Those of you who think that Barney was drunk when he wrote those posts probably drink far too much (or far too little) yourselves.
The hyperbole in the topic line "....greatest course....", "...liar....", etc. is just that, but also supports a very valid argument. All but one or two of the participants on this thread have never played the course, and the vast majority of the arguments against relate to added length, and how it has changed "strategy." Over the past 50 years, there have been very few significant green complex changes, and as Barney rightly implies, its the greens that matter at Augusta, not how far back into the trees they put the tees for their annual Invitation tournament. For each and every one of the participants on this site (including Mike Clayton), playing from the members tees (at 6800?) would be more than enough to provide a challenge and pique architectural interest.
You all know, of course, that there is another course in the world that gets tested by the best players in the world periodically and has also chosen to move tees back into seemingly ridiculous positions, but can also be played from the more normal tees by 99.9% of the golfers in the world without losing interest, due to the great green complexes.
Yes, a lot of Mackenzie's initial work at ANGC is not there, but a lot of the most interesting of the NLE stuff (e.g. the boomerang green on the 9th) were changed long. long ago, when Bobby Jones was still compos mentis. Get over it, guys! These things ain't coming back! And should they? Who out there would prefer the old 16th to the new one?
Final point/disclaimer. I have not played or even seen in person ANGC. However, this just puts it in the same category (for me) as Pine Valley and Royal Melbourne. I'd love to be able to have the free time to play any one of those three courses, but if I had my choice of the three I'd choose Augusta, in a flash.
So, effectively, I agree with Barney.
