Golf course designer Martin Hawtree on making changes to St Andrews

To help combat the inroads technology has made into the Old Course, the R&A hired Martin Hawtree to subtly stiffen its defences. We asked him to explain his changes.

When the R&A first approached you, what was the brief?
In essence, to breathe life into those parts of the Old Course that were failing to stimulate today’s player. But we had to do so without endangering the historical integrity of the links and we had to ensure that nothing looked out of place or period. I was also asked to consider the Eden green, which for many years had very few pin positions on the left half of the green.

What were your instructions regarding the bunkering?
To consider adding a few greenside bunkers to increase the interest and to frame parts of greens for new pin positions. I was also asked to look at the fairway bunkers and make recommendations for the removal of some of them, with the idea of replacing them with new bunkers to vary the challenge and stimulate choice.

Were you given any specific guidance for tweaking the Road Hole bunker?
We looked at fixing a design for that bunker, which has changed so many times in the last 100 years. We even considered the reintroduction of H’s bunker on the 1st fairway.

Is it true you received hate mail when your involvement was first made public?
Yes, I received a good many denunciations, so much so that I turned off the mobile phone
for the 10 days I was working at St Andrews so that I could concentrate on what I, the
R&A and Links Trust were working to achieve.

Did you understand the strength of feeling the Old Course arouses?
Of course, but I think most observers believed there were going to be many more substantial changes than were actually the case. And also, it’s not as though the Old Course hasn’t changed over the years – you only have to look at the evolution over two centuries of Hell Bunker and the Road Bunker for proof of that. The idea of change had to be grappled with and thought through seriously.

I personally have no problem with the idea of introducing more playing interest. But as in all cases of change, however revolutionary they may be considered, the storm subsides and I doubt whether many of the changes we have made may really even be capable
of description.

Do you believe that, given the advances in technology, these changes were inevitable?
If the Old Course was regarded as a museum piece, one might note the vast changes in framing and showing off of museum exhibits we’ve seen over the last 50 years. The Old Course is no museum exhibit but it would quickly become one if its guardians did not consider its ability to stimulate challenge and enjoyment for the golfer in the modern age.