Changes to the 2nd hole of The Old Course

[David_Elvins]

Photo taken from the photo thread. I have re-posted here as I think this hole deserves it's own thread. 

This appear to be totally outrageous fiddling, far greater in scale than the changes to 11 or 17. 

This has the potential to totally destroy one of the coolest holes in golf.  How sad. 

Thoughts from anyone else? 

[Sean Walsh]

I agree David.  The changes to this and the 4th have a more significant effect on the play of the hole.

Those ripples above the bunkers are out of sync with everything else in the diagram.

I had also thought that the bunkers would be moved at worst between the current 2nd green and the 3rd tee.  Where they have placed these totally changes how you would play the hole to any pin on the right half of the green.  For this I'm taking of how a club golfer plays the hole not the pros. 

When I first saw that diagram all hope that any "recontouring" would be sympathetic to the current landscape and strategy sank.

It's worse than I could have imagined.

[BCrosby]

The quirky, short 2nd has been considered one of the best par 4's in the world by a number of prominent architects since the Edwardian Age.

Changes of the scope proposed are a major mistake. To make them without an understanding of the hole's history is shocking. 

Bob

[Tom Kelly]

I am not keen on any of the changes proposed at TOC, but having seen this picture I am now far more concerned about the 2nd than the road hole bunker or the 11th green. It looks horrible, I just hope the final product looks nothing like the picture.

[Adam Lawrence]

I am anti the changes, but please don't fall into the error of drawing detailed conclusions from an aerial visualisation...

[David_Elvins]

I am anti the changes, but please don't fall into the error of drawing detailed conclusions from an aerial visualisation...

Adam, they are adding two pot bunkers, a ridge and "undulations" to the front right and right of the green.   How is that not enough information for you to think it is horrible?

Do I really need to draw you a photoshop?

[Rich Goodale]

IMO the right hand side of the 2nd green has long been one of the least interesting features of the Old Course.  In theory, the idea of moving the 2 shallow-saucer style John Low bunkers from irrelevancy up towards the green intrigues me, but as Adam says, let's wait and see what it looks like and how it plays.

Bob C.

What is so historic about this hole and particularly the right hand side of the green?  I'm ignorant of any such history.

Rich

[Adam Lawrence]

I am anti the changes, but please don't fall into the error of drawing detailed conclusions from an aerial visualisation...

Adam, they are adding two pot bunkers, a ridge and "undulations" to the front right and right of the green.   How is that not enough information for you to think it is horrible?

Do I really need to draw you a photoshop?

David, I believe it's horrible on principle, but take Sean's comment above about the ripples... those ripples are just pixels on a visualisation that was almost certainly done by an external firm. It is indicative, nothing more.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I am anti the changes, but please don't fall into the error of drawing detailed conclusions from an aerial visualisation...

Adam, I agree entirely with this statement.

However, I will say that on links courses - even those with many micro-undulations - there is always a general sweep of the land on a larger scale, whether it be dune ridges that get smaller and eventually fade out or whether it be ripples and mounds that curve down to flatter land.... The mounds on the left of the 2nd green fall away and tie in to the flatter ground towards the 3rd tees and boundary with the new course. To take that flatter land and generate natural looking undulations and mounds will take some expert design and shaping...

Rich - Least interesting may also be the most natural fit... "Improving" that may be impossible...

But let's wait and see..

[Sean Walsh]

Adam,

Not sure if you have a copy of Paul Daley's "Favourite Holes by design" but I suggest you find a copy and read it.  These two bunkers will drastically alter how the hole is played. Remember the hole is 411 yards. Most club golfers will be coming in with about a 7 iron from somewhere short or to the right to Cheape's bunker.  Except for a pin placed on the far right of the green a decision has to be made about how to navigate the frontal ridges centre and left of the green.  That's a very different decision after these changes where the penalty for being long will be much less that short and the option of bumping and running something up becomes fraught with danger as a bad kick from the ridges on the left of the fairway would now most likely land you in the pots.

Yes the ripples are mainly an aesthetic but I can't think of a similar feature anywhere on the course. And these ripples sit on a parcel of land about 20sqm that is totally flat, it will be interesting to see the success they have making that tie in.

And if that's the visualisation the firm doing the work is prepared for the public to see I think it's fair enough to presume that's the finish they are intending.  It's either a horrid concept or incompetent planning on what I presume is not a tight budget.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

When TOC was expanded on the right side of the outward nine circa 1870, there was a sense that those holes had become too wide and uninteresting. Low (Fowler also seems to have been involved) and others in the winter of 1904/5 built additional bunkers on the right sides of those holes.

Low added not just the two bunkers that are within 100 yards of the 2nd green but also several farther back on the right side of the fw. The bunkers were placed on the side from which a good player would want to approach the 2nd green. If those bunkers were successfully negotiated, an easier green entrance from the right was your reward. That is, the  surrounds on the right side of the 2nd are supposed to be benign. One aspect of why so many architects down through time have thought it was a great hole.

By moving bunkers up against the green on the right as Dawson and his architectural toadies are doing is to eviscerate what Low was seeking to accomplish. Bunkers tightly against the right side of the green have the consequence of diminishing any advantage from approaching from that side. Which is a downgrade of the quality of the hole. It takes off the table its key playing strategy. Indeed, the very strategy that has made it such a notable hole over the years is, effectively, now gone. For normal punters like us the hole is now about hitting straight shots down the middle.  

I reject out of hand any counter arguments about how pros now play the hole. There are vanishing few holes anywhere in the world where pros pause to consider best angles. So that is not, nor should it ever be, a basis for changes to the 2nd or any other hole of historic significance. And the 2nd at TOC was - until just this week - a hole of considerable historical significance.

Bob  

P.S. I would argue (and have) that the design principles Low used in placing bunkers on TOC in 1904/5 is one of the early signs of a theory of golf design that we would call today 'strategic golf architecture'. But that's a bigger story for another day.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich -

When TOC was expanded on the right side of the outward nine circa 1870, there was a sense that those holes had become too wide and uninteresting. Low (Fowler also seems to have been involved) and others in the winter of 1904/5 built additional bunkers on the right sides of those holes.

Low added not just the two bunkers that are within 100 yards of the 2nd green but also several farther back on the right side of the fw. The bunkers were placed on the side from which a good player would want to approach the 2nd green. If those bunkers were successfully negotiated, an easier green entrance from the right was your reward. That is, the  surrounds on the right side of the 2nd are supposed to be benign. One aspect of why so many architects down through time have thought it was a great hole.

By moving bunkers up against the green on the right as Dawson and his architectural toadies are doing is to eviscerate what Low was seeking to accomplish. Bunkers tightly against the right side of the green have the consequence of diminishing any advantage from approaching from that side. Which is a downgrade of the quality of the hole. It takes off the table its key playing strategy. Indeed, the very strategy that has made it such a notable hole over the years is, effectively, now gone. For normal punters like us the hole is now about hitting straight shots down the middle.  

I reject out of hand any counter arguments about how pros now play the hole. There are vanishing few holes anywhere in the world where pros pause to consider best angles. So that is not, nor should it ever be, a basis for changes to the 2nd or any other hole of historic significance. And the 2nd at TOC was - until just this week - a hole of considerable historical significance.

Bob  

P.S. I would argue (and have) that the design principles Low used in placing bunkers on TOC in 1904/5 is one of the early signs of a theory of golf design that we would call today 'strategic golf architecture'. But that's a bigger story for another day.

Bob

I know what you are saying, but I think that you (and others) greatly overstate what Low did for the outward 9.  He added crap bunjker wher therre were none, and the only players for whom his bunkers come into play are slicing hackers. on their 2nd shot  No pro or even the modest single figure handicap player would ever get within 20 yards of those bunkers, regardless of the pin position.  What the new bunkers do in fact is bring the right hand 1/3rd of the green into play as a decent pinnable area (today it is where they put the pin when there is no important competition going on--i.e. the days that most visitors will play the course).  You are very right that what they seem to be doing will require some strategic thinking, as pins to the right will now be much harder to reach from the (generally safe) right-centre side of the fairway.  Players wanting ghe best angle in will now be forced to go to the left which will bring Cheape's bunekr into play.

Golfing strategy is being created in this change and not destroyed.  At least IMHO....

[BCrosby]

Rich -

Hmmm   .... Low and Fowler "added crap bunkers where there were none, and the only players for whom his bunkers come into play are slicing hackers. on their 2nd shot..."  It's bad enough to get Low and Fowler spinning in their graves. But to get MacK, Colt, Behr, and Simpson spinning in theirs too takes some doing. 

There is no doubt that Dawson's new bunkers make the the 2nd harder. Making a hole harder, however, is child's play. Dawson also made the 2nd hole worse. It is now less interesting, accomplished at the price of eliminating its key historical features. To my mind that's a pretty good working definition of a lose/lose outcome.

Bob

 

 

[Paul_Turner]

"Golfing strategy is being created in this change and not destroyed.  At least IMHO...."

Rich

There's no such thing as a "humble" opinion.

Lets hope Dr H doesn't turn up at Painswick for one of his safety "audit".

[Rich Goodale]

"Golfing strategy is being created in this change and not destroyed.  At least IMHO...."

Rich

There's no such thing as a "humble" opinion.

Lets hope Dr H doesn't turn up at Painswick for one of his safety "audit".

Yes there is, Paul, as I honestly believe that my opinion is just that.  An opinion, not a fact.  Bob C. honestly has an opiinion that is 180 degrees different than mine.  That fact makes me (at least) feel humble.

And, vis a vis safety audits, 90+% of all the courses that I hold dear would fail them.

[Paul_Turner]

The new bunkers just offer the standard greenside recovery shot.  Not so from the old bunkers...fine 3/4 shot hazards.

[Rich Goodale]

The new bunkers just offer the standard greenside recovery shot.  Not so from the old bunkers...fine 3/4 shot hazards.

True, Paul, but the only people inept enough to get in those John Low bunkers in the first place couldn't hit a proper 3/4 shot from them if they tried all day (as many of them seem to do....).

[Sean_A]

Rich -

When TOC was expanded on the right side of the outward nine circa 1870, there was a sense that those holes had become too wide and uninteresting. Low (Fowler also seems to have been involved) and others in the winter of 1904/5 built additional bunkers on the right sides of those holes.

Low added not just the two bunkers that are within 100 yards of the 2nd green but also several farther back on the right side of the fw. The bunkers were placed on the side from which a good player would want to approach the 2nd green. If those bunkers were successfully negotiated, an easier green entrance from the right was your reward. That is, the  surrounds on the right side of the 2nd are supposed to be benign. One aspect of why so many architects down through time have thought it was a great hole.

By moving bunkers up against the green on the right as Dawson and his architectural toadies are doing is to eviscerate what Low was seeking to accomplish. Bunkers tightly against the right side of the green have the consequence of diminishing any advantage from approaching from that side. Which is a downgrade of the quality of the hole. It takes off the table its key playing strategy. Indeed, the very strategy that has made it such a notable hole over the years is, effectively, now gone. For normal punters like us the hole is now about hitting straight shots down the middle.  

I reject out of hand any counter arguments about how pros now play the hole. There are vanishing few holes anywhere in the world where pros pause to consider best angles. So that is not, nor should it ever be, a basis for changes to the 2nd or any other hole of historic significance. And the 2nd at TOC was - until just this week - a hole of considerable historical significance.

Bob  

P.S. I would argue (and have) that the design principles Low used in placing bunkers on TOC in 1904/5 is one of the early signs of a theory of golf design that we would call today 'strategic golf architecture'. But that's a bigger story for another day.

Bob

I know what you are saying, but I think that you (and others) greatly overstate what Low did for the outward 9.  He added crap bunjker wher therre were none, and the only players for whom his bunkers come into play are slicing hackers. on their 2nd shot  No pro or even the modest single figure handicap player would ever get within 20 yards of those bunkers, regardless of the pin position.  What the new bunkers do in fact is bring the right hand 1/3rd of the green into play as a decent pinnable area (today it is where they put the pin when there is no important competition going on--i.e. the days that most visitors will play the course).  You are very right that what they seem to be doing will require some strategic thinking, as pins to the right will now be much harder to reach from the (generally safe) right-centre side of the fairway.  Players wanting ghe best angle in will now be forced to go to the left which will bring Cheape's bunekr into play.

Golfing strategy is being created in this change and not destroyed.  At least IMHO....

Rihc

I am not sure I follow your logic.  Playing left off the tee on #2 leaves a poor angle for a front right flag because of the humpty ground short of the green.  Playing downwind, with bunkers right and humps left doesn't leave any optimal angle of approach.  To me this is a bad move.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

Better angle than from the right once the new bunkers there are in play, regarldess of the confusion/blindness.  That's why it MIGHT be a better hole post-renovation.  We shall see.

Rich

[BCrosby]

"Better angle than from the right once the new bunkers there are in play,..."

I'm not following the logic either. We have a green with humpy-bumpy stuff guarding it left/cetner. Now, just this week, we have two new greenside bunkers on the right.

We are standing on the tee. I see ahead of me a green now protected both left and right with trouble. Why would I want to drive anywhere but to the middle of the fw? To my thinking, that is a harder but much less interesting hole. (Indeed, it sounds like the kind of change that only a tournament adminstrator would dream up.)

Worse, a hole on TOC it is now stripped of its most distinguishing historcal feature. When it comes to holes on TOC, that is no minor mater.

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

Unless you are really, really tall, you do not see anything off the tee.  The tee shot is almost competely blind.  And what exactly is "its most distinguishing historical feature?"  I honestly do not know to what you are referring.  Surely not Low's bunkers.....

Rich

Also, it is a very wide green.  Lot's of room for more than one feature to come into play!

rfg

[BCrosby]

Rich -

The 2nd holes' most frequently cited historical feature - the one discussed by commentators since Low and the reason most often given for the high regard for the hole - is that (a) the opening to the green is from the right and (b) to position yourself for that angle, you need to drive right and risk whins and bunkers on that side. Simple, clear basic stuff.

That feature is now effectively eliminated by shifting new bunkers greenside right.

Bob

[Matthew Essig]

Photo taken from the photo thread. I have re-posted here as I think this hole deserves it's own thread. 

This appear to be totally outrageous fiddling, far greater in scale than the changes to 11 or 17. 

This has the potential to totally destroy one of the coolest holes in golf.  How sad. 

Thoughts from anyone else? 

+1

I have said in one of the numerous other threads on these changes that I dislike this change the most.

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

The bunkers that Low was probably thnking about are ~200 yards from the medal tee and are not being changed, as far as I know.  In any cse they are largely irrelevant today. regardles of what tee you play from.  The bunkers that are being shiftged are 50 yards from the green.  They have no value except penality for the weak player.

Rich

[David_Elvins]

Rich

Also, it is a very wide green.  Lot's of room for more than one feature to come into play!

Rich,

I am not sure if you are being contrarian for the sake of it or not.  

The effectiv entrance to the second green between the hollow/mound and the bunkers wil be all of about 5-7 yards wide once the bunkers are in place.  



There is really only a single strategy to the hole and most of the tournament pin positions are tucked behind the hollow/mound at the front left of the green.  It is a fantastic strategic feture that defends the pin.  THe relatively bland space out to the right of the green is part of the strength of the hole.  Giving players the option of playing safely away from the hole (and the danger near the hole) is part of the charm of strategic architecture, and plenty of the worlds great holes use this feature, holes shc as the 17th at Royal Mlebourne.  

Perhaps you would advocate a couple of pots on the front left of this green to increase the variety of pin positions?  



You have either forgotten all that you have learnt about strategic golf architecture of you are being silly.