ANGC is Ugly?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Not as long as you have been an idiot Patrick.

[Sean_A]

Adrian

If its any consolation, I don't care for the bunker style in the least.  My general rule is sandy soil -  flash/revetted bunker, parkland soil -  grass face. I really dislike the circular pine straw areas.  I also think the course is too hilly for ideal for golf, but the greens are a marvel.  

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Not as long as you have been an idiot Patrick.

I think those reading our posts can easily determine who the idiot really is.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adrian

If its any consolation, I don't care for the bunker style in the least.  My general rule is sandy soil -  flash/revetted bunker, parkland soil -  grass face. I really dislike the circular pine straw areas. 

I also think the course is too hilly for ideal for golf, but the greens are a marvel.  


Sean,

The course is brilliant, as is the use of the land and routing.

The method employed to transition between the elevation changes is marvelous, and, the course doesn't play hilly.

[William_G]

Terry-What about the restrooms? Are those beautiful or what?
[/quote]

hahaha, best restrooms at any golf event, LOL!

[Chip Gaskins]

The cart paths are green asphalt.

Cart paths?  I missed those evidently?  Terry where are they or are you just making an overall statement at the attention to detail...

[Grant Saunders]

Augusta National during Masters time is the one golf course I want to visit more than anywhere else.

There is something about watching the event year after year at the same venue to the same pin placements that makes you feel intimately familiar with the course. Its fun to watch holes like 16 on Sunday and remember Tigers amazing chip in there a few years ago or Jacks tee shot to within a foot during his win in 86. I dont get even close to this sense of connection with any other event or course.

As a golfer, I would love nothing more than to play the course.

As a golf fan, I would love nothing more than to attend the tournament.

As a greenkeeper, I would love to visit their maintenance facility and see first hand the operation that I've heard so much about.

As a fan of the games history, I would love experience the atmosphere of the place and think of all the great moments that have occurred there.

I appreciate that its not to everyone's taste and people feel the "perfection" they strive for is unrealistic. Coming from a golf course with a staff of 2, I personally would enjoy even for just a short time to experience that level of conditioning that is achievable with practically unlimited resources.

I envy those on here who have had the pleasure of experiencing the course first hand. I know, should I ever have the privilege of going there myself, that I would experience many sleepless nights leading up to it. The anticipation would be unbelievable.

Augusta is my Disneyland.

[Jason Walker]

Adrian-
with all due respect, you're just wrong, wrong, wrong.  As snobby as this may sound, you should almost not be allowed to comment on ANGC until you're been there.  The scale of seeing it in person puts everything in perspective, playing or spectating.

[MikeJones]

One person's 'ugly' is another's 'beautiful'

I don't think you necessarily have to have been to a place to pass comment on it's aesthetics. I've never been to ANGC but I like the way it looks. It's so different to most courses, almost like abstract art with it's curves and swoops and oh...it makes for one hell of a golf tourney.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Grant,

One of the neat things about visiting ANGC is our familiarity with the course vis a vis years of viewing on TV, yet, as familiar as we are from watching it on TV, there's a huge element of surprise when actually walking the grounds.

The elevation changes are startling, as are the slopes and contours which get flattened on TV.

In addition, the visuals, from the golfer's eye, are different from the visuals from the camera towers.

Remember, we're used to watching the best golfers in the world play this course, they have skill sets far beyond ours.

One of the diciest shots is the third shot into # 15 when you get closer and closer to the pond on your second shot.
The fairway slopes down and to the left and that green looks smaller and smaller, in fact, at one point, the putting surface comes close to disappearing.  And, the further you lay back with your second, the longer and more ominous looking your approach since you see all of the water on three sides from the higher elevation and most of us don't hit those towering irons like the Pros, so it's a harder shot than you're led to believe from watching on TV.

Watching on TV doesn't give one a true appreciation or understanding of the depth of some of the bunkers, like the one's on # 5.

The slope of some of the greens is startling as well, such as # 2 and # 3.

It's truely a wonderful golf course, one that's fun to play day in and day out.

And, despite the narrowing of the fairways, it's still a very WIDE golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

One person's 'ugly' is another's 'beautiful'

I don't think you necessarily have to have been to a place to pass comment on it's aesthetics. I've never been to ANGC but I like the way it looks. It's so different to most courses, almost like abstract art with it's curves and swoops and oh...it makes for one hell of a golf tourney.

Mike, many forget that this is a unique telecast, showtime if you will.  If there's a double edged sword in the telecast it's that there tends to be a focus on the surroundings rather than the playing surfaces and playing corridors.  If the cameras direct your eye toward shrub and flower beds you'll surely miss the substance of the golf course.

[Grant Saunders]

Patrick

Thank you for sharing your first hand experiences of the course.

Im not sure if its HD tv or if they hay employed some new camera angles but for the first time I am really getting the sense of elevation and undulation of the property. I imagine though, as you say, it still wouldnt prepare you for how much movement people who have been there say the place has.

For those that have played it, how long did you know in advance you were going to be playing there and what was it like counting down the days.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Grant,

One of the things I noticed this year is that the cameras seem to be more behind the golfer for their second shot into # 15, so you tend to get a better sense of what the golfer sees.

The anticipation is exhilarating...... every time you know you're going to play ANGC.
You start to visualize how you'll play the course, hole by hole, before you get there.

But, nothing prepares you for the elevation changes and pitch of the fairways.

# 13 is a great example.  You can hit a great tee shot, have a good shot at hitting the green in two, but, the ball is substantially above your feet, a super hook lie.  But, if you had your druthers, you'd probably prefer to hit a high fade.
Try that shot when the ball is a foot or so above your feet.

It is such a special golf course and such a special experience.

GOLF is KING

It's a golfer's paradise

[Scott Warren]

Mac:

I am curious as to your thoughts on Cypress Point's current bunkering.  Similiar feelings regarding Augusta National's?

Do you mean the placement or the aethetics?

[jeffwarne]

I have not read any ANGC threads but I have grown more and more 'unfond' of it as time has past. I particularly think the bunkers are too large and there is an uglyness about the look of some of the greens and their complexes and the way things sit. I have not been there but several holes seem from my TV impression to be less visible from the approach shot than they might be with a different design, in particular am I right in thinking greens 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17 and 18 are semi blind. I wonder why this course is hailed as highly, has my GCA education on this site pickled my mind? There are elements of greatness but I can see weakness. How do others feel?

Adrian,
Like the Old Course (or maybe any course) ANGC looks very different on TV.
This year in particular in walking the course 4-5 times I took a particularly critical eye in considering all the negative commentary about ANGC regarding the changes to the course.
The aeriel shots filmed weeks ago are particularlly unattractive as they highlight the silly pine beds that are slowly merging/disappearing.
When out there live, they are hardly noticeable.
I've spent the last 2 days out there and am stunned by the width that still exists (this was my 38th masters).
To hear people on this site, you'd think it was overly narrow and unstrategic-it's anything but that.(15 is PLENTY wide and the dives that go left leave a VERY interesting option)
3 is a fascinating hole-I've watched players drive short left of the bunker and I watched Bubba drive it virtually on the fringe today.
he made 6 there yesterday attempting to lay up.
You actually have to execute on 17 now-players didn't blow it right or left for an angle, they simply could hit it anywhere previously and then hit a wedge on.
After years of thinking they ruined 7, i actually think it is now a better hole for the modern player.
They're(the bombers) still hitting wedges if they choose to hit driver (no not Ben crenshaw)

Anyone watching now who thinks they should not have lengthened it is nuts-15 and 13 are interesting again(despite both being into the wind)Nice to see a range of clubs from 3 wood to short iron on both, and some laying up.

I'm even coming around to the new trees out thee as I've seen some fascinating recoveries the last few days that would've been wide open shots from short grass years ago.

I never understand why gorse(from which there is no recovery) gets a pas on a links course, yet a few pines are unacceptable on a parkland course.
Even the bunkers, which do look ugly on TV, make perfect sense out there on the course as they are deep and are quite attractive in person..
The idea that a few capes or bays on bunkers would make them better is just well, groupthink.

I saw a great picture of #1 tee today with the old centerline bunker. Cool, but what caught my eye was the first tee being under the shade of several pines(LEFT of the tee) about the size of the ones recently added to the course.
What I'm basically saying is, if you're analyzing the course from your TV, you're missing a lot-same as if you tried to analyze St. Andrews from TV and the air.

What's great about the course is the players know there is usually room for recovery, allowing them to be aggressive with shaping their tee shots(the noteable exceptions being left on 11 and now 18. Other than that you can have at it, but always find the ball-even if it takes all of your skills to recover.

One observation is that I;ve seen the players hitting irons extraordinary distances, often over greens. I attribute that to the heat and humidity. It's been cold the last few years and the ball hasn't carried as well.

As a tournament course, the course seems to be perfect.
Since the members seem to like playing there as well, why can't we just enjoy it?

My only comment would be that the second cut saves lot of shots rather than exacting a penalty (no doubt the members like that)
and yeah I could limb up a pine or two and chop down about 30-50 of the new ones so it's not quite so thick and the gallery could look thru a bit easier.

[Sean Leary]

Jeff,

Was the tee up on 7 today? Seemed like it.

[Scott Warren]

Sean L,

I think Day had 115 in, so you'd imagine so.

[Jim Nugent]

Jeff, great post.  What do you think about the changes to #11? 

[Niall C]

I have not read any ANGC threads but I have grown more and more 'unfond' of it as time has past. I particularly think the bunkers are too large and there is an uglyness about the look of some of the greens and their complexes and the way things sit. I have not been there but several holes seem from my TV impression to be less visible from the approach shot than they might be with a different design, in particular am I right in thinking greens 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17 and 18 are semi blind. I wonder why this course is hailed as highly, has my GCA education on this site pickled my mind? There are elements of greatness but I can see weakness. How do others feel?

Adrian,
Like the Old Course (or maybe any course) ANGC looks very different on TV.
This year in particular in walking the course 4-5 times I took a particularly critical eye in considering all the negative commentary about ANGC regarding the changes to the course.
The aeriel shots filmed weeks ago are particularlly unattractive as they highlight the silly pine beds that are slowly merging/disappearing.
When out there live, they are hardly noticeable.
I've spent the last 2 days out there and am stunned by the width that still exists (this was my 38th masters).
To hear people on this site, you'd think it was overly narrow and unstrategic-it's anything but that.(15 is PLENTY wide and the dives that go left leave a VERY interesting option)
3 is a fascinating hole-I've watched players drive short left of the bunker and I watched Bubba drive it virtually on the fringe today.
he made 6 there yesterday attempting to lay up.
You actually have to execute on 17 now-players didn't blow it right or left for an angle, they simply could hit it anywhere previously and then hit a wedge on.
After years of thinking they ruined 7, i actually think it is now a better hole for the modern player.
They're(the bombers) still hitting wedges if they choose to hit driver (no not Ben crenshaw)

Anyone watching now who thinks they should not have lengthened it is nuts-15 and 13 are interesting again(despite both being into the wind)Nice to see a range of clubs from 3 wood to short iron on both, and some laying up.

I'm even coming around to the new trees out thee as I've seen some fascinating recoveries the last few days that would've been wide open shots from short grass years ago.

I never understand why gorse(from which there is no recovery) gets a pas on a links course, yet a few pines are unacceptable on a parkland course.
Even the bunkers, which do look ugly on TV, make perfect sense out there on the course as they are deep and are quite attractive in person..
The idea that a few capes or bays on bunkers would make them better is just well, groupthink.

I saw a great picture of #1 tee today with the old centerline bunker. Cool, but what caught my eye was the first tee being under the shade of several pines(LEFT of the tee) about the size of the ones recently added to the course.
What I'm basically saying is, if you're analyzing the course from your TV, you're missing a lot-same as if you tried to analyze St. Andrews from TV and the air.

What's great about the course is the players know there is usually room for recovery, allowing them to be aggressive with shaping their tee shots(the noteable exceptions being left on 11 and now 18. Other than that you can have at it, but always find the ball-even if it takes all of your skills to recover.

One observation is that I;ve seen the players hitting irons extraordinary distances, often over greens. I attribute that to the heat and humidity. It's been cold the last few years and the ball hasn't carried as well.

As a tournament course, the course seems to be perfect.
Since the members seem to like playing there as well, why can't we just enjoy it?

My only comment would be that the second cut saves lot of shots rather than exacting a penalty (no doubt the members like that)
and yeah I could limb up a pine or two and chop down about 30-50 of the new ones so it's not quite so thick and the gallery could look thru a bit easier.

Jeff

Thanks for that. I suspect that was the type of response that Adrian was looking for in asking a perfectly reasonable question. As you say, the course and scale of the place will look different in person than it does on TV. I have noticed this year that there is a lot more interesting camera angles from up the fairway which gives a better sense of the place but still not the same as being there.

Niall

[Dan Herrmann]

Patrick - they are using different camera angles this year and it's because of the 3D telecast.  Most of the 3D cameras are also being used for 2D, but they seem to be placed to show the elevation changes - such as the approach shot to #15.

Another one I've noticed is showing the walk up #16 from the back.  In 3D you can see just how low the green gets to the water at the front left.  I love the fact they're using that camera for 2D because it shows the amazing elevation differences.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

Adrian first made an opening statement:

I have not read any ANGC threads but I have grown more and more 'unfond' of it as time has past. I particularly think the bunkers are too large and there is an uglyness about the look of some of the greens and their complexes and the way things sit.

Then he asked what others thought.

I expressed my disagreement with his assessment, which he made when never having walked or played the golf course.

[Kirk Gill]

Jeff, thanks. It's great to get the perspective of one who's walked the course repeatedly, with an eye towards assessing the architecture.

Adrian, the blindness you speak of on the approaches - does the positioning of the drive have anything to do with visibility on the approach?

I'll say that to my eye the big oval bunkers are not my favorite look. I wouldn't go so far as "ugly," but the huge white ovals don't constitute the height of beauty to me. But the bunker locations don't bother me, except for perhaps that  beautiful one on the 10th, that I can't remember anyone ever having to hit out of !

[Adrian_Stiff]

Kirk - I was asking questions about the blindness, having not been there. That definitly needs on site experience but I think you can say you like or dislike something without having been there, this you gotta have played it/walked it to make an opinion is nonsense.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kirk,

I think the problem with many telecasts is that you see the course from the TV towers and not from the golfer's eye.

Like an aerial, the golfer's view differs drastically.

While there aren't many bunkers, they are very functional and serve their purpose well.

One of the observations I made was that the camera angle on the second shot on # 15 was more realistic than in the past, it gave you a better perspective on what the golfer sees.

Perhaps one day, cameras will also be behind the golfers as they play the course.

What bothered me a little was the back up on # 16.
I can see a back up on # 13 and # 15, but, I don't understand twosomes backing up on # 16.

[Tim Martin]

Kirk - I was asking questions about the blindness, having not been there. That definitly needs on site experience but I think you can say you like or dislike something without having been there, this you gotta have played it/walked it to make an opinion is nonsense.

Adrian- You need to see the course in person. End of story.

[Tags:]

Tags: