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

[Rich Goodale]

"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    

Bob

If your premise is true, why did Old Tom Morris and John Low and others change the course when they did?  By your logicthey would have been be just as irrelevant in their time as Dawon is in his.  Non?  Or to be more philosophical, when exactly does history begin and when does it end?

Cheers

Rich

[Tom_Doak]

Bob

If your premise is true, why did Old Tom Morris and John Low and others change the course when they did?  By your logicthey would have been be just as irrelevant in their time as Dawon is in his.  Non?  Or to be more philosophical, when exactly does history begin and when does it end?

Cheers

Rich

Just to be clear:  are you seriously comparing Old Tom Morris with Peter Dawson?  Are you seriously suggesting that one man's opinion of the course was not more important than the other's?

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

If your premise is true, why did Old Tom Morris and John Low and others change the course when they did?  By your logicthey would have been be just as irrelevant in their time as Dawon is in his.  Non?  Or to be more philosophical, when exactly does history begin and when does it end?

Cheers

Rich

Just to be clear:  are you seriously comparing Old Tom Morris with Peter Dawson?  Are you seriously suggesting that one man's opinion of the course was not more important than the other's?

No, Tom.  I'm just saying that by Bob's logic neither OTM nor Low had any more right to change the course than did Dawson, unless Bob believes that "history" started at TOC only after OTM and Low and others had finished their work....

[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

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,

changing Foxy was not an idea but rather a hypothetical idea. What you fail to realise it seems is many people view TOC as a whole the same way that you seem to regard Foxy. I chose it knowing your opinion about it, one which I also hold but I bet you I can find a few who would find it undefined, boringly bunkerless and in need of change. I hope RD never gets an R&A tournament that requires them to alter the course so it provides a suitable challenge.

It is a rare thing to find any improvement dreamed up by a committee with the desire to increase the playing challenge of a hole that actually does improve the course. I will be interested to look at the changes next time I am in St. Andrews.

Jon

[Rich Goodale]

Hi Jon

I know better than most people how passionately some people on this site (and elsewhere) revere TOC as an entity.  I have theories as to why they hold such beliefs so tenaciously, but at the end of the day am happy to live and let live rather than get into interminable debates over matters of faith rather than fact.

Rich

[Rich Goodale]

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.

Hi Alex

Still hitting the ball very long and occasionally straight too?

Vis a vis your post, "safely" is a relative term.  What the acolytes are saying is that the new bunker makes it more possible to double rather than make a simple bogey if you bail out right, regardless of where the pin is (actually the new bunker, in conjunction with the elimination of the four Low bunkers, makes a bogey much easier for the hacker--try getting a 5 from those (NLE) frisbee shaped Low pots when the pin is left of middle....).  What I am saying is the new bunker makes a bogey more possible for the accomplished player if the pin is on the (previously) otherwise featureless right side of the green.  To me that means they have another pin position to set up the course with.  This is good.

Rich

[BCrosby]

"I'm just saying that by Bob's logic neither OTM nor Low had any more right to change the course than did Dawson, unless Bob believes that "history" started at TOC only after OTM and Low and others had finished their work...."

TOC as we know it and as it was known to the architects of the Golden Age was, in all material respects, set by the 1920's. It was probably set a little earlier than that. That course gives us a clear reference point against which to measure changes.

So indeed, the relevant iteration of the course for historic purposes was basically set when Low finished his work (which, btw, was not very extensive).  

We are all aware that there have been countless changes to TOC in the distant past. It went from 22 holes to 18 circa 1780. There appear to have been major changes made in the 19th century. But we know the course that existed circa 1920 and it has undergone remarkably few changes (until last month) since.

We have (had) at hand a clear historical marker that is deeply embedded in the history of golf architecture. Having such markers is extremely important. Voluntarily giving them up should be seen as troubling.

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

"I'm just saying that by Bob's logic neither OTM nor Low had any more right to change the course than did Dawson, unless Bob believes that "history" started at TOC only after OTM and Low and others had finished their work...."

TOC as we know it and as it was known to the architects of the Golden Age was, in all material respects, set by the 1920's. It was probably set a little earlier than that. That course gives us a clear reference point against which to measure changes.

So indeed, the relevant iteration of the course for historic purposes was basically set when Low finished his work (which, btw, was not very extensive). 

We are all aware that there have been countless changes to TOC in the distant past. It went from 22 holes to 18 circa 1780. There appear to have been major changes made in the 19th century. But we know the course that existed circa 1920 and it has undergone remarkably few changes (until last month) since.

We have (had) at hand a clear historical marker that is deeply embedded in the history of golf architecture. Having such markers is extremely important. Voluntarily giving them up should be seen as troubling.

Bob

Bob

I disagree with just about all that you have said above, but what are friends for!

Rich

[Mike_Young]

For me it's all about the arrogance of Dawson and the audacity and lack of respect that would allow him to alter a benchmark.  You just should not do that to this one course.  I could care less if one thinks the changes are good or bad.  They should not have been done. IMHO...

[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.

Hi Alex

Still hitting the ball very long and occasionally straight too?

Vis a vis your post, "safely" is a relative term.  What the acolytes are saying is that the new bunker makes it more possible to double rather than make a simple bogey if you bail out right, regardless of where the pin is (actually the new bunker, in conjunction with the elimination of the four Low bunkers, makes a bogey much easier for the hacker--try getting a 5 from those (NLE) frisbee shaped Low pots when the pin is left of middle....).  What I am saying is the new bunker makes a bogey more possible for the accomplished player if the pin is on the (previously) otherwise featureless right side of the green.  To me that means they have another pin position to set up the course with.  This is good.

Rich

Long and occasionally straight. God, you nailed it! 

Thanks for the response. Another question, do you think the bunkers influence everyday play in a negative way? Obviously you feel that they will enhance the championship set up, but while you make a great case for the erasing of the Low bunkers with regard to the "hacker", I want to know if there is one for the addition of the greenside bunkers.

Thanks

[Jon Wiggett]

Hi Jon

I know better than most people how passionately some people on this site (and elsewhere) revere TOC as an entity.  I have theories as to why they hold such beliefs so tenaciously, but at the end of the day am happy to live and let live rather than get into interminable debates over matters of faith rather than fact.

Rich

Rich,

my opinion and affection for TOC is based on having played it 40+ times, though sadly not recently as I refuse to pay such a rediculous greenfee. TOC does have its weak points but as a whole it is more diverse and complete than any other course I have played being the only course where you ALWAYS have multipul choices on playing any hole or shot.

What will be next, turning the 'Valley of Sin' into a pond, complete with fountain to make a more spectacular finish for the TV

Jon

[Dave McCollum]

I think Rich is a very brave soul for expressing his opinions here.  Surely, he knew he was tossing a hand grenade into the treehouse.  I personally enjoy the discussion as enrichment to my education along the journey from average golfer to complete lunatic.  I can add absolutely nothing new to the discussion.  Every time I think about the second hole on TOC, based on my one play and several sunrise or Sunday strolls, is that I made a 9 on that abomination without losing a ball.  I didn’t visit the right side of any part of that freaking hole.  Left side all the way, baby, including that vicious little pit over behind the 16th pin.  All operator error, of course, but I am still quite appreciative that I still remember every shot from my round there seven years ago. 

[Mark_F]

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

Sven,

The problem with a lot of those threads is that no one had seen the changes and they were hypothesising with all the clarity of a blind art critic.

The new bunkers are about 15 yards from the edge of the rippling ridges on the left.  There is plenty of room to run a shot through them to a right hand side pin - providing you are in the correct part of the fairway, of course.

[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

Sven,

The problem with a lot of those threads is that no one had seen the changes and they were hypothesising with all the clarity of a blind art critic.

The new bunkers are about 15 yards from the edge of the rippling ridges on the left.  There is plenty of room to run a shot through them to a right hand side pin - providing you are in the correct part of the fairway, of course.

Mark:

That is the kind of conversation I was hoping to solicit.

Sven

[Rich Goodale]

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

Sven,

The problem with a lot of those threads is that no one had seen the changes and they were hypothesising with all the clarity of a blind art critic.

The new bunkers are about 15 yards from the edge of the rippling ridges on the left.  There is plenty of room to run a shot through them to a right hand side pin - providing you are in the correct part of the fairway, of course.

Mark:

That is the kind of conversation I was hoping to solicit.

Sven

Sven

If were as articulate as Mark I would have said the sasme thing.  This is not rocket science we are talking about, it's a friggin' golf hole.....

Rich

[Sven Nilsen]

Who said it was rocket science? 

The rest of your comments indicate to me that we're on completely different pages with respect to this conversation.  My point is that I'd like more than a cursory review of the merits or demerits of the changes before moving on to other things. 

Perhaps we should wait until someone has actually played the hole.

Sven

[BCrosby]

Sven -

You have already lost the argument with Dawson and his quislings if the issue is cast in terms of whether the changes are "good" or not. Over a couple of beers we could come up with all sorts of ways to make TOC more resistant to scoring or expand pinnable locations or fix troublesome swales or add more strategy or otherwise make changes that many would consider "good".   

The quality of Dawson's changes is not the issue.

Bob 

[Sven Nilsen]

Bob:

I was going to respond by saying that I've resigned myself to the thought that the powers that are will do as they please, but we may still reserve the right to criticize those actions.  But of course you are right that the real sin is that of ignorance.

This is as good a place as any to copy over what I wrote back in December on the topic:

Isn't the concept of preservation the simple dividing line in this entire debate, and if it is, shouldn't it be the focus on every discussion on every thread?  Take away the "histrionics" regarding the approval process or the way in which the changes were announced, and you're left with a simple debate about whether or not there is something inherent in the land that comprises The Old Course or how golf is played on that land that is worthy of preservation.  To me, its not a question of preserving the land as it is, its a question of preserving the way the game is played over that land, or to be more succinct, the way that the golfer can choose to play over the land. 

If you agree with Mackenzie's take on the "value" of the course, than any change that alters existing contours or features in an effort to dictate a way to play a hole, play to a certain pin or avoid a certain area is in direct conflict with what The Old Course offers, represents and teaches us as a playing field for golf. 

Its this idea of a course that wasn't designed or built, the thought of playing the land as you find it, that I believe is the essence of St. Andrew's - it is great due to its idiosyncracies, its foibles, its randomness and its blemishes.  With respect to changes to the course, it is not a bright line test of whether or not a change was made.  It should be an in depth examination of the reasons for each and every alteration, and whether or not they run counter to the essence of the course. 

Its also not a question of preserving a moment in time, or treating the course like a museum piece.  The land changes, the ball and clubs change and maintenance abilities change.  There may be certain changes that have taken place over the years (and certain changes proposed in this latest round) that address this evolution in a way that preserves the essence of the course.  But it sure seems to me that the bulk of the changes proposed today do not fall in line with this thought. 

I quote Peter Dawson:  "What you have to do absolutely as a top priority is preserve what the course is all about and what its essential strategy is."  I, for one, do not think that he and Alistair Mackenzie would necessarily agree as to exactly what is meant by "what the course is all about."

Cheers,

Sven

[Sean Walsh]

Rich,

Your contention that the Low bunkers had a significant impact on how a "hacker" played the hole is erroneous. In around 100ish rounds on the course, meaning I saw 300ish golfers play it I would be surprised if I saw half a dozen players in them and I can't say they ever factored into my conscious thoughts of how to play the hole. For that reason I do not particularly mourn their passing. It will come out in time whether their effect was to force players a little more to the left and a flirtation with the ridges with the added bonus of some protection for those on the 3rd tee.

In fact the only players I ever saw factor them was in the Links Trophy and they'd try and bomb it long to just short of that area. It would be an interesting question to pose to Matthew Griffin and Josh Younger, the two players I was watching, what effect the new bunkers would have on playing the hole for them.  However, I suspect they will have little effect as even to the new right pins if these bunkers are indeed 15yds short they'd be coming in from less than 150 yds (what's that 8, 9 iron) and if they can't stop it the back of the green would hold few fears for a scrach+ player.

Compare that to your club golfer coming in from 150+ yards, likely with 7 iron +, requires a reasonably precise shot for that standard of golfer to navigate between the bunker and the left ridge.  Alternatively the best play may be to aim at the 3rd tee and get up and down from there.  Some significant safety problems there. All that is predicated on the hole playing to the "easy" right pins.  

Much like the best line of the 7th tee (never used by anyone but those teeing off in the first 3 groups of a morning) to aim over the 11th tee at the 10th green leaving a straight forward approach.  I wouldn't have thought these type of shots would be those we would be encouraging with the modern penchant for safety.

Mark's quote of "providing you are in the correct part of the fairway" is also at odds with my understanding of the course of the best this course represents.  You've got to work it out for yourself.  They may as well put a neon sign down just to the right of Cheape's Bunker.  

[Bill_McBride]

Sean, do you seriously mean players from the 6th tee would drive over the 11th tee toward the tenth tee.  How far is that?  400 yards as I scale it in the WAG.  Perhaps you mean the 7th tee?

[Sean Walsh]

Bill,
Correct you are. Would make the 6th a little tougher going via the 10th green

[BCrosby]

Sven -

I had forgotten Dawson's garbled statement: "What you have to do absolutely [sic] as a top priority is preserve what the course is all about and what its essential strategy is."

Responses write themselves. I'll write one anyway. How many times have we heard a course redo justified as "preserving.... the essential strategy" of [name of architect inserted here]?

Dawson's explanations of his handiwork use the same tired, formulaic ex post rationalization. Which suggests something about the seriousness with which he conducted his work.

On most courses such rationalizations elicit a shrug and an eye-roll. Hey, stuff happens. Except when that stuff happens to  the Old Course.  If you don't grasp its special historical status in the game, your right to manage it should be forfeited.

But alas...

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

Rich,

Your contention that the Low bunkers had a significant impact on how a "hacker" played the hole is erroneous. In around 100ish rounds on the course, meaning I saw 300ish golfers play it I would be surprised if I saw half a dozen players in them and I can't say they ever factored into my conscious thoughts of how to play the hole. For that reason I do not particularly mourn their passing. It will come out in time whether their effect was to force players a little more to the left and a flirtation with the ridges with the added bonus of some protection for those on the 3rd tee.

In fact the only players I ever saw factor them was in the Links Trophy and they'd try and bomb it long to just short of that area. It would be an interesting question to pose to Matthew Griffin and Josh Younger, the two players I was watching, what effect the new bunkers would have on playing the hole for them.  However, I suspect they will have little effect as even to the new right pins if these bunkers are indeed 15yds short they'd be coming in from less than 150 yds (what's that 8, 9 iron) and if they can't stop it the back of the green would hold few fears for a scrach+ player.

Compare that to your club golfer coming in from 150+ yards, likely with 7 iron +, requires a reasonably precise shot for that standard of golfer to navigate between the bunker and the left ridge.  Alternatively the best play may be to aim at the 3rd tee and get up and down from there.  Some significant safety problems there. All that is predicated on the hole playing to the "easy" right pins.  

Much like the best line of the 7th tee (never used by anyone but those teeing off in the first 3 groups of a morning) to aim over the 11th tee at the 10th green leaving a straight forward approach.  I wouldn't have thought these type of shots would be those we would be encouraging with the modern penchant for safety.

Mark's quote of "providing you are in the correct part of the fairway" is also at odds with my understanding of the course of the best this course represents.  You've got to work it out for yourself.  They may as well put a neon sign down just to the right of Cheape's Bunker.  

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Sean.

Firstly a correction to your 2nd paragraph.  Mark did not say that the new bunkers were 15 yards short of the green, and I can confirm that they are not in fact there.  What he said (and is true) is that they are 15 yards to the right of the huge ridge which bisects the 2nd's 1/2 of the 2/16 green complex.  Their exact position is roughly at 4 o'clock if looking at the green from the line of play, and they are right at the edge of the green.  Even if the flat-bellies are hitting short irons to that green, getting at a short right pin posistion will test all their skills (including thinking through various strategies for playing the shot).  The more difficult shot will be for the less skilled player to chip or pitch and run his 3rd (or whatever) shot over those bunkers if they end up where the Low bunkers used to be, regardless of the pin position.

Vis a vis your caddying experience of a 1-2% chance of getting into the Low bunkers, this will not please Gary Slatter, who has confessed above to having been in all four of them during his time at St. Andrews, and not (I assume) on his drives.  As he is a very talented ex-Canadian/European tour professional he must have been very unlucky when playing the 2nd.....

Great stories about the ideal line off the 7th tee.  I bet there are a lot of "tiger" lines on that course that have come into play due to the changes in balls, implements and fitness but are unplayable due to safety issues when the course is fulf of players.  Same on other old courses.  Dornoch is currently building a new back tee for the 17th hole, partly in the knowledge that the green is driveable for the flat-bellies in many conditions.  Unfortunately that "tiger" line requires you to hit a blind drive over the 3rd daily/ladies tee.  I know as even as a fat belly OG 15 years ago I once nearly scared the life out of 2 old ladies who were on the 3rd tee when I tried that line in a "favorable" howling gale.  Yet another argument for controlling the ball and the implements rather than adding new tees to old courses....

Hope all is well

Rich

[Tags:]

Tags: