[Mark Pearce]

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. 

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

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

[Rich Goodale]

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?'"

[Ally Mcintosh]

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...

[Rich Goodale]

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

[Jud_T]

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.

[Paul_Turner]

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.

[Mark Pearce]

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.

[BCrosby]

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 Goodale]

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....

[Jud_T]

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.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Here is an update. Work underway.

http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1011/old-course-work-update

[Jud_T]

Ugh.  This is really depressing...

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Work has begun on the 11th green.

http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1011/old-course-work-update

[Paul_Turner]

Wow they really didn't want much delay for questioning this!  Anyone in St Andrews with a camera?

[Frank Pont]

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 " ....

[Frank Pont]

This really improves my respect for Dr H.

[Philip Spogard]

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.)

[Frank Pont]

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. .....

[BCrosby]

The haste between public announcement and execution seems a bit.... unseemly.

Am I missing something?

Bob

[Sean_A]

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

[Jud_T]

Perhaps by the time H gets done Open Doctoring Trump International will in fact be the best course in the world...by default   

[Alex Miller]

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.

[Rich Goodale]

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

[Brett Hochstein]

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.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()