The Old Course At St. Andrews: A Cow Pasture?

[deadsolid...shank]

Of all the course architects to quote, Doak is and always has been the least credible.

 

Even without disputing that, more or less credible than the random friend of an anonymous internet poster?

 

Sure, I'd love a Tom Fazio / Ben Crenshaw / Jack Nicklaus counterpoint to Doak - that would be interesting. But Doak vs. random dude is not.

 

With golf course design not having an absolute right or wrong, doesn't each person's opinion carry the same weight? It's just a matter of personal preference. Any designer is going to like one thing better than another, but that doesn't make it "right".

 

I would always respect the opinion of someone who does this for a living, but always would certainly also form my own.

 

That being said, I would love to play the OC. Just like at Pebble Beach, just being there would override any criticisms of the course.

[TheDailyDuffer]

I would never dispute St. Andrews pedigree.

 

That said ... if someone built that golf course today, I think we all know what the reaction of the golf world would be and it surely wouldn't be widespread acclaim.

 

Like, for example, "it looks like a cow pasture"? Surely such an assessment may be akin to insulting one's mother when people may feel so sentimental about the course, given its venerable history. However, my contention with this thread is that perhaps along with the course is a certain cult of personality attached.

 

In a few years I will go there to play the famous Old Course, but after hearing the gentleman's honest assessment--or at least, initial impression--of the course as a "cow pasture," I am wondering if I will be booking a year in advance and getting on a plane along with a few buddies just for the sake of playing it. My concern is that there are a number of golfers who have gone through the year-long process only to have been disappointed in what they ultimately saw.

 

Here is my question for those of you who may hold the Old Course closely to heart: would it be worth a trip to fly all the way there across a dozen time zones just to play that course alone--this means, specifically, not playing any other course--for a week? Is the experience of playing the Old Course so great that one may forsake other courses like the New Course, Jubilee, Kingsbarns, Dornoch, Castle Stuart or Royal County Down just because the Old Course is the home of golf? If we are all supposed to be brainwashed conditioned to believe that the Old Course is so great, why, then, are golfers playing other courses when the Old Course is all they really need? If I had the invitation to play Augusta National for a week, I would spend the whole week playing that course instead of looking for somewhere else to play, and yes a course like Augusta National is worth getting on a plane for, just like other great courses like Pebble Beach, Cypress Point, Pine Valley, Sand Hills, Shinnecock Hills or Fisher's Island. We shouldn't give it a second thought and pick the Old Course over any other course, right?

 

It seems you have made up your mind so I wouldn't bother if I were you. Thank goodness that single opinion was enough to show you the light :)

 

He's gone full ignoramous.....

 

I think its pretty clear that the OP is associating exclusivity to greatness, just like "we" are with history. If you didn't understand that what I'm saying is that you are holding exclusivity in just the same high regard to greatness at augusta as you are claiming we are doing with history and the old course. This should tell you everything you need to know about the OP.

 

I made the mistake of assuming that the OP wanted to try to find out for himself, but that turned out to be untrue. Instead he is going around trying to apply his ignorance to all parties involved by using "we" instead of "I". The OP attempts to keep the conversation away from any type of comment about the design of the course, I assume because he hasn't seen or played the course. In reality the OP should not be taking seriously in any regard because...how the hell can you have an opinion about a course that you haven't played!

 

The OP isn't alone though, there are an odd amount of strong opinions about the Old Course from people who haven't set foot in Scotland.

 

The Old Course is a great golf course for many reasons. History may matter to some, and if you walk off the course loving it because of the history you are just as wrong as the morons who walked off the course and disliked it because it isn't "beautiful".

 

The old course is truly unique. Most great golf courses are. Every attempt to copy the old course (as well as augusta and pine valley) because the land that it sits on is really quite special. If you can look past the fact that it isn't surrounded by 40 foot dunes, you will realize the ground is far from flat. The fairways are huge, and the greens are the same. Almost no other course in the world plays corridors and greens of that size.

 

The reason why people tend to like the Old Course the more they play it is because there is so much going on, you would never be able to discover everything in just one play let alone 5. You've heard it before that the miss on the old course is to the left. While this is true that most holes have plenty of space to miss left, you will have to consider how you actually want to play the hole. Unfortunately i don't have pictures but depending on what side of the fairway you choose to play from your approach shot can (and will) look completely different. Unlike a narrow course that only provides one way to play a hole (and no real strategy), the old course requires you to make decisions.

 

Yes the old course isn't very difficult without wind, but does anyone think that you should design a course to be difficult when the wind isn't blowing when built on a site that it is blowing 95% of the time?

 

I did happen to find a few pictures of how an approach might look different from the opposite sides of the fairway. The first picture is of the right side of the fairway, and second picture is from the left side of the fairway. Sorry for stealing your pictures, Ran.

 

Are you sure you want to go left?

[TheDailyDuffer]

Ill tackle a few of the funny BrianL99 quotes in this next post.

 

Old doesn't making anything great, it only makes it "old" or perhaps, "classic". To suggest that a couple of sheep herders in the 1500's could out design Coors/Crenshaw, Gil Hanse, Tom Fazio or Pete Dye, is ridiculous on its face in my opinion.

 

No I apologize to those who read this and realizes that some of this doesn't quite involve the Old Course, but BrianL99 and i have interacted though a few threads here and he has spout out quite a bit of conflicting information so I'm going to go ahead and ask for some clarification.

 

In a thread about course rankings i remember you arguing for the sake of history, and the place it has on how great a golf course is. Whats with the change of heart? Personally i agree with the notion that something is either great or no great, and who has played there and for what doesn't really matter to me. Have you jumped ship or are you just being oppositional?

 

​By this logic all modern courses would be better than all classic courses? If you disagree (which i know you do) how can this be part of your argument. On the Royal County Down thread didn't you say that RCD was "better than any other course you've played"? Well RCD isn't exactly a new course created by Tom Fazio. Why can't the "sheep farmers" of created a fantastic golf course all those centuries ago? They operated without the use of heavy machinery (just like many golden age architects whose courses you've notably admired).

 

 

Of all the course architects to quote, Doak is and always has been the least credible.

 

There it is. For some reason you really hate Tom Doak. I also recall you mentioning that you have only one of his courses that you have played is at Streamsong. Have you played other of his courses since? What baseless claim do you have that makes him the least credible? His word certiantly isn't written in stone, but he's a pretty intelligent guy that knows quite a bit about what makes a golf course great.

 

I also find it bizarre that you seem to hold Bill Coore in high regard, and completely dismiss Tom Doak. Both of these guys spawned out of the Pete Dye architect family tree, and both of them have a very similar style. In reality there design styles and concepts are actually quite similar, and i think if you asked bill Coore he would not disagree with this statement. While there are a couple of small differences between these two architects, and it is only natural to pick a favorite i still find it completely bizarre that you would consider one to be one of the best modern architects, and completely detest the work of the other.

 

Gil Hanse is in a similar boat when it comes to comparing styles to Tom Doak. Did you know that Gil Hanse was one of Tom Doaks First hires? Much of what Gil has learned has come from Tom Doak, and once again Hanse's style is very very similar to Doak's. Gil Hanse is actually much less adverse to moving earth when building his courses then Tom Doak is. I also realize you don't think fairway width is a good think, and you should probably take note that Castle Stuart (Gil Hanse's best Scottish course) is i probably the widest course in Scotland with the exception of the Old Course.

 

 

Pete Dye, who Tom Doak used to work for, is one of the great masters of earth moving. Personally i like much of his work, and appreciate it for what it is. Since you go on to rant about how courses a no longer great due to the invention of the bull dozer, you should take note to the fact that pretty much everything pete dye makes or has made has been with the excessive use of bull dozer.

 

Tom Fazio is in a similar boat with Pete Dye, as he absolutely loves to move earth. I don't there is much connection to Tom Doak, but again i find it similar that you would highlight his ability as an architect when you have been so vocal in the past against the use of the bull dozer.

 

I would never dispute St. Andrews pedigree.

 

That said ... if someone built that golf course today, I think we all know what the reaction of the golf world would be and it surely wouldn't be widespread acclaim.

 

The Old Course possesses quite a few design elements that no architect (or developer) would have the balls to build it or anything else like it today.

Including...

 

A Crossover

An out and back routing

Multiple shared greens

Only 2 par 5s and 2 par 3s

A shot over a hotel.

A public road as a hazard

 

including several others

 

That being said just because it wouldn't of been built today, partly because it isn't an "eye candy" course or that it would be criticized not having several hundred years of history to back it up doesn't make it any less great. Part of what makes the Old Course so fantastic is that it is so unique. There really isn't any other course like it.

[67VIP]

I also liked Royal Aberdeen way better than Royal St George's or The Old Course...sorry to disappoint. I could care less what Tom Doak, or any other architect has to say about courses...I form my own opinions.

 

The standard that we're defending here is not "TOC is 'the greatest course in the world'" or even Scotland, the standard is whether or not it should be considered a "cow pasture." It's not my favorite course in Scotland. It's probably in the top 5, certainly in the top 10 (in Scotland). Those are all really good golf courses. Personally, I'd take TOC over Royal Aberdeen, but I understand it if you wouldn't.

 

Your perspective on Gleneagles Kings surprises me. I haven't played it in a couple of years, but after I did, I was in no rush to go back. I only really remember being stuck on the wrong side of that huge mound on #3. Maybe I'll give it another try this Spring.

 

I wasn't trying to make the argument of best in the world...I stated in my original response that St Andrews has a massive grounds crew and they keep the courses in immaculate condition. When I think of cow pasture, I picture a poorly maintained/half assed course that looks like my yard...nothing in or around St Andrews fits that description. I offered an opinion that money for one round on TOC is better spent on the three day unlimited golf ticket instead...if I were to go back a third time that's exactly what I'd do--the operative word being third time. I liked the heathlands the best in the UK, they were just the most interesting to me...most of the links got to be a little too repetitive for my taste.

[Guia]

Well, I guess that gentleman wasted his money, and has no appreciation for history. The Old Course is HISTORY, enjoy the difference.

 

In a little stronger language "he is an a**", and a snob.

[BrianL99]

Ill tackle a few of the funny BrianL99 quotes in this next post.

 

Old doesn't making anything great, it only makes it "old" or perhaps, "classic". To suggest that a couple of sheep herders in the 1500's could out design Coors/Crenshaw, Gil Hanse, Tom Fazio or Pete Dye, is ridiculous on its face in my opinion.

 

No I apologize to those who read this and realizes that some of this doesn't quite involve the Old Course, but BrianL99 and i have interacted though a few threads here and he has spout out quite a bit of conflicting information so I'm going to go ahead and ask for some clarification.

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't have a clue who you are.

 

Your post is so full of conclusions without foundation, circuitous reasoning and typos, I can't figure out what you're trying to say. You'll have to live without any "clarification" from me.

[TheInfidel]

What the hell would he make of Chambers Bay?

[nitram]

 

"would it be worth a trip to fly all the way there across a dozen time zones just to play that course alone--this means, specifically, not playing any other course--for a week? Is the experience of playing the Old Course so great that one may forsake other courses..."

 

 

 

A simple question for you; if you could go to the Smithsonian and drive the cars, shoot the guns, and play with the gadgets, would you?

[TheDailyDuffer]

 

Sorry, I don't have a clue who you are.

 

Your post is so full of conclusions without foundation, circuitous reasoning and typos, I can't figure out what you're trying to say. You'll have to live without any "clarification" from me.

 

That's the type of thing people say when they are unable to defend their opnions, but want to appear like they are the winner.

 

Unlike you I'm willing to back up my points, so if there is something specific you disagree with feel free to point it out. I'll either defend my point of view or concede it (something you are either unable or unwilling to do).

 

[QMany]

Of all the course architects to quote, Doak is and always has been the least credible.

Any reason for this opinion?

I'll admit that I don't think Tom Doak can design his way out of a wet paper bag, but [streamsong] is a new low, for ever Doak.

I'm intrigued by your resentment towards Tom Doak. Care to elaborate?

[SHIVAN]

With golf course design not having an absolute right or wrong, doesn't each person's opinion carry the same weight?

 

I know you are not setting it up to be contentious, but this is a basic strawman. It's not about "right" or "wrong". A professional course designer, with some pedigree, is not the same as you and me "liking" a course. There are certain things, like the sand base of the Old Course, that are not even considered. The use, and placement, of bunkers. The contours of the areas around the bunkers to funnel in to, or away from, them. The contours of the greens. The use of OB, hazards, and impediments. An ER nurse, fresh out of school, and a plastic surgeon with 10yrs of clients, can both suture a 3" cut from a piece of glass -- their opinions of suturing methodology are likely night and day.

 

I will probably hate the course when I play it, but that's because I will have hit what I think is a good tee ball, and wind up hitting four shots out of a pot bunker.

 

I've been there, and there is nothing like it I've ever seen. I can't wait to get back and play a round on the course.

[BrianL99]

Sorry, I don't have a clue who you are.

 

Your post is so full of conclusions without foundation, circuitous reasoning and typos, I can't figure out what you're trying to say. You'll have to live without any "clarification" from me.

 

That's the type of thing people say when they are unable to defend their opnions, but want to appear like they are the winner.

 

Unlike you I'm willing to back up my points, so if there is something specific you disagree with feel free to point it out. I'll either defend my point of view or concede it (something you are either unable or unwilling to do).

 

 

Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to argue with, I'm not interested.

[BrianL99]

The folks using Doak's comments to bolster your opinion on St. Andrews, should do some research on Doak.

 

He's had a reputation for years, of denigrating work done by his competitors and insulting most anyone and everyone who's ever designed a golf course ... except for himself, of course.

 

I've done business with Brian Silva, Rees Jones, Mark Mungeam and Tom Fazio. Most of them have outsized egos (Fazio excluded), but most have the class not to throw stones at everyone else's work. Doak lacks that discretion.

[KMeloney]

There's a lot about the Old Course that will make for a completely different golf experience for anyone who is used to playing parkland-style courses in the US: Waiting for people to drive/walk across 1 and/or 18 before you hit, having no idea which direct your going off a number of tees, not being able to see any landing area from a few tees, hitting to shared greens, finding yourself up against the wall of a bunker with little chance of getting out in less than two strokes, hitting over a building, etc. You might call some of these things ugly, unnecessary, unfair -- and unacceptable. But, all those things also make TOC special. Quirky and from another time and place, yes; but special nonetheless.

 

Why anyone who considers himself a golfer wouldn't want to play the course is beyond me.

[deadsolid...shank]

With golf course design not having an absolute right or wrong, doesn't each person's opinion carry the same weight?

 

I know you are not setting it up to be contentious, but this is a basic strawman. It's not about "right" or "wrong". A professional course designer, with some pedigree, is not the same as you and me "liking" a course. There are certain things, like the sand base of the Old Course, that are not even considered. The use, and placement, of bunkers. The contours of the areas around the bunkers to funnel in to, or away from, them. The contours of the greens. The use of OB, hazards, and impediments. An ER nurse, fresh out of school, and a plastic surgeon with 10yrs of clients, can both suture a 3" cut from a piece of glass -- their opinions of suturing methodology are likely night and day.

 

I will probably hate the course when I play it, but that's because I will have hit what I think is a good tee ball, and wind up hitting four shots out of a pot bunker.

 

I've been there, and there is nothing like it I've ever seen. I can't wait to get back and play a round on the course.

 

I understand what you're saying Shivan, but to me, placement of bunkers and the makeup of the ground the course is built on are two very different aspects of a course. As someone with no knowledge of turf I have no business offering an opinion of grounded conditions, other than personal like or dislike. But there is at least a science to it.

 

Placement of bunkers and such is not a science, it's a design preference. What might be perfect to one person might be absolutely ridiculous to another.

 

I do realize that the guy with the design pedigree carries more weight with his opinion, but ultimately, design (particularly layout) is a subjective matter.

 

But one thing I know for certain, I would love to play it someday.

[QMany]

The folks using Doak's comments to bolster your opinion on St. Andrews, should do some research on Doak.

 

He's had a reputation for years, of denigrating work done by his competitors and insulting most anyone and everyone who's ever designed a golf course ... except for himself, of course.

 

I've done business with Brian Silva, Rees Jones, Mark Mungeam and Tom Fazio. Most of them have outsized egos (Fazio excluded), but most have the class not to throw stones at everyone else's work. Doak lacks that discretion.

So he's full of himself? How does that translate to "not being able to design his way out of a wet paper bag?" Discretion and denigration, indeed.

[thurmdiesel]

Golf course design is definitely subjective, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. But not all opinions are weighted equally, and there aren't many opinions worldwide that carry as much weight as Doak's.

 

I've met Tom Doak in a social setting and neither of us were rushing to Facebook-friend the other afterwards. I might not go out of my way to grab a drink with him, and he'd no doubt say the same about me. But when it comes to golf course recommendations, there aren't many people whose opinions I give as much weight to as his. Anybody can have an opinion. But as far as I'm concerned, there are very few people who have a good enough eye that I'll listen to their golf course recommendations. I don't always completely agree with Doak's, but I've also never found a course he raved about to be mundane.

[deadsolid...shank]

Golf course design is definitely subjective, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. But not all opinions are weighted equally, and there aren't many opinions worldwide that carry as much weight as Doak's.

 

I've met Tom Doak in a social setting and neither of us were rushing to Facebook-friend the other afterwards. I might not go out of my way to grab a drink with him, and he'd no doubt say the same about me. But when it comes to golf course recommendations, there aren't many people whose opinions I give as much weight to as his. Anybody can have an opinion. But as far as I'm concerned, there are very few people who have a good enough eye that I'll listen to their golf course recommendations. I don't always completely agree with Doak's, but I've also never found a course he raved about to be mundane.

 

All true. But the prevailing theme in course design today seems to be the big, open, links style design. Which is what I would expect most people, especially the current top designers to endorse. But I don't like that style, I like a framed, parkland style where I can see where to hit the ball. So while I'm in the obvious minority, those guys opinions wouldn't actually carry much weight with me, although I would certainly respect their thoughts.

 

I guess I'm simply saying that if someone played and didn't like the Old Course, while their opinion is going to be in the vast minority, it's still not "wrong".

[SHIVAN]

That is a true statement. We could all play Pebble Beach, and 20% of us may hate it. That doesn't make it a horrible course, or just some "short grass on some plateaus above some water".

[SHIVAN]

In re-watching the 2015 Open, I am reminded that primary golf was not always "through the air", as we have today.

[thurmdiesel]

I guess I'm simply saying that if someone played and didn't like the Old Course, while their opinion is going to be in the vast minority, it's still not "wrong".

 

Definitely true. They're not wrong, although they do risk having all their future opinions ignored by guys like me.

 

That's what makes me shake my head whenever non-architects talk about golf course design "knowledge" or "understanding." I'm impressed by anyone who has the knowledge to build a course from start-to-finish, but for the rest of us, we're all just striving to be seen as credible enough that someone will care if we tell them to choose Course A over Course B.

[deadsolid...shank]

In re-watching the 2015 Open, I am reminded that primary golf was not always "through the air", as we have today.

 

It's fun watching them play shots along the ground. Jason Day's up and down on 17 with the putter?!

 

I don't have that kind of imagination, don't even see those shots.

[deadsolid...shank]

I guess I'm simply saying that if someone played and didn't like the Old Course, while their opinion is going to be in the vast minority, it's still not "wrong".

 

Definitely true. They're not wrong, although they do risk having all their future opinions ignored by guys like me.

 

That's what makes me shake my head whenever non-architects talk about golf course design "knowledge" or "understanding." I'm impressed by anyone who has the knowledge to build a course from start-to-finish, but for the rest of us, we're all just striving to be seen as credible enough that someone will care if we tell them to choose Course A over Course B.

 

If someone wants my opinion, (well, first of all, they're foolish) I'll tell them, but I also think I should explain why I have that opinion, and also that it may be different from most people's. That way they can make their own decisions. I love reading reviews on here where people explain why they like or dislike a course. To me, it adds credibility to that opinion.

[deadsolid...shank]

That is a true statement. We could all play Pebble Beach, and 20% of us may hate it. That doesn't make it a horrible course, or just some "short grass on some plateaus above some water".

 

Pebble Beach may be great or just so-so, we've read both on here. I just know for me, I was still in such a state of disbelief that I was actually there that I barely noticed. We played very quickly (first group out) and I don't think I ever stopped to,just appreciate where I was.

 

I have the feeling if I ever played the OC, it would be very similar. Just the realization of where you are, the history.

[baddomes]

The folks using Doak's comments to bolster your opinion on St. Andrews, should do some research on Doak.

 

He's had a reputation for years, of denigrating work done by his competitors and insulting most anyone and everyone who's ever designed a golf course ... except for himself, of course.

 

I've done business with Brian Silva, Rees Jones, Mark Mungeam and Tom Fazio. Most of them have outsized egos (Fazio excluded), but most have the class not to throw stones at everyone else's work. Doak lacks that discretion.

So he's full of himself? How does that translate to "not being able to design his way out of a wet paper bag?" Discretion and denigration, indeed.

 

Tom Doak did a "Find Content" search of BrianL99's posts on golfwrx and decided not to "do business" with him.

[stringbean502001]

Deadsolid---you make good points!

 

I am clearly in the camp of those who revere this golf course. However, I'd also admit it comes with an underlying preference of links style--true links. Those who do not like (true) links course styles are certainly not wrong, and would have a tough time enjoying the Old Course as much, under any circumstances, I would think.

 

Despite my opinion of TOC, I can see where even a links fan could have an unfavorable first impression--which may also be the only one they will ever have. I will say this--just an opinion and a recommendation one can keep or pitch--IF a person is going over to play, take the time to research the course...every hole, the strategy for each, the options, the quirks, and yes the history also. It is just too subtle otherwise. How have the great players over decades fared and how did they make decisions on each? This is all available on our wonderful internet today. No matter your conclusion at the end, you will have had a much better experience than otherwise.

 

Reading this thread, I asked why I felt so positive on my first round there--I think now it's because it was really about my 100th round, not my first--I just had yet to swing the club. I knew so much about every hole (notebook in hand), every shot option, it was fascinating from the start.

 

Maybe a person is one who thinks this is an absurd waste of time and that a course should "wow" them without having to do homework, but if that were me, I would not waste my time and money at TOC. Too many other great golf courses--I wouldn't spend resources on this one.

 

You are NOT likely to get the chance that other "converts" like tour pros have gotten, to play it 30,40, 50 times or more, so make the only time count.

[deadsolid...shank]

Deadsolid---you make good points!

 

I am clearly in the camp of those who revere this golf course. However, I'd also admit it comes with an underlying preference of links style--true links. Those who do not like (true) links course styles are certainly not wrong, and would have a tough time enjoying the Old Course as much, under any circumstances, I would think.

 

Despite my opinion of TOC, I can see where even a links fan could have an unfavorable first impression--which may also be the only one they will ever have. I will say this--just an opinion and a recommendation one can keep or pitch--IF a person is going over to play, take the time to research the course...every hole, the strategy for each, the options, the quirks, and yes the history also. It is just too subtle otherwise. How have the great players over decades fared and how did they make decisions on each? This is all available on our wonderful internet today. No matter your conclusion at the end, you will have had a much better experience than otherwise.

 

Reading this thread, I asked why I felt so positive on my first round there--I think now it's because it was really about my 100th round, not my first--I just had yet to swing the club. I knew so much about every hole (notebook in hand), every shot option, it was fascinating from the start.

 

Maybe a person is one who thinks this is an absurd waste of time and that a course should "wow" them without having to do homework, but if that were me, I would not waste my time and money at TOC. Too many other great golf courses--I wouldn't spend resources on this one.

 

You are NOT likely to get the chance that other "converts" like tour pros have gotten, to play it 30,40, 50 times or more, so make the only time count.

 

That's just plain old fashioned good thinking and planning.

 

Just going off on a tangent, I wonder how much playing it on a good simulator prior would help?

[gvogel]

Yes, I agree if you take a very very quick glance St. Andrews isn't much. Remember Bobby Jones walked off the course and hated it the first time he played it. But he grew to appreciate it. You have to look at it with a different eye. Its really subtle and a fantastic test of golf in its purest form. It's basically the birthplace of golf architecture since so many of its holes are copied elsewhere. How to play it correctly isn't something you can pick up the first time you play it unless you have an exceptional caddy. Its very very subtle and difficult to score well there. And when the wind comes up (and it comes up quite often in a different direction from the last time you played the hole) its an entirely different course.

 

Personally I love St. Andrews and wish I could get back over there to play it again. Kingsbarn is Ok but I don't like several holes at all. I think there are better courses around than Kingsbarns.

 

If its Castle Stuart that he really likes then that tells me a lot about the quality of his opinion on golf courses. Castle Stuart is one of the few courses that Tom Doak gives a zero (0) in his rating of courses for the British Isles. I personally haven't played the course, but have read a lot of opinion about the course and Doaks negative opinion isn't the only one that I've read. The majority of golf people don't like it. And the Trust has had to totally redo the greens already to make them playable.

 

Many don't find the Old Course all that great when they first play it. Heck, you can't see many of the hidden fairway traps. The more one plays it, the more one appreciates what's going on.

 

I can't fault someone for making a judgement based on first impressions.

 

Thankfully, many of the greatest players in the game came to recognize how special St Andrews is after playing it multiple times. So, if you really like St Andrews, you're in good company.

 

I will say this: modern equipment is rendering the course a pitch and putt deal, unless the wind blows.

[duffer987]

 

Many don't find the Old Course all that great when they first play it. Heck, you can't see many of the hidden fairway traps. The more one plays it, the more one appreciates what's going on.

 

I can't fault someone for making a judgement based on first impressions.

 

Thankfully, many of the greatest players in the game came to recognize how special St Andrews is after playing it multiple times. So, if you really like St Andrews, you're in good company.

 

I will say this: modern equipment is rendering the course a pitch and putt deal, unless the wind blows.

 

Is that what happened when you played it?

 

Lots of classic courses have had their defenses against professionals and very good amateur players blunted over the years, but luckily I am a hack and it doesn't impact me. So when I hear how a course has become defenseless I do wonder from what perspective people are coming from.

[stringbean502001]

Yeah, modern technology, while great in many ways, has robbed today's young golfers of the former experience at TOC. Today's long courses will be tomorrow's wonders for sure, but there will never be another great course simply (and completely) routed on the land as it exists--just wouldn't fly. And the ancient courses were not laid out for titanium.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Warning--old fart story--you may want to skip to next post...

---------------------------------------------------------------

First time at St Andrews for me and a golfing buddy was just short of 50 years ago. Had an 11:30 time booked, and we figured it was a good night to go deep into the night/morning at the St Andrews bars. Guy I"m talking with at the bar (on a full year, round the world, golf sabbatical) says "you can play 36 no problem". Huh?

 

"Just go there before dawn, caddies will be around, grab one--he'll take you right out before the first tee times!" Huh? Okay, so on about 2 hours sleep, did what he said, and it worked. He also gave me a specific caddie, who said he was Palmer/Lema's caddie (aren't they all?ha). He was there...we went.

 

Watched daybreak...saw an old guy on the course with a beard to his waist, riding on a bike with 4-5 clubs in an old bag just playing between greens...couple walking dogs... No one else on the course. About hole #6, a little guy on a scooter shows up to collect our green fees--no problem, a normal routine evidently. I remember the greens fee as about 5-6 british pounds (free for St Andrews residents?)

 

Came back, cleaned up, had a long breakfast and a nap, lots of coffee, and back out.

 

To this day, best golfing day of my life. The 6600 yards (found the scorecards this morning) was a challenge then...what a change with today's equipment, and the kind of experience that the crush of humanity everywhere today won't allow. The subsequent rounds never matched up.