Dawson’s case for Old Course changes

[Tim Fenchel]

If I were Mr. Dawson, I had brought in a panel of five golf course architects and let them figure out how to change TOC to make The Open more challenging and/or enjoyable to the players.


Ulrich

Do the players not find TOC enjoyable as it is/was? Seems all the quotes I've ever heard uttered by all of the greats simply love the place. This morning Tiger called the course "brilliant". If this is the case...other than some added yardage over the years...why change a thing?

[BCrosby]

The Road Hole bunker, due to drainage, sod-rot, maintenance and other issues, has been rebuilt many times. It has been shallower, deeper, bigger and smaller. (Ditto for Hell Bunker. Ditto for the Principal's Nose. Ditto for Strath, Hill and others.)


But what has never changed is the bunker's location. Which to say that its architectural significance has not changed since the time we've had reliable information about the hole.


As an aside, we don't know much about the origins of the Road Hole. Little known about it pre-1870 (the earliest drawing we have of it and even that is sketchy). Written accounts before then are pretty vague. So if you want to argue it has changed a lot over the centuries, I and many others are eager to see your evidence.   


Bob 

[MCirba]

Tim.

EGO.

[Adam Lawrence]

Tim.

EGO.

I don't see that at all, I think it's all about fear of low scoring. The silly thing is that the changes they did make will have at best a tiny impact on scoring. Like Geoff Shack, I think the new bunkers on the second will lower scoring over the week, because they'll put the pin down on the right side for a day or two, and even with the bunkers that's a lot easier than having it up in the humps on the left.

[MCirba]

Adam,
 
I can understand the "resistance to scoring" rationale, but I believe it takes enormous ego to fundamentally change the design of a work of art that as Bob Crosby pointed out was wholly in place prior to World War I with many features decades if not centuries prior.   

[Jud_T]

hubris

An ancient Greek word meaning pride or arrogance, used particularly to mean the kind of excessive pride or conceit that often brings about someone’s downfall.

[Adam Lawrence]

Adam,
 
I can understand the "resistance to scoring" rationale, but I believe it takes enormous ego to fundamentally change the design of a work of art that as Bob Crosby pointed out was wholly in place prior to World War I with many features decades if not centuries prior.

It's a place to play golf, not a work of art.

[MCirba]

It's a place to play golf, not a work of art.

Adam,

I think it's both.   That likely explains why I feel too reverent about the old sod to believe it should be trifled with after all this time.   

For what purpose?  So that the top players in the world notch another stroke or two on their scorecards?

[BCrosby]

Adam -


TOC is not a work of art.


TOC is, however, the most important golf course in the history of the game.


Changes to it should first satisfy the highest possible burden of proof. I have not read or seen anything to suggest that Dawson has satisfied that burden. That is what matters.


Whether Dawson did what he did out of ego, carelessness or whether it was simply a good faith mistake, I have no opinion. At the end of the day Dawson's state of mind is irrelevant.   


Bob

[Adam Lawrence]

Bob - I agree totally.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam,
 
I can understand the "resistance to scoring" rationale, but I believe it takes enormous ego to fundamentally change the design of a work of art that as Bob Crosby pointed out was wholly in place prior to World War I with many features decades if not centuries prior.

Mike:


I don't see The Old Course as a work of art.  For me, it's more of a miracle, a course that happened as the result of many inputs long ago. That's why I hated the thought of ANY individual altering it based on their own ideas of fairness and difficulty.


Look to the thread just started here about the strategy of the 10th hole at Lancaster -- there are multiple decisions to be made for each shot, with different answers for different players.  No course embodies that more than The Old Course, because it wasn't designed by one guy.  To have Peter Dawson trying to change it to solidify a certain desired result on each hole, is the ultimate insult.

[MCirba]

Tom,

It's interesting that you say that as your statement in "The Confidential Guide" about every art form needing criticism to stay vibrant and dynamic (paraphrasing) was some of the basis for my wording.     

While I agree wholly with the rest of your post, do you no longer consider the design and creation of a golf course as an art form?   And if it is an art form, wouldn't the finished product, for better or worse, be a work of art? 

I recognize that it's not a static art form, but a living breathing thing in many respects, but I'd be interested to hear any evolution in your thinking on this question over the years.   Thanks!

[Tom_Doak]

Mike,


I do think most golf courses qualify as works of art.


The Old Course is unique because there's no artist or creator that one can identify, so there's no way to "restore" it consciously.


While I do think that every art form needs criticism, that doesn't mean that criticism has to be followed up by changes, so that the art all conforms to the critic's viewpoint.  In fact, just the opposite.  The art stands on its own; the critic's opinion can argue against it, and the public can weigh the two sides of the debate.

[John_Cullum]

The Road Hole bunker, due to drainage, sod-rot, maintenance and other issues, has been rebuilt many times. It has been shallower, deeper, bigger and smaller. (Ditto for Hell Bunker. Ditto for the Principal's Nose. Ditto for Strath, Hill and others.)


But what has never changed is the bunker's location. Which to say that its architectural significance has not changed since the time we've had reliable information about the hole.

Applying that standard, the 11th green hasn't moved either.

[Martin Lehmann]

I find the explanations for the changes interesting. I am probably in the camp of leaving the course alone but reading through the hole by hole changes got me thinking. Throughout its history at which point should no more changes have been made to the Old Course?  Clearly it has been through a lot of changes since it first came into existence. Has each generation thought that they had the course "right" and no more changes should be made?  Is our generation no different than those prior in that respect?  I wouldn't think most people now would want to play the course as originally conceived except perhaps as a curiousity.  If the course isn't "right" now as a result of the most recent changes when was it "right" and when should changes have stopped and why?  Was it 100 years ago?  200?  Or was it in its best iteration just 20 years ago?

Jeff:


All of this revisionist history that the course has constantly been changing is a very poor reading of history.  Between about 1920 and 2012, the only changes to the course were the addition of new back tees, which didn't change it at all for the rest of us.  [And the pros could play from there as well, if they wanted to.]


Yes, the course evolved to its present form, but it evolved there a very long time ago.  Dr. MacKenzie wrote that it was "too sacred to be touched".  Apparently the Secretary did not agree, but the scary part is that he used his own power to force changes with as little discussion as possible.

This discussion reminds me of the theories in the 70s and 80s on the performance of Bach's music. In those days it was all about authenticity and a condemnation of the use of modern instruments and contemporary interpretations. The music had to be performed as Bach had intended and in no other way. Sadly there aren't audio or video recordings where Bach tells us how it should be done, so it came down to all kind of vague theories and almost religious exegesis. Very dogmatic, intolerant and sometimes even fiendish. Luckily these days are over. Nowedays there is a much more open view on the performance of old music in general. It's the quality that counts and the integrity of the interpretation. I think the same should apply to making changes to The Old Course or other historic golf courses.

[BCrosby]

John -


I think you missed my point. The issue is whether a change to TOC affects the architecture of the hole in the sense that it changes how the hole is played. Rebuilding the Road Hole bunker does not affect in any material way how the hole will be played. It is required, periodic maintenance.


Flattening the back left portion of the Eden green and eliminating a slope that previously fed balls off the back (or into Hill Bunker) is a change to the architecture of the hole. It changes how the hole is played. There is now a bail-out long left if you are worried about coming up short and rolling off the severely sloped front of the green into the perdition of either Strath or the deep valley short of the green.


On any other par 3 maybe it makes sense to increase pinnable areas. Punters like you and I will have a smoother green to putt on. It reduces the intimidation factor. Catering to the median golfer can be justified on many courses.   


But the Eden Hole is not just another par 3. It is by any measure one of the iconic holes in golf. It has a special role in the evolution of golf architecture. It has a long, long playing history familiar to most of us. For those reasons the hole deserved special protections. It did not get them.


Bob


 

[Ian Andrew]

“The big change on this hole is the new bunkers to the right of the green. At the 2000 Open we had two bunkers miles from the green that had no real relevance to the play. So what we have done is fill in the old ones and introduce two new bunkers green side and, behind them on what used to be dead-flat ground, there is now some undulation. We did this because, whenever the pin was to the right on the green, the challenge was diminished. All you had to do was miss the green to the right and you had a flat putt. It wasn’t demanding in any way. Plus, it was so flat I suspect it wasn’t natural. It looked like it was constructed. It was probably a tee at one time. What we won’t do is put the pin just over the bunkers. The traditional strategy at St Andrews is ‘easy drive up the left, challenging drive up the right’. So where the pin will be is at the bottom of the slope on the green. If you drive left you can’t get at it, the ball will either kick off into the bunkers or into the new undulations. Having said that, three pins out of four in the Open will be on the left and high side of the green.”


... one pin position for an event held every five years

[Peter Pallotta]

Did anyone else find the rationale for/linchpin of all these changes a tad
disingenuous? I'm not even sure what the R&A not having the luxury of being a single issue organization is supposed to mean.
Peter

[Sean_A]

John -


I think you missed my point. The issue is whether a change to TOC affects the architecture of the hole in the sense that it changes how the hole is played. Rebuilding the Road Hole bunker does not affect in any material way how the hole will be played. It is required, periodic maintenance.


Flattening the back left portion of the Eden green and eliminating a slope that previously fed balls off the back (or into Hill Bunker) is a change to the architecture of the hole. It changes how the hole is played. There is now a bail-out long left if you are worried about coming up short and rolling off the severely sloped front of the green into the perdition of either Strath or the deep valley short of the green.


On any other par 3 maybe it makes sense to increase pinnable areas. Punters like you and I will have a smoother green to putt on. It reduces the intimidation factor. Catering to the median golfer can be justified on many courses.   


But the Eden Hole is not just another par 3. It is by any measure one of the iconic holes in golf. It has a special role in the evolution of golf architecture. It has a long, long playing history familiar to most of us. For those reasons the hole deserved special protections. It did not get them.


Bob

Bob


I am certainly no expert, but it seems to me that it is quite possible the rear of the 11th green has become higher over the decades if sand is applied for maintenance.  Its also the case that with far quicker greens these days the intent (if there was intent) of the 11th has been altered.  That said, I can find no evidence which suggests the left side of the green near Hill Bunker was ever used for hole locations in The Open.  I may be mistaken, but the new work "creating" hole locations on that side of the green...and that seems to fly in the face of history.  It would be interesting to know if that area was ever used for daily play.  All that said, it would also be interesting to know why the left side of the green wasn't used in The Open (if this is the case). It seems to me that its a great area for a hole location. 


Regardless of any reasons for change, I don't believe the Secretary of the R&A or any single person or small group should be allowed to push through non-maintenance changes to TOC without a lengthy and worldwide consultation.


Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

The two main discussions around the altering of the eleventh green have centred on a couple of things: 1. Whether there was due diligence in the decision making and 2. The ability to get a new pin position.
 
No one has talked about what is - for me - one of the main reasons it shouldn't have been altered. That is the pure aesthetics of the green. There is something glorious about the long sweeps and slopes of golden age and before greens. There are no greens that are designed that way nowadays. That 5 or 6 or 7% slope may not have been pinnable for the big boys but it looked fantastic and messing with the shaping of a portion of a green like that changes the aesthetic of the whole green.
 
Regards the top-dressing observation Adrian made, I'm not sure I agree. In my (admittedly lesser) experience, the opposite is true. Top-dressing has more potential to soften greens by gravitating to low points and hollows. It doesn't accentuate high points and slopes.

[Niall C]

Bob


With reference to your last post, as ever you state your case clearly and passionately.


There is no doubt that the reduction in gradient (rather than flattening as you suggest) has made a change in where a ball ends up when landing on that part of the green. But could that not also be said about the contours round the Road Hole bunker, and indeed any other bunker that has been rebuilt with worn surrounds replaced with new turf ? Clearly those kind of changes can make a significant difference in whether a ball gathers into the bunker or whether it doesn't. Others have mentioned how the depth and steepness of the face of the bunker has changed quite dramatically over the years and I'm sure that you could say the same about most other bunkers on the course. As you say, there intimidation factor either goes up or down depending onthe changes. Consequently you would have to say their strategic importance changes each time, no matter how minimally, would you not ?


Therefore the Old Course has never been set in stone and I don't think that revisionist history as Tom suggests.


Adrian also makes a good point about green speeds. At what point was the green speed fast enough on the 11th such that the ball rolled back down the way you suggest ? Has it always been like that ?

Niall

[Jud_T]

Niall,

Rebuilding bunkers due to normal wear and tear is significantly different than moving bunkers and changing green and fairway slopes to challenge top players once a decade and you know it.  Frankly it's a poor attempt to bolster your argument.

Martin,

Honestly that's a crap analogy.  Perhaps if you were interpreting plans for a course that was never built you'd have a case.  A better analogy would be that we needed to touch up the Mona Lisa with some day glo colors so it could hold up against pop art for today's art patron's sensibilities.

[Jeff Taylor]

Would or did any of the professionals on this site turn this work down?

[MCirba]

The two main discussions around the altering of the eleventh green have centred on a couple of things: 1. Whether there was due diligence in the decision making and 2. The ability to get a new pin position.
 
No one has talked about what is - for me - one of the main reasons it shouldn't have been altered. That is the pure aesthetics of the green. There is something glorious about the long sweeps and slopes of golden age and before greens. There are no greens that are designed that way nowadays. That 5 or 6 or 7% slope may not have been pinnable for the big boys but it looked fantastic and messing with the shaping of a portion of a green like that changes the aesthetic of the whole green.
 
Regards the top-dressing observation Adrian made, I'm not sure I agree. In my (admittedly lesser) experience, the opposite is true. Top-dressing has more potential to soften greens by gravitating to low points and hollows. It doesn't accentuate high points and slopes.

+1

[Tom_Doak]

Would or did any of the professionals on this site turn this work down?

Jeff:


No one turned the work down.  Mr. Dawson instructed Dr. Hawtree what to do, though one hopes they had discussions about it all beforehand.


I would have turned this work down.  And I say that knowing how hard it is to turn down, when they're just going to go to someone else and do what they want.  I thought hard about quitting as consultant for Royal Melbourne when they were adamant about changing the 6th green on the West course ... which would certainly be #1 on the most sacred list for any golf course feature in Australia.  However, it had gotten to the point that approach shots hit behind the hole were coming all the way back off the green, so they either had to slow down all the greens, or do something with that one. 


In the end, we managed to sort out a way to do what they wanted without changing what I thought were the key slopes in the green.  It was still a nail-biter the whole way, and I was ready to quit mid-stream if someone insisted on a change I thought was wrong.


I do feel that The Old Course is in a category of its own as far as this goes.  But for many years I have advocated some sort of system by which the great courses could be preserved, so that architects aren't put in the position described above.




Martin:


Your analogy was indeed poor.  No one ever suggested permanently rewriting Bach's music and destroying the only remaining copy.  They'd be sent to the loony bin.