Big Changes Planned for the Old Course; Hawtree to Do the Work

[Daryl David]

Has the trust considered that redesigning the course could have an effect on the foreign golfers they rely on for revenue?  I for one have no interest in playing the New Old Course nor will the groups I usually bring over the pond to drop their hard earned money.  Reminds me of Pinehurst #2 and all the years of neglect that has now been hopefully reversed. 

That brings up a good question.  How long after this abomination will it take to decide they need to restore the course back to pre-butchering?  Hope someone has extremely accurate maps, topos, GPS stuff and all that technology so they will know what to do when the time comes.

[Mike_Young]

I'd like to know what the point of the press release was. Why didn't they just go do the work? Was a press release under the circumstance really necessary?

Seriously.

I asked that in post #123.  It just didn't make sense that they would publish a press release unless they had already begun.   

[Colin Macqueen]

Donal (Save yersel' a tenner) and Rich,

Thanks for the link and the introduction to this marvellous piece of writing by Balfour! This short book is well worth the reading. I thoroughly enjoyed it and will buy a copy forthwith.
Light relief from the rather glum feelings regarding the impending changes to the Old Lady. So there you go Mac Plumart hoping this makes you feel a bit less "bummed out"!

For those of a classical bent but a wee bit lazy:

"Eheu fugaces, Posthume, Posthume, Labuntur anni!" translates to
"Alas the fleeting years glide away, Postumus,Postumus."

Ach, how true, how true.

And for those not steeped in the vernacular pertaining to fine Scottish cuisine "parritch" is porridge!

Cheers Colin

[William_G]

I'd like to know what the point of the press release was. Why didn't they just go do the work? Was a press release under the circumstance really necessary?

Seriously.

I asked that in post #123.  It just didn't make sense that they would publish a press release unless they had already begun.   

Like many alterations at existing clubs, but unlike TOC, the bar is low for clubs to have architects rubber stamp what they want or at least design what they want. May not be much different here, though. In addition, the architectural approval by a "golf course architect", squelches any challenges to the veracity of the process taken by those getting what they want.

The announcement of the work to be done was done as the guillotine was falling.

We'll have to see how those in charge do, only time will tell.

[Chris Kane]

Is there anywhere online which has the text of the St Andrews Links Order Confirmation Act 1974? I'd like to understand the specifics of the governance arrangements.

Thanks in advance.

[Mike_Young]

I'd like to know what the point of the press release was. Why didn't they just go do the work? Was a press release under the circumstance really necessary?

Seriously.

I asked that in post #123.  It just didn't make sense that they would publish a press release unless they had already begun.   

Like many alterations at existing clubs, but unlike TOC, the bar is low for clubs to have architects rubber stamp what they want or at least design what they want. May not be much different here, though. In addition, the architectural approval by a "golf course architect", squelches any challenges to the veracity of the process taken by those getting what they want.

The announcement of the work to be done was done as the guillotine was falling.

We'll have to see how those in charge do, only time will tell.

My question is why did they ever release it to the press at all?  It would be much cleaner to wait and release it after the fact.  The release mentioned all of the involved bodies but which released it.  was it Dr Hawtree's publicist or one of the others?  I would wager the R&Adid not know it was being released.  There was zero to gain with it.

[William_G]

I'd like to know what the point of the press release was. Why didn't they just go do the work? Was a press release under the circumstance really necessary?

Seriously.

I asked that in post #123.  It just didn't make sense that they would publish a press release unless they had already begun.   

Like many alterations at existing clubs, but unlike TOC, the bar is low for clubs to have architects rubber stamp what they want or at least design what they want. May not be much different here, though. In addition, the architectural approval by a "golf course architect", squelches any challenges to the veracity of the process taken by those getting what they want.

The announcement of the work to be done was done as the guillotine was falling.

We'll have to see how those in charge do, only time will tell.

My question is why did they ever release it to the press at all?  It would be much cleaner to wait and release it after the fact.  The release mentioned all of the involved bodies but which released it.  was it Dr Hawtree's publicist or one of the others?  I would wager the R&Adid not know it was being released.  There was zero to gain with it.

weak moment by someone? what gain was there other than to shine the light of day on the "project" at TOC.
will Hawtree's name now be forever attached to TOC?

[Jason Topp]

The golf channel did an overview of the changes with some decent discussion today. 

[Matthew Essig]

The golf channel did an overview of the changes with some decent discussion today.  

Yes they did. I loved how they showed every change using the flyovers of the course they have. The only changes that made me stop the show and made me say, "WHY?!?!?" were the moving of the bunkers closer to the second green and the acute spur formation reduction.

They said the reason for the slight leveling of the left half of the 11th green was indirectly related to the green speed; the reason being the green becoming too severe when the wind was up..........I'm on the fence..............Every other change, IMO, will either be unnoticeable or an improvement [bunker on 9 (IMO)].

They even said "It is like messing with the Mona Lisa. It's got a lot of people upset. There are architects that don't like this..." TOM, YOUR VOICE IS BEING HEARD!!!!!!!!

Addition: And yes, they did mention the ball and clubs problem more than once.

[Scott Warren]

One thing has been constantly on my mind since this broke: Imagine if Melvyn had managed to use his powers for good a few years back. I can't help but think he could have been in a position to have a voice on this that someone might listen to, but instead...

Maybe I'm wrong about that, it's just so frustrating to watch this happening and realise that the only place any of us outside the Links Trust and R&A have stewardship of TOC is in our hearts and at a time such as this that means nothing at all.

[Adam Lawrence]

I'd like to know what the point of the press release was. Why didn't they just go do the work? Was a press release under the circumstance really necessary?

Seriously.

I asked that in post #123.  It just didn't make sense that they would publish a press release unless they had already begun.   

Like many alterations at existing clubs, but unlike TOC, the bar is low for clubs to have architects rubber stamp what they want or at least design what they want. May not be much different here, though. In addition, the architectural approval by a "golf course architect", squelches any challenges to the veracity of the process taken by those getting what they want.

The announcement of the work to be done was done as the guillotine was falling.

We'll have to see how those in charge do, only time will tell.

My question is why did they ever release it to the press at all?  It would be much cleaner to wait and release it after the fact.  The release mentioned all of the involved bodies but which released it.  was it Dr Hawtree's publicist or one of the others?  I would wager the R&Adid not know it was being released.  There was zero to gain with it.

It was the Links Trust. The R&A must have known because (a) they have, as discussed earlier, several representatives on the board of the Trust, and (b) Peter Dawson is quoted extensively in the release.

[Sean_A]

Work has begun on the 11th green.

http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1011/old-course-work-update

Zowie, the arrogance...Its stuff like this which makes me distrust authority...

Ciao

Yes it's gutless of them.  I wonder if the DG sped the process up?  I know some were reading it.

Paul

I am not a preservationist unless it is worth preserving, but when it comes to an historic place, and arguably the most historic aspect of a city steeped in history, I like the idea of full airing out before any significant changes are made.  This process involving so few for such a hollowed ground is at best deceitful. 

Do folks think there is a possibility that St Andrews (including TOC) has a shot of becoming UNESCO recognized at some point in the future and this work is intended to get in under the wire while the scrutiny process is presumably far less intense?

Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

To make things clear: the R&A have no authority over TOC. It's the Links Trust and thus ultimately the citizens of St. Andrews that are behind this.

All the R&A could do is take TOC out of the Open Championship rotation. What stir that would create amongst players and fans is easy to imagine. So in fact the R&A has absolutely no power at all in this regard, I wonder why everyone seems to bow to them.

Ulrich

[Adam Lawrence]

Work has begun on the 11th green.

http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/golf/1011/old-course-work-update

Zowie, the arrogance...Its stuff like this which makes me distrust authority...

Ciao

Yes it's gutless of them.  I wonder if the DG sped the process up?  I know some were reading it.

Paul

I am not a preservationist unless it is worth preserving, but when it comes to an historic place, and arguably the most historic aspect of a city steeped in history, I like the idea of full airing out before any significant changes are made.  This process involving so few for such a hollowed ground is at best deceitful. 

Do folks think there is a possibility that St Andrews (including TOC) has a shot of becoming UNESCO recognized at some point in the future and this work is intended to get in under the wire while the scrutiny process is presumably far less intense?

Ciao

A number of architects, led by Paul O'Brien from Ireland, campaigned to have the course named as a World Heritage Site during the last round of adoptions, I think in 2010. It was turned down, I know Paul hopes to bring the idea back up, but I think it's only once every five years.

[Adam Lawrence]

To make things clear: the R&A have no authority over TOC. It's the Links Trust and thus ultimately the citizens of St. Andrews that are behind this.

All the R&A could do is take TOC out of the Open Championship rotation. What stir that would create amongst players and fans is easy to imagine. So in fact the R&A has absolutely no power at all in this regard, I wonder why everyone seems to bow to them.

Ulrich

See, I think this is a really good point. Except that the R&A does have partial authority, because of its influence on the Links Trust board. But I totally agree - it is inconceivable that the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews would take the Open away from St Andrews. In any case, the crowds they get there are among the biggest anywhere - it's not for sentimental reasons they have TOC in the rota every five years.

[Bryan Izatt]

The following from an AP article posted on ESPN Tours. Is there a sense of deja vu?   It was written in 2002.  What are the chances this time will turn out any different?  

"LONDON -- The most famous bunker in golf has been altered to make it less terrifying -- and traditionalists are furious.

The "Road Hole'' sand trap at the Old Course in St. Andrews, Scotland -- the home of golf -- has been moved farther from the 17th green and had 2 feet taken off its height.

"The whole town is in uproar,'' said David Malcolm, a former captain of the New Course at St. Andrews. "Tampering with the bunker is going too far, and its loss is a tragedy.

"A lot of players have cursed it through the years, but a lot more will mourn its passing like a dear and familiar old friend.''

While the change might please the pros who have seen their title hopes disappear into the sand, the officials who made the changes say it's mainly intended for the thousands of recreational golfers who play the course.

Malcolm, who claims the alterations were made without consultation, notes that the old bunker was 8 feet wide at its base and gathered errant shots from twice that width. He said it has been replaced with 32 feet of gathering area to a pot bunker set 4 feet back from its original greenside setting. The crest has been lowered and the face reduced by some 2 feet.

The changes were made by the St. Andrews Links Trust, which supervises the Old Course. Caroline Nurse, communications manager of the Trust, denied that the changes had been made secretly.

"Changes like this have to go through several procedures before we can make any changes, especially to the Old Course, where they would be scrutinized extremely carefully,'' she said. "It's a significant change if you relate it to the shape of the bunker a month or a year ago. But it's not significant if you compare it to 20-30 years ago.''

Nurse said the contours of the bunker had changed over the years, with golfers trying to play out of it or visitors standing inside it to have their pictures taken.

"It had become too treacherous for the average golfer and even Ernie Els, who is such a great bunker player, had problems getting out of it at the Dunhill Links tournament,'' she said.

Els took four strokes for a quadruple-bogey 8 at the tournament in October.

"You won't know how difficult it is until people start playing it,'' Nurse said. "But the bunker should be far more difficult to avoid. The gathering area is greatly expanded and the balls are far more likely to roll into the trap than roll away from it.''

Peter Dawson, secretary of the Royal & Ancient Club, which is golf's rule-making body outside the United States and has its headquarters at St. Andrews, acknowledged a lot of people were upset by the changes.

"I would not disagree that there are some indignant people on the subject,'' he said. "It is always difficult to see what a concept is like until it has actually been done. But we did not ask for these changes, and it is evident that they have altered the nature of the hole.''

"I am not sure that anyone likes it very much,'' Dawson added. "The changes have been noted, and we will be in discussion about them. We will be walking the course next week to look at many things, and I'm sure that the work will be reviewed.''"

[Bryan Izatt]

Or, again in 2005 (from IOL Sports), with Dawson again the main spokesperson, the following:

"R&A defends changes to Road Hole bunker

April 26 2005 at 06:22pm

St Andrews, Scotland - The British Open on Tuesday defended changes to the Road Hole bunker, one of the most notorious traps in golf.

The Open returns to the "home of golf" in July and the Royal & Ancient Club has altered the 455-yard, par-4 17th, the toughest hole on the Old Course.

The Road Hole bunker, which has a deep, almost vertical side, has been widened for the July 14-17 championship. That will make it easier to hit into, but also easier to get out.

Some purists and local observers claim the changes have ruined the bunker.

"I completely disagree," R&A chief executive Peter Dawson said.

"The Road Hole bunker has never been the same from one Open to the next. To say it has been ruined from what it was is completely false. I think that bunker has improved from what it was."

The Road Hole bunker has ruined the rounds of many contenders at St Andrews.

In 2000, David Duval took four strokes to get out of the trap and wound up with a quadruple bogey 8 as he finished tied for 11th behind winner Tiger Woods. Ernie Els did exactly the same at the 2002 Dunhill Links tournament.

The Old Course has been lengthened by 164 yards this year to a distance of 7 279 yards with the addition of new tees on five holes, the 2nd, 4th, 12th, 13th and 14th.

"We are restoring rather than changing the course," Dawson said. "Modern equipment and the greater athleticism of the game's leading players has led to many of the Old Course hazards being taken out of play."

He cited the 14th hole as an example.

"The drive at 14 had become hazard-free," he said. Adding 37 yards to the length of the hole will bring a series of bunkers called The Beardies back into play.

At 618 yards, the 14th becomes the longest hole on any course in the Open Championship rota.

"We are not looking for the course to become a big hitter's paradise, but are committed to staging a Championship that isn't just for golfers who hit the ball a long way," Dawson said.

"We are not trying to change the character of the course, just trying to reinstate the challenges, decisions and hazards players had to contend with in the past."

When Woods won in 2000, he did not go into any bunkers in any of his four rounds.

"Because of the history of the Old Course, moving hazards is not the option it would be at many other places," Dawson said.

"You can't simply move a bunker here and there on The Old Course. All that leaves is to move tees." "


Ooops, I guess bunkers can be moved on TOC.  And, the road hole bunker "never been the same from one Open to the next".

[Sean_A]

"You won't know how difficult it is until people start playing it,'' Nurse said. "But the bunker should be far more difficult to avoid. The gathering area is greatly expanded and the balls are far more likely to roll into the trap than roll away from it.''

Am I reading this incorrectly or are these two sentences contadictory? 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

"You won't know how difficult it is until people start playing it,'' Nurse said. "But the bunker should be far more difficult to avoid. The gathering area is greatly expanded and the balls are far more likely to roll into the trap than roll away from it.''

Am I reading this incorrectly or are these two sentences contadictory? 

Ciao

You are reading it incorrectly.

[Mark Pearce]

Here's the response I got to an e-mail to the Links Trust:

Dear Mr Pearce,

Thank you very much for your email entitled “Changes to the Old Course” today (26 November 2012).

I am the External Relations and Media Manager for St Andrews Links Trust  and I have enclosed the press release issued on behalf of the Trust last week outlining the detailed improvements to the Old Course over this winter and next.

These changes have been agreed by the St Andrews Links Trustees, Links Management Committee and The R&A Championship Committee and are the result of months of planning, preparation and consultation.

As I am sure you will appreciate any announcement regarding the Old Course always generates a huge amount of interest such is the history, prestige and affection with which the course is held across the globe. The course has always evolved and the parties involved in these improvements believe that these changes will continue to build on that history.

I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that fundamental to the decision to making these improvements, through their completion and beyond, has been a commitment to maintaining the challenge of the course for elite tournament players and the thousands of golfers who play here each year whilst always remaining true to the special character of the Old Course.

I will keep your letter on file and would be happy to add your contact details to my mailing list should you wish to be kept updated of any information regarding the proposals for the Old Course. Please let me know if you would wish to be added, it is a secure list and would not be used for any other purpose.

Thank you for taking the time to contact St Andrews Links Trust, whilst you have voiced concerns in your email I sincerely hope we can welcome you and your son to the Links in the years to come.

Kind regards,

Laurie

Worth noting that while some of this may, possibly, be a standard response some  care has been taken to personalise the response and address my initial e-mail.  For that credit must go to the Trust.  No surprise, of course that "that fundamental to the decision to making these improvements, through their completion and beyond, has been a commitment to maintaining the challenge of the course for elite tournament players".

[Frank Pont]

Interesting, so lets wheel out all the pros that feel greens need to be changed and undulations need to be created around greens to keep TOC as "a stern test for the best tour players". Has any pro underwritten this statement. If not the Links Trust statement is just based on their own opinion,,,,

[John Chilver-Stainer]

The letter emphasises the priority is being placed on adapting the course to the length of the ball being hit by the elite pros (300 yards to 350 yards) and less on the histrorical significance of the golf course.

Personally I think the historical significance should have priority.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

"You won't know how difficult it is until people start playing it,'' Nurse said. "But the bunker should be far more difficult to avoid. The gathering area is greatly expanded and the balls are far more likely to roll into the trap than roll away from it.''

Am I reading this incorrectly or are these two sentences contadictory? 

Ciao

You are reading it incorrectly.

It's not contradictory, but why are they doing work on the "gathering area" in 2012? Were the 2002 alterations deemed a failure?

[Ally Mcintosh]

The petition on the other thread is a decent start... But we need an open letter written... And then we need to collate names in the industry (architects, players, media) to put their names under that letter...

If no-one else is willing, I am quite happy to coordinate...

[Frank Pont]

Very good article on Planet Golf

http://www.planetgolf.com/index.php?id=1787