[john_stiles]

Bob,

While the course may have seemingly struggled financially during the depression, even given its pedigree with Jones and MacKenzie,     the fairways AND greens were twice as large as normal or typical of the day. 

So, it would cost much more to construct,  seed, water, and maintain.  And, as noted in Byrdy's book,  they paid twice the prevailing labor wage when the course was built.

Obviously they were saving where possible,   but the idea of few bunkers was not born out of saving money.

Did you see the size of the bunker on the 14th.   My goodness, the scale of that bunker is enormous.   That single bunker looks like it could be  5 or 10 greenside bunkers even of the scale used at ANGC.

[Kalen Braley]

Not trying to pour salt on any wounds...

But perhaps they saved the money by not paying Dr. MacKs full share for his services at Augusta.   

[BCrosby]

Exactly, John. (I might add that if you really want to save money, the last thing you do is maintain everything at fw height.)

They built the course they wanted to build. There is no evidence that they compromised anything for financial reasons.

The Whitten/Brauer thesis that it really wasn't really MacK's course, that for whatever reasons the original course was a sub-standard mistake, and that the subsequent changes were a good thing because they rectified all those shortcomings, and so Hootie, Billy and Fazio must all be doing the right thing - that line of argument is silly.

Some of the changes made at ANGC were made for good reasons, some for bad reasons, but none of them were made because MacKenzie/Jones were unable to build the course they wanted to build.

Bob

[Doug Spets]

To call the current 2nd cut "brutal" is quite an overstatement.

[BVince]

my oh my how the course has changed

[Steve Kline]

Jeff - do you think that is rough left of 18 fairway? You keep mentioning the relatively small patch of darkness left of the 14th fairway but that patch is dwarfed by the same color in a very large patch left of the 18th fairway. If that is rough, the 18th fairway looks to be half as wide as almost any other fairway on the course.

Also, I think it most interesting that trees were planted in the middle of the 15th and 17th fairway. There isn't much doubt those trees were put there on purpose.

[john_stiles]

The course had wide and broad fairways with little rough...

If you look at the old photos,  the 18th fairway is very wide.  It wasn't a narrow fairway.  Other photos clearly show that.   You will see there is no rough around the 18th green in those photos.  The fairway is very wide and the rough is very far removed from the green.   There was even fairway height maintained between the 9th and 18th greens.   They basically cut the corner between those two holes and maintained that as fairway.

Regarding the 15th, as late as 1960,      the fairway was very wide and for a long time, there was no demarcation between the 15th fairway and the 17th on the left.  And the short rough on the left was far removed from the line of play.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve,

I thought I had posted something on that but maybe I was logged out. It looks like some kind of re-grassing, meaning that maybe the dark areas on 14 are similar.

I still don't see 18 as a wide fw in that old photo, but to each his own.

[Steve Kline]

Jeff - I don't know what to make of that dark patch left of 18. It clearly is not the same as the fairway. So, it certainly looks like the fairway on 18 is very narrow. Of course, like you mentioned it could be new grass. But why would new grass come in so much darker. It seems to me new grass would be lighter like some of the obvious non-fairway areas are.

I would be interested to hear what others think that dark patch left of 18 is. If it was a modern picture I would think that one part was down grain and the other into the grain. But, that's clearly not the case since 18 is the only we see that on in the picture.

[john_stiles]

Steve,

You could look at the photo on page 54 in ‘Augusta National & The Masters' to get a view of the wide fairway.

This would also illustrate what I have mentioned re: 9th and 18th green. 

This photo gives another perspective as opposed to just one photo. And the fairway is very wide.  See what you think after looking at that photo versus the above.     

[Matthew Mollica]

Chip,

I think one of the features in the old photos that go unnoticed or unmentioned are the tiny saplings.

Those tiny dots on the photo were intended to grow into mature, tall pines.

So when you look at old photos, such as the one you posted, you have to view it in the context of future growth of those trees and how that impacts the look and play of those holes.
 

Or view it with a focus on the erroneous thoughts of those who presided at the time of the tree planting Pat.

That green to tee photo of 7 at the top of the thread looks more like Firestone than Augusta ever should.

Are you suggesting that the hope of Clifford Roberts and others at Augusta in the 30's was to have the course play narrow as it does today? I suspect the planting was excessive and misguided, and that the practice has repeated to current day.

I'm sure that the tree planting at Oakmont in the 50's would never have occurred to the extent it did, if those in charge were aware of just how much needed to be cleared in order to restore the course to a state closer to it's previous form. Maybe the same could be said of Mr. Roberts et al.

Matthew

[john_stiles]

It was still  very wide with the tree planting of the 1930s.

A look at the old photo in ‘Augusta National & The Masters' clearly shows the young saplings and the wide corridors and clear areas that would remain.

The fairways were vey wide through the 50s.  In 1959,   Jones remarked about how there was no demarcation between the 15th and 17th fairway.

When you view the 1984 and 1938,  as well as the others through the years,  you can see the many pine trees added and the course filling up.

That all changes were for the tournament is clear even in 1938 when the 7th was 'toughened' by Horton Smith, Perry Maxwell, and the club.

It wasn't the original tree plantings but the early idea of the tournament that resulted in today's course.

[Bryan Izatt]

A comparative aerial from today from the same perspective as the early picture.  It certainly appears that a forest of small trees were planted to the right of the 7th fairway and surrounding the 17th tee and that they have grown to maturity.  So, I guess they were trying to protect 17 tee from tee shots off the 7th.

The conjoined fairways of 3 and 7 looks odd in the old picture, but I suppose it did provide the opportunity to drive up the left of 7 into the 3rd fairway to provide a different angle to the green.  For safety reasons alone it doesn't seem surprising that trees were put in there to separate the two holes.

On the old 15, what would have been the strategy of playing the left side of the fairway as opposed to straight down.  The left appears to be a longer route and doesn't appear to provide a significantly different angle to the green.  The width there seems redundant.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Or view it with a focus on the erroneous thoughts of those who presided at the time of the tree planting Pat.

I'd disagree with that.
Those trees were planted at the inception of the golf course, they weren't an afterthought.

Look at the trees in the middle of the 15th fairway.
That's no accident or afterthought[/color]

That green to tee photo of 7 at the top of the thread looks more like Firestone than Augusta ever should.

It's certainly narrow, but, if you examine the old photo carefully, you can see that a virtual forest has been planted along the right side of the 7th fairway.

While the area common to # 3 and # 7 looks wide open, perhaps the original configuration and contour of # 7 green factored that in.[/color]

Are you suggesting that the hope of Clifford Roberts and others at Augusta in the 30's was to have the course play narrow as it does today?


What would lead you to that conclusion ?[/color]
 
I suspect the planting was excessive and misguided, and that the practice has repeated to current day.

I couldn't disagree more.

Prior to plantings subsequent to 1999 the golf course was extremely wide and wide open.
The plantings in the old photo were well conceived, they were neither excessive nor misguided.[/color]

I'm sure that the tree planting at Oakmont in the 50's would never have occurred to the extent it did, if those in charge were aware of just how much needed to be cleared in order to restore the course to a state closer to it's previous form.

Each course stands on its own merits or shortcomings.
[/color]

Maybe the same could be said of Mr. Roberts et al.

I don't think so.

You can't compare the enormous width that existed in 1999 at ANGC with the narrowed conditions at Oakmont, they're night and day apart.

Jones's and Roberts's design for ANGC was magnificent, incorporating VAST width, INCORPORATING the trees pictured in the old photo below.[/color]

[john_stiles]

Bryan,

The trees right on 7th, from two photographs, appear to be quite a few, a forest. 

There were of such size as to be those left from course clearing as evidenced from the photograph (pg 122) in Byrdy's book.   

This photograph also indicates quite a wide fairway at the 7th.

Left of 7th fairway was quite open, and as you said,  there would seem to be a possible problem with 7th and 3rd, but probably only with members play.    Due to the width, doubt the adjoining fairways were a tournament issue other than some professionals escaping from the rare wild play. 

The 7th was quite wide even given the trees left standing to the right.  You can see in the aerial, posted for this thread, the mown walkway from the 7th tee.  This gives some perspective.  The photo in Byrdy's book better shows the width of the 7th.

The 15th in the early years at 485 presented a difficult downhill shot to reach the green in two. Haven't read which side of fairway was preferred.

The area between the 15th/17th was a very wide area with little demarcation as described by Jones in 1959.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Stiles,

Leaving the trees in the middle of the 15th fairway seems like a pretty neat idea to me as long as the overall width was maintained.

Surely they must have understood the affect that mature pines would have on that hole.

[David Lott]

Chip,

I think one of the features in the old photos that go unnoticed or unmentioned are the tiny saplings.

Those tiny dots on the photo were intended to grow into mature, tall pines.

So when you look at old photos, such as the one you posted, you have to view it in the context of future growth of those trees and how that impacts the look and play of those holes.

Pat, that was before everyone wanted instant gratification. Imagine a new "first class" golf course nowadays with saplings lining the fairway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

That's very true.

However, I've often wondered why tree removal programs haven't been greeted with the same zealous need for instant gratification.

There's a great story about the introduction of Ike's tree on # 17.

The story goes something like this.
Evidently many members found the new tree intrusive and bothersome.
They spoke to Cliff Roberts about removing it, but their words fell on deaf ears.  In desperation they spoke to Ike who was the POTUS at the time and at ANGC for the annual meeting.

Evidently, he too found the tree objectionable, complaining that he hit into it all the time.

The members encouraged Ike to bring up the tree's annoying presence and the need to have it removed, at the annual meeting.  The members felt that even Cliff Roberts would have to yield to the President of the United States on this issue, especially since so many members felt the same way.

At the meeting, after Roberts gave his report, he opened the floor for comments and questions.

Ike raised his hand and Cliff Roberts recognized him.

Ike then spoke about the intrusive nature of the tree, and how all of the members, including himself found it objectionable, recommending that it be removed immediately.

Cliff Roberts let Ike finish his presentation.
When Ike was fininished, he sat down and Cliff Roberts announced,
"Gentlemen, that concludes this year's annual meeting, we hope to see you here next year.  Thank you for your time."

It was later reported that Roberts indicated that Ike may run the country, but he doesn't run ANGC.

Ya gotta like CR's management style.

[john_stiles]

Pat,

I have a copy of the above photo which I used for the ole ANGC centerline bunker thread years ago.   You can see those trees a little more clearly than the posted scan.   These are not dark pin holes in the old photo.   Those are trees and there are two people amongst those trees on the 15th.

However,  I do not see those trees in other old photos of roughly the same time frame.   So, I wonder if that centerline feature was quickly removed.   Maybe those dudes had axes and were sizing up the job.

One other old ground level photo from the fairway seems to show trees in the fairway,  but more to the player's left.  It could be the angle of the ground level photo throws off the perspective, or only shows about 2/3 of the fairway.

The old photos are interesting with respect to all features of the original course. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()