News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's the Architectural History of the 18th at The Old Course?
« Reply #25 on: July 27, 2020, 12:02:56 PM »
Scott — You obviously know more than any of us! Yes, I am corrected in that the No. 1 (burn green) is the "new" green, yet in that day and age it would mostly have been "No. 17" as I believe the clockwise routing was still in favor. Maybe you can confirm that fact. Also, I recall that significant work was done to the Road Hole green at or about the same time as the "new" green....is this right?

Please — if you will — relate more about the current No. 18 green and how it was raised with debris...possible buried bodies!
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's the Architectural History of the 18th at The Old Course?
« Reply #26 on: July 27, 2020, 05:15:20 PM »

Niall — Geometrically and play-wise, I do not believe (in 1764) that it would have made any difference if playing to the same hole (common holes). The "short" holes that were congested up near what is now the R&A and the Obelisk would have been a traffic jam at certain times. Regardless of playing to the same hole, players would have been hitting into each other length-wise to the hole — as well as proximity-wise. It would have added insult to injury in terms of congestion.
To me, Bill's


Forrest


You may well be right, who know's what standard of etiquette there was then but I suspect that any one playing to the same hole while another group, going in the opposite direction, were putting would have received a fairly hot reception ! Personally I think it more likely they figured it made better golf, or alternatively the green site was possibly out of play for some reason and the new holes stuck.


Niall

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's the Architectural History of the 18th at The Old Course?
« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2020, 05:33:38 PM »
Well said.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Chris Buie

  • Karma: +0/-0

V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's the Architectural History of the 18th at The Old Course?
« Reply #29 on: July 28, 2020, 04:26:34 PM »

The different pieces of otherwise excellent information have me a bit confused...can one of those posters answer/locate on this aerial where the older builds were/are?

First, these questions:

This portrayal of four locales... working East to West... Monument (yellow unfilled circle), current 18th green (pink circle), current 1st green (white circle), current 17th green...


1. Is this the way its been since 1870 (or so) ?  Y/N?
2. Did it go to 18 holes (from 22) from circa 1764; Y/N?


If YES to both, then.... we're now talking (generally) the 1764 - 1870 course, as it adjusted from 22 holes to 18 and allowed for a dominant, if not standard, "clockwise" play -- as opposed to today's near universal counter-clock direction


3. What/where (on this map) were the 1st, 17th and 18th greens....
4. Was the current 17th green (the Road Hole green) then the 1st green in this older clockwise/left-handed  play?
5. If Yes, where was the 1st tee at this time? (Had it already moved to the current familiar locale?)
6. If Yes, was there a different 1st green for counter clockwise play?
7. Finally, what/where on this map exactly did Old Tom do with 18 and 1 from the way he knew it in his youth?
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's the Architectural History of the 18th at The Old Course?
« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2020, 12:36:42 PM »
Scott M. is the best to sort out these questions, and he has already been very kind to correct me during this thread in instances where I have ventured off the path. The most important take-away is that the course prior to the consolidation involved a hole(s) "farther up" and while this distance may not have been as far as the Obleisk, it was certainly not where it remains today — the present location of the first tee and 18th green.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2020, 02:39:35 PM by Forrest Richardson »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Scott Macpherson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's the Architectural History of the 18th at The Old Course? New
« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2020, 04:15:07 PM »
Hi,

I am heading away so struggling to fully respond, and in fact the plan I shared with Forrest is not wanting to upload, so perhaps, Forrest, if you have the time and skill, you might upload the 1821 plan. If you can do it, it may make my following ramblings a little less incoherent...

As regards the Old Course, I am of the opinion that the golf course did not extend up the hill to the monument. They is no clear proof about this, but the version of the 1821 Plan I have shown to Forrest (and which was produced by Martin 9 months before his full survey of the links, and the first full plan ever made) shows a label for an ‘Old Golf Hole’ under the buildings to the right of the current 18th green. This hole might have been part of the 22 hole course before the houses were built along side the current 18th hole, (Links Road War etc). It’s more likely the hole played up into this raised corner, that being the ‘Hill’ where the first hole got its name.

If this is the case, then the St Andrews Links (it didn't become the Old Course until the New course was built in 1895), did not extend beyond the location of the R&A clubhouse.

It makes some sense in that there was no 'clubhouse' for these early golfers. They met at various places, sometimes at the links, other times at a local Inn (pub). There is a reference in the 18th century to The Golf House, another the Golfer's Hall which in 1802 was on the east end of South Street. My point being that golfers would have walked to the links and this hole (under the buildings of Auchterlonies/ Forgan House) was the closest point to the street from where the golfers would meet the links, so a logical place to start and finish a match. (Remember, you had to tee off within a club length of the hole)

As regards the holes themselves, in 1764 we know the first 4 holes were deeply unsatisfying to those playing at that time, so were converted into two holes for ‘the improvement of the links’. The clue is in the wording. They were short and not very good. It was clear from old texts that the first four holes ‘shall be played as two’. So the course was not extended, they just by passed the intermediate holes and kept playing to the next hole.

Because of the dog-leg created by the location of the 'Old Golf Hole' if we were to play from hole 1 to hole 3, one supposition is that that's when the old golf hole was abandoned and tee for the 1st hole moved closer to the sea – i.e to where we know it to be today. This straightening of the hole would have solved some problems during the Links Road War and when all the houses were created. It may have also made sense when the golfers negotiated the ground for the location of their current clubhouse, many years before it was built. This history is not clear and it's somewhat a case of joining the dots.

That's my two cents worth for now... but I reserve the right to change my mind... :)

Scott
« Last Edit: July 29, 2020, 05:13:22 PM by Scott Macpherson »