TOC- Periods of Change

[BCrosby]

Now that we know that these are the most significant changes made in a century to the Old Course, something Dawson and Hawtree were aware of from the beginning, the absence of public preview and discussion of those changes is especially shocking.

Bob  

[Mark Bourgeois]

Scott,

Two thoughts:

1. When I read of the changes I first went to the table in the back of your book to put them in context. I read that the 11th green was relaid in 1904 or around there (don't have book to hand) and that pretty much was it. From then on I described the flattening of the 11th green as the first purposeful recorded change to the contours of that green. 'Purposeful' because contours change due to erosion, top dressing, sand being propelled out of bunkers by golfers etc etc.

There is a huge difference between, on the one hand, relaying / returfing a green -- which probably did involve some sort of change to the contours -- performing maintenance, and things occurring that we might call 'ordinary evolution', versus, on the other hand, taking shovels to the green and scooping out ground for a specific, well-defined purpose.

And maybe Old Tom did change the contours. But there's no defined record of what he might have done—more importantly, there is a huge difference between Old Tom Morris operating in situ (with no 'golf world' or body of architecture knowledge extant -- all of that off in the future, waiting to grow and to evolve, in no small part because of OTM's actions), pouring 'saund' on that green and digging the first golf cup—versus cutting it open 100+ years later. OTM: the creator, in the act of creating something whose ultimate value and meaning was in the future and at a time when, to paraphrase Mackenzie writing in 'Golf Architecture', nobody knew nothing from nothing.

It's one thing for Paleolithic Man to work and rework his wall in the Lascaux caves; it's another thing entirely for one of us to rework it today.

And it wasn't a nonfunctioning relic; that green 'worked.' When I read your account of their finding a 'dark layer' upon digging out the green's contour, my heart sank. Didn't yours, too, even just a little? It felt like someone was tearing apart a very old yet functioning watch to discover its inner workings, its second hand's smooth sweep stilled forever.

And let's remember: the justification for flattening a portion of the 11th green wasn't soil compaction, foot traffic, or agronomical failure. No, it was the desire to serve the needs of less than 0.1% of the golfing population—and the powers that be chose to do that in the most-invasive way, even though other options (including 'do nothing') were available.


2. Peter Dawson continues to define opposition in terms favorable to his position. He avails himself of every opportunity to characterize those opposed to some of his changes as 'hysterics' and as believers that TOC has never changed.

This strawman argument is very favorable to him. It is in his interest to continually advance the 'change is change' argument, the notion that we judge change by the pound not by the quality. This campaign is being carried out to win over ordinary club members after the fact of his actions. For example, a 1946 aerial is being displayed in clubhouses to show that 'change is change.' Bunkers are rough-edged, conditioning is different, green outlines vary from today, a bunker here and there do not exist or have come into existence, etc. Additionally, mention is made of this or that bunker being added / removed in 1890, etc.

Placing the changes in historical context undercuts Dawson's arguments and so, sadly, I expect we will continue to see him characterize the opposition as being in thrall, in some sort of 'hysteria' fighting his efforts to rebuild the Road Hole bunker (who cares). Additionally, I do not expect to see him place the changes in a robust historical frame. Rather, he will continue to use the language of condescension and patronization; to wit:
* we know the history better than anyone else;
* the current changes are to restore the course to its historic function;
* the current changes are to bring the course back to the way it was intended to play.

Mark

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi Mark,

I was with you for a while there, but when you said the changes to the 11th green are for the 0.1%, I think your wrong. The change is to get back a pin position on the left side of the green that we all can play. I been living here for 15 years and can barely remember the hole being cut on the left side. I am looking forward to playing it.

I can't speak for Peter Dawson, and wont comment on your perspectives of his PR. I do think that it is interesting to note the great lack of comment coming from the residents of St Andrews. My impression is that most residents are supportive of the changes. Does that count for anything? They are the owners of the course....

We don't know each other personally, but you write well, and with conviction. Would you share a little more about your yourself and your connect to TOC?

Scott

[BCrosby]

"it is interesting to note the great lack of comment coming from the residents of St Andrews. My impression is that most residents are supportive of the changes. Does that count for anything? They are the owners of the course...."

Scott -

I don't understand your point. What is it meant to signify? Were the good burghers of St Andrews unhappy with with the course before the changes of last week? Did their happiness with the course last month mean that the Dawson changes this month are a mistake? More broadly, are changes to TOC a matter to be voted on up or down? 

That the locals haven't manned the barricades or that, gosh, there were changes to TOC in the past so Dawson should carry on, are not very impressive arguments. They sound as defensive as they are.

The issue is the rationale for and the content of the current changes. Have they carried the high presumption against changing the most historic, most important course in golf? Are they so necessary, so unavoidable that they overcome what we should all feel are deep reservations about changing the course, reservations that are rooted in the course's unique standing in the game.

In all the threads here and in articles I have read elsewhere explaining the changes, I have seen nothing to suggest that that burden has been carried. OTOH, I have heard that the current course manager came up with what he thought were cool ideas to improve the course. I have my own. You'll have yours too. Heck, everyone reading this will have his own good ideas. Terrifying is that the the next manager of the course after Dawson will have his good ideas too and he, like Dawson, will have the ability to implement them.

Good ideas, however, are not nor should they ever be the point. Good ideas are a dime a dozen. Courses like The Old Course, however, are not a dime a dozen. It is the only home of golf we have. It's managers over the last century (until last month, that is) saw their duty to the course's unique status as something more important than their own notions about how to make it 'better'. It is that deep, century old humility that has been lost. And ultimately it is that loss of humility that is so shocking.

Bob   

 

   

 

[Tony_Muldoon]

"it is interesting to note the great lack of comment coming from the residents of St Andrews. My impression is that most residents are supportive of the changes. Does that count for anything? They are the owners of the course...."

Scott -

I don't understand your point. What is it meant to signify? Were the good burghers of St Andrews unhappy with with the course before the changes of last week? Did their happiness with the course last month mean that the Dawson changes this month are a mistake? More broadly, are changes to TOC a matter to be voted on up or down? 

That the locals haven't manned the barricades or that, gosh, there were changes to TOC in the past so Dawson should carry on, are not very impressive arguments. They sound as defensive as they are.

The issue is the rationale for and the content of the current changes. Have they carried the high presumption against changing the most historic, most important course in golf? Are they so necessary, so unavoidable that they overcome what we should all feel are deep reservations about changing the course, reservations that are rooted in the course's unique standing in the game.

In all the threads here and in articles I have read elsewhere explaining the changes, I have seen nothing to suggest that that burden has been carried. OTOH, I have heard that the current course manager came up with what he thought were cool ideas to improve the course. I have my own. You'll have yours too. Heck, everyone reading this will have his own good ideas. Terrifying is that the the next manager of the course after Dawson will have his good ideas too and he, like Dawson, will have the ability to implement them.

Good ideas, however, are not nor should they ever be the point. Good ideas are a dime a dozen. Courses like The Old Course, however, are not a dime a dozen. It is the only home of golf we have. It's managers over the last century (until last month, that is) saw their duty to the course's unique status as something more important than their own notions about how to make it 'better'. It is that deep, century old humility that has been lost. And ultimately it is that loss of humility that is so shocking.

Bob   

 

   

 

+1

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'd like to add another point for consideration regarding change. It has been brought up but never directly.

Much of the argument on this thread has been about how much change there has been, what it was etc... etc... We know that some of the greens were "built"... 17 & 18 definitely and a few others flattened in areas to create table-tops.... But that DOES NOT MATTER....

It was ALL done prior to the birth of golf course architecture as we know it... Whether the green sites ended up as excellent through natural succession, design or coincidence DOES NOT MATTER.

What those greens have done since is form the blueprint for all good GCA and therefore all golf courses around the world. The subtle bowls and concave shapes that you find at The Old Course are what MacKenzie imitated... In turn they are exactly what Doak imitates... Those shapes are the ones that are important to golf, REGARDLESS of how they arrived on the scene.

(Please excuse the capitals - I'm not shouting at the screen... Really... Also note this puts to one side the method of how that change was decided upon and communicated... Plenty more threads for that)

[Adam Lawrence]

Hi Mark,

I can't speak for Peter Dawson, and wont comment on your perspectives of his PR. I do think that it is interesting to note the great lack of comment coming from the residents of St Andrews. My impression is that most residents are supportive of the changes. Does that count for anything? They are the owners of the course....

Scott

Anecdotes are not evidence, of course, but when I was there last week, I was taking photographs of the seventeenth green, and a guy, I guess in his sixties, came walking off the course - he was part of the regular Thursday morning crowd of local golfers, and had decided that the conditions were too foul even for a Scot. He saw me taking photos, asked if I was a journalist, and if I'd been all the way along the course to see the works, then launched into a pretty furious tirade against the Trust and the R&A for general thoughtlessness and lack of consultation.

A poll that would be interesting to see would be one of the regular St Andrews-based golf fraternity. I have no idea how it would pan out, but we should be aware that the impression that the locals are in favour is really only anecdotal too.

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi

When the changes were announced, two camps emerged.

1) The preservationists
2) The acceptors

It seems the, 'you can't touch TOC at any cost' group has reduced in size and most people are accepting that some change is possible, but the group is split into various sub-groups depending on what burden of proof is required before a change can be made. That seems to be a healthy situation. Outwardly, it appears Tom D and his group need a higher level of justification for any changes than the R&A and Links Trust (of maybe they just its the same level, but TD & Co haven't been fully briefed??). Some others need no reason to take a dozer to the old links (they just don't see any of its virtues...)

Scott

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi Adam,

Yes, I am sure there a few locals unhappy, but the local golf Clubs were approached prior to the changes being announced. It seems excessive and impractical to have some type of referendum on this issue. The Clubs should be able to represent their members. Certainly my club – the St Andrews Golf Club – can represent me.

Scott

[Rich Goodale]

What those greens have done since is form the blueprint for all good GCA and therefore all golf courses around the world.

I promise not to use the "H" word, Ally, but do you really want to stand behind that statement?  I very much doubt, for example that the Redan green at North Berwick came off of any TOC blueprint.  Nor the Alps at Prestwick.  Nor the Short at NGLA  Nor the 16th green at Pasatiempo, etc. etc.  I also doubt that all of Donald Ross' work was directly influenced by TOC.  Surely growing up playing OTM and Sutherland's work at Dornoch had some effect on the wee laddie?  Or is it that you honestly think that "all" of MacDonald and Mackenzie and Ross' work is not "good GCA?"  Do not golf course architects such as yourself have both individuality and free will, or do you just work off somebody else's "blueprint"?  I think not.

[Ally Mcintosh]

What those greens have done since is form the blueprint for all good GCA and therefore all golf courses around the world.

I promise not to use the "H" word, Ally, but do you really want to stand behind that statement?  I very much doubt, for example that the Redan green at North Berwick came off of any TOC blueprint.  Nor the Alps at Prestwick.  Nor the Short at NGLA  Nor the 16th green at Pasatiempo, etc. etc.  I also doubt that all of Donald Ross' work was directly influenced by TOC.  Surely growing up playing OTM and Sutherland's work at Dornoch had some effect on the wee laddie?  Or is it that you honestly think that "all" of MacDonald and Mackenzie and Ross' work is not "good GCA?"  Do not golf course architects such as yourself have both individuality and free will, or do you just work off somebody else's "blueprint"?  I think not.

Rich,

It may be a little sensationalist but of course I will stand behind that statement.

Taking the easiest example, all of MacDonald's courses were influenced by The Old Course because he said so... (not every hole - you know I'm not saying that so you don't need to imply that I am)...

Tell me this though Rich - I'm absolutely positive that Ross was influenced by Dornoch, or as you put it OTM's work at Dornoch... Where do you think OTM was influenced by when he did his work at Dornoch?... or when he did his work at Prestwick for that matter...

What courses were created by a creator who had never seen The Old Course or work influenced by The Old Course?... Tell me that and I will retract my statement...

[Mark Bourgeois]

Scott

Thank you for the compliment.

Regarding connections to TOC etc I am someone of little consequence -- caveat below -- just an ordinary crappy golfer who was and perhaps still is walking down the long road of unraveling the course's mysteries. I am disappointed two holes just got less mysterious and have a sense of even greater dread about the future. Less mystery seems on the agenda.

I am even more disappointed with the way these decisions have been made.

It would have been an interesting discussion regarding the 11th: why not just slow the green speeds enough for a pin over there -- not every day, just once in a great while -- assuming that doesn't already occur: some pins are worthy of only a 'once in a blue moon' occurrence.

Instead we've been presented, as fait accompli, a shelf.

Now here is where I must take exception: your comments regarding Peter Dawson. It is not a question of PR but of law! He is acting as the front man for these changes because -- we can't be sure -- he appears to be the driving force behind the changes. That's not how Parliament established the Links Trust to operate.

And please, please, do not raise one of his straw men he uses to mis-characterize and de-legitimize those opposed to the changes, namely that we are calling for a worldwide 'referendum' or 'phone-in consultation.' Somewhere in this great world I'm sure someone has said that but the loudest most coherent voice has been simply for a public comment period, along the lines of the Jubilee Course in 2009, and ideally before the trustees commit to the change.



Regarding St Andrews residents

I used to think St Andrews residents owned the courses and the Trust ran them solely for their benefit but subsequently I was told and I read:

1. The people of Fife own the courses, not the people of St Andrews. (The 1974 Act originally specified the residents of the town of St Andrews, yes.) This change occurred with the various changes in polity over the past 35 or so years.

2. The charter of the Links Trust -- the purposes for which the links are to be held in trust -- commands the trustees to manage the links for the residents of Fife 'and others resorting thereto'.

In other words, the trustees are required by law to manage the links for us nonresidents, too. We are named in the 1974 Act. We have standing, too.

Best

Mark

[Rich Goodale]

What those greens have done since is form the blueprint for all good GCA and therefore all golf courses around the world.

I promise not to use the "H" word, Ally, but do you really want to stand behind that statement?  I very much doubt, for example that the Redan green at North Berwick came off of any TOC blueprint.  Nor the Alps at Prestwick.  Nor the Short at NGLA  Nor the 16th green at Pasatiempo, etc. etc.  I also doubt that all of Donald Ross' work was directly influenced by TOC.  Surely growing up playing OTM and Sutherland's work at Dornoch had some effect on the wee laddie?  Or is it that you honestly think that "all" of MacDonald and Mackenzie and Ross' work is not "good GCA?"  Do not golf course architects such as yourself have both individuality and free will, or do you just work off somebody else's "blueprint"?  I think not.

Rich,

It may be a little sensationalist but of course I will stand behind that statement.

Taking the easiest example, all of MacDonald's courses were influenced by The Old Course because he said so... (not every hole - you know I'm not saying that so you don't need to imply that I am)...

Tell me this though Rich - I'm absolutely positive that Ross was influenced by Dornoch, or as you put it OTM's work at Dornoch... Where do you think OTM was influenced by when he did his work at Dornoch?... or when he did his work at Prestwick for that matter...

What courses were created by a creator who had never seen The Old Course or work influenced by The Old Course?... Tell me that and I will retract my statement...

The answer to your last question, Ally, is breathtakingly simple:

The Old Course was created by a series of creators (name and time of many of these creations disappearing with the passage of time) who had never seen nor been influenced by the Old Course, for the obvious reason that there was no "Old Course" in their times, even when they were redesigning it!  People like Playfair, Robertson, Morris, Honeyman, Low, Dawson, etc. just took what was left in front of them and improved it, on behalf of other golfers, to the best of their abilities.  Some good changes, some bad ones.  So it has always been and always will be.  Amen.

And vis a Macdonald, Ross, OTM etc. "influenced by" is VERY different from working to "a blueprint."  In the case of Macdonald, I would take what he says with a very large grain of salt, as he was always ambiguous regarding whether god had created Macdonald, or vice versa....

[Ally Mcintosh]

What those greens have done since is form the blueprint for all good GCA and therefore all golf courses around the world.

I promise not to use the "H" word, Ally, but do you really want to stand behind that statement?  I very much doubt, for example that the Redan green at North Berwick came off of any TOC blueprint.  Nor the Alps at Prestwick.  Nor the Short at NGLA  Nor the 16th green at Pasatiempo, etc. etc.  I also doubt that all of Donald Ross' work was directly influenced by TOC.  Surely growing up playing OTM and Sutherland's work at Dornoch had some effect on the wee laddie?  Or is it that you honestly think that "all" of MacDonald and Mackenzie and Ross' work is not "good GCA?"  Do not golf course architects such as yourself have both individuality and free will, or do you just work off somebody else's "blueprint"?  I think not.

Rich,

It may be a little sensationalist but of course I will stand behind that statement.

Taking the easiest example, all of MacDonald's courses were influenced by The Old Course because he said so... (not every hole - you know I'm not saying that so you don't need to imply that I am)...

Tell me this though Rich - I'm absolutely positive that Ross was influenced by Dornoch, or as you put it OTM's work at Dornoch... Where do you think OTM was influenced by when he did his work at Dornoch?... or when he did his work at Prestwick for that matter...

What courses were created by a creator who had never seen The Old Course or work influenced by The Old Course?... Tell me that and I will retract my statement...

The answer to your last question, Ally, is breathtakingly simple:

The Old Course was created by a series of creators (name and time of many of these creations disappearing with the passage of time) who had never seen nor been influenced by the Old Course, for the obvious reason that there was no "Old Course" in their times, even when they were redesigning it!  People like Playfair, Robertson, Morris, Honeyman, Low, Dawson, etc. just took what was left in front of them and improved it, on behalf of other golfers, to the best of their abilities.  Some good changes, some bad ones.  So it has always been and always will be.  Amen.

And vis a Macdonald, Ross, OTM etc. "influenced by" is VERY different from working to "a blueprint."  In the case of Macdonald, I would take what he says with a very large grain of salt, as he was always ambiguous regarding whether god had created Macdonald, or vice versa....

Remove blueprint from my statement and replace.

As for the rest, see my initial post. All those you mentioned were before what we recognise as golf course architecture (with exception of Low who didn't change the greens and Dawson who the whole argument is with). Therefore it doesn't matter what they did. It's how designers have been influenced and used the work since. Because ALL the great courses of the world have become what they are SINCE those greens were created.

You can debate and philosophise the minutiae all you wish. The Old Course remains a big influence on me and countless architects and designers. Even those that don't know it are influenced by it. That is what I care about.

[Rich Goodale]

Ally

I fully agree with you that anybody interested in gca is and will always be influenced by the Old Course, but I also fully believe that we all are and always will be influenced by all the golf courses we ever see and even by things we have seen that are not golf courses (e.g. sand dunes, steeplechase courses, streams and rivers, grasslands, even miniature golf courses and putting greens.  All of us are more less influenced by any of these experiences, and which of them are more or less influential to us is a personal opinion/decision and not a point of fact.  I doubt if you will be able to shake me from this aspect of my position.

Cheers

Rich

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally

I fully agree with you that anybody interested in gca is and will always be influenced by the Old Course, but I also fully believe that we all are and always will be influenced by all the golf courses we ever see and even by things we have seen that are not golf courses (e.g. sand dunes, steeplechase courses, streams and rivers, grasslands, even miniature golf courses and putting greens.  All of us are more less influenced by any of these experiences, and which of them are more or less influential to us is a personal opinion/decision and not a point of fact.  I doubt if you will be able to shake me from this aspect of my position.

Cheers

Rich

I'll accept that, Rich.

But I'll also continue to believe that The Old Course has been more influential in the creation of the rest of the 40 odd thousand golf courses throughout the world than any other golf course... By a considerable distance.... Being that it is effectively the Eve of golf courses, I think that everyone owes it a debt, directly, indirectly, conscious or not.

And whilst I cannot prove that to you, I'd be interested to hear a counter-argument.

[Jon Wiggett]

The shift in how TOC is used recently is disturbing to me. TOC is a public course yet recent changes (past couple of decades) have seen higher handicappers excluded from playing, the less well of priced out of playing and now substantial changes due to professional tournaments which is a minute part of the number of rounds played over TOC. Could it be the changes are more to do with perceived prestige than anything else?

Jon

[BCrosby]

"I fully agree with you that anybody interested in gca is and will always be influenced by the Old Course, but I also fully believe that we all are and always will be influenced by all the golf courses we ever see and even by things we have seen that are not golf courses (e.g. sand dunes, steeplechase courses, streams and rivers, grasslands, even miniature golf courses and putting greens.  All of us are more less influenced by any of these experiences, and which of them are more or less influential to us is a personal opinion/decision and not a point of fact.  I doubt if you will be able to shake me from this aspect of my position."

Rich -

This reminds me of the old polemical trick of shifting the level of abstraction so that what matters to your opponent is drained of significance. Not working here, bubba.

If everything in the universe influences me more or less equally, then what's the big deal about changing TOC? Is that your gist?

If it is, you are being disingenuos. You know and I know that TOC has been deeply and uniquely influential in the history of golf architecture. You know better than to suggest that it is just something else - like a steeplechase track - that has shaped people's ideas.

And, more to the point, it is not just a matter of personal opinion. Whatever you or I think about TOC is far less important than the detailed historical accounts going back at least 100 years of the special influence of TOC has had on the world's best architects and on the discipline of golf architecture more generally.

Losing that reference point (however imperfect) will be a devastating loss to the discipline and to the game. The notion that such a loss is unimportant leaves me speechless.

Bob  

[BCrosby]

Scott -

While I appreciate the botany of your opponents' positions, I would also appreciate a response to some of their main points.

Namely, what is the standard to be used for making changes to TOC? The next good idea of the current course managers? Or maybe we could have write-in contests where the public suggests really good ideas? People here at GCA are certainly not shy about serving up their ideas.

Or should there be some other standard? Maybe one that gives real weight to the unique historical standing of TOC? A standard that creates a presumption that changes made should be made only to the extent necessary to retain the historical integrity of the course? And that proposed changes be publically vetted against that standard before the back-hoes arrive? This isn't rocket science.

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

Ally

I fully agree with you that anybody interested in gca is and will always be influenced by the Old Course, but I also fully believe that we all are and always will be influenced by all the golf courses we ever see and even by things we have seen that are not golf courses (e.g. sand dunes, steeplechase courses, streams and rivers, grasslands, even miniature golf courses and putting greens.  All of us are more less influenced by any of these experiences, and which of them are more or less influential to us is a personal opinion/decision and not a point of fact.  I doubt if you will be able to shake me from this aspect of my position.

Cheers

Rich

I'll accept that, Rich.

But I'll also continue to believe that The Old Course has been more influential in the creation of the rest of the 40 odd thousand golf courses throughout the world than any other golf course... By a considerable distance.... Being that it is effectively the Eve of golf courses, I think that everyone owes it a debt, directly, indirectly, conscious or not.

And whilst I cannot prove that to you, I'd be interested to hear a counter-argument.

Here's the beginning of a counter argument:

1.  Golf was probably "invented" in the Low Countries.  Eve probably spoke Dutch.
2.  Even in Scotland, St. Andrews was not the home of golf.  The history is murky, but Leith Links seems to me to be the caledonian Garden of Eden.  The rules of golf were invented in Leith, and plagiarised by the fine gentlemen of (what became) the R&A.
3.  The first reference in golf in Scotland was 1457.  There are several references subsequent to that date, all preceding the first reference which mentions St. Andrews (1552).
4.  The first golf club was not the R&A (or any of its predecessors or neighbours in St. Andrews) but Royal Burgess (1735), whose members played over Leith Links and later Brunstfiled before moving to Barnton.  (PS--Bruntsfield Links still exists as a golf course (adjacent to the Meadows in Edinbrugh--yet another place to find inspiration).
5.  Old Tom Morris left St. Andrews for Prestwick in 1851, when the "Old" Course was the only course, and consisted of 9 holes played twice (on the way out and the way in) lying on 60% of the current footprint of the Old Course (see Balfour).  The railroad to St. Andrews had not yet been built and the town was a backwater.
6.  OTM built Prestwick starting in 1851 and finishing with a 12-hole proper course (i.e. no shared greens)
7.  In 1860 the first British Open was held.  At Prestwick, as were all Opens held through 1872.  St. Anderws did not get its first Open until 1873.
8.  Young Tom Morris moved with his family from St. Andrews to Prestwick in his infancy, and learned his game there, from his father.  He was already a highly accomplished golfer when he moved to St. Andrews in 1865.
9.  St. Andrews only became the "Home of Golf " until 1897 when the R&A took over the Rules function from a consortium of clubs and reached it's current position only decades later, after several attempted coups against its authority, including a formidable one soon after the turn of hre last century, from Hutchinson and other Sassenachs who wanted to move the "Home of Golf" to England.

These (mostly) facts seem to imply to me that the Old Course as an icon or an "Eve" or even "god's" work only evolved gradually, and (IMHO) mostly in the past 30 years.  I do not completely discount whatever Macdonald or Mackenzie of Behr or whoever said, but I try to read and contemplate their ideas in the context of the real world, and what I conclude in that the golf architects and writers of the early 20th century had (mostly) good intentions but poor analytical capabilities.  They looked at the world of golf through glasses which were not only rose-colored but also poorly constructed--being built to conform to a pre-determined vision rather than a vision built upon knowledge and imagination.

Rich

[Scott Macpherson]

When reading a lot of the posts (not all) I become quite intrigued by the language used. Superlatives and hyperbole are rolled out with too much ease and too little thought. A mild example was from Mark Bourgeois who said the 11th green had been 'flattened', when I would say the slope has been reduced. The green is certainly not flat. (sorry to pick on you Mark, but it was still on my mind). More commonly it is the absolute statements, ie. 'The golf course has never been changed' that create the problems. This can lead to better debates, but less enlightening ones.

This statement that the changes are 'the most significant in a century' is interesting because both sides are using it. From one perspective it could mean, 'nothing has been updated on TOC in the last 100 years and so it is about time we make the required changes', and the other side saying that 'nothing significant has happened to a golf course in the last 100 years so therefore TOC must be great and preserved as it is forever'.

Personally I have never seen TOC as a museum piece.( Jon, this links (excuse the pun) with your post.) And as a result I am bewildered at the number of weeks and months mats are in-play on TOC. What is it now 1st Nov- end of March? Something like that. 5 months of mats. Why so long? I know the answer, but not sure buy it. The people mostly playing in the winter are the locals and few divots are taken relative to the summer. I would like to see mats abandoned from say the end of Feb. Or at least the decision be weather determined rather than using a blunt instrument such as a predetermined date. When the grass is starting to grow, get rid of the mats. if the climate is warming, soon we won't need mats at all. Hallelujah!

Maybe I am looking at the small picture, but TOC is there to be played and not pampered.

Scott

[Rich Goodale]

"I fully agree with you that anybody interested in gca is and will always be influenced by the Old Course, but I also fully believe that we all are and always will be influenced by all the golf courses we ever see and even by things we have seen that are not golf courses (e.g. sand dunes, steeplechase courses, streams and rivers, grasslands, even miniature golf courses and putting greens.  All of us are more less influenced by any of these experiences, and which of them are more or less influential to us is a personal opinion/decision and not a point of fact.  I doubt if you will be able to shake me from this aspect of my position."

Rich -

This reminds me of the old polemical trick of shifting the level of abstraction so that what matters to your opponent is drained of significance. Not working here, bubba.

If everything in the universe influences me more or less equally, then what's the big deal about changing TOC? Is that your gist?

If it is, you are being disingenuos. You know and I know that TOC has been deeply and uniquely influential in the history of golf architecture. You know better than to suggest that it is just something else - like a steeplechase track - that has shaped people's ideas.

And, more to the point, it is not just a matter of personal opinion. Whatever you or I think about TOC is far less important than the detailed historical accounts going back at least 100 years of the special influence of TOC has had on the world's best architects and on the discipline of golf architecture more generally.

Losing that reference point (however imperfect) will be a devastating loss to the discipline and to the game. The notion that such a loss is unimportant leaves me speechless.

Bob  

Nice try, Counsellor, but I won't even try to nibble.  All I would like to say is that believing that there may be valid points of views on an issue is very different from believing that each of these differences is of equal value in analysing the issue at hand.  Wise men sort and sift the evidence, but in a platonic rather than adversarial sense.  We are getting far too adversarial in these threads.

Rich

PS--thanks for making me an honorary Bubba, as we Yankees are genetically incapable of being one.  Be well.

j-p p

[Ally Mcintosh]

Rich - all 9 of your points have no bearing whatsoever on my argument. That TOC has influenced every golf course architect and every great course since.... EVERY great course has been made that way since TOC... No basis for a counter-argument - you don't have to try and teach me the history of golf....

[BCrosby]

I am unaware of any conflict between "playing" TOC and "pampering" TOC.

Indeed, that more or less describes how TOC has been managed over the last 100 years. Until this month, that is.

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

Rich - all 9 of your points have no bearing whatsoever on my argument. That TOC has influenced every golf course architect and every great course since.... EVERY great course has been made that way since TOC... No basis for a counter-argument - you don't have to try and teach me the history of golf....

Aly

When you are ready to actually make an argument, rather than just typing a series of statements, please let me know.

Rich