A Statistical Case Against Tinkering With The Old Course's 4th

I'm not even going to bother with the spiritual case against defacing the Old Course by men with nary a trace of architectural soul, as that ship has sailed in the case of St. Andrews Changes vs. Common Sense.

So as the vandals descend on round two molesting golf's greatest and most important course, reader Mark takes the emotion of out of the case against tinkering with the fourth hole, a target of the R&A's "Phase 2" effort to do anything except regulate the equipment which might have rendered the hole obsolete.

Mark puts together some numbers concerning the supposedly defenseless fourth hole that architect Martin Hawtree and R&A Chief Inspector Architect Peter Dawson will confront like a poodle discovering a fire hydrant.

In the 2010 Open here is how the field played the hole:

31 birdies
304 pars
116 bogeys
15 double bogeys
Average: 4.25

The scoring average in the 2010 Open of 4.25 made the 4th hole the 4th hardest in relation to par.

How about the golfers who had the best week? For the 2010 Open the #s for the top 10 on the final leaderboard were:

3 birdies
33 pars
4 bogeys
Average: 4.03

Note: no player in the top 10 recorded more than one birdie on the hole, including the champion Louis Oosthuizen, who recorded scores of 3-4-4-4. Speaking of the champion, another way to look at the hole's difficulty is how the top 10 fared aggregate of their four rounds on the hole:

-1 = 2 golfers
par = 5 golfers
+1 = 3 golfers

For the 2005 Open I couldn't find full-field stats but the #s for the top 10 on the final leaderboard were:
3 birdies
33 pars
4 bogeys
Average: 4.03

Note: no player in the top 10 recorded more than one birdie on the hole, including the champion Tiger Woods, who recorded scores of 4-3-4-4. Here's how the top 10 fared in aggregate:
-1 = 2 golfers
par = 6 golfers
+1 = 1 golfer
+2 = 1 golfer

SO: in both opens it appears the hole played nearly identically in terms of difficulty — and going by the numbers appeared to be one of the more challenging if not one of the most challenging holes in the tournament. Finally, in Dawson-speak we could say the averages seem to indicate the hole played to its true value as a par 4.

What makes the Phase 2 work all that much more despicable: even the chief inspector expressed his doubts about going forward with it. The Old Course deserves much better than this.

Comments

[Shooting Star]

Geoff - just a thought, maybe tone down the self righteousness and acknowledge that those making the changes do actually know what they are doing. ? I played the Old a few times this past summer and we (number of R & A / New Club members and I) all thought the Phase 1 changes were terrific. Who is to say who is right in this debate ?

[johnnnycz]

@ShootingStar: I believe Geoff's stance all along has been that if ball and club technology had been kept under a firm leash (as the R&A and USGA claimed to be doing) then changes such as moving the back tees off the Old Course boundaries and digging up the mounds and hollows that gave the game's original 18hole course it's character would have never been needed in the first place.

As a result, If the ball and club tech had been controlled...we would have lower green fees, faster rounds rounds, and way less expensive NASA-inspired ball whacking tools to play with today. Which is ideal to many of GS posters.

Like everything else in the game, we will have to wait and see what the Old Course will play like when the big boys come around again.

[Mark B]

@ShootingStar

With comments like that, this probably isn't the right site for you.

If you do decide to stick around remember; a key part of being a blogger is to express your own opinions. If you want less 'self righteousness' go and find a mainstream source of golf news.

Read the stats listed above. They speak for themselves.

[Steve]

@johnnycz

Much of what you post is speculation. It's hard to say where the game of golf would be had the governing bodies imposed strict equipment limitations 20-30 years ago. I know a bunch of people that probably wouldn't be playing golf today if they had to use the persimmon and top flites. So it is very possible that courses would be shorter and pace of play would be faster, but a ton of courses built in the last 20 years may never have been built.

Personally I am more of a traditionalist...I still use a persimmon 3 wood and blades that are almost 25 years old. I loved the game when I was a kid 35 years ago, and still love it today, despite the challenge that often frustrates but also rewards in so many ways. And I'm guessing most core golfers are a lot like me...but I also realized that probably 50% of golfers are not like me and the game would struggle without these casual golfer that enjoy all of the advances made in equipment, course care and the vast array of new and visually stunning courses that have opened over the past 20-30 years.

[otey]

If Dawson's stated rationale for the changes makes no sense - and Mark's numbers prove that they don't - he needs to tell us what his real motives are.

My guess is that his real motives are nothing more than his own gut feel about how the TOC should be changed. And if that is the standard, does the next Links Trust adminstrator get his own crack at TOC in the years ahead?

These changes create a dangerous and destructive precedent.

[munihack]

To me the fact that the R and A feels obligated to make topographic and geometric (added length) changes to the Old Course pretty much makes them guilty of improper equipment regulation regarding golf. While all links courses are depemdent on wind to vary and increase the challenge, St. Andrews' unique layout now demands more than a one club wind to defend itself. This is a direct result of golf balls and clubs that allow a player to swing harder and still control the ball. Golf balls now are more stable in the wind and fly farther. They allowed that to happen. They could change this but would rather not for fear of upsetting the profit structure of the game. Or maybe they have investments in earth moving equipment. What frustrates many golfers is they won't admit it.

[digsouth]

For reader Mark, who compild this information-

a BIG +2 !

Shoting Star- interesting take, but there are a lot of courses, and TOC deserves the respect of LEAVING IT ALONE. I mean, there could be 20 changes hat are ''terrific'', but tha does not mean they need be done.

Respectfully,

dig

[Old Tom]

The R&A

The destroyers of Tradition, the despoilers of The Old Course, the devastators of The Royal & Ancient Game of Golf and betrayal of their duty to protect The Game - all generated by their untouchable ignorance resulting from their privileged position of being unaccountable for their actions.

When will you do your duty and address the real issues facing The Game “Your Accountability” and “Ball Roll Back”?

[Chico]

Mainly because I like playing the devils advocate and also because I believe this- I actually think the RandA do a pretty good job! I have a feeling I may be in a minority on here!!

[Old Tom]

Chico

History proves you wrong through the reports in The Scotsman, Edinburgh Evening News etc going back to the turn of the 20th Century.

[Chico]

Tom- well if its in the press it must be right! I don't give them 10/10 for everything- I wish they had been able to find a way of controlling the ball and don't like the ramifications of that. I think they run great tournaments at all ages all over the world. Their rules course is exceptional,they have some wonderful staff and the members I have worked with are well meaning with the best interests of the game at heart. Compared to other major sports golf is well run.

[Old Tom]

Chico

It must be said, being the truth of it

The R&A

The destroyers of Tradition, the despoilers of The Old Course, the devastators of The Royal & Ancient Game of Golf and betrayal of their duty to protect The Game - all generated by their untouchable ignorance resulting from their privileged position of being unaccountable for their actions.

When will you do your duty and address the real issues facing The Game “Your Accountability” and “Ball Roll Back”?