St.Andrew's lost 'Modern Course'

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Actually it wasn't lost because it was never built. In the late 30's Sir Guy Campbell and CK Hutchison designed a new course for St.Andrews (along w/ Willie Auchterlonie), Darwin dubbed it the 'Modern' for lack of a better or more perminent name. It was located on land between the New and Jubilee and the sea. Due to the constant evolving process of sea and land, there was 'new' links land in that area.

Twelve of the holes were located between the sand-hills (described as a combination of high and low) and the sea, four holes were taken from the wildest part of the New and the remainder were from the Jubilee. Twelve of the 18 had full views of the sea. The New and Jubilee would have been redesigned.

Unfortunately WWI broke out the plan was put on hold - perminently. Darwin walked the course with the designers and was very excited. For those more familar with St.Andrews and their golf complex, would it be possible to rekindle this plan?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

That should say WWII broke out.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

I'm noticing more and more in various writing from that era and just before that the term "modern" and also "scientific" was occasionally used to describe the evolving architecture of that time.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom Mac,
Who was the developer?
Who did he answer to?
What was the purpose of building such a course?
What was the intent?
What was the mission statement?
Who wrote the mission statement?
Where is the mission statement now?
Were they going to recreate the 12th at Garden City there?
What are the price of coffee beans in St Andrews?
What input did Kenny Tawakana have in the project?
What is the capital of Assyria?
What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Was Doak going to be involved?

It's probably a good thing that they never did build it because it would have really compressed things together a little too tight. Lets just say to the point of being unsafe, even for me.

What would have had to happen was a drastic compression of both the New and the Jubilee, meaning that they would have had to take and reroute the courses between some narrow areas with little width and length. I'm not saying it couldn't have been done. I think it was better that they didn't.

If the "Modern" was supposed to go where you are describing, that area was razed long ago, eliminating the interesting land that may have been there. You can see it in a lot of pictures, the high sand hills that formed close to the ocean front. Even some of the Jubilee plays on some of it, (and they are probably the most picturesque holes on all of the courses combined, #'s 8 green 9, 10, and 11 tee.) There may be room there, but along with it comes a lot of areas that have been somewhat bulkheaded with rocks (the Eden side) and other arsenal to wade off the rising tides that would come somewhat near it.

Since I started writing this, I have scanned from my map of the Saint Andrews courses (Courtesy of Daryl "Tur" Boe who kindly got me a copy to make-up for the one that was stolen at King's Cross) so you can see for yourself, that theland was in fact there, and it is now "architecturally" gone. That is unless you name is Tom Fazio or Russ Jones..I mean Rees!:)

Sorry for the creases, it has been opened one too many times!:)

[SARR]

It may be difficult for an outsider to know and understand what actually takes place within a ruling body.  It may also be easy for outsiders to draw conclusions when they're far removed from that ruling body.  You have to know what the club wants to do, not what outsiders want you to do. When you're not privy to information known to the Links Trust, I wouldn't be so quick to tell members what you think. They may know a lot more than you and a lot more than they are willing to reveal. That's why I know so much about Riviera, even though I'm not a member there and live some 3000 miles away.

Many members of the Links Trust feel that the Modern Course at St. Andrews would have been built by now had another architect been active at St. Andrews. How do I know this? Because, I know everything.

Isn't it funny how much my writing style seems like Pat Mucci's and how we concur on all of the same subjects. Yet, I post under this name because I need to hide my anonymity even though I fault those who don't post under their own.  I like to contradict myself. Its fun because it furthers discussion to see a thread get blown apart with mindless banter of I'm right/your wrong.

Coincidence? I think it would be indigenious for you to think so. What am I trying to say? I don't have a freekin' clue, only that I like the sound of my fingers hitting the keys while I agree with myself. I'm doing something.

It way too late, I have to get to bed, but I still have at least another half hour of staring into the mirror telling myself, "I love you, you sexy beast, I really do."

I even sent a valentine to myself.

It all about me.

[Dr._Katz]

Messrs. PM, LIRR, SARR

I also treat multiple personality disorders although at my group rate. However, I vould entertain discount negotiations.

Dr. Katz

[ForkaB]

I was actually walking that very land about 3 hours ago at the culmination of a lovely sprog-free Valentine's weekend.  I can't see any way that another course could have been shoehorned in there (at least now--perhaps the dunes were much more extensive 60-70years ago).

PS--the new Road Hole bunker looks like a 1970's lounge chair.  Yet another example of the increasingly popular "upholstery" tendency in golf course resoration.......

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tommy
You're right it looks like it has been leveled by the Army Corp of Engineers. I also wonder if the Jubilee may have expanded into some of the proposed area at some point. The plan called for a merging of Jubliee and New into a single short course for beginners and children, which evidently is what the Jubilee was intended to be.

At the time it was thought the Old course was still a supreme test, but that it was getting shorter every year and it would be sacralege to change it. Therefore the need for another modern championship test.

Evidently this new ground was very exciting. One of the architects described the property as 'fool-proof' (there was a smaller population of architects in those days), and as Darwin said "there he was too modest, but he could not praise it more highly."   Campbell said, "It is is difficult to overpraise the ground over which the Modern course will run; it so packed with ideal golfing features that every hole will have its peculiar characteristics in ever changing variety..."

[ForkaB]

Tom

Not sure where you're going with this thread (or even where you started!).

Having walked over much the land you are referencing over the past 3 days I agree that one could build a great golf course by cannibalizing bits and pieces from the existing tracks.  But, so what?

There are more than 118 great golf courses lying in the land occupied currently by the Old, Eden, New and Jubilee Courses.  It does not take world class imagination to think of at least 18 of those alternative routings that would put each of those 4 courses, to shame, including TOC.  That is a simple truth.

What should interest us?  That Bernie D. and others came to the same simple truths many years ago?  Or, are we just train spotting with this line of "inquiry"?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I agree with Rich that it wouldn't have been smart to tear up the two courses for one new one and a nine hole beginners track. I like both the New and the Jubilee. The Jubilee isn't a totally solid test, architecturally, but it really doesn't matter because there is one really old course there that really does.

As far as the Jubilee is concerned, it has a pretty cool back nine, IF they could just leave the damn course alone. They are always seemingly wanting to change it, making it a tougher test like the New. From holes 8-16, are pretty neat  because of a stretch of dunes where the holes weave in and out and over. You then have a tough playing, but so-so looking par 3, 17th and then a sort of flattened out 18th that sort of ends the round on a more quiet note.

It is a proper course to learn how to play fast and firm.

Hopefully Rich can add more on the Jubilee. Personally, I liked it. It didn't try to be anything more then it was. The locals like it too because you can actually play a round in about 2 1/2 hours. No tourists want to seem to play it, and ultimately, that is probably a very good thing. Let them go play Kingsbarns, Dukes, or the stupid sounding SA's Bay courses. This way they can leave the fun to the people that do want to experience Golf as it was meant to be played, w/o carts, GPS and other useless immenities.

Long Live REAL Golf!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Darwin reasons for supporting the proposal including Darwin's belief that some day the Old course would not be able to stand up to the technology on-slaught and altering the course was unthinkable. He also was of the opinion that the New course was unworthy of St.Andrews--I don't know if the course has been improved since 1938.

"..the New course is not now a good one, nor one worthy of St. Andrews. Of course it suffers from being next door to the Old...but when all due allowances have been made, it remains unworthy. This is not to say that a man has not got to play well on it, or that it has not some fine and interesting holes, but it has some very poor and dull ones, a weak beginning, and flat, rather dismal 'inlandish' ending."

The Jubilee of 1938 was a short beginners course--not the same course you find today. You had the sacred Old course, an excellent Colt designed Eden, a short beginners course, a poor New, and acres of used linksland. The proposal would have resulted in three tremendous courses and one beginner's course. It appears the plan was altered during the War, and Auchterlonie ended up designing a new Jubilee course in the dunes on his own--which opened in 1946.

The question is would St.Andrews have been better off with an addtional world class design by C & H along with a revised Old/Jubilee beginners course, than they would be with the current New and Jubliee?

[ChipOat]

While I would never presume to "challenge" Bernard Darwin's opinion on any golf-related matter, I do feel comfortable disagreeing with at least one of them.

I think TNC is an excellent course and worthy of any golf place on earth - St. Andrew's included.  Were it not for TOC next door, TNC would be included in conversations that include Nairn, Cruden Bay, Sunningdale, etc.

Open rota caliber??  Perhaps not.  But unworthy??  No way.

[Allan "Puffy" Robertson]

PS--the new Road Hole bunker looks like a 1970's lounge chair.  Yet another example of the increasingly popular "upholstery" tendency in golf course resoration.......

Yep...we be chillin' on The Old Course this winter.  You call those formerly steep as J'Lo's booty, sod-faced things def?  

You want "fair", well I'm down with that!  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I forgot to mention that Rich's quote on the Road Hole Bunker may be one for posterity. Rich, I like seeing you a bit critical of the whole process. Its all pretty stupid.

Interesting stuff you have dug up there Tom. I'll have to see what I have on the Jubi. I don't even remember Achterlonie's name mentioned in the same verse as the Jubilee. I always kind of felt that it was a destruction by committee-thing.

While I thuroughly enjoyed the New, I just don't have the same feelings as others as putting it in a "World Class" type of perspective. More then likely the lack of REALLY interesting green contours. They were good, just not in the same class as the Old Course. Favorite hole would probably be #8 which has a green set between two dunes, and it is very deceptive how far back it really is. #9 is no slouch either. I thought there were a lot of similarities between the 11th on the New and the 11th on the Jubilee. They're almost near identical.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tommy
Hutchison and Campbell's Modern course included the New's 9th unaltered, it would have been the 13th on the Modern. The New's 8th also was included as pretty much the same, with the angle of the approach changed slightly. The 10th would be used except the tee would be moved foward a bit and the approach would be played over the present green to a new green closer to the current 13th green. And there would have been a fourth newly designed hole in the same territory.

The thought for those planning this course was it would take its place among the Championship courses and would be of sufficient quality to host the Open - one of the very few championship calibre courses made for the 'rubber-core' ball.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Here is a shot just in back of the 8th tee, looking out to the East, right alongside the river Eden. (Serenity Now!)

Tom, according to Keith Mackie's "Golf At St. Andrews" Auchterlonie, who was St. Andrews honorary professional was there to revise the 1897, Old Tom Morris design just before the outbreak of WWII. It says that it wasn't completed until 1946.  Before that time, the Jubilee, which as you know was constructed to commemorate Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, was at first a 12 hole course that was extended to a full 18 in 1912.  Going further it says that todays current version of the Jubi, only 2 holes remain for the original design. (It doesn't exactly say which two, but Curtis Strange, who oversaw the redux, hit the ceremonial tee shot and didn't play, thus being a "shrewd judge" that the course was not ready for play. I would assume this tee shot occured at the first. A pretty boring hole from my memory. I couldn't begin to tell you which hole was the other. But a quick guess would think the 18th. Both the 1st and the 18th are pretty rudimentary golf holes.)

As far as the time frame, I'm wondering if this isn't actually part of the "Modern Course" of which you write. This might explain the lack of land and somewhat strange character of the course.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tommy
After looking at your map and comparing it to the Modern, they occupied the same land -- the unused dunesland the Darwin spoke of. Unfortunately Aucherlonie didn't use any of Sir Guy and the Major's holes. I think Mackie may have confused Auchterlonie and Old Tom who was long gone by 1938.

The dark colored dune line was intregal part of the Modern. The 1st and 2nd played between the dunes and the bay; the 18th played above the dunes on the map; and the 17th started in the dunes, then across them and then above them on the map. The 3rd, a par-3, played from the shore to green located in the dunes. The 16th was another par-3 with a green in the dunes. It was very interesting routing that took full advantage of those dunes and the coast line.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, Of course, I want a copy of that map or article. You know the drill!:)

[ForkaB]

Tommy

I don't know much about the Jubilee.  Only played it once (sometime around the middle of the latest reconstruction) and don't see any great need to play it again.  Walking some of it yesterday didn't change that opinion, although I am sure it is a decent links course and more than a few steps above the new Steele holes on the Eden (which I played Saturday).

Reading Tom M's new info, the C&H plan certainly does seem feasible, but foolishly naive.  If they really believed that TOC was that obsolete and the New that bad, why not just extend TOC out to incorporate the dunesland holes of the New (8-12) and solve for once and for all the "problem" of the "Shepherd's Crook" part of TOC's routing?

Of course, that is no more feasible today than any of the other 117 possible routings over that land.  Nor, to answer Tom's initial question is any sort of "Modern redux" plan anything other than quixotic.  The dune line that it planned to use is now firmly established as a recreation area for local residents and visitors, most of whom probably think that there is far too much golf in St. Andrews now anyway!

To me the most interesting aspect to this plan are the underlying assumptions by Darwin and others that TOC was obsolete and the New somehow unfit.  I agree with Chip and others that the New is a superb golf course.  It is more subtle than wild and wooly, and perhaps that is why it was (and is)dissed.  Don't know.  I also don't recall any evidence that TOC was being taken apart by the pros in the 1930's.  I'm sure that then, as today, it could be had by even the reasonably adept amateur if its many benign pin positions were used.  But, as evidence has shown, when the course is set up to test the pros, it does so admirably, even today.

One final observation from my weekend strolls.  It's incredible how much length has been added to TOC just through the simple option of extending tees backwards against the line of play.  Even the Medal tees (which are about 6600-6700) require one to march back 30-40 yards on most holes.  The Championship ones (7200-7300?) require some substantial treks.  It "works" in terms of keeping the course competitive, but it is not pretty or elegant in terms of maintaining the natural flow of play.

[ForkaB]

A couple of factoids gleaned from the Links Newsletter for Feb 2003 that I snaffled this weekend.

1.  The New Course is adding 150 yards in length by building new "Championship" tees on 8, 10, 12 and 14.

2.  The Jubilee was first extended to 18 holes in 1905.

[TEPaul]

"I also don't recall any evidence that TOC was being taken apart by the pros in the 1930's.  I'm sure that then, as today, it could be had by even the reasonably adept amateur if its many benign pin positions were used.  But, as evidence has shown, when the course is set up to test the pros, it does so admirably, even today."

Rich:

This remark of yours is an excellent one! Basically it was a premise used by Geoff Shackelford in his article concerning match play golf and a stroke play mentality a few weeks ago. If you read his article again you will see that he mentions exactly that to support his points. It doesn't really matter if players occasionally go low on golf courses that are good courses. What matters is the course's overall interest and its abiltity to be variable!

But when somebody goes low today almost all golfers assume that something is inherently wrong with that course, that it must be weak somehow, that it needs to be strengthened.

I don't know TOC but it seems it still has that necessary variableness for any golfer give certain situations. In America, the one that might be closest to it that way could be Maidstone. In some situations it looks quite bland and tame and it actually is but in other situations even for a very good golfer who might have shot 65 the day before and playing even better than the day before it can absolutely kill him.

That's what it's all about---variableness--both ends of the spectrum!

[ForkaB]

Vis a vis TOC, Tom, I think it's "all about" greensites.  As Tiger showed in 2000 it's just a drive (or 2-iron stinger) and a pitch for the pros.  If the pins are benign they shoot lights out.  If they are tricky, only the smartest and most patient will survive (i.e. Tiger).  Can't see how any of this has anything to do with Geoff's Match Play/Medal Play course non-argument.

[TEPaul]

"Can't see how any of this has anything to do with Geoff's Match Play/Medal Play course non-argument."

Rich:

I'm well aware that you can't see how this has anything to do with Geoff's article so there's absolutely zero reason to try to get into that with you again here and now.

You might be selling TOC a bit short by stating it's 'all about' greensites!

Definitely the greensites of TOC are extremely important in all that the course is and can potentially be but even never having been there it's very clear there's a bit more to it than that. Things such as random bunkering, the impact of the function of some of them, firm ground, the fast run of the ball across numerous random contouring, penal vegetation, boundaries, the effects of the wind etc.

If any course was truly only "all about" greensites it would have greensites of every kind of interesting complexity (slope, shape, size, internal green contouring, stratgic bunkering, mounding, hollows, whatever) and a wide openness from tee to green of virtually zero consequence. Just a single overheard of TOC tells me that's not remotely the case.

But, nevertheless, I'm expecting you to argue the case that somehow TOC is "all about its greensites".

[ForkaB]

Tom

Your expectations are fulfilled!  It's your lucky day!

As your Dad's old pal Tommy Armour used to say, in effect:  "'Hidden' bunkers are only hidden once."  There are no "hidden" bunkers on TOC to the pros these days (or even to the reasonably competent amateur with the reasonably competent and/or sober caddy).  I walked the most hidden (from the tee) parts of the course yesterday (i.e. 2-6), and there is ample room on the fairways to avoid any of the bunkers, if you are disciplined and knowledgeable on the tee (e.g. Tigerish).  In fact, I would say that the fairway bunkering is one of the least challenging and least "great" elements of TOC, to anyone with any knowledge and/or skill.  Don't mistake what you see on an aerial photograph for the reality on the ground.  Your mentor, Pat Mucci, would not be proud of you.......

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Where did I say Darwin felt the Old course was obsolete? I thought you were a fan of Hutchison and Campbell's work?

"..the Old course is a sacred and immutable monument, not, to any serious extent, to be touched. It is still a supremely great course, but it grows a little short for the great hitters, and , if the ball goes farther still, it will be too short. Whatever happens, and whether championships are played on it for ever or whether they are not, it must be kept more or less as it is."

Your idea of merging the Old with the New would have been considered sacrilege, I think they would have come up with even stronger word than 'naive' for such an idea. The last three Champions at the Old course I believe have found one bunker, perhaps Darwin was a pretty good judge of the future.

The dune line currently used for recreation is relatively new and will continue to grow; the dune line that was major ingredent in the Modern plan is found on the current Jubilee. Haven't the residents of St. Andrews had long history of co-existing with golf?

Having two supreme tests, actually three if you consider the unaltered Eden, would be preferable to the current set up. Wouldn't it? Having three great architectural works would be better than current state of affairs wouldn't it? Is the New really superb, and how much has the New changed since 1938, if at all?