There's a fascinating story in the Scotsman about the war over Musselburgh Links and the decision to alter some of it. The entire story is here --  http://sport.scotsman.com/golf.cfm?id=576662006


Here's the key passage, including a quote from Tom Mackenzie, Donald Steel's former associate, who apparently doesn't have an issue with the changes. In fact, he's leading the charge. Is it just me or should the words "redevelopment" and "classic golf course," be excluded from appearing in the same sentence?

Quote from the story:

And therein lies the crux of the debate: is the links in its present configuration and condition worth preserving? Or has the damage already been done? One of the few areas on which both sides are agreed is that the course is a long way from the one on which those five far-off Open champions learned the game.

"Some of the holes are the same, but the course has changed a lot since I played it as a boy in the 1940s," points out Ian Wood, the celebrated golf coumnists who is a former sports editor of The Scotsman and a Musselburgh native. "I suspect what I played was close to the original Musselburgh. It was really pretty primitive."

None of which cuts much ice with the protesters, with whose point - can the introduction of an all-weather track and floodlights really be justified on any golf course? - it is hard to disagree.

"If the course was in its original state, we wouldn't be touching it," acknowledges course architect Tom Mackenzie, whose firm have been hired to make the changes, should they ever happen. "The original monument isn't there any more. But the development of the racecourse is the catalyst for the redevelopment of the golf course."

I think there is a thread on this matter from a year or so ago.

The preservation argument re: the old 9th hole is the most persuasive, but really, how many of any people can tell us what happened historicaly on that hole during the Opens played there?  It's all conjecture that "history" was made on that green, unless you trivialise what history really means.

Lot's of real golfing history has taken place on places that no longer exist in their present form.  It may be sad to some, but it's life, which does move on.

There is a real NIMBY element to this story.  Let's keep our twee little course and our mid-20th century vistas at the expense of more (and probably better) golf for the people of Mussleburgh as well as economic regeneration of the area through the expanded race course.  And, the historical precendents are on the "other" side, if anything.  For example:

--should Muirfield have been prohibited from burying decades of golfing history when they hired Harry Colt to over-write Tom Morris' work in the 1920s?
--Should Tom Morris himself have been prohibited from making the changes he did to the 18th green of the Old Course when he was keeper of the green, overwriting the history of the previous Opens held there?

BTW, Tommy, Tom MacKenzie is a very nice guy.  If you disrespected him after meeting him, the problem would be yours, and not his or ours.

Tommy

Sometimes I think if you had been around in the "golden" age you would have absolutely hated guys like Colt and MacKenzie (Alistair) and Simpson.  They spent so much of their time criticizing classic courses and bulldozing over them without showing any respect or even pity.  You probably would have treated Dr. MacK's "Victoria's Secret" style of bunkering with the same disdain as you now save for Trump and his waterfalls.  If you were around in those days a bunch of toffs would probably still be playing golf on the links of Brunstfield and Leith and Burntisland, and the poor little children and their families who enjoy those links as parks today would be getting their recreation in the back alleys and gutters of their towns.....

Lighten up, Emperor, and come over from the dark side.....

There's more light (often accompanied by thunder) where Tommy stands than anywhere else on a golf course.

I exchanged some emails with the club secretary as well as the hands off our links group before jumping out of the fray.  I think the article has the debate portrayed consistently with my impressions.  

On one hand, inserting an all weather track and lighting certainly will undermine any charm one could hope to attain from visiting the course.  In addition, the proposed alterations will largely diminish or destroy its authenticity.

On the other hand, the course has been altered somewhat over the years, leaving the question of whether it should be preserved in its current state and it appears that a majority of the membership wants to make the changes.  In addition, my suspicion is that the opposition is being spearheaded by neighbors who are as much concerned about the track changes and a NIMBY attitude as preservation of the links.

I hope they preserve it as is.

Whats the time frame for these proposed changes?  Sounds like I might need to play there sooner rather than later.  

Good stuff, Martin.

I shows that the Emperor and his henchmen are just bit players in this drama compared to the real heavyweights (e.g. Labour Party Supremo Susan Deacon whose house overlooks the links....).

Nae worries, Chris--you'll be able to play the old course for many years while the local numpties sort out their particular prejudices and fantasies......

Paul

You Sassenachs are still in denial about your weather.  Even with global warming, it sucks!  People up here in Scotland recognise this, and are looking for constructive ways to make their sports more equine and human friendly.

So who put the ponds in at Sunningdale and Royal County Down and Swinley Forest?

Paul,

The pond on 17 at RCD appears on routing maps as far back as 1907 when the course routing, particularily the back 9, began to resemble the course of today.  Prior to that there was a pond on hole #12 running the opposite direction but which may have been the same pond as numerous changes were made to the course between 1900 and 1907 under the direction of George Combe.