News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #25 on: November 29, 2012, 09:53:55 AM »
There is a little rush to judgement here.  Let's see what the finished project looks like or even better yet play it.  The Old Course has had many changes throughout the years, including putting in the Road Hole bunker, I believe in 1920, which is many years after the course was built.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Bruce Katona

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #26 on: November 29, 2012, 09:57:31 AM »
Ally: I like the term you used "clear & rational changes" - perhaps what is proposed isn't.  After a site visit with some before & after pictures taken from the same location the renovation work may come to a better light.

Mike, you and several others here do course construction/renovation for a living.  Lively debate on the alterations in progress, with all available pictoral or mapped data, will be very interesting.

If the true nature of the renovation work is to "defend par for one week every 5 years when The Open Championship is contested, the work may not be justified.  

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2012, 09:06:48 AM »
Via @makapala


Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2012, 09:21:37 AM »
via @amartingolfpro

Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Mark McKeever

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2012, 12:15:20 PM »
Thats a lot of dirt behind the green..

Mark
Best MGA showers - Bayonne

"Dude, he's a total d***"

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2012, 05:56:53 PM »

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2012, 10:55:47 AM »
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Jon Heise

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2012, 10:28:40 PM »
Gross... sad to see.
I still like Greywalls better.

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2012, 12:53:33 AM »
thanks for the makapala pics

#2 will play differently

I remember playing there as my first links course and using things as aiming points which was rare for me as a kid golfer

now a little less of that but more of aiming away from problems as per Dawson
It's all about the golf!

Connor Dougherty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2012, 02:12:23 AM »
The bunkers on 2 seem to leave a bigger opening to the front than I anticipated. I still don't like it though. Had they just added the one bunker on the right I don't think it would have been a very big deal.
"The website is just one great post away from changing the world of golf architecture.  Make it." --Bart Bradley

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2012, 07:02:11 AM »
The bunkers on 2 seem to leave a bigger opening to the front than I anticipated. I still don't like it though. Had they just added the one bunker on the right I don't think it would have been a very big deal.


For another thread about first impressions of the bunker work on the 2nd, I originally posted the photo below. I'd taken it out as I didn't want to have it seem as if we should be debating how the bunkers are... it should be that there shouldn't be any.

Like many here, I do not agree with what's transpiring.... but... if that was work at Some Golf Course in Somewheresville, this would be a moment to abandon/refine the original concept and replace it with something that doesn't look so extraterrestrial.

« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 07:03:52 AM by Tony Ristola »

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #36 on: December 06, 2012, 02:11:58 PM »
Adam Lawrence will probably be posting pictures and an article soon - he is on site today...

Some new pictures below via http://livingasalinksgolfer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/st-andrews-old-course-renovation-photos.html

















« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 10:54:30 AM by Mike Nuzzo »
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #37 on: December 06, 2012, 08:25:39 PM »
My thoughts on the changes....

the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

http://binettegolfarchitecture.blogspot.ca/2012/12/changes-at-st-andrews.html

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #38 on: December 07, 2012, 07:45:05 AM »
The new bunkers at 2 takes out the "emptyness" on the right which often lures the players to aim for that side, only to see very difficult 60 putt in front of them on the next shot...

golf is not a shot by shot game, it's a planification game.

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #39 on: December 07, 2012, 09:07:09 AM »
I know this stuff is all subjective, but those new bunkers at the 2nd hole - essentially pinching the entrance to the green surface - make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

And, after hundreds and hundreds of years of golf on the Old Course, why the necessity to knock down the "acute spur formation" at the 4th hole again? (Serious question... I don't think I've heard the reasoning behind this.)
jeffmingay.com

D_Malley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2012, 09:44:03 AM »
.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2012, 02:49:38 PM »
I know this stuff is all subjective, but those new bunkers at the 2nd hole - essentially pinching the entrance to the green surface - make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

And, after hundreds and hundreds of years of golf on the Old Course, why the necessity to knock down the "acute spur formation" at the 4th hole again? (Serious question... I don't think I've heard the reasoning behind this.)

Interestingly Jeff, Adam Lawrence gets to discuss this with Peter Dawson in his interview and if I remember rightly the reason was two fold, firstly they wanted to cut the grass but found that it was impossible to keep it short so it was rough most of the time, and second they reckoned they were widening the course by making this change. In any other course in the world, this discussion board would be applauding changes made for these reasons but as we know on here TOC is some sort of sacred monument  ::)

Niall

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2012, 03:54:41 PM »
On the 4th, is it the spur in the foreground of the left side of the linked picture?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8061/8238546888_49349b59b8_h.jpg

If it is, it's 280 to 360 yards from the tee.  Why would mowing it be a concern; a little rough on some dunes/embankments is not that bad nor is it unusual in other places on the course.  It's a small area; searching for a ball in there wouldn't take too long.  Given the distance from the tee and the green, it seems like an odd place to feel the need to widen the fairway.  Most if not all drives will be short of it and it provides a visual distraction/block for the second shot if you are on the wrong/left side, and it seems like a fundamental architectural feature of the hole.

If the premise of the exercise is to continue to provide a challenge to elite players at the Open, how does this change contribute to achieving that goal?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 03:56:23 PM by Bryan Izatt »

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2012, 06:44:48 PM »
No, Brian, it is further back than that
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2012, 07:17:51 PM »
No, Brian, it is further back than that

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2012/11/24/the-old-course-and-its-acute-spur-formation.html

When something so easily defined is lost in jargon, the aim is usually to deceive or make one feel as if they have no idea what they're talking about. Warren Buffet said (paraphrasing) if you can't easily understand what an annual or company report says... they're trying to deceive.

When is the first time you (anyone) heard the term "acute spur formation"?

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #45 on: December 07, 2012, 07:21:34 PM »
I know this stuff is all subjective, but those new bunkers at the 2nd hole - essentially pinching the entrance to the green surface - make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

And, after hundreds and hundreds of years of golf on the Old Course, why the necessity to knock down the "acute spur formation" at the 4th hole again? (Serious question... I don't think I've heard the reasoning behind this.)

Interestingly Jeff, Adam Lawrence gets to discuss this with Peter Dawson in his interview and if I remember rightly the reason was two fold, firstly they wanted to cut the grass but found that it was impossible to keep it short so it was rough most of the time, and second they reckoned they were widening the course by making this change. In any other course in the world, this discussion board would be applauding changes made for these reasons but as we know on here TOC is some sort of sacred monument  ::)

Niall
Niall,

You're bizarre lobbying in support of Dawson is most strange.  The argument that this change makes the course wider is, of course, nonsense.  As to the spur, how often would a ball finish on it?  Removing the spur removes the blindness that a drive left leaves.  It dumbs down the hole.  It is noteworthy that in Adam's interview even Dawson expresses doubts about this change.  Which leaves you as it's strongest supporter.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #46 on: December 07, 2012, 07:23:13 PM »
...if I remember rightly the reason was two fold, firstly they wanted to cut the grass but found that it was impossible to keep it short so it was rough most of the time...

In any other course in the world, this discussion board would be applauding changes made for these reasons but as we know on here TOC is some sort of sacred monument   ::)
Cop out... my bet is if they wanted to hand mow the entirety of The Old Course today they have the revenues to do it.

They seem to find a way to cut acres of greens... they could probably afford to cut several thousand square meters with scissors if they wanted  :-X

...This isn't "just any other course in the world".
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 07:30:34 PM by Tony Ristola »

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #47 on: December 07, 2012, 07:35:19 PM »
I would bet London to a brick that "acute spur formation" is Dr Hawtree's terminology.
I'm a golf course architect and I have no idea what this means. I've heard of bone spurs and the spurs that cowboys wear, but never in connection with golf design.

Sean Walsh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #48 on: December 07, 2012, 09:49:40 PM »
I have heard spur before but in regard to a local road "the black spur".  I think it's in reference to a mountain ridge off the main ridgeline. Also in the irrigation areas some channels are a "spur" off the main channel,  None of the formations we are talking about really fit with my understanding of the term.

I have read a lot about these changes to the 4th hole but still don't know exactly which of three possible "spurs" they're referring to.  There's the one in the driving zone for club golfers finishes around about 200 yds from the tee, the second and largest is the one right of the bunker about 280-300 from the tee and the last is shaved and right in front of the green.

So from all of this I can establish that it's probably not the one at the green getting the chop.

As for the other two I can't ever remember looking for a ball on either of them for more than 30 secs.  The landing zone one gets a lot of play and the rough was very light.  The mid-hole ridge didn't get a lot of play as it was too long for 90% of golfers without a very strong tail wind and any sensible long player took 3W max.  It also rarely came into play for a club golfer's second shot.  I was there in a non-open year.  There was plenty of rain and a bit of sun so decent growing conditions I would have thought.  I never had any concerns that either of these two areas were a maintenance problem.

Of course in an open year they might encourage the growth of the rough a little more and I can see problems for the club golfer in those circumstances.

I think Niall maybe confusing the treehouse's love for short grass around the green to mean short grass everywhere.  I also think the simple answer is to bring back the sheep and rabbits not carve up the "acute spur formation" :)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Photo thread - Old Course Changes
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2012, 10:09:55 PM »
No, Brian, it is further back than that

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



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

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

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

« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 10:12:45 PM by Bryan Izatt »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back