What are the special architectural qualities of The Old Course?

[Mark Bourgeois]

If you were asked by a non-golfer to explain what aspects of TOC are of such architectural merit they should be preserved, on the current course but prior to Peter Dawson's changes, what would you select?

Feel free to select a quality, hole, green, feature, bunker, etc.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I might add to the original post: what makes The Old Course...The Old Course?

For my answer, I will steal Tom Doak's post from Kyle Harris's thread. (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54217.msg1248573.html#msg1248573)

"Kyle:

"The most important thing to me is the fact that The Old Course was not really DESIGNED by any person, the result of which is less definition in how best to play the holes and more complications.  Anything designed by an architect would be far easier to decipher, because you could see the 3-4 ideas that he was trying to reinforce.

"By continuing with the proposed changes, Messrs. Dawson and Hawtree are forcing their own limited views of design onto a course that previously offered infinite possibilities.  They are giving the course definition, the lack of which was the one thing that set The Old Course apart from everything else."

This to me seems both unique and important -- more than that, it is what makes The Old Course...The Old Course.

[Jeb Bearer]

I would say it is the uniqueness of the course. The Old Course introduces many of the abstract strategic concepts that we find in architecture today, which is one reason why MacDonald chose to emulate so many holes from there. However, it consistently does it in a unique way.

For example, the second is but one of many holes worldwide where the golfer ideally plays to one side off the tee so as to be able to play around another hazard up at the green. However, where this is usually accomplished by using hazards such as bunkers, or worse, water, at the Old Course it is done with one-of-a-kind natural ripples in the ground. This kind of hazard is important because it adds more dimensions to the game. A shot that lands in a bunker is doomed to stay there, whereas a shot that lands in this landform at the second could go absolutely anywhere. Likewise, a shot over a bunker can only be played one way, but the use of the short grass combined with the natural contours encourages the golfer to think of/invent a shot that fits the situation. Nowhere is this open-endedness more prevalent that at The Old Course.

[Jeff Tang]

I think Tom Doak's response shown above in Reply #1 is a better way of stating how I feel about TOC.  I would say it's the one course that I've played where more than any other the golfer has the ability to choose how they want to play each hole.  Choices are fun and to me that's what TOC does the best.

[Gary Slatter]

I agree with what's already noted, the lack of a designer in most cases, the uniqueness, etc.        

To me, the most enjoyable quality of the Old Course is the fact that at certain times of the year the greens, fairways and tees all seemed to be about 10 on the Stimp - I noticed this in July and was amazed how long the fun lasted.  In other words, the thrill of rolling a ball around the Old is a quality worth preserving, you won't find it anywhere else.

[Marty Bonnar]

Stupid lies, horrendous stances, ridiculous long putts, unlucky bounces, impossible bunkers, roads in the fairway, walls, nonsensical pin positions, inescapable gorse, tees too close too greens, ad golfeum, ad golfeum...

I LOVE them all! They make her what she is. If you don't get it, it doesn't matter. Go play at the country club, dude.

F.

[Mac Plumart]

The Old Course's routing is neat because it starts and finishes in the town and in between that you've got a wonderful golf experience.  Mind you, not a visual extravaganza for the non-golfer, but an epic adventure for someone who truly loves playing golf.  

You glimpse the magic of the course on the first hole.  Drive is no big deal...wide open...no threats...other than this meandering rinky dink stream/burn.  But if you watch people play that hole, a surprising number of then dunk their approach in that water.  I'm sure they think it was just a random bad break...but I'd argue it is the perfect opener.  Just easy enough to get you feeling comfortable, but just enough challenge to bite you if you are not mentally on your game and/or in the correct place.

And, maybe, that is the crux of what makes The Old Course so good.  You think you are okay or you will be okay...but you are in the wrong spot.  To get back in the right spot(s), then takes more doing than you were mentally prepared for...and you drop a shot.

But on your first go round (or 25 go arounds), it is difficult to truly understand where the correct spots to be are FOR YOUR GAME.  And that is a big part of it, lots of strategies and, furthermore, tactical ways to try to take advantages of the different strategies.  And, oh yeah, then execute the shots you choose to choose to play.

There are holes with  centerline bunkers, acute spur formations, "unfair" greens...and when you add in the weather conditions how you might choose to handle those hazards can change from day to day.

To me, that is what I love about The Old Course.  The layout, strategies, and tactics can change from day to day, yielding fun and different golf, but yet on the same course.

Courses like this are fund to play, but watching others play is a hoot as well.

And the apex of this "hoot" is the epic run of mind engaging and physically challenging holes on the back nine.  Perhaps the very best in all the world.

[Sean_A]

I could say that TOC breaks practically every "rule" in the design book.  No archie in 1910 or 2010 would ever dare design such a course.  Far too much is left to chance, something which no archie could or can abide by.  BUT, that would be very similar to saying TOC wasn't designed per se so I will stick with Tom's blurb.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Basically it is the master copy. Every golf course architect has used it in some way for inspiration and therefore every inch of its ground has had a special architectural quality for someone.

You don't burn the master.

[Tony Ristola]

Doesn't follow... defies... convention.
Unpredictable.
Ample variety of shots due to the landscape and wind.
Cost effective to maintain (outside of the massive greens).
Playable by the masses.

[Jim Colton]

It's very special because every architect claims to draw inspiration from it yet there isn't another course quite like it in the world!

One "uh-oh" moment in this whole #savetheoldcourse saga was when I came across an old quote from Peter Dawson in 2010 describing slight changes they were making to that Open. He said, "...that's really the way the hole was meant to be played". That seems to be missing the point.

[Rich Goodale]

It was the first largely manufactured golf course, showing us that man can in fact improve upon nature.  Without it, there would be no such a profession as "golf course architect."

[Mark Bourgeois]

It was the first largely manufactured golf course, showing us that man can in fact improve upon nature.  Without it, there would be no such a profession as "golf course architect."

Sure! And:

"I believe the real reason St Andrews Old Course is infinitely superior to anything else is owing to the fact that it was constructed when no one knew anything about the subject at all, and since then it has been considered too sacred to be touched. What a pity it is that the natural advantages of many seaside courses have been neutralised by bad designing and construction work." -- Alister Mackenzie, "Golf Architecture"

[Rich Goodale]

Tooshay, mon ami!

However, how much have "we" learned since then?

Ricardo

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ricky,

Going by the latest work, a lot less than previously thought.

(Serious thought to follow later.)

Marcel

[Adam Clayman]

Back in the day, on gca, it was summed up nicely (and pissed off the ascga members enough) to be called 'core principles'.

Funny how a person whose never been, could comprehend that. But it happened.

[Mark Bourgeois]

And here's the serious thought: if you agree with Mackenzie's statement (I'm guessing you don't), then it doesn't matter how much more has been learned. The point was / is to retain the architecture that was created 'when no one knew anything about the subject at all.'

Now for my question to you: is your point re manufacturing that the lesson of TOC was learned a long time ago and therefore the entire course is negotiable, that no feature, hole, etc should be conserved?

Is there nothing today -- well, before Dawson's changes -- that you would say makes TOC...TOC?

[Adam Lawrence]

The problem is that MacKenzie's statement isn't true, it had been touched extensively in the years running up to the point he wrote it (and frankly he must have known that, so why did he make the statement?)

[Mark Bourgeois]

Adam, I can't speak for Mackenzie. He's dead.

Putting the quote in context may help. The passage deals with how to make a golf course 'natural-looking,' notably how to get the contours just so. The end of the quote contains an implied contrast with 'manufactured' courses whose designers / caretakers plow over, fill, etc what's already on the ground.

Additionally, Mackenzie wrapped around this passage comments on the idiocy of green committees of great seaside links courses:

'One of our greatest troubles in dealing with the committees of the old-established seaside courses is that their world-renowned reputation (not due to any virtue of their own, but entirely owing to the natural advantages of their links) makes them think themselves competent judges of a golf course.'

So my own interpretation is that 'idiots' meddled with the slopes, humps, and hollows on their golf course that did a great job imitating nature and that supplied the course's greatness. They did this in the confidence they were masters of golf architecture because they oversaw a golf course the world regarded as great.

Does that help?

[Mark Bourgeois]

But again I ask: what are the special architectural qualities of The Old Course?

If it doesn't have any, if its qualities today are no longer special or relevant, just say so. It's a boring, ugly course with a lousy routing for championship purposes. It's a dog when the wind lies down and the greens are contrived no matter what speed. The ground is bogus and they didn't know what they were doing so they just started digging bunkers and more bunkers, just littering the place. As a result, many circumstances there seems a tenuous relationship between the quality of a shot and its outcome. Unfairness by any standard runs rampant across those links. Nobody would build greens so stupidly large today nor build a consecutive run of double greens. It has some of the biggest clunker holes on a 'great' course you'll ever see, and these holes are so bad they drag down the rest of the course. If you'd never heard of the million Brit Opens played there or Old Tom you'd bag it after the 9th hole and go play a proper links like the New.

People who think this, just get it out there. You're far from alone. Bobby Jones hated it, Snead thought it was abandoned and Scott Hoch called it the 'worst piece of mess.'

Just say it, people! Don't hide behind this or that argument. Don't reach for Peter Dawson's rationale, give us your own. Make your stand, put your stake in the ground.

[Rich Goodale]

The problem is that MacKenzie's statement isn't true, it had been touched extensively in the years running up to the point he wrote it (and frankly he must have known that, so why did he make the statement?)

Adam L.

MacK says in Mark's quote above that TOC was "constructed."  He didn't say that it was "found" or such similar twaddle.  He knew, which was why he "constructed" his sentence the way he did. .

Rich

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - It seems to me (reading these posts) that the Old Course is discovered and unveiled only in the playing, and discovered anew with each new playing. There is little architecture there in (what is now) the traditional sense -- i.e. clearly distinguishable features that work together (by conscious and precisely conceived design) to manifest core principles and to create strategy; instead, the course provides a living and personal experience in which each specific, unique, and individual step (i.e. shot) leads organically but unpredictably to a new situation, and thus to the next unique and individual step. This means that when someone (like Joshua Crane, or Bobby Jones or Scott Hoch or Peter Dawson) looks at the Old Course first and foremost with the eyes of an architectural theorist and/or with the demands/value system of a championship test, he makes himself blind to the unique discovery and the one-of-a-kind unveiling that would otherwise have been his lot. It's almost like a man who thinks he's marrying "woman" instead of "a woman" -- a particular, unique individual. In the former case, he's bound to bring a whole range of presumptions and expectations to bear that will not only cloud his vision but that will probably prove false/misleading, and thus cause disillusionment; whereas in the latter, if love and some luck are on his side, he will discover and experience ever new facets and ever-changing felicities of this one unique living being.
    
I offer this all as (necessarily) humble speculation, based on all I've read here about the Old Course.
Peter

[Jeb Bearer]

It was the first largely manufactured golf course, showing us that man can in fact improve upon nature.  Without it, there would be no such a profession as "golf course architect."

I would agree, but IMO what makes the course truly special is not the fact that it was manufactured, but that one cannot distinguish the artificial from the natural.

[Niall C]

Jeb

You mean apart from the revetted bunkers, plateau greens and gun emplacement style tees.........oh and of course the whole of the first fairway with its conspicuous absence of rumple ?

Niall

[John Chilver-Stainer]

One of the significant parts of the Old Course are the flat areas between the exits of some the greens and the approach to the Tees. This close relationship between the green and the tees reflect the ancient days when the tees were literally next to the flags and the gradual evolution of the game to where they are today. The target areas of the green would have gradually moved left from the early flag positions and the tees further to the right.

It would be an interesting exercise to try and suggest where the early flag positions may have been. Did they stay in the same place for weeks on end?

In my book it’s another reason not to change these areas. Adding some ripples may frame the greens better and provide a separation – but it’s exactly that non-separation of the flat areas that reflect the history of the Old Course.

[Tags:]

Tags: