EIGCA poll on Old Course

[Tony Ristola]

Could it be said that many architects have a vested interest in NOT reining in equipment or agronomy as it keeps renovation work coming?

Yes.

[Sean Walsh]

Could it be said that many architects have a vested interest in NOT reining in equipment or agronomy as it keeps renovation work coming?

Yes.

Like most others in the industry

Players, Publications, Media and maybe to some extent the governing bodies themselves are all compromised when talking equipment.  Those companies by and large pay the bills.  As we know money talks

[Mike_Young]

Could it be said that many architects have a vested interest in NOT reining in equipment or agronomy as it keeps renovation work coming?

Yes.

Like most others in the industry

Players, Publications, Media and maybe to some extent the governing bodies themselves are all compromised when talking equipment.  Those companies by and large pay the bills.  As we know money talks

I'll tell you who really pays the bills.   It's golf course owners that barely scrape out a living at some of these places yet they provide the Rey medium that buys the maintenance equipment and keeps them in business, they sell merchandise in a PROSHOP for probably less than5% net profit, they purchase the golf cars, they purchase the fertilizers.   That's who,really foots the bill.

[Ally Mcintosh]

PRESS RELEASE: EIGCA Releases Results of Old Course Poll

While the debate continues regarding the changes to The Old Course at St Andrews, the European Institute of Golf Course Architects has made public the results of a poll of EIGCA members on the principle of carrying out alterations to the historic links.


Of 112 members polled across 25 countries, 79 responded within 24 hours and the results make for interesting reading. Members were asked to respond to one of three options which most closely reflected their own views.

26.5% agreed with the statement "No changes of any kind should be made to the Old Course".
 
However, 72.15% of members felt that changes to The Old Course might be appropriate. A majority of members agreed with the statement that renovations could be carried out but only if they were "based on thorough historic research". 58.2% voted for this option.
 
Only 13.9% of members aligned themselves to the statement that "It is appropriate to alter the Old Course in response to the changes in the modern game."
 
Speaking about the results EIGCA President, Rainer Preissmann, said; "Over the last few days much has been said and written about the prospect of changes being carried out to The Old Course. The EIGCA felt that this was an opportunity to discover the thoughts of golf course architects in Europe and to perhaps present a more balanced assessment."
 
"The results of our poll clearly show that, while many of our members agree that it ought to be possible to carry out alterations to The Old Course, a significant majority believe that such changes should only be allowed if they reflect the historic strategy of the course. This, along with those who believe that it should remain untouched altogether, reflects the continued influence of this great links on golf course architecture and shows the high regard which architects continue to hold for The Old Course”.
 
The full results were as follows;
·         Total number of votes: 79 (70.5% of the membership)
·         Option 1: No changes of any kind should be made to the Old Course - 21 votes
·         Option 2: Only renovations based on a thorough historic research should be carried out - 46 votes
·         Option 3: It is appropriate to alter the Old Course in response to the changes in the modern game - 11 Votes
·         Abstained: 1 Vote

[William_G]

67 to 11 against the changes under Dawson/Hawtree

[Sven Nilsen]

67 to 11 against the changes under Dawson/Hawtree

If you take out the guys driving down the middle of the road, 21 to 11 is still a pretty convincing difference.

[Sean Walsh]

A much stronger repudiation of the current changes than I had thought possible.  I wonder how much media play it will get.  Unless I'm mistaken that makes 3 GCA bodies that are at least mildly critical of the changes.

Sven,
I would say even the middle position is somewhat akin to what Tom Doak proposed in his letter.   

[Sven Nilsen]

A much stronger repudiation of the current changes than I had thought possible.  I wonder how much media play it will get.  Unless I'm mistaken that makes 3 GCA bodies that are at least mildly critical of the changes.

Sven,
I would say even the middle position is somewhat akin to what Tom Doak proposed in his letter.   

Sean:

You could also say its somewhat akin to Dawson's statement that the changes are in line with the "essential strategy" of the course.  Too much room for interpretation, and has been stated before, a poorly drafted option.  As such, I am really left with no idea of where those 46 votes would fall if asked to approve the current slate of changes.

Sven

[Mike Nuzzo]

67 to 11 against the changes under Dawson/Hawtree

William
There is no way to say that they didn't perform a thorough and historic analysis
In their eyes they did, and I'm sure most anyone else would say the same thing if they read all the articles

I see the score 57-21 in favor of the changes
Which is about right as I can't stand most new courses I've seen

I'm with Tom Doak
Getting people to discuss whether the changes are good or bad is a net loss for The Old Course and for golf and players
#wishwecouldhavesavedtheoldcourse

[William_G]

67 to 11 against the changes under Dawson/Hawtree

William
There is no way to say that they didn't perform a thorough and historic analysis
In their eyes they did, and I'm sure most anyone else would say the same thing if they read all the articles

I see the score 57-21 in favor of the changes
Which is about right as I can't stand most new courses I've seen

I'm with Tom Doak
Getting people to discuss whether the changes are good or bad is a net loss for The Old Course and for golf and players
#wishwecouldhavesavedtheoldcourse

hahaha

I don't like surveys or polls with bad questions

but if the people of St. Andrews are good with then I am too 

[Frank Pont]

I think this EIGCA poll is about the best result the R&A could have hoped for.

It wil produce somthing like:

35% don't mind changes
35% mind changes
30% have no opinion

This will aloow the R&A to say look its not a clear cut case.
EIGCA will say that they consulted their members and they have no clear mandate
And the EIGCA members can stay anonimous with their opinions

I was even too optimistic, how depressing.....

[Tony Ristola]

I see the score 57-21 in favor of the changes
Which is about right as I can't stand most new courses I've seen

I'm with Tom Doak
Getting people to discuss whether the changes are good or bad is a net loss for The Old Course and for golf and players
#wishwecouldhavesavedtheoldcourse

I thought the timing of the poll would have skewed it more in the other direction.

The result is not surprising... it is about what I'd have expected had the poll been done before any work had been done and any discussion begun. Obviously few have been moved by arguments against what is happening and the long term implications.

I wonder how much more lopsided it would have been had the poll been taken before the furor?

It was a lose-lose poll for the EIGCA. But I applaud them for letting us know what "Europe’s most qualified golf course designers" think about digging up sacred ground for a tournament that passes through every 5 to 10-years.

John Huggan nails it in a few lines... actually in the first paragraph below.

QUOTE
John Huggan: Sacrilege at St Andrews

All of which is more than enough reason to suggest that the essential character of the Old Course should never be messed with. It must be left as it has always been, if only so that students of the game can make the pilgrimage to Fife and learn the very essence of “proper” golf.

Sadly, of course, recent events have overtaken that basic premise. In consultation with the Championship Committee of the R&A and course architect Martin Hawtree, the St Andrews Links Trust (the body that manages the seven courses in and around the town) have arbitrarily decided to make what appear to be significant changes to as many as nine holes on the Old Course. With an act of staggering arrogance, they have apparently deemed themselves better qualified than Mother Nature – which, in the case of the all-male R&A at least, is just another example of their rampant misogyny – when it comes to knowing what is best for golf’s shrine.

... Even the least cynical have been hard pushed not to conclude that this was the unworthy action of scoundrels, especially as a precedent had already been set.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/golf/john-huggan-sacrilege-at-st-andrews-1-2671304
END QUOTE

[Paul_Turner]

"A majority of members agreed with the statement that renovations could be carried out but only if they were "based on thorough historic research".

This question could mean anything.

Would the current work have passed the "historical research" test? 

Peter Dawson's comments re the bunkers on the 2nd (to be filled):  “There are two bunkers short and right 25 yards away from the green and I can’t get the hang of why they are there. No one is ever in them and so they are being moved closer to the green.”

[Neil White]

Peter Dawson's comments re the bunkers on the 2nd (to be filled):  “There are two bunkers short and right 25 yards away from the green and I can’t get the hang of why they are there. No one is ever in them and so they are being moved closer to the green.”

Let's hope that the powers that be at ANGC don't have the same feelings over the Mackenzie bunker on the 10th........

To me the statement has a draconian ring about it.

Neil.

[Niall C]

arbitrarily - definition of arbitrarily
ar·bi·trar·y (är b -tr r ). adj. 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle:

So, perhaps John Huggan is suggesting that 7 men got together in a room one night by chance, came across some hare brained scheme from some golf designer fellow and thought, what the hell, lets give it a go. Is that likely ?

Alternatively, how about they considered over a period of time issues pertaining to the course, drafted in a well respected member (golfclubatlas not withstanding) of the golf course design profession to look at ways to address those issues, considered the proposals in light of the history and meaning of the course, and after much consideration and consultation with local players through the local clubs decided on a course of action.

Frankly, I could be wrong and Huggan could be right but somehow I very much doubt this course of action was taken on a whim.

Niall

[Alex Miller]

arbitrarily - definition of arbitrarily
ar·bi·trar·y (är b -tr r ). adj. 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle:

So, perhaps John Huggan is suggesting that 7 men got together in a room one night by chance, came across some hare brained scheme from some golf designer fellow and thought, what the hell, lets give it a go. Is that likely ?

Alternatively, how about they considered over a period of time issues pertaining to the course, drafted in a well respected member (golfclubatlas not withstanding) of the golf course design profession to look at ways to address those issues, considered the proposals in light of the history and meaning of the course, and after much consideration and consultation with local players through the local clubs decided on a course of action.

Frankly, I could be wrong and Huggan could be right but somehow I very much doubt this course of action was taken on a whim.

Niall

I agree that this action was not taken on a whim.

If we are going to play the definition game though, I'd like to point out the word "or" in this definition. I'm sure Dawson, Hawtree, and the R&A were deliberate in their decision to make these changes, but I can still see Huggan's argument of it being on impulse. An impulse to make these changes to protect the course (because they think it needs protecting) from low scores given the recent tournament rounds there.

Additionally, I'm sure they were reasoned and principled given whatever reason and principles they've chosen to adhere to, but that is a different set than many on this site share. Obviously that is up for debate, but I think many, including Huggan, believe that the changes were unnecessary. So Huggan believes that the changes were impulse driven and unnecessary. This does not seem so far off from this definition of "arbitrarily" to me.

[Niall C]

Alex

You're right to pick me up on playing the definition game and I take your point. My point was to play down the "John Huggan as guru" type reaction to his column. For the record, I enjoy reading his stuff, for one thing he is one of the few writers in the mainstream press who deal with golf course architecture, although very often his diatrbes aren't that well thought out no matter how entertaining they are. Which is how I view him, he's about entertainment rather than enlightenment. I would also say the anti-R&A rants are becoming very wearisome.

Back to the main point you make about definition, you can argue about whether the changes are necessary and I think that really goes to the heart of the debate but impulse driven ? Thats totally at odds with the process of hiring a consultant and consulting with the local clubs before reaching a decision. I just can't see how the decision to make they changes they are could be termed impulsive.

Niall

Niall

[Ulrich Mayring]

The decision "we must change the course, because it is not hard enough" was impulse driven and that is, I believe, the gist of the criticism. The second problem I see is that Mr Dawson says things like "I don't understand these bunkers" or "this green was too easy". He makes it sound like he personally is evaluating the architecture - essentially "playing chief golf course architect".

Ulrich