The faulty decision process at the Links Trust / R&A and unintended consequences

[Mark Bourgeois]

The comparison of the 1932 version of the 2nd hole to the 2012 version is striking for the lack of change to the hole, certainly in comparison to other courses, be they venues for major championships or not:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=post;board=1.0
http://golfcoursehistories.com/TOC.html

And now comes John Huggan's excellent article in the Scotsman on Sunday:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/john-huggan-old-course-changes-were-unnecessary-1-2854641

His article contains two passages I'd like to discuss, in particular as regards the second hole.

First passage:

Which is fine, but, yet again, an obvious question comes to mind: why does a par-4 that averaged closer to bogey than par at the last Open need to be made more difficult? And does it really have to be so tough and so penal that the average player is going to have a hard time enjoying it? Again, just asking.

“You make a good point,” acknowledges Loudon. “Those statistics were not part of our thinking. Maybe they should have been.”

Second passage:

Drives down the right side from the second tee have traditionally and practically (balls finishing on the parallel 17th fairway inevitably cause delay) offered the best angle into the green. That is common to almost every hole on the Old Course – left is safe, right is advantageous but risky. Now, though, when the pin is placed on the right side, the premium position for the approach shot will, by my estimation, be close to the reception area in the Old Course Hotel.

Regarding the first point, here are a few statistics for the 2nd hole in the Open Championship:

• Tiger Woods, 1995-2010: 1 birdie, 10 pars, 3 bogeys, 1 double, and 1 triple
• Winners, 1995-2010 (TW twice): 0 birdies, 14 pars, 2 bogeys
• Field, 2010: 53 birdies, 291 pars, 108 bogeys, 12 doubles, 2 others

Given these statistics, why did the R&A believe they needed to make the hole more difficult?

Regarding the second point: 1. Is Huggan correct? Will Open floggers play over towards 17 fairway? If they do, how will that affect pace of play? How would the R&A attempt to deal with this?

Here is a photo representation. The red line shows the presumed "ideal" line, the blue lines show Huggan's asserted new ideal line when the pin is right:


2. If they're going to muck with the 2nd, why couldn't Dawson have returned the fairway widths down the right side and installed a new tee not on the right in the Himalayas but on the left?

Assuming the pins remained in their traditional Open locations over on the left, a left-hand tee would encourage floggers to play away from the 17th fairway. Removal of ~75 yards or so of "linear" rough on the line from the tee would bring -- well, would have brought (  ) -- the NLE bunkers back into play for the longest floggers. And the hole would remain as is -- I mean, as was -- for we golfers.

For that matter, what do people think of widening that right-hand fairway line? Personally, I think would have made a lot of sense had they kept the bunkers.

Here is a photo representation:


Maybe these changes don't work, but I use them to return to my main point:

A public process would have been far more likely to yield better decisions. Open Championship playing statistics and alternative ideas would have been given the opportunity to be introduced and considered.

[Adam Lawrence]

I don't think anyone will play into 17 fairway as a result of the new bunkers. If you want to bounce one in towards a pin protected by those bunkers, then the correct line, imo, is close to Cheape's. Any further left and the severe undulations that protect the left side of the green will be in your line. From just right of Cheape's you could, in theory, use the sideslope to bank your shot towards a pin behind the new bunkers. But the gap is very narrow - it would be a high tariff shot.

However, none of the pros will be bouncing the ball in. This goes to my main contention as to the new bunkers, which is that they make the hole harder for day to day golf, but not for Open play. OK, the right pin becomes harder than it was. But they didn't use the right pin for Open play before now, and even with the bunkers, it seems to me that pin is far easier than anything on the left. Further, the extreme distance pros drive and the degree of spin they get with short irons means that I don't believe the bunkers will have a significant effect. I think it'll be an eight or nine iron max for those guys, and lots of them will stick it close and make three. Mr Dawson disagreed with me, he felt that with the green at Open levels of firmness the hit and stick shot would not be on, but I don't believe I've seen greens so hard the pros can't stop a short iron fairly quickly.

[Garland Bayley]

In case people missed my very late post to the original changes thread.

I haven't read this whole thread, as I have not played the Old Course and felt unqualified to comment. However, I was reading an old Golf Digest and came across a little gem.

But Peter Dawson, secretary of the R&A, which conducts the Open, resists the idea of adding bunkers to tighten any landing areas, insisting that would change the fundamental character of the place.

"Because of the history of the Old Course, moving hazards is not the option it would be at many other courses," Dawson says, "You simply can't move a bunker here or there at the Old Course."

Ron Whitten, "A new look at the Old Course", Golf Digest, Vol. 56, No. 7, July 2005, pp 138-144.

The quote above is on page 144.

[Sean_A]

Mark

I can't get my head around the changes at #2.  The changes are all about The Open.  I bet the hole difficulty doesn't change at all.   

So far as #17 goes, I think it was the proper thing to do.  Gathering bunkers are what bunkers are often about on links.  Its not about making the hole harder, but making the hole better.  The old bunker didn't gather properly.  In fact, balls were funnelled away from the bunker.  Besides, the area left of the green has been changed more often than restaurant table cloths.  There was no heritage to protect. 

Ciao

[Alex Miller]

I predict the 2nd hole will have a lower scoring average next time TOC hosts an Open, and here's why.

The new right side bunkers will encourage the R&A to put the pin on the easier, more mild right side of the green. Players may play to avoid the bunker, but these are pros and they can avoid the bunkers with ease. The contours on the left side can help move the ball toward the pin and the bunkers will have little to no effect for the pros.

So... easier pins and and no effect from the bunkers (both my predictions) would lead to lower scoring on that hole.

[Tony_Muldoon]

In case people missed my very late post to the original changes thread.

I haven't read this whole thread, as I have not played the Old Course and felt unqualified to comment. However, I was reading an old Golf Digest and came across a little gem.

But Peter Dawson, secretary of the R&A, which conducts the Open, resists the idea of adding bunkers to tighten any landing areas, insisting that would change the fundamental character of the place.

"Because of the history of the Old Course, moving hazards is not the option it would be at many other courses," Dawson says, "You simply can't move a bunker here or there at the Old Course."

Ron Whitten, "A new look at the Old Course", Golf Digest, Vol. 56, No. 7, July 2005, pp 138-144.

The quote above is on page 144.

Thanks Garland, I certainly haven't forgotten it.  Do you have a link to the article on line?

[Frank Pont]

Bit by bit, through the good work of journalists like John Huggan, the truth of the real process behind the changes and who drove them is emerging. You cannot hide the truth in a process that involved so many people, and therefore it will come out.

The key is will it stop further work on TOC? Is there a way for the R&A to back off without losing face?

Maybe that is the scenario people who care for the continuity of TOC should be actively seeking.....

[Mark Pearce]

The thing that struck me most about Huggan's article was the steady reveal of the almost dishonest way the process was announced.  Originally Dawson told us that the changes were Hawtree's suggestion.  Now we learn they were the R&A's and that Hawtree simply did as he was told.  The "consultation" period that was originally mentioned is no clearer but I'd be surprised if it consisted of more than Loudon having a gin and tonic with a couple of committee members at the local clubs.

As to the news that the Links Trust hadn't considered the way each hole played in previous Opens and the statistics that are readily available that should be astonishing but, sadly, is far too predictable.  The Links Trust is just that, a legal trust.  The committee is comprised of trustees, who run the courses on trust for the people of St Andrews.  There is, in my mind, a very serious question as to whether they have exercised their utilise as trustees properly.

[Gary Slatter]

Bit by bit, through the good work of journalists like John Huggan, the truth of the real process behind the changes and who drove them is emerging. You cannot hide the truth in a process that involved so many people, and therefore it will come out.

The key is will it stop further work on TOC? Is there a way for the R&A to back off without losing face?

Maybe that is the scenario people who care for the continuity of TOC should be actively seeking.....

Good point Frank, but I doubt that the process involved many people before the work started.
I think the second will play easier in the next Open.
The Trustees are bullied by the R&A, and take it on the chin occasionally for following like sheep.  It isn't easy being a small fish when there's a shark next door.

[Frank Pont]

The thing that struck me most about Huggan's article was the steady reveal of the almost dishonest way the process was announced.  

Mark,

That is the best and most important element of this article.

People are starting to talk, where they were supposed to keep silent.

And when more and more people who were involved start to talk, more and more cracks will appear in the R&A story.

[Mark Bourgeois]

In the official program for this year's Masters tournament, there's an interesting article, complete with pictures, explaining how the grounds crew rebuilt the 14th green in the past year. The article shares the club's painstaking and thorough effort to measure the green exactly as it was then execute the precise changes desired. As Mickelson noted in a recent press conference, having recently played the 14th in a practice round, almost nobody would be able to notice the changes; he did. The club made subtle but important changes to a section of the green while endeavoring to reconstruct the rest of the green exactly as is.

The time ANGC needed to rebuild the 14th green with this change to one section?

Four months.

Having done similar work before on a handful of courses, you have to disturb much more than 20 feet, in order to tie in the slope at the back which is now much steeper getting down to the flatter hole location (unless they go all the way to the back of the green and reduce it all by the same amount to preserve the 5% slope there].

Work of that kind is the open-heart surgery of golf course architecture.  I am holding my breath anytime I do it.  The only times I have consented to do that sort of work was when we were rebuilding all of the greens at the course, so the green was going to be torn up anyway, and it was a question of whether we would put it back to a slope that could be considered a problem.  It's another thing to just decide that it IS a problem and schedule open-heart surgery.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark

I can't get my head around the changes at #2.  The changes are all about The Open.  I bet the hole difficulty doesn't change at all.   

So far as #17 goes, I think it was the proper thing to do.  Gathering bunkers are what bunkers are often about on links.  Its not about making the hole harder, but making the hole better.  The old bunker didn't gather properly.  In fact, balls were funnelled away from the bunker.  Besides, the area left of the green has been changed more often than restaurant table cloths.  There was no heritage to protect. 

Ciao

I think this should be a reason for great concern going forward, namely that once these ground-breaking changes are made the case for future change can be made on the assertion there's no heritage to protect: circular, self-serving arguments whose purpose is to cow the opposition and to anesthetize everyone else to change.

[Sean_A]

Mark

I can't get my head around the changes at #2.  The changes are all about The Open.  I bet the hole difficulty doesn't change at all.    

So far as #17 goes, I think it was the proper thing to do.  Gathering bunkers are what bunkers are often about on links.  Its not about making the hole harder, but making the hole better.  The old bunker didn't gather properly.  In fact, balls were funnelled away from the bunker.  Besides, the area left of the green has been changed more often than restaurant table cloths.  There was no heritage to protect.  

Ciao

I think this should be a reason for great concern going forward, namely that once these ground-breaking changes are made the case for future change can be made on the assertion there's no heritage to protect: circular, self-serving arguments whose purpose is to cow the opposition and to anesthetize everyone else to change.

I agree and disagree.  Sometimes change is positive.  I am not buying this argument at TOC except for the 17th.  However, I can see buying it for the dreadful 9th.  When a hole isn't good (and in all honesty the 9th is the only one I can say isn't good) change can be a huge positive.  

The main problem is the process of change.  To date, I have been unsuccessful in acquiring a management document between Fife Council and the Links Trust.  

Ciao  

[Tony_Muldoon]

This is how the story has changed.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/golf/golf-old-course-changes-are-to-protect-it-from-59-1-2654218

“In the summer(2012), a delegation that included Hawtree, R&A chief executive Peter Dawson, championship convenor Jim McArthur and Links Trust representatives walked the Old Course together to talk over possible alterations.”

In Huggan’s story.
“Loudon’s tour of the Auld Grey Toon was actually the last stage of an operation that began when R&A representatives arrived at his door. A course walk followed, Links Trust officials joining R&A chief executive Peter Dawson and Jim McArthur, chairman of the championship committee. But only after a detailed presentation by the R&A was a professional course designer, Martin Hawtree, engaged”

Hence Hawtree is “the detail guy” I.e. the fall guy.

[Niall C]

Bit by bit, through the good work of journalists like John Huggan, the truth of the real process behind the changes and who drove them is emerging. You cannot hide the truth in a process that involved so many people, and therefore it will come out.

The key is will it stop further work on TOC? Is there a way for the R&A to back off without losing face?

Maybe that is the scenario people who care for the continuity of TOC should be actively seeking.....

Sorry Frank, it's just another Huggan rant at the R&A. He does have the ability to entertain and occasionally can even make insightful comment but all too often he reverts to default and slags off the R&A. tIRESOME IN THE EXTREME.

In this particular article he talks about startling revelations such as the R&A approaching the Links Trust and engaging Hawtree after they came to the conclusion that they should look at making changes. Well frankly, none of that is startling, its seems an eminently sensible way of going about things. After all, how many of your clients approached you because they hadn't thought of doing something to their course ?!

Unlike Bob, I don't consider TOC as a museum piece (and neither do the locals it would seem) and see no reason that it shouldn't be touched. That's not to say I agree with all the changes. Like Sean, I agree with the 17th changes, and unsure about some others. What I don't have a problem with is the process or with who was involved. Others however seem to want to attack the process/those involved just because they don't like whats being done and yet I still to read a sensible alternative to how to go about it.

Niall 

[Mark Bourgeois]

...and yet I still to read a sensible alternative to how to go about it.

Niall 

Niall, what about the public process used for vetting changes to the Eden Course?

[Mark Pearce]

Niall,

I can only think that you are playing Devil's advocate.

It's clear that the R&A have been at least economical with the truth about the process.  The inconsistencies in their pronouncements both with themselves and with what we learn from others just keep coming.  Then there's the news that the architectural changes were suggested by the R&A without consulting an architect.  Then the fact that during the process no account was taken of the way the holes to be changed actually played during the Open.  You tell us, however, that that seems eminently sensible?  I simply don't believe you can honestly think that, so I assume you're taking a position for the sake of debate.

[Pat Burke]

Funny, I was fortunate enough to play in the '95 Open on TOC.
I had a miserable 3rd round, and was mostly playing for pride on Sunday.
I hit one of my favorite shots in my career on 17, running a 3 low hook 3 iron up to about 10 feet.
The crowd reaction gave me goose bumps.
As I stood over the 10 footer, I was in about 70th place ,
but if I made the putt, I would play the Road Hole even par for the week!
I grinded my ass off on that putt, and still puked it left

Funny, even back then, I felt it would be a badge of honor to simply play it in 16 shots for the week!

[Mark Bourgeois]

Did you then fall to your knees, shake your arms heavenward, and scream "Morris!!!....MORRIS!!!!...." a la Capt Kirk screaming "KHAN!!!!..." ?

Because that would have been really cool if you did. A Reverse Rocca if you will.

EDIT: In my book, 17 shots over four rounds is -3 on that hole. Well played!

[Paul_Turner]

It's so murky I don't know what to believe. They still seem to be just making up the story as they go along.  A classic case of people in power following the "letter of law" (barely) and ignoring its spirit for their own reasons.

Is it just a coincidence that the changes to TOC bare a marked resemblance to the recent changes to Muirfield?  And now Hawtree is just the detail guy?

The 17th bunker may be more gathering at its base but from the pics posted it looks to be less gathering at its top edge i.e. it's now less likely that a ball running up the front edge of the green front will fall left.

[Jud_T]

Let it be written that the secret society shall meet each year on the anniversary of Old Tom's birth, imbibe the nectar of the sacred wormwood and hang in effigy the likenesses of those responsible for this sacrelige from the highest tower within sight of the links.  So it is written, so shall it be done.

[Frank Pont]

In this particular article he talks about startling revelations such as the R&A approaching the Links Trust and engaging Hawtree after they came to the conclusion that they should look at making changes. Well frankly, none of that is startling, its seems an eminently sensible way of going about things. After all, how many of your clients approached you because they hadn't thought of doing something to their course ?!

Niall 

Niall,

Interestingly most of my clients approach me and ask me to have an independent look at their course to tell them what I think rather than tell me what they think.

If they however do come with any views at all on what they would like to do with their course, most of these views tend not to be what we are discussing in terms of change/restoring once I have completed my analysis....

Of course its much easier to just do what the client asks you to do, it saves time and you never lose a client  :-)

[Peter Pallotta]

It's a shame that we have all grown so wise/cynical that here and elsewhere (in the larger public debate/discourse) Mark's modest and sensible proposal should be so easily ignored/dismissed, or drowned out in all the noise and rhetoric. Some of us mumble to ourselves about power corrupting, and some of us -- familiar with the ways of corporate governance and with weak-willed boards -- just shake our heads at the seeming inevitablity of the ToC process -- and the result of all that grumbling and cynicism is that a simple and rational call for a "public process [that] would have been far more likely to yield better decisions" falls on deaf ears, not just with the Peter Dawsons of the world, but right here too, in the land of the out of touch purists.

Peter

[Niall C]

...and yet I still to read a sensible alternative to how to go about it.

Niall 

Niall, what about the public process used for vetting changes to the Eden Course?

What about it ? Should there be only one way of going about making changes ? Just because they cobnsidered the Eden in a different way doesn't necessarily make either way invalid.

Niall

[Niall C]

Niall,

I can only think that you are playing Devil's advocate.

It's clear that the R&A have been at least economical with the truth about the process.  The inconsistencies in their pronouncements both with themselves and with what we learn from others just keep coming.  Then there's the news that the architectural changes were suggested by the R&A without consulting an architect.  Then the fact that during the process no account was taken of the way the holes to be changed actually played during the Open.  You tell us, however, that that seems eminently sensible?  I simply don't believe you can honestly think that, so I assume you're taking a position for the sake of debate.

Mark

My reaction is quite genuine. I'm not sticking up for the changes as such but the way they are going about it and what we know of the decision process. You get the impression with some on here that they don't consider the Links Trust a suitable body to party to this that, that the R&A aren't fit to be involved and that as Martin Hawtree doesn't work for Renaissance or C&C he shouldn't be given the instruction. Absolute nonsense. If you don't like what's proposed, discuss the merits of what's proposed rather than attacking a perfectly legitimate process.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags: