The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture

[Tom_Doak]

I don't understand why classic golf courses can't apply for Landmark Tax Status just as historic building owners can.  Their property taxes would be frozen at the current level for perpetuity.  Any changes to the course would have to be approved by a Landmark Committee.  Of course they'd have to want to apply for this status.

Jud:

Because in this day and age, giving tax breaks to old-money golf clubs is a non-starter.

[Tom_Doak]

Haven't bunkers been moved on The Old Course, in effect, by the continued construction of newer tees which made holes like 14 play longer?

With that being said, at what point is further lengthening of the course abandoned to these other modifications?

Kyle:

I don't like the trend of older courses adding more tees further and further back ... but to me there is a HUGE difference between that and starting to move the bunkers or change the playing surface of a course.  New tees don't affect the play for anyone except the guys who want to play them.

You are right that the intention behind the changes is often the same, but the reality is that having a modern architect move the bunkers around (or add contouring around the greens) is entirely dependent on the success of the construction of the new features.

[Sean_A]

Tom

Its all so esoteric that practically the only people qualified to answer your big questions are those failing to admit they don't have all the answers or even most of the answers.  How can one entrust any body or person to oversee this sort of stuff?  I know I wouldn't trust whoever the powers that be are.  Then there is the question of trying to weave modern sensibilities about the game onto the fabric of what was created, an old quilt that has been repaired and patched endless times. I know I have some strong opinions about this sort of stuff, but I hate to use "history" as the reason why simply because much of the time we don't really know history as well as we think or should.  I would also say that even the historical record is well cluttered with course alterations in support of better challenging the big boys - and this stretches back over 100 years at you guessed it, TOC.  

Ciao

Sean:

I agree with you here.  The point of my argument is not to create a new body which will then recommend changes to historic courses.  My point is to make it much harder for the current rulers to direct changes to them on their own.  Should it not take someone more than Peter Dawson and Martin Hawtree and presumably a small R & A committee to decide that The Old Course needs to be changed?

Of course, clubs have power over themselves and we cannot force them to join this crusade.  However, we all know that most historic courses take great pride in that history, and if the right organization was conceived to honor and protect that history, there would be a lot  of pressure from within the memberships to be a part of it.  It would just be another "check and balance" against changing things willy-nilly.

Tom

So long as it doesn't cost me anything, I would be in favour of the sort of preventive body you suggest because I think in essence you are right that some courses shouldn't be touched without very good reason.  On the other hand, its tough to argue that TOC shouldn't be altered to remain relevant for The Open.  I don't happen to believe that what has happened to TOC these past few TOC Opens has made the course more relevant, but I think I am in the very small minority on this issue.  It seems TOC has been under pressure to remain viable for the big boys for over 100 years.  I think those sorts of rumours and opinions will persist regardless of what is or isn't done to TOC.  The bottom line for me is people can't help but change things.  Change seems to be part of human nature.  Its easy to say I wouldn't do this or that when I am not empowered to do so.  For instance, I really like the idea of shaping the 17th green to feed into the bunker more easily.  I would ask if this is so bad?  Then of course other would ask the same about the other proposed changes.

Ciao

[Dan Herrmann]

Just roll back the damn golf ball.  I have 3 USGA "shorter ball" prototypes in my golf bag, and they certainly don't decrease my enjoyment of the game.

[Rich Goodale]

Great thread and admirable cause, Tom.  You are incorrect, however when you write:

"Though history records that bunkers have been moved on The Old Course in past ages, no new bunker has been added and no bunker has been moved since 1920 -- and those changes were made after great debate among the members of the club, who included some of the leading minds on golf course design."

In fact, the Road Hole Bunker was moved (and significantly re-shaped) as recently as 2010 and there was no "great debate" on this event except for a bit of hand-wringing on this wee website.  As I wrote on the earlier thread, from the little information the Links Trust has provided us with, I think they are just restoring the bunker to what is was like in the 1970's, and I think that this is a good idea.

More importantly, as you move this cause forward, I hope that you/we deal with the issue of "Preservation of what?"  Do we want to preserve the course of today?  Or the course of 2009 (before the most recent RHB change)?  Or the course in the early 80's (when you first played it)?  Or that of the 1900's, when Low added the bunkering to the outward 9?  Or that of  1855, before Playfair and OTM and Robertson nearly doubled the overall acreage of the course (by reclaiming from the gorse the land now used for the outward 9) and doubled the size of the greens?  Do we want to 12th green to be replanted in heather or the Shell bunker to again be filled with shells?  Etc. etc. etc.

The "slippery slope" you and others talk about has been slippery for more than 150 years, and in general I think the course is a "better" one than the one I first played in 1978, even though perhaps less interesting due to modern maintenance practices and modern balls and equipment.  The course could easily withstand these rolbacks, but unless the rest of the golfing world rolled these back too, what would be the point?  Even if you did a simple thing like slow down the speed of the 11th green so that back left pin position could be used more often, what would you do with the rest of the greens?  Cut each of them to different stimpmeter settings?  That would be interesting, but how would would the average golfer (much less the average PGA Tour pro) like that?  making Hell bunker the unraked, crumbling mess that it was in 1978 would be interesting, but how would we like that?  If we want to treated the Old Course as a museum, fine, but how many will want to play it, and at what price?

Cheers

Rich

[Jeff_Mingay]

I passionately agree with Tom that, when it comes to St. Andrews and other major historic courses, these kinds of decisions to fundamentally change important parts of the course should NOT be left to a small group of people to decide. How to prevent this is a difficult proposition, and who should decide on such things is a tough question. But, I think most would agree with this statement in principle - especially when it comes to the Old Course.  

It's amazing to think that nothing has really been done to the Old Course since the 1920s (new bunkers), and the contours of the course basically haven't been changed by man in hundreds of years. There's a reason for this as well, and those reasons are not just nostalgic as some may suggest. Hundreds (no, thousands) of intelligent, thoughtful, respectful, and learned men (and women) have studied, praised, competed at, and respected the greatness of the Old Course for hundreds of years. Why do Peter Dawson, Martin Hawtree, and the Links Trust of 2012 suddenly feel changes to the course are now warranted? I think Bob Crosby's suggestions about these decision-makers providing some intelligent reasoning behind the perceived necessity of making the proposed changes is perfectly logical, and should be an easy thing for them to do (or not).

Whether this has anything to do with this topic or not, I'd like to think that there's no way Martin Hawtree (who I don't know, at all) came up with these ideas for the Old Course without being provoked to do so. Not a chance. And, how would these changes benefit the Links Trust in any way? They won't. That leaves one body, or perhaps more accurately one person, who would seem to be the instigator.  

Again, providing golfers around the world with some sophisitcated justification behind the proposals is in order. It would be the intelligent thing to do, as a start.  

[Kyle Harris]

Haven't bunkers been moved on The Old Course, in effect, by the continued construction of newer tees which made holes like 14 play longer?

With that being said, at what point is further lengthening of the course abandoned to these other modifications?

Kyle:

I don't like the trend of older courses adding more tees further and further back ... but to me there is a HUGE difference between that and starting to move the bunkers or change the playing surface of a course.  New tees don't affect the play for anyone except the guys who want to play them.

You are right that the intention behind the changes is often the same, but the reality is that having a modern architect move the bunkers around (or add contouring around the greens) is entirely dependent on the success of the construction of the new features.

Tom,

I agree there is a huge difference between moving tees and the changes outlines now. My question is why have we now broached into more permannet, or rather long-lasting changes, that until this point were supposedly activated through length.

I think I saw a statistic posted a few years ago that listed The Old Course as playing significantly longer during a stretch in the first half of the last century.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I agree there is a huge difference between moving tees and the changes outlines now. My question is why have we now broached into more permannet, or rather long-lasting changes, that until this point were supposedly activated through length.

I think I saw a statistic posted a few years ago that listed The Old Course as playing significantly longer during a stretch in the first half of the last century.

Kyle:

Every course plays significantly shorter today than the big courses played in the gutty ball era.  If you read the oldest books about golf and golf architecture, you'll find that one main reason The Old Course was considered superior is that it contained so many two-shot holes of "the right length," meaning holes that could only be reached with two very solid shots.  Whereas today it is known for the high number of potentially drivable par-4's!

There should be some modern courses somewhere that reflect that tradition.  It's obviously way, way out of the bag for any course that is 75-100 years old (or ancient). 

[Alex Miller]

The great irony of this whole thing is that if the R&A were comfortable with slower tournament green speeds more difficult hole locations would be available and the course would be able to "defend itself" much better.

I agree with Tom that outside of lengthening the course with an additional tee box I don't think TOC should undergo any great alterations. The course used to be 22 holes, and yet we now are so concerned with the number being shot because why?

I would much rather see changes in set up than changes to the course itself. Can this problem (that I believe is as much in the minds of the R&A as it is real) be solved with with tougher pin positions? I'd imagine so. As for a rolled back golf ball, I don't expect to see it. Ever.

[Carl Johnson]

Last night I watched a documentary movie, "The Art of the Steal," about how (as told by the movie makers, of course) the Philadelphia Museum of Art effectively took over the Barnes Foundation Collection (of modern paintings), subverting the vision and intent of Dr. Barnes, its creator, as expressed in his trust document establishing a permanent home for his collection.  At one point, Richard Glanton, who became a president of the Foundation and in the view of many one of the "bad guys" spoke the truth when he said, "It's about the $4 billion dollars and everything else is bullshit."  (Actually, apparently, more like $25 billion, but who's counting.  Also, implicit is not just the money, but what it means to control the product it represents.)

A couple of thoughts -

Just off the top of my head, the parallels I draw between the two presevation cases (Barnes specifically, and golf courses generally) are (1) the roles of money and power and (2) how even the protections seemingly protected by a very clear and concise trust document are not inviolable in the face of the former.

Again, superficially, St. Andrews needs the money from TOC's fame - directly from golf tourists and indirectly from the conduct of the Open.  Why not maintain TOC as a classic, historical venue, and move the Open to the New or Jubilee courses, remodeled as deemed appropriate by the powers that be, and hyped as a new, great tournament course in the "St. Andrews tradition."  Could it not be spun that way?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Presently, I haven't the time to respond in the detail I'd like to, but, isn't the question you asked, one of THE questions for the ages ?

It is such a multi-faceted question, one with so many variables, some or many, individual site dependent.

In terms of GCA, it's probably one of the top 10 questions, if not the top 5 questions in that universe.

Very thought provoking.

[Josh Tarble]

I don't know I am qualified enough to answer this question properly, but it is an excellent one.  I don't understand the obsession with wanting to hold pros in check.  I've always been of the opinion courses should be designed for the 99.5% of normal golfers and not the pros. Who cares if the pros are shooting -30? To me, this is like worrying dunking has become to easy in the NBA or movie stars are spending too much money.  They play in a world totally different from most.  To me, the integrity of the game is maintaining each course in a manner consistent with the vision of he architect, not whether Rory McIlroy can break par. With hot equipment pros may be shooting a 62 but I'm going to guess most of us are still ecstatic breaking 80.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Josh,

It's not a matter of "holding the pros in check".

It's a matter of preserving the relationship of the course's features to the pro's game, the intended interfacing as conceived by the architect.

[Adam Clayman]

The only thing worth preserving in gca is thoughtfulness.

As for TOC, Thoughtful would hopefully include making sure the reverse course isn't adversely affected, either. But remember, these are the guys that recently put a teeing ground, out of bounds. Grew long rough left of the dz on 17. Their respect, or thoughtfulness seems to be the question.

It seems wonderfully ironic, if the disease that has plagued American golf, for decades, could be coming to a quaint seaside, university town, near you. Whims of the day.

[Kyle Harris]

Josh,

It's not a matter of "holding the pros in check".

It's a matter of preserving the relationship of the course's features to the pro's game, the intended interfacing as conceived by the architect.

...and in the case of St. Andrews Old, which architect's intentions are we using?

Tom Doak,

I should clarify, I meant the physical yardage was longer, not the playing characteristics.

[Jonathan Mallard]

If the issue is solely The Open Championship...

Why not host it on the Castle Course?

/Ducks to avoid projectiles/

[Josh Tarble]

Josh,

It's not a matter of "holding the pros in check".

It's a matter of preserving the relationship of the course's features to the pro's game, the intended interfacing as conceived by the architect.

Pat,
Perhaps I chose the wrong wording in "keeping them in check" but I still feel that it's a valid point. Only a small percentage of players are not having to navigate a course.  I don't think any course ever would be able to equally challenge a PGA pro as equally as even a highly skilled amateur. And I just don't see a problem with it.

Kyle,
TOC is certainly a unique situation with not necessarily one original architect.  I'm not sure who should be making those decisions (hence my under qualifications) but I know they shouldn't be changing it to accommodate a tournament every 4 years.

[Paul_Turner]

Whether this has anything to do with this topic or not, I'd like to think that there's no way Martin Hawtree (who I don't know, at all) came up with these ideas for the Old Course without being provoked to do so. Not a chance.

Jeff

Given Martin Hawtree's track record of altering historic courses, I think there's every chance that these ideas originated from him. ( as suggested by Dawson in his quotes on the changes)

On another matter from another thread on page 1.... flattening of the 15th green at Pine Valley just went ahead along the same lines of argument as the 12th at Merion and now perhaps the 11th on The Old Course.

[Ulrich Mayring]

How about this deal: Tom Doak joins the ASGCA and they in turn issue an official statement opposing the changes to the Old Course.

Ulrich

[John Kirk]

Thanks Tom.  Nice introductory post to the topic of the year.

Let me contribute by sharing an anecdote.  I've played the Old Course once, just three years ago.  Great day; around in three hours and forty minutes with three other Americans.  The Eden was playing into the wind, and I hit a solid push with a six-iron a couple yards right of the Strath bunker, and it landed and stayed there.  The pin was right behind the Strath, and there were two choices, a little flip over the edge of the bunker, or try to putt it way up the big slope behind the pin, and see how close it would roll down to the hole.  I executed well, my putt from off the green rolling nearly to the top of the hill, and then down to about 3-4 feet short.  I then made the steep downhill knee knocker for par.  I'll never forget it.

If they soften that slope, that play becomes compromised.  I argue that is a significant loss in this hole's strategy.

[Don_Mahaffey]

John,
Thanks for that.

[Rich Goodale]

John

Great story, but I don't think that the work being done now would have affected your shot choice in any was since the levelling is only being done at the back left of the green.  However, maybe if you duck hook your tee shot next time the recovery shot might just be compromised.

Rich

[Tony_Muldoon]

If this story doesn't spill over in to the mainstream press this weekend then Dawson will have got his way.  I'm not talking about a few golf columns, but some coverage beyond the sports pages.


I wonder what changes he'll make before the 2020 Open?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Tony
It will be in the NY Post tomorrow.

[John Kirk]

John

Great story, but I don't think that the work being done now would have affected your shot choice in any was since the levelling is only being done at the back left of the green.  However, maybe if you duck hook your tee shot next time the recovery shot might just be compromised.

Rich

Yes Rich, I thought about that, but I'm still not convinced you are right.  You would know better, but I sort of remembered the green just rising up to the back left before dropping off sharply.  Also, Don Mahaffey's contour diagram on his thread "Eden Sketch" seems to indicate any flattening of the back left requires a moderation of the center slope.



Sorry if I made a mistake.  But please reiterate if it's wrong.  Just trying to add to the discussion in any way.  I think we agree that #11 currently is an exceptional hole as is.