Personally, I hesitate making comments about/on what could be inaccurate or incomplete information. It's clear that the work is being done, and perhaps the best thing left to do is to evaluate it at the conclusion of the project. Plus, I haven’t been to St. Andrews in 11 years so making strong statements seems to be in poor form. However,
having stated those qualifications, I like many others who share an unreserved love of The Old Course feel compelled to comment.
Obviously, the Links Trust has the clear authority to make changes to The Old Courses and many changes have occurred there over the decades. So, what’s the big deal that a handful of modifications are being implemented? After all The Links Trust has been a very good steward since its creation in 1974. They have had ample opportunity to capitulate and make foolish changes based on the design vagaries that came with each passing decade. Until now, they have resisted.
As much as the actual plans themselves, what strikes me as odd is the furtive manner in which the Links Trust has moved and the manner in which they thrust this work on the rest of the world. They contend that they have carefully considered options for 7 months. I am sure they have but still why act in this manner? Why not bring the plans forward, consider varying points of view for a finite period of time (say 3 months), and then proceed in what ever manner they best see fit? I would think that a historical landmark like the Old Course that is open to the public deserves a measured approach that is open to the public. A majority of us probably agree on this point. No reason in the world exists for them to move in such a closed door manner that both incites and invites harsh criticism.
Yet, it’s their prerogative and that’s how they have elected to proceed. So be it. We are left to study the merits of their plan (and then soon the actual in the dirt work).
In general, the underlying problem seems to be that what is driving the changes (a fear that The Old Course has become too easy and therefore irrelevant) is misguided. There is little factual support for that position. One hot golfer (Louis Oosthuizen) on a windless course does not a problem make. The Links Trust is not the R&A and they don’t control the equipment. Similar to Augusta National Golf Club, they react to the equipment that the USGA and R&A permit. Their actions clearly demonstrate a fear for The Old Course.
That’s ok but two risks of the projects now become apparent: the merit of the ideas themselves and the in the dirt execution risk as we see below:
*Modify right hand side of 2nd green. One of the best greens in golf doesn’t need to be altered. Have an easy back right hole location for the Open – or don’t. One of the joys of The Old Course is in learning her secrets and that means understanding where to miss shots. There SHOULD BE easier places from which to get up and down. The Links Trust apparently disagrees. These comments also apply to the work behind the 15th green. A well managed round at The Old Course used to include missing shots in preferred locations – I am concerned that this will apply less and less at The Old Course. Courses with shots that are hard, harder, hardest are boring. If I wanted that, I could stay in North America and play courses built in the 1980s.
* New bunker on 3rd – this doesn’t cause me much heartburn because it is consistent with the theme of the Old Course with the severe trouble being down the right while acres of short grass are provided left.
* Reducing the spur at the 4th – idiotic. Grade F. Bail left off the tee and be confronted with a blind/more awkward approach shot has been a cornerstone of design excellence at St. Andrews for over 100 years. Why possibly alter that enduring characteristic?!
The greenside bunker is a less bad idea by comparison but it doesn’t accomplish anything that the mound doesn’t other than to make The Old Course become more conventional and more like other courses. Who wants that?
* Filling in the depression in the 7th fairway seems dumb on the surface but as per my opening comments, I assume there is more to this than I understand. I can’t picture the right hand side of the green but I imagine the fall off would lend itself to a couple of great hole locations. If these don’t already exist, then a recontouring might add some wicked hole locations to a hole of modest length. I am fine with that notion. However, that hole mightily impressed me during the last Open as it played the chameleon, giving the best players fits. Hence, leaving well enough alone might apply here.
*Changes to the 9th: An unloved hole whose supreme flatness makes you appreciate all the other holes. As is true for most holes in world golf, I don’t doubt that there are ways to make this hole more interesting. Maybe a bunker works. I commented half jokingly during the last Open that a bunker in the middle of the green might be of interest yet I hate seeing the Old Course head down a 1960’s path of bunker left and bunker right as being the default fix. Are we sure there isn’t a bunker pattern that might be more clever/devious? Even a nasty trough bunker (something narrow almost like a ditch) behind the green might make the big boys think twice about bombs away from the tee.
*Hole 11: During the last two Opens there, I was extremely disappointed in how the Eden played. I saw no fireworks and the hole locations looked and played similar. Somewhat shockingly, I find myself interested/supportive in their recovering greater variety to this hole (including a back hole location). However, the execution risk is of the highest order.
*Hole 17: Enlarging the bunker makes no sense as it has the great potential to make the hole play easier, which is exactly opposite of what is driving the changes. A pit with awkward stances is what provides the teeth to that bunker and as its footprint expands, you will likely lose that design feature/attribute. Recontouring the green so that more balls feed into the Road bunker has merit because watching a ball trickle along the ground toward toward death is one of the great joys of the game but again, the execution risk is of the highest magnitude imaginable at the world’s most famous green complex.
That’s my take. The next thing is go see the work in the spring.
Cheers,