The Wisdom of Clifford Roberts ...

[Matt_Ward]

I had the opportunity to see a quote from the late Clifford Roberts -- the major domo for many years at Augusta.

Clearly, good ole Cliff had a good sense of what Bobby Jones and Alister Mackenzie envisioned and he understood the kind of entertainment needed to keep the Masters as the leader in the golf world.

I can only hope the folks there understand how they have erred since his passing from the scene.

The quote reads as follows ...

"It has been proven, at least to our satisfaction, that those who patronize the Masters get more pleasure and excitement watching great players make birdies than bogies. It would be easy to set-up the Augusta National so that no one could break 80 on it. But, if this were done, we doubt if the players would like it. And we are certain such a policy would be unpopular with the patrons."

I have to wonder if Hootie and now the present group really understand the heritage of the club because the "new" Augusta is a far cry from what Mr. Roberts clearly knew.

His words are indeed so clear and yet it amazes me how those who should know don't.

[Richard Hetzel]

Matt,

BUT do you really believe he was speaking to say Tiger going 21 under par over 4 days at Augusta? I highly doubt it.

The US Open strives to keep players at or over par every year. The Masters, although trying to be tough, is no where near what the USGA does to course set up each June.

[BCrosby]

Matt -

Let's not get carried away with Cliff love. His quote is very similar to things MacK and Jones had said earlier.  But, still, credit to Cliff for repeating it, though I have my doubts about his understanding of what it meant.

As for things architectural, Cliff was a real problem. MacK/Jones beat him back on a number of his suggested "improvements" early on. For example, Roberts thought the 3rd was too easy and needed to be redone.

Later Roberts changed the 8th to make the green such an abomination that only  months after his passing Byron Nelson and Joe Finger were brought in to restore the MacK hole. 

At no time was Cliff a force for good architecture at ANGC. He didn't like Mack. He didn't seem to appreciate what MacK was up to. He ended up stiffing MacK for his design fee.

And, worse, he never had a doubt that he knew what was best for ANGC. Because who else but a former stockbroker would know how to design a great course?

Bob

[Jim Nugent]

At no time was Cliff a force for good architecture at ANGC. He didn't like Mack. He didn't seem to appreciate what MacK was up to. He ended up stiffing MacK for his design fee.

A truly disgraceful chapter in the history of ANGC.  Leaves a black mark forever on Roberts, and also on Bobby Jones.  Of course, dictators often do feel they are above the law. 

[Scott Warren]

My understanding from reading on the subject was that ANGC didn't have two cents to rub together at that stage, let alone pay the design fee. Was that not the case?

[Matt_Ward]

Bob C:

Before we go full circle with the trash Cliff campaign -- let's realize that his main concern was the health of the club and in keeping the Masters alive and well on the front of the sports pages.

I'm not making the guy out to be the golf equivalent of Ghandi.

You say he was NOT  force for good archectiture but tell me how his bringing on board RTJ for the improvements made to a number of holes at ANGC was detrimental. Hey Bob, let's get real OK, the guy didn't bring into being inane lengthening of holes plus second cuts plus the infusion of tree city to the course.

Let's talk about the 3rd hole -- his thoughts have proven correct. The hole was updated and now poses an arry of options where previously it was nothing more than pass through hole taking you to the more challenging 4th and 5th holes.

Sure, he goofed at the 8th -- but look at the track record overall. The man understood that scoring and giving the players an opportunity show what they can do from an offensive manner of playing is far more preferred to the style of golf course you see now in the Hootie / post era we are witnessing.

Bob, Cliff R had his faults and personal ego -- so did the men who followed him at the helm there. The botton line is that the Masters as an entertainment vehicle flourished when he ran the show. Now, we are stuck with a layout that has become a real monster along the lines Roberts opined. That has not won fans -- either with the players or the revered patrons.

Rich H:

Let's get real OK -- Roberts was on hand when the Bear was in his peak form and when he shot the then course four-round total of 271 in '65. No doubt some changes were made after that year -- the bunkering complex to the left of the 18th comes quickly to mind -- but overall, the framework for the course -- to allow low numbers to happen -- wasn't jettisoned to the tune of what you saw following Tiger's record one-year performance.

Rich, you say it's no where near the US Open -- check out the total number of birdies, total number of eagles and scoring averages since the hand of Hootie got going following the Tiger scoring feat. The only reason why you might see certain low numbers is because the folks there understand what I and others have been saying and make it point to place the pins in easier more accessible targets and push a few of the tees a bit forward. This has been done when the weekend play arrives but the nature of the 2nd cut, the narrower fairways (7 & 15), and the massive tree infusion have all played their part in turning ANGC into a far different layout than it was intended.

[TEPaul]

"I have to wonder if Hootie and now the present group really understand the heritage of the club because the "new" Augusta is a far cry from what Mr. Roberts clearly knew."

Matt:

I've only been to ANGC once---the 2007 Masters----but it seemed to me (meeting at least one of those who runs the place) that they were very concerned that year and particularly around Friday night that the course had been set up way too hard. At that point no one was under par and that seemed to very much concern ANGC. It seems like they changed their setup the next day and particularly on Sunday to create some really exciting play and lower scores in fact and potentially.

[jeffwarne]

a 75-80 degree day with light breezes the final round would put this silly debate (the one Matt's about to start )to rest.
 (as opposed to cool weather and 20-25 mph wind in the player's faces on 13/15)
a nice day and you'll get plenty of roars

Augusta responded to technology by proportionately lengthening the course-retaining the risk reward  (ruined it on  #7 however)
Sarazen hit a four wood into 15, not a wedge.

Yes some/many of the trees are silly and inhibit recovery, and the "rough" keeps the ball from rolling away, but Augusta is an everchanging entity and may eventually go back to no rough.

the USGA simply makes its' par 5's  into par 4's, thus eliminating risk reward and the golf holes original intent.

Matt-let's pick this up in April AFTER the tournament.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

You are so right -- the folks there instead of jettisoning the so-called "improvments" / re: Tiger-proofing -- then decided to place pins and tees in more friendly areas.

It boggles my mind that the "smart" people at ANGC don't fully comprehend how they became so successful from the get-go.

Jeff W:

Check out the stats since the involvement of Hootie and the folks from that point forward.

Check out the scoring averages, birdies and eagles made and how the overall rating numbers for the Masters have not been what they were.

It's more than just having a 75-80 degree day with little wind.

Jeff, there are a number of holes at ANGC that would still play just as well --likely even better than what was done. The inane lengthening of #1 has only made that hole fit into the plans of the extreme long player. Shall I go on and on.

Let me also point out the fallacy that #15 was a "wedge approach" for the bulk of the field. That's rubbish. I guess when one guy does it / re: Tiger, then the rest of the field also hit a club like that into the hole. The reality is that a very small few people did it under the right conditions -- for others the approach was anything but a wedge and when faced with a westerly wind, which isn't unusual, the hole really played harder with mid to long iron approaches and even fairway metals at time.

The fundamental framework of the course was to invite massive scoring options and changes througout the day. Check out the ratings since Tiger's first win and you can see the vote of the audience -- if you want to produce more zzzz then just keep going forward with the exciting style of plodding golf.

Jeff, I don't doubt that with the latest equipment improvements a few tweaks were in order. Throwing the baby out with the bath oil was not the answer and I can only hope the current regime there will finall right the wrongs that have been carried out.

[jeffwarne]

#1-lengthening (again) was a bad idea for the reasons you cite.
Traffic has also become a MAJOR problem there -which they now recognize and have shortened that hole a bit -but not enough in my opinion to cure traffic issues (unless they move the putting green-which they may have/will)

Again, you're comparing eagles made to the late 80's and 90's as technology and players were improving and the course remained static.
Compare the eagles made to 1930's,40's and 50's,60's for a more reasonable comp.... and 2007/2008 were cold wet years-as were other years where scoring was similar (1956,1966)

Tiger was hitting wedge in 1997-no biggie-but MANY players are as long now as Tiger was in '97.
and you're right that hole usually has whatever wind there is in the player's face.
and 11's not so great now

I thought we went over this "baby out with the bath water" (not bath oil)expression last year

See you in April-that's all I got for now

[BCrosby]

Matt says:

"Let's talk about the 3rd hole -- his thoughts have proven correct. The hole was updated and now poses an arry (sic) of options where previously it was nothing more than pass through hole taking you to the more challenging 4th and 5th holes."

Yes, lets do talk about the 3rd. Because I have no idea what you are talking about. What were Roberts thoughts about the 3rd? When were his changes made and who made them?

I would love to know where you get the notion that people thought of it as just a "pass through" hole. Cites please, because you are plowing new historical ground. From the inception of ANGC until now, the 3rd has been considered a fascinating, challenging short par 4.  Roberts never grasped that. Among a number of other things about the course.

Roberts hired RTJ?

That others have done worse things to ANGC makes Roberts a good guy?

Keeping with the tone of your reply -  hey, Matt, let's get real. Better yet, let's try to post things that have some connection with the facts.

Bob   

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

The age of the Masters started really with Palmer -- no one remembers the event prior to that time.

The TV age is what made Augusta and the sight of people going low and others throwing up on themselves made for dyanmic entertainment and ratings.

My basic premises you agree with -- if the folks at Augusta bagged the tree infusion, second cut, narrower fairways and returned holes like #1 and #7 to their original intent the event would gain a good bit more standing than exists now. I don't need to view another US Open -- this time in April.

Thanks for the update on the correct phraseology.

Bob C:

Let's cut to the chase shall we -- do you agree with the changes made during the Hootie era or not?

Do you not see the content of what Roberts said -- whether he led the charge or not -- as being the core greatness of Augusta National and what the Masters has meant then -- and how it's been changed to some sort of 21st century frankenstein.

Regarding the 3rd you forgot the work Nicklaus did there and how it helped matters.

Let's stay focused on the current changes and if you see them as being in the spirit of what Jones / Mackenzie wanted.

[Bradley Anderson]

I have been thinking about this for a long time. I keep changing my view on this.

Right now I feel that you have to constantly stiffen a course like Augusta, if for no other reason than to protect, not the golf course per se, but the feats of the champions of the past who were playing it with less sophisticated equipment.

I just wish they wouldn't have land leveled so much of the contours to play so smooth.

[Scott Warren]

Jeff:

The age of the Masters started really with Palmer -- no one remembers the event prior to that time.

The Shot Heard Around The World was a good 20 years before Arnie and TV came to town, no?

TV coverage came to The Masters - and was successful - so early in the piece because it had public awareness.

[PCCraig]

I would rather watch an old Masters rerun on the Golf Channel prior to 2000 than watch the 2009 Masters.

[Matt_Ward]

Scott:

You golf history is spot on -- but the real main stay for the Masters happened with the intersection of Palmer and TV coverage. The Masters benefited from having the kind of wild finishes that often times Palmer was center stage.

Then you had the remarkable run of Nicklaus and all the epic duals -- see '75, '86, to name just two. Who can forget the incredible final rond 64 Player shot in '78 and then Green missing the three-foot putt?

The Masters was always great theater and one must salute the likes Jones / Mackenzie for their fingerprints. All I meant to say was that Roberts was smart enough to know how entertaining the masses was the real stregnth of the tournament. He's right -- anyone can turn the course into a freak in which few rounds under-par are achieved.

Somehow I can't believe those "in the know" at Augusta would simply overreact to a mere few players and think the caliber of holes there were in need of some massive makeover. I long for the days of yesteryear.

[Bob_Huntley]

Roberts was a misanthrope who alienated the very man who made him, namely Bob Jones.

His treatment of Alister Mackenzie was a disgrace.

Augusta National became his own piggy bank. Whenever a a CEO of a major corporation  was admitted to membershiop of the club, the pension account of that company invariably was esconsed at the brokerage house of Reynolds and Company, of which he was a partner.

It is well to remember that Roberts was never invited to Robert Tyre Jones funeral services.

Bob

 

[Matt_Ward]

Bob:

Help me out with something -- forgetting the qualities / lack thereof Roberts had -- it was not my intent to make the man a saint but to simply quote him in regards to what the course and how it should play is viewed and appreciated by players and patrons alike. Look at the course during his time and what has happened since the emerence of Tiger.

Is the Augusta today better for the changes made to the course or not?

If you say yes, please help me to understand your thinking.

If you say no, then the folks who have been running the show -- from Hootie onwards -- have failed to comprehend the very genesis / appeal of the place.

[Bill_McBride]

Bob:

Help me out with something -- forgetting the qualities / lack thereof Roberts had -- it was not my intent to make the man a saint but to simply quote him in regards to what the course and how it should play is viewed and appreciated by players and patrons alike. Look at the course during his time and what has happened since the emerence of Tiger.

Is the Augusta today better for the changes made to the course or not?

If you say yes, please help me to understand your thinking.

If you say no, then the folks who have been running the show -- from Hootie onwards -- have failed to comprehend the very genesis / appeal of the place.

Matt, "better" depends on your definition of the word.  "Better" for defending par?  "Better" for the excitement that made the tournament such a constant annual thrill?  "Better" for maintaining the original intent of the architect and principal client?

Only the first could be considered "better" in terms of the changes to Augusta National over the years.

So if you had been asking me, I'd say "no."

[Jim Nugent]

My understanding from reading on the subject was that ANGC didn't have two cents to rub together at that stage, let alone pay the design fee. Was that not the case?

They got plenty of money together later.  Roberts still never paid Mac's estate.  Neither did Bobby.  I don't believe either man was impoverished, either, even when ANGC was struggling. 

MacKenzie created a masterpiece for them, around which they built great fortune, fame and prestige, and as Bob Crosby said, they stiffed him.