[Matt_Ward]

Jim Lewis:

I never said ratings can be solely based on photos and second hand accounts. But Jim c'mon, the changes have been there for a bit of time now -- it's high time the ratings should reflect that.

Too many raters genuflect to ANGC -- but have little issue with other courses -- see what happened to Oak Hill / East, Inverness, et al -- that were done by TF and other architects who failed when upgrading such courses. Why does ANGC deserve special treatment?

Like I asked of others Jim -- help me understand -- how the pic of the 11th hole in the current GD is aligned to what ANGC is about?

You know the answer as well as I.

[Matt_Ward]

Michael H:

Please tell me how the 7th hole version at 365 yards was deficient and needed to be changed to the stupid hole one sees today?

Knock yourself out on the current hole and why it's a major improvement.

[Sean Leary]

Sean L:

The second cut is not an original intent of ANGC and the fairways -- have been narrowede considerably -- see the GD pic of the 11th hole now. Please outline for me why the changes were needed and how they line-up with what Jones / Mackenzie envisioned ? Also, think about the past changes that made considerable sense -- the 16th hole by RTJ -- the movement for a new tee to the 11th by RTJ after WWII.

The overreaction came about because of 3-4 people who hit long tee shots and it got some plenty upset. Never mind that what Tiger did there in '97 is no less what Nicklaus did in '65 -- frankly if one takes into account technology over the years the club they hit were roughly comparable.

Sean A:

Original intent comes from the actions of the two men (Jones and Mackenzie) who wanted a parkland version of TOC. They didn't want "second cuts," -- or the insertion of pine trees to bottleneck drive zones -- or the inclusion of back tees taken to the upteeenth degree.

If you can access the current version of GD -- please see the current pic of the existing 11th hole -- feel free to defend the existing hole and tell me how that version fits into what Jones / Mackenzie envisioned ?

The course had become too short for the best players in the world. Wedges into par 5's were NOT what Jones and Roberts had envisioned. The ball went straighter than at any time in history. They did what they thought they needed to to create the Major championship golf course that the course was built for FROM THE BACK TEES. I do not think the course has been changed that drastically from the member tees, where most of the membership plays from.

Would I like to see some of the the trees removed and the 1st cut removed? Yes. Do I think that it changes the quality of the course from top 5 to out of the top 10 or 30? No. But do I know, no because I haven't played it. To have the elasticity to lengthen so that if they get desired weather they can play it how they want it played  is a good thing for the tournament. They have runway tees and and can make it as long as they want. Conditions and hole locations are the key to scoring at the Masters. If they fairways are firm, the clubs that get hit are not much different than they were 25 years ago.

[Pete Lavallee]

Amen brother! But did you look at the picture of #11 in Golf Digest yet?

[Mike Hendren]

Michael H:

Please tell me how the 7th hole version at 365 yards was deficient and needed to be changed to the stupid hole one sees today?

Knock yourself out on the current hole and why it's a major improvement.

Where did I say that?  Come on Matt, you're too good a marksman to deploy this Ready, Fire, Aim approach.

Mike

[Matt_Ward]

Michael:

Anyone saying that ANGC is still a top ten course needs to explain and defend what was done by Hootie and his cohorts like TF.

Please tell me how successful the club was with the "new" 7th and 11th holes, to name just two.

If anyone think ANGC actually improved itself needs to speak up on what Hootie added to the course.

The invitation is there -- please knock yourself out.

[Mike Hendren]

Please tell me how successful the club was with the "new" 7th and 11th holes, to name just two.

Therein lies the problem, Matt - you keep naming just two.  (the 7th and 11th - not Fazio and Hootie). 

I believe my previous comments on this thread and others share your criticism of those two holes. 

And your default to Jones' and Mackenzie's intent to create an homage to The Old Course just doesn't hold up when you look at the changes Jones et al made within a few short years of The Good Doctor's death.

Mike

[Sean Leary]

Amen brother! But did you look at the picture of #11 in Golf Digest yet?

Pete,

I have not seen it yet, no. And from what I have seen I do not think it is an improvement whatsoever. I think they want that hole as an absolute ballbuster with a tight driving area, of which the course has very few. What is the yardage from the member tees, any idea?

[jim_lewis]

Matt:

I have not seen the photo of #11 in GD, and I won't be seeing it since I don't subscribe to the magazine. In any event, my rating is current and is based on seeing the course in person, not in a photo. Because of limited access, I think it will take time for any changes at ANGC to be reflected in ratings. However, it is noteworthy that the course has dropped in the GW rankings over recent years.

Do you have a personal vendetta against Hootie. Is it because you are a Gamecock and he is a Clemson Tiger? Where I come from that would be ample justification.

Jim

[Mark Pritchett]

Hootie Johnson played football for the University of South Carolina. 

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

With al due respect -- open your eyes !

The Masters is judged from the way the big boys play it -- not just the members alone. Hootie and his cohorts overplayed their hands because they got a major knot in their shorts when they see 3-4 people hit 9-iron or PW into the old 11th. It's not as if the old hole were giving away birdies. They screwed up with #11 and a host of other so-called improvements.

Let's be a bit more forthcoming with the blame -- shall we. You say equipment overpowered the old ANGC -- where's the proof in that? Check out the scores in the Masters in the years right after Tiger won in '97. Frankly, the guy had an unbelievable week so they then decide to Tiger proof and screw everyone else but Tiger in the process.

When you talk about the course itself -- check out the comments from the grand Masters like Jack, Player, Crenshaw and evem Watson who see the new Augusta in a far different light. They have overdosed on difficulty -- the proof of the pudding is when they need to soften the presentation for the weekend to get scoring lower.

Jim:

Mark spelled out Hootie is a Gamecock - so am I. No vendetta here at all. Why do you defend a guy who turned the course upside down? My God -- people throw TF under the bus when he bastardized Oak Hill / East and Inverness. Why do people at ANGC get a free pass from criticism?

That's a copout / re: the 11th hole -- check out the photo via GD online or break down and spend a few bucks and see it. The hole iis an EPIC disaster.

When was your rating done ? If you saw it in person -- were you eyes opened to the various changes made in the most recent of years? The course is not the same as it was prior to Tiger's first win in '97. Again, you dodge-balled what I asked -- how is the course better because of those changes. Can you answer that directly ?

In regards to the so-called rating numbers -- frankly the ratings are becoming more and more useless. The time lag indicates a glacial pace when it impacts the very elite courses -- ANGC did move down but it should have moved even further down in my book.

Jim, you are a respected guy in my book -- but ANGC has abandoned what it was -- the Dark side took over Anakin here.

Michael:

Here's a few others -- the stupid lengthening of #1 -- unnecesary and makes the fairway bunker on the right less relevant because people no longer can bomb it over if they flush it.

Please help me with the mowing of the grass backwards to keep roll down.

Beyond the 7th and 11th -- what was the theory for the new 15th hole ? Or the new 17th hole ? Or the expanded back tee for the 18th hole ? Take the new 5th -- the fairway bunkers on the left have less of a role because of the increased distance.

Shall I go on ?

One last thing -- ANGC under the Jones / Mackenzie kept things fairly close to the TOC desires -- fairway widths were there for years until the Hootie onslaight to be the April version of the US Open.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
JMO, but you are WAY too focused on the back tees and professional golfers in every argument you make about Augusta. The rating of the golf course has nothing to do with the Masters and for most raters is going to be from the regular tees, which probably don't get moved as frequently as the tips. It may be a weakness that Augusta only has two sets of tees from a flexibility standpoint, but in reality the course hasn't changed THAT much for regular play. #7 is still a shorter hole, and #11 still has the new trees you've pointed out. For me, that's not that big of a deal. Where they put the tees for the pros is a small issue for me, but its the large share of your argument.

If you don't enjoy the Masters as much, so be it. Save it for next month's argument.

[David Kelly]

I don't understand how people can rail about the integrity of the GW rankings and then rate courses they've never played as proof that GW is wrong.

[Jon Spaulding]

I don't understand how people can rail about the integrity of the GW rankings and then rate courses they've never played as proof that GW is wrong.

Perhaps excessive quantities of Adonis DNA and tigers blood?

Don't try to understand, once you do, you're one of them.......

[JC Jones]

The arguments for why ANGC does not deserve it's ranking have all been centered around what the course used to be and the changes that have been made.  Neither of these address the evaluation of the golf course itself, in it's present form.

I'd like for someone to address Bogey's points, directly.  So far the above two arguments have been non-responsive to those points and to why the golf course should be ranked differently than is, generally.

[Jim Nugent]

The arguments for why ANGC does not deserve it's ranking have all been centered around what the course used to be and the changes that have been made.  Neither of these address the evaluation of the golf course itself, in it's present form. 

Yes, I agree.  Even with the changes, maybe ANGC is still better.   

  I'd like for someone to address Bogey's points, directly.  So far the above two arguments have been non-responsive to those points and to why the golf course should be ranked differently than is, generally.

Bogey gave ANGC an overall score of 9.  I don't know what scale he used, but let's assume the Doak scale.  That would put ANGC in the 2nd echelon of Doak scale courses.  All the tens (13 of them?) would rank above it, and perhaps some 9s as well. 

[Matt_Ward]

JC:

Do you not get it?

The aura and fanfare of ANGC drives plenty of people to automatically convey rock star status to to the course.

Have you really seen the changes and what the comments from the key players I mentioned and how they have seen the course change from what it was to what you see toda.

Does any of that matter or do you think the Masters / ANGC kool-aid is just that strong to not makie any of that matter.

Jim:

How does second cut, narrowing drive zones, addition of pine trees, cutting the grass backwards to eliminate roll and then adding inane tee lengths make the course better ?

You say "maybe ANGC's still better." Define better and please outline how the existing changes completely go in the opposite direction to what Jones and Mackenze longed believe.

David Kelly:

Be sure to say the same thing to Doak who rated courses in CG, and anyone else of similar sort, simply from having walked them.

If you are saying walking a course has no place in assessing a course then that should apply to all -- for consistency correct ?

Jon S:

"Adonis" -- really. Then tell me if you see walking a course has no real meaning -- if you see it as play alone then please say as much and we can apply that standard to everyone here.

Andy:

You missed my point -- even for regular play the second cut is still there -- the narrowing drive corridors are stiill there. They have changed the course -- on the flip side what the big boys have played has even been changed more when you factor all the new tees and other related elements. None of that matters to you? OK -- be sure to apply that same standard to any course you review when changed. ANGC gets a free pass from way too many people here who otherwise would be throiwng other top rated courses under the bus.

[Scott Warren]

Matt,

Have all your walks around ANGC been behind the ropes? Or have you walked the fairways and stood on the greens?

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
The point really is what's there now, regardless of how it got there, as others have said.  I have never, and will never, rate a golf course based on how touring professionals play it--that's silly. I would certainly consider placement of the back tees. And my impression is that the changes don't affect regular play nearly as much as you'd like others to believe. Its not like the vast majority of the corridors are anywhere near narrow for regular play. Changes to a golf course should never be ignored, but you also shouldn't overreact to them.

Point O'Woods is perhaps a better example of changes. They've made quite a few over the years, including the destruction of the 9th hole which was easily the best on the course. As a result its fallen out of the Digest 100 Greatest and now out of the GolfWeek Classlc list. I loved the old course, but can understand why its stature has fallen.

[jim_lewis]

Matt:

I do not defend Hootie. I just enjoy picking at you. I also knew he was a Gamecock. Just wondering if you knew too. As you know, there have been many changes at Augusta National, some good, some bad. Many were made before Hootie and many after. Many architects have been involved. I just notice that you seem to focus primarily on Hootie.

Anyway, most of us can read and understand your points the first time you make them. It is not necessary for your to repeat them.....and repeat them. If you want the ratings of any course to change, please don't introduce a photo as justification for the change. No rater worth his salt is going to change his rating (either up or down) based on a photo. A case in point is Pinehurst #2.  I think most are impressed with the recent changes at #2 based on photos. I expect that raters will wait until they have seen the course in person before updating their ratings. I predict that most will then up their rating of #2, but, hopefully, not before. Therefore ii may (and should) take a couple of years before the recent changes impact the ranking of #2 even though access is easy.

[Jim Franklin]

Jim
Alotian in your top ten..could you elaborate why you hink that particular Fazio course warrants a top ten above some of his other works.
I thought the course was okay but not nearly as impressed as you.
As such another viewpoint is lawys appreciated...sure I may have missed something.
Thank you

Michael -I have been out of the office and no time to respond until now. When I played The Alotian, I found some of the holes much more strategic than most of Fzios courses. Hug a bunker for a better angle and closer approach or play safe and have a much longer approach on several holes. I found the fairways provided some good contours that made players have to think about the shot they are going to play. I didn't think the greens were outrageous and offered good recovery opportunities. It is certainly a difficult piece of property and I really enjoyed my day there. There was not the containment mounding he is so famous for either. It may not be Top 10 modern for anyone else but me, but that's okay with me.

[Phil McDade]

I understand a need to change with the times and technology but it has gone way to far.  The course was at its prime in the 80s in 90s in my opinion.  Then Augusta National got scared that their course was being overpowered which I really dont believe to be the case in reality.  Tiger ripped it apart one year (1997).  No one else was close to him that year.  So what?  Just because one man plays really well all of a sudden they called in the bulldozers and planted more trees.  All courses need 'tweaking' but ANGC got a bit carried away. 

Tony:

Those involved in the Masters set-up say it was more Mickelson's length -- particularly a wedge into #11 -- that drove them to make the changes at Augusta, and not as much Tiger's -18 in '97.

Augusta National has always been tweaked for the Masters. The notion that it has played, in tournament conditions, nearly identically from its inception to 1997 is, I think, misguided.

For the record, in the 1980s, the course had only two winners finish at -10 or lower -- Seve (playing maybe his best golf ever; he was leading by 10 strokes going into the back nine on Sunday before letting some strokes go) at -13 in 1980, and Crenshaw in 1984 at -11. The average winning score in the 1980s -- absent those two years -- was -6.2, a pretty stringent test of par. Of course, many golf fans fondly recall those tournaments, because of exciting finishes (three playoffs, the Mize chip-in to top Norman, Lyle out of the bunker on 18, Nicklaus' back-nine charge), but the scores weren't all that low.

Yes, the average winning score in the 1990s dropped noticeably -- -11.5 on average was the winning score. I'd suggest three reasons (in no particular order) -- ball and club technology, the rise and depth of top-flight international players like Faldo, Woosnam, Olazabal, and Langer (which deepened the Masters field to a much greater extent than it was during the 1970s and 1980s), and an unusual run of benign weather conditions, that produced nearly ideal scoring conditions (seriously -- Augusta has had some very tough weather conditions the past decade, and it had a bunch in the 1960s and 1970s).

I'd argue those who want the great ying-and-yang of the Masters -- birdies and eagles possible, bundled (often in the same hole!) with the possibility of bogey or worse -- should look at the last two years of the tournament. I'd suggest those in charge of setting up the Masters, after the initial getting-used-to-the-changes phase for the pros, has worked out -- -12 and -16 the past two years.

[Anton]

Great quote from Jack Nicklaus regarding the changes at Augusta

Q: Speaking of the Masters, what are your thoughts on how Augusta National has been set up in recent years?

JN: Well, I think that Augusta is not the same golf course that I grew up on. Bobby Jones' philosophy was giving you space off the tee; if you put it in the right side of the fairway, you ended up getting the right angle to the green. It was a great members' golf course. All they did was hide the pins and move the tees back, and they had the Masters.

Well, that doesn't work today. The game has changed so much, the golf ball goes so far, that Augusta had to change the philosophy of the golf course. I don't know whether it would be Jones' philosophy or not, but they had to change the philosophy.

They had the opportunity to bring in a golf ball that wouldn't go as far. I think they did the right thing in not putting themselves above the game of golf. They went in and changed the golf course to try to make it modern with today's competition. Yes, it changed the golf course, but yes, we're playing a different game. And the golf course that they've got today is a great golf course. It's a terrific golf course. It's a demanding golf course; it's demanding off the tee, it's demanding on the iron shots. The greens are the same greens. They've lengthened the golf course to try to get a comparison of what the golf ball goes today as opposed to what it went 20 years ago.

It's not the same course, but do I like it? I think it's a wonderful golf course.

[Adam Clayman]

The potential upside to the precipitous fall of ANGC in the rankings is that the club will do an about face on how they present the course.

If in the next 5 years, changes are made that would undo the Tiger proofing, the rankings will be the impetus, if not the catalyst for the change.

[PCCraig]

Matt,
The point really is what's there now, regardless of how it got there, as others have said.  I have never, and will never, rate a golf course based on how touring professionals play it--that's silly. I would certainly consider placement of the back tees. And my impression is that the changes don't affect regular play nearly as much as you'd like others to believe. Its not like the vast majority of the corridors are anywhere near narrow for regular play. Changes to a golf course should never be ignored, but you also shouldn't overreact to them.

Point O'Woods is perhaps a better example of changes. They've made quite a few over the years, including the destruction of the 9th hole which was easily the best on the course. As a result its fallen out of the Digest 100 Greatest and now out of the GolfWeek Classlc list. I loved the old course, but can understand why its stature has fallen.

Andy:

Can you explain the "destruction" of the 9th at the Point? In my opinion, the 9th is much much better than what it used to be with all the trees. In fact, I think the course could stand to take out 1000's of trees. There is actually some nice movement in the land there with some neat natural landforms, but you don't see them under all the trees and growth.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()