[Mac Plumart]

Mac,

Don't you think that Bobby Jones would want to look down from heaven and see Tiger play to the pin placement on 11 that caused him so much grief?  The changes on 11 bring back that pin placement. I see that as good.

Hell, I think it is good that anyone who loves the history of golf can now play to that pin placement.

John...

Frankly, I don't know.

This is why I'm frustrated with the way this whole thing is going down.  I want a well thought out and transparent process led by the real historians, Old Course experts, and golf course architects all working together to get this entire thing absolutely correct.

If they decide on appropriate action after a sufficient vetting and discussion, fine.  Move forward.

That is what I'd like to see.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mac,

The Internet, Fox News and MSNBC debate how to fix our economy everyday. How's that working. I'm glad a small number of experts and guardians made decisions  behind closed doors. Open communication and debate are obsolete in our modern internet social network society.  It's the price we pay for giving everyone a voice. I never saw this coming.

[Mac Plumart]

John...

I didn't say I wanted open debate on the improvements.  I want the leading experts to get together and decide how to move forward.  It is clear that didn't happen.

Peter Dawson appears to have significant influence on this.  He's admitted to being confused regarding the bunker placement on 2.  And I can't find anything on his background that suggests he's a student of, or professional, golf course architect. (Someone correct me of I'm wrong).

Meanwhile, Tom Doak, your buddy Joe Passov, Brad Klein, and many others...including EIGCA, St. Andrews Golf Club, ASGCA had no knowledge of this.  And, it appears very few R&A members were consulted.

Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say or imply I want every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have their say.  I clearly said...

(I) want a well thought out and transparent process led by the real historians, Old Course experts, and golf course architects all working together to get this entire thing absolutely correct.

 

[John Kavanaugh]

Mac,

It is my belief that they did have experts and historians. They only need one architect and they have him. What possibly has led you to believe that this is the work of one misguided man?

Do you think this thread would be worse off if 400 years from now when we are all gone a new webmaster corrects the misspelling on the title?  It would take away some of the charm but may bring other untold benefits. I would be willing to see how it plays out.

[Mac Plumart]

What possibly has led you to believe that this is the work of one misguided man?

Not one man, John.  Rather it seems a small group of people.

[John Kavanaugh]

What possibly has led you to believe that this is the work of one misguided man?

Not one man, John.  Rather it seems a small group of people.

Yes, a small group of experts and historians including the leading modern architect in this specific type of work.

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm sorry that Tom Doak wasn't consulted on this project but how many times are you going to hand your barber a sawbuck if every time you visit he tells you that he wouldn't change a thing.

[Mac Plumart]

I'm sorry that Tom Doak wasn't consulted on this project but how many times are you going to hand your barber a sawbuck if every time you visit he tells you that he wouldn't change a thing.

Hey genius...

If it ain't broke, don't break it.

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm sorry that Tom Doak wasn't consulted on this project but how many times are you going to hand your barber a sawbuck if every time you visit he tells you that he wouldn't change a thing.

Hey genius...

If it ain't broke, don't break it.

That to me is the only opposing argument. I'm sure it was presented and seriously considered behind closed doors.

[Paul_Turner]

A question:  was anyone here (on GCA) not surprised with this announcement?

I've followed the changes to the other Open courses but it had never crossed my mind that they would go after The Old Course.  Easy with hindsight.

[John Kavanaugh]

A question:  was anyone here (on GCA) not surprised with this announcement?

I've followed the changes to the other Open courses but it had never crossed my mind that they would go after The Old Course.  Easy with hindsight.

I was surprised when Scotland released the Lockerbie Bomber. This, no.

[Jud_T]

how many times are you going to hand your barber a sawbuck if every time you visit he tells you that he wouldn't change a thing.

Pretty much sums up the problem of ambulance chasing GCA's in a nutshell...

[Mark Bourgeois]

A question:  was anyone here (on GCA) not surprised with this announcement?

I've followed the changes to the other Open courses but it had never crossed my mind that they would go after The Old Course.  Easy with hindsight.

Shocked anyone would have the hubris to make these types of changes. Overturning ~80+ years of what Geoff Shackelford rightly calls "settled law" over the quality that makes TOC special. No, he doesn't mean changing the Road Hole bunker. Intelligent people see that as Mr Dawson's simplistic efforts to define his opposition and create a smoke screen.

[astavrides]

Is it wrong that I think Mona Lisa looks hot in that picture?  And no, I'm not making any reference to TOC when I ask that question.

[Mike Schott]

It was never about whether it will be a better golf course after the alterations. If your dream comes true and you get to St. Andrews, you very well might love The New Old Course. But -- barring a genuine restoration -- your chance to play The Old Course is gone.

This is the kind of post that makes me feel that some here are nostalgic for reasons that don't exist. I've never played St. Andrews except on my computer but no one here has played it as Old Tom or Bobby Jones played it. I get the mustache on the Mona Lisa style analogies but even she doesn't look exactly as when Da Vinci painted her centuries ago.

By the way, to what standard would you consider a "genuine restoration" of TOC?

[Rick Shefchik]

It was never about whether it will be a better golf course after the alterations. If your dream comes true and you get to St. Andrews, you very well might love The New Old Course. But -- barring a genuine restoration -- your chance to play The Old Course is gone.

This is the kind of post that makes me feel that some here are nostalgic for reasons that don't exist. I've never played St. Andrews except on my computer but no one here has played it as Old Tom or Bobby Jones played it. I get the mustache on the Mona Lisa style analogies but even she doesn't look exactly as when Da Vinci painted her centuries ago.

By the way, to what standard would you consider a "genuine restoration" of TOC?

I'll quote myself from a separate thread:  "I'd suggest a thorough documentation of all the changes to the course throughout the Open Championship era, choosing a version of the course that best represents its historical apex, and defending what's left of that with extreme tenacity."

I know this won't happen, but it wouldn't be much more difficult to do than what they're doing now.

Thanks for speculating on my reasons for my opinion, by the way. Good to hear from someone more informed on that subject than I am.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike,

You have fallen into the same trap as others before you. Over and over we have seen people argue that past modifications to golf courses mean we should continue to make changes. So, the golf technology arms race continues. We "improve" the golf ball, so, of course, we now need to "improve" the golf course. It is a logic that makes no sense, but over and over again people fall for it.

The game is the balance between player skill, the equipment and the playing field. The balance should be achieved as economically as possible. Spending money to modify golf courses because the ruling bodies won't regulate equipment manufacturers fails the test of achieving the necessary balance between equipment and the playing field in the most economical manner possible.

I have been observing golfers for more than fifty years. The vast majority don't need courses most than 6,200 yards. A very small minority can handle 6,600 yards. There is no reason courses should be built and maintained at more than 7,000 yards just to accommodate an elite minority. It just isn't the economic thing to do.

[Mike Schott]

It was never about whether it will be a better golf course after the alterations. If your dream comes true and you get to St. Andrews, you very well might love The New Old Course. But -- barring a genuine restoration -- your chance to play The Old Course is gone.

This is the kind of post that makes me feel that some here are nostalgic for reasons that don't exist. I've never played St. Andrews except on my computer but no one here has played it as Old Tom or Bobby Jones played it. I get the mustache on the Mona Lisa style analogies but even she doesn't look exactly as when Da Vinci painted her centuries ago.

By the way, to what standard would you consider a "genuine restoration" of TOC?

I'll quote myself from a separate thread:  "I'd suggest a thorough documentation of all the changes to the course throughout the Open Championship era, choosing a version of the course that best represents its historical apex, and defending what's left of that with extreme tenacity."

I know this won't happen, but it wouldn't be much more difficult to do than what they're doing now.

Thanks for speculating on my reasons for my opinion, by the way. Good to hear from someone more informed on that subject than I am.

So I can't comment if I don't have the same knowledge as you? I don't think that's how this forum works. But certainly there's a lot to debate on this topic and plenty of passionate opinions which is great.

Thanks for your quote. I think that's a reasonable idea but like the numerous threads on this topic exhibit, coming to a consensus on anything to do with TOC will be extremely difficult.

[Rick Shefchik]

It was never about whether it will be a better golf course after the alterations. If your dream comes true and you get to St. Andrews, you very well might love The New Old Course. But -- barring a genuine restoration -- your chance to play The Old Course is gone.

This is the kind of post that makes me feel that some here are nostalgic for reasons that don't exist. I've never played St. Andrews except on my computer but no one here has played it as Old Tom or Bobby Jones played it. I get the mustache on the Mona Lisa style analogies but even she doesn't look exactly as when Da Vinci painted her centuries ago.

By the way, to what standard would you consider a "genuine restoration" of TOC?

I'll quote myself from a separate thread:  "I'd suggest a thorough documentation of all the changes to the course throughout the Open Championship era, choosing a version of the course that best represents its historical apex, and defending what's left of that with extreme tenacity."

I know this won't happen, but it wouldn't be much more difficult to do than what they're doing now.

Thanks for speculating on my reasons for my opinion, by the way. Good to hear from someone more informed on that subject than I am.

So I can't comment if I don't have the same knowledge as you? I don't think that's how this forum works. But certainly there's a lot to debate on this topic and plenty of passionate opinions which is great.

Thanks for your quote. I think that's a reasonable idea but like the numerous threads on this topic exhibit, coming to a consensus on anything to do with TOC will be extremely difficult.

Mike -- you misunderstand me; probably my fault for expressing myself poorly. I am certainly not claiming I'm more informed on the issues surrounding The Old Course than you are, or anyone else. It was your suggestion that I am "nostalgic for reasons that don't exist" that I disagreed with. You seemed to be trying to read my mind. I'd suggest that's not a very promising pursuit.

[Mike Schott]

Mike,

You have fallen into the same trap as others before you. Over and over we have seen people argue that past modifications to golf courses mean we should continue to make changes. So, the golf technology arms race continues. We "improve" the golf ball, so, of course, we now need to "improve" the golf course. It is a logic that makes no sense, but over and over again people fall for it.

The game is the balance between player skill, the equipment and the playing field. The balance should be achieved as economically as possible. Spending money to modify golf courses because the ruling bodies won't regulate equipment manufacturers fails the test of achieving the necessary balance between equipment and the playing field in the most economical manner possible.

I have been observing golfers for more than fifty years. The vast majority don't need courses most than 6,200 yards. A very small minority can handle 6,600 yards. There is no reason courses should be built and maintained at more than 7,000 yards just to accommodate an elite minority. It just isn't the economic thing to do.

Thanks Tim.

I'm not necessarily in favor of the changes to The Old Course and certainly not qualified to make that judgement having not played the course. As shown by the passionate opinions regarding any changes to the old girl, she is rightly held as a work of art and any changes are to be carefully vetted. I'm just not sure we should argue that she stay the same when she is not the same course as even a few decades ago and certainly not as when Old Tom worked on her.

I'm also not in favor of constantly changing courses. I'd prefer to see classic courses as close to they were original classic configurations as possible. I'd roll back the ball as well. In my neck of the woods, Oakland Hills is just down the street from where I work. Wouldn't it be great to take her back to the original Ross configuration and erase the wasp waisted RTJ fairways?

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my previous post.

[Mike Schott]

It was never about whether it will be a better golf course after the alterations. If your dream comes true and you get to St. Andrews, you very well might love The New Old Course. But -- barring a genuine restoration -- your chance to play The Old Course is gone.

This is the kind of post that makes me feel that some here are nostalgic for reasons that don't exist. I've never played St. Andrews except on my computer but no one here has played it as Old Tom or Bobby Jones played it. I get the mustache on the Mona Lisa style analogies but even she doesn't look exactly as when Da Vinci painted her centuries ago.

By the way, to what standard would you consider a "genuine restoration" of TOC?

I'll quote myself from a separate thread:  "I'd suggest a thorough documentation of all the changes to the course throughout the Open Championship era, choosing a version of the course that best represents its historical apex, and defending what's left of that with extreme tenacity."

I know this won't happen, but it wouldn't be much more difficult to do than what they're doing now.

Thanks for speculating on my reasons for my opinion, by the way. Good to hear from someone more informed on that subject than I am.

So I can't comment if I don't have the same knowledge as you? I don't think that's how this forum works. But certainly there's a lot to debate on this topic and plenty of passionate opinions which is great.

Thanks for your quote. I think that's a reasonable idea but like the numerous threads on this topic exhibit, coming to a consensus on anything to do with TOC will be extremely difficult.

Mike -- you misunderstand me; probably my fault for expressing myself poorly. I am certainly not claiming I'm more informed on the issues surrounding The Old Course than you are, or anyone else. It was your suggestion that I am "nostalgic for reasons that don't exist" that I disagreed with. You seemed to be trying to read my mind. I'd suggest that's not a very promising pursuit.

Thanks Rick.

I apologize for making an assumption in the first place. I also did not phrase that very well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()