JES II,
In the book, "The Making of the Masters" by David Owen, the author relates in nearly 30 pages the hole-by-hole changes to ANGC that were made from the onset of design through 2002.
He says: "Two of the most notable early alterations cost no money at all: the ordering of the nines. In MacKenzie's original conception, the holes were numbered as they are today. His thinking changed in 1931, before construction began, and in the later drawings the nines were switched, so that the current first hole had become the tenth. Several writers attributed the change to Jones, but contemporary documents make it clear that the idea was MacKenzie's....The club switched the nines again in 1934, between the first tournament and the second. This time the reason was that the shady area near the 12th green, which lay at the lowest elevation on the property, was the last part of the course to thaw on frosty mornings. By playing the other side first, golfers could tee off earlier. The new arrangement also made for more stirring Masters finishes, a fact that was recognized at the time."
Is this considered to be accurate? If so, it doesn't seem to suggest that reordering the nines was the first Masters domino to fall, nor that the change would have been disapproved by MacKenzie or Jones. In addition, many other changes related in Owen's account are reported to have been made with the leadership or approval of Jones. I'd be interested in your--or anyone else's--comments on the accuracy of Owen's history.
Ken Banks,
The two Jones quotes deal with 1) how strategic interest is reduced by narrowing fairways to hallways, and 2) how greens are turned into bulls-eyes by poor design and maintenance practices. The recent addition of all the trees in the driving corridors does appear to be anti-Jones. But consider one of the changes to #16 that Owen describes:
"As the sixteenth was originally designed, the tee was situated directly beyond and to the right of the 15th green. Players hit across a tributary of Rae's Creek to a green at the base of the steep slope below the 6th tee. In 1947, Bobby Jones suggested moving the tee well to the left and the green well to the right, and damming the creek to create a pond between them. The architect Robert Trent Jones executed that conception. The result is a demanding short hole that has produced nearly as many thrilling and decisive Masters moments as the 12th."
According to Owen, members liked the original 16th, but the hole was too easy for Masters competitors, who viewed it as a "feeble imitation of the 12th, which it superficially resembled."
But the design of the new hole appears to have been successful. The contouring and the maintenance of the 16th green appears (I've only seen it on TV!) to result in a requirement for shotmaking of great imagination, fearlessness, and skill to bring birdie into play. On the other hand, if the green was flattish and over-watered, it might not be such a "demanding short hole" or compelling to watch great players deal with. It might have ended up a bulls-eye.
The point of this long-winded post is to ask: Is change necessarily bad, or is it badly executed changes that are horrifying?