Q&A With Scott Macpherson, Part II

No course has been more deserving of thorough analysis and a loving attention to the details of its evolution than the Old Course, and Scott Macpherson done it with St. Andrews: The Evolution Of The Old Course. He compiles rich anecdotes and lavishly illustrates this handsome tome to help us understand just how much the Old Course has evolved and more importantly, why it retains its brilliance.

In Part II of our Q&A on the eve of the 2010 Open Championship, he talks about specifics of the course and his own design work with Greg Turner.

GS: Tell us what you've seen in terms of the Road Hole's "fairway" width evolution. Did the fairway used to open up more toward the first green so that players could bail out but face a much more difficult approach?

SM: Geoff, as you know, the term 'fairway' is a relatively modern term. But let's not get hung up on that semantic.

An article published around 1900's talked of the course in the 1850's and the course was described then as being "very narrow" with the fairways not any wider than "a good broad street". So traditionally there has not been a lot of width on the course. But as you know, with the greater amount of play, the course widened with all the wear from golfers. The grazing sheep (not taken off the course until 1945) also kept the rough grasses down, and kept the 'fairways' wide.  But how wide did the 17th hole get? I'm not sure anyone knows, but I think it is safe to say that the corridor has changed over time. Only after the railway Station was built in the 1850's and Old Tom built the 1st green in 1870, and the bunkers down the left of the hole formalized, could it possible be said that the playing corridor was set.

It is probably important to say that with the road running along the back edge of the green, the best line into the green – especially if the flag is at the back, is from an angle that allows a golfer to hit down the length of the green. This is obviously from the far right. How far right could you get? Probably not much right of where you can get today due to the railway station. As regards the area around the green, this hole has only been a par 4 since (and including) the 1960 Open Championship. Few players back in the early 20th century would have got past the Scholar's bunker, so this was the more important area for many decades. Now with the hole being a Par 4 there is greater interest in the Road Hole bunker. (There is possibly too much interest in it actually appearance – it most important aspect is it position and the area from which it gathers balls)

 
The 17th in reverse plays as the second hole (From St. Andrews: The Evolution of the Old Course, click image to enlarge)GS: The 17th in the reverse Old Course, which would be the second hole, is depicted in your book and the strategy looks fascinating assuming there's a bit more width. Do you know anyone who has played it?

SM: I have played it many times. A few years ago, the Links Trust started allowing the 'reverse course' to be played in April. I think it was for a week at first. Now they do it every second year for about 2-3 days. The 17th in reverse is a tremendously difficult hole. Particularly the approach shot to the green. The hole becomes a real adventure, and it (and the 12th in reverse) are high-lights of the experience.


GS: You feature a graphic showing just how little square footage is actually pinnable on the Road Hole and Eden greens. Do you know actual square footages of pinnable green space on those holes?

Scott Macpherson's slope percentage analysis of the Old Course's 11th green (From St. Andrews: The Evolution of the Old Course, click to enlarge)SM: When the greens are running over 10.5 on the stimpmeter, I think the for the 17th green, the pinnable area is just over 300m2. For the 11th, it is about half that – say 150m2. i.e not very much!

GS: You detail the issues with boundaries on the course, when did the right of the Home hole become out of bounds? Would you prefer it to have no boundary and to see a few shots off of the doorsteps of Tom Morris's golf shop?

SM: The Out-of-Bounds areas became such on the 17th of July 1911. It was mainly a practical solution I understand. I love the 18th hole because the golfers expect to make 3 on it, and yet this hole can provides scores from 2-6 quite easily. No change needed.


A hazardous bunker, Hole O'Cross, date unknown (Tournament play on the Corner Of The Dyke (Geoff Shackelford Collection, click to enlarge)GS: Which version/era of the Old Course would you most like to play and why?

There have been some monumental periods in the evolution of the course. If one could time travel, of course it would be fascinating to see and play the course when it was 22 holes and then in about 1850 after the March stones had been put in the course was 18 holes and Halkett's bunker still existed on the 18th fairway. But if I was to choose one period I'd love to go back to 1904-05 and meet Old Tom, Horace Hutchinson, John Low, Garden G Smith, Harry Colt, understand the pressures on the Old Course (extra visitors, new haskell ball, new lawn mowers, Open Championship coming) that culminated in the addition of the 200 yards and extra 13 bunkers. This was a dynamic period – and I wonder how different  the pressures where compared to where we were in 2005 with the Pro V1.

GS: They've added tees in some rather bold locations of late, but one thing we learn in your book is that bunkers have come and gone quite regularly until the last fifty or so years. Would you like to see something done besides tees?

SM: I celebrate the men, such as John Low, who have been at the centre of shaping the changes to the course while protecting its spirit. I don't underestimate the difficulty of this at any time, be it in 1900, or 2010, but I wonder if it would be more difficult today, now that millions more know, herald, and worship the Old Course. Having completed the research I see myself as a traditionist not a protectionist, and would like to see the Old Course add some more bunkers – and fill in a few of the obsolete ones – to keep the strategy of the golfing test at it's optimum. e.g. I would like to see the hollow just past the last of the beardies, and in the middle of the 14th fairway, made into a bunker. This would make the longer hitters have to hit the ball down a narrow corridor between the wall and this bunker to get as far down the fairway as possible. The bunker would be in keeping with the Beardies and improve the strategy of the hole.
 

GS: Tell us about Close House and your design work there with Greg Turner.

SM: Not many young architects are getting opportunities to design new courses these days so this project is a huge personal privilege to me. I was approached to design the course in 2004, and it took 5 years before we broke ground in April of 2009. The course is located on an old English mansion property near Newcastle, UK,  complete with 200-year old oak trees, Ha-ha's and ancient monuments. I felt that the course needed a theme in keeping with the history of the property and suggested we build the course in the style of Harry Colt. the owner of the property owns many race horses so he liked the equine connection, and the course is to be called the 'Colt'. No two holes on the course follow in the same direction, the course is very strategic with a second shot being rewarded depending on the excellence of the first. The course is designed to look harder than it plays, with some holes having a small degree of mystery that will reward the regular player of the course. For a comparison, the course has almost 300 feet of elevation difference between the highest and lowest points – much like Pasatiempo – (and this is not a bad comparison on another level as Mackenzie use to work with Colt) but the highest point is on the 11th hole, so it is a all down hill to the Clubhouse from there. I am very excited about this course, and look forward to the opening in May/June 2011.

And The Mystery Ghost Is...

There is Allan Robertson on the far left (creator of the Road hole green), and on the right, Young Tom and Old Tom Morris. And second from the left? Reader Jason got it...

Why it's the great David "Old Daw" Anderson, purveyor of golf balls, greens and a wee nipat the fourth tee for which the hole is now named (Ginger Beer). Here he is serving up a beverage to none other than Old Tom in what has to be the earliest evidence of the beverage cart girl (I know you thought Troon in Scottsdale was the original home for on-course libations). 

Note the green roller nearby, or whatever that is!

Here's another shot of Daw courtesy of the University of St. Andrews.

Q&A With Scott Macpherson, Part I

Golf architect Scott Macpherson worked previously for architect Denis Griffiths and the Australian firm of Thomson, Wolveridge and Perrett, where he was the on-site architect for two designs at St. Andrews Bay (now the Fairmont at St. Andrews). Now working with touring professional Greg Turner, the duo have undertaken several renovations and are completing a new UK design.

Macpherson kindly answered questions via email about his thoroughly researched book on the evolution of the Old Course, which can be purchased via the web. In Part I will get to know Scott and what motivated his research and in Part II, we'll get into the specifics of the course and his new Colt-inspired design.

GS: How did a New Zealander become so obsessed with the Old Course?

SM: The OC is important because it is a foundation stone for the design industry. What happens in St Andrews and on the OC trickles out to the corners of the golfing globe. I happen to think the OC is a tremendously fun course, but its greatest virtue is perhaps that it remains a viable championship test of golf 137 years after it held its first Open. Can another other course make such a claim?

On a professional level, I know that I needed to complete this study of the OC, and the history surrounding it and the industry to become a better architect.

GS: When do you think the Old Course was at its architectural peak in terms of the look, strategy, and sheer fun to play? Or is it better than ever?

SM: It is an interesting question to try and determine when the course was providing the best test (that was one of the goals of the book)– partly because this leaves one wondering if the changes since then, whatever period one decides is their holy grail,  have been to the detriment of the course. The research shows that the test for the best players on the Old course was in the late 1920's-1930's (see graph page 158) when the length of the course and the equipment available to them was in balance and the winning scores were just under par, but the field were just over par. But to get to that point the course, prior to then, under undergone some rather radical changes – e.g for the 1905 Open 200 yards were added and 13 bunkers. No changes since then have been to the detriment of the course, but if the Par standard is how you measure the course, then that was arguably when the OC provided the best test of golf.

As for fun, I think you can shoot 130 and have fun. And they did – but mainly in match play. Those who play golf competitively often measure the fun they have on the course but the level of success they have. For the rest of us, it is the adventure that provides the fun – and the scoring is almost irrelevant. In other words, the success and fun are by-products of overcoming adversity.  A good shot here, sinking a rolling put there etc provide those memorable moments. The course was a lot more difficult in years gone by, as were the golf clubs and balls , so I imagine that when one overcame the hurdles then, the satisfaction gained was higher that it can be today. But this is just my speculation. It is still a fun course today.

Tournament play on the Corner Of The Dyke (Geoff Shackelford Collection, click to enlarge)GS: Tell us about researching the book?

SM: I have never considered myself an author at all, nor harboured aspirations to write a book. This book was the culmination of a private research project and then being cajoled (by Greg Turner and John Huggan) into 'adding a few photos' and publishing it.  I had trained at a GCA, and been in St Andrews waiting for the planning permissions to come through for the building of the two courses then known at St Andrews Bay (now Fairmont St Andrews). This became an extended period (about 12 months), and so a friend ( another kiwi guy who was doing a Phd at St Andrews Uni and also caddying at St Andrews) suggested I join him and caddy on the OC for the summer. I had done quite a bit of caddying on the Australasian Tour, so expected no problems. What I did discover was how little people thought the Old Course had changed. The caddy's perpetuated this myth '"No Sir, this hole has never changed". The Truth was unknown. So I started the spreadsheet which appears at the rear of the book. I wanted to find the lengths of all the holes for all the Opens held at St Andrews. It took me almost 4 years. In looking for this info, I found lots of others things out about the OC like the bunkers, the out of Bounds, the Teeing grounds moving. This was fascinating to me.

The objective of the books was to find out al the changes to the OC, Determine when the OC provided the best test for golf (and this needed to be defined) and I also wanted the book to be the first book to bring together all the great and important plans of the OC. e.g. the 1821 plan, the MacKenzie plan, and the most recent ones. Along the way, I though some readers might like to see the scorecards from the various Opens, and kindly Peter Dawson gave me permission to include them.

 
The High Hole, date unknown (Geoff Shackelford Collection, click to enlarge)GS: The theme of your book is this constant evolution of the course, but even as much as it has evolved, the tees on other courses for the Open seems to be extreme even for the St. Andrews, no?

SM: There have been some ground breaking (excuse the pun) decisions made at St Andrews through the years. Most recently, perhaps you might consider the new tees built outside the accepted boundaries of the course for the 2005 Open (e.g. on holes 2, 13, 14). What came out of the scoring stats after that Open was that length alone will not provide more interest, make the course harder, or reduce the effects of the new equipment on scoring.  On page 157, the graph shows scoring coming down in spite of added length, and on p150 the table shows the stroke average on those holes lengthened. I think it is apparent that the added length made the course easier for the long hitters and harder for the average guys – making me would wonder if a shorter hitting shot maker (e.g. a Corey Pavin) will ever win at St Andrews in the future? (It would be sad if this type of golfer was pushed out of contention due to equipment but that is another topic). The only hole playing easier for the field was the one where longer hitter had to lay-up due to a landform (hill) and the fairway running out. This is on the 13th hole.

Getting In The Mood For St. Andrews

Dom Furore spent a month in St. Andrews photographing the course and while taking in town life. Here's his video digest, though it looks like he could put together one amazing book:



Golf.com posts this set of hole-by-hole flyovers, set to some interesting music.


"In the Open, competitors hole out and increasingly must take a brisk, 100-yard-plus walk back to the next tee."

John Barton makes this shrewd point in previewing this year's Open at St. Andrews and its many tees-played-from-other-courses.

At St. Andrews, you used to tee off within a club-length of the hole into which you'd just putted out; nowadays, in the Open, competitors hole out and increasingly must take a brisk, 100-yard-plus walk back to the next tee. If driving distances were ever allowed to become so great that the Old Course were rendered obsolete, a museum piece unfit for tournament play, then golf will be a lesser game and its governing bodies will have failed.