The Old Course---Darius Oliver's article

[Mac Plumart]

I thought this was excellent work by Darius.

http://www.planetgolfusa.com/index.php?id=1788&utm_source=Planet+Golf+Subscribers&utm_campaign=b1e3906cbe-Planet_Golf_November_Newsletter&utm_medium=email

[Mark_F]

Sorry Mac, it was a piece of hysterical nonsense that read like Darius' wife wrote it.

[Frank Pont]

I agree with Mac

[Jud_T]

Mark,

What specifically is hysterical about it?  favorite quote, in regards to 17:

Hawtree doesn’t play golf, and may not fully understand the implications of what he has proposed here.

[Mac Plumart]

Sorry Mac, it was a piece of hysterical nonsense that read like Darius' wife wrote it.

 

I respect that is your opinion, but I disagree.

I found it to detail many of the changes taking place quite well and, for me, the photos and commentary fully illuminated what was/is going on right now.

[Jeff Taylor]

Which features are "natural" and which ones were put in so many years ago?

Will these changes become natural at some point?

[jeffwarne]

Sorry Mac, it was a piece of hysterical nonsense that read like Darius' wife wrote it.

 

I respect that is your opinion, but I disagree.

I found it to detail many of the changes taking place quite well and, for me, the photos and commentary fully illuminated what was/is going on right now.

OK,Even though I disagree, I understand the reasoning behind the divot hole area on 7 (I would argue it's like another hazard and can be avoided and/or recovered from)

But why again is the "acute spur" formation on 4  being reduced?

Is Sam Snead or Scott Hoch doing the renovation?

[Jud_T]

To me Darius' description of the approach to 4 green and the changes gets to the heart of the issue.

[William_G]

Mark,

What specifically is hysterical about it?  favorite quote, in regards to 17:

Hawtree doesn’t play golf, and may not fully understand the implications of what he has proposed here.

who would want to drink wine made by someone who doesn't drink? what a joke. makes me wonder about Aberdeen.

[Bill Brightly]

Sorry Mac, it was a piece of hysterical nonsense that read like Darius' wife wrote it.

Mark,


His piece seemed rather well researched to me, but I really don't know enough about TOC to confirm that.
Rather than make a vague slam, please point out a few specific points where you disagree with Darius and explain why.

[William_G]

do many folks that consider themselves golf architects, actualy not play golf?

[Rich Goodale]

Sorry Mac, it was a piece of hysterical nonsense that read like Darius' wife wrote it.

Is Darius' wife that bad of a writer, Mark, or does she too specialize in mindless drivel?

[Paul_Turner]

oops

[Ronald Montesano]

Wow, Misogynistic Mark...way to attribute hysteria to women alone. I'm told the 21st century has docked at port, if you're interested.

I agree with Mac. It is excellent.

Isn't that amazing, that he doesn't golf? I know that Raynor didn't, either, but it seems completely at odds with this most unique course.

[Alex Miller]

I thought it was well written and at the very least highlighted the issues through pictures better than anything else I've read outside of here.

One minor issue: he may have been off on where the work on #11 would take place, but otherwise great!

[Bill Brightly]

Sorry Mac, it was a piece of hysterical nonsense that read like Darius' wife wrote it.

Is Darius' wife that bad of a writer, Mark, or does she too specialize in mindless drivel?

Come on, Rich. counter Darius Oliver's points. I want to learn something here, not listen to slams. You know TOC, tell me where Darius is wrong.

[Mac Plumart]

Bill...

I agree with your sentiment.  I think Rich is one of the best writers on this site.  I'd love to hear his take on the changes hole by hole like Darius has laid out.

[Dan_Callahan]

"No matter how successful the 2015 Open Championship is, we will not forget what they have done to The Old Course. And we cannot forgive."

Ugh. Give me a break. A little too dramatic for my taste.

[Jud_T]

"No matter how successful the 2015 Open Championship is, we will not forget what they have done to The Old Course. And we cannot forgive."

Ugh. Give me a break. A little too dramatic for my taste.

Dan,  what exactly is too dramatic?

1.  That they changed internal contours and slopes on some of the oldest, most famous greens in golf?

2.  That they negated ground game approaches at the most historic, and some would say best, links course we have?

3.  That in the name of defending par in the Open they're making the most significant changes in 90 year at the home of golf with apparently little public comment and just the council of their in-house, non golfing Open Doctor GCA?

[Tim_Weiman]

Bill Brightly,

You make a really good point. Comments like those of Mark Ferguson really don't add much to the discussion.

I have stayed away from the substance of the discussion about St. Andrews because of all courses it really seems like the place you really need to spend a lot of time at to truly understand and appreciate. Unfortunately, I just haven't done that.

Ferguson disappoints not just because his comment comes across as a personal slam rather than an actual discussion of the architecture. Of course, that happens a lot here. But, when it comes to St Andrews I believe the standard should be higher. I believe writing/commentary/criticism should really attempt to educate and avoid assuming people truly understand the course.

A few visits just didn't do that for me. Ferguson's comments don't help at all.

Don't know Mark, but thought he was a well traveled student of golf architecture. Still, writing about the subject is pretty tough as his post on this thread demonstrates.

Finally, for what it's worth I see no need to change either 11 or 17 and hate the whole idea of changing golf courses to compensate for the failure to regulate the golf ball.

[Dan_Callahan]

Dan,  what exactly is too dramatic?

Jerry Sandusky should not be forgiven. Nazis should not be forgiven. A group that decides to make changes to a golf course? I have a hard time putting them in that category.

It's pretty unfair that an architect is being vilified in this way before anyone has had a chance to see how his work turns out. Even if it makes the course less than it was, there's no reason to treat the guy like he's the anti-christ, which is what is coming across in many of these threads. Pretty similar to what happened to Brian Silva after his changes at Wampanoag.

Worst case scenario: the changes suck and people complain. Maybe demand will decline and it will be easier for those who aren't quite so sensitive to get a tee time.

[Bill Brightly]

Tim,

To be specific, the changes on Hole 11 relate to the problems created by increased green speeds, not equipment advances. It is a question that I struggle with greatly. Assuming that green speeds are NEVER going back to 6-8 on the stimpmeter, what is worse, losing an entire section of pinnable locations, pin location clearly contemplated by the architect, or altering classic old green features?

If your response is simply forego those pins locations, it begs the question: would the ODG agree?
If your response is simply maintain the green speed at 6-8, you ignore the outcry that will undoubtedly arise from a VERY large percentage of golfers.

The fact that one of the most famous greens in the world is being altered only brings new focus to this problem.

[Alex Miller]

Dan,  what exactly is too dramatic?

Jerry Sandusky should not be forgiven. Nazis should not be forgiven. A group that decides to make changes to a golf course? I have a hard time putting them in that category.

It's pretty unfair that an architect is being vilified in this way before anyone has had a chance to see how his work turns out. Even if it makes the course less than it was, there's no reason to treat the guy like he's the anti-christ, which is what is coming across in many of these threads. Pretty similar to what happened to Brian Silva after his changes at Wampanoag.

Worst case scenario: the changes suck and people complain. Maybe demand will decline and it will be easier for those who aren't quite so sensitive to get a tee time.

Godwin's law strikes again! Now who's being overly dramatic?  

I disagree, but do understand your point of view. However, I think most are more upset with the decision to make the changes and the way the process was carried out. If someone else were making these changes I think there would be equal outrage. I would also say that Dawson and the R&A are being villified to a much greater degree than Hawtree.

[Sean Walsh]

Bill,

What would your estimate be of the green speeds at Barnbougle Dunes and Lost Farm?

I have absolutely no idea but I'm guessing they'd be slow.

Can't say I've heard much outcry about it.  No-one in a group of 6 golfers I went down there with (all non GA types) made any mention of the green speeds.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tim,

To be specific, the changes on Hole 11 relate to the problems created by increased green speeds, not equipment advances. It is a question that I struggle with greatly. Assuming that green speeds are NEVER going back to 6-8 on the stimpmeter, what is worse, losing an entire section of pinnable locations, pin location clearly contemplated by the architect, or altering classic old green features?

If your response is simply forego those pins locations, it begs the question: would the ODG agree?
If your response is simply maintain the green speed at 6-8, you ignore the outcry that will undoubtedly arise from a VERY large percentage of golfers.

This is exactly why years ago I came out against turf research. Perhaps as with cloning, sometimes the long term affects are not known until it is to late. Every problem with the game today was born in modern science.