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

[Ron Kern]

USA Today article (looks like this came from Ferguson via AP):

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2012/11/27/st-andrews-old-course-changes/1730345/

Excerpt (my emphasis):

R&A chief executive Peter Dawson said the changes are intended to make the elite players be more precise with their shots.

"While some holes have been lengthened on the Old Course in recent years, it has otherwise remained largely unaltered," Dawson said. "The championship committee felt there was an opportunity to stiffen its defenses in some places to ensure it remains as challenging as ever to the professionals."

Change on the Old Course is not unprecedented. Officials once lengthened the course and added bunkers out of concern that a new golf ball would lower scores. That was in 1905 with the introduction of the rubber-core Haskell ball.

Dawson anticipates criticism of the changes, though he called it a "knee-jerk reaction."

"If they came to see me and walked out onto the course, I'm quite sure they would be fine with it," he said.

[Sean_A]

Sean - my point is not supporting the Links Trust but many people here have said "give the locals a voice", "form a committee of experts", etc. I'm just saying there was clearly thought by the law makers who formed the Links Trust to ensure there was a local voice in the control of golf at St Andrews.

The chairman of the Links Management Committee is also an R&A man, a local surgeon who studied at St Andrews has lived there for 28 years and been a member of the New Club for 33 years.

I find it difficult to see how you could build a management structure that has more local bias? I'm sure parachuting in outsiders will be as popular with the people of St Andrews as the last two foreign managers of the England football team were with us fans.

Chappers

Thinking more on this subject, would folks feel satisfied with the process if there actually was a consultation among the locals and the proposals were approved?  Somehow, I don't think so.  What people are really saying is that they want the Links Trust Trustees to be of the same opinion as themselves.  Even so, I don't understand the big rush behind the proposals and I don't see why the Trust can't spend some of that cash they have to actually ask locals what they think.  I mean, TOC is the best asset of St Andrews - no?  I would think serious changes to the course would warrant a consultation.

Ciao

[Sean Walsh]

Mark,

I don't disagree that in keeping with the intention of the legislation the residents of Fife and St Andrews particularly should be in control of their course.  It is however a travesty if they have abrogated their responsibilities and lent their good names to a small faction's skullduggery.  Is this what has happened here, I don't know as I'm too far away from it.  It is what I suspect has happened.  Otherwise good people have acquiesced with egomaniacs to allow the destruction of significant cultural heritage.

Ron,

Good to see it's only the Pro's that will have to be more precise, obviously won't effect how club players will play the course then  

Sean,

There is little doubt that I would be unlikely to approve of the changes even if they had gone through significant consultation with the relevant local stakeholders.  Much like getting a terrible LBW decision I would have had to acknowledge the correct process was followed, I was out of the game and the only people available to grumble to would have been those on my own team and even they would have soon got sick of me. 

I think that given an appropriate level of consultation at least some of these "improvements" would have been prevented and that's the whole reason someone (most likely Mr Dawson) chose the path we are currently seeing.

[Mark Pearce]

R&A chief executive Peter Dawson said the changes are intended to make the elite players be more precise with their shots.

"If they came to see me and walked out onto the course, I'm quite sure they would be fine with it," he said.

Anyone fancy getting together to write to Peter Dawson, asking that he take a group of us round to examine the changes, so that he can persuade us that we should be "fine with it"?  Better still, does anyone on here know Dawson? 

[Mark Chaplin]

I certainly think the Friday announcement and work started on Monday suggests they knew this would cause some angst.

[Adam Lawrence]

I certainly think the Friday announcement and work started on Monday suggests they knew this would cause some angst.

Of course, it is media management worthy of Malcolm Tucker. And to compound the genius, they're going to ban anchoring today, which will deflect even more attention...

[Jud_T]

It is easy to criticise the governance of the Links Trust but it is made up of;

Three elected representatives of the local council
The local member of parliament, elected by the local people
The local member of the Scottish parliament also elected by the local people
Three members of the R&A;
Richard Muckhart - senior R&A man, former captain of St Andrews university team, Luffness New & Peebles member
Peter Forster - farmer from Wormit a few miles from St Andrews and Scotscraig member
Joe Noble - surveyor and former chair of Scottish Enterprise Fife for a number of years

Is this really the level of architectural pedigree that should be overseeing the Old Course?  In particular, shame on you Richard Muckhart, former captain of the University Team, for allowing sacred ground to be plundered thusly....

[Robin_Hiseman]

I am told 4.5% in the area that they want the recaptured pin to be.

Going by textbook analysis, one hole location = a circle with a diameter of 16 feet, within which the gradient should be regular and (with modern green speeds) between 1-2.5%.  The hole shouldn't be cut within 8 to 10 feet of a significant slope.

So, if only one hole location is proposed you get the idea of the kind of area that is to be levelled off.  Clearly, if a 4-6% slope is being reduced to 2% or so, there will be a lot of tying in to do around the new hole location.  If they're looking for a couple of holes then the area gets a lot bigger.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Mark and Sean,

There are mechanisms and systems that allow checks and controls.
It’s called Planning Procedure.

If the Links Trust had submitted a Detailed Planning Permit Application for Approval by Fife Council, then at the very least the Contour Plans would have been available for Interested Party’s (locals, Conservation organizations, private persons, etc) to peruse and if they want to lodge their objections.

This Planning Procedure has been in existence for years, but unless anyone can tell me to the contrary, the Links Trust have ignored this Procedure, and Fife Council also.

[Robin_Hiseman]

John

If every nip and tuck of a green, tee or bunker required planning permission then the golf architecture industry would be doomed.   Buried beneath a mountain of bureacracy.   It's tough enough convincing club committee's!

[Don_Mahaffey]

Anyone who has spent anytime around green construction knows that when you say a couple of percent, it means a hell of a lot more when talking about green slopes then batting average. The slope on the 11th was only 4-5%ish to start, so they are basically cutting it in half. Dawson can try to sell that as a minor 2% change, but that is a major change, he knows it, and is trying to be deceptive with his words.
Any golf writer worth his salt knows it too. Please call it what it is and please question Dawson about it when given the opportunity.  

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Robin,

Do you really think the proposed changes at the Old Course are just a "Nip and a tuck" and don't deserve to be subject to detailed contour plans and a planning application ?

[Robin_Hiseman]

John

Yes, by the measure applied to every other course in existence.  And, no, I don't think they should have gone through a planning procedure.  I think there were enough responsible people involved already.  Whether you think they made the right decision is what is being questioned.

[Robin_Hiseman]

Anyone who has spent anytime around green construction knows that when you say a couple of percent, it means a hell of a lot more when talking about green slopes then batting average. The slope on the 11th was only 4-5%ish to start, so they are basically cutting it in half. Dawson can try to sell that as a minor 2% change, but that is a major change, he knows it, and is trying to be deceptive with his words.
Any golf writer worth his salt knows it too. Please call it what it is and please question Dawson about it when given the opportunity.  

In old money, a 1 in 20 slope is being changed to a 1 in 50.  Percentage terms can make it sound negligable, but most people would be out of breath walking up a 10% slope for more than a few minutes.

[jeffwarne]

Anyone who has spent anytime around green construction knows that when you say a couple of percent, it means a hell of a lot more when talking about green slopes then batting average. The slope on the 11th was only 4-5%ish to start, so they are basically cutting it in half. Dawson can try to sell that as a minor 2% change, but that is a major change, he knows it, and is trying to be deceptive with his words.
Any golf writer worth his salt knows it too. Please call it what it is and please question Dawson about it when given the opportunity.  

As mentioned before, If a slope goes from 4% to 2%, that is a 50% change.
To restore the slope from 2 to 4 % would require a 100% increase.
Described that way(accurately), one would hardly use the term small.

Using Dawson's lingo,but not his logic, an actual 2% change to a 4 % slope  would result in a final slope of 3.92%, which would be unnoticeable and hardly worth the effort.
He's either math challeneged or playing it down.

Put his way, if he reduces it 2% more, it will be dead flat

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Robin,

Your hyperbole is impressive.

Where do you draw the line at “not necessary to have a Planning or Building Permit”

In my experience, small changes localised to one or two areas that don’t involve outside work one can get away with it. However the scale of the present work at the Old Course deserves a Planning Application.

A Planning Application or Building Warrant Application is not a complicated procedure and happens all the time. The biggest advantage being that the public get an opportunity to have their say before the work begins.

In this case they didn’t, and now the disadvantage of not allowing people their say manifests itself in a public “fall out” . 

[Mark Pearce]

I gather from Alistair Tait's Tweet that, according to Dawson, all this is "hysteria".

What a classy way to address your critics.

[Robin_Hiseman]

John

I had to look it up to remind myself of what it meant, so thanks for reintroducing hyperbole to my lexicon.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this.  I've got to get on with drawing up some plans for a planning application!

[Mike_Young]

Robin,

Your hyperbole is impressive.

Where do you draw the line at “not necessary to have a Planning or Building Permit”

In my experience, small changes localised to one or two areas that don’t involve outside work one can get away with it. However the scale of the present work at the Old Course deserves a Planning Application.

A Planning Application or Building Warrant Application is not a complicated procedure and happens all the time. The biggest advantage being that the public get an opportunity to have their say before the work begins.

In this case they didn’t, and now the disadvantage of not allowing people their say manifests itself in a public “fall out” . 

Look guys..all of this off the cuff BS is where people begin to take this site with a grain of sand.

Have any of you seen a document where it says specifically says: 2% change or 2% slope?  As stated there is a huge difference.
And as for all of the hype about contour plans and them being presented to the town so that they can have public comment is laughable.  99.99 percent of the people would not be able to pick up on the slope change as a percentage in a plan and I BET THERE IS NO DETAILED PLAN....

AND lastly, overall it would be considered a small amount of work and not large by any means on most of our home courses.  I am convinced that if there had never been a press release  99.99 % of the golfing populace would never have recognized the changes.

Having said the above doesn't mean I am in favor of the changes.

None of us need to argue the changes.  We need to argue that TOC is the STANDARD and we don't need to change standards.  It's that simple.

Cheers

[Robin_Hiseman]

Mike

Reply #302 mentions "a couple of percent of grade" in a direct quote.  Deducting that from Scott MacPherson's very detailed survey of the green puts the projected grade in the 2-2.5% range.  If they're changing it, they're not going to leave it in any doubt that it is flat enough.  2% is a responsible estimate.

[Mike_Young]

Mike

Reply #302 mentions "a couple of percent of grade" in a direct quote.  Deducting that from Scott MacPherson's very detailed survey of the green puts the projected grade in the 2-2.5% range.  If they're changing it, they're not going to leave it in any doubt that it is flat enough.  2% is a responsible estimate.

Thanks Robin...

[Rich Goodale]

Mike

If TOC is "the standard" why do so few golf courses have double greens, or numerous holes with blind tee shots?  Is it just that every course other than TOC is sub-standard?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Mike,

Information to the Public maybe BS and laughable to you, but the very fact that the plans could have been out there would have provoked a balanced debate.

Then you might have got some support for your noble cause of The Old Course is the STANDARD

Now with the ”fait accompli” it hasn’t so much launched a debate, rather a slanging match and officials digging in as they have no alternative but to defend their ways.

[Mike_Young]

Rich,
I'm not calling anything sub standard.  I'm saying that it is used as a comparison it should be sacred.

John,
I don't know maybe it would have provoked a debate.  I don't see that.  Now, I don't do noble causes I just consider it a standard and don't think it should be messed with.  All that is just a personal position.  And it really doesn't matter because none of us have say in the matter.  And I don't think you will see officials defending their ways.  I think they will basically ignore such.

[Jud_T]

Mike

Is it just that every course other than TOC is sub-standard?

Yup,  pretty accurate. At least it was before these changes...