[Patrick_Mucci]

There has been a good deal of discussion with respect to the recent bunker work at Merion, the fairly recent work at Hollywood and many other courses.

In those discussions I've inidicated that the CLUBS not the architects bear the bulk of the responsibility for the alterations.  That the "will of the membership" determines the outcome.

Debates unsued with respect to responsibility, blame, authorship, etc.,etc..  But, courses continue to modernize, to alter their designs.

As a result of this I posted a thread entitled,
"what can you do".  More debate ensued.

But, now, ST ANDREWS, regarded by many as the home, origin and temple of golf is altering a KEY feature on a highly recognized, challenging and historic hole.

Forget about them moving the bunker four (4) feet, lowering the lip, and raising the floor, that is insignificant when compared to the message they are sending to the golf world.

Which is:

NOTHING IS SACRED.

No feature, no hole is safe from being altered in the name of modern golf.

Try arguing two years from now not to change an original feature on your golf course, and someone who's been playing golf ten years and a member for five years will say:
IF they can do it at St Andrews we can do it here, at our club

Argue against that logic.

This sends the most dangerous message to classic architecture that I could ever conceive.
That all courses, all features are OPEN SEASON to changes in the name of modern golf.

This is what you're up against, linch-pin clubs that should hold to traditions, to preserving their classic designs, are abandoning that pursuit, and setting the worst possible example.

I believe it will spark a trend in the wrong direction unless the outcry and protests are so strong, so many in number, that the individuals responsible for this decision, return the bunker to its pre-project form.

What do you think about the message being sent ?  and..
What do you think is the best course of protest ?

[ForkaB]

Mssrs. Mucci and Cirba

This message is not new.  They changed the look and feel of the bunkers as recently as 2000, and they reversed the whole bloody course not that long ago.  The R&A has at least 2 members on the board of the Links Management trust, so I don't think they were blindsided by this.

[Mike_Cirba]

It is revisionist history to believe that the Old Course played backwards until fairly recently.

As early as 1864, the course played in it's present configuration, and although it was played "backwards" one day a week, that seems to have been done for maintenance and variety considerations.

There is a reproduction of a map of TOC, circa 1864, in the book "The Scrapbook of Old Tom Morris" that shows the holes in their present configuration, as well as hole by hole descriptions by "Mr. Balfour" that compare and contrast the "current course" with the much narrower "nine hole" links that preceeded it, with nine going out and nine coming back sharing both fairways and greens.

As far as the recent bunker "changes" referred to by ForkaB, many here have complained that they made the bunkers too formal and manufactured looking.  I don't recall anyone complimenting those changes in the least, but the change was more aesthetic than functional.

When was the last time anyone MOVED a bunker on the Old Course, much less neutered its difficulty in the name of modern fairness???

One would clearly have to go back to beyond the last century to find a similar insulting affront to the old lady.  

[Forrest Richardson]

Golf courses are living, breathing entities...much like a human being growing and changing and developing. New experiences, new challenges and new horizons. I am fascinated and amazed when a golf course changes, either by hand of man or nature. One hundred years from now the changes we make today will seem to the discussions then as if they were right on target!

[Mike_Cirba]

Forrest;

Perhaps like the changes made to Oakland Hills, Inverness, Garden City, Bel-Air, Oak Hill, Boca Raton, Scioto, and countless others?

How many courses that were considered "great" prior to 1950 have been functionally changed since then in ways that you consider well-advised improvements?

[CHrisB]

When was the last time anyone MOVED a bunker on the Old Course, much less neutered its difficulty in the name of modern fairness???

I was watching the Dunhill Links tournament several weeks back, where it was mentioned that until sometime in the 1950's there was a single pot bunker separating the 1st and 18th fairways.  Can anyone here confirm this?  Was that the last time a bunker at TOC was moved or removed?

They better leave the Strath alone!

[Mark_F]

Surely the answer, in a major part, relates to the Greens commitee?

I am not (yet) a member of a club, so can't use experience as a basis, but I would presume that it is the greens commitee that instigates change at a course?

If that is the case, then isn't that where the problem lies?  You probably have a bunch of keen golfers who nevertheless couldn't grow a decent front lawn, telling someone with a Bachelor of Agricultural Science and a Post-graduate Diploma in Sports Turf management what to do.

As a stranger looking in, the whole nature of golf club organisation seems somewhat puzzling to me.  Members complain that trade days/corporate days are taking up too much time.  A club needs them in order to fund its operations, principally, I assume, because the costs of course maintenance are so high.

Yet aren't the maintenace costs so high because of the ever faster green speeds and ever more perfect fairway turf demanded by members?

If they weren't so obsessed with perfection, maybe maintenance costs wouldn't be so high, and course wear and tear wouldn't be the same.

And how much of the change at golf clubs is driven by the need to attract the corporate dollar?  which, seemingly, means the classic courses then have to decorate their windows with first naked ladies, then when that doesn't have quite the same effect, naked ladies doing naughty things.

I guess this is golf's Christina Aguilera syndrome?

There has been a good deal of discussion with respect to the recent bunker work at Merion, the fairly recent work at Hollywood and many other courses.

In those discussions I've inidicated that the CLUBS not the architects bear the bulk of the responsibility for the alterations.  That the "will of the membership" determines the outcome.

Debates unsued with respect to responsibility, blame, authorship, etc.,etc..  But, courses continue to modernize, to alter their designs.

As a result of this I posted a thread entitled,
"what can you do".  More debate ensued.

But, now, ST ANDREWS, regarded by many as the home, origin and temple of golf is altering a KEY feature on a highly recognized, challenging and historic hole.

Forget about them moving the bunker four (4) feet, lowering the lip, and raising the floor, that is insignificant when compared to the message they are sending to the golf world.

Which is:

NOTHING IS SACRED.

No feature, no hole is safe from being altered in the name of modern golf.

Try arguing two years from now not to change an original feature on your golf course, and someone who's been playing golf ten years and a member for five years will say:
IF they can do it at St Andrews we can do it here, at our club

Argue against that logic.

This sends the most dangerous message to classic architecture that I could ever conceive.
That all courses, all features are OPEN SEASON to changes in the name of modern golf.

This is what you're up against, linch-pin clubs that should hold to traditions, to preserving their classic designs, are abandoning that pursuit, and setting the worst possible example.

I believe it will spark a trend in the wrong direction unless the outcry and protests are so strong, so many in number, that the individuals responsible for this decision, return the bunker to its pre-project form.

What do you think about the message being sent ?  and..
What do you think is the best course of protest ?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Now I completely agree with you--I don't think enough people REALLY do see what they're up against.

As recommended by me on the "Road Hole bunker" thread, now is the time when all clubs of fifty years old or older must take heed.

All Green Committees all over the world of clubs of that description must now submit to your inspections and investigations. They must produce their master plans, and if they don't have them, they must explain their "marching orders" to you in minute detail and/or produce all facts without exception!

Failing to do any of this will require automatically that they be led out their doors in handcuffs and that they be permanently replaced!

Enough is ENOUGH! The TIME has definitely come!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If the Road hole bunker at TOC can be moved, what's in store for Gulph Mills and others ?

Do you want my address for the submission of plans ?  

[George Pazin]

I guess this is golf's Christina Aguilera syndrome?

Don't pick on poor Christina. She's just a girl from the hood in Wexford, PA - which makes Happy Days look diverse.

[ForkaB]

Mssrs. Mucci and Paul

If you look at the link I posted on the other RHB thread, you will see that they did not move the bunker, just rebuilt it in the same place.

[Mitch Hantman]

I fully agree with the basic tenet of leaving courses as their architects originally intended,
but I have to wonder here whichl version of the road hole bunker is the original. I played
it last year, and truly loved it, but the bunker Nakajima hit out of in 1978 was very
different from the one they just changed.  I would love to know the entire history of that
particular bunker, and how it's shape has evolved.

[TEPaul]

ForkaB:

Ok, so they didn't move it! But look what they have done! They rebuilt it and ONLY came within six inches of the way it used to be! That's SIX WHOLE INCHES ForkaB!! What do you call that?? I call that total redesign, don't you? That alone will probably destroy the entire concept of the hole that has been in existence for close to five hundred years!

These hooligans are shameless! They even admitted they repaved the road! What do you call that ForkaB, if not total redesign?? They did say they weren't going to paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa but they shamelessly admitted they were thinking of moving a strand of her hair from one side of the part to the other! Don't you call that total redesign ForkaB??

I think the whole lot of them should be lead away in handcuffs.

[TEPaul]

Mitchgolfs:

You have to wonder which version of the Road Hole bunker is the original?

Alan Roberston's version is the original, of course!! He originally built the bunker and some say it was the very first true expression of man-made architecture! And that's what the bunker should be restored back to, Alan Robertson's original! Anything less is perpetuating total redesign!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm sure that you are aware that the DA on # 10 at PV underwent some surgery around the time that the Walker Cup was held.

[TEPaul]

Yes, Pat, I was aware of that! That surgery was done by a proctologist whose name, coincidentally, is  Dr. Tom Fazio!

[ForkaB]

Mr. Paul

My understanding is that there are plans afoot to "transport" the evil-doers to either Botany or Guantanamo Bay.

Mr. Mucci

Who was the consulting proctologist at Pine Valley?  Oops, the sprightly Mr. Paul pipped me at the post.

[Mitch Hantman]

TEPaul,

Can you please describe what Mr. Robertson's Road Hole bunker looked like?
Does it differ from the one they just changed?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forka B,

I believe that the usually astute TEPaul is incorrect with respect to indentifying Tom Fazio as the architect responsible for the changes to the DA which occured approximately 18 years ago.

I have found that TE's body of expertise suffers critically when he ventures across the Delaware River, and even more so when he crosses the Hudson.  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Technically you're right--I was incorrect there. Young Tom Fazio consulted but the actual surgery on the DA was done by his uncle Dr. Mephistopheles Fazio, noted proctologist from Norristown Pa!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()