[Alex Miller]

I apologize if a thread about this subject exists, but I can not find it.

To my understanding, TOC evolved over time. Obviously the routing as we know it today was established after eliminating 4 holes (and combining a couple of them, I believe). I assume the greens are shaped as they always have been and have not been altered significantly. My question is regarding the hazards around the course.

It seems all the bunkers have sod faces (I have never been) and are therefore formalized. I've always heard these sand traps were originally developed from repeat play from that spot which over time, dug through grass and into the sand below. This means that St. Andrews has not always looked as it does now, which I suppose is a natural part of the evolution of a golf course, but do we know the specific changes by man?

I'm not trying to marginalize Old Tom's part in the course, because one must assume that he added a bunker or two, and perhaps others have been added since. In fact, this is the crucial part of my post. If architect(s) did add hazards or features in the "design" of TOC, then why shouldn't it be open to criticism? Does a course need a designer/architect to have bad things said about it?

Any information or direction to previous threads with information about specific added feature would be greatly appreciated. I'm afraid I just don't know enough about the course's history.

Also, I'd like to mention that I have not been to the course nor am I criticizing it in any way.

[Colin Macqueen]

Alex,

I was in the process of starting a thread along these lines after reading Tom Doak's (slightly out of context) words
"If you...... want to criticize God's work, best of luck to you." and ask about TOC's evolution and present state.

Was there be a book outlining this? Well of course there is and thanks to Dave E. on the "bulldoze" thread I will chase down the answers. As David with some witticism alluded to - evolution and creationism! Nicely said David.

Cheers Colin

[Joe_Tucholski]

After reading Toms quote I was wondering who would post the follow-up thread and how it would be stated.  Applaud the way you posed the question to remain politically correct.  I have to admit that my reaction when reading Tom's quote was...Ha is he kidding...I still wonder if he is kidding or serious.

I look forward to reading some of the references that are posted and can't help with what was created by a particular man.

As far as your other questions my opinion is the course is definitely open to criticism.  Why because everyone has their own preferences.  I also do not buy the God created the course piece.  Every course has an architect/designer or by some rough form of committee/group, it just may not be known who.

[Scott Warren]

I thought by "God", Tom was referring to Melvyn's great-great-grandpappy?

Alex, to give your enquiry the on-topic reply it deserves, there is a good deal of TOC that is the work of man. Notably, the Valley of Sin, built by OTM

[Grant Saunders]

Alex

Here is a question I once asked on a thread about the dislike for anything artificial.

"Hypothetically, suppose evidence surfaced that the Old Course was in fact completely man made. Would your attitude towards it change?

Would you lose respect for it or be in awe of the great job they did?"

I'm not 100% sure if it really fits in with what you are asking but your post got me thinking the about it again.

Should the Old Course be open to criticism? Maybe. Or maybe it is unfair to do so without all the facts being available as to why things were done a certain way.

Should people have differing opinions about the course? Absolutely.

I have heard people talk about it with the highest regard and refer to their opportunity to play it as the greatest day of their lives. I have also heard people refer to it as an abortion and playing there was the biggest waste of money and time they have ever experienced.

As with anything, an opinion is simply that. An opinion. It is when opinions are confused with fact that problems arise.
 

[Alex Miller]

I thought by "God", Tom was referring to Melvyn's great-great-grandpappy?

Alex, to give your enquiry the on-topic reply it deserves, there is a good deal of TOC that is the work of man. Notably, the Valley of Sin, built by OTM

Thanks, Scott

Specific examples like this are really the way to answer the question. Any more would be appreciated. So Old Tom may be to blame for that feature if you don't like it, but is whatever occurred there naturally open to scorn? This may be the question that is harder to answer, and personally I have no idea how to at the moment.

Expanding on that, is there a time when an architect should be derided for leaving a natural element in the course? I suppose we are getting close a question about the naturalism movement in GCA, but should an architect be derided for leaving a natural element as is? (perhaps I'm getting away from my original question)

[Sean_A]

A lot of TOC is man-made and of course it is open to criticism.  For all its brilliance, TOC is seriously flawed.

Scott mentions the VoS - the green too was moved behind it by OTM.  Also on 18, the road was built across the fairway (mid 1860s) - sort of anti-design, but it was functional in that it mitigated the damage done by folks going to the beach and those collecting seaweed left on the course after a high tide storm.  It is also an important consideration off the tee.  We also must remember that the OOB down the right changed this hole a lot.  Before, play was allowed over what was part of the course.  Building the road (1880ish) down the length of 18 changed that dramatically.  

When Granny Clark's Wynd was built the burn was also altered and formalized (to prevent flooding) to essentially create the first as we know it.  The green is totally manufactured with spoil from various construction projects.  Much of the Swilken Bridge was buried as a consequence of this general raising of the land.   During this time the first was levelled and returfed- hence the reason the 18th is humpty bumpty and the 1st isn't.  There was also a bunker between the road and the burn that was eliminated in all the work.  

Greens were extended by A Roberston in the 1850s.

In the 1870s whin burning down the nearly the entire length of the north side of the links totally altered the scope of TOC.   This would pave the way for further extension of the greens and make it possible to have an anti-clockwise design.  

The 7th green was created by the extension of the 11th in the 1870s.  Bunkers were also constructed and filled in, but to what extent it is hard to know.  

Between 1900ish and 1910ish about 25 bunkers were added, about 20 were down the sea-side of the course - many in an attempt to toughen the course for the 1905 Open.  There have been also been a few bunkers removed.  

Of course, in the past 75 years the championship tees have gradually been pushed back about 800 yards.  

It has alwyas been my contention that the Golden Age of design really starts with the widening of TOC.  That action, whether intentional or not, more or less was the foundation for strategic design.  It is quite ironic that nearly all the work that went into making TOC the MODEL of design was down to functional necessity.  

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Well then, to riff a little on Sean's post and Colin's - God bless functional necessity, and sane choices, and the simple wisdom to choose land-for-golf that wasn't of much value for anything of more humanistic import (like the growing of food, for example).  TOC's founders and early builders seemed to all share a proper and healthy perspective on such matters, which is a very good place to start.

Peter  

[Scott Macpherson]

HI Alex,

I was the one who wrote a book on the changes to TOC.  It's called 'St Andrews, The Evolution of the Old Course' (2007). There are now very few copies available, but you can order it online at some places. It will answer pretty much all the questions you have.

My view on it is simple; what makes TOC great is that is has remained one of the greatest tests of golf, for golfers of all levels of ability, from the time the game began up to today. No other other course can make that claim. People enjoying focusing on the innate changes, and it's status now as the 'home of golf', but just look at its standing in the spectrum of the world's golf courses over the last 600 years. It's a very special place.

regards,

Scott

[Colin Macqueen]

Scott,

Looks like exactly what the doctor ordered as far as I am concerned. However I have already checked on Amazon and no luck there. If any on the forum come across a supplier I would very much like to know about it.

Cheers Colin

[Mac Plumart]

Nothing is beyond criticism.  That is the nature of this site...criticize, praise, discuss.

Perhaps from time to time another tactic might be more useful when analyzing courses we don't "get".  Simply look at what is there and study it...why is it there...what purpose does it serve...do people play the hole "correctly" or are they seduced by certain elements of it...are those seducive elements good for your score or bad?

This has worked well for me studying architecture.  I may not "like" something right away, perhaps my score suffered and I got mad for some reason.  But on subsequent plays and/or thought, I was seduced by some element of the hole and played it incorrectly and fell for the architects/courses trap.

Something so highly regarded by those that know, usually is highly regarded for a reason.  Remember Jones hated The Old Course so much at first he walked off the course...but then he came to love it and try to capture its essence at his course in Augusta.  And he hired an architect who also revered the Old Course to design his course in GA.  Food for thought.

I think Doak says in his Confidential Guide a time or two, those who don't think course X is good, don't know what good is.  Arrogant, maybe?  Correct, maybe?

[Anthony Gray]

Alex

Here is a question I once asked on a thread about the dislike for anything artificial.

"Hypothetically, suppose evidence surfaced that the Old Course was in fact completely man made. Would your attitude towards it change?

Would you lose respect for it or be in awe of the great job they did?"

I'm not 100% sure if it really fits in with what you are asking but your post got me thinking the about it again.

Should the Old Course be open to criticism? Maybe. Or maybe it is unfair to do so without all the facts being available as to why things were done a certain way.

Should people have differing opinions about the course? Absolutely.

I have heard people talk about it with the highest regard and refer to their opportunity to play it as the greatest day of their lives. I have also heard people refer to it as an abortion and playing there was the biggest waste of money and time they have ever experienced.

As with anything, an opinion is simply that. An opinion. It is when opinions are confused with fact that problems arise.
 

  Grant makes a good point. IT would definately be critisized if some one designed it. No doubt. Too many blind tee balls. Two holes criss cross. Back to back drivable par 4s or very short ones. Double greens. What other course has a hole like 12? Hitting over a shed. Too easy of a finishing hole. The list goes on.

  Anthony

[Philippe Binette]

I really believe that removing the gorse in front of the tees on the front would make the course better..

Not sure if the visuals would work (there's only one way to know...) but I think it would be better to see the holes rather than go for a blind drive over the gorse

[Sven Nilsen]

I have a hard time reconciling how any golf course could be the work of [name your higher power].  It still took an intrepid soul to decide to start at point A and end at point B 18 times over.  

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi Colin,

Here's a link to one place I know sells the book;

 http://www.linksgolfstandrews.com/shop/evolution-old-course-standrews.htm

Or, if you are in the UK, the bookstore 'Waterstones' has some.

regards,

Scott

[Tom_Doak]

I am not a church-going type, but that doesn't mean there aren't any things in life to be taken on the basis of Faith.

Or, you could also think of it as a sort of natural Law ... that The Old Course is the Constitution, which establishes a set of precedents for the game that should never be overturned.


In a very real sense, The Old Course and perhaps a few other seminal links are the foundation of our collective understanding of golf.  To apply OUR modern understanding of golf to The Old Course and find IT flawed, is silly.  OUR understanding of golf is always going to be limited.  By contrast, The Old Course has stood for hundreds of years, sorting out players hitting featheries to hand-cut holes, down to the most recent Open Championship.  It has seen way more than we'll ever see, and it still manages to assert its relevance, as much as we've tried to screw up the game we play over it.  If you think you are smarter than The Old Course, you need to think some more.

[Let's just take a simple example.  There are plenty of genius Americans who go to St. Andrews and think it outrageous that a road and the former railway line and the o.b. sheds are all factors in playing the golf course.  To them, such features should never be a part of golf.  How do we know they're wrong?  Only because they have existed in play at St. Andrews for all time.  Without that precedent, such features would be eliminated from the game by people who don't understand it.]

I DO understand that The Old Course has been modified over the years.  You can debate those modifications if you want.  Most of the significant changes were made more than 100 years ago, so I am content to call those an integral part of the course by now.  I have Scott's book, but I don't like to read it, because what he is saying is that The Old Course was changed in the past and could be changed again.  I believe that changing it would be tantamount to the Soviets trying to erase history and religion, so that we have nothing left that we know is true, and we'll have to believe what the governing bodies tell us.


The other thing I understand, which you guys apparently don't, is that even in my own minimalist designs [nearly all of which require more "construction" than most people imagine], often the very best parts are things where I didn't do ANYTHING significant ... they were features of the ground which spoke to me, and caused me to design a golf hole around them.  We can call that God, or we can call it Nature, but to me those parts are beyond criticism ... you can say that I didn't use it well, but insisting that it should be taken out is missing the very point of golf architecture.

The Old Course at St. Andrews is full of such features, which were not constructed by men, and which aren't like anything man has ever constructed since, which make it a "one-off" as Sean says.  

[Philippe Binette]

I don't think God has anything to do with it... if not just for the creation of the universe (that is if you prefer it to the more scientific theory)

TOC design team:
lead shaper: Alister McSheep
assistant shaper: John McRabbit

followed by some fluky human decisions, deciding how far between each flag.

followed by Old Tom, clearing and formelizing

followed by 150 years of organized maintenance, probably scalping a few spots while mowing, aerating, topdressing etc rounding off a bit of the nice contours

[Ally Mcintosh]

Bravo Tom!

[BCrosby]

All courses are man made.

It does NOT follow, however, that no course should be accorded special status for that reason. Some have earned it. And if you don't think that TOC is one of those courses, ....

This is a version of a larger argument about why it's ok to revise older courses. The argument goes something like this: What's the problem with modernizing an older course? After all, the argument goes, it was built by a fallible human being. So crank up the D-6 and have at it.

Except that there were some architects who, through a mysterious combination of background, innate skill and timing, were indeed less fallible than we are today. And for that reason their courses should not be seen as fodder for the latest good idea in golf architecture. Their courses deserve special status.

There is a side of me that can't believe that such views need to be defended on a website devoted to the history of golf architecture.

Bob




  



  

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Personally I just wish many other "older" courses were seen or viewed with similar reverance and respect.
Merion jumps to mind..what that have had to "do" to that course to make it "playable" for the US Open is very unfortunate...it spoils the original flow of the course and that wonderful walk in the park feel it used to have...but that is progress.

[Mac Plumart]

I am not a church-going type, but that doesn't mean there aren't any things in life to be taken on the basis of Faith.

Or, you could also think of it as a sort of natural Law ... that The Old Course is the Constitution, which establishes a set of precedents for the game that should never be overturned.


In a very real sense, The Old Course and perhaps a few other seminal links are the foundation of our collective understanding of golf.  To apply OUR modern understanding of golf to The Old Course and find IT flawed, is silly.  OUR understanding of golf is always going to be limited.  By contrast, The Old Course has stood for hundreds of years, sorting out players hitting featheries to hand-cut holes, down to the most recent Open Championship.  It has seen way more than we'll ever see, and it still manages to assert its relevance, as much as we've tried to screw up the game we play over it.  If you think you are smarter than The Old Course, you need to think some more.

[Let's just take a simple example.  There are plenty of genius Americans who go to St. Andrews and think it outrageous that a road and the former railway line and the o.b. sheds are all factors in playing the golf course.  To them, such features should never be a part of golf.  How do we know they're wrong?  Only because they have existed in play at St. Andrews for all time.  Without that precedent, such features would be eliminated from the game by people who don't understand it.]

I DO understand that The Old Course has been modified over the years.  You can debate those modifications if you want.  Most of the significant changes were made more than 100 years ago, so I am content to call those an integral part of the course by now.  I have Scott's book, but I don't like to read it, because what he is saying is that The Old Course was changed in the past and could be changed again.  I believe that changing it would be tantamount to the Soviets trying to erase history and religion, so that we have nothing left that we know is true, and we'll have to believe what the governing bodies tell us.


The other thing I understand, which you guys apparently don't, is that even in my own minimalist designs [nearly all of which require more "construction" than most people imagine], often the very best parts are things where I didn't do ANYTHING significant ... they were features of the ground which spoke to me, and caused me to design a golf hole around them.  We can call that God, or we can call it Nature, but to me those parts are beyond criticism ... you can say that I didn't use it well, but insisting that it should be taken out is missing the very point of golf architecture.

The Old Course at St. Andrews is full of such features, which were not constructed by men, and which aren't like anything man has ever constructed since, which make it a "one-off" as Sean says.  

I think in life there are times to talk and times to listen.  For me, I am all ears on this one.

Thanks Tom.  This post is cut and pasted in my Word documents for at least an annual re-read.

[Scott Macpherson]

I am currently reading the biography on Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. In the book Jobs is quoted as saying he thought 'an intuitive understanding and consciousness was more significant than abstract thinking and intellectual logical analysis.' I thought that was quite a good way of designing golf courses. It might also be a good way to assess The Old Course.

Until you understand the course, it's features, its history etc etc, it difficult to imagine how you can criticise it?

As regards my wee book, it started as a personal research project. For 4 years it stayed that way. Only after some friends saw it, and convinced me their may be others who may be interested in the changes that have been made to TOC was it was prepared for publication. I wanted it to be impartial. So it was written quite deliberately to be objective. It looks only to track the changes to the course. The only liberty I took, (perhaps it was unwise???) was to make some 'future predictions' on a few pages towards the end of the book.(It will be fun to see if any come true...) Regardless, the truth is that TOC was changed in the past and could be changed in the future.

I hold an affection for TOC like no other. It is the rock to which golf course design is moored. So what does the future hold? One scenario is that no changes are made to TOC for evermore and the winning scores in the Open Championship get lower and lower. But that scenario is unlikely. There is a greater chance, in my opinion, that those who govern TOC continue to build new tees and at some point in time, cut additional bunkers. It has been done in the past when ball and implement changes saw an advance in distance the ball was hit and there is nothing to say it couldn't happen again.... sometime...perhaps soon, perhaps many years in the future.

The truth is that whatever happens, TOC will change anyway. It's built on sand, it is constantly being played, and maintained. Divots are taken, and filled, bunker sand finds it way on to the greens and subtlety the shapes change.... evolve. It happens in St Andrews, and it happens where you play. That's just the way things are. So if we can't preserve the physical virtues of these courses, should our aim be to protect their integral challenges? The shot values, their strategic merits, the experiential characteristics. That's not easy to do either, but it is at least possible.

[Bill_McBride]

I think one of the most man-made elements of the course is the 17th green built by Alan Robertson tucked up tight against the road.   It's also perhaps the most intriguing and dangerous.   But it's 150 years old so an integral part of the timeless design.

[Sean_A]

I may be mistaken, but I don't think anybody on this thread suggested the course be altered.  What a a few have said (ME!) is the course is not above criticism and that there are plenty of things which are far from ideal about TOC.  I fully accept the TOC package with its unknowables, flaws, quirks, charm and wonder.  That doesn't however mean that I must accept it as the be all and end all of architecture or golf.  For all Tom says the course has been entertaining people for 600 hundred years, the truth is TOC has only been TOC since the mid 1870s.  Thats still pretty damn old, but many other courses and holes nearly as old that have not been afforded the same respect.  Its a great pity, but a fact of time and circumstance - which is largely why TOC is so respected - right place, right time with the right care taker(s).

Ciao  

[Alex Miller]

I am not a church-going type, but that doesn't mean there aren't any things in life to be taken on the basis of Faith.

Or, you could also think of it as a sort of natural Law ... that The Old Course is the Constitution, which establishes a set of precedents for the game that should never be overturned.


In a very real sense, The Old Course and perhaps a few other seminal links are the foundation of our collective understanding of golf.  To apply OUR modern understanding of golf to The Old Course and find IT flawed, is silly.  OUR understanding of golf is always going to be limited.  By contrast, The Old Course has stood for hundreds of years, sorting out players hitting featheries to hand-cut holes, down to the most recent Open Championship.  It has seen way more than we'll ever see, and it still manages to assert its relevance, as much as we've tried to screw up the game we play over it.  If you think you are smarter than The Old Course, you need to think some more.

[Let's just take a simple example.  There are plenty of genius Americans who go to St. Andrews and think it outrageous that a road and the former railway line and the o.b. sheds are all factors in playing the golf course.  To them, such features should never be a part of golf.  How do we know they're wrong?  Only because they have existed in play at St. Andrews for all time.  Without that precedent, such features would be eliminated from the game by people who don't understand it.]

I DO understand that The Old Course has been modified over the years.  You can debate those modifications if you want.  Most of the significant changes were made more than 100 years ago, so I am content to call those an integral part of the course by now.  I have Scott's book, but I don't like to read it, because what he is saying is that The Old Course was changed in the past and could be changed again.  I believe that changing it would be tantamount to the Soviets trying to erase history and religion, so that we have nothing left that we know is true, and we'll have to believe what the governing bodies tell us.


The other thing I understand, which you guys apparently don't, is that even in my own minimalist designs [nearly all of which require more "construction" than most people imagine], often the very best parts are things where I didn't do ANYTHING significant ... they were features of the ground which spoke to me, and caused me to design a golf hole around them.  We can call that God, or we can call it Nature, but to me those parts are beyond criticism ... you can say that I didn't use it well, but insisting that it should be taken out is missing the very point of golf architecture.

The Old Course at St. Andrews is full of such features, which were not constructed by men, and which aren't like anything man has ever constructed since, which make it a "one-off" as Sean says.  

This is one of the best things I've read on here ever. Thank you, Tom. Not to say that others are wrong, but this answer is so complete and relatable I find it hard to contest anything you've written.

It's interesting how clearly different TOC is from any new course that would be built today, or any course anywhere for that matter. It's a cohesion of nature and man that is basically the "missing link" for us golf course scientists. The fact that golf was in no way a business hundreds of years ago is what really allowed the course to be what it is, and it's what stopping any project today from evolving the same way. Too bad, as I'd love to see something like that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()