[Jud_T]

Rich,

Would you be equally agnostic if Prestwick or North Berwick underwent significant changes?

[Niall C]

Mark, Bob, Ally and anyone else ready to give Peter Dawson sole blame/credit for the changes,

In possibly another thread in what seems like a lifetime away, someone posted a link to the Links Trusts annual report and accounts for 2010. I'd urge anyone involved in this discussion on either side to go find the link and have a read. It gives an insight into the Links responsibilities and how they go about discharging their duties. It doesn't seem to me from reading the report that they treat their duties lightly.

In the case of managing the course, that is done by the Links Management Committee which consists of 3 members of the Links Trust, 3 members from the R&A and the local MP who it would be reasonable to assume is their specifically to look after the interests of the locals. Now I've no idea whether Peter Dawson is on the Championship Committee of the R&A and whether he is one of the 3 R&A members of the Links Management Committee but even if he were he is one voice among many. And while he might be the Chief Exec of the R&A the Championship Committee (I believe, someone correct me if I'm wrong) is made up of R&A members or in other words shareholders of the R&A. Not only shareholders but individuals who it can be assumed who have a love of the game, knowledge of the game and the capability to make their own decisions.

Now does anyone seriously believe that Peter Dawson managed to hoodwink all these individuals into agreeing to some preconceived masterplan of his own making or even that he somehow had the guiding hand in determining what changes should take place ? To my mind Dawson is probably more an administrator rather than a policy maker.

The truth of the matter is that the decisions on the changes was a Committee decision and like a lot of committee decisions their would likely have been a degree of compromise and no doubt different reasons for arriving at a decision. Therefore nitpicking over the words of the spokesperson seems wasted effort.

Niall    

[Jud_T]

Niall,

Notice anything relevant?:

[Rich Goodale]

Rich,

Would you be equally agnostic if Prestwick or North Berwick underwent significant changes?

Both NB and Prestwick could use some modern gca botox (IMHO, JUD), but if they limited what they did to something similarly trivial relative to what TOC is doing I doubt if any of us would be able to tell the difference, if not forewarned and pre-judged (as we have in the TOC situation).

[Jud_T]

Rich,

I just think it's an interesting comparison.  Since the $$$'s and Majors aren't an issue at NB and PW, would they even consider some of the changes that are going on at TOC?  I think not, which throws into relief the real issues at work...

[Niall C]

Jud

No

Niall

[Jud_T]

Niall,

It's lonely at the top.  Regardless of the committee process, Dawson is the man in charge.  Therefore, he gets the glory for their successes and catches the flack for their mistakes.  That's why they pay him the big R&A bucks... 

[Niall C]

I'd like to add another point for consideration regarding change. It has been brought up but never directly.

Much of the argument on this thread has been about how much change there has been, what it was etc... etc... We know that some of the greens were "built"... 17 & 18 definitely and a few others flattened in areas to create table-tops.... But that DOES NOT MATTER....

It was ALL done prior to the birth of golf course architecture as we know it... Whether the green sites ended up as excellent through natural succession, design or coincidence DOES NOT MATTER.

What those greens have done since is form the blueprint for all good GCA and therefore all golf courses around the world. The subtle bowls and concave shapes that you find at The Old Course are what MacKenzie imitated... In turn they are exactly what Doak imitates... Those shapes are the ones that are important to golf, REGARDLESS of how they arrived on the scene.

(Please excuse the capitals - I'm not shouting at the screen... Really... Also note this puts to one side the method of how that change was decided upon and communicated... Plenty more threads for that)

Ally

You're clearly enamoured with the state of golf course architecture as it is now, or at least with the work of certain architects. Do you believe we have now reached a high point of gca and that we can go no higher ? Don't you think we can evolve further and if so how do we do that if we continue to advocate no change out of principle.

Niall

[Niall C]

Jud

Peter Dawson works for the R&A, while its the Links Trust that has a statutory duty to manage the affairs of the course by way of a special act of Parliament. None of your fantasing will change that. For you to continue to hold Dawson personally responsible is akin to the average 3 year old blaming Santa Claus for an unwanted present.

BTW, a recent report pointed out that about 3,000 bureaucrats in the European Union earn more than the UK Prime Minister. In that vein I suspect that Peter Dawson earns about as much as the manager of the local biscuit factory.

Niall

[Mark Bourgeois]

Niall

I'm trying but it's sooo much easier to write 'Peter Dawson' than 'Peter Dawson, Martin Hawtree, the trustees of the Links Trust, the Links Trust Management Committee and input / direction from the R&A Championship Committee, with a possible assist from Gordon Moir.'

'Peter Dawson' = Pareto optimal, just like 'The White House', 'Elysee Palace', 'John Bull', &c &c.

Mark

[Niall C]

Mark

Thats just my point. A lot of the objection has been about the way it was gone about. By personalising it you are belittling the process and yet you don't put forward an alternative method of deciding on changes. Assuming you would at least consdier changes to TOC, how would suggest the decision be made /

Niall

[Mark Bourgeois]

Oh that's easy. Just follow the 2009 Jubilee process. That would be a good start.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich,

I just think it's an interesting comparison.  Since the $$$'s and Majors aren't an issue at NB and PW, would they even consider some of the changes that are going on at TOC, for instance moving the bunkers at 2?  I think not, which throws into relief the real issues at work...

Jud

The bunkers removed on #2 at St. Andrews were irrelevant and had been so for over a century.  The new ones are a vast improvement, strategically.  Nostagically, well that's your call....

North Berwick had some similar ones 10 or so years ago on the left of their 9th (par 5) and they removed them and built new bunkers more centre-line and farther forward to challenge the better player more.  I'm not a real fan of the new ones (more in terms of design than placement), but I don't get my knickers in a twist about what they did--I just get on with it and play the hole as best I can.

As for Prestwick, I know it less well and can't remember any recent changes but IF they wanted (say) to bulldoze the ridge on the 17th (Alps) to give you some view of the green I'd say, "Hold on there, Pilgrim, what do you think you are doing?!"  Alternatively, if they wanted to re-bunker the entire 18th hole (which is a disaster with no signfiicant architectural history) I'd say "Go for it, Girl"

It all depends.

[Rich Goodale]

Oh that's easy. Just follow the 2009 Jubilee process. That would be a good start.

What intrigues me is why they even had a "Jubilee process?"  It was and still is a very medicore course, which has had a checkered past and lots of recent cosmetic surgery,  My guess is that being cheap and cheerful had much more direct relevance to the locals than the Old Course, and the "process" was more cosmetic than substantive.  Of course I could be wrong....

[Mark Bourgeois]

When reading a lot of the posts (not all) I become quite intrigued by the language used. Superlatives and hyperbole are rolled out with too much ease and too little thought. A mild example was from Mark Bourgeois who said the 11th green had been 'flattened', when I would say the slope has been reduced. The green is certainly not flat. (sorry to pick on you Mark, but it was still on my mind). More commonly it is the absolute statements, ie. 'The golf course has never been changed' that create the problems. This can lead to better debates, but less enlightening ones.

Hi Scott

Pick away, pick away, I enjoy word discussions. My use of 'flattened' is not dysphemism (derogatory term used in place of neutral term) but an accurate description of the work.

From the OED: flatten 4. a. intr. for refl. To become flat, or more flat; to lose convexity or protuberance

Mark

PS Rich re 'The new ones are a vast improvement, strategically': didn't you mean to add an 'IMO' ?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Oh that's easy. Just follow the 2009 Jubilee process. That would be a good start.

What intrigues me is why they even had a "Jubilee process?"  It was and still is a very medicore course, which has had a checkered past and lots of recent cosmetic surgery,  My guess is that being cheap and cheerful had much more direct relevance to the locals than the Old Course, and the "process" was more cosmetic than substantive.  Of course I could be wrong....

Well, Rich, it could be that in the two cases we are discussing different organizations were involved. Or more to the point, one organization involved in changes to TOC is not involved in changes to other courses on the Pilmour Links.

[Sven Nilsen]

After following this thread from its genesis, I find the lack of discussion regarding the merits of preservation a bit troubling.  There are different ways a course can be altered by man, and you can break those down into two camps - changes meant to dictate a course/method/style of play and changes that have no real golf purpose.

Here's one take from another thread:

"In the words of Alistair Mackenzie:  "I believe the real reason St. Andrews Old Course is infinitely superior to anything else is owing to the fact that it was constructed when no one knew anything about the subject at all, and since then it has been considered too sacred to touch.  What a pity it is that the natural advantages of many seaside courses have been neutralised by bad designing and construction work!"

I read this as Mackenzie's thought that there are lessons to be learned at TOC about the use of natural contours (or at least contours that were created with no "inherent golf theory" in mind).  The land is what it is, and it is up to the golfer to figure out how to negotiate their way over it.  He suggests that when man touches the land in a way to try to dictate a course of play to the golfer, much of the interest of the game is lost.

It is a thought that perhaps is the anti-thesis of most golfers concepts of golf course architecture."

My question for Scott is how many of the changes you note in your book were done in an attempt to dictate strategy (or an inherent golf theory)?  If the answer is very few, I find it hard to accept that a history of these types of changes exists.

[Rich Goodale]

When reading a lot of the posts (not all) I become quite intrigued by the language used. Superlatives and hyperbole are rolled out with too much ease and too little thought. A mild example was from Mark Bourgeois who said the 11th green had been 'flattened', when I would say the slope has been reduced. The green is certainly not flat. (sorry to pick on you Mark, but it was still on my mind). More commonly it is the absolute statements, ie. 'The golf course has never been changed' that create the problems. This can lead to better debates, but less enlightening ones.

Hi Scott

Pick away, pick away, I enjoy word discussions. My use of 'flattened' is not dysphemism (derogatory term used in place of neutral term) but an accurate description of the work.

From the OED: flatten 4. a. intr. for refl. To become flat, or more flat; to lose convexity or protuberance

Mark

PS Rich re 'The new ones are a vast improvement, strategically': didn't you mean to add an 'IMO' ?

Not really Mark.  I'm tired of pretending that I might not be right.

Rich

PS--there must be a fancy work for saying something you don't really mean in order to make the person to whom you are saying it feel proud (if deservedly humble) and humble (if deservedly proud) but my Greek/Latin App is on the Fritz.  Help me, buckaroo!

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'd like to add another point for consideration regarding change. It has been brought up but never directly.

Much of the argument on this thread has been about how much change there has been, what it was etc... etc... We know that some of the greens were "built"... 17 & 18 definitely and a few others flattened in areas to create table-tops.... But that DOES NOT MATTER....

It was ALL done prior to the birth of golf course architecture as we know it... Whether the green sites ended up as excellent through natural succession, design or coincidence DOES NOT MATTER.

What those greens have done since is form the blueprint for all good GCA and therefore all golf courses around the world. The subtle bowls and concave shapes that you find at The Old Course are what MacKenzie imitated... In turn they are exactly what Doak imitates... Those shapes are the ones that are important to golf, REGARDLESS of how they arrived on the scene.

(Please excuse the capitals - I'm not shouting at the screen... Really... Also note this puts to one side the method of how that change was decided upon and communicated... Plenty more threads for that)

Ally

You're clearly enamoured with the state of golf course architecture as it is now, or at least with the work of certain architects. Do you believe we have now reached a high point of gca and that we can go no higher ? Don't you think we can evolve further and if so how do we do that if we continue to advocate no change out of principle.

Niall

What does this even mean? EDIT - I typed something to you and Rich and have now deleted. Why bother when everything I write just gets backed in to a corner. You've both clearly misunderstood why I believe The Old Course deserves to be treated slightly differently with regards to change. That is fine but I will now stop posting about it. Much better served to action outside a public forum.

[Scott Macpherson]

[/quote]

Hi Scott

Pick away, pick away, I enjoy word discussions. My use of 'flattened' is not dysphemism (derogatory term used in place of neutral term) but an accurate description of the work.

From the OED: flatten 4. a. intr. for refl. To become flat, or more flat; to lose convexity or protuberance

Mark

[/quote]


HI Mark, Ok you are first reserve on my scrabble team. If Dr Johnson pulls out, you're in.

But just to clarify, you say it's an accurate description... which part of the OED definition is accurate? The first part isn't... (ie. 'To become flat') and that's the part I was thought you were meaning...   (hence my suggestion to 'reduce the slope'. Hard to misinterpret that.)

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi Sven,

Welcome to this wild thread. I am sorry there is less discussion about the merits of preservation on this thread. I can only offer the explanation that this thread is not really about that???

As for your thoughtful question, 'how many of the changes you note in your book were done in an attempt to dictate strategy (or an inherent golf theory)?'

My answer is few. If we exclude the new 1st and 18th greens, and all the incarnations of the road hole bunkers, and the change to the back of the 17th green, and the addition of Boase's bunker, we are left with the addition of all the bunkers down two, three, four and six, (which I argue are penal and not strategic) and all the movement of the tees. Now, they introduce some element of confusion because now the strategy of playing the course starts changing. That is a longer dissertation, but I have always felt that the great play strategies of TOC are down the central corridors, and few of these have changed.

Of the changes the changes that have taken place this winter, only the change to the 2nd hole have impacted the play strategy. On the 11th hole you still play to the middle of the green (unless you're really desperate), and the road hole bunker has not really changed.

Hope that helps.

Scott

[Mark Pearce]

Hi Adam,

Yes, I am sure there a few locals unhappy, but the local golf Clubs were approached prior to the changes being announced. It seems excessive and impractical to have some type of referendum on this issue. The Clubs should be able to represent their members. Certainly my club – the St Andrews Golf Club – can represent me.

Scott

that's interesting, Scott.  Dawson has been vague, to put it mildly, about what (if anything) was said to the local clubs.  Do you have more information about that?

[Jon Wiggett]

I do not an issue with who decided it and who was/was not consulted. The local clubs have the playing rights for TOC but are not owners of it and as such I am not of the opinion there is any right of power for them. Indeed, the Links Trust has the legal requirement to look after the links and as such the right to alter. It is more the reasons why the changes are been made that I find disturbing.

Jon

[Sven Nilsen]

Scott:

Isn't the concept of preservation the simple dividing line in this entire debate, and if it is, shouldn't it be the focus on every discussion on every thread?  Take away the "histrionics" regarding the approval process or the way in which the changes were announced, and you're left with a simple debate about whether or not there is something inherent in the land that comprises The Old Course or how golf is played on that land that is worthy of preservation.  To me, its not a question of preserving the land as it is, its a question of preserving the way the game is played over that land, or to be more succinct, the way that the golfer can choose to play over the land.  

If you agree with Mackenzie's take on the "value" of the course, than any change that alters existing contours or features in an effort to dictate a way to play a hole, play to a certain pin or avoid a certain area is in direct conflict with what The Old Course offers, represents and teaches us as a playing field for golf.  

Its this idea of a course that wasn't designed or built, the thought of playing the land as you find it, that I believe is the essence of St. Andrew's - it is great due to its idiosyncracies, its foibles, its randomness and its blemishes.  With respect to changes to the course, it is not a bright line test of whether or not a change was made.  It should be an in depth examination of the reasons for each and every alteration, and whether or not they run counter to the essence of the course.  

Its also not a question of preserving a moment in time, or treating the course like a museum piece.  The land changes, the ball and clubs change and maintenance abilities change.  There may be certain changes that have taken place over the years (and certain changes proposed in this latest round) that address this evolution in a way that preserves the essence of the course.  But it sure seems to me that the bulk of the changes proposed today do not fall in line with this thought.  

I quote Peter Dawson:  "What you have to do absolutely as a top priority is preserve what the course is all about and what its essential strategy is."  I, for one, do not think that he and Alistair Mackenzie would necessarily agree as to exactly what is meant by "what the course is all about."

All the best,

Sven

[Don_Mahaffey]

Scott:

Isn't the concept of preservation the simple dividing line in this entire debate, and if it is, shouldn't it be the focus on every discussion on every thread?  Take away the "histrionics" regarding the approval process or the way in which the changes were announced, and you're left with a simple debate about whether or not there is something inherent in the land that comprises The Old Course or how golf is played on that land that is worthy of preservation.  To me, its not a question of preserving the land as it is, its a question of preserving the way the game is played over that land, or to be more succinct, the way that the golfer can choose to play over the land.  

If you agree with Mackenzie's take on the "value" of the course, than any change that alters existing contours or features in an effort to dictate a way to play a hole, play to a certain pin or avoid a certain area is in direct conflict with what The Old Course offers, represents and teaches us as a playing field for golf.  

Its this idea of a course that wasn't designed or built, the thought of playing the land as you find it, that I believe is the essence of St. Andrew's - it is great due to its idiosyncracies, its foibles, its randomness and its blemishes.  With respect to changes to the course, it is not a bright line test of whether or not a change was made.  It should be an in depth examination of the reasons for each and every alteration, and whether or not they run counter to the essence of the course...  

Thank you

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()