[Bryan Izatt]

Disregarding for a moment all the rules about not critiquing places you haven't played (more than once) or even see live, I was struck by this photo of the 18th from the high resolution panoramic thread from a few days ago.

I know the picture flattens the real world but does it not look like that green and the two bunkers were just slapped in the middle of an open hillside closely mown lawn.  Without the context and framing of the patrons, stands, and TV towers, does it not look downright bland.  Would the green complex be better with some more  "naturalstic" contexting or framing.

And, save the comments about not having seen it.



 

[John Moore II]

Well, apart from the fact that Augusta is not a naturalistic golf course, the picture is distorted. From what I have seen, that picture does not present an accurate image of what the hole looks like. I think that when you look at the hole from straight on or from the back, it looks far different than a Pan from the right side of the fairway. To answer the question though--no, it does not look like it was just thrown there and does not look bland.

[Matt_Cohn]

[Sean_A]

The only thing that looks bland (or perhaps out of proportion) is the bunkering.  This strikes me a southern thing with these huge bunkers relative to the greensite, but I could be wrong.  The greensite looks to be a cracker to me.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan Izatt,

Had you seen the golf course you would have realized that the angle of the photo bears NO resemblance to how the hole appears to the golfer.

Matt Cohn's photo is a far more accurate depiction of the green.

And, as you can see in Matt's photo, the green is perfectly "framed" as you requested.

As to your conclusions, they're way off base, a tribute to the fact that you've never seen the course and thus shouldn't comment on how it looks, especially when the photo used to reference the 18th green is from a useless angle.

Many tend to be critical of ANGC when they haven't seen it in person.
Far fewer are critical after they've experienced it.
Why do you think that is ?

[Adam Clayman]

Brian, Isn't it that openness that epitomizes one of the key principles that Mac and Jones cleverly figured out? Namely the uneasiness that better players have when the shot is not dictated to them and has no frame of reference that "framing" provides?

[JESII]

"better players"?

[Ken Moum]

"better players"?

Well, in his defense, I would point out that us "lesser players" are uneasy pretty much all the time on any kind of golf course.

Ken

[JESII]

Interestingly, and maybe back onto Bryan's topic, I think a green sitting out on its own "just slapped into a hillside" is a very attractive setting. That may be THE thing that makes me really like the 7th at Shinnecock. It's just there.

[Brent Hutto]

The guy in Matt's photo is trying to hit a big old draw in there, no?

Is that the shot for a back-left pin? Or does the whole green favor a right-to-left shot?

[JESII]

The guy in Matt's photo took a Tour quality divot, that's for sure.

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

I disclaimed off the top that it's hard to use pictures to evaluate a golf hole; thanks for reiterating that.  Perhaps you could arrange for a game there to help improve my eduction.   

Matt's picture provides a different perspective and it does look better from that angle.  The 80 yards of open lawn behind the green are not visible.

Do you suppose that Mackenzie and Jones decided the location of the green solely on the distance from the tee and manufactured the green site there? I guess the question is why at that spot and not 30 yards shorter or 50 yards longer.  Was this the ideal length of a closing par 4 at the time?  There seems to be no natural feature to draw them to place the green in that precise spot.

[Joe Hancock]

Bryan,

Typing the word "eduction" instead of "education", then following it with a smiley is beyond clever...I think most people won't get it.

 

Joe

[James Bennett]

Bryan,

Typing the word "eduction" instead of "education", then following it with a smiley is beyond clever...I think most people won't get it.

 

Joe

Joe

I think most people will actually miss it rather than not get it.

Is #18 green at Augusta set on the ridge, ie at that point where the uphill approach stops, or perhaps where the uphill gradient reduces to a gentle incline?  It is an interesting choice to have located #18 green so far from the clubhouse, especially as the course wasn't designed in the manner of a modern-day TPC to cater for crowds, stands and the like.  I assume #18 is deliberately located by Mac/Jones because of the terrain.

James B

[Tim_Cronin]

James B,
   The green on 18 is indeed on the edge of the ridge. It's a big uphill climb from the corner of the dogleg, something like four stories, I think. Try hitting the roof of a four-story building from 150-plus (minus for the big guys) away. That's the object of the game. (And I'd like to play it there once!)
   The slope is the same one as the downhill tee shot on 10. And the approach on 9 seems even more severe than on 18; perhaps that's because of the false front.

[Ken Moum]

There's an even better photo to show the here extreme contours on the front of 18 green here:

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/1767439.jpg

This is an interesting site http://www.golfflyover.com/ although it doesn't show surface contours in much relief.

Ken

[Lou_Duran]

"It is an interesting choice to have located #18 green so far from the clubhouse, especially as the course wasn't designed in the manner of a modern-day TPC to cater for crowds, stands and the like.  I assume #18 is deliberately located by Mac/Jones because of the terrain."  James B

I think that in the original design, the nines were flipped around.  As I recall, current #9 is further up the hill and closer to the clubhouse.  I'd guess that the distance from #9 green to #10 tee is similar to that between #18 green (original #9) to #1 tee (original #10), recent tee extensions excluded.

[Robert_Ball]

Based on the below picture taken in 1935 which I assume is the 18th, it appears that the original green was even further down the fairway, just 20-40 yards beyond the pepper(?) tree which you can see in the upper left corner of the picture.  That would put the original green to the right of the current front bunker.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Robert Ball,

That's because the gallery on the front of the green is blocking the vast fairway expanse that falls sharply from the green, back down toward the tee.

The 1932 Olmstead Bros general plan and aerial photos from 1932 show the green in its present location

Lou Duran,

The 18th green was originally the 9th green, and the 9th green the original 18th
There was a vast putting green between the clubhouse and those two greens.

I think you have to view the location of those two greens in the context of the topography, the holes that preceed them, and the huge practice putting green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I disclaimed off the top that it's hard to use pictures to evaluate a golf hole; thanks for reiterating that.  Perhaps you could arrange for a game there to help improve my eduction.   

I'd be happy to do so.
Unfortunately, you're number 5,649,023 [/color]

Matt's picture provides a different perspective and it does look better from that angle.  The 80 yards of open lawn behind the green are not visible.

Do you suppose that Mackenzie and Jones decided the location of the green solely on the distance from the tee and manufactured the green site there? I guess the question is why at that spot and not 30 yards shorter or 50 yards longer.  Was this the ideal length of a closing par 4 at the time?  There seems to be no natural feature to draw them to place the green in that precise spot.

Bryan, I think the topography coupled with the linear distance of the hole and the routing of the preceeding holes dictated that location, which is pretty ideal.

It's an uphill dogleg.
Critical to the play of the hole is the golfers ability to get to a prefered DZ.
The golfer is then left with an uphill shot, off an uphill lie, facing a huge fronting bunker, with a right flanking bunker, and land falling away precipitously on the left.

Hence, it's a pretty ideal location, especially since the land behind the green gets flatter, lacking any substantive or dramatic topo.  Hence, a green 50 yards toward the clubhouse, which would necessitate moving the practice putting green, would make the hole a par 5, and, moving the green 40 yards toward the tee would put it at the foot of the rise, on a mini plateau of sorts, making the hole a shortish par 4 without much in the way of a challenge, especially for a finishing hole.  AND then, you'd have a long, long walk up the big hill to the clubhouse or 10th tee.  Remember, this was hole # 9 on the original routing.

Hope that helps.[/color]

[BCrosby]

Robert -

That is the current 18th green. You can see the narrow tongue that once extended towards the fw, between the greenside bunkers. A fascinating little strip of green that I assume was pinnable.

That tongue is now gone and only the back 2/3rds of the green remains. Another bit of evidence for how the original irregularities of many, many MacK features were "rationalized" later. (To be clear, I don't mean to suggest that was a good thing.)

Bob

[Ken Moum]

I don't think I've ever read anything about it, but is it possible that the plan to build a new clubhouse was a consideration?

The top of that hill, in the general vicinity of the current putting green, would be a fabulous site for a clubhouse, and would have put 1 and 10 tees, and both 9 and 18 green in closer proximity.

From a second-story veranda there, I'd bet you could see all the way down to the second green.

Ken

[BCrosby]

Ken - I know of no plans that ever existed to relocate the clubhouse.

From the second floor veranda of the current clubhouse you can see almost the whole course now. It's probably the best view in golf.

Bob

[Ken Moum]

Ken - I know of no plans that ever existed to relocate the clubhouse.

From the second floor veranda of the current clubhouse you can see almost the whole course now. It's probably the best view in golf.

Bob

There's no doubt that the intent was to build a new clubhouse. I just looked Cliff Robert's book this morning and he mentioned it. He merely said they changed their mind, but IIRC Owen (or someone) wrote that they couldn't afford it at first.

Regardless, there's a LOT of room between the original first tee, ten tee and two finishing greens. And that wasn't very common during that period of time.

Ken

[BCrosby]

Regardless, there's a LOT of room between the original first tee, ten tee and two finishing greens. And that wasn't very common during that period of time.

Ken - A minor point, but I don't think there is anything unusual about the distance of those things from the clubhouse. To the contrary, they feel about right to me. The first tee is right there at the oak, the 9th and 18th greens just below it.

To each how own I guess, but the area between those things and the clubhouse gets very crowded during the tournament. Members wish they had a lot more room.

Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()