"Dawson says too much Old Course hysteria"

[Gary Slatter]

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.

I beg to differ about  local clubs being cool with the "improvements".  Even the R&A members were not consulted!

[Gary Slatter]

The Links Trust had a great chance to build a modern championship course for St Andrews when they built the CASTLE !   
The R&A had a great chance to build a modern championship course for St Andrews when they helped finance KINGSBARNS.

To modify an old Dallas Cowboy saying "Michael Bonallack is still the last Secretary of the R&A".  How often has Dawson played the Old Course?

[Bill Brightly]

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.

Terry, I am really surprised that you have taken this position. While some of the criticism may have been over the top, MUCH of it comes from people who know TOC well. Their discent is well-reasoned. Several have dealt with the details quite specifically, and kept it just to the architecture.

Had Mr. Dawson and others "done the right thing on the rollout" they would have had to propose and defend the changes to these type of people, true experts on TOC and its history. You are not the least bit suspicious that this did nor occur?

I wonder how you would react if this was happening at your course and you only got wind of it when the back hoe arrived. Would you really say "Oh well, let's see how the work comes out?"

Is it possible that this might be the most famous example of Committee Gone Wild? If Mr. Dawson was correctly quoted, his committee suggested many changes, got approval for some, then ran those ideas by Dr. Hawtree. As best as I can tell, that is how committees having been changing golf courses for years. And it is how my course got a pond on our Eden hole....

[Sean Walsh]

I'm a little sick of this generalisation that just because some of us here on this board are in strident opposition to these changes that we are being hysterical.  If you identify hysteria, feel free to point it out.  I for one do not believe I have been hysterical in my writings on this issue and would appreciate those arguing in support or neutrality stop insinuating that merely holding an opposing view is hysteria.

As for this just being an issue that excites our particular niche I would invite you to look through those that have put their names to Emile's petition.  One very interesting signatory in the last 24 hours is a long time caddy that lives in view of the course.  Hopefully that begins to negate this furphy that the locals are in favour of the changes due to their muted public reaction so far.

[Chris Kane]

Sean, referring to the reaction as 'hysteria' is Dawson's way to avoid addressing the arguments made by his critics.

[Mac Plumart]

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.

Can someone educate me regarding Mr. Dawson's background?

I see Chief Executive of The R&A.  I see heavy involvement in the IGF.  I don't see any work or experience directly related to golf course architecture.  Am I simply missing this portion of his background?

Thanks in advance.

[RJ_Daley]

Great question, Mac.  I did a cursory Google search and couldn't find a sufficient answer to that question, either.  Did he get made a "Member of the British Empire" or some such moniker to go with the arrogant aire? 

Here are a few TOC and Road Hole Youtubes I came across today.  One are lengthy remarks by a master SA caddie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG1OWPkTDkM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErV9kdo5Sn8
Not TRHB, but the essence…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXzNsKcXrBM

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm a little sick of this generalisation that just because some of us here on this board are in strident opposition to these changes that we are being hysterical.  If you identify hysteria, feel free to point it out.  I for one do not believe I have been hysterical in my writings on this issue and would appreciate those arguing in support or neutrality stop insinuating that merely holding an opposing view is hysteria.

As for this just being an issue that excites our particular niche I would invite you to look through those that have put their names to Emile's petition.  One very interesting signatory in the last 24 hours is a long time caddy that lives in view of the course.  Hopefully that begins to negate this furphy that the locals are in favour of the changes due to their muted public reaction so far.

Sean,

Please, many people against the work responded with name calling and irrational arguments. I am a registered democrat Catholic who is against abortion and capital punishment. I speak out against the hysterical arguments, people and movements who may believe in the same end results as I.  I have seen none of that from those who now claim to be above the fray on the changes to TOC. Until you separate yourself from the crowd you are just more noise.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Terry and John
Please explain your arguments as if you were speaking to Tom Doak, not the treehouse.
He has clearly stated his opinions - that the discussion of the changes are a massive Red Herring.
Thank you.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

Really, Tom Doak?  Why not Rich Goodale or Joe Passov?

[Sean Walsh]

John,

Some of the comments regarding Mr Hawtree have been a little OTT but I can't recall anything that was clearly beyond the pale and I don't intend to re-read approaching 1000 posts to check. Some gave opinions of their appreciation of Mr Hawtrees previous work that although harsh, may or may not have been correct.  I am not in a position to say either way as apart from a fleeting view of his work at Royal Melbourne I am not familiar with any of it.  Others say that Mr Hawtree is a lovely man, this does not absolve him from criticism IMHO.   

Ivan Morris was in one post offered advice to leave the site for holding his views.  This in my opinion was wrong, but before I read it Mr Morris had already done a more than adequate job of defending his right to hold his own opinion so I did not feel any need to interject. I did debate points with him as is the intention of this site. 

The only thread I did consider asking someone to be careful in their prosecution of their agenda was that involving Mr Ebert.  In that particular thread Mr Pont although entitled to his opinion descended into arguing guilt by association based on supposition and was a subject well removed from what we should be trying to achieve.

Again, If you identify any hysteria feel free to point it out.  If you are not capable of generalising that those who hold a different view to you are hysterical or responding to reasonable requests, perhaps you are losing the argument and might want to change your modus operandi.

RJ,

John Boyne - top bloke.  Of the more senior caddies at TOC one of the most approachable and helpful for those just starting out in the caddying caper. 

[Sean_A]

There is no question this is a PR disaster brought on by the R&A's glib approach to the matter.  Dawson issued conflicting statements about the process which could easily be construed as designed to mislead/misinform.  I am not convinced of this as I think this is purely a matter of Dawson's arrogance.  He is trying to handle folks the way an R&A Sec would have 40 years ago.  The only way to combat Dawson is to not allow this issue to rest and to seek ways to alter the governing documents to include a proscribed process for making alterations to TOC.  Personally attacking Dawson, the R&A Comm and Hawtree is not only a waste of time and childish, it is counter-productive.  Its time to focus on a solution for the future, not vent anger about the past and present.

Ciao

[Sean Walsh]

Its time to focus on a solution for the future, not vent anger about the past and present.

Ciao

Agree.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sean (Arble),

if you re-read your last posting, you may find that you first personally attacked Mr. Dawson and the R&A as arrogant and bumbling fools and then cautioned us all to not resort to such tactics, as they are counter-productive

I will say this: if Mr. Dawson were a well-meaning, considerate, competent and generally reasonable man, then attacking him personally will in fact be counter-productive and lead to not being taken seriously. If, on the other hand, he were an arrogant, self-important impresario with just enough knowledge to be dangerous, then painting him as such publically will have more effect than trying to impregnate the wall of arrogance with reason.

Ulrich

[Paul Gray]

In complete agreement with Sean's last post, solutions for the future are what's required, not yet more discussion about the past and present.

As I stated before but was seemingly misinterpreted, whilst I was always in favour of involvement from big names in GCA, I equally felt that without a grass roots body of support such involvement set itself up as an easy target. For all the outcries from this site, the article in the 'Scotsman on Sunday' has undoubtedly done more to raise awareness amongst local golfers than anything penned here.

Seemingly SGU members were given no notification of any changes. Could I suggest that any of you north of the boarder lobby your organisation so as to encourage greater involvement from the membership in the future. Tiny acorns, great oaks etc.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike,

Really, Tom Doak?  Why not Rich Goodale or Joe Passov?

John:

If you think your brother in law knows more about The Old Course than I do, I feel sorry for you.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

Really, Tom Doak?  Why not Rich Goodale or Joe Passov?

John:

If you think your brother in law knows more about The Old Course than I do, I feel sorry for you.

Tom,

In defense of Joe and his family it is my brother who married his sister.  I have spent more time with you than Joe so have no idea how much he or you knows about The Old Course.  My point to Mike was that there are respected architectural critics on both sides of this issue. 

The second I read the title of Joe's piece I thought about you and your relationship with Golf Magazine.  Have you contacted Joe and asked him about his opinion? I do not know who is right or wrong but was thrilled to see someone of his stature not follow the party line and write a piece that could move the discussion to the middle.  From a professional standpoint I think that took a measure of courage on Joe's part.  What did you think?

[Bart Bradley]

John:

I thought Mr. Passov statements raised a lot of questions.

What incentive did Mr. Passov have to defend this work and contradict Mr. Doak?  What message did Mr. Passov send as leader of the Golf Magazine Architecture Rating Panel?  Did Mr. Passov contact Mr. Doak to let him know he would be publishing a contradictory position?  And many more.....

Yes, it was a courageous yet curious choice.

Bart

[Jud_T]

What was so courageous about it?  He just fell in line with the pragmatists.

[Adam Clayman]

Why do I secretly hope those mounds (spur) on #4 are Artesian wells?

[Jason Topp]

I do think this quote deserves some discussion.  I suspect it is accurate given the Road Bunker seemed different on each of the three times I visited:

“Let’s get this in perspective. The Road Bunker is rebuilt every year because it gets so much play and so much damage. Historically it has been left to the green keepers to rebuild it. That means it has never been rebuilt the same way twice.

“The bunker has always changed in depth, and quite often changed in shape, and quite often the approach contours have changed a bit.

“All we are doing this time is trying to finalize a design, and properly map it digitally so that every time it is rebuilt it is rebuilt to remain faithful to what it was before. The bunker is not being made any harder. It is also not being widened to any extent that it hasn’t been in the past on several occasions.”

[Terry Lavin]

Mike Nuzzo:

I'm not lauding the changes since I'm not qualified to do so. For the same reason, I'm not spewing criticism of the work, either.  I do feel qualified to comment on the PR failures, as I've done on a few occasions. I also feel that it's appropriate to call out some of the more hyperbolic reaction from the non-professional, hobbyist crowd. We rank amateurs should let the qualified supply the passion and try ourselves to temper our comments.  If you, Tom Doak or any of the other professional architects or the qualified journalists (I'll put Ran in that category, even though he isn't technically one) want to criticize the work and even work up a lather in the process, who am I to complain?  What I've seen here and in other "portals" is plenty of carping from people who have never designed anything, along with lengthy, impassioned bromides written by people who have never even played the golf course.  I understand the deep-seated affection for the place and for the course itself, but extremism in any form is very unappealing to me, and I think we've seen plenty of extremism on this issue.

The other aspect of my take on this issue is a quasi-legal in nature. While I recognize that the Links Trust failed on a moral or ethical level with the process that it employed, it seems to me that they have the legal right to make the call on alterations. Until a different legal mechanism is in place to "protect" St. Andrews, we ought to recognize that the trustees have the power to do what they're doing.  Finally, the work is not only not finished, when it is done, it won't be permanent.

[Brett Hochstein]

I do think this quote deserves some discussion.  I suspect it is accurate given the Road Bunker seemed different on each of the three times I visited:

“Let’s get this in perspective. The Road Bunker is rebuilt every year because it gets so much play and so much damage. Historically it has been left to the green keepers to rebuild it. That means it has never been rebuilt the same way twice.

“The bunker has always changed in depth, and quite often changed in shape, and quite often the approach contours have changed a bit.

“All we are doing this time is trying to finalize a design, and properly map it digitally so that every time it is rebuilt it is rebuilt to remain faithful to what it was before. The bunker is not being made any harder. It is also not being widened to any extent that it hasn’t been in the past on several occasions.”

It is true that the bunkers are in a constant state of evolution, especially those that receive the most play. They also shift and enlarge more than many realize or care to admit.  I won't say which one, but there was a greenside bunker that was shifted a fair amount toward the green during my time volunteering there.  I didn't work on that one myself, so I will refrain from throwing out measurements.

The issue here with the Road Bunker is not the bunker itself, it's the contours out to the right of it and how those relate to both the green and bunker.  They are great if not perfect, and messing with them seems like you could only make it worse while also erasing another historic set of contours that make the Old what it is and separate from the rest of the golfing world.  Bunkers change, contours do not.

[Jud_T]

Terry,

Why do you think it was a PR disaster?  I think given their goal it was brilliant.  Do the minimum amount of public disclosure necessary to give you cover later, then bum rush the work to make all the "hysterics" seem irrelevant and talk up your love of the course, it's traditions and the "minor nature" of the changes as it's already a fait accompli.  Seems to have worked brilliantly on much of the supposedly die-hard following here already...

Howard,

You're the resident PR expert.  Thoughts?

[Terry Lavin]

Terry,

Why do you think it was a PR disaster?  I think given their goal it was brilliant.  Do the minimum amount of public disclosure necessary to give you cover later, then bum rush the work to make all the "hysterics" seem irrelevant and talk up your love of the course, it's traditions and the "minor nature" of the changes as it's already a fait accompli.  Seems to have worked brilliantly on much of the supposedly die-hard following here already...

Well, that's a nifty, if cynical view.  You could be correct, of course, but I'm guessing that they just figure that they can do what they want and that they never even considered the merits or demerits of a thoughtful and transparent "rollout" to get some enthusiasm for their work.  Given the voluble nature of much of the response, I'm not sure that it would have made much difference, but I do think that they are getting some form of sympathy in response to the criticism that they've received.