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

[RJ_Daley]

All these comments make me wonder if there is an analogy to be drawn with the profession of medicine.  In the practice and advancement of medicine, there are several entities that have a stake in the process, and affect the outcome of the overall state of health care in quality and efficacy. 

The primary tenet and professional ethic of medical doctors is, “first do no harm”.   From there a symbiotic relationship takes place between the practitioners of medicine and all the supporting entities, from facility administrators, to product producers an innovators of medical implements, to pharma, and the professional organizations like AMA. There is oversight on several levels from government to specialty board practice reviews.  All of that is brought to bare where the rubber meets the road in the health care patient-consumer’s outcome.

In golf, the archies are like the M.D.s.  They are the practitioners.  There are supporting entities just like in medicine, and all have a symbiotic relationship in order to derive an outcome to the ultimate quality of the player-consumers.  The archies have their version of AMA in their ASGCA or BIGGA.  They are subject to positive or negative effects on how they design and present their craft by technology implement advancements.  And, there is oversight of the product in golf being the hiring entities and the regulatory entities that have jurisdiction over environmental issues. 

But to boil this down to the issue at hand - that being criticism of an archie who has taken a commission to ply his craft or practice on an iconic historical ground (owned by a town and not that third party governing body R&A – third party like the AMA in medicine would say a particular hospital or clinic is theirs when it may be a community hospital) where the ultimate consumer is the golfer (most particularly the golfer seeking the experience of going back to the cradle of the game to experience it a close to the pure old game as can be had at such a well used facility) isn’t that practitioner’s main charge, “first do no harm”?  Is this mostly an ethical question, and to be put to Mr. Hawtree?

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

You know that the majority of members don't think about architecture or preservation.  You also know that all sorts of idiocy gets committed under the auspices of club committees.  Those moronic back tees at Pennard being a perfect example.  When our excellent Course Manager was allowed to make changes to a couple of holes at Northumberland, which in one case destroyed the strategic intent of one of the best holes on the course, most of those I tried to persuade it was a bad thing looked at me as if I was mad and simply failed to understand the issue.

Clubs will want to hold high profile competitions, it adds to the status of the course (in the minds of the majority) and may well help recruit or retain members.  I know that Northumberland is delighted to be able to advertise that it is an Open Championship Regional Qualifying venue, as I imagine most such clubs are.

I don't believe that preservation is the sole responsibility of governing bodies.  If I did I wouldn't have campaigned unsuccesfully to prevent changes at Northumberland, nor would I have written to the Links Trust and others regarding the Old Course.  What the governing bodies are responsible for, however, is their failure to address technological developments which have led to a ball that goes too far.

[Jud_T]

Sean,

Regardless of motivation, both Dawson and Hawtree's fingerprints will forever be on this disgraceful act.  Maybe Hawtree can come up with a horrible gambling problem so that he's viewed by history as simply a schmuck with a disease rather than a coconspirator in crime.  If you listen to his website it certainly doesn't sound as if he's sweating his next plate of chips:



The name Hawtree is synonymous with golf course design since 1912. The dynasty; F.G., F.W., and M.G. is probably the longest continuous practice in golf architecture. Hawtree’s experience and knowledge is second to none spanning three generations and core to Hawtree’s multi-disciplinary practice having been founded in over 750 projects.

Hawtree’s architectural influence, known and respected throughout the world, is spread across Europe

with significant and intriguing incursions into Africa, the Americas, Australia, the Far East and the Indian sub-continent.

[Niall C]

Jud

Perhaps its time for you to give it a rest and go play with your kids or take the wife out to dinner or whatever you need to do to gain a bit of perspective, rather than venting all this vitriol. The Old Course is only mowed grass thats been dug up and altered, sanded, spiked, shaped and beaten by the weather not to mention quite a few golf clubs, all over the last 500 years. I'm sure that it will survive Dr Hawtrees input readily enough.

Mark

My problem with idea that it should be harder to do this or that is that all comes down to opinion. For instance who's going to judge. At Northumberland should it be you or the majority of members that supported the changes ? With regards to TOC, you have the games ruling body combined the organisation that handles the day to day management of the maintenance of the course, with eminent architects involved with the club some of whom are in on the decision process, and as a body consulting with another eminent architect on his proposals. Now I understand that you don't like the changes but I'm at a loss to see what other process or rather who else could judge whether what was proposed should have been done.

Perhaps Peter Dawson could have written to Ran and asked him to have a beauty parade with Tom D, Coore, Crenshaw and Hanse and let the discussion board decide who the Links Trust would consult with. Obviously I jest but judging by some of the comment on this thread and others much of the motivating factor is about who is involved.

Niall

[Rich Goodale]

Niall

That IS hysterical!

Thanks.

Rich

[Jud_T]

Niall,

couple of points:

1.  If your attitude about the Old Course at St. Andrews is "hey it's just a bunch of dirt that's gonna get tossed around eventually anyway, what's the big deal?" frankly I don't know why you're wasting you're time on this site instead of watching old Benny Hill episodes and eating overcooked vegetables or whatever the hell passes for entertainment over there these days.

2.  You continue to confuse the issue as one of Who instead of What.  If Tom Doak took too much blotter acid and started digging up the Eden or Road Hole greens one night I'd run out there and tackle him just the same.  

3.  If my outrage seems OTT I'm sorry but this is the first time that work such as this has me genuinely upset.  Perhaps a bit more outrage is in order.  Perversely now that they've crossed the line perhaps some light will be shed on the real problems of the game.

4.  This is not a vendetta against DR. H.  As Ben stated earlier, I'm not familiar with his work, beyond whatever he did at Lahinch and Portmarnock.  You're attitude seems similar to that of Sean: "well someone was going to do the work anyway, might as well be Hawtree, at least he's a Brit".

5.  Jesus, I've turned into Melvyn...

[Steve Okula]

2.  You continue to confuse the issue as one of Who instead of What.  If Tom Doak took too much blotter acid and started digging up the Eden or Road Hole greens one night I'd run out there and tackle him just the same.  

As opposed to just the right amount of blotter acid?

[Jud_T]

Yeah, if he took the right dose he'd just be out there rolling glow balls up and down the slopes laughing his ass off...

[Frank Pont]

I could live with the following process for evaluating potential changes to TOC

Put 4-5 well known golf architecs in a group that will evaluate every proposal for change.
Key is that this group is both knowledgeable, diverse and independent of R&A

They evaluate every proposal that is put forward to change TOC, and only if they all unanimously agree does a proposal get implemented.

That should make sure only the really obvious and neccesary things that do not hurt the history and integrity of TOC get implemented.

[Sean_A]

Niall,

couple of points:

4.  This is not a vendetta against DR. H.  As Ben stated earlier, I'm not familiar with his work, beyond whatever he did at Lahinch and Portmarnock.  You're attitude seems similar to that of Sean: "well someone was going to do the work anyway, might as well be Hawtree, at least he's a Brit".

Jud

Are you saying the work wouldn't be done if it weren't for Hawtree?

I know I am definitely not saying the archiie doing the work may as well be a Brit.  I would rather see a better archie in charge/consulting with the R&A, but for whatever reason that isn't the case and I don't have a vote.

Mark

Welcome to the real world where most people are apathetic about nearly everything.  Because memberships allow a junta to control their club doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their course.  Yes of course clubs want kudos for hosting minor events, but does this mean that courses need to be altered for the kudos?  Clubs always have a choice. 

Frank

What about the Trust?  Its great to say what you could live with, but until the law is changed, the Trust is in charge.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Niall,

Perhaps if you'd read the thread you'd have known that I was responding to Sean's suggestion that I believed that preservation is entirely the responsibility of the governing bodies by pointing out that I had campaigned against the changes at Northumberland.  I don't believe that anywhere did I say that the decision should not be the club's.  Of course, at most clubs that means a small greens committee who probably represent better players but have little architectural interest.  We did have an architect on our green committee but he got fed up that the rest of the committee wouldn't listen to him.

The biggest problem I have with these changes is the lack of openness.  As has been noted elsewhere, 3 years ago there was public consultation on changes to the Jubilee course.  Now, for the Old Course an announcement on a Friday, no consultation and work starts on the Monday.  Do you think that is appropriate?

[Scott Warren]

The clandestine nature of the process is what disgusts me the most. Both the lack of openness and the timing to coincide with anchoring announcement.

The Links Trust and R&A knew there would be an outrage, for good reason, and did all they could to mist the air and then overwhelm the news sources with anchoring.

Ironic that tradition and history loomed large in their reasoning for banning anchoring. Hypocrites.

[Sean_A]

The clandestine nature of the process is what disgusts me the most. Both the lack of openness and the timing to coincide with anchoring announcement.

The Links Trust and R&A knew there would be an outrage, for good reason, and did all they could to mist the air and then overwhelm the news sources with anchoring.

For sure, but how can we move forward with creating a more transparent process in the future?  As I stated earlier, I don't understand what the rush is all about and why a consultation can't be held.  I know some think that most locals wouldn't care either way, but I am confident that if a consultation period was made public to the folks of St Andrews that this would leak to the wider golfing public.  In trying to influence local opinion the voice of the wider golf population can be heard.

Ciao

[Niall C]

The clandestine nature of the process is what disgusts me the most. Both the lack of openness and the timing to coincide with anchoring announcement.

The Links Trust and R&A knew there would be an outrage, for good reason, and did all they could to mist the air and then overwhelm the news sources with anchoring.

Ironic that tradition and history loomed large in their reasoning for banning anchoring. Hypocrites.

Scott

Gold medal in the art of sophistry there mate. Damned if they do (ban anchoring) and damned if they don't (fail to stop ball development). As for the stuff about getting the press release on the changes out before the anchoring story so that it will disappear, do you really think that outwith golfclubatlas and a few bloggers that the changes to the Old Course is bigger or more controversial than the anchoring story ? Lets see what next months golf mags make of it. I suspect it will be anchoring on the front page and John Huggan on the back kicking f*ck out of the R&A as usual.

Mark

In a cack-handed way I think I was trying to make a similar point about due process which is I think the base of Tom D's letter although I suspect at heart he would prefer the course untouched. I just find it strange that people are slagging off the process when you have the decision made by people in charge of the day to day management with input from their key greenkeeping staff, the R&A who manage the Open, input from a top architect (obviously not golfclubatlas's favourite but experienced nonetheless) as well as soundings from local players via the local clubs. Just because they didn't post on golfclubatlas or on the notice board of local clubhouses for that matter (which I assume to be the case) doesn't make the process any less valid or thorough.

Niall

[Niall C]

Niall,

couple of points:

1.  If your attitude about the Old Course at St. Andrews is "hey it's just a bunch of dirt that's gonna get tossed around eventually anyway, what's the big deal?" frankly I don't know why you're wasting you're time on this site instead of watching old Benny Hill episodes and eating overcooked vegetables or whatever the hell passes for entertainment over there these days.

2.  You continue to confuse the issue as one of Who instead of What.  If Tom Doak took too much blotter acid and started digging up the Eden or Road Hole greens one night I'd run out there and tackle him just the same.  

3.  If my outrage seems OTT I'm sorry but this is the first time that work such as this has me genuinely upset.  Perhaps a bit more outrage is in order.  Perversely now that they've crossed the line perhaps some light will be shed on the real problems of the game.

4.  This is not a vendetta against DR. H.  As Ben stated earlier, I'm not familiar with his work, beyond whatever he did at Lahinch and Portmarnock.  You're attitude seems similar to that of Sean: "well someone was going to do the work anyway, might as well be Hawtree, at least he's a Brit".

5.  Jesus, I've turned into Melvyn...

Jud

1 - actually I do care, it's just that I believe that I've got a bit more perspective on whats going on than most on here. Obviously you disagree which is your right but let me say you can go fuck yourself if you think you can chase me off here because I don't agree with you. This is a discussion board after all.

2 - good for you but I stand by my belief that others would be more excited than concerned of they wheeled out Ben Crenshaw to make changes. In Mark R's OP he basically suggests that there's a prejudice against English architects. I'd go further and suggest there's a prejudice against all but a select few.

3 - back to perspective. The Old Course has always changed and always will no matter of you retain the position of all the bunkers and never move another one. Green contours to have changed over the years through natural processes and effectively in a playing sense even more by changes in equipment. For some to think that we are losing the course that Old Tom or Bobby Jones played because of a few tweaks, and yes thats what they are when you look at it in the context of changes over the years, then they are deluding themselves IMO. However I do respect your right to be wrong in this matter, and indeed any other matter that you wish to disagree with me on.

4 - I've defended Dr Hawtree or rather I've been critical about some of the disparaging comment about him, not because I necessarily think he's the best man for the job but because I don't believe he should be abused for doing a job that in my opinion is inoffensive.

5 - you can't possibly be Melvyn, FBD is Melvyn.................at least I think he is 

Niall

[Rick Shefchik]

Mark

In a cack-handed way I think I was trying to make a similar point about due process which is I think the base of Tom D's letter although I suspect at heart he would prefer the course untouched. I just find it strange that people are slagging off the process when you have the decision made by people in charge of the day to day management with input from their key greenkeeping staff, the R&A who manage the Open, input from a top architect (obviously not golfclubatlas's favourite but experienced nonetheless) as well as soundings from local players via the local clubs. Just because they didn't post on golfclubatlas or on the notice board of local clubhouses for that matter (which I assume to be the case) doesn't make the process any less valid or thorough.

Niall

Niall,

The problem, as I see it, is stated clearly in your above paragraph: "...with input from...the R&A who manage the Open..."

The fox is in the henhouse.
 

[Ben Sims]

Niall,

Your take on this issue is perverse and biased.  It is immediately clear that your agenda is to defend whatever decision the R&A wishes to make, and champion their right to do so.  It is also clear that in your zeal to defend this defacement, you wish to trot out a sophomoric and overused red herring claiming that other "more preferred" architects would be championed in this endeavor.  

It would be much easier to debate you on this matter if you didn't have a history of being contradictive in nearly every major argument that I've seen you contribute too.  I can't tell if your angst over the outcry against these changes is rooted in nationalistic pride and a wish for golf sovereignty, or just to be in a good scrape with the better members of this website.  But to this point, you haven't been able to effectively defend both the changes to the course or the manner in which they were enacted.  Which is what you have in common with every person in power that has signed off on this vandalism of golf's only shrine.

[Scott Warren]

Niall,

Scott

Gold medal in the art of sophistry there mate. Damned if they do (ban anchoring) and damned if they don't (fail to stop ball development). As for the stuff about getting the press release on the changes out before the anchoring story so that it will disappear, do you really think that outwith golfclubatlas and a few bloggers that the changes to the Old Course is bigger or more controversial than the anchoring story ? Lets see what next months golf mags make of it. I suspect it will be anchoring on the front page and John Huggan on the back kicking f*ck out of the R&A as usual.

My post was not sophist in the slightest.

The anchoring anouncement coming just days after the TOC changes were announced and then commenced was no coincidence. The anchoring ban was timed to drown out reaction to the course changes. This is not uncommon.

The R&A weren't at all "damned if they do, damned if they don't".

They're damned for spitting in the face of history and tradition before using those pillars of the game days later as their reasoning for baning anchoring.

They're damned for the clandestine manner in which they carried out the process of defacing The Old Course.

All the while, they still failed to address the modern golf ball, by far a greater issue than anchoring and, without which the "necessity" (in their eyes) to alter TOC would not be nearly as great.

Forget GCA.com, Niall, listen to Gary Player and Peter Thomson on the changes to TOC... Tom Doak, Mike Clayton, Tom Dunne and Adam Lawrence... Ian Poulter and Luke Donald... This is far from a non-issue beyond our small group of enthusiasts.

[paul cowley]

...did I hear somebody say blotter acid?

[Tim_Weiman]

Niall:

I noticed that you used the term "ball development " suggesting that, somehow, this is a positive thing.

So far as I can tell "ball development" in the last 10-15 years has been a negative thing. Why? Because this activity has forced clubs to spend money revising their golf courses just to stay "relevant" for tournament golf.

Wouldn't an "improved" golf ball not require additional expenditures just to once again modify golf courses?

Shouldn't the technology be good enough to eliminate this pointless expense?

[Sean Walsh]

3 - ... because of a few tweaks, and yes thats what they are when you look at it in the context of changes over the years...

I can see how a person may consider the changes to 7 maybe even 11 and 17 as a few tweaks. I disagree but can at least see the reasoning in that argument.

The changes to 2 and 4 however could not be so labeled, especially in view of the history of the course. 

They are planning on putting bunkers guarding the approach to these greens.  This is out of step with every other change to the course in the last 150 years.

The only holes on the course with fronting bunkers, outside the par 3 8th & 11th are at 16 and 17 and that is using a very broad definition of fronting bunker.  At least on those two holes there is plenty of flat green to utilise to run the ball onto the green. That definitely will not be the case with 2 and may not be with 4.

This is without even discussing the type of contour flattening they have in store for 4 which is without precedent as far as I can tell.

More to the point all of these arguments could have been debated through a transparent process by people much more familiar with the course and of much greater golf architectural knowledge than you or I if the Links Trust and R&A had merely seen fit to release the planned changes.

[Jud_T]

...did I hear somebody say blotter acid?

well I figure he'd have to be completely out of his mind to do something as stupid as digging those greens up.