"Dawson says too much Old Course hysteria"

[Howard Riefs]

In Golfweek interview, Dawson calls for "balance and perspective." That's rich.

Update on status of changes and the two phases of the process.

http://mobile.golfweek.com/news/2012/dec/02/exclusive-dawson-says-too-much-old-course-hysteria/

[Mark Chaplin]

Howard - actually reading what Dawson says makes sense and he backs up what he is saying with clear reasoning.  There clearly WAS some consultation and the local clubs appear cool with the work. As the secretary at St Andrews Golf Club says, the hysteria is mainly not from the locals.

[Paul_Turner]

"The work is virtually finished. These changes are so 'major' they’ve been done in less than a week!"

I guess they were using teaspoons ?

[David Davis]

Well, regardless of what the changes were, are and will be, the process in which this has been done is under scrutiny (as well as some of the proposed changes). Of course he's going to give a political answer that makes sense. Clearly it sounds to me like he's justifying after the fact. There has been enough questionable statements that I know for a fact were not true that I find it hard to take anything at face value any longer.

This is the exact interview I would expect.

[Ivan Morris]

That's what I told you guys but you all howled at me! And, I didn't even say that I agreed (or disagreed) with the changes. It's all a bit bizarre. I don't have any great confidence in The R & A or the golf architect community, in general. There are a few exceptions. Martin Hawtree is one of the exceptions whom I respect although I have strongly disagreed with some of the stuff that he did at courses I know well. Of course, I couldn't dare presume that I am always right and he is sometimes wrong. That's too big a claim even for me! I live in hope that it will all work out. I'd much prefer if RANDA was concerning itself with bifurcation of the ball and equipment and staying away from involvement in the Olympic Games.    

[Tony_Muldoon]

I was waiting


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

[Jeff_Mingay]

What about an explanation on reducing the height of the "acute spur formation" (or whatever they call it) at the 4th hole?

[Bryan Izatt]

It seems to me that it is condescending to say that those opposed to the changes are succumbing to hysteria. 

Trying not to be hysterical, I do wonder how all these minor (you won't notice them) changes are actually going to have a measurable impact on the challenge of the course to the elite field of the 2015 Open.  That was the only premise for the changes, wasn't it. If they don't increase the challenge in some measurable way in 2015, will the course be restored to it's former state?

[Ulrich Mayring]

Of course it will, says Mr. Dawson. Now try proving that the changes didn't increase the challenge.

Ulrich

[Jeff_Mingay]

This is a golf architecture discussion group, so without being blatantly critical, I'll simply say:

Problems begin in golf architecture when the principle aim of renovation work is to simply (and I emphasize the word, simply) make a golf course more difficult. This aim most always ends up being counter productive in so many ways, history shows this.

[Chris Kane]

Howard - actually reading what Dawson says makes sense and he backs up what he is saying with clear reasoning.  There clearly WAS some consultation and the local clubs appear cool with the work. As the secretary at St Andrews Golf Club says, the hysteria is mainly not from the locals.

Mark, ONE local club appears cool with the work. None of the others are quoted.

I also cannot agree with the idea that if the local clubs are consulted, that means that the townspeople have been consulted (and there are varying accounts of what 'consultation' actually entailed in this case). That the announcement last Friday came seemingly out of the blue suggests that the 'consultation' wasn't very extensive, otherwise we'd have known about the proposals much earlier.

Even if Dawson is absolutely in the right here (which I categorically disagree with), his PR strategy has been a fiasco. He's brought the 'hysteria' on himself. Its not rocket science that when you announce changes to the most hallowed course in the game with minimal detail and minimal explanation, there will be a backlash when the bulldozers are on course three days later.

[Mark Pearce]

Howard - actually reading what Dawson says makes sense and he backs up what he is saying with clear reasoning.  There clearly WAS some consultation and the local clubs appear cool with the work. As the secretary at St Andrews Golf Club says, the hysteria is mainly not from the locals.

Mark,

What Dawson says is:

“The Links Trust conducted a consultation exercise, or certainly an information exercise, with the local clubs. The Links Trust consulted club by club. Then the clubs’ liaison committee were also informed.

Which sounds to me as if there wasn't a consultation exercise but that the clubs were told (an "information exercise").  This is entirely consistent with the suggestion that the Championship Committee were told earlier in the week.  The use of words like hysteria and the reliance on the "acceptance" by the locals suggests that Dawson holds the views of those who disagree with the changes, or even just with the way they were announced so shortly before the work began, with contempt.  Of course, if he really believed that the majority would accept these changes if they were clearly explained then it was always open to him to do that explaining weeks before the work began.

[Scott Warren]

Chris is correct. It was an unmitigated - and unnecessarily so - PR disaster.

Trying to spin the matter now doesn't change the fact that the process of consulting and notifying stakeholders was appalling.

[Bryan Izatt]

A consultation/information exercise with the local clubs would seem to me to be appropriate for a local golf course, not a global icon.  Let the spin continue.

[Sven Nilsen]

What exactly is the "essential strategy" of the course that needs to be preserved?  Who's strategy, the guy playing this weekend or the pro?  Does everyone play every hole the same way?  How does saying the majority of the changes being made are meant to preserve the current strategy instead of imposing new ones pass the red face test?

This is the most bizarre statement I've heard on the matter.  

Finally, isn't the heather that Dawson cites from old photos exactly what Mackenzie and others decried as an alteration from the early days that made no sense?


 

[Ally Mcintosh]

I will notice that work at the back right of those greens, even if Mr.Dawson thinks I won't... I still ask, WHY? - to give the best players in the world a slight break on a long putt?.... And the way the EIGCA poll has turned out is exactly why I thought the options were badly worded.... For interest, it seems like 25% said NO change to The Old Course, 58% said Change possible with "thorough historic research" and 17% change OK to keep up with modern game....

[William_G]

This is a golf architecture discussion group, so without being blatantly critical, I'll simply say:

Problems begin in golf architecture when the principle aim of renovation work is to simply (and I emphasize the word, simply) make a golf course more difficult. This aim most always ends up being counter productive in so many ways, history shows this.

+1

[Terry Lavin]

PR idiocy followed by over-the-top hyperbolic criticism. Had they done the right thing on the rollout, they still would have caught hell. Now, it would be nice if everybody would take a chill pill and wait for the work to be completed.

Haha.

[Bill Brightly]

Here is what REALLY should scare us. In this quote,  think about the order. Dr. Hawtree seems to have come in later, to review the changes suggested by the committee:

 “The Championship Committee of the R&A went to the Links Trust with some suggestions. The Links Trust and the Links Management Committee agreed to some of them and not others. We agreed on the appointment of an architect (Martin Hawtree) to look at the suggestions in more detail.”

I guess the pond got nixed...

[Chris Kane]

Is this the same R&A Championship Committee which was allegedly only told about the changes in the week of the announcement?

 

[Ronald Montesano]

I heard the most reverend Dawson speak today on PGATour radio (Matt Adams or Brian Katrek show.) Two impressions: the USA journalist was wetting his pants in pathetic deference to M.R. Dawson. Dawson sounded downright patrician to me. Must be the great cultural divide.

[Paul_Turner]

There's not much more meat here than the original Dawson press release.  A few more specifics but not much.

And then logical nonsense like:

“Martin Hawtree has been very sympathetic to the traditions of the Old. It’s still going to be the Old Course, not a Hawtree course."

followed by

“The area to the right of the sixth green merging with the seventh tee is flat and we are going to undulate that a little bit. We’ve done quite a lot of this at Muirfield, and you wouldn’t even know we’ve done it.”

Guess who's done the work at Muirfield?  Martin Hawtree. 

So unless Muirfield is similar in shaping to The Old Course, which it isn't, why would he be adding features to  The Old Course that are similar to those he's added at Muirfield?

[Mac Plumart]

There's not much more meat here than the original Dawson press release.  A few more specifics but not much.

And then logical nonsense like:

“Martin Hawtree has been very sympathetic to the traditions of the Old. It’s still going to be the Old Course, not a Hawtree course."

followed by

“The area to the right of the sixth green merging with the seventh tee is flat and we are going to undulate that a little bit. We’ve done quite a lot of this at Muirfield, and you wouldn’t even know we’ve done it.”

Guess who's done the work at Muirfield?  Martin Hawtree. 

So unless Muirfield is similar in shaping to The Old Course, which it isn't, why would he be adding features to  The Old Course that are similar to those he's added at Muirfield?

This brings to mind Luke 23:34.




What exactly is the "essential strategy" of the course that needs to be preserved?  Who's strategy, the guy playing this weekend or the pro?  Does everyone play every hole the same way?  How does saying the majority of the changes being made are meant to preserve the current strategy instead of imposing new ones pass the red face test?

This is the most bizarre statement I've heard on the matter. 

Excellent point, Sven.

[Jud_T]

I love the logic where he says that he couldn't get his head around why the bunkers were where they were on number 2, so he moved 'em closer to the green.

[ChipRoyce]

Here's my question... when did the 17th (road hole) ever become too easy for the pros?