Old Course - A Mediocre British Open Site?

[JWinick]

Kevin,

You just prove how out of touch you are with reality when this year's British Open had the lowest tv ratings in history.   What objective criteria do you use to evaluate a tournament?

Overall difficulty
Variety
A challenge to driving ability, variety of approach shots, navigating fairway and greenside bunkers, and putting

That's a few I would use.  What are yours?   

My opinion - this thread is insane.  I've seen some far-fetched opinions on this site recently (SH a Doak 5 or 6???) but saying TOC is a mediocre Open site takes the cake.

[David_Elvins]

JWinick,

You mentioned Olympia Fields before:

In 2003, the top 5 scores at Olympia Fields were

272
275
279
279
280

In 2010 the top 5 scores at St Andrews were:

272
279
280
280
280

St Andrews played harder than Olympia Fields. 

Hitting a 360 Yard approach with a Driver into 18 at st andrews has to be more difficult than hitting an approach 247 yards approach into 17 at Olympia Fields, doesn't it?  Atleast the scoringaverage at each hole would indicate this.   

[JWinick]

Comparing a Par 70 golf course to a Par 72 is preposterous.   St. Andrews is considered the #1 site for the British Open based on the fact that it appears every five years in the rotation.   

43 players under Par even with unplayable wind conditions on one day?   What would it have been if Friday had moderate winds?  Probably 75+ under Par. 

[JWinick]

A couple of quotes from the Associated Press on the difficulty of the Old Course... Note that Tom Watson essentially slammed TOC as a suitable tournament site.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The birthplace of golf played like a muni for the morning starters, with hardly any wind blowing in off St. Andrews Bay and only a sprinkling of rain. In fact, the sun popped out just as McIlroy was finishing up, and competitors were able to strip off their jackets and play in short sleeves.

"The old lady had no clothes on today," said 60-year-old Tom Watson, who opened with a 73 and was one of the few early starters who failed to break par.

"The course was defenseless," Westwood said. "I expected somebody to shoot 62 for the first time today, to be perfectly honest." 

But the Old Course relies on the elements to provide its best defense. Without the usual rain and wind, it was like target practice for the world's best.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_sp_go_su/glf_british_open

[Mark Pearce]

Comparing a Par 70 golf course to a Par 72 is preposterous.   St. Andrews is considered the #1 site for the British Open based on the fact that it appears every five years in the rotation.   

43 players under Par even with unplayable wind conditions on one day?   What would it have been if Friday had moderate winds?  Probably 75+ under Par. 

You appear to have a really unhealthy obsession with par.  The issue is whether the course is still capable of identifying the best golfer.  None of your comments suggest it isn't.  Nor does history.  Indeed the roll call of St Andrews champions (Nicklaus, Ballesteros, Daly (who at the time had the most sublime short game), Faldo and Woods in recent (ish) history.  It hasn't produced a Hamilton, Beem or Curtis before this year and, IMHO, still hasn't.

[JWinick]

I guess when you can't defend a position, it makes sense to bring up something totally irrelevant.  I am talking about TOCs standing as a 1 in 5 British Open site.   Not whether other golf courses are worthy of hosting different majors.   

Let's see, Tom Watson & Lee Westwood basically stated that the course is defenseless without wind.   I would submit that I am in the majority here given the low tv ratings and the general lack of enthusiasm amongst the golf watching public about another British Open at TOC. 

If it requires heavy wind & rain to challenge the players, then it isn't a suitable site.  They were forced to play in insane conditions on Friday to challenge the best players.   If you can play four rounds and never be in a bunker, then it's not challenging all of your skills. 

Is it your objective to completely misconstrue what I said?   I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL MERITS OR SIGNFICANCE OF THE OLD COURSE....I'M TALKING ABOUT WHETHER IT IS STILL A STRONG MAJOR SITE.

Is it your objective, Jon, to simply make innane, baseless statements?  Who misconstrued anything you said? 

First, from the confort of your Lazy-Boy, you implied that TOC can't be a strong major course unless it's windy.  Well, nobody seems to agree with you...and they explained why....

What you're now implying in this post is that architectural merit and being a strong major site are mutually exclusive.  Do you realize how innane that is?

Do you really want to take these positions simply merely because you were bored watching TV last Sunday morning?  I think that would be a very foolish position to take.

BTW, without wind, OFCCN got torched for 36 holes.  That's a fact.  Spin it all you want.  The same questions you're asking about TOC apply to your home course.  I raised this fact to show you how silly your position is, but the medicine apparently wasn't strong enough...   

[JWinick]

How many Par 4s at Augusta are driveable? 0.
Do the bunkers challenge the players? Yes.
Do the greens challenge the players? Yes.
Has any current or former pro ever characterized Augusta as defenseless?  Can't find one.

Nor do they lie about Augusta National...the last three Masters tournaments have featured winning scores of -16, -12 and -8. The top-10 in 2010 combined to shoot 99 under par.

[Adam Lawrence]

Let's see, Tom Watson & Lee Westwood basically stated that the course is defenseless without wind.   I would submit that I am in the majority here given the low tv ratings and the general lack of enthusiasm amongst the golf watching public about another British Open at TOC. 

Because, of course, US TV ratings are the perfect vehicle by which to judge whether a course is a suitable venue for an Open Championship?

Give me strength.

[PCCraig]

I give the R&A and Open credit for not caring about the final score. Isn't that what makes them totally unique compared to the other majors. Quite frankly I'll take a US Open at OFCC or the Open at St. Andrews with the winning score at -8 anyday over this years snooze-fest at Pebble where it was more of a "last man standing" vs. someone like Oosty who flat out beat everyone else.

Does anyone other than the members of these clubs even remember exact winning scores of past majors? Of course not...people only remember who won.

Also: If a course has to be hard if there isn't wind in order to hold a major, and is rewarded a major, what happens if all the players show up on Thursday and the wind is blowing 40mph? Bloodbath and zero interest IMO.

[Bill_McBride]

How many Par 4s at Augusta are driveable? 0.
Do the bunkers challenge the players? Yes.
Do the greens challenge the players? Yes.
Has any current or former pro ever characterized Augusta as defenseless?  Can't find one.

Nor do they lie about Augusta National...the last three Masters tournaments have featured winning scores of -16, -12 and -8. The top-10 in 2010 combined to shoot 99 under par.

#3 is driveable with today's length but dangerous; Woods made a double there a few years ago going for it.

[Tim Pitner]

Why do they even have bunkers at TOC?   No one ever seems to be in them.   Ok, so rate the TOC in the British rotation?  Where would you rank the Old Course?

Seems to me it identified the player who was playing by far the best over the course of 4 days of widely variable conditions.  That seems pretty relevant.  The caliber of past champions speaks for itself.  Combine that with the way they have to navigate around the course by playing all sorts of different shots, I don't see how you can possibly say its mediocre as a championship venue.  

Here's my ranking based solely on my preference for them as major championship venues (i.e., for their entertainment value to me as a television viewer for whom the Open is without question the most important event in golf):

(1) Muirfield
(2) Royal St. George's
(3) Carnoustie
(4) St. Andrews
(5) Turnberry
(6) Troon
(7) Lytham
(8  Hoylake (probably unfair since I've only seen one tournament there)

So, on that basis, yes, St. Andrews is mediocre.  Of course you can say my list and my criteria don't have much meaning.  

[JWinick]

Ok then.   TOC is not in your top 8 as an open site, yet it is held there every 5 years.   That's precisely my point.   Relative to the high standard of hosting a major every five years, the site is mediocre.   It has nothing to do with the golf course's architectural merits, etc. 

Why do they even have bunkers at TOC?   No one ever seems to be in them.   Ok, so rate the TOC in the British rotation?  Where would you rank the Old Course?

Seems to me it identified the player who was playing by far the best over the course of 4 days of widely variable conditions.  That seems pretty relevant.  The caliber of past champions speaks for itself.  Combine that with the way they have to navigate around the course by playing all sorts of different shots, I don't see how you can possibly say its mediocre as a championship venue.   

Here's my ranking based solely on my preference for them as major championship venues (i.e., for their entertainment value to me as a television viewer for whom the Open is without question the most important event in golf):

(1) Muirfield
(2) Royal St. George's
(3) Carnoustie
(4) St. Andrews
(5) Turnberry
(6) Troon
(7) Lytham
(8  Hoylake (probably unfair since I've only seen one tournament there)

So, on that basis, yes, St. Andrews is mediocre.  Of course you can say my list and my criteria don't have much meaning. 

[Mark Pearce]

Jon,

I suspect that when Tim put "St Andrews" at 4 in his list of 8, he was referring to the Old Course.  Did you think he was suggesting that the Open be played on the New Course?  Or the Eden?  Perhaps the Castle?

[JWinick]

Dave,

Rank the British Open courses.....  

If the fairway bunkers can be avoided due to the ability of the modern player using modern equiment to blow past them, and if the greens are so enormous that avoiding the greenside bunkers is not difficult for the tour pros, then the bunkers are not much of a challenge.  

[Tim Pitner]

I had St. Andrews Old Course at #4 out of 8.  I'm sure others would rank them much differently, even under my criteria.  

I have no problem with St. Andrews hosting the Open every 5 years--I am adamantly opposed to having it be the permanent site of the Open which was discussed some last week (although, as far as I know, not by anyone who has control over that sort of thing).  

[Jamie Barber]

Actually I'd agree with your ranking. Personally I would rather all of the courses hosted the Open on the same frequency and they add a couple of venues (maybe 1 in Ireland and another in the South), but that's just a preference and takes no account of logistics etc.

[Bill_McBride]

Dave,

Rank the British Open courses.....  

If the fairway bunkers can be avoided due to the ability of the modern player using modern equiment to blow past them, and if the greens are so enormous that avoiding the greenside bunkers is not difficult for the tour pros, then the bunkers are not much of a challenge.  

I'm not sure which tournament you were watching, but there were players in lots of trouble in various bunkers every day.  Tiger hit out of Shell on #7 and the ball fell back in.  Double.  The avoidance of bunkers causes problems.  Get behind the Road bunker?  Putt away from the hole, bogey.  This is a common theme on the Old Course, no matter what your handicap or skill level.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Kevin,

You just prove how out of touch you are with reality when this year's British Open had the lowest tv ratings in history.   What objective criteria do you use to evaluate a tournament?

Overall difficulty
Variety
A challenge to driving ability, variety of approach shots, navigating fairway and greenside bunkers, and putting

That's a few I would use.  What are yours?   

My opinion - this thread is insane.  I've seen some far-fetched opinions on this site recently (SH a Doak 5 or 6???) but saying TOC is a mediocre Open site takes the cake.

Sorry, I can honestly say I have no interest in debating the merits of TOC with you.

[Richard Choi]

For people who claim "par is just a number" quite often, it seems pars matter too much...

[PThomas]

Dave,

Rank the British Open courses.....  

If the fairway bunkers can be avoided due to the ability of the modern player using modern equiment to blow past them, and if the greens are so enormous that avoiding the greenside bunkers is not difficult for the tour pros, then the bunkers are not much of a challenge.  

I'll rank the British Open courses once you answer all the questions asked of you over the course of this thread...plus, I have two new ones...how many guys either hit it into gorse left of #9 trying to avoid, or hit it into one of the two bunkers just short of #9...  

What is the ratio of (a) guys who drove a par 4 throughout the championship and made 2 or 3 to (2) guys who tried and failed and made 4 or worse as a result?   Do you even know?  

To start answering your question, TOC is #1 by a large margin.  Playing to strategic angles while avoiding random, natural hazards IS golf to me.  

I guess after that, I rank 'em St. George's, Carnoustie, Muirfield, Turnberry, Lytham, and Troon, in that order, but among the last three, I really don't have strong feelings.  I honestly don't remember Hoylake...

and speaking of gorse, didnt Phil hit it in the gorse 3 days on 12?  they should name that bush after him if they havent already...

[Ted Cahill]

Us GCA buffs love TOC for the obvious reasons.  As a golf fan, I love watching on TV everything "around" the tournament.  But, the last three have not been as dramatic as should be expected from the Open Championship.  It pains me to say it, but to suggest otherwise is denial.  I don't care about scores in relation to par, but I do want outcomes to be in doubt.  Thats why the Masters is usually the most exciting.  I think the issue with TOC is, unless you have huge winds, a leader can go out on Sunday and sit on it.  The course doesn't have any "traps" (pun intended)  Even 17- everyone is happy to make bogey- they know they can make it up on the cupcake 18th.  History, yes; drama, no.  I don't like it, but I have to accept it.  TOC doesn't deserve the Open every five years- make it every 9 or 10 years.  Especially if that meant accepting new courses in the rota, like RCD, Ballybunion or a number of others.  Could you imagine the excitement by us GCAers if those courses held an Open?

[Richard Choi]

Hmmm... I think you can turn that argument around.

If you are looking for a great site for a major, doesn't the fact that there is such a clear winner indicative of how good that course is for major?

I mean, if there is a guy playing heads and shoulders better than the others like Louis was, the score should reflect it. The closer the score is between the leader and the pack, more random chances come into play when determining the winner.

I think it is great that a course allows the best player to so clearly distinguish himself.

[David_Elvins]

Comparing a Par 70 golf course to a Par 72 is preposterous.

Why? 

St Andrews has 2 par 3s.  Most par 70 US Open courses have 4.    So even if you consider 9 and 18 at TOC to be too easy, they are two holes where players are having to hit Driver at the green whilst on the comparble holes at US Open course,  players are hitting irons onto the green.  Surely hitting a driver at a green is harder than hitting an iron.  St Andrews is clearly a stearner test based on this. 

shivas has covered the rest very well.

[Kevin Pallier]

TOC a mediocre British Open site ? no chance

A course that yields a 63 to put someone in the drivers seat followed the next day an 80 to take them virtually out of the equation shows enough to get my respect more than anything else.

[JWinick]

Since you've decided to get personal, how do you get up from your Lazy-Boy when you're so full of it?   You're right, Old Tom Morris intended all of these holes to be driveable.   If you asked ABC, the tour players, and the R&A privately what they thought of TOC as a British Open site, most would admit that the course is no longer relevant.   

But, you cannot admit that the emperor has no clothes, hence you lose your classical high ground.   Over time, we will see, but tv ratings and the ability to test the best players in the world matter.   

David:  if 9 and 10 were magically turned into par 3s, Jon would be raving about how these two holes are better that #16 at CPC and how no course on the planet has a better set of par 3s than TOC, starting a thread bemoaning the fact that The Open isn't played at TOC every year!    

After all, what course has not one, but two, 300+ yard par 3s?  And not just any old 300+ yard par 3s, but one where you have to carry not one but two small pot bunkers more than 290 yards while avoiding heavy gorse on the left and the other with a giant swale (the most amazing swale you've ever seen!) in front of the green, with OB not only right, but also long!  Can you even imagine the challenge and the major-worthiness of such a thing??