News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Brian_Ewen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« on: July 12, 2015, 03:50:52 AM »
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/top-stories/john-huggan-dawson-s-case-for-old-course-changes-1-3828392



John Huggan: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
Sunday 12 July 2015
LET’S forget our differences and see what is happening on the ground at the home of golf, writes John Huggan


Especially for regular readers, it will come as no surprise to learn how this column has often annoyed the chief executive of the R&A. Over the 15-and-a-bit years Peter Dawson has sat in what must be golf’s greatest office high above the first tee on the Old Course at St Andrews, he more than once has voiced irritation at criticism levelled at the organisation he heads.


There was the Royal & Ancient Golf Club’s (now formerly) all-male membership, of course. The R&A’s shameful inactivity in the area of club and ball technology has been another regular source of disagreement. And, now and then, other stuff has come up. During a press conference at a past St Andrews Open Championship, Dawson was asked about the clearly inappropriate rough up the right side of the iconic Road Hole. “Ah yes,” he said sarcastically, “the John Huggan question.”


More recently, the soon-to-be-retired Dawson (he will depart his job in September) has found cause to dispute another assertion made by this column. Namely, that the changes made to the Old Course for this week’s Open were unnecessary and merely the consequence of the R&A’s inability to control the nonsensical distances modern golf balls fly when struck by frying-pan drivers wielded by leading professionals.


“We need to be sure, without in any way changing the character of the course, that the Home of Golf remains an appropriate test for the modern player,” says Dawson in response. “That’s what it is about. The modern player is getting better and better and so the test we set at championship level needs to be stiffened. Having said that, the Old Course didn’t need much doing to it.


“All of the changes are the result of much observation at the Open and the Dunhill Links Championship – and a few hundred Sunday morning dog walks of course. And yes, shortening the ball would be the equivalent of lengthening the course. But we, unfortunately, don’t have the luxury of being a single-issue organisation.”


So there was only one solution. Last month, we took a trip round golf’s most famous venue and Dawson explained the thinking behind what we will see over the next few days. It would be fair to say agreement was soon reached over the quality of the work done by the estimable green staff. But not over whether the changes should have been made in the first place. That debate will continue, possibly forever, but here, in his own words, is Dawson’s reasoning.


2nd Two new bunkers short and right of the green

“The tee here is an example of a change we made some time ago. It wasn’t all about making the drive harder; it was about getting a longer club in the player’s hands for the second shot.


“At St Andrews, it makes a huge difference when your ball is coming into a green high rather than low. So I want them to be hitting a 4-iron rather than an 8-iron. The problem now is that the course is as long as it is ever going to be.


“The big change on this hole is the new bunkers to the right of the green. At the 2000 Open we had two bunkers miles from the green that had no real relevance to the play. So what we have done is fill in the old ones and introduce two new bunkers greenside and, behind them on what used to be dead-flat ground, there is now some undulation.


“We did this because, whenever the pin was to the right on the green, the challenge was diminished. All you had to do was miss the green to the right and you had a flat putt. It wasn’t demanding in any way. Plus, it was so flat I suspect it wasn’t natural. It looked like it was constructed. It was probably a tee at one time.


“What we won’t do is put the pin just over the bunkers. The traditional strategy at St Andrews is ‘easy drive up the left, challenging drive up the right’. So where the pin will be is at the bottom of the slope on the green. If you drive left you can’t get at it, the ball will either kick off into the bunkers or into the new undulations. Having said that, three pins out of four in the Open will be on the left and high side of the green.”


3rd New bunkers on right side


“We wanted to make the drive up the right side more ‘risk and reward’. The bunkers were ‘too short’, and weren’t really in play for the top players. So we took out the shortest one and moved it closer to the green.


“We felt that was important. While we never want to make the right side too risky, it had become too easy to hit up there and have the best angle into the flag. It depends where we put the pin, but we want the players to take on the bunkers if they want to get an advantage for the next shot. The farthest of the three bunkers is now about 290 yards from the tee.


“All we’ve really done is restore the element of risk. What we haven’t done is eliminate any incentive to try. If we did that it would be awful and everyone would play the hole the same way, up the left. Which is exactly what we don’t want to see. If everyone hits left on every hole – towards those playing in the opposite direction – it will take forever to get round.


“The biggest problem is that the players wait on the double greens for others to putt on the opposite hole.”


4th New undulation right of the green


“The large hump in the middle of the fairway will be untouched, the grass the length that nature dictates. Back in the old days, when this hole was a par-5, there were bunkers miles back from the green. They made some sense back then, but they’re not in play now. So we filled them in. A new bunker is now in place short and right of the green.


“As on the second hole, the ground to the right of the putting surface was very flat and easy, unless the pin was towards the back of the green. We’ve sculpted that area and now that it is bedded in it looks very natural, albeit it’s a little more extreme than at the second.


“Again, it’s all about encouraging the players to drive the ball up the right side. Not many took it on last time. But the benefit now will be greater. Coming from the left will bring the bunker and the new ‘humps and bumps’ into play. So a drive up the right side is going to be better than before.”


6th One that didn’t happen, one that did – and one that should have


“I actually wanted to make a change here, but after discussions with the Links Trust, we decided against it. I wanted another bunker on the left side of the fairway, on what is now a slight upslope. My thinking was that this is one of the few holes where driving left or right doesn’t matter for the second shot. So tightening up the drive on that side might be a good idea.


“As for the fact that the bunkers on the right side are actually in the rough, that has been the case in all my time here. But I do accept that balls should be able to run into the sand more than they do at the moment. The bunkers on the right of the 5th are all ‘in the fairway’ so this is maybe something we should look at.


“And again we have introduced a few ripples to what was very flat ground on the right side of the green. I have to think that, in each case, all three areas were tees back in the day.”


7th Dip filled in


“The dip in the fairway – it was about ten feet wide – has been levelled. Actually it is now slightly convex rather than concave. You’d never know where it used to be. It was a mess before, a mass of divot holes. And to answer your point about asking the players to hit from less-than-perfect lies now and then, not every change has been made for the Open. We wanted the day-to-day players to get some benefit too. Besides, the state of the dip was an embarrassment.”


9th New bunker


“Again, this is an attempt to introduce more of a risk-reward aspect to the hole. So there is a new bunker, short and left of the green. It’s right on the edge of the rough, so balls will feed into it if they are heading that way. Ernie Els is just one player who has already expressed his approval.


“The bunker is just over 300 yards from the tee. But I still want to see players having a go with their drivers from the tee. I want to encourage that – rather than laying up short of the bunkers in the middle of the fairway – but I also want there to be more danger if they do decide to go that route.”


11th Slope on green softened


“This is the only change we have made in order to get more pin positions. Some might say we could just have slowed the green – you for example – but I am of the philosophy that if the players are enjoying the course we will have a good Open and if they are not, we don’t. This green would have to run at six or seven on the Stimpmeter to make it work as it was before. I think that might have attracted some hostile reaction from players and media.


“What we have now is a green that will still be puttable in a high wind, which it wasn’t before. It was this green that caused the suspension of play back in 2010. We also have a lot more pin positions. Before we had to stick the pin behind the Strath Bunker. Now we can have it back-left, near the Hill Bunker, one that no one ever went in at the last Open. A back right pin position is also available, so the hole has a lot more variety to it.”


15th Sculpted humps at back of green


“The thinking here was that, especially with the pin at the rear of the green, all a player had to do was ‘club up’. Even if the ball did go over the green, it was just a straightforward putt over flat ground back to the pin. Now, it will be a lot trickier to get up and down in two shots to save par.”

16th Move the tee up and a wee bit more rough?


“This hole has always made me a little unhappy, ever since we moved the tee back. I just don’t think the players play the hole as it should be played. They just lay up short of the Principal’s Nose and Deacon Sime beyond, then hit from there. No one plays to the right, down the line of the fence any more.


“In order to get more players ‘taking on’ the shot down the right side, I’d like to see the tee moved forward along with more rough on the left to stop any kind of slack lay-up tee-shot hit way left being OK. To that end, the start of the rough is now 20 yards or so nearer the tee than it was. I don’t want to make the green driveable – the second shot is too good for that – but more reward for the brave drive is a good idea, I think.”


17th Road hole bunker remodelled


“The old joke here is that the line off the tee is the ‘O’ in ‘Old Course Hotel’. But the only changes here are much nearer the green, around the Road Hole Bunker, although the rough on the left has been thinned out a bit since 2010. Ideally it will be a half-shot penalty.


“The bunker has been altered many times over the years. If you look at film from past Opens it is amazing to see how much it has altered. Back in 1970 Doug Sanders played a wonderful shot from the sand to save his par in the last round. And when he did, you could see the top half of his body.


“Three decades later, of course, David Duval got stuck against the face and basically couldn’t get out. It was too severe. So now we have something that is between those two extremes.


“The ground left of the bunker has also been remodelled so that more balls will feed into the sand. Going ‘long and left’ won’t be quite as easy as it has been in the past.”



Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2015, 06:32:40 AM »
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/top-stories/john-huggan-dawson-s-case-for-old-course-changes-1-3828392

“We need to be sure, without in any way changing the character of the course,
11th Slope on green softened

“This is the only change we have made in order to get more pin positions.

Multiple choice: Peter Dawson is a
1) liar
2) man who fails to understand his native language

Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2015, 06:59:03 AM »
Mark,

I lost all respect for Mr. Dawson after his behaviour during the TV rights negotiations. He showed a clear lack of integrity in my eyes. Golf is a game that relies on both these characteristics from its participants in order to function and as such Mr. Dawson is wholly unsuited to lead one of the games main bodies in the R&A. The sooner he is gone the better. IMO, the R&A have lost their way in the last 20 years and failed to look after the best interests of the game.

Jon

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2015, 07:15:58 AM »
So I want them to be hitting a 4-iron rather than an 8-iron. The problem now is that the course is as long as it is ever going to be.


There wasn't a lot of deferring to the golf course architect in that article, was there? 


He makes it clear he got [most of] what he wanted.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2015, 08:19:39 AM »
So do we get one of these columns next year in which Dawson's successor rolls out his "good" ideas for the Old Course? And then again the year after that? Maybe the Links Trust sets up a suggestion box so we can all participate. Democracy in action.

The threshold for making changes to TOC should be much, much higher than whether you have a "good" idea for improving it. You, me, Dawson, everyone who has ever played the course, we all have good ideas. That should never be enough.

Yo
Bob   
« Last Edit: July 12, 2015, 08:24:13 AM by BCrosby »

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2015, 09:14:31 AM »
I'm glad he took the opportunity to explain his thinking.  If every generation felt similarly I'm quite certain the whole thing would be completely bollocked up by now.

It should stand as a testament for unconconvincing and disjointed arguments for unwise changes to the home of golf.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2015, 11:34:49 AM by MCirba »
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2015, 01:26:59 PM »
He has completely destroyed the strategy available on 16 by growing rough left of the Principal's Nose bunkers.  From the fairway or light rough over there one had to deal with Wig bunker on that line.  The players are laying up in front of the PN because they don't want to risk the OB right.  Is he a nitwit?   This is the change that irritates me most, ruins a great hole. 

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2015, 01:58:07 PM »
Bill,


At least it's the one that's most easily returned to form... :-\
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2015, 04:14:31 PM »
Bill,


At least it's the one that's most easily returned to form... :-\

No change for a couple of years despite my whining.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2015, 05:51:14 AM »
So what do we actually think about the changes, ignoring the historical apsects of the course, are they good or bad ? I mean to say if the course was 10 years old and these changes were as a result of how it played over the last 10 years, would you consider that they made the course better ?


Niall

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2015, 06:35:57 AM »
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/top-stories/john-huggan-dawson-s-case-for-old-course-changes-1-3828392

“We need to be sure, without in any way changing the character of the course,
11th Slope on green softened

“This is the only change we have made in order to get more pin positions.

Multiple choice: Peter Dawson is a
1) liar
2) man who fails to understand his native language


Sorry Mark, you're going to have to explain that one to me. How have the alterations changed the character of the course ?


Niall

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2015, 07:00:06 AM »
Morning Niall

I accept your apology. TOC's character includes wild undulations in its greens; flattening 11 green therefore is an attack upon a major character trait of the course. TOC's character includes playability for all; narrowing the course via rough and features like the new bunkers on 2 therefore is an attack on a major character trait of the course--not to mention these changes dictate specific lines of play and / or shots, an attack upon another character trait of the course.

Helpfully,
Mark
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #12 on: July 13, 2015, 07:13:39 AM »
Mark,


I withdraw any apology offered. Frankly these tweaks are minor and are entirely in keeping with the rest the course. Your focus seems to be on the changes to the 11th green and far from flattening it they appear to have kept the character of the green intact while adding undulation to the back of the green.


Anyway there doesn't seem to me to be any grounds from what Dawson said in the interview or from the extract you highlighted to insinuate he's a liar.


Niall

Jeff Tang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #13 on: July 13, 2015, 08:36:51 PM »
I find the explanations for the changes interesting. I am probably in the camp of leaving the course alone but reading through the hole by hole changes got me thinking. Throughout its history at which point should no more changes have been made to the Old Course?  Clearly it has been through a lot of changes since it first came into existence. Has each generation thought that they had the course "right" and no more changes should be made?  Is our generation no different than those prior in that respect?  I wouldn't think most people now would want to play the course as originally conceived except perhaps as a curiousity.  If the course isn't "right" now as a result of the most recent changes when was it "right" and when should changes have stopped and why?  Was it 100 years ago?  200?  Or was it in its best iteration just 20 years ago?
So bad it's good!

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2015, 09:28:10 PM »
I find the explanations for the changes interesting. I am probably in the camp of leaving the course alone but reading through the hole by hole changes got me thinking. Throughout its history at which point should no more changes have been made to the Old Course?  Clearly it has been through a lot of changes since it first came into existence. Has each generation thought that they had the course "right" and no more changes should be made?  Is our generation no different than those prior in that respect?  I wouldn't think most people now would want to play the course as originally conceived except perhaps as a curiousity.  If the course isn't "right" now as a result of the most recent changes when was it "right" and when should changes have stopped and why?  Was it 100 years ago?  200?  Or was it in its best iteration just 20 years ago?


Jeff:


All of this revisionist history that the course has constantly been changing is a very poor reading of history.  Between about 1920 and 2012, the only changes to the course were the addition of new back tees, which didn't change it at all for the rest of us.  [And the pros could play from there as well, if they wanted to.]


Yes, the course evolved to its present form, but it evolved there a very long time ago.  Dr. MacKenzie wrote that it was "too sacred to be touched".  Apparently the Secretary did not agree, but the scary part is that he used his own power to force changes with as little discussion as possible.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2015, 10:03:26 PM »
When you read the justifications in isolation it's all quite logical.  Talk about missing the forest for the trees.  Hopefully being Dawson's GCA bitch paid well.  ::)
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Tim Fenchel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2015, 10:19:43 PM »
I type this with full knowledge that I am a complete greenhorn on this board and even more so in my knowledge of TOC...berate me as you must.


I have never been to the UK so clearly I haven't even seen TOC with my own eyes...After reading Dawson's case for the changes at the beginning of this post I wonder if and when I get the opportunity to place TOC...let's say, 5 or 10 years from now...is really even the Old Course anymore?


#2 for example...To fill in bunkers in the fairway and add new ones green side seems to completely change strategy and approach from what existed previously.  Tom's response above helps a bit as it seems that only in the last few decades did significant changes really occur.  But reading the above...its one hole after another with change after change.


I guess my question is...whenever it is that I get a chance to finally play it...can I at all consider it the same course that Old Tom, Willie Park, Harry Vardon, Bobby Jones and Arnold Palmer played?  Or is it for all intents and purposes a different course?
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 10:22:29 PM by Tim Fenchel »

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2015, 02:22:18 AM »
Mark,


I withdraw any apology offered. Frankly these tweaks are minor and are entirely in keeping with the rest the course. Your focus seems to be on the changes to the 11th green and far from flattening it they appear to have kept the character of the green intact while adding undulation to the back of the green.


Anyway there doesn't seem to me to be any grounds from what Dawson said in the interview or from the extract you highlighted to insinuate he's a liar.


Niall

Niall,

do you believe that the changes have made an improvement for the majority of the players at TOC? Do you think Mr. Dawson's behaviour in the TV rights negotiations and shortly there after were appropriate for the office he holds? Do you think the R&A have looked after the BEST interests of the game during the time he has been in office.

For me there has to be a resounding no to all these questions.

Jon

ps.Oh, I apologise in advance should I need to and/or withdraw it should that be more appropriate :)
 

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2015, 03:20:27 AM »
Mr. Dawson is doing the best he can. Unfortunately he is not qualified as a golf course architect, so the best he can is never going to be appropriate to the task at hand. I applaud his reasoning and the motivation behind it, he clearly put some effort into the endeavour and seems to genuinely care about The Open. Being a main money maker for the R&A I suppose that everything else has to take a back seat to it.

If I were Mr. Dawson, I had brought in a panel of five golf course architects and let them figure out how to change TOC to make The Open more challenging and/or enjoyable to the players. There could hardly be any media repercussions, if learned voices had been heard and made to agree by a common sense of responsibility.

Mr. Dawson seems to think of himself less as a servant to us amateur golfers or a steward to the game. His attitude comes across as that of a CEO in charge of a multinational operation with vested interests and many a hidden agenda. There is no openness about the R&A, no notion of participation by those, who they apparently should represent, no sense of the modern world and how it has moved on beyond what the old boys network can comprehend.

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2015, 04:57:11 AM »
Tim


Is it the same course played by the old dead guys you listed ? Well in some respects yes and no. There have been changes since Old Tom and Willie Park's time that were a good bit greater in magnitude than what has happened recently. Indeed Old Tom had a hand in making a lot of the most significant changes when he was keeper of the green. Harry Vardons time kind of spanned from the 1890's to just after WW1 in terms of competing for the Open so he would have experienced the changes for sure. The changes in Bobby Jones and Arnold Palmers time were probably more subtle and probably were more to do with how the course was kept and maintained.


However back then these guys weren't playing with cavity backed irons and the type of drivers we play with now. So in a funny kind of way I suppose you could say the course plays for the average golfer now like it did for them due to the improvements in technology. As for how the course plays now for the average golfer now compared to the average golfer then I suspect there's a huge difference. If you are interested in the changes then try and track down Scott MacPhersons book on the evolution of TOC.


Jon


Not having Sky I stayed up to watch the Scottish Open highlights on the BBC and it was a timely reminder of how poor their coverage has become. On a day when plenty of players were making a move we saw every other shot as Rose stumbled round to a couple over par. Coverage of most other golfers were reduced to a final putt on the 18th green. While the switch to Sky will mean I will see a lot less of the Open on TV at least those that will see it will get a better service. Besides, who's to say we will have a free to air service from the BBC in a few years time anyway.


Ulrich


I was surprised by Dawsons use of the first person, and it would have been interesting and enlightening if Huggan had asked about the process, who was involved etc. but he's not really that kind of journalist. With regards to the management structure of the R&A, I suspect CEO is exactly the role that Dawson fulfils.


Niall

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #20 on: July 14, 2015, 05:32:32 AM »
Morning Niall

I accept your apology. TOC's character includes wild undulations in its greens; flattening 11 green therefore is an attack upon a major character trait of the course. TOC's character includes playability for all; narrowing the course via rough and features like the new bunkers on 2 therefore is an attack on a major character trait of the course--not to mention these changes dictate specific lines of play and / or shots, an attack upon another character trait of the course.

Helpfully,
Mark
On a serious note. The 11th green was desperate for more pin positions. I think this was essential for agronomic reasons. Hardly anyone can tell the join now. Lowering a section by six inches can really buy a lot more pin positions. When you see the quality of the work its a no brainer. That 11th green had about 95% of the green unpinnable, now that whole left side is ok. Yes it was okay in 1935 stimping at 5 but at 9 it was not okay, constant top dressings would have worsened the slope so this sort of correction needs to be done.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2015, 05:35:38 AM by Adrian_Stiff »
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Joey Chase

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2015, 05:40:35 AM »
I type this with full knowledge that I am a complete greenhorn on this board and even more so in my knowledge of TOC...berate me as you must.


I have never been to the UK so clearly I haven't even seen TOC with my own eyes...After reading Dawson's case for the changes at the beginning of this post I wonder if and when I get the opportunity to place TOC...let's say, 5 or 10 years from now...is really even the Old Course anymore?


#2 for example...To fill in bunkers in the fairway and add new ones green side seems to completely change strategy and approach from what existed previously.  Tom's response above helps a bit as it seems that only in the last few decades did significant changes really occur.  But reading the above...its one hole after another with change after change.


I guess my question is...whenever it is that I get a chance to finally play it...can I at all consider it the same course that Old Tom, Willie Park, Harry Vardon, Bobby Jones and Arnold Palmer played?  Or is it for all intents and purposes a different course?

You honestly don't think you're being a bit of an alarmist?  Really, they softened the slope on 11 (which is the biggest shame) and added a few bunkers and some rough and it is no longer the Old Course?  Really, I do not like any changes to TOC but to say it is may not be TOC as a result of the changes anymore is absurd.  There are a fair number of people here that need to get a grip.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2015, 08:32:49 AM »
TD writes: "All of this revisionist history that the course has constantly been changing is a very poor reading of history.  Between about 1920 and 2012, the only changes to the course were the addition of new back tees, which didn't change it at all for the rest of us.  [And the pros could play from there as well, if they wanted to."

You can go back farther than 1920. From the spring of 1905 (when Low and Fowler added bunkers on the right side of 2-6, there were no material changes until 2012.

The absence of changes for more than a century was not because the men who oversaw the course had no "good" ideas about how it might be "improved".  They made no changes because of the Old Course's special status in the game.

After Dawson that is a consideration that has lost much of its relevance for future deliberations.

Bob

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2015, 09:22:57 AM »
TD writes: "All of this revisionist history that the course has constantly been changing is a very poor reading of history.  Between about 1920 and 2012, the only changes to the course were the addition of new back tees, which didn't change it at all for the rest of us.  [And the pros could play from there as well, if they wanted to."

You can go back farther than 1920. From the spring of 1905 (when Low and Fowler added bunkers on the right side of 2-6, there were no material changes until 2012.

The absence of changes for more than a century was not because the men who oversaw the course had no "good" ideas about how it might be "improved".  They made no changes because of the Old Course's special status in the game.

After Dawson that is a consideration that has lost much of its relevance for future deliberations.

Bob3

Haven't there been significant changes to the road hole bunker over the last 50 years or so?
"We finally beat Medicare. "

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dawson’s case for Old Course changes
« Reply #24 on: July 14, 2015, 09:24:52 AM »
TD writes: "All of this revisionist history that the course has constantly been changing is a very poor reading of history.  Between about 1920 and 2012, the only changes to the course were the addition of new back tees, which didn't change it at all for the rest of us.  [And the pros could play from there as well, if they wanted to."

You can go back farther than 1920. From the spring of 1905 (when Low and Fowler added bunkers on the right side of 2-6, there were no material changes until 2012.

The absence of changes for more than a century was not because the men who oversaw the course had no "good" ideas about how it might be "improved".  They made no changes because of the Old Course's special status in the game.

After Dawson that is a consideration that has lost much of its relevance for future deliberations.

Bob

Mr. Crosby hits it dead on the screws, as usual.
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back