No, there is not a "disconnect" between Doak and St. Andrews

[Jay Flemma]

Proving once again that we need to keep working to change mainstream thinking about golf course architecture, this article says Doak has a "disconnenct" regarding the St. Andrews changes.

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/travel-insider/changes-coming-to-old-course-in-st.-andrews/

From his article:

"The disconnect here is that Doak's bread and butter is building destination courses for amateurs like Pacific Dunes and Cape Kidnappers, or traditional members clubs like Ballyneal and Renaissance Club. He's not the "go-to-guy" for the pro tours, who usually call on Jack Nicklaus, Rees Jones, Pete Dye or more recently Gil Hanse to help keep venues up to snuff for the game's elite golfers."

No the disconnect here is that the author is a travel/PR writer who has minimal understanding of architecture beyond what is pretty to look at or the "harder is better" mentality of the '80s.

Later in the piece he demonstrated some of the most dismal word choice I've ever seen by calling St. Andrews "two-faced."

[Frank Pont]

Do we know what Gil Hanse, Pete Dye and Jack Nicklaus think of the changes? Can we ask them? What if they like Tom, and most of us, also disapprove? Will that change the tone of this article?

[Ally Mcintosh]

It does us no good having Tom as the only one front and centre.... We need a whole list of architects, players and media to put their name behind an open letter... I will draft this but need a small group of designers and maybe a lawyer or two to proof-read and amend.... Please IM me your email address if you are interested to review... Once the wording of the letter is agreed, I'll then set up an email address for any industry person or local St.Andrews figurehead who is happy to have their name addended to confirm... Then we issue...

The news may have passed us by the time this is together of course...

But if this is not done, we are just a talking shop....

[Jay Flemma]

That's what happens when you ask a travel writer to write an opinion piece on golf architecture.

[David_Elvins]

Jay,

What does Pete Dye think of the proposed changes?

[Jay Flemma]

It's funny you should ask that...I hope to have an answer for you later in the day.

[Scott Warren]

Jay, aren't everyone's efforts best directed constructively at this stage?

[Kris Shreiner]

Mr. Tucker is clearly out of his depth on this assesment. Tom Doak knows there have been changes to THE OLDE over the years, but they were not of multilation proportions. The strange media uncloaking of what will transpire, in the manner in which it was released (almost when the picks and shovels were being hoisted) begs the question...what's the rush, and how confident are the decision makers that the right moves are being made? I think there is a good chance a bunker might emerge in the Jigger Inn before too long. Don't laugh, the briantrust has already left the golf course confines once on that hole to "better test" the greatest golfing professionals.

Decisions like this, at the real shrine of the game, tell me that those at the top are still lost... and continue to wallow in their own importance. Don't reign in the problem, just continue to scar and deface the superb ground over which the game is contested. With regard to THE OLDE, the last three Opens contested there were in very benign conditions compared to what usually can occur during that week. Most of those weeks player were in short-sleeves for significant portions of play! Rather than rush to some rash changes, why not give the old girl another chance to see how she holds up to scoring this next Open. So what if they go low, it that really such a sin?

Cheers,
Kris

[Rich Goodale]

"Two-faced" is actually a very good word choice, as (in this case) it essentially means the same as "bifurcate."  Bifurcation is more starkly evident at TOC than any other great course that I know.

[Tom_Doak]

"The disconnect here is that Doak's bread and butter is building destination courses for amateurs like Pacific Dunes and Cape Kidnappers, or traditional members clubs like Ballyneal and Renaissance Club. He's not the "go-to-guy" for the pro tours, who usually call on Jack Nicklaus, Rees Jones, Pete Dye or more recently Gil Hanse to help keep venues up to snuff for the game's elite golfers."

No the disconnect here is that the author is a travel/PR writer who has minimal understanding of architecture beyond what is pretty to look at or the "harder is better" mentality of the '80s.

I am not the "go-to-guy" for the pro tours, because I object to the idea of changing great golf courses just to cover for the governing bodies' incompetence at regulating equipment, and they all know it.  They would rather work with architects who are somewhat afraid of them, and who covet the status of being consultant to a famous course, because that makes it less likely the architect will stick out his neck to argue with them about the right thing to do.

I have been hired as the consultant to many clubs to advise them on architectural matters and deal with the same sort of issues as are being discussed on The Old Course.  Among those clubs are:  Garden City Golf Club, San Francisco Golf Club, Chicago Golf Club, and Royal Melbourne.  The only difference is that the clubs who hire ME, generally ask me to tell them my honest opinion of what should be done, instead of telling me what they have decided ought to be done.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Well put, Tom.

This paragraph - "The disconnect here is that Doak's bread and butter is building destination courses for amateurs like Pacific Dunes and Cape Kidnappers, or traditional members clubs like Ballyneal and Renaissance Club. He's not the "go-to-guy" for the pro tours, who usually call on Jack Nicklaus, Rees Jones, Pete Dye or more recently Gil Hanse to help keep venues up to snuff for the game's elite golfers." - is so brainless, I didn't click on the link for the full article.

Thanks for the warning, in the form of posting a piece of the article so I didn't waste my time on the link

[Jay Flemma]

Scott, ordinarily I agree with you about negativity, but Ticker's comments were so uninformed, indeed neanderthal regarding golf design and regarding Doak's contributions to the game in general, I thought the board needed to see them.  I also thought Tom deserved to know what was said and get a chance to reply.  Hes earned that...in spades.  Besides, opinions like Tucker's are exactly the kind of Doldrums Era of Golf Design Nonsense that Tom and the minimalists have worked so hard to erode over the years.  It's articles like that which keep people think a great golf course is a doctrine of framing, doctrine of symmetry, harder and prettier is better, center-line only.

Tom just nailed it with his post - a grand slam into the upper deck.  Dawson doesn't want anyone's opinion -he just wants people to fetch him his tea, do what he says, and tell him how brilliant he is.

[Ronald Montesano]

If you disagree with my friend and colleague Brandon Tucker, leave him a comment as I did.

xoxoxo

[Tom Dunne]

Jay, maybe it's splitting hairs, but I disagree with your premise that a travel writer can't write intelligently about golf architecture. Whether Tucker succeeded in doing so in this piece I'll leave for others to debate, but I can tell you that in my career the two (travel writing; golf architecture) are intimately linked.

"North to the Links of Dornoch" is, fundamentally, a travel piece.

[Jay Flemma]

Don't misunderstand me, Tom: some guys can do travel and golf, yourself included.  But there are also too many that, when it comes to golf architecture and design, really need to move beyond  the "hard, easy, long, narrow, hot cart girls, good burgers" style of reviewing courses.

Thge other problem I have is that it's Golf Channel.  The casual fan still, unfortunately believes too much of what it reads, and too much of what it sees on TV...that's why we are "playing into the wind" when championing great GCA, because, frequently, what's good for golf on TV and what's god for golf are at odds with one another.  take my mom for example.  Dad and I constantly remind her that just ebcause she heard it on the telecast or read it in the magazine, doesn't mean they are right!  I have to constantly remind her:  Always ask yourself, "what are they trying to sell me?"

[Jay Flemma]

Jay,

What does Pete Dye think of the proposed changes?

I'm still waiting to hear back from Pete (may be tonight), but I'll bet he says something about the equipment being to blame:)

[Phil Benedict]

Aside from changing the course, the options are (1) stop hosting professional events or (2) don't worry about what the pros score.  Option 1 is pretty unrealistic so we are back to not worrying about scores.  I guess the question is whether TOC's prestige would suffer if it becomes (or remains) an outlier in terms of major championship scoring.  ANGC seems to have decided that their prestige would suffer from perennial low scoring.

[JR Potts]

If all of these people, who make their sole living working around golf, are not qualified to write and opine about golf course architecture, what the hell qualifies you to write about it?  The fact that you post on a GCA or write a blog oft' littered with typos, hyperbole and incorrect facts?

Pot....meet kettle.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Perhaps I am missing something but shouldnt a "real"architect be able to do both design "travel courses" and redisgn work.
Fron what I have seen from the course design and rework of messrs Doak, and C&C they have no problem doing both.
I am sure they may be better at one than the other, but an opinion on an existing golf course and how to improve it should be within their grasp.
I agree with Tom, that some people dont request but TELL the architect what they want based upon their opinions, as apperas to be tha case with the USGA AND R&A,  and the resultant work ends up being detrimental to the course but perhaps better for the event.
Merion is a prime example of this.
Modifying a course is not the same to me as redisgning a portion of the course.
Both organisations are guilty of modifying to suit their needs rather than any architectural significant improvements, they can find whores who want the work for their glory and egos, but perhaps  not prepared to listen to ideas on how to improve the actual architecture?

[Mike_Young]

Thge other problem I have is that it's Golf Channel.  

I asked someone at the Golf Channel " who is this Tucker guy?"  They had not heard of him so , yes it is listed on a Golf channel/NBC webpage but I don't think that is necessarily the opinion of Golf channel.  IMHO....

[Jay Flemma]

Brian, I'm not so sure...sadly, I know a few people that believe everything they hear on a golf broadcast.  "They said it on TV!  It has to be right," they say, and they drive me crazy every time:)