[Niall C]

I know this stuff is all subjective, but those new bunkers at the 2nd hole - essentially pinching the entrance to the green surface - make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

And, after hundreds and hundreds of years of golf on the Old Course, why the necessity to knock down the "acute spur formation" at the 4th hole again? (Serious question... I don't think I've heard the reasoning behind this.)

Interestingly Jeff, Adam Lawrence gets to discuss this with Peter Dawson in his interview and if I remember rightly the reason was two fold, firstly they wanted to cut the grass but found that it was impossible to keep it short so it was rough most of the time, and second they reckoned they were widening the course by making this change. In any other course in the world, this discussion board would be applauding changes made for these reasons but as we know on here TOC is some sort of sacred monument 

Niall

Niall,

You're bizarre lobbying in support of Dawson is most strange.  The argument that this change makes the course wider is, of course, nonsense.  As to the spur, how often would a ball finish on it?  Removing the spur removes the blindness that a drive left leaves.  It dumbs down the hole.  It is noteworthy that in Adam's interview even Dawson expresses doubts about this change.  Which leaves you as it's strongest supporter.

Mark

I'm not lobbying for the R&A or Dawson but I have spent the last week challenging the lazy and frankly stupid assertions that somehow Dawson cooked this up on his own and that the whole process was somehow invalid, and I will continue to do so. As a member of the DG I find the personal abuse heaped on Martin Hawtree and Peter Dawson on this site embarrassing and BTW hardly conducive to anyone wishing to make a serious point and effect change in a meaningful way. In that light, I don't think there is anything bizarre about my posts in the last week.

Niall

[Mike Nuzzo]

[Mark Pearce]

Niall,

That's rather disingenuous.  There was, at the very beginning, a small amount of personal abuse from a small number of posters aimed at Hawtree.  Since then, however, there has been a great deal of proper debate.  Rich Goodale,  in particular, has very intelligently challenged many of the opinions of the anti-change lobby.  Proper criticism of Dawson, particularly when highlighting inconsistencies in his public statements is not personal abuse.

[Sean Walsh]

Niall,

Apart from all preceding it, in offering himself instead of Mr Hawtree , members of the Links Trust or even the Head greenkeeper do the tour of the changes he has even more stridently placed himself at the head of the changes.  If he was not heavily involved in the design, planning and implementation of these changes he has done little to dissuade that view.  Possibly he's prepared to be the lightning rod and take the heat for others that would prefer to remain out of the spotlight.  If so, he at least receives some credit for placing his neck on the line (not that he's taking a huge leap of faith with his career, merely a measure of scorn from some).  However I can't criticise anyone for making the assumption that Mr Dawson is commanding this ship and it's full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything Mark wrote in the post preceding this. 

[William_G]

I know this stuff is all subjective, but those new bunkers at the 2nd hole - essentially pinching the entrance to the green surface - make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

And, after hundreds and hundreds of years of golf on the Old Course, why the necessity to knock down the "acute spur formation" at the 4th hole again? (Serious question... I don't think I've heard the reasoning behind this.)

Interestingly Jeff, Adam Lawrence gets to discuss this with Peter Dawson in his interview and if I remember rightly the reason was two fold, firstly they wanted to cut the grass but found that it was impossible to keep it short so it was rough most of the time, and second they reckoned they were widening the course by making this change. In any other course in the world, this discussion board would be applauding changes made for these reasons but as we know on here TOC is some sort of sacred monument 

Niall

Niall,

You're bizarre lobbying in support of Dawson is most strange.  The argument that this change makes the course wider is, of course, nonsense.  As to the spur, how often would a ball finish on it?  Removing the spur removes the blindness that a drive left leaves.  It dumbs down the hole.  It is noteworthy that in Adam's interview even Dawson expresses doubts about this change.  Which leaves you as it's strongest supporter.

Mark

I'm not lobbying for the R&A or Dawson but I have spent the last week challenging the lazy and frankly stupid assertions that somehow Dawson cooked this up on his own and that the whole process was somehow invalid, and I will continue to do so. As a member of the DG I find the personal abuse heaped on Martin Hawtree and Peter Dawson on this site embarrassing and BTW hardly conducive to anyone wishing to make a serious point and effect change in a meaningful way. In that light, I don't think there is anything bizarre about my posts in the last week.

Niall

Dawson and Hawtree are people just like everyone else...but are changing something in a sacrilegious manor...personal abuse is at least appropriate in this case...maybe someday all will be to laugh about it over a Guiness, but that is doubtful considering the lack of thought and historical reflection about the changes this year and next

thanks

[Sean Walsh]

William,

I have absolutely no problem with criticism of the behaviour of Messrs Dawson, Hawtree and the Links Trust over this issue.  Even criticism of a pointed and harsh variety should the author be able to justify their opinion.  I don't believe abusive or abusive terms helps to achieve any objective. 

So if you prefer throw a few bombs but be aware that by doing so you are harming the case you and others may be trying to argue in more temperate terms.  Any person reducing themselves to such behaviour gives strength to those supporting the changes and will lead to moderate voices removing themselves from the debate. 

[Bill Brightly]

I think Sean is right. Ever since the work has begun I have looked for a silver lining and thought that maybe what is happening to TOC, and the protest that resulted, will somehow cause the ruling bodies of golf to finally take a look at reigning in the ball and 460cc drivers. Maybe they will realize what is being lost when so many classic old courses have to be altered to provide a suitable test for pro golfers. Maybe people will realize that all of this work costs a tremendous amount of money, and the long term health of the game is not enhanced by a continuation of the arms race.

But every time I see photos of the work, those hopeful thoughts are dashed, and I just feel sad. I come back to my senses; I know the reality. Equipment will not be rolled back. Committees around the world, tempted with the carrot of pro events, especially Opens, will change  their golf courses.  Criticizing Mr. Dawson for the process he lead is easy, because it ca't be justified, but would we feel any better if  TOC received the type of process she deserved?   

[Mark Pearce]

William,

I have absolutely no problem with criticism of the behaviour of Messrs Dawson, Hawtree and the Links Trust over this issue.  Even criticism of a pointed and harsh variety should the author be able to justify their opinion.  I don't believe abusive or abusive terms helps to achieve any objective. 

So if you prefer throw a few bombs but be aware that by doing so you are harming the case you and others may be trying to argue in more temperate terms.  Any person reducing themselves to such behaviour gives strength to those supporting the changes and will lead to moderate voices removing themselves from the debate. 

My turn to agree with every word of one of Sean's posts. 

[William_G]

William,

I have absolutely no problem with criticism of the behaviour of Messrs Dawson, Hawtree and the Links Trust over this issue.  Even criticism of a pointed and harsh variety should the author be able to justify their opinion.  I don't believe abusive or abusive terms helps to achieve any objective. 

So if you prefer throw a few bombs but be aware that by doing so you are harming the case you and others may be trying to argue in more temperate terms.  Any person reducing themselves to such behaviour gives strength to those supporting the changes and will lead to moderate voices removing themselves from the debate. 

My turn to agree with every word of one of Sean's posts. 

oh, you guys are no fun

is there anything wrong with a non-golfing English golf course architect?

what is so rational about golf in the first place?

what's wrong with low scores?

wind is the main defense at TOC

new ProVs coming out soon 

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Here's a comparison of the Eden green from summer 2011 to after "improvement" in 2012.  You can click the picture for larger versions of the picture.  The regrading and resodding starts just under the right end of the yellow line and arcs down to the front of the green behind the foreground mound.  Looks like the new flattened pin area to the left has a little drainage problem, at least before it's sodded.  I guess the picture proves it is hard to tell small changes from pictures.

[Niall C]

Niall,

Apart from all preceding it, in offering himself instead of Mr Hawtree , members of the Links Trust or even the Head greenkeeper do the tour of the changes he has even more stridently placed himself at the head of the changes.  If he was not heavily involved in the design, planning and implementation of these changes he has done little to dissuade that view.  Possibly he's prepared to be the lightning rod and take the heat for others that would prefer to remain out of the spotlight.  If so, he at least receives some credit for placing his neck on the line (not that he's taking a huge leap of faith with his career, merely a measure of scorn from some).  However I can't criticise anyone for making the assumption that Mr Dawson is commanding this ship and it's full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything Mark wrote in the post preceding this. 

Sean

Dawson may well be willing to speak regarding the changes but he already has a opublic profile and it is natural that he is asked about the changes and how they effect the Open and it is equally natural that he should respond. That doesn't necessarily make him the spokesperson for the Links Trust and neither would it be reasonable to infer that because he himself is willing to speak publicly about the changes that somehow he has been key to the changes, thats just ludicrous. And with respect to my lawyer friend, it is him who is being disingenuous in stating that Dawson and Hawtree haven't attracted more than an a small amount of abuse.

Niall

[Niall C]

.

Mark

I'm not lobbying for the R&A or Dawson but I have spent the last week challenging the lazy and frankly stupid assertions that somehow Dawson cooked this up on his own and that the whole process was somehow invalid, and I will continue to do so. As a member of the DG I find the personal abuse heaped on Martin Hawtree and Peter Dawson on this site embarrassing and BTW hardly conducive to anyone wishing to make a serious point and effect change in a meaningful way. In that light, I don't think there is anything bizarre about my posts in the last week.

Niall
[/quote]

Dawson and Hawtree are people just like everyone else...but are changing something in a sacrilegious manor...personal abuse is at least appropriate in this case...maybe someday all will be to laugh about it over a Guiness, but that is doubtful considering the lack of thought and historical reflection about the changes this year and next

thanks
[/quote]

Wiillim,

Thanks for proving my point to Mark and Sean. Firstly that the likes of you are abusing Hawtree and Dawson, and secondly that you actually believe that these to gents are solely responsible for the changes. I tend to think that the R&A and Links Trust have got a much better handle on history of the old course than you have.

Niall

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thank you for the picture Bryan
Did you take both pictures?
From the same location and height?
You can see the 12th tee now - that is a significant difference.

I'd like to see someone standing behind the green before and after.
Specifically if one can see the surface when standing behind - I sure couldn't before.

I wouldn't have made the change either way.

Cheers

[Jud_T]

Am I nuts or does that look like a pretty significant change?  Visually it looks like even more than us "hysterics" have been talking about.

[Mark Pearce]

The change to 11 looks pretty significant.  I imagine that being able to see 12 tee behind will make a big change to the psychology of how the hole plays.  At least for the 99% of golfers who weren't the main reason for these changes.

[Mac Plumart]

I guess the picture proves it is hard to tell small changes from pictures.


Bryan...thanks for the photos.  I think you are correct in that photos don't pick up green contours well, but in these pictures you can see a big difference....which might mean the differences are massive.

[Jud_T]

So one of the best skyline greens on the planet now has another pin placement for Keegan to 3-jack and oh, by the way is no longer a skyline green (?!).  Obviously of less importance than maintaining a stiff upper lip and proper deference to Messieurs Dawson and Hawtree..  

[Tony_Muldoon]

Guys how can anyone say from those pictures that you can now see the 12th tee?  From memory they'd have  to take at least 10' of sand away.  My understanding is the top line is not to be changed at all and that’s what I see in the photo's.


Now I'm as fiercely opposed to the way these changes have been done as anyone, but when people accuse opponents of the changes of sensationalism, the last few posts play right into their hands.

[William_G]

.

Mark

I'm not lobbying for the R&A or Dawson but I have spent the last week challenging the lazy and frankly stupid assertions that somehow Dawson cooked this up on his own and that the whole process was somehow invalid, and I will continue to do so. As a member of the DG I find the personal abuse heaped on Martin Hawtree and Peter Dawson on this site embarrassing and BTW hardly conducive to anyone wishing to make a serious point and effect change in a meaningful way. In that light, I don't think there is anything bizarre about my posts in the last week.

Niall

Dawson and Hawtree are people just like everyone else...but are changing something in a sacrilegious manor...personal abuse is at least appropriate in this case...maybe someday all will be to laugh about it over a Guiness, but that is doubtful considering the lack of thought and historical reflection about the changes this year and next

thanks
[/quote]

Wiillim,

Thanks for proving my point to Mark and Sean. Firstly that the likes of you are abusing Hawtree and Dawson, and secondly that you actually believe that these to gents are solely responsible for the changes. I tend to think that the R&A and Links Trust have got a much better handle on history of the old course than you have.

Niall
[/quote]

Niall,

That's William to you LOL.

The debate is over as the changes have happened.

So there is no argument to be won as Hawtree and Dawson per se have achieved their objectives.

Any rational discussion is moot and trying to pull the "hysteria" card or "personal abuse"/"victim" card is disrespectful to any sane golfer on the planet.

The end does not justify the means.

Just look at the photos, thanks Brian!

[Adam Lawrence]

The high point, illustrated by the yellow line in Bryan's images, hasn't changed, but to the left of it, the topline has been lowered. I am, I must say, very surprised that the twelfth green is in view from the tee, I didn't really notice is in the half light last week. It still looks plenty steep from the front of the green, I must say.

[Bryan Izatt]

Thank you for the picture Bryan
Did you take both pictures?
From the same location and height?
You can see the 12th tee now - that is a significant difference.

I'd like to see someone standing behind the green before and after.
Specifically if one can see the surface when standing behind - I sure couldn't before.

I wouldn't have made the change either way.

Cheers

I took the top picture in September 2011 when I was out there with Sheehy.  The bottom one was taken by someone else.  I picked it up from one of the blogs that was linked earlier in this thread.  I zoomed and cropped the pictures to highlight the area we're interested in.

They are both taken from the tee as you can tell from the gorse bush in the foreground.  I think the person taking the current picture was maybe a bit taller than I am or was holding the camera up higher.  It looks to be a slightly more downward angle.  Also, I think they were more zoomed in than I was for whatever difference that might make in the pictures.

Yes, it would be good to see pictures from behind.  I think there's I've seen one from the side, but I don't recall seeing one from where the 12th tee is.  Hopefully someone will post some pictures from that angle.

What I noticed more than seeing over the back is that where the water is pooling looks almost like a bowl which would be quite different from what was there.  But, before making any judgements, I'd like to see it in person.  As I said, I think it's really hard to tell contours from pictures.

Now, on the other hand, with the bunker changes at the second hole it is very easy to see what's been done.  They also are a significant change in the strategy of the hole. I think that change will be the one that will be most noticeable to those that have been there before.  The other noticeable change will be the gorse removal in front of the 7th tee.  The view off the 7th tee will be completely changed, although I suppose that doesn't change the architecture or strategy.

 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Folks, you can't see the 12th tee behind. That is merely the back of the green sodded (whilst that in front isn't)

[Bryan Izatt]

Here's a picture from behind the 11th green.  There is still a significant drop to the 12th tee.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/makapala/8238632216/sizes/l/in/set-72157632154525004/

[Mark Bourgeois]

I think Dawson (who remains the only person to have spoken about the changes) has always said he was keeping the topline. He is having Hawtree's workers scoop out the slope. That means the green will be flatter until the back, where it the slope will shoot up more steeply than before.

[Adam Lawrence]

The topline has been lowered left of the high point, as I said in a post above. It does look a little bit scooped, not that much though.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()