On St. Andrew's Old - Golf's Sporting Icon

[Sven Nilsen]

There's another quote from MacKenzie which I have not yet seen "regurgitated" here:

"The time will also come when even some of the championship courses will be entirely remodeled under expert supervision, and when these clubs will realise how little they have made of the natural advantages that Providence has provided for them."

Taken from the very last page of Golf Architecture, first published in 1920.

Obviously open to interpretation, but a few words stand out, including "expert supervision," "natural" and "Providence."

When paired with the words of Colt from the preface to the book, the message becomes a bit more vivid:

"No doubt many mistake were made in our early attempts, and I never visit a course I have designed without seeing where improvements could be made in the constructional work, and as long as this is so, I feel that we shall all continue to learn and to make progress, our instructor being nature herself."

[Rich Goodale]

Very interesting Sven

Perhaps not unsurprisingly, I was drawn to the words:

"...when these clubs will realise how little they have made of the natural advantages..."

as well as:

"I feel that we shall all continue to learn and to make progress."

Thanks

Rich

[Sven Nilsen]

Rich:

In the Chapter entitled Ideal Golf Holes, MacKenzie discusses the playing characteristics of certain specific holes, including the 11th, 14th, 16th and 17th holes.

His comments regarding the 11th do not really talk to the green contours themselves, but he does note that the strength of the hole lies in the varied approaches that are required in different conditions and to different pins.  Perhaps a bit of support for reclaiming those left side pins.

With respect to the 17th, I found the following to be pertinent:

"It is this road bunker, with the slopes leading a ball to it, which makes this hole of such intense interest.  Notwithstanding the abuse showered on it, this bunker has done more to sustain the popularity of St. Andrews than any other feature on the course."

This chapter has a great deal of relevance to a number of current conversations, included the recently revived discussion of the Crane Debates.  I find it interesting that in 1920 Mackenzie was discussing the concept of an "ideal" golf hole, a concept that Crane would borrow (and perhaps bastardize) for his own purposes a few years later.

[Sven Nilsen]

One final quote before moving on.  Here's his take on the architect's relationship with the play of the game:

"There are many and varied qualities required for the making of a successful golf architect.

In the first place, he must have an intimate knowledge of the theory of playing the game.  He need not be himself a good player."

[Rich Goodale]

Yes, Sven

MacKenzie and Crane had a lot more in common that some of the dichotomists on this DG might want to beleive.

Rich

[Sven Nilsen]

Yes, Sven

MacKenzie and Crane had a lot more in common that some of the dichotomists on this DG might want to beleive.

Rich

Rich:

I will have to strenuously note that I do not think their concepts of "ideal" had much in common.  Neither did their methods of analysis, as Crane looked for the quantifiable, while I think Mackenzie was happy enough having his notions of perfection arise from the heart as much as the head.  Tom Dunne touched on this recently in his review of Cabot Links, there's a component of things having to feel great for it to be so, at least in the eye of the beholder.  Don't get me wrong, there was a bit of a scientific method to Mac's analysis, but I feel like he respected the margin for error (both in the play of the game and in the results of any attempted objective analysis) a bit more than Crane.

I, personally, prefer the mystery of the game to the certainty of result, and I hope that sense of wonder never disappears.

Sven

[Kyle Harris]

Yes, Sven

MacKenzie and Crane had a lot more in common that some of the dichotomists on this DG might want to beleive.

Rich

This could be stunningly perceptive.

Tom Paul, if you're reading this could you call me?

[Paul_Turner]

Paul

As you know, I have lived in and played links golf in Scotland for several decades, and as a result have had the opportunity to see both gradual change and "engineering" on all of the courses I have played regularly during this period.  Firstly, I have observed that"gradual change" often leads to engineering, even on some of the greatest and most protective of courses.  For example, the left hand bunkers at the 6th at Royal Dornoch were re-engineered a few years ago to reduce the sand build-up on their lips, and slightly flatten the micro-contours from the bunker to the putting surface.  A similar thing was done to the front bunkers on the 10th, and this winter they are working on the left hand greenside bunker as we "spaak."  My most recent game of golf was a few weeks ago at Lundin Links, and they are rebuilding and re-contouring numerous bunkers and bunker tie-ins/surrounds.

As others have wisely said on other related threads, over time contours on links courses change through wind and rain and the feet of golfers and the gouging action of their clubs.  Sometimes the cumulative effect of these functions required some "re-engineering."  Why is that so bad?

Finally, as to the 11th, probably the most important bit of history on that hole was in 1920 when Bobby Jones tore up his card in anger and disgust after being stuck behind a back of the green pin location.  This years work on that hole that you seem to despise is only bringing back that historic pin position into general play.  What is wrong with that?  Even Ran, in his very thoughtful piece on another thread, seems to "get it."  Why can't you?

Rich

Rich

I agree the remodeling of greenside bunkers at TOC would have changed the micro contours around the greens to a small degree but this is still minimal to much of what's going on now.

Re the 11th.  Yes you'll have a back pin position but to a different green.  You can't flatten one portion of a green without it affecting adjacent portions. Sure a shot putt a long way from the flattened area might be unaffected but what about long puts and chips?

When was this back pin position last in play in The Open or Dunhill?  1990, 1995? 2000? I can't see that "general play" has ever been an issue here.   Why would general play ever need speeds above those cut for an Open from the 1990s?  And why can't that green be kept at that speed even in 2015?

I know you regard The Old Course as "second tier", but as you brought up your beloved Dornoch,  I'll ask you:  is there any hole there that is sacrosanct and you wouldn't want to be remodeled/re-engineered to a similar degree as The Old Course work? 

[Rich Goodale]

Paul

I never said that the Old Course was "second tier."  All I have ever said is that it is not in the top 25 of the courses I have played, based on my own predilections and standards.  I have also said (in one of my very first gca.com posts) that it was in my 2nd 25, and it might well remain there even though I haven't gone through that particular exercise in over 10 years.

As for Dornoch I have no qualms on changes there, as long as they increase the playability and/or interestingness of the course.  As I write the club is in the middle of a winter programme which is much more extensive than what the Old Course has done over the past week.  Included are significant work on bunkers on 1, 6, 7, 8, and 11(almost certainly involving some minor alterations in size and shape, a la the RHB), a re-laying of turf on the front of the 10th green (which will lead to new "micro-undulations"--as such work always does) and building a new championship tee on the 17th, which was long overdue.

Even though Dornoch does not have the problems that TOC has regarding greens like 11(limited number of interesting pin positions) I would not at al mind if RGDC chose to slightly flatten the best position on the best green on the course (upper left hand side) as it gets a bit too hairy when green speeds are up.  I have also lobbied for a proposal a few years ago to move forward the echelon of bunkers that protect the right hand side of the 3rd fairway (much like which is planned for the 3rd at TOC).  This proposal was voted down, but c'est la vie.

Life goes on...