[Matthew Essig]

Will a few guys please go stand in front of the bulldozer already!!!!!!! That would send a message!!!!!!!!

[Jud_T]

Niall,

Don't get your panties in a twist.  The gist of it is not that Hawtree is the man doing the work, it's that the work is being done at all.  Doak and Coore are not the R&A's Open Doctor hatchet men as Hawtree apparently is.  And they most likely wouldn't be doing the work as given the scope of what's entailed they ALMOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE TURNED THE JOB DOWN.

[Don_Mahaffey]

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,
They are changing the 11th green at The Old Course. They are softening the slopes. However artistic, whether they do it with a teaspoon or a D6, they are screwing with history. No amount of justification matters. I for one have had it with all the justifying. It did not need to be changed. This did not need to happen. There were better ways to deal with the problem. Its been going on for years here in the US and its always been justified away. It has to stop. Common sense has to be brought back into the thought process.

[Josh Tarble]

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/

Totally agree that the whole process seems off.  And now, not only are they already working, but it seems like they are rushing.  So not only is it being done in the first place, it could possibly be a rushed job.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I hope Tom Doak doesn't read this, but it needs to be said: he has done far more than most and certainly enough to earn a reputation.

If he says the changes at TOC are no big deal, then I will put my nagging doubts aside and shut up. But if someone of his status gets upset and springs into action, then - no disrespect intended - the Hawtrees of this world have to do a huge job to convince me otherwise. And I suspect this is true for many here. Tom Doak isn't just a hysterical nerd with a personal agenda (like some here including me may be accused to be), he actually knows what he's talking about.

Ulrich

[Chip Gaskins]

Holy cow.  From Friday new release about the changes to Monday the 11th green already dug up!  Wow, that is fast.  No time to protest and stop this machine....its already in process.

[Mark McKeever]

Agreed Chip.  Looks like the damage has been done already.  It was like a sneak attack.

 

Mark

[Brett Hochstein]

Well there goes any hope of the change being subtle.  I was of the thought that if just a few inches were lowered by maybe someone just spending a few days working with a rake, the character might be retained, the change unnoticeable, and the area much more pinnable for 10+ speeds.  So much for that.  Guh.

I say this only because I've seen so much done by hand around the links, and the work has almost always been quality. Because of this quality work, change happens more than people realize.  This current work though crosses that threshold immensely.  It truly is architectural change, and the difference I see in that picture compared to the bunch of ones I have taken of 11 gives me little hope for anything going forward.  This is drastic and disappointing.

[Tom Culley]

Eldrick in his press conference for the Chevron:

"I can understand a couple -- on 9 and 2... Those bunkers are now in play and that's good..."

"I think 17 is hard enough as it is... It's the hardest hole on that whole property. I'm not keen on them changing it."

[Ben Sims]

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,

Clearly based on the number of responses that your post generated, it wasn't just me that's a walking fan club.  And inflammatory language aside, I think you're dead wrong.  Let's review two points that directly conflict with your linked post above.

1)  You say I am not a fan of Dr. Hawtree.  True.  But this has nothing to do with work that he has accomplished.  It's that I have never seen any of his work.  How could I be a fan?  I don't like or dislike any of his work.  I wasn't a fan of Renaissance's work either before I saw it.

2)  This is St. Andrews we are debating, not Nairn or Elie.  How is that fact not differentiated in your mind?  You are making this outcry over changes to The Old Course about the architect.  That's the furthest thing from my mind.  I am concerned about the manner in which the most significant golf course in the world went under the knife.  Even further, I don't know why it required changes at all!

Focusing this argument on your perceived slight of Martin Hawtree and the oft trotted most preferred architect status on this website draws attention away from the real travesty.  

[Ally Mcintosh]

Mike Nuzzo - Any chance you could post that in the photo thread also?... To try and keep a full track of things as they progress... Thanks, Ally

[Ulrich Mayring]

Yep, let's not bring Hawtree into the debate (I know - I did, too, and I'm sorry).

This is not about whether Hawtree would do a better or worse job than Doak or anyone else. It is about the back-room process by which a few elderly men, who don't know a whole lot about golf architecture, can make these decisions at a whim. It is about the situation that apparently the Links Trust is unduly influenced by the R&A. It is about the hit-and-run style these changes have been put into effect without consulting anyone outside a certain smoke room in St Andrews.

Ulrich

[Rick Shefchik]

Sounds like The Old Course needed a Master Plan.

Seriously, who are the stakeholders here, and why were they not given a say in any of this? I'd posit that the the stakeholders include, first of all, the townsfolk of St. Andrews, followed by avid golfers worldwide who've made it a priority to visit the course and learn from it, followed by those who have studied and loved it from afar without yet being able to make the pilgrimage, followed by those who see it and use it as nothing more than a venue for high-level competitive golf events.

If golf clubs all over the world with little architectural merit and almost zero historical significance have nevertheless seen fit to adopt master plans to prevent their courses from being altered by the whims of the current green committee chairman, why on earth hasn't The Old Course been protected in a similar manner?

It's too late to stop this travesty, but clearly a more responsible and deliberate group than the R&A or the Links Trust should be formed to protect the interest of the course and the vast majority of its user. I'd suggest a thorough documentation of all the changes to the course throughout the Open Championship era, choosing a version of the course that best represents its historical apex, and defending what's left of that with extreme tenacity.

[Mike_Young]

Even though I fully support the efforts here regarding TOC, I don't understand why anyone here would expect things to have been done differently or why the people in charge would have done it differently.  This site is still very idealistic and doesn't view architecture the way 99.9 percent of the golfing population does.  IMO there is not that much respect for golf architecture in the world now or ever.  Maybe .01 percent appreciate it and try to understand it but most people in the position to pull the trigger at major venues and courses around the world feel that they know what to do and rely on their network. That is why golf professionals got in the business.  If you were on the committee at TOC or your local club you would have your opinions of what was needed and all you need is someone referred to you by your network to do the work.  That's how it has always been and how it will continue to be.  As much as TOC argument has become public, it brings home the point of how many of our regional or State courses have been  changed by committees with little regard for the history of the course but  they had enough pull to hire someone to do what they wanted and not be questioned.  Success in this business is always related to the network one can create.  Talent will never be seen if the network cannot be infiltrated.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Mike Young:

Your post is so truthful and factual that it hurts. I have been in the golf construction and design business for over 55 years and I know from experience that everything you said is true.

There have been many great and not necessarily famous golf courses ruined by green chairpersons, club captains and club champion "experts"

What is taking place at The Old Lady is nothing new and will not end here either.

I respect the great efforts made by Tom Doak and others in this respect, but in my opinion, their efforts are going to be for nought.

[Tom_Doak]

Eldrick in his press conference for the Chevron:

"I can understand a couple -- on 9 and 2... Those bunkers are now in play and that's good..."

"I think 17 is hard enough as it is... It's the hardest hole on that whole property. I'm not keen on them changing it."

This is the problem I feared.  If they get people talking about what changes should or shouldn't be made, we've lost the war.  All design is a matter of opinion, and everybody will have different opinions, and so Martin Hawtree's is as right as anyone's.

Except -- this is The Old Course.  It's sacred.  It didn't NEED to be changed, at all.  That's the issue.

For the record, though it was never going to be offered -- and CERTAINLY not after this week -- I would only have accepted the matter of consulting on The Old Course in order to tell them not to do anything to it.  I tried to tell that to Royal Melbourne years ago, as well. 

[Sean_A]

If the current situation is a lost cause, folks can always go an alternative route.  Boycott TOC and/or seek the resignation of the Trustees.  I spose the ultimate aim would be to amend the governing documents and even the Links Act to include a consultation among the represented parties when proposals such as the work being carried out are put forward.  If the 11th can be altered, anything can be altered.  Now is the time to act if folks want to preserve what is left of TOC.

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

If the current situation is a lost cause, folks can always go an alternative route.  Boycott TOC and/or seek the resignation of the Trustees.  I spose the ultimate aim would be to amend the governing documents and even the Links Act to include a consultation among the represented parties when proposals such as the work being carried out are put forward.  If the 11th can be altered, anything can be altered.  Now is the time to act if folks want to preserve what is left of TOC.

Ciao

Boycott TOC?  I'm personally boycotting Trump but I don't think he's worried. If I boycott the Old Course no one will notice. But why should I boycott a public course as a means of trying to change the way decisions are made in private? I think this process shows poor trusteeship and getting shot of Dawson, as the spokesman for the changes, would be an excellent start. I can only see that happening if there is a massive outcry making his position untenable NOW.   Putting the public face of the governorship under extreme pressure might cause them all to act in more open manner in future.

[Chris Kane]

Eldrick in his press conference for the Chevron:

"I can understand a couple -- on 9 and 2... Those bunkers are now in play and that's good..."

"I think 17 is hard enough as it is... It's the hardest hole on that whole property. I'm not keen on them changing it."

This is the problem I feared.  If they get people talking about what changes should or shouldn't be made, we've lost the war.  All design is a matter of opinion, and everybody will have different opinions, and so Martin Hawtree's is as right as anyone's.

Except -- this is The Old Course.  It's sacred.  It didn't NEED to be changed, at all.  That's the issue.

+1, almost exactly what I thought when I read Tiger's comments. The default position when it comes to the Old Course should be to leave it alone. Any discussion about the merits of particular changes legitimises the quest to 'improve' it - when it doesn't need to be improved.

[Mark Chaplin]

It is easy to criticise the governance of the Links Trust but it is made up of;

Three elected representatives of the local council
The local member of parliament, elected by the local people
The local member of the Scottish parliament also elected by the local people
Three members of the R&A;
Richard Muckhart - senior R&A man, former captain of St Andrews university team, Luffness New & Peebles member
Peter Forster - farmer from Wormit a few miles from St Andrews and Scotscraig member
Joe Noble - surveyor and former chair of Scottish Enterprise Fife for a number of years

You may not like them but the majority of the Trustees are elected locally by the people of St Andrews and Fife and the three R&A nominees are also Scottish and either local or have longterm pedigree with the city and the golf.

[Sean Walsh]

Mark,

If they were so proud of the "improvements" they believed were required why the need for subterfuge?  Surely they had some great arguments to defend the need for the work and are happy to explain those in an open and transparent process. Interesting that from the anecdotal evidence we have so far no invitation was sent to any of the local stakeholders to accept submissions on the changes.  The 3 R&A representatives do not even appear to have kept their own membership informed of the proposals. 
 
If this is the gold standard in good governance our system of government has even more issues than I thought and any criticisms of the systems in place to manage this historical landmark need urgent review.

I would have thought the work done to the road hole bunker over the last 10 years would have chastened them from making any substantial changes to the course.

[Sean Walsh]

From the NY Post Article by Brett Cyrgalis re 11th

“Very, very slightly, just a couple of percent of the grade,” Dawson said. “Modern green speeds are very different from the green speeds from [when] the hole was first built, if built is the right word.”

I love the way he somewhat insinuates that the fact it wasn't "built" is a liability.  Also the modern green speeds argument as if he has no ability to influence said green speeds.

[David_Elvins]

Is a 2% change in grade a "slight" change?

2 is a pretty small number...but...

I suspect the grade was around 5% so it is probably reducing the slope by 40-50%.

[Adam Lawrence]

I am told 4.5% in the area that they want the recaptured pin to be.

[Mark Chaplin]

Sean - my point is not supporting the Links Trust but many people here have said "give the locals a voice", "form a committee of experts", etc. I'm just saying there was clearly thought by the law makers who formed the Links Trust to ensure there was a local voice in the control of golf at St Andrews.

The chairman of the Links Management Committee is also an R&A man, a local surgeon who studied at St Andrews has lived there for 28 years and been a member of the New Club for 33 years.

I find it difficult to see how you could build a management structure that has more local bias? I'm sure parachuting in outsiders will be as popular with the people of St Andrews as the last two foreign managers of the England football team were with us fans.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()