Which version of ANGC was the best?

[Brock Peyer]

With all the great reviews that the restoration/changes at Pinehurst #2 has gotten and with all the complaining about the current ANGC, which version of Augusta was the best one?  Would it be considered a great course if it were restored to it's original design? 

If you don't like the current Augusta, what would you change?

[Mark Chaplin]

It may or may not be considered a great course if returned to it's 1930s design however it would not be able to host a modern major.

[JC Jones]

If it was returned to its original design we would have to resurrect Maxwell to come and fix things again.

[Tom MacWood]

If it was returned to its original design we would have to resurrect Maxwell to come and fix things again.

How did Maxwell fix ANGC?

[JR Potts]

Speaking just as a fan watching the course and the tournament on TV and studying the changes as presented on this site and by Golf Digest, I have to think that  the 1998 version is the best for today's game...both pro and amateur.

[Garland Bayley]

If it was returned to its original design we would have to resurrect Maxwell to come and fix things again.

How did Maxwell fix ANGC?

Pay no attention to Jason. He is just blowing his usual smoke again.

[Garland Bayley]

...
If you don't like the current Augusta, what would you change?

Do something about those ugly white bath tubs.

Get rid of the ponds and return Rae's creek to its natural size location and flow.

Get rid of the narrowing trees.

It used to be that #13 was one of the greatest holes. Now it is just like playing at Sahalee, which Tom Doak called 18 holes of tree gates.

[Matthew Rose]

The 1980s version is the one I prefer to think of.

[MikeJones]

I like the version from the 1980's but that has more to do with the ball than the course.

Garland mentioned that 13 'used' to be a great hole. I still think it IS a great hole but unfortunately a drawn 3 wood leaves a mid iron into the green for these guys now and so much of the drama has been lost.

[JC Jones]

If it was returned to its original design we would have to resurrect Maxwell to come and fix things again.

How did Maxwell fix ANGC?

Pay no attention to Jason. He is just blowing his usual smoke again.

   Its not like didn't do significant work out there for 18 years.....

For some history, see http://www.augusta.com/stories/2010/04/05/mas_572492.shtml

[Tom MacWood]

If it was returned to its original design we would have to resurrect Maxwell to come and fix things again.

How did Maxwell fix ANGC?

Pay no attention to Jason. He is just blowing his usual smoke again.

   Its not like didn't do significant work out there for 18 years.....

For some history, see http://www.augusta.com/stories/2010/04/05/mas_572492.shtml

18 years? Where did you come up with that? To my knowledge he was there one year, 1937. And of those changes I would say #10 was an improvement (though I do like the design of the old 10th) and #7 was not an improvement. I also have my doubts about the changes to the greens at #1 and #14. Early photos of the 14th green are more or less identical to today's green. You might want check your facts before making bold assertions.

[Mark McKeever]

I think it would be really neat to return it closer to the original design.  Like stated above, I don't know how the tournament would hiold up today using yesterday's golf course.

Mark

[JC Jones]

18 years? Where did you come up with that? To my knowledge he was there one year, 1937. And of those changes I would say #10 was an improvement (though I do like the design of the old 10th) and #7 was not an improvement. I also have my doubts about the changes to the greens at #1 and #14. Early photos of the 14th green are more or less identical to today's green. You might want check your facts before making bold assertions.

How much of the above is just stuff you made up?

[Carl Rogers]

With the revisions on the revisions that got revised, at what point in time can you refer to?

And was there ever enough documentation at the various timelines?

[Garland Bayley]

I like the version from the 1980's but that has more to do with the ball than the course.

Garland mentioned that 13 'used' to be a great hole. I still think it IS a great hole but unfortunately a drawn 3 wood leaves a mid iron into the green for these guys now and so much of the drama has been lost.

I think if Fazio (the current resident GCA) were to open ANGC today as a new design, the 13th would be roundly criticized on this board for being a right angle dogleg around trees with a narrowing to practically single file to get around the dogleg. The only thing it would be good for is to show replays of Lefty hitting in on the green from out of the trees.

[BCrosby]

I think if Fazio (the current resident GCA) were to open ANGC today as a new design, the 13th would be roundly criticized on this board for being a right angle dogleg around trees with a narrowing to practically single file to get around the dogleg. The only thing it would be good for is to show replays of Lefty hitting in on the green from out of the trees.

This is wrong at so many levels I am speechless.

Bob

[Garland Bayley]

I think if Fazio (the current resident GCA) were to open ANGC today as a new design, the 13th would be roundly criticized on this board for being a right angle dogleg around trees with a narrowing to practically single file to get around the dogleg. The only thing it would be good for is to show replays of Lefty hitting in on the green from out of the trees.

This is wrong at so many levels I am speechless.

Bob

Bob,

Please take your time to regain your breath, and then "speak". I am interested in reading about the wrongness.

EDIT.

The fairway narrows to 26 yards as you approach the landing zone. Is that the part I am wrong about?
Perhaps you think I exaggerated by call 83 degrees a right angle?

[BCrosby]

Garland -

Life is short. So I'll be brief. No one should spend much time debating with you (or anyone else) who thinks that: (a) the 13th at ANGC is a bad hole, (b) that the turn in the fw narrows down to single file corridor, and (c) that the only lasting memory we will have of play there will be PM's shot last year.

Do me a favor. Promise me you won't let the facts or a minimal grasp of history induce you to change your mind about the 13th. To miss the hole's greatness - especially for the reasons you give - is delightfully perverse. 

Bob   

 

[Garland Bayley]

Garland -

Life is short. So I'll be brief. No one should spend much time debating with you (or anyone else) who thinks that: (a) the 13th at ANGC is a bad hole, (b) that the turn in the fw narrows down to single file corridor, and (c) that the only lasting memory we will have of play there will be PM's shot last year.

Do me a favor. Promise me you won't let the facts or a minimal grasp of history induce you to change your mind about the 13th. To miss the hole's greatness - especially for the reasons you give - is delightfully perverse.  

Bob  

 

I didn't say it was a bad hole. I said it would be roundly criticized here if it was a "new" Fazio opening. That is an assessment of the general feelings on this board for Fazio more than a particular assessment of the hole. Furthermore, since fairways narrowed by trees are almost universally criticized here, and right angle doglegs around trees get a similar if not as severe a treatment here, those Fazio critics would have sufficient fodder for a hey day of criticism.

Finally, since the hypothetical was it was a new course with no history, history has nothing to do with it.

EDIT: Would you not admit that it has lost some of its luster with the addition of the trees that narrow the fairway? Of course, the new golf ball has not helped it keep its luster either.

[Ian Andrew]

Garland,

I don't buy the arguement.

It's the best par five I know and I'm not even a fan of the tree line on the left, the latest green contours or the bunker style.
But that doesn't matter, it's still brilliant because of the way it uses the land and hazard.

I think we over-think things here some times - and I definately include myself in that group.

[Anthony Butler]

Anyone wishing to debate  the merits of ANGC especially the width of the playing corridors, should check out these flyovers on ESPN:

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/masters11/news/story?id=6289311

Even though  my last visit was in 1997, and did not occur via helicopter I was stunned at how narrow some of these holes now appear. Only the 15th seems to have the playing width that Mackenzie and Jones might have envisaged. Even there, the approach angles have effectively been throttled past the landing area by a stand of trees on the left.

Even though the work 'suffering' hardly applies to members of Augusta National, in some ways their enjoyment of the course has taken a hit due to the demands of the tournament.

The only thing I was pleasantly surprised to see is very few, if any, trees have been installed near the putting surfaces.

[BCrosby]

Garland -

Though many trees have been added at ANGC, no trees were added to the 13th. The trees that PM hit through last year have been there since I started visiting the course, which is longer ago than I want to contemplate in public.

Bob  

[Tom MacWood]

18 years? Where did you come up with that? To my knowledge he was there one year, 1937. And of those changes I would say #10 was an improvement (though I do like the design of the old 10th) and #7 was not an improvement. I also have my doubts about the changes to the greens at #1 and #14. Early photos of the 14th green are more or less identical to today's green. You might want check your facts before making bold assertions.

How much of the above is just stuff you made up?

None of it was made up, although my opinion (old vs new) are obviously my opinions. Our opinions are our original thoughts, at least mine are, and this case my opinion is based on studying the designs of the 7th and 10th.

As far as the 1937 changes are concerned the information comes from a couple of contemporaneous articles from January 1938, one from the Augusta paper written by Robert E. Barlow and the other from the Chicago Tribune written by Charles Bartlett. They both basically say the same thing: the 10th green was relocated, and the 5th, 7th and 17th greens were changed, basically softened, to remove the abruptness of the 'sand dune' contours. I'll send you the articles if you'd like.

Where did you come up with the idea that Maxwell was fixing ANGC for eighteen years?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I don't buy the arguement.

It's the best par five I know and I'm not even a fan of the tree line on the left, the latest green contours or the bunker style.
But that doesn't matter, it's still brilliant because of the way it uses the land and hazard.

I think we over-think things here some times - and I definately include myself in that group.

I would argue that the use of the land and the hazard is a fairly common template that can be found in many locations. I think the brilliant part was how the hole was made to match the playing of the game from Bobby Jones up until Tiger Woods and the "improved" ball hit the scene. Since then compromises to the hole have been made to try to preserve that brilliance. Those compromises simply don't preserve all of the brilliance.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland -

Though many trees have been added at ANGC, no trees were added to the 13th. The trees that PM hit through last year have been there since I started visiting the course, which is longer ago than I want to contemplate in public.

Bob  

The record of changes to the course detailing each hole that Golf Digest put up on their website disagrees with you on whether trees were added to the 13th. If Golf Digest was sloppy in that history, then I am wrong.