[Rick Shefchik]

This argument can never be settled as long as Peter Dawson and his allies believe they are in charge of a tournament venue, while those of us on the other side believe Dawson has been entrusted with an irreplaceabe historic relic.

[BCrosby]

This argument can never be settled as long as Peter Dawson and his allies believe they are in charge of a tournament venue, while those of us on the other side believe Dawson has been entrusted with an irreplaceabe historic relic.

Exactly so. And that is the dilemma. If the Old Course's main function is as an Open venue, then any change - literally -  is ok if it makes the course more difficult. Crank up the D - 6's and have at it.

That is a view of TOC, however, is at odds with its history and the way it was/is viewd by its more reflective commentators.

MacK's painstakingly detailed map of the TOC done in 1922/23 was not done to depict a model tournament venue. It was done as a model for good architecture. He had the temerity to think that by drawing its feature in such detail they might be preserved. Alas....

To now ask TOC to pay the price for the R&A's abrogation of their duties regarding equipment is, as noted about, nothing less than brazen.

Bob   

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - The Old Course may be literally sacred, and it is certainly figuratively so. But to argue against any changes there because it is one of a kind, sui generis, is to (implictely) suggest that past, present and future changes to dozens of other great courses in America and GB&I, from those built long ago to those built recently to those yet to be built, cannot and should not be treated in the same manner and with the same respect, and thus for all practical purposes to condone the very changes we mean to condemn (in every place other than St. Andrews). And it strikes me that it is precisely this stance that (inadvertently) makes it easier (and more justifiable) for Mr. Dawson to do what he is doing, because it frames the debate in terms of relative values (i.e. is this/that course great enough to be left alone and unchanged) instead of in the objective/practical langauge of rights and responsibilities (i.e. the long, arduous process of beginning - right now - to hash out amongst all the stakeholders rules/guidelines for who has ultimate authority for great courses/tournament venues and who they would be required to consult and reach consensus with). In other words, while of course I side with the traditionalists here, I just can't see how the sacred ground approach helps much, in this case, or how -- just as importantly I think -- it helps prevent this in the future.

Peter  

[Bill Brightly]

I can't stop thinking that process used to make changes on TOC may go down as the biggest "railroad job" in golf history. At least the "anchored putter" decison, we knew that the governing bodies were considering a rule change. Did anyone even know that changes to TOC were being contemplated?

If a random group of GCAers (trained architects or not) had the power and the will to change TOC (or ANY course), and our SOLE objective was to make those changes and let the consequences be damned, then we might exactly follow the path chosen by the R & A and the Links Trust.

We would quietly select our architect of choice, give him the direction we wanted and have him draw up the plans. Then we'd get the approval from the governing body of the course.

Since we KNOW we are going to take some heat, we'd have to have the equipment ready to roll as soon as possible after we made the announcement. We certainly would not want to get into a lengthy debate about the proposed changes, and have to justify our plans with guys like Tom Doak and others who actually know a lot about TOC and its place in the history of golf course acrhitecture. No no no, we would not want to stand up to that type of questioning. Who knows what type of opposition might be mustered? We obviously have complete faith that we know what is right.

If we had a savvy PR guy in our group, he would tell us to make the announcement on "Take Out The Trash Day," a Friday, and perhaps create another major story to divert the public's attention.

Then we would hunker down, say as little as possible other than "it was for the good of the game", and wait for the storm to die down.

And THAT is how you pull off a "railroad job."

[Jud_T]

Heretofore when you look up Gross Overstatement or Bold-Faced Lie in the dictionary this will be the quote that appears:

Dawson added. “We know that piece of land and cherish it like no one else."

[BCrosby]

Peter -

I am not arguing that TOC is immune to change. The issue is what is being changed. Some changes matter more than others. There ought to be a presumption against changes. I can think of circumstances when that preumption can be overcome. Lengthening tees, for example, makes sense to me.

But other changes fail to meet that presumption. Among those are changes to contouring and changes to bunkering that affects historic strategies.

As for the importance of contouring, I'd refer you to MacK's S of SA. If the book is about anything, it is about the importance of contouring on TOC and in gca more generally. As for eliminating historic strategies on holes by resetting bunkers, I'd refer to the literature on gca written since, say, 1905.

Dawson and all should not be given the pleasure of dismissing their opponents as being rigid ideologues opposed to all changes. Or that we have some moisty-misty vision of TOC as a sacred object handed down from on high. Both are false.

Bob  

[Tom_Doak]

This argument can never be settled as long as Peter Dawson and his allies believe they are in charge of a tournament venue, while those of us on the other side believe Dawson has been entrusted with an irreplaceabe historic relic.

Maybe we should play up the conflict of interest here between Dawson's role as tournament guy vs. his role as protector of The Old Course.  He clearly has favored the former. 

[BCrosby]

This argument can never be settled as long as Peter Dawson and his allies believe they are in charge of a tournament venue, while those of us on the other side believe Dawson has been entrusted with an irreplaceabe historic relic.

Maybe we should play up the conflict of interest here between Dawson's role as tournament guy vs. his role as protector of The Old Course.  He clearly has favored the former. 

I think that makes sense. There aren't many courses where the role of "protector" is so important. But it is critically important in the case of TOC.

Bob

[Jeff_Mingay]

Anyone who has spent anytime around green construction knows that when you say a couple of percent, it means a hell of a lot more when talking about green slopes then batting average. The slope on the 11th was only 4-5%ish to start, so they are basically cutting it in half. Dawson can try to sell that as a minor 2% change, but that is a major change, he knows it, and is trying to be deceptive with his words.
Any golf writer worth his salt knows it too. Please call it what it is and please question Dawson about it when given the opportunity.  

This is absolutely bang-on.

[Jud_T]

Tom,

To add insult to injury, now you'll have to go play the course again to update the review of it for the Confidential Guide.  Ought to be an entertaining read at least...   

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - not to belabour the point: I wrote "any changes" but I was basically referring to your "presumption against changes", which amounts to the same thing in the context of my post, since such a presumption has not been (affectively or effectively) at work in countless other instances/great golf courses (and won't be in the future if the system remains the same). Again, I just think that arguing that TOC is especially deserving of such presumption is not the best approach, now or in the long run.

Peter

[Neil White]

Maybe we should play up the conflict of interest here between Dawson's role as tournament guy vs. his role as protector of The Old Course.  He clearly has favored the former.

Tom,

Who plays the role of custodian of the course is not really clear as it would appear that there are a number of people responsible for the decision processes made in the lead up to these changes being given the green light.

It would be interesting however to see 1) who initially decided the works were required and 2) how these were 'sold' to the other members of the decision making committee.

I would harbour a bet that somewhere along the line a quote was made that it would not be 'economical' to not make the changes.  Imagine the horror of the elected members if they felt that their town could lose the privilege of holding the Open and the economic suicide that would ensue.  Could it be that the Competition Committee would use such a tactic?

Neil.

[William_G]

This argument can never be settled as long as Peter Dawson and his allies believe they are in charge of a tournament venue, while those of us on the other side believe Dawson has been entrusted with an irreplaceabe historic relic.

Maybe we should play up the conflict of interest here between Dawson's role as tournament guy vs. his role as protector of The Old Course.  He clearly has favored the former. 

good play

[Bryan Izatt]

Re the slope of the 11th green, here is the USGA's current recommendations on green speed vs slope.  Clearly a 5% slope is in the no-go red zone.  Moving to 2 to 2.5% will at least get it into the Marginal zone at 10 feet on the Stimp.  I imagine it'll still be a problem when the wind is out of the north blowing down the slope.  Even back in the day when Stimps were 6 or 7 in tournament play the green wouldn't have been pinable there by modern standards.  I guess they were more relaxed about fairness back then.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Robin,

When you’ve finished your drawing for your building permit,  can you name the text book reference for a pin location being 16 feet in diameter? (Genuinely interested)

[BCrosby]

Bob - not to belabour the point: I wrote "any changes" but I was basically referring to your "presumption against changes", which amounts to the same thing in the context of my post, since such a presumption has not been (affectively or effectively) at work in countless other instances/great golf courses (and won't be in the future if the system remains the same). Again, I just think that arguing that TOC is especially deserving of such presumption is not the best approach, now or in the long run.

Peter

Sorry Peter. I misread your post. Yes, there is a risk that putting TOC on such a high pedestal opens to door to changing in other courses that aren't on such a high pedestal.

I would counter that that is just bowing to reality. The historical importance of a course should be judged on a case by case basis. TOC holds down one end of that scale. The Fernandina Beach Municipal Golf Course and Bar-B-Q holds down the other end. Between the two are courses with all manner of historical importance. That importance should be given appropriate weight. People will disagree about how that balancing act comes out. I think it an inevitable force of nature that there will be changes. But that doesn't mean that all courses should be equally amenable to being changed.

Or am I missing your point?

Bob

   

[Robin_Hiseman]

Robin,

When you’ve finished your drawing for your building permit,  can you name the text book reference for a pin location being 16 feet in diameter? (Genuinely interested)

John

Then you may have to wait some time!

I think I picked that one up from the same USGA article as the very handy slope table Bryan posted.  I may be wrong on that.  I'd have to check my papers.  Hurdzan's book has a smaller diameter proposed of 314ft2, which is a 10-foot circle around the cup.  You pays your money and takes your choice.

Incidentally, I've done a little mental arithmetic on how deep the cut on the green is likely to be, assuming of course they're not filling up the front portion of the green too.  A 5% slope rises 5cm every metre and a 2% slope 2cm.  Therefore to convert a 5% slope to a 2% slope for the purposes of creating one fresh hole location will need a maximum cut in the region of 15cm.  We're not talking enormous vertical changes here, but it would look appreciably different once the tie backs are done.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

I'm not sure where it was posted but apparently there is some incorrect information regarding the makeup  of the Trustees and Links Management Committee and I was asked to post the clarification.

Of the 3 trustees nominated by the R & A and the 3 by Fife Council, both bodies have given one of those places to a member of one of the other Local Clubs.

In the LMC, both bodies have given up 2 of their 4 nominations to members of the Local Clubs.

The Local Clubs have a protocol in place for how these people are selected so each Club has representation.

It should be added however that once on the Trust or LMC, they are supposed to act independently of the body who nominated them, whether that is their golf club, the R & A or Fife Council members.

[Robin_Hiseman]

John

Found it.  The 16 foot diameter, 8 foot radius figure comes from Page 111 of "Golf Greens, History, Design and Construction", by Mike Hurdzan.  So there is a contradiction between his two books.  I went with this figure from the later published book.

[Rich Goodale]

Robin,

When you’ve finished your drawing for your building permit,  can you name the text book reference for a pin location being 16 feet in diameter? (Genuinely interested)

John

Then you may have to wait some time!

I think I picked that one up from the same USGA article as the very handy slope table Bryan posted.  I may be wrong on that.  I'd have to check my papers.  Hurdzan's book has a smaller diameter proposed of 314ft2, which is a 10-foot circle around the cup.  You pays your money and takes your choice.

Incidentally, I've done a little mental arithmetic on how deep the cut on the green is likely to be, assuming of course they're not filling up the front portion of the green too.  A 5% slope rises 5cm every metre and a 2% slope 2cm.  Therefore to convert a 5% slope to a 2% slope for the purposes of creating one fresh hole location will need a maximum cut in the region of 15cm.  We're not talking enormous vertical changes here, but it would look appreciably different once the tie backs are done.

Robin

Good to see that my guesstimate on another thread of 18cm (7") wasn't too far off the mark!

PS--for those of you who are metrically challenged, 15cm = 6" which = the width of the standard golf card (made that specific width inorder to allow people to properly measure stymies (allowed if the stymying ball was more than 6" from the stymied ball)).  Not a helluvalotof change in elevation, IMVHO.

rfg

[David_Elvins]

Interesting irony from 3 years ago.  The changes to the Jubilee course were more worthy of discussion than The Old Course.

The Jubilee Course, recently
voted among the top 100
courses outside the USA by
prestigious magazine Golf Digest,
is to undergo a programme of
alterations over the next three years.
Following recommendations from
golf course architect Martin Hawtree,
renowned for his work with the R&A
and on many of the UK and Ireland’s top
links courses, the alterations are designed to
bring the Jubilee towards its full potential.
Over the past nine months members
of the Green Sub-committee have also
been involved substantially in the planned
alterations...
‘When the Jubilee Course

Martin Hawtree’s plans for the Jubilee
Course are to go on display in the Links
Clubhouse from Monday 8 June until
Monday 22 June.
Director of Greenkeeping Gordon Moir
will be on hand to discuss the plans at the
following times: Friday 12 June 9am-11am;
Saturday 13 June 12noon-1.30pm; Sunday
14 June 8am-8.30am and 11am-11.30am;
Tuesday 16 June 2.30pm-3.30pm.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Robin,

Thanks for the prompt reply.

I must say I prefer the 10 foot(3.1m) diameter to the 16 foot (4.9m) diameter. Then the Links Trust need only cut 9cm (3.5 inches) into the 11th  Green and not 15cm (6 inches).

Well the slippery slope will be no more and now putting down towards the front will be easier – too bad (sigh)

[Paul_Turner]

Interesting irony from 3 years ago.  The changes to the Jubilee course were more worthy of discussion than The Old Course.

The Jubilee Course, recently
voted among the top 100
courses outside the USA by
prestigious magazine Golf Digest,
is to undergo a programme of
alterations over the next three years.
Following recommendations from
golf course architect Martin Hawtree,
renowned for his work with the R&A
and on many of the UK and Ireland’s top
links courses, the alterations are designed to
bring the Jubilee towards its full potential.
Over the past nine months members
of the Green Sub-committee have also
been involved substantially in the planned
alterations...
‘When the Jubilee Course

Martin Hawtree’s plans for the Jubilee
Course are to go on display in the Links
Clubhouse from Monday 8 June until
Monday 22 June.
Director of Greenkeeping Gordon Moir
will be on hand to discuss the plans at the
following times: Friday 12 June 9am-11am;
Saturday 13 June 12noon-1.30pm; Sunday
14 June 8am-8.30am and 11am-11.30am;
Tuesday 16 June 2.30pm-3.30pm.

Good find.  Illustrates the sneaky tactics used this time.  I wonder, did all these plans for the Jubilee go through?  

[Howard Riefs]

Melvin must be beside himself on the changes...

[Stephen Davis]

Melvin must be beside himself on the changes...

I was thinking the same thing. Can anyone verify if the news gave him a heart attack? I hope he is okay.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()