Ogilvy on The Old Course

[Alex Miller]

"I mean, if they get crazy wind and you can’t put a pin up the back left on 11 then, oh well. Or, you just have that green running two feet slower than the others. We're the best golfers in the world, surely we can work out that the green is slower. We’re not that precious."

Doesn't sound like whining to me.

No, but it does sound like that his measure for the course is how it plays for the pro's, or am I just taking that quote out of context ?

Niall

Out of context. He was talking about the fact that he didn't like that the course was changed just for the pros, so that was why he offered this alternative.

[Mark Pearce]

1.  The Links Trust has the right to do what they want with the courses over which they have been given charge

Not as a matter of law they don't.  The key is in the word "Trust".

Would you be happy if they built a lake in front of 17 green?

[Terry Lavin]

1.  The Links Trust has the right to do what they want with the courses over which they have been given charge

Not as a matter of law they don't.  The key is in the word "Trust".

Would you be happy if they built a lake in front of 17 green?

Mark,

What limitations are imposed upon them?

[Jon Wiggett]

1.  The Links Trust has the right to do what they want with the courses over which they have been given charge

Not as a matter of law they don't.  The key is in the word "Trust".

Would you be happy if they built a lake in front of 17 green?

Too late Mark,

suggestion to change the 'Valley of Sin' into a water feature with fountain is already on Mr. Dawsons doormat Having a second pond on 17 would be overkill and not in character with links golf.

Agree that the key word is 'trust'. The course belongs to the town's people and is not the property of either the R&A or Links Trust.

[Niall C]

G.O. on the other hand; is a man that won the U.S. Open, has a lengthy playing record of success and professional accomplishment in playing the game, has arguably seen and played more significant to GCA courses than perhaps a dozen of us could hope for in a lifetime of travel and play, and has and does receivee fees for his consulting work.  And, I'm under the understanding, he has emersed himself in the golf course design and construction principles and technique side of the equation.  I think he can document his bona fides in that regard based on his work, and time studying the subject.  What have 'we' to compare with G.O.?  We - I mean you and I, and Rich Goodale, and all of us who opine with  little to no expert experience.  I mean, who would you allow in your court and weight testimony as and expert witness to a greater degree on the subject of the question of golf design and GCA historical significance to restoration and remodelling; Geoff Ogilvy, Rich Goodale, or Dawson?  If there were a lawsuit demanding damages and repair, that the Town of St Andrews brought against Dawson and the R&A for violation of the trust "to preserve and protect" the old course, claiming damages to their unquestionable historical treasure representing the cradle of golf, and you had to hear expert testimony from one of only two people, would it be Goodale, or Oglivy?  

RJ

I'm not trying to take a pop at at Geoff Ogilvy with this comment but just wondered why you thought ability as a golfer and the number and type of courses played makes him an expert on gca or any better than Rich ? After alll, Seve was a better player than Geoff and probably played more courses (good and bad) than Geoff, but have you seen any of his courses ?

Conversely, to many the best GCA in the golden age was MacKenzie who was a mediocre golfer at best while Tom Doak, who might top a poll of todays top GCA plays off 9 or so I believe. Using your logic, Rich who plays off 6 and has possibly played as many top courses as Tom D is more of an expert on GCA than both him and MacKenzie.

And while I'm on a rant, if I wanted someone to argue for me the historical importance of the Old Course, I think I'd employ the guy who wrote the book rather than the guy who read it. As I said , not meant to be a knock against Geoff Ogilvy who is perfectly entitled to express his opinions but your attempt to rebuff an argument by denigrating those making it just turns these discussions into slagging matches.

Niall

[Terry Lavin]

My comment was over-the-top and meant for effect, but reading the comments after mine, I am persuaded that it was in poor taste and not particularly well-informed, either.  My bad...

[Martin Toal]

I think it is a finely balanced issue. On the one hand, the Old Course has been changed many times over the years, so change, per se, is not unprecedented or evil. Now it is a matter of opinion if some of those changes have been evolutionary or revolutionary. I guess it is always possible to restore any change later judged to be a bad decision.

I think the R&A would also have been surprised by the responses from many corners, including Tom Doak, Ogilvy, Poulter and others whose opinion has to be respected whether or not you agree in whole or part. I expect their next set of changes will be handled more gently.

As for Ogilvy, I think he needs to redesign that moustache pretty urgently, but setting that aside, he writes (or perhaps has written for him) a column in one of the UK magazines and on the whole I think he is pretty simpatico with most of the consensus opinions on golf held around these parts and would fit in quite well. I think he is one of the good guys.

Not so sure about Phil Mick, though.

[Jud_T]

I think the R&A would also have been surprised by the responses from many corners, including Tom Doak, Ogilvy, Poulter and others whose opinion has to be respected whether or not you agree in whole or part. I expect their next set of changes will be handled more gently.

Martin,

If they're surprised at the response that would just shed light on the fact that they've no clue what they're doing and should have their authority over the course taken away ASAP.  It'd be shocking if they didn't get this response to shagging the grand Old Lady.

[Bill Brightly]

Well, at least I now what FIGJAM means. Can't believe I never heard that expression before. Man, I really am getting old and out of it...

[RJ_Daley]

Niall, I actually meant no disrespect to my friend Rich Goodale on this matter, which I'm sure he knows.  And, I only have his fine book on Royal Dornoch, and not either his book on Carnoustie or the subject at hand, his book on "Experience St. Andrews".  So it is a bit unfair to say Rich has no bona fides on the matter. 

Yet, I can't shy away from the notion that despite Rich being a fine am player, and having made a study of TOC, at St Andrews-resulting in a book,  in my opinion it still doesn't come up to the level of expert credibility that Geoff Ogilvy has on the matter. 

It is well known fact for years since he has been on the golf scene that G.O. is greatly emmersed in the subject of GCA, and is a respected commentator on historical and the classic aspects of the game and the courses.  The hypothetical I posited to Terry of who would he consider the greater 'expert witness' in a case of tort liabilty brought by the citizens of St. Andrews over violation of a trust covenent to preserve and protect TOC against the R&A, was something to cast the discussion along. 

And the point is also well taken about the Good Dr. not exactly being a skilled player, as reverse rationale to my posit that G.O. is an elite player compared to Rich, which doesn't necessarily give automatic credibility one way or the other on ability to design or commentate.  But, in my opinion it is a factor among many. 

I simply disagree with Rich's recent line of comment about the tempest in the teapot and that all is brewing nicely now, and others that don't think the process and rationale behind the hasty effort to alter TOC was egregious in context of 'trust' and notion to preserve and protect one of the most iconic venues as the cradle of golf.

[RJ_Daley]

Also, IIRCC, didn't G.O. not advise that his sprouting the mostache was part of that show of solidarity and remembrance for victims of prostate cancer?  Frank Zappa had a nice stache also.

[Rich Goodale]

Would you be happy if they built a lake in front of 17 green?

Damn fine idea, Mark!  All they have to do is re-route the Swilcan Burn around the front of the 17th green, dig it out a bit, and voila, in a stuningly ironic tour de force that hole will now mimic the 15th at Augusta rather than vice versa.  And in the bargain they could also dig a trench from the newly re-routed burn behind the 1st green, and let the water flow on both sides creating the first "island" green on the Championship Rota!  It's amazing how many great ideas can come from just a little thinking outside the box fuelled by a box or two of the finest red Aussie plonk....

[Martin Toal]

I think the R&A would also have been surprised by the responses from many corners, including Tom Doak, Ogilvy, Poulter and others whose opinion has to be respected whether or not you agree in whole or part. I expect their next set of changes will be handled more gently.

Martin,

If they're surprised at the response that would just shed light on the fact that they've no clue what they're doing and should have their authority over the course taken away ASAP.  It'd be shocking if they didn't get this response to shagging the grand Old Lady.

Well, even the best intentioned (not that I am saying that is the R&A) can make the occasional mis-step and over-reach. The strength of response is not always proportional to the extent of the over-reach.

I am not sure who would be the best alternative safe custodians of The Old Lady's virtue, though.

[RJ_Daley]

Martin states:

The strength of response is not always proportional to the extent of the over-reach.

I find that interesting in light of how this was reportedly done in a hasty middle of the night nearly junta like operation.  No public hearing or debate; just an announcement and roll the tanks.... err I mean bulldozers.  This seems as though it is the same process we have seen from overreaching State governments here in the States, where there was a convulsive political reaction in various Statehouses in 2010 and a wave of belligerent teaparty types got hold of executive and legislative majorities and rolled out various controversial legislative acts with no debate.  Many of those actions were fueled and schooled by "think tank" corporate influened policy factories and wonk consultants.

I am left wondering if the R&A had some wonky policy consultant that told them, strike fast, blitzkreig this if you want to get it done, or else get delayed or turned around by the will and ire of the people who will get up in arms with this golf oligarch decison to do as they damn well please.

Martin, why did there have to be a situation of a strong and vitriolic response to something sprung upon the golfing community and golf historically interested world?  Overreach, arguably yes.  But, justified strong reaction to the methods and deeds as done, quite predictably.  And, what seems like an attitude by the 'deciders' of; well screw 'em, we did it, so there - what you going to do about it!??? 

[ward peyronnin]

With all due respect to my friend Rich he has not been gone so long from the new world that he has no appreciation for the nuances imbedded in the term chickenshit.

That perfectly describes the conduct of "The Trust" and more befits a theocracy which deems itself alone to be the arbiter of a sacred trust and how that hallowed article is presented to the believers.

We believe the Old Course to be the touchstone, the original canvas, intact enough to be revered. Romantic whimsy perhaps yes but not contemptuous or an invalid attitude to question what is being done.

If The Trust was comfortable in their decisions why could they not submit them to the light of day; why would they not defend themselves or at least make the effort? Or are they just lazy or expdedient?

I cannot speak to the changes but they smell bad when implemented in the way they have been; shameful and antithetical to the concept of "public ( and this encompasses a far larger sphere than just St Andrews) trust.

[Jim Nugent]

If The Trust was comfortable in their decisions why could they not submit them to the light of day; why would they not defend themselves or at least make the effort? Or are they just lazy or expdedient?

Expedient.  Probably they were comfortable in their decisions -- knew they would cause controversy -- and didn't want to get bogged down in the predictable uproar.  Or maybe they take such a kingly view of their role, they didn't believe they had to consult with anyone else.     

Can anyone tell me who precisely "they" were?

As for Ogilvy on GCA, seems like most celebs who have tried us out don't last long.     

[Jon Wiggett]

If The Trust was comfortable in their decisions why could they not submit them to the light of day; why would they not defend themselves or at least make the effort? Or are they just lazy or expdedient?

Expedient.  Probably they were comfortable in their decisions -- knew they would cause controversy -- and didn't want to get bogged down in the predictable uproar.  Or maybe they take such a kingly view of their role, they didn't believe they had to consult with anyone else.    

Can anyone tell me who precisely "they" were?

As for Ogilvy on GCA, seems like most celebs who have tried us out don't last long.      

Jim,

If they knew it would be controversial then all the more reason to debate the changes in open and in advance. 'They' are the Links Trust which is a trust organisation set up to manage the St. Andrews Links. It should be noted that the Links Trust are NOT the owners of the Links. A lot of this could have been avoided if The Old Course was given listed status.

I do not know Mr. Ogilvy but I could imagine it was possible that he might have a point of view that was educated and well thought out. To dismiss him because of his fame as you seem to do must mean you would also dismiss this sites biggest celebrity view as well.

Jon

[Rich Goodale]

We believe the Old Course to be the touchstone, the original canvas, intact enough to be revered.

Reminds me of the "sacred gourd" thread in "The Life of Brian."  Time to get your tongue out of your cheek, Wardo!

[Sean Walsh]

Isn't great to see everyone approached these comments with such an open mind.

Those in favour of the works impugn the man's character on the basis of a reasonably well argued response to a direct question on the subject. He does anything but whine about the poor Pro's that will now have to play a toughened course, in fact most of his comments appear to be the opposite.

Terry,

Can you please explain why you are happy to deride Ogilvy as FIGJAM so easily, but rise to the defence of the delicate soul that is Peter Dawson. For what it's worth FIGJAM is about as offensive a moniker in reasonably polite Australian parlance as I can think of.

Your comments are nothing short of troll like behaviour. A perfect exhibition of no.5 with a bit of 7 and 18 thrown in.  http://impliedinference.wordpress.com/tag/internet-troll-tactics/

[RJ_Daley]

My comment was over-the-top and meant for effect, but reading the comments after mine, I am persuaded that it was in poor taste and not particularly well-informed, either.  My bad...

Sean, I take it you missed Terry's post above.  I think we could all use a bit of humility when we get caught up and make an unfair or over the top remark, and are big enough to walk it back..... how about yours?  And, yes I'll admit to some excited utterences of uncalled for bombastics on my own fault from time to time.  But, Terry walked his back, and that is more than fair, IMHO.

[Sean Walsh]

RJ,

I have withdrawn a sentence in acknowledgment of Terry's retraction.

I do not resile from the remainder of my post.

[Terry Lavin]

Terry,

For what it's worth FIGJAM is about as offensive a moniker in reasonably polite Australian parlance as I can think of.

Thanks for the education.  We American rubes aren't so easily wounded by poorly directed ego broadsides. But I'll take your word for it, resiled or not.

[Bill Brightly]

Terry and Sean,

I think Sean missed Terry's FIGJAM retraction before posting. I think Terry acknowledges that the manner in which these changes were conceived and announced cannot be justified by anyone without a vested interest in TOC or the R & A. I think Terry just happens to believe that TOC, like any golf course, is just dirt, and dirt is not sacred. He is wrong, but he is entitled to be wrong, and so are we all!

You are two of the good guys on this site. Knock it off!

Bill

[Martin Toal]

Martin states:

The strength of response is not always proportional to the extent of the over-reach.

I find that interesting in light of how this was reportedly done in a hasty middle of the night nearly junta like operation.  No public hearing or debate; just an announcement and roll the tanks.... err I mean bulldozers.  This seems as though it is the same process we have seen from overreaching State governments here in the States, where there was a convulsive political reaction in various Statehouses in 2010 and a wave of belligerent teaparty types got hold of executive and legislative majorities and rolled out various controversial legislative acts with no debate.  Many of those actions were fueled and schooled by "think tank" corporate influened policy factories and wonk consultants.

I am left wondering if the R&A had some wonky policy consultant that told them, strike fast, blitzkreig this if you want to get it done, or else get delayed or turned around by the will and ire of the people who will get up in arms with this golf oligarch decison to do as they damn well please.

Martin, why did there have to be a situation of a strong and vitriolic response to something sprung upon the golfing community and golf historically interested world?  Overreach, arguably yes.  But, justified strong reaction to the methods and deeds as done, quite predictably.  And, what seems like an attitude by the 'deciders' of; well screw 'em, we did it, so there - what you going to do about it!??? 

Maybe the R&A just thought they had the right to do what they wished without entering a public debate which would delay the whole thing.

Technically they were right.

[Niall C]

RJ

Thanks for post #30. Apologies if I was heavy handed in trying to make my point. I think we should agree to differ on the respective merits of Rich and Geoff Ogilvy. The great thing about Geoff is not so much about what he says, but the fact that through his own magazine columns and interviews he makes golf course architecture a topic of discussion.

In that particular interview he acknowledges his own short comings/inexperience when it comes to the nuts and bolts of design/construction but what I found interesting was his comment that any changes should be considered by some sort of a brains trust over a period of a couple of years. Not sure about the timescales and quite who would be on the brains trust, which perhaps is the nub of the issue.

From a Links Trust perspective they probably think they have pretty good brains trust on the case already, with the green keeping team and course managers who work the course on a day to day basis together with a well respected gca who has possibly/probably worked on more links courses than anyone else. In terms of methology of reaching a decision I doubt what they did is a million miles away from what Geoff Ogilvy is proposing.

Niall