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

[Rich Goodale]

I was up in St. Andrews Tuesday for the first time since Armageddon, and after some business and a plesaant lunch in the Links Clubhouse I decided to brave the chilling winds and walk out to the reportedly horribly disfigured 2nd green on the Old Course.

As it turned out, I emerged from the gorse separating the New and Old courses into the middle of a three-ball of reasonably good golfers approaching their 2nd shots, waited for them to play and then walked towards the green with them.

Firstly, the pin had been cut that day at one of the "Sunday at the Open" locations, 10 yards or so to the left of the 3-4 foot high sharp rise which bisects the green.  From where each of the players were hitting their second shots (far left, middle, tight right), the pin was only partially visible due not only to the elevation but also the large hump protecting the left side of that green.  I had forgotten how intimidating that combination of features was to that (or any left) pin, regardless of one's drive.

Secondly, even from the tight right 2nd shot approach position, the new bunkers were virtually invisible--more of an adumbration than a menace--particularly given that day's pin location.

Thirdly, walking up to the green towards the supposed desecration I first saw only a revelation--the four hideous and useless bunkers 20-30 yards short of the green and so far right that they would only menace the 2nd shot hack-slicer or third-shot shanker had bave been filled in and sodded over, leaving only some lovely mini-humps and mini-hollows that will give frissons of excitement to the higher handicap players and be esthetically admired but strategically ignored by the better ones.

Fourthly, as to the bunkers themselves, they are proper pots, built to current standards which only serve to enhance the challenge of the hole.  As has been discussed before, their existence will allow for some interesting pin placements on the heretofore bland and largely un-used right side of the green during elite competitions and also give some challenge to those players (good and bad) who hit their second shot short right and weak, regardless of the pin position.

I say well done Mr. Hawtree et. al.

Rich

[Brent Hutto]

.
I say well done Mr. Hawtree et. al.

Rich

Oh you big kidder, you!

Now tell us how awful it really is. C'mon.

[Bill_McBride]

Admirable use of "adumbration" by the way.   Although foreshadowed, I hardly saw it coming.......

Did you make it out to 11?

[Rich Goodale]

Brent

No kidding, today.  It's a pussycat bit of earthmoving, and a nice one at that.

Bill

Too cold and windy to walk out to 11.  In any case, I'm not at all concerned about that minor alternation.  When it gets warmer, maybe I'll get out there and see what they did to 7 too.

Rich

[David_Tepper]

Nice to know all the hysteria here was much 'ado about nothing or, more likely, very little.   

[Steve Lapper]

Gee...now I wonder whether those who were so quick to condemn Joe Passov for his (prescient) opinion that it would turn it just fine?

Any takers?

[Gary Slatter]

Rich, thanks for your update!   Was that pheasant pleasant that you had for lunch?
I have been in all of the closed out of play bunkers on #2, of course The Thursday Club  did play on windy winter days,

[RJ_Daley]

Rich,

Did you chat with the 3some after they played the hole?  Sounds like they may have been regulars (perhaps Thursday Club, Gary eludes to, gone out days early).  Of course, proper manners may have precluded you from interrupting their round with a query of what their thoughts actually playing the hole, may have been. 

I'm sure we shall see photos and eventually Dunhill TV coverage to get a sense of how the players eventually negotiate the new ground remodelled. 

[Tom_Doak]

Gee...now I wonder whether those who were so quick to condemn Joe Passov for his (prescient) opinion that it would turn it just fine?

Any takers?

I would take up your question if you had worded one correctly.

The tempest is not over, it's just dormant right now.  It was wrong to change The Old Course, dead wrong.  Just because they got away with the crime (so far, anyway) doesn't excuse it.

[Ally Mcintosh]

One post by the opinion-formed-already Rich Goodale does nothing to change my own.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

As you toured TOC, did you think of additional improvements? Because the Dawson/Hawtree suggestion box is now offically open. New ideas are now on the table. And we all have some.

I am especaily pleased to hear that the 2nd, after suffering for so many decades as an obviously deficient hole, is now finally fixed. And to think they waited so long to get around to it.  

To borrow a Karen Carpenter lyric, "We've only just begun....". Or maybe Jackie Gleason's "And away we go..." is a better fit.  

Bob

[Bart Bradley]

Rich:

I have always enjoyed and respected your posts on this site.

This post, however, comes across as smug and unfortunate.

The changes you saw might be okay to you, but they might not be acceptable to others.  Many here will disagree with your opinion.  Many here feel that the process that approved these changes was inadequate.

Do you not respect the opinion of those who disagree?  If you do respect them, why the tone of this post?

Bart

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting thread: informed, knowledgable posters grappling with one of the subtlest questions in golf course architecture, i.e. if a golf hole works but no one can explain why, does a renovation that makes its charms more explicit improve it? Is a conscious awareness of a design's strengths (by architects and golfers alike) a necessary complement to those strengths? Is a golfer's interactions/engagement with golf architecture made fuller and more enjoyable when he can articulate the precise nature of that engagement? From where I sit (far away), it seems as if increasingly the golfing establishment's answer to those questions is a resounding "yes".

Peter

[JMEvensky]

Rich -

As you toured TOC, did you think of additional improvements? Because the Dawson/Hawtree suggestion box is now offically open. New ideas are now on the table. And we all have some.

I am especaily pleased to hear that the 2nd, after suffering for so many decades as an obviously deficient hole, is now finally fixed. And to think they waited so long to get around to it.  

To borrow a Karen Carpenter lyric, "We've only just begun....". Or maybe Jackie Gleason's "And away we go..." is a better fit.  

Bob

The cynic in me detects sarcasm.

[Tom_Doak]

Interesting thread: informed, knowledgable posters grappling with one of the subtlest questions in golf course architecture, i.e. if a golf hole works but no one can explain why, does a renovation that makes its charms more explicit improve it? Is a conscious awareness of a design's strengths (by architects and golfers alike) a necessary complement to those strengths? Is a golfer's interactions/engagement with golf architecture made fuller and more enjoyable when he can articulate the precise nature of that engagement? From where I sit (far away), it seems as if increasingly the golfing establishment's answer to those questions is a resounding "yes".

Peter

The interesting thing about this debate is that the "golfing establishment" has separated itself out nicely for us to see -- it's the R & A and the USGA on one side of this -- I include the USGA because they have given up any pretense of architectural input before changing holes for major championships.  And for them, it appears that no one else's opinion counts for squat.  Mr. Dawson could not have made that much clearer.

The funny thing is, that "unwillingness to listen" is how the equipment companies portray the two governing bodies on dealing with equipment regulations.  But in the case of the changes to The Old Course nearly everyone else has taken up opposite sides ... most of the people who BACK the governing bodies on equipment regulation were AGAINST the idea of changing The Old Course, which after all is mostly necessary to supplant failures of equipment regulation by the same governing body.

More to Peter's point, it appears that the governing bodies believe that everything in golf needs to be reinforced -- including the defenses of great old courses.  Honestly, they seem to be afraid of something, but of course they could never admit to us what they're afraid of.  We can only guess by their actions.

[Jud_T]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTQL42onK08

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bob, this Sunday's relatively open for me. How about a catchup call?

Rich: walk out and look at a few bunkers, confirm the work was executed per your a priori expectations and in accordance with your personal criteria. Watch three golfers play a hole location way over to the left and declare the entire enterprise a success. Inspired logic and execution.

Hope you are well. 

[Bill_McBride]

Admirable use of "adumbration" by the way.  

You went to dictionary.com too I see? Still don't know what it means in the context of the sentence!

Since you barely make out the outline of the new bunkers from the location of your tee shot, I think Rich is saying the hint of trouble is "foreshadowing" disaster.  Or at least a couple of bunkers.

Of course I didn't go to Stanford.......

[Bill_McBride]

Rich:

I have always enjoyed and respected your posts on this site.

This post, however, comes across as smug and unfortunate.

The changes you saw might be okay to you, but they might not be acceptable to others.  Many here will disagree with your opinion.  Many here feel that the process that approved these changes was inadequate.

Do you not respect the opinion of those who disagree?  If you do respect them, why the tone of this post?

Bart

In all fairness I believe Rich was just offering his opinion.   Which may be wrong.   

[Pete Lavallee]

Perhaps he's looking forward to updating his book and selling more copies as a result.

[Jeff Goldman]

The changes thus far may be good or bad, but the tip of the iceberg point is also spot on. Recall the very early very lengthy merion thread discussing the bunker work, macdonald and sons vs the handwork etc, and eventually a few agreed that the work turned out basically ok. However, since then the myriad additional changes have made that discussion, fun as it was, rather.....quaint. The current chamges may be bad enough, but knows what is coming next at TOC.

[Peter Pallotta]

An idea occurs to me: the R&A and the USGA aren't primarily worried about great golf courses becoming irrelevant, they're worried about themselves becoming irrelevant. Maybe they realized long before the rest of us that, if they weren't messing with championship golf courses, they wouldn't be doing anything at all, they wouldn't have any role at all to play. I've been wondering for a long time why the USGA insists on going back to courses like Merion, and now it hit me: they have to go back to courses like Merion because it is there -- and there alone -- where they can justify (at least to the membership) a role in "preserving the relevance of classic championship courses". No one else grants them that role or that power any more; and almost everyone other than members of the great old clubs seem all too ready to suggest that 'the emperor has no clothes'. No wonder the R&A couldn't wait to change The Old Course, i.e. it reinforces the image of a still-relevant governing body.

Peter    

[Ronald Montesano]

Frisson shmisson...adumbration my beration...Melvyn emailed me the other day.

process left much to be desired (old-guy-speak for sucked), disregarding the outcome.

I pray Lapper was on a smart phone when he typed in his purported question...

I suspect that Rich was tempted to use insinuation, but opted to avoid the diphthong...

the use of frisson adumbs excitement, so I pity the higher handicappers and their double shot of excitement, so early in any round...

I wish that we could pit Mike Gundy (arguing for The Old Course) against Peter Dawson...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoMmbUmKN0E

[Sven Nilsen]

Irrespective of the storm clouds of future tinkering hanging on the horizon, would it be possible to have a conversation regarding the merits of new #2 v. old #2.  

I recall some pretty astute reasoning regarding the failings of the proposed changes.  Now that at least one of us has seen them on the ground, perhaps we can revisit that conversation.  Reading this thread so far has done little to convince me that the hole is better now, and 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.

[Peter Pallotta]

Needless to say, it is the very respect and affection in which we hold Rich (and his opinions) that has spawned many of the responses. If someone else (say, me) had piped up and embraced the changes, there wouldn't be anyone around interested enough to argue!!

Peter 

[Tags:]

Tags: