[Marty Bonnar]

We REALLY need to get JH invited on here...

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/john-huggan-fixing-a-hole-or-how-the-custodians-of-the-game-made-a-hash-of-changing-courses-to-deal-with-technology-1-2263867

F.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Totally agree, Marty. I read this article this morning and thought the same. Great stuff.

[Niall C]

Let me add a voice of dissent to the general chorus of approval of Huggan. While I generally quite enjoy his provocative articles his constant harping on about all men clubs (not in this article admittedly) and the ruling bodies inability to stop new technology has become fairly tiresome. I'd also question his consistancy. After quoting MacKenzie twice he then slags off the humpback fairway on Turnberry's 9th hole, a design feature that MacKenzie himself used more than once.

He also has a go at modern architects tampering with design classics and then proceeds to tell us how he would redesign Turnberry !

And while I'm on a roll, does he know for certain the R&A told Gullane to grow the rough to the left of the 3rd fairway or is he just taking the opportunity to take a swipe at two men only courses for the price of one ?

Niall

[John Kavanaugh]

Let me add a voice of dissent to the general chorus of approval of Huggan. While I generally quite enjoy his provocative articles his constant harping on about all men clubs (not in this article admittedly) and the ruling bodies inability to stop new technology has become fairly tiresome. I'd also question his consistancy. After quoting MacKenzie twice he then slags off the humpback fairway on Turnberry's 9th hole, a design feature that MacKenzie himself used more than once.

He also has a go at modern architects tampering with design classics and then proceeds to tell us how he would redesign Turnberry !

And while I'm on a roll, does he know for certain the R&A told Gullane to grow the rough to the left of the 3rd fairway or is he just taking the opportunity to take a swipe at two men only courses for the price of one ?

Niall

+1

What I don't understand is why a gentleman who appears to be earning a living blogging would give it away on a site like this.  We do have a growing number of writers whose only contribution is to link their articles.  I can't blame them if it puts food on their table.

[George Pazin]

He also has a go at modern architects tampering with design classics and then proceeds to tell us how he would redesign Turnberry !

This sort of inconsistency is one of the biggest problems in the world today, golf or non-golf.

[Mike_Clayton]

That tee shot off the back tee at Turnberry is one of the worst in golf. Not that it automatically makes it bad but I remember the 1st day of the 1986 Open when less than 30 (out of 156) hit what was an almost unhittable fairway. I have never seen a MacKenzie hogsback as severe.
Huggan is a member at Gullane so I guess he knows the story of the rough on 3.

[Tony_Muldoon]

While I generally quite enjoy his provocative articles his constant harping on about all men clubs (not in this article admittedly) and the ruling bodies inability to stop new technology has become fairly tiresome. I'd also question his consistancy.

He has a go at modern architects tampering with design classics and then proceeds to tell us how he would redesign Turnberry !
(edited)

Niall, thank you. You have distilled my thoughts for me and saved me typing out a longer post.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mike,

don't you think that the hurricane strong wind which I believe was blowing that day might have had something to do with it?

Whilst most are moaning about the teeshot on the 9th being so bad it seem to me that they are missing they are blaming the wrong thing. When played from the original tee from which it was designed to be attacked the fairway is fairly easy to hit and hold. It is only when played from the angle of the back tee that it becomes very challenging but who has pointed this out or even thought that this tee is to blame? Much easier to blame the 'unfair' fairway with the aesthetics of a hunchback. Is it that most are blinded by the spectacular location of the tee and so fail to see that it is all looks but no substance?

I agree with the suggestion of a par 3 towards the lighthouse and then a par 5 along the coastline to the 10th green.

Jon

[Marty Bonnar]

While I generally quite enjoy his provocative articles his constant harping on about all men clubs (not in this article admittedly) and the ruling bodies inability to stop new technology has become fairly tiresome. I'd also question his consistancy.

He has a go at modern architects tampering with design classics and then proceeds to tell us how he would redesign Turnberry !
(edited)

Niall, thank you. You have distilled my thoughts for me and saved me typing out a longer post.

Grumpy old gits. 
I think it's cool that at least someone in the UK meeja is saying this stuff. Sadly, the R&A needs these near constant taps on the shoulder. Rather more sadly, not much in the way of response to date...
best,
F.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Is it not better to try to do something if one has strong opinions and endure the criticisms of the silent majority than just sit back doing nothing like the silent majority.

As for consistency that is something that the game so desperately needs. However that requires a considerable amount of guts and courage, to face up to the damage uncontrolled technology is doing to our courses, the game and to the modern golfer.

My view being that raw honest courage of a few is very much needed thanks to the deadly deep silence from those who just can’t be bothered to carry the torch even for a few yards.

Constructive criticism is very much in short supply by those in a position to get the message across.

[Mike_Clayton]

Jon,

It was windy that day - but not a hurricane. You are right about the tee though.I have never played anything but that back tee and it must be better from the proper tee.

Niall,

I don't see how constant criticism of the administrators and there inability to protect the courses is tiresome. If we give up on that all the pressure to change the ball is gone - and my bet is that they - the R&A and the USGA -  would be happy about that.

[Sean_A]

Yes, I am definitely tired of Huggan's two trick pony show.  But I don't think the guy can be all bad as I thought 8 years ago a par 3 and a par 5 or long par 4 would better suit the land by the lighthouse given the current routing.  But then I think Turnberry's routing is much less than perfect and could do with a total rethink. 

Ciao

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi,

I like John's writing. It is provocative and thought provoking. He is the guy who is singing from one end of the spectrum, and that allows me to think about what I believe. He only shoots himself in the foot when the reported 'facts' are incorrect. I believe the R&A have spent/invested about £4-£4.5m on course renovations through the years (about £0.5m/course and I think there are 9 courses (??) in the Open rota), not £10m.  Maybe this is a trivial detail, but details are important when you are firing bullets.

scott

[Melvyn Morrow]

Hi Scott

I do not doubt that you are correct, but it’s not about the money or large amounts of money. I most sincerely believe it’s the lack of focus on the core game that many feel greatly let down by the ruling body.

Both within the game and the R&A handling of matters outside that give serious cause for concern. One issue within the game is their refusal to balance technology with existing length of courses and perhaps more importantly current availability of land to accommodate expansion due to the lack of, not necessary roll back but performance development of the modern and scary prospect of future equipment.

Since the war we have been forced to focus on Championship courses; new club, owners want Championship courses and have been willing to dig deep to have them when in fact the history of the game has always been about golf courses in general with spaced Tees. I see no need for Championship courses (only real requirement for these is to attract money to the clubs/owners, but do little or nothing to assist the average player). In other words all moves since WW2 has been driven by money, faster return and profit, when in fact a golf course is more or less for life.

The current lack of control is doing the game no good whatsoever, its forcing even walker to consider riding due to longer courses which also limit the possibility of a good 36 Holes in a day. When I started in golf a day’s golf was at least 36 Hole, now with 7,600/8,000 yard (15,600yds for 36) courses compared to 5,500/6200 yards (11,700yds for 36). The distance of modern courses now equates to nearly 3 rounds (48 Holes) but with less fun and enjoyment just more travelling.

Sooner or later common sense must surely kick in and it needs voices from the wilderness because those on the great money gravy train are certainly not going to call time. So all power to those raising concerns because the vast majority are following the R&A lead like lemmings.

If Governments get it wrong regularly why shouldn’t the R&A. At least we can throw out a Government if enough people feel they have failed in their job to protect and safe guard our futures. Alas we can’t get any redress from the R&A.

Melvyn

[Niall C]

Mike

Re constant references to limiting new technology and the evil of all mens golf clubs, if you have a "political" agenda and looking to cause change thats fine (up to a point), but Huggan also writes to entertain and thats where the constant preaching becomes tiresome. Of course it doesn't help that I don't agree exactly with his views on both topics nor does his caustic sometimes sarcastic delivery help either.

However, as FBD points out, he does bring the topic of course design into the mainstream media on a regular basis (in the UK at any rate) in a way that perhaps only Geoff Ogilvy does. I don't count Adams various excellent contributions to gca type forums as being mainstream media although he may disagree  .

Mike/Jon

Re the 9th Turnberry, unlike you proper golfers, hackers like me don't generally get to visit the back tee although the last time I played Turnberry I did sneak back there and have a go when no one was looking. I'd love to tell you how I knocked it up the middle and held the fairway but in all truth I can't recall where exactly it ended up but I do recall I got it across the "void" and for someone of my calibre thats good enough.

Scott

Good point about facts. I'd love to see a breakdown of how the half million was spent on each course. I suspect a lot of it might actually be in improving off course facilities to help hold the Open. I also find it hard to find fault in the principle of the R&A spending money on golf courses. Maybe some won't agree with what there doing with that money, but as you say, lets see the facts on whats been done.

Niall

[BCrosby]

I am a John Huggan fan. I am willing to overlook a basket-full of inconsistencies if it means having a voice in the mass media with an inkling about golf architecture, the importance of its history and a willingness to regularly broach the subject.

There is no one in the US mass media with that combination of attributes. Though I have hopes that G. Shackelford will someday ascend to a higher wrung on the media ladder here.   

Bob

 

[Bob_Huntley]

Melvyn,

Do tell, what was the apogee in terms of golfing correctness since 1400 A.D.

Didn't the game become immensely easier with the introduction of the guttie, with some acclamation from your ancestor?

Did steel shafts have anything to do with making the game a different kettle of fish than hickory.

One of the most obvious implements in making the game easier has to have been the lawn-mower, would you wish to ban it?

I am not trying to ridicule your views as to how the game should be played but it has had dynamic changes over the centuries.

The only thing that the powers of golf have today, is to curtail the bombers by making the drive a more difficult exercise by growing the rough on the course. This is going to happen at the Olympic Club in June. Perhaps Mike Benham will report back  and confirm it will be a tough test.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bob

You really do not read what I have posted, because if you had you would not have made those comments.

With all respect to you - You come across so typically as a Member of the R&A and to a point what I am fighting against. That is just trying to get the governing body to listen, to remember the comments and suggestion of others.

Your comments

Do tell, what was the apogee in terms of golfing correctness since 1400 A.D.

Didn't the game become immensely easier with the introduction of the guttie, with some acclamation from your ancestor?

Did steel shafts have anything to do with making the game a different kettle of fish than hickory.

One of the most obvious implements in making the game easier has to have been the lawn-mower, would you wish to ban it? 

Have totally ignored my points completely, it’s as if you had not even bothered to read them let alone remember. My last post to you mentioned that you had forgotten my IM re concerns re the R&A.

Just to answer one of your points. No, the gutty ball did not make it easier but it gave consistency to the game for some 60plus years. It had zero to do with easy. With a consistent ball that was at last waterproof it allowed clubs to also be developed to form the modern game. Today we have a very stable game and equipment development is now purely for score reduction and has zero to do with stabilising or giving the game consistency. 

[Niall C]

I am a John Huggan fan. I am willing to overlook a basket-full of inconsistencies if it means having a voice in the mass media with an inkling about golf architecture, the importance of its history and a willingness to regularly broach the subject.

There is no one in the US mass media with that combination of attributes. Though I have hopes that G. Shackelford will someday ascend to a higher wrung on the media ladder here.   

Bob

 

Bob

I can agree with you to a certain extent. I do wish though that he used less of a hectoring self-righteous tone (yes I know, pot and kettle  ) and looked to engage those of opposite views in a more reasoned way, starting with for example some detail on what the R&A have spent their money on in course improvements at the Open venues. I think that would be better for raising the level of gca discussion in the media, although I do agree that at the moment he is better than nothing.

Niall

[Melvyn Morrow]

Niall

Very far point but one thing I do not understand is why spending so much money on The Open and little on other projects. Did you know that all the R&A gave to Askernish was around £5,000 at a time when the world was turning its golfing eyes to that little island and Scottish Golfing history? A little foresight on their behalf might have helped attract other investment to the club and given some good storylines that would promote golf in the eyes of the media. But no that did not happen; they ignored all possibilities that would have been good for the game, after all that is meant to be their core interest.

Of course the obvious answer there was no foresight; no understanding of their action, yet with some clever publicity golf could be more on the front page of the newspapers than it was. Instead the 17th Hole on TOC is modified for the 2010 Open. Where is the balance or is it as I keep say all down to where the money is and sod the local clubs/game.

Should we not expect more from the Governing Body or does it stand purely for the elite among golfers.

[Jon Wiggett]

Very far point but one thing I do not understand is why spending so much money on The Open and little on other projects. Did you know that all the R&A gave to Askernish was around £5,000 at a time when the world was turning its golfing eyes to that little island and Scottish Golfing history? A little foresight on their behalf might have helped attract other investment to the club and given some good storylines that would promote golf in the eyes of the media. But no that did not happen; they ignored all possibilities that would have been good for the game, after all that is meant to be their core interest.

Melvyn,

the R&A are no longer looking to support financially the development of the game in the UK. They feel they should be promoting the game in eastern Europe, South America and Africa. Askenish did well to get even £5000 out of them though had they have been situated in Romania then they would have had at least 10 times that forced upon them.

I find the whole attitude of the R&A very disappointing. They seem convinced that the game cannot be expanded here and are pushing trying to save the membership type of club model which is not expanding though are not willing to do this with money. They make a lot out of the Open but seem to have forgotten who their paying customers are.

Jon

[Melvyn Morrow]

Again it comes down to money with the R&A. Actually who’s money is it and should any funds raised re The Open be spent anywhere else than in the UK. What mandate has the R&A got to spend UK raised funds in any other part of the world.

I suppose we must not forget the cost for their various trips overseas, wonder where that money comes from – wonder if its from the host country or again out of the funds raised due to The Open. Then again it may be more exciting for some to travel around the world than the UK.

Fit for office now that’s a good question? Are they accountable? Are they reflective of the golfing world? All very much debatable, but if I posted a topic on that issue the silent majority would remain silent and those who work in the industry will not want to voice any opinion for fear of potential loss of future business.

I remember from my history lessons the term ‘Rotten Burghs’ before Parliamentary reform. Makes one wonder if the odd one managed to survive.

The most frustrating thing for me is that I sincerely want to see a good strong R&A as the Governing Body, but it’s time they proved themselves worthy of the job. And perhaps a little more accountability would not hurt.  So more debate is good news and if they do not listen then we need to be more repetitive. Christ guys its golf which is very much a repetitive game. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()