[Tim Nugent]

Neil,
Hope I'm not splitting hairs but I didn't say "restore".  I said "reshape".  Granted, I'm not a ANGC historical expert.  It's just that I personally perfer  Mac's CP look and think that the elevation differentals at ANGC would allow that style to work there.  I know it is probably blasphamy to suggest changing the bunker style to something that was never there but that course has been tinkered with on so many occasions that a true "restoration" will probably never be undertaken - at least as long as The Master's is held there. 

[Neil_Crafter]

Sorry Tim
You did indeed say reshape.
Agree with you that ANGC will never see a restoration in our lifetimes, if ever, and even a bunker reshaping is similarly unlikely. Doesn't stop us imagining what it would look like though!

[BCrosby]

Fascinating graphics Charlie. Thanks.

A restoration of the 10th is something I have urged for several years.

Reasons include:

- Converts a dull drive (sling a rope hook down into the valley, the easiest kind of shot for a good player) into a fascinating exercise in trying to find the flattish area on the right side of the 10th fw to open the green.

- Gives meaning to the wonderful MacK bunker which now functions only as an ornament.

- Reinstates a much better green than the current ovoid Maxwell green. Maxwell is justly famous for his internal "rolls", but there aren't any on the 10th. MacK's green was far more interesting, both in terms of dealing with short iron approaches and the recovery conundrums presented by the old green.

- It would instantly fix a number of problems with the 11th hole. Including the option of putting back on the table the original c/l Woking bunker on the 11th.

- It would inspire more aggressive play and restore much wider scoring spreads. The hole is now played very conservatively because of its difficulty.

I'm not holding my breath that ANGC and their boy Fazio will adopt any of the above. But your graphic only confirms that MacK's hole was a much better, more interesting hole than the 10th we have now.

Bob   

[Charlie Goerges]

Bob,

I was wondering what the issues/changes to 11 are? In doing my "restoration" I noticed that there would be more flexibility with tee location, but I'm curious about the bunker you mention and any other changes there as well.

Also, earlier on the thread Chris Ord mentioned that there might not be enough risk with only one bunker. My thought was a chipping area that would funnel shots missing right away from the green might be a possibility, but I'd be curious what Bob, Neil et al think of Chris' point.

[Chris Ord]

Bob,

Also, earlier on the thread Chris Ord mentioned that there might not be enough risk with only one bunker. My thought was a chipping area that would funnel shots missing right away from the green might be a possibility, but I'd be curious what Bob, Neil et al think of Chris' point.

me too...

[Chuck Brown]

I think that this thread is filled with interesting ideas, and I like the pictures.  People are making compelling cases for several different options.

But I fear that we are all overlooking one very important feature; Would it not be a blind shot to the Tenth Green, even if the tee were moved ahead to make it a 340-yarder?  I don't regard the mere notion of "blind tee shot" as a deal breaker.  But I can't think of too many great short par-4's to blind-shot green complexes.  I had thought that the great charm of holes like #10 at Riviera, for instance, was to see where the hole was cut, and strategize backward from there.  Or to generally see the options you have, and then watch the result as your tee shot is in mid-flight.

If a new Tenth Tee (plus a new Tenth Green) were positioned as theorized above, could a player standing on the tee see the green?

[JESII]

Chuck,

I do not know the answer, but I also don't think it would be a deal breaker if the reward were right...after all, the penalty wouldn't generally be too bad with no water around.

[Chuck Brown]

Wouldn't it be interesting to ask this question of Ben Crenshaw?  (Shorter hitter, lover of strategic design, but also the author of two of the most historic putts in the history of the current Tenth Green.)

[Charlie Goerges]

It looks like you can see a portion of the bunker if you look closely on this image from Golf Architecture Pictures.com

[BCrosby]

To answer a question above, the recovery options on a restored 10th green would be very interesting. That area beside and behind the MacK bunker is highly contoured. My guess is those contours provided dramatic fall offs and mounding for the original 10th green. You can still sort of see where the green fit.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Charlie,

It's a bad idea because there's really no risk involved.

The topography lends itself to a draw/hook with little if any consequence for failure.

Deucie,

# 3 is drivable, but, if you go off line, the consequences can be severe.

[TEPaul]

Welcome back from Florida, Pat. I hope you're not too tired from your vacation! 

By the way, I see you're sitting right next to me on the USER GUIDE slot on this website. Would you mind moving to the other end of the table? It makes me nervous to sit that close to you. You know what the Scientologists say about those universal free-floating "cooties" or whatever.

[Charlie Goerges]

Patrick,

The way it is now seems to present little if any risk (to the tour-level player). You may be right that there would be no consequence to failure with a shorter hole, but given Bob's description and Neil's postcard image, it looks like there could be a lot of danger right around the green for people attempting to drive the green. I'm also guessing that a fair bit of danger could be designed into the green complex that isn't apparent from Neil's images.

I'm also hoping Bob will elucidate on the possibilities with 11 a bit more if the 10th were to be changed. What is the Woking bunker?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

The way it is now seems to present little if any risk (to the tour-level player).


I can assure you that the hole presents considerable risk in its present form, for every level of golfer.
While the tee shot might remain benign for the PGA Tour Professional, the approach, recovery and putts are far from benign.

You may be right that there would be no consequence to failure with a shorter hole, but given Bob's description and Neil's postcard image, it looks like there could be a lot of danger right around the green for people attempting to drive the green. I'm also guessing that a fair bit of danger could be designed into the green complex that isn't apparent from Neil's images.

Not really, especially when you consider that even poor tee shots end up in relatively good position due to the topography that greets the drive.

Driving the ball in a green side bunker on a par 4 presents little challenge for PGA Tour Players, Golf Professionals and superior amateurs.

In that particular area you would have to elevate the green to gain better drainage, and to be able to cut difficult, deep bunkers into the footpad.  In addition, without a highly contoured or sloped green, ala # 3, there would be little challenge presented by an approach shot.

Originally, the green was where it's depicted, however, that location didn't present a suitable challenge, hence Maxwell moved the green back to an elevated footpad around 1937.  It's been almost universally acclaimed that the current hole is far superior to the original.  I would have to concur with those sentiments.

# 3 can be driven.
However, an errant drive can result in a large number, hence the percentage play is position, not bombing away.

Interestingly enough, over the weekend I had the opportunity to watch about 8 of the Professionals from teh REMAX Long Driving Tour play golf at a local club.  It was quite interesting to watch.
On the 14th hole, which played downwind, one of the Pros drove his second drive (the first was pull hooked into the trees and water) in the right greenside bunker, a carry of about 387 yards.

This confirmed to me that Augusta is our only hope.

They have to come up with a competition ball or the next generation of golfers will render architecture meaningless.

I'm also hoping Bob will elucidate on the possibilities with 11 a bit more if the 10th were to be changed. What is the Woking bunker?

[Charlie Goerges]

Patrick,

I agree with you on your point that Augusta is the only organization that can reign in the distance issue. Hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later.

I also acknowledge that for all practical purposes you are correct. But since this discussion is purely academic I'd like to contend with a couple points. The major one is the need to build up the pad of the green in order to dig deep bunkers. I don't think any other bunkers would be needed. After looking at the postcard image, it seems the primary difficulty is the slope of the green from front to back and with the swale running along the major axis of the green from front to back. Additionally the green looks to be only slightly above the sand bottom of the bunker with the large mounds of the right side of the bunker influencing the first several feet of the left side of the green and obscuring the view. Finally the majority of the green slopes (besides front to back) from right to left. Now all of this is assumed from the images Neil provided.

So:

The green runs away from the player in the middle of the fairway.

The green would effectively run away from the player in the bunker for at least the first several feet; making for a difficult recovery from there, plus the view of the green is obscured by the face of the bunker and the mounds.

The green runs away from the player missing right until getting all the way to the other side.


Given the speed of the greens and the closely mown areas at Augusta, it seems like there would be at least as much difficulty on a shortened 10th as on most of the drivable par 4s on TV. None of this is to say that the current tenth isn't difficult. You'd know that better than I. But as a thought experiment it is at least rooted in reality, even if it is not at all realistic.

Charlie

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I agree with you on your point that Augusta is the only organization that can reign in the distance issue. Hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later.

I also acknowledge that for all practical purposes you are correct. But since this discussion is purely academic I'd like to contend with a couple points.

The major one is the need to build up the pad of the green in order to dig deep bunkers. I don't think any other bunkers would be needed. After looking at the postcard image, it seems the primary difficulty is the slope of the green from front to back and with the swale running along the major axis of the green from front to back.

You can't look at the characteristics of the green in a limited context.
You have to examine the green in the context of the approach and recovery shots.
Those that aren't accurate enough to drive it will be faced with:
Putts from the fairway
Chips from the fairway
Pitches from the fairway
Lob wedges from the bunker

None of which present a substantive challenge

Additionally the green looks to be only slightly above the sand bottom of the bunker with the large mounds of the right side of the bunker influencing the first several feet of the left side of the green and obscuring the view.

Perhaps your exercise would be better served by getting an actual topo of the area in question.
That might provide a better feel for the lay of the land.

Finally the majority of the green slopes (besides front to back) from right to left. Now all of this is assumed from the images Neil provided.

The post card may not be an accurate portrayal of the hole so I think you have to be careful not to create topography that doesn't exist.  That's why a topo would be of great help to you, along with an aerial photo circa 1934-1936

So:

The green runs away from the player in the middle of the fairway.

The green would effectively run away from the player in the bunker for at least the first several feet; making for a difficult recovery from there, plus the view of the green is obscured by the face of the bunker and the mounds.

The green runs away from the player missing right until getting all the way to the other side.

Given the speed of the greens and the closely mown areas at Augusta, it seems like there would be at least as much difficulty on a shortened 10th as on most of the drivable par 4s on TV. None of this is to say that the current tenth isn't difficult. You'd know that better than I. But as a thought experiment it is at least rooted in reality, even if it is not at all realistic.

The dilema for ANGC is in attempting to serve two masters.
1  The Best Golfers in the world
2  Members and guests

All too often AGNC is discussed and disected in the sole context of # 1.
Any change contemplated has to consider whether it's feasible for category # 2

Have you done that ?

[JESII]

Pat,

Wouldn't this change be beneficial to the members playing of the hole considering the greens are likely not quite up to the same speed outside of tournament week? The hole Charlie has described would provide it's difficulty in the severe slope of the green when you consider the speed they are prepared...

I don't know which would be better or worse, but on days when the course is running this would seem like a really cool hole, whereas today's hole seems like a really cool tee shot and something less after that...

[Charlie Goerges]

Patrick,

I agree with you on your point that Augusta is the only organization that can reign in the distance issue. Hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later.

I also acknowledge that for all practical purposes you are correct. But since this discussion is purely academic I'd like to contend with a couple points.

The major one is the need to build up the pad of the green in order to dig deep bunkers. I don't think any other bunkers would be needed. After looking at the postcard image, it seems the primary difficulty is the slope of the green from front to back and with the swale running along the major axis of the green from front to back.

You can't look at the characteristics of the green in a limited context.
You have to examine the green in the context of the approach and recovery shots.
Those that aren't accurate enough to drive it will be faced with:
Putts from the fairway
Chips from the fairway
Pitches from the fairway
Lob wedges from the bunker

None of which present a substantive challenge

I'm not sure that this last statement is true, but even if it is, the mental challenge may be the more important factor. The multitude of options combined with the preponderance of short grass and contour is exactly the kind of thing that smarter and more educated persons than myself have put forth as a method of befuddling Tour Pros.

Additionally the green looks to be only slightly above the sand bottom of the bunker with the large mounds of the right side of the bunker influencing the first several feet of the left side of the green and obscuring the view.

Perhaps your exercise would be better served by getting an actual topo of the area in question.
That might provide a better feel for the lay of the land.

Finally the majority of the green slopes (besides front to back) from right to left. Now all of this is assumed from the images Neil provided.

The post card may not be an accurate portrayal of the hole so I think you have to be careful not to create topography that doesn't exist.  That's why a topo would be of great help to you, along with an aerial photo circa 1934-1936


On the previous 2 statements, a topo and aerial would be helpful. On the other hand, regardless of what the topo shows, the designer could determine the proper configuration of a new green and incorporate the current existing features, faithfully restore Mackenzie's design (to the extent that is possible), or a combination of the two. To my mind, it's the concept which is on "trial" here more so than the form it would take.

So:

The green runs away from the player in the middle of the fairway.

The green would effectively run away from the player in the bunker for at least the first several feet; making for a difficult recovery from there, plus the view of the green is obscured by the face of the bunker and the mounds.

The green runs away from the player missing right until getting all the way to the other side.

Given the speed of the greens and the closely mown areas at Augusta, it seems like there would be at least as much difficulty on a shortened 10th as on most of the drivable par 4s on TV. None of this is to say that the current tenth isn't difficult. You'd know that better than I. But as a thought experiment it is at least rooted in reality, even if it is not at all realistic.

The dilema for ANGC is in attempting to serve two masters.
1  The Best Golfers in the world
2  Members and guests

All too often AGNC is discussed and disected in the sole context of # 1.
Any change contemplated has to consider whether it's feasible for category # 2

Have you done that ?


I have done that, though I fully acknowledge that I may not have the ability to properly account for both uses. Bear in mind that I don't think the hole would be "difficult" in relation to par. For tour pros it would probably play a lot like the 10th at Riviera in that it would average under par. The defenses would differ of course, but it would test the mental alacrity of the tour pros. For members the hole would be easier than the current hole and add a legitimate birdie opportunity to the round, and one that will reward clear thinking disproportionatly over physical execution.

[Neil_Crafter]

I have just found an article from the Augusta Chronicle from January 1938 describing Perry Maxwell's work at Augusta, including the relocation of the 10th green. Thought it might be of interest here.

The story also tells of the abandonment of "the artificially thrown up sand dune formations" which were part of the original design, in favour of "a more modern American conception". I don't recall reading about such features before.

[Charlie Goerges]

Neil, is there any way to post a larger version. I'm having some trouble reading it. (I am extra tired today, so maybe I should just sleep on it .

[Sean_A]

I agree with Pat.  The approaching, recovery and putting on #10 are some of the best viewing of The Masters. 


Ciao 

[Neil_Crafter]

Charlie
I'll see what I can do........

[BCrosby]

Neil -

The "sand dune" contours the 5th green were built to replicate the playing qualities of the Road Hole green without the Road Hole bunker. Though in reverse. Pretty wild stuff.

The original 7th was a based on the Valley of Sin on the 18th at TOC.

The micro changes to the original contouring of the 17th green are unclear to me.

Bob   

[Neil_Crafter]

Charlie
Think the article is readable now.




Bob, were these "sand dune contours" in or adjacent to the greens?

Interesting use of the phrase "schoolmaster's nose" in lieu of "Principal's nose".

[Charlie Goerges]

Beautiful Neil, much appreciated!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()