John Huggan of Golf Digest notices that there's more rough at TOC

[Doug Lionberger]

Nobody is saying that there have not been improvements in technology in golf.  There certainly have been (as there has been in basically every sport - running, baseball, basketball, tennis, etc.) as well as a focus on better nutrition, fitness, etc. and simply better athletes playing the game today. My view is that those technological improvements have made the game more enjoyable for almost all golfers and given far more golfers the ability to play a course as the architect intended.  The heart and soul of golf is the the amateur game and not what the pros are doing.  Why not go back to persimmons and the Vardon flyer then?  Certainly the Old Course would be better suited to handle that.

[Kalen Braley]

Bifurcation... that 99% get to keep their game exactly as is.

[Doug Lionberger]

Kalen - yes that is certainly an acceptable solution.  I do like sports where essentially everybody is playing the same game but since I care far more about playing golf than watching golf I would prefer that approach than rolling the back back for everybody.

[Jon Wiggett]

You could take it back to all Gorse and be historically accurate while limiting distance, or at least roll.  What year was it that they actually converted it to real fairway grass?  I think Old Tom did it in the 1860's or so.

Jeff,


historically the links would have been grazed and so would have had very little gorse. Golf was played mainly through the winter months so the combination of grazing and slow growth made the links playable. It only areas really maintained were the putting surfaces hence the term 'keeper of the green'. There was no formal playing corridor so golfers had to decide for themselves what route to take to get from one hole to the next hence the phrase 'fairway'. There was no conversion to fairway grasses just the grasses that grew naturally on the links.


Jon

[Sean_A]

I think the rough left and short right on 17 and left on 16 is one of the biggest crimes against architcture.  I don't know why folks are just mentioning it now...it was that way when I last played TOC in 2011.  I hit all three areas of rough and was most disappointed about 16.  This is one THE most iconic holes in golf with the PN as one of THE most famous features in golf.  The sand is now just more run of the mill bunkers.  Its absolutely bonkers.  The rough left on 17 wasn't as bad, but it was a great shame when there was simply no opportunity to be stupid and go for the green on that angle.  When is reducing temptation ever good for golf?

Ciao 

[jeffwarne]

For example, I probably hit my clubs fairly average for an amateur (250 yards drive, 155 yard 8 iron) and I will almost never play a course from the back tees.

This caught my attention.
If 155 is far an "average" amateur hits an 8 iron, forget bifurcation-it's time for a rollback.
The 'average" handicap is what ? 16? someone who could miss every single green, putt and chip poorly with 34 putts and still shoot his handicap expects to average 250?
a 16 is hitting it 250 and a 155 8 iron?
Some Elite professionals were averaging less than this on Tour when I was 20 years old (one is a Masters champion who regularly makes the cut there still-but I guess he's more "athletic" now)

[jeffwarne]

My view is that those technological improvements have made the game more enjoyable for almost all golfers and given far more golfers the ability to play a course as the architect intended.
 The heart and soul of golf is the the amateur game and not what the pros are doing.  Why not go back to persimmons and the Vardon flyer then?  Certainly the Old Course would be better suited to handle that.

I give achitects far more credit than that-especially the ODG's.
The best built courses with multiple routes to the green, primarily designed from ONE teeing area, which took real skill to imagine how the short hiiting player might find a way to have equal or more enjoyment than the long brawny aeriel player on the same hole-in an era when it was OK to have a par 4 that the majority could NEVER reach in 2(may sound like heresy but "par" is what an expert is supposed to make allowing 2 putts-not a 21 handicap senior from his "tee it forward" tees).
It's just that somehow a player could have fun plotting his way around such a hole, rather than have his dignity and sense of fun challenenged  because he couldn't reach it in "regulation"
And those ODG architects were indeed designing when persimmon woods, blades and balata balls were the weapons of choice-so I find it very hard to see how they "intended" for courses to be played any other way-with moderate elasticity.

[Thomas Dai]

Pete Seeger's "Where have all the flowers gone" has been re-worded for TOC - "Where have all the options gone"
 
atb

[Doug Lionberger]

For example, I probably hit my clubs fairly average for an amateur (250 yards drive, 155 yard 8 iron) and I will almost never play a course from the back tees.

This caught my attention.
If 155 is far an "average" amateur hits an 8 iron, forget bifurcation-it's time for a rollback.
The 'average" handicap is what ? 16? someone who could miss every single green, putt and chip poorly with 34 putts and still shoot his handicap expects to average 250?
a 16 is hitting it 250 and a 155 8 iron?
Some Elite professionals were averaging less than this on Tour when I was 20 years old (one is a Masters champion who regularly makes the cut there still-but I guess he's more "athletic" now)

Ok - maybe it’s longer than most I don’t really know what “average” is.  I was just trying to say that I know how far I hit my clubs and with the groups I play with it certainly isn’t long.  It’s fairly average in the groups I play with but admittedly that usually consists of a couple high single digit players myself and maybe another 12 handicap.  I’m also not a 16 handicap.  Also, my 8 iron has the loft of a 7 iron from when I started golfing so there is always that.

[Doug Lionberger]

My view is that those technological improvements have made the game more enjoyable for almost all golfers and given far more golfers the ability to play a course as the architect intended.
 The heart and soul of golf is the the amateur game and not what the pros are doing.  Why not go back to persimmons and the Vardon flyer then?  Certainly the Old Course would be better suited to handle that.

I give achitects far more credit than that-especially the ODG's.
The best built courses with multiple routes to the green, primarily designed from ONE teeing area, which took real skill to imagine how the short hiiting player might find a way to have equal or more enjoyment than the long brawny aeriel player on the same hole-in an era when it was OK to have a par 4 that the majority could NEVER reach in 2(may sound like heresy but "par" is what an expert is supposed to make allowing 2 putts-not a 21 handicap senior from his "tee it forward" tees).
It's just that somehow a player could have fun plotting his way around such a hole, rather than have his dignity and sense of fun challenenged  because he couldn't reach it in "regulation"
And those ODG architects were indeed designing when persimmon woods, blades and balata balls were the weapons of choice-so I find it very hard to see how they "intended" for courses to be played any other way-with moderate elasticity.

Then play with those weapons.  If that is what you or other golfers think is most fun then none of those weapons are not permissible under the rules of golf so go have a blast playing them.


Most courses (especially here in America) are not designed that way and a lot of people do not have access to the courses that were.

[Dave McCollum]

I have to say I disagree strongly with the author's claim that the best approach on 14 is from the far right. That's a terrible angle into that green. The best angle is from the 5th fairway. The next best (and easier to achieve) is from the left side of the Elysian Fields. I think it's of more concern that rough has crept in on the left of that fairway. It used to be just the bank that was long grass. Now the rough keeps the ball off that slope which is a huge help. Ditto the additional rough on the left of 5 when play the 5th.

When I played TOC, we played the New on Sunday and afterwards walked the Old to prepare for our Monday tee time.  That day the wind was blowing downwind going out and into coming home.  When we got to 14 on our scouting walk, we sat there awhile and couldn't figure out how to play the hole.  The next day it was downwind and no problem.  Some months later I read MacKenzie's book The Spirit of St. Andrews.  In it he spent some time writing about golf strategy and options and used the 14th hole to illustrate.  Only then did I realize that right play on that Sunday stroll when we couldn't figure out how to play 14 was to play down the 5th fairway, something we never considered.  I think Dr. Mac described four or five different strategies depending on wind and conditions to make his point about great holes having options.  As Jon and others have said, more rough often reduces those options and I'm fairly certain the good Doctor would agree.   

[Tom_Doak]

I think the rough left and short right on 17 and left on 16 is one of the biggest crimes against architcture.  I don't know why folks are just mentioning it now...it was that way when I last played TOC in 2011.  I hit all three areas of rough and was most disappointed about 16.  This is one THE most iconic holes in golf with the PN as one of THE most famous features in golf.  The sand is now just more run of the mill bunkers.  Its absolutely bonkers.  The rough left on 17 wasn't as bad, but it was a great shame when there was simply no opportunity to be stupid and go for the green on that angle.  When is reducing temptation ever good for golf?

I agree with all these spots, and there are a few more.


The problem is we've got men deciding where the fairways go now, and the men are all consumed with The Open and scoring and all that b.s.  We were better off when it was just the sheep doing the grazing, and the thinking.

[Peter Pallotta]

Hmm. Does that serve as evidence of Intelligent Design, or instead does it prove Evolution? Is there a gca equivalent to the Big Bang theory?