“Today’s professionals are bigger, stronger, fitter, have more technology at their command, and it’s very important that we keep our great links courses relevant to the modern-day professional"
Some day they'll look back and say, wow, the R&A changed courses to mask their regulatory incompetence. But surely they were discreet about it, right?
For Immediate Publication
THE R&A ANNOUNCES COURSE CHANGES AT TURNBERRY’S AILSA COURSE
21 APRIL 2009, Turnberry, Scotland: In advance of the 2009 Open Championship, Turnberry’s Ailsa Course has undergone a number of adjustments designed to ensure that, as one of Britain’s finest links, it continues to challenge modern professionals. The most extensive changes are on the 10th, 16th and 17th holes, though most have been enhanced in some way.
“Today’s professionals are bigger, stronger, fitter, have more technology at their command, and it’s very important that we keep our great links courses relevant to the modern-day professional,” explained The R&A’s Chief Executive, Peter Dawson. “We’ve been doing that at every Open venue, with Turnberry having had a considerable number of changes since the 1994 Open Championship.”
Thankfully, circa 2002 Major League Baseball owners never declared that the players were bigger, stronger, fitter with more technology at their command, therefore, proudly announcing that they extended the Green Monster skyward 40 feet and spent millions to alter their ballparks so that the lads can keep injecting their rear ends!
The 10th has been redesigned to bring the coastline into play and now requires at least a 200-yard carry over the rocks from a tee perched on an outcrop by the lighthouse. The fairway has been moved closer to the beach to tempt longer players to cut off more of the corner, and three new fairway bunkers force a decision to be made between safer tee-shot with a longer approach or a riskier, braver and more aggressive drive.
Significant changes have also taken place at the 16th and 17th. The shape of the 16th has been radically altered and it now dog-legs right from a re-positioned tee around newly-created dunes and hollows. 45 yards have been added along with a new bunker on the left of the fairway. The bunker, which used to guard the left side of the old fairway, now protects the right edge of the new one.
The realignment of the 16th has allowed a new back tee to be constructed on the 17th, extending the hole by 61 yards. A newly-constructed approach bunker, along with another to the front and left of the putting surface, adds difficulty to the second shot.
Including those on the 10th and 16th, a total of 23 bunkers have been added on holes 1, 3, 5, 8, 14 and 18, with two removed at the 3rd and 14th, making players think more about their course management strategy.
Uh no. They are intended to make players leave driver in their bag so you don't have to regulate equipment.
Though many Open Championship courses have upwards of 120 bunkers, Turnberry still only has 65, testament to the natural test that the landscape provides.
New tees have also been introduced at holes 3, 5, 7, 8, 14, and 18, extending the course to 7204 yards, 247 yards or 3.5% longer than when The Open was last played at Turnberry in 1994.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 09:19 AM
Reader Comments (21)
Well, professional golfers who are bigger and stronger don't have to hit balls thrown by other professional golfers who are also bigger and stronger. Pitchers juice too, ya know. And I'm not sure I'd agree that baseball players have more technology at their command, at least not in the way that the R&A is talking about. I'm not sure that maple bats and smaller handles are quite the equivalent of 460cc titanium drivers and the explosion in ball technology.
I'll be damned, if that isn't very nearly what they've done.
Ailsa Craig, for those of you who haven't had the privilege of visiting the lovely Ayrshire coast:
http://z.about.com/d/golf/1/0/c/q/turnberry_ailsa_8_green_craig.JPG
I dont' really remember much of the course, I hope they haven't choked it too much but they probably have.
What is interesting that, I recall after the last St. Andrews Open, someone high in the R and A was talking how they don't care what the winning score is, the course is great no matter how far the pros hit it, and there probably won't be many changes for 2010.
I wonder if they were just saying this because St. Andrews is already maxed out, and new bunkers can't be added there without a public outrage?
The new Number 1 tee will be somewhere in downtown St. Andrews; some demolition of the R&A clubhouse may be needed, since "Today’s professionals are bigger, stronger, fitter, have more technology at their command..."
Nae wind, nae goff.
Except at the Masters.
4p
"Stronger" than Dustin Johnson.
"Fitter" than Angel Cabrera.
I'll have an extra-large milkshake, and nine cheeseburgers (with everything) to go. Do you have cigars, too? Excellent. A couple of the Churchills. Yeah, baby.
Fans like golfers shooting low scores and hitting the ball a mile, too. Maybe not the small subset of purist fans...or older touring pros. But lots of ordinary fans do.
And lots of ordinary golfers like the fact that they can hit their drives a little further, and hit into the greens at their favorite courses with a little less club. Let's not forget that for every high profile club which adds length for a major championship, there are thousands of courses that do nothing. Because there's no reason to.
And let's also not forget that they've been lengthening golf courses for, well, forever. Distance has plateaued in the last 5 years, right? The 1% or less of world golf courses which wish to host high level championships, etc. (that's right, isn't it...maybe 1% of the world's courses host high level professional events? ) can belly up to the bar and pay for their modernizing revision.
We know, in fact, that baseball owners WOULD change rules/setups in order to address changing conditions on the field. They might lower, or raise, the mound. They might subtly change the strike zone, and they might make the balls more live or pull the laces a bit tighter.
The point is, they'd exert some control. They'd preserve their game. They'd preserve what was historic and enduring. They'd preserve 60 feet 6 inches to home plate, and they'd preserve Fenway. They would do what it takes. They wouldn't be steamrollered by Wilson or Spalding or Rawlings.
I truly don't care what Joe Sportsfan thinks about golf, and whether or not "chicks dig the long ball." The USGA, as a serious organization, shouldn't care either. Mind you, the USGA should indeed care about Mr. Lunchbucket golfer, but I'll be darned if I can figure out how the USGA has gone from being an organization formed around places like Brookline, Chicago GC, Shinnecock and NGLA, to being a negotiating partner with Titleist and Ping.
I think it has. Which comprehensively puts the lie to any claim that it is continual progress in fitness, training, technique, argonomy, etc., that has been mainly responsible for distance gains in the Pro V era. It is the balls, and the drivers.
In the past 5 years, nobody has come up with any great advances in solid multilayer urethane balls, except perhaps new ways to sue each other. And in the past 5 years, nobody has done much to change the basic architecture of 460cc, high-MoI drivers with light composite shafts. Distance hasn't changed much, because drivers and balls haven't changed much. Wow.
You really think the owners in baseball spend millions to alter their parks to preserve the integrity of the game? Has that ever happened in that sport, or any sport, like it has in golf?
Of all the factors that might go into those things (if you even *believe* those things to be true), you choose how far a modern PGA Tour player hits the golf ball as the only or at least largest factor? C'mon...
My point is that baseball owners would NOT allow themselves to be forced into changing their historic ballparks for the sake of equipment. They'd make darned sure that the balls fit the stadiums, the playing fields. NOT vice versa, as we see in golf. And yet, baseball owners are not afraid of chaning the parameters of the game in order to preserve it. They'd lower the mound, raise it, etc., to preserve their game.
Compare the USGA; at the appaernt mercy of the equipment makers, they change the courses if equipment forces them into it.
I think that your baseball analogy still works. The difference is that baseball has not allowed the manufacturing or use of super distance baseballs and bats (not including the so called "juiced ball" era). The point that the poster Seitz misses.
One unique thing about baseball is that has it has an incredible history of statistics that other games lack. Within limits, we can compare the game from decade to decade, something that does not mean a whole lot in golf.
And above posters, the reason owners don't make homerun heaven ballparks is because your opponent could hit just as many home runs as you could.
Carrying the baseball analogy further. Baseball players have customized bats just like golf players and their custom clubs, but the ball is standard. From the bigs, to the minors, to the pioneer league, the ball is the same.
That is what the golf lords need to do. Stop changing the playing field, change the blasted ball! Standardize a tournament ball that all touring pros would use. Beautiful courses around the world that have not been used for major tournaments in decades would be "playable' again.
And to those who would cry that they like to watch the long drives on TV, 75% of televised golf is putting anyway.
The golf ball is personal equipment. It's not shared, and thus, a player can change it without affecting anyone but himself. Every other sport allows (within boundaries - just like with the golf ball) players to customize their personal equipment, so the analogy falls apart when you try to position golf ball == baseball.
The only thing that's shared in golf is the golf course. Baseball, unlike most other major sports, can be tied to golf there because some measurements, like hole size and pitcher mound distance are the same while other features are unique to each field/course, but that doesn't carry over to comparing the balls.
Golf's ruling bodies should be concerned about what's best for the game. All players, all spectators. Some say that their sanctioning of modern balls and clubs amounts to a negligence, looking the other way and avoiding litigation. I like to think that perhaps it has something to do with the idea that the modern equipment helps people enjoy the game more.