[Melvyn Morrow]

A report from a newspaper from Dec 1898 on the R&A performance in looking after the game



No change there, I suppose they are constant in their failing to act, that's now over 101 years - fine record of care IMHO

Melvyn

[Adrian_Stiff]

Perhaps some of you more familiar with the Old Course can comment on this. With several holes being lengthened for the 2005 Open, isn't it now the case that many drives now need to be hit in a direction that passes over the previous green? Isn't the whole character of the course being altered, when one starts making these very slight changes in the routing?

It's quite clear why the R&A are making these changes; the Road Hole does not play the way it used to. Isn't this an admission on their own part that they have lost control of the game of golf?  Be prepared to see more tinkering of the Old Course in the coming years, as the R&A needs the Open at St. Andrews. It would be a real own goal by the R&A, if at some stage, it was decided that the Old Course would not host the Open, due to it's inability to test the professionals. But that day will come, unless the R&A take action. In some ways, the R&A are just putting off the inevitable.

On the practical side, there must be a limit as to how much more they can stretch the Old Course (and the other courses on the Open rota).

Be thankful that it's only the length of the course that is being altered. At least the course can be shortened if they ever take some decision on the ball issue. It would be a terrible situation if they started moving bunkers or reshaping the greens on the Old Course.

Dónal.

Donal- I agree totally that the R&A by having or trying to do what they are doing have effectively lost control of governing the game.
Many of the newer tees drive over corners of greens or intrude onto the other courses, I guess the 10th could go back another 50 yards, 8 and 9 aswell, infact I am suprised 8 has never been put back. The 15th and 16th are long walk backs and would intrude a lot if they were tees more in general use. I cant quite get the 17th extension, are we going to see a 100 yard add on to the 18th next so it crosses 17. The 'intent' of the old lady is being destroyed in my opinion not 'restored' as would be their statement.

[Bill_McBride]

Perhaps some of you more familiar with the Old Course can comment on this. With several holes being lengthened for the 2005 Open, isn't it now the case that many drives now need to be hit in a direction that passes over the previous green? Isn't the whole character of the course being altered, when one starts making these very slight changes in the routing?

It's quite clear why the R&A are making these changes; the Road Hole does not play the way it used to. Isn't this an admission on their own part that they have lost control of the game of golf?  Be prepared to see more tinkering of the Old Course in the coming years, as the R&A needs the Open at St. Andrews. It would be a real own goal by the R&A, if at some stage, it was decided that the Old Course would not host the Open, due to it's inability to test the professionals. But that day will come, unless the R&A take action. In some ways, the R&A are just putting off the inevitable.

On the practical side, there must be a limit as to how much more they can stretch the Old Course (and the other courses on the Open rota).

Be thankful that it's only the length of the course that is being altered. At least the course can be shortened if they ever take some decision on the ball issue. It would be a terrible situation if they started moving bunkers or reshaping the greens on the Old Course.

Dónal.

Donal, none of those new Open tees require a drive over the previous green, but they did have to go outside the boundaries of the course to do so.  Luckily the Links trust own the neighboring land. #2 is on the Himalayas, #14 is on the Eden course.  I guess the new #17 will be on the practice ground that was the Eden but not sure.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Perhaps some of you more familiar with the Old Course can comment on this. With several holes being lengthened for the 2005 Open, isn't it now the case that many drives now need to be hit in a direction that passes over the previous green? Isn't the whole character of the course being altered, when one starts making these very slight changes in the routing?

It's quite clear why the R&A are making these changes; the Road Hole does not play the way it used to. Isn't this an admission on their own part that they have lost control of the game of golf?  Be prepared to see more tinkering of the Old Course in the coming years, as the R&A needs the Open at St. Andrews. It would be a real own goal by the R&A, if at some stage, it was decided that the Old Course would not host the Open, due to it's inability to test the professionals. But that day will come, unless the R&A take action. In some ways, the R&A are just putting off the inevitable.

On the practical side, there must be a limit as to how much more they can stretch the Old Course (and the other courses on the Open rota).

Be thankful that it's only the length of the course that is being altered. At least the course can be shortened if they ever take some decision on the ball issue. It would be a terrible situation if they started moving bunkers or reshaping the greens on the Old Course.

Dónal.

Donal, none of those new Open tees require a drive over the previous green, but they did have to go outside the boundaries of the course to do so.  Luckily the Links trust own the neighboring land. #2 is on the Himalayas, #14 is on the Eden course.  I guess the new #17 will be on the practice ground that was the Eden but not sure.

Bill what you say is true but many of the new teeing areas are definitely in range for a miss hit approach shot. Tiger will not be on his best behaviour if he gets hit by someone in a later group.

Apparently the preferred route for many pro's on 17 is to go long and left and chip up from there. This means the R&A can’t use the slightly longer set of tees area on 18.  I played my last round with the 18th longer for me than it will be for the flat bellies.

Perhaps someone with better knowledge or an aerial can check.  I believe that they will be walking back to their tees on 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and now 17. Once upon a time TOC was the inspiration to the world of what a golf course might be.

[Adrian_Stiff]

The 18th actually used to be longer, there was a tee at 380 yards that I think a big scoreboard goes there now. This tee was toward the 1st green.
Quite a few holes on the front nine do drive over the edges of the greens, especially if you are aiming more centrally, the 10th does aswell and the 16th goes over the corner of 15, it probably does not matter for the Open, if it was normal play it would be a no-no.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Bill / Tony:

There is a good link to TOC on the PGA European Tour web page.

http://www.europeantour.com/default.sps?pagegid=%7BAEFB93B0%2DEFF5%2D4C05%2DAB0F%2DFD08D947D944%7D&eventid=2009082&infosid=29&displaycourse=1

It may not be 100% accurate, but it looks like the 12th green/13th tee and 15th green/16th tees are a bit too close for comfort. I don't think it would be safe to putt on the 15th while a player even as good as Tiger is teeing from the 16th. Also, the majority of the tee shots on 16 are hit to the left.

Adrian:

I agree. This would only be allowed in pro and top amateur events.

Dónal.

[Tim Nugent]

I really don't understand what they are trying to accomplish.  Currently, they play to the are just before the "neck" 250-260 yds.  If the move the tee back they are still hitting to the same place, just with a bit longer club.  When I played, I hit a 5 wood over the hotel cause I couldn't get my driver up that fast.  I wish I could of played from further back, with driver, the hole would have played much shorter.

Instead of changing something that will have little or no impact on scoring, they should leave the tees alone and consider temporarily building up the hotel/signage. Then they could just remove it after the Open as to not impact the public. Wasn't the inital premise was to have to hitaround the train barns?  By eliminating the "over" route, they would have to shpe it around the corner. Too striaght and your'e in the gunch, overcook it and it's OB (and in someones pint).

And since they seem intent on making eevery tee a walkback, lets put #18 next to the #17 fairway bunker.  That would put Grannie Clark's Wynd at about 300.  Still a very easy high iron/wedge for the pros and wouldn't do much to impact scores but...hey.. it would be longer!

[Jud_T]

I hate to admit it, but I'm really starting to side with Melvyn here...The pros are mucking up our game completely.  Between the arms race for distance, making all our classic courses obsolete, lift-clean-and place and 5 hour rounds, someone has got to take charge of this thing...

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I really don't understand what they are trying to accomplish.  Currently, they play to the are just before the "neck" 250-260 yds.  If the move the tee back they are still hitting to the same place, just with a bit longer club.  When I played, I hit a 5 wood over the hotel cause I couldn't get my driver up that fast.  I wish I could of played from further back, with driver, the hole would have played much shorter.

This "neck" and narrow strip of fairway leading to the green looks awful. What are they up to??

Dónal.

PS. Today I was promoted from Newbie to Jr 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Don’t worry Dónal, we will still treat you as a newbie and forgive you your sins for a little longer.

Melvyn

[Niall C]

Niall,

An extra 35 yards will not add 50-60yards.  I have never seen any pro have any difficulty whatsoever in clearing the hotel.  In fact I remember Clarke and Westwood having a bit of fun drawing it over and around the hotel in a practice round.

Sean

Perhaps. If they are long enough to stay on the same line as before but I imagine they will be playing more at an angle and therefore playing away from the hole more hence 35 yards becomes 50 or 60. Remember its easier to take a tight line with a 3 wood or long iron but how many pro's are going to take the tiger line with a driver in their hand, especially at a blind hole ?

Niall

[Kalen Braley]

I hate to admit it, but I'm really starting to side with Melvyn here...The pros are mucking up our game completely.  Between the arms race for distance, making all our classic courses obsolete, lift-clean-and place and 5 hour rounds, someone has got to take charge of this thing...

Jud,

I'm not seeing how this is the pros fault...they just play with the technology given them.

Its the ruling bodies that are at fault for not taking the bull by the horns and standing thier ground on what is and isn't allowed.  We have clear examples of other sports that have done this like baseball.

Furthermore, if all of the Tours would stand up to thier stars and not give in to thier whining and sniveling about green undulation, green speeds, conditioning, perfect and fair setups, etc, etc....then ultimatly they would stop complaining because in the end they have no where else to play.

The tour players are no different than a 3 yr old child....they will try to get away with everything and anything in the abscence of good-parenting and being told no on occasion.

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

I read you answer and can remember seeing aerials in which the fairway area was narrowed appreciably as per your statement in response to my question.

But, my issue remains -- why the need for even greater distance?

OK -- so they widen the fairway to an appropriate amount -- 25-30 yards and let it go at that. Yes, some of the boys can hit driver and if they hit it soundly and on the direct line can have a short iron -- even a SW at times but so what? How many more birdies would be made given the demands the existing approach presents?

Here's what people forget -- if conditions allow for it -- the score will be low -- see Tiger's total in 2000 -- however, if conditions become more demanding the result is the scoring one saw with JD's win in '95. It's time for people to get off the scoring phobia -- The Open is always related to the elements.

Gents:

For those who are championing the ball rollback option it's akin to seeing Loch Ness -- never going to happen. If people were to read comments from former USGA equipment guru Frank Thomas they would note that in his mind - the limits of just how far the ball can go is already taking place -- see corresponding driving distance figures on the PGA Tour.

The time for a correction has long since past -- and for the well meant / well intentioned folks here arguing for a ball rollback the idea that not only equipment companies will do so willingly and that the bulk of the golfing audience will accept such a remedy is truly a stretch in my mind. Elvis has indeed left the building ...

[Jason Topp]

[/quote]

Matt:  I'm not sure the point of my post sunk in with you.  For me, scoring average is irrelevant.  What is important is having an interesting decision off the tee and then another interesting decision for the approach. Squeezing the fairway off the tee limits options off the tee to one - a layup.  Increased driving distance reduces the interest on the approach.  Thus, if there is no ball rollback, I favor lengthening the hole and widening the fairway.  As I indicated in my initial post - those changes might result in a reduction in scoring average.  Nonetheless, if players approach the hole using a variety of strategies, I would view the change as an improvement.

I tend to agree with your view that the cat is already out of the bag as far as driving distance and that the damage has largely already been done.  Nonetheless, I would still prefer a rollback than to force the world's best to play the Old Course by walking backwards and to the right after finishing each hole. 

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

Scoring average is relevant but I do agree that the R&A's manipulation of the hole allowed for such a situation to happen in '05. The hole would still play tough if they opened up slightly the fairway corridor previously mentioned because the target one is attempting to hit is not e-z by any means, as you well know.

If you want an "interesting decision off the tee" then allow the fairway width to be something in which the top players will possibly go with driver -- say 25-30 yards at a minimum. The idea that the hole needs to be lengthened and at the same time still neck the fairway width to what it was in '05 is inane in my mind.

Top pros aren't stupid -- give them a 50/50 chance with the driver and there will be those who will opt to go with it. If there's no real gain that can be made they will lay back and as a result the inherent joys of such a hole are completely aborted through man's ignorant hand.

You say "(I)ncreased driving distance reduces the interest on the approach." Really? How bout the fact that it takes a certain tee shot -- both the line of attack and overall distance gained from hitting it correctly. If such a player is able to do so (no automatic by any means) -- then they should, IMHO, benefit from a much easier angle / distance to the green -- even if that means 2-3 players will hit PW or something close to that. Even with that the nature of the hole and the accompanying pressure in playing it down the stretch of any Open can immobilize just about any player.

Let me point out again -- that overall distances gained off the tee have stabilized in the most recent data -- over the last 4-5 years.

By the way -- as I said before -- the R&A and USGA get too hung up on scores at times. TOC is a layout that in so many ways is dictated by wind and current weather conditions. When Daly won in '95 there wasn't the low scores because of Mother's Nature involvement. When the wind dropped in 2000 Tiger and a number of other players went to town. Both events were well received and enjoyed by most golf fans.

I guess we just see things a bit differently but I can thoroughly understand where you are coming from.

The rollback you and others are advocating is a wonderful concept but I believe the gains made just after the introduction of such balls as the Pro VI and ProVIx are now stablized if one were to assess the most recent data. If the wherewithal to minimize spin control is effectuated, as many believe it will, the net effect will be able to make players adjust in more meaningful ways than just a simple rollback of distance, in my opinion.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Let me point out again -- that overall distances gained off the tee have stabilized in the most recent data -- over the last 4-5 years.

Matt you are ignoring so many things with this comment.  

- As was pointed out on another thread the Pro's are now frequently using their 3W off the tee, often for a 275 yard carry and that is recorded as a driver figure. There is a certain irony in this. When it first became clear how far the ProV1 generation of balls flew a number of well known figures in Golf called for a minimum loft on Drivers, shorter shafts and smaller heads. Today courses play so short that Pro golfers frequently choose to ignore the driver on holes that were designed as a test for the big dog.

-   A couple of years ago I was watching when they announced Tiger hit the green with a 9i from 180 yards. I.e. it’s not just about the driver.
-   Many pro tour events are a succession of Driver (3W   ) / wedge holes. Even in the right conditions, the 17th TOC.
-   The next generation of players will be even straighter with the Driver. That is what they’ve been brought up on.
-   Optimisation continues.

Measuring the driver distance on two holes a week is irrelevant to the argument. So keep pointnig that out but it doesn't address the problem.  The haskell came in prior to WW1 but it's true effect on courses became clear in the 1920's and 30's. We've had the Pro V1 and optimisation for less than a decade and the ramifications on course design are becoming ever clearer and they haven't finished tinkering with the courses have they?

[Sean Walsh]

Niall,

If I get the argument for change correctly then they will be lengthening the hole in lieu of tightening the neck.  So there won't be as much rough to drive into with what will probably still be only a 3 wood in their hands. 

I could actually understand their strategic objective if they did move the tee back 70-100 yards because this would leave the pros with something more than a 8i in. 

If what you say is true and there is a net 50 yard effect (which I don't believe is right), the only players effected will be the shorter hitters.

Tony,

That line in to the left of the road hole is a beauty for a low single figure golfer when the pin is anywhere behind or left of the bunker.  I only managed to convince one of the players I caddied for to use it but it worked a treat..

[Mike Bowline]

Let me point out again -- that overall distances gained off the tee have stabilized in the most recent data -- over the last 4-5 years.

The rollback you and others are advocating is a wonderful concept but I believe the gains made just after the introduction of such balls as the Pro VI and ProVIx are now stablized if one were to assess the most recent data.
[quote/]

Matt, why does the fact "the gains have stabilized" remove the need to roolback the ball?

People are not saying the ball should be rolled back because it keeps getting longer every year. No, the problem is that is already goes too far without any further increases and therefore to preserve the game and the courses we play on, the ball needs to be rolled back.

Do I think it will ever happen? No way. But I wish it would anyway.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here's an aerial of a 490 yard 17th that preserves the angle of the tee shot.  The tee could be accommodated easily by rerouting the RR path around it to the west or by just playing over it.  The turning point is 300 yards, so the narrowing of the fairway isn't really in the LZ.  The fairway could be widened in that neck.  Seems to me that that those than carry it 300 yards will bound on and through the fairway into the rough anyway.  Those bailing left with a 3 wood or long iron would be faced with a second shot over 200 yards, although much of the length discussion is academic since it is often windy there.  Into the wind, they don't need to move the tee back.  With the wind, it's going to be a short and easier second, unless they drive it through the fairway into the rough.

To the wailers of desecration, could you look at the aerial and tell me how the tournament tee is a desecration of #2.  Can you even see it.  It is arguably more out of range of the first green than the old #2 tee; it doesn't require a drive across an edge of the first green. So what if the players of the open championship have to walk back to it.  Does it ever get used other than in major tournaments?  Have any of you actually played the tournament tees?  Have you seen any of them?  Most, if not all, are pretty much out of sight and out of mind for us regular people playing the visitor tees.  At worst they are low profile desecrations.  Nobody seems to consider the road hole bunker a desecration and it has been rebuilt a number of times and looks quite different than it used to.

 

[Jud_T]

Bryan,

I think most of us agree that this particular tee in and of itself isn't much of a problem, it's just a question of where does it all end and is anyone going to take control of the situation...

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think that graphic shows how silly it is. Now viewing is further restricted for green 16. The pickleheads are doing all they can to make the old lady redundant.

[Bryan Izatt]

I got the impression that many on here don't like this particular tee.  For me, the tournament tees on any and all holes on TOC are not an issue.  You can't generally see them when playing.  They don't disfigure the course.  And, I'm never going to play them.  So what's the issue?  It all ends when the powers that be at golf courses decide that they don't need extra length to protect par from a minuscule percentage of their playing population.

[Scott Macpherson]

For those who like stats, I have done some research into the difficulty of the Road Hole over the past few Open Championships.

1970= 4.62
1978= 4.82
1984= 4.79
1990= 4.65
1995= 4.62
2000= 4.71
2005= 4.63

In all of these Opens, this hole was the most difficult on the course. I suspect the new tee will preserve this holes infamous difficulty. But will it make it more interesting? No less interesting I would think.

And, what will the average score on the hole be in....

2010=?

(NB- I think it is interesting that the hole played harder in 2000 than 1995 considering the improvements in equipment by then and the much better weather in 2000.)


scott

[Tom_Doak]

Scott:

Looking at your statistics, I'm wondering why the tee is necessary to preserve the hole's difficulty?  The scoring average for the last event was 4.63, same as 1970 and 1995.

I gave the writer from The Times of London a juicier quote about it this morning.

[Matt_Ward]

Scott:

Thanks for posting the stroke average / re: 17th Hole. As Tom D mentioned I don't see the need to simply add more yards for the sake of yards. Simply open up the driving area so that players will give thought to actually using the driver. Sometimes the simplest cure is the most obvious one and one which is not unnatural.

Tony:

Allow me to try to answer your last comments ...

Too many people get panicky about overall distance and simply weigh in with the likes of Bubba Watson, J B Holmes, and others of this type. You would think that EVERYONE is hitting the ball 300+ yards on the fly all the time. That is not the case.

Tony, let's be clear who is using the 3-metal clubs you referenced. It's the already longest 5% of the players -- the rest are reaching for the big stick. In regards to player's loft -- usually you see them hitting 9.5 with a length of roughly 45 inches.

ANGC simply overreacted to throwing out quality holes for inane corrections (see the 11th as just one example) because Hootie got a knock in his shorts that Lefty crushed a tee shot and had a very short pitch to the green. Big freakin deal -- one guy does something and then all of sudden we need to panic and make the false assumption that everyone is doing likewise.

In regards to distances -- check out the current stats and compare them to the last 4-5 years after the inclusion of balls like the ProVI and others of similar kind. No doubt there was a jump when it was introduced but the median distance since that time has barely moved up.

You also make the case that Tiger hit 9-iron from 180 yds. OK. Was that downwind? Was that because of a flyer? Was it because he was hitting from an elevated target to a green below him? You make it sound that such shots are routine time after time. I've seen Tiger finesse a six-iron from a flat lie with a bit of wind in his face from 140 yards.

Tony, the bulk of players still hit driver when called upon -- let's pry open the door a good bit more than simply cherry picking Tiger, Bubba, JB Holes, Lefty and then proclaiming so sort of overall problem. The strong will always be stronger. I don't doubt that today's drivers allow for an easier time to hit the ball straighter -- but you completely missed my point that minimizing the spin capability of a ball will certainly return some form of shot control in the mixture instead of simply bombing away with impunity as is the case now. Without 100% certainty on spin the players will have to be more aware of what the ball will do when landing and when pins are then tucked coming in from such locations will be anything but certain.

Last thing Tony -- the world of golf is not falling apart. Check out the scores and what's been shot over the last 10-15 years. Yes, I agree we need to measure for a bit more time here but the idea that all of the boys are cranking it out there 300+ yards is wonderful stuff along the lines of "the world is ending" fear.

The 17th at TOC is a very demanding hole -- I'd prompt more players to try to hit driver than what was done with the course set-up in '05 -- let the players play and let's see what happens now that the spin factor will clearly be different than in the last few years.

Thanks for your thoughts ...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()