[Tim_Weiman]

Bill,

Thanks for your comments on #11. Don't know it well enough to strongly argue, but I would prefer that contour not be altered, generally speaking.

[Bill Brightly]

Bill,

What would your estimate be of the green speeds at Barnbougle Dunes and Lost Farm?

I have absolutely no idea but I'm guessing they'd be slow.

Can't say I've heard much outcry about it.  No-one in a group of 6 golfers I went down there with (all non GA types) made any mention of the green speeds.

Well, considering that I was fighting the worst flu I have ever had... (everything must be hardy in Australia...) I would guess that Barnbougle Dunes was rolling at 9. Lost Farms may have been a tad slower, but the course was very new, and I remember thinking that the entire course will firm up in time.

But I'll tell you this: current green speeds must be a constant cause for restraint for working architects, because even if they make the owner swear in blood not to push the speed over 10, some greenskeeper probably will. (Which is why I was so amazed to see the par 3 Doak built to pay homage to Sitwell Park.)

[Benny Hillard]

Bill,

What would your estimate be of the green speeds at Barnbougle Dunes and Lost Farm?

I have absolutely no idea but I'm guessing they'd be slow.

Can't say I've heard much outcry about it.  No-one in a group of 6 golfers I went down there with (all non GA types) made any mention of the green speeds.

Well, considering that I was fighting the worst flu I have ever had... (everything must be hardy in Australia...) I would guess that Barnbougle Dunes was rolling at 9. Lost Farms may have been a tad slower, but the course was very new, and I remember thinking that the entire course will firm up in time.

But I'll tell you this: current green speeds must be a constant cause for restraint for working architects, because even if they make the owner swear in blood not to push the speed over 10, some greenskeeper probably will. (Which is why I was so amazed to see the par 3 Doak built to pay homage to Sitwell Park.)

Bill,
 as someone who has worked on the turf teams on a few links courses I would tend to disagree with you there. The superintendents that I have worked for have been very conscious of pushing green speeds to high.
1. round times tend to be pushed out if the greens get any faster than 9.5 -10
2. the exposed nature of golf courses render them unplayable if the winds are too high and many courses worry about the lost revenue of cancelled tee times and refunded green fees.

Ben

[Bill Brightly]

Ben,

Thanks for your post. I won't pretend to know the green speeds are at TOC and most links course, I was trying to respond to Sean's question about green speeds at a course we played almost two years ago.

I also live in the US and play mostly parkland courses (wish I could play more links golf!) but the problem is even worse here. We have so many classic old courses that were inspired by the great links courses in the UK. Many have very cool green features that were built 85-100 years ago by architects who could never imagine green speeds in excess of 10.  Yet these same clubs are populated by members who would howl at stimps of 8 or 9. And the superintendents are hampered by neither wind nor budget to achieve those speeds. So once those speeds are reached, cup locations are lost, architectural intent forgotten.

Something has to give, and the powers that be at TOC have obviously decided that it has to be the slope on the Eden green. So can the people who know and play TOC comment on what they think was lost and what might have been gained?

[Terry Lavin]

At this point, I'd be tempted to help with the dozer work. What a hyperbolic load of crap!  The shark has been jumped. Almost makes one sympathize with the decision to do the work without real discussion.  The dissenters are proving their tendency toward irrationality. Not the real architects, mind you, but the rest of the shrill amateur chorus do the merits of this argument a real disservice.

[William_G]

At this point, I'd be tempted to help with the dozer work. What a hyperbolic load of crap!  The shark has been jumped. Almost makes one sympathize with the decision to do the work without real discussion.  The dissenters are proving their tendency toward irrationality. Not the real architects, mind you, but the rest of the shrill amateur chorus do the merits of this argument a real disservice.

hahahaha, sorry to bore you Terry

but it is us "amateurs" who feel betrayed

[Terry Lavin]

Gray,

Not bored, just chagrined.

[Sean Walsh]

I just had to re-read the article twice to check I was reading the same one the Terry and Mark seem to have read.

What I read was a reasonably detailed discussion of the authors opinion of the proposed changes and the effect they will have.  There were some mild comments of reproach for the commissioned architect and in the final two paragraphs some more direct criticism of the controlling bodies.

So three questions:

Where is the hyperbole? (To assist a meaning for the word is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device to evoke strong feelings or create a strong impression.)
Where is the irrationality in his arguments?
What is your counter argument in defense of the specific changes to each hole that the author assesses?

P.S. I did find another article on this author's site that uses more forthright language and in someone's opinion may approach hyperbole.  This was not the article linked in this thread.

[Terry Lavin]

"We won't forgive and we can't forget," is what stuck in my craw. If I were to suggest a website, it would be:  www.getoveryourself.com
This sort of rhetoric is better suited for Middle East conflicts over "sacred ground" than a golf course that has been altered many times before. This is an odd hill to decide to fight an die on. But carry on if you must.

[Jud_T]

Terry,

Those of us on the "hysterical" side of the argument are equally dismayed that the attitude of the many pragmatists here is simply "well it's just another golf course going through some renovations. Let's reserve judgement till we see how it turns out"  Perhaps we are looking through rose-colored glasses, but in our minds it's virtually impossible that it's going to be an improvement and now puts the course in the category of just another Open Rota course that one may or may not want to visit instead of the mother of all must-plays.  Perhaps we've put it on too much of a pedestal, but without romance golf becomes a time consuming, expensive grind and a bit of the romance of the Old Course has died this week IMHO.

[Mac Plumart]

I just had to re-read the article twice to check I was reading the same one the Terry and Mark seem to have read.

What I read was a reasonably detailed discussion of the authors opinion of the proposed changes and the effect they will have.  There were some mild comments of reproach for the commissioned architect and in the final two paragraphs some more direct criticism of the controlling bodies.

So three questions:

Where is the hyperbole? (To assist a meaning for the word is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device to evoke strong feelings or create a strong impression.)
Where is the irrationality in his arguments?
What is your counter argument in defense of the specific changes to each hole that the author assesses?

Sean...agreed 100%.  My only guess is that there is some sort of spill over from other threads seeping into the analysis of this thread and Darius' article.

Terry...that link you posted isn't working.  Are you sure it is a .com and not a .net?  

[Paul_Turner]

Good pics in the article, helps clarify as to where the work will be.

But I think Tom Doak is correct, arguing about the the architectural pros and cons is just too subjective.  Any course can be "improved" in somebody's eyes.  Changes to The Old Course should be a different discussion.  

I don't understand the pragmatists here though.  Unless it's just fun being a perpetual wind up merchant.  There must be some course, or hole, somewhere that the pragmatists wouldn't want to see a JCB backhoe perched on top of.

[Stephen Davis]

I am seriously depressed after reading this. I just keep wishing this was a bad dream.

[Jim Colton]

I enjoyed the link; I was hoping to see something similar here - a dedicated thread where we could dissect the proposed changes, try to understand the R&A rationale and debate the implications for tournament and regular play. Darius obviously has a slant against the changes but the before pictures really help one visualize the changes.

One thing that stuck out was just how cool those natural contours are. Just pure linksland. Hard to imagine shaving down some of these features or digging a brand new bunker.

Is it true that Dr Hawtree isn't there supervising the work?

[Steve Okula]

Bill,

What would your estimate be of the green speeds at Barnbougle Dunes and Lost Farm?

I have absolutely no idea but I'm guessing they'd be slow.

Can't say I've heard much outcry about it.  No-one in a group of 6 golfers I went down there with (all non GA types) made any mention of the green speeds.

Well, considering that I was fighting the worst flu I have ever had... (everything must be hardy in Australia...) I would guess that Barnbougle Dunes was rolling at 9. Lost Farms may have been a tad slower, but the course was very new, and I remember thinking that the entire course will firm up in time.

But I'll tell you this: current green speeds must be a constant cause for restraint for working architects, because even if they make the owner swear in blood not to push the speed over 10, some greenskeeper probably will. (Which is why I was so amazed to see the par 3 Doak built to pay homage to Sitwell Park.)

Bill,
 as someone who has worked on the turf teams on a few links courses I would tend to disagree with you there. The superintendents that I have worked for have been very conscious of pushing green speeds to high.
1. round times tend to be pushed out if the greens get any faster than 9.5 -10
2. the exposed nature of golf courses render them unplayable if the winds are too high and many courses worry about the lost revenue of cancelled tee times and refunded green fees.

Ben

Ben is correct, no rational GCS is going to push green speeds any further than he has to in order to satisfy the customers, and he definitely won't for selfish pleasure.

I spoke to a gentleman yesterday who knows the greenkeeping practices at TOC as well as anybody alive today, but he agreed to talk to me only on condition of anonymity, so you can believe me or not.

Green speeds on TOC are normally around 9'-9,6". For the Open, they're not more than 10'-10',6", with 10,3" being the target. Lesser events, such as the Dunhill Cup, play on speeds not more than 9',6". On a dry, breezy, summer day they may get up to 11", but this would be by accident, not design.

One interesting quote from my protected source, "All the Old Course greens, including the eleventh, would be tournament pinnable at twelve foot speeds, provided it were a still day."

[Sean_A]

While I think Oliver misses the point of the changes once or twice, I can't see what is so bad about this piece.  Hysterical?  Not even close.

Ciao

[Mark_F]

Is Darius' wife that bad of a writer, Mark, or does she too specialize in mindless drivel?

Actually, Rich, after reading this again - "the 2nd on the Old Course is one of the best greens in golf, and it won’t be the same after this work is done. It just won’t." - I may have been unfair to Darius' wife.  Clearly a three year-old kid came up with that one.

Wow, Misogynistic Mark...way to attribute hysteria to women alone. I'm told the 21st century has docked at port, if you're interested.

Clearly homosexuals are also hysterical Stan, I just didn't want to appear both misogynistic and homophobic at the same time in a public internet cafe.

His piece seemed rather well researched to me, but I really don't know enough about TOC to confirm that.
Rather than make a vague slam, please point out a few specific points where you disagree with Darius and explain why.

Okay Bill.
 
"The question needs to be asked, do we really want Martin Hawtree building bunkers on the Old Course and will every hole eventually have bunkers on both sides of the green?"

Pure hysterical conjecture. And Darius must not have played RM West much lately - the majority of the greens there are bunkered on both sides.

"Dr. MacKenzie described the 11th at St Andrews as one of the world’s ‘ideal holes’ saying that no hole has been copied more frequently, but that none of the replicas has ‘the charm, the interest, or the thrills of the original.’"

He and the good Doctor may have a point if the 11th was the best par three in the world. But it isn't. Not even close.

And hasn't the Redan been copied more frequently?  But copying a hole has no bearing on whether it is any good.  The Eden is a simplistic hole that could be adapted almost anywhere.

Mark,

What specifically is hysterical about it?

Jud, to add to various quotes I have also used above:

"Its reduction flies in the face of 600 years of tradition"

"To add insult to injury"

"Volumes have been written on the Road Hole, and one suspects that in future year’s volumes will be written on the desecration of this golfing monument."

"There are more modifications proposed than analyzed here, and one suspects that had these changes not prompted such global outrage perhaps even more slated for the years ahead. The Royal & Ancient have clearly lost control of golf, and the fact that after adding hundreds of yards to The Old Course over the years they feel the need to further stiffen its defences proves beyond doubt that they have been asleep at the wheel where technology is concerned."

"No matter how successful the 2015 Open Championship is, we will not forget what they have done to The Old Course. And we cannot forgive."


With stuff like that, Darius could have made a million as George W. Bush's speechwriter -it's a pity he isn't in office anymore.

And if he thinks the Road Hole is the nastiest green site in the world he needs to get out more.  The 6th at County Louth makes TOC 17 look like you are hitting into the middle of the MCG.

You make a really good point. Comments like those of Mark Ferguson really don't add much to the discussion.

Ferguson disappoints not just because his comment comes across as a personal slam rather than an actual discussion of the architecture. Of course, that happens a lot here.

A few visits just didn't do that for me. Ferguson's comments don't help at all.

Don't know Mark, but thought he was a well traveled student of golf architecture. Still, writing about the subject is pretty tough as his post on this thread demonstrates.

Finally, for what it's worth I see no need to change either 11 or 17 and hate the whole idea of changing golf courses to compensate for the failure to regulate the golf ball.

Hey Weiman!! You can call me Mark you know.  

The Old Course isn't the same now as it was in the beginning.  Perhaps you would like the railway sheds restored too? Why are people so upset it is being changed? Because they don't like the architect involved.  If Doak was doing the work, all of you would all be flying to St Andrews to mop his forehead whilst he posed for photos in front of his horse and drag pan.

It isn't the failure of the regulating authorities who have caused the problem - it's everyone who bought a Pro V to help their game, thus providing the manufacturers with a profit they would vigorously defend. It's everyone who has a wedge greater than 56 degrees, who clamors for the banning of long putters whilst spending $600 every year on the latest high tech driver.

No one, not you, or Bill, or Mac and least of all Darius knows whether Hawtree's work will enhance TOC or not.

[Bill Brightly]

His piece seemed rather well researched to me, but I really don't know enough about TOC to confirm that.
Rather than make a vague slam, please point out a few specific points where you disagree with Darius and explain why.

Okay Bill.
 

"Dr. MacKenzie described the 11th at St Andrews as one of the world’s ‘ideal holes’ saying that no hole has been copied more frequently, but that none of the replicas has ‘the charm, the interest, or the thrills of the original.’"

He and the good Doctor may have a point if the 11th was the best par three in the world. But it isn't. Not even close.

And hasn't the Redan been copied more frequently?  But copying a hole has no bearing on whether it is any good.  The Eden is a simplistic hole that could be adapted almost anywhere.

[/color]

With stuff like that, Darius could have made a million as George W. Bush's speechwriter -it's a pity he isn't in office anymore.

No one, not you, or Bill, or Mac and least of all Darius knows whether Hawtree's work will enhance TOC or not.

Mark,

Thanks for the response. Now we are getting somewhere. Not only do you want to take on Darius Oliver, but also Alister Mackenzie! I've yet to play the Eden, so I can't rank it, but it is clearly one of the most famous par three's in the world. I speculate that the Redan has been copied more because it is far easier to find a potential redan greensite when routing a course. The Eden features have certainly been copied, just not well! (There is an exact replica at Saucon Valley's Grace Course, but it sits in a boring, parkland setting with almost no wind.) C.B. Macdonald built several very good Eden holes, but they are not among the best holes on his courses. I feel that the inability to copy it well only adds to the charm that Mackenzie wrote about. But you seem to feel the hole is overrated, and are willing to see if Hawtree can improve it. Maybe he can. It just seems to me that the architect who attempts this work must possess the utmost confidence, and had better back this up with an equal amount of skill. Shaving down that hill unquestionably alters the hole in a most dramatic fashion. Will the gain offset what has been lost?

I did have to chuckle about the Bush reference, was wondering how long it would take! If the work comes out poorly, we can always Blame It On Bush! Worked twice for President Obama...

[Jud_T]

 Why are people so upset it is being changed? Because they don't like the architect involved.  If Doak was doing the work, all of you would all be flying to St Andrews to mop his forehead whilst he posed for photos in front of his horse and drag pan.
 

Mark,

You, like Niall, JK and the others continue to confuse the Who with the Why.  Noone's arguing that their isn't a big Tom Doak or Bill Coore fanclub here, or even that I could be nominated as head cheerleader.  It's that neither of them would be caught dead making changes like these at the Old Course (Tom has already said as much here) and my guess is that they're as "hysterical" as Darius or any of us over what's happening there, if not more so.  If Hawtree is being slammed it's for proposing, and agreeing to be the instrument of, these changes, not because of his abilities as a GCA.  If, in fact, he turns out to be a hack that will add insult to injury.

[Niall C]

While I think Oliver misses the point of the changes once or twice, I can't see what is so bad about this piece.  Hysterical?  Not even close.

Ciao

Sean

While Oliver has made a decent fist of describing the changes, the personal attacks on Dawson and Hawtree are just pathetic. He would have you believe that they cooked up all the changes between them with consideration for purely the Open being played on it. What he doesn't acknowledge is that this was a Committee decision where one half of the Committee were represented by the body charged with the day to day management and upkeep of the course and who consulted with local golfers through the local clubs.

I think Terry calls it right, the hysteria whipped by some of the opponents to the changes does their cause no favours in my opinion. In contrast the reasoned case put forward by the likes of Bob Crosby for no change, while I don't agree with it, is more likely to gain support and be taken seriously by those that matter. The rest is just mob rule and rightly should be ignored IMO.

I have more sympathy of Tom D's case and the way he's gone about trying to make it however I think the weakness in his case is that while acknowledging that changes could be made if deemed appropriate and once having been agreed through due process, he has to put forward an alternative management/decision process and convince the powers that be that that is the way to go forward. Again thats just my opinion.

Frank Pont's "Martin Ebert" thread is I think unfortunate and smacks of a witch hunt. Hopefully Frank will come to reconsider that approach.

Yours perfectly reasonably

Niall

[Niall C]

 Why are people so upset it is being changed? Because they don't like the architect involved.  If Doak was doing the work, all of you would all be flying to St Andrews to mop his forehead whilst he posed for photos in front of his horse and drag pan.
 

Mark,

You, like Niall, JK and the others continue to confuse the Who with the Why.  Noone's arguing that their isn't a big Tom Doak or Bill Coore fanclub here, or even that I could be nominated as head cheerleader.  It's that neither of them would be caught dead making changes like these at the Old Course (Tom has already said as much here) and my guess is that they're as "hysterical" as Darius or any of us over what's happening there, if not more so.  If Hawtree is being slammed it's for proposing, and agreeing to be the instrument of, these changes, not because of his abilities as a GCA.  If, in fact, he turns out to be a hack that will add insult to injury.

Jud

What I've been suggesting is that the why is being driven by the who. You've stated that's not the case in the case of yourself and I'm happy to accept that. BTW, I think you'll find your only Assistant Head of Cheerleading after Ben Sims  .

Niall

[Paul_Turner]

I can't imagine any architect would be free from harsh criticism here after events like these.

It's OK to be angry and directing some the anger at Martin Hawtree is OK too.  The approval procedure had a rotten stink about it and the architect is complicit.

[David Harshbarger]

Darius' article is the first I've seen that brings home how the changes go to the heart of the strategic makeup of the course.  And the changes appear to denude the course of some of those strategic elements.  Why fill in depressions and shave down the spurs? It all seems capricious and arbitrary.  The rationale for many of the changes seems so lacking, that I, too, am tempted to look for other motives, and the one that seems most likely is that they are changing the course because they have power and seek the joy of exercising that power.

I've never played the course, and only recently come to appreciate where TOC fits in the history of the game.  It's a course widely regarded for both it's challenge and its subtlety, remarkable in and of itself and moreso given the dearth of macroscale landforms.  Darius' photos so well capture the micro undulations while tying many in question to the strategic charm of the course.  To think the existing features are wanting to a degree they need to be improved is hubris, plain and simple.

[Terry Lavin]

Jud,

I don't recall anybody arguing that TOC is just another course undergoing a renovation.  I would suggest a different syllogism and say that TOC is undergoing another renovation, since this has occurred there before, based upon information and belief, as we lawyers like to say.

I mean no disrespect to TOC, but the fanning of the verbal flames is well over the top.

Mac,

I assume you're joking about the site I mentioned. Because I certainly was. 

[Niall C]

David

What you call micro in a links context ie. fast and firm/ground game etc, is actually fairly significant. For instance TOC has a lot more movement than any modern links I can think of. As a newly minted aficionado of TOC you will be aware of the courses strategic nature and the numerous ways that you can play it. By making the changes they propose, are they cutting down on the amount of options or instead creating new options ? Just a thought.

Paul

I can't imagine any architect would be free from harsh criticism here after events like these.

It's OK to be angry and directing some the anger at Martin Hawtree is OK too.  The approval procedure had a rotten stink about it and the architect is complicit.

Please explain why the decision process has a rotten stink about it, other than the fact that it wasn't played out in public for the chattering classes to stick their oar in. What process would you propose instead ? With regards to your comment on Hawtree being complicit, of course he is, he's taking part in the process. You make it sound like a crime when in reality he's going about his business in a professional manner.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()