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.


Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
"The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« on: August 28, 2020, 06:30:28 PM »
Here is an interesting but brief, article on the thoughts of Tom Mackenzie and Martin Ebert concerning the Old Course and Bryson DeChambeau.  Interesting that many years ago there was thought that they might have to borrow land from the New and the Jubilee to create a course of 7,405 yards.
https://www.globalgolfpost.com/featured/how-old-course-fits-in-distance-debate/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=unlocked&utm_content=20200827-save-st.-andrews&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=READ%20FULL%20STORY&utm_campaign=St.%20Andrews

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2020, 07:34:18 PM »
Uh oh, laying down a marker.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2020, 02:41:14 AM »
You save The Old Course by leaving it alone.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2020, 03:13:23 AM »
Thanks for highlighting this article Jerry.
Good point by AMcI about preserving through not changing. Having read the article a few times there are some valid points made though, not just TOC related points either.
Can someone throw more light or post a copy or a link of the 1938 'super championship course' incorporating holes from TOC, the Jubilee and the New mentioned in the article?
atb

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2020, 03:21:01 AM »
Definitely valid points made and Tom Mac has been promoting 10 clubs for years now.


But even talking in terms of changing The Old Course to “save” it gets people thinking the wrong way round.

Ben Stephens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2020, 04:21:11 AM »
This raises the questions whether the Old Course is heading in the same direction as Musselburgh in the 19th C and Prestwick in the 1920's

Its main defence against the pros is the wind - maybe large artificial wind machines would suffice and keep the course untouched  ;D ;D ;D

The game is moving on with the likes of Inverness, Oakland Hills and Congressional all been or being revamped and nearly 8000 yards!

Regarding a super championship course using a composite of holes throughout the site is interesting lets try out a number of potential layouts to see if it works as it would be a fun exercise

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2020, 04:39:09 AM »
Thanks for highlighting this article Jerry.
Good point by AMcI about preserving through not changing. Having read the article a few times there are some valid points made though, not just TOC related points either.
Can someone throw more light or post a copy or a link of the 1938 'super championship course' incorporating holes from TOC, the Jubilee and the New mentioned in the article?
atb


Yeah, I've got lots of stuff about it. Will dig out, hang on...
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2020, 06:08:19 AM »
There’s a thread on it here unsurprisingly... Think there were a few alternative routing ideas posted as well.

Ben Stephens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2020, 08:28:15 AM »
There’s a thread on it here unsurprisingly... Think there were a few alternative routing ideas posted as well.


Hi Ally


It must have been a rather old thread - can you find it?


Cheers
Ben

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2020, 08:33:01 AM »
There’s a thread on it here unsurprisingly... Think there were a few alternative routing ideas posted as well.


Hi Ally


It must have been a rather old thread - can you find it?


Cheers
Ben


I thought you were one who came up with an alternative plan but sounds like that’s wrong!.... My guess is it wasn’t a specific thread on the topic but a fairly robust discussion hidden within another thread.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2020, 09:17:40 AM »
Ally


I suspect it might have been a thread about the mid 30's Campbell/Hutchison/Auchterlonie changes to Jubilee. There was a lot of proposals flying around at that time. Hopefully Adam will be able to post some.


Niall

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2020, 09:18:45 AM »
This raises the questions whether the Old Course is heading in the same direction as Musselburgh in the 19th C and Prestwick in the 1920's



Ben


Would that be a bad thing ?


Niall

Ben Stephens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2020, 09:54:19 AM »
There’s a thread on it here unsurprisingly... Think there were a few alternative routing ideas posted as well.


Hi Ally


It must have been a rather old thread - can you find it?


Cheers
Ben


I thought you were one who came up with an alternative plan but sounds like that’s wrong!.... My guess is it wasn’t a specific thread on the topic but a fairly robust discussion hidden within another thread.


Ally I did a couple of threads on future Open course layouts but never St Andrews nor Carnoustie, Muirfield or Troon. St Andrews would be a great challenge for all of us to come up with a composite layout - and hope Adam L is able to produce a plan of the 1938 version of a super championship layout

Ben Stephens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2020, 10:12:35 AM »
This raises the questions whether the Old Course is heading in the same direction as Musselburgh in the 19th C and Prestwick in the 1920's



Ben


Would that be a bad thing ?


Niall


Niall,

No it would not be a bad thing. It would preserve the Old Course which is more like a grade 1 listed landscape. Despite it being an iconic and unique course its dreadful for spectators. I think it reached its shelf life as a major championship course in the early 2000's like Musselburgh in the late 19th century and Prestwick in the 1920's

Having a super championship course more spread out would make it more challenging and better for spectators as the Open is much more commercial and has higher number of spectators plus the standard of professional golf is higher these days they need a tougher challenge.

Cheers
Ben


 

John Crowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2020, 10:31:19 AM »
You save The Old Course by leaving it alone.
+ 1!!!!!

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2020, 10:57:24 AM »

This raises the questions whether the Old Course is heading in the same direction as Musselburgh in the 19th C and Prestwick in the 1920's

Ben
Would that be a bad thing ?
Niall

Niall,
No it would not be a bad thing. It would preserve the Old Course which is more like a grade 1 listed landscape. Despite it being an iconic and unique course its dreadful for spectators. I think it reached its shelf life as a major championship course in the early 2000's like Musselburgh in the late 19th century and Prestwick in the 1920's
Having a super championship course more spread out would make it more challenging and better for spectators as the Open is much more commercial and has higher number of spectators plus the standard of professional golf is higher these days they need a tougher challenge.
Cheers
Ben


+1 Ben.


TOC might be iconic but I am far from convinced that all it's holes and it's routing are appropriate to hold The Open and akin events these days. An iconic relic for The Open and like events but still a Mecca for amateurs and enthusiasts etc, but that's okay, they can still carry on playing it.

I've mentioned herein before a possible composite course for The Open and akin events at St Andrews using the 1st and 2nd and 16th, 17th and 18th, maybe the 11th, from the Old Course and then routing the balance of such a composite course by taking the best and most appropriately routed holes from the New, Jubilee and Eden to make up an 18-hole composite course. No takers to my suggestions as I recall.

I would suggest that most folks watching on TV only really know the 1st-2nd, maybe 11th, 16th-17th-18th TOC holes anyway so using other holes from the other adjacent courses oughtn't make much difference to the TV viewing public and it ought to improve the viewing spectacle for onsite spectators as most of TOC isn't terrific from this a spectator perspective.

Hopefully Adam will be able to locate the 1938 details mentioned. It would be fascinating to see/read them.

atb





« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 10:59:58 AM by Thomas Dai »

Ben Stephens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2020, 11:02:15 AM »
This raises the questions whether the Old Course is heading in the same direction as Musselburgh in the 19th C and Prestwick in the 1920's
Ben
Would that be a bad thing ?
Niall
Niall,
No it would not be a bad thing. It would preserve the Old Course which is more like a grade 1 listed landscape. Despite it being an iconic and unique course its dreadful for spectators. I think it reached its shelf life as a major championship course in the early 2000's like Musselburgh in the late 19th century and Prestwick in the 1920's
Having a super championship course more spread out would make it more challenging and better for spectators as the Open is much more commercial and has higher number of spectators plus the standard of professional golf is higher these days they need a tougher challenge.
Cheers
Ben


+1
TOC might be iconic but I am far from convinced that all it's holes and it's routing are appropriate to hold The Open and akin events these days. An iconic relic for The Open and like events but still a Mecca for amateurs and enthusiasts etc, but that's okay, they can still carry on playing it.


I've mentioned herein before a possible composite course for The Open and akin events at St Andrews using the 1st and 2nd and 16th, 17th and 18th, maybe the 11th, from the Old Course and then routing the balance of such a composite course by taking the best and most appropriately routed holes from the New, Jubilee and Eden to make up an 18-hole composite course. No takers to my suggestions as I recall.

I would suggest that most folks watching on TV only really know the 1st-2nd, maybe 11th, 16th-17th-18th TOC holes anyway so using other holes from the other adjacent courses oughtn't make much difference to the TV viewing public and it ought to improve the viewing spectacle for onsite spectators as most of TOC isn't terrific from this a spectator perspective.


Hopefully Adam will be able to locate the 1938 details mentioned. It would be fascinating to see/read them.


atb


Hi Dai,


Not only the Old there are some great holes on the other courses such as the 9th on the New :) whether that can be brought in the composite layout will be a challenge.


On the Old for the pros 1 and 18 are weak holes maybe take them out of the equation and possibly finish on the 17th hole instead 


The Country Club is hosting the US Open and it has 27 holes and using 18 holes one of which is 2 holes into one. The question is was it the actual course that Ouimet won in 1913?


Cheers
Ben
« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 11:03:55 AM by Ben Stephens »

Brad Tufts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2020, 11:28:04 AM »
Ouimet won over the members’ 18, as the Primrose 9 was not added until later.


I’m not exactly sure when the composite course started for tournament play.


For the recent US Am, the usual composite layout was changed a bit (comp #12 became a par 5 with 100+ yards added), and for 2022 there will be a new configuration with a couple different holes used than usual.
So I jump ship in Hong Kong....

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2020, 12:23:50 PM »
I hope this is legible; having to reduce to 800 pixels wide to fit GCA column width isn't ideal. But if anyone wants the full sized image just let me know your email address and I will send it to you.


Adam



Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2020, 01:07:02 PM »
My main takeaway from that piece is that Sir Guy Campbell thought The Old Course would be obsolete for championship play before 1950.  But most people didn't think so when Nicklaus and Seve and Faldo and Tiger won, so maybe Sir Guy was another Chicken Little.  (Do our UK friends know that reference?  I'm not sure how widespread the book was.)


Or possibly, you could take the stand that The Old Course was preserved for another era by the rollback to the US 1.68-in ball, but now it's in danger again.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2020, 01:50:43 PM »
My main takeaway from that piece is that Sir Guy Campbell thought The Old Course would be obsolete for championship play before 1950.  But most people didn't think so when Nicklaus and Seve and Faldo and Tiger won, so maybe Sir Guy was another Chicken Little.  (Do our UK friends know that reference?  I'm not sure how widespread the book was.)
Or possibly, you could take the stand that The Old Course was preserved for another era by the rollback to the US 1.68-in ball, but now it's in danger again.


Enlightenment needed - not familiar with the Chicken Little book!
Good point about the 1:68” providing a period of preservation, a period that imo has now well and truly lapsed).
Atb

Ben Stephens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2020, 02:30:08 PM »
Tom Is your interpretation of Chicken Little fear mongering?Very good point regarding the golf ball the smaller ball went farther and straighter which is the case with the current crop of golf balls.
Adam Thank you for the diagram and article - its a surprise that they did not use some of the Old Course holes and now it looks like a combination of the current New and Jubilee course areas - the question is can a composite course be created out of the current New and Jubilee courses or another version utilising some of the Old Course holes?CheersBen

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2020, 02:53:39 PM »

Adam Thank you for the diagram and article - its a surprise that they did not use some of the Old Course holes


No it isn't -- everyone involved was quite clear that the Old Course was totally sacrosanct and the objective was to give St Andrews a second, future proof (hopefully) championship course.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

John Crowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2020, 03:12:12 PM »
So if DeChambeau is so great, let’s let him shoot a couple of 54’s on TOC first before any changes to the course.


If future Open scores at TOC are going to be lower -SO WHAT! These guys are skilled- let them show off.

Leave the course as is (with occasional minor tweaks as absolutely necessary) for the other 99.44% of players.

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Need to Save St. Andrews"
« Reply #24 on: August 29, 2020, 03:15:50 PM »
So if DeChambeau is so great, let’s let him shoot a couple of 54’s on TOC first before any changes to the course.


If future Open scores at TOC are going to be lower -SO WHAT! These guys are skilled- let them show off.

Leave the course as is (with occasional minor tweaks as absolutely necessary) for the other 99.44% of players.


Scores are not the issue. The issue is the shots that you must play to succeed. Being a champion golfer is supposed to be about more than hitting drivers and wedges and putting. The supreme test of a champion golfer has always been hitting long approaches to tightly guarded greens.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back