TOC- Periods of Change

[Leo Barber]

Scott

I have been very bust since this whole debate erupted and as such have been unable to fully follow it on GCA in detail.  I am thankful that with some time tonight I have been able to follow your thread and the rational proposition that you have put forward.  Appreciate your insight and practical wisdom.  Think I have read enough now that posters are pulling out the dictionary and defining terms haha.  Great to have your input on GCA

[Niall C]

Ally

No attempt on my part to back you into a corner or trip you up but just a genuine interest in your comments. What I inferred, rightly or wrongly, was that you considered there was a before (pre WWI or pre 1900 ?) and after in golf course architecture and that what went before was of little value. Yet you and MacKenzie as quoted by Sven elsewhere on this thread, seem to consider the "after" in golf course design was based on TOC which clearly is a product of the "before" school of design. That to me sounds like a bit of a contradiction unless perhaps you consider that the brilliance of the "design" of TOC is down to luck or happenstance and that Old Tom didn't know what he was doing. I'm projecting there and have no idea if that is indeed your view but if it is I think it more than a bit harsh on the likes of Old Tom.

Niall

[Jud_T]

Niall,

Exactly what earth was moved by Old Tom aside from digging bunkers? 

[Rich Goodale]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32398.0.html

An older thread which may be of interest to all the participants in this discussion.

[Niall C]

Jud,

Scott Macpherson is doing a fantastic deal on his book at the moment and if you invest, as I'm doing, then I'm sure we'll both have a better idea of the answer to your question. Let me just say this however, from the Jarret book a local contemporary newspaper account spoke of the greens being overhauled and returfed in the 1850's which would have been before Old Tom's time. The book also has a photo of the road hole bunker from the 1890's if memory serves me right. The photo shows a fairly high bank in front of the bunker which isn't there now. Reasonable to assume it was moved in Old Tom's time. Just a couple of for instances.

If Melvyn was still on here he would no doubt regale you with tales of Old Toms 20 year battle against the elements to stop the 11th green being washed away and the amount of spade work that was involved. Also the much quoted Dr MacKenzie referred to the Old Course being constructed rather than laid out which I think shows not only how terminology changed over time but also explicitly (IMO) acknowledges the hand of man.

Niall

[BCrosby]

There were enormous changes made to TOC pre-1920 or so. It was changed from 22 to  18 holes circa 1780. All during the 18th century major changes were made to the course.

All of which is quite interesting. But I'm not following its relevance to the current debate. That OTM made changes in the 1880's means that Dawson can have his go at the course too? That if TOC was once changed, there can be in principle no objections to further changes? That we have a course that was not changed in any material way since the mid-1920's means that it shouldn't be used as a reference point because, you see, Alan Robertson and OTM made changes in the 1800's?

If your answer to any one of those questions is"yes", I not only disagree with you. I am baffled.

Bob

  

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

Darwin has a handle on it in just a few words from Country Life 1938
"…the Old Course is a sacred and immutable monument, not, to any serious extent, to be touched."

Thank you Bernardo, thank you Rich!

Cheers Colin

[BCrosby]

Colin -

The full Bernado quotation is even better. It goes:

"…the Old Course is a sacred and immutable monument, not, to any serious extent, to be touched. It is still a great course, but it grows a little short for the great hitters, and, if the ball goes farther still, it will be too short. Whatever happens, and whether championships are played on it forever or whether not, it must be kept more or less as it is."

Bob

[Niall C]

Bob

I'll forgo my usual defence of Peter Dawson as I'm quite sure you know well enough that the decision to proceed with these changes was a collaborative decision, which very likely Dawson had little to do with directly, on the basis that your objection is to any changes being made at all whoever planned them.

You say you're baffled that the Old Course has evolved being used as an argument against no changes because presumably you believe it some sort of historical artefact, and you then go on to say that there has been no material changes since the mid 1920's and that there should be no changes now. That rather begs the question as to why the mid 1920's should be the reference point for no more change and what was so significant then that halted the evolutionary change of the course if indeed it did halt.

I could also question whether the changes been done at the moment are largely any more material than other changes over the years with the exception perhaps of the bunkering at the second. For instance the changes to the 17th bunker and surround clearly aren't the first time its been touched and as for the 11th green its only putting back what greenkeeping advances had taken away.

I suspect we may just have to remain baffled at each others respective viewpoints.

Colin

The operative words are "not, to any serious extent". I wonder if these ODG who actually played the left hand pin position on the 11th on a regular basis might not be applauding the change if they were still alive and well. I also wonder if they would be calling for a roll back in green speeds to bring it back into play without touching the green. It occurs to me that like Old Tom who was never scared to embrace new technology, that MacKenzie and the like might conclude that the change at 11th was a natural consequence of greenkeeping improvements, something that MacKenzie was certainly keen on.

Niall

[Mark Bourgeois]

Niall

Could you share your view of Dawson's responsibility for and accountability to the changes, and why he alone speaks for the changes and not the chairman or chief executive of the Links Trust, the chairman of the LMC, and / or the chairman of the R&A comp cmte?

Why do we hear only from the man who as you accurately and helpfully note has zero authority, zero votes, over the changes? Who has not the power to change so much as a mower blade on the links?

And why does he seem to know so much about the changes, when he has zero standing, zero authority, with the LT and LMC? How does he find out so much when his fellow citizens, the public, aren't able to?

And why does he, in his public comments, speak of all this work Hawtree has done at other rota courses, as though there's some sort of connection between his being hired at a public course like St Andrews and at all these private clubs elesewhere?

By what authority does Dawson have the right to speak at all? Is he just stealing other people's credit? I f he has no standing, shouldn't he just shut up? Isn't it morally wrong for him, by speaking for the changes, to mislead the people into thinking he has authority over those changes?

And lastly, having established these facts, why aren't the Links Trust bringing action against him?

[Scott Macpherson]

Bob,

Just to help, if you want to pick a date when that period of significant changes came to a close, I would suggest that the mid-1930's would be more accurate than the mid-1920s.

Scott

  

[Rick Shefchik]

"…the Old Course is a sacred and immutable monument, not, to any serious extent, to be touched. It is still a great course, but it grows a little short for the great hitters, and, if the ball goes farther still, it will be too short. Whatever happens, and whether championships are played on it forever or whether not, it must be kept more or less as it is."

What kind of know-nothing hack would write this kind of drivel? Boy, they sure were dumb back in 1938.

[Scott Macpherson]

"…the Old Course is a sacred and immutable monument, not, to any serious extent, to be touched. It is still a great course, but it grows a little short for the great hitters, and, if the ball goes farther still, it will be too short. Whatever happens, and whether championships are played on it forever or whether not, it must be kept more or less as it is."

From what I can piece together, Darwin wrote these words just after about an 8 year period of changes to TOC. Changes that, in terms of scope, impact and significance, compare fairly equally with the current set of changes.

Maybe the current doyen of golf literature will write a similar pronouncement after the 2015 Open Championship, and the passage will be reflected on in future decades by those paying homage to TOC?

Scott

[Sven Nilsen]

Scott:

Isn't there the possibility that Darwin's comments were in response to those changes?

Sven

[Rick Shefchik]

"…the Old Course is a sacred and immutable monument, not, to any serious extent, to be touched. It is still a great course, but it grows a little short for the great hitters, and, if the ball goes farther still, it will be too short. Whatever happens, and whether championships are played on it forever or whether not, it must be kept more or less as it is."

From what I can piece together, Darwin wrote these words just after about an 8 year period of changes to TOC. Changes that, in terms of scope, impact and significance, compare fairly equally with the current set of changes.

Maybe the current doyen of golf literature will write a similar pronouncement after the 2015 Open Championship, and the passage will be reflected on in future decades by those paying homage to TOC?

Scott

Yes, and on and on, chasing some future point of perfection that can never be attained nor held onto.

Scott, you state your approval of the current set of changes reasonably and calmly. I appreciate that, but I truly don't understand what you want. Measured, steady, prudent, constant alteration to what Bernard Darwin called sacred, until whatever it was he valued so highly 80 years ago is completely gone, aside from a picked-over skeleton? That is inevitably where all this is headed -- death by a million paper cuts.

[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?

Scott,

Any chance of an answer?  Your knowledge of the "approach" to the local clubs would be extremely interesting.

[Gary Slatter]

Bob

I'll forgo my usual defence of Peter Dawson as I'm quite sure you know well enough that the decision to proceed with these changes was a collaborative decision, which very likely Dawson had little to do with directly, on the basis that your objection is to any changes being made at all whoever planned them.

You say you're baffled that the Old Course has evolved being used as an argument against no changes because presumably you believe it some sort of historical artefact, and you then go on to say that there has been no material changes since the mid 1920's and that there should be no changes now. That rather begs the question as to why the mid 1920's should be the reference point for no more change and what was so significant then that halted the evolutionary change of the course if indeed it did halt.

I could also question whether the changes been done at the moment are largely any more material than other changes over the years with the exception perhaps of the bunkering at the second. For instance the changes to the 17th bunker and surround clearly aren't the first time its been touched and as for the 11th green its only putting back what greenkeeping advances had taken away.

I suspect we may just have to remain baffled at each others respective viewpoints.

Colin

The operative words are "not, to any serious extent". I wonder if these ODG who actually played the left hand pin position on the 11th on a regular basis might not be applauding the change if they were still alive and well. I also wonder if they would be calling for a roll back in green speeds to bring it back into play without touching the green. It occurs to me that like Old Tom who was never scared to embrace new technology, that MacKenzie and the like might conclude that the change at 11th was a natural consequence of greenkeeping improvements, something that MacKenzie was certainly keen on.

Niall

Niall, with all due respect for you and Secretary Dawson, do you really believe ANYONE else but Dawson (and Moir) recommended the changes?    The R&A members that I know are terrified by the Secretary.

[Mark Pearce]

I'll forgo my usual defence of Peter Dawson as I'm quite sure you know well enough that the decision to proceed with these changes was a collaborative decision, which very likely Dawson had little to do with directly, on the basis that your objection is to any changes being made at all whoever planned them.

Niall,

We know such thing.  If you have any real insight into the process that took place and who did what, please share it.

Actually, scratch that.  You and I both know you have no such knowledge and your defence of Peter Dawson is based on assumptions you have made and snippets from his self-contradictory statements.  Neither you or I, nor anyone else on this board knows how these decisions were taken because no real information has been made public.  Scott MacPherson appears to have some knowledge about the approach to the local clubs but, so far, isn't sharing.

Dawson is in a position of power and played at least some role in these changes.  He is also the only spokesman for them, despite not being a member of the Links Trust.  It is nonsense to suggest he played no role in them, even on his own inconsistent account and seems likely that he played a very significant role in pushing them through.

I remain bemused by the ferocity with which you fight Mr Dawson's corner.

[Niall C]

Mark P

I think it would be more accurate to say that I'm fighting Mr Dawsons corner steadfastly rather than ferociously. The reason I do is because I think it's important to  establish the validity of the process and counter those that because they don't agree with the changes they try to rubbish them by attacking the process and the people involved rather than discussing the changes themselves.

You are correct in that I don't know the exact process and exactly what went on (as I've stated elsewhere BTW) but then neither does anyone else on this site. I've made my assumptions and so have many others, and given what I do know from Links Trust information I'm content that I've got the gist of it.

Mark B

My basic understanding is that anything to do with the management and upkeep of TOC including any changes is dealt with by way of the Links Management Committee which consists of 7 members, 3 of which are from the Links Trust, 3 from the R&A and the last being the local MP who at the moment is Ming Campbell. I believe you know all that already.

The R&A's thoughts on any changes would appear to have originated from the R&A's Championship Committee. Whether any of the 3 R&A members on the Links Management Committee are on the Championship Committee and whether either includes Peter Dawson, I don't know. I'd actually be surprised if Peter Dawson was on either but could be wrong but I find it inconceivable that he initiated or decided on the changes. From comments elsewhere on this site I understand that Martin Ebert is on the Championship Committee. Whoever is on the Championship Committee I'm sure they are very capable people who likely in their day jobs had positions of authority and responsibility, and more than capable of reaching their own decisions particularly with the professional input (Martin Hawtree).

Even if you somehow accept that Dawson runs the Championship Committee like some 3rd world dictator, he would still need to reach an agreement with the Links Trust and Ming Campbell to get "his" changes through. I'm sure the Links Trust would have their own cares and concerns so at the very least there would need to be some compromise which is generally the case with collaborative exercises. I can well believe that Dawson is a very effective manager and administrator it impossible to believe he played any more than a bit part in agreeing these changes.

Why is he fronting up the PR ? Thats part of his remit is it not ? No journalist in the world wants to know how the changes will play for you and me, they all want to know what effect it will have on Rory and Tiger, and thats where the spokesperson of the R&A who run the Open comes into it. Fairly obvious is it not ?

Niall   

[Niall C]

"…the Old Course is a sacred and immutable monument, not, to any serious extent, to be touched. It is still a great course, but it grows a little short for the great hitters, and, if the ball goes farther still, it will be too short. Whatever happens, and whether championships are played on it forever or whether not, it must be kept more or less as it is."

What kind of know-nothing hack would write this kind of drivel? Boy, they sure were dumb back in 1938.

Rick

Do you not think the beauty of Darwins writing was in it prose rather than the content ? He wasn't always the most perceptive although he could conjure up some wonderful images.

Re your comment to Scott re constant changes resulting in what we had 80 years ago eventually disappearing. In a sense it already has in that greenkeeping practices have moved on as has equipment changes such that its a different game from back then. MacKenzie has been quoted on here an awful lot regarding TOC, however from what I've read I feel he would have applauded the advances being made in greenkeeping, changes that have made it impractical to have the left hand pin position fro example. I'm projecting here but I strongly suspect the good Doctor would have accepted the changed circumstances (in greenkeeping) and likely proposed something similar himself.

Niall