When did ANGC become great?

[Brock Peyer]

I was studying the picture on the thread about Augusta and the use of water hazards and wondered, looking at that picture, if the course were built today with that design those immature trees, would it be considered great?  At what point did Augusta become great?  Was it instantly (I have my opinion from my readings but I am curious as to your opinions)?  I feel like a traitor asking those questions as Augusta is my favorite course in the world and maybe favorite place in the world.  What do you think?  


 

[Bradley Anderson]

"At what point did Augusta become great?  Was it instantly?"

I think it was instantly great. Was it's greatness tweaked and improved? Yes. But is was instantly great.

[Brad Klein]

As but one reference point, the National Golf Review, in a 1939 poll of a distinguished panel of 17 experts, voted Augusta National the No. 11 golf course in the world, surpassed in the U.S. only by Cypress Point (2), Pine Valley (3), Pebble Beach (4) and National Golf Links (6).

   

[TEPaul]

To answer that question one probably needs to ask who's to say how great it was and when, or at least who was there to say over the years?

In my opinion, ANGC became great, really great, when it was designed and constructed and opened.

From there it may've begun to devolve down and away from greatness---or at least from its inherent architectural uniquenes, to some ongoing degree.

I'm beginning to feel in concept, if perhaps not in execution in an enduring way, ANGC just may be the most important golf course ever done simply because it was conceived to be an accumulation of incredibly interesting design ideas that noone else had thought of or attempted.

The irony is it may've been largely misunderstood or a casuality of other somewhat unrelated factors.

[Gene Greco]

     When?

   The day Bobby Jones lost in the US Amateur at Pebble Beach in 1929 and sauntered over to the new Cypress Point Club for a leisurely round and bore witness firsthand to the genius of Alister MacKenzie.

[BCrosby]

Gene -

That's the party line. I don't think it is right. Pasatiempo and Lakeside had more to do with Jones' thinking about his new "ideal" course than Cypress. Cypress owes too much to its seaside location to be a good model for a course on the Georgia piedmont.

Pasa and Lakeside, however, were exactly the right kinds of models for the locales Jones was considering.

Bob

[J_ Crisham]

For the average golf fan the greatness is probably attributed to the aura of Jones ,Snead ,Nelson ,Hogan,Palmer, Watson, Woods,oh and a guy named Nicklaus.Us GCAers have a more philosophical view. We are the purists of the game!

[David Stamm]

 Pasatiempo and Lakeside had more to do with Jones' thinking about his new "ideal" course than Cypress.  
 

I agree, Bob, in regards to Pasatiempo. The land there was much more akin to the Fruitlands Nursery and showed what AM could do with a challenging piece of property.


I think TEP is correct. The course was at it's best from an architectural standpoint when it first opened and has been on a steady decline ever since. Too many chefs in the kitchen over the years, IMHO.

[Norbert P]

 When did ANGC become great?

The shot heard round the world.  - - - When Gene Sarazen double-eagled.  

[Tom_Doak]

I think it became great the day Jones first walked the property and decided it would do.  From there, it was all going to work out.

[TEPaul]

I think what needs to be better understood and appreciated about ANGC as designed is just how radical some of the concepts of it really were. The people who were involved and likely noodling over ANGC's design were up to some pretty amazing ideas for that time, or perhaps any time, in my opinion. It seems like they were attempting to put some of the old ideas (TOC) and some of the new ideas (bucking the trend of the oncoming modus of "scientific" architecture) to the supreme test on this radical design. The thing that may've really set it apart as unique is the possibility of immense width on some holes and perhaps even the concept of no rough used. That was very radical for that time or any time, in my opinion. In essence it was the ultimate expression they could conjur up for maximum "strategic" golf!

I think the baseline fundamental idea behind its design is a course that could accommodate anyone but also be one that a good player really on his game and thinking his way around to the max could turn in a pretty low score. But he had to do those two things to pull that off. By the time ANGC happened I think Jones had become very unenamored with playing American courses, particularly championship caliber ones, basically the same way day after day. ANGC was his best effort to find ways to break that trend!

Also, in my opinion, Bob Jones had something to prove with ANGC and part of it was to get a cross off his back that he may've felt he bore and was respsonsible for over perhaps the previous five years to the ANGC project.

Bob Crosby can elaborate on that for you all.

[David Stamm]

Tom, I think if Bob Jones was tiring of American championship courses, he had a funny way of showing it. It was he, afterall, who sketched out the changes for the 16th and had the "other" Bob Jones carry it out in 1940. I have always found this to be very curious since it has been generally believed that he wanted AGNC to emulate the shot values that he so loved at St Andrews. The 16th post-MacKenzie certainly does not convey this at all. Could it be that Jones' ideas changed based on the "styles of the day"?

[Philippe Binette]

Probably from the start, is it better today than what it was???

[Mark Bourgeois]

The radical nature of the design: does this show how great designs require great clients?

Mac was effusive in his praise of Jones's knowledge.  Was Jones the client MacKenzie had been looking for all his professional career?

In 1914 MacKenzie said:
"In making a course which is likely to be of a permanent character, it is absolutely essential that it be constructed not simply on up-to-date lines but rather ahead of the times.  Do not slavishly copy existing features in other links, try and make features which other clubs attempt to copy.  If you have done your work originally you are bound to be criticized."

In 1932 MacKenzie wrote:
"At Augusta we are striving to produce 18 ideal holes, not copies of classical holes, but embodying their best features, with other features suggested by the nature of the terrain. We hope for accomplishments of such unique character that the holes will be looked upon as classics in themselves."

Given how much MacKenzie savaged committees and how long he carried the fight to them, did MacKenzie consider Jones the "ideal" client? (Assuming of course Cliff Roberts paid him!)

Mark

[Peter Pallotta]

I think it became great the day Jones first walked the property and decided it would do.  From there, it was all going to work out.

Tom - can you get into and explain this a bit more? Was it that JONES was doing the walking that sealed the deal, or was it the nature of PROPERTY he was walking on that did it?

To me, that Jones and/or Mackenzie were able to 'see' in the rolling land of this tree nursery the embodiment of classical (links?) holes is the most striking thing of all.

Were they able to envision or calculate or intuit how a third dimension (i.e. the 'vertical') could serve as a stand-in for or parallel to the strategic options/choices that the basically two-dimensional Old Course offered?  

Did Jones and/or Mackenzie have particularly and especially open and creative minds?  

Peter