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

[Pete_Pittock]

The filling in of the large depression on the 7th makes sense. Replacing it with a slight-medium mound will disperse the results of the drive improving turf quality in that area and iadding variety to the approach

[Rich Goodale]

Just curious, but is it industry standard practice for an architect to take accurate measurements of the dimensions / co-ordinates etc of any feature they intend to alter so that the club may use it as a reference point in the future should they wish to do a restoration? Do clubs tend to demand it?

They should have that data, Brian, as they bought a very high resolution 3-D data base of the course from my publisher in 2005-6.

[Ally Mcintosh]

The illing in of the large depression on the 7th makes sense. Replacing it with a slight-medium mound will disperse the results of the drive improving turf quality in that area and iadding variety to the approach

But I love that depression on the 7th... It's what nature put there and it makes the approach harder from a lower position... I know that it is an absolute nightmare for the crew because of the number of drives that finish there (and hence divots) but it is part of the fabric of the course.... I don't know - I feel really sad about this announcement... I've been pragmatic about almost all other courses because I know how much they've actually changed over time... But The Old Course is special... I'd rather it remain a museum piece than try and stick with the times, especially when those times aren't necessarily where you want to end up...

[Adam Lawrence]

The course is owned by the Links Trust, not the R&A, so that's the body that would have to authorise any work. I assume the R&A (and all the othe St As clubs) have representation on the Links Trust, but I don't know its exact makeup.

[Colin Macqueen]

Niall,

You ask   "…when was the last time TOC actually had any bunkers added, 1906 ?"

As far as I can ascertain from Scott's book on the 9th. hole Boase's Bunker  was added to the centre of the fairway between 1913-1920 and in 1920-24 on the 4th hole a bunker was cut next to Student's Bunker.

Cheers Colin

[Paul_Turner]

Peter Dawson back in 2004

"We haven't had a repeat winner in the last 10 years. Greg Norman [in 1993] was the last who'd won before. And that is slightly concerning. There is a much bigger pool of players able to win now, but it sometimes makes one wonder if the golf courses are set up too difficult for one player to stamp his authority. Of course, it's easy with hindsight to criticise a course set-up; it's very difficult in advance to know whether we've done the right thing."

And yet now he wants to toughen every Open course up.

Really I think a lot of these guys should be up for Python's Upper Class Twit of The Year Award.

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi,

In my 2007 book on the Old Course, I wrote on p168 that I thought the R&A or Links Trust would be 'justified' in adding some new bunkers. I said that because others in charge of TOC had made those decisions during previous periods of dynamic change. The myth that the book fairly cleared disproved was that the Old Course has never changed. The truth is that the very opposite is true. The course has always evolved. We often live in this little bubble and are unaware of the changes because either, A) they happened a long time ago, or B) they happen very slowly. Both of these situations were true in the case of TOC.

In you can accept that premise, then the question is 'what changes are appropriate'? We will all have our different opinions. You could argue that the first green and burn could be better designed to make the hole more Strategic (Joshua Crane made this suggestion many years ago), the nine green could be improved, do we fill in the dip on the 7th landing area, soften the back edge of the 11th or add some bunkers on the 3rd. The R&A and Links Trust would have gone through all these questions and done what they believe is correct.

I understand that people naturally fear change. We can believe that the R&A and Links Trust know the golfing world will be watching and that they are acting with caution. But the beauty of golf course design is that nothing needs to be permanent. If a new bunker doesn't work out, it can be filled in. Of course that is not quite as easy on the greens, but possible.

In regards to the 11th green. I would really like the pin position on the left side of the green to come back into play. It has been lost to us during the Open Championship because the Green often gets up to 10.5 or 11 on the stimp. That is too fast when the slope on the green is about 4.5% where the hole should be cut. There are two ways to get this position back. 1) slow the green speed down so holes can be cut on the slope, or soften the slope.  It seems we are getting an idea that the R&A want to bring this great hole position back into play (remember Bobby Jones in 1921??) and I welcome that.

It is impossible to stop TOC course evolving (Grass grows, sand blows, gorse is removed) and I believe, as I wrote 6 or 7 years ago, time had come to reexamine the play strategy's and bunker locations. Some renovation work on TOC is overdue and I welcome this news. Now let's see how it works out.

Scott

[Tony_Muldoon]

Just curious, but is it industry standard practice for an architect to take accurate measurements of the dimensions / co-ordinates etc of any feature they intend to alter so that the club may use it as a reference point in the future should they wish to do a restoration? Do clubs tend to demand it?

They should have that data, Brian, as they bought a very high resolution 3-D data base of the course from my publisher in 2005-6.

It's been measured many times in many ways, summer 2008




Agree why change anything until you've done something about the 9th. Improve that and people might think you knew what you were about.
Dawson is the man who could have stopped this but instead of thinking why is it we've had to add tees on two other courses to allow us to keep playing the Open over TOC, he/they think the solution is to fiddle with the two most famous greens there. If Anthony is right and it's being done to allow faster greens, then one Open soon they are going to look very foolish.

[Stephen Davis]

When did this say the changes where going to be made? I need to know when I need to get there before.

[Marty Bonnar]

The course is owned by the Links Trust, not the R&A, so that's the body that would have to authorise any work. I assume the R&A (and all the othe St As clubs) have representation on the Links Trust, but I don't know its exact makeup.

Adam,
sorry, but not correct. The Course is owned by the people of Fife through Fife Council. The Links Trust is the body ENTRUSTED (HA!) by them to look after the Links. There is a management committee at the Links Trust and there is a Tournament Committee at the R&A who jointly come up with all of these most wonderful and splendid improvements to the old lass, so hurrah for them and us!

MB.

[Pete_Pittock]

When did this say the changes where going to be made? I need to know when I need to get there before.

Read the article cited in the opener of this thread, Phase one is this winter, phase two next winter. Details of each phase are spelt out.

[Connor Dougherty]

I thought a quote that was on Geoff Shackelford's website was worth putting up on this thread.

"...there will come a point in time where they will have to slow it down because we can't play Merion anymore. You can play U.S. Amateur but a professional I think would probably shoot a little lower scores than they did. St. Andrews, if they have to change the course there to accommodate us, then you know things are changing."
--Tiger Woods

[Sean_A]

Zowie!  I am not convinced this is a clever plan.  I am seriously concerned about:

#11: So the big boys gain a hole position, but the rank and file lose an even better hole location.  Yes, I am talking about the same spot.  At normal green speeds which is nearly every day of the year (TOC's greens are far from quick), that left hand spot is usable.  So the back gets softened (and what does this mean for the front of the green?), taking away much of the interest for that location on daily play.

#7: That depression is awesome.  If one can carry it he gets a huge turbo kick, if not its a blind approach.  Of course, the turbo kick could also take the tee shot all the way to Shell, or worse, just shy of it on the down slope. 

General edge of green recontouring.  Why?

The one positive is the 17th.  Its a good trade off between making the bunker bigger and thus a bit less likely to have a pig lie and the green feeding more balls in that direction.  I like the sound of this change.

A huge concern is TOC is going under the knife - why wouldn't the 9th be looked at from a fresh perspective?  Why not build a special short par 4 instead of the snoozefest that currently exists?

Ciao

[Marty Bonnar]

A little more info from The Scotsman:

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/golf-old-course-changes-are-to-protect-it-from-59-1-2654218

F.

[Niall C]

Hi,

In my 2007 book on the Old Course, I wrote on p168 that I thought the R&A or Links Trust would be 'justified' in adding some new bunkers. I said that because others in charge of TOC had made those decisions during previous periods of dynamic change. The myth that the book fairly cleared disproved was that the Old Course has never changed. The truth is that the very opposite is true. The course has always evolved. We often live in this little bubble and are unaware of the changes because either, A) they happened a long time ago, or B) they happen very slowly. Both of these situations were true in the case of TOC.

In you can accept that premise, then the question is 'what changes are appropriate'? We will all have our different opinions. You could argue that the first green and burn could be better designed to make the hole more Strategic (Joshua Crane made this suggestion many years ago), the nine green could be improved, do we fill in the dip on the 7th landing area, soften the back edge of the 11th or add some bunkers on the 3rd. The R&A and Links Trust would have gone through all these questions and done what they believe is correct.

I understand that people naturally fear change. We can believe that the R&A and Links Trust know the golfing world will be watching and that they are acting with caution. But the beauty of golf course design is that nothing needs to be permanent. If a new bunker doesn't work out, it can be filled in. Of course that is not quite as easy on the greens, but possible.

In regards to the 11th green. I would really like the pin position on the left side of the green to come back into play. It has been lost to us during the Open Championship because the Green often gets up to 10.5 or 11 on the stimp. That is too fast when the slope on the green is about 4.5% where the hole should be cut. There are two ways to get this position back. 1) slow the green speed down so holes can be cut on the slope, or soften the slope.  It seems we are getting an idea that the R&A want to bring this great hole position back into play (remember Bobby Jones in 1921??) and I welcome that.

It is impossible to stop TOC course evolving (Grass grows, sand blows, gorse is removed) and I believe, as I wrote 6 or 7 years ago, time had come to reexamine the play strategy's and bunker locations. Some renovation work on TOC is overdue and I welcome this news. Now let's see how it works out.

Scott

Scott

Many thanks for putting it into perspective. Its been clear to me from researching old mags that many if not most of the old classic courses have always changed and interesting to note that the Old Course is no different in that respect. If you had asked me a few years back whether this was a good thing I would probably have been like a number of people on this thread and decried it but now I take a more relaxed view. As you say, its only working in dirt, and not as though the work can't largely be undone if not satisfactory.

Niall

[BCrosby]

Anyone who visits GCA regularly should own Scot's book on TOC. As Scott notes above, there were any number of changes to the course thorugh about 1905. There were earlier, quite dramatic  changes in the 19th century. After 1905 the pace of changes slowed considerably. But TOC is not now, nor has it ever been, a magical by-product of purely natural forces.

That doesn't mean that Hawtree's changes are a good idea. I'd like to know more about them. But opposing any changes to TOC based on the notion that it has never been changed is to badly misread its history.

A note on the 9th. John Low conducted a number of surveys of favorite holes in Nisbet's Golf Year Book before WWI. Interesting is that the 9th at TOC was one of Low's and others' favorite par 4's. Low liked the 9th because of the interesting strategic choices posed by its (almost) c/l bunker.

A century on, with vastly different balls and. equipment, etc, such views of the hole are almost inconceivable. I'm not sure modern players even take notice of the little pot that Low thought made the hole so good.

Bob 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Niall, whilst Scott has done more research and has more knowledge about the changes to the old course than any of us, I'm afraid I don't agree with his perspective on this one.... Apart from all the changes highlighted in this thread, there are at least four other green surrounds that will be reshaped to provide more undulations... WHY?... These changes are squarely aimed at The Open championship and many of them will have no effect whatsoever in increasing scores - as if that really matters anyway... The micro-undulations at TOC are the best of the world. It is a place of study and worship for every golf course architect and every golf course in the world owes it some debt...  

[Jud_T]

Hitler made some changes as well.  Doesn't mean they bear repeating.

[Paul_Turner]

Niall, whilst Scott has done more research and has more knowledge about the changes to the old course than any of us, I'm afraid I don't agree with his perspective on this one.... Apart from all the changes highlighted in this thread, there are at least four other green surrounds that will be reshaped to provide more undulations... WHY?... These changes are squarely aimed at The Open championship and many of them will have no effect whatsoever in increasing scores - as if that really matters anyway... The micro-undulations at TOC are the best of the world. It is a place of study and worship for every golf course architect and every golf course in the world owes it some debt...  

Ally

I agree, as far as I'm aware The Old course greens and surrounding contours have not been significantly altered in well over a century but it's now deemed that they can be "improved".  

And you are right, the chances of these changes making any difference in the scores is miniscule. So the Peter Dawson's justification of toughening up the course has no merit at all.

[Niall C]

Bob

Iteresting comments about the 9th. I wonder if back in Low's day it was a c/l bunker and that perhaps in the intervening period the left handside has been cleared out to widen the plying area ? As you say, I really should get Scott's book.

Ally

I was commenting on the principle of change but let me say that I tend to agree with you about the need to change the green surrounds. It seemed to me that the surrounds were the biggest challenges forthe pro's last time round eg. the front pin position on the 16th during the last Dunhill being a classic example.

The one that I'm really not sure about is changing the contours to the front of 17. Not everyone is approaching that green with a short iron and while the play to short right isn't a bad idea, I personally would like to have a real choice.

Niall

[jeffwarne]

Here's a thought
Give 'em a Titleist balata(or 1990 TOUR edition)
and maintain daily mowing heights
and go play golf

[Jud_T]

I'm surprised the locals aren't more up in arms over this.  This is the last straw IMO and is in fact a sign of the apocolypse.  The 11th and 17th greens?  SERIOUSLY?  To hell with the Pro Tour, this course is the most precious thing we have as a link to the origins of the game of golf and should be treated as a living museum not as a meal ticket for Hawtree or Rees....

[Frank Pont]

Part of the essential vocabulary of any really good restoration golf course architect is the word NO when proposals like this are put forward by clients....

Hope to get the job in 10 years time to change the green (surrounds) back to how they were, just like the three greens that H changed at De Pan will be changed back to their old state in the next few years...... at least at the Old Course we will have detailed surveys of the old situation

[Jeff_Mingay]

Scott Macpherson's is a very intelligent, thoughtful post from a scholar on this very subject. Though, suggestion to alter the 11th green still gives me the creeps.

[jeffwarne]

Part of the essential vocabulary of any really good restoration golf course architect is the word NO when proposals like this are put forward by clients....

Hope to get the job in 10 years time to change the green (surrounds) back to how they were, just like the three greens that H changed at De Pan will be changed back to their old state in the next few years...... at least at the Old Course we will have detailed surveys of the old situation

When you've just designed "the best course in the world", no doubt you can do no wrong

Perhaps the R&A is "bellyproofing" the Old Course