[Michael Rossi]

With all of the alteration that have been made to Augusta National should it be considered a NLE?

The course is drastically different from its original design almost a different design entirely, Is it not considered NLE because the routing is still in tact? Other courses have been chastised for less.

[Paul Jones]

Okay, I will be the dummy that asks... what does NLE stand for?

[Michael Rossi]

I had to ask the first time, you are not alone, I should have stated.

No Longer Exists.

It has been attached in brackets when looking at lists of designers courses.

[TEPaul]

"With all of the alteration that have been made to Augusta National should it be considered a NLE?"


MichaelR:

No, it should not be considered NLE but the tag Kenny Bakst gave it is most appropriate----eg "The Michael Jackson of golf course architecture." 

[Michael Rossi]

"With all of the alteration that have been made to Augusta National should it be considered a NLE?"


MichaelR:

No, it should not be considered NLE but the tag Kenny Bakst gave it is most appropriate----eg "The Michael Jackson of golf course architecture." 

Very good analogy

But why not NLE, greens relocated nad recontoured, fairwyas recontoured, bunkers added and removed. What makes a course get the NLE tag if it is still on the same property and still played?

MR

[Kyle Harris]

"With all of the alteration that have been made to Augusta National should it be considered a NLE?"


MichaelR:

No, it should not be considered NLE but the tag Kenny Bakst gave it is most appropriate----eg "The Michael Jackson of golf course architecture." 

Very good analogy;D

But why not NLE, greens relocated nad recontoured, fairwyas recontoured, bunkers added and removed. What makes a course get the NLE tag if it is still on the same property and still played?

MR

Because this becomes a slippery slope argument for a lot of different golf courses.

[Mark Bourgeois]

"With all of the alteration that have been made to Augusta National should it be considered a NLE?"


MichaelR:

No, it should not be considered NLE but the tag Kenny Bakst gave it is most appropriate----eg "The Michael Jackson of golf course architecture." 

Very good analogy;D

But why not NLE, greens relocated nad recontoured, fairwyas recontoured, bunkers added and removed. What makes a course get the NLE tag if it is still on the same property and still played?

MR

Because this becomes a slippery slope argument for a lot of different golf courses.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/interviewwexler.html

[Michael Rossi]

Mark

Thank you.

MR

[Kyle Harris]

I can't buy Dan's argument here. The issue for me is twofold.

-Any golf course with significant tree plantings made since the opening day could equally be considered NLE.

-For all the attention that Augusta gets, there are other courses which have had significant changes made to them but are not considered NLE. Hazeltine and Oakland Hills, for instance.

While I certainly understand the sentiment Dan is attempting to provoke, I think considering Augusta to be an NLE based simply on the evolution the course's caretakers oversaw is bordering on a stunt.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Kyle, seems to me Wexler's argument is akin to a different golf course being built over an old one: the old holes provide the corridors.

For me a more fundamental question actually goes back to near the beginning, when they reversed the nines.  In a general sense and not necessarily specific to ANGC, should a course be branded NLE if the routing is changed?  Does switching the nines count as a routing change? What if a course routing was changed so that the golfer started on 16 then played the holes in order (17, 18, 1-15)?

What about the routing change at Hoylake for the Open?

[Andy Troeger]

Personally if a course still on the same property with the same routing, no matter how significant the changes, it can't be NLE. After all, it still exists, and every course is a dynamic changing thing.

You can call a course in that situation a lot of things depending on whether you like the changes, but IMO "NLE" isn't one of them.

[Michael Rossi]

Kyle

I think I understand what you are saying. But if a courses original design intent has been drastically changed it no longer esists as it was, it now has new stragies, features and  intent.

What then makes a course IYO get the tag, I struggle with some courses that have the NLE tag with less alterations and some with as many as ANGC that do not have the tag.

For me NLE should be tagged if stratagy, intent and major landform changes have been made intentionally, however if it was out of an act of nature that caused the need or requirement for the change it should not recieve the tag.

MR

[Kyle Harris]

Michael/Mark,

What of the changes that were made early on for which Bob Jones was very much still involved? In your views, at what point did the golf course change significantly enough to be labeled NLE? What was the straw that broke the camel's back?

Are either you familiar with the evolution of the 8th green? The 7th green?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Regarding the 8th, you mean the original 17th?

Rhetorical question: if it's the original designer who blows up a design, does that mean the original design is not NLE? Why should it matter who does the blowing up?

[Michael Rossi]

Kyle

No I am not familiar, please bring it forward and help me better understand the NLE tag.

As for what broke the camels back, it is not one change, it is the collection of alterations, most significantly the course strategy has drastically changed.

Perhaps NLE is not an appropriate tag, the course routing is still present, NLE should only be associated with course that truely no longer exist (ploughed under or redeveloped for some other purpose). How about ODISA - Orginal Design Intent Signifcantly Altered

MR

[David Stamm]

Is Eastlake a Ross anymore than ANGC a MacKenzie? Is a more or less intact routing enough? If the greens are changed, is the personal touch of the arch gone? Did not Macdonald say that greens are to a course what faces are to a portrait? I know I'm offering more questions than answers, but I'm not so sure that just because a course still has the routing, which is a very important component, that that is enough. There is not any one event that can be pointed to as when ANGC ceased to be a MacKenzie, but I think the begining was when RTJ made his changes (Perry Maxwell withstanding). From there, it's been a little of just about everyone (Palmer, Nicklaus, Fazio). I don't know either way if it should called a NLE or not, but to my mind, it certainly is no longer a MacKenzie, which probably sounds like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth.


I would recommend Michael that you pick up a copy of Stan Byrdy's book on Augusta. He clearly shows with drawings what the holes looked like then, and how they are now. It's quite an eye opener and shows how much the course has changed.

[Kalen Braley]

I liken this to the MTV show pimp my ride.

Are those peoples beater cars NLE because they've been altered to the point that even thier original owner wouldn't recognize them?  I say no....the car still exists despite the massive alterations.

At the very least a course would have to be completely re-done to be called a NLE.  The course that comes to mind is that muni in Denver that the Doak team did.  Its my understanding the previous course was effectivly plowed under and the new one put in its place. 

I don't believe ANGC has been completly re-done even if it has had many face-lifts....the bones and original individual hole routings with the exception of the 16th are still in place.

[David Stamm]

I liken this to the MTV show pimp my ride.

Are those peoples beater cars NLE because they've been altered to the point that even thier original owner wouldn't recognize them?  I say no....the car still exists despite the massive alterations.

At the very least a course would have to be completely re-done to be called a NLE.  The course that comes to mind is that muni in Denver that the Doak team did.  Its my understanding the previous course was effectivly plowed under and the new one put in its place. 

I don't believe ANGC has been completly re-done even if it has had many face-lifts....the bones and original individual hole routings with the exception of the 16th are still in place.

Kalen, the car comparison is not analogous. Is a McLaren F1 a BMW because it has one of their engines? Conversely, is a RUF a Porsche because it's built on the body and the rest is totally done by someone else (RUF)? The answer is no to each.


What constitutes a face lift in your mind? Again, I would recommend if you haven't seen it, to read Byrdy's book. I think it captures the magnitude of how much the course has changed and the nature of shots required then compared to now. When you think of it, if the shots have been changed from what the original intent was, wouldn't that mean that the original architects influence is no longer evident? There are still some MacK  features, but very little compared to what he did originally. I always get a chuckle during the Masters and how they wax poetic about the bunker on 10 and how it is an original MacK bunker, never following up with the fact that it was a greenside bunker originally and the whole damn green was moved.

[Mike Hendren]

I saw a bumper sticker just yesterday:  AVOID THE RUSH - BASH AUGUSTA NATIONAL GOLF CLUB EARLY!

[John Moore II]

I don't think the NLE tag should apply to Augusta National. Yes, it has had a large amount of changes, but its still roughly there. If the case of changes can apply to make a course NLE, then Torrey Pines (South) should be NLE because of the large amount of changes that Rees Jones did. Same with Pinehurst #2 before the 99 Open, plus, I remember a thread on here that talked about the original greens at #2 being roughly flat and certainly not built with the huge run-offs that exist currently. I should think that if we want to start classifying courses as NLE because of changes, there are very many courses that need to be called NLE even though they are still open for business.

[Kalen Braley]

David,

Understood that its tough to define black and white lines on this one because most of them are grey.

I guess the "glasses" I was looking thru was the No Longer Exists glasses.  While many courses may look different on the surface, the bones are still the same, and I think this is the case here. To the best of my knowledge only 16 is completely different from what it was before.

Perhaps a better analogy is todays modern day cougar who gets all the "upgrades".  She may get a boob job, butt implants, new teeth, a nose carve, liposuction, and several hair bleachings....but at the end of the day, its still her. Whereas NLE to me would be more akin to her dying...or at the very least getting a sex change operation to completely change her orientation.

Perhaps ANGC has had the sex change operation...but it wouldn't seem so to me.  I guess I have another book to add to my wish list now..even though I suspect Geoff S likely hit all the main points in the Good Dr. Returns.

[Michael Rossi]

What is the criteria for a course to receive the tag NLE?

[David Stamm]

Let me clarify that I'm not saying that ANGC is NLE in a literal sense, more that most of what was originally done by Mack is gone.


Kalen, do you think 16 is any more changed than 10?

[Kalen Braley]

Let me clarify that I'm not saying that ANGC is NLE in a literal sense, more that most of what was originally done by Mack is gone.


Kalen, do you think 16 is any more changed than 10?

David,

Understood...and that goes to essence of my definition of NLE, so I think we're both pretty close on that one as we clarify.

As for 16, I would claim yes its completely changed...and here's why:

16th hole:
1)  16 tee used to to the right of 15 green (looking from 15th fairway).
2) 16 green used to be over to the left up against the hillside with a creek in front.
3)  Current 16 tee to left of 15 green.
4)  Current 16 green moved to entirely new location, with a pond in front.

10th hole:
1)  Tee box more or less in same spot
2)  Fairway is more or less the same, downhill and to the left.
3)  Even the old greenside bunker is in pretty much the same spot and somewhat similar to original shape.
4)  The only thing different is the greens location and corresponding greenside bunkering.

Granted this is a pretty big change, but not anywhere near as large in scope as 16 as the original hole in its entirity is completly gone.  So in this sense 16 hole is definitly NLE. The 10th just has 1 part of it changed....and I think it works well with brutal recovering awaiting if you go right, semi-false front, and death left.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()