Third Open Championship Question: Could The R&A Get More Out Of The Old Course?
/Okay the Open coverage will be winding down, but another question that's been on my mind involves the topic of course setup.
In my piece for Golf World summing up the Old Course's week, I get into the unnecessary rough throughout the course that eliminates key areas needed to attack certain hole locations. It appears to be a product of three things:
-Someone intentionally narrowing the place down
-Overall overwatering, leading to overspray unintentionally hitting native roughs
-Subtle mowing pattern changes over time
Because of space considerations, I also just mention but not detail the combination of some really edgy hole locations with redundancy of placements over the four days on some holes. The R&A theory on keeping holes bunched in small areas is due to the double greens and the desire to keep players moving. However, even with this situation carried out as planned, players still wait for their peers on the neighboring green.
So with that in mind, I'm wondering if the R&A is really getting the most out of the Old Course with their setup? This year things were not helped by a consistent wind direction over four days, but why not throw so major twists into the setup? Say, play the seventh hole to the eleventh green area and move eleven down nearer the seventh (this would require moving the scoreboard).
Or perhaps play the second hole to the sixteenth green one day and the sixteenth to the second? In other words, maximize the looks that players get over four days? After all, if there's any place you should be doing varied day-to-day setup, isn't the Old Course the one?
I did see one stellar mixing up move, when the 5th was played up front all three days, usually 12 to 15 paces from the front. Sunday, the hole was cut 85 paces deep into the green!
So should the R&A do more of that or would players and media howl when they fail to use the "traditional" hole locations?