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

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

This is a link to a story I just posted excerpting writings of ASGCA members to the Old Course modifications.

You can go right to the link by clicking here http://www.asgca.org/news/666-asgca-members-comment-on-old-course-modifications

OR... OR...

You could click on my link and then click a link to an advertiser. I'm just saying. I'm not telling you what to do.

http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/blog/1064/asgca-comment-on-old-course-alterations

Your support is genuinly appreciated.

Anthony

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Adam Lawrence from Golf Course Architecture Magazine talked with Peter Dawson.

http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Dawson-upbeat-on-Old-Course-works/2617/Default.aspx

[Frank Pont]

What does it tell you about a person when his first line is: "If you are going to insist that the course hasn't changed and shouldn't be touched, we are going to have a difficult conversation "

[Tony_Muldoon]

What does it tell you about a person when his first line is: "If you are going to insist that the course hasn't changed and shouldn't be touched, we are going to have a difficult conversation "

That he's trying to get you to have a fight on a point he feels he can win?

Nice spin on getting distracted over the need to consult because of the ban on anchoring.  So Peter just how long were these works contemplated for?

Also I thought we'd established that the Championship Committee were only informed the week before i.e. They were NOT the originators.

[Adam Lawrence]

It was a joke. Had hoped the context made that clear, but obviously not....

[Mark Bourgeois]

Adam, I would suggest if possible you modify to reference Dawson smiling when he said that or saying it with a laugh. There's plenty of things for us to pound him on without that added in!

Congrats on the 'get' BTW.

[Paul_Turner]

Adam

Was the front left corner of the 17th green recontoured?

[Frank Pont]

It was a joke. Had hoped the context made that clear, but obviously not....

A clever joke, still subtlely drawing a line in the sand....

Congrats on the scoop, well done!

[Mark Bourgeois]

It is true, Frank, he has been reported elsewhere as saying the same thing, in apparent seriousness. Yes?

[Paul_Turner]

 I don't understand the inconsistency from Peter Dawson.  It seems like he's inventing the story as he goes along

A few day ago on the 11th

"The issue is that at old green speeds, before mowers were properly invented and greens were four on the stimp meter or something like that, you could get a pin position on the left hand side. But now when we are at 10.5 in the summer and in The Open, we found that you couldn't get a pin there that wasn't Mickey Mouse. We almost put a pin there (in 2010), but we thought if the wind blows it's going to be very unfair."

And now

"That pin is only used in winter at the moment,” said Dawson. “It's not just a question of being unusable at Open speeds – it can't be used even when the greens are at normal summer pace. The green would have to be slowed to six or seven on the Stimpmeter to make that pin usable.”

So they contemplated using the pin at 10.5 but now it's only usable at 6.5?

6.5 at 5% seems like an exaggeration from the charts posted.

[Niall C]

It was a joke. Had hoped the context made that clear, but obviously not....

Adam

I took it as such. Clearly an attempt at an ice-breaker but with a serious point as well about the fact that the course has changed over the years. Starting from the psosition of being one of the few if indeed the only one on here over the last week defending Dawson and the R&A, I think that he comes over well in that he makes it clear that many of the changes had originated from the greenstaff or at least from greenkeeping issues and that it just wasn't him and Martin Hawtree cooking it up themselves. Thanks for posting and I look forward to reading the longer interview.

Niall

[Mark Bourgeois]

Adam,

Could you shed any clarity on which 'acute spur formation' Dawson is considering on the 4th? I thought at first your piece cleared it up -- seems like the larger mound in the fairway rather than the hump right before the green -- but on a closer read his comments don't seem to apply to that mound.

Mark

[Jud_T]

I think that he comes over well in that he makes it clear that many of the changes had originated from the greenstaff or at least from greenkeeping issues and that it just wasn't him and Martin Hawtree cooking it up themselves.

Yup, he comes off somewhere between Mother Teresa and Gandhi  ...I suppose the superintendent suggested all the additional contouring and bunkers as well?  Between his inability to figure out why the bunkers on the second were situated where they were and barreling ahead with moving them anyway and now his unsureness about the changes at the fourth he doesn't seem like an evil guy, but rather an incompetent who's in over his head.  The fact that the anchoring thing was seen as more important than the changes to TOC is a pretty good clue as to where their priorities lie.  Nice get though Adam.

[Adam Lawrence]

Adam,

Could you shed any clarity on which 'acute spur formation' Dawson is considering on the 4th? I thought at first your piece cleared it up -- seems like the larger mound in the fairway rather than the hump right before the green -- but on a closer read his comments don't seem to apply to that mound.

Mark

If you follow the narrow channel forward from the tee, it's the area on the left in the landing zone (which you can carry if you're long enough).

[Mark Pearce]

Adam,

Could you shed any clarity on which 'acute spur formation' Dawson is considering on the 4th? I thought at first your piece cleared it up -- seems like the larger mound in the fairway rather than the hump right before the green -- but on a closer read his comments don't seem to apply to that mound.

Mark

If you follow the narrow channel forward from the tee, it's the area on the left in the landing zone (which you can carry if you're long enough).

why, then, does it stop players playing down the right, as you report Dawson as saying (and as I have ad him quoted as saying elsewhere)?

[Sean Walsh]

Only a relatively short hitter or a mishit ends up on top of that mound.  Also when you do in my experience the rough is very thin up there and a simple recovery.  The only thing you can't do is split the middle.  Either go right and find fairway if you're straight enough or aim way left for the flat top of the mound.  If you go halfway between the two you can get caught in a shaggy ridge and a more difficult recovery. BUT, if you find yourself in this position you have either hit a poor shot OR made a mental error OR both. 

Also when has a modern pro golfer ever not been able to clear this ridge? At most it ends 220yds from the back tee at my guesstimate.

I can see the maintenance issues in regard to 7, I don't neccessarily agree on the remedy but the issue is a real one. I think the greenkeeping issues here are being played up to be used as a fig leaf to justify the changes.

I can't remember Moir bringing up these issues with 4 in his interview with Anthony Pioppi

[Bryan Izatt]

There seems to be two concurrent threads on this si I'll post this here too.

No, Brian, it is further back than that

OK, Adam got it.  It would be the second one in the foreground of this picture.  That one is between 200 to 260 yards from the normal and Open tees.  For whom was he widening it out?  I don't think a 260 yard carry would be too much for pros unless the wind was in their face. Seems to me it would be more of an issue for the many ams playing the course where a 200 yard carry might be an issue for many.  And if they are trying to keep things challenging for the pros, why widen it out there.  How out of hand can the rough get for the greenskeepers? Could they not use a fly-mo every once in a while.



I'm a little confused by the quote in your excellent article:

“The impetus has come from the greenkeepers – it was covered in rough during the 2005 Open, and the result was that almost nobody tried to hit their drive up the right. To create more width, we shaved the bank down in 2010, but it is very steep, and the greens staff have difficulty mowing it at that height.”   

The first sentence doesn't make sense.  If the mound on the left was covered in rough, why did nobody hit their drive up the right.  It seems to be a non-sequitur.

[Sean Walsh]

Bryan,

Apart from the quote being counterintuitive, it indicates to me it's more about how they prepare the course for an open (i.e longer rough) than how it appears 4 years out of 5.

This hole does annoy some shorter hitters (especially females) because it may force them to aim at the rough with little hope of carrying it. However I'm not a long hitter and was more often than not reaching the short grass over the mound, also the lineup there was generally good.  Also if aiming at the rough offends them so greatly they can always aim for the fairway or even the new course. 

How they appear in your picture is how I remember them, i.e not much of a maintenance issue there.

[Niall C]

I think that he comes over well in that he makes it clear that many of the changes had originated from the greenstaff or at least from greenkeeping issues and that it just wasn't him and Martin Hawtree cooking it up themselves.

Yup, he comes off somewhere between Mother Teresa and Gandhi  ...I suppose the superintendent suggested all the additional contouring and bunkers as well?  Between his inability to figure out why the bunkers on the second were situated where they were and barreling ahead with moving them anyway and now his unsureness about the changes at the fourth he doesn't seem like an evil guy, but rather an incompetent who's in over his head.  The fact that the anchoring thing was seen as more important than the changes to TOC is a pretty good clue as to where their priorities lie.  Nice get though Adam.

Jud

Surprised to see you roll your eyes since in the interview Dawson talked of widening the course, doing away with rough and adding rumple where man had previously flattened what nature provided. I'd have thought that would have been right up your street......but then perhaps you were in too much of a hurry to heap abuse on Mr Dawson to actually read what he said.

Niall

[Mark Bourgeois]

While we wait for clarity on Mr Dawson's comments re which line he wants golfers to play on the 4th, and thus his intention to lop off the top of one of the 'acute spur formations', I note again this:

"By continuing with the proposed changes, Messrs. Dawson and Hawtree are forcing their own limited views of design onto a course that previously offered infinite possibilities.  They are giving the course definition, the lack of which was the one thing that set The Old Course apart from everything else." -- Tom Doak

Also, a question: who agrees with the approach Mr Dawson has taken to his program of change now that he has stated the changes are the most significant in a century?

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

I thought by now that some of the UK news organizations would find answers to questions that remain about the Old Course work. For instance, was Martin Hawtree the only architect talked to about the job, when was the process began. They didn't so I contacted Mike Woodcock, Media and Editorial Manager for the R&A. Here are his answers and, in some cases, his non-answers.

Thanks as always, for clicking on the link and if you have time click on one the advertisers. I'm partial to the Allergy Buyers Club site.

http://anthonypioppi.com/golf/blog/1071/some-remaining-old-course-questions-answered-others-not

Anthony

[Sean Walsh]

First of all nice work from Anthony Pioppi and Adam Lawrence from this site for the work they have produced.  Their pieces have done more to clarify what is proposed and when these decisions were taken and by whom than any other media I have seen.  Well done.

Anthony,

When you spoke to Mr Moir did he raise these maintenance issues regarding 4 that have now entered the debate through Mr Dawson?

Treehouse,

This pin Mr Dawson and others have said has been lost on 11.  I'm a little confused.  Is it one that sits way at the back left of the green, that I have never seen before OR is it centre left of the green between Hill and Strath directly below the fierce slope?

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Sean:

I did not since Dawson's explanation did not come until after my email exchange Moir.

Anthony

[Mark Bourgeois]

'...to stay true to the unique spirit and character of the Old Course."

These are the kinds of things one says in lieu of actually staying true to something. Real Ministry of Truth stuff.

[BCrosby]

The Orwellian nature of the Trust's public statements jump off the page.

Not unlike ANGC's statements that the addition of thousands of new trees to the course was in keeping with the "spirit" of the design of MacK and Jones.

The Orwellian crime is always twofold. It's not just turning the truth on its head. It's also degrading the meaning of everyday words. Each crime is bad enough, but the latter is more troubling (because it's more insidious) than the former.

Bob