What would be your mission statement..

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

Also, I've been there and seen the changes.

Have you?

[A.G._Crockett]

Mike,

You have spent a critical career putting down the architectural talents of the above three and now you choose to side with them to support your weak argument.  Shame on you.

John,

Each of these men was a better player than architect.

You don't have to be able to create greatness to recognize it.  You've asked if the course is getting away from what Mackenzie/Jones envisioned, and three men with probably 100 years collective experience playing it at the highest level just gave you your answer.

You just don't like it.

I would add that these three gentlemen have been on the scene as players for over 50 years, and have seen firsthand as players what has happened to the golf course since Jones left the scene, and what it has meant.  That qualifies them as experts on that level alone, doesn't it?

It really doesn't matter what you think about the three of them as GCA's, either.  If I had seen the Mona Lisa before and after someone painted a moustache on her, my inability actually paint a picture of comparable quality wouldn't be particularly germane.

[John Kavanaugh]

I was there in 97 for Tiger's first victory...I think as amazing as the greens are, the most amazing I have ever seen, that angles don't make that big of a difference in the modern elite game..Didn't Seve do ok there without the added length that modern players hit the ball.  I would also go so far to say that the modern elite player can spin the ball out of the short "Augusta rough" as well as Sarazen could out of a fairway.

[Mike_Cirba]

I was there in 97 for Tiger's first victory...I think as amazing as the greens are, the most amazing I have ever seen, that angles don't make that big of a difference in the modern elite game..Didn't Seve do ok there without the added length that modern players hit the ball.  I would also go so far to say that the modern elite player can spin the ball out of the short "Augusta rough" as well as Sarazen could out of a fairway.

Ahh, John, I agree with you about the rough and the ability of players to spin the ball from it.  For it to have any effect on these guys, it would have to be at least an inch longer.

But, it's not the rough that's taking away the playing angles Jones & Mackenzie built.   It's the combination of added trees over the past five years  (on MANY holes, not just the common ones cited like 11) and added length that make the course exceptionally more one-dimensional than in the past.

Jim,

Good questions, which I think I largely answered in my responses to John.  

I watched Tiger eagle 8 & 9 back to back, so I'm not sure anything short of a nuclear explosion would affect his game.

[A.G._Crockett]

I should also add that Crenshaw has been equally critical of the changes to ANGC as have the Big Three, and for exactly the same reasons.

[JESII]

Have any of these players offered up an alternative to what has been done?

Clearly the club has decided they were not interested in people shooting 25 under par to win the tournament. After that decision is made {and no matter what you all say, consistent winning scores of 20+ under par would negatively effect the reputation of the course and the tournament}, what other methods could have been implemented to retain the original design philosophy of the golf course?


Short of that, the only beef I can see for you all is the club's political decision to strive for The Masters to remain in that highest echelon of golf championships.

[BCrosby]

Jim -

We've had this discussion before. The response to the modern game ought to be a roll-back of technology. But assuming that ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes, the ANGC response was the worst possible one of the remaining alternatives.

Why?

Because once you start adding trees, they are a permanent architectural feature. You can't put them in and take them out depending on whether or not it's Masters week.

I mind the new rough less for the above reasons. It is not permanent in the sense that trees are.

To repeat my point on another thread, ANGC is the only top ranked course with which I am familiar that has added trees over the last decade. I think that is almost always a bad idea for any course. But to add trees to ANGC - the only course among the top rated courses in the US where width was an express design goal - it elevates a bad decision to a whole new level.

Bob

[Mike_Cirba]

Have any of these players offered up an alternative to what has been done?

Clearly the club has decided they were not interested in people shooting 25 under par to win the tournament. After that decision is made {and no matter what you all say, consistent winning scores of 20+ under par would negatively effect the reputation of the course and the tournament}, what other methods could have been implemented to retain the original design philosophy of the golf course?

Jim,

You make it sounds as though the Masters risks becoming the Bob Hope Desert Classic!  

I think each of these men are decrying the fact that the USGA has done nothing about the golf ball and technology in general, and now we're faced with these unpleasant choices.

I'm rather sure each would support a "Masters Ball".

However, even with these forces, I fail to see where ANGC has not stood up as a solid, challenging, Major Championship test.

While still maintaining the veil that it's a par 72 for these guys, even though at least two of the par fives are reachable routinely for everyone, and thus having an artificially inflated par of 288 for four rounds, the results beginning with Woods record 4 days in 1997 is as follows;

In looking at it, imagine that it's the US Open, where par if routinely reduced to 70, for a 280 total.

1997 - 270 - Woods
1998 - 279 - O'Meara
1999 - 280 - Olazabal
2000 - 289 - Singh
2001 - 272 - Woods
2002 - 276 - Woods
2003 - 281 - Weir
2004 - 279 - Mickelson
2005 - 276 - Woods
2006 - 281 - Mickelson

What does this show?   I believe two things;

1) For every mortal, including every touring professional who is not from another planet, ANGC is quite the test as it is and has been.

2) For Tiger Woods, when he is on his game, no course changes will affect him in the least.

Do you remember Pebble Beach and the US Open and what he did to that course?  

What should we do to that course to prevent it???

[JESII]

Bob,

You are avoiding the point of my position. The leadership of Augusta Naltional Golf Club made the concerted effort to create and perpetuate a top tier professional golf tournament. The game has continuously evolved in these 75 years. They would not be comfortable with winning scores in the 20+ under par neighborhood due to todays players hitting short wedges into most every hole (including a couple par 5's). What do you do to help defend par? What would Jack, Arnold, Gary or Ben recommend?

Remember, you cannot change the political decisions the club has made. I think we can all dream about them not making those decisions, but that's all it would be.

[BCrosby]

I would add to Mike's point above that MacK thought that if a good player playing well on his courses did not go low, something was wrong with his design.

That may not be the view of the powers that be at the Masters, the USGA or the PGA, who view it as an affront if the greatest player in the history of the game goes 18 under in one of their tournaments. But I remain unconvinced that their view makes any sense.

Bob

[PThomas]

if land availability was not an issue, I wonder how long the course would have to be to have it play as it used to...with fewer trees and no rough, etc

8000 yards??

[JESII]

I would add to Mike's point above that MacK thought that if a good player playing well on his courses did not go low, something was wrong with his design.

That may not be the view of the powers that be at the Masters, the USGA or the PGA, who view it as an affront if the greatest player in the history of the game goes 18 under in one of their tournaments. But I remain unconvinced that their view makes any sense.

Bob

Now that is a position I can agree with and go to battle over. Well said.

[BCrosby]

Bob,

You are avoiding the point of my position. The leadership of Augusta Naltional Golf Club made the concerted effort to create and perpetuate a top tier professional golf tournament. The game has continuously evolved in these 75 years. They would not be comfortable with winning scores in the 20+ under par neighborhood due to todays players hitting short wedges into most every hole (including a couple par 5's). What do you do to help defend par? What would Jack, Arnold, Gary or Ben recommend?

Jim -

My point is quite simple. If you view your mission as defending par, then the worst possible way to do that is to add trees.

I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way. I can't think of another major venue that has added hundreds (if not thousands) of tree to toughen their course for tournament play.

Even if ANGC had not been designed by MacK, that is the wrong decsion. That ANGC was in fact designed by him makes it doubly wrong.

Bob

[John Kavanaugh]

Bob,

Did Pine Valley only add trees for erosion control...I'm behind on my homework again.

[Mike_Cirba]

if land availability was not an issue, I wonder how long the course would have to be to have it play as it used to...with fewer trees and no rough, etc

8000 yards??

Paul,

That's the case with any course in the world.

There isn't a single course on the planet that plays as it did in 1920 or 1930 when you talk about what clubs they'd use, no matter how much yardage has been added.

We just think of yardage differences on the drive, but that's misleading, because we also gain a bunch on second shots from that timeframe.

If it was 6500 yards, for instance, in 1920 based on equipment and the skill levels of the best players, it would need to be 8500 yards today for top players to hit the same clubs, as they did, easily.

Put another way, how long would number 18 at Merion need to be for Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson to have to hit driver, 1-iron in still, hot summer weather as Ben Hogan did in 1950?   580?

[JESII]

Mike,

per you post #33, please keep in mind I am simply trying to remind you guys of what has transpired. I have no evidence of a decision by the powers that be at ANGC, but what's been done is evidence enough, don't you think?

I think sometimes you guys act like something has been taken from you, from you personally. This is a private club, owned by the members. I think it makes sense to couch all criticisms in the context of the ownerships motives. If you, or Bob, or anyone want to begin calling for the club to cease the Masters tournament for the sake of restoring the golf course to its original form, fine. I could support that position as well.

[JESII]

Bob,

You still  have not offered an idea of what would do the trick. You have said treees are the worst possible method, but you have not offered an alternative.

[BCrosby]

Bob,

You still  have not offered an idea of what would do the trick. You have said treees are the worst possible method, but you have not offered an alternative.

Jim -

My simple, unoriginal alternative to adding trees -

Use the same methods they used at WF, Pebble, Bethpage, Southern Hills,  etc. to protect par. At least the steps they took can be erased after the tournament. But don't make permanent changes such as adding trees.

Bob

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Six inch Bermuda rough and 25 yard wide fairways if they are going to try and keep up with the USGA and exalt the concept of par for these guys.

Adding yardage only helps the longest hitters like Woods, and is an abject failure.

Even the goal is completely based on idiotic logic because there is no way on God's green planet that they're going to have modern tour professionals hit the same clubs that Horton Smith did.  As Paul mentioned, the course would need to be over 8000 yards long, probably closer to 8,500.

Although, it is kinda funny watching Marzolf running around with a tape measure and clipboard.  

[BCrosby]

John -

At PV (a) some trees have encroached some fw borders over the decades, (b) even after that encroachment, PV's fw's are the widest I've ever played, and (c) I understand they are considering a tree removal program.

In essence, PV's view of trees and fw width is almost the exact opposite of the current ANGC view.

Bob

[John Kavanaugh]

Bob,

At one point there were no trees at Pine Valley (or very few) and then at some time the owners of the course (or someone) planted thousands.  I just wondered why.

[JESII]

Is growing in and out 6 inches of Bermuda rough every year really feasable for any club? All those courses do it once every 10 years or so and the total process is way more than one year.


Bob,

Why is it that PV and AGNC have exactly opposite views of trees right now?

[JESII]

My contention is that trees are less permanent than adding 6 inches of rough. Augusta has shown the where with all to plant a forest overnight, I guarandamntee you they can get rid of every tree they want in no time and return the course to any snapshot of playability you want. Even they can't make roots grow overnight so the edges of a fairway are playable again.

[BCrosby]

Bob,

Why is it that PV and AGNC have exactly opposite views of trees right now?

Jim -

Because one seems to have embarked on a program to add them and the other seems to have embarked on a program to remove them.

Bob

[JESII]

No Bob,

It's because Pine Valley does not have the concern of preparing and presenting their course for the top players in the world for one week per year and it's members the rest. They have only their members to be concerned with. ANGC has decided that one of their methods for helping to protect par will be to add trees in the areas they see fit. You say that is the worst possible way to defend par, that growing in and out rough on narrow fairways is the way to do it. That would change the course exponentially more dramatically than the tree planting campaign for both members and Masters contestants.