Peter Dawson today on the 17th hole's setup and performance:
Q. Just going back to the golf course for a moment, the 17th hole we spoke about before the championship began, and you said, Peter, that players have been very complimentary about the changes that have been made. They were all quite critical of the amount of rough up the left‑hand side and felt it was out of character with what was on the rest of the golf course. What are your thoughts on that? And also, why did you change the boundaries of the golf course so late in the week? What was the thinking there?
PETER DAWSON: Well, I do agree with Graeme that the rough left of 17 ought to have been somewhat thinner, but it grew away very rapidly amazingly in the two or three weeks running up to the championship, having been pretty much how we wanted it two to three weeks ago.
I think the 17th tee has been a great success in terms of stiffening the test of that hole. I said that at the beginning of the week, we were hoping that the road might come more back into play, and by gosh, it did. We had far more people on the road this year through the back of the hole than I've seen at previous Opens in recent times. To that degree we are very pleased with the hole, and the player comments by and large have been very positive.
I heard about Graeme's comments. I was out with Graeme when he was here practising and didn't receive any such comments, so I'm not sure if he's been misquoted or not, but the player reaction by and large has been extremely good.
He definitely was not misquoted, as it appears in the transcript of McDowell's presser:
Q. Can I ask you about the changes made to the Road Hole and what level of influence it will have on determining the outcome of this championship?
GRAEME McDOWELL: Yeah, I mean, the Road Hole has obviously been steeped in drama over the years here at the British Open at St. Andrews, and it's a difficult hole, and they've made it more difficult. I think architecturally the tee box fits in beautifully, just like it's been there forever. It really looks like part of the golf course. It looks really good.
You know, if anything, it's probably going to make me play the hole a little bit more conservatively because you're going in with 4- or 5-iron into a green, which was really difficult to hit with an 8-iron. The wind today was in out of the left, so I hit a really good drive and I had 170 to the front edge. So I had like a 6-iron onto the front edge of the green, and that's going to be my target to probably three out of the four pins.
The left rough there is probably some of the thickest on the golf course. You know, they've taken a hard hole and made it really, really hard. Yeah, there's going to be a lot of drama there. Like I say, I think guys are going to play it more conservative than they have. I don't think they're going to be taking pins on. When you have a 7- or 8-iron in your hand, it's pretty tough to ignore a pin. When you have a 4- or 5-iron you can ignore a pin. I see that as the only change. I see less bunkers because of it and I see less balls in the road because of it. So from that point of view, perhaps it might take the drama out of it. We'll see.
The other press conference highlight, showing a new level of attention to detail to bunker design by architect Dawson:
Q. What's an inclinometer? Obviously it says what it does. But is that a proper name? Secondly, what was the angle of the face in 2005? And who decided and what was the thinking behind it not being the same this year as then? And fourthly, was the face of the bunker reverted three weeks ago? I read something about that before. Are they all connected?
PETER DAWSON: What happened three or four weeks ago was just a tidying‑up exercise. The fundamental construction of the bunker was earlier than that.
An inclinometer is a proper name.
I don't know the answer to 2005; I can't remember, but I think it was three or four degrees steeper. And the reasoning behind it was that we wanted to give the players some kind of chance of getting out rather than no chance.