[Jim Nugent]

Anyone mentioned the 19th hole yet? Or that the 12th seems to go over trees , and the 18th as well, or where these existing trees to be removed, showing that MacKenzie obviously used artistic licence with his drawing. I'd love to read the text from MacKenzie's descriptions from the '34 Masters programme if someone can post it?

The drawing also shows a creek crossing the 7th and 17th fairways.  Is that right, and if so was it in play? 

[James Boon]

Jim,

Just keep spotting more and more in that plan don't we!

Not sure about the creek, and my copy of Stan Byrdy's The ANGC; Alister MacKenzie's Masterpiece is in storage at the moments (moving house etc!). This great book may be able to help? Maybe someone else has a copy and could throw a bit of light on this as the other photos in David Owen's book dont show the creek. Looks like if it was built that way, then on the second it would have made going for the green in 2 interesting?!

james

[Jim Nugent]

Also, Mac's hole by hole descriptions appeared in an Am Golfer 1934 piece available on the LA84 website.

Mark

Thanks, Mark, after you posted this, I found the article.  Very interesting.  Name of the article is "Plans for the Ideal Golf Course."  That is what Mac and Bobby were aiming for.  The perfect inland parkland golf course. 

Here is the URL:

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1932/ag356p.pdf

[Edwin Roald]

James,

Thank you for your efforts. I am still hopeful that somebody out there can share some more knowledge on the subject. I have some of the books that have been mentioned on here, but I have been traveling for a long time and do not have access to them at the moment.

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

The picture posted of the 10th above was probably taken from the preferred landing area on the right of the fw. Yes, more precisely the green was slightly right of the fw bunker, but part of it would have been hidden from the middle/left of the fw because it sat slighlty lower than the fw bunker. You get a sense of that in a picture taken from the middle of the fw that John MacMillan posted here a couple of years ago. It was from a post card that has been reproduced in a book. I think it's in Doak's book.

I too have heard there might have been drainage problems. But I've only heard that as speculation from our contemporaries. It's possible there were. Drainage in that area would be an obvious red flag, but there were obvious solutions. A deep hollow behind the original green would have taken away a lot of water. It still does.

I think it more likely that the changes were driven by a desire to toughen the hole. The same concerns with resistance to scoring were the reasons given for the changes to the 7th.

Bob

[Mark Bourgeois]

Also, Mac's hole by hole descriptions appeared in an Am Golfer 1934 piece available on the LA84 website.

Mark

Thanks, Mark, after you posted this, I found the article.  Very interesting.  Name of the article is "Plans for the Ideal Golf Course."  That is what Mac and Bobby were aiming for.  The perfect inland parkland golf course. 

Here is the URL:

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1932/ag356p.pdf

Jim, sorry for the misdirection re: 1934 -- it's 1932.

FYI to all his descriptions are of the original routing, so be sure to reverse the nines. 1 is 10; 10 is 1; etc.

Mark

[Greg Holland]

Greg, I always thought it was the 5th that was compared the the 17trh on the old Course at St Andrews?

Here is a link to Bobby Jones' article:  http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1935/ag386w.pdf

As to Hole 5, he said "The difficulty of the fifth was obvious from the start.  Although there are no hazards on the hole, the second shot had to be placed well on the apron of the green and from there a really clever run-up or approach putt was needed to make a four secure. 

In a great many respect these two holes [5th and 14th] are similar to the eighteenth at St. Andrews."

[Bill_McBride]

Interesting quote from Dr MacKenzie.  He sounds a bit like C B MacDonald in this quote:

"At Augusta we are striving to produce
eighteen ideal holes, not copies of classical
holes, but embodying their best features, with
other features suggested by the nature of
the terrain."

May this also be the inspiration and goal of Tom Doak and his crew working on Old MacDonald! 

Can't wait to see that course! 

[Jim Nugent]

Greg, I always thought it was the 5th that was compared the the 17trh on the old Course at St Andrews?

Here is a link to Bobby Jones' article:  http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1935/ag386w.pdf

As to Hole 5, he said "The difficulty of the fifth was obvious from the start.  Although there are no hazards on the hole, the second shot had to be placed well on the apron of the green and from there a really clever run-up or approach putt was needed to make a four secure. 

In a great many respect these two holes [5th and 14th] are similar to the eighteenth at St. Andrews."

Yet Mac gave a different account.  In his hole descriptions, he said the 5th is similar to the Road Hole, and the 7th similar to 18 at TOC.  He also said number 6 is a better version of the Redan.

This is in the link I posted above.

A little while ago someone ran a thread about which hole at ANGC has grown the hardest since inception.  Bobby's article shows the average score at every hole in the first Masters.  Look at that and current scoring averages at www.masters.org, and we can see which holes have toughened up the most. 

Finally, I keep seeing more and more evidence that MacKenzie and Jones had a major tournament in mind when they designed ANGC.  They said they wanted to build one of the world's great courses.  The ideal inland course.  They took as models many of the most famous holes from top tournament courses, including TOC and Muirfield.  Bobby says that Horton Smith's scores in the 1st Masters bore out what Mac and he hoped and expected would be the course's character when completed. 

That last point is pretty key.  ANGC's architects judged the success of their design by how the world's best players performed on it.  They found it lived up to their expectations while they were building it. 

[Matthew Mollica]

I don't see consideration given to the course hosting a professional tournament in there

MM

[Mike_Young]

I still don't see where anyone has found any construcution documents....

[BCrosby]

Mike -

See my first entry on this thread. Just like Ross at ACC, MacKenzie did an extensive set of detailed drawings for each green and green surrounds at ANGC. I don't know why he would provide the detail he did if it wasn't to be used by a builder.

Matthew -

We are up against the Rumsfeldian parlor trick. Apparently the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Bob

[Mike_Young]

Bob,
OK....have seen those....maybe they would work at that time.....

[Bill_McBride]

Bob,
OK....have seen those....maybe they would work at that time.....

Mike, were you looking for the underground piping diagrams? 

[Clyde Johnston]

I've seen the green plans for ANGC. In my opinion, they were drawn by AM, but how much were they adhered to?

[BCrosby]

Clyde -

That's a good question. Based on MacK's detailed green plans, it appears that certainly the basics of the green complexes he drew were actually built. As for some of the details of the mounding and countouring it's hard to say. Even given the pretty decent photographic record. My guess is that they were reasonably close.

One of the things that jumps out - at least based on the current greens - is that the wild contouring on the current 5th and 14th greens might not have been so wild relative to the other greens under MacK's original green plan.

For example, the 6th is mildly funky now, but in MacK's plan it was waaay funky, with an extended, thin tongue right front. Based on photos in Byrdy's book, something pretty close to MacK's 6th was built.

Also note the accuracy of the Nelson/Finger/Spann restoration of the 8th. It is spot on, based on MacK's drawings.

Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()