[Brian Phillips]

I am playing TOC in reverse (or should we say the correct way).  Are there any photos you guys would like me to take, apart from the Road hole bunker.

As most of you know I am not the greatest fan of TOC the normal way around so it will be interesting to see what I make of it the other way around..

I am playing with a friend who hasn't played TOC yet.  How many people in the world can say that their first round on TOC was the reverse..!!

Brian.

[Mike_Cirba]

Brian;

That sounds like a lot of fun, and I'll be interested to hear how playing to the 12th & 16th greens in reverse plays.

However, it's historical myth to believe that it "originally" played that way, and the evidence does not support it in the least.  That same myth has been perpetuated on here by Rich, just being his ole' contrarian self.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Brian Phillips,

I'm jealous.

Since you will have played it both ways, could you comment on the placement of the bunkers on the reverse course and how they seem to work so well on the current course ?

Also what bunkers that were out of play, come into play, and what bunkers in play are now out of play ?

Also, if you could describe any differences in the approaches it would be appreciated.

Thanks.

[Bob_Huntley]

Brian.

Will you be using mats? Where exactly is the teeing ground say, at the 18th hole?  

[James Edwards]

Brian,

You could get your playing partner to take a picture of you doing  a 'Nakajima' at the opening hole!

[RJ_Daley]

Any pictures would be most appreciated.  Have a great time

[Darren_Kilfara]

I posted a profile of my round on the reverse Old Course this time last year - it should be in the archives, if anyone wants to dig that deep for it. Brian, if you don't like the regular Old Course (yet!) , I highly doubt that you're going to like the reverse Old Course. But I'll let you experience it for yourself...I hope you have fun.

Cheers,
Darren

[ForkaB]

Brian

Do tells us how it played!

Mike C

I just repeat what others have told me, such as the following:

"Golf was originally played here in a clockwise direction but over time, the anti-clockwise format was deemed to be superior and since 1870 only one championship has been held over the original layout and that was due to an oversight by the green keeping staff."

If you know otherwise, please let us know.  I'm sure you have been there, and even if you have not, with your nearly MacWoodian eagle eye for determining architectural detail from pictures, I can't believe that you have ever believed that anybody or anysheep had designed those numerous hidden/reversed bunkes to be played in the sequence in which they are played now!

[ForkaB]

PS--any of you historians out there know which Championship is being referred to where the Super laid out the course backwards by mistake?  Must have been Hamish McSpackler........

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich;

Yes, I've played TOC.  

On what holes other than #12 are the bunkers oriented towards reverse play?  Seems to me that many of them would be "blind" if played in reverse.

I'm at work and don't have my other sources on hand at the moment, but wasn't 1870 about the time that the course was "widened" to 18 holes, and Allan Robertson created the 17th hole green?

Before then, play was neither clockwise or counter...it was simply out and back because the course was too narrow for much else.  The earliest maps of the course routing that I've seen show the present configuration.  For a time, the course used to be played in reverse one day a week, for variety.  

Who's the source of your quote?  

[ForkaB]

Mike

I don't remember ever having heard that the course was "widened."  From my understandings, it used to be 22 holes, out and back--clockwise--and was changed to 18 holes and then to counter clockwise sometime in the 19th century.  I also think Robertson just changed the 17th green, adding the RH bunker (as the 18th green was changed at roughly the same time, adding the "Valley of Sin").  My source on the quote was a golf website which I'll try to find if it matters to you.  I didn't look very hard for confirmation as I have never heard otherwise.  I'm sure some of the noted scholars on this site can (and would love to!) shoot me down in flames if there is clear reference to the course not have been "designed" and mostly played originally in a reverse manner.  If you take a re-look at Jeremy Glenn's chef d'oeuvre on the ROC, you'll see that the majority of the bunkers play "better" clockwise than counter-clockwise, at least IMHO.

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich;

I've looked at my sources, and I think we are both right and we're both wrong, as well.

According to Cornish & Whitten;

"It's lofty title, however, did not prevent the links at St. Andrews from being further altered.  As a public course, in a town devoted to the game, St. Andrews had always seen considerable play.  The narrow strip of playable grass was only some forty yards wide, and despite the use of double greens (actually C&W are incorrect here, as I will point out later), play became increasingly congested and hazardous.  Between 1848 and 1850, the course was widened by replacing the closest crops of heather with turf and by expanding the double greens into hundred-yard-wide surfaces.  The widened course and huge double greens offered a unique feature; The holes could be played either as the "right hand" course or in reverse as the "left hand" course.  During the same period of alteration, a new seventeeth green was also built.  And, in the first recorded instance of such a practice, some artificially created hazards were added to the Old Course."

C&W go on to mention that an accidental but far-reaching result of the course widening was the introduction of the element of strategy into the game, as players were no longer compelled to carry every hazard, but could take longer but safer routes around them.

By 1864, it seems that the course had been formalized in its present form, as a map from that year shows the present course as we know it today.  Other written accounts mention that once a week the course was played backwards, for reasons unknown.

Sometime around then, the following article was written by a "Mr. Balfour", as his "Reminisces of the Links before the Great Changes".

"The changes that have taken place on the course during these forty-five years have been very considerable.  First of all, the course is much wider.  Formerly, there was only one hole on each putting green, and players played to the same hole going out and coming in.  The party first on the green had the right to finish...This naturally kept the course narrow, but when players began to multiply it was found to be inconvenient and now would be impossible.  To obviate this it was resolved to have two holes on each putting green, one of them being played to on going out and the other one coming in; or rather there were two distinct putting greens parallel to one another, and a hole in each."

To be continued next post.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mr. Balfour's article continued;

"This was virtually making two courses all along the links - one for playing out and the other for coming in; thus the breadth of the course for golfing was gradually increased, til now it is probably two-thirds broader than it used to be.  This was probably unavoidable, owing to the increased number of players, but it has taken away much of the interest in the game." (was Mr. Balfour the first GCA "purist" )

"The only other plan that was suggested was to extend the course round the other side of the Links, and thus make it a circular one, but this was very properly rejected.  To that there are many objections.  It would have made the course shorter; it would have abolished all the present holes on the homeward line, some of which are so charming in themselves, and full of associations; it would also have deprived parties of the pleasure of meeting their friends and hearing how their matches were getting on.  It is to be hoped that such a proposal will never be renewed."

Mr. Balfour then describes each of the holes, and describes how they changed over the years.  In the case of the original number one, it played to a green near the present 17th, so that might be the genesis of the idea that the original course was the reverse one. However, in reading his other descriptions, it seems clear that the original 40 yard wide course sort of went down the right middle of the present course, and back along the exact same route.  At that time, the original 22 holes were consolidated down to 18, and some new, fully separated holes were created as well, such as the present 1st, and 18th.  

Interestingly, the 17th seems to have been part of the original course on the homeward nine (playing to what was the 1st green "just beyond the burn, on a flat, smooth broad green to the right of the course.  The only hazards in the hole are the road across the links and the burn.  There are none whatever close to the hole), although the subsequent Road Hole bunker additions by Mr. Robertson have been documented quite well.

Mr. Balfour's description of the 17th is as such;

"Playing off from the hole at the dyke, the ground in front is now cleared of the dense clump of whins that used to be immediately in front of the tee.  There has been no other alteration on this hole of great consequence, except that the grass, which is sometimes long and heavy after much rain, is mowed with a scythe, and a large bank of rushes has been removed."

Hope this helps clarify the course's evolution.    

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich;

In the interest of "full disclosure", I just came across something that indicated that in 1890, the Old Course was played one week clockwise, one week reverse clockwise.

It just seems that over time, popular opinion felt that it played better in the present method, and the course was formalized as such.  It also seems to have been preferred to some extent much earlier, with maps from 26 years prior indicating the present order of play.  

Still, it appears that the Old Course was truly a pioneer in many facets; not the least is the fact that it was our first "reversible" course, a design attribute that has sadly largely disappeared from our courses today.  

However, I sense that it's not a "dead" concept.  Why, I can imagine that an enterprising architect in modern times might have the creativity and imagination to revive the concept against all modern conventions, given an appropriate site.  

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Mike.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()