You have been pretty nasty to recent UK architects. Why?

[David_Elvins]

Well, at least thats two of us that think my judgement is sound.  Can you speak on my behalf to my wife? 

Your wife likes the 18th at Swinley?   

I don't feel that strongly about any architecture. 

You could have told me that 8 hours ago.   

[Steve Okula]

Mark Rowlinson,

It's not fair to suggest that the GCA forum is inhabited by anglophobes. We are an impartial group who bash architects regardless of nationality, race, religion, gender, age, etc.

I would say over 90% of living American arhcitects have been harshly and thoroughly skewered on this site, including the most prolific among them.

The few present-day architects who are considered sacrosanct here could be counted on the fingers of one hand, and it's probably only coincidence those gentlemen happen to be American. 

[Mike Hendren]

Steel was rightly criticized for his clumsy work on the Eden which went through with hardly a grumble in the golfing world back in the 90s.

+1

I have seen Steel's pond on The Eden with my own two eyes.   That's the only credential I need. 

For the life of me I can't understand why he and Links Trust won't right this horrible wrong.

Mike

[BCrosby]

Sheesh. The issue isn't who the architect is. The issue is that any architiect would carry out the commission.

That many believe Hawtree has a record of botched "restorations" only makes things worse. But it is not the main issue.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

Mark,

I hear you.

I look at things a little differently.

Martin Hawtree didn't simply make an inadvertant turn into the driveway of these clubs, he was invited in.

Which means that the club had a purpose before Martin Hawtree or any other architect set foot on the property.

It's the clubs which have an agenda.
A predetermined plan to alter the course.
They may not know or have the specifics detailed, but, they've decided what they want to do with their course.

Martin Hawtree or any other architect is merely the instrument, the professional instrument for that club to carry out that predetermined mission, in generala or specifically.

Patrick:

You do understand that The Old Course is not owned by the R & A, but by the town of St. Andrews, don't you?

And that Martin Hawtree is on retainer to the R & A to suggest changes to courses they don't own?

[Jud_T]

While I don't think Hawtree is the greatest archie out there, I do think he gets an undeserved wrap from this site and much of the time folks don't have a clue what they are talking about because they don't have clue about the remit, budgets, no go issues etc.  

While I lament the issue of hiring archies to alter old courses, I would first turn my attention to the powers that be rather than the archie paid to do a job unless I was convinced the archie did an incompetent job.  

Ciao  

Sean,

The archie has the right to say no.  It's like a guy who hires a hit man to knock someone off.  They've both committed a crime.  Just because that's how the hitter decided to earn a few extra quid doesn't exempt him from judgement. 

[Niall C]

Steel was rightly criticized for his clumsy work on the Eden which went through with hardly a grumble in the golfing world back in the 90s.

+1

I have seen Steel's pond on The Eden with my own two eyes.   That's the only credential I need. 

For the life of me I can't understand why he and Links Trust won't right this horrible wrong.

Mike

Mike

Slowly but surely they are tinkering with Steel's work on the Eden, in the same way every other architect has had his work tinkered with over the ages. They just haven't started with the pond yet as far as I'm aware.

Niall

[Sean_A]

While I don't think Hawtree is the greatest archie out there, I do think he gets an undeserved wrap from this site and much of the time folks don't have a clue what they are talking about because they don't have clue about the remit, budgets, no go issues etc.  

While I lament the issue of hiring archies to alter old courses, I would first turn my attention to the powers that be rather than the archie paid to do a job unless I was convinced the archie did an incompetent job.  

Ciao  

Sean,

The archie has the right to say no.  It's like a guy who hires a hit man to knock someone off.  They've both committed a crime.  Just because that's how the hitter decided to earn a few extra quid doesn't exempt him from judgement. 

When you pay an archie to do some work then you can sit in judgement.  The archie works for a client and must make the client happy.  I for won't demand an archie turn down work in a very slow golf economy when we all damn well know that someone will do the job.  We all don't have the luxury of of being the back seat critic.  While an archie bears responsibility for his work, it helps to know the project circumstances before going full throttle. 

Ciao 

[Jud_T]

You mean, for instance, like bastardizing greens and contours at the home of golf in the name of putting food on the table?

[Brent Hutto]

From the reaction of some folks whose opinions I generally value, it sure appears that some of Hawtree's results have been pretty lamentable. And I suppose at some point you can at least generalize to say he needs to either up his own game or start finding some better patrons.

But the general pattern still remains of, in effect, deeming the surgeon who performed your wife's nose job to be a butcher when your actual objection is that you liked her nose just fine and did not want it changed. If she gets exactly what she wanted and you don't like it, take it up with the wife. Don't try to sue the doctor for malpractice.

[Sean_A]

You mean, for instance, like bastardizing greens and contours at the home of golf in the name of putting food on the table?

Jud

There is no need to carry on further.  You want to blame the servant and I want to blame the master. Perhaps we are both right or both wrong.  Not even time will tell.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

The owners of any course are the ultimate custodians.

Without the owners approval and funding, nothing gets done, even if a third party will provide the funding.

[Tom_Doak]

While I don't think Hawtree is the greatest archie out there, I do think he gets an undeserved wrap from this site and much of the time folks don't have a clue what they are talking about because they don't have clue about the remit, budgets, no go issues etc.  

While I lament the issue of hiring archies to alter old courses, I would first turn my attention to the powers that be rather than the archie paid to do a job unless I was convinced the archie did an incompetent job.  

Ciao  

Sean,

The archie has the right to say no.  It's like a guy who hires a hit man to knock someone off.  They've both committed a crime.  Just because that's how the hitter decided to earn a few extra quid doesn't exempt him from judgement. 

When you pay an archie to do some work then you can sit in judgement.  The archie works for a client and must make the client happy.  I for won't demand an archie turn down work in a very slow golf economy when we all damn well know that someone will do the job.  We all don't have the luxury of of being the back seat critic.  While an archie bears responsibility for his work, it helps to know the project circumstances before going full throttle. 

Ciao 

Sean:

The "we've got to eat" defense is pretty weak when it comes to St. Andrews, don't you think?  Are we always going to be defined by the lowest common denominator, the guy who will carry out orders without question?  Has not "just following orders" been discredited as an historical defense?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak,

The owners of any course are the ultimate custodians.

Without the owners approval and funding, nothing gets done, even if a third party will provide the funding.

Patrick:

I do this for a living, and I know who pays the bills.  At the same time, I believe we have a professional duty to the game of golf, and that sometimes that duty obliges us to say no.

You may refer to my response to Sean regarding what happens after that.

[Sean_A]

While I don't think Hawtree is the greatest archie out there, I do think he gets an undeserved wrap from this site and much of the time folks don't have a clue what they are talking about because they don't have clue about the remit, budgets, no go issues etc.  

While I lament the issue of hiring archies to alter old courses, I would first turn my attention to the powers that be rather than the archie paid to do a job unless I was convinced the archie did an incompetent job.  

Ciao  

Sean,

The archie has the right to say no.  It's like a guy who hires a hit man to knock someone off.  They've both committed a crime.  Just because that's how the hitter decided to earn a few extra quid doesn't exempt him from judgement. 

When you pay an archie to do some work then you can sit in judgement.  The archie works for a client and must make the client happy.  I for won't demand an archie turn down work in a very slow golf economy when we all damn well know that someone will do the job.  We all don't have the luxury of of being the back seat critic.  While an archie bears responsibility for his work, it helps to know the project circumstances before going full throttle. 

Ciao 

Sean:

The "we've got to eat" defense is pretty weak when it comes to St. Andrews, don't you think?  Are we always going to be defined by the lowest common denominator, the guy who will carry out orders without question?  Has not "just following orders" been discredited as an historical defense?

Tom

The employment argument is rarely weak, especially where 2nd and 3rd archies are concerned.  As a layman with nothing at stake and no strongly held beliefs about gca preservation, I can understand both sides of the coin.  I tend to think its better to leave things as is, but I also know those in power tend to want to wield it.  I admire archies who take a principled stand, but we must realize that not all archies' sympathies coincide.  Many on this site may find that distasteful, but that is the way it is.  What seems to upset people is the voice of no change seems to be ignored time after time while the the seeming root cause of unchecked equipment runs out of control.  My stance has always been that the power lies with golfers.  Golfers they have not only abdicated that power, they have actively encouraged gca alterations by either not voting against change when they have the opportunity or by continuing to purchase the very equipment they believe is the root of the problem.  I have said it many times, golfers need to look in the mirror to find the reason for the plight they find themselves in.  I know this is not a popular PoV on this board, but that is how I see it. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

The "we've got to eat" defense is pretty weak when it comes to St. Andrews, don't you think?  Are we always going to be defined by the lowest common denominator, the guy who will carry out orders without question?  Has not "just following orders" been discredited as an historical defense?

Tom

The employment argument is rarely weak, especially where 2nd and 3rd archies are concerned.  As a layman with nothing at stake and no strongly held beliefs about gca preservation, I can understand both sides of the coin.  I tend to think its better to leave things as is, but I also know those in power tend to want to wield it.  I admire archies who take a principled stand, but we must realize that not all archies' sympathies coincide.  Many on this site may find that distasteful, but that is the way it is.  What seems to upset people is the voice of no change seems to be ignored time after time while the the seeming root cause of unchecked equipment runs out of control.  My stance has always been that the power lies with golfers.  Golfers they have not only abdicated that power, they have actively encouraged gca alterations by either not voting against change when they have the opportunity or by continuing to purchase the very equipment they believe is the root of the problem.  I have said it many times, golfers need to look in the mirror to find the reason for the plight they find themselves in.  I know this is not a popular PoV on this board, but that is how I see it. 

Ciao

Not arguing with you about any of that.  Almost no golfers have stood up to anything in the last 30 years, or the governing bodies would be run by different blokes.  I had hoped this was different in Scotland, where the people understand the game so much better.  But so far they seem pretty mum about it all, apart from the people who already had a bone to pick with Mr. Dawson.

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

Are you suggesting that Martin Hawtree is short of work?  That he is worried about the future of his business?  He seems busy enough to me.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Are you suggesting that Martin Hawtree is short of work?  That he is worried about the future of his business?  He seems busy enough to me.

Mark

I am not suggesting any such thing.  I don't know Hawtree's financial situation nor his aspirations.  Its not for me to decide how Hawtree should run his business. What I am suggesting is that there is nothing close to a uniformity of opinion on what is or is not acceptable to alter.  We can blame Hawtree for the work at TOC (sight unseen I might add) or any of the other archies waiting patiently in line for the same opportunity.  Or we can go to the source of the decision-making.  In either case, I don't feel a need to go in search of a scape goat. 

Ciao 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

SEan,

You must agree with Tom Doak then that, in this specific case, the "we've got to eat" argument is pretty weak?

[Scott Warren]

Sean,

If the club/owner bears the accountability as the party who requested the work from the architect, they - and not the architect - deserve the praise for great architecture?

[Sean_A]

SEan,

You must agree with Tom Doak then that, in this specific case, the "we've got to eat" argument is pretty weak?

Mark

I'm not sure where you got that idea from.  If you want to know Hawtrees personal and business finances you will need to speak with him.  I don't know the ins and outs of this deal or what it may mean in notoriety which leads to more business.  It could even come to pass that this job costs Hawtree future work.  All I am saying is I don't blame an archie for accepting work in a slow golf economy - work which will be done by somebody.  It could be argued that since the work will be done archies have a duty to make the best of it because of TOC's place in history.  Folks seem to be suggesting that if Hawtree didn't do the work than it wouldn't get done.  I spose that could be the case, but would bet dollars to dimes it isn't or wasn't.  

Now that the work is commissioned and underway, I am willing to wait for the results and judge for myself if Hawtree did a good job or not.  I am not going to lose sleep over the Trust decision, nor am I holding my breath in anticipation of the work results.  This sort of thing was the logical conclusion given what has taken place at countless other courses.  Maybe, finally, folks will wake up and realize they can make a difference and insist that classic courses be protected by choosing not to use the offending equipment and by doing all they can do stop changes at their own courses.

Scott

The actual work may be good or not - that is all the archie in charge can worry about if he decides to take on a job.  It could well be that Hawtree was the catalyst behind these proposed changes and that he pushed them through.  But until that can be proven,  I prefer to give Hawtree the benefit of doubt.  As I said, I don't need to seek a scape goat.  If I were that worried about TOC, I would stop whinging about it and start preparing ways to protect it in the future.  From my perspective, I will know folks are earnest about this subject when they stop supporting an industry which they claim is the root cause of the distance/lessening challenge problem and/or stop caving in to bodies which insist change is necessary to host pro events.  Maybe, just maybe, the penny has dropped and folks will now start to take their role in this issue much more seriously.  It gets old listening to people bitch about this as they are stood in line buying the latest and greatest ball and clubs or not mounting opposition to change at their own course.  

Ciao      

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

Like you (and, I imagine, many on this board) I am a golfer first, then a GCA enthusiast.  I played another sport to a pretty decent level and, as I think you probably know, am pretty competitive.  As we all know, the vast majority of golfers don't understand or even think about GCA.  I am going to take every competitive advantage equipment can give me when I play in any competition.  The responsibility for equipment doesn't lie with the golfer.  Nor does it lie with the manufacturers, who would be mad not to attempt to make the best possible products that give the golfer the maximum possible performance.  Responsibility lies with the ruling bodies.  Sadly, we can be pretty confident that they will continue to fail to address the real issues.  I'm all for banning anchoring but to deal with that whilst ignoring the ball and clubs is, simply, negligent.

[Sean_A]

Mark

At least you are honest in stating that your competitive enjoyment takes precedent over architecture.  However, you can go on about responsibility, but when the governing bodies continuously fail to do their duty (presumably your position and that of many on this board), is it not a double standard to actually buy the clubs you blame for the root cause of course changes?  Aren't you actually supporting change by purchasing the clubs which touring pros essentially advertise for equipment companies?  Thus providing more money for more research to develop more clubs which will be blamed for altering more courses.  If not, its a very easy and dubious position you take.  I am afraid that if one takes the position of preserving courses via a rollback, this is a case of you are either with them or against them.  Essentially you are saying I want to hit the new and best equipment, but I don't like what this means for preserving architecture.  Its the old do as I say not as I do argument.  Not the best way to make a stand, but it is a way which won't convince me you have much conviction in your opinion.  

If people want to reverse the trend of the past X years, they will have to do more than sit on their asses while admonishing the USGA and R&A. I would have thought the past X years would have made that quite clear.  If not, this TOC situation may be a kick in the pants.  This contradictory thinking is probably why the bifurcation argument seems to be gaining ground among the masses - its an easy middle ground position to take.  Maybe it is the way forward.  

Ciao  

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

That's a deeply flawed argument.  Rather like suggesting that a Formula 1 Team that didn't believe that turbochargers should be allowed despite the rules allowing them, should not use one on their car and come last every week.  A boycott of new technology by the small number of those who care enough about GCA to consider it would make so little impact on the manufacturers that it would have no consequence. 

In any event, I don't hit the ball well enough for my use of a RocketBallz 3 wood (actually the only club in my bag chosen for purported length benefits) to require any changes to courses.  The problem is not the effect these products have in my hands or those of 99.9% of golfers, it's how far modern tournament professionals and elite amateurs can hit it.  If half of the scientific effort that goes into club and ball development was dedicated to equipment specs then it would be quite possible to specify limits on balls and clubs that would allow you and I to hit the ball similar distances to what we do now (and shorter hitters perhaps even further) whilst reining in the distance the very top players achieve.  Even now, if I played with the very same equipment that McIlroy does it would seriously damage my performance.

Those advocating bifurcation are buying the ruling bodies' party line, which is that loss of distance at the top mean the same loss of distance for everyday golfers.  That simply doesn't need to be the case but does make it easier for them to avoid having a proper, robust conversation with the manufacturers.

[Sean_A]

Mark

I disagree.  Your analogy of F1 to yourself is far fetched.  You don't rely on the equipment to make a living or pay company employees.  Hell, you don't even rely on the equipment to win a club championship and that goes for a huge percentage of people in favour of a rollback.  It could well be argued that you could take a principled stance backed with action and it would really have little effect on your game - which is afterall, a recreational pastime.

If this is really a problem with professionals and not the rank and file amateur (and I am not saying I disagree with you), why isn't a solution only subject to professionals viable?  I will tell you why.  Clubs will change their courses regardless of pros.  Umpteen clubs which never host pros or only host quite minor pro events have altered their course.  Its human nature for the powerful to think they know better and to act on that belief.   

Whether or not you use the same equipment as Rory is irrelevant.  Its the research coming from trying to optimize clubs which is at issue.  Because of research, you can buy optimum clubs for your game.  That would never be the case if not for modern pro golf and that sort of advantage never existed when I started playing golf.   

I really don't have any idea if a rollback would effect me or by how much.  I suspect that if I wanted to retain my current distance it would involve going the route of expensive customization.  I have never done this before as I don't take the game seriously enough (why should I at my level) to warrant the expense.

Our basic disagreement is you believe it is the sole responsibility of governing bodies to sort out equipment and presumably club memberships  will stop altering their courses.  Even if I thought that were the case, which I don't, I think preserving architecture (which is what this entire argument is about) has nothing to do with governing bodies and everything to do with golfers.  Believe it or not, clubs can choose not to host tournaments and not to alter their courses. 

Ciao