If there had been no Masters tournament...

[T_MacWood]

...how different architecturally would ANGC be today?

[Jari Rasinkangas]

Greens would be slower.  Hell, all greens in the world would be slower.  

[BCrosby]

Very different. Much closer to the course MacK designed.

Virtually all the available evidence (and there's not a lot) as to why certain changes were made relate to concerns about how the pros would play a given hole in the Masters. Most of the focus was on par 4's that Roberts (and sometimes Jones) thought were too short or too easy for the pros. One bit of good news was that Jones successfully resisted Robert's attempts to "strengthen" no. 3.  

How different would NGLA be today if they had played a Major on it every year for the last seven decades?

Same question for Cypress Point.

My guess is that both courses would be dramatically different. And much less interesting.

Bob

[jeffwarne]

Bob,

Or maybe it would have been bastardized as often as it's next door neighbor Augusta CC.Plenty of courses without yearly major championships have been radically altered-many much more so than Augusta National.
Like many things,we'll never know

[jeffwarne]

Probably the main  reason that Augusta has been changed so much is because they CAN.
1.The club is CLOSED during the best time for growing bermuda grass(the base under the rye)So no one complains about the loss of use of the course
2.They have the funds(of couse this comes from the tournament now,but the tournament was not always a financial success)
3.autocratic rule-they don't need membership approval to make changes

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

Jones and MacK viewed themselves as doing something very special, even pioneering, at AGNC. Their design was a culmination of a friendship that started in 1926. They had become allies in the support of strategic golf design (vs. penal designs) from that date. (Originally it had to do with defending TOC against attacks that it was obsolete.) ANGC was the apotheosis of their shared views, in many respects. It was a design they had thought a lot about.

So, as with MacD at NGLA, their original  design at ANGC was important to them at a number of different levels. They had a stake in it. It was a statememt of their design philosophy.

For that reason, absent the pressures of hosting a major championship, I think that the architectural fate of ANGC would have been much like the fate of NGLA.  It wouldn't have changed much. ANGC would be much closer to the course at the time of MacK's death.

One of the things often forgotten about ANGC is that it had money problems from the beginning. It had few local members and for decades had trouble making ends meet. It didn't help matters that the opening of ANGC and the on-set of the worse of The Great Depression both occurred in the same month.

The Masters franchise was one they could not afford to lose. It may have started out as a nice little invitational for Bobby and his friends. But once they understood the national appeal of the tournament, it became the cash cow that supported things.  

Thus, changing the course to better suit an annual major championship venue was forced on them. I suspect Jones (and, of course Roberts, who had no reservations whatsoever about making even the wackiest changes) felt he had no choice in many instances.

Nonetheless, I think it is a shame that so many changes were made.  A truly bold, pioneering course was lost. I can't think of any course built since that is as daring and takes as many chances as ANGC's original design did.

Sorry, didn't mean to carry on so long. Are you back on LI?

Bob      

[TEPaul]

Would the Masters be just as interesting today if ANGC had never touched that golf course.

I've never been there, and I don't know the architectural evolution well at all, so for those who know it, consider the question very carefully and try to be objective and honest. If they never touched that golf course in the last 75 years why would the Masters today be as exciting or interesting? I'm not saying it wouldn't be but I'd like to hear legitimate answers from those who know the entire history of the course better than I do.

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom,
Are you including the switch from bermuda to bent on the greens as part of your question?  

[TEPaul]

AG:

Good question. Let's say both;

Would the Masters be just as interesting today if the architecture had never been touched and the course was bermuda?

Would the Masters be just as interesting today if the architecture had never been touched and the course was bent?

Certainly many seem to regret the fact that so many architectural changes have taken place over the decades at ANGC but few seem to be willing or able today to estimate either why, if or how the Masters would be as interesting today if the architecture of the course had never been touched.

[A.G._Crockett]

I'll defer to others on the architectural changes; I'd really love some of the more knowledgeable members here to take a shot at the question.  I do think the rough has and will continue to make the tournament somewhat LESS interesting, but that is really setup rather than GCA.

As to the bent vs. bermuda issue, I'll venture the opinion that the conversion to bent significantly raised interest in the tournament.  The severity of the greens are what make the tournament so compelling; there just isn't anywhere else that I see on television where a foot or two on an approach can consistently make a 30 or 40 foot difference in the putt the player is left with.  I just don't think that the old bermuda greens, or even the newer strains of bermuda, would produce those incredibly dramatic results.  (I'd almost venture to say that those green contours wouldn't be built on a new course today that was being designed for bent grass, though I may be in error there, and that may well be pointed out to me!  )

[TEPaul]

AG:

I think you're right on the money. The way those greens performed in play in this Masters and last year's Masters was nothing short of increbile---incredibly interesting. Those guys really are good and the fact that the best of them are able to pick up the slightest nuance in how to approach those green contours is what the real increase in interest is all about in my book!

Kudos in many ways has to go to the Masters tournament committee too in how they're setting up the course in the last two Masters. Have you noticed how they're even setting tee markers in some very different places from one round to the next to create far more variety of strategy?

It's good stuff. One might even think they've been reading GOLFCLUBATLAS.com in the last two or so years!