Lessons of Augusta?

[JakaB]

Mike,

Langer was poised to win the tournament before his problems at 13 and 15....the lengthening of 13 or something caused him to hit in the trees long and reduce his chances of hitting close to make eagle or birdie....he made par.  On 15 he hit the ball short into the water for whatever reason you may choose...but trees or length or removed turbo mounds might have come into play.....Langer plays those holes at three under and posts a score....the other guys press and lose.....boring.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
The uncertainty of playing an approach from the rough to firm, fast, undulating greens adds some drama, at least for the guy pulling the trigger.

[JakaB]

Jim,

Living in the midwest...I must say...that is not rough and those are not trees....let em grow some 4 or 5 inch bluegrass rough and plant some mighty oaks instead of those skinny ass pines with no limbs below 20 feet....

[Jim_Kennedy]

John,
Ditto the Northeast. I was down in Aberdeen(NC) playing the Legacy and had a great round from the woods. Playing between the pickets is easier than playing from the thickets.

By the way, Legacy(Jackie Nicklaus) was a very nice course and although we rode it is walkable. They also have a limited number of yearly memberships available for the whopping sum of $740.00, no initiation fee. This has got to be a great deal for a Sandhills resident, or someone spending a few months a year down there.

[JakaB]

I think it should be discussed and noted how the available ground game at Augusta negates the planting of these so called trees.....is there a hole on the course where the green cannot be reached in regulation from the trees....and that rough....my God people it is a second cut...calling that rough is like calling me cut.

[T_MacWood]

JohnK
Did the trees make Langer 3-putt at #13? I don't recall what he did on #15...did I miss bold shot making on his part?

If the measurement of great architecture should occure between 3pm and 6pm on a Sunday afternoon then Valhalla is the best course in the world.

Mike H
I don't know how many members ANGC has or their average age....but what does either have to do with if the changes have improved their enjoyment of the golf course?

[Mike Hendren]

Tom Mc,

Absolutely nothing.  My comment was specifically addressed to A. G.'s inquiry on which tees are typically in play.

Barney,

Glad to see someone discuss the "rough."  It sure was easy to see a lot of ball when it came to rest there.  Perhaps it widens the course by breaking balls that are headed into the trees - be they new or old.  Regardless, for those of us "diggers" it would likely be the optimal turf from which to golf the ball.

Mike

[JakaB]

JohnK
Did the trees make Langer 3-putt at #13? yes..the three putt was a result of his ball stiking..not his putting. I don't recall what he did on #15...did I miss bold shot making on his part?yes...he hit it short into the water because he was not in postion A...or postion infinity you seem to desire.

If the measurement of great architecture should occure between 3pm and 6pm on a Sunday afternoon then Valhalla is the best course in the world.

This might piss me off if I didn't know the great degree of satisfaction it would give you...Augusta Sunday is not a one trick pony....architecture is not one dimensional...and proof is in the pudding.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
You've beaten the maintenance meld horse to death."

Mike Hendren:

Absolutely and positively not and in my opinion, the Masters, particularly Sunday's round is total proof of it. I think it was Dunlop White on this thread who mentioned that ANGC's fairways were pretty firm fast and they were but with the ideal maintenance meld and particularly for something like the Masters I always make a huge distinction between firm and fast fairways (or "through the Green) from the firmness of the GREENS themselves. In my opinion, for players like those the FIRMNESS of the GREENS themselves is basically the total key. And combining that green surface firmness with the speed they were running on those greens is what made that tournament and particularly Sunday so great. To me that was the total key and ANGC nailed that aspect right on the mark. The green firmness has to be right at that point where players like that can't really spin their approach shots well which allows them to hit it right at pins normally. The key is if their pitch marks pull up any dirt at all they aren't firm enough and the pros don't need to think anywhere near as much. Just a very light dent is what identifies the ideal firmness for something like that tournament and with that speed the greens were running they really had to pick their contour and slope mark somewhere else with real thought and sometimes not near the pin and just let the ball FILTER on the contours of those magnificent greens. That kind of thing truly makes those good players have to READ the architecture bigtime. The only problem happens if they just go a snitch over on that green surface firmness and the ball won't hold at all. That can turn a tournament into the opposite effect where even ideal shots can get too easily screwed. That's when those pros start screaming but they weren't screaming on Sunday because ANGC nailed the green firmness and speed  on the mark.

In my opinion, the way they had those greens ratcheted up in both speed and firmness the effect and playability of all the architecture was huge. It doesn't get any better than that. Adding to that is the pin placements and rotations. That just completes the picture in how they can get most any scoring effect from those pros they want.

[jim_lewis]

Let me say first that I have NEVER seen a tree that improved a golf course and I would NEVER plant a tree on a golf course.

Now, having said that, I do not strenuously object to the trees that were planted to the right of the landing area on #15 a few years ago.  The hole is only 500yards long with no chance of lengthening it. If a player is going to go for a par 5 in two, he should be required to hit a good tee shot. Langer hit a poor tee shot into those trees and then componded the problem by hitting a very poor pitch out which failed to make the fairway.  Still, he had a good chance to reach the green in regulation and make a par. However, he needed a birdie, and hit a risky shot shot of the pin that rolled back into the water.  With that tee shot, he did not deserve a chance to reach the green in two. I was paying particular attention because I was pulling for Langer. Pretty much the same situation applied to Norman when he lost to Olazabal. He pitched out ok and then hit a terrible wedge dead right. I have little patience with those who hit a poor tee shot and then complain that they have no chance at making eagle.

With regard to Tom's comment about Seve in 1986.  His tee shot was in the right portion fo the fairway and came to rest on the right side of one of the small mounds that were in the fairway at the time. The ball was below his feet, a fact which contributed to the poor iron shot into the water. That same shot today would still be in the fairway but on a fairly level lie.

With regard to the course setup on Sunday, little has been said about the tee being moved forward on #2 and the pin being moved to the front of #8.  I thought they took most the excitement and most of the gofor second shots out of #2 when they lenthened it a few years ago. The tee was moved forward on Sunday resulting in many players going for the green in two.  The traditional Sunday pin on #8 is way back left resulting in only a rare eagle and few players even going for the green.  The front pin allowed most players to have a shot at it and resulted in Els making eagle there.  I applaud both moves.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Help me understand your last comment -- you say you have NEVER seen a tree that improved a golf course and then you say the ones on the right side of ANGC's 15th is OK. Hello?

Jim -- the Sherwood Forest to the right is inane. The green is demanding enough to require a properly positioned tee shot. The trees on the right are nothing more than added impediments that fly in the face of what the hole was originally envisioned. It's like adding obstacles for the sake of just doing so.

If the trees were removed the demands the hole presents would still be present without making the hole into some sort of bowling alley that flies in the face of what Augusta was originally intended. To borrow a phrase from years ago supporters said "let Reagan be Reagan" I say the following "let the old Augusta be Augusta."

[jim_lewis]

Matt:

Let me be clear. I would not have planted those trees to the right of #15 or any of the other trees on the course. If allowed, I would cut down the Eisenhower pine tomorrow. However, I am not as obsessed over those trees on #15 as many seem to be.These days a 500yd par 5 with the second shot being downhill is simply too short. Frankly, I would remove all of those trees, move the tee up 50 yards and call it a par 4. But, if it is to be a par 5, the tee shot should be demanding. A tour player should not be "entitled" to go for the green in two no matter where he hits his tee shot. A crooked tee shot should leave the player with an opportunity to make a measley birdie or par, but not an eagle.

While I'm spouting blasphemy, let me add that I prefer to judge this course, and any other, based on what exists today, rather than how it stacks up against someone's perception of what the original architect intended. Why aren't more people complaining about the Eisenhower tree? I wonder if it was ever intended to play the role it does today.  It is, in my mind, far more rediculous than any of the trees that have been planted in the past 40 years.  Anyone who thinks the original #7, #10, #11, or #16 were superior to the current holes, is mistaken, in my opinion. They are overly hung up on the "original intent" and do not accept that some change can be good.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Let me be clear -- there are a number of "improvements" that August has added that have clearly helped certain holes such as #10 and #16 -- I would seriously debate you on your thinking that #7 and #11 are better.

With that in mind Jim -- how do you feel about the Sherwood Forest added to the right side of #11? Wasn't Augusta suppose to be fashioned after TOC with wide fairways for interesting and exciting playing angles. How does adding trees to create bowling-alley type fairways fit with that genesis?

Jim -- the 15th is no bargain of a hole because of the shape and angle of the green -- that's always been the case. Let's not forget that with the pressure of the event it's no bargain of a shot even if some big strong dude pumps it out there 350 yards! The tee shot still requires you to be on the "correct" side when approaching the target. Also, because of the length the players are almost always required to go for it (minus Chip Beck) in order to stay close to the top of the leaderboard. There's also the matter of the 100-yard pitch which is likely the toughest shot to master given the lie, angle and green dimension.

Regarding the Eisenhower tree it's OK with me to take the ax to it. Jim -- I'm in agreement with you that some change can be good and some is likely to be overdue. However, adding trees doesn't cut it and I think your original assertion is quite accurate.

[jim_lewis]

Matt:

I do not approve the addition of trees on #11. In fact, I would remove two or three older trees about 100yds to the right front of the tee.  Since the new trees are there and not likely to be removed, I would move the tee up a little to its pre-2000 position.  In any case, I think the hole is superior to  the early version when the tee was just to the right of the 10th green. It was quite short and was a dogleg right, except for those who hit it over the trees on the corner.

I've said several times on this site that in the 40 years I have been visiting ANGC, I have seen many changes. Some I don't like, but some I do.  I judge each based on whether (in my judgement) the change resulted in an improved hole, or not. I am not smart enough to evaluate the change against some "original intent", which I am not so sure of anyway.

If #7 green had not been moved, they would have to move the tee back into the woods behind the latrine to keep it from playing as a very long par 3.

[T_MacWood]

Jim
I thought Seve was in the left center of the fairway and he snap hooked into the pond. Left center today would result in a lay up.

When Jones and MacKenzie designed ANGC these were the requirements they put forth...the essential for their ideal golf course:

1. A really great course must be a constant source of pleasure to the greatest possible number of players

2. It must require strategy in the playing as well as skill, otherwise it can not continue to hold the golfer's interest

3. It must give the average player a fair chance, and at the same time, it must require the utmost from the expert who tries for the sub-par score

4. All natural beauty should be preserved, natural hazards should be utilized, and artificiality should be minimized

Does the course today reflect these ideals?

"But it seems to me that the very fact that the course (the Old course) can be easy when it can be likewise be very difficult is a virtue rather than a fault, because it is an indication of the variety that can be found there. The only course that weill remain dfficult under all conditions will be one that is designed and kept for golf of a stereotyped, monotonous character, and this makes a most uninteresting proposition. Unfortunately one finds too many courses of this nature in America. Our tendencies over here have been to lengthen the holes, and to pull the bunkers closer in to the greens, in order to provide an examimnation in mechanical skill." --Bobby Jones

Substitute trees for 'bunkers'.

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

I was standing on by the ropes on the right of the fairway adjacent to Seve when he hit that shot. He was definitely in the right half of the fairway standing on a small mound with the ball slightly below his feet. All of those mounds were in the middle and right portion of the fairway. In order to miss them you needed to flirt with the trees on the left. The shot he hit (a 4 iron, I think) was a low-line drive pull hook across the fairway into the left half of the pond. I'll never forget my embarrassment and the angry reaction of his brother, who was his caddy, when many in the gallery near me cheered at his bad shot. That spot is in the fairway today. The mounds in the fairway as well as the large mounds(my favortite viewing spot) have been removed. Many players would hit their tee shots, deliberately, well right of the fairway (over the gallery) inorder to get a better angle at left pin placements.  That strategy was not available in the early days because players didn't hit it that far. It is also not available today becasue of the trees that were planted on the right.  I don't know, but I think the original intent was that successful (gofor)tee shots must be placed between those viewing mounds on the right and the trees on the left. That is the requirement today with the trees replacing the mounds. The difference is that you could hit into/over the mounds and still have a shot to the green. The new trees do not allow that.

[BCrosby]

I too have been going to the Masters for about 40 years. (In my case off and on during some periods. I can claim to have followed Hogan his last year there. My father, god bless him, insisted.)

I agree in principle with Jim's take on the 15th. Things had gotten out of hand in the mid-90's. I watched group after group bomb drives into the 17th fairway and hit short irons back down the hill to the 15th green. I'm not sure trees were the answer (there was a Mucci thread recently were we discussed possible alternatives), but something had to be done.

But is ANGC a better or worse course? Compared to what? Oakmont? Merion? Fernandina Beach Municipal? ANGC in 1934?

The question conflates two very different notions. The first is whether it is a venue that holds up against world class players in a major tournament. If resistance to scoring is your measure, then yes, it is a better course today. It has followed the tried and true USGA "monster course" formula. It works every time.

(I've often wondered what NGLA would look like today if a major tournament was played there every year. I suspect nothing like the present course. After a couple of 25 under winning scores, even the estimable NGLA managers would cave.)

The second notion embedded in the question is whether the course - absent the demands put on a course by world class players - is better on pure architectural terms now than it was designed to be by its designer? By the usual measures we use to judge a course's architectural merits, is it better? Is it more strategic? Does it call for more and varied shot choices? Are there challenging yet doable recovery opportunites?

In my opinion the answer to the second question is no. Clearly no. An enormous amount of unique and interesting architecture has been lost.

The changes made to 7, 10, 11, 18 have made them better holes for Masters play but far less interesting architecturally.

Take 7. It was modeled on 18 at TOC. It had a Valley of Sin, a funky putting surface, the whole bit. It was, like the 18th at TOC, a hole longer players might drive. But tremendous risks were associated with that choice. Roberts, however, couldn't bear the notion that players might drive one of his par 4's and so we get this hole that requires - to paraphrase Jones - two "mechanically perfect" shots right down the middle to an elevated green. By any measure, it is a difficult hole. But profoundly devoid of shot choices.

Similar analyses apply to 10, 11 and lots of other holes at ANGC.

Some of the best architecture ever put in the ground in the US was at ANGC. Too much of it is now lost.

That is a shame. I'm not convinced that plowing under that extraordinary architecture for the purpose of hosting an annual major tournament was worth the price.

Bob

 

 

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Very fine post but it sounds like only one conclusion. It's just very hard today on some courses to hold scoring by today's pros to some reasonable level and also to maintain the original design prescription of a course like ANGC for the members. As you say just adding length for the good players is one way to do it but obviously over the years ANGC has done a lot more than that.

It'll be interesting to see how Shinnecock stands up to the best this summer in the Open as it is a course that although hard is very much enjoyed by its membership.

That club really hasn't changed their architecture much at all since the course was built around the same time as ANGC. They've utilized most of Flynn's "planned elasticity" but this is what he planned it for. The only other thing the club and course has allowed is the usual USGA Open fairway narrowing but this should be considered more of a maintenance set-up and not an architectural change through redesign---that is unless the club does what Merion did coming out of the 1971 Open which was to forget to expand back their fairways for the next 33 years (something they claim they're now finally correcting).

Shinnecock has also done a really fine job in the last few years of removing trees that just naturally grew up and in!

As to NGLA and those pros going low on it. Maybe they would shoot 20 under in a 72 hole tournament. But if the club wanted to prevent that without doing a single thing to the golf course they could simply give them a par 70 card instead of the course's normal par 73. It just so happens that for a level like tour pros three of NGLA's par 5s would be ideal long par 4s for tour pros without doing a thing to them except perhaps moving up the markers on #18 a bit.

Then if the same number was shot to win the 72 hole tourney it would be 8 under instead of 20 under! It's all perception!  

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Yes, it is very hard to keep the architectural interest of a course and at the same time buttress it against low scores by world class players. It's extremely difficult. And I don't have any easy answers.  

But at a minimum we need to be clear about what has been lost.

The current USGA formula is, I believe, inherently and inescapably anti-architectural. The evidence has been pouring in for more than 50 years. It is bad for courses; it is worse for popular perceptions of what good architecture should be. And it has finally infected ANGC, a course I once thought immune to the disease.

I would have hoped that people at the USGA would now, after all this time, see this too. Similarly, I would have thought that their house architects would have also seen it.

I still hope that some brave soul, either from the ranks of architecture or from the USGA (I've given up on Hootie), will stand up and say there has to be a better way to test the best players. At some point someone has to have the guts the say that setting up courses with high rough, narrow fairways and added length is not a solution but a failure of the imagination.

Bob

P.S. I am very interested in seeing how they do things at Shinnie.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

It has probably been said a million times but what I take from this is that professional golf has hurt the game.  Aside from the momentary thrill some get from watching it on TV or live, or some get from rubbing shoulders with pros, what we are left with is more negative than positive.  Ironic that the greatest amateur, maybe greatest player, created a course that has been made over to a point that the original course is hard to imagine in hopes of keeping the professional game relevant for 4 days each year.  I can say that if professional golf ceased today my pleasure from golf would not diminish one bit, in fact it might be appreciably increased by the courses I might play that would not have been altered in response to the professional game.

[JakaB]

So..Kelly Blake Moran,

Are you saying that your enjoyment of a course is based on your ability to strike a golf ball.   I have been taught that should not matter or come into play in ones opinion of a course.....and now all I hear is...it just ain't as good if it is too hard for me.   I don't get what the difficulty of a course has to do with its architecture if the course is not too difficult for a mans potential....you do still design practice facilities..don't you.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

My enjoyment of a golf course comes from playing it.  The difficulty of the course for me is usually due to my lack of ability rather than the quality of the architecture.   Personally, if I have not played it the course is almost irrelavent to me, except from what little I can glean from other's experiences.  When I play a great course like NGLA, I am more comsumed with what is happening between me and the architecture in the context of my play than I am just sitting and admiring its features.  The action involved is what matters to me, not the passive admiration.  Looking at a beautiful church, an architectural wonder, like the Vatican is much less relevant to me than being inside the building tussling with the God for whom it was built.  Looking at a great stadium and admiring its beauty and design for spectating is much less relevant than using the stadium, being there while the actual event is happening.  It is more in the action, the art of playing the game that makes the architectual detail come forth than it is in observing and dissecting the course by eye and mind only.  It is the course's responsibility to engage me in the sport to serve me with immense pleasure and pain.  I have no interest in admiring the course from afar and proclaiming its virtues based upon observation only.  Architect's often get asked if they are distracted by observing the architecture when they play.  I fall on the side that is more interested in my game how it is meeting the demands of the day and the land, that particualr shot that is right in front of me, rather than in what I think I see in the architecture.  Typically the difficultly should not be moderated for man's potential, but rather man should seek to increase their potential to meet the difficulties, which I must say is easy to say and harder to practice, but like the old man said in Secondhand Lions, it is not so important that what you believe in is true, what is important is that you believe in it, and believe it to be true, and live accordingly.  I probably got that wrong, but I am sure I'll see the movie again and I'll try to get it right next time.

[A.G._Crockett]

BCrosby
Your posts #41 and #43 are wonderful.  Very good work that should be required reading for all of us.
Thanks for the effort!

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I totally agree A.G., post 41 is particularly instructive.  Roberts dictum to improve the course and the tournament every year to be the very best and to keep improving it until it reaches the highest levels has gone awry, and in fact ANGC is an excellent case study now for every classic course to change their courses to meet the demands of the professional game.  The preceived success of ANGC and its tournament could in fact justify the assault on classic courses and render helpless those trying to protect them from the professional game.  I would think those that are trying to protect the classic courses can not feel comfortable today as a result of this past tournament which has solidified the position that positive change in response to the professional game is possible and here is the formula.  Those amateurs that enjoy that afternoon walk and engagement with more classic style courses may be walking into the dark, or as in Field of dreams they may be walking into the cornfield, only to emerge occasionally at that rare place that is a throw back to a more simple and respectful time.

[JakaB]

  Typically the difficultly should not be moderated for man's potential, but rather man should seek to increase their potential to meet the difficulties, which I must say is easy to say and harder to practice

That is what I have been trying to say for years....thanks.