TOC- Periods of Change

[BCrosby]

Adam -

Low, in a piece he wrote for the 1907 Nisbet's, probably actually written the year before, talks about Fowler proposing some new bunkers. See the end of the essay. The piece is called  'St Andrews Bunkers Old and New'.

There are also references in the British GI to Fowler doing "work" on TOC in 1906 or 07. I don't have handy my copies of those BGI references.

It seems that Low, Colt and Fowler were all on the R&A Green Comm at various times pre-WWI. They were also all on the Committee on the Rules from time to time, though Low was on Rules continuously from 1897 to 1921, becoming chairman in 1913.

Bob

[Scott Macpherson]

Niall,

You comment is an interesting one. The 11th green be the subject of a few events. It used to be a very sandy green apparently and it was very difficult to keep a 'hole' there. So Old Tom made a hole cup and inserted it to stop the sand from filling in the hole. That was the first cup used on TOC. You may also know that they have already completed the adjustment to the 11th green. It start on Monday and the turf started going back down on Thursday. Apparently they found a 'dark layer' about a 'couple of cm' thick under some of the turf. I can't remember how deep the layer was beneath the surface, but maybe 15cm (??) and nobody knows quite when or how it formed. Perhaps this was when Old Tom and his assistant (Hamilton) top dressed with a form of organic matter (e.g. peat) on the greens to improve the sands??? I hope the Links Trust do some research on this.

Jeff,

I was trying to softly suggest that contours have been changed. In my first post I talk of a number of greens be 'relaid' It is entirely possible some contours could have also changed at this time. But one change I am pretty certain of is on the famed 17th. I will quote Golf Illustrated in 1907 '"We understand the green has since been enlarged or banked up on the side nearest the road...' and in 1928 "the hollow at the 6th hole raised and returfed."

In my opinion it would be incorrect to say that no contours had changed on TOC since 1870.

Scott

[Tom_Doak]

Scott:  Two questions.

Do you think these renovations are being properly pursued or not?

If not, then why do you keep trying to find some sort of historical justification for it?

You seem to want to have it both ways.

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi Tom,

When doing my original research I came to understand that TOC had changed far more than I have imagined. That discovery broke the tenet I had always understood, and I found it to be quite an unsettling moment. Once I had absorbed the facts it dawned on me that due to these periods of change, that those in control of the links (i.e The Links Trust or R&A) would have historical justification to make changes to the course in the future. In the only section of the book in which I took the liberty of offering opinion (Chapter 7, 'The Years Ahead') that is what I wrote. The last week has been an interesting time of me, because while I wrote that changes could be 'justified', I am not sure I had thought that I would see the day when any were made.  Now that they are, I have found myself thinking about how I relate to them. I seem to have adopted a pragmatic point of view.

So where do I stand today?

1) Personally I don't like the idea of continuously adding of more tees. If the Pros are hitting it that much further, then let's give them a Competition ball that goes maybe 80% of the current distance.
2) I am relaxed about the removal or movement of the pot bunkers added up the outside of holes 2,3,4, and 6. None of them have much value. TOC is great because of the strategic nature of the central corridors, and not these peripheral penal pots.
3) 11th green – I like the idea of having the left hand pin position, but find it hard to imagine I would have endorsed the decision. But having seen the work, I think they have been very careful, and done a nice job. Indeed, I don't think many people will notice the change.
4) 17th Bunker – This bunker has always changed. The last time was about 10 years ago and there are photos of that in my book. I am sure they will do a good job but I hope they don't change the shoulder of the green that pushes out just in front of the bunker. I have always liked that feature.

and connected but separately...

5) Par is a hypothetical number and trying to set up the classic courses to defend it seems bonkers. Let the best players shoot low if they have a good day.

Tom, I am not sure I know what you mean by 'properly pursued'. The R&A and Links Trust see the need for the changes, presumably in response to the challenges the course faces. Having made the effort to go to St Andrews this week and see the changes and talk with Martin Hawtree and the The Links Trust, I think many of these changes are being made for ordinary golfers and not the Pros, so that would be a 'proper pursuit'. It has come to the fore in the last week how little we all know about the evolution of TOC, so I wonder if a longer educational approach might have been more helpful for us, rather than a cold Press Release. But perhaps not.

There is that old saying 'knowledge is power'. As I have contributed to some of these threads, I have chosen to share some of my learnings, or to pose some thoughtful questions – and occasionally be Devils advocate. I wonder if this helps people move from a purely emotional response, to a more learned one. Of course, they may still disagree with the changes, but at least it is with a little more knowledge.

regards,

Scott

[Sean_Tully]

Following all of the hubbub regarding the changes to the Old Course I dug into what I had on the Old Course and found some interesting articles, both written by Horace Hutchinson. The first article from 1905 sets the tone for the work that was recently done to the course and goes hole by hole describing some of the work. He also mentions three reasons the work was undertaken. The second article is from 1906 and relates the changes to the Old Course and how the course played for the 1905 Open. No mention of who signed off on the work and no mention of who prescribed the changes or did the work.

Not knowing all of the specifics, but it should be noted that Old Tom retired midway through the 1903 season and his successor was Hugh Hamilton, recently of North Berwick and some time in Ireland. Old Tom was getting on in age and he would go onto to live another 5 years before he died in 1908. Interesting that the timing could very well be that after he retired the work commenced on the Old Course? Coincidence? Only additional information will tell us what really happened.

Tully

May 19th 1905












Here is a cartoon showing what most of the golfers felt in regards to the new bunkers added to the Old Course!




Here is the 1906 article by HH where he talks of the bunkers a year later.

[Jeff_Mingay]

In my opinion it would be incorrect to say that no contours had changed on TOC since 1870.

Scott

Scott,

I agree with your statement above. But, right or wrong, I think there's a MASSIVE difference between contours changing as a result of evolution/practical greenkeeping and hiring a golf course architect to devise and implement such changes on the Old Course. This seems to be something that's never happened until 2012, right?

[Tom_Doak]

Personally, I don't see how the changes to The Old Course in the late 1800's and in 1907 set a good precedent for continuing to change it today.  The last significant changes were made to the course BEFORE all but a couple of the top 100 courses in the world were even conceived!

I have never pretended in this argument that The Old Course sprang entirely from Nature, but I have yet to see any evidence that anyone before Martin Hawtree has added mounding / undulations to the course, or softened any other.  That's the part of the work that I object to the most.

[Sean_Tully]

Fixed my original post, the whole article is there now, sorry about that.

Tully

[Sean Walsh]

Scott,

This "2) I am relaxed about the removal or movement of the pot bunkers added up the outside of holes 2,3,4, and 6. None of them have much value. TOC is great because of the strategic nature of the central corridors, and not these peripheral penal pots." is a little misleading.

They are not merely removing or moving them to positions adjusted for the extra length.  They are being moved to abut the greens and particularly on the 2nd.  I agree that their removal would not have a large strategic effect.  The manner of their movement, especially on the 2nd, is going to have a huge effect to any right pin (rarely used for pros now) that will drastically change the approach to the hole.

From that wonderful article provided by Sean we see the main reasons for the changes discussed was to recreate lost hazards (i.e bunkers replacing the whins) and to address the ball.  The decision was made to protect the course at the tee and fairway level rather than by tricking up the pin placements.

It is a shame that the modern game now seeks to manage regulatory incompetence by these types of works allied to ridiculous green speeds and cups cut in tricky corners of greens.

[Scott Macpherson]

Tom,

Let me propose a thought, and tell me how you respond to this.

Could the 'broken ground' or 'undulations', call them what you will, that are being proposed to the right of the 2nd green actually be the reinstatement of original contours? We know that links ground was never naturally level – it always had some ripples etc – but that area to the right of the green is now where the 3rd tee is, and IS flat. We can assume it was levelled to make the 3rd tee. I understand the plan is to move the 3rd tee a little right and/or reduce its width thus providing the area to create (recreate) some undulations. Would you buy it if I sold it to you like that?

(Maybe I should pitch for a job in the PR department of the Links Trust!!)

Scott

[Sean Walsh]

Scott,

The ripples are small cheese when compared to the artist's representation of the proposed bunkers for the 2nd.  How do they fit in a historical context? 

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi

I think we can all agree that all the tees have been created on TOC. They have either been built up or made by levelling ground. So these are man-made features.

In regard to the second green, behind the right hand side of the green is the 'winter tee' and to the right is the forward section of the 3rd tee. Both of these have been created. So what contours were lost to make them? Nobody knows. A convincing argument may be able to made to remove the winter tee. Thinking about it, I am surprised they didn't include it in the program.

Sean

It is difficult to interpret from an aerial plan the scale and height of any undulations. I would image however that the undulations will be quite soft and similar to those smaller forms just in front of the green.

regards,

Scott

[Niall C]

Niall,

There's a MASSIVE difference between things (including contour) changing over time, the greenkeeping staff occasionally making some alterations for practical reasons, and hiring a golf course architect to create and implement a renovation plan for the Old Course.

Jeff

Is there really that big a difference, after all both are making planned changes are they not. From what I see greenkeepers in Scotland make  a hell of a lot more changes than you think, the classic example being the changes John Philp made over 20 odd years at Carnoustie. The point I'm making however is that we get hung up on very occasional architect influenced changes when in reality there are other changes going on all the time.

Scott

Re the material below the surface at the 11th, is it possibly a layer of clay to perhapsretain water and stop the green drying out. I believe that was common in green construction on links in the last decade of the 19th century.


Niall

[Mike Nuzzo]

 “The myth that the Old Course hasn’t been changed is nonsense,” he told Golfweek.

Scott why are you responding to the uninformed opinion?
What is your goal?

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi Mike,

I am not sure if a fully understand your question, but if it is straight forward, the answer is to help inform people about the changes.

Scott

[Niall C]

The recent uproar about the work at TOC and the various threads on here lead me to have another read through my Jarret and Mason and they refer to a contemporary newspaper account of the 1850's talking about all the greens being overhauled and re-turfed. Its inconceivable to me therefore that any of these greens are as per the original contours.

There's also an interesting photo of the road hole bunker from front left with what looks like a large mound in the foreground. The photo is dated 1890's from memory. Again looks like fairly substantial changes there. And as Scott says flat areas near greens are likley to be man made tees.

Niall

[Mark Bourgeois]

Peter Dawson says the current / planned changes are the most significant in a century, a point agreed by those opposed to some of the changes.

Scott & Niall, are both sides incorrect in this assertion?

[Niall C]

Mark

No idea. Couldn't begin to say what's been done since 1912 since I've yet to fork out for Scott's book but one day.........

Niall

[Scott Macpherson]

Niall,

In the spirit of Christmas, and to advance the circle of knowledge....I have a few author copies of my book, and I will send them to any GCA member for £20. (RRP£45) If you are in the UK, postage is included for £20, if you are in the USA, the price will have to be £30 (inc postage).

Just email me.

Scott

[Mike Nuzzo]

Scott
Kind offer, thank you.

There have been at least two types of arguments against change.
Some uninformed have said you can't change it because it hasn't changed.
Tom D's argument has been the contours shouldn't be changed (for a number of different reasons).

By you responding to the uninformed argument, and the tone and posture of your words, you are taking the Links Trust side of the argument.
And may be convincing some that the changes are ok.

Whose side are you on?
The Links Trust or Doak's?

Cheers

[Scott Macpherson]

HI Mike,

I laid my cards out in 2007. In the book, (which I look forward to sending to you), I said the R&A/Links Trust would be historically justified in making changes to TOC because it has been changed in the past. This is an uncomfortable truth for some.

Niall picks up on the relaying/re-turfing of some greens. 7 different greens had this work on them in 1904. I share his conclusion that it is hard to imagine that some contours did not change during that work. In addition, we know on the 17th green the green was 'bank-up' on the roadside in 1905, a hollow was filled in front of the 2nd tees in 1910, a 'hollow at the 6th hole raised and returfed' in 1924. On these facts, we can agreed that contours have been changed.

You know, I agree with Tom in many regards. I am not a natural contrarian, but the we differ on the use of the word 'preserving' when it comes to a golf course. (I save that for Jam making)

Ron Whitten has written an article in Golf Digest. Has anyone seen it? Is he the first Senior writer at a major magazine to take a view opposing Tom? Here is a link:

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2012-11/old-course-changes-whitten


Scott

[Mark Bourgeois]

Scott,

A very generous offer. As you may recall, when the book came out I hectored you until you shipped a copy to me all the way from NZ!

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming:

It seems you're justifying the current changes to contour and bunker relocations (note: who cares about bunker rebuilds and tee construction) as legitimate simply because similar changes occurred -- or may have occurred --  a century or so ago.

Yet 100 years ago the profession of golf architecture was aborning, the principles of golf architecture established today were being written / understood, and TOC did not serve as the 'wellspring' it came to provide via the works of Charles Blair Macdonald, Alister Mackenzie, and others. Furthermore, the gap between amateur and professional golfers was not such that the two could be said to be playing different games.

Do the qualitative aspects of change carry no weight?

Mark

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi Mark,

That's a thought provoking question. The answer is yes, I believe they do. I guess my push in this discussion has been primarily to try and help people move from the 'The Old Course has never changed' mentality. Only then can we discuss the questions like yours that pertain to the course, its value as a championship venue, the changing aspects of its strategy (as the tees have moved back and to the right), and it worth as a historic place. Far more interesting things...

Scott

[Jud_T]

Ron Whitten, pragmatist.  I think after moving three teaspoons of dirt initially at Erin Hills and seeing it go under the knife two or three times in short order he needs electro-shock therapy.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Scott,

A very generous offer. As you may recall, when the book came out I hectored you until you shipped a copy to me all the way from NZ!

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming:

It seems you're justifying the current changes to contour and bunker relocations (note: who cares about bunker rebuilds and tee construction) as legitimate simply because similar changes occurred -- or may have occurred --  a century or so ago.

Yet 100 years ago the profession of golf architecture was aborning, the principles of golf architecture established today were being written / understood, and TOC did not serve as the 'wellspring' it came to provide via the works of Charles Blair Macdonald, Alister Mackenzie, and others. Furthermore, the gap between amateur and professional golfers was not such that the two could be said to be playing different games.

Do the qualitative aspects of change carry no weight?

Mark

Mark I think you can go further with this. 100 years ago the R&A was the meeting place for those architects.  There's the famous painting from 1894 which includes Old Tom Morris, Harry Colt and Fowler (standing near to each other), Lowe, Mure Ferguson etc etc. potrayed in front of the R&A.

http://tinyurl.com/c6yygyo


It is impossible to imagine they didn’t' discus the special qualities of TOC and what improvements might be made.  10 or more years after the picture a fsmall no of considered changes were made by figures we now know to have been giants of the art. Opinion is divded about how successful those changes were.

I have yet to read anything that suggests to me the current changes are the result of discussion between any more than 2 men, both have been around the block but they have yet to really distinguish themselves as architects.