Mr. Mucci
I'll do my best...
1. I believe that for many people Augusta is the epitome of what they believe golf should be. I do not, nor do many who understand that very few courses hold the resources that Augusta and its membership does. Believe me - I do everything I can to educate people about this and most rationale people understand. But is Augusta to be held responsible for how others view it?
2. I think this is the point of most of the debate. In many cases alterations need to be made to courses to improve drainage, poor soils, poor construction, etc. Is this the case at Augusta. Not recently. But I think the answer to this question is sometimes yes, many times no, and always open for debate.
3. This I obviously can not answer. But I would say other than plan interpretation or written word, how can the TRUE thought process of the original architect be had. From my experience many aspects of design occur for reasons not overtly apparent.
4. I have never heard of or been a party to having Augusta cited as reasons for reworking another club. It certainly may occur, but not in my experience. I think in many cases persons may feel Augusta is responsible. But again, do we hold Augusta responsible for what other clubs and memberships due. Sounds dangerously close to passing the buck to me. I know when my dad was handing out the whippings it didn't seem to matter that, "Tommy was doing it too."
5. Interesting. I think that very few people understand the scope of all of the change that has occured since Augusta was opened. Obviously the current changes are at the forefront of everyone's mind, but the only constant at Augusta has been change.
6. Open for debate, but I choose to follow this premise. Even if some believe that Augusta should never have been altered, it is the sole business of the club and its members to run their club. I don't pay the bills so I don't feel I should have any say. None of the changes over the years has diminished my enjoyment every spring of watching the Masters. In fact I am very interested to see how the current crop affects play. I am one who believes major championships should challenge the best golfers. That is what separates Augusta from The Quad Cities Classic (no offense to the Quad cities intended). Again my point, of which debate seems particularly sparse, did Dr. Mackenzie intend golfers to hit wedges into #15, sandwedges into #18? Surely it's the equipment - no debate there -
but what is to be done. It is the REALITY of todays game that golfers hit drives 300+ yards and irons from 260 into the wind. That will not change. So leave the course alone and turn it into the springtime pitch and putt or alter the course to defend it. Is there a correct answer? From the variety of opinions from the small sample of individuals replying here - perhaps not.
7. Augusta should not be considered in any decisions considering maintenance for 99.9% of the worlds courses. It is my opinion that if Augusta wants to groom to perfection that is entirely within their rights and means. It is not their fault that uninformed greens commitee chairmen around the world demand 'Augusta like' conditioning. Again, do you fault Augusta or those who attept to follow. I do not fault Augusta. I fault the bankers, lawyers and others who no nothing about agronomy who sit on commitees and dictate the undoable. Augusta's fault - no.
8. I feel that Augusta 'hurts' golf course architecture in no way, nor does it 'hurt' maintenance. Does it propigate unachievable expecatations? Only for those who can not separate their club from one which for all intents and purposes has no budget. To me not Augusta's fault. Do you dictate to a club not to be in the best possible condition because other clubs may have commitee men who will expect the same at their club? I can not.
9. I do not know Augusta's mission statement if they have one. Nor what it should be. I would leave that to the people it matters most to - the members.