Big Changes Planned for the Old Course; Hawtree to Do the Work

[JR Potts]

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.

[Jeff_Brauer]

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!

[Brad Klein]

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/

[Jud_T]

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!     Excellent sentiments nevertheless...  although frankly if I was the Old Course, I'd be damned scared!

[Stephen Davis]

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.

[Jeff_Brauer]

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?

[Mark McKeever]

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

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

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

[Gerry Stratford]

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.

[Jeff_Mingay]

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. 

[Brad Klein]

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.

[Mike Nuzzo]

[JSlonis]

That is a sad picture indeed! 

[Bill_McBride]

That photo is making my stomach churn, and I don't think it's just the flu I'm trying to fight off.

[Frank Pont]

Tom,

Did you in the meantime get any answer from the EIGCA?

Its been a while now.....

[Niall C]

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

[Mark McKeever]

Carnage..

Mark

[Alex Miller]

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.

[Ben Sims]

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.

[Niall C]

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

[Niall C]

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 C]

. 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

[David_Elvins]

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. 

[Paul Gray]

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.  

[Chris Kane]

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.