The subject? Augusta National Golf Club of course!
Donald Steel
The UK’s ‘Open Doctor’ has been a designer for more than 40 years.
Ross McMurray
Designer with EGD, best known for his work on Woburn Marquess.
Kyle Phillips
Former RTJ employee, designed Kingsbarns and The Grove.
Ran Morrisset
Partner in Cabot Links in Nova Scotia and founder of golfclubatlas.com.
Dave Thomas
Former Ryder Cup player; designed The Belfry and Sotogrande.
In an ever-evolving sport, Augusta National was one of the few constants. Every April the world’s best players were invited to take on the course that Bob built, and every April the majority returned home, tail between legs. It worked like a dream for 60 years, capturing the imagination of sports fans the world overBut then something happened. A big-hitting 21-year-old in his first professional Masters obliterated the course, hitting 8-irons into par-5s and refusing to three-putt. Augusta acted quickly, adding rough in the hope of demanding more accuracy. The two post-Tiger Woods winners, Mark O’Meara and Jose Maria Olazábal, were ideal: honest pros with good all-round games. Order was restored and the nightmare of 18-under and 370-yard drives could be forgotten. But then, in 2001, the dam burst.
Chairman Hootie Johnson, watching play on the 455-yard 11th with the club’s consultant architect Tom Fazio, spotted a ball on the fairway some 30 yards short of the green. He assumed it was a lay-up from under the trees. It was actually Phil Mickelson’s drive. Once the players had gone through, Hootie ducked under the rope and searched for the nearest sprinkler head. He walked back, visibly stunned. “94 yards,” he said, shaking his head. “Tom, it’s time.” By the time the players teed up in the first round a year later, 285 yards had been added. Last year a further 155 had to be negotiated – and everybody in golf has something to say about it. Is Augusta better or worse? Golf World has spoken to five leading design experts from the UK and the United States to debate the impact of these changes. Their views make absolutely fascinating reading.
Golf World: Well, gentlemen. A year on from the latest raft of changes, what do we all make of what has happened at Augusta National over the last decade?
DONALD STEEL: The older players such as Jack and Arnold have been fiercely critical, but it is not really Augusta’s fault. It is all to do with the equipment companies making balls and clubs that go distances that the world’s golf courses are not designed for. About eight or nine years ago Augusta National were very close to ordering that a specific ball be used for the Masters, but that would have been a very risky and brave stance to take and they eventually backed down, opting instead to simply make the course longer and harder. What Tom Fazio has done is what most of us would probably do. He has looked at the options available to him – adding length, adding bunkering, narrowing fairways and planting vegetation – and played his cards according to what he thinks would work best on the course. It sounds an easy thing to do, but it certainly isn’t. Augusta National were fortunate enough to have the land to do it, to have the time to do it and to have the money to do it. People might criticise Augusta but what is their alternative? You get to a stage where you start to ‘trick up’ the course, like the USGA do at the US Open. It even happened at the Open at St Andrews two years ago when the pin positions on the 1st and 18th were the Sunday positions for all four days.
ROSS McMURRAY: I agree. Yes, they have lengthened Augusta, but what else could they do? Toughen up the greens? I am not against the changes at all, I really don’t consider it a big issue. People always complain about changes, but it is the same with the Road Hole bunker at St Andrews. They work on it every three years and there is always a hue and cry. It must have changed dozens of times over the years. Yes, the course at Augusta is nothing like the one that MacKenzie and Jones designed, but it has always been something that has
changed to adapt to the times and the demands of the game. I used to think that adding length to courses would play into the hands of the big-hitters, but the performances of people like Olazábal, Weir and DiMarco proves that short-hitters can do well there. Distance can be a help but sensible course management and a good short game is priceless at Augusta.
DAVE THOMAS: I have only seen the changes on TV but I know what Jack means when he said the changes look like they were done by somebody who doesn’t play golf. It’s a bit like the head of the greens committee tinkering with a hole; they never think about the players and what happens if they miss the green. They need to ask if the balance is fair. You can’t be totally penal. Otherwise you bunker a green to death, make it tiny and make them hit a 3-iron in. They need space to stop the ball on a long hole or a bank to stop it. Or you let it run through the back and bunker the front. It’s got to be one or the other.
KYLE PHILLIPS: I agree with Ross, it is not really fair for people to say that Augusta National has changed beyond all recognition lately; it has been a moving piece for years and years, always being tinkered with. Robert Trent Jones Snr, the original Open Doctor, moved plenty of things around. Rae’s Creek as it is today is an entirely artificial, controlled version of what was originally there; the real creek actually flows beneath ground. My problem with Augusta is that the illusion generated is something that is geared just for that one week of the year. It is a nightmare for greenkeepers the world over who are being asked why their courses don’t look like Augusta. They are under pressure to produce something that is unattainable because this one course becomes like Disneyland for a week. It is a fantasy.
MacKenzie once said, “Narrow fairways bordered by long grass make bad golfers. They do so by destroying the harmony and continuity of the game and in causing a stilted and a cramped style, destroying all freedom of play.” Is this now true at Augusta?
RAN MORRISSET: I think Jones and MacKenzie would be horrified. Both of them worshipped the Old Course and its promotion of bold, attacking golf. When Augusta opened, everybody was taken aback by the wide playing corridors and the absence of bunkering, I think there were less than 30 on the course. It offered room off the tee but the demands became more exacting the closer one got to the green. Now it has become increasingly non-descript; it has morphed into a typical tree-lined parkland course. Before, Augusta National resisted being categorised, now it can be dismissed as parkland in nature. On top of that, the uniform colour of green that they have achieved throughout the course is so unnatural. The tree planting and addition of rough to tighten the fairways goes against the tenets they borrowed from St Andrews.
Six holes now have 320-yard carries to clear fairway bunkers. Can only long-hitters win there now?