[photopress:Angusglen12_1_2.jpg,full,centered]
Davis Love III, who redesigned Angus Glen North for this year’s Canadian Open, and who will be in town (after skipping last year’s Canadian Open in Hamilton) to showcase the new course at the start of June, is getting shots fired at him by fellow tour pros for his work at Forest Oaks, site of the Wyndham Championship.
This from Greensboro News-Record:
Many players have not embraced fellow tour player Davis Love III’s 2003 redesign of Forest Oaks.
Robert Gamez said Love took out all the curves of Forest Oaks.
“It was always one of the best courses we played, but now you don’t have to maneuver the ball at all,” Gamez said. “Just hit it straight and hard and don’t worry about working the ball. Sedgefield is different. It makes you have to think.”
Kelly said Love “tried to make Forest Oaks a little more Pinehurst-ish. I just don’t know if the land and routing was there to turn it into what he wanted.”
Of course there was controversy in Canada when Love was given the job to rework Angus Glen over the course’s architects, Doug Carrick and Jay Morrish. There was further controversy when Love skipped the Canadian Open, at which he was expected to show off his work at the course in the hope of attracting talent to the event.
Now it will be interesting to see what kind of a crowd he attracts from the media in June, since Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player will be doing a walk around Royal Montreal on the same day.
A bestselling author and award-winning columnist, Robert Thompson has been writing about business and sports, and particularly golf, for almost two decades. His reporting and commentary on golf has appeared in 
Robert….
You say…
There was further controversy when Love skipped the Canadian Open, at which he was expected to show off his work at the course in the hope of attracting talent to the event.
I am wondering if you can point me to this so-called controversy. Apart from your writing and creating the ‘controversy’, I don’t recall anybody writing about it. Perhaps you can enlighten us? In other words, in order for the event to be a controversy it had to have some substance behind it. Or did the ‘controversy’ just exist in your mind?
My good butler, why the distrust?
I found at least three other examples in print in a short search and spoke about the issue with several in the media at the time of the Canadian Open last year…. Isn’t that why you read what I have to say? So I can give you some insider accounts?
Care to share the links? I can’t find them.
As for your second point, I am just wondering whether a controversy amongst the media is in fact a controversy. I guess my point is that the media talking about something doesn’t make it news. It makes in conjecture. In other words, it is pure speculation.
Alfred: Why don’t you send me a working email address and I’ll dash those links off to you. I found two — one in Score — and that took about 15 seconds. Or better yet, why don’t you pick up the phone, call Bill Paul and ask him whether he was happy (or Gord Stollery) was pleased by not having Love in Hamilton to sell the 2007 venue.
The under-whelming reception of Davis’ re-design is the last nail in the coffin for this year’s Open:
First nail: bad date – a week after British Open and a week before a WGC event
Second nail: President Cup in Montreal, drawing corporate dollars away
Third nail: CN Open gets Michelle Wie, Open gets Japanese Tour player ‘Nada’
Fourth nail: title-sponsor-less, star-less, and Executive-Director-less
Fifth nail: TV coverage, American production and American-centric coverage
Sixth nail: none of the Canadian PGA players are playing well this year
Davis Love is a fine southern golfer, but he couldn’t draw flies the Monday after winning the PGA. Was he hired because the PGA TOUR asked Angus Glen or the RCGA, to hire a PGA TOUR player? It goes back to Deane Beaman getting extra money for his members as co-designers. They’ve had a few stinkers, fortunately most were TPCs (Tournament Player’s Clubs-owned by PGA TOUR and Tournament Player’s Courses-other people’s money, use the same TPC marketing).
I’ll make this short and sweet (unlike the pro’s who hit it long and straight)…
1. I’m glad that Mr. Love III has redesigned the course to be playable for the tour pros. How many golfers will be able to play the length that the redesign is accommodating – 5%? Poor marketing… you don’t get people to come to your course because you had a PGA event there, you get them to come because it’s a memorable venue. Let me know how that works out. Glad the big heads have it all figured out.
2. It’s wonderful to have a Canadian Championship contested at a golf course with so little character, captivation and uniqueness.
The Pro’s will massacre it and will criticize it for the above reasons.
Praise to the older establishments, though I’m sad at what they did to the Hamilton G&CC to make it playable for the pro’s. I’m tired of watching the Pro’s bomb it, and hit long irons into concrete greens. How about we have courses that provide more balance, of risk reward type opportunities, doglegs where everyone has to hit it the same distance, and long par fives where you get penalized for hitting it too long.
I hit it a mile, and my preference is to provide the option, to level the playing field and reward the player who makes the right decisions all the time, not just the ones who have a sand wedge into a par 4.
Mister_Clutch
titleist irons
Your blog posts are insightful. I will take them into deep thought and consideration. Your point of view is very smart and intellectual. Charlie