[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I knew what you were referring to but you are still on shaky ground citing Whitten's article.

The fact is that the addition of several hundred yards and the addition of pot bunkers was due to the introduction of the Haskell ball in 1905.

Before then, people played with featheries.  That's how old this stuff is.

Whitten then goes on to cite the addition of bunkers and the removal of some others in the 30s and 40s (as if they were only yesterday when they are 60-75 years ago!) as evidence of his preposterous claim that the course has always evolved.

Perhaps this is true over hundreds of years but I'm also willing to bet that the course in some form or another had NO changes at all for several hundred years of it's approximately 700 year life.

It's only when Golf really moved out of the caves, so to speak, from a crudely implemented game with the advent of the Industrial Revolution that the need to formalize and "improve" and "lengthen" the course came into being.  

But, Jim...the course that's there today, sans some of the new hyper-extending tee boxes, is what has stood the time throughout the modern era, which one can probably realistically define as from the early part of the last century til today.

Whitten's claims otherwise, as if this is all part of some ongoing evolutionary architectural machine (ala ANGC) is absurd.

[SL_Solow]

Mike, actually they played with gutties which replaced featheries in the middle of the 19th century causing the split between Robertson and Old Tom.  I agree with you that Whitten has overstated his case in arguing that the recent changes are part of an ongoing evolution.  Perhaps it points to the truly revolutionary changes we have experienced in equipment.  Other than the early widening of TOC likely caused by the increased popularity of the game, the other changes took place after the introduction of the Haskell Ball, a truly major change in distance technology and, if Whitten is correct, at about the time steel shafts were replacing hickory.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,

I knew what you were referring to but you are still on shaky ground citing Whitten's article.

The fact is that the addition of several hundred yards and the addition of pot bunkers was due to the introduction of the Haskell ball in 1905.

Before then, people played with featheries.  That's how old this stuff is.

Whitten then goes on to cite the addition of bunkers and the removal of some others in the 30s and 40s (as if they were only yesterday when they are 60-75 years ago!) as evidence of his preposterous claim that the course has always evolved.

Perhaps this is true over hundreds of years but I'm also willing to bet that the course in some form or another had NO changes at all for several hundred years of it's approximately 700 year life.

It's only when Golf really moved out of the caves, so to speak, from a crudely implemented game with the advent of the Industrial Revolution that the need to formalize and "improve" and "lengthen" the course came into being.  

But, Jim...the course that's there today, sans some of the new hyper-extending tee boxes, is what has stood the time throughout the modern era, which one can probably realistically define as from the early part of the last century til today.

Whitten's claims otherwise, as if this is all part of some ongoing evolutionary architectural machine (ala ANGC) is absurd.

Perhaps Whitten is wrong.  However, it is not really his case.  He is just quoting or paraphrasing a golf course architect who made a multi-year study of the history of TOC, and recently finished his book about this.  

Here is what Whitten says...

"The course has definitely been transformed, slowly but perceptively, especially once it began conducting Open Championships in 1873. But until recently, its evolution hadn't been thoroughly documented.

"Enter 33 year old Scott Macpherson, a New Zealand-born golf architect now based in Edinburgh, Scotland. Macpherson visited St. Andrews seven years ago on vacation, later found work at a course-construction project and spent his off-hours pouring through every newspaper, book, magazine, map and document he could find regarding the Old Course. His three-plus years of study has resulted in a comprehensive book, The Evolution of the Old Course. In advance of its publication this fall, Macpherson agreed to share his research exclusively with Golf Digest.

The hand of man
Macpherson's book dispels the myth that the Old Course was created solely by Mother Nature. The truth is, the design of the Old Course has been nudged along -- make that shoved along -- by an endless succession of men."

He then goes on to give example after example of those shoves, including the ones I noted above.

I have not seen the book.  Maybe the author is wrong, maybe Whitten overstates the case.  Would like to see some evidence to back that up, though.  

[Dan Kelly]

So it allows you to potentially make 2, 3 or 4 and feel good about yourself for the rest of the day.

And that my friends, is the lesson of life and golf that TOC teaches us and that we should consider adopting for the game we play at home.

My partner Mr. Shefchik has nailed this one, but good: "lovely revisionist hogwash."

Strikes me that "feeling good about yourself" is antithetical to the entire Scottish ethos! If feeling good about themselves was important to those lovely Scots of centuries past, they had one simple way to do it: Get the hell out of Scotland!

--------

Does anyone really have any doubt that 18 at the Old Course could be made a "better" golf hole? I don't.

But I like it just fine just the way it is -- for us mere mortals, as well as for Mr. Woods & Co.

[George Pazin]

If it were almost any other course, I'd say fine, give it a go.

But this is The Old Course. Tinkering should be kept to an absolute minimum. I don't like stretching holes, especially holes like #12, but adding length is less offensive to me than adding bunkers.

For me, the precedent of adding a bunker to define or strategize (sorry Rich about the anthropomorhism, allow me some colloquial leeway) a shot more is far worse than any additional marginal strategic benefit.

It's an undefined tee shot that I'm certain looks easier than it is, to achieve maximum success. It's tough to figure out where you should be aiming. Anyone that thinks it was easy for Tiger to have a tap in birdie from 150 feet away on Saturday should go out and try a putt of that length sometime.

Heck, try the absolute longest putt available on your home course. Stick a tee in one end of the longest green and go to the other end and take ten putts. See how many you leave in tap in range. And that's with the added benefit of repeat attempts at the same putt. An even better example would be to  try the maximum length putt on every green on any course. See how many tap ins you have. A still better example would be to do this on one or two holes over the course of a dozen rounds until you've done it with the entire course. See how many tap ins you have.

Attempting to add strategic elements to the most natural course in the world is futile at best and downright damaging at worst. How long till some other idiot decides to follow your lead and drop in a pot bunker at some other hole? Drop in a pot trench in front of or behind the 12th? Hey, let's fill in those enormously deep bunkers around 11 with other mini valleys of sin? Why not throw a few more nostrils onto the Principal's Nose to make it "more" strategic?

Leave TOC alone.

(And mow the right side of 17.... )

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim Nugent,

I don't believe that Mr. MacPherson is wrong in what he has documented.  In fact, his work really proves exactly my point.  With the exception of new back tees, the Old Course has been virtually untouched for the past hundred years!

Beyond that, his research shows that it was only when the game moved beyond a very primitive, rudimentary form as society became industrialized that some formalizing, lengthening, and widening of the course became necessary.

I'd venture to say that The Old Course as we know it was "designed" by man in the years from 1850-1905, at which time the game was taking off in popularity and spreading beyond the linksland of Scotland.  New advances in equipment (as SL Solow points out) drove it, greater popularity of the game (crowding of the links) drove it, and it was all good and necessary.

However, to take that history, as Whitten seems to do in an effort to make a point, and lead to the conclusion that such continued evolution took place over the past century is not only a stretch, it borders on pure historical revisionism.

[Mike_Cirba]

Oh Shivas...

C'mon...just admit you were wrong so we can wrap this thread up and move onto more relevant matters.    

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

I believe I did that a few pages back, but that's ok...I'm willing to quit while I'm ahead.  

The defense rests...  

Of course, perhaps Rich Goodale (he of the "every hole and every shot is strategic" school) could frame my closing arguments.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

Instead, for my closing argument, I'll steal the words of Mark Rowlinson from another thread;

"18 took its toll on anyone who failed to get their tee shot exactly right.  Many who drove the green ran into clinging grass at the rear left and ended up with a 4.  Few risked attacking the pin when it was towards the right - the slopes in front of the green throw the ball to the left.  Monty didn't quite drive far enough in the final round and found himself with an almost impossible chip across the Valley of Sin - out of which he ducked and he had to sink an uncomfortably long putt to secure his pay cheque.  Even Tiger, playing a low, running approach to the final green, dribbled back down the slope into the V of S, though he had so many shots in hand that he managed a wry smile.  I look forward to seeing a hole in one on 18 some day, but leave it well alone, please.  It's a fascinating hole even if it is par two-and-seven-eighths."

[Kyle Harris]

Shivas,

If 4 generally loses a stroke on the field, or loses a hole in match play... what difference does it make if five is not in the equation?

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

Why don't we reroute the Swilken Burn and have a tributary running up the fairway diagonally from left to right, stopping about 30 yards short of the green in a little pool?

That would increase the strategy of the hole, correct?  

After all, we already have the precedent and a natural source with the threat of water on the adjoining hole.  We aren't really creating anything without precedent or patently artificial.  We're just...um...continuing to evolve the course in a strategic way...yep, that's the ticket!

Let's really put the squeeze on and make it an RTJ Sr., risk/reward, heroic special while we're at it!  Only those threading the needle between the burn/pond and OB will reach the green.  

Can you imagine the drop from behind the pond, and then having to pitch over the VOS with OB behind?  Why, that would bring virtually any number into the equation.  

Damn, the more I think about it, the more I like it.

I admit it...you were right after all.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

On hard and fast fairways such that exist at TOC, downwind, and even sometimes in the absence of wind, I can hit a 290 yard drive (even if it's more likely to take Mr. McTavish's toupee off as he works in the woolen mill than it is to hit the fairway).  

The bunker you propose would affect much more than the .00001%, inadvertedly according to your stated purpose.  

As far as "self avowed liberal", I've never stated such a thing.  As is the case with most modern arch-conservatives, they tend to see the world as right...and everyone else.  

Painting everyone else as a liberal works at the polls, so why not?

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

I didn't realize that your original proposal called for a bunker at 290....I envisioned it as more around the 320 mark, about 30-40 yards short of the green.

That's even more reason for me to be against it.  The fact is, the longer hitters will drive over it in most conditions, leaving it to only interrupt the games of the rest of us.

The funny thing is that I believe a bunker used to exist almost where you're describing and if memory serves, that's the one that was removed last.  I'll see if I can't dig up an old Old Course map to see.  

To your other point, I can't see any hole on the Old Course airlifted to replace any other hole on any course in the world.  You can't separate a hole from its environment and context, and doing so is a useless, hypothetical exercise.

[Paul Richards]

Shivas

I just got back to the board here and found that little thread became a big one today.


And I do love you, but when I read Sandbox's post:

>At this point in the thread, Shivas is basically just practicing his ability to defend Jeffrey Dammer to a bunch of vegetarians.


I almost fell over!

 

[A_Clay_Man]

Adam, if you're sticking to the originalist position, then there is no way in hell that the simplicity of the 18th was to lull the golfer who just finished 17 because the course was routed in REVERSE originally, so that's just balderdash!

As for the 15th at Pebble, yes, it's the exact same thing I proposed for that hole about 3 years ago because it, too, is nothing more than an interesting green at the end of 3 football fields.  The "one strategic pot bunker" solution is THE low cost solution for any mundane, strategy-free golf hole anywhere in the world.  

Dave- You seem to be under the impression that every golf shot/hole is suppose to be strategic. I don't think that's in keeping with the BWT.

I've not been to Scotland, never belonged to a private, but your arguing has convinced me two things:1) A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And 2) The hell road that is the disfigured masterpieces across the land likely started with a similar argument.

[Paul Richards]

Shivas


I guess the point of what I want you to consider here is NOT that a pot bunker wouldn't be a wonderful addition - which I personally don't think it would be - but rather that A BUNCH OF GEEKS ON A GOLF ARCHITECTURE WEBSITE SHOULDN'T BE THE ONES TO TELL THE R & A THAT THEIR FANTASTIC FINISHER ON THE OLD COURSE NEEDS A POT BUNKER!!!

 

or even if presented with the opportunity to make this suggestion, THE R & A SHOULDN'T BE LISTENING TO A BUNCH OF GUYS WHO MANAGED TO ADD FIVE PAGES OF THREADS ABOUT A POT BUNKER ON THE HOME HOLE AT THE HOLE OF GOLF!!!!!

 


In the immortal words of Judge Smails - "Don't you people have homes?"

 
 

[A_Clay_Man]

And I still haven't been told why the hole is worse with than without the bunker.....

Dave- You have me at a serious diisadvantage since you know exactly where the wynd is and such... However, from watching this years telecast, the aspect that seemed most thrilling and exciting was the balls that bounced along. They appeared right side but all ended up left of the green. I yearned for one, to flirt with the right, and chase up there, but ABC never captured one of those.
 Putting a bunker in would eliminate that unpredictable roll-out aspect and remove the bouncing. Even if it was on one small line, it would alter the bounce and the result.

Also, the most obvious. WHY WOULD THE R&A (or anyone on that street) WANT PEOPLE HITTING FULL SAND SHOTS TOWARD THEIR LOVELY WINDOWS?

[ForkaB]

Shivas,

I believe I did that a few pages back, but that's ok...I'm willing to quit while I'm ahead.  

The defense rests...  

Of course, perhaps Rich Goodale (he of the "every hole and every shot is strategic" school) could frame my closing arguments.  

No, Mike

You've done just fine by yourself.  Let Shivas rant by himself.

I know we discussed this issue (much more succinctly and elegantly) 3-4 years ago.  I'd look it up if I knew how to use the crack GCA search engine........

[Paul Richards]

>Paul, who's telling the R & A what to do?  Not me.  I'm just saying the hole would be better with than without.

Shivas


And if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its arse ....


 

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

I've looked at numerous pictures of the 18th that date from the 1870s to the early 20s and I can't find a hint of the bunker that was supposedly removed.

I also looked at a map of the links dated in 1854 (from the book "The Scrapbook of Old Tom Morris) and although I can't vouch for the authenticity, there is no bunker between 1 & 18.

Also, Mackenzie's famous drawing (I'm not sure the date) in the 1900's has no such bunker.

So, if it did exist, it had a very brief lifespan.  Probably wiser minds at the time ruled and removed it.  

From the same book, this curious note about the 18th, supposedly detailing the changes after the creation of the 18th, 17th and 1st greens.

"The principal difference on the last hole is on the putting green.  THat has been quite changed by the formation of an artificial table-land, which forms a beautiful green.  Formerly the hole was on broken ground in a hollow, with the ground sloping down on both sides.  Shortly before my time, there was another serious hazard made by the sea, which came up to the stair of the present Clubhouse.  That hazard was a very serious one, as the sand at that place was as deep as the high hole.  The last hole being often placed near the edge of the green was close to the sand.  But the Links have now been made much wider by the rubbish from the town having reclaimed a large portion from the sea, and there are no hazards on that side."

Shiv, that sounds to me less like an artificial bunker and more like dunesland that was probably grown over and leveled over time, but it's open to interpretation.

Ok...back to hypotheticals.  If my tributary of the Swilken Burn ran diagonally to form a pool at 290 yards, what would you think of that idea?

We're arguing two different points.

You're saying that the 18th hole can be made more strategic by putting additional pressure on the tee shot.  

I agree it can and my method would work as well, probably bringing even wider scoring distribution into the mix if that's your goal.

So, to me, the real question isn't whether the home hole could be made more strategic and challenging, but rather should it be?  

Instead, I just believe that it should be left alone, for the countless reasons I've mentioned.  

Off to golf...

[Mike Benham]

It's the width dammit !

[Scott Coan]

http://www.boston.com/sports/golf/articles/2005/07/21/old_values_set_st_andrews_apart/?page=1

When Peter Dawson was asked if it were disconcerting to see Woods shoot a 14-under-par 274, even after a few holes had been lengthened, he shrugged.

''I expected the record to be challenged, or broken," said the chief executive of the R&A, alluding to Woods's 19-under 269 when he won at St. Andrews in 2000. Then he said something refreshingly honest: ''Par [at St. Andrews for these pros] wasn't more than 68, so in that view, no one broke par."

Indeed, both par 5s (the 568-yard fifth and the 618-yard 14th) played like par 4s, and two of the par 4s (the 352-yard ninth and 357-yard 18th) played like par 3s, and plenty of people suggested labeling them as such. Dawson and his colleagues could not care less. ''This is a fixation with par, isn't it?" he asked.
.
.
.
''Driving the 18th is nothing new," said Dawson, who cringed when asked if bunkers would be added down the left side to discourage players from slamming away.

''No, and we're not going to put in a water hazard, either," he said, tossing a subtle, but accurate criticism of many American courses.

[ForkaB]

[quote author=Scott Coan
''Driving the 18th is nothing new," said Dawson, who cringed when asked if bunkers would be added down the left side to discourage players from slamming away.

''No, and we're not going to put in a water hazard, either," he said, tossing a subtle, but accurate criticism of many American courses."

Don't tell me Peter Dawson is reading GCA!?

[Brent Hutto]

Don't tell me Peter Dawson is reading GCA!?

I doubt it very much. More likely, we're just that predictable.

[Paul Richards]

>''This is a fixation with par, isn't it?" he asked.


Amen.  


>''Driving the 18th is nothing new," said Dawson, who cringed when asked if bunkers would be added down the left side to discourage players from slamming away.


Sorry, Shivas.


''No, and we're not going to put in a water hazard, either," he said, tossing a subtle, but accurate criticism of many American courses.


I think he was 'heading you off at the pass' with this one, Shivas.
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()