Are the changes to the Old Course an unnecessary expense

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Who finances the changes, the Links Trust or the R&A?

If it’s the R&A shouldn’t these funds be put into more needful causes.

The changes to the Old Course are hardly going to make much difference to the income of the Open, whereas a struggling 9-Hole golf course, which needs some important drainage issues solved to help keep their course operating, would welcome a little support.

[Neil_Crafter]

John, stop trying to be logical! 

[Sean_A]

John

The truth of the matter is the expense of changes @ TOC is the single biggest reason not to carry it out.  That, however, is a hard sell to a bunch of guys not spending their own money.

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

John any club is welcome to apply to the R&A for an interest free loan to assist with such work.

[Ally Mcintosh]

There really is very little expense with these changes... Or put it this way, there really should be very little expense with these changes... one architect, one shaper, a few greenstaff mucking in.... only a few weeks work... maybe a machine or two hired if they are not already covered.... very little in way of materials....

Given the vast sums brought in by the course, the cost should be small-fry...

[Jud_T]

John

The truth of the matter is the expense of changes @ TOC is the single biggest reason not to carry it out.  That, however, is a hard sell to a bunch of guys not spending their own money.

Ciao

Sean,

If you think this is the biggest reason than either 1) you simply don't get the non-interventionist thing at TOC at all and/or 2) you're even cheaper than I thought...

[Adam Clayman]

What? Hawtree's crew doesn't have to eat?

[John Kavanaugh]

This is a ton of free advertising.  Suddenly every golfer in the world knows TOC is sacred ground.  For what, a measly couple of hundred thousand?

[Tim_Weiman]

John,

I have argued many times on this site that modifying golf courses to accommodate a small elite group of golfers (pros) makes no economic sense.

But, for some reason many people have been seduced into thinking that an ever longer golf ball and ever longer (or harder) golf courses is the natural evolution.

Interestingly, a poster on another thread recently suggested the R&A (and presumably the USGA) didn't want to stand in the way of "ball development", as if creating a golf ball that required spending money to modify golf courses just to remain "relevant" for championships was a good thing. It is a silly suggestion, but even on this site where presumably one finds more serious students of the game and course architecture, this suggestion is made.

The challenge of playing golf is the balance between player skill, the equipment and the playing field. Fueling the golf technology arms race - longer balls and longer courses - adds unnecessary expense; it doesn't achieve the necessary balance in the most economic manner.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tim,

Do you know any leisure time activity of the baby boomer generation that has survived without constant technological advances?  It's what we like.  If golf equipment had remained stagnant from the end of the Nixon administration the game would be dead.  Golf just isn't that important to play without the perception of enjoyment.  Part of that perception is achieved by buying shiny new bouncy things that we believe will solve that puzzle.  Seeing that it works for the pros is a vital part of that equation.

Think about how crazy it must be for a casual fisherman to buy a new expensive rod because some pro on TV landed the big one.  Buying the gear and dreaming about success is fun.  Dreaming is a good thing, hope is a good thing and the ultimate failure we experience is a good thing.  That's why we play, just to get a tinge of emotion in our gut like we had when we were young and stupid.  Remember thinking how when you get that new car the girls are gonna swoon?  The promise of a new driver or longer ball is the same feeling.  At $400 it's a steal.

[Tim_Weiman]

John K:

I will add you to the list of otherwise intelligent folk who have been brainwashed into thinking an ever longer ball is a "technological advance".

Give me blades, persimmon and balata and put me on the first tee at Prestwick. That is as much fun as you or I will ever have on a golf course.

[Mark Chaplin]

Tim - others may suggest the weapons of your choice are too modern for Prestwick. Shouldn't you be using Slazenger irons, Harry Busson woods and 1.62" Dunlop 65s? Or should you have hickories, nailed shoes and jacket and tie?

When is the "correct" time to stop the clock? Should we travel to the course in a horse and carriage?

[Ivan Morris]

Probably!

[Andy Stamm]

In addition to the direct costs, there's the lost revenue from having the course closed.

And more importantly than that, the course being closed means that it can't be used to fulfill it's ultimate purpose which is to provide recreation to St Andreans, Scots, and others.

Given the ownership/management of the course and its purpose, I think closing it should require strong justification whether it be for modifications, a corporate outing, or tournament golf.

So in addition to the direct and indirect financial costs, there's a definite cost of lost usage in closing it. Whether that's unnecessary is, of course, a different matter...

[Adam Lawrence]

The course is not closed

[Sean_A]

John

The truth of the matter is the expense of changes @ TOC is the single biggest reason not to carry it out.  That, however, is a hard sell to a bunch of guys not spending their own money.

Ciao

Sean,

If you think this is the biggest reason than either 1) you simply don't get the non-interventionist thing at TOC at all and/or 2) you're even cheaper than I thought...

I understand about non-intervention, its my go to argument for just about everything in golf.  Be that as it may, I prefer to think of myself as frugal.  I know Ally says the changes don't add up to much, but I am sure its enough to bring a smile to his face if the R&A decided to donate it toward his business rather than changes on TOC.   

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

Andy - the course is closed for several Mondays during the winter for maintainance. The work is also in the scheme of golf course renovation "minor" so shouldn't take too long.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark Chaplin:

I am glad you asked "when is the right time to stop the clock?".

So often I have seen people cite changes over the decades as justification for why the golf technology arms race needs to continue. The logic of why we need longer balls or longer courses is never really explained. People just insist the history of changes adding length means we must continue doing this.

For me it is pointless. It accomplishes nothing but adding unnecessary expense to the game.

I was fortunate enough to grew up in Westchester County, in Pelham right outside New York City. My family were members at Pelham Country Club, a small somewhat quirky course where I learned the game. The best part of PCC back in the 1960s were all the grumpy old men who made pretty clear they didn't believe kids belonged on a golf course. Oh, there were plenty of time we could sneak out, but often it meant either time on the practice putting green or, more importantly, just sitting out somewhere on the golf course watching members play.

One of my favorite places to hang out was the 4th tee, a perfect place to watch golfers struggle to clear the hazards that came into play off the tee.

Well, I moved away and didn't see the course for about 35 years. I finally decided to go trespass one day and sat down at my old spot. Sure enough, the club had built a new tee way up the hill so, in the words of the superintendent, "there would be a challenge on the tee shot".

It fails me how anyone can call this progress. It is just the golf technology arms race. Pointless. Expensive. A complete waste of money. The challenge already existed. It had been designed into the hole decades before. Technology "improvements" took it away (probably for just a minority of players). So, of course, let's spend money to improve the course, the logic goes.

Ok, Pelham Country Club isn't that important. The 1923 PGA is now almost a century behind us. But, can anyone explain and justify that crazy piece of architecture, that mountain that was built on #4 at Oakmont? What sense does that make? How is a golf ball that encourages or forces club like Oakmont to do something so crazy an improvement to the game?

So far as I can see nobody has explained that?

Stop the clock now. We don't need a new ball. If these pros are really so good, give them persimmon and balata. Nothing wrong with 250-275 yard drives.

[Mark Chaplin]

Tim you make a good case, however life is about progress. Would we prevent superintendents having better equipment to tend the course? Just having sharper and more accurate mowers allows grass to be cut shorter. Why shouldn't a 70 year old get more distance from lighter graphite shafts. Should 1000s of people who make their living from golf equipment lose their livelihood?

Would anyone watch Bolt if he was made to wear nailed boots and ran slower as a result?

Would people watch formula one if we made them drive 1950s cars and half a dozen drivers were killed or seriously injured every season?

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark,

Your post is actually very helpful because it makes clear how confused we are on this issue. You use the word "progress" without ever explaining what this means in the context of our discussion.

Again, the essence of golf is the balance between player skill, the equipment used and the playing field. The necessary balance should be achieved at the lowest cost possible. In the long run, that is best for the game.

If we are spending money to modify courses simply because we have introduced golf ball technology that requires modifying golf courses just to accommodate a very small minority of golfers, that simply isn't progress.

Imagine if a baseball manufacturer came along and said "we have built a better baseball. Now, every major league baseball player can hit it out of the ballpark into the parking lot".

Instinctively, we would all recognize it really wouldn't be progress. Do we really need bigger stadiums?

But, for some reason we go brain dead when it comes to golf. We all get seduced by people selling the golf technology arms race. We fail to see how it really isn't progress.

As to your specific questions:

1) I have been around golf courses for more than fifty years. I am not aware of any need for better maintenance equipment.

2) I am not opposed to lighter shafts for 70 year olds. Can't see how this increases costs for anyone but themselves.

3) Can't see how 1,000s would lose jobs if golf balls went 250 yards when pros hit them rather than 300 yards.

4) I am not aware we ever expected sprinters to use nailed boots? Did Jesse Owens use them?

5) Honestly, I don't see how the safety issue of formula one relates to golf ball distance at all.

[Gib_Papazian]

I am still unclear on WTF Peter Dawson and his coterie of scotch quaffing harumphers are trying to accomplish. The concept of "par" is nothing more than a nearly arbitrary number whose meaning has become increasingly irrelevant as the equipment race has screamed forward unabated.

When I saw the new 14th tee plopped like a turd in the middle of the Eden Course I nearly wept in shame for the R&A. The idea of attaching a prosthetic penis between the old girl's legs and pretending she is a stud bull is . . . . . well . . . to quote Macdonald: "The very soul of golf shrieks."

One can only imagine the indignities being visited upon Merion by the feckless lemmings at the USGA. Since they cannot seem to rein in the engineers and put the brakes on this insanity - irrespective of the fact these technologies have turned the PGA Tour into an artless slugfest while doing little for all but the top .01% of amateur golfers - they ought to just get it over with and put the tees next June over at Aronimink.

Since the USGA seems to want the winning score somewhere near 280, that is the only way Merion will not be a pitch & putt for these guys. Let them play cross country golf down Ardmore Ave; one of them will still manage to shoot par, armed with all the technology and broom-handled putters.

Here is a thought: Either accept whatever the winning score is at St. Andrews and Merion without defacing the property or just retire them from the rota like Prestwick - and admit that the touring professionals are literally playing a different game than the rest of us. I have seen three U.S. Opens at my home track of Olympic. The difference in the set-up and hole distances (with new tees) between 1987, 1998 and this year is absolutely unbelievable.

It is far beyond a few tweaks here and there as in 1987. The Lake Course underwent major surgery, including a new 8th hole (the original sacrificed at the altar of more distance) that absolutely ruined the flow of the golf course. Now we are stuck with an idiotic backtrack to play a hole that looks like it was dropped by flying saucer from any one of 100 Rees Jones layouts. A reasonably good effort if the hole was in a vacuum, but a total aesthetic and practical disaster that turns part of our course into a dreaded cartball track.

And all of this can be laid at the dandruff-covered wingtips of a bunch of magisterial monarchs who waltz in every decade or so and leave their penal graffiti all over the golf course - which PERMANENTLY accumulates since anything (including rough lines) from the USGA is considered etched on tablets from Mt. Sinai and delivered to the unwashed serfs who actually pay the bills to support the club.

The Old Course is what it is. How about we start making the equipment manufacturers conform to the game instead of the other way around? The Mona Lisa does not need tits dammit, neither did Olympic need major surgery to accommodate the whim of the USGA for one week every decade.        

[Tim_Weiman]

Gib,

I'm glad you mentioned your history observing U.S. Opens at Olympic. Using that perspective makes it easier to understand how foolish the golf technology arms race really is.

You mention Merion. Honestly, it has been a while since I have been there and I don't really know what the USGA has cooked up there. But, in Pittsburgh at Oakmont there is a great example of how out of control things have become with technology: the mountain that was built for the 4th tee. Absolute insanity. A total embarrassment. The USGA should be ashamed they actually convinced a club like Oakmont to do such a thing.

But, back to your neck of the woods. I last played Olympic about twenty years ago. There is no reason it needed any changes. Just give the pros a ball they can hit 250 yards with a driver and the club shouldn't have to spend a dime altering the golf course.

[RJ_Daley]

I think Gib has it correct, although it is a regrettable solution.  Just retire the old girl from the rota and leave the place to be enjoyed by the 99.5% of we golfers that would love to play our dream games at the consensus recognized 'home of golf'.  None of our games will need the distance tees to have the experience of a lifetime (if you are a pilgrim to the old sod), or an auld grey toon Scot that expects to play as a matter of on-going tradition.

If we are to have an technology everlasting technology race, then have a set of specifications for a tournament ball, with characteristics that it can with the most honed and powerfully skilled swings, maybe go 300 once in 50 tries by a long hitting pro.  Let the specs require the ball to be manufactured to a standard that yields about 270 for average pro (which has become the newer turning point distance in course design, up from the old 240).
Stop it there for professional tournaments and maybe elite am tournament play with that spec ball.  All the ball manufacturers can make it to spec, and still blab that their spec ball is better for whatever caccameme marketing hype they can dream up.

Let the golf equipment corps have their way with selling their improved hardware and balls to the rest of us rubes.  Hardly 90% of we hackers can hit it "that' significantly farther than a course designed for 240 turning points, or ~6200-6600 yards, anyway.  All the distance technology that currently exists isn't going to make a 15 handicapper much better than a 12 no matter what.  Yes, some young studs in the everyday am rank in the rank and file of regular club players or everyday muni or public course players will hit it 300.  But, they can't hit it so straight, and so they go from 4-5s to scratch.  They'll never make a dime (except hustling bets) in the golf game anyway. 

So, tournament ball for the actual most skilled - the pros; and let the technology race to its own marketing and ego driven devices.  But, quit lengthening courses to absurd real estate dimensions to accommodate length. 

[Gib_Papazian]

As I stated above, what is the point of going through a bunch of insane contortions? What they have done to St. Andrews (for the tournament) strikes me as the equivalent of taking a stately, dignified, grand dame in her Sunday best, ripping off her ball gown with a scalpel and applying bondo on her naked body with a dry wall knife.

This may just be my personal evolution as an observer - I covered a few U.S. Opens as a working journalist - but the fact a given golf course has hosted a major championship fails to impress me in the least. In point of fact, when traveling, I consciously avoid venues that host PGA Tour events. My sense is that only the star-struck public still buys into the idea of a certain cachet when trod by the spikes of Finchem's circus animals. We are smarter than the rubes.

It may just be that Bean Demon was onto something. Build a bunch of overly long TPC abominations with good gallery sight lines and confine your championships to those venues. The courses can be built with the infrastructure necessary to host an enormous event; once every ten years bring in the tents, plug and play. The (d)evolution of the size and scope of the U.S. Open between 1987 and last year is frightening. It is no longer a golf tournament, but an obnoxious, vulgar exercise in gluttonous greed - all while maintaining a micron-thin veneer of civility.

And while hosting the national amateur was a lovely walk in the park for members, guests and competitors, the professionals brought an avalanche of invasive, authoritarian bullshit that turned my beloved Olympic into a whorehouse. In the aftermath, it looked like Dresden after WWII. The circus packed up and was gone in a flash, but the entrails of their idiotic changes is like an oil slick that will take years to set right.

Once you get over the novelty, there is no reason to disrupt and deface your golf course for one week. St. Andrews is the undisputed home of golf and like Pine Valley, NGLA or Ballybunnion, is not diminished by refusing to allow a bunch of architectural axe-murders to turn Audrey Hepburn into Mickey Rourke. Let the courtesans stick to their own brothels.      

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

I have refrained from butting in on any of these threads as I haven't played The Old Course and I am not well enough versed in golf course architecture per se.
One thing I do have is an emotional attachment to St. Andrews;  the town, the University, the golf courses in the environs and its place in The Kingdom of Fife having hung around those parts from infancy to youth. I do not think that the economy would suffer that much just because the Open was not played there any longer. The history, tradition and the ghosts of yesteryear, golfing and otherwise, will still be a huge drawcard for all and sundry. The majority of golfers will continue to flock to the birthplace of golf provided it is unsullied.

So I agree entirely with the ideas expressed by RJD and GP. Take the course off the rota (or at the very least distribute an "Open" 250 metre ball to the professionals as they step up to the first tee in The Championship). Leave well alone and do not tamper with an icon which still gives immense pleasure to the vast majority.

I cannot express it as succinctly  or as dramatically as has been done on this thread but I certainly am really disappointed that the R&A and USGA allow the desecration of courses to continue apace and unabated to satisfy the smallest of minorities.

Cheers Colin

[Tags:]

Tags: