My favorite change to Augusta National

[Ran Morrissett]

Of all time, what is your favorite change to the course?

Ironically, mine may well have just occured and it would be moving the 11th tee back 35 yards and slightly to the right. A fade is once again the preferred tee ball but more importantly, the famous risk/reward dilemma for the 2nd shot is largely restored.

Approaching this green from the top of the hill at or around the 200 yard mark seems more thrilling/exhilerating than my perception of the original approach when the hole measured 415 yards.

I will never forget seeing (with Tom Egan) Bernhard Langer chipping several balls from right of the green mid-day on a practice Monday.

The invitational begins and what happens? Langer chips in from near that very spot on Saturday and never looks back in winning his second green jacket. How cool is that to see such a well thoughtout game plan executed to perfection?!

Of course, Hogan's comments re: the 11th and Langer fully expecting to miss the green had been lost the past couple of years with pros reducing the hole to just a short iron approach shot.

Hopefully, once again, we'll see at least mid iron approach shots on this 490 yard hole and maybe even the occasional long iron.  

In golf speak, Hemingway's "grace under pressure" could be defined as controlling your downswing and not flinching/bailing right on a 200 yard approach shot into the 11th green at Augusta National.

Here's to hoping that we get to see the pros back on top of the hill again, nervously fidgeting about, trying to figure out what to do on their approach shot.

Cheers,

[Jim_Kennedy]

Well, I am not as familiar with all the changes that have occured there over the years but the possibility of a bunker recovery on 18 ala Sandy lyle is once again on the table.

[Mike Cirba]

I'm sure I'll get some resistance here, but the new 16th created by Robert Trent Jones seems to provide interesting play year after year after year.

I can't see the old pitch across the creek providing the same drama or challenge.  

Oftimes, the fun only begins when the player is on the green in the wrong position.  Or, how about the difference in how the bunkers play depending on pin position.

This may be the best hole ever created by RTJSr.  Davis Love's hole-out from "over" left after pitching 30 feet past the pin just exemplifies the creativity that the hole requires.

[David_Elvins]

The reversal of the two nines.  Holes 11-16 wouldnt be the same if they played as 2-7 and it is doubtful the Masters would have attracted the same level of interest.  It MIGHT not have even become a major.

[Mark_Fine]

Does this thread suggest we have to learn to accept the good with the bad?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

Firstly, what's your excuse for being up at 5:00 am ?

I'm not so sure about the bad !

If you played the course last year or today, without any prior knowledge of what existed previous to your round, I think you would have walked away very satisfied that you had just played a very good or great golf course.

Like Pine Valley, I don't think there is a bad hole out there.

If someone can name a bad hole and tell me why it's bad, I'd be happy to listen, although, I probably won't agree, but you already knew that.

So, what's so bad ?

Ran,

I agree, a long iron from the crest of the hill, to a green frought with danger, is indeed an exciting and intimidating shot to play and watch.

I'd also like to see # 9 played off the downslope with a medium to long iron rather than the bottom of the hill with a wedge.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I'd say the first change may have been the best change - Maxwell's new 10th green. I would have liked to see how the old 10th worked, but I have my doubts it would've ever worked for the pros (I guess that would've depended on the character of the original green - the hole may have messed with their heads) - although it probably was a very cool hole for the members. But since it had drainage difficulties it  probably is a mute point. The new green site is spectacular, as is the 10th hole.

[Mike O'Neill]

When they moved the tournament to coincide with the blooming of the azaleas and dogwoods, followed closely by speeding up the greens to the point where Ben Crenshaw proved to be the best. Both very personal preferences, admittedly. Now, about getting Ben back on top....

[Paul Richards]

Ran:

In all honesty, my favorite change would be if Hootie would
retract his statement saying that Augusta wouldn't be
trying to use a competition ball.

[David_Elvins]

Mark Fine,

May I add my humble opinion that I am constantly surprised by the Augusta bashing that goes on on this site.  There would seem to be many characteristics in the course that generally appeal to the people who visit this site.  
For example:
THe conditions are probably harder and faster than any other tournament course in America.  
Despite the addition of light rough, the fairways are still very wide, allowing for many options of play.
Despite the doubling of the number of bunkers, there are still very few.  
THe Par threes provid a good mix of holes, both in length and characteristics.
There is greater use of the "ground game" than any other US tournament course.
They have aggresively challenged the improved technology and are making a concerted effort to bring back traditional shot values.  They have even talked about a competition ball which is alot more than anyone else has ever done.

The above examples I have mentioned are all topics that have been generally supported in their own threads yet ANGC is so often carpetted.  So thank you Ran for bringing us back to the positives of what truly is on of the worlds top few courses.  

[BCrosby]

Best change:  Byron Nelson's restoration of the original green surrounds at no. 8 about ten(?) years ago.  Perhaps the only instance at ANGC where a true restoration of a MacK feature was undertaken.

It's too early to tell with the new changes.  Let's see how the they effect the pros under tournament pressure and reconvene later on the topic.  I think there will be many surprises by the time Sunday afternoon rolls around.

Bob

P.S.  Tom MacW, I couldn't disagree more about Maxwell changes to no. 10.  I don't have a problem with the green location.  It needed to be moved back for drainage reasons.  But standing in the middle of that fairway looking over the wonderful remains of the MacK bunker and then on up the fairway to Maxwell's moon pie greenside bunker..., well, the contrast takes your breath away.  Even my golfing buddies - who could care less about architectural issues - think the greenside bunker at 10 is egregious.  

Maxwell's changes at nos. 1, 7 and 17 (though there is some debate about who "did" 17) are likewise out of touch with both the look and strategy Mack wanted for those holes.

As has pointed out before, the irony is that Maxwell was originally chosen because, as MacK's former partner, he was thought to be the person best able to carry out changes that would be consistent with MacK's design intent.

The double irony is that RTJ, a man with little affection for the Golden Age, made changes (I'm thinking of nos. 11 and 16) that were much more in line with strategic options Mack wanted for the course.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Bob
What is your opinion of Maxwell's original bunkering scheme at #10, do you think it was more in harmony with MacKenzie's? What changes did Maxwell make at #1 and #17?

[Ran Morrissett]

Mark,

I don't know about accepting the bad with the good but this DG should be able to identify the good from the bad    A steady diatribe where we only talk about what is wrong with a course/architect makes this DG boring and easy to stereotype/write-off.

Pat,

What about the 17th? While it may not be as out of character with the rest of the course as the 12th at GCGC, I see next to no merit in it, other than its top right hole location. John McMillan's thread shows how its playing virtues have been altered with time to the point where I would now term it a poor, if not bad, hole.

Cheers,

[John_McMillan]

David Elvins -

I'd love to see you try to support your contention that the Masters would not have become a major without reversing the nines.

Tournament golf in the 30's, 40's and early 50's was much different than what we see on TV today.  First of all, there was no TV, so Arnold Palmer's Sunday charges are more a modern invention.  Arnold Palmer's heroics at the Masters were fun to watch, but the tournament had already become a major by that time.  Additionally, the 3'rd round leaders were not sent out in the last group.  Golfers in the modern Masters face a different decision on the back-nine water holes (since they're more certain of their position in the tournament), than golfers in the early Masters.  

That the tournament was held in April - and timed to "catch" national sportswriters on their way from Florida baseball back to the Northeast centers, that the tournament had Cliff Roberts and Bobby Jones, and that they managed smartly its exposure are more important factors in its success than the numbering of the holes on its golf course.

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

David Elvins,

You're absolutely right that there is a lot of ANGC bashing here. One guy has even posted that the tournament is just a big bore to him, so he doesn't ever watch it. (yeah, right) I think it is the best run tournament of all, on a damned interesting golf course, and I am REALLY looking forward to see this year's tournament to see how the new changes play out.

Ran,

The best change? I think you're are probably right about the 11th. I'm guessing we're going to be see a few more 2nd shots wind up in Larry Mize land this year, huh? I am also really looking forward to see how the 1st, 13th and 18th play out.

Of course, things won't really be right until they move 13 green 40 yards further back, a la Whitten's article.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Also, if the nines weren't reversed, then Sarazen's albatross at 15, the "shot heard round the world" (but seen by very few), would have had much less effect in making the tournament and course famous.

EDIT: Post #500 for me and I used the word "albatross" in it.  I don't use that word much.

[Ron_Whitten]

Tom MacWood --  Like you, I'm a Perry Maxwell fan, but I disagree with your assessment of the 10th green being a great change. I'd love to see that old punchbowl green down there, even though (or mabye because) some pros would be tempted to drive it down the hill and onto the green, at least back when the hole measured 395 yards.  Maxwell also moved the old 7th green up on to a hilltop. The old seventh green was patterned (allegedly) after the 18th at the Old Course at St. Andrews, but after Byron Nelson drove the green in the 1937  Masters, Clifford Roberts(with Bobby Jones' approval) decreed a change.  Those were two arguable bump-and-run approach shot greens now gone, replaced by modern-day aerial assault greens.  I wish Augusta National had at least one of the two greens still in existence, although, as I said, they'd probably play them as bump-and-run all right, with their drivers from the tee.

[BCrosby]

Ron -

I agree.  In fact, with the distance added to nos. 7, 10 and 17 you can now make a good case for restoring the bump and run green surrounds on those holes.  

If the rationale for changing them in 1939 was that the holes were too short, that is not the case anymore.

I also agree with your thoughts on no. 10.  Shift the MacK bunker up to the front of the green (or move the bunker back and the green into the little swale now in front of the green) and make players try to find the right side of the fairway to open up the putting surface.   Presto, chango, a terrific Mack hole restored to fit for the modern power game.  

So simple, so elegant.

Bob

[Rick Shefchik]

Ron:

Not to drag a previous discussion into every thread on this board (I promise I won't), but I couldn't help but think that you could move the 7th and 10th greens back to their original locations and still have a bump-and run situation -- with an iron approach shot -- if a competition ball were in use at the Masters.

Aside from considerations of whether the competition ball will ever come to be, wouldn't this be a good result if it did?

[Dunlop_White]

On Hole 13, I always used to hit it through the fairway when the ball does not shape as planned. Professionals, during the tournament, frequently find themselves in the pines through the fairway here as well.

The yardage added to the tee presently makes cutting the corner a little more demanding and further serves as a more appropriate distance to the turn. Hitting the green in two is no longer a layup. I like this most recent length change, especially compared to the others.

[Ran Morrissett]

Rich,

What about the mongrel 17th as being the ideal hole to restore by removing the front bunkers and re-introducing a running approach ala diagramed by John McMillan in his other thread? Wouldn't that incrementally help the course the most?

Dunlop,

I suppose some straight misses at 13 won't make it into the trees and that the pros will still have a crack for the green in two though they "missed" their drive straight? And what makes that so exciting is the stance/shot gets worse the farther you get from the creek, a nice subtle complicating factor.

I still remember Faldo's awesome shot there in 1996 - there was some initial indecision but once he made the club selection and decided how to play it, he pured it.

[Rick Shefchik]

Ran:

Quoting from Dr. Mackenzie (from the caption under John's excellent recreation of the old 17th): "We hope to make the turf of such a character that an indifferent pitch will not stop on the green."

Well, that's certainly not the case now, is it? At least, not with the clubs they've used to approach this green in recent years. If the lengthening of the 17th is really going to put the four-iron back in the hands of the pros for their second shot, then by all means, eliminate the front bunkers -- but I'm reserving judgment until Masters Sunday, when I somehow still expect to see balls coming in high and dancing around that front hole location.

[Dan Kelly]

Of all the changes I know about, the two I like best are:

1) Ran's: reinstating the guts-for-glory shot at 11. (I wish that could be the approach to 18.)

2) Whatever it was they did a few years ago (leveling mounds, I think) to restore the longer 2nd shots to 15, which has been the most exciting hole in the home stretch ever since.

[David_Elvins]

John MacMillan,

I am going to make no attempt to support my "claim" that the Masters would not have become a major if the nines were not reversed.  I was merely hypothesing.  It is an interesting thing to think about.  Both in terms of the flow/psychology of the course and in terms of the effect it would have on TV coverage.  The holes I mentioned (11-16) are the scoring holes, anything from eagle to triple bogey can so often happen on all of them.  They come at an ideal part of the round, just like the tough stretch from 3-6 on the front nine (where players are more defensive about protecting Par.)  

You make a good case that the Masters would still be a major as it was one before TV, but would it be the No. 1 major?  I really think that "the back nine on Sunday" mentality of the TV coverage is part of what has made it the No.1 major in the world.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

What hole on the golf course demanded more driving accuracy then # 17 ?  Especially, when things were getting real tight down the home stretch.

How often was that hole birdied the last day by contenders ?

In the old days, the upslope of the fairway, combined with the effect of Ike's tree made for a demanding drive, with a good reward for long and straight over the crest.

Today's Pros obsolete the uphill lie factor, so perhaps lengthening the hole will return that feature and shot.  

It certainly isn't a bad hole.