[Mark Bourgeois]

Bob Jones's piece in the April 6, 1959, Sports Illustrated is well known and widely quoted -- interestingly by people on opposite sides of the "What Would Bobby Do?" (Isn't it funny -- funny "strange," Gilligan -- how there's no debate along the lines of "What Would Alister Do"...)

(I'm pretty sure I recognize a number of quotes and passages from Bobby Jones's spectator guide handed out to patrons, but on the other hand maybe it's not that widely known after all: Byrdy's book doesn't mention it in the bibliography, nor apparently does David Owen reference it. Anybody know if the article is some sort of second-hand reprint from one of his books or vice-versa?  Or is it "distinct"?)

Anyway, some of us had only read bits and quotes.  Speaking of which, here are a few favorites:

We are quite willing to have low scores made during the tournament. It is not our intention to rig the golf course so as to make it tricky. It is our feeling that there is something wrong with a golf course which will not yield a score in the 60s to a player who has played well enough to deserve it.

I think it is also most rewarding for spectators watching the play to be aware of the effect of variables in wind and lie of the ball. If a player is to be asked to play a quickly stopping shot to a closely guarded green, he has every right to expect that his ball will have a very good chance of finding a clean lie where the gripping effect of his club will enable him to control the ball. If the fairway in question, or the fairways in general, are not in good condition, the holes should never be cut too close to guarding bunkers.

(You might read this one to mean that with the introduction of rough organizers should abandon bunker-protected hole locations.  But I'm sure someone will dispute that interpretation...)

As for the other side of the coin, I feel quite certain that the contestants in the Masters Tournament would attest very nearly as unanimously that the course provides a real competitive test. It is a fact that hardly ever has any player done exceptionally well in Augusta who has not had a quite respectable record in tournaments played elsewhere.

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. The players of today are about as accurate with a medium or long iron as with their pitching clubs. The only way to stir them up is by the introduction of subtleties around the greens.

The finishes of the Masters Tournament have almost always been dramatic and exciting. It is my conviction that this has been the case because of the make-or-break quality of the second nine of the golf course. This nine, with its abundant water hazards, each creating a perilous situation, can provide excruciating torture for the front runner trying to hang on. Yet it can yield a very low score to the player making a closing rush. It has been played in 30 during the tournament and in the medium 40s by players still in contention at the time.

In over-all design the Augusta National is not intended to be a punishing golf course. It is, however, a course which under tournament conditions—that is, with the green surfaces firm, and keen—severely tests the competing player's temperament. The difficult greens demand exceptionally fierce and unremitting concentration and determination. When weather conditions are such that the golf course is wet and the wind quiet, it is much easier to play. We always hope it will not be that way during the first week in April.

Click on this sentence for the link.

*Be sure to click on the "view article" button as well for a Flash of the actual issue.  In the article are graphic hole-by-hole illustrations.  If you have the Byrdy book, these graphics provide a midway point between the "Circa 1930s" and "Present" hole illustrations.

Also of interest in the hole illustrations are the continued use of aggressive vs conservative lines of play, a direct link to MacKenzie's ideas (and drawings) as well as the notion, recently rendered moot "officially" by the ANGC leadership, that players play angles.

Hopefully, someone with better historical and GCA knowledge than mine will tease out the proper insights and implications of Jones's comments!

Mark

[Peter Pallotta]

Thank you, Mark.

What a smart and sensible and sane man, and how well he could articulate the thinking of the great players and the nuances of championship golf. If all those who followied Mr. Jones had at least kept with the spirit of his intentions, I wouldn't care how many letters they changed.

Peter 

[JESII]

Thanks Mark,

I would love to hear some input specifically on hole #11 from some of the guys claiming the hole has been ruined in the last few years. Seems a heck of alot closer to the 1959 version today than when you could hit it as far right as you wanted.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"I sincerely believe that the general concepts which have influenced the construction and later modifications of our course have been quite sound from the standpoint of making the game more enjoyable for the people who support it."

Implies that Jones was on board with the changes while alive, providing they stayed within his general original framework.

Interpret as you will. I can see that being taken a couple of different ways, from changes are okay and necessary to "keep the wide fw and tinker with the greens as necessary"

[Peter Pallotta]

I couldn't help but watch once again the highlight package of the 1986 Masters. Something new struck me this time. On the Saturday that Nick Price shot 63, Seve shot over par and none of the other leaders did much at all. And Greg Norman said something (very roughly) like: "It was very calm out there today and the conditions were there for a lot of birdies, like Nicky Price had. But the leaders, the ones that were feeling some heat, didn't do much. That's the thing about this course, it call still bite you. You have to respect the old girl - when the pressure is on, she's still a difficult golf course".

And I thought, Greg must've been reading that 1959 article by Mr. Jones, ie.

"The finishes of the Masters Tournament have almost always been dramatic and exciting. It is my conviction that this has been the case because of the make-or-break quality of the second nine of the golf course. This nine, with its abundant water hazards, each creating a perilous situation, can provide excruciating torture for the front runner trying to hang on. Yet it can yield a very low score to the player making a closing rush. It has been played in 30 during the tournament and in the medium 40s by players still in contention at the time."

I can't details the changes, gents, and I don't really know what Mr. Jones did or didn't do or should or shouldn't have done....but for goodness sakes, does Mr. Jones' and Mr. Norman's take on the general philosophy/playability of the course sound much like Mr. Whitten's and Mr. Fazio's?

Every tour player I've heard in the last five years has said almost exactly the same thing - "no one's going to shoot 30 on the back nine come Sunday anymore".  Is that important? I don't know. But is it TRUE? It seems so.

Peter

[Bob_Huntley]

I couldn't help but watch once again the highlight package of the 1986 Masters. Something new struck me this time. On the Saturday that Nick Price shot 63, Seve shot over par and none of the other leaders did much at all. And Greg Norman said something (very roughly) like: "It was very calm out there today and the conditions were there for a lot of birdies, like Nicky Price had. But the leaders, the ones that were feeling some heat, didn't do much. That's the thing about this course, it call still bite you. You have to respect the old girl - when the pressure is on, she's still a difficult golf course".

I might have commented on this in earlier threads on the 1986 Masters.

In that year, I was invited by Denis Watson, Nick Price and David Leadbetter ( like me, all Rhodesians) to join them at Augusta at their rental to enjoy the contest. The first two days of the tooonamint had lousy weather, Denis missed the cut, Nick made it with a 69 on Friday. On Saturday morning Nick teed off with an entourage of five people, Sue his future wife, Leadbetter, myself, Jim Griggs who was following Joey Sindelar and a pro gambler who had Price on his charts.

Price bogied the first hole, went on to birdie ten holes without hitting a par five in two shots, to finish with a course record of 63 strokes. On the eighteenth hole he putted and the ball rimmed the cup and stayed out. I think  that from the five that started out with him, there were many thousands around the last green of the day.

It was the most astounding golf experience of my life and something that gives the Masters,the event of a lifetime.

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Bob - always wonderful stories.

How young Nick Price looked in the interview afterwards, and what a charming mix of innocence and uncertainty to go with the confidence, hope and (a little) bravado.

And looking back it was fun to realize that in 6 or so years he'd be the best player in the world for a couple of years there.

It must've been a kick for you to be there at the dawn of something special, especially for someone as likeable and fine as Nick Price.

Did you or the others have a sense of what the future would bring him?

Peter

[RJ_Daley]

Thanks for the link, Mark.  There is much to consider there in light of all the other posts on RTJ and the ANGC this week, as we do every year.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Thanks Mark,

I would love to hear some input specifically on hole #11 from some of the guys claiming the hole has been ruined in the last few years. Seems a heck of alot closer to the 1959 version today than when you could hit it as far right as you wanted.

What about this: the hole plays some 50 yards longer today.  Where did that length come from?  They carved a chute back up in the trees.  I don't know if or how much they might have widened that chute, but going backward like that meant that to preserve the angles they would have had to cut back the trees, right?  To do the opposite and add trees, that's going to make the hole play much narrower than 1959, given the added distance, yes? (These are real questions BTW; I don't know how much they widened the chute to preserve the angle, whether they effectively narrowed the angle, or at least until they put in trees recently whether they created an even wider angle than in 1959.)

KJ Choi's eagle in the fourth round of 2004 came from 220 yards, a 5-iron.  It seems like that's the length of approach shot they wanted.  So what's with the trees?!

Here's the question I would like to see answered: does the Jones quote below still represent the evolution of the course, or have the custodians chosen to do exactly the opposite and defend par from the tee?  If yes, then why? Is Bobby wrong?

And: if you were forced to live the quote below, what changes might you make, if any?  One thing that strikes me in comparing the present course to those 1959 diagrams is how small the changes have been to the green complexes.  I know they relay the greens and here and there they raise a wing to add potential hole locations, that sort of thing, but my question is, have the changes at the greens end of holes been as great as through the green and if not, why not?

I get the need to lengthen, but fundamentally is something wrong with what Bobby's saying?

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. The players of today are about as accurate with a medium or long iron as with their pitching clubs. The only way to stir them up is by the introduction of subtleties around the greens.

Mark

[JESII]

Mark,

I was specifically interested to see a large stand of trees along the right side of the fairway and Jones himself dictating the preferred angle of play from the left center of the fairway. I suspected that would have been the intended preferred angle because of the large mound short of the right side of the green effecting visibility from right center drives. None of the Augusta experts agreed with my thoughts.

 

[Phil Benedict]

One interesting aspect of the hole-by-holes is the yardages are different than I remember from later years (pre-Hootie).  Examples are 15 and 16 which Jones says were 520 and 190-yards, respectively, in each case this is about 20-yard longer than the official yardages in later years.  The 18th at 420 was 15 yards longer.

I guess they must have remeasured in the '60's or '70's.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Here's another quote to ponder:

In over-all design the Augusta National is not intended to be a punishing golf course. It is, however, a course which under tournament conditions—that is, with the green surfaces firm, and keen—severely tests the competing player's temperament.

What does everyone think of the word choice of "temperament" and the phrase "severely tests the competing player's temperament"?

At first I kinda thought of it in a US Open sense but now it seems less about resoluteness and more like "balance" or "levelheadedness."  It's about having a temperament along the lines of that Thomas Jefferson quote about a first-rate mind being one that can consider two exactly opposite ideas at the same time without going crazy.

A few quotes from the 1980s -- do they still hold?

"Everything is designed to mislead you, trick you into making an unwise decision.  Then you're twice as mad as yourself." -- Lee Elder

"Every good course has a couple of holes where everybody talks about the tough decision to make in club selection.  But here, there are thirteen or fourteen holes like that." -- John Mahaffey

"This is the ultimate psychological course -- it demands gambles, then plays with your mind." - Joe Inman

"I shot 41 on the back.  And hit the ball as well as I ever have in my life." -- Lanny Wadkins (1981)

And two personal favorites relating to temperament:

"The problem is not whether to gamble, but where to gamble.  And the answer is different for every golfer, depending on the parameters of his game, his nerves and his temperament." -- Tom Boswell

"If we had to play Augusta National in one hour, the best athlete would win the Masters.  But as it is, they give us time to hang ourselves.  Every swing is a 'thought shot.' So, instead of the best athlete, you end up with the best thinker as the winner." -- Joe Inman

Mark

[BCrosby]

Mark,

I was specifically interested to see a large stand of trees along the right side of the fairway and Jones himself dictating the preferred angle of play from the left center of the fairway. I suspected that would have been the intended preferred angle because of the large mound short of the right side of the green effecting visibility from right center drives. None of the Augusta experts agreed with my thoughts.

Sully - Not sure what your question is. Jone's point was that while the drive was blind, the trees give you a sense of the direction. Pre-Fazio, the trees on the right were way, way right. In fact they were up on top of the hill that forms the backdrop to the 12th tee farther down. I would guess the fw was 50 to 60 yards wide, add another 30 yards up the slope on the right (first cut) before you got to the pines.

Noting in Jone's statement about 11 justifies, anticipates or suggests ex-ante anything done by Hootie and Fazio ex post.

Bob

[JESII]

Bob,

That's fair, but the picture in the article shows a small forest in the vicinity. Take a look.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jim

The trees that were added basically "flow" in a long stretch along the right edge of the fairway from the tree line back up by the tee.  In other words, they are inside that clump of trees in the 1959 diagram. Effectively, those plantings lengthened the chute's right side, not to mention completely negated Bobby's intention that patrons be afforded a view along the hole akin to that on 13.

Another change to consider on 11 is the relocation of the tee to the right in 1997 and then further right in 2002.  This made the hole play longer because it took away the hard, running hook down the right side.  So whereas in 1959 Position A was as Jones described it, wide of that mark still offered at least the appearance of a shot at the green.  You got the chance to hang yourself.  (At least until Phabulous Phil hit that infamous drive to the feet of Hootie and The Faz!)

As we saw last year with Tiger, though, that's not the case nearly as often (if at all). Now it plays longer than even the additional length suggests because the play is dictated off the tee, and the swinging hook no longer is enabled or allowed.  The play off the tee now is: whatever you do, hit it as straight as you can.

So as a patron in the stands, what you're treated to is a view every now and then of a ball bouncing over the crest, followed by a foursome of golfers and caddies bobbing up the hill.  They're way back there, and if you're lucky you can just make out which one is doing the swinging.  Sometimes / increasingly often there's just one swing to see.  The other guy is back yonder the hill, pitching his ball up and over.

And Sunday is an interminable diet of players playing their approaches out to the right, then chipping / pitching to the far side of the green.  Depending on how you look at it, it's either the most-boring par 5 you ever saw or an exciting preview of the US Open!

How's that?

Mark

[JESII]

Helpful.


But...if players at this level can't aim at a green from 215 out I'm not sure why we should let them drive it wherever the hell they want...


Thoughts?

[Mark Bourgeois]

I don't care necessarily where they drive it, either, but IMHO the tournament's more fun when they are tempted to aim at the green from XXX yards at the risk of blowing up, and that means having some sort of shot, maybe not the best shot, from the wrong position.

I guess what the powers that be are saying is it's no longer possible to architect 11 such that the players who blow up basically hang themselves.

Look at this -- click on hole 11: http://www.masters.org/en_US/course/index.html

It's a serpentine par 4 -- with minimal options! You can see how Pat M is right about driving left for a front / front-right pin.  But doesn't the best angle for a back pin look to be smack dab in the middle of those plantings?!

The "new" Masters: option-free golf...

[Bob_Huntley]

Thanks, Bob - always wonderful stories.

How young Nick Price looked in the interview afterwards, and what a charming mix of innocence and uncertainty to go with the confidence, hope and (a little) bravado.

And looking back it was fun to realize that in 6 or so years he'd be the best player in the world for a couple of years there.

It must've been a kick for you to be there at the dawn of something special, especially for someone as likeable and fine as Nick Price.

Did you or the others have a sense of what the future would bring him?

Peter

Thanks, Bob - always wonderful stories.

How young Nick Price looked in the interview afterwards, and what a charming mix of innocence and uncertainty to go with the confidence, hope and (a little) bravado.

And looking back it was fun to realize that in 6 or so years he'd be the best player in the world for a couple of years there.

It must've been a kick for you to be there at the dawn of something special, especially for someone as likeable and fine as Nick Price.

Did you or the others have a sense of what the future would bring him?

Peter

Peter,

Both Nick Price and Denis Watson had shown great promise as youngsters.
I think Nick won the World Juniors in San Diego when he was sixteen. He hit the Tour in 1983 and won The World something or other at Firestone. Denis did it the following year and had two other wins, coming second on the money list to Tom Watson.

We all know that Nick went on to greater things and Denis, because of a series of injuries, did not win again for something like twenty years.

Bob

[JESII]

During one post round banter session somewhere, Jones is quoted as saying to the group, that was bitching about an especially difficult hole location, "sometimes you just have to hit a really good shot to get close..."

I don't want to be in the position of defending everything they do to the course because I don't know it, but leaving the hole as it was Pre-Mickelson driving into Hootie certainly doesn't make a potential blow-up (as you prefer to see) any more likely than today.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()