The tempest is over and the tea is brewing nicely...

[Brent Hutto]

So a knee jerk reaction of intense hatred and outrage toward the changes on Day 1 of their announcement, before work even began, is morally superior to a knee jerk reaction of taking one look at one completed change on one particular day and declaring it "not bad". Got it.

Any change to the Old Course...BAD!

Any lack of outrage over changes to the Old Course...BAD!

Not being incandescently offended and horrified by the result of one change to the Old Course...BAD!

It's all bad, isn't it?

P.S. There's nothing wrong with knee jerk reactions. We al lhave our hot buttons. The trouble comes when we fail to believe that someone else's knee might jerk just as readily in the opposite direction.

[Terry Lavin]

Thanks, Rihc, for a needed dose of realism. The hysteria was borderline pathetic.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Rich,

Once again your complete disregard to the historical values of the old course are on full display by your absence of comment on said history.
It appears your words are truer than you would care, particularly if the word "Old" was taken out of TOC and replaced by "horribly disfigured".

[Peter Pallotta]

Terry, Brent - I know that all things pass away, and that to hold on is vanity and a chasing after the wind; but my heart would still be comforted if I could say, some rare once in while: "Now this, this place has not changed".

I know, "sentimental hogwash" as a Mr. Potter-type would say. But in our world of 'information' and 'cold hard facts', I think there's a real need for sentiment as sentiment. And I can't help attaching some of that sentiment to a place called "The Old Course".

It's good for the soul to fight for the losing side, at least once in a while.  And to say "leave that place alone" is the losing side.

Peter

[Joel_Stewart]

I have to agree, that just because the work is well done, doesn't mean it was correct to do it in the first place.  I would expect the work to be of the highest quality and virtually impossible to detect.

I'm interested in the 9th hole which everyone seems to think is the most boring hole on the course and what they do with it.

[Jud_T]

Given that the work is so well thought out and executed, I can't wait to see what they have up their sleeve for next winter! 

[Rich Goodale]

it seems to me that Rich has neglected to specifically address any of the legitimate concerns previously expressed in earlier threads.

Sven

"The best thing has been made even better."  Robert Goizueta, then president of Coca-Cola, discussing the decision to release "New Coke" in 1985.

I'd be happy to, Sven, but the only concern I remember on previous threads was something to the effect of "Any change bad.  No change good."  I can't argue against deeply embedded beliefs such as those.  Please point me to a specific concern (architectural or otherwise) in any previous thread about the changes to the 2nd and I'll be happy to read/re-read them and reply as best I can.

Everybody else.  Thanks for all the kind thoughts and good wishes.  I think I stated clearly enough in my opening post that all I was reporting on were my impressions, thoughts and opinions after a very brief visit to the scene of the purported crime.  That's all.  I welcome other opinions, but for the time being I'll be more inclined to respond to people who have seen the hole on the ground (before and after) rather than only in pictures or in words.

Slainte

Rich

[Jon Wiggett]

Rich,

I wonder what your reaction would be if they started altering foxy with new bunkering and softer surrounding slopes at the green? Can you say how the new bunkering that according to you is out of play is an improvement.

On another point the softening of the slope at the 11th might create more pin positions but will also make the recovery shot from through the back of the green easier thus reducing the fear factor on the tee and lessening the front bunker's effect on the hole. Can this really be good?

Jon

[Sean Walsh]

"I'd be happy to, Sven, but the only concern I remember on previous threads was something to the effect of "Any change bad.  No change good."  I can't argue against deeply embedded beliefs such as those.  Please point me to a specific concern (architectural or otherwise) in any previous thread about the changes to the 2nd and I'll be happy to read/re-read them and reply as best I can.

Everybody else.  Thanks for all the kind thoughts and good wishes.  I think I stated clearly enough in my opening post that all I was reporting on were my impressions"

Rich,

Pretty sure in some of those threads, especially in regard to the 2nd and the 4th I included some clear reasoning for my opposition.  If from all those previous threads the only thing you took was" any change bad, no change good" then I fear for your declining powers of comprehension.  Obviously I was opposed to most of the works, but particularly opposed to the way in which they were carried out.  It is also obvious from the tone of your initial post that you have decided anyone against the works is a dolt and in hysterics. You are welcome to your opinion but your willingness to disregard reasonable objection says more about your case than theirs.

I also take it you are "reporting" in the same manner that Fox and NewsLtd papers "report" the news. You were definitely conveying your impression, it was not reporting.

[Mark_F]

On another point the softening of the slope at the 11th might create more pin positions but will also make the recovery shot from through the back of the green easier thus reducing the fear factor on the tee and lessening the front bunker's effect on the hole. Can this really be good?

Jon,

The front bunker's effect on the hole may be lessened, but, due to the slope of the green and the corresponding roll offs into the bunker, the left hand bunker will see far more play if a shot to a back left pin isn't hit in the right place.  There is also a really neat pin position front right where the green bleeds away down a slope beyond the mound.  It is a really good green now, not a one dimensional one.

[Jon Wiggett]

On another point the softening of the slope at the 11th might create more pin positions but will also make the recovery shot from through the back of the green easier thus reducing the fear factor on the tee and lessening the front bunker's effect on the hole. Can this really be good?

Jon,

The front bunker's effect on the hole may be lessened, but, due to the slope of the green and the corresponding roll offs into the bunker, the left hand bunker will see far more play if a shot to a back left pin isn't hit in the right place.  There is also a really neat pin position front right where the green bleeds away down a slope beyond the mound.  It is a really good green now, not a one dimensional one.

Good to hear Mark and I look forward to seeing it in the future. Do you think that the roll offs into the bunker counter act/ even out the reduced shot difficulty from through the back?

Jon

[Mark Pearce]

I'd be happy to, Sven, but the only concern I remember on previous threads was something to the effect of "Any change bad.  No change good."  I can't argue against deeply embedded beliefs such as those.  Please point me to a specific concern (architectural or otherwise) in any previous thread about the changes to the 2nd and I'll be happy to read/re-read them and reply as best I can.

Rich,

That isn't true, is it?  I recall that Bob Crosby went into some detail in discussing the strategic demands of the 2nd hole prior to the changes and how he believed that the proposed changes would change them.  I think Sean did as well but don't recall those so clearly.  I'm sure it would be easy enough to find Bob's (and Sean's) arguments and I look forward to your thoughts on whether their concerns were justified, in light of your having seen three golfers play the "new" 2nd green (albeit with a left sided flag, so not one that really brought the new bunkering into play). 

[Mark_F]

Good to hear Mark and I look forward to seeing it in the future. Do you think that the roll offs into the bunker counter act/ even out the reduced shot difficulty from through the back?

Jon,

Yes, I do.  The roll-offs are both severe and subtle.  Anything thinking about teetering on the edge won't have to think too long.  And it's a long way down into the bunker!  The safe explosion out could leave you a long way down and across the slope. They have blended the reduction in slope with the reduced slope very, very well indeed.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich,

I wonder what your reaction would be if they started altering foxy with new bunkering and softer surrounding slopes at the green? Can you say how the new bunkering that according to you is out of play is an improvement.

On another point the softening of the slope at the 11th might create more pin positions but will also make the recovery shot from through the back of the green easier thus reducing the fear factor on the tee and lessening the front bunker's effect on the hole. Can this really be good?

Jon

Thanks Jon

As for the first idea--Foxy (Royal Dornoch #14) doesn't, need improvement, and the powers that be at Dornoch are not stupid enough to make such changes as you posit.  If we were transferred to some parallel universe and they did such things, I'd be hopping mad and let them know how I felt--but then again if we were in a parallel universe I might just like the changes....   On the other hand, the right side approaches to the 2nd at TOC before the changes ranged from anachronistic and overly penal (the Low bunkers) to 50 shades of Blah (the extension of flatness into more flatness).  Change could only improve that side of that hole.

As for the 11th at TOC, I haven't been there since the changes, but Mark F's reply below seems to pretty much confirm what I have assumed to be the effect of that change, i.e. positive.

Rich

[Rich Goodale]

"I'd be happy to, Sven, but the only concern I remember on previous threads was something to the effect of "Any change bad.  No change good."  I can't argue against deeply embedded beliefs such as those.  Please point me to a specific concern (architectural or otherwise) in any previous thread about the changes to the 2nd and I'll be happy to read/re-read them and reply as best I can.

Everybody else.  Thanks for all the kind thoughts and good wishes.  I think I stated clearly enough in my opening post that all I was reporting on were my impressions"

Rich,

Pretty sure in some of those threads, especially in regard to the 2nd and the 4th I included some clear reasoning for my opposition.  If from all those previous threads the only thing you took was" any change bad, no change good" then I fear for your declining powers of comprehension.  Obviously I was opposed to most of the works, but particularly opposed to the way in which they were carried out.  It is also obvious from the tone of your initial post that you have decided anyone against the works is a dolt and in hysterics. You are welcome to your opinion but your willingness to disregard reasonable objection says more about your case than theirs.

I also take it you are "reporting" in the same manner that Fox and NewsLtd papers "report" the news. You were definitely conveying your impression, it was not reporting.

Sean

I sincerely respect your opinions regarding the architectural quality of the right side of the 2nd hole at TOC given your extensive experience of caddying there several years ago.  I cannot, however, remember what those opinions were in the previous threads on this topic and do not have the time to trying to search for them.  Could you possibly summarize those thoughts and/or point me to your previous comments?  Thanks in advance.  As to what the hole actually looks like and plays now I'll wait until your next visit to discuss this with you over a beer or three.

Cheers

Rich

[Rich Goodale]

Rich,

Once again your complete disregard to the historical values of the old course are on full display by your absence of comment on said history.
It appears your words are truer than you would care, particularly if the word "Old" was taken out of TOC and replaced by "horribly disfigured".

John

I've commented on the history of the Old Course many, many times on this forum and elsewhere, including the previous threads on this particular topic.  It is largely because I know and love this history that I continue to expose myself to the slings and arrows of outrageous misunderstandings of others on threads such as these.  The area in question on the right side of the approach to the 2nd at T'hd'OC has neither important history nor architectural merit.  IMHO.  If you disagree, please tell us so and why you feel this way.

Rich

[Rich Goodale]

I'd be happy to, Sven, but the only concern I remember on previous threads was something to the effect of "Any change bad.  No change good."  I can't argue against deeply embedded beliefs such as those.  Please point me to a specific concern (architectural or otherwise) in any previous thread about the changes to the 2nd and I'll be happy to read/re-read them and reply as best I can.

Rich,

That isn't true, is it?  I recall that Bob Crosby went into some detail in discussing the strategic demands of the 2nd hole prior to the changes and how he believed that the proposed changes would change them.  I think Sean did as well but don't recall those so clearly.  I'm sure it would be easy enough to find Bob's (and Sean's) arguments and I look forward to your thoughts on whether their concerns were justified, in light of your having seen three golfers play the "new" 2nd green (albeit with a left sided flag, so not one that really brought the new bunkering into play). 

I don't remember Bob going into any significant detail based on his experiences, but I may be wrong and would be pleased to read and respond to any such writings of his if they could be made available to me.

Rich

[Brent Hutto]

I have a hard time reconciling Rich's disregard for the history and lore of the Old Course with his having taking the considerable time to write a book about it.

http://www.amazon.com/Experience-The-Course-Andrews-Links/dp/095500411X

And somehow I doubt there were any seven-figure advance motivating his efforts...

[BCrosby]

Rich -

Do you really not recall the extensive quotations I and others provided regarding the historical importance of the 2nd? Ranging from John Low to Tom Doak? Was December, 2012 that long ago? Or is this just a matter of intentional epistemic closure?

The 2nd (in its prior form) was an important hole in the history of golf architecture. To blythly change it becasue the current course administrator has a better idea, is to mock of that history.

Bob    

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

Part of the appeal of The Old Course has always been that many holes offer a safe way to avoid the trouble, but usually at the cost of a stroke, unless you are very consistent getting up and down from thirty yards with your putter or a chip shot.  The second hole was the clearest example of that philosophy on the whole course ... if you didn't want to deal with the moguls at the front of the green, you could play as safely wide of them as you wished.

Two gentlemen have decided to change that philosophy and "tighten up the hole for better players."  That is my principal objection to ALL of the works carried out and still proposed ... that modern design philosophies should not be imposed on this, the most ancient of courses.  We can go hole-by-hole about it if you want, but it's going to be the same argument nearly all the way around, so why bother?

There are millions of potential ideas for improving any course, but the older and better the course, the less likely those ideas are to succeed and not to clash with the original design.  The idea that nothing in golf is sacred and that everything is subject to change by the powers that be, is what scares me.  I enjoy trying to build new courses that compete with the best of the past, and I would never begrudge any architect the same opportunity; but when working with older courses I do my best to preserve their design, not to insert my own biases.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich -

Do you really not recall the extensive quotations I and others provided regarding the historical importance of the 2nd? Ranging from John Low to Tom Doak? Was December, 2012 that long ago? Or is this just a matter of intentional epistemic closure?

The 2nd (in its prior form) was an important hole in the history of golf architecture. To blythly change it becasue the current course administrator has a better idea, is to mock of that history.

Bob    

Of course I remember your citations and quotations from ODG's and at least one OLG (Tom), Bob, but in my most recent post I was asking about your own experiences.  I'd happily exchange one Crosby personal experience for a thousand self serving quotes from John Low or even the good Doctor MacKenzie.  As Mandy Rice-Davies said historically in the Profumo scandal when that great man (Mr. P) lied in court, "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"  As for Tom, I'll reply directly to his recent post above.

Keep well

Rich

[Rich Goodale]

Rich:

Part of the appeal of The Old Course has always been that many holes offer a safe way to avoid the trouble, but usually at the cost of a stroke, unless you are very consistent getting up and down from thirty yards with your putter or a chip shot.  The second hole was the clearest example of that philosophy on the whole course ... if you didn't want to deal with the moguls at the front of the green, you could play as safely wide of them as you wished.

Two gentlemen have decided to change that philosophy and "tighten up the hole for better players."  That is my principal objection to ALL of the works carried out and still proposed ... that modern design philosophies should not be imposed on this, the most ancient of courses.  We can go hole-by-hole about it if you want, but it's going to be the same argument nearly all the way around, so why bother?

There are millions of potential ideas for improving any course, but the older and better the course, the less likely those ideas are to succeed and not to clash with the original design.  The idea that nothing in golf is sacred and that everything is subject to change by the powers that be, is what scares me.  I enjoy trying to build new courses that compete with the best of the past, and I would never begrudge any architect the same opportunity; but when working with older courses I do my best to preserve their design, not to insert my own biases.

Thanks for that, Tom.  IMHO, and based on my recent brief visit to Ground Zero, the changes to #2 increase rather than diminish the "safe way(s) to avoid the trouble" down the right.  Foir one thing, the four Slatter (nee Low) bunkers down the short and far right n'existe plus, and so the hacker with the raking slice can take that route now without impunity.  Assuming he (or she) does not overslice the ball and end up in the gorse he/she will still have a thrilling putt across the closely cropped sward, unless he or she has the great misfortune of having his or her ball end up in the 15 degree wedge of the compass of the circle whose radius is defined by the line from the ball through the bunker to the hole.  In such cases, a pitch or chip over the offending pit will have to be undertaken, to a green which is still extraordinarily commodious.  Tough shit, I say......

As for the more accomplished players, there is now a challenging alternative pin position or two on the right side of the green where none existed before.  I personally happen to think that the value of a green complex is (all other things being equal) directly correlated to the number and variety of challenging pin positions.  But that's just my opinion...

As for your last two paragraphs, I fully agree that we should not bother to argue as at the best we will only agree to disagree.

All the very best

Rich

[BCrosby]

"I'd happily exchange one Crosby personal experience for a thousand self serving quotes from John Low or even the good Doctor MacKenzie."

But don't you see, Rich? That is precisely the problem. My experience of the hole, no less than Dawson's or yours or anyone else's is not a basis on which the hole should be changed. My views of how the hole might be improved are irrelevant. Dawson's should be too and for the same reasons. The older hole has a long, well documented history that should be respected.  

If TOC has a special historical significance in the game, it must mean at least that.

Bob    

[Sven Nilsen]

Rich:

Here's one thread that discussed the 2nd:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54164.0.html

And another:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54230.0.html

And finally, Ran's thoughts on the 2nd:

*Modify right hand side of 2nd green. One of the best greens in golf doesn’t need to be altered. Have an easy back right hole location for the Open – or don’t. One of the joys of The Old Course is in learning her secrets and that means understanding where to miss shots. There SHOULD BE easier places from which to get up and down. The Links Trust apparently disagrees. These comments also apply to the work behind the 15th green. A well managed round at The Old Course used to include missing shots in preferred locations – I am concerned that this will apply less and less at The Old Course. Courses with shots that are hard, harder, hardest are boring. If I wanted that, I could stay in North America and play courses built in the 1980s.



Sven

[Alex Miller]

Rich,

I want to understand your point of view. Can you expand on this?

I personally happen to think that the value of a green complex is (all other things being equal) directly correlated to the number and variety of challenging pin positions.  But that's just my opinion...
 

Even so, I'm not sure if this argument holds water with what many are saying about these changes to #2. You have stated that there is still an option to play the hole safely, but from my understanding of the second hole, it would be much easier to get up and down to a high-left pin from where the bunkers are (or just beyond) rather than from short of the new bunkers.

Thanks.

[Tags:]

Tags: