,
Does it matter? TOC is much more than a member's club. It's an idea, an ideal. It belongs to all of us who play this great game. In fact the whole point is that it's much larger than the pedestrian concerns of Dawson and the Open Committee. It's the f#%&ing Old Course. If we can't protect out most hallowed grounds we might as well hang 'em up and take up shuffleboard and tiddly-winks.
-
The letter of Tom to the golf architecture bodies is good but will have no effect. Tom doesn't have much confidence in the ASGCA, and the EIGCA has never taken any stance that would be confrontational to any of its members (or the R&A), let alone when it is one of its senior members, a Fellow even. So this will not yield anything.
It is also very important to know when the work will commence, since whatever we do has to have enough power to stop things before the work starts. Once the work has started it will be much tougher to stop it.
Frank:
Perhaps you are right, perhaps you will be proven wrong, but I am willing to let the note play out over the next week or two and see where it leads, instead of condemning them before they have a chance to respond. We do know that at least a few members of the respective associations agree with the gist of my letter.
-
Brad Klein....Ron Whitten...Joe Passov...Alistair Tait...Scottish golf writers...these are the fellows you need to enlist, then.
Haven't heard any of them stand up to talk about it yet. And most of the guys you mentioned are salarymen for big golfing publications that may not want them to pick a fight with the R & A. [I suspect John Huggan would be firmly on board, and is probably already writing something about it, without any prodding from me.]
I do think that any and all R & A members should be enlisted in the discussion. They may not want to rock the boat, either, but I would guess at the moment that most of them have not even contemplated the possibility of The Old Course being changed, and a lot of them belong to the club because they love the course. George Peper is both an influential writer AND an R & A member; I will see what he has to think.
-
Tom - The cap obviously doesn't fit you. That's close to half a million yards trod on TOC, by the way.
-
Ivan -
Most of us 'aggravators' have played TOC many more times than 'twice'. But thanks for bringing up our standing to criticize the Dawson decision. You've opened the door to talk about a couple of other things.
Most of us (a) have seen a fairly large number of other great courses, (b) read a fair amount about golf architecture, (c) think a lot about gca (after all, we participate in this forum), (d) know something about Playfair, Robertson, OTM, John Low, MacKenzie and the role of TOC in the history of gca.
So if we are comparing expertise, we are happy to match up with your "wedge of influential backers".
That doesn't mean we must be right and your "wedge of influential backers" must be wrong. It does suggest which group might have better and deeper credentials to talk about the issues and should not be glibly dismissed out of hand.
But one thing IS clear to me. If your post is the kind of thinking you use in your journalism, your newspaper deserves better.
Bob
-
Frank:
Perhaps you are right, perhaps you will be proven wrong, but I am willing to let the note play out over the next week or two and see where it leads, instead of condemning them before they have a chance to respond. We do know that at least a few members of the respective associations agree with the gist of my letter.
[/quote]
Tom, fully agree with your strategy, just wanted to get a sense of urgency across (how much time do we have?) and make sure we have plan B working on all 4 cylinders whilst we wait on the (non)reaction of the GCA bodies!
-
Architects (and others): Please feel free to send me your letters/polemics. I'm just a little fish, but there's no doubt I'll be writing something about this business.
thomasmdunne@gmail.com
-
Mr. Crosby - I'm a little fish too so, I take it that you'll be relieved that I won't be writing further about this issue, then? My thinking, defective or otherwise, will not be hampering your cause. The vast majority of all golfers won't give this matter two seconds of thought. While you, TD and Co, may huff and puff - the R & A will do exactly as it pleases.
-
Mr. Crosby - I'm a little fish too so, I take it that you'll be relieved that I won't be writing further about this issue, then? My thinking, defective or otherwise, will not be hampering your cause. The vast majority of all golfers won't give this matter two seconds of thought. While you, TD and Co, may huff and puff - the R & A will do exactly as it pleases.
Ivan, that's no reason to accept it though.... I tend to agree with Frank that an urgent plan-B needs to be put in place and that means someone framing the right question or questions and getting an online petition set up (for starters).... Even if there is a ground swell of support from within each organisation, they won't move as a group either quickly enough or at all... But well done to Tom for kicking it off... Incidentally, this is all about The Old Course for me.... No other course is even close in terms of history and the need to preserve so I'd certainly like to see us tackle The Old Course as its own entity... Movements around other important courses may need to be approached differently and / or separately because in many cases they are less clear cut.... Just my opinion...
-
Ivan,
Thank you for denigrating our contributions to the subject without any idea of the backgrounds of those you deride.
FYI - I have played it 15-20 times Caddied it somewhere above 80 times, walked it maybe 10.
Do I get an exception like Tom? Who do I apply to to check whether my opinion counts or not?
Write about it or not, I could care less. You are welcome to your opinion, as much as I disagree with it. Maybe we don't represent the mainstream of golf but at least we give a shit and are prepared by the means at our disposal to preserve something we value.
Regards
Sean
-
the R & A will do exactly as it pleases.
Ivan:
Yes ... that's why we are bothered.
More specifically, it bothers me that this decision has been taken by a very small number of people. I've just heard from a friend who is a member of the R & A, who was quite disturbed by the announcement ... there had been no discussion of it with the members at the club's annual meetings this fall.
Of course, we must remember that the R & A doesn't own The Old Course at all. All they can really do is tell the town they demand changes to the course if they want to continue hosting Open Championship events. It's not clear how or when that decision was made or handed down.
-
There is nobody less inhibited about aiming a kick at The R & A when I think it is deserved - but not this time. In the interest of injecting some balance. I'm one golf journalist who won't support this campaign or write about it. It's gone way over the top. So there! My info is that a 'wedge' of influential locals who play the course on a daily/weekly basis are in favor. How many of you aggravators have played TOC more than once or twice, to justify being so indignant and sure of yourselves?
Ivan,
Sorry to pile on but,
"a wedge of influential locals" have mucked up many a classic course, and are the very reason the term "restoration architect" even exists.
In fact, people who grew up on and are most familiar with a course are the very ones most likely to take it and its history for granted.
But, as you already pointed out, the equipment let the genie out of the bottle and led us down this road.
I only wish we could mount this much passion about the equipment issue-but it's a start.
I am glad to see that the R&A notices "something" is different about the caliber of professional play-Now we just need to steer their solution in a more long term direction, and not continue to band aid classic courses.
-
Historic links portray the advancement of golf proficiency, and is the factor of comparison in my view. What Bob Jones did at Saint Andrews vs what Rory McIlroy or Luke Donald will do is the permanent gauge of golf design content.
To remove that gauge by redesign is a mistake.
-
.
I only wish we could mount this much passion about the equipment issue-but it's a start
'The equipment issue' is the reason these changes are proposed - the R&A and the Links Trust have chosen to address the symptom rather than the cause.
I had thought that when the R&A started contemplating changes to the Old Course (beyond additional tees) to ensure its relevance to the modern professional game, they would realise that there is a problem with equipment that must be addressed urgently. I was wrong.
-
Well, maybe this will get somewhere. Responses below from Bob Cupp and Graham Papworth:
Tom-
I'm in.
This is tantamount to redesigning Chartres.
Amazing.
What is it they do not like and who are the responsible parties?
The historic significance of those forms is immense, something that should be
preserved at all cost, even if it is some low scores.
I have topo of the old course. Why don't they just build the entire thing again
somewhere and enlarge it whatever percent the ball has advanced and listen to
those Boyz scream.
The easier solution would be for every ball manufacturer to produce a ball with
ballistics that would roll back to Pre-titanium drivers and two-piece balls.
B
[that's Bob Cupp]
Hi Tom,
I agree whole heartedly and I recall some discussion at that forum about the
equivalent of a heritage listing for such treasured courses. I'd also be
very surprised if our membership wasn't unanimous in supporting a petition
against any design changes to the Old Course. I wasn't aware of this
proposal and would like to forward it on to our members to begin garnering
support.
Regards,
Graham
Maybe this will lead somewhere after all.
-
'The equipment issue' is the reason these changes are proposed - the R&A and the Links Trust have chosen to address the symptom rather than the cause.
I had thought that when the R&A started contemplating changes to the Old Course (beyond additional tees) to ensure its relevance to the modern professional game, they would realise that there is a problem with equipment that must be addressed urgently. I was wrong.
Chris:
While I agree that the two issues are linked, I don't think we want to talk about the equipment discussion in making our case here, because that will triple the resistance from the R & A. Here's what I wrote about that on my other thread:
I don't think we need to get this discussion wrapped up with the equipment discussion -- in fact, I think we really NEED to keep it separate. There is no question that the two are linked, IN THE MINDS OF THE GOVERNING BODIES ... but they do not have to be linked here. One can simply say The Old Course is worth preserving, and then see if the governing bodies are perverse enough to say it can't be, because they can't control the equipment issue.
I am not trying to use this development as evidence that the equipment rules need to be changed. That's the governing bodies' problem. The truth is that we've enabled them to avoid confrontation with the equipment companies for decades, by allowing them to change the fields of play instead. If we could just make a stand that we aren't going to change the great courses to make up for their inaction, then maybe they would be more compelled to do something ... and if they don't, at least they wouldn't have ruined the great old courses in the process.
-
TD,
I support your letter and any other actions that would be needed.
I am quite certain Golf channel and that the national magazines will probably sit back and watch and report if there is anything to report but will not take a stance.
The one good thing about knowing this is that it somehow got out. I would wager that the R&A did not expect this to be published and it would probably enhance an attack strategy to know who and how it was released. It would have been so much easier for them to have done it and not told until too late. ;)
As for Ivan....you guys don't be too hard on him...I bet there are more writers and journalist in his camp than the other but at least he came out and made a statement and now he has obliged and will not get in the way...
Oh well....
-
While I agree that the two issues are linked, I don't think we want to talk about the equipment discussion in making our case here, because that will triple the resistance from the R & A.
Tom, you are right. The issues are definitely linked, but equipment shouldn't be the focus of any campaign - it has to be about the Old Course, not broader issues about governance of the game.
Pleased to see the positive responses to your letter thus far, well done, I hope they're the first of many.
-
Ivan Morris,
With all due respect, your rationale allows dictators to come power. Revolutionaries have been triumphant, too, ya know.
-
Tom,
John Huggan is staying with us in Melbourne at the moment. He is all over it already with a terrific piece for the newspaper.
-
Ivan Morris
On an earlier thread you worried about changes going to far at Sunningdale (by the same architect), but now you dismiss others who are critical of changes to an even more historic course??
-
Tom,
Great news the American and Oz GCA bodies are behind the petition!
Make sure EIGCA knows this asap, that will make it very difficult for them to duck the issue! Who are the EIGCA members on this board? Can we get their commitment to publicly lobby for a similar stance?
The first replies from R&A members are that they did not know about these plans, and they are not amused. A person who was very high in the R&A hierarchy told me that he never knew or understood who actually gave the orders to make changes to the Open courses. His belief is it comes directly from Dawson, who according to this person has always been a big proponent of making the Open courses more difficult.
-
This is a shame but glad the plans have finally been made public. The more noise against these proposals the better.
I suspect that Tom D is right and that the decision has been driven by a select group of folks.
-
Stop abusing me, boys! I'm not the target. As it happens, the Hawtree changes at Sunningdale turned out very well and my 'worries' were unnecessary. If the changes at TOC turn out similarly will any of you be man enough to apologize? If it's a disaster, I'll genuinely be as disappointed as many of you. I'm just not joining your gang, that's all. Aim your ire at the R & A.
-
Stop abusing me, boys! I'm not the target. As it happens, the Hawtree changes at Sunningdale turned out very well and my 'worries' were unnecessary. If the changes at TOC turn out similarly will any of you be man enough to apologize? If it's a disaster, I'll genuinely be as disappointed as many of you. I'm just not joining your gang, that's all. Aim your ire at the R & A.
Ivan,
Not sure I agree with your assesment of the Sunningdale changes, but you are right that we should focus on R&A and Links Trust and respect your opinion.
-
Stop abusing me, boys! I'm not the target. As it happens, the Hawtree changes at Sunningdale turned out very well and my 'worries' were unnecessary. If the changes at TOC turn out similarly will any of you be man enough to apologize? If it's a disaster, I'll genuinely be as disappointed as many of you. I'm just not joining your gang, that's all. Aim your ire at the R & A.
Ivan,
I see Sunningdale as very different: It was constructed in 1901, was altered dramatically in the 20's and has evolved through nature, maintenance practices and tweaking since that time... Quite a bit of it was actually "built"... Much of the Hawtree work since was bringing some shape back in to the bunkers.
If someone decided to completely overhaul the style of TOC bunkers, I'd be less concerned even though it would have a much more dramatic visual effect than the changes proposed and would probably find a much larger number of people up in arms.... Altering the contours of the ground at TOC is sacrilege in my book because it is those contours that we've all taken inspiration from so much...
Only yesterday I was looking at a photo of the 11th and noting the beautiful horizon line on the back of the green, above the Eden estuary. That will no doubt change with the work on the back-left.
I do agree with you however that we are quite often willing to berate possible work on older courses before seeing the final outcome and - like you at Sunningdale - that final outcome is often either quite pleasing or fairly unnoticeable making you wonder what all the uproar was about at the start. But the work has to be fully justified and for the right reasons. In this case I don't believe it is and additionally, the Old Course stands alone as something to be preserved.
-
All,
This is something that I have feared for a long time - not only with TOC but courses with architectural historic importance in general.
With regards to the actual phases being planned - when are they looking to start with phase 1? How long is there for voices to be heard?
Neil.
-
Ally
Most of the Old Course was "built" too. Why exactly does it get not get a pass whereas Sunningdale does? Just because?
Rich
-
Hi guys – and Tom in particular.
For what it is worth, on a personal level, (and being an EIGCA associate member), I (like many others) believe TOC to be the ‘holiest grail’ in golf, which should not be interfered with in any other way than what is necessary for it to remain healthy – and in no way to accommodate the random tournament play the course receives.
I am sure Martin Hawtree could do a good job there, as he has with so many other courses around the world, but holes like the Eden and the Road Hole are a source of inspiration and the backbone of our profession and the game we all love. Starting to alter these iconic golfing experiences – even if it was somehow arguably possible to improve them – can only be the first step on a very uncertain path.
-
Ivan,
Apparently those holding an opinion different to yours on this thread are "aggravators, indignant, sure of ourselves" and have no right to have a view because we haven't played TOC enough.
You then claim to be the one abused and also pre-emptively call us unmanly because thanks to your prescience you know we won't give any credit if the work meets with your obviously impeccable view of good golf course architecture.
I'm also still waiting for your adjudication on whether I get to have a valid opinion or not. If you have a constructive argument like those Rihc and Scott have advanced happy to hear it. Spare me the false victimhood and namecalling.
-
Phillip - an Open Championship every 5 years and the Dunhill pro-am, St Andrews Links Trophy and the St Rule Trophy annually is hardly random tournament play.
-
Hi guys – and Tom in particular.
For what it is worth, on a personal level, (and being an EIGCA associate member), I (like many others) believe TOC to be the ‘holiest grail’ in golf, which should not be interfered with in any other way than what is necessary for it to remain healthy – and in no way to accommodate the random tournament play the course receives.
I am sure Martin Hawtree could do a good job there, as he has with so many other courses around the world, but holes like the Eden and the Road Hole are a source of inspiration and the backbone of our profession and the game we all love. Starting to alter these iconic golfing experiences – even if it was somehow arguably possible to improve them – can only be the first step on a very uncertain path.
Hi Philip,
Good to see that you as a EIGCA member are joining the discussion! Also very good to see you are against tthe proposed changes to the classic greens of TOC.
What can you, and other EIGCA members, specifically do to push the leadership of the EIGCA to actively take a stance against the proposed changes to TOC?
FP
-
Ally
Most of the Old Course was "built" too. Why exactly does it get not get a pass whereas Sunningdale does? Just because?
Rich
Those contours I love weren't built Rich.... The 17th green certainly but almost everything through the green is as was (unless you want to point out the areas I'm wrong - I'm sure there are a couple of small ones)... I don't go to Sunningdale to study the micro-contours on the fairways or even around the greens... Plus I'm presuming Colt constructed many of the greens there - although admittedly my historic knowledge of Sunningdale is pretty low...
-
Mark -
You are off course right about that - few courses in the world sees that much professional tournament play. But to carry out significant changes on some of the most iconic and inspiring holes in golf to cater for what is less than 1% of the play on the course does not, in my opinion, seem like a 'justifiable' starting point when it comes to TOC.
-
Mark,
That is true but there are also 30,000 plus rounds from club golfers on a public course the other 45 to 49 weeks a year.
How many of these club golfers finish the round and decide 2, 4 and 17 need to be more difficult? That the hollow in the fairway on 7, which they are 20 yards behind needs to be filled in (FWIW the maintenance of 7 could be dramatically improved for club golfers but that's another story)? That what 9 really needs is a bunker on the left so it can have bunkers left, right and centre? That the back of 4 needs to be re-contoured?
I am not of the opinion that no changes can be made to the course just that they should only be made after a more transparent and considered process and primarily for the needs/benefit of its biggest constituency, handicap golfers.
-
Frank -
Let us see what happens. I think Tom has made the initiative and we will all wait for a response.
-
Ally
Most of the Old Course was "built" too. Why exactly does it get not get a pass whereas Sunningdale does? Just because?
Rich
Those contours I love weren't built Rich.... The 17th green certainly but almost everything through the green is as was (unless you want to point out the areas I'm wrong - I'm sure there are a couple of small ones)... I don't go to Sunningdale to study the micro-contours on the fairways or even around the greens... Plus I'm presuming Colt constructed many of the greens there - although admittedly my historic knowledge of Sunningdale is pretty low...
Ally
In 1855 what is now the front nine was a rabbit warren completely covered in gorse. In 1856 OTM (still under Robertson's supervision) bulldozed (or horsedozed) all of those whins, as well as extending nearly all of the 9 existing greens into double greens. This wasn't done by some sort of magical revelation but by horsepower and manpower. All the bunkers on the front 9 were manufactured, then over over the past 150 years. Later on, in addiiton to the 17th, the 18th was completely rebuilt by OTM, including the Valley of Sin. I would be very surprised if anywhere near as much as 1/2 of those contours that we all love were found and not "built."
Iconoclastically
Rich
-
Obviously the Links Trophy for men and the St Rule for ladies are amateur events.
I'm not advocating change or doing nothing, I don't know the course well enough to have an opinion. For anyone who has spent time on committee asking for too much opinion gets you nowhere!
-
Ally
Most of the Old Course was "built" too. Why exactly does it get not get a pass whereas Sunningdale does? Just because?
Rich
Those contours I love weren't built Rich.... The 17th green certainly but almost everything through the green is as was (unless you want to point out the areas I'm wrong - I'm sure there are a couple of small ones)... I don't go to Sunningdale to study the micro-contours on the fairways or even around the greens... Plus I'm presuming Colt constructed many of the greens there - although admittedly my historic knowledge of Sunningdale is pretty low...
Ally
In 1855 what is now the front nine was a rabbit warren completely covered in gorse. In 1856 OTM (still under Robertson's supervision) bulldozed (or horsedozed) all of those whins, as well as extending nearly all of the 9 existing greens into double greens. This wasn't done by some sort of magical revelation but by horsepower and manpower. All the bunkers on the front 9 were manufactured, then over over the past 150 years. Later on, in addiiton to the 17th, the 18th was completely rebuilt by OTM, including the Valley of Sin. I would be very surprised if anywhere near as much as 1/2 of those contours that we all love were found and not "built."
Iconoclastically
Rich
Rich,
I'll have to disagree then.... You really think when they cleared those whins, they did mass-shaping of the land at the same time?... That all / most of those bunkers were artificially placed for strategy (although many of the less interesting ones down the right side of the front nine clearly were)?... When they extended the double greens were they constructed or were there just two pins put in an area previously used for one - I'm certainly willing to believe a few of the greens were given a helping hand in creation (I knew about 18 for sure)?...
I am not naive when I talk about the natural ground at TOC.... It is unlike any other and it is what architects all aspire to... If you think Old Tom created half the contours when he took the gorse out, then he has a better crew of shapers than New Tom (Doak).... I haven't seen any sign of it on other OTM courses.... Perhaps it was just luck when he turned it over?...
-
Mark
You apparently have not read "Reminiscences of Golf on St. Andrews Links" written by James Balfour in 1887. It is available in reprint for under a tenner. Money very well spent if you are a lover of the Old Course. And if you think that the extremely narrow 1855 course had greens that were up to 120 yards wide, you are dreaming. Read Balfour for a wake up call.
As for the land being "unlike any other," that is meaningless Gary Player-type pap. Any piece of land is unlike any other. It is what man sees in it and DOES WITH IT that makes places like St. Andrews special. IMHO, of course....
Rich
-
Frank -
Let us see what happens. I think Tom has made the initiative and we will all wait for a response.
Philip, your stance is clear. Will you however sign the petition if EIGCA does nothing?
-
Mark
You apparently have not read "Reminiscences of Golf on St. Andrews Links" written by James Balfour in 1887. It is available in reprint for under a tenner. Money very well spent if you are a lover of the Old Course. And if you think that the extremely narrow 1855 course had greens that were up to 120 yards wide, you are dreaming. Read Balfour for a wake up call.
As for the land being "unlike any other," that is meaningless Gary Player-type pap. Any piece of land is unlike any other. It is what man sees in it and DOES WITH IT that makes places like St. Andrews special. IMHO, of course....
Rich
Rich, I'm sure your last post should have been directed at me, not Mark.
Given that all the changes to TOC were effectively pre-golf course architecture as we know it, I think it's valid that the land has had a bigger influence than any other course (by a distance) on all design that has followed since...Gary Player "Pap" or not, the land is "unlike any other" because of that influence...
If Old Tom created all that great golf, why did he never come close again? My guess is that the more the hand of man is evident, the less interesting the ground...
You are right though - I haven't read Balfour
-
Sorry Ally, I did mean you!
OTM wasn't a no-op. He found/built Prestwick in 1851, which was the ONLY Open venue from 1860-1872. By 1873, the work he did on TOC from 1865 onwards finally raised it to a standard deemed worthy of an Open.... ;) He also found/built Dornoch and Lahinch and Westward Ho! and Lundin/Leven etc. etc. Of those, IMO, Lahinch and Prestwick are the equal of the Old Course and Dornoch is significantly superior. But I am biased, of course, as we are all.
You should but and read Balfour. It is THE best and first significant architectural analysis of a golf course and its evoltion published in the 19th century.
Rich
-
Frank -
Let us see what happens. I think Tom has made the initiative and we will all wait for a response.
Philip, your stance is clear. Will you however sign the petition if EIGCA does nothing?
Frank -
TOC is my favorite spot on Earth. I believe it to be awe-inspiring and fundamental to what I do. But before getting all carried away lets see what the next weeks will bring and take it from there. My personal opinion is that the greens should not be changed to cater for the relatively small amount of professional (or high level Amateur) golf. (Bunkers are a slightly different subject as discussed previously on this thread).
-
Sorry Ally, I did mean you!
OTM wasn't a no-op. He found/built Prestwick in 1851, which was the ONLY Open venue from 1860-1872. By 1873, the work he did on TOC from 1865 onwards finally raised it to a standard deemed worthy of an Open.... ;) He also found/built Dornoch and Lahinch and Westward Ho! and Lundin/Leven etc. etc. Of those, IMO, Lahinch and Prestwick are the equal of the Old Course and Dornoch is significantly superior. But I am biased, of course, as we are all.
You should but and read Balfour. It is THE best and first significant architectural analysis of a golf course and its evoltion published in the 19th century.
Rich
I will search out Balfour indeed Rich... I'm sure MHM is watching so want to word this carefully... TOC has obviously had work done to it throughout its history... But it it has a lot less work done a lot less recently than just about any other course... You mention Lahinch - there is one OTM hole remaining there... It is Dell and we're not even sure that was his... When he left Lahinch, 13 holes were still on the other side of the road...
-
Frank -
Let us see what happens. I think Tom has made the initiative and we will all wait for a response.
Philip, your stance is clear. Will you however sign the petition if EIGCA does nothing?
Frank -
TOC is my favorite spot on Earth. I believe it to be awe-inspiring and fundamental to what I do. But before getting all carried away lets see what the next weeks will bring and take it from there. My personal opinion is that the greens should not be changed to cater for the relatively small amount of professional (or high level Amateur) golf. (Bunkers are a slightly different subject as discussed previously on this thread).
Philip,
I thought my question if you are willing to sign the petition if the EIGCAa does nothing was rather straightforward to answer with either a yes or no, something most others have already done on this forum.
-
I am no architect, so Tom's campaign isn't for me but I have e-mailed the Links Trust and will be writing (and hopefully speaking) to a friend who is on the R&A Rules committee. Anyone who feels strongly enough to post on this thread should also be making their views felt to those responsible for the decision.
-
Sorry Ally, I did mean you!
OTM wasn't a no-op. He found/built Prestwick in 1851, which was the ONLY Open venue from 1860-1872. By 1873, the work he did on TOC from 1865 onwards finally raised it to a standard deemed worthy of an Open.... ;) He also found/built Dornoch and Lahinch and Westward Ho! and Lundin/Leven etc. etc. Of those, IMO, Lahinch and Prestwick are the equal of the Old Course and Dornoch is significantly superior. But I am biased, of course, as we are all.
You should but and read Balfour. It is THE best and first significant architectural analysis of a golf course and its evoltion published in the 19th century.
Rich
I will search out Balfour indeed Rich... I'm sure MHM is watching so want to word this carefully... TOC has obviously had work done to it throughout its history... But it it has a lot less work done a lot less recently than just about any other course... You mention Lahinch - there is one OTM hole remaining there... It is Dell and we're not even sure that was his... When he left Lahinch, 13 holes were still on the other side of the road...
Ally,
Save yourself an tenner ...
http://archive.org/details/reminiscencesgo00golfgoog
-
Sorry Ally, I did mean you!
OTM wasn't a no-op. He found/built Prestwick in 1851, which was the ONLY Open venue from 1860-1872. By 1873, the work he did on TOC from 1865 onwards finally raised it to a standard deemed worthy of an Open.... ;) He also found/built Dornoch and Lahinch and Westward Ho! and Lundin/Leven etc. etc. Of those, IMO, Lahinch and Prestwick are the equal of the Old Course and Dornoch is significantly superior. But I am biased, of course, as we are all.
You should but and read Balfour. It is THE best and first significant architectural analysis of a golf course and its evoltion published in the 19th century.
Rich
I will search out Balfour indeed Rich... I'm sure MHM is watching so want to word this carefully... TOC has obviously had work done to it throughout its history... But it it has a lot less work done a lot less recently than just about any other course... You mention Lahinch - there is one OTM hole remaining there... It is Dell and we're not even sure that was his... When he left Lahinch, 13 holes were still on the other side of the road...
Ally
Mea culpa re: Lahinch. I should have re-read what I wrote 4-5 years ago about the course for the most recent version of the World Atlas of Golf (Senior Moment!). Whilst OTM was first tat Lahinch (at age 72!), you are right that most of what he found/built is now gone. Nevertheless, he was a GCA stud and TOC is as much a homage to him as it is to mother nature.
Vis a vis "work done" on a course, the fact is that TOC today is vastly different to the TOC I first played in 1978 in terms of conditioning. The greens were horribly slow and bumpy, the fairways were to the standard of a bad USA Muni of the same era and the bunkers were rough and crumbly and raked weekly rather than daily. Today the fairways are pristine and the greens pristiner (even if still slow, even for Scotland). The bunkers are raked at least daily and are revetted to look like sculptures rather than sheep-shagging pits. Does this "work done" count? It surely makes a huge difference in how a course plays, particulary in those humps and hollows that we all love.
Or to say it more succinctly, "What exactly is 'golf course architecture?'"
-
Or to say it more succinctly, "What exactly is 'golf course architecture?'"
What it's NOT, is doing work where after all options are weighed up, all variables considered and all compromises taken in to account, is not an improvement on what was there before.
In this case, the history, standing and influence of the course is one of those variables. And until I know for sure that enough people of sensible mind have debated them ad nauseum and decided that the exact plans on the table are the best option and absolutely necessary to "improve" the course, then I will remain opposed.
Maybe our definition of "enough" might differ but that is of no relevance to my opinion.
EDIT - I just read Balfour's chapter over lunch and although he calls the changes considerable, he nowhere refers to anything other than whins being cleared and bunkers being changed. He does say the 16th green was flattened (and the previous mentioned 18th)... He also states that some new greens were allocated on the Outward holes but that some were just the original green with two holes put in it... To me, it seems like a widened links with new different lines... Not one that had earthmoving done to it in anything but the smallest areas... 90% plus of those contours are nature...
-
Or to say it more succinctly, "What exactly is 'golf course architecture?'"
What it's NOT, is doing work where after all options are weighed up, all variables considered and all compromises taken in to account, is not an improvement on what was there before.
HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. IT MAY BE "BAD" ARCHITECTURE FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW, BUT IT IS STILL "ARCHITECTURE."
In this case, the history, standing and influence of the course is one of those variables. And until I know for sure that enough people of sensible mind have debated them ad nauseum and decided that the exact plans on the table are the best option and absolutely necessary to "improve" the course, then I will remain opposed.
THE GREAT THING ABOUT GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE IS THAT IF YOU MAKE A MISTAKE YOU JUST BRING THE BULLODZOER BACK IN AND "PRESTO!" YOU ARE BACK TO SQUARE ONE! I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE (LOOK AT RELATED TEXTS) WHO THINKS THAT THE CHANGES TO 17 AND 11 WILL IN FACT "IMPROVE" THE COURSE.
Maybe our definition of "enough" might differ but that is of no relevance to my opinion.
FINALLY, TO EFECTIVELY COMPARE THE OLD COURSE TO THE MONA LISA IS HILARIOUS. ONE IS A TWO DIMENSIONAL WORK OF ART PAINTED BY ONE PERSON THAT SITS INSIDE A HUGE BUILDING IN A TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED CLIMATE BEHIND LAYERS OF GLASS. PEOPLE VIEW IT DAILY AND THEN MOVE ON TO ANOTHER OBJET D'ART. THE OTHER IS A PIECE OF LAND, SWEPT DAILY BY THE ELEMENTS AND OTHER ASPECTS OF GEOMORPHOLOGY, PLAYED AND GOUGED OVER BY SAINTS AND SINNERS ALIKE, AND ALTERED, ALMOST DAILY BY THE PEOPLE (GREEN KEEPERS) WHO ARE CHARGED WITH MAKING SURE IT IS PRISTINE AND FIT FOR PURPOSE.
TOC IS A LIVING ARTEFACT NOT A WORK OF ART. IT HAS EVOLVED OVER THE CENTURIES AND WILL CONTINUE TO EVOLVE, REAGARDLESS OF WHAT THOSE WHO MIGHT THINK LIKE KING KNUT THAT YOU CAN BID The TIDES TO STOP RISING AND LOWERING THROUGH FIAT, OR EVEN ARCHITECTURE..
Rich
PS--sorry for all the CAPS, but Mucci stole all my green ink.
rfg
-
Rich,
Yes the land changes subtly over time. Which of the proposed changes is in your opinion being driven by the natural evolution of the course? By your logic since a bottle of wine is a living breathing entity one might be justified in uncorking a '47 Petrus, taking a few swigs, taking a leak in the bottle and recorking it because the color seemed a bit off.
-
The subtle changes to The Old Course from the elements, players, greenkeepers etc are tiny compared with forced changes like these proposed. I've certainly played many links holes that are essentially the same as 30 years ago.
Why are these changes suddenly necessary now? The big boys aren't hitting it significantly farther than they were in 2003. Paul Broadhurst shot a 63 back in 1990, so was it too easy then?
I suspect The R&A have had such little resistance in changing the other Open venues (Hoylake! Muirfield?) that TOC was just next on the list of courses to be fixed.
-
I notice a few people here now tweeting on this issue. If we're going to do that, shouldn't we use an agreed hash-tag? That way, there's a better chance of this trending and gaining more attention. Tom Dunne used #savetheoldcourse, for what it's worth.
-
The subtle changes to The Old Course from the elements, players, greenkeepers etc are tiny compared with forced changes like these proposed. I've certainly played many links holes that are essentially the same as 30 years ago.
Why are these changes suddenly necessary now? The big boys aren't hitting it significantly farther than they were in 2003. Paul Broadhurst shot a 63 back in 1990, so was it too easy then?
I suspect The R&A have had such little resistance in changing the other Open venues (Hoylake! Muirfield?) that TOC was just next on the list of courses to be fixed.
Paul's last point is a good one. For whatever reasons, there was little resistance to recent changes to Open venues. I, we, everyone should have expressed our concerns more forcefully at the time.
But changing TOC increases the stakes. We should not make the same mistakes of omission this time. Objections should be expressed clearly and directly.
Bob
-
Rich,
Yes the land changes subtly over time. Which of the proposed changes is in your opinion being driven by the natural evolution of the course? By your logic since a bottle of wine is a living breathing entity one might be justified in uncorking a '47 Petrus, taking a few swigs, taking a leak in the bottle and recorking it because the color seemed a bit off.
jud
Chateua Petrus is just an over-hyped/over-priced merlot bought and drunk only by Russian oligarchs, Romanian child prostitution traffickers London wide boys and members of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee. Pissing in one of their bottles of the 1947 vintage would not only serve them right, it would improve the bouquet. IMHO, of course....
-
Rich,
Yes the land changes subtly over time. Which of the proposed changes is in your opinion being driven by the natural evolution of the course? By your logic since a bottle of wine is a living breathing entity one might be justified in uncorking a '47 Petrus, taking a few swigs, taking a leak in the bottle and recorking it because the color seemed a bit off.
jud
Chateua Petrus is just an over-hyped/over-priced merlot bought and drunk only by Russian oligarchs, Romanian child prostitution traffickers London wide boys and members of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee. Pissing in one of their bottles of the 1947 vintage would not only serve them right, it would improve the bouquet. IMHO, of course....
Like the Old Course, classic vintage Petrus often trades for rediculous sums amongst travelling wannabes. Also like the Old Course it's the finest I've experienced and shouldn't be f$&;ed with by poseurs.
-
Here is an update. Work underway.
http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1011/old-course-work-update
-
Ugh. This is really depressing...
-
Work has begun on the 11th green.
http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1011/old-course-work-update
-
Wow they really didn't want much delay for questioning this! Anyone in St Andrews with a camera?
-
Chapeau R&A and St.Andrews Trust, superb tactics, get it done very quickly, so that opposition is irrelevant.
So much for "lets see what the next weeks will bring " ....
-
This really improves my respect for Dr H.
-
Frank -
Let us see what happens. I think Tom has made the initiative and we will all wait for a response.
Philip, your stance is clear. Will you however sign the petition if EIGCA does nothing?
Frank -
TOC is my favorite spot on Earth. I believe it to be awe-inspiring and fundamental to what I do. But before getting all carried away lets see what the next weeks will bring and take it from there. My personal opinion is that the greens should not be changed to cater for the relatively small amount of professional (or high level Amateur) golf. (Bunkers are a slightly different subject as discussed previously on this thread).
Philip,
I thought my question if you are willing to sign the petition if the EIGCAa does nothing was rather straightforward to answer with either a yes or no, something most others have already done on this forum.
Frank -
Yes.
(But I would like to hear the EIGCA's official take on it first. And I would like to point out that it has nothing to do with Martin Hawtree's quality as an architect, but alone the history of TOC and the reasons for altering it.)
-
Philip,
Good to know who's side you are on.
Re Dr H, we know members of EIGCA are not allowed to have public opinions about other members, that is not your fault.
In any case the turn of events make waiting kind of irrelevant at this point, it looks like the discussion is more about when and how will green 11 be restored back to its pre Dr H state. .....
-
The haste between public announcement and execution seems a bit.... unseemly.
Am I missing something?
Bob
-
Work has begun on the 11th green.
http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1011/old-course-work-update
Zowie, the arrogance...Its stuff like this which makes me distrust authority...
Ciao
-
Perhaps by the time H gets done Open Doctoring Trump International will in fact be the best course in the world...by default :-\
-
Perhaps by the time H gets done Open Doctoring Trump International will in fact be the best course in the world...by default :-\
Perhaps this belongs in the H frank commentary thread, but I just have no feel for him as an architect. Half the pictures of Trump looked great, half made me go ???, but I've heard good things from those who've played it.
The one picture which I can't find now is of a fairway at Trump Scotland which is DEAD flat and has not contours. There are also other photos that show interesting movement in the fairways. Again, I don't know what to think, but it's the lack of detail in the description of these changes that makes me uneasy. The fact that they've already begun, however, just pisses me off.
-
Or to say it more succinctly, "What exactly is 'golf course architecture?'"
What it's NOT, is doing work where after all options are weighed up, all variables considered and all compromises taken in to account, is not an improvement on what was there before.
In this case, the history, standing and influence of the course is one of those variables. And until I know for sure that enough people of sensible mind have debated them ad nauseum and decided that the exact plans on the table are the best option and absolutely necessary to "improve" the course, then I will remain opposed.
Maybe our definition of "enough" might differ but that is of no relevance to my opinion.
EDIT - I just read Balfour's chapter over lunch and although he calls the changes considerable, he nowhere refers to anything other than whins being cleared and bunkers being changed. He does say the 16th green was flattened (and the previous mentioned 18th)... He also states that some new greens were allocated on the Outward holes but that some were just the original green with two holes put in it... To me, it seems like a widened links with new different lines... Not one that had earthmoving done to it in anything but the smallest areas... 90% plus of those contours are nature...
Ally
Take another look at the bottom of page 5, where Balfour says, firstly:
"The changes that have taken place on the course during these 45 years have been very considerable."
And then, regarding the widening of the course he says:
"....thus, the breadth of the course for golfing was gradually increased, till now it is about two-thirds broader than it used to be."
Now using primary school math this tells me that ~40% of the course we now play was manufactured ~ 150 years ago. That is "very considerable" change in anybody's book.
Vis a vis the greens, read Balfour with a detailed overhead map of the course, as I have. What I infer from what he says:
1. the double green now serving 2 and 16 was both flattened and greatly widened
2. the 3/15 green was greatly widened so that playing the 3rd no longer requires hitting your 2nd shot over the now superfluous bunker behind where the 15th pin usually lies
3. same with today's 4/14 green
4. speaking about 5/15, Balfour states boldly that the 5th "is more altered than any other on the links, and sadly destroyed."
5. as to 6/12 he states: "(The 6th) used to be one of the most dangerous on the links, but two or three large and important bunekrs have been filled up to make a double course." Then later, "The putting green too is greatly changed."
6. As to today's 1th, he says that "...the putting-green is much harder and broader."
There is of course, more, and thanks to Donal for finding the free download. I would recommend this wee book to any and all.
Rich
-
From Anthony's site: "Architect Martin Hawtree, who is overseeing the project, has a shaper on site."
I was about to make a silver lining post on how it might end up all right because from my experience the disturbance should be minimal, likely all of it handwork or done by small machines, and that Scottish greenkeepers are the best in the world and have a great eye for carrying out this sort of work. But that quote about bringing a shaper on is a little unnerving. Granted, it could simply be that this shaper is just overseeing the work or doing it with the tools I mentioned, which ok.
Any idea on what equipment they are bringing in, if any? If this has any chance of avoiding being the disaster that it is, I would hope they keep it all to the rakes, shovels, and sandpros. These proposed changes, even (and perhaps especially) 11, do not need anything bigger or they have gone too far, as if they haven't already.
-
I'll try to get along there at the weekend. Any suggestions as to what the content of my protest placard should be?
F.
-
I'll try to get along there at the weekend. Any suggestions as to what the content of my protest placard should be?
F.
FREEDOM!!!!
well, it worked for Mel Gibson.......
-
I'd like to know what the point of the press release was. Why didn't they just go do the work? Was a press release under the circumstance really necessary?
Seriously.
-
My apologies if this has already been posted, but this link has a good group of photos of the ongoing work on hole 17:
http://www.hookedongolfblog.com/2012/11/26/changes-at-st-andrews-old-course-spark-heated-debates
-
Work has begun on the 11th green.
http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1011/old-course-work-update
Zowie, the arrogance...Its stuff like this which makes me distrust authority...
Ciao
Yes it's gutless of them. I wonder if the DG sped the process up? I know some were reading it.
-
My apologies if this has already been posted, but this link has a good group of photos of the ongoing work on hole 17:
http://www.hookedongolfblog.com/2012/11/26/changes-at-st-andrews-old-course-spark-heated-debates
Bill good find. I think it's new. So what are they going to do beyond the red line?
-
I have no idea, but click on the photo in the article to see more photos (36-42) of the work.
http://www.hookedongolfblog.com/2012/11/26/changes-at-st-andrews-old-course-spark-heated-debates
-
My apologies if this has already been posted, but this link has a good group of photos of the ongoing work on hole 17:
http://www.hookedongolfblog.com/2012/11/26/changes-at-st-andrews-old-course-spark-heated-debates
Bill good find. I think it's new. So what are they going to do beyond the red line?
The red line is what scares me most about those pictures. It's so far away from the bunker.
-
I'm far from an expert, but what the hell do they need a bulldozer for? Just the site of it on the links is scary as hell...
-
Or to say it more succinctly, "What exactly is 'golf course architecture?'"
What it's NOT, is doing work where after all options are weighed up, all variables considered and all compromises taken in to account, is not an improvement on what was there before.
In this case, the history, standing and influence of the course is one of those variables. And until I know for sure that enough people of sensible mind have debated them ad nauseum and decided that the exact plans on the table are the best option and absolutely necessary to "improve" the course, then I will remain opposed.
Maybe our definition of "enough" might differ but that is of no relevance to my opinion.
EDIT - I just read Balfour's chapter over lunch and although he calls the changes considerable, he nowhere refers to anything other than whins being cleared and bunkers being changed. He does say the 16th green was flattened (and the previous mentioned 18th)... He also states that some new greens were allocated on the Outward holes but that some were just the original green with two holes put in it... To me, it seems like a widened links with new different lines... Not one that had earthmoving done to it in anything but the smallest areas... 90% plus of those contours are nature...
Ally
Take another look at the bottom of page 5, where Balfour says, firstly:
"The changes that have taken place on the course during these 45 years have been very considerable."
And then, regarding the widening of the course he says:
"....thus, the breadth of the course for golfing was gradually increased, till now it is about two-thirds broader than it used to be."
Now using primary school math this tells me that ~40% of the course we now play was manufactured ~ 150 years ago. That is "very considerable" change in anybody's book.
Vis a vis the greens, read Balfour with a detailed overhead map of the course, as I have. What I infer from what he says:
1. the double green now serving 2 and 16 was both flattened and greatly widened
2. the 3/15 green was greatly widened so that playing the 3rd no longer requires hitting your 2nd shot over the now superfluous bunker behind where the 15th pin usually lies
3. same with today's 4/14 green
4. speaking about 5/15, Balfour states boldly that the 5th "is more altered than any other on the links, and sadly destroyed."
5. as to 6/12 he states: "(The 6th) used to be one of the most dangerous on the links, but two or three large and important bunekrs have been filled up to make a double course." Then later, "The putting green too is greatly changed."
6. As to today's 1th, he says that "...the putting-green is much harder and broader."
There is of course, more, and thanks to Donal for finding the free download. I would recommend this wee book to any and all.
Rich
Rich - you've gone far enough with this one... The "manufactured" you are talking about was merely clearing gorse and whins to widen the course... Many of the 'greatly ruined / changed' commentaries by Balfour are to do with playing down a new corridor... If you wish to say that nine holes are 400 years old and nine merely 150 then I'm fine with that... The vast majority of it was and is natural contour... Some was made... There have been far less fundamental changes than almost any other links course in existence for over 100 years - I can guarantee you that... More to the point, are you for these changes or not? It seems irrelevant now that work has started but it's made me even more determined to take a stand...
-
I just watched Creating Old Macdonald... there's a great part in film when Tom Doak talks about the importance of that contour front-left of the putting surface at the Road hole, and all the study and effort that went into replicating that wonderful contour at Old Macdonald's Road hole.
Now Hawtree, Dawson and co. are going to change that contour in St. Andrews?! Is that the plan, and the reason for the red paint lines in the photos linked above? Geezus, I hope not.
-
My apologies if this has already been posted, but this link has a good group of photos of the ongoing work on hole 17:
http://www.hookedongolfblog.com/2012/11/26/changes-at-st-andrews-old-course-spark-heated-debates
Bill good find. I think it's new. So what are they going to do beyond the red line?
The red line is what scares me most about those pictures. It's so far away from the bunker.
I'd be amazed if that red line isn't the demarcation point to strip the green surface and reshape a run-in to the newly enlarged bunker... From all the turf stripped to the left of the bunker also, I'm guessing that there will be some undulation created to either push / gather balls in or repel them away to the left... Guess Marty can update tomorrow... Need a before and after of 11th green horizon line too...
-
Starting to get out there at least:
http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ron.mon/2012/11/25/a-storm-s-a-brewing
http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/golf/news/st-andrews-to-be-redesigned_56012.html
http://sport.uk.msn.com/golf/changes-at-st-andrews
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/7883103/Colin-Montgomerie-and-Graeme-McDowell-criticise-changes-to-St-Andrewss-famous-Road-Hole.html
http://blogs.golf.com/presstent/2012/11/changes-planned-for-old-course-at-st-andrews-ahead-of-15-open.html
http://www.cbssports.com/golf/story/12399880
http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Furious-response-to-Old-Course-plan/2600/Default.aspx?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
-
I'm far from an expert, but what the hell do they need a bulldozer for? Just the site of it on the links is scary as hell...
Jud,
not a 'bulldozer'. That is a lovely JCB backhoe loader. THE workhorse of choice for small earthmoving work in the UK. Nice...
F.
-
Yeah that disturbance line does seem a bit far over. It is hard to tell exactly from the photo, but I wouldn't think they need to go that far out to get a proper tie in. I just hope the thing stays within the half meter they mention and that the risky putt-around-and-over the bunker contour is maintained. The red line though, if indeed a disturbance line, does open up the possibility of something different. Sounds like a riskier proposition than putting around the Road Bunker.
Jud,
Where did you see a bulldozer?
-
I'm far from an expert, but what the hell do they need a bulldozer for? Just the site of it on the links is scary as hell...
Agreed.
Mark
-
I'm far from an expert, but what the hell do they need a bulldozer for? Just the site of it on the links is scary as hell...
Jud,
not a 'bulldozer'. That is a lovely JCB backhoe loader. THE workhorse of choice for small earthmoving work in the UK. Nice...
F.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Old%20Course%20renovations/rebuildingshellbunkerface.jpg)
-
My apologies if this has already been posted, but this link has a good group of photos of the ongoing work on hole 17:
http://www.hookedongolfblog.com/2012/11/26/changes-at-st-andrews-old-course-spark-heated-debates
Bill good find. I think it's new. So what are they going to do beyond the red line?
The red line is what scares me most about those pictures. It's so far away from the bunker.
I think the area of the dashed red line indicates where the new slope will start downward to help repel shots and have them gather down in front, but not in the newly expanded bunker.
-
Ally
I'm happy to agree to disagree. Hope we can meet someday to discuss these imoprtant issues in person rather than over keyboards. Meanwhile, take that stand, and good luck.
Rich
-
Here's something I don't understand too: so the whole purpose is to put a premium on shot making and therefore I'd imagine making the bunker and its surrounds more penal...
THEN WHY THE HECK ARE THEY MAKING IT BIGGER? Their plan is to expand the bunker, thereby diminishing (if I've interpreted countless stories, pictures, and hours of television coverage correctly) what makes that bunker so challenging in the first place. Doesn't the fact there is often a good chance that the ball will end up near the face of the bunker and force a player to play away from the hole make it great? Wouldn't adding more opportunites (i.e. sand) give the golfer a greater chance of being able to recover without penalty?
Perhaps someone can weigh in on this aspect, but if the contours gather the ball into the bunker, then why do they need to make the footprint bigger?
-Alex
-
A JCB is just about the worst choice of vehicle to be used on a golf course.
To begin with it's wheeled, which will lead to uneven compaction of the sub soil, and those stabilisers will make for even further compaction.
Not only a badly conceived project but also a bad execution. Dear, dear we need some experts.
-
Ally
I'm happy to agree to disagree. Hope we can meet someday to discuss these imoprtant issues in person rather than over keyboards. Meanwhile, take that stand, and good luck.
Rich
Sounds good to me.... I was getting derailed from "the cause"
-
A JCB is just about the worst choice of vehicle to be used on a golf course.
To begin with it's wheeled, which will lead to uneven compaction of the sub soil, and those stabilisers will make for even further compaction.
Not only a badly conceived project but also a bad execution. Dear, dear we need some experts.
Incidentally that photo is just rebuilding shell bunker, nowt to do with the current discussed work I don't think (even if it is happening right now)
-
Rich,
Yes the land changes subtly over time. Which of the proposed changes is in your opinion being driven by the natural evolution of the course? By your logic since a bottle of wine is a living breathing entity one might be justified in uncorking a '47 Petrus, taking a few swigs, taking a leak in the bottle and recorking it because the color seemed a bit off.
This may offend many. BUT
I know nothing of wine, and this still made me laugh out loud. Having a crap day, so I have to say thanks!
-
I believe that JCB is from an old picture, not this current project since there has been no mention of Shell Bunker in the works. The revetted bunkers at St Andrew's are rebuilt every 4-5 years, roughly. With revetting, the old "walls" are torn down to build the new ones. The JCB here is likely only doing the tear down and helping with the loading of the spoils, which is done by hand with most of the smaller bunkers. Sure saves on a lot of labor and play disruption for the course's biggest bunker.
Edit: Ally beat me to it
-
Has the trust considered that redesigning the course could have an effect on the foreign golfers they rely on for revenue? I for one have no interest in playing the New Old Course nor will the groups I usually bring over the pond to drop their hard earned money. Reminds me of Pinehurst #2 and all the years of neglect that has now been hopefully reversed.
That brings up a good question. How long after this abomination will it take to decide they need to restore the course back to pre-butchering? Hope someone has extremely accurate maps, topos, GPS stuff and all that technology so they will know what to do when the time comes.
-
I'd like to know what the point of the press release was. Why didn't they just go do the work? Was a press release under the circumstance really necessary?
Seriously.
I asked that in post #123. It just didn't make sense that they would publish a press release unless they had already begun. ;)
-
Donal (Save yersel' a tenner) and Rich,
Thanks for the link and the introduction to this marvellous piece of writing by Balfour! This short book is well worth the reading. I thoroughly enjoyed it and will buy a copy forthwith.
Light relief from the rather glum feelings regarding the impending changes to the Old Lady. So there you go Mac Plumart hoping this makes you feel a bit less "bummed out"!
For those of a classical bent but a wee bit lazy:
"Eheu fugaces, Posthume, Posthume, Labuntur anni!" translates to
"Alas the fleeting years glide away, Postumus,Postumus."
Ach, how true, how true.
And for those not steeped in the vernacular pertaining to fine Scottish cuisine "parritch" is porridge!
Cheers Colin
-
I'd like to know what the point of the press release was. Why didn't they just go do the work? Was a press release under the circumstance really necessary?
Seriously.
I asked that in post #123. It just didn't make sense that they would publish a press release unless they had already begun. ;)
Like many alterations at existing clubs, but unlike TOC, the bar is low for clubs to have architects rubber stamp what they want or at least design what they want. May not be much different here, though. In addition, the architectural approval by a "golf course architect", squelches any challenges to the veracity of the process taken by those getting what they want.
The announcement of the work to be done was done as the guillotine was falling.
We'll have to see how those in charge do, only time will tell.
-
Is there anywhere online which has the text of the St Andrews Links Order Confirmation Act 1974? I'd like to understand the specifics of the governance arrangements.
Thanks in advance.
-
I'd like to know what the point of the press release was. Why didn't they just go do the work? Was a press release under the circumstance really necessary?
Seriously.
I asked that in post #123. It just didn't make sense that they would publish a press release unless they had already begun. ;)
Like many alterations at existing clubs, but unlike TOC, the bar is low for clubs to have architects rubber stamp what they want or at least design what they want. May not be much different here, though. In addition, the architectural approval by a "golf course architect", squelches any challenges to the veracity of the process taken by those getting what they want.
The announcement of the work to be done was done as the guillotine was falling.
We'll have to see how those in charge do, only time will tell.
My question is why did they ever release it to the press at all? It would be much cleaner to wait and release it after the fact. The release mentioned all of the involved bodies but which released it. was it Dr Hawtree's publicist or one of the others? I would wager the R&Adid not know it was being released. There was zero to gain with it.
-
I'd like to know what the point of the press release was. Why didn't they just go do the work? Was a press release under the circumstance really necessary?
Seriously.
I asked that in post #123. It just didn't make sense that they would publish a press release unless they had already begun. ;)
Like many alterations at existing clubs, but unlike TOC, the bar is low for clubs to have architects rubber stamp what they want or at least design what they want. May not be much different here, though. In addition, the architectural approval by a "golf course architect", squelches any challenges to the veracity of the process taken by those getting what they want.
The announcement of the work to be done was done as the guillotine was falling.
We'll have to see how those in charge do, only time will tell.
My question is why did they ever release it to the press at all? It would be much cleaner to wait and release it after the fact. The release mentioned all of the involved bodies but which released it. was it Dr Hawtree's publicist or one of the others? I would wager the R&Adid not know it was being released. There was zero to gain with it.
weak moment by someone? what gain was there other than to shine the light of day on the "project" at TOC.
will Hawtree's name now be forever attached to TOC?
-
The golf channel did an overview of the changes with some decent discussion today.
-
The golf channel did an overview of the changes with some decent discussion today.
Yes they did. I loved how they showed every change using the flyovers of the course they have. The only changes that made me stop the show and made me say, "WHY?!?!?" were the moving of the bunkers closer to the second green and the acute spur formation reduction.
They said the reason for the slight leveling of the left half of the 11th green was indirectly related to the green speed; the reason being the green becoming too severe when the wind was up..........I'm on the fence..............Every other change, IMO, will either be unnoticeable or an improvement [bunker on 9 (IMO)].
They even said "It is like messing with the Mona Lisa. It's got a lot of people upset. There are architects that don't like this..." TOM, YOUR VOICE IS BEING HEARD!!!!!!!!
Addition: And yes, they did mention the ball and clubs problem more than once.
-
One thing has been constantly on my mind since this broke: Imagine if Melvyn had managed to use his powers for good a few years back. I can't help but think he could have been in a position to have a voice on this that someone might listen to, but instead...
Maybe I'm wrong about that, it's just so frustrating to watch this happening and realise that the only place any of us outside the Links Trust and R&A have stewardship of TOC is in our hearts and at a time such as this that means nothing at all.
-
I'd like to know what the point of the press release was. Why didn't they just go do the work? Was a press release under the circumstance really necessary?
Seriously.
I asked that in post #123. It just didn't make sense that they would publish a press release unless they had already begun. ;)
Like many alterations at existing clubs, but unlike TOC, the bar is low for clubs to have architects rubber stamp what they want or at least design what they want. May not be much different here, though. In addition, the architectural approval by a "golf course architect", squelches any challenges to the veracity of the process taken by those getting what they want.
The announcement of the work to be done was done as the guillotine was falling.
We'll have to see how those in charge do, only time will tell.
My question is why did they ever release it to the press at all? It would be much cleaner to wait and release it after the fact. The release mentioned all of the involved bodies but which released it. was it Dr Hawtree's publicist or one of the others? I would wager the R&Adid not know it was being released. There was zero to gain with it.
It was the Links Trust. The R&A must have known because (a) they have, as discussed earlier, several representatives on the board of the Trust, and (b) Peter Dawson is quoted extensively in the release.
-
Work has begun on the 11th green.
http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1011/old-course-work-update
Zowie, the arrogance...Its stuff like this which makes me distrust authority...
Ciao
Yes it's gutless of them. I wonder if the DG sped the process up? I know some were reading it.
Paul
I am not a preservationist unless it is worth preserving, but when it comes to an historic place, and arguably the most historic aspect of a city steeped in history, I like the idea of full airing out before any significant changes are made. This process involving so few for such a hollowed ground is at best deceitful.
Do folks think there is a possibility that St Andrews (including TOC) has a shot of becoming UNESCO recognized at some point in the future and this work is intended to get in under the wire while the scrutiny process is presumably far less intense?
Ciao
-
To make things clear: the R&A have no authority over TOC. It's the Links Trust and thus ultimately the citizens of St. Andrews that are behind this.
All the R&A could do is take TOC out of the Open Championship rotation. What stir that would create amongst players and fans is easy to imagine. So in fact the R&A has absolutely no power at all in this regard, I wonder why everyone seems to bow to them.
Ulrich
-
Work has begun on the 11th green.
http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1011/old-course-work-update
Zowie, the arrogance...Its stuff like this which makes me distrust authority...
Ciao
Yes it's gutless of them. I wonder if the DG sped the process up? I know some were reading it.
Paul
I am not a preservationist unless it is worth preserving, but when it comes to an historic place, and arguably the most historic aspect of a city steeped in history, I like the idea of full airing out before any significant changes are made. This process involving so few for such a hollowed ground is at best deceitful.
Do folks think there is a possibility that St Andrews (including TOC) has a shot of becoming UNESCO recognized at some point in the future and this work is intended to get in under the wire while the scrutiny process is presumably far less intense?
Ciao
A number of architects, led by Paul O'Brien from Ireland, campaigned to have the course named as a World Heritage Site during the last round of adoptions, I think in 2010. It was turned down, I know Paul hopes to bring the idea back up, but I think it's only once every five years.
-
To make things clear: the R&A have no authority over TOC. It's the Links Trust and thus ultimately the citizens of St. Andrews that are behind this.
All the R&A could do is take TOC out of the Open Championship rotation. What stir that would create amongst players and fans is easy to imagine. So in fact the R&A has absolutely no power at all in this regard, I wonder why everyone seems to bow to them.
Ulrich
See, I think this is a really good point. Except that the R&A does have partial authority, because of its influence on the Links Trust board. But I totally agree - it is inconceivable that the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews would take the Open away from St Andrews. In any case, the crowds they get there are among the biggest anywhere - it's not for sentimental reasons they have TOC in the rota every five years.
-
The following from an AP article posted on ESPN Tours. Is there a sense of deja vu? It was written in 2002. What are the chances this time will turn out any different?
"LONDON -- The most famous bunker in golf has been altered to make it less terrifying -- and traditionalists are furious.
The "Road Hole'' sand trap at the Old Course in St. Andrews, Scotland -- the home of golf -- has been moved farther from the 17th green and had 2 feet taken off its height.
"The whole town is in uproar,'' said David Malcolm, a former captain of the New Course at St. Andrews. "Tampering with the bunker is going too far, and its loss is a tragedy.
"A lot of players have cursed it through the years, but a lot more will mourn its passing like a dear and familiar old friend.''
While the change might please the pros who have seen their title hopes disappear into the sand, the officials who made the changes say it's mainly intended for the thousands of recreational golfers who play the course.
Malcolm, who claims the alterations were made without consultation, notes that the old bunker was 8 feet wide at its base and gathered errant shots from twice that width. He said it has been replaced with 32 feet of gathering area to a pot bunker set 4 feet back from its original greenside setting. The crest has been lowered and the face reduced by some 2 feet.
The changes were made by the St. Andrews Links Trust, which supervises the Old Course. Caroline Nurse, communications manager of the Trust, denied that the changes had been made secretly.
"Changes like this have to go through several procedures before we can make any changes, especially to the Old Course, where they would be scrutinized extremely carefully,'' she said. "It's a significant change if you relate it to the shape of the bunker a month or a year ago. But it's not significant if you compare it to 20-30 years ago.''
Nurse said the contours of the bunker had changed over the years, with golfers trying to play out of it or visitors standing inside it to have their pictures taken.
"It had become too treacherous for the average golfer and even Ernie Els, who is such a great bunker player, had problems getting out of it at the Dunhill Links tournament,'' she said.
Els took four strokes for a quadruple-bogey 8 at the tournament in October.
"You won't know how difficult it is until people start playing it,'' Nurse said. "But the bunker should be far more difficult to avoid. The gathering area is greatly expanded and the balls are far more likely to roll into the trap than roll away from it.''
Peter Dawson, secretary of the Royal & Ancient Club, which is golf's rule-making body outside the United States and has its headquarters at St. Andrews, acknowledged a lot of people were upset by the changes.
"I would not disagree that there are some indignant people on the subject,'' he said. "It is always difficult to see what a concept is like until it has actually been done. But we did not ask for these changes, and it is evident that they have altered the nature of the hole.''
"I am not sure that anyone likes it very much,'' Dawson added. "The changes have been noted, and we will be in discussion about them. We will be walking the course next week to look at many things, and I'm sure that the work will be reviewed.''"
-
Or, again in 2005 (from IOL Sports), with Dawson again the main spokesperson, the following:
"R&A defends changes to Road Hole bunker
April 26 2005 at 06:22pm
St Andrews, Scotland - The British Open on Tuesday defended changes to the Road Hole bunker, one of the most notorious traps in golf.
The Open returns to the "home of golf" in July and the Royal & Ancient Club has altered the 455-yard, par-4 17th, the toughest hole on the Old Course.
The Road Hole bunker, which has a deep, almost vertical side, has been widened for the July 14-17 championship. That will make it easier to hit into, but also easier to get out.
Some purists and local observers claim the changes have ruined the bunker.
"I completely disagree," R&A chief executive Peter Dawson said.
"The Road Hole bunker has never been the same from one Open to the next. To say it has been ruined from what it was is completely false. I think that bunker has improved from what it was."
The Road Hole bunker has ruined the rounds of many contenders at St Andrews.
In 2000, David Duval took four strokes to get out of the trap and wound up with a quadruple bogey 8 as he finished tied for 11th behind winner Tiger Woods. Ernie Els did exactly the same at the 2002 Dunhill Links tournament.
The Old Course has been lengthened by 164 yards this year to a distance of 7 279 yards with the addition of new tees on five holes, the 2nd, 4th, 12th, 13th and 14th.
"We are restoring rather than changing the course," Dawson said. "Modern equipment and the greater athleticism of the game's leading players has led to many of the Old Course hazards being taken out of play."
He cited the 14th hole as an example.
"The drive at 14 had become hazard-free," he said. Adding 37 yards to the length of the hole will bring a series of bunkers called The Beardies back into play.
At 618 yards, the 14th becomes the longest hole on any course in the Open Championship rota.
"We are not looking for the course to become a big hitter's paradise, but are committed to staging a Championship that isn't just for golfers who hit the ball a long way," Dawson said.
"We are not trying to change the character of the course, just trying to reinstate the challenges, decisions and hazards players had to contend with in the past."
When Woods won in 2000, he did not go into any bunkers in any of his four rounds.
"Because of the history of the Old Course, moving hazards is not the option it would be at many other places," Dawson said.
"You can't simply move a bunker here and there on The Old Course. All that leaves is to move tees." "
Ooops, I guess bunkers can be moved on TOC. And, the road hole bunker "never been the same from one Open to the next".
-
"You won't know how difficult it is until people start playing it,'' Nurse said. "But the bunker should be far more difficult to avoid. The gathering area is greatly expanded and the balls are far more likely to roll into the trap than roll away from it.''
Am I reading this incorrectly or are these two sentences contadictory?
Ciao
-
"You won't know how difficult it is until people start playing it,'' Nurse said. "But the bunker should be far more difficult to avoid. The gathering area is greatly expanded and the balls are far more likely to roll into the trap than roll away from it.''
Am I reading this incorrectly or are these two sentences contadictory?
Ciao
You are reading it incorrectly.
-
Here's the response I got to an e-mail to the Links Trust:
Dear Mr Pearce,
Thank you very much for your email entitled “Changes to the Old Course” today (26 November 2012).
I am the External Relations and Media Manager for St Andrews Links Trust and I have enclosed the press release issued on behalf of the Trust last week outlining the detailed improvements to the Old Course over this winter and next.
These changes have been agreed by the St Andrews Links Trustees, Links Management Committee and The R&A Championship Committee and are the result of months of planning, preparation and consultation.
As I am sure you will appreciate any announcement regarding the Old Course always generates a huge amount of interest such is the history, prestige and affection with which the course is held across the globe. The course has always evolved and the parties involved in these improvements believe that these changes will continue to build on that history.
I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that fundamental to the decision to making these improvements, through their completion and beyond, has been a commitment to maintaining the challenge of the course for elite tournament players and the thousands of golfers who play here each year whilst always remaining true to the special character of the Old Course.
I will keep your letter on file and would be happy to add your contact details to my mailing list should you wish to be kept updated of any information regarding the proposals for the Old Course. Please let me know if you would wish to be added, it is a secure list and would not be used for any other purpose.
Thank you for taking the time to contact St Andrews Links Trust, whilst you have voiced concerns in your email I sincerely hope we can welcome you and your son to the Links in the years to come.
Kind regards,
Laurie
Worth noting that while some of this may, possibly, be a standard response some care has been taken to personalise the response and address my initial e-mail. For that credit must go to the Trust. No surprise, of course that "that fundamental to the decision to making these improvements, through their completion and beyond, has been a commitment to maintaining the challenge of the course for elite tournament players".
-
Interesting, so lets wheel out all the pros that feel greens need to be changed and undulations need to be created around greens to keep TOC as "a stern test for the best tour players". Has any pro underwritten this statement. If not the Links Trust statement is just based on their own opinion,,,,
-
The letter emphasises the priority is being placed on adapting the course to the length of the ball being hit by the elite pros (300 yards to 350 yards) and less on the histrorical significance of the golf course.
Personally I think the historical significance should have priority.
-
"You won't know how difficult it is until people start playing it,'' Nurse said. "But the bunker should be far more difficult to avoid. The gathering area is greatly expanded and the balls are far more likely to roll into the trap than roll away from it.''
Am I reading this incorrectly or are these two sentences contadictory?
Ciao
You are reading it incorrectly.
It's not contradictory, but why are they doing work on the "gathering area" in 2012? Were the 2002 alterations deemed a failure?
-
The petition on the other thread is a decent start... But we need an open letter written... And then we need to collate names in the industry (architects, players, media) to put their names under that letter...
If no-one else is willing, I am quite happy to coordinate...
-
Very good article on Planet Golf
http://www.planetgolf.com/index.php?id=1787
-
From today's Scotsman:
‘Horrified’ Tom Doak to petition R&A over Old Course changes
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/horrified-tom-doak-to-petition-r-a-over-old-course-changes-1-2660855
-
The petition on the other thread is a decent start... But we need an open letter written... And then we need to collate names in the industry (architects, players, media) to put their names under that letter...
If no-one else is willing, I am quite happy to coordinate...
Ally, also happy to help
-
Circumstances prevent me from being candid on this matter, but just as surveyors need fixed reference points, so do we golf architects and the Old Course is that fixed point off which we all measure. I've written articles in the retail press on this matter in the past and presented a paper in St. Andrews at the Golf Architects conference, so my general stance is well documented.
Bunker rebuilds?- OK. Tee extensions? Regrettable, but irrelevent to most of us. Material course changes? Not OK. Leave it be.
-
Circumstances prevent me from being candid on this matter, but just as surveyors need fixed reference points, so do we golf architects and the Old Course is that fixed point off which we all measure. I've written articles in the retail press on this matter in the past and presented a paper in St. Andrews at the Golf Architects conference, so my general stance is well documented.
Bunker rebuilds?- OK. Tee extensions? Regrettable, but irrelevent to most of us. Material course changes? Not OK. Leave it be.
Thanks Robin, I thought that was pretty candid.
-
Presumably as a charity, The Links Trust has a public obligation to be open and transparent in their decision-making. It would be interesting to petition The Trust under Freedom Of Info and request the minutes of Management Comm meetings leading to the decisions to alter TOC be issued. While I would be surprised there is any provision in the St A Links Trust Act of '74 or the Management Comm governing document which stipulates a period of time between decision-making, publication of proposals and and actioning the resolutions, there may be a good practice argument to be made that when the actual Trust asset is altered, perhaps a wider consultation is in order.
Ciao
-
Very good article on Planet Golf
http://www.planetgolf.com/index.php?id=1787
Darius nails it again.
A very good writer.
-
The R&A still has a direct influence on the policies of the Links Trust through their representatives, so incidently have Fife Council.
The Links Trust consist of:-
3x Representatives of the R&A
3x Representatives of Fife Council
1x MP Fife
1x Representative of the Scottish Government
The Links Management Committee consists of:-
4x Representatives of the R&A
4x Representatives of Fife Council.
Not only as a charity but also with representative of political figures such as the MP and the Fife Councillers a "Freedom of Information" should be applicable.
-
Presumably as a charity, The Links Trust has a public obligation to be open and transparent in their decision-making. It would be interesting to petition The Trust under Freedom Of Info and request the minutes of Management Comm meetings leading to the decisions to alter TOC be issued. While I would be surprised there is any provision in the St A Links Trust Act of '74 or the Management Comm governing document which stipulates a period of time between decision-making, publication of proposals and and actioning the resolutions, there may be a good practice argument to be made that when the actual Trust asset is altered, perhaps a wider consultation is in order.
Unfortunately as work has begun, I seriously believe that to halt it, a lawyer shall need to be hired to take this to the next level.
Ciao
-
Sean,
There's no prospect of stopping this work through the legal process, I think. There's no reason, however, we should not seek information and encourage debate, in the hope that the work that has not yet been started can be delayed whilst the debate is had properly. Sadly, however, I suepct the timing of the announcement and the commencement of work suggests Peter Dawson doesn't want a debate.
-
Quick bit of research, as befitting a barista, the Links Trust are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act;
Golf Digest filed a formal request for the details under the U.K.'s new Freedom of Information Act. But this, too, was denied by the Links Trust. Mason replied in a letter, "The Trust is not a public authority and is not covered by this legislation, so it has no relevance." Not a public authority? 'Technically, this is true, says Jonathan Barnes, a London-based lawyer and an expert on the Freedom of Information Act. "U.K. law looks at an organization to see which functions it performs are truly public, as opposed to performing a public function," he explains. "If it sells ticket packages, it will have private, commercial contracts. U.K. law can easily see that as a private arrangement that ought not to be open to public scrutiny."
-
The petition on the other thread is a decent start... But we need an open letter written... And then we need to collate names in the industry (architects, players, media) to put their names under that letter...
If no-one else is willing, I am quite happy to coordinate...
Ally:
My intention is to write something asap ... hopefully tonight. Unfortunately, my day job and travel schedule are getting in the way of it today.
I agree with you that there needs to be an open letter that people can support [or not]. I have tried to be a good soldier and involve as many interested parties as possible, but I am equally concerned that the message not be watered down. Generally, I agree with Robin Hiseman's points above, and with Ian Andrew's letter previously -- that there is a distinction between rebuilding bunkers or adding tees, and changing golf holes, and the changes proposed have clearly crossed that threshold.
As architects, our position is no different here than in dealing with our own clients -- at the end of the day, we don't own The Old Course. But, neither does the R & A own The Old Course. The people of St. Andrews own the course ... and I don't think the people of St. Andrews had any idea what was about to be done. It's up to us simply to tell them that not all golf course architects agree with the professional advice they have been given, and see whether they decide to question what is being done.
-
The petition on the other thread is a decent start... But we need an open letter written... And then we need to collate names in the industry (architects, players, media) to put their names under that letter...
If no-one else is willing, I am quite happy to coordinate...
Ally:
My intention is to write something asap ... hopefully tonight. Unfortunately, my day job and travel schedule are getting in the way of it today.
I agree with you that there needs to be an open letter that people can support [or not]. I have tried to be a good soldier and involve as many interested parties as possible, but I am equally concerned that the message not be watered down. Generally, I agree with Robin Hiseman's points above, and with Ian Andrew's letter previously -- that there is a distinction between rebuilding bunkers or adding tees, and changing golf holes, and the changes proposed have clearly crossed that threshold.
As architects, our position is no different here than in dealing with our own clients -- at the end of the day, we don't own The Old Course. But, neither does the R & A own The Old Course. The people of St. Andrews own the course ... and I don't think the people of St. Andrews had any idea what was about to be done. It's up to us simply to tell them that not all golf course architects agree with the professional advice they have been given, and see whether they decide to question what is being done.
Sounds perfect Tom... I will step aside and wait your lead... But I am passionate about this and thinking along the same lines as yourself, Robin and Ian... Will be as front and centre as you need...
Ally
-
No doubt the R&A thinks Americans objecting to work at The Old Course have a double standard, with the defacing of our own classic courses, re:Merion, re:virtually every major championship including ANGC played on this side of the pond.
I think it's important to have a stance on that work as welll.
Which is why it's difficult for me to see delinking classic course change and equipment-. (unless one is willing to accept that they may simply walk away from classic venues if deemed unacceptable tournament venues if they are not altered and equipment not reined in)
I realize Tom doesn't want to link equipment as he thinks it's a nonstarter with the governing bodies,(and kudos to him for taking a strong stand on the Old Course) but....
It's the ball stupid ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) :-[ :-[ (semi-addressed clumsily with tees out of bounds etc.)
and now it's the green speeds as well. ::) ::) ::) ::) ??? ???
Again, it's good to have attention drawn to this issue, sad it takes defacing The Old Course for that to happen.
-
The letter emphasises the priority is being placed on adapting the course to the length of the ball being hit by the elite pros (300 yards to 350 yards) and less on the histrorical significance of the golf course.
Personally I think the historical significance should have priority.
Exactly so. The historical importance of the Old Course outweighs its role as a tournament venue.
Bob
-
You are probably right Bob.
The balls gone too far for old classic golf courses, put the Open on the Castle Course - it could be a more accessible venue anyway.
-
A golf personality explained it this way to me this morning.
"Dawson is an angry man. They don't want anyone to figure out golf and every time someone comes close they change the game. This putter ban is going to be one thing but changing courses is like raising the hoop 6 inches each time the dunk becomes common place." ;)
-
A golf personality explained it this way to me this morning.
"Dawson is an angry man. They don't want anyone to figure out golf and every time someone comes close they change the game. This putter ban is going to be one thing but changing courses is like raising the hoop 6 inches each time the dunk becomes common place." ;)
Angry is good.
Just direct that anger at the equipment manufacturers and super agronomists, and not at the classic venues.
The last time the Open was there the winner may have been 16 under, but second place was 7 back!
-
A golf personality explained it this way to me this morning.
"Dawson is an angry man. They don't want anyone to figure out golf and every time someone comes close they change the game. This putter ban is going to be one thing but changing courses is like raising the hoop 6 inches each time the dunk becomes common place." ;)
Angry is good.
Just direct that anger at the equipment manufacturers and super agronomists, and not at the classic venues.
The last time the Open was there the winner may have been 16 under, but second place was 7 back!
Is that all it was? 16 under with second place 9 under?... and only because they are still playing it at a par-72 other than manufacturing a par-70 like most other major venues... and with pretty good weather...
-
Looking at Open scoring on TOC for the last couple of events, it is clear the Dawson is reacting to a problem that doesn't exist.
Bob
-
A golf personality explained it this way to me this morning.
"Dawson is an angry man. They don't want anyone to figure out golf and every time someone comes close they change the game. This putter ban is going to be one thing but changing courses is like raising the hoop 6 inches each time the dunk becomes common place." ;)
I personally think that the basket should be raised to 12' and the court widened and even deepened. Basketball today has little elegance and little variety. Just like championship golf......
-
A golf personality explained it this way to me this morning.
"Dawson is an angry man. They don't want anyone to figure out golf and every time someone comes close they change the game. This putter ban is going to be one thing but changing courses is like raising the hoop 6 inches each time the dunk becomes common place." ;)
Angry is good.
Just direct that anger at the equipment manufacturers and super agronomists, and not at the classic venues.
The last time the Open was there the winner may have been 16 under, but second place was 7 back!
Is that all it was? 16 under with second place 9 under?... and only because they are still playing it at a par-72 other than manufacturing a par-70 like most other major venues... and with pretty good weather...
Exactly,
if they went the USGA copout route at par 70, second place would be -1.
My guess is no work would be done if that were the case.
BTW, you can "recontour" all you want around a green to toughen the challenge, it doesn't affect the guy who shoots -16 because he's ON! the green.
Same as deep rough rarely affects winning scores, just the rest of us....
-
No doubt the R&A thinks Americans objecting to work at The Old Course have a double standard, with the defacing of our own classic courses, re:Merion, re:virtually every major championship including ANGC played on this side of the pond. - Jeff Warne
I was reluctant to post on this thread as I'm really of next to no significance on an issue of this magnitude but I've been reading this with interest and was thinking much the same as Jeff.
With this in mind, could I respectfully suggest that every effort is made to present any petition as being the collective feelings of golfers from around the globe and not simply Americans trying to tell us Brits what to do. Speaking from the shop floor as it were, ordinarily English golfers with good knowledge of the game instinctively flinch, in my experience, when messing about with TOC is mentioned. I'm fairly confident that reaction would only get stronger once over the border into Scotland and, therefore, a sizeable army of us worker ants could perhaps be a useful tool. A common perception on this site seems to be that 99.9% of golfers are semi-retarded inbreeds that struggle to remember which end of a club to stick in their hands. Now might not be a bad time to test that theory.
-
No doubt the R&A thinks Americans objecting to work at The Old Course have a double standard, with the defacing of our own classic courses, re:Merion, re:virtually every major championship including ANGC played on this side of the pond. - Jeff Warne
I was reluctant to post on this thread as I'm really of next to no significance on an issue of this magnitude but I've been reading this with interest and was thinking much the same as Jeff.
With this in mind, could I respectfully suggest that every effort is made to present any petition as being the collective feelings of golfers from around the globe and not simply Americans trying to tell us Brits what to do.
Paul:
Well, they don't even have to resort to such divide-and-conquer strategies if you are going to do it for them.
For those who don't know me, I am particularly passionate about The Old Course because as soon as I was done with college, I spent two months there in the summer of 1982 to study and learn from the course. Originally, I was supposed to work on the maintenance crew under Walter Woods, but it was such a difficult recession then that Walter instead arranged for me to caddie, and when I wasn't caddying, to spend as much time asking him questions as I wanted. A lot of what I know about golf and links golf is due to Walter Woods. And I dare say that this project would be less likely to have progressed to this point if Walter Woods was still able to stand up and object to what has been proposed.
The last thing I mean to do is to tell the people of St. Andrews how to react to this. It is the citizens of St. Andrews who gave us The Old Course and who have protected it so well. I only wonder whether they have been properly consulted about these changes, and how they might feel if they knew that so many golf architects and great players have expressed opposition to the "official" opinion on the matter.
-
Paul -
My sense from postings here on GCA and on twitter is that this is not at all a bunch of hypocritical American bullies trying to get their way.
To the contrary, my sense is that the outrage recognizes no boundaries.
And the issue is the unique and very special status of the Old Course. Golfers everywhere are concerned that it is being lost.
Bob
-
Bob
I agree but it would be good to hear voices from Scotland...so far not much.
-
I think this "movement" has a bigger meaning - bigger than The Old Course (as I think that ship has sailed). It may be these changes that finally kicks the R&A and USGA in the butt to do something about the ball and its impact on the greatest courses in the world. Christ, the USGA didn't do anything about the long putter until players, players who previsouly called the long putter "cheating", started winning majors.
Here's to hoping.
-
I would say more about the TOC changes, but I am still not sure what they are from the brief descriptions. I know I would be wary of some from the way I read it.
On the other hand, some "tweaks" don't seem like much at all, and probably not more than has been done unannounced by supers over the years anyway. As the old super told me years ago, he filled in many bunkers in the middle of the night out there, with little fanfare. There have been more changes than most here give credit for.
I would be interested to see the "recontouing" around several greens. I hope they aren't relatively symetrical mounds and hollows you could see anywhere else. I guess they (as I envision them) would make some chips tougher off sloped lies and tight turf, but what is the point of that, particularly?
The change that riles me the most is the lowering of the spurs (as they call it) to promote vision of the 4th green from the left/safe side of the fw. That one seems to go not only against history, but against the very gca principles established by the Old Course over eons of time.
I would be more accepting if a hollow was filled for drainage or some other simple reason that made the course not work as well as it should for everyday play or maintenance. I mean, things do wear out over time, and the Old Course has put in more time than any of them!
I understand the outrage against changing just for the pros. As it stands right now, when they go to TOC, they accept very low scores if the wind doesn't blow, and reasonably low scores when the wind does blow, as originally intended there. How many strokes would they add to the winning total on a calm 4 days when all the changes go through? 1, 2, or more? What is the difference between 17 under and 20 under?
Does that really positively affect the reputation of this course in particular or the Open in general? Its the Old Course, so I doubt it in either case. Part of what makes the Open the Open is the ability to connect with history so far back, unlike any other championship in golf. Whatever might be gained in perception of a slightly higher winning score (not that it would ever be possible to compare what the winning score "would have been") is offset equally by the idea that you are not playing close to the same course of Jones, Palmer, Seve, etc.
So, I am not against all changes, but would be careful, which is what most are saying here. Of course, the question is who really gets to make those decisions, and are a bunch of us, from a world away, better qualified to make them than those in charge? I know we think we are!
-
There's something rotten about the whole process of changing The Old Course.
http://golfweek.com/news/2012/nov/27/klein-process-old-course-changes-feels-rotten/
-
So why, if the R&A, is so tradition bound with this club, does it feel the need to tinker with the scared Old Course, to the point where it has started tinkering with bunkers, and undulations and flattening out a portion of the 11th green in under to recapture a hole location or two?
Time to get the editing pencil out! ;D Excellent sentiments nevertheless... although frankly if I was the Old Course, I'd be damned scared!
-
Brad, I think that was very well said. It is really mind boggling that they seem dead set on proceeding without further discussion or consultation with many of the experts of the game. I find it appalling that the group that is entrusted with preserving TOC and who are supposed to be intimately familiar with it are the ones changing it. It seems to me that those who have spent significant time with the course are the ones who see less need for change. Maybe the Trust needs to take some time to get to know the Old Lady better.
-
There was also the "ace of change" which I presume was meant to be "pace". Maybe Brad was so angry at the changes he literally couldn't see straight? I have felt that way occaisionally with NHL referees......
As to reaching out to experts more, it reminds me of any of the numerous enviro challenges to courses over the years....we need more public input....there hasn't been enouh study......we just don't know. I am sure they feel that contracting with a respected gca (in most circles, if not here) and having Dawson involved, etc. constitute enough consultation of experts. Moreover, I am pretty sure that getting more involved would make it impossible to reach any consensus, especially with time constraints for getting construction done.
In short, it seems as if some confuse decisions that they don't like (from afar) with incompetence of those in specifically entrusted with the care of the Old Course and all its varying and competing needs. I suspect you don't really care if they consult more architects and players, you just want what you think you want based on incomplete information that you have. I'm not sure if that is a great way to make policy, is it?
-
Tom, I just called Ran and had me re-insistuted to specifically post on GCA for two things, this and the post on Robin Nelson.
Consider me "IN" on any petition or other. Its time to go to battle. (If that's what its going to take)
Stir Up The Echos......
GCA Post of the Year, 2012 ;)
Agreed!
Mark
-
Here is an update on when the local golf clubs were first told and when work began.
http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1024/old-course-changes-first-announced-in-early-november-work-began-the-19th
-
So, here's an idea. We have this old Chapel with an old fashioned ceiling. If we just painted it all white, we could use that modern projector and have different pictures every day. We could even have movies.
-
I think Brad makes a really great point about this being a very arrogant approach to design, considering the course we're talking about here. I agree, very arrogant.
-
Most of those edits were quickly fixed; I did catch another one, thanks to all of you for the sharp eyes. I dashed that one off pretty quickly this morning and all mistakes are the responsibility of my editors.
-
(https://yfrog.com/obzilxzj:tw1)
-
(https://yfrog.com/obzilxzj:tw1)
That is a sad picture indeed! ??? :-[ :'(
-
That photo is making my stomach churn, and I don't think it's just the flu I'm trying to fight off.
-
Tom,
Did you in the meantime get any answer from the EIGCA?
Its been a while now.....
-
Very good article on Planet Golf
http://www.planetgolf.com/index.php?id=1787
Frank
I found it very hard to get by the personal attack on Peter Dawson in which the writer made out that all previous R&A secretaries were paradigms of virtue. Does anyone remember that his predecessor had a tree planted in front of one of the back tees on TOC to stop players hitting up the adjoining fairway ? No, well let me assure you its true.
All this vitriol aimed at Dawson and Hawtree is frankly embarrassing. If instead of Hawtree it was Doak, Coore or Crenshaw doing the changes, would there have been anything like the same hue and cry ? No chance.
Niall
-
(https://yfrog.com/obzilxzj:tw1)
Carnage..
Mark
-
Very good article on Planet Golf
http://www.planetgolf.com/index.php?id=1787
Frank
I found it very hard to get by the personal attack on Peter Dawson in which the writer made out that all previous R&A secretaries were paradigms of virtue. Does anyone remember that his predecessor had a tree planted in front of one of the back tees on TOC to stop players hitting up the adjoining fairway ? No, well let me assure you its true.
All this vitriol aimed at Dawson and Hawtree is frankly embarrassing. If instead of Hawtree it was Doak, Coore or Crenshaw doing the changes, would there have been anything like the same hue and cry ? No chance.
Niall
I'm sure Tom Doak could tell you himself, but those men wouldn't be making these changes! I'm sure there would be equal outrage today if a tree was planted no matter who was the behind that decision. The criticism is warranted, and I do not understand your point of view on this one. Why are people upset with the changes that are currently being made? Well... it's because they're happening right now!
I understand what you're saying with regards to the article, but that doesn't change what is happening at TOC at this moment.
-
Very good article on Planet Golf
http://www.planetgolf.com/index.php?id=1787
Frank
I found it very hard to get by the personal attack on Peter Dawson in which the writer made out that all previous R&A secretaries were paradigms of virtue. Does anyone remember that his predecessor had a tree planted in front of one of the back tees on TOC to stop players hitting up the adjoining fairway ? No, well let me assure you its true.
All this vitriol aimed at Dawson and Hawtree is frankly embarrassing. If instead of Hawtree it was Doak, Coore or Crenshaw doing the changes, would there have been anything like the same hue and cry ? No chance.
Niall
Niall,
What a shortsighted post. Do you honestly believe that any of those three men would have come out of meetings with the R&A accepting the changes proposed? Or even go so far as take the job? Be honest. St. Andrews is different and to deny that fact by focusing on "embarassing attacks" is a red herring in this debate over the very soul of the most important golf course on earth.
It sucks something fierce that I will never get to see the real Eden hole.
-
Alex
The point I'm making is that peoples expectations of the work are influenced by the names of those involved. Tom D in his letter to the main gca organisations which he posted here and was also printed on the back page of todays Scotsman, stated that he wasn't against changes per se, but that he was concerned how they came about. I'm not suggesting that Tom would propose the same changes or anything like them, but any changes he proposed would be looked at in a different light. And that includes any ideas from Coore, Crenshaw or Hanse.
From what I gather no one's seen the detail of the proposals in terms of contour plans, and even though many of us on here would be hard pushed to make judgement based on that anyway, we cry foul. What it comes down to is trust. People don't trust their judgement whereas many on here would happily take it as read that Tom or any of the other favoured gca's wold produce a great result. Of course there are others who would have no changes whatever or whoever.
Niall
-
Ben
What are the changes ? Do you know, really ? Read my post above to Alex.
If any of those guys went in made suggestions and discussed them with the R&A and they came to agreement on what to do, I don't doubt you would be in favour without a question. You know why, you're a walking fan club, like many on here. Unfortunately for Dr Hawtree, you're not a fan of him, hence he's getting it in the neck and you've yet to see the detail.
Niall
-
. I'm not suggesting that Tom would propose the same changes or anything like them, but any changes he proposed would be looked at in a different light. And that includes any ideas from Coore, Crenshaw or Hanse.
Niall - rightly so, no? They're not just the best in the business, but also the most vocal traditionalists in the business. Can you expand on your point a little more for me, because I'm not getting where you're coming from with this...
Brian
I think its pretty clear where I'm coming from. Is your objection to the work because of who's doing it rather than the work itself ?
Niall
-
Ben
What are the changes ? Do you know, really ? Read my post above to Alex.
If any of those guys went in made suggestions and discussed them with the R&A and they came to agreement on what to do, I don't doubt you would be in favour without a question. You know why, you're a walking fan club, like many on here. Unfortunately for Dr Hawtree, you're not a fan of him, hence he's getting it in the neck and you've yet to see the detail.
Niall
Niall,
If a green at the old course was to have it's edge recontoured there is no doubt in my mind that Doak would do a better job of making it fit in with the rest of the course and be sympathetic to the pre-existing course. It not about fan clubs, or the details of the job. It's about basic skill and competence.
-
Tom Doak, BCrosby et al,
Gents, steady there please.
I can't apologies enough for seemingly not making my point very clearly. The intent of my last post was to encourage empathise on the point that THIS IS NOT A BUNCH OF AMERICANS TRYING TO TELL US WHAT TO DO. I am on your side. I was NOT for one second trying to suggest that you should keep your views to yourself, I was simply suggesting that many Brits might wrongly perceive it as interference from across the pond unless it was made clear that the views being expressed were those of a broader constituency.
If I had a magic wand and could leave TOC in the custodianship of just one modern architect it would be you, Tom. I've long been of the opinion that many of you guys have a far greater appreciation of what we have in this country than many of our home grown architects and, for that matter, many home grown players. I made reference before to the perception on this site of 99.9% (a number given with some poetic licence implied) of golfers. I was not saying this to attack anyone; I'd in part agree with the sentiment. What I was rather clumsily trying to get across was that, even if it's only 10% of golfers over here that get it, 10% of a big number is still a big number and tapping into that sort of more localised support could be of some value.
-
There is a fundamental failure in governance arrangements here.
The Links Trust was established to manage the links courses. The are entrusted to protect one of Scotland's most important sporting, cultural and historical assets, yet they're permitted to make structural changes to it without consulting the owners - the people of St Andrews.
They talk about consulting the five local golf clubs, but if Anthony Pioppi's piece is correct, all they did was notify them once a decision had been made. And the local golf clubs are not the owners of the course, they're stakeholders. Proper consultation would involve publicising the plans well in advance of any work, and providing the opportunity for residents to make formal comment.
There is a strange set of priorities at play when structural changes to private homes are tightly regulated, to protect the interests of the community, yet the Old Course could be changed on the whim of a few individuals.
I am not comfortable at all with some of the changes detailed in the press release, but I'm even more uncomfortable with the power vested in the Links Trust over an important public asset. There is nothing to stop them building a lake on the 9th tomorrow. Presuming that they'll do the right thing is not enough.
-
(https://yfrog.com/obzilxzj:tw1)
Will a few guys please go stand in front of the bulldozer already!!!!!!! That would send a message!!!!!!!!
-
Niall,
Don't get your panties in a twist. The gist of it is not that Hawtree is the man doing the work, it's that the work is being done at all. Doak and Coore are not the R&A's Open Doctor hatchet men as Hawtree apparently is. And they most likely wouldn't be doing the work as given the scope of what's entailed they ALMOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE TURNED THE JOB DOWN.
-
Ben
What are the changes ? Do you know, really ? Read my post above to Alex.
If any of those guys went in made suggestions and discussed them with the R&A and they came to agreement on what to do, I don't doubt you would be in favour without a question. You know why, you're a walking fan club, like many on here. Unfortunately for Dr Hawtree, you're not a fan of him, hence he's getting it in the neck and you've yet to see the detail.
Niall
Niall,
They are changing the 11th green at The Old Course. They are softening the slopes. However artistic, whether they do it with a teaspoon or a D6, they are screwing with history. No amount of justification matters. I for one have had it with all the justifying. It did not need to be changed. This did not need to happen. There were better ways to deal with the problem. Its been going on for years here in the US and its always been justified away. It has to stop. Common sense has to be brought back into the thought process.
-
There's something rotten about the whole process of changing The Old Course.
http://golfweek.com/news/2012/nov/27/klein-process-old-course-changes-feels-rotten/
Totally agree that the whole process seems off. And now, not only are they already working, but it seems like they are rushing. So not only is it being done in the first place, it could possibly be a rushed job.
-
I hope Tom Doak doesn't read this, but it needs to be said: he has done far more than most and certainly enough to earn a reputation.
If he says the changes at TOC are no big deal, then I will put my nagging doubts aside and shut up. But if someone of his status gets upset and springs into action, then - no disrespect intended - the Hawtrees of this world have to do a huge job to convince me otherwise. And I suspect this is true for many here. Tom Doak isn't just a hysterical nerd with a personal agenda (like some here including me may be accused to be), he actually knows what he's talking about.
Ulrich
-
Holy cow. From Friday new release about the changes to Monday the 11th green already dug up! Wow, that is fast. No time to protest and stop this machine....its already in process.
-
Agreed Chip. Looks like the damage has been done already. It was like a sneak attack.
Mark
-
(https://yfrog.com/obzilxzj:tw1)
Well there goes any hope of the change being subtle. I was of the thought that if just a few inches were lowered by maybe someone just spending a few days working with a rake, the character might be retained, the change unnoticeable, and the area much more pinnable for 10+ speeds. So much for that. Guh.
I say this only because I've seen so much done by hand around the links, and the work has almost always been quality. Because of this quality work, change happens more than people realize. This current work though crosses that threshold immensely. It truly is architectural change, and the difference I see in that picture compared to the bunch of ones I have taken of 11 gives me little hope for anything going forward. This is drastic and disappointing.
-
Eldrick in his press conference for the Chevron:
"I can understand a couple -- on 9 and 2... Those bunkers are now in play and that's good..."
"I think 17 is hard enough as it is... It's the hardest hole on that whole property. I'm not keen on them changing it."
-
Ben
What are the changes ? Do you know, really ? Read my post above to Alex.
If any of those guys went in made suggestions and discussed them with the R&A and they came to agreement on what to do, I don't doubt you would be in favour without a question. You know why, you're a walking fan club, like many on here. Unfortunately for Dr Hawtree, you're not a fan of him, hence he's getting it in the neck and you've yet to see the detail.
Niall
Niall,
Clearly based on the number of responses that your post generated, it wasn't just me that's a walking fan club. And inflammatory language aside, I think you're dead wrong. Let's review two points that directly conflict with your linked post above.
1) You say I am not a fan of Dr. Hawtree. True. But this has nothing to do with work that he has accomplished. It's that I have never seen any of his work. How could I be a fan? I don't like or dislike any of his work. I wasn't a fan of Renaissance's work either before I saw it.
2) This is St. Andrews we are debating, not Nairn or Elie. How is that fact not differentiated in your mind? You are making this outcry over changes to The Old Course about the architect. That's the furthest thing from my mind. I am concerned about the manner in which the most significant golf course in the world went under the knife. Even further, I don't know why it required changes at all!
Focusing this argument on your perceived slight of Martin Hawtree and the oft trotted most preferred architect status on this website draws attention away from the real travesty.
-
Mike Nuzzo - Any chance you could post that in the photo thread also?... To try and keep a full track of things as they progress... Thanks, Ally
-
Yep, let's not bring Hawtree into the debate (I know - I did, too, and I'm sorry).
This is not about whether Hawtree would do a better or worse job than Doak or anyone else. It is about the back-room process by which a few elderly men, who don't know a whole lot about golf architecture, can make these decisions at a whim. It is about the situation that apparently the Links Trust is unduly influenced by the R&A. It is about the hit-and-run style these changes have been put into effect without consulting anyone outside a certain smoke room in St Andrews.
Ulrich
-
Sounds like The Old Course needed a Master Plan.
Seriously, who are the stakeholders here, and why were they not given a say in any of this? I'd posit that the the stakeholders include, first of all, the townsfolk of St. Andrews, followed by avid golfers worldwide who've made it a priority to visit the course and learn from it, followed by those who have studied and loved it from afar without yet being able to make the pilgrimage, followed by those who see it and use it as nothing more than a venue for high-level competitive golf events.
If golf clubs all over the world with little architectural merit and almost zero historical significance have nevertheless seen fit to adopt master plans to prevent their courses from being altered by the whims of the current green committee chairman, why on earth hasn't The Old Course been protected in a similar manner?
It's too late to stop this travesty, but clearly a more responsible and deliberate group than the R&A or the Links Trust should be formed to protect the interest of the course and the vast majority of its user. I'd suggest a thorough documentation of all the changes to the course throughout the Open Championship era, choosing a version of the course that best represents its historical apex, and defending what's left of that with extreme tenacity.
-
Even though I fully support the efforts here regarding TOC, I don't understand why anyone here would expect things to have been done differently or why the people in charge would have done it differently. This site is still very idealistic and doesn't view architecture the way 99.9 percent of the golfing population does. IMO there is not that much respect for golf architecture in the world now or ever. Maybe .01 percent appreciate it and try to understand it but most people in the position to pull the trigger at major venues and courses around the world feel that they know what to do and rely on their network. That is why golf professionals got in the business. If you were on the committee at TOC or your local club you would have your opinions of what was needed and all you need is someone referred to you by your network to do the work. That's how it has always been and how it will continue to be. As much as TOC argument has become public, it brings home the point of how many of our regional or State courses have been changed by committees with little regard for the history of the course but they had enough pull to hire someone to do what they wanted and not be questioned. Success in this business is always related to the network one can create. Talent will never be seen if the network cannot be infiltrated.
-
Mike Young:
Your post is so truthful and factual that it hurts. I have been in the golf construction and design business for over 55 years and I know from experience that everything you said is true.
There have been many great and not necessarily famous golf courses ruined by green chairpersons, club captains and club champion "experts"
What is taking place at The Old Lady is nothing new and will not end here either.
I respect the great efforts made by Tom Doak and others in this respect, but in my opinion, their efforts are going to be for nought.
-
Eldrick in his press conference for the Chevron:
"I can understand a couple -- on 9 and 2... Those bunkers are now in play and that's good..."
"I think 17 is hard enough as it is... It's the hardest hole on that whole property. I'm not keen on them changing it."
This is the problem I feared. If they get people talking about what changes should or shouldn't be made, we've lost the war. All design is a matter of opinion, and everybody will have different opinions, and so Martin Hawtree's is as right as anyone's.
Except -- this is The Old Course. It's sacred. It didn't NEED to be changed, at all. That's the issue.
For the record, though it was never going to be offered -- and CERTAINLY not after this week -- I would only have accepted the matter of consulting on The Old Course in order to tell them not to do anything to it. I tried to tell that to Royal Melbourne years ago, as well.
-
If the current situation is a lost cause, folks can always go an alternative route. Boycott TOC and/or seek the resignation of the Trustees. I spose the ultimate aim would be to amend the governing documents and even the Links Act to include a consultation among the represented parties when proposals such as the work being carried out are put forward. If the 11th can be altered, anything can be altered. Now is the time to act if folks want to preserve what is left of TOC.
Ciao
-
If the current situation is a lost cause, folks can always go an alternative route. Boycott TOC and/or seek the resignation of the Trustees. I spose the ultimate aim would be to amend the governing documents and even the Links Act to include a consultation among the represented parties when proposals such as the work being carried out are put forward. If the 11th can be altered, anything can be altered. Now is the time to act if folks want to preserve what is left of TOC.
Ciao
Boycott TOC? I'm personally boycotting Trump but I don't think he's worried. If I boycott the Old Course no one will notice. But why should I boycott a public course as a means of trying to change the way decisions are made in private? I think this process shows poor trusteeship and getting shot of Dawson, as the spokesman for the changes, would be an excellent start. I can only see that happening if there is a massive outcry making his position untenable NOW. Putting the public face of the governorship under extreme pressure might cause them all to act in more open manner in future.
-
Eldrick in his press conference for the Chevron:
"I can understand a couple -- on 9 and 2... Those bunkers are now in play and that's good..."
"I think 17 is hard enough as it is... It's the hardest hole on that whole property. I'm not keen on them changing it."
This is the problem I feared. If they get people talking about what changes should or shouldn't be made, we've lost the war. All design is a matter of opinion, and everybody will have different opinions, and so Martin Hawtree's is as right as anyone's.
Except -- this is The Old Course. It's sacred. It didn't NEED to be changed, at all. That's the issue.
+1, almost exactly what I thought when I read Tiger's comments. The default position when it comes to the Old Course should be to leave it alone. Any discussion about the merits of particular changes legitimises the quest to 'improve' it - when it doesn't need to be improved.
-
It is easy to criticise the governance of the Links Trust but it is made up of;
Three elected representatives of the local council
The local member of parliament, elected by the local people
The local member of the Scottish parliament also elected by the local people
Three members of the R&A;
Richard Muckhart - senior R&A man, former captain of St Andrews university team, Luffness New & Peebles member
Peter Forster - farmer from Wormit a few miles from St Andrews and Scotscraig member
Joe Noble - surveyor and former chair of Scottish Enterprise Fife for a number of years
You may not like them but the majority of the Trustees are elected locally by the people of St Andrews and Fife and the three R&A nominees are also Scottish and either local or have longterm pedigree with the city and the golf.
-
Mark,
If they were so proud of the "improvements" they believed were required why the need for subterfuge? Surely they had some great arguments to defend the need for the work and are happy to explain those in an open and transparent process. Interesting that from the anecdotal evidence we have so far no invitation was sent to any of the local stakeholders to accept submissions on the changes. The 3 R&A representatives do not even appear to have kept their own membership informed of the proposals.
If this is the gold standard in good governance our system of government has even more issues than I thought and any criticisms of the systems in place to manage this historical landmark need urgent review.
I would have thought the work done to the road hole bunker over the last 10 years would have chastened them from making any substantial changes to the course.
-
From the NY Post Article by Brett Cyrgalis re 11th
“Very, very slightly, just a couple of percent of the grade,” Dawson said. “Modern green speeds are very different from the green speeds from [when] the hole was first built, if built is the right word.”
I love the way he somewhat insinuates that the fact it wasn't "built" is a liability. Also the modern green speeds argument as if he has no ability to influence said green speeds.
-
Is a 2% change in grade a "slight" change?
2 is a pretty small number...but...
I suspect the grade was around 5% so it is probably reducing the slope by 40-50%.
-
I am told 4.5% in the area that they want the recaptured pin to be.
-
Sean - my point is not supporting the Links Trust but many people here have said "give the locals a voice", "form a committee of experts", etc. I'm just saying there was clearly thought by the law makers who formed the Links Trust to ensure there was a local voice in the control of golf at St Andrews.
The chairman of the Links Management Committee is also an R&A man, a local surgeon who studied at St Andrews has lived there for 28 years and been a member of the New Club for 33 years.
I find it difficult to see how you could build a management structure that has more local bias? I'm sure parachuting in outsiders will be as popular with the people of St Andrews as the last two foreign managers of the England football team were with us fans.
-
USA Today article (looks like this came from Ferguson via AP):
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2012/11/27/st-andrews-old-course-changes/1730345/
Excerpt (my emphasis):
R&A chief executive Peter Dawson said the changes are intended to make the elite players be more precise with their shots.
"While some holes have been lengthened on the Old Course in recent years, it has otherwise remained largely unaltered," Dawson said. "The championship committee felt there was an opportunity to stiffen its defenses in some places to ensure it remains as challenging as ever to the professionals."
Change on the Old Course is not unprecedented. Officials once lengthened the course and added bunkers out of concern that a new golf ball would lower scores. That was in 1905 with the introduction of the rubber-core Haskell ball.
Dawson anticipates criticism of the changes, though he called it a "knee-jerk reaction."
"If they came to see me and walked out onto the course, I'm quite sure they would be fine with it," he said.
-
Sean - my point is not supporting the Links Trust but many people here have said "give the locals a voice", "form a committee of experts", etc. I'm just saying there was clearly thought by the law makers who formed the Links Trust to ensure there was a local voice in the control of golf at St Andrews.
The chairman of the Links Management Committee is also an R&A man, a local surgeon who studied at St Andrews has lived there for 28 years and been a member of the New Club for 33 years.
I find it difficult to see how you could build a management structure that has more local bias? I'm sure parachuting in outsiders will be as popular with the people of St Andrews as the last two foreign managers of the England football team were with us fans.
Chappers
Thinking more on this subject, would folks feel satisfied with the process if there actually was a consultation among the locals and the proposals were approved? Somehow, I don't think so. What people are really saying is that they want the Links Trust Trustees to be of the same opinion as themselves. Even so, I don't understand the big rush behind the proposals and I don't see why the Trust can't spend some of that cash they have to actually ask locals what they think. I mean, TOC is the best asset of St Andrews - no? I would think serious changes to the course would warrant a consultation.
Ciao
-
Mark,
I don't disagree that in keeping with the intention of the legislation the residents of Fife and St Andrews particularly should be in control of their course. It is however a travesty if they have abrogated their responsibilities and lent their good names to a small faction's skullduggery. Is this what has happened here, I don't know as I'm too far away from it. It is what I suspect has happened. Otherwise good people have acquiesced with egomaniacs to allow the destruction of significant cultural heritage.
Ron,
Good to see it's only the Pro's that will have to be more precise, obviously won't effect how club players will play the course then ::)
Sean,
There is little doubt that I would be unlikely to approve of the changes even if they had gone through significant consultation with the relevant local stakeholders. Much like getting a terrible LBW decision I would have had to acknowledge the correct process was followed, I was out of the game and the only people available to grumble to would have been those on my own team and even they would have soon got sick of me.
I think that given an appropriate level of consultation at least some of these "improvements" would have been prevented and that's the whole reason someone (most likely Mr Dawson) chose the path we are currently seeing.
-
R&A chief executive Peter Dawson said the changes are intended to make the elite players be more precise with their shots.
"If they came to see me and walked out onto the course, I'm quite sure they would be fine with it," he said.
Anyone fancy getting together to write to Peter Dawson, asking that he take a group of us round to examine the changes, so that he can persuade us that we should be "fine with it"? Better still, does anyone on here know Dawson?
-
I certainly think the Friday announcement and work started on Monday suggests they knew this would cause some angst.
-
I certainly think the Friday announcement and work started on Monday suggests they knew this would cause some angst.
Of course, it is media management worthy of Malcolm Tucker. And to compound the genius, they're going to ban anchoring today, which will deflect even more attention...
-
It is easy to criticise the governance of the Links Trust but it is made up of;
Three elected representatives of the local council
The local member of parliament, elected by the local people
The local member of the Scottish parliament also elected by the local people
Three members of the R&A;
Richard Muckhart - senior R&A man, former captain of St Andrews university team, Luffness New & Peebles member
Peter Forster - farmer from Wormit a few miles from St Andrews and Scotscraig member
Joe Noble - surveyor and former chair of Scottish Enterprise Fife for a number of years
Is this really the level of architectural pedigree that should be overseeing the Old Course? In particular, shame on you Richard Muckhart, former captain of the University Team, for allowing sacred ground to be plundered thusly....
-
I am told 4.5% in the area that they want the recaptured pin to be.
Going by textbook analysis, one hole location = a circle with a diameter of 16 feet, within which the gradient should be regular and (with modern green speeds) between 1-2.5%. The hole shouldn't be cut within 8 to 10 feet of a significant slope.
So, if only one hole location is proposed you get the idea of the kind of area that is to be levelled off. Clearly, if a 4-6% slope is being reduced to 2% or so, there will be a lot of tying in to do around the new hole location. If they're looking for a couple of holes then the area gets a lot bigger.
-
Mark and Sean,
There are mechanisms and systems that allow checks and controls.
It’s called Planning Procedure.
If the Links Trust had submitted a Detailed Planning Permit Application for Approval by Fife Council, then at the very least the Contour Plans would have been available for Interested Party’s (locals, Conservation organizations, private persons, etc) to peruse and if they want to lodge their objections.
This Planning Procedure has been in existence for years, but unless anyone can tell me to the contrary, the Links Trust have ignored this Procedure, and Fife Council also.
-
John
If every nip and tuck of a green, tee or bunker required planning permission then the golf architecture industry would be doomed. Buried beneath a mountain of bureacracy. It's tough enough convincing club committee's!
-
Anyone who has spent anytime around green construction knows that when you say a couple of percent, it means a hell of a lot more when talking about green slopes then batting average. The slope on the 11th was only 4-5%ish to start, so they are basically cutting it in half. Dawson can try to sell that as a minor 2% change, but that is a major change, he knows it, and is trying to be deceptive with his words.
Any golf writer worth his salt knows it too. Please call it what it is and please question Dawson about it when given the opportunity.
-
Robin,
Do you really think the proposed changes at the Old Course are just a "Nip and a tuck" and don't deserve to be subject to detailed contour plans and a planning application ?
-
John
Yes, by the measure applied to every other course in existence. And, no, I don't think they should have gone through a planning procedure. I think there were enough responsible people involved already. Whether you think they made the right decision is what is being questioned.
-
Anyone who has spent anytime around green construction knows that when you say a couple of percent, it means a hell of a lot more when talking about green slopes then batting average. The slope on the 11th was only 4-5%ish to start, so they are basically cutting it in half. Dawson can try to sell that as a minor 2% change, but that is a major change, he knows it, and is trying to be deceptive with his words.
Any golf writer worth his salt knows it too. Please call it what it is and please question Dawson about it when given the opportunity.
In old money, a 1 in 20 slope is being changed to a 1 in 50. Percentage terms can make it sound negligable, but most people would be out of breath walking up a 10% slope for more than a few minutes.
-
Anyone who has spent anytime around green construction knows that when you say a couple of percent, it means a hell of a lot more when talking about green slopes then batting average. The slope on the 11th was only 4-5%ish to start, so they are basically cutting it in half. Dawson can try to sell that as a minor 2% change, but that is a major change, he knows it, and is trying to be deceptive with his words.
Any golf writer worth his salt knows it too. Please call it what it is and please question Dawson about it when given the opportunity.
As mentioned before, If a slope goes from 4% to 2%, that is a 50% change.
To restore the slope from 2 to 4 % would require a 100% increase.
Described that way(accurately), one would hardly use the term small.
Using Dawson's lingo,but not his logic, an actual 2% change to a 4 % slope would result in a final slope of 3.92%, which would be unnoticeable and hardly worth the effort.
He's either math challeneged or playing it down.
Put his way, if he reduces it 2% more, it will be dead flat
-
Robin,
Your hyperbole is impressive.
Where do you draw the line at “not necessary to have a Planning or Building Permit”
In my experience, small changes localised to one or two areas that don’t involve outside work one can get away with it. However the scale of the present work at the Old Course deserves a Planning Application.
A Planning Application or Building Warrant Application is not a complicated procedure and happens all the time. The biggest advantage being that the public get an opportunity to have their say before the work begins.
In this case they didn’t, and now the disadvantage of not allowing people their say manifests itself in a public “fall out” .
-
I gather from Alistair Tait's Tweet that, according to Dawson, all this is "hysteria".
What a classy way to address your critics.
-
John
I had to look it up to remind myself of what it meant, so thanks for reintroducing hyperbole to my lexicon. :)
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I've got to get on with drawing up some plans for a planning application!
-
Robin,
Your hyperbole is impressive.
Where do you draw the line at “not necessary to have a Planning or Building Permit”
In my experience, small changes localised to one or two areas that don’t involve outside work one can get away with it. However the scale of the present work at the Old Course deserves a Planning Application.
A Planning Application or Building Warrant Application is not a complicated procedure and happens all the time. The biggest advantage being that the public get an opportunity to have their say before the work begins.
In this case they didn’t, and now the disadvantage of not allowing people their say manifests itself in a public “fall out” .
Look guys..all of this off the cuff BS is where people begin to take this site with a grain of sand.
Have any of you seen a document where it says specifically says: 2% change or 2% slope? As stated there is a huge difference.
And as for all of the hype about contour plans and them being presented to the town so that they can have public comment is laughable. 99.99 percent of the people would not be able to pick up on the slope change as a percentage in a plan and I BET THERE IS NO DETAILED PLAN....
AND lastly, overall it would be considered a small amount of work and not large by any means on most of our home courses. I am convinced that if there had never been a press release 99.99 % of the golfing populace would never have recognized the changes.
Having said the above doesn't mean I am in favor of the changes.
None of us need to argue the changes. We need to argue that TOC is the STANDARD and we don't need to change standards. It's that simple.
Cheers
-
Mike
Reply #302 mentions "a couple of percent of grade" in a direct quote. Deducting that from Scott MacPherson's very detailed survey of the green puts the projected grade in the 2-2.5% range. If they're changing it, they're not going to leave it in any doubt that it is flat enough. 2% is a responsible estimate.
-
Mike
Reply #302 mentions "a couple of percent of grade" in a direct quote. Deducting that from Scott MacPherson's very detailed survey of the green puts the projected grade in the 2-2.5% range. If they're changing it, they're not going to leave it in any doubt that it is flat enough. 2% is a responsible estimate.
Thanks Robin...
-
Mike
If TOC is "the standard" why do so few golf courses have double greens, or numerous holes with blind tee shots? Is it just that every course other than TOC is sub-standard? :o
-
Mike,
Information to the Public maybe BS and laughable to you, but the very fact that the plans could have been out there would have provoked a balanced debate.
Then you might have got some support for your noble cause of The Old Course is the STANDARD
Now with the ”fait accompli” it hasn’t so much launched a debate, rather a slanging match and officials digging in as they have no alternative but to defend their ways.
-
Rich,
I'm not calling anything sub standard. I'm saying that it is used as a comparison it should be sacred.
John,
I don't know maybe it would have provoked a debate. I don't see that. Now, I don't do noble causes I just consider it a standard and don't think it should be messed with. All that is just a personal position. And it really doesn't matter because none of us have say in the matter. And I don't think you will see officials defending their ways. I think they will basically ignore such.
-
Mike
Is it just that every course other than TOC is sub-standard? :o
Yup, pretty accurate. At least it was before these changes...
-
This argument can never be settled as long as Peter Dawson and his allies believe they are in charge of a tournament venue, while those of us on the other side believe Dawson has been entrusted with an irreplaceabe historic relic.
-
This argument can never be settled as long as Peter Dawson and his allies believe they are in charge of a tournament venue, while those of us on the other side believe Dawson has been entrusted with an irreplaceabe historic relic.
Exactly so. And that is the dilemma. If the Old Course's main function is as an Open venue, then any change - literally - is ok if it makes the course more difficult. Crank up the D - 6's and have at it.
That is a view of TOC, however, is at odds with its history and the way it was/is viewd by its more reflective commentators.
MacK's painstakingly detailed map of the TOC done in 1922/23 was not done to depict a model tournament venue. It was done as a model for good architecture. He had the temerity to think that by drawing its feature in such detail they might be preserved. Alas....
To now ask TOC to pay the price for the R&A's abrogation of their duties regarding equipment is, as noted about, nothing less than brazen.
Bob
-
Bob - The Old Course may be literally sacred, and it is certainly figuratively so. But to argue against any changes there because it is one of a kind, sui generis, is to (implictely) suggest that past, present and future changes to dozens of other great courses in America and GB&I, from those built long ago to those built recently to those yet to be built, cannot and should not be treated in the same manner and with the same respect, and thus for all practical purposes to condone the very changes we mean to condemn (in every place other than St. Andrews). And it strikes me that it is precisely this stance that (inadvertently) makes it easier (and more justifiable) for Mr. Dawson to do what he is doing, because it frames the debate in terms of relative values (i.e. is this/that course great enough to be left alone and unchanged) instead of in the objective/practical langauge of rights and responsibilities (i.e. the long, arduous process of beginning - right now - to hash out amongst all the stakeholders rules/guidelines for who has ultimate authority for great courses/tournament venues and who they would be required to consult and reach consensus with). In other words, while of course I side with the traditionalists here, I just can't see how the sacred ground approach helps much, in this case, or how -- just as importantly I think -- it helps prevent this in the future.
Peter
-
I can't stop thinking that process used to make changes on TOC may go down as the biggest "railroad job" in golf history. At least the "anchored putter" decison, we knew that the governing bodies were considering a rule change. Did anyone even know that changes to TOC were being contemplated?
If a random group of GCAers (trained architects or not) had the power and the will to change TOC (or ANY course), and our SOLE objective was to make those changes and let the consequences be damned, then we might exactly follow the path chosen by the R & A and the Links Trust.
We would quietly select our architect of choice, give him the direction we wanted and have him draw up the plans. Then we'd get the approval from the governing body of the course.
Since we KNOW we are going to take some heat, we'd have to have the equipment ready to roll as soon as possible after we made the announcement. We certainly would not want to get into a lengthy debate about the proposed changes, and have to justify our plans with guys like Tom Doak and others who actually know a lot about TOC and its place in the history of golf course acrhitecture. No no no, we would not want to stand up to that type of questioning. Who knows what type of opposition might be mustered? We obviously have complete faith that we know what is right.
If we had a savvy PR guy in our group, he would tell us to make the announcement on "Take Out The Trash Day," a Friday, and perhaps create another major story to divert the public's attention.
Then we would hunker down, say as little as possible other than "it was for the good of the game", and wait for the storm to die down.
And THAT is how you pull off a "railroad job."
-
Heretofore when you look up Gross Overstatement or Bold-Faced Lie in the dictionary this will be the quote that appears:
Dawson added. “We know that piece of land and cherish it like no one else."
-
Peter -
I am not arguing that TOC is immune to change. The issue is what is being changed. Some changes matter more than others. There ought to be a presumption against changes. I can think of circumstances when that preumption can be overcome. Lengthening tees, for example, makes sense to me.
But other changes fail to meet that presumption. Among those are changes to contouring and changes to bunkering that affects historic strategies.
As for the importance of contouring, I'd refer you to MacK's S of SA. If the book is about anything, it is about the importance of contouring on TOC and in gca more generally. As for eliminating historic strategies on holes by resetting bunkers, I'd refer to the literature on gca written since, say, 1905.
Dawson and all should not be given the pleasure of dismissing their opponents as being rigid ideologues opposed to all changes. Or that we have some moisty-misty vision of TOC as a sacred object handed down from on high. Both are false.
Bob
-
This argument can never be settled as long as Peter Dawson and his allies believe they are in charge of a tournament venue, while those of us on the other side believe Dawson has been entrusted with an irreplaceabe historic relic.
Maybe we should play up the conflict of interest here between Dawson's role as tournament guy vs. his role as protector of The Old Course. He clearly has favored the former.
-
This argument can never be settled as long as Peter Dawson and his allies believe they are in charge of a tournament venue, while those of us on the other side believe Dawson has been entrusted with an irreplaceabe historic relic.
Maybe we should play up the conflict of interest here between Dawson's role as tournament guy vs. his role as protector of The Old Course. He clearly has favored the former.
I think that makes sense. There aren't many courses where the role of "protector" is so important. But it is critically important in the case of TOC.
Bob
-
Anyone who has spent anytime around green construction knows that when you say a couple of percent, it means a hell of a lot more when talking about green slopes then batting average. The slope on the 11th was only 4-5%ish to start, so they are basically cutting it in half. Dawson can try to sell that as a minor 2% change, but that is a major change, he knows it, and is trying to be deceptive with his words.
Any golf writer worth his salt knows it too. Please call it what it is and please question Dawson about it when given the opportunity.
This is absolutely bang-on.
-
Tom,
To add insult to injury, now you'll have to go play the course again to update the review of it for the Confidential Guide. Ought to be an entertaining read at least... :-\
-
Bob - not to belabour the point: I wrote "any changes" but I was basically referring to your "presumption against changes", which amounts to the same thing in the context of my post, since such a presumption has not been (affectively or effectively) at work in countless other instances/great golf courses (and won't be in the future if the system remains the same). Again, I just think that arguing that TOC is especially deserving of such presumption is not the best approach, now or in the long run.
Peter
-
Maybe we should play up the conflict of interest here between Dawson's role as tournament guy vs. his role as protector of The Old Course. He clearly has favored the former.
Tom,
Who plays the role of custodian of the course is not really clear as it would appear that there are a number of people responsible for the decision processes made in the lead up to these changes being given the green light.
It would be interesting however to see 1) who initially decided the works were required and 2) how these were 'sold' to the other members of the decision making committee.
I would harbour a bet that somewhere along the line a quote was made that it would not be 'economical' to not make the changes. Imagine the horror of the elected members if they felt that their town could lose the privilege of holding the Open and the economic suicide that would ensue. Could it be that the Competition Committee would use such a tactic?
Neil.
-
This argument can never be settled as long as Peter Dawson and his allies believe they are in charge of a tournament venue, while those of us on the other side believe Dawson has been entrusted with an irreplaceabe historic relic.
Maybe we should play up the conflict of interest here between Dawson's role as tournament guy vs. his role as protector of The Old Course. He clearly has favored the former.
good play
-
Re the slope of the 11th green, here is the USGA's current recommendations on green speed vs slope. Clearly a 5% slope is in the no-go red zone. Moving to 2 to 2.5% will at least get it into the Marginal zone at 10 feet on the Stimp. I imagine it'll still be a problem when the wind is out of the north blowing down the slope. Even back in the day when Stimps were 6 or 7 in tournament play the green wouldn't have been pinable there by modern standards. I guess they were more relaxed about fairness back then.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/MaximumSlopeforGreenSpeed.jpg)
-
Robin,
When you’ve finished your drawing for your building permit, can you name the text book reference for a pin location being 16 feet in diameter? (Genuinely interested)
-
Bob - not to belabour the point: I wrote "any changes" but I was basically referring to your "presumption against changes", which amounts to the same thing in the context of my post, since such a presumption has not been (affectively or effectively) at work in countless other instances/great golf courses (and won't be in the future if the system remains the same). Again, I just think that arguing that TOC is especially deserving of such presumption is not the best approach, now or in the long run.
Peter
Sorry Peter. I misread your post. Yes, there is a risk that putting TOC on such a high pedestal opens to door to changing in other courses that aren't on such a high pedestal.
I would counter that that is just bowing to reality. The historical importance of a course should be judged on a case by case basis. TOC holds down one end of that scale. The Fernandina Beach Municipal Golf Course and Bar-B-Q holds down the other end. Between the two are courses with all manner of historical importance. That importance should be given appropriate weight. People will disagree about how that balancing act comes out. I think it an inevitable force of nature that there will be changes. But that doesn't mean that all courses should be equally amenable to being changed.
Or am I missing your point?
Bob
-
Robin,
When you’ve finished your drawing for your building permit, can you name the text book reference for a pin location being 16 feet in diameter? (Genuinely interested)
John
Then you may have to wait some time!
I think I picked that one up from the same USGA article as the very handy slope table Bryan posted. I may be wrong on that. I'd have to check my papers. Hurdzan's book has a smaller diameter proposed of 314ft2, which is a 10-foot circle around the cup. You pays your money and takes your choice.
Incidentally, I've done a little mental arithmetic on how deep the cut on the green is likely to be, assuming of course they're not filling up the front portion of the green too. A 5% slope rises 5cm every metre and a 2% slope 2cm. Therefore to convert a 5% slope to a 2% slope for the purposes of creating one fresh hole location will need a maximum cut in the region of 15cm. We're not talking enormous vertical changes here, but it would look appreciably different once the tie backs are done.
-
I'm not sure where it was posted but apparently there is some incorrect information regarding the makeup of the Trustees and Links Management Committee and I was asked to post the clarification.
Of the 3 trustees nominated by the R & A and the 3 by Fife Council, both bodies have given one of those places to a member of one of the other Local Clubs.
In the LMC, both bodies have given up 2 of their 4 nominations to members of the Local Clubs.
The Local Clubs have a protocol in place for how these people are selected so each Club has representation.
It should be added however that once on the Trust or LMC, they are supposed to act independently of the body who nominated them, whether that is their golf club, the R & A or Fife Council members.
-
John
Found it. The 16 foot diameter, 8 foot radius figure comes from Page 111 of "Golf Greens, History, Design and Construction", by Mike Hurdzan. So there is a contradiction between his two books. I went with this figure from the later published book.
-
Robin,
When you’ve finished your drawing for your building permit, can you name the text book reference for a pin location being 16 feet in diameter? (Genuinely interested)
John
Then you may have to wait some time!
I think I picked that one up from the same USGA article as the very handy slope table Bryan posted. I may be wrong on that. I'd have to check my papers. Hurdzan's book has a smaller diameter proposed of 314ft2, which is a 10-foot circle around the cup. You pays your money and takes your choice.
Incidentally, I've done a little mental arithmetic on how deep the cut on the green is likely to be, assuming of course they're not filling up the front portion of the green too. A 5% slope rises 5cm every metre and a 2% slope 2cm. Therefore to convert a 5% slope to a 2% slope for the purposes of creating one fresh hole location will need a maximum cut in the region of 15cm. We're not talking enormous vertical changes here, but it would look appreciably different once the tie backs are done.
Robin
Good to see that my guesstimate on another thread of 18cm (7") wasn't too far off the mark!
PS--for those of you who are metrically challenged, 15cm = 6" which = the width of the standard golf card (made that specific width inorder to allow people to properly measure stymies (allowed if the stymying ball was more than 6" from the stymied ball)). Not a helluvalotof change in elevation, IMVHO.
rfg
-
Interesting irony from 3 years ago. The changes to the Jubilee course were more worthy of discussion than The Old Course.
The Jubilee Course, recently
voted among the top 100
courses outside the USA by
prestigious magazine Golf Digest,
is to undergo a programme of
alterations over the next three years.
Following recommendations from
golf course architect Martin Hawtree,
renowned for his work with the R&A
and on many of the UK and Ireland’s top
links courses, the alterations are designed to
bring the Jubilee towards its full potential.
Over the past nine months members
of the Green Sub-committee have also
been involved substantially in the planned
alterations...
‘When the Jubilee Course
Martin Hawtree’s plans for the Jubilee
Course are to go on display in the Links
Clubhouse from Monday 8 June until
Monday 22 June.
Director of Greenkeeping Gordon Moir
will be on hand to discuss the plans at the
following times: Friday 12 June 9am-11am;
Saturday 13 June 12noon-1.30pm; Sunday
14 June 8am-8.30am and 11am-11.30am;
Tuesday 16 June 2.30pm-3.30pm.
-
Robin,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
I must say I prefer the 10 foot(3.1m) diameter to the 16 foot (4.9m) diameter. Then the Links Trust need only cut 9cm (3.5 inches) into the 11th Green and not 15cm (6 inches).
Well the slippery slope will be no more and now putting down towards the front will be easier – too bad (sigh)
-
Interesting irony from 3 years ago. The changes to the Jubilee course were more worthy of discussion than The Old Course.
The Jubilee Course, recently
voted among the top 100
courses outside the USA by
prestigious magazine Golf Digest,
is to undergo a programme of
alterations over the next three years.
Following recommendations from
golf course architect Martin Hawtree,
renowned for his work with the R&A
and on many of the UK and Ireland’s top
links courses, the alterations are designed to
bring the Jubilee towards its full potential.
Over the past nine months members
of the Green Sub-committee have also
been involved substantially in the planned
alterations...
‘When the Jubilee Course
Martin Hawtree’s plans for the Jubilee
Course are to go on display in the Links
Clubhouse from Monday 8 June until
Monday 22 June.
Director of Greenkeeping Gordon Moir
will be on hand to discuss the plans at the
following times: Friday 12 June 9am-11am;
Saturday 13 June 12noon-1.30pm; Sunday
14 June 8am-8.30am and 11am-11.30am;
Tuesday 16 June 2.30pm-3.30pm.
Good find. Illustrates the sneaky tactics used this time. I wonder, did all these plans for the Jubilee go through?
-
Melvin must be beside himself on the changes...
-
Melvin must be beside himself on the changes...
I was thinking the same thing. Can anyone verify if the news gave him a heart attack? I hope he is okay.
-
Melvin must be beside himself on the changes...
I was thinking the same thing. Can anyone verify if the news gave him a heart attack? I hope he is okay.
I've been trading messages with him on Facebook, and he is fully disgusted. In short, all his prior concerns / criticisms of the Links Trust seem to be coming true.
He has been watching here and grateful to Tom Doak for his efforts and grateful for the support from others here.
-
Robin,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
I must say I prefer the 10 foot(3.1m) diameter to the 16 foot (4.9m) diameter. Then the Links Trust need only cut 9cm (3.5 inches) into the 11th Green and not 15cm (6 inches).
Well the slippery slope will be no more and now putting down towards the front will be easier – too bad (sigh)
Funny, I thought the intent of the changes was to make the course more difficult, not easier.
Will we see no one putt into Strath again?
-
I've looked, and haven't seen it posted here, so here goes:
Peter Dawson states "Dawson anticipates criticism of the changes, though he called it a "knee-jerk reaction."
"If they came to see me and walked out onto the course, I'm quite sure they would be fine with it," he said.
http://www.theolympian.com/2012/11/27/2333890/old-course-getting-a-new-look.html
Which begs the question if anyone (read: Tom Doak) will take him up on that.
For the record - I'm upset at the changes - especially on the 11th.
-
Peter Dawson states "Dawson anticipates criticism of the changes, though he called it a "knee-jerk reaction."
"If they came to see me and walked out onto the course, I'm quite sure they would be fine with it," he said.
As a thoroughly untrained yet completely overconfident amateur architect myself, I recognize another one when I hear him speak. A little bit of knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing...especially when couple with great power.
-
I've looked, and haven't seen it posted here, so here goes:
Peter Dawson states "Dawson anticipates criticism of the changes, though he called it a "knee-jerk reaction."
"If they came to see me and walked out onto the course, I'm quite sure they would be fine with it," he said.
http://www.theolympian.com/2012/11/27/2333890/old-course-getting-a-new-look.html
Which begs the question if anyone (read: Tom Doak) will take him up on that.
For the record - I'm upset at the changes - especially on the 11th.
Well he might have said that right after he saw that I was on my way to China and not in Edinburgh. Of course, he also said it as he was on HIS way to Florida.
-
Wait a minute. Did I miss something? In the USA Today article yesterday it says that the corners of SIX greens will be recontoured!! I thought we were talking about 2 greens (11 & 17)? Is there twice as much damage scheduled to be inflicted next winter?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2012/11/27/st-andrews-old-course-changes/1730345/
-
Wait a minute. Did I miss something? In the USA Today article yesterday it says that the corners of SIX greens will be recontoured!! I thought we were talking about 2 greens (11 & 17)? Is there twice as much damage scheduled to be inflicted next winter?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2012/11/27/st-andrews-old-course-changes/1730345/
Another twist in this bad dream!
Mark
-
I emailed with Gordon Moir, director of greenkeeping for the Links Trust, about the path taken leading to the changes on the Old Course.
He also gave me his thoughts on the modifications.
http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/uncategorized/1033/director-of-greenkeeping-for-st-andrews-links-trust-explains-how-decision-to-alter-the-old-course-was-made
-
Thank you Anthony
I do not understand.
Where is the path?
They discussed it amongst themselves then did the work.
I also don't understand how you can create hole locations and not remove slope from The Eden green.
Cheers
#savetheoldcourse
-
apparently they are reducing slope but not removing slope if you know what I mean says Gordon Muir. He must have been given a trial with the new Toro Magic Wand Contour Reducer they have been developing in secret........
-
What the hell does that mean? That's is not dead flat....yet?
-
That does at least confirm the changes to the fairway on 7 are a divot issue. I think it would be hard to argue divot repair would not be an issue in that area. I'm sure one of our greenkeepers could provide some input about possible remedies.
This change, maybe like some of the others, appears to have decent reasoning behind it. So, why not have an open process and explain the prospective changes, have the debate, then the decision and work? Not Decision, Work, Debate.
-
Like the general golfing populace the majority of golfing journalists have been silent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/9709957/RandA-hits-back-after-Ian-Poulter-blasts-insane-changes-to-the-Old-Course-at-St-Andrews.html
Whereas others recycle PR releases
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/1127/1224327142563.html
-
Now I am confused.
On the one hand we hear that supposedly the R&A Championship Committee did not know about the changes till just before the announcement.
Then I read in Anthony's interview with Moir that : "the briefings given to the local golf clubs in St Andrews prior to the announcement being made were supportive"
What am I missing? It looks like this cannot both be true....
-
Received an email from Gordon Moir asking me to clarify two points which I did on my blog post.
First: the locals asked for the depression in the 7th to be filled in because of divot problems. They added material two years ago but the problem persisted.
Second: the work on the 11th green will not alter existing hole locations behind the Strath Bunker and players will still be able to play shots off the back ridge so that ball will role towards the hole.
If you don't mind, please click on the link and read the story there. Maybe someday I can get a few pennies out of the website. Your support is greatly appreciated.
http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1033/director-of-greenkeeping-for-st-andrews-links-trust-explains-how-decision-to-alter-the-old-course-was-made
Anthony
-
Thanks for that, Anthony, It puts things in perspective.
-
quick question --
As someone who has never played TOC but would like to someone. does it make sense for me to rush over to play before the changes?
-
quick question --
As someone who has never played TOC but would like to someone. does it make sense for me to rush over to play before the changes?
Not unless you can travel in time as well as space. Work started on Monday this week.
-
Quote of the Day, from Geoff's site:
Fortunately there is one which has been described as a much abused old course in the little kingdom of Fife, Scotland, which has so far escaped destruction by vandals in the shape of amateur golf architects. I refer to Old St. Andrews. This is partially owing to the fact that the members have considered it too sacred to be touched, and it is also due to the opposition of such stalwarts as the late John L. Low, the Blackwells, the Hambros, Norman Boase and many others to suggested changes.
ALISTER MACKENZIE
-
And the 2002 Peter Dawson quote:
"Anyone who knows and loves St. Andrews, as most golfers do, is obviously reluctant to make changes," Peter Dawson, secretary of the R&A, told Golf World in an interview last week during the Dunhill Links Championship. "It's a bit like drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa, but the last tee changes have been accepted and are now part of the course."
-
Best comment ever on the subject:
if you like chocolate ice cream, why would you buy vanilla ????
-
Received an email from Gordon Moir asking me to clarify two points which I did on my blog post.
First: the locals asked for the depression in the 7th to be filled in because of divot problems. They added material two years ago but the problem persisted.
Second: the work on the 11th green will not alter existing hole locations behind the Strath Bunker and players will still be able to play shots off the back ridge so that ball will role towards the hole.
If you don't mind, please click on the link and read the story there. Maybe someday I can get a few pennies out of the website. Your support is greatly appreciated.
http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1033/director-of-greenkeeping-for-st-andrews-links-trust-explains-how-decision-to-alter-the-old-course-was-made
Anthony
thanks, great insight
collection areas are always a divot problem
how about hole #4?
fwiw, I'm wondering who signs Gordon's checks ;)
-
OK, before I ask this question and some people misconstrue my feelings...let me say that I have had a sick feeling since I first learned about the changes to TOC. Even though I have never even played there (my first trip was planned in 2013) I have studied it and the templates it has spawned for the past eight years. I am truly upset.
But when I asked a GCA friend "What would Old Tom Morris say?" the PM answer I received was "he would say it was just dirt and grass!"
So what would OTM say if he could magically reappear today? I know what Mackenzie said, and what Tom Doak and other architects have said. But I take their comments as the ultimate sign of respect they have for the course that had such a profound impact on their work. I understand that, but do we have any hint of what OTM would have said? Perhaps he would have said "Lads, tis only dirt and grass, just golf on it and enjoy the game!" Is he really rolling over in his grave? Or laughing at the uproar?
-
In the Scotsman on Sunday, John Huggan blasts the R&A, Links Trust and the USGA. You can read the story by clicking here: http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/golf/john-huggan-sacrilege-at-st-andrews-1-2671304
OR... you could click on my site and get to the article from there...
http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1054/scotsmans-john-huggan-lamabasts-old-course-changes
Thank for your support.
Anthony
-
Nice article from Huggs. Must have been a long flight back from Barnbougle!
When you going to join this discussion group, John??? You'd be a VERY welcome addition.
MB.
-
This is a link to a story I just posted excerpting writings of ASGCA members to the Old Course modifications.
You can go right to the link by clicking here http://www.asgca.org/news/666-asgca-members-comment-on-old-course-modifications
OR... OR...
You could click on my link and then click a link to an advertiser. I'm just saying. I'm not telling you what to do.
http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/blog/1064/asgca-comment-on-old-course-alterations
Your support is genuinly appreciated.
Anthony
-
Adam Lawrence from Golf Course Architecture Magazine talked with Peter Dawson.
http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Dawson-upbeat-on-Old-Course-works/2617/Default.aspx
-
What does it tell you about a person when his first line is: "If you are going to insist that the course hasn't changed and shouldn't be touched, we are going to have a difficult conversation "
-
What does it tell you about a person when his first line is: "If you are going to insist that the course hasn't changed and shouldn't be touched, we are going to have a difficult conversation "
That he's trying to get you to have a fight on a point he feels he can win?
Nice spin on getting distracted over the need to consult because of the ban on anchoring. So Peter just how long were these works contemplated for?
Also I thought we'd established that the Championship Committee were only informed the week before i.e. They were NOT the originators.
-
It was a joke. Had hoped the context made that clear, but obviously not....
-
Adam, I would suggest if possible you modify to reference Dawson smiling when he said that or saying it with a laugh. There's plenty of things for us to pound him on without that added in!
Congrats on the 'get' BTW.
-
Adam
Was the front left corner of the 17th green recontoured?
-
It was a joke. Had hoped the context made that clear, but obviously not....
A clever joke, still subtlely drawing a line in the sand....
Congrats on the scoop, well done!
-
It is true, Frank, he has been reported elsewhere as saying the same thing, in apparent seriousness. Yes?
-
I don't understand the inconsistency from Peter Dawson. It seems like he's inventing the story as he goes along
A few day ago on the 11th
"The issue is that at old green speeds, before mowers were properly invented and greens were four on the stimp meter or something like that, you could get a pin position on the left hand side. But now when we are at 10.5 in the summer and in The Open, we found that you couldn't get a pin there that wasn't Mickey Mouse. We almost put a pin there (in 2010), but we thought if the wind blows it's going to be very unfair."
And now
"That pin is only used in winter at the moment,” said Dawson. “It's not just a question of being unusable at Open speeds – it can't be used even when the greens are at normal summer pace. The green would have to be slowed to six or seven on the Stimpmeter to make that pin usable.”
So they contemplated using the pin at 10.5 but now it's only usable at 6.5?
6.5 at 5% seems like an exaggeration from the charts posted.
-
It was a joke. Had hoped the context made that clear, but obviously not....
Adam
I took it as such. Clearly an attempt at an ice-breaker but with a serious point as well about the fact that the course has changed over the years. Starting from the psosition of being one of the few if indeed the only one on here over the last week defending Dawson and the R&A, I think that he comes over well in that he makes it clear that many of the changes had originated from the greenstaff or at least from greenkeeping issues and that it just wasn't him and Martin Hawtree cooking it up themselves. Thanks for posting and I look forward to reading the longer interview.
Niall
-
Adam,
Could you shed any clarity on which 'acute spur formation' Dawson is considering on the 4th? I thought at first your piece cleared it up -- seems like the larger mound in the fairway rather than the hump right before the green -- but on a closer read his comments don't seem to apply to that mound.
Mark
-
I think that he comes over well in that he makes it clear that many of the changes had originated from the greenstaff or at least from greenkeeping issues and that it just wasn't him and Martin Hawtree cooking it up themselves.
Yup, he comes off somewhere between Mother Teresa and Gandhi ::)...I suppose the superintendent suggested all the additional contouring and bunkers as well? Between his inability to figure out why the bunkers on the second were situated where they were and barreling ahead with moving them anyway and now his unsureness about the changes at the fourth he doesn't seem like an evil guy, but rather an incompetent who's in over his head. The fact that the anchoring thing was seen as more important than the changes to TOC is a pretty good clue as to where their priorities lie. Nice get though Adam.
-
Adam,
Could you shed any clarity on which 'acute spur formation' Dawson is considering on the 4th? I thought at first your piece cleared it up -- seems like the larger mound in the fairway rather than the hump right before the green -- but on a closer read his comments don't seem to apply to that mound.
Mark
If you follow the narrow channel forward from the tee, it's the area on the left in the landing zone (which you can carry if you're long enough).
-
Adam,
Could you shed any clarity on which 'acute spur formation' Dawson is considering on the 4th? I thought at first your piece cleared it up -- seems like the larger mound in the fairway rather than the hump right before the green -- but on a closer read his comments don't seem to apply to that mound.
Mark
If you follow the narrow channel forward from the tee, it's the area on the left in the landing zone (which you can carry if you're long enough).
why, then, does it stop players playing down the right, as you report Dawson as saying (and as I have ad him quoted as saying elsewhere)?
-
Only a relatively short hitter or a mishit ends up on top of that mound. Also when you do in my experience the rough is very thin up there and a simple recovery. The only thing you can't do is split the middle. Either go right and find fairway if you're straight enough or aim way left for the flat top of the mound. If you go halfway between the two you can get caught in a shaggy ridge and a more difficult recovery. BUT, if you find yourself in this position you have either hit a poor shot OR made a mental error OR both.
Also when has a modern pro golfer ever not been able to clear this ridge? At most it ends 220yds from the back tee at my guesstimate.
I can see the maintenance issues in regard to 7, I don't neccessarily agree on the remedy but the issue is a real one. I think the greenkeeping issues here are being played up to be used as a fig leaf to justify the changes.
I can't remember Moir bringing up these issues with 4 in his interview with Anthony Pioppi
-
There seems to be two concurrent threads on this si I'll post this here too.
No, Brian, it is further back than that
OK, Adam got it. It would be the second one in the foreground of this picture. That one is between 200 to 260 yards from the normal and Open tees. For whom was he widening it out? I don't think a 260 yard carry would be too much for pros unless the wind was in their face. Seems to me it would be more of an issue for the many ams playing the course where a 200 yard carry might be an issue for many. And if they are trying to keep things challenging for the pros, why widen it out there. How out of hand can the rough get for the greenskeepers? Could they not use a fly-mo every once in a while.
(http://0.tqn.com/d/golf/1/7/n/G/1/old_course_4.jpg)
I'm a little confused by the quote in your excellent article:
“The impetus has come from the greenkeepers – it was covered in rough during the 2005 Open, and the result was that almost nobody tried to hit their drive up the right. To create more width, we shaved the bank down in 2010, but it is very steep, and the greens staff have difficulty mowing it at that height.”
The first sentence doesn't make sense. If the mound on the left was covered in rough, why did nobody hit their drive up the right. It seems to be a non-sequitur.
-
Bryan,
Apart from the quote being counterintuitive, it indicates to me it's more about how they prepare the course for an open (i.e longer rough) than how it appears 4 years out of 5.
This hole does annoy some shorter hitters (especially females) because it may force them to aim at the rough with little hope of carrying it. However I'm not a long hitter and was more often than not reaching the short grass over the mound, also the lineup there was generally good. Also if aiming at the rough offends them so greatly they can always aim for the fairway or even the new course.
How they appear in your picture is how I remember them, i.e not much of a maintenance issue there.
-
I think that he comes over well in that he makes it clear that many of the changes had originated from the greenstaff or at least from greenkeeping issues and that it just wasn't him and Martin Hawtree cooking it up themselves.
Yup, he comes off somewhere between Mother Teresa and Gandhi ::)...I suppose the superintendent suggested all the additional contouring and bunkers as well? Between his inability to figure out why the bunkers on the second were situated where they were and barreling ahead with moving them anyway and now his unsureness about the changes at the fourth he doesn't seem like an evil guy, but rather an incompetent who's in over his head. The fact that the anchoring thing was seen as more important than the changes to TOC is a pretty good clue as to where their priorities lie. Nice get though Adam.
Jud
Surprised to see you roll your eyes since in the interview Dawson talked of widening the course, doing away with rough and adding rumple where man had previously flattened what nature provided. I'd have thought that would have been right up your street......but then perhaps you were in too much of a hurry to heap abuse on Mr Dawson to actually read what he said.
Niall
-
While we wait for clarity on Mr Dawson's comments re which line he wants golfers to play on the 4th, and thus his intention to lop off the top of one of the 'acute spur formations', I note again this:
"By continuing with the proposed changes, Messrs. Dawson and Hawtree are forcing their own limited views of design onto a course that previously offered infinite possibilities. They are giving the course definition, the lack of which was the one thing that set The Old Course apart from everything else." -- Tom Doak
Also, a question: who agrees with the approach Mr Dawson has taken to his program of change now that he has stated the changes are the most significant in a century?
-
I thought by now that some of the UK news organizations would find answers to questions that remain about the Old Course work. For instance, was Martin Hawtree the only architect talked to about the job, when was the process began. They didn't so I contacted Mike Woodcock, Media and Editorial Manager for the R&A. Here are his answers and, in some cases, his non-answers.
Thanks as always, for clicking on the link and if you have time click on one the advertisers. I'm partial to the Allergy Buyers Club site.
http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/blog/1071/some-remaining-old-course-questions-answered-others-not
Anthony
-
First of all nice work from Anthony Pioppi and Adam Lawrence from this site for the work they have produced. Their pieces have done more to clarify what is proposed and when these decisions were taken and by whom than any other media I have seen. Well done.
Anthony,
When you spoke to Mr Moir did he raise these maintenance issues regarding 4 that have now entered the debate through Mr Dawson?
Treehouse,
This pin Mr Dawson and others have said has been lost on 11. I'm a little confused. Is it one that sits way at the back left of the green, that I have never seen before OR is it centre left of the green between Hill and Strath directly below the fierce slope?
-
Sean:
I did not since Dawson's explanation did not come until after my email exchange Moir.
Anthony
-
'...to stay true to the unique spirit and character of the Old Course."
These are the kinds of things one says in lieu of actually staying true to something. Real Ministry of Truth stuff.
-
The Orwellian nature of the Trust's public statements jump off the page.
Not unlike ANGC's statements that the addition of thousands of new trees to the course was in keeping with the "spirit" of the design of MacK and Jones.
The Orwellian crime is always twofold. It's not just turning the truth on its head. It's also degrading the meaning of everyday words. Each crime is bad enough, but the latter is more troubling (because it's more insidious) than the former.
Bob
-
New photos showing work in the second. This looks to be changing the hole dramatically.
http://www.golf.com/photos/old-course-st-andrews-changes/second-hole-sign
-
I'm pleased to say it won't just go away.
It's got MacGinty's goat!
http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/defacing-mona-lisa-of-golf-is-a-crying-shame-3323266.html
-
It certainly won't, Tony, especially as he continues to show so little regard for opposition to (some of) his changes that he characterizes it as 'hysteria':
golfweek.com/news/2012/dec/12/dawson-shocked-uproar-over-changes-st-andrews/?utm_medium=twitter
How long before the outside PR firm is hired? Don't take the work, African Animal!
I expect some sort of organised opposition is just over the horizon.
-
I haven't read this whole thread, as I have not played the Old Course and felt unqualified to comment. However, I was reading an old Golf Digest and came across a little gem.
But Peter Dawson, secretary of the R&A, which conducts the Open, resists the idea of adding bunkers to tighten any landing areas, insisting that would change the fundamental character of the place.
"Because of the history of the Old Course, moving hazards is not the option it would be at many other courses," Dawson says, "You simply can't move a bunker here or there at the Old Course."
Ron Whitten, "A new look at the Old Course", Golf Digest, Vol. 56, No. 7, July 2005, pp 138-144.
The quote above is on page 144.
-
The Orwellian nature of the Trust's public statements jump off the page.
Not unlike ANGC's statements that the addition of thousands of new trees to the course was in keeping with the "spirit" of the design of MacK and Jones.
The Orwellian crime is always twofold. It's not just turning the truth on its head. It's also degrading the meaning of everyday words. Each crime is bad enough, but the latter is more troubling (because it's more insidious) than the former.
Bob
Hopefully of this group's commentary goes into the memory hole!
-
Golf Central just showed the work being done on 2, 7, 11, and 17. It was in the last fifteen minutes of the hour boadcast and should be repeated. Part of it was a walking interview on a forsty day.
-
Great find, Garland.
It would be great to hear Dawson explain what has changed in 7 years to alter his position on that.
-
"Because of the history of the Old Course, moving hazards is not the option it would be at many other courses," Dawson says, "You simply can't move a bunker here or there at the Old Course." Peter Dawson, from Ron Whitten, "A new look at the Old Course", Golf Digest, Vol. 56, No. 7, July 2005, pp 138-144.
I am speechless.
Bob
-
"Because of the history of the Old Course, moving hazards is not the option it would be at many other courses," Dawson says, "You simply can't move a bunker here or there at the Old Course." Peter Dawson, from Ron Whitten, "A new look at the Old Course", Golf Digest, Vol. 56, No. 7, July 2005, pp 138-144.
I am speechless.
Bob
Louis O's -16 total in 2010 ::) ::)
If they just used the USGA's trick ::) ::)of lopping a stroke off par on two of the par 5's, and convince Louis to make 10 on the last, they'd have had a winner at -2 and -1.
and all would be good in the world.....
-
Jeff -
If so, that is weak soup indeed. Dawson needed only to look at the numbers. Louis O's and Tiger's winning scores were outliers. TOC held up quite well against the field in both of those Opens. The 2nd and 11th held up especially well. Mark B ran the numbers and they do not justify anything like Dawson's reaction.
Bob
-
Mark, your wish is my command!
-
Edit: St. Andrews Links' blog post on
the changes to rebuilding Hell Bunker:
http://blog.standrews.com/rebuilding-hell-bunker/ (http://blog.standrews.com/rebuilding-hell-bunker/)
-
St. Andrews Links' blog post on the changes to Hell Bunker:
http://blog.standrews.com/rebuilding-hell-bunker/ (http://blog.standrews.com/rebuilding-hell-bunker/)
What we must be careful with is, what is regular maintenance, versus what is change.
I don't know in this case because I have not seen the work.
I attended a presentation on the Old Course by Gordon McKie where he showed what they do year to year to keep the course.
The rebuild cycle was surprisingly short for bunker faces.
I was also astonished at the damage created by winter winds.
They had to fill one dramatically to return the floor to where it was.
Others had sand removed to accomplish the same goal.
He was the golf superintendent in residence for a week at University of Guelph.
Because of my connection I got to see him multiple times and ask a lot of questions about the way things work.
He was very up front about everything including the politics.
-
Sand blowing about ? Surely not, I thought the Old Course had been set in stone since 1906 ?
Niall