[Jim Nugent]

Jim -

See my post above. ANGC was always designed with top players in mind. It was,however, not designed with the idea that it would hold a major tournament on a regular basis.

As for the timing, the Depression didn't really hit home until '32/33.  The course had been designed and, essentially, built by then. (Note that about the same time ANGC filed a state court receivership because if financial problems. Things were not good.)

I've seen nothing in the writings leading up to the design and construction of ANGC that suggest that holding a major, national tournament was important goal for anyone. No more than that was an important goal when MacK did Cypress or Passa or Crystal Downs. That idea did occur to people, however, by the time ANGC opened on January of '33. Or soon thereafter.

Bob

Yet before the course even opened they were having talks about holding the U.S. Open there.  And they decided not to, so they could hold their own important tournament.  They must have thought it would be a pretty big deal, if they believed they could serve golf better with their own regular tournament over the U.S. Open.

And all this came up out of the blue, without any thought or consideration beforehand?  Real hard for me to accept that.   

[Lou_Duran]

Re: Dr. MacKenzie not receiving full payment for his efforts at ANGC, a similar thing happened with the Ohio State commission.  Both projects were impacted by Depression era hard times.  But, weren't there also some issues about MacKenzie's fulfillment of his contractural obligations at both places?  Might MacKenzie's approach of not spending a great deal of time at a site and delegating the construction oversight to others have something to do with his difficulties in getting paid?  He never saw the completed work at either place (though in the case of OSU it was due to delays by the principals in getting the project started until afer MacKenzie's death).

Roberts seems to have been made the heavy for MacKenzie not being fully paid.  From what I've read, Roberts himself was hurting financially during these times, and the club's membership and financial numbers were well below proforma.   However, the literature suggests that Mr. Jones was doing very well then in his law practice and various golf related opportunities.  Wasn't Mr. Jones the one who selected Dr. MacKenzie for the assignment after playing Cypress Point and spending time with the architect in Pebble Beach?  As the most important principal and founder of the club, shouldn't Mr. Jones have felt some moral if not legal obligation to help his friend in dire straits?

As a juxtaposition, years back, the often reviled Donald Trump reportedly allowed Jack Nicklaus to pull out of a contract to build one or more courses badly underbid by a Golden Bear executive.  As I recall, Nicklaus was on the hook personally, but Trump didn't seek to enforce specific performance of the contract.  Funny how we sometimes long for the "good ol' days" when things were simpler and a man's word was his bond.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Nugent,

Those are my thoughts too.

It's hard to believe that those involved with the creation, design and construction of ANGC NEVER gave a thought to hosting a tournament prior to the opening of the club.

Especially when Jones was so involved with tournament golf for all of his life up until 1931, which is when Jones and Roberts visited the property known as Fruitland Nurseries with an eye toward creating ANGC on that site.

Added to that time line are the discussions in 1933, formal and informal with the USGA, directly and indirectly, about hosting the 1934 US Open, and the subsequent approach to the PGA about hosting a PGA event in 1934.

With overtures that early, to the two reigning bodies of golf in America, one has to concede that Jones was astute enough and experienced enough to know what would constitute a sufficient to challenge the best players of that era, and that ONLY certain courses could be selected for that purpose.

Couple that with the fact that the US Amateur and US Open had never been south of Illinois, let alone the deep south, and you again have to ask, why then would they approach the USGA with the RADICAL idea of ANGC hosting an open, if the idea hadn't occured to them long before a shovel was in the ground, AND, that the golf course was designed from the very get go to challenge the best players of that era.

[Matthew Mollica]

Jim,

On page 2 of this thread, I wrote -

Further into the book (p.32) Roberts writes -

"Bob and Dr. MacKenzie completed plans for the course in time for construction work to begin in the first half of 1931."

Later, under the heading of “A New Golf Tournament is Born” on page 51, Roberts writes - 

"During late ’32 and early ’33 some discussions occurred about holding the US Open on Bob’s course.  The Open had never been played in the South and Augusta seemed to be the logical place.  Bob was intrigued with the idea, but after much thought and a number of meetings, it was decided that our Club could render a more important service to the game of golf by holding regularly a Tournament of its own.”

To which you replied -

Matthew -- this seems wrong, just from the dates you gave in your own post.  The club didn't open until 1933.  But the quote you gave from Roberts says they were talking in late 1932 or early 1933 about holding the U.S. Open there.  That is not years after the course was completed.  It may not have been completed at all. 

Before the club opened its doors, they already had plans to hold a significant annual tournament there.  And in fact they held their first Masters in 1934.  One year later. 

Whatever Roberts says, the timing of events strongly contradicts the idea that they did not design the course with top players in mind.  That top tournament did take place there almost immediately.  I would be real real surprised if in reality that was not in their minds when they designed and built the course.  Regardless of what they say in their memoirs. 

So I'm to assume you agree with my reading of Roberts' text, that the course was DESIGNED in late 1930 - early 1931, and the Club was ready to commence construction in early 1931. Roberts talks of a meeting in late 1932 / early 1933 about hosting a tournament, and that this is the frst of such discussions.

Could you explain how a meeting in 1932 - 1933 influenced the design process which occurred in 1930?

I think you need to re-read the dates Jim.

Furthermore, ( and these are questions for you too Pat M! ) do you think Roberts' lied about the timing of initial discussions regarding Augusta National hosting a tournament of significance? If so, why would he feel the need to fabricate such a point, and what proof would you forward to reinforce your views of such?

If in fact you feel he's recounted things accurately, any discussions of tournaments occurred years after course design was completed. I say again, it's darn hard for a meeting in 1932 - 1933 to influence a design process which occurred minimum 2 years beforehand!

Matthew

[BCrosby]

I await evidence that hosting national tournaments was one of the main goals of the founders of ANGC at the time it was designed and constructed.

Your instincts have to tell you that such evidence will not be forthcoming because it wasn't true. You know as well as anyone that you don't promote membership for a small, highly private, exclusive club by talking about how many national tournaments the course will host. In fact, I can't think of a club with a membership similar to ANGC's that ever did that sort of thing. PVGC? No. Cypress? No. SFGC? No. P'tree? No. NGLA? No. Seminole? No. And so on.

To repeat the chronological point made above, by the time the decision was made to seek a big tournament, ANGC had been designed, built and was open for play.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

I await evidence that hosting national tournaments was one of the main goals of the founders of ANGC at the time it was designed and constructed.

Bob,

I don't recollect anyone stating that hosting national championships was one of the MAIN goals of the founders of ANGC, but to deny that those thoughts didn't occur to Jones and others would be a gigantic leap of faith.[/color]

Your instincts have to tell you that such evidence will not be forthcoming because it wasn't true.

You know as well as anyone that you don't promote membership for a small, highly private, exclusive club by talking about how many national tournaments the course will host.

You're looking at the situation in the early 1930's with a 2008 headset.
With the USGA never having held their two Major Tournaments in the south, and Jones's athletic and cultural ties to the south, why would he craft a championship golf course that was well beyond the ability of the prospective members he sought, if he didn't have loftier goals in mind ?

Remember, they were offering lots for sale, but, you didn't hear much about the promotion of that endeavor, so why would it surprise you that you didn't hear much about the notion of hosting a Major Championship.

By 1933, not a lot had been sold, yet, the club had made arrangements to host a PGA event.

Do you really believe that this was a last minute, desperate effort, never thought of prior to 1933 ?[/color]

In fact, I can't think of a club with a membership similar to ANGC's that ever did that sort of thing. PVGC? No. Cypress? No. SFGC? No. P'tree? No. NGLA? No. Seminole? No. And so on.

None of those clubs had the greatest competitive golfer that ever lived intimately involved in the creation, design and construction of their golf course.

What I'd like to hear you and Mathew explain is the following:

From the perspective of playability, WHY did Jones design and build a golf course that was beyond the ability of the membership ?

Why design and build a golf course that your prospective members can't handle, unless you had loftier goals.[/color]

Mathew,

It's my understanding that Jones and Roberts FIRST saw the property in 1931, so I don't see how you attribute the design of the course to prior dates.

With respect to your request to Jim Nugent to review the time line of events, could you do so with respect to the sale of lots on the property, lots that comprised about 1/3 of the property.

I'd like to see where, in 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, the development years of the club, there's a lot written or stated about that endeavor.

If, not much, or anything was ever mentioned in 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, does that mean that they never intended to sell lots, despite having contracted with Olmstead Bros. to create a subdivision plan for the purpose of selling lots in 1931-1932 ?

With respect to your question related to Roberts intent, why do you take the extreme position that he lied in his 1976 recount of the early days of ANGC ?

Roberts was 82 years old when he was recollecting events that occured 45 years earlier.  As to autobiographies, I stated earlier that I hadn't read many that were critical of the author.  I think one has to evaluate them understanding that they tend to air brush history.

While he was an astute individual, father time takes its toll, and, 45 years is a long time.   I'd also have to question his state of mind at that point in his life, a life that would end at his own hand a year later.

In a modern day parallel, I'd examine Muirfield Village and Jack Nicklaus in comparison to ANGC and Jones.

[BCrosby]

Pat asks -

"From the perspective of playability, WHY did Jones design and build a golf course that was beyond the ability of the membership ?

Why design and build a golf course that your prospective members can't handle, unless you had loftier goals."

Pat -

You know as well as I do that that was precisely what Jones and Mack did NOT do. If ANGC stood for anything it was the playability of the course for all kinds of golfers. From the day it opened.

Bobby Jones was a very private person. One of the reasons for founding ANGC was privacy. He wanted to get away from the hub-ub, and even Atlanta wanted to give him too much attention. Nothing about his personality suggests that he was looking forward to hosting or promoting national tournaments.

Likewise, ANGC was intended as a very private club. Along with clubs founded at about the same time with similar memberships, it would have been unappealing - at best - to have as a mission the idea of opening the club to national tournaments on a regular basis. And it makes no sense to think, 80 years on and without eveidence, that that was what they were thinking.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob Crosby,

Width, a concession to TOC was a redeeming quality of the golf course, but, you and I know that a course that presents a test or challenge for the best players of the day, HAS to be a course that is beyond the ability of the membership.

If Jones was a very private person, why did he go to Hollywood and make films about golf ?  Films that would make him more of a celebrity ?
If he was a private person, why did he participate in two ticker tape parades in New York City ?

I think Jones was a very bright, very talented, famous athlete, I don't see him as a shrinking violet.  Perhaps you're confusing his quiet, articulate and poised demeanor with privacy.

As to your "mission" statement regarding the tournament, was it their "mission" statement to commercialize the venture/club through the sale of lots ?

You can't cherry pick which facets of the club were promoted and which facets were swept under the table in the history books.

I don't think any of those connected with ANGC in the early days could have visualized what ANGC and The Masters are today.

And, I think that's part of the problem with your position.

You're taking ANGC and The Masters in 2008 and time warping them back to 1932 and stating that myself, Jim Nugent and others believed that Jones and Roberts wanted or visualized today's tournament in 1932's environment.

Lastly, I think many Atlantans elevate Jones to deity status, thus, anything that might deviate from or undermine that lofty status is a tough pill to swallow and unacceptable.

I'd ask you to cleanse your mind, purge your headset from your southern roots and examine the issue as if your were from the Bronx or Brooklyn

[Matthew Mollica]

Pat, I'm not sure how to make it any clearer for you.

You asked -

It's my understanding that Jones and Roberts FIRST saw the property in 1931, so I don't see how you attribute the design of the course to prior dates.

Are you now doubting the authenticity of Roberts' own words? I repeat the quote from the published history of ANGC, written by it's founding chairman.

"Bob and Dr. MacKenzie completed the plans for the course in time for construction to begin in the first half of 1931."

What more could you POSSIBLY want?

You then go on to write -

Remember, they were offering lots for sale, but, you didn't hear much about the promotion of that endeavor, so why would it surprise you that you didn't hear much about the notion of hosting a Major Championship.

With respect to your request to Jim Nugent to review the time line of events, could you do so with respect to the sale of lots on the property, lots that comprised about 1/3 of the property.

I'd like to see where, in 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, the development years of the club, there's a lot written or stated about that endeavor.

If, not much, or anything was ever mentioned in 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, does that mean that they never intended to sell lots, despite having contracted with Olmstead Bros. to create a subdivision plan for the purpose of selling lots in 1931-1932 ?

I can quote several passages pertaining to the proposed sale of land about to the course if you wish. This point too is written about in Roberts' book, contrary to what you imply. Yet it's a side issue in the context of this discussion on purpose of course design. But seeing you keep pursuing it, the club's effort at buying back the solitary lot it sold would suggest that privacy was prized, and the notion of forming an exclusive club with a primary focus of members' golf and enjoyment was central to the ethos of ANGC.

Do you own a copy of Roberts' book? If you do, I suggest you re-read it. If not, you might like to purchase one.

With respect to your question related to Roberts intent, why do you take the extreme position that he lied in his 1976 recount of the early days of ANGC ?

I'm asking if YOU feel he lied Pat, because that's perhaps the most plausible explanation for your continued stance on this point. The stubborn resistance to accept that design of the course at Augusta was completed prior to any formal talks about a tournament at the venue is perplexing to say the least. Particularly in the presence of objective writings. Are you familiar with Myopia? I don't mean the golf course...

Roberts was 82 years old when he was recollecting events that occured 45 years earlier.  As to autobiographies, I stated earlier that I hadn't read many that were critical of the author.  I think one has to evaluate them understanding that they tend to air brush history.

While he was an astute individual, father time takes its toll, and, 45 years is a long time.   I'd also have to question his state of mind at that point in his life, a life that would end at his own hand a year later.

In a modern day parallel, I'd examine Muirfield Village and Jack Nicklaus in comparison to ANGC and Jones.

Roberts doesn't seem to pull any punches throughout the text, particuarly his descriptions of mixed race folk. What would he have to 'air brush' Pat?

In short, Roberts suggests the first discussions pertaining to ANGC hosting a tournament occurred a significant time after the course design process was completed. To therefore suggest that tournament golf was central in the design process is unsustainable.

I'm off to bed. It's almost midnight here in Melbourne, and my 10 week old daughter has just had her shots!

Matthew

[Matthew Mollica]

I'm sure there will be an interesting reply to read when I awake in 6 hours!

MM

[BCrosby]

Pat -

Since you are a New Yorker (sort of), I do appreciate how hard its is for you to separate financial need and the desire for publicity.  But trust me on this, sometimes publicity is sought reluctantly.

In the case of both Jones going to Hollywood and ANGC deciding to do a big tournament, the publicity they sought was because at the relevant times they were both flat broke.

That's what the record shows. Absent those facts, Bobby wouldn't have bothered with instructional films and ANGC, like other exclusive clubs in the US, could not have been bothered to open its doors to a national tournament involving lowly professional golfers.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, I'm not sure how to make it any clearer for you.

You asked -

It's my understanding that Jones and Roberts FIRST saw the property in 1931, so I don't see how you attribute the design of the course to prior dates.

Are you now doubting the authenticity of Roberts' own words? I repeat the quote from the published history of ANGC, written by it's founding chairman.

"Bob and Dr. MacKenzie completed the plans for the course in time for construction to begin in the first half of 1931."

What more could you POSSIBLY want?

If we've learned anything on this site it's that the published histories of clubs aren't always accurate.  That's been proven time and time again.

If Jones and Roberts first saw the property in 1931 I don't see how they could have completed plans for the golf course prior to that point.[/color]

You then go on to write -

Remember, they were offering lots for sale, but, you didn't hear much about the promotion of that endeavor, so why would it surprise you that you didn't hear much about the notion of hosting a Major Championship.

With respect to your request to Jim Nugent to review the time line of events, could you do so with respect to the sale of lots on the property, lots that comprised about 1/3 of the property.

I'd like to see where, in 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, the development years of the club, there's a lot written or stated about that endeavor.

If, not much, or anything was ever mentioned in 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, does that mean that they never intended to sell lots, despite having contracted with Olmstead Bros. to create a subdivision plan for the purpose of selling lots in 1931-1932 ?

I can quote several passages pertaining to the proposed sale of land about to the course if you wish. This point too is written about in Roberts' book, contrary to what you imply. Yet it's a side issue in the context of this discussion on purpose of course design. But seeing you keep pursuing it, the club's effort at buying back the solitary lot it sold would suggest that privacy was prized, and the notion of forming an exclusive club with a primary focus of members' golf and enjoyment was central to the ethos of ANGC.

That doesn't preclude the idea of hosting a national tournament.

Cypress Point Club is an exclusive private club and they hosted a PGA event for many, many years, as did many other private, exclusive clubs of the day.[/color]

Do you own a copy of Roberts' book? If you do, I suggest you re-read it. If not, you might like to purchase one.

With respect to your question related to Roberts intent, why do you take the extreme position that he lied in his 1976 recount of the early days of ANGC ?

Because that's perhaps the most plausible explanation for your continued stance on this point.

No it's not.
It's merely your attempt to demonize or make my position seem extreme by implying that I felt that Roberts was lying, which is not out of the realm of possibility.[/color]

The stubborn resistance to accept that design of the course at Augusta was completed prior to any formal talks about a tournament at the venue is perplexing to say the least. Particularly in the presence of objective writings. Are you familiar with Myopia? I don't mean the golf course...


Why did you find the need to insert the word, "formal" ?
A caveat or convenient qualifier for you.
The objective writings you reference are clear, as early as 1933 or earlier Roberts/ANGC are on the record as seeking a Major tournament.
Do you think that was a spontaneuos thought, only conceived in 1933, and not earlier ?
Why do you discount and/or ignore that effort ?

Roberts was 82 years old when he was recollecting events that occured 45 years earlier.  As to autobiographies, I stated earlier that I hadn't read many that were critical of the author.  I think one has to evaluate them understanding that they tend to air brush history.

While he was an astute individual, father time takes its toll, and, 45 years is a long time.   I'd also have to question his state of mind at that point in his life, a life that would end at his own hand a year later.

In a modern day parallel, I'd examine Muirfield Village and Jack Nicklaus in comparison to ANGC and Jones.

Roberts doesn't seem to pull any punches throughout the text, particuarly his descriptions of mixed race folk. What would he have to 'air brush' Pat?


For the simple reason that it's human nature to do so.
You again qualified your response by saying he doesn't "seem" to pull any punches, implying that he might.[/color]

In short, Roberts suggests the first discussions pertaining to ANGC hosting a tournament occurred a significant time after the course design process was completed.

Again, another qualifier, another caveat.
"Suggests" ?[/color]

To therefore suggest that tournament golf was central in the design process is unsustainable.

Obviously I disagree.

Do you think that Jones and Roberts wanted to design a mediocre golf course ?

One that would provide a user friendlly experience for their prospective members ?

Or, do you feel, as has been written, that he/they wanted to design a championship golf course ?

And, if they wanted to design a championship golf course, are you stating that they never gave one thought to hosting a major championship on that golf course ?

Especially when the USGA had NEVER held a Major championship in the south ?

To state that the greatest golfer who ever lived, a bright, articulate, educated man who had competed the length and breadth of the United States and abroad, never considered that the club he was designing/creating would host a national tournament goes against the grain of everything Bobby Jones did in GOLF.[/color]

I'm off to bed. It's almost midnight here in Melbourne, and my 10 week old daughter has just had her shots!

I remember those days, they weren't that long ago.
Getting a good night's sleep may be as difficult as coming to grips with Jones designing ANGC with a major in mind. [/color]

[TEPaul]

"You have subtely shifted the terminology from competition to opponent."

Sean:

No I haven't. I didn't say anything about a competition between a player and a golf course. In this thread I have only mentioned that Behr said the golf course is the only actual opponent and not a human competitor. He didn't say anything about a competition between a player and a golf course, and either did I. But he did say players make a joint competitive attack on the physical concrete hazards of a golf hole that are the only actual opponents (opposing force) to them and their golf balls.

[TEPaul]

"I would like Billy Joe Patton's take on many of the same subjects.
Of course,   he might very well go from being the only two time member of ANGC to hopefully, in a few years,  a three time member."

John:

I don't think Billy Joe even plays anymore and I don't know him but I do know his brother Jim. Maybe he has some insight into what Billy Joe thinks of or thought of the entire architectural evolution of ANGC. Actually not long ago I found that neat old Sport Magazine article and really neat photo of Billy Joe's shot on the 15th---the hole that sunk his chance of winning the Masters and being the first amateur to do it. I think I'll give it to Jim if he doesn't have it. 

[RJ_Daley]

In one writer's accounts of the relationships between MacKenzie and Jones, and Roberts and the membership, and how it all came about, which I again re-read in Curt Sampson's book, "The Masters"; in his opening chapter, "Seventy-six Days, Eighty-five Thousand Dollars", it seems pretty clear by those accounts that MacKenzie and Jones' mindset didn't originally contemplate a major tournament during routing and construction and grow-in and pre-opening playing of the golf course.  What Bob Crosby, Matthew Mollica and Mr Roald have been trying to get across is in line with Sampson's versions of events and motives about ANGC as they unfolded. 

It seems to me, under Sampson's accounting, MacKenzie and Jones were a team in the "spirit" of ANGC- the project, as comparable to MacKenzie's notions of golf and the golf course design expressed in "The Spirit of St. Andrews"- the book, of which Jones wrote the forward.

What Cliff Roberts and Grantland Rice had up their sleeve, along with the New York crowd of society clubbers and ballers, does not seem in Jones' realm, down in Atlanta.  Roberts seems to have "used" Jones, and his desire to have a retreat where he might even be able to throw a club in anger (away from the heat of the public glare), where he could retire and play some enjoyable, yet challenging golf with friends and acquaintences.

Whatever the talk about a future "Major" golf tournament being held there seems like it was hatched in the booze and club cars by the New York crowd, on their way down for the grand opening in Jan., 1933.   And, to further cement and co-opt Jones's complicity to what may have been the New York crowd's, and Roberts' -Rice's grandiose visions of a big toon-a-mint was further manipulated when Rice and Roberts engineered the grand gesture that only Roberts and Jones would "manage-operate" the business of the club, with no unneccesary micro-managing of the operations by 'members' which was also announced as a surprise to Jones, at that first dinner of the members on that maiden outting of the members, Jan 1933. 

Jones seems sort of the "awe shucks" greatful for the honor and praise sort of guy that was at first honored to accept a sort of co-dictator of benevolent character to run the place, yet perhaps naive to the bigger plans of Roberts and Rice and the Wall ST boys, for a prestige toon-a-mint.  As explained, it was 2 months after that maiden outting where "member talk" to the USGA about an 'inquiry' of the Open being held there was quashed by Roberts informing the USGA that it wouldn't be possible in the traditional time frame of June-July due to the intent to close the ANGC every summer. 

Further, it is reported when a "counter" idea of their own "invitee" tournament be held and would be called "the Masters" Jones is said to have resisted the name as "immodest" and would not at first go along.  He probably only really went along due to the original concept of social "invitee" sort of style to it as a gracious southern event. 

It seems that from that time on, Jones was just a rider on the big shots behind "The Masters" bus and their ride to glory.  Once the publicity of the "shot heard round the world" was struck by Sarazen, and the legend and lore of the "invitational" toonamint was on the loose, Jones did the gentlemanly thing, and went along. 

But, I can't help but wonder if Jones still yearned for a club of members not so focused on conducting the "toon-a-mint", but just a private place to play was in his heart, but became too  big for him to retreat from.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

If you think that Jones was an "aw shucks, country boy" you're sadly mistaken.

[RJ_Daley]

Yes Pat, I take your point.  Perhaps not "awe shucks", but would you agree, he was overtly humble, modest, understated yet remarkably efficient in his expressions, with a certain southern charm? 


I am by nooo means well read or familiar with the legend and lore of Bobby Jones and ANGC like perhaps you or certainly in my mind Bob Crosby and others.  But, the little I have read and remember seeing him interviewed in his wheel chair the last years on TV, I just can't think of him as being someone to throw MacKenzie under the bus, and crap on Mac's architectural integrity, workmanship, or ruin his reputation for an evolving golf spectacular event every year.  I think what I take away from the little I read, RTJ may have stepped aside and tacitly supported the evolving ANGC as Cliffy and his pals wanted to wratchet up the toon-a-mint aspect, and may have looked at it as what comes along with the rest of the year when it was that highly private enclave for his golf, and his social relationships with golfers of highly esteemed personalities, away from limelight they all shunned for those get-a-way purposes.  I think maybe RTJ got a compromise from the ideal he originally sought when he and Mac laid the course out and were first contemplating it. 

[Jim Nugent]

So I'm to assume you agree with my reading of Roberts' text, that the course was DESIGNED in late 1930 - early 1931, and the Club was ready to commence construction in early 1931. Roberts talks of a meeting in late 1932 / early 1933 about hosting a tournament, and that this is the frst of such discussions.

The timing you give above would surprise me.  Jones didn't finish the slam until September 1930.  From what I've read, he found ANGC's site after that.  For example, here is what "A History of the Augusta National Golf Club & The Masters Tournament", by Tom Davidson says:

"Jones and his associates almost never got the chance to purchase the property. The Berckmans first sold the property in 1925 to Commodore J. Perry Stoltz, who planned a hotel and golf course to replace the Berckmans’ nursery.  Construction had even started on the project—the footings for the main hotel building were already in place and still there when Bobby Jones toured the property in 1931—when a hurricane leveled an Atlantic City hotel owned by Stoltz, resulting in his bankruptcy. Stoltz’ plans for the hotel in Augusta were cancelled, the property became available once more, and it came to Jones’ attention."

If Davidson is right, Jones didn't even tour the site until 1931.  Which would make a 1930 design impossible.  He apparently didn't buy the land until 1931. 

More about this from the same source:

"Construction of the golf course under the supervision of Jones and
Mackenzie started in 1931. Although the course was available for limited play in 1932, the official opening of the Augusta National Golf Club was on January 13, 1933."

If this is accurate, the timing seems to be like this:

1930....Jones finishes the Slam, retires from competitive golf

1931....Jones learns of site in Augusta, tours it for the 1st time

1931...Jones and Mac start to design and build course

1932...Course is finished, and open for limited play

1932...They ALREADY are having talks about holding the U.S. Open, but instead decide to have their own important regular tournament

1933....ANGC officially opens

1934....Club holds first of its annual invitational tournaments for the world's best players.

So the same year the course was finished, before it officially opened, they already were in talks to have the biggest tournament in the world there.   

Whatever Roberts says, the timing of events strongly suggests to me that Jones and Mac designed the course with top players and probably a tournament in mind.  Months after it was done, they already were talking about holding the Open there. 

I think you are almost surely wrong in saying that they started designing the course in 1930.  I also strongly doubt they started building ANGC in early 1931: they didn't even tour it or buy the land until then.  Didn't it take time to route and design the course before they could start construction?  Finally, how do you know that the talks in late 1932 were the first discussions they ever had about holding big tournaments there?   

It's interesting to hear what Roberts says.  But his own account doesn't square that well with other independent facts.  At least not to me.     

[Matthew Mollica]

Jim and Pat,

as you continue to downplay the importance of Clifford Roberts' own account of the formation of the course and Club, who else would provide a better account than Augusta's own President in Perpetuity, Bobby Jones. Particularly as he co-desgned the course. He spoke of Augusta National (course and Club), in his 1960 text "Golf is my Game". I trust you have no problem with Bob Jones’ state of mind in the late 50’s and 1960, and would accept his published account of events? Or am I to quote another source?

Pat, your asked -

From the perspective of playability, WHY did Jones design and build a golf course that was beyond the ability of the membership ?

Why design and build a golf course that your prospective members can't handle, unless you had loftier goals.

Pat, I cannot believe you are serious.

From p.201 of Jones’ book "Our over-all aim at the Augusta National has been to provide a golf course of considerable natural beauty, relatively easy for the average golfer to play, and at the same time, testing for the expert player striving to better par figures.  We hope to make bogeys easy if frankly sought, pars readily obtainable by standard good play, and birdies, except on the par 5’s, dearly bought.  Obviously with the course as wide open as needed to accommodate the average golfer, we can only tighten it up by increasing the difficulty of play around the hole.’ 

Earlier in Jones’ book, he addresses the formation of ANGC. (p.192-3) "The Augusta National Golf Club itself was born of very modest aspirations to begin with." ... "We planned to have only a small group of local members upon whom we could rely for help in the day-to-day administration of the club’s affairs.  Our aim was to develop a golf course and a retreat of such nature and of such excellence, that men of some means and devoted to the game of golf, might find the club worthwhile as an extra luxury where they might visit and play with kindred spirits from other parts of the nation.  This policy has never been changed, and I am happy to be able to say that the club apparently has adequately fulfilled this mission.  In this view, of course, the all-important thing was to be the golf course."

On p.194 Jones continues – "With this sort of land, of a soft, gentle, rather than spectacular, beauty, it was especially appropriate that we chose Dr Alistair MacKenzie to design our course.  For it was essential to our requirements, that we build a course within the capacity of the average golfer to enjoy.  This did not mean that the design should be insipid, for our players were expected to be sophisticated.  They would demand interesting, lively golf, but would not long endure a course which kept them constantly straining for distance and playing out of sand."

And again – "MacKenzie was very fond of expressing his creed as a golf–course architect by saying that he tried to build courses for “most enjoyment for the greatest number”.  This happened to coincide completely with my own view.  It had seemed to me that too many courses I had seen had been constructed with an eye to difficulty alone, and that in the effort to construct an exacting course which would thwart the expert, the average golfer who paid the bills was entirely overlooked.  Too often, the worth of a layout seems to be measured by how successfully it had withstood the efforts of professionals to better its par or to lower its record."

Perhaps most importantly, Jones writes on p.196 of "Golf Is My Game" (1960) – "Somewhere during the second year of the existence of the golf course in its completed form, and from somewhere within the hard core of faithful who had accepted responsibility for the direction of the club, there came the suggestion that we try to get the National Open Championship for our club.’  Jones continues – "The idea was regarded among all of us as not entirely without merit, but in the end, enough objections were found to cause us all to agree that the project was not feasible"

The consistency between the accounts of Clifford Roberts and Bob Jones is striking, as is the consistency with Kurt Sampson's book on The Masters.

We are obviously free to form and hold our own opinions. In light of the above passages from Jones, and earlier exerpts of Roberts' text, it would indeed be surprising if one continued to hold the view that Augusta National was designed by Jones and MacKenzie with a primary focus to host professional tournaments.

Matthew

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim and Pat,

as you continue to downplay the importance of Clifford Roberts' own account of the formation of the course and Club, who else would provide a better account than Augusta's own President in Perpetuity, Bobby Jones. Particularly as he co-desgned the course. He spoke of Augusta National (course and Club), in his 1960 text "Golf is my Game". I trust you have no problem with Bob Jones’ state of mind in the late 50’s and 1960, and would accept his published account of events? Or am I to quote another source?

Pat, your asked -

From the perspective of playability, WHY did Jones design and build a golf course that was beyond the ability of the membership ?

Why design and build a golf course that your prospective members can't handle, unless you had loftier goals.

Pat, I cannot believe you are serious.

From p.201 of Jones’ book "Our over-all aim at the Augusta National has been to provide a golf course of considerable natural beauty, relatively easy for the average golfer to play, and at the same time, testing for the expert player striving to better par figures.[/color]  We hope to make bogeys easy if frankly sought, pars readily obtainable by standard good play, and birdies, except on the par 5’s, dearly bought.  Obviously with the course as wide open as needed to accommodate the average golfer, we can only tighten it up by increasing the difficulty of play around the hole.’ 

Mathew, by Jones's own words it appears that he contemplated "expert players" competing on the golf course.

In my mind, and perhaps the minds of others, I context "expert players" as professionals, tour professionals, so Jones's reference to their aim seems to confirm that which I maintain, that this course was intended as a venue to "test" the best players in the world, the experts, and that a tournament, a MEDAL play tournament, was contemplated from the very begining.[/color]

Earlier in Jones’ book, he addresses the formation of ANGC. (p.192-3) "The Augusta National Golf Club itself was born of very modest aspirations to begin with." ... "We planned to have only a small group of local members upon whom we could rely for help in the day-to-day administration of the club’s affairs.  Our aim was to develop a golf course and a retreat of such nature and of such excellence, that men of some means and devoted to the game of golf, might find the club worthwhile as an extra luxury where they might visit and play with kindred spirits from other parts of the nation.  This policy has never been changed, and I am happy to be able to say that the club apparently has adequately fulfilled this mission.  In this view, of course, the all-important thing was to be the golf course."


That passage ONLY applies to the Members, the membership.
NOT to the "EXPERT PLAYERS" who will be tested by the golf course.[/color]

On p.194 Jones continues – "With this sort of land, of a soft, gentle, rather than spectacular, beauty, it was especially appropriate that we chose Dr Alistair MacKenzie to design our course.  For it was essential to our requirements, that we build a course within the capacity of the average golfer to enjoy.  This did not mean that the design should be insipid, for our players were expected to be sophisticated.  They would demand interesting, lively golf, but would not long endure a course which kept them constantly straining for distance and playing out of sand."

How is it possible, that a course, as described above, could test "expert players" ?  It can't, unless you add another element:  different sets of tees for different types of players.  Hence, you have the MEMBERS tees and you have the MASTERS tees.  The "Members" tees which would provide the experience as described in your paragraph above, and the "Masters" tees to test the expert players.[/color]

And again – "MacKenzie was very fond of expressing his creed as a golf–course architect by saying that he tried to build courses for “most enjoyment for the greatest number”.  This happened to coincide completely with my own view.  It had seemed to me that too many courses I had seen had been constructed with an eye to difficulty alone, and that in the effort to construct an exacting course which would thwart the expert, the average golfer who paid the bills was entirely overlooked.  Too often, the worth of a layout seems to be measured by how successfully it had withstood the efforts of professionals to better its par or to lower its record."


This again confirms my belief that the course was intended, from the very begining, to serve a dual purpose, that of facilitating member rounds and testing the rounds of expert players in a medal play context/tournament.[/color]

Perhaps most importantly, Jones writes on p.196 of "Golf Is My Game" (1960) – "Somewhere during the second year of the existence of the golf course in its completed form, and from somewhere within the hard core of faithful who had accepted responsibility for the direction of the club, there came the suggestion that we try to get the National Open Championship for our club.’  Jones continues – "The idea was regarded among all of us as not entirely without merit, but in the end, enough objections were found to cause us all to agree that the project was not feasible"

This passage conflicts with the facts, including written documents wherein
the U.S. Open and the PGA were brought into the issue earlier.[/color]

The consistency between the accounts of Clifford Roberts and Bob Jones is striking, as is the consistency with Kurt Sampson's book on The Masters.


That's not true, letters in Roberts's hand conflict with Jones's account of the courting of a National Championship.[/color]

We are obviously free to form and hold our own opinions. In light of the above passages from Jones, and earlier exerpts of Roberts' text, it would indeed be surprising if one continued to hold the view that Augusta National was designed by Jones and MacKenzie with a primary focus to host professional tournaments.

Ah, now you've changed the context of the debate by adding the phrase,
"primary focus"  NOONE, I repeat NOONE ever claimed that creating/hosting a professional tournament was the primary focus behind creating or designing the golf course.  That's your convoluted interpetation, not mine.

You need more sleep.[/color]

[Jim Nugent]

Matthew, with one exception, you have not really questioned the time line I suggested in my last post.  Your one exception is that Jones says that during the 2nd year, someone suggested bringing the U.S. Open to ANGC.  Roberts says they had discussions about this in 1932, though.  That would have been just months after the course was finished, and as I've repeated several times now, before the club even opened. 

So your two major sources contradict each other. 

I'm not impressed by what Jones or Roberts says, though, if their statements don't reconcile well with the basic facts.  Basic facts are that before the course opened, they talked about bringing the U.S. Open there.  They turned that down, so they could hold their own regular, important tournament.  They must have had big aspirations/dreams/expectations: they thought they could "serve golf" better by turning down the most important championship in the world. 

Bobby was the world's greatest golfer till then.  Mac was the greatest architect.  No shock that they might think about tournament golf -- especially on a course with revolutionary design, based on the same principles underlying what was likely the world's most famous tournament course: TOC. 

People can and do say anything they want.  They may be sincere, they may not.  Actions speak louder.  In this case, ANGC started its own national/world invitational barely a year after opening its doors.  They had to have made the decision to do that long before the event took place.  They had to go through all the planning, organizing and financing. 

If they never thought about this earlier, they sure leaped into action awful darn fast.   

[Matthew Mollica]

Jim,

You seem to be confusing a course design process with a course's opening. Design occurs long before opening. A discussion on tournaments before course opening, yet after design completion, cannot impact upon design can it?

Pat, I've had plenty of sleep thank you. My daughter slept from 11pm to 10am!

Back to business. In your last post you typed-

NOONE, I repeat NOONE ever claimed that creating/hosting a professional tournament was the primary focus behind creating or designing the golf course.

Did you not earlier type -

ANGC was always intended to be a championship venue, hence, fine tuning after opening day would seem to be natural progression.

I'm not sure that differs from implying that you believe a primary focus of course design was tournament play. If there is, I apologise. I've not meant to change the context of this discussion.

Mathew, by Jones's own words it appears that he contemplated "expert players" competing on the golf course.

In my mind, and perhaps the minds of others, I context "expert players" as professionals, tour professionals, so Jones's reference to their aim seems to confirm that which I maintain, that this course was intended as a venue to "test" the best players in the world, the experts, and that a tournament, a MEDAL play tournament, was contemplated from the very begining.

You also wrote -

That passage ONLY applies to the Members, the membership.
NOT to the "EXPERT PLAYERS" who will be tested by the golf course.

You will notice Jones speaks repeatedly of club members and lesser skilled players, as they formed the focus of his design efforts. There is no such depth of text devoted to tournament play. .I have no doubt that consideration of both skilled and unskilled players was a focus of Jones and MacKenzie and have never asserted otherwise. MacKenzie wrote years earlier of the need to stimulate and propose a challenge to the "plus man". Catering for such players, as opposed to a formal professional tournament are not the same thing.
 

How is it possible, that a course, as described above, could test "expert players" ?  It can't, unless you add another element:  different sets of tees for different types of players.  Hence, you have the MEMBERS tees and you have the MASTERS tees.  The "Members" tees which would provide the experience as described in your paragraph above, and the "Masters" tees to test the expert players. This again confirms my belief that the course was intended, from the very begining, to serve a dual purpose, that of facilitating member rounds and testing the rounds of expert players in a medal play context/tournament.

I beg to differ Pat. Jones wrote in "Golf is my Game" (p.203-4) -

"I believe it is true that with modern equipment and modern players, we cannot make a golf course more difficult or more testing for the expert simply by adding length."

In contradicting Jones own words, you also typed -

This passage conflicts with the facts, including written documents wherein
the U.S. Open and the PGA were brought into the issue earlier.

and

That's not true, letters in Roberts's hand conflict with Jones's account of the courting of a National Championship.

Please produce these documents Pat.

I am surprised you speak of Roberts' own writings, given that you earlier discount his published account of ANGC history as "air-brushed" among other things, when his pages do not suit your contention.

Lastly, you conveniently ignored the point on Augusta's membership and course playability...

Matthew

[Patrick_Mucci]

NOONE, I repeat NOONE ever claimed that creating/hosting a professional tournament was the primary focus behind creating or designing the golf course.

Did you not earlier type -

ANGC was always intended to be a championship venue, hence, fine tuning after opening day would seem to be natural progression.

I'm not sure that differs from implying that you believe a primary focus of course design was tournament play. If there is, I apologise. I've not meant to change the context of this discussion.

Of course there's a difference between primary and ancillary uses.
I never stated that the primary focus of the design was for hosting national tournament play, but, I'm sure as heck not naive enough to believe that those thoughts didn't cross Dr Mac, Jones's and Roberts's minds during the design and construction process.[/color]

Mathew, by Jones's own words it appears that he contemplated "expert players" competing on the golf course.

In my mind, and perhaps the minds of others, I context "expert players" as professionals, tour professionals, so Jones's reference to their aim seems to confirm that which I maintain, that this course was intended as a venue to "test" the best players in the world, the experts, and that a tournament, a MEDAL play tournament, was contemplated from the very begining.

You also wrote -

That passage ONLY applies to the Members, the membership.
NOT to the "EXPERT PLAYERS" who will be tested by the golf course.

You can't take those quotes out of context, leaving out that which they reference.

ANGC has a dual purpose, satisfying member play and providing a test to the expert player, the tournament golfer, and that's accomplished at ANGC by a variety of factors, including two Seperate sets of tees, established SPECIFICALLY for that purpose.[/color]

You will notice Jones speaks repeatedly of club members and lesser skilled players, as they formed the focus of his design efforts. There is no such depth of text devoted to tournament play.

So what, the record is clear on ANGC seeking the 1934 US Open in 1933, or possibly earlier.
Do you think that Jones and Roberts had an epiphany shortly after the club opened, and had never had that thought enter their minds beforehand ?[/color]

.I have no doubt that consideration of both skilled and unskilled players was a focus of Jones and MacKenzie and have never asserted otherwise. MacKenzie wrote years earlier of the need to stimulate and propose a challenge to the "plus man". Catering for such players, as opposed to a formal professional tournament are not the same thing.

Then why would he reference testing the "expert player" ?[/color]
 

How is it possible, that a course, as described above, could test "expert players" ?  It can't, unless you add another element:  different sets of tees for different types of players.  Hence, you have the MEMBERS tees and you have the MASTERS tees.  The "Members" tees which would provide the experience as described in your paragraph above, and the "Masters" tees to test the expert players. This again confirms my belief that the course was intended, from the very begining, to serve a dual purpose, that of facilitating member rounds and testing the rounds of expert players in a medal play context/tournament.

I beg to differ Pat. Jones wrote in "Golf is my Game" (p.203-4) -

"I believe it is true that with modern equipment and modern players, we cannot make a golf course more difficult or more testing for the expert simply by adding length."

That passage would seem to indicate that Jones was out of touch in that regard.  William Flynn and other leading architects understood the need for future length and therefore introduced elasticity in their designs in order to allow for more length.  So much so that they incorporated "elasticity" by factoring it into their routing schemes.[/color]

In contradicting Jones own words, you also typed -

This passage conflicts with the facts, including written documents wherein
the U.S. Open and the PGA were brought into the issue earlier.

and

That's not true, letters in Roberts's hand conflict with Jones's account of the courting of a National Championship.

Those statements aren't contradictory, they're complimentary.[/color]

Please produce these documents Pat.

That's easy.  It's in a letter that Cliff Roberts wrote to Charles H Sabin on or around February 1933.[/color]

I am surprised you speak of Roberts' own writings, given that you earlier discount his published account of ANGC history as "air-brushed" among other things, when his pages do not suit your contention.

You have to understand the difference in our positions and the documents we rely on.
One, the one you rely on, is an autobiographical recollection 44 years removed.
The other, the one I rely on, is a contemporary letter in Roberts's own hand to a third party, Charles H Sabin. 
Surely, you recognize and understand that difference.[/b][/color]

Lastly, you conveniently ignored the point on Augusta's membership and course playability...

No I didn't.
You missed the point on the duality of the design from two seperate and distinct sets of tees.[/color]

Lastly, let me quote the following from someone who spent a good deal of time researching ANGC and The Masters:

"By 1933, neither the Open nor the Amateur-the two biggest tournaments conducted by the USGA-had ever been held farther south than Illinois.

Jones had wanted to redress that geographical imbalance, and his desire to do so was one reason he had wanted to build a course of his own.

Augusta National had been conceived from the begining as a venue where championships might one day be held."[/color]

Now what were you saying about this idea arising long after the course was designed and the club open to the members ?

[BCrosby]

Pat -

What is the source of your last quotation?  Does your source quote Jones as expressing those views? 

Bob

[RJ_Daley]

Lastly, let me quote the following from someone who spent a good deal of time researching ANGC and The Masters:

Pat, ditto Bob's request.  Why didn't you give the attribution of what you have there in quotes?  And, those are quotes from the unnamed person you say spent a good deal of time researching.  They don't appear to be direct quotes to RTJ himself, as Matthew and Bob have consistently been offering in their side of your debate. 

BTW, what guy that ever embarked on a 'dream project' of a golf course design in which he hired one of the great archies of the day, and spent so much time and his own resources, didn't "entertain" a notion during and post design/construction that would go something like this:  "you know, this course is so good, it could host a major".

I'll just bet those words flowed from Kohlers lips, Bakst, Youngscapp, Kaiser, et.al.  I think it is rather natural that men of grand egos and captains of industry and banking and the like, such as Cliffy recruited as members would be all ginned up, on the very innaugral train ride down there in Jan 1933, with all kinds of bragadoccio going on about their new prise enclave being the best of the best, and would set the world on its ear with hosting a "major". 

None of what I can see from quotes supplied from Jones' book, interviews in mags, etc, indicate that Jones' primary focus was a course with the hubbub of a major.  It was to be private.   Cliffy and Rice and the boys had the other ideas, IMHO.  Jones went along not to be a wet blanket, IMHO.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()