[BCrosby]

The link below is to an interesting article in the current Georgia Golf Association magazine on the evolution of ANGC.

Most of it has already been discussed on the GCA, but it is worth a look.

I will contact the author to see if he can shed some light on the mystery of who changed the original 11th tee and 17th green.

Let me know if there are other questions you would like me to ask.

http://www.gsga.org/golfga/article.htm

Bob

[John_McMillan]

An interesting part of the article is the attempt to use Bobby Jones' writings on golf architecture to conclude whether or not Jones would approve of Fazio's changes to ANGC.  The article concludes Jones would be pleased - which I think is a stretch of Jones' views.  

Re the changes to the 11'th hole -

I think the definitive answer will be elusive to find, since Cliff Roberts had an ambiguous hand in everything that went on at ANGC during his "reign."  Roberts book on ANGC, I believe, gives primary credit to himself for the changes at #11.  How accurate that is is going to be difficult to determine - because I get the impression that many members at ANGC are still reluctant to talk about Roberts, for fear that he STILL may kick them out of the club.

[BCrosby]

John -

I wonder if the ANGC's reluctance to talk about Robert's changes doesn't derive more from a sense of corporate embarrassment that Roberts was allowed to make so many changes on an ad hoc basis.  In his book he comes close to bragging about the very fact that he did make ad hoc changes; that his changes were carried out without consulting architects, players or members.  Then he notes a few pages later how architects, players and members thought his changes were brilliant.

Now, 20 years or so later, it is embarassing that anyone had such unfettered leeway to tinker with its landmark golf course.  Especially someone with no background in golf course design and with only limited playing experience.

Just pure speculation, of course.

Bob

[Mike O'Neill]

John,

I am willing to accept your skepticism regarding whether or not Bobby Jones would be pleased with the changes at Augusta, except for one question. Did Bobby Jones speak out against any of the changes that happened while he was alive, of which there were many? I was amazed to read that no two consecutive years found the same golf course come tournament time. He was certainly around for most of that. I am even wondering if he did not set the tone for the tinkering, given his fascination with tournament golf and his committment to building a couse designed to test the pros from the back tees.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Bob, thanks for the article. However, he failed to mention the work by Jack On #13 (Or did I miss it?) and I just love the way he speculates that Jones would have loved the changes. He also forgot to detail how #8 was destroyed by George Cobb only to be rebuilt a year latter.

Let me speculate by saying that Dr. Alsiter MacKenzie wouldn't.

[Mike O'Neill]

Tommy,

What do you think Bobby Jones was saying and doing through all those years (35?) of changes while he was alive?

The Huskers began spring practice yesterday. But I see that the Domers are off to greener pastures this season. What is the point of playing without the Irish on the schedule? How are we going to keep them down on the farm after they've seen Notre Dame? (Please read Notre Dame with a French accent for affect.)

Mike

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
That is a very good question. It is one of the many mysteries that surround ANGC. There were some horendous changes (#8 for example) that Jones seemed to sit back and watch. Seems apparent at some point Roberts became the man. From what little I've been able to gather the place is shrowded by mystery (and some dark from what I understand) that may never be revealed. Anyway you want to cut it, the course has been butchered.

[TEPaul]

Mike O'N:

You're questions and even your speculation about Jones's roll or his feelings about the numerous changes to ANGC while he was alive and around are good ones and more importantly very necessary ones.

It is extremely important where we sit today to accurately chronicle what went on with classic courses of the "Golden Age" in the decades that followed their construction. Not only is it important to chronicle those changes which in many cases (like ANGC) is not particularly difficult to do, but even more importantly to chronicle the the reasons why these courses were constantly altered and most difficult of all the attitudes of those that did it or approved or condoned it.

It does no good where we sit today to condemn these men and the changes they made as some general aberrational destruction of classic architecture that they should have recognized as such and resisted.

We need to know what was going on in their minds and hopefully we will see they did not consider it destructive and corrupting of classic architecture. Of course they could not see the extrapolation of some of what they were doing--they couldn't see the future--they didn't have that luxury!!

But had they had that luxury, as we do today, maybe they wouldn't have done it or at least they might have looked at it differently. At the very least we should try to understand their thinking in their own time, not ours, and you should continue to ask those questions that you asked. If we don't we might continue to look at the history of architecture and its evolution in a revisionist light and I don't think we want to do that and we certainly don't need to do that!

If we look honestly at these men and these courses I think we can pick up accurate patterns of why some courses were extensively changed and others weren't. With ANGC as a case study the first place to concentrate, in my opinion, is the fact that it was and is a "Championship" course with an annual tournament which in and of itself is unusual.

There are other "championship" courses like Cypress and Pine Valley that were never used as such or not at that level and their evolutions are much different.

But we need to look at these things as best we can through the eyes of those that were there in the beginning and on, not through our own eyes!

Keep asking those questions and even speculating on the answers!

[Ran Morrissett]

Jones + MacKenzie had success holding off Cliff Roberts (e.g. the 3rd green complex).

With MacKenzie's passing away in 1934, the finger was removed from the dam.

[John_McMillan]

Re Jones and Roberts and ANGC -

There was one change which Jones clearly did not approve - the leveling of the mounds around the 8'th green, which Roberts felt improved the view for spectators at the Masters Tournament.  The incident supposedly greatly strained their relationship.  

One can speculate whether Roberts use of Masters champions as "endorsers" of his changes (for example, Hogan and the bunker at 15), was an attempt to validate his architectural opinions in discussions with Jones.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

An interesting take on the past changes to Augusta:

"The original concept of Augusta was that it would be a course that anybody could play. It was for Bobby Jones' friends from around the world and both MacKenzie and Jones both realized that Jones' friends in the business weren't any better players than anybody else.
So they wanted to go out and build a course that wasn't too hard for the average player to go out and have fun. They built one with very tough greens that made it difficult for anybody once they got to the green, but it wasn't a really intimidating golf course.
The club has evolved tremendously over the years and you know I would say now they're No. 1 priority is the Masters tournament and not member play. I don't think that was necessarily MacKenzie's and Jones' intention from the outset.
I think most of the changes at Augusta over the years have been relatively in character. As long as Bobby Jones had anything to do with the place, it wasn't going to stray too far from what it was supposed to be. And if you look at the changes that have been made since -- up until this most recent set, which I cannot comment on -- none of them really went away from the idea that the difficulty was around the greens, and when they got the greens tuned up and greens really fast and really firm at Masters time the difference between a great shot and a bad shot wasn't very much. And that's something you see in MacKenzie designs all over the world, so I don't think that is so out of character for it.
It's a course that rewards daring play, but if you play daringly and make a mistake, then you make double bogey. So I believe Augusta is in character with what MacKenzie and Jones wanted, but it's physically a much different course than when MacKenzie died in 1934.
There are maybe a half-dozen greens that are pretty close to his original concept; everything else has been softened. Every square inch of that place has been rebuilt in the last 50 years."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()