St Andrew's redesign gets the green light

Kevinmarkham

St. Andrew's is to be updated. The most hallowed ground in golf is to get a makeover ahead of the 2015 Open to make it more challenging.

Here's the official Press Release

Is this
A. A stupid idea, or
B. A really stupid idea?

Discuss

Seves Three Iron

Sure it sounds ridiculous on the face of it. The world and his mother has been slagging it off as a plan. I see Robt Karlsson describing it as an April Fools Joke. Don't particularly like the sound of redevelopment of 17th bunker, if that's what's planned.

However, I'd be surprised if they haven't thought extensively about this. They must be pretty confident it'll improve the place because they have an awful lot more to lose than gain. If they get it wrong they'll be hammered.

jj72

To be fair the 17th bunker was only redeveloped a few years ago to make it a bit smaller...By the looks of it they are resizing it to what it was

The Aul Switcharoo

There was quite a few very low numbers at St. Andrews over the past couple of years. The R&A don't want someone to throw a 62 in an Open Championship and it was heading that way nor did they want 14 or 15 under winning the tourney which Oosthuizen did. I think some subtle changes are whats needed

Kevinmarkham

The Aul Switcharoo wrote: »

There was quite a few very low numbers at St. Andrews over the past couple of years. The R&A don't want someone to throw a 62 in an Open Championship and it was heading that way nor did they want 14 or 15 under winning the tourney which Oosthuizen did. I think some subtle changes are whats needed

I read that the R&A might be terrified at the prospect of a 59, never mind 62s. As for the 14 or 15 under, I liked what Poulter said about it:

"if they make changes to the Old Course St Andrews they are insane. The course is great just leave the winning score up to mother nature"

Yes, some tweaks are always happening, refacing bunkers and the like, but this is on a larger scale. I'll be interested to see what The_Architect has to say about it.

Mister Sifter

I'm not sure why people are being so precious - the Old Course has had more nip-tucks at this stage than Pamela Anderson's backside.

I can see why the road hole bunker, especially, is getting a revamp as it has become fairly redundant over the past few years.

thewobbler

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

St. Andrew's is to be updated. The most hallowed ground in golf is to get a makeover ahead of the 2015 Open to make it more challenging.

Here's the official Press Release

Is this
A. A stupid idea, or
B. A really stupid idea?

Discuss

To be honest, I don't think there's anything severe in what they're proposing. It's not like new holes or differing challenges will come out of it. With modern equipment, an old links course could probably do with a few extra bunkers here and there.

ThunderCat

thewobbler wrote: »

With modern equipment, an old links course could probably do with a few extra bunkers here and there.

Disagree with this i'm afraid. It shouldn't be the course that has to adapt to the equipment, it should be the other way around. The R&A should have addressed the issue regarding the ball at the last Open held at St.Andrews instead of moving the 17th tee box back beyond the old course boundry. They didnt address it and these latest proposed alterations are the next step as equipment advances even further. Its a disgrace that a masterpiece such as the Old Course is being Botoxed in order to stiffen the test. Of course mother nature will provide the challenge when the wind blows, just look at McIlroys second round 80 there in 2010, but if they are that worried about it being ripped apart then they should rein in the equipment, namely the ball. What they are proposing is akin to drawing glasses on the Mona Lisa as glasses are now the fashion. Its a sad state of affairs. Similarly im glad to see Merion host a major next year but would be interested to find out how much they had to alter it because it hasnt been deemed long enough to host a major for many years. Again another of the worlds elite courses that has potentially been scarred forever at the cost of keeping up with the elephant in the room that isnt being addressed.

The_Architect

My own opinion is that this is a travesty: work is already underway two days after the press release. This is far more than a nip and tuck. Two of the most iconic greens in the world (11 & 17) are being altered, 5 more are being "recontoured" around the edges, two famous fairway features are being completely changed and quite a few bunkers are being repositioned. This is all in the name of toughening up the course for the pros, something that firstly will have a negligible effect and secondly shouldn't matter. The Old Course is the original. We all study it and we all are inspired by it. No changes should be carried out unless they are absolutely necessary. These were not.

Mister Sifter

The_Architect wrote: »

My own opinion is that this is a travesty: work is already underway two days after the press release. This is far more than a nip and tuck. Two of the most iconic greens in the world (11 & 17) are being altered, 5 more are being "recontoured" around the edges, two famous fairway features are being completely changed and quite a few bunkers are being repositioned. This is all in the name of toughening up the course for the pros, something that firstly will have a negligible effect and secondly shouldn't matter. The Old Course is the original. We all study it and we all are inspired by it. No changes should be carried out unless they are absolutely necessary. These were not.

You do realise that many things about the old course are completely different today to what they were, say, 30 years ago? The Road Hole bunker/17th green hasn't always been as it was three days ago.

PGF

The_Architect wrote: »

The Old Course is the original. We all study it and we all are inspired by it.

Does originality automatically mean that it's the best?

Would anybody design a hole like the 17th today? Visually unappealing off the tee and with a grossly unfair green. It's ok though because it was 'designed' a long time ago so it has to be good...

As other posters have said many changes have been made to the course over the last 100+ years. Is it any different if a number of changes are performed at once as opposed to making a small change every 5 to 10 years?

thewobbler

Ford's Model T was groundbreaking at the time. But it's now consigned to a museum piece.

The thing about St Andrew's is that it's not a must-play because of its design. While it has influenced umpteen courses around the world, the truth is that it's a limited course with very few memorable holes.

It's a must play because it's the home of golf, and every single player of note in the history of the game has gone up against it. It is hallowed.

But should it get to the point that the pros cannot be allowed on it for fear of what they might do the course, then the tournaments would dry up and it would lose this allure. Not immediately, but over a generation or two.

That's the challenge for the course. You cannot stay at "number one" by doing nothing.

If they were re-routing the course or adding in island greens or the like, then some of the bemoans would have a point. But the changes are subtle.

The whole "change the ball not the course" ideology is a moot point. St Andrew's cannot sit on their arses in the hope that this happens. They have to act.

The_Architect

First of all, I don't care about the Road Hole bunker - they rebuild all the bunkers every 4 or 5 years. But I do care about the alterations they are making to the 17th green at the front to feed more balls in to it. The 17th was the last green to be touched / redesigned at the course. That was 150 years ago.

They are altering the green to the par-3 eleventh, the most influential par-3 in the world BECAUSE of its green.
They are creating false contour to the right of 5 other greens.
They are making major changes to strategic fairway hollows and mounds on holes 4 & 7
They are moving bunkers.

The last time a new bunker was put in was in 1920 (on the 9th hole). This was after long debate and analysis by a large group of experts.
The last time significant contour was altered was before golf course design was invented.

Every golf course architect has used the old course as inspiration for the shapes that they build. It has inspired EVERY golf course in the world to one degree or other.

It is not good because it is historic. It is good because of its strategies and its unique ripples and contours. It should be protected.

Aside from that, they have undergone needless changes in the most underhand manner. The arrogance of Peter Dawson is astounding.

Many / most people won't notice the changes. But that's not the point.

Incidentally, why do you have to act for the pros. The game is much bigger than that. How many shots will these changes really "save"? Why does it even matter?

PGF

The_Architect wrote: »

It has inspired EVERY golf course in the world to one degree or other.

Really?

So that means it can never be touched again?

Another viewpoint is that the St. Andrews is finally doing something to address the inadequecies of a course that isn't all that good but just happens to be the birthplace of golf.


Here's a question... If the course was designed today what would people think of it?

The_Architect

PGF wrote: »

Really?

So that means it can never be touched again?

Another viewpoint is that the St. Andrews is finally doing something to address the inadequecies of a course that isn't all that good but just happens to be the birthplace of golf.


Here's a question... If the course was designed today what would people think of it?

Yes, really.

You tell me how the work they are doing is "designing" out inadequacies and I'll tell you why I think you're wrong.

People can have different opinions on this. But our historic courses shouldn't be getting misguided "nip and tucks" at the whim of an autocratic administrator.

PGF

The_Architect wrote: »

You tell me how the work they are doing is "designing" out inadequacies and I'll tell you why I think you're wrong.

From the R&A: (http://www.theopen.com/en/News/LatestNews/2012/11/Old-Course.aspx)

"The work will widen the Road Bunker on the 17th hole by half a metre at the right hand side and recontour a small portion of the front of the green to enable it to gather more approach shots landing in that area. "

They're addressing the situation where a green is generally taking long iron second shots but is nigh on impossible to hold with a short iron.

If that hole was designed today it would be ridiculed.

The_Architect

PGF wrote: »

From the R&A: (http://www.theopen.com/en/News/LatestNews/2012/11/Old-Course.aspx)

"The work will widen the Road Bunker on the 17th hole by half a metre at the right hand side and recontour a small portion of the front of the green to enable it to gather more approach shots landing in that area. "

They're addressing the situation where a green is generally taking long iron second shots but is nigh on impossible to hold with a short iron.

If that hole was designed today it would be ridiculed.

No they're not. They are making the hole more difficult my gathering more balls landing on the lower area in to the bunker. Harder to run the ball up to the back.

Golfgraffix

Whether or not the course would be built today or not makes no difference to the arguement, it is St Andrews and it was the template for so many courses and i dont just mean links courses.

I cant tell you how many times we have worked with designers on visualising their plans and as they are explaining their concept they will say something like

"you know the 11th at St Andrews, the way the back left slopes to the 12th tee, i want it like that"

I think it is a shame that it has been redone, especially when it has really only be done to cater for 100 odd golfers that play it every 5 years or so.

But hey each to his own i guess.