The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture

[Tony_Muldoon]

Tony
It will be in the NY Post tomorrow.

Good, thanks Mike


How much of the Golf Press will be covering the announcement to day about the belly  putter?  All in all they've timed this work beautifully.  Dawson is at the very least the public spokesman justifying what they’re doing.

[Rich Goodale]

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/golf/old_course_new_look_veEPap75Z7DO3BwXeH4SsL

Not much new here except some rough quantification of the changes to the back left of 11.  "....just a couple of percent of the grade..." according to Dawson.  Can any geometricist figure out how big that quasi-plateau will be?  Surely not as big as it appears in the current pictures, as I assume that the initial digger work is exaggerated to make sure that the new slopes tie in properly, or am I wrong?

[Ally Mcintosh]

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/golf/old_course_new_look_veEPap75Z7DO3BwXeH4SsL

Not much new here except some rough quantification of the changes to the back left of 11.  "....just a couple of percent of the grade..." according to Dawson.  Can any geometricist figure out how big that quasi-plateau will be?  Surely not as big as it appears in the current pictures, as I assume that the initial digger work is exaggerated to make sure that the new slopes tie in properly, or am I wrong?

It may not be a quasi-plateau... It may be that he's reducing it to tie in to an existing slope but if that's the case he will lose that concave rise that MacKenzie and many architects strive for: that natural flow... i.e. it will end up a straighter rise on the green....

But looking at the photos and the fact he's stripped half the green, if he lost 2% off the back 25 yards, he'd be reducing the height at the back of the green by about 18 inches...

[Rich Goodale]

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/golf/old_course_new_look_veEPap75Z7DO3BwXeH4SsL

Not much new here except some rough quantification of the changes to the back left of 11.  "....just a couple of percent of the grade..." according to Dawson.  Can any geometricist figure out how big that quasi-plateau will be?  Surely not as big as it appears in the current pictures, as I assume that the initial digger work is exaggerated to make sure that the new slopes tie in properly, or am I wrong?

It may not be a quasi-plateau... It may be that he's reducing it to tie in to an existing slope but if that's the case he will lose that concave rise that MacKenzie and many architects strive for: that natural flow... i.e. it will end up a straighter rise on the green....

But looking at the photos and the fact he's stripped half the green, if he lost 2% off the back 25 yards, he'd be reducing the height at the back of the green by about 18 inches...

Ally

The green on the left hand side is only 22-30 yards deep.  I calculate that if it is ~27 yards (80ft) and only 1/4 of the depth (20 feet) is needed for a new pin position (per Robin Heisman's calculations on another thread) and the slope is taken from 5% to 2% (more than Dawson claims), the left side of the green will only be lowered by 7" over the 20 feet diameter of pinnable area.  After that (the remaining 60 feet of depth) the existing (5%) slope will be retained.  All this is rough, to be sure, but am I right or wrong?

Rich

[Ally Mcintosh]

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/golf/old_course_new_look_veEPap75Z7DO3BwXeH4SsL

Not much new here except some rough quantification of the changes to the back left of 11.  "....just a couple of percent of the grade..." according to Dawson.  Can any geometricist figure out how big that quasi-plateau will be?  Surely not as big as it appears in the current pictures, as I assume that the initial digger work is exaggerated to make sure that the new slopes tie in properly, or am I wrong?

It may not be a quasi-plateau... It may be that he's reducing it to tie in to an existing slope but if that's the case he will lose that concave rise that MacKenzie and many architects strive for: that natural flow... i.e. it will end up a straighter rise on the green....

But looking at the photos and the fact he's stripped half the green, if he lost 2% off the back 25 yards, he'd be reducing the height at the back of the green by about 18 inches...

Ally

The green on the left hand side is only 22-30 yards deep.  I calculate that if it is ~27 yards (80ft) and only 1/4 of the depth (20 feet) is needed for a new pin position (per Robin Heisman's calculations on another thread) and the slope is taken from 5% to 2% (more than Dawson claims), the left side of the green will only be lowered by 7" over the 20 feet diameter of pinnable area.  After that (the remaining 60 feet of depth) the existing (5%) slope will be retained.  All this is rough, to be sure, but am I right or wrong?

Rich

The green surely isn't 5% slope straight from front left to back left over 27 yards, is it - otherwise there would be NO pin position on the left at all?... I didn't know the depth of green was that little there but looking at the photos, he's probably disturbed about half of that (let's say 15 yards) to achieve his tie-ins... Robin's figures show you what you need for a flatter pinnable area so yes if you are going for a quasi-plateau (i.e. slight step), you may only be lowering the back slightly but you may be raising the middle more.... I gave a rough example if you were to take 2% slope over a 25 yard distance... take it from 15 yards and it's more like a ten inches...

Without seeing the contour plan, you can't tell for sure what he is doing... What I was trying to say is that as I remember it, the left side of the green has a small false front followed by a flatter area that gets slightly steeper as it reaches the back... You either create a semi-plateau or you create a regular 2% slope from front to back (instead of a concave style bowl).... Either way changes the nature of the green slopes.... Depending on which way changes how much exactly the green will be lowered at the back...

[James Boon]

The possibility of listing / preserving golf course architecture is something I've discussed for a while here on GCA.

At the start of this year I started working at an architects practice (buildings that is) where they do have a good long established reputation for working with listed buildings. Ever since then my interest and understanding of the listing process has increased and expanded. This naturally has included the possibilities for golf courses, and I have an early schematic draft of an "In My Opinion" piece  on the subject that I was thinking of putting to Ran, and yet time always seems to get the better of me!

However, here are a couple of previous threads discussing the issue:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50453.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40028.0.html

Its interesting reading back through these that though many who have already posted here have thought it was a good idea in the past, the idea only seemed to get a lukewarm reception as a whole. However when St Andrews Old Course is threatened suddenly a lot more people begin to realise the heritage of golf course architecture that we all hold so dear, is something that could well need preserving?

The interesting thing though is that for me, any such status wouldn't necessarily prevent alterations from being made, but would at least be seeking any work to be sympathetic to the courses setting and heritage, and so wouldn't necessarily prevent the currently topical works at St Andrews but would certainly mean that the chosen architects design proposals would involve discussions and approval from historians and his peers, in order to make sure that any such proposals are considered sympathetic and appropriate by a good number of people, hopefully making such subjective matters open to a little more balanced opinion.

Cheers,

James

[Rich Goodale]

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/golf/old_course_new_look_veEPap75Z7DO3BwXeH4SsL

Not much new here except some rough quantification of the changes to the back left of 11.  "....just a couple of percent of the grade..." according to Dawson.  Can any geometricist figure out how big that quasi-plateau will be?  Surely not as big as it appears in the current pictures, as I assume that the initial digger work is exaggerated to make sure that the new slopes tie in properly, or am I wrong?

It may not be a quasi-plateau... It may be that he's reducing it to tie in to an existing slope but if that's the case he will lose that concave rise that MacKenzie and many architects strive for: that natural flow... i.e. it will end up a straighter rise on the green....

But looking at the photos and the fact he's stripped half the green, if he lost 2% off the back 25 yards, he'd be reducing the height at the back of the green by about 18 inches...

Ally

The green on the left hand side is only 22-30 yards deep.  I calculate that if it is ~27 yards (80ft) and only 1/4 of the depth (20 feet) is needed for a new pin position (per Robin Heisman's calculations on another thread) and the slope is taken from 5% to 2% (more than Dawson claims), the left side of the green will only be lowered by 7" over the 20 feet diameter of pinnable area.  After that (the remaining 60 feet of depth) the existing (5%) slope will be retained.  All this is rough, to be sure, but am I right or wrong?

Rich

The green surely isn't 5% slope straight from front left to back left over 27 yards, is it - otherwise there would be NO pin position on the left at all?... I didn't know the depth of green was that little there but looking at the photos, he's probably disturbed about half of that (let's say 15 yards) to achieve his tie-ins... Robin's figures show you what you need for a flatter pinnable area so yes if you are going for a quasi-plateau (i.e. slight step), you may only be lowering the back slightly but you may be raising the middle more.... I gave a rough example if you were to take 2% slope over a 25 yard distance... take it from 15 yards and it's more like a ten inches...

Without seeing the contour plan, you can't tell for sure what he is doing... What I was trying to say is that as I remember it, the left side of the green has a small false front followed by a flatter area that gets slightly steeper as it reaches the back... You either create a semi-plateau or you create a regular 2% slope from front to back (instead of a concave style bowl).... Either way changes the nature of the green slopes.... Depending on which way changes how much exactly the green will be lowered at the back...

Ally

See Robin Hiseman's posts on one of the other threads which confirms my guesstimates.

Rich

[Ally Mcintosh]

See Robin Hiseman's posts on one of the other threads which confirms my guesstimates.

Rich

Rich, at no point did I disagree with what you or Robin stated. But there are a lot of variables. I didn't base my figures on a 20 foot portion at 2% when it looks like he's disturbed a lot more than 20 foot... Plus you're assuming that the green was only 5% at the very back when it may well have been more than that for the last few feet...  All things considered he may have only reduced the back by half a foot or thereabouts... Which could make quite a visual difference in my opinion... But it's all guesswork until we see the final product... I guess I could've kept it simpler mind...

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom I certainly would argue the governing bodies do not know what is best for golf architecture.  I have taken the diplomatic road at the Olympic Club due to being a member and enjoying friendships with some of those in the loop with Mike Davis and the USGA. There are changes made for the US Open that may be best for the championship but certainly are not best for the course long term. 17 is very different but is it better. I think not. Shaving the right side of the green down to the tree line makes for nearly unplayable conditions year round. The course tends to be wet more often than not in the winter. There is nothing good about hitting chips from tite wet lies to a green where you must have action on the ball to stop it short of the pin. Of course if you roll to the trees then you are bouncing a ball up a wet hill. Id that good architecture?  If you go past the pin it is a 3 putt for many if not most.One has to dry the course out to Open conditions for that to work even if you think architecturally it was the right thing to do. The added trap is fine in creating more risk in the risk reward. Mike changed 17 in ways that he felt worked for the open. I do not think they work for the course year round.

[William_G]

Tom I certainly would argue the governing bodies do not know what is best for golf architecture.  I have taken the diplomatic road at the Olympic Club due to being a member and enjoying friendships with some of those in the loop with Mike Davis and the USGA. There are changes made for the US Open that may be best for the championship but certainly are not best for the course long term. 17 is very different but is it better. I think not. Shaving the right side of the green down to the tree line makes for nearly unplayable conditions year round. The course tends to be wet more often than not in the winter. There is nothing good about hitting chips from tite wet lies to a green where you must have action on the ball to stop it short of the pin. Of course if you roll to the trees then you are bouncing a ball up a wet hill. Id that good architecture?  If you go past the pin it is a 3 putt for many if not most.One has to dry the course out to Open conditions for that to work even if you think architecturally it was the right thing to do. The added trap is fine in creating more risk in the risk reward. Mike changed 17 in ways that he felt worked for the open. I do not think they work for the course year round.

the changes at Olympic where not good architecture

professional golf does not require good architecture, but something else

something purely functional for a one-time event is what professionals want...just like motocross indoors at your local basketball arena

Frank Lloyd Wright is what I think of when I think of my passion for architecture, just like I think of Mackenzie for golf

good golf course architecture can create passion in golf

when you think of great architecture, you think of preserving it

[Jeff Blume]

Changes to historic venues is nothing new, and will continue to happen as long as golf is played.  Take the fifth hole at Pebble Beach, the many changes at Augusta, clearing at Oakmont.  To take a strick stance on not changing historic venues would result in Carnoustie still having a white concrete box as a clubhouse.

Having said all of that, I think that any changes to these great courses has to be done with the utmost sensitivity and attention to history.  In most cases this falls to the ownership of the facilities to make those determinations if they are private property.  They have every right to make the changes they think best fit their situation.  Trying to regulate changes through some historical committee that has no relation to the club would be a disaster.  Having dealt with numerous committees for renovations, I can tell you that the more voices and opinions involved the more difficult it is to arrive at a consensus to determine a course of action.

Having played the Old Course on a very windy day, I can tell you that the 11th green can be unplayable in tough conditions.  The day we played the hole location (there are no pins in golf) was left, and you either made the putt or played your next shot from the approach.  If you missed that shot you might be playing the next one from your divot.

[Tom_Doak]

See Robin Hiseman's posts on one of the other threads which confirms my guesstimates.

Rich

Rich, at no point did I disagree with what you or Robin stated. But there are a lot of variables. I didn't base my figures on a 20 foot portion at 2% when it looks like he's disturbed a lot more than 20 foot... Plus you're assuming that the green was only 5% at the very back when it may well have been more than that for the last few feet...  All things considered he may have only reduced the back by half a foot or thereabouts... Which could make quite a visual difference in my opinion... But it's all guesswork until we see the final product... I guess I could've kept it simpler mind...

Having done similar work before on a handful of courses, you have to disturb much more than 20 feet, in order to tie in the slope at the back which is now much steeper getting down to the flatter hole location (unless they go all the way to the back of the green and reduce it all by the same amount to preserve the 5% slope there].

Work of that kind is the open-heart surgery of golf course architecture.  I am holding my breath anytime I do it.  The only times I have consented to do that sort of work was when we were rebuilding all of the greens at the course, so the green was going to be torn up anyway, and it was a question of whether we would put it back to a slope that could be considered a problem.  It's another thing to just decide that it IS a problem and schedule open-heart surgery.

[William_G]

Changes to historic venues is nothing new, and will continue to happen as long as golf is played.  Take the fifth hole at Pebble Beach, the many changes at Augusta, clearing at Oakmont.  To take a strick stance on not changing historic venues would result in Carnoustie still having a white concrete box as a clubhouse.

Having said all of that, I think that any changes to these great courses has to be done with the utmost sensitivity and attention to history.  In most cases this falls to the ownership of the facilities to make those determinations if they are private property.  They have every right to make the changes they think best fit their situation.  Trying to regulate changes through some historical committee that has no relation to the club would be a disaster.  Having dealt with numerous committees for renovations, I can tell you that the more voices and opinions involved the more difficult it is to arrive at a consensus to determine a course of action.

Having played the Old Course on a very windy day, I can tell you that the 11th green can be unplayable in tough conditions.  The day we played the hole location (there are no pins in golf) was left, and you either made the putt or played your next shot from the approach.  If you missed that shot you might be playing the next one from your divot.

thanks Jeff but the 5th hole at Pebble is a massive improvement after buying up some ocean front homes to relocate the hole as part of a plan 

TOC is meant to be preserved and not modified for the whim of a championship committee w/o a plan

brilliant and thoughtful restoration by C &C  at Pinehurst #2 as part of a gutsy plan by the owners

the wind remains a big factor on all links courses, there is no guarantee of an outcome in golf or life

[Jeff Blume]

William,

I agree that the new 5th hole at Pebble is a huge improvement, but it still represents change.  Unlike static art, golf course architecture does not exist in a vacuum.  Equipment changes, players change, rules change (see the belly putter), maintenance capabilities change.  Consequently all golf courses change, even the Old Course.  I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the changes.  I don't know enough about them to comment, and would wait to see the finished product before giving an opinion.  However, I do recognize that time and capabilities always alter architecture whether it is golf related or not.  Even the most historical of buildings have experienced upgrades to their HVAC systems or required repair work to sustain their longevity.  Some are done well and others not so much.  The restoration of the Minoan civilization in Crete at Knosos was very poorly done, but the repairs of the Acropolis have been done with much more sensitivity.  Lets hope the work at the Old Course is more like the latter.

Changing historic venues for tournament golf is a tricky thing.  All players have to play the same course regardless of difficulty.  In the end it is still about who gets it in the hole in fewer strokes.  Perhaps we should change our expectations of scoring in relation to par instead of constantly changing our golf courses for one week every five to ten years.  On the other hand, I do not want to do anything to reduce the amount of renovation work, as many of us architects are pretty dependent on that market these days.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Welcome Jeff Blume

I was unaware you used to work for Jeff Brauer - he recently mentioned - before Mr. von Hagge.
Your stance here does sound a bit like the other Jeff's.

If you were hired by the Links Trust you would have altered The Eden green?

I don't think an HVAC argument is a good one in this case.
Buildings eventually fall down and are much more susceptible to the elements and humidity than The Eden green.
Adding HVAC is more comparable to adding fertilizer and irrigation - which I'm fine with. 

Cheers

[Ally Mcintosh]

See Robin Hiseman's posts on one of the other threads which confirms my guesstimates.

Rich

Rich, at no point did I disagree with what you or Robin stated. But there are a lot of variables. I didn't base my figures on a 20 foot portion at 2% when it looks like he's disturbed a lot more than 20 foot... Plus you're assuming that the green was only 5% at the very back when it may well have been more than that for the last few feet...  All things considered he may have only reduced the back by half a foot or thereabouts... Which could make quite a visual difference in my opinion... But it's all guesswork until we see the final product... I guess I could've kept it simpler mind...

Having done similar work before on a handful of courses, you have to disturb much more than 20 feet, in order to tie in the slope at the back which is now much steeper getting down to the flatter hole location (unless they go all the way to the back of the green and reduce it all by the same amount to preserve the 5% slope there].

Work of that kind is the open-heart surgery of golf course architecture.  I am holding my breath anytime I do it.  The only times I have consented to do that sort of work was when we were rebuilding all of the greens at the course, so the green was going to be torn up anyway, and it was a question of whether we would put it back to a slope that could be considered a problem.  It's another thing to just decide that it IS a problem and schedule open-heart surgery.

So I guess they could have just scraped away a few yards in from the back to bring down their levels, theoretically leaving the green horizon at the same height... But with a steeper back. To be honest, I just assumed they'd lower the back too and looking at the photo I'd say that's what they've done...

I haven't attempted nearly as much remedial work of this nature as you have... But from the stuff I have done, I know it wasn't easy...

Really hope this one ends up a (relative) success...

[Jason Topp]

In my view, these changes could improve the course if carried out well.  

The idea of bringing the nasty bunker left of the Eden more into play could provide for some interesting drama.
Making more balls feed into the Road Hole bunker might fairly be considered restoration given that the pre renovation bunker was completely different than the version that existed when I first played the course in 1992.
Some of the additional fairway bunkers make sense in preserving the trouble right/better angle into the green decision.
The change to 7 could vastly improve the condition of the turf.
The bunker on 9 may impose more decision making off the tee.

I am less sure of any justification for the "acute spur" or why it would even be important to prevent bailout rights on many of the holes.  

However, even if the changes are an improvement, are they a good idea?  I say no.  Why mess with it?

[Jud_T]

For those of us old enough to remember, this comes to mind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLrTPrp-fW8

[William_G]

William,

I agree that the new 5th hole at Pebble is a huge improvement, but it still represents change.  Unlike static art, golf course architecture does not exist in a vacuum.  Equipment changes, players change, rules change (see the belly putter), maintenance capabilities change.  Consequently all golf courses change, even the Old Course.  I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the changes.  I don't know enough about them to comment, and would wait to see the finished product before giving an opinion.  However, I do recognize that time and capabilities always alter architecture whether it is golf related or not.  Even the most historical of buildings have experienced upgrades to their HVAC systems or required repair work to sustain their longevity.  Some are done well and others not so much.  The restoration of the Minoan civilization in Crete at Knosos was very poorly done, but the repairs of the Acropolis have been done with much more sensitivity.  Lets hope the work at the Old Course is more like the latter.

Changing historic venues for tournament golf is a tricky thing.  All players have to play the same course regardless of difficulty.  In the end it is still about who gets it in the hole in fewer strokes.  Perhaps we should change our expectations of scoring in relation to par instead of constantly changing our golf courses for one week every five to ten years.  On the other hand, I do not want to do anything to reduce the amount of renovation work, as many of us architects are pretty dependent on that market these days.

Thanks Jeff..yes the only constant is change.

At Pebble you could get some work in helping plan for restoration of all the oceanside holes as erosion continues there despite all the fake rock.

Cetainly there have been updates at Falling Water but nothing substantial to the architecture.

So what quantifies a substantial change to Golf architecture if the intent is preservation...no one wanted to preserve the old #5 at Pebble and the improvement was not made just for 1- week of play every five years?

Are golf architects there just to lend public credibilty, sell homes, sell rounds, photo op, or ?

[Terry Lavin]

William,

I agree that the new 5th hole at Pebble is a huge improvement, but it still represents change.  Unlike static art, golf course architecture does not exist in a vacuum.  Equipment changes, players change, rules change (see the belly putter), maintenance capabilities change.  Consequently all golf courses change, even the Old Course.  I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the changes.  I don't know enough about them to comment, and would wait to see the finished product before giving an opinion.  However, I do recognize that time and capabilities always alter architecture whether it is golf related or not.  Even the most historical of buildings have experienced upgrades to their HVAC systems or required repair work to sustain their longevity.  Some are done well and others not so much.  The restoration of the Minoan civilization in Crete at Knosos was very poorly done, but the repairs of the Acropolis have been done with much more sensitivity.  Lets hope the work at the Old Course is more like the latter.

Changing historic venues for tournament golf is a tricky thing.  All players have to play the same course regardless of difficulty.  In the end it is still about who gets it in the hole in fewer strokes.  Perhaps we should change our expectations of scoring in relation to par instead of constantly changing our golf courses for one week every five to ten years.  On the other hand, I do not want to do anything to reduce the amount of renovation work, as many of us architects are pretty dependent on that market these days.

Jeff,

You're a "newbie", so you don't know this yet, but if you keep making sense in your posts and if you remain analytical and dispassionate, you might not get that many psychic "likes" from everybody, but you will get them from me.  Well said.

[William_G]

Terry, that is funny

[Tony Ristola]

William,

I agree that the new 5th hole at Pebble is a huge improvement, but it still represents change.  Unlike static art, golf course architecture does not exist in a vacuum. 

I believe the "new" 5th at Pebble was part of the original plan... except they sold the property. So... you can consider it a "restoration" of sorts. Replacing an inferior hole with a superior hole.

Golf architecture doesn't exist in a vacuum, but what is happening at The Old Course isn't due to huge changes over time. It's due to the whim of a small group of folks who want to tamper with Holy Ground because the green doesn't function to their liking for an event that passes by a couple times a decade. Is it worth it?

It's not like this course, and especially the 11th green are like TPC Sawgrass.  It's got a bit deeper history.

Some things shouldn't be messed with. This is one of them.

[Neil_Crafter]

One thing that puzzles me is that the primary stated aim of this work is to stiffen the challenge for the elite players. Does any one else wonder whether the tinkering they are doing will make the course more difficult for the elite players by a measurable amount? Or is just that they feel the need to be seen to be doing something to toughen the course. For example, how does filling in a hollow in the middle of the 7th fairway (and turning it into some sort of mound) increase the challenge for the elite player?

I hope some of the semi-proponents of these changes, could answer my question. Because if you can't then the primary mission of these changes is pointless.

[Jeff Blume]

Mike,

All of these changes to the Old Course including the recontouring of the Eden green are only valid if you accept the premise that it is necessary to increase green speeds to protect par in the Open Championship.  Since I do not accept this premise I don't think that I would change the green.  I believe that we should adjust our thinking about scoring in major championship golf.  Who cares if the winning score in the Open is 25 or 30 under par.  Get the ball in the hole in one less stroke than your competitors and you are the "Champion Golfer for the Year".  However, if you do accept the premise, then their can be no other course of action except to reduce the slope of the putting surface.  The Eden green is marginally fair under average green speeds and nominal wind conditions.  If you increase the speed of the green to 13, 14, or even 15 and add a little bit of wind, then Eden is unplayable. 

There are much larger forces at work in this decision to renovate the Old Course.  They relate to tournament sponsorships, advertising and TV ratings for the Open.  In 2009 I was the General Chairman of the Shell Houston Open and we had to suspend play in the first round due to high winds.  The greens at Redstone that day were stimping at around 15, and the wind was literally blowing the balls off of the putting surfaces.  This delay resulted in the possibility of a Monday finish which would have significantly impacted our tournament revenues and the value that our sponsors received for their investment.  5:00pm Sunday finishes on TV are very important to sponsors of big time tournament golf.  If the R&A is set on increasing green speeds, then they have little choice in renovating Eden.  The wind blows often at the Old Course, and significant delays are unacceptable.

Having said all of that, there is not an architect alive who would not love the opportuntiy to work at the Old Course.  So if the R&A called and asked for a consult, I would certainly answer the phone .  However, I would try and lead them in another direction.

[jeffwarne]

Mike,

All of these changes to the Old Course including the recontouring of the Eden green are only valid if you accept the premise that it is necessary to increase green speeds to protect par in the Open Championship.  Since I do not accept this premise I don't think that I would change the green.  I believe that we should adjust our thinking about scoring in major championship golf.  Who cares if the winning score in the Open is 25 or 30 under par.  Get the ball in the hole in one less stroke than your competitors and you are the "Champion Golfer for the Year".  However, if you do accept the premise, then their can be no other course of action except to reduce the slope of the putting surface.  The Eden green is marginally fair under average green speeds and nominal wind conditions.  If you increase the speed of the green to 13, 14, or even 15 and add a little bit of wind, then Eden is unplayable. 

There are much larger forces at work in this decision to renovate the Old Course.  They relate to tournament sponsorships, advertising and TV ratings for the Open.  In 2009

 I was the General Chairman of the Shell Houston Open and we had to suspend play in the first round due to high winds.  The greens at Redstone that day were stimping at around 15, and the wind was literally blowing the balls off of the putting surfaces.  This delay resulted in the possibility of a Monday finish which would have significantly impacted our tournament revenues and the value that our sponsors received for their investment.  5:00pm Sunday finishes on TV are very important to sponsors of big time tournament golf.  If the R&A is set on increasing green speeds, then they have little choice in renovating Eden.  The wind blows often at the Old Course, and significant delays are unacceptable.

Having said all of that, there is not an architect alive who would not love the opportuntiy to work at the Old Course.  So if the R&A called and asked for a consult, I would certainly answer the phone .  However, I would try and lead them in another direction.

Jeff,
Welcome to the site.
Very interesting comments.
please note the following rant is not directed at you.
as you clearly are advocating they just go play golf.

13,14,or 15 at The Old Course?
I'd say that has never happened, and I would hope they would never be above 10.

15 at Redstone? whatever, but I guess my only question would be how in the world did we get here?
I can't imagine a decent pin placement at that speed, forget the wind.

I would also argue that scores at the Old Course would be no lower with the greens running at 8-9 then they are running at 11, because they could place the pins in much more challenging positions at the slower speed.(and maybe preserve the interesting contours they are about to blow up.

I guess I do know how we got here, cause every time Mike Davis gets a mike or a reporter near him he's throwing stimp reading goals out there like 14 or 15, although in my opinion they thankfully never reach their stated, exaggerated goals in the recent majors.

Nothing quite like making 10 footers play like 3 footers.
At some point the geniuses busy outlawing anchoring with no statistical evidence will notice that putting is easier when you only need a 2 inch backswing, and quite diiffficult when you need a full stroke on an uphill putt with actual contour stimping in high single digits.
but we'll all be broke by then.