[Mark_Rowlinson]

Somewhere in the recesses of my mind I seem to recall that it was originally intended to play what is now the back nine at Augusta National first. What if Augusta were still played in that order? Would the course be as good? Would the Masters have become what it is today?

What if Augusta's clubhouse had been built somewhere else on the course? Are there better starting and finishing holes?

[cary lichtenstein]

What is so interesting about your what if is how that answer has changed in the past 5 years.

5 years ago I would have said that the back 9 makes the course for tv viewing, tournament excitement with all the birdie and eagles. I can remember the 1973 shoot out with JN, Johnny Miller and Tom Weiskopf and the roars, the eagles and birdies on every hole...now it is just another U S Open course, grind it out and hope you are the last man standing.

[Joe Fairey]

look for several changes for 2009....probably additional tee boxes( forward teeing areas) on 11,13, and 15...this will give them much more flexibilty on all tournament days(especially Sunday)...when there is a north/northwest wind, holes 1,13, and 15 play much more difficult...fyi...the club did add approx 15-20 yards to #1 tee this past year...look for same on 11,13,15...

we'll know soon as the club closes this month...and the flyovers start...I'm sure there golf mags will post as soon as they can...

[Greg Tallman]

Changes? And no US Open in April? What will we bitch about?

[Bill_McBride]

I'm no ANGC historian, but I think it was changed fairly early in the old days and I'm not sure why.

Anybody know why?  Paging Bob Crosby!

[Robert Kimball]

Please correct me if any of this is inaccurate. . . but I believe they played the first tournament with the nines reversed.

They (Jones and Roberts) decided to reverse the nines because of frost delays that were prevalent on holes 10, amen corners, etc. Remember that the Masters was originally played in late March to accomodate sports writers on the way back from Florida from Spring Training.

BTW -- If you get Sports Illustrated -- take a look at the letters from last week's issue (with Chris Paul on the cover). I had never written into SI and they actually printed my letter (somewhat) blasting the course conditions -- especially on the back nine.

[Doug Spets]

The reason for the change in starting holes was due to the 10th, 11th, and 12th holes being on the lowest parts of the property.  So...frost delays ended quicker with play starting on the present #1.

[CJ Carder]

The reason for the change in starting holes was due to the 10th, 11th, and 12th holes being on the lowest parts of the property.  So...frost delays ended quicker with play starting on the present #1.

Shouldn't be a problem now with the air flow systems underneath the greens.  Just thaw 'em out!

Nevertheless, I don't know if the course would really be that much better - you lose the excitement of 13 and 15 on the back 9 (granted that's kind of gone now anyway), but you do gain the par 5 8th as the penultimate hole.  I'm not sure I like 9 over 18... something would have to be done there.

[John_Cullum]

I could see it working out quite well. You try to get through the first three 1 or 2 under, hang on for the next 3, birdie (or eagle) chances at 7 and 8, and then have to gut out the front left hole location on 9. I think it may be better

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()