Furious response to Old Course plan

26 November 2012

Leading golf architects around the world have responded with astonishment to Friday's announcement from the St Andrews Links Trust that extensive redesign work will be carried out on the Old Course in advance of the 2015 Open Championship.

The plans, which have been drawn up by architect Martin Hawtree, call for work on nine of the course's holes, including alterations to the iconic eleventh and seventeenth greens. A number of bunkers are planned to be added, moved or removed, and the scheme also includes recontouring the surrounds several greens. Changes to the course on this scale have not been contemplated since John Low oversaw the rebunkering of the opening nine holes between 1905-1908.

It is the alterations to the eleventh green that have caused the most controversy. The green – hailed as one of the world's greatest par threes, and replicated on hundreds of courses around the world – has become an issue at recent Opens due to its extreme slopes and exposed position, hard against the Eden estuary.

Hawtree's plan calls for the back left section of the green to be softened, with the intention of returning a famous old pin position to use. It was this hole location that foxed Bobby Jones in the 1921 Open, when he hit his tee shot into Hill bunker and was unable to escape, leading to his ignominious withdrawal from the championship. The pin is still sometimes used in day to day play, but the slope of the green in that area, believed to be around 4.5 per cent, makes it unusable when green speeds reach the level the R&A seeks for Open play.

Tom Doak, principal of Renaissance Golf Design, and one of the era's top course designers, is leading the opposition to the proposed changes. Doak, who spent several months living in St Andrews, studying and caddying on the Old Course at the start of his career, is proposing a petition of course architects, and has already received support from many leading industry figures, including American Society of Golf Course Architects' president Bob Cupp. “I have felt for many years that the Old Course was sacred ground to golf architects, as it was to Old Tom Morris, CB Macdonald, Harry Colt and Alister MacKenzie before us,” Doak wrote on golfclubatlas.com. “It has been untouched architecturally since 1920, and I believe that it should remain so. I don't believe it should be impossible to change the Old Course, or any other historic course. But I think it should be a lot harder than it currently is, where only the management of the club and any consulting architect they hire have to agree. I think the default position should be that such an international treasure should be guarded, and that there should be a high burden of proof that changes need to be made, before they can be made.”

Cupp, replying to Doak's suggestion of a petition of golf course architects against the changes, said: “This is tantamount to redesigning Chartres [cathedral]. The historic significance of those forms is immense, something that should be preserved at all cost, even if it is some low scores.” Graham Papworth, current president of the Society of Australian Golf Course Architects, has also offered his support to Doak's campaign.

But architect Scott Macpherson, whose book St Andrews: The Evolution of the Old Course is regarded as the most comprehensive survey of the course, took a slightly different view. “Preservation is a sticky road,” he told GCA. “It's changing anyway – grass is growing, gorse is growing, bunkers are eroding. I'm pretty relaxed about some of the changes to the golf course, but I'm more worried about changing green contours.” Macpherson also pointed out that, despite significant work on the golf course during the past century and more, this would represent the first time that a named designer has left his imprint. “There is no architect credited for any of the alterations since Old Tom built the first and eighteenth greens in 1870,” he said. “Colt was on greens committee for a long time, but his name isn't attached to any alterations, and I spent a long time looking for such things in the historical papers.”

Printable version

Comments:

Jeremy Slessor , United Kingdom (29th November 2012)

The Old Course is "untouched since 1920" - really? Wasn't there a new tee on 17 prior to the last Open? Was the Old Course Hotel there in 1920 (ok - I accept that's stretching the point, but there's no question that the hotel impacts on the strategy of the hole...)?

So what it is proposed that the architectural profession should say, apparently, is that the course is so sacred that we will allow nothing to happen to bring back the challenge that it once had? If that back pin position on the 11th outfoxed Bobby Jones, wouldn't it be interesting to see today's players take it on? But, unless we reduce green speeds (unlikely), there's nothing that can be done? Count me out on this petition please!

Jeremy Slessor

Adam , United Kingdom (29th November 2012)

Jeremy - point taken but how does the hotel impact on the hole in a different way from the railway sheds that preceded it. Adam Lawrence, GCA Editor

Stephen Killick , United Kingdom (3rd December 2012)

Anything that reasonably makes the Old Course a more serious test of professional golf unless the elements are at their most hostile is fine by me. It is a golf course not St Paul's cathedral or the Doge's palace.

It is just a shame that similar decent viewing facilities cannot be provided for the majority of spectators who, once every five years, see next to nothing for their money and cannot even walk 18 holes sequentially. The wild nimby reaction just reminds me how utterly over-hyped the Old Course is.

Paul Turner , United States (3rd December 2012)

The sensible action would be to go back 1980s/1990s green speeds. Why can't European architects get this?

Perhaps a reason the American shapers and architects are superior to their European counterparts is, in part, because they appreciate and understand The Old Course!

Jeremy Pern , N/A (3rd December 2012)

St Andrews - sacred ground, Chartres Cathedral, historic significance, preserved at all costs….
Oh my oh my.
The God Squad has arrived.
Chartres Cathedral is in a constant state of renewal, renovation and conservation without which it would have become a pile of rocks long ago.
To compare an undulating patch of fine turf with one of Europes finest buildings of the last 1000 years seems rather over the top.
Just what are Mr Doak, Cupp and Papworth getting so het up about?
Gentlemen- grow up and get real.
Carefully modifying and adapting useful structures to accommodate change of circumstance is an intelligent way of preserving function and preventing misuse, disuse and decay.

Jeremy Slessor , United Kingdom (6th December 2012)

Paul Turner:

What evidence do you have that European architecture is responsible for the increase in green speeds?

What evidence do you have that European architects appreciate and understand the Old Course less than their US colleagues?

If you can let us know, I might be able to understand where you're coming from. At the moment, I'm struggling to come up with a rational explanation.

Jeremy Slessor

Jeremy Pern , N/A (6th December 2012)

Mr Turner- your insulting comment regarding American superiority in the field of golf course design and construction is not worthy, least of all of an American, if that is what you are. I believe that those of us with a serious understanding of what a golf course really is would distance themselves from not only your rude remarks , but also from the knee jerk, factory settings position of Messers Doak, Cupp et al.
As usual ignorance and bigotry have come to the fore where individuals incapable of serious reflexion and considered thought are encouraged to share their prejudices with the world at large. Pity.

Paul Turner , United States (7th December 2012)

Jeremy Slessor

I didn't claim that European architects are responsible for increased green speed any more that American architects.

Regarding the 11th green, rather than disfiguring an inconic green, wouldn't the sensible course have been to keep the green slower? Why don't architects advocate this? Do they need TOC stimping at 10.5?

What I do think is depressing is that not one EIGCA member stuck his/her neck out and argued against the changes. An anonymous poll just doesn't cut it.

So my conclusion is that they are fine with altering or "improving" TOC, including softening/disfiguring the 11th green for 10.5 stimp for one week every 5 years . Martin Hawtree certainly is OK with this and apparently you are too.

In contrast many American, Australian, Canadian architects have spoken out strongly against the changes. They appear to like and appreciate The Old Course as it was. Why is this?

Mr Pern

Bigotry and prejudice? Take a chill pill.

I'm a Brit but now live in the US, and in my opinion, the best American architects and shapers are far superior to their counterparts in Europe.

Jeremy Slessor , United Kingdom (13th December 2012)

Paul - thanks for your response. I accept that I mis-read your previous comment and that you didn't suggest European architects were responsible for green speeds, but equally I don't see anyone (European or otherwise) suggesting that green speeds be lowered (and think it highly improbable that this would be accepted as the solution). And, based on the recent meeting between Adam Lawrence and Peter Dawson (reported elsewhere on this site), it appears that the issue of green speed on the 11th is not just a problem in the summer months.

Actually, to answer your question, I am perfectly comfortable with the proposition that a golf course (even TOC) is a living entity and, perhaps paradoxically, where change is appropriate to reintroduce challenge that has been lost, such change is entirely reasonable.

Anyway, if you find yourself in Sunningdale with some time on your hands, I'd welcome the chance to buy you a beer when we could discuss in person.

Jeremy

Ulrich Mayring , N/A (2nd January 2013)

I think you're all missing the point of the criticism. The question is not whether TOC should be changed (as mentioned, it is changed all the time) or whether the current changes are appropriate or not. There will always be supporters as well as detractors for any concrete change to TOC.

The issue here is whether TOC deserves a special status, whereby changes cannot be made in an informal backroom meeting by some committee that consulted a few local golfers of varying degrees of knowledge. The question is do we need to make these decisions for TOC with the involvement of a greater number of experts, including a Mr. Dawson and a Mr. Doak.

Ulrich

Add a Comment:

Please login or register to post a comment.