R&A Chief Architect Dawson: Anchoring Ban Distracted Us From Announcing Most Extensive Old Course Changes In A Century

Adam Lawrence previews a more extensive story he has coming in Golf Architecture following a tour of the controversial renovations with R&A architect Peter Dawson. Apparently, Martin Hawtree is using this time to renovate the Old Course...to be somewhere else. His hands-on attention to detail is quite impressive is it not?

Anyway, seat belts on. It's cringeworthy time...

But, though he acknowledges the communication of the works could have been handled better – “We were perhaps a little distracted by the announcement of the ban on anchoring”

Whoa, whoa, whoa...this renovation was in the works for seven months! It involves the most historic course on the planet and the R&A Chief was distracted by the anchoring ban?

On a serious note, if you are too distracted to publicly share the master plan, the Photoshopped images simulating the proposed changes and from sharing a basic notice to the golfers in town of planned changes as you did in 2009 with the Jubilee Course, are you maybe a little too distracted to be implementing architectural changes to the oldest and most cherished venue in the world of sport?

Anyway, before I interrupted...

Dawson is firm in his belief that the works will improve the course, both for day to day play and in championship mode, and that, far from being untouched for hundreds of years, the course has repeatedly been changed, though he agrees that the current works are the biggest in a century.

A century! Well at least he knows his place in history.

Again, the biggest changes in a hundred years earned a Friday news dump press release followed by work on a Monday morning.

And, although he is happy to confirm that the impetus from the works came from the R&A's Championship Committee, he is at pains to explain that toughening the course for the professionals is not the sole goal of the works. Of the filling up of the hollow in the middle of the seventh fairway, he said: “That is something the Links Trust has been keen to do for many years. It collected so many balls, and was thus so full of divots that it had to be roped off and played as ground under repair for a large part of the year, which was a bit of an embarrassment.”

Now, in the old days, so the legend goes, when divots or rabbits burrowed, they often evolved into bunkers? Robert Hunter wrote lovingly about this in The Links (note to Peter and Martin: it's a book on golf architecture, you might enjoy it.)

So wouldn't a more historically accurate change have been to put a bunker in this 7th fairway hollow? Just saying...

Dawson talks at length--because Hawtree was apparently busy with a more pressing project--about the second hole changes, but that'll have to be in a separate post. (I know you can't wait.)

This is just mind-boggling:

On the fourth hole, the low dune formation that creates the left edge of the fairway in the drive zone is planned to be reduced next winter. “Personally I am not sure about that change, and I'm glad it isn't in the first phase, so we have more chance to think about it,” said Dawson.

The architect doesn't even like his own changes.

“The impetus has come from the greenkeepers – it was covered in rough during the 2005 Open, and the result was that almost nobody tried to hit their drive up the right. To create more width, we shaved the bank down in 2010, but it is very steep, and the greens staff have difficulty mowing it at that height.”

I'm just going to ignore the depressing notion that the greenkeepers are making suggestions related to strategy, and try to figure out which mound, excuse me, "acute spur formation," is under attack here. Dawson seems to first be talking about the large leftside grassy mound (pictured below), but how its height would discourage someone from driving down the gorse-lined right side is beyond me. I'm going with the gorse being the problem in that case.

Your honor, I submit to you a photo from 2010:

4th hole center fairway view (click to enlarge)Then he's talking about the bump short of the green, which I take to be the acute spur formation that the maintenance crew can't mow. Your honor, I submit...

Pretty amazing after 400 years, and "before mowers were properly invented," that this bump was able to be cut. Maybe those modern mowers aren't that proper after all?

I thought this was a stretch regarding the 11th green:

“That pin is only used in winter at the moment,” said Dawson. “It's not just a question of being unusable at Open speeds – it can't be used even when the greens are at normal summer pace. The green would have to be slowed to six or seven on the Stimpmeter to make that pin usable.”

So the greens slow down four to five feet on the Stimpmeter during winter?

And it seems they are accentuating a feature on the Road hole, because that 4.6 scoring average last time wasn't enough.

Lawrence writes:

The widening to the right is frankly relatively uncontroversial – it will now gather shots from slightly further out. To my eye more surprising is the addition of a slight gathering contour on the left side of the bunker, presumably to make the shot to the back left of the green – a route popularised in the 1990s by Nick Faldo – more challenging. This looks fine from the fairway, but from the eighteenth tee, a slight mound can be seen, which appears a little out of place.

Eh no one will notice. It's just the Road hole!

Meanwhile, Graylyn Loomis posted some high quality images of the work in progress.

"Golf’s shrine has been desecrated in an act of staggering arrogance by those meant to care for it."

All of the change-equals-progress bandwagon jumpers are on board with the R&A and St. Andrews Links Trust, but in preaching that mindless case I notice no one addresses how this wonderful progress was ushered through secretly.

As John Huggan notes in his Scotland on Sunday column, the R&A is merely arrogant, but it's the Links Trust that failed most miserably.

Yes, it is true that the R&A and Links Trust consulted with five local clubs. But those clubs, being private, are merely stakeholders who do not own the links. Instead, the proposals should have been revealed to both the people of St Andrews and, surely, golfers all around the world. Had that been the case, it is clear from the general reaction across the globe that none of the digging and scraping currently defacing the Old Course would be taking place.

So if this is indeed progress, undoing Mother Nature's beloved handiwork, why keep it a secret until a little over two days before you break the sacred grounds of the Old Course?

Buried Lede In The Anchoring Ban Announcement?

Ron Sirak, writing about the announcment of a ban on anchoring putters against the torso:

So for those currently anchoring the long putter, the announcement today created their own version of the Mayan calendar, which some say predicts the word will end Dec. 21 of this year, which is bad news for those currently leading their fantasy football leagues.

And I say there is a 100 percent chance that this ban is not an end but a means to an end, a beginning salvo in a battle by the USGA and the R&A to push back against some of the ways the game has changed in recent years.

And he's right.

They used the opportunity to repeat some of the strongest words on distance to ever come out of St. Andrews, Far Hills or their new de facto headquarters in an Orlando conference room.

Peter Dawson had to quibble with my question referencing Webb Simpson and Adam Scott's past statements and the St. Andrews redo reference.

But then he moved to the distance topic that has created many more problems than anchored putters:

As far as the distance issue is concerned, clearly that is very germane to the future of the game.

Ok, right there. That alone is a big statement from Mr. Dawson. There's more...

It affects size of golf course, amount of land use, cost of play, and there can be no doubt at all that this distance issue has to be at the forefront of our minds at all times.

You'll recall the R&A and the USGA did issue a joint statement of principle ten years ago now saying that if distances crept up further, we would take action.  Distances have actually plateaued since then.

So he reverted to old habits there briefly. But then...

But I think the issues that surround the sustainability issue are coming more and more into play when we consider distance, and both the R&A and the USGA have research projects that are ongoing in order to make sure we are ready to address this at an appropriate time.

The fact that we have chosen to do something about anchored strokes that is a completely separate matter and it would be a mistake to feel that because we have done something about one that we don't care about the other.

And the USGA's Mike Davis then chimed in:

Just to add to that, Peter mentioned [2002], the joint statement of principles, I can assure everybody, that the R&A and USGA have been quite busy on these research projects the last ten years.  And looking forward, we are very concerned about the long‑term health of the game, the sustainability of the game.  We are concerned about water usage.  We are concerned about the cost of the game; time, as Peter mentioned.

So this is something that we are taking very seriously, and certainly we are looking, also, at distance.  We want to quantify if one day there was a need to reduce distance, and we are not suggesting today; that we feel that it's our duty, that it's part of our mission to look at the future of the game.

We want to understand what reduced distance might mean; how much matter would it save?  How much cost would it save?  For those courses that haven't been built yet, how much less land would it mean?  That's important to the future of the game.  We have 33,0000 golf courses in the world right now and we need to protect them.  But furthermore, we need to protect those courses that haven't been built yet.

It sure sounds like they are preparing to present data explaining what a reduced footprint would look like economically. Most of us know if they do that, combined with some shrewd forecasting on future water costs from the USGA Green Section, and their case for some sort of revised overall distance standard may just be easier to make than the anchoring case they presented Wednesday.

Latest #savetheoldcourse Clippings And More Graphic Images

Joining former five time Open Champion and Royal & Ancient Golf Club member Peter Thomson in criticizing the work is Paul Lawrie, the 1999 Open winner and a Scot.

Martin Dempster reports his extensive statements as well as some of the other recent jabs from playing greats, including this from Lawrie:

“I personally feel it should be left alone and, if twenty-under or less wins, then so be it as all links courses are at the mercy of the weather. No matter what the winner scores, he’s still the best player that week.”

Lawrie, who described a new tee built at the 17th for the 2010 Open as looking “out of place”, added: “I personally feel they should be tackling technology and, more importantly, the ball instead of spending fortunes changing courses.”

Luke Donald, the world No. 2 Tweeted that he's not sure he's in favor of changing Old Course features that survived several hundred years.

Lorne Rubenstein was more restrained than others but certainly clear about what he feels is driving the course changes.

Change the rules for equipment. Change the golf ball. Slow down greens. (None of this will happen, though). But don’t change the Old Course, at least not without input from more people who care. And many do.

Joe Passov sets the bar disturbingly low, suggesting that changing the Old Course is no big deal and not fazing him "one bit" because they've always changed the Old Course. Though that's a tough case to make post-1920 other than the new tees prior to 2010. And also a stretch considering that the people making the change could have regulated equipment so that this would not be necessary.

That's because for all of its tradition and role as the most hallowed ground in the sport, the Old Course is also all about change. It has witnessed -- and mostly embraced -- hundreds of modifications over the past several centuries. The latest refinements will ultimately make little difference in how the Old Course at St. Andrews is played and enjoyed.

Obviously I can't agree with a statement like that when greenside bunkers are going to be added to create inaccessible hole locations to get Open scores up. Those bunkers will take away the ground game or a bailout for the everyday golfer. But the larger question I'd ask those like Passov chalking these changes up to the Old Course's normal progress: if this is just a typical Old Course update, why was it done in secret?

Reader Mark points out that in 2009 the Links Trust announced "adaptations" to the Jubilee Course. When this took place, they made head greenkeeper Gordon Moir available for meetings on four separate days and displayed the plans from June 8-22 in the Links Clubhouse. This did not happen in the case of the Old Course, the most revered and beloved course on the planet, the bible of golf design. Either it was an oversight of epic proportions or someone knew that these changes went way beyond the last significant nips and tucks the course experienced prior to the 1920s. You can view a PDF of the Jubilee campaign here.

Golf Channel's Morning Drive had Jack Nicklaus on to react to the anchoring ban, but he was also asked about the state of the game (taking care of the ball would help) and the Old Course (nothing wrong with keeping it up with modern times.)

 

Jim Colton tweeted a blow up shot by Graylin Loomis of the amazing scene of a 7th fairway depression getting filled in by an army of workers who were also offering us a punchline contest: how many men does it take to fill in a feature that had been around for several centuries until today?

Generations saw fit to leave this depression. Today's caretakers did not. It must be a gift to know what Old Tom and Allan Robertson and all of the other Old Course caretakers did not know!

Loomis, on the Living as a Links Golfer blog, posted more images here showing the work in process. Warning, these images are explicit and may cause recurring nightmares if you have a golfing soul. Oh, and good luck finding the architects in the photos. Hawtree no where to be seen and Peter Dawson was in Orlando. Nothing like that hand-on supervision for the Old Course account.

Dawson: "We've studied the Old Course more than anyone else."

R&A Chief Executive Peter Dawson was asked by Rich Lerner to talk about the Old Course changes on the Golf Central wrap up of the anchoring ban coverage.

His comments in their entirety:

We've studied the Old Course more than anyone else.

Actually, I'd take Old Tom Morris, Bernard Darwin and Alister MacKenzie any day in that division (and they're dead!), but go on...

We do know that over time there have been many changes to the Old Course, bunkers have gotten smaller, there were three bunkers that don't exist now. Rough has grown up in places it never used to be.

Image Courtesy of Golf ChannelYes and I wonder who did that?

Rough has been removed from places where it once was. And the changes we're putting in now, and let me just zone in on two of them now. The Road bunker, which is rebuilt almost annually at St. Andrews because it gets so much traffic, that bunker has never been the same from one Open Championship to the next. And what we're doing this time is finalizing a design, enshrining that so that every rebuild of the bunker in the future will be the same as it has been this year.

Why that entails reshaping the front of the green well separate of the bunker, I have no idea.

And the eleventh green, which is getting quit a lot of publicity I noticed, well the left hand half of that green at modern green speeds in the summer time just can't house a pin position, a hole location.

Oh boy, he said pin position. If he'd said sand trap too he would have been forced to resign! #it'sholelocationtothebluecoatsoftheworld.

Because the slopes on that green, which were absolutely fine at green speeds a century ago, make that side of the green unusable either for championship or every day play.

Or even green speeds a decade or two ago. What changed? Ah right, the mowing heights and quality of the mowers and knowledge of the greenkeepers. How about we set an example and slow down the green?

So just a small reduction in the slope of that green will open up the green for a much wider range of pin positions close to Hill bunker, where Bobby Jones famously came to grief and will even the wear out on the green from a maintenance point of view. These are sensible changes being proposed by people who love and cherish the Old Course.

Proposed? More like dumped on a Friday, started on a Monday and without telling just about anyone!

Brett Cyrgalis talked to Dawson yesterday and also looked at the controversy for the New York Post. He had this from Dawson:

“I’m more than happy to walk around the Old Course with any architect that wants to see it,” Dawson added. “We know that piece of land and cherish it like no one else.”

Aren't all golfers architects?

Video: USGA and R&A Anchoring Ban Teleconference

In case you missed the teleconference to discuss the anchoring ban, Golf Channel has posted it.

The transcript is here.

First Anchoring Ban Question: Where Was The Data?

The USGA and R&A did an excellent job presenting their case both verbally and visually for the anchoring band. But I think many of us were anticipating some meaty empirical data to back up the USGA's case that players switching to this method have benefitted.

Graeme McDowell had suggested from his conversation with the USGA's Mike Davis that there would be data to back up the argument for this ban. (Brandel Chamblee had more empirical data on Golf Channel than the governing bodies presented and I hope to get that video up later.)

Randall Mell touched on this topic:

The USGA cites no controlled studies or experiments or research to support its argument that a new definition of a stroke is needed, and that will make the decision feel arbitrary to critics. It’s the Justice Potter Stewart deal. The USGA and R&A know wrong when they see it, and they saw the game changing quickly in ways they don’t like.

The lone data seems to be this, noted by Mike Stachura.

He also pointed to usage data that suggested belly and long putters were used by three to four percent of tour players from the 1980s through the mid-2000s before a sudden upsurge.

Davis said that in 2011 the number was 11 percent, and in 2012 it was 15 percent, and as high as 20 or 25 percent in some events. More importantly, Davis said, "in the junior game, where we've seen virtually no anchoring before, all of a sudden it's started to appear. And that caused us to say, 'Is this what we really want the game of golf to be in the future?' We came to the conclusion that fundamentally that's not part of golf."

Is this enough data to make the case?