Is the “Ease of Maintenance” argument valid at the Old Course?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

I find it unacceptable that because a hill is “difficult” to mow on the Old Course it has to be altered. Steep hills are notoriously difficult to cut with a “sit-on” mowers and are first on the list of complaints from the Maintenance staff, but there are other grass cutting tools available.

If the Maintenance Staff have mastered the Old Course for the last century, I don't see the "Ease of Maintenance” as a prioritized argument compared with the argument of "Maintenanceof  the Historical integrity" of the Old Course as valid.

If a historical object is altered, in this case relics of golf course elements from the 1800’s and 1920’s, however ugly iand difficult they are to maintain – then the historical references to the 1800’s and 1920’s are eradicated and the Reset button has been pressed.

Surely cost can’t be the argument at the the Old Course for streamlining the “Ease of Maintenance” policy, how high is the price of a historical object.

Is the Old Course priceless?

[Niall C]

Bring back sheep. The tourists will love it.

Niall

[Anders Rytter]

Same goes for the hull on 7th they are filling. As far as i recall.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Niall, when were sheep on the golf course at the Old Course?

[Niall C]

John

Apologies for the flippant remark in my previous post. The basic premis in your OP is that the greenkeepers have mastered the Old Course as it is so why make any changes now for ease of maintenance ? I would contend that the exact opposite is the case in that I bet the winter maintenance practices by greenkeepers throughout the years have lead to successive changes year on year. A quick look at the greenkeepers blog on the Links Trust website for instance mentions work being done to clear away gorse/scrub and replace with fescue in front of one of the tees, as well as work to make eaier in getting into and out of bunkers at the 5th. Hard to imagine that kind of work doesn't lead to changes of contours.

Niall

ps. not sure about the sheep, but certainly the course was used as a rabbit warren. I'd be surprised if the course wasn't used for grazing of cattle or sheep at some point like very many old courses used to do and Brora for instance still does.

[Rich Goodale]

There is a nice photograph in Tom Jarrett's book of sheep grazing on the links in 1897.

[Mark Bourgeois]

A general comment to people who are in favor of the changes:

Please stop attacking those against the changes as automatically wanting to roll back the course to 100+ years ago or even 75 years ago.

In opposing some of Mr Dawson's current program of change, we simply want to 'restore' the course to November 25, 2012.

[Rich Goodale]

A general comment to people who are in favor of the changes:

Please stop attacking those against the changes as automatically wanting to roll back the course to 100+ years ago or even 75 years ago.

In opposing some of Mr Dawson's current program of change, we simply want to 'restore' the course to November 25, 2012.

Great idea, Mark, but it's going to take a helluvalota dosh and a lot of argie-bargie to keep it that way for the next 600 years....

[Mark Bourgeois]

A general comment to people who are in favor of the changes:

Please stop attacking those against the changes as automatically wanting to roll back the course to 100+ years ago or even 75 years ago.

In opposing some of Mr Dawson's current program of change, we simply want to 'restore' the course to November 25, 2012.

Great idea, Mark, but it's going to take a helluvalota dosh and a lot of argie-bargie to keep it that way for the next 600 years....

Well, Rich, they could start by saving the dosh they're spending on changes right now.

[Niall C]

A general comment to people who are in favor of the changes:

Please stop attacking those against the changes as automatically wanting to roll back the course to 100+ years ago or even 75 years ago.

In opposing some of Mr Dawson's current program of change, we simply want to 'restore' the course to November 25, 2012.

A general comment for those not in favour of the changes;

Please stop stating that the changes are being done on the personal instruction of Peter Dawson and were solely decided upon by him.

[Rich Goodale]

They are spending pennies, Mark, compared to what you are used to in the US.  Even wee dornoch is spending (and doing) more this winter that Dawson (or his evil twin brother) could ever dream of.  It's not about money, it's about architecture and stewardship.

Rich

[Mark Bourgeois]

A general comment to people who are in favor of the changes:

Please stop attacking those against the changes as automatically wanting to roll back the course to 100+ years ago or even 75 years ago.

In opposing some of Mr Dawson's current program of change, we simply want to 'restore' the course to November 25, 2012.

A general comment for those not in favour of the changes;

Please stop stating that the changes are being done on the personal instruction of Peter Dawson and were solely decided upon by him.

Hi Niall, I would say I'm just using metonymy / synecdoche but as no one's shared any minutes or documents showing how the decisions were made and as each day seems to bring a new timeline for who did what when, I'm unsure whether it's metonymy or literal.

Rich, Scots discounting the value of pennies, indeed! So let this American remind: those pennies add up!

[Niall C]

thats unfair, using big words

[Mark Bourgeois]

thats unfair, using big words

Big words are for small men and I am very small in this drama!

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

While you may be right in the special case of the Old Course, I know that most of the courses I have ever worked on, eventually, the maintenance nuisance, headache, time waster, or whatever you want to call it, eventually gets removed by those in charge of it every day.

The justification is usually cost savings, either by not buying a special mower or hand mower, etc.  I don't know the budgets of the Old Course, and presume they clean up on the Open every seven years, so it might not be a real issue there financially, as well as historically.  I also don't know if the crowds of the Open crawling over those things has anything do with it, either for safety, wear, or whatever.

But, I would bet it wasn't hastily considered.

If those who oppose changes tell us to not say others are "attacking" them for being against all changes, I would submit that the Anti change faction stop "attacking" Dawson and Hawtree as incompetent or uncaring, even if you disagree with their decisions in part or whole.  If you only want the course to be restored to pre Dawson changes, then you accept all the changes that went before in similar vein, but now its different? 

I think time will heal all wounds for most of these (although the 4th hole is the one I question the most, and apparently Dawson does, too, and may reconsider before implementing next year).  I think all it will take is a birdie putt from Rory on the 11th or a chip in by Tiger on 2 and those will be hailed as the greatest changes to the Old Course of all time......at least for most of the golfing public.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff,

Wow! We now have a label: the "anti change faction". Very clever as a debating technique.

I have never called Dawson or Hawtree incompetent or uncaring. To the contrary, I believe we have all been seduced by the logic of those who would perpetuate the golf technology arms race. Part of the seductive logic is that past changes must have been good, so of course, let's continue to make changes. Then, typically, advocates for change will throw in one liners describing those opposed to changes as something like the "anti change faction". Translation: that means their ideas are obviously outdated, wrong or just plain silly.

As for what date to roll back to, here again we are confronted with seductive but confusing logic. As soon as one suggests leaving things alone, someone will chime in and say "well, what is so good about today? Shouldn't we select some date 50-100 years ago?".

Of course, the real purpose of making such an argument is really just to shut down debate. It isn't to genuinely discuss whether maybe, just maybe, things really were better in times past.

More to the point, I describe such argument as "seductive and confusing" because the roll back should be applied to the golf ball not by messing around with the golf course.

All you need is a tournament ball that pros hit 250-275 yards with a driver and you wouldn't need to mess around with famous old golf courses. They could have a championship once every ten years for the next 200 years and there wouldn't be a problem.

[Sean Walsh]

Oh come on Tim, Stop being so hysterical.

[Gary Slatter]

I find it unacceptable that because a hill is “difficult” to mow on the Old Course it has to be altered. Steep hills are notoriously difficult to cut with a “sit-on” mowers and are first on the list of complaints from the Maintenance staff, but there are other grass cutting tools available.

If the Maintenance Staff have mastered the Old Course for the last century, I don't see the "Ease of Maintenance” as a prioritized argument compared with the argument of "Maintenanceof  the Historical integrity" of the Old Course as valid.

If a historical object is altered, in this case relics of golf course elements from the 1800’s and 1920’s, however ugly iand difficult they are to maintain – then the historical references to the 1800’s and 1920’s are eradicated and the Reset button has been pressed.

Surely cost can’t be the argument at the the Old Course for streamlining the “Ease of Maintenance” policy, how high is the price of a historical object.

Is the Old Course priceless?

I walked the Old Course prior to play for the Women's Ricoh British Open.  They were using several mowers on the greens, and they did not cut the slopes on 11 or 12 and I was told "they're too fast as it is".

YES, the OLD COURSE is priceless!

[Jon Wiggett]

Is there not a case for strategic mowing of TOC?

If the fairways were only cut tight in certain areas for the open this would encourage players to place the ball in certain areas. If other parts were left at semi rough height they would be less advantageous for the players as there would be less spin on the ball.

I have no problem with renovating the bunkers or adding the odd one or two but altering the slopes to suit maintenance (if that is what they are doing) is just plain wrong.

Jon

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,
-
I don't follow the logic of changes being related to distance.  They are re-contouring for more difficult chips, lowering mounds for vision and maintenance, flattening a green for green speeds, and adding bunkers to tighten a formerly open pin position.  None of that sounds distance related to me.

They added back tees several years ago.  Now that I believe was related to distance.  I think (based on ever greener turf in photos I see) run the sprinklers more than they used to, which might be to slow down roll.  Those changes, I can relate to the distance issue, as well as if they moved some fw bunkers out to 300+.

Just my $0.02

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff,

In fairness, my comments probably belong on another thread. Generally, I have stayed away from comments about the Old Course because I haven't spent enough time on it and believe one has to to really get the place.

That said, I do see comments like "the anti change crowd" as a clever but distracting approach to the debate. We hear it so often when it comes to distance related matters and I genuinely believe it does a disservice to both architecture and the sport of golf generally.

Finally, it is not my decision of course, but I probably would just completely leave St. Andrews alone even if it means dropping out of the rota.
Prestwick is fine without the Open. St. Andrews would also be as well.

[Don_Mahaffey]

What does "ease of maintenance" mean? I understand when a club has to reduce maintenance expenses due to revenue shortfalls, so maybe they convert from walkers to triplexes or reduce maintained acreage. But TOC isn't suffering from lack of $$$, is it?

I'm not the super there and I have almost zero knowledge of the maintenance program, but I can remember watching about 20 guys hand sweeping the greens after topdressing. I also watched the fairway mowing and the machines were lined up making one pass then running back to where they started cutting and making another pass. Similar to how ANGC mows as they wanted no stripping. While I understand the hand sweeping and the mowing program, nether has the look of a club struggling to stay within budget.

I don't buy the "ease of maintenance" argument as a reason to do more grading at TOC.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

I am against taking the Old Course out of the rotation simply because it maintains it as "pure", whatever that is after the numerous changes over the years.  Just as Prestwick is not as clamored over as it once was, I believe the Old Course would fight the same battle in a "what have you done for me lately" kind of world. 

I would rather keep it squarely in the public eye, but don't ever want to see it as "TPC St Andrews" either.  I am not sure (like you, haven't seen the changes up close, and haven't been to TOC in while to clearly recall every detail either) if the changes go too far or not.

I guess I would ask if Old Tom would recognize the place still, 100+ years after his death?  If not, why not?  Surely he would expect some changes, since he made changes himself.  Overall, I think he would recognize the place, except perhaps for turf much better than he could have ever achieved, due to the 1970's irrigation installation.  I suspect the 100 years of changes to date would not cause him to not recognize the place, and overall, that is pretty good preservation, no?

But, that is only my $0.02.  As always, I could be way wrong.

[Jud_T]

Jeff,

I know it usually is, but it shouldn't always be just about the bottom line.  Prestwick is brilliant as is.  Frankly I think the Old Course risks more by becoming just another updated tournament venue and losing it's magic than it does by getting left in the dust by the arms race.  Personally I have no interest in paying up again for a guaranteed time now that they're fiddling with it.  Hell I can have a membership at Carnoustie for about the same amount if it's an Open Rota jones I'm satisfying.

[Benny Hillard]

What does "ease of maintenance" mean? I understand when a club has to reduce maintenance expenses due to revenue shortfalls, so maybe they convert from walkers to triplexes or reduce maintained acreage. But TOC isn't suffering from lack of $$$, is it?

I'm not the super there and I have almost zero knowledge of the maintenance program, but I can remember watching about 20 guys hand sweeping the greens after topdressing. I also watched the fairway mowing and the machines were lined up making one pass then running back to where they started cutting and making another pass. Similar to how ANGC mows as they wanted no stripping. While I understand the hand sweeping and the mowing program, nether has the look of a club struggling to stay within budget.

I don't buy the "ease of maintenance" argument as a reason to do more grading at TOC.

Don,

Very valid points indeed. I don't think it is a money issue at all but I do wonder if "ease of maintenance" covers other aspects.

Something to consider -  the old course is on public land. Therefore it must conform to UK, public & occupational health and safety regulations.
There are certain areas on the old course that are very tricky to mow (back of the 11th green is great example).
I'm no expert on occupational health and safety but I don't think that tying 20yd's of rope to a Flymo and swinging it would be an acceptable alternative to currently only being able to mow it on a really dry day on a sidewinder.

I could list a number of areas on the course that are very tricky to mow, and perhaps changing these might fall into the category?

Do you know of another way that some of these areas might be maintained without making changes to the contours?

Ben