News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Pages: [1]

Mark_F

Blasphemy and The Old Course
« on: November 17, 2002, 06:21:21 PM »
Golf Australia magazine reports in its latest issue that The Old Course will be lengthened by 180 metres in time for the next Open Championship.
Why then is it all right to put the old lady on the rack, but not under the scalpel?
By 2005, even Craig Parry will be 180 metres longer due to his new driver and ball.
Why not just make the weaker holes better/more interesting?

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Blasphemy and The Old Course
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2002, 02:19:16 AM »
Can you exapnd on the weaker holes, better/more interesting comment?  Which holes in particular come fit that description?  

The problem here is not the golf courses.  

Why not do something about the golf ball and its flight, before choosing to alter (and most likely destroy) the great golf courses of the world?

If the R&A planned to make renovations to TOC, I can almost guarantee you that there would be dozens of people from this site ready to lie in front of the bulldozers!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

bodgeblack

Re: Blasphemy and The Old Course
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2002, 05:24:36 AM »
I reckon the scalpel has already been in use on the old course. remember the 1999-2000 revetting of the bunkers.  Vertical faces and flat bases. They really got some stick for that.

Which holes are the 180 yards going to come from?
9 & 10 are what i immeidiately think of as the less strong holes on TOC.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Blasphemy and The Old Course
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2002, 05:53:58 AM »
Mark F:

Because adding length is both PC and low-risk.

Changing weak holes in more "radical" ways can be buggered up and, even if it's done pretty well, the howls of protest from the traditionalists will be, at best, daunting.

I agree with you, though.  It's certainly worth a shot.  Augusta National is the better for it over the years and it was a darn good course from the beginning.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

ian

Re: Blasphemy and The Old Course
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2002, 03:18:04 PM »
Mark, I perfer their choice. I don't want to see them change the way I or any other guest play it. Put tees in for the pros, so what, its not like this is the first time (or the second).

Its the only real way of trying to deal with the length without performing surgery. God forbid they ever would. As for the ball, we can want the changes, but they've shown no interest so here we are (and will be again next time too).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Blasphemy and The Old Course
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2002, 08:15:25 PM »
Mark:

you said:
>Why not just make the weaker holes better/more interesting?

Is your suggestion to send Scott Hoch as the PGA design consultant? :-[ :'( :P
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Mark_F

Re: Blasphemy and The Old Course
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2002, 08:22:14 PM »
To my mind, the 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 15th holes are pretty ordinary.  to make them better/more interesting?  More difficult greens?  After all, the pros are hitting them now with much shorter irons, why not make their target a little more difficult?
I can't see how length alone will do anything.  The ball not just flies too far, it runs too far.  i'm not a big hitter by any stretch of the imagination, but when I played the 5th, for the first time in my life, I hit a par 5 in two, and with a 4-wood and 5-iron at that.  Still four-putted, though...
Quote
Can you exapnd on the weaker holes, better/more interesting comment?  Which holes in particular come fit that description?  

The problem here is not the golf courses.  

Why not do something about the golf ball and its flight, before choosing to alter (and most likely destroy) the great golf courses of the world?

If the R&A planned to make renovations to TOC, I can almost guarantee you that there would be dozens of people from this site ready to lie in front of the bulldozers!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Mark_F

Re: Blasphemy and The Old Course
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2002, 08:24:13 PM »
Maybe it's time to acknowledge that The Old Course has ceased to be a true championship test in anything other than a stiff breeze?
After all, two out of the last three Opens the winners have shot record low scores, and the only reason Daly didn't do the same in 1995 was the weather.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Mark_F

Re: Blasphemy and The Old Course
« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2002, 08:28:18 PM »
Paul Richards...
Absolutely!
I'm sure Monty would jump at the chance to be consulting architect with him, since he's so good at links golf...
Or better yet, why not Ty Tryon?  After all, he's got a tour card, and doesn't that automatically qualify you to be an architect these days?  His input could be aimed at the junior demographic, as long as this doesn't mean Buffy and Britney images spray painted onto the fairways...
Quote
Mark:

you said:
>Why not just make the weaker holes better/more interesting?

Is your suggestion to send Scott Hoch as the PGA design consultant? :-[ :'( :P
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Pages: [1]
Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back