Flip through the latest issue of Gulf Weekly.
I UNDERSTAND that members of the Royal Golf Club in Bahrain are not averse to discussions relating to course changes and are frequently free with their own suggestions as to how to make improvements, including to the course designer himself, Colin Montgomerie, during his frequent visits.
I wonder what they, therefore, think of the changes being carried out on the Old Course at St Andrews?
Every Open course either has had, or will have, changes made, primarily to counteract the length the modern professional can hit a ball, and the control that she/he can maintain over distance.
But why do golf courses feel the need to do this? After all, golf is a game aimed at securing the lowest score. As golfers improve, should designers be making it harder for them to achieve their personal best? Is Usain Bolt asked to run with weights, or run further or with his legs tied together?
It is consistency that allows for comparison.
I understand the argument that improvements made by club and ball manufacturers already prevent direct comparisons from being made in golf. However, you rarely hear athletics-watchers complain about lighter clothes and shoes, or superior running surfaces. Many delight in watching the setting of a new world record. Much of this is a result of greater knowledge surrounding nutrition, sports science and training methods.
So why have the changes being made at St Andrews caused such a stir around the world?
Established in 1552, it is considered to the ‘Home of Golf’ with traditions galore. The course record remains the 63 shot by Tony Jacklin in 1970.
The Open returns in 2015. It is considered to be one of the most aesthetically-pleasing courses as a result of a design that mirrors the natural topographical layout. It is considered to be a natural masterpiece.
Two of the changes that are generating the greatest outrage are the widening of the iconic roadside bunker and the re-contouring of the famous 11th green.
Should we be bothered? Are you ever likely to play it as an amateur or is your interest consigned to watching the professionals on television? Surely this changes the perspective? As a viewer wouldn’t you prefer to see the top players in the world challenged?
I do like to see the top players tested, although there are other ways to do it. Heavier rough rewarding accuracy and harder, faster greens and difficult pin positions can be used.
Amateur players should be relieved that local clubs that use St Andrews have been consulted and approved the recommendations, suggesting that the course will represent a fair challenge to all levels.
Of the players, Tiger Woods and Ian Poulter, two shrinking violets, have criticised the changes.
However, according to Peter Dawson, chief executive of the R&A, there have been minimal changes, referring to alterations being made with ‘shovels rather than bulldozers’. He also refers to other changes that have occurred over the years, some natural, some by design. The Fife weather and shifting sands have certainly contributed!
This debate has overshadowed another controversial ruling that will see the ‘anchoring’ of clubs against the chin or belly, banned from play, as referred to in last week’s GolfWeekly section. To put the debate about the Old Course into context, Dawson claims that it is this matter that will impact the larger number of golfers.
Changing course design is a complex scenario with numerous arguments counteracting each other. I’m therefore going to have to go with my ‘gut’ and state that, provided the course is still recognisable, I’m happy to see the changes made – it’s not all about who has the bigger driver. The only problem with that is the R&A have just banned the use of my gut!
