The Drivable 10th at Augusta National Golf Club?

[Charlie Goerges]

It occurred to me that there was no really drivable par 4 on the back 9 (or at all?) at Augusta, and that in the fictional restoration of the course, the 10th could become a drivable par 4.

Current on left, after on right:





Full disclosure, the following image is my entry in AzaleaGolf's Augusta Armchair Architecture Contest (or AgAAAC) but it has my explanations in it so I don't have to do it twice .




So get back to MacK's original design and make it more exciting to boot!


(I fully expect to get "whacked" by the ANGC mafia, so no worries)

[Mike_Cirba]

Charlie,

What program are you using to do that amazing overhead magic?

I've been struggling to do something like that for a presentation I'm hoping to pull together and my efforts to date have been beyond amateurish.

Thanks for any help...your stuff here looks terrific.

[Charlie Goerges]

Thanks Mike,

On the images above I used the GNU Image Manipulation Program which is a free, open-source analog to Photoshop. I also use Photoshop when I get a chance (at work), but the GIMP (seriously) works pretty well. I'd say it has about 60% of the capability of Photoshop CS4.

[Charlie Goerges]

Oh, and let me know if you'd like a little assistance.

[Dave_Miller]

It occurred to me that there was no really drivable par 4 on the back 9 (or at all?) at Augusta, and that in the fictional restoration of the course, the 10th could become a drivable par 4.

Current on left, after on right:



Chaarlie:
Sounds good However it is not even close





Full disclosure, the following image is my entry in AzaleaGolf's Augusta Armchair Architecture Contest (or AgAAAC) but it has my explanations in it so I don't have to do it twice .




So get back to MacK's original design and make it more exciting to boot!


(I fully expect to get "whacked" by the ANGC mafia, so no worries)

[Neil_Crafter]

Well done Charlie
I can hear Mackenzie's ghost muttering "about bloody time....."

[Eric_Terhorst]

Charlie,

I like the concept of a drivable par 4 at AGNC, for tournament purposes, and kudos for the imagination and the drawings.  But looking at these pics (from Chip Gaskins' blog) I wonder if the green would have to be built up and look unnatural (to the left in this view looking back) of the bunker.  Plus could you ever drive and hold such a green?  Looking at the pic, it seems like that fairway bunker sits up on a knob and occupies most of the top of the knob.  maybe those who've actually seen the hole can comment.




I think members might miss this second-shot view



Maybe 17 would be a better candidate for "drivable"?

[Matthew Rose]

I'd have simply left #7 alone.

[Charlie Goerges]

"Sounds good However it is not even close"

Dave, I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Are you saying that moving the green back wouldn't make it drivable or that the green I've depicted is nothing like the original? Or is it something else?

Thanks Neil, Eric et. al. for the compliments.

I must say that I've no idea what it originally looked like, and in looking at the image Eric posted it seems like a lot of fill would be needed, but if that was the original location and the bunker was original, it would seem that they had to have made a pretty decent cut to make it look the way it does now. Anyone know or have an image of the original?

Perhaps I'll try to photoshop the first image you posted Eric.

[Neil_Crafter]

Charlie
Here is Mackenzie's green plan for the 10th, it was originally the 1st (from Geoff Shac's Golden Age book). Also a postcard of the green and bunker (from Doak Scott Haddock book) - it certainly looks like the green was a long way from the bunker in actuality - on the green plan the bunker was cut in close to the green. Hope this helps you understand how the hole used to look. The green plan shows quite a swale running through the middle of the green, falling from front to back. The green was moved back by Perry Maxwell in 1937, so it only lasted around 4 or so years next to the bunker.

[Charlie Goerges]

Neil, thanks for the reply (I'll try to do a photochop job to guestimate the look from ground level). Do you (or does anyone) think the hole would be drivable by moving the green back to its original location and playing it from the member tees? On google earth it shows as about 360 yards as the crow flies. I thought it would be based on where the players hit the ball now from the back tees. Tiger's often at the bottom of the hill with 3 wood from the back, with driver and playing up, I'd be he and many others could get even on the right with the bunker.

[Anthony Gray]

  Charlie,

  First of all hats off to your computor work. Secoundly a drivable par four always adds excitement to a tournament. As far as 10 I think the playoff starts there so a different hole may be better. I just wonder if people would think it would be a break in tradition. Would love to see it.

  Anthony

 

[JESII]

Charlie and Neil,

That's great stuff.

I don't know the course at all, but my question would be; with four reachable par fives do we really need another hole in that concept?

Keep in mind, that view is purely from the standpoint of "would it improve the golf course/tournament?".

Restoration is another argument that I don't know enough about to get into.

360 and substantially downhill is within range of many of those guys, but what does the terrain do leading into that green? Are the last 40 or 50 yards steeply downhill, or not?

[Deucie Bies]

Isn't number 3 drivable if they move the tees up?

[tlavin]

Much as the idea has a certain appeal, it seems to me that there are enough birdie holes on the back nine for the pros already.

[PThomas]

Isn't number 3 drivable if they move the tees up?

or worth a double bogey ...Steve W can tell you about that

[Charlie Goerges]

Good points all, but the main consideration was moving the green to it's original location, not tournament considerations. The additional leap was by moving up to the members' tee to take what is basically a mid-length par 4 and making it drivable for the pros. I do think the potental for a greater range of scores exists on the shorter hole with a difficult green complex than on the current version. Of course it's all academic. That green will never be restored, and probably for all the valid reasons stated here.

Would it be a better hole? More fun to watch? More fun to play?

[Jason Topp]

In general I like the idea.  (my perspective is only as a tournament fan and not related to general play).

With the lengthening of 7, I also think the course needs more variety in the par fours.  Right now, every par four plays an effective distance pretty close to 450 yards  (10 and 11 are longer but downhill) with the exception of 3.

I would think the green would be easily drivable considering it would be 100 feet below the tee.  The location of the 10th green then would avoid the need to walk back to get to the back tee for 11.  

My primary objection would be that it changes the rythm of the course - 10-12 are all defensive holes.  I like the course set up with 7-9 as an attacking stage, 10-12 as a defensive stage, 13-15 (or 16 depending on pin) as attack holes and 17-18 as more defensive holes where a champion needs to be able to finish.  Thus - it makes more sense to me to widen and shorten 7 similar to the prior length.

[PThomas]

an interesting idea...but 10 is so cool as is ...i say shorten up one of the 4s on the front

[Chris Ord]

i like the idea.  i wonder, however, if there is enough penalty for missing the green if one goes for it.  to me, best driveable par fours are the ones that really punish if the green is missed.  seeing the pros trying to hack out of the junk on the 17th at oakmont made that risk/reward decision so exciting.  you couldn't do that with august, so how does one sharpen the teeth around the green.  i like the fall of on the back, but there doesn't seem to be much in front of the green.  now, what if the hole was shortened by simply moving the tees up to a driveable distance, and keeping that fairway bunker where it is.  the player would have to carry that bunker, or, if he doesn't, would have a really tough bunker shot to the green. 

[Charlie Goerges]

Moving the green would also allow for almost unlimited lengthening of 11 (Not that I'm advocating that):

[Tim Nugent]

The reason I find this so compelling is that it brings the last Mac bunker back into play (instead of residing in no-man's land.  What  AN really needs is to reshape the rest of the bunkers back into this style.  They remind me of RB Harris's Moon Craters. I would love to see someone Photoshop CP style bunkers into AN just for grins.

[Doug Spets]

Drainage would be a major issue.

[Neil_Crafter]

Doug
I think today the drainage issues of that greensite, one of the reasons it was moved back in'37, could be readily resolved if the green was moved back there.
As we know it is NOT going to happen it is still an interesting exercise in conjecture.

Tim
Mac's bunker on #10 was the largest and most elaborate on the course. The remainder were simpler than this one, only problem is that even these have been further simplified into the moon craters you so aptly described. As there are a lot more bunkers now than when Mackenzie built the course, I can't see how you can "restore" a bunker that was never like that. Still, would be nice to see them photoshopped back like you said. I think that's as close as we'll get!

cheers Neil

[Mike_Cirba]

Oh, and let me know if you'd like a little assistance.

Charlie,

Thanks very much for the info and I'll let you know as things progress.   Great stuff here!