News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
http://www.golf.com/golf/gallery/article/0,28242,1970064-1,00.html

By reshaping the course to keep pace with technology, the National lost sight of designer Alister MacKenzie's vision, making it less democratic.

I agree with pretty much everything he says...

Matt_Ward

Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2010, 06:17:13 PM »
agreed ...

forgot to mention #11 and #15 ...

Link Walsh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2010, 08:59:58 PM »
Okay, so why all the sour grapes about 1 and 17?  #1 is listed at 445 yards.  #17 is listed at 440 yards.  Yes, the bunker is deep on #1 and the tee shot is into an uphill slope.  But seriously, these guys need to quit their whining.  The U.S. Open has par 4s that play 60 yards longer than this with much deeper rough!  The only reason that these changes get such negative publicity is because it's the only major to return to the same course every year.  All these changes around the course (except for #7 which I'm looking forward to getting a firsthand look at in a few weeks) were designed to bring the approach shots back to the clubs the pros played into greens in the early 80s. 

Oh, and 15 is now a whopping 530 yards.... downhill.  Those pros sure do have it tough.   ;) 

jim_lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2010, 09:50:45 PM »
For as long as I have been going to the Masters (45 years), the first hole has been a tough opening hole. However, in the 80's at least half the field carried (or at least tried) the fairway bunker. I evrn remember seeing Bill Mayfair carry it 15-20 years ago. The bunker has always been pretty deep, maybe not quite as deep as today. As they have moved the tee back, now few players even try to carry the bunker.

In the past the green protected par pretty well. Now the bunker makes it even tougher.

I might add that trees on the left beyond the bunker were planted back around 1970. Prior to that, many players would deliberately hit their tee shots left away from the bunker and almost in front of the 9th tee. The trees stopped that nonsense, much like the bunkers left of 18 stopped most players from deliberately playing into the old practice area left of the fairway.
I also hate what they have done to 7 and 17. But what really annoys me is lengthening #2. Previously, most players hit driver and tried to avoid the fairway bunker, leaving a legitmate chance to reach the green. Now, most players hit fairway wood short of the bunker turning it into a routine 3-shot par 5. Maybe widening the gap in front will encourage more players to try to run it up between the bunkers.
I will report back in a few weeks, if my sorry ass back will co-operate.
"Crusty"  Jim
Freelance Curmudgeon

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2010, 10:11:34 PM »

By reshaping the course to keep pace with technology, the National lost sight of designer Alister MacKenzie's vision, making it less democratic.


Much less Bobby Jones who many consider the most influential American golfer ever.

ANGC is like the Chinese or Israel.  They don't care about anything or anyone other than themselves.

Matthew Rose

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2010, 11:15:54 PM »
Wouldn't question anything I read there, although I don't think #17 is really that long, is it?

I notice rather than shortening holes, they seem to be extending tees forward, perhaps to allow for greater flexibility. Maybe Augusta can use that more than anything else. That was the one thing that really bothered me before, was how when they would build new back tees, they'd erase the old ones completely like they never existed. If nothing else, it would be nice if the course could still be played at 6,905 if they wanted to.

Why do they eliminate older back tees? Do they not want to have three or four tees on a hole for aesthetic reasons?
American-Australian. Trackman Course Guy. Fatalistic sports fan. Drummer. Bass player. Father. Cat lover.

Kyle Henderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2010, 01:54:21 AM »
For as long as I have been going to the Masters (45 years), the first hole has been a tough opening hole. However, in the 80's at least half the field carried (or at least tried) the fairway bunker. I evrn remember seeing Bill Mayfair carry it 15-20 years ago. The bunker has always been pretty deep, maybe not quite as deep as today. As they have moved the tee back, now few players even try to carry the bunker.

In the past the green protected par pretty well. Now the bunker makes it even tougher.

I might add that trees on the left beyond the bunker were planted back around 1970. Prior to that, many players would deliberately hit their tee shots left away from the bunker and almost in front of the 9th tee. The trees stopped that nonsense, much like the bunkers left of 18 stopped most players from deliberately playing into the old practice area left of the fairway.
I also hate what they have done to 7 and 17. But what really annoys me is lengthening #2. Previously, most players hit driver and tried to avoid the fairway bunker, leaving a legitmate chance to reach the green. Now, most players hit fairway wood short of the bunker turning it into a routine 3-shot par 5. Maybe widening the gap in front will encourage more players to try to run it up between the bunkers.
I will report back in a few weeks, if my sorry ass back will co-operate.

What's an "ass back?"
"I always knew terrorists hated us for our freedom. Now they love us for our bondage." -- Stephen T. Colbert discusses the popularity of '50 Shades of Grey' at Gitmo

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2010, 03:25:14 AM »
What exactly is a "democratic" golf course?

ANGC is like the Chinese or Israel.  They don't care about anything or anyone other than themselves.

IMO this website can do without comments like that.

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2010, 03:41:08 AM »
What exactly is a "democratic" golf course?

ANGC is like the Chinese or Israel.  They don't care about anything or anyone other than themselves.

IMO this website can do without comments like that.

Seriously, everybody around the world other than Americans would say Americans are the ones who don't care about anything or anyone other than themselves.

Talk about being blind to your own faults...

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2010, 06:58:27 AM »
http://www.golf.com/golf/gallery/article/0,28242,1970064-1,00.html

By reshaping the course to keep pace with technology, the National lost sight of designer Alister MacKenzie's vision, making it less democratic.

I agree with pretty much everything he says...

That cow got out of the barn a long time ago.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2010, 07:40:21 AM »
They should cut down every tree and plant "native grass" between every hole
Because nobody's doing that these days ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ??? ???

The average pro can hit it 300 and many 320+, but 450 yard holes are too long?
Play #7 from the forward tee and it's all good
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2010, 08:19:32 AM »
The changes are for one week a year but it's their tournament, their golf course.  I don't have a problem with the change to #1 at all.  If you can't carry the bunker and don't want the bad angle from the left side bailout, lay up in front of the bunker.  Strategic design lives!  #7 still frustrates me, the green was designed to receive a short iron.

Sam Morrow

Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2010, 08:39:42 AM »
What exactly is a "democratic" golf course?

ANGC is like the Chinese or Israel.  They don't care about anything or anyone other than themselves.

IMO this website can do without comments like that.

I hate being PC or anything but I have to agree, not sure what that has to do with anything.

John Gosselin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2010, 08:58:40 AM »

By reshaping the course to keep pace with technology, the National lost sight of designer Alister MacKenzie's vision, making it less democratic.


Much less Bobby Jones who many consider the most influential American golfer ever.

ANGC is like the Chinese or Israel.  They don't care about anything or anyone other than themselves.


What was Mackenzie's ultimate vision? Was it to challenge the best players in the world? Was it to provide a course for one of the most successful golf tournaments ever? If so, then they are following MacKenzie's vision.

Does being a great player automatically make you a great golf course designer?






Great golf course architects, like great poets, are born, note made.
Meditations of a Peripatetic Golfer 1922

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2010, 09:32:19 AM »
Also curious what an "ass back" is...



For what it's worth, the changes that happen so often at Augusta tell me two things:

They're always trying to improve the course for the tournament's sake  - good.
The very fact that they make changes so frequently (and I believe always have) tells me any particular change will have the chance to be 'corrected'.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Brandel Chamblee's rant against #1, #7, and #17 changes at ANGC
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2010, 09:36:18 AM »
Hmmm,

Not sure if all of you are serious or not but perhaps it would be better understood as:

"I will report back in a few weeks, if my "sorry-ass" back will co-operate."

 ;)  :)