[Jeff_Brauer]

I am reading "MacKenzies Masterpiece - Augusta National" which features many old photos of the original course, a list of changes over the years, etc.

This is the type of book I would love to see done on all the top courses in the country, which should ideally each have their gca heritage documented as well.  I would also love to see more information on who and why certain changes were made in such a logical fashion.  Even with this book, it would be great to find unearthed archives telling us more of how that design process went along.

But it does raise the almost heretic question, "Was the MacKenzie/Jones design for Augusta National really a masterpiece as originally designed?"  According to the book's title - yes - but from it's pictures and text, the answer seems to be "No".

Gene Sarazen is quoted as being particularly critcial of the original design, noting how short the par 3's are, especially 16.  He called both 16 and 11 terrible holes, as being too short.  In fact there was not much difference between 16 and 12 in the original design, another sign of repitition we don't usually associate with the Good Dr.  He also said it wasn't a "very good design when finished by MacKenzie and Jones."  His advice was among the earliest taken, and photos taken as early as 1940 already show big changes, a tacit admission that they knew they had big problems, even while the Jones PR machine could put a positive spin on making it the best possible course, etc.  That the course was substantially renovated so much so quickly, when funds were so limited during the depression implies to me that they really, really wanted to remodel.  And, I think they had to, based on photos in the book.

Comparing the photos of the design to those of Cypress Point, even though the book credits Wendell Miller and the Olmstead Bros. as building both courses, the detailing doesn't look as good as the California efforts.  

Many pictures show flatter bunkers instead of concave bowls(the picture of the second hole green bunker in particular), and pimply, pointy mounds rather than full slopes, etc. I see at Cypress Point.  (esp. on greens 3 and 17)

The original design included many "freak greens" of extravagant and awkward shape.  Greens such as 4, 6, and 7 were "L" shaped, with narrow tongues extending well forward of where they are today.  The forward part of 4 - a good length par 3 for its day looks to be only a few yards wide.  Even greens 2 and 10 showed "L" or "r" shapes, although they were softened in construction.  9 was a "U" shaped green similar to one still existing at Pasa.  All  4 greens could require a putt around a corner, which skilled competitors would have to have complained about.

I once heard from a descendant of MacKenzie I met in Singapore tell me that Jones was a strong, but detrimental, influence on design, which explains why it doesn't really look like other MacKenzie courses in both routing and details. He felt others fleshed out the concepts and details, and decided to use the existing house as clubhouse, which limited the routing.).  For that matter, MacKenzie, until the depression started wasn't truly concerned with economy in bunkering espoused at Augusta, and sparse bunkering is one reason this design looks different from earlier work, I think.

A couple of questions to Tom Doak and other Mac historians.....Why wasn't this Mac's Crownig achievement (at least in original form?)

Is it a result of MacKenzie not doing many site visits because he wasn't getting paid? The book claims that MacKenzies efforts in the field came just prior to seeding and focused on the putting surfaces.  (BTW, by my count, 9 of the 18 greens had signifigant changes in shape and bunkering from MacKenzies last routing plan.)

Did Mac and Jones get along after all?  While they clearly admired each other before working together, its not a given that the marriage would work out, no matter how well the dating went!

Were decisons made based more on economies or a rush to get open due to financial concerns? (it was built pretty fast)

Were the awkard greens a function of the Jones (and MacKenzie depression inspired) philosophy of minimal bunkering, and an attempt to make the course challenging without them?  (In other words, were they experimenting to get the philosophy right?) Or were the unique shapes perhaps an ode to St. Andrews wildly shaped double greens?

Most importantly, did the ANGC original design truly embody MacKenzie principles as much as other courses he designed?

[Brian Phillips]

But it does raise the almost heretic question, "Was the MacKenzie/Jones design for Augusta National really a masterpiece as originally designed?"  According to the book's title - yes - but from it's pictures and text, the answer seems to be "No".

Jeff,

I have had the same burning question for the last year.  I, like you think that the original design was not a masterpiece.  The routing is of course very good.

I own the following books:

The Making of The Masters - David Owen 2003
The Masters - Curt Sampson 1998
The Story of the Augusta National Golf Club - Clifford Roberts 1976
Augusta National & The Masters - Frank Christian 1996
The Augusta National Golf Club - Stan Byrdy 2005

Nearly all of the greens (if not all) have been changed and looking at some of the old photos I can understand why.  Who is to blame?  That is hard to know.

To me it is not a MacKenzie masterpiece at all.  Some of the bunkering, mounding and greens are very poor and look very false and not natural as the Doctor preached.  I just wonder how good was MacKenzie at green designs?  

Did his green designs rely on a good contractor that really understood what he wanted? Are his greens left to chance when you see his old sketches...how could they intrepret those type of drawings without him being on site more than he was?

Is Cypress Point so good because MacKenzie could follow up the work all the time and Royal Melbourne so good because Mick Morcom was superb at bunkering?

One example of poor work is the bunker at the back of the 12th hole.  It just looks like a bomb crater 10 ft above the green at the back.  It is pratically out of play and looks very ugly.

Brian

[Yancey_Beamer]

Jeff,
Cypress Point was constructed by American Golf Course Construction Company which was run by Robert Hunter Jr. and Sr.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff and Brian:

I am not of the opinion that the original design of Augusta National was way better than the modern version, however, I think you are both selling it short.

MacKenzie's designs always had some severe greens which some people felt to be "freak greens."  And (to answer Brian's query) EVERYONE'S greens rely on a good contractor to get what the designer wants.  Wendell Miller's company was good, but they didn't have the touch of Maxwell or Fleming or Hunter or Morcom, and if MacKenzie wasn't there much, it's probable the greens didn't have the same quality of shaping to them.

However, the routing was there; a lot of the best holes were there from day one; and as for some guy in Singapore who thinks Jones was a detrimental influence, that's just too specious to comment upon.

MacKenzie was changing his philosophy of design at the time of Augusta.  Bayside had only a few bunkers, and so did Augusta, which was a radical change from Cypress Point, The Valley Club and Royal Melbourne.  I'm sure that makes it less noteworthy in the eye-candy era today, but that doesn't mean it was a failure.

Brian:  I am sure MacKenzie's work was better when he had all of his best people around.  I am sure you will be, too, someday when you've found and trained associates of your own ... but should we therefore conclude that you have no talent yourself?

[Paul_Turner]

Found an article where Mackenzie criticises freak greens, which was a surprise!  I'll get it copied and post it.

I was surprised that all the greens at Augusta have been changed to some degree-most of them quite radically.  But are the sketches of the orignal greens wholly accurate or only based on the photos presented?

[T_MacWood]

"Was the MacKenzie/Jones design for Augusta National really a masterpiece as originally designed?"

Jeff
Yes, a revolutionary masterpiece. Was it MacKenzie's greatest masterpice? No, that would be Cypress Point...and few courses stand up to it in comparision.

I've looked at this new book (looked at the pictures, I haven't read it)...and I like it. There are some new pictures I hadn't seen before, but unfortunately the original ANGC remains a not very well documented course...photographically. You would have thought with all the publicity, due to Jones and the Masters, there were would be a wealth of excellent photographs, unfortuantely that's not the case.

In fact the photos of all the green complexes aren't very good at all, I agree the features do look flat, but I suspect that maybe a result of the photography. If I recall correctly there are two old photos of the 3rd green and greenside bunker in the book, and they offer a contrast of flat and not so flat photos. The main set of green pictures is frankly not very good. I don't believe there many (if any) good photos of the few fairway bunkers.

Its difficult to compare ANGC to CPC, one course was heavily bunkered, the other was sparsely bunkered...mounding and undulations being the main design elements, which don't come across too well in photos. The other aspect that is sometimes lost in photos is the scale of the features...the scale was unusually large. The scale of the bunkers, the scale of the mounds, the scale of the greens and their undualtions, and the scale of the fairways and the scale of the relatively open landscape.

Another problem was the timing of the project--the major American golf magazines were going under as ANGC was coming to be. MacKenzie's death didn't help either; God knows had he been alive he would have had a crack photographer record him playing every inch of the golf course.

I'd wouldn't put too much weight into Sarazen's architectural opinion; he's never struck me as a student of golf design. And Sarazen was not big fan of MacKenzie's work; he had some bad experiences at Moortown and Troon Portland. Was the course specifically designed as Championship venue?

Comparing Miller to the others is difficult to do. As TD said MacKenzie underwent a major architectural transition after the stock market crash, and Miller's projects are not as well documented--Bayside, Jockey, ANGC and Palmetto.

My impression of ANGC was a course well ahead of its time. There had never been anything quite like it before, and there really hasn't been anything quite like it since.

[cary lichtenstein]

If by chance, you can post pictures, it would be greatly appreciated.

[tonyt]

Regarding Sarazen's comments, and not necessarily applying this notion to that particular example (Sarazen & Augusta), but both the past and present are overloaded with greats of the game who will harshly criticise great golf courses. Almost but not quite no matter how architecturally savvy the player in question may be, such comments cannot be accepted as universally sound and an accurate cross section of the great archie minds of the time.

[Mike_Cirba]

I made my first trip to Augusta this year.  

From what I've seen of photographs, I am not nearly as critical of the original features as Jeff and Brian seem to be, and I also felt that quite a few of the original holes were rather brilliant in concept.

However, I'm not nearly so enamored of the routing as others seem to be.  Yes, the course does have Amen Corner as an example of the wonderful use of Rae's Creek and that's hard to dispute, but...

As I mentioned in a thread back in April, there are many areas of the course where one feels that things get too cramped, too forced, and ultimately confined, there are others where parallel, back and forth holes happen without much in the way of seeming thought to alternatives, and at least one very large, wide stretch between 10 and 8 where good golfing ground lies completely unused.  

I left feeling that the routing could have been improved although in my completely pedestrian, civilian opinion, I don't believe that I could come up with a better one.  Instead, I just felt that a gifted architect with creative imagination and talent spending considerable time onsite could have done so.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff,
As Tom Mac has noted, I wouldn't put a single stock into anything Sarazen had to say about the course or any course by or having anything to do with MacKenzie. They both detested each other and  staged quite a campaign against one another in the press. I think the brunt of it was because of Sarazen's comments regarding Troon's Portland Course when he failed to qualify for the British Open in like 1925. (or some year like that) Apparently the course had Sarazen's modus operandi and defended itself quite good.

I think it was in American Golfer where MacKenzie wrote a diatribe called, Vandelism and it was a direct attack on Sarazen and his thoughts of changing the diameter of the hole to around double the size in an effort to speed-up play and soften the difficulty of the game. I'll try to find it later and post it.

Also, I had talked to Desmond Muirhead about that incident with  MacKenzie, and he almost automatically took MacKenzie's side, simply because he knew what it was like to work with Gene Sarazen.

It was a partnership that didn't last long, but the golf course they produced--Soboba Springs is not a bad track. It's actually quite good.

[T_MacWood]

Compared to some of his other projects, my impression is MacKenzie spent quite a bit of time at ANGC.

I don't see the 12th and old 16th as all that similar.  I actually think the approach to the 13th and the 16th look more similar.

Speaking of the detail work not be up to snuff...I really like the look of the bunkers behing the 13th green. They look like scars in the hillside...almost like natural erosion.

[TEPaul]

Jeff Brauer:

Very well put together initial post. There's much to think about out of that initial post of yours.

You're so right that any course of significance needs to have its architectural evolution documented as best as can be done. The more any course has of the "whys", "who", "when" and "how" of its entire evolution, the better it can be analyzed as to what it was, how well it worked in play and what it was like at any time compared to any other time.

In many ways, though, ANGC is so unique compared to other significant courses of its era or any time, and obviously that because of the uniqueness of an annual world class tournament played on it every year for so many decades. It's pretty hard to imagine that any golf course anywhere that goes through that scrutiny in that particular way annually is not going to change and evolve in all kinds of ways.

I believe in what's called the "test of time" and that fortunately or unfortunately really does involve opinions of how any golf course is played by those who play it. I think for anyone to significantly discount the importance of this particular fact and reality is to basically discount the fact of the importance of golf itself as the necessary nexus of golf architecture.

The interesting historical and contemporary dynamics between great golf architects and great golfers is a long and interesting one but it is a necessary ingredient of great golf architecture. For anyone on here or elsewhere to say otherwise is foolish, in my opinion. To do so is frankly looking at a fascinating subject and a fascinating golf course in a virtual vacuum.

[TEPaul]

I don't know much of anything about the history of ANGC, the relationships of MacKenzie, Jones, Roberts et al.

However, I do think or suspect that there were some real philosophical changes in the wind amongst some in the art and business around the time that course was conceived and built.

It seems like a loose group were experimenting in some very interesting ways in both golf and architecture. Things like a larger cup, half strokes for putts, floating balls (to lighten the weight and prevent a technological clobbering of the game by I&B), and all kinds of actual golf architectural experimentations---eg less bunkering in the name of cost efficiencies and perhaps some perceived purity of architecture as it related to actual play.

To preface a discussion of a course like ANGC and it's perhaps wholly unique original design intent I suspect there were some fascinating connections we need to know a lot more about between a number of people that sort of centered around the concept and creation of ANGC. I feel most of those  connections, even if perhaps in only a philosophical way were happening and emanating from those in and around California---eg MacKenzie, Jones when he was there and even the elusive and mysterious philosophies of Max Behr.

But to me, ANGC and it's concept has always been elusive and fascinating. Was it supposed to be a tournament course or was it supposed to be that and so many other things too---eg in fact the "Ideal" course that could accomodate all in so many different ways and be cost efficient too (we can't forget how important cost efficiency in both construction and maintenance had become to some of those architects, at least in theory)?

But until far more is known about the original idea of what ANGC was supposed to be I keep wondering if it may not have been perhaps a bit too sophisticated, at least in concept, for the mindset of the general golfing public.

I'm a huge fan of Max Behr and his philosophies on golf and archtiecture but the more I know about him and them (his philosophies), and also given the knowledge of what has transpired in the ensuing years since he wrote, I wonder more every day if perhaps the thing he was most off the mark on is just how much Man, the golfer, really cared about the things Behr felt would be, or almost had to be, so important to the golfer.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom MacWood,

I agree the concept was revolutionary and has set the basic pattern of golf design until this very day, with more and more turf, fewer bunkers, and greens with contours that are puttalble until you speed them up one week a year.  I am only wondering about the details of design, not the concept.

Thanks for the info on the Sarazen - Mac rift, which I was unaware of.  Unfortunatly, so was the author of the book or he might have put the remarks in context.  However, it does seem others agreed with him, since changes were made soon thereafter.  And, that perhaps set a trend that continues to this day.  Augusta is usually leading edge, and is actually quite revolutionary in its evolutionary state.....

I am not really sure Mac spent lots of time there, given the documented visit by Hollins in his place, and the fact he wasn't getting paid to come.  I know he was there for routing, perhaps the start of clearing, and again to oversee the final contouring of greens.  Tom D would know more about interim visits.

As to the scale of the photos, I am comparing them to the B and W photos of CP in Geoff's book, and I presume the scale would be about equally evident between the two.  I don't see any "jarring" cone shaped mounds at CP - all the slopes there were tied in very gracefully.  It makes me wonder if, in absence of MacKenzie, no one knew better, or if they were in a rush.  Maybe the contractor was cutting corners.  Did Olmstead build other courses?

Tom Doak,

I clearly did not say it was a failure - I asked if it was a masterpiece.  It's a fair question to ask, since by in most respects, it was a dream job among dream jobs.  Not only a good, but perhaps not great site, but the most famous client and high profile project of its time.  

In essence, it would be the equivalent of you (or someone else) rebuilding Pac Dunes signifigantly within seven years.  If that happened, would you expect someone to ask if you had made the most of your opportunity?

They would question whether your best contractor was there, how much input the owner had, what your relationship was, how many field visits, etc. etc. etc.  And there wouldn't be much sympathy for any excuse as to why it wasn't right the first time, just like in the good old day!

For that matter, knowing it would likely be a tournament course, even if his style was emerging, would you consider that the place to experiment with a proliferation of new ideas?  It could be that they wanted ANGC to be fairly radical and different.  I don't know, I am just asking.

The gent from Singapore pointed out that the routing didn't feel like any other MacKenzie routing, and I happen to agree.  I can't think of too many Mac holes running or sliding up hills like on ANGC.  Of course, it is basically a hillside site sloping from the clubhouse to Raes Creek, and its probably the best solution available, given Macs talents.

My biggest question is in the details - particularly the green shapes, location and shaping of come mounding and bunkers.

Just some food for thought.

[BCrosby]

I don't know where to begin. Lots to say.

Whether or not ANGC was/is a masterpiece is a question reasonable people might disagree about. I think it was and is. I also think MacK's original design was a better design than the current hodge-podge.

(The current hodge-podge may serve as a better venue for a major golf tournament every year, but I do not believe it is better architecture. Quite the contrary.)

More relevant (and beyond dispute) is that ANGC was seen at its opening as revolutionary. It wasn't seen as just another great course. It was seen as being very different, a break from other great American courses. From Grantland Rice to Donald Ross to Tommy Armour to A.W. Tillinghast, the course was unlike any other they had seen.

We all know the litany. Few bunkers, few trees, no rough, essentially no o.b., very wide playing corridors, dramatic greens, some with crazy outlines. Wild, extreme contouring virtually everywhere.

It was a daring, radical design that was not appreciated by some (Sarazen, some other pros like Horton Smith and most important of all, Cliff Roberts). But most everyone else raved about it. Including, specifcally, most other architects at the time. Many seemed to say that they had glimpsed the future.

My guess is that these "revolutionary" aspects of ANGC might have changed perceptions about good design if it hadn't been for the onset of the Great Depression, WWII, the post war depression and the virtual absence of new course construction until about 1960. By then a course built in 1932 had lost its hold on practicing architects. They wanted to sell themselves as doing "modern" stuff.

I also believe the design concepts that informed ANGC and made it so revolutionary in 1933 have had a rebirth. They are reflected in the best of the new stuff. It's hard to play Sand Hills or Wild Horse and not see it, for example. I suspect that C&C would not hesitate to acknolwedge their debt.

I think ANGC, like NGLA, was one of the critical, watershed American designs. Certainly ANGC was more pivotal to the history of gca than the more polished CPC. It pointed to new directions that are just now being fully realized.

Gene Sarazen nothwithstanding.

Bob  

 

[T_MacWood]

Jeff
As far as I can tell Jones never intended ANGC to be the site of an annual professional event. In fact in the articles written in 1931, 1932 and 1933 there is no mention of the course hosting any tournament...just the opposite the focus appears to be building a course the average guy could enjoy.

From what I understand the Masters was Roberts' idea. Regarding the numberous changes over the years, I give Cliff Roberts credit for that trend as well. The changes were designed to strengthen the course for one week in April. And it appears most of the changes were in response to complaints from the pros...not exactly a recipe for architectural advancement IMO.

Regarding the cone shaped mounds...ANGC was a continuation of what MacKenzie had done at Bayside and the Jockey Club--wide fairways, very few bunkers, bold contours and undulations (both built by Miller's company). A modern version of St. Andrews...which was in concert with Jones's thoughts on golf architecture.

I don't believe the Olmsted Brothers had anything to do with the consturction of ANGC. It is my understanding they were hired to plan the housing development, remodel the clubhouse and were in charge of the landscaping.

Did Sarazen complain about 11 and 16 or 10 and 16? I thought the 10th was the hole thought to be too easy...it was original designed as the first.

[PThomas]

I remember seeing this picture of 8 green when it had a tiny ridge running all around it..the picture was from the 1950s...UGH!!!!

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Early on Roberts and Jones had wanted to host a US Open. But the USGA would not move to a spring date. The "Invitational" tournament was Roberts' idea and Jones was a reluctant participant. At least initially.

My read is that the Masters quickly became important to the club for reasons of financing and status. As you note, there was concern that the course match up with world class players if it was going to be center stage in the golf world every year.

It was the interesting, funky short par 4's - holes that MacK built often at his other great courses (see CPGC, RM) - that didn't cut it with some of the professionals. Thus big changes to 7, 10 and 11 were made early on. A little later, the short 16th was probably changed for similar reasons. It was not all Roberts' doing. Jones had a role as well.

The Olmstead firm was brought in primarily to lay out a housing plan that was to surround the course. (They did some work in and around the clubhouse too.) Except for one house near the second tee (torn down in the '60's) the residential development plan was never implemented. I suspect because the revenues from the Masters meant they didn't need the money.

My recollection is that Wendell Miller's company, recommended by MacK, built the course.

Bob

[Bill_McBride]

So I guess MacKenzie died before they could pay his fee.  

[BCrosby]

Bill -

Technically the debt owed to Mack (or to his estate) along with some other debt owed by the club was eliminated in a receivership proceeding sometime in '33, I believe.

What is a little troubling is that by '33 Jones was already very rich. He could have easily paid the MacK fee (and maybe other club debt too) out of his own pocket. It wasn't a big number. Even in the aggregate. I don't know why he didn't do it. Especially since the receivership, while they kept it very low key, was somewhat embarrassing for all involved with the club.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff B:  Sorry to pick on you, I was also trying to respond to Brian Phillips who was even harder on the design than you were.

To the best of my knowledge, MacKenzie made three visits to Augusta as you suggested, for a few days per visit.  One of these was strictly to do the routing and initial design, before construction started.

You are right that I would not consider any course to be my best work if we had to re-work it significantly not long after it was built.  However, a lot of people would say that the TPC at Sawgrass is one of Pete Dye's seminal works, and it was reworked every bit as much as Augusta in its early years [though no one has asked Tom Fazio to come in and spruce it up lately].

I don't think Dr. MacKenzie had his choice of construction guys to use on the project, although with the Depression in progress, I'm not sure who else was even in the business to consider as an alternative.  Wendell Miller was based in New York and had worked with MacKenzie before, so Cliff Roberts probably made that decision ... MacKenzie would not have produced the detailed budget that would satisfy Roberts.

I do believe that MacKenzie and Jones thought of the design as somewhat experimental in nature.  You are correct that most living architects would not take that chance on a high-profile project of their own -- those at the high end of this business seldom take any chances at all, that's my #1 lament about their work.  However, the good Doctor was unafraid to experiment at any time in his career (see the Sitwell Park chapter), and anyway I'm not sure that the Augusta National project was nearly as "high profile" in 1931 as we all see it today.  MacKenzie probably believed he and Jones had several years to make refinements to the course if they wanted to, before it hosted a signficant event.  

Unfortunately, Dr. MacKenzie did not live long enough to judge the success of the experiment, and it was left to others to determine what pieces required fixing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

However, I'm not nearly so enamored of the routing as others seem to be.  Yes, the course does have Amen Corner as an example of the wonderful use of Rae's Creek and that's hard to dispute, but...

As I mentioned in a thread back in April, there are many areas of the course where one feels that things get too cramped, too forced, and ultimately confined,

WHERE ?[/color]

there are others where parallel, back and forth holes happen without much in the way of seeming thought to alternatives,

Could you cite specific examples ?[/color]

and at least one very large, wide stretch between 10 and 8 where good golfing ground lies completely unused.  

Perhaps you forgot that that's where the 18th hole and the original practice area were located.

I'd call that pretty good use of the land.[/color]

I left feeling that the routing could have been improved although in my completely pedestrian, civilian opinion, I don't believe that I could come up with a better one.  Instead, I just felt that a gifted architect with creative imagination and talent spending considerable time onsite could have done so.  

How much onsite time did Donald Ross devote to routing his many golf courses ?  You mistake inate, inherent talent, genius, for work.

You could stay onsite for ten years and not come up with the routings of the talented architects.  It doesn't require time, it's not a function of punching the clock, it requires talent.   Or, put another way, the more talented the architect, the less time needed onsite to develop the routing.

I think the routing at ANGC is brilliant.

The holes are layed out masterfully on an enormous slope.

Unless of course, like Tom MacWood, you think the land is FLAT. [/color]

[T_MacWood]

Wendell Miller was based in California in the mid to late 20's--Toluca Lake (he had moved there from Ohio). I suspect Max Behr introduced Miller to MacKenzie. By 1929 he had moved his office to Chicago, although his home was in Columbus.

I believe his first project for MacKenzie was St. Charles or Jockey, although he was working with MacKenzie as early as 1929 according to letters to and from Ohio State. When he built Bayside, Miller moved his office to NYC. Which was also convenient to the ANGC project....NYC being in many ways the HQ of that project.

I don't believe it was a case of MacKenzie being stuck with Miller. MacKenzie chose Miller to construct his courses in the period prior to his death.

[TEPaul]

Bob Crosby:

Your post #14 is so interesting and somewhat haunting to say the least. Your post #19 is so interesting too. Regarding the latter, the purpose of that move seems pretty transparent as well as Jones's lack of financial help to the new club. I guess the moral of those stories is it isn't a great idea to automatically glorify some of these icons as is sometimes automatically done on a site like this. That is, not if you really care to look at the truth of history accurately.

How about Roberts's financial support of ANGC Bob? Isn't it true that the Wall-Streeter (?) damn nearly went personally broke supporting the club? Do you think that fact added to the sometimes difficult dynamic between Jones and Roberts? I can't see how it could help but add to it.

Isn't it something how personal tragedies of one type or another seems to surround some of the best golf projects ever done? ANGC, PVGC, Merion, NGLA, Pasatiempo, the latter part of the lives of Park Jr, Tillinghast or even to a degree George Thomas, etc. And in the game itself the life of Philadelphia's great Johnnie McDermott is something to ponder. Wow, what a sad story!

[BCrosby]

Tom -

The early financial travails of ANGC are indeed interesting. I suspect we know nothing like the full story.

What we do know is that Roberts insisted from the beginning that Jones contribute no money. Jones offered a couple of times, but Roberts insisted that any additional funds come from the other members.

Ironically, as the economy got worse and worse - the depth of the Depression was '33/'34 - Jones was doing quite well. Between fees for his films, payments from Spaulding to endorse (and help design) a set of clubs and, most importantly, a gift to him (from his buddy Robert Woodruff) of several major Coke-a-Cola bottling operations, Jones was sitting pretty.

Roberts appears to have been quite careful with his money as well. I've seen nothing indicating he made any unusual financial sacrifices to ANGC. But I may not have the whole story. We do know that by the end of WWII Roberts was quite wealthy. He managed Eisenhower's money starting about then.

So it seems likely that you had a group of men who, at a  personal level, were able to fund ANGC's debt out of rounding errors on their tax returns. But they didn't. Why they permitted the Mack debt and other debt to be cancelled is unclear. I plan to visit the Richmond County (Augusta county seat) courthouse someday and look back through the records.

Bob    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()