Which version of ANGC was the best?

[Niall C]

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.

That hole has always reminded me of a reverse Road hole in some ways. Particularly the way if you get tight round the corner you get the best approach to the green. Think of the creek as the Road hole bunker and the strategy is similar if not identical.

Niall

[Garland Bayley]

Specifically, here is what Golf Digest says.

"Trees planted a decade ago at the far corner of the dogleg now pinch the "banked turn" tee-shot landing area."

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

You have to select hole 13, and then select year 2011.

[BCrosby]

Garland -

I stand corrected. I do not think, however, the trees added had the effect of narrowing appreciably the playing corridor on the 13th. Criticisms of new trees have been focused elsewhere. If the GD drawing is correct, the new trees were mostly fill-ins off the playing lines among stands of trees that have been there for decades. To my eye, the fw seems to be about the same width as when Faldo made his famous shot there in '96. If it is more narrow, it is clearly not dramatically so.
 

Bob

[jeffwarne]

Garland -

I stand corrected. I do not think, however, the trees added had the effect of narrowing appreciably the playing corridor on the 13th. Criticisms of new trees have been focused elsewhere. If the GD drawing is correct, the new trees were mostly fill-ins off the playing lines among stands of trees that have been there for decades. To my eye, the fw seems to be about the same width as when Faldo made his famous shot there in '96. If it is more narrow, it is clearly not dramatically so.
 

Bob

Bob,
They have added new trees as the longer hitters were simply hitting it straight through the dogleg.
The trees you refer to have been there a long time (they've stuck a few more in there as well).
Agreed though that the hole has not been changed appreciably.

[Garland Bayley]

Depending on the accuracy of the GD drawings, the "tree gate" at 13 has been reduced in width to about 1/2 of what it was when Arnie picked the Masters to be a grand slam tournament.

[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?

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?

Newspaper articles?  Shocking.

Many articles pin him to redesign work on as many as 10 greens on the golf course.  I'm sure your view of the aerial pre/post Maxwell shows the contours of the green.

Nonetheless, there is an article in an Oklahoma newspaper on his life that has him consulting until his death (18 years after Mackenzie).

[Brock Peyer]

I read once that Byron Nelson drove the 7th green once, with that being said, I would love to see them move the tees WAY up on say Friday to a 340-360ish range and put the pin way up front right.  I think that would be fun to watch.  Somewhere I read that Crenshaw is hitting 7 to 5 iron in there now.

[jeffwarne]

I read once that Byron Nelson drove the 7th green once, with that being said, I would love to see them move the tees WAY up on say Friday to a 340-360ish range and put the pin way up front right.  I think that would be fun to watch.  Somewhere I read that Crenshaw is hitting 7 to 5 iron in there now.

Brock,
Why would watching them hit hrbrid or 3 iron -SW,   ... be fun to watch?
Daly used to bust driver up there 50-60 yards short when the hole was 360--left himself no shot
Why play the 3rd hole twice?

Now if they were to restore the green that was there in nelson's day, that might be interesting....

[Patrick_Mucci]

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?

Brock,

What few understand is that ANGC serves two (2) masters, on an annual basis.

The PGA and European Tour Pros and the members and their guests.

I don't know of another course that can fill that bill on a regular basis.

Any question about ANGC has to be in the "two masters" context.

[Tom MacWood]

Newspaper articles?  Shocking.

Many articles pin him to redesign work on as many as 10 greens on the golf course.  I'm sure your view of the aerial pre/post Maxwell shows the contours of the green.

Nonetheless, there is an article in an Oklahoma newspaper on his life that has him consulting until his death (18 years after Mackenzie).

18 years after Mackenzie? I have two 1936 letters from George Sargent the pro at East Lake to LW St. John the athletic director of OSU. In the first letter Sargent wrote, "Let me know what you think of Maxwell, in the meantime will have a talk with Bob Jones to see what he knows about him or if possibly he knows of anyone that could follow up McKenzie's work?" In the next letter Sargent wrote, "Talked to Bob Jones about your situation; he gave me the names of two men that were familiar with Dr. McKenzie's idea's (RTJ & Robert Hunter)...Also asked Bob about Maxwell, but he was not familiar with any of his work; so do not believe it would be well to consider him." Maxwell died in 1952. I'll be glad to send you copies of the letters if you have any doubts.

Obviously Jones did eventually learn about Maxwell, changed his opinion, and hired him, but I'm not aware of any changes beyond those in the late 30s. Could you give us more specific info regarding which ten greens and when? What is the source of the 18 year attribution?

[Jim Nugent]

Nonetheless, there is an article in an Oklahoma newspaper on his life that has him consulting until his death (18 years after Mackenzie).

Can you link the article or give us some way to look it up?  The history you linked earlier, in your post about the significant work Maxwell did for 18 years, talks about work in maybe two years.

AM designed #7 as similar to #18 at TOC.  By adding bunkers in front of the green, and a tree line down the left, Maxwell completely changed that.  I have no idea which hole is better. 

[JC Jones]

Fancy seeing you here, Jim.

For a minimum of the work accomplished by Maxwell in his initial two years working at ANGC, you can see Chris Clouser's 2006 Feature Interview.

For a source citing that he was a consultant at ANGC until he died (16 years, not 18 years my apologies), see here:

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/g/go007.html

[Sean_A]

Garland -

I stand corrected. I do not think, however, the trees added had the effect of narrowing appreciably the playing corridor on the 13th. Criticisms of new trees have been focused elsewhere. If the GD drawing is correct, the new trees were mostly fill-ins off the playing lines among stands of trees that have been there for decades. To my eye, the fw seems to be about the same width as when Faldo made his famous shot there in '96. If it is more narrow, it is clearly not dramatically so.
 

Bob

Bob

I thought the place where Phil played his straw shot last year previously untreed.  I also thought trees came in down the left in two phases with Phil's area being the quite recent second phase.  Does anybody know if this is actually the case?

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

Fancy seeing you here, Jim.

For a minimum of the work accomplished by Maxwell in his initial two years working at ANGC, you can see Chris Clouser's 2006 Feature Interview.

For a source citing that he was a consultant at ANGC until he died (16 years, not 18 years my apologies), see here:

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/g/go007.html

Your source does not mention anything about eighteen or sixteen years, and it is full of factual errors. RTJ began redesigning ANGC in 1947, so you might want back down your number further. As far as the laundry list Chris gave it does not seem to jive with what reports were at the time or David Owen's book. One of the other changes Maxwell made was the elimination of the principals nose at #11.

[jim_lewis]

The fairway on #13 has not been narrowed by the planting of trees on the corner of the dogleg. Large pine trees have stood there for at least 50 years. Smaller trees were added among the larger trees a few years ago. It was never a good idea to drive through the dogleg into the trees, but previously you might get lucky and have an opening or the ball might even go though the trees and out the other side. Ian Woosnam did just that on Sunday of his winning round and hit one of the best shots I have ever seen off the pine straw beyond the trees. Today, it is much less likely that you can get away with hitting into the trees because they are thicker. However, the fairway itself is unchanged. In other words, it you are going to reach the par 5 green in two, you need to hit a good tee shot.....as it should be. Phil's shot last year was the exception. If GD says anything different, they are wrong.

The only problem I have with the recently planted trees on the corner is that it makes it more difficult for the gallery to find a spot to follow the tee shots. My favorite viewing spot in all of golf is along the ropes at 13 where you can follow the tee shot around the corner and then the remaining shots into the green. The trees have eliminated some of the best spots. In fact, my biggest complaint about several of the changes on the course has been the elimination or reduction of some of the best viewing spots and traffic areas. The gallery can no longer get to the mounds on the right of 15, my second favorite viewing spot, and the new trees on the right of the 11th fairway interview with the gallery's view. I don't care if they make it tougher on the players, but they have also made it tougher on the gallery. Now that's a problem!

[BCrosby]

In response to a couple of questions to me, see Crusty Jim Lewis' and Jeff Warne's posts above. They nail the recent changes to the 13th.

Bob

[JC Jones]

Fancy seeing you here, Jim.

For a minimum of the work accomplished by Maxwell in his initial two years working at ANGC, you can see Chris Clouser's 2006 Feature Interview.

For a source citing that he was a consultant at ANGC until he died (16 years, not 18 years my apologies), see here:

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/g/go007.html

Your source does not mention anything about eighteen or sixteen years, and it is full of factual errors. RTJ began redesigning ANGC in 1947, so you might want back down your number further. As far as the laundry list Chris gave it does not seem to jive with what reports were at the time or David Owen's book. One of the other changes Maxwell made was the elimination of the principals nose at #11.

Well, unlike you, Chris hasn't proven to be a liar and a fraud so forgive me for believing his assessment over yours.

It is not "my source," it is an article that says he consulted at ANGC from the time Mackenzie died until the time Maxwell died (which was 18 years, sorry for springing the simple math on you).  Regardless of whether it was 18, 16 or 10 years, that is tangential to the actual point being made - nice diversion - which is Maxwell changed 10-11 holes and the work was anywhere from re-doing the green to re-doing the hole. 

[Jim Nugent]

For a source citing that he was a consultant at ANGC until he died (16 years, not 18 years my apologies), see here:

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/g/go007.html

The article says "Upon Mackenzie's death in 1934, Maxwell oversaw all redesign and construction work at Augusta National, until his death in 1952."  I'm pretty sure that is false.  To give one example, in 1948 Trent Jones completely redesigned #16, re-routing it and adding the pond.  In the GD article about the changes at ANGC, Ron Whitten says shortly after WWII Jones was invited to handle all changes at ANGC.  

Your other source, Chris Clouser's interview, also contradicts the article.  Clouser says Maxwell never saw ANGC till 1936.  He says Maxwell did his work in 1937 and 1938: he was hired to make the course harder for the pro's.  

It sounds to me like Maxwell did not spend anywhere near 18 years at ANGC.        

[JC Jones]

For a source citing that he was a consultant at ANGC until he died (16 years, not 18 years my apologies), see here:

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/g/go007.html

The article says "Upon Mackenzie's death in 1934, Maxwell oversaw all redesign and construction work at Augusta National, until his death in 1952."  I'm pretty sure that is false.  To give one example, in 1948 Trent Jones completely redesigned #16, re-routing it and adding the pond.  In the GD article about the changes at ANGC, Ron Whitten says shortly after WWII Jones was invited to handle all changes at ANGC.  

Your other source, Chris Clouser's interview, also contradicts the article.  Clouser says Maxwell never saw ANGC till 1936.  He says Maxwell did his work in 1937 and 1938: he was hired to make the course harder for the pro's.  

It sounds to me like Maxwell did not spend anywhere near 18 years at ANGC.        

I agree.  It sounds to me like he didn't either. 

That does not, however, change the fact that he did significant work out there (my main point).

[jeffwarne]

Garland -

I stand corrected. I do not think, however, the trees added had the effect of narrowing appreciably the playing corridor on the 13th. Criticisms of new trees have been focused elsewhere. If the GD drawing is correct, the new trees were mostly fill-ins off the playing lines among stands of trees that have been there for decades. To my eye, the fw seems to be about the same width as when Faldo made his famous shot there in '96. If it is more narrow, it is clearly not dramatically so.
 

Bob

Bob

I thought the place where Phil played his straw shot last year previously untreed.  I also thought trees came in down the left in two phases with Phil's area being the quite recent second phase.  Does anybody know if this is actually the case?

Ciao

There were 3-4 trees there before as long as I've been going (1974), but now there are more trees mixed in and more trees in the area "through" the dogleg.
A few players wee just bombing it straight past the trees on the right centerand having clear shots and they somewhat eliminated that option.
See Jim lewis post above.
the trees on 11 are especially gallery unfriendly and the pine beds on the newer trees are obnoxious.

By the way, a return of warm springlike weather this year will allow all the naysayers to see that the course has been restored to the proper length for today's player.
a cold, west wind of many of the recent years since the changes has perpetuated a lot of myths about the drama going away.
-16 wasn't proof enough last year, but don't worry. we'll see roars this year.
Ironing my shorts right now and setting the DVR

[V. Kmetz]

It's ironic that the presentation era of ANGC I would pick would be one for which I don't have a wealth of graphic or descriptive evidence.

I think I would pick 1946 - the year before RTJ lined up and then executed a vision for the course.

While I would still have to give up elements of strict purity - the original 10th green, the original 7th green, the principal's nose on 11, the starker geometric outlines of #4 green and the earliest presentation of #9's complex - I imagine the mid 40s had the last vestiges of rough hewn shag, open treeless ground game, and certainly the old 16th, which I bet was a fun little gimmicky pitch not unlike playing the 12th from halfway between 11 green and the current 12 tee.

I suppose, that given the deprivations of the WW II era and the club's earlier financial difficulties, it was the last time Augusta, though already tinkered, was still innocent and not so aware of itself as more than "Bob's retreat."

In so saying, I have no problem with the trim and self-aware presentation RTJ originated architecturally there, though it is the real leakage of Mackenzie and Jones' collaboration and the time when Augusta became more like we know it, than it was in concept and physical origin.  Those values have contributed to the necessary evolutions of GCA as much as they have had a desultory effect on principles, only recently re-championed.

I do not like that technology, proprietary hegemony and mass tournament spectacle has permitted the course to present itself radically different from one season to the next, but I don't play it and in some way I know the reaction to those artificial values causes real working architects to do it better on the courses I might play.

So for me it would probably be the 1945-47 era of the course, the course just came from being used for livestock grazing, still had the Mackenzian touch in its bunkering, contour and camouflage, still was rough around immensely broad edges and the first era of tinkering had a decade to settle in.

cheers

vk

[Tom MacWood]

Well, unlike you, Chris hasn't proven to be a liar and a fraud so forgive me for believing his assessment over yours.

It is not "my source," it is an article that says he consulted at ANGC from the time Mackenzie died until the time Maxwell died (which was 18 years, sorry for springing the simple math on you).  Regardless of whether it was 18, 16 or 10 years, that is tangential to the actual point being made - nice diversion - which is Maxwell changed 10-11 holes and the work was anywhere from re-doing the green to re-doing the hole. 

You are overstating Maxwell's involvement. He remodeled the course prior to the 1938 and 1939 Masters. Two years. He dramatically changed the 10th and 7th, the rest of the changes (10 holes seems a little high to me based on what was reported) were relatively minor. I see when your frustration level rises you resort to name calling. I anticipate you will be doing a lot of name calling in the future.

[Howard Riefs]

Golf Digest's Ron Whitten conducted a chat viaTwitter yesterday.  A few of his comments about ANGC to note:

"IMO worst design change to Augusta is removal of 6,900-yd. set of tees, where Hogan, Arnie, Jack & Tiger won Masters. History dozed away."

"The 11th hole at Augusta has had the most changes. The hole that has changed the most in terms of playability is the 7th."

"On the front nine, the 9th green is treacherous. On the back nine, if you don't make 4 on 13 you're losing ground."

When asked which ANGC is best: "Depends on whether you're a MacKenzie or a Fazio fan. MacKenzie fans would prefer the original...Fazio fans prefer today's."

"Augusta was a bomber's course in Jack's day too, but there were far fewer bombers."

[BCrosby]

Another painful reminder of why we need an independent architectural voice in golf's large circulation magazines.

Given all the controversies over changes to ANGC over the last decade, the worst change was the removal of the old back tees? Seriously? Not even a nod to the brouhaha caused by Fazio's changes?

And then there is the avoidance of saying anything that actually conveys information.

- MacK fans like the old version, Fazio fans like the new one.
- The 11th and the 7th were the most changed holes.
- There were fewer bombers back in Jack's day.
- The 9th is a tough green and the 13th is birdiable.

Surely we can do better.

Bob

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bob, "independent" is a very good word choice. As a thought experiment, instead of trying to do better than those posts try to do worse. The mind boggles.