Is It Time For Augusta To Change the Way It Looks?

[Michael Whitaker]

Patrick.....

Please explain to me the radical difference in the course during the fall and winter months.  (with the exception of blooming trees and shrubs & patron seating areas)

Doug - Since you are at Augusta National every month the course is open why don't you fill Patrick in on how the course really looks for the "balance of the season."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Greenkeeping has changed immensely over the years, from topdressing practices to mowing equipment to rolling practices, verticutting, etc. Don't attribute all the improvements of the current greens over the old bermuda greens entirely to the conversion to bentgrass.

I never did.
I was merely addressing Phil's points.[/color]

Perennial ryegrass, the type that Augusta and most other southern courses overseed fairways and tees with, are genetically bred for dark green color, and apart from certain Kentucky Bluegrasses, there's no darker grass. They are a much darker green than bermudagrass.

Arnold Palmer probably doesn't have to slam his putts as hard on the modern bermuda grasses under modern maintenance techniques,  so once again, don't give all the credit to bentgrass.

Joe, you can't take today's Bermuda's and transport them via time warp to the 60's and 70's.  You have to examine the evolution of grasses along the actual time line.[/color]

I don't know what Augusta's budgets or quantities are for input materials (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) but a great deal of the courses' appearance is attributed to meticulous detail in the labor efforts. The perfectly edged bunkers, the lack of debris and litter, and even the pond skimming with swimming pool tools all adds up significantly to the presentation during Masters week....above and beyond fertilizer and pesticides.

Joe, I've said, over and over again, that it's "Showtime" for the Network.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick.....

Please explain to me the radical difference in the course during the fall and winter months.  (with the exception of blooming trees and shrubs & patron seating areas)

Doug - Since you are at Augusta National every month the course is open why don't you fill Patrick in on how the course really looks for the "balance of the season."

Michael Whitaker,

Since I've played the course during the balance of the season I don't need anyone to tell me what it looks like when I play it.

As to the filters, ask your sources to go back 10 and 20 years.
CBS admited that they used filters for their earlier productions.

[Mark_Fine]

Augusta has done little in the way of setting a good example for golf course architecture and maintenance.  Spend enough time with green committees at different clubs around the country and you won't be able to argue with this.  Masters week is a nightmare for Superintendents. 

Maybe this should be a separate thread, but what top courses have set a good example in this regard?  I know we debated this in the past and a few felt that the top clubs should be exempt and left to do as they please.  But frankly that is a weak excuse as these clubs are using and consuming the same resources and the precedent they set is seen and emulated by others whether we like it or not.  What top courses can ohter clubs point to and say, "Look at XYZ course, they are reducing water consumption, lowering their pesticide use, changing maintenance standards to better reflect the game of golf and the environment.  Maybe we don't need to spend a zillion dollars a year to overmaintain our golf course."  Who are the good role models out there?  Somerset Hills, Fishers Island,...? 

[jeffwarne]

Mark,
Are we to assume the corrolary that if we see a poorly conditioned course;
that the caretakers are on enviromentally high ground.....?
or simply inept?

There certainly are a lot of value judgements passed on Augusta for its' conditioning.
Perhaps they are simply more competent.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

Clubs are often a product of their cultures.

ANGC enjoys a unique position in golf.

Each and every spring they host the Masters, a wonderful golf tournament on a great golf course.

A tournament that's televised not just nationally, but, internationally.

You belong or belonged to Lehigh.

Do you think for one moment that if Lehigh was about to host a Major tournament and go on TV for four days that the club wouldn't spruce things up a bit ?

Let's be realistic.
Every club tries to put their best foot forward when outside events are hosted.

Clubs spruce up for member-guests and mixed member-guests.
Why do you expect ANGC to do less ?

[Sean_A]

Augusta has done little in the way of setting a good example for golf course architecture and maintenance.  Spend enough time with green committees at different clubs around the country and you won't be able to argue with this.  Masters week is a nightmare for Superintendents. 

Maybe this should be a separate thread, but what top courses have set a good example in this regard?  I know we debated this in the past and a few felt that the top clubs should be exempt and left to do as they please.  But frankly that is a weak excuse as these clubs are using and consuming the same resources and the precedent they set is seen and emulated by others whether we like it or not.  What top courses can ohter clubs point to and say, "Look at XYZ course, they are reducing water consumption, lowering their pesticide use, changing maintenance standards to better reflect the game of golf and the environment.  Maybe we don't need to spend a zillion dollars a year to overmaintain our golf course."  Who are the good role models out there?  Somerset Hills, Fishers Island,...? 

Mark

While I don't care for the "Augusta Look", for better or worse that look is popular with a significant percentage of players.  This is nothing new.  To answer your question, in recent years easily the best presentation I have seen for a major was Hoylake.  So far as US Opens go, I was impressed with Pinehurst in 1999.  Many ridicule Shinny, but I thought it was well presented for 2004.  One hole got a bit crazy, but thats life. 

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
There is difference between a poor conditioned course and an overmaintained course.  I am by no means suggesting every golf course look like a fallow wasteland.  Furthermore, if you think Augusta is as you say "more competent", we are a long way from a meaningful discussion and I think there are a lot of Superintendents that would take offense. 

Pat,
I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of argument.  Augusta is in a position where they need to recognize their impact on the game of golf.  Yes they do things that are positive but they do a lot that is negative for the game as well.  You may disagree, but they are NOT A PRIVATE CLUB when they are hosting the Masters.  They are in every golfers living room one week of the year and the impact from that one week carries over throughout the year.  As such, they have an inherent responsibility to understand and address the consequences of that exposure. 

Yes I still belong to Lehigh and I would hope their best foot forward would not be to try to look like today's Augusta National (guess who would be paying for that).  The point is we need to change the perception of what "our best foot forward is".  What do you think for example Huntingdon Valley's perception would be for a big event?  What is their "best foot forward"?

Sean,
You are correct that many people like the Augusta National look.  Many will like anything Augusta National does.  As I said above, maybe it is time they recognize their impact (positive and negative) and take responsibility for both. 

Just my opinion,
Mark

[JESII]

Mark,

As you may remember, I am one of those that disagrees with your premise that Augusta needs to act like an example for us all.

At the same time, you bring up some real examples of clubs that would be good role models...Somerset, Fishers and HVCC, and I agree with them. What you didn't address is whether or not those three good examples act intentionally as role models, or do they just do what they think is right and best for their club and membership.

I can say, that Scott Anderson is more than happy to share his knowledge of golf course preparation with anyone that asks...but I don't think he gets alot of calls from Green Committees...maybe he should...

How can you, as a professional in the golf industry that spends countless hours with green committees, get those committees to change their perspective on golf course preparation without accusing Augusta of selfishly acting in their own best interests when they should be acting as a role model to Lehigh?

[Phil Benedict]

Patrick,

Chip Gaskins had photos from Augusta either in February of March, and it looked very different than it does in April.  I liked it more, because it looked like a regular golf course rather than a botanical garden.  Unfortunately, I think the botanical garden aspect appeals to a lot of CBS's audience in April.

[John Burzynski]

I wonder that if there was some catastrophic weather disaster, or something else that for one year made Augusta 'less than green' , if the TV ratings would suffer.  Make no mistake about it, this tournament and its coverage by CBS (and I guess now ESPN) are all about the ratings, it is one of their higher rated sports contests for the year, hot on the heals of a high drawing March Madness.

For most of the watchers of The Masters, this tourney is a 'right of spring'.  Many years, a lot of us up here in the north are still awaiting our first trip to play golf, as the courses are either too wet, snowy or haven't opened yet.  This tournament is like comfort food for most golfers; green grass, flowers in full bloom, birds chirping, etc. all play to most of the TV audience of golfers yet to play for the year.  It is to TV and Augusta's advantage to keep the course as green as possible...for better TV ratings.   

Maybe not good for golf, course architecture or history, but definitely I'll bet good for ratings, and TV ratings seem to unfortunately drive this tournament above all others.

[Phil Benedict]

For most of the watchers of The Masters, this tourney is a 'right of spring'.  Many years, a lot of us up here in the north are still awaiting our first trip to play golf, as the courses are either too wet, snowy or haven't opened yet.  This tournament is like comfort food for most golfers; green grass, flowers in full bloom, birds chirping, etc. all play to most of the TV audience of golfers yet to play for the year.  It is to TV and Augusta's advantage to keep the course as green as possible...for better TV ratings.   

Maybe not good for golf, course architecture or history, but definitely I'll bet good for ratings, and TV ratings seem to unfortunately drive this tournament above all others.

John,

I agree with your analysis but I think with greater emphasis on environmental considerations people will become increasingly aware that there are consequences of Augusta looking the way it does on TV.  The very fact that Golf Digest has a huge section on golf and the environment which refers rather disparagingly to the "Augusta look" is an indication that these consequences (externalities for you econ minded posters) are bubbling into the public consciousness.

[John Burzynski]

John,

I agree with your analysis but I think with greater emphasis on environmental considerations people will become increasingly aware that there are consequences of Augusta looking the way it does on TV.  The very fact that Golf Digest has a huge section on golf and the environment which refers rather disparagingly to the "Augusta look" is an indication that these consequences (externalities for you econ minded posters) are bubbling into the public consciousness.

Hopefully this change happens sooner rather than later, but I think that it will take a radical change in thinking by golfers everywhere to not expect what has become to be the desired norm, a television perceived Augusta standard of lush green and what is considered to be a 'perfect' golf course condition.  Until the general golfing public's ideal of a golf course's conditions changes, most golfers will expect Augusta to be green and flowery every year on Tv, and thus expect their home course to at least be close to the same Augusta ideal.

I got kind of angry (angry to myself, no verbal issues or fist fights on-course!) last night when I played a quick nine after work at Erskine, my local muni / home course.  I paired up with another guy who I had never played before, and all he could complain about was the greens this time of year and how bad they were.    I think he expects pristine greens and very smooth / quick, and bearing in mind that it is early April in Northern Indiana, this just ain't gonna happen.   This course normally has somewhat challenging greens, and for April they were in as good of shape as could be expected...easily playable, brown in more than a few spots, but it is still not really spring here.    Of course, he couldn't putt worth a darn, but that had nothing to do with the greens!

Augusta's course condition is a state of mind with many golfers, an expectation based on years of TV and also years of playing courses that seek to attain at least a measure of August'a green lushness, even at the expense of the game's long term course health everywhere.  Perception is 9/10ths of reality.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
One of the major differences that I pointed out with Augusta National is that for one week of the year, Augusta National is NOT A PRIVATE CLUB.  In fact, they might be the most public club in the world for that one week and whether they like it or not, that one week has a huge impact on the golf industry (including golf architecture and golf course maintenance).  They need to recognize the impact they are having on the game (positive and negative).  They need to worry about much more than just doing as you say, "what is in their own best interests."  Or else maybe they need to redefine what that means.  

Maybe another way to look at it is as follows, the more outside exposure a club has, the more is should be concerned about the role and influence it is having on other clubs/courses, etc.  It is no different than a private company operating in a community.  It's private but it's operation impacts the community oustide it's physical location.  The bigger and more exposed the company becomes, the wider its area of influence.  Time for golf clubs to step up and accept the same responsibility.  

Again, just my opinion,
Mark

[Michael Whitaker]

As to the filters, ask your sources to go back 10 and 20 years.
CBS admited that they used filters for their earlier productions.

Patrick Mucci - My sources have no idea what you are talking about! Where do you get your information? Where did CBS "admit" they they used filters? Can this be documented or is it just something you "remember?"

Thanks!

[Nick Church]

I've wondered (hoped?) that in the future, Augusta National's leaders would hire a new consulting architect of the nuveau - minimalist variety (Doak, Hanse, et al.).  The current generation of leaders, I believe, embraced Fazio from all the publicity that Fazio's designs generated in the late 80s to 1990s.  There, maybe in the next decade, the current support for the "minimalist" works will catch up the changing guard at Augusta.

I'm just way too curious what the course would look like if they embraced that style of architect who, I assume, would be inclined to reinterpret what MacKenzie might have done with more time and control.  (IE -- MacKenzie style bunkers, more rough-hewn edges & perimeters, etc).

[Doug Siebert]

I think it would be great if ANGC would embrace a more environmentally friendly conditioning and setup -- and more achieveable to courses that lack their nearly infinite maintenance budget.

However, if they did that I still think it would need to be "sold" to some extent in terms of how it provides better golf.  I don't think the average golfers really cares whether the course is green or brown as it pertains to his golf game, but the firm conditions are something a lot of golfers look at as a negative.  How often to hear about "hard ground", "greens won't hold", "can't take a divot in the fairways", "ball kept bouncing into the rough" as disparaging remarks from golfers more familiar with lush conditions when playing a course that's maintained F&F?

I think most golfers know that ANGC's perfectly manicured look is only achieveable at great expense, and they also know that the stereotypical muni with brown spotty fairways, splotchy greens, rough that still has some of last fall's leaves hiding in it, and water hazards choked with algae is the example of what you get when you have little expense.

Its great that F&F conditions, less fertilizer, less water, less intensive maintenance practices are better for the environment, can save the course money and can provide a better golfing experience to people who share our beliefs about what constitutes a well conditioned course.  But to the average guy it just says "cheap", or if they are on the far right of the political spectrum, might say something like "sellout to the environmental wackos" as well.

Until the majority of golfers learn to appreciate this type of conditioning as providing better/more fun golf, it will be more difficult to sell in terms of clubs (especially upscale ones) convincing their membership they should do what ANGC is doing (i.e., if ANGC went this direction)  Average golfers like soft greens because they can't hold their shots on firm greens.  Even on courses where there is ample room for a run-up many golfers consider that shot to be somehow inferior because they believe it is the mark of a better player to land the ball on the green instead of running it up -- that's what women and old men do in their minds.

So I don't think we should fool ourselves that all we need to do is get ANGC on board and the tide will turn.  I think that it will help a lot for courses struggling with their maintenance budgets, but for many private clubs and upscale daily fee courses, I think that it will not be so easy for them to change their maintenance practices just because ANGC does.