Illustration of Augusta Alterations

[Ross Tuddenham]

There are many threads that chart the changes of Augusta National so this may not warrant a great deal of debate however I found the diagrams interesting and thought others may also.

This is a link to a golf digest article by Ron Whitten charting the changes over the years to the course.  He has utilised the expertise of a computer artist, Chris O'Riley, to produce diagrams of each hole which demonstrate key changes at points in time over the last 60 years or so.

I guess it would be good to hear from the experts on here whether or not this is an accurate portrayal of how the course has evolved.  The main point that I was left mulling over was that there seems to be little left of the original Mackenzie greens, both in terms of shape and internal contour.

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/georgia/augusta-changes

[Mark McKeever]

Thanks Ross.  Interesting to see the evolution.  I wish we could rewind and play the 1934 version of the course.

Mark

[MikeJones]

Thanks for the link Ross, I spend an hour or so today going through all the time lines on all the holes - interesting stuff.

[Adam Clayman]

wow wow wow

There's no end on how far this course can sink in one's estimation the more they learn.

[Robert Kimball]

Great stuff. I could spend hours looking at this kind of stuff.

I went immediately to the 8th hole. I remember seeing a picture of the green that one year in the 50s when Roberts turned it into a pancake and leveled the mounds. I don't think Jones was all too happy with that one.

The shrinking fairways and tree additions always sadden me (when I see old pictures), but that's just my personal opinion. Since I am not a member, I have no say (just opinions)!!  

Below is one of my favorite pictures ever on GCA and I use it as my desktop background. Goodness, look at all that room!!


Photo Credit: John Stiles.

Thanks, Rob

[Rick Shefchik]

That's the must useful inter-active graphic I've ever seen, on any subject. If only that information was available for all courses, or even just some of the more prominent courses.

The documentation of ANGC's changes is obviously obsessive, but then, so are the changes. It's hard to imagine that smart people could start with a Mackenzie masterpiece and then change so many greens, bunkers and plant so many trees, seemingly at the whim of the next prominent player or architect that has dinner with the club president.

[Carl Rogers]

One could spend days studying this.

Isn't the sad reality that in as much as everyone hailed the Mac original design as wonderful, why if that wonderful did it "require" so many revisions and revisions of the revisions?

Clearly, Jones & Roberts did not have a real commitment to the original design ... and that led to a lot of adjustments.

Was the original course one of Mac's lesser efforts?  Was CP, CD or RM a lot better from day one?

[John Shimony]

I used the GD graphics to supplement my reading of the Wexler article.  It helps to have a visual reference for Wexler's narrative.  He took into consideration technology and length, the width that was favored by Bob Jones, what positive or at least neutral changes have been made, and a mereiad of other small subtle changes in grading and mounding to come to a very reasoned opinion that the course with a little more width (7, 11, 15 and 17) and a few bunker rearrangements could blend the best of the original intent with the need for a course that can withstand modern championship level golfers.  

[Adam Clayman]

Carl. Your post made me chuckle. The majority of these changes can be best described as whims of the day. I'd even argue the putting in the greenside or front bunkers assists the modern player because they remove the visual deception by creating a frame of reference. They also play right into the one dimensional aerial mindset that people now think is the only way to play the game. The removal of those great shapes in some of those greens is criminal. Suggesting this was a weak effort by tyhe good doctor is preposterous. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ross,

Thanks, that's a neat interactive.

I do question its accuracy.

Not surprisingly, I'm going to disagree with almost everyone.

Understanding ANGC's role in golf, that of hosting one of golf's majors, each and every year, primarily for the PGA Tour Pros and best International Pros, the course was fated to change.

Imagine if you will, the course in its 1934 configuration, hosting the 2011 Masters.

24-30 under par would win.  Then you'd all be complaining that The Masters can't be a major because the venue is not challenging.
Not worthy of being deemed a major.

The course had to change to meet the equipment and skill levels of those competing.

However, for the members, the course has pretty much retained its original yardage, except for  a few holes like # 10

Think about that.
A course that's remained static, yardage wise, since 1934.
What other course can make that claim.

Once  you realize that ANGC serves two distinctly different masters, and their two distinctly different games, then and only then will you realize that the course had to change to remain relevant.  It had to change in order to continue to challenge the best golfers in the world.

As to the individual changes, some support them, some oppose them and some are neutral.

But, on balance, considering the enormous difficulty in serving two distinctly different masters, ANGC has done a wonderful job.

My only criticism lies within the realm of width.
One would think, that with the resources at their disposal that they could have employed the concept of elasticity in that area.
But, the time of year that the tournament is held probably works against that.
[/size]

[Tom_Doak]

Drawings upon drawings do little for me.

I actually opened this thread because I thought you were referring to Geoff Shackelford's piece in this week's GOLF WORLD ... rewriting history to show how Jack Nicklaus would have failed to win The Masters in 1986 had the course changes been implemented before then.  I think it's the best article Geoff has ever written, because it gets away from whining about the changes and all those same old arguments, and only talks about how they really come into play.

[Ross Tuddenham]

Drawings upon drawings do little for me.

Is this because you don't feel that a drawing can convey how the hole would actually play?

Pat

I have no idea how many rounds are played on the course outside the masters but you would assume the main aim of the club is to maintain the standing and reputation of the masters.  Given this then changing the course is a necessity.  Whether there would have been other ways to make changes and produce similar scores is open to debate.

 If you had to make changes to a course to make it modern player proof where would you look for evidence for what works?  The PGA tour courses and what features provide the greatest challenge for the players.  It is a safe bet to apply the tougher features of PGA tour courses and no surprise to see the course become more PGA tour esq rather than MacKenzie like.

[jeffwarne]

Drawings upon drawings do little for me.

Is this because you don't feel that a drawing can convey how the hole would actually play?

Pat

I have no idea how many rounds are played on the course outside the masters but you would assume the main aim of the club is to maintain the standing and reputation of the masters.  Given this then changing the course is a necessity.  Whether there would have been other ways to make changes and produce similar scores is open to debate.

 If you had to make changes to a course to make it modern player proof where would you look for evidence for what works?  The PGA tour courses and what features provide the greatest challenge for the players.  It is a safe bet to apply the tougher features of PGA tour courses and no surprise to see the course become more PGA tour esq rather than MacKenzie like.

Referring to that aeriel.
If Mackenzie was so enamored with the "no trees" look,
why did he leave intact virtually every stand of mature trees (see 18 chute, #2 and 8, #10,1,9)
,,,and leave(or plant) all those saplings on 17, 15, 8 and many others
seems like if I was hoping to preserve maximum "width" I'd do the simple task of eliminating a few saplings which are only destined to grow.

Unless he had said,"this course will be great once a few of these saplings grow up"

It's great these articles get written because the naysayers will have something to read while the rest of us watch The Masters.
Nothing like it.

[Carl Rogers]

Carl. Your post made me chuckle. The majority of these changes can be best described as whims of the day. I'd even argue the putting in the greenside or front bunkers assists the modern player because they remove the visual deception by creating a frame of reference. They also play right into the one dimensional aerial mindset that people now think is the only way to play the game. The removal of those great shapes in some of those greens is criminal. Suggesting this was a weak effort by tyhe good doctor is preposterous.  

Adam,
This Amateur, me, is only trying to understand the motivations behind the revisions to the 1934 course.  And thus once starts to revise, when do you stop?
Is the course better for reversing the nines?
Were the ,now, 10th & 16th holes weak holes?
Were the greens of, now, 11 & 12 too low and subject to flooding from Raes Creek?

How does Perry Maxwell say no to Bobby Jones?

I actually find the need for mounds around and off to the side of the greens for greater patron viewing very natural.

[Adam Clayman]

Carl,
 I can't answer any of those. Patrick is the expert, not me, but, I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion that the final score would make the course look silly. After all, Dr. Mackenzie was a deception specialist. Since this is one of his last works, I found the statement that it might be one of his weaker efforts to be contrary to all the progress he had shown up to this point in his career. As an example, look at Ran's profile of the Jockey Club to get a perspective on how he used the interior mounding to great strategic, and playable affect.

All of these answers are unknowable but interesting to speculate on what might might of been. I can tell you that over my years learning on this website, ANGC, is the one course that has dropped the most in my estimation of greatness. Granted, it started pretty high because of it's annual exposure. And because I'm old, I was exposed to it before a lot of the softening.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl,
 I can't answer any of those. Patrick is the expert, not me, but, I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion that the final score would make the course look silly.

It would certainly diminish the concept of "challenging" which would automatically remove it as a Major.

After all, Dr. Mackenzie was a deception specialist.

Adam, there's NO deceiving PGA Tour Pros, especially when they play the course EVERY year.
There'd be no excitement in Drive & Wedge play, hole after hole and no one would enjoy watching putting on Bermuda that didn't stimp very high.

Since this is one of his last works, I found the statement that it might be one of his weaker efforts to be contrary to all the progress he had shown up to this point in his career. As an example, look at Ran's profile of the Jockey Club to get a perspective on how he used the interior mounding to great strategic, and playable affect.

ANGC remains a wonderful golf course, despite protestations to the contrary

All of these answers are unknowable but interesting to speculate on what might might of been. I can tell you that over my years learning on this website, ANGC, is the one course that has dropped the most in my estimation of greatness. Granted, it started pretty high because of it's annual exposure. And because I'm old, I was exposed to it before a lot of the softening.

Adam, I don't know that I'd use the term "softening" to describe the changes at ANGC.
# 10 sticks out most in my mind, followed by # 16.
Both holes became exponentially more difficult vis a vis the changes.