[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

From today's Scotsman:

‘Horrified’ Tom Doak to petition R&A over Old Course changes

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/horrified-tom-doak-to-petition-r-a-over-old-course-changes-1-2660855

[Frank Pont]

The petition on the other thread is a decent start... But we need an open letter written... And then we need to collate names in the industry (architects, players, media) to put their names under that letter...

If no-one else is willing, I am quite happy to coordinate...

Ally, also happy to help

[Robin_Hiseman]

Circumstances prevent me from being candid on this matter, but just as surveyors need fixed reference points, so do we golf architects and the Old Course is that fixed point off which we all measure.  I've written articles in the retail press on this matter in the past and presented a paper in St. Andrews at the Golf Architects conference, so my general stance is well documented. 

Bunker rebuilds?- OK.  Tee extensions?  Regrettable, but irrelevent to most of us.  Material course changes?  Not OK.  Leave it be. 

 

[Frank Pont]

Circumstances prevent me from being candid on this matter, but just as surveyors need fixed reference points, so do we golf architects and the Old Course is that fixed point off which we all measure.  I've written articles in the retail press on this matter in the past and presented a paper in St. Andrews at the Golf Architects conference, so my general stance is well documented. 

Bunker rebuilds?- OK.  Tee extensions?  Regrettable, but irrelevent to most of us.  Material course changes?  Not OK.  Leave it be. 

 

Thanks Robin, I thought that was pretty candid.

[Sean_A]

Presumably as a charity, The Links Trust has a public obligation to be open and transparent in their decision-making. It would be interesting to petition The Trust under Freedom Of Info and request the minutes of Management Comm meetings leading to the decisions to alter TOC be issued.  While I would be surprised there is any provision in the St A Links Trust Act of '74 or the Management Comm governing document which stipulates a period of time between decision-making, publication of proposals and and actioning the resolutions, there may be a good practice argument to be made that when the actual Trust asset is altered, perhaps a wider consultation is in order.

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

Very good article on Planet Golf

http://www.planetgolf.com/index.php?id=1787

Darius nails it again.

A very good writer.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

The R&A still has a direct influence on the policies of the Links Trust through their representatives, so incidently have Fife Council.

The Links Trust consist of:-

3x  Representatives of the R&A
3x  Representatives of Fife Council
1x  MP Fife
1x  Representative of the Scottish Government

The Links Management Committee consists of:-
4x  Representatives of the R&A
4x  Representatives of Fife Council.

Not only as a charity but also with representative of political figures such as the MP and the Fife Councillers a "Freedom of Information" should be applicable.

[Sean_A]

Presumably as a charity, The Links Trust has a public obligation to be open and transparent in their decision-making. It would be interesting to petition The Trust under Freedom Of Info and request the minutes of Management Comm meetings leading to the decisions to alter TOC be issued.  While I would be surprised there is any provision in the St A Links Trust Act of '74 or the Management Comm governing document which stipulates a period of time between decision-making, publication of proposals and and actioning the resolutions, there may be a good practice argument to be made that when the actual Trust asset is altered, perhaps a wider consultation is in order.

Unfortunately as work has begun, I seriously believe that to halt it, a lawyer shall need to be hired to take this to the next level. 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

There's no prospect of stopping this work through the legal process, I think.  There's no reason, however, we should not seek information and encourage debate, in the hope that the work that has not yet been started can be delayed whilst the debate is had properly.  Sadly, however, I suepct the timing of the announcement and the commencement of work suggests Peter Dawson doesn't want a debate.

[Mark Chaplin]

Quick bit of research, as befitting a barista, the Links Trust are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act;

 Golf Digest filed a formal request for the details under the U.K.'s new Freedom of Information Act. But this, too, was denied by the Links Trust. Mason replied in a letter, "The Trust is not a public authority and is not covered by this legislation, so it has no relevance." Not a public authority? 'Technically, this is true, says Jonathan Barnes, a London-based lawyer and an expert on the Freedom of Information Act. "U.K. law looks at an organization to see which functions it performs are truly public, as opposed to performing a public function," he explains. "If it sells ticket packages, it will have private, commercial contracts. U.K. law can easily see that as a private arrangement that ought not to be open to public scrutiny."

[Tom_Doak]

The petition on the other thread is a decent start... But we need an open letter written... And then we need to collate names in the industry (architects, players, media) to put their names under that letter...

If no-one else is willing, I am quite happy to coordinate...

Ally:

My intention is to write something asap ... hopefully tonight.  Unfortunately, my day job and travel schedule are getting in the way of it today.

I agree with you that there needs to be an open letter that people can support [or not].  I have tried to be a good soldier and involve as many interested parties as possible, but I am equally concerned that the message not be watered down.  Generally, I agree with Robin Hiseman's points above, and with Ian Andrew's letter previously -- that there is a distinction between rebuilding bunkers or adding tees, and changing golf holes, and the changes proposed have clearly crossed that threshold.

As architects, our position is no different here than in dealing with our own clients -- at the end of the day, we don't own The Old Course.  But, neither does the R & A own The Old Course.  The people of St. Andrews own the course ... and I don't think the people of St. Andrews had any idea what was about to be done.  It's up to us simply to tell them that not all golf course architects agree with the professional advice they have been given, and see whether they decide to question what is being done.

[Ally Mcintosh]

The petition on the other thread is a decent start... But we need an open letter written... And then we need to collate names in the industry (architects, players, media) to put their names under that letter...

If no-one else is willing, I am quite happy to coordinate...

Ally:

My intention is to write something asap ... hopefully tonight.  Unfortunately, my day job and travel schedule are getting in the way of it today.

I agree with you that there needs to be an open letter that people can support [or not].  I have tried to be a good soldier and involve as many interested parties as possible, but I am equally concerned that the message not be watered down.  Generally, I agree with Robin Hiseman's points above, and with Ian Andrew's letter previously -- that there is a distinction between rebuilding bunkers or adding tees, and changing golf holes, and the changes proposed have clearly crossed that threshold.

As architects, our position is no different here than in dealing with our own clients -- at the end of the day, we don't own The Old Course.  But, neither does the R & A own The Old Course.  The people of St. Andrews own the course ... and I don't think the people of St. Andrews had any idea what was about to be done.  It's up to us simply to tell them that not all golf course architects agree with the professional advice they have been given, and see whether they decide to question what is being done.

Sounds perfect Tom... I will step aside and wait your lead... But I am passionate about this and thinking along the same lines as yourself, Robin and Ian... Will be as front and centre as you need...

Ally

[jeffwarne]

No doubt the R&A thinks Americans objecting to work at The Old Course have a double standard, with the defacing of our own classic courses, re:Merion, re:virtually every major championship including ANGC played on this side of the pond.
I think it's important to have a stance on that work as welll.

Which is why it's difficult for me to see delinking classic course change and equipment-. (unless one is willing to accept that they may simply walk away from classic venues if  deemed  unacceptable tournament venues if they are not altered and equipment not reined in)

I realize Tom doesn't want to link equipment as he thinks it's a nonstarter with the governing bodies,(and kudos to him for taking a strong stand on the Old Course) but....

It's the ball stupid  (semi-addressed clumsily with tees out of bounds etc.)
and now it's the green speeds as well.

Again, it's good to have attention drawn to this issue, sad it takes defacing The Old Course for that to happen.

[BCrosby]

The letter emphasises the priority is being placed on adapting the course to the length of the ball being hit by the elite pros (300 yards to 350 yards) and less on the histrorical significance of the golf course.

Personally I think the historical significance should have priority.

Exactly so. The historical importance of the Old Course outweighs its role as a tournament venue.

Bob

[John Chilver-Stainer]

You are probably right  Bob.

The balls gone too far for old classic golf courses, put the Open on the Castle Course - it could be a more accessible venue anyway.

[Mike_Young]

A golf personality explained it this way to me this morning.
"Dawson is an angry man.  They don't want anyone to figure out golf and every time someone comes close they change the game.  This putter ban is going to be one thing but changing courses is like raising the hoop 6 inches each time the dunk becomes common place."

[jeffwarne]

A golf personality explained it this way to me this morning.
"Dawson is an angry man.  They don't want anyone to figure out golf and every time someone comes close they change the game.  This putter ban is going to be one thing but changing courses is like raising the hoop 6 inches each time the dunk becomes common place."

Angry is good.
Just direct that anger at the equipment manufacturers and super agronomists, and not at the classic venues.

The last time the Open was there the winner may have been 16 under, but second place was 7 back!

[Ally Mcintosh]

A golf personality explained it this way to me this morning.
"Dawson is an angry man.  They don't want anyone to figure out golf and every time someone comes close they change the game.  This putter ban is going to be one thing but changing courses is like raising the hoop 6 inches each time the dunk becomes common place."

Angry is good.
Just direct that anger at the equipment manufacturers and super agronomists, and not at the classic venues.

The last time the Open was there the winner may have been 16 under, but second place was 7 back!

Is that all it was? 16 under with second place 9 under?... and only because they are still playing it at a par-72 other than manufacturing a par-70 like most other major venues... and with pretty good weather...

[BCrosby]

Looking at Open scoring on TOC for the last couple of events, it is clear the Dawson is reacting to a problem that doesn't exist.

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

A golf personality explained it this way to me this morning.
"Dawson is an angry man.  They don't want anyone to figure out golf and every time someone comes close they change the game.  This putter ban is going to be one thing but changing courses is like raising the hoop 6 inches each time the dunk becomes common place."

I personally think that the basket should be raised to 12' and the court widened and even deepened.  Basketball today has little elegance and little variety.  Just like championship golf......

[jeffwarne]

A golf personality explained it this way to me this morning.
"Dawson is an angry man.  They don't want anyone to figure out golf and every time someone comes close they change the game.  This putter ban is going to be one thing but changing courses is like raising the hoop 6 inches each time the dunk becomes common place."

Angry is good.
Just direct that anger at the equipment manufacturers and super agronomists, and not at the classic venues.

The last time the Open was there the winner may have been 16 under, but second place was 7 back!

Is that all it was? 16 under with second place 9 under?... and only because they are still playing it at a par-72 other than manufacturing a par-70 like most other major venues... and with pretty good weather...

Exactly,
if they went the USGA copout route at par 70, second place would be -1.
My guess is no work would be done if that were the case.
BTW, you can "recontour" all you want around a green to toughen the challenge, it doesn't affect the guy who shoots -16 because he's ON! the green.
Same as deep rough rarely affects winning scores, just the rest of us....

[Paul Gray]

No doubt the R&A thinks Americans objecting to work at The Old Course have a double standard, with the defacing of our own classic courses, re:Merion, re:virtually every major championship including ANGC played on this side of the pond. - Jeff Warne

I was reluctant to post on this thread as I'm really of next to no significance on an issue of this magnitude but I've been reading this with interest and was thinking much the same as Jeff.

With this in mind, could I respectfully suggest that every effort is made to present any petition as being the collective feelings of golfers from around the globe and not simply Americans trying to tell us Brits what to do. Speaking from the shop floor as it were, ordinarily English golfers with good knowledge of the game instinctively flinch, in my experience, when messing about with TOC is mentioned. I'm fairly confident that reaction would only get stronger once over the border into Scotland and, therefore, a sizeable army of us worker ants could perhaps be a useful tool. A common perception on this site seems to be that 99.9% of golfers are semi-retarded inbreeds that struggle to remember which end of a club to stick in their hands. Now might not be a bad time to test that theory.

[Tom_Doak]

No doubt the R&A thinks Americans objecting to work at The Old Course have a double standard, with the defacing of our own classic courses, re:Merion, re:virtually every major championship including ANGC played on this side of the pond. - Jeff Warne

I was reluctant to post on this thread as I'm really of next to no significance on an issue of this magnitude but I've been reading this with interest and was thinking much the same as Jeff.

With this in mind, could I respectfully suggest that every effort is made to present any petition as being the collective feelings of golfers from around the globe and not simply Americans trying to tell us Brits what to do. 

Paul:

Well, they don't even have to resort to such divide-and-conquer strategies if you are going to do it for them.

For those who don't know me, I am particularly passionate about The Old Course because as soon as I was done with college, I spent two months there in the summer of 1982 to study and learn from the course.  Originally, I was supposed to work on the maintenance crew under Walter Woods, but it was such a difficult recession then that Walter instead arranged for me to caddie, and when I wasn't caddying, to spend as much time asking him questions as I wanted.  A lot of what I know about golf and links golf is due to Walter Woods.  And I dare say that this project would be less likely to have progressed to this point if Walter Woods was still able to stand up and object to what has been proposed.

The last thing I mean to do is to tell the people of St. Andrews how to react to this.  It is the citizens of St. Andrews who gave us The Old Course and who have protected it so well.  I only wonder whether they have been properly consulted about these changes, and how they might feel if they knew that so many golf architects and great players have expressed opposition to the "official" opinion on the matter.

[BCrosby]

Paul -

My sense from postings here on GCA and on twitter is that this is not at all a bunch of hypocritical American bullies trying to get their way.

To the contrary, my sense is that the outrage recognizes no boundaries.

And the issue is the unique and very special status of the Old Course. Golfers everywhere are concerned that it is being lost.

Bob

[Paul_Turner]

Bob

I agree but it would be good to hear voices from Scotland...so far not much.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()