My day at the Masters

[Ben Sims]

Bob,

There are a few things from my day there 7 years ago--and I had not a care in the world about golf architecture then--that stood out.

--Just how uphill the walk is from the viewing area at #12 back to the clubhouse.  It's pretty striking how much lower one area of the course is than another.

--How big the bunkers are.  One view yesterday that helped show it was Rory's second at #2.  The bunkers are pretty eye catching due to the size, color, and flashed sand.

--13 fairway is turn 2 and 3 at Bristol Motor Speedway.  How everyone one of those guys doesn't hook their second shot into the gunch off that lie is amazing.

--The slope of 9 green is terrifying.

--Just how skinny that Sunday pin placement area on #3 green is.

JC,

Life is far too important to be taken seriously.  We cool?

[JC Jones]

JC,

We cool?

Always have been.

[Tim Martin]

JC,

We cool?

Always have been.

There`s not a dry eye in the house. Thanks guys for this touching GCA moment.

[Chris Cupit]

Bob,

Great seeing you at the party on Friday night and it was a pleasure meeting your wife, Betsy.  You definitely outkicked your coverage!

I have always hesitated to weigh in about the width for fear of being "greened"   but I have been fortunate enough to visit the course around fifty times and even more fortunately, have been able to play both pre and post tree planting.  What follows is just one guy's opinion:

I first played in successive years in 1987 and 1988 while in college and while I was playing well.  Certainly I am not even good enough to be a professional but I was able to play the tips and even shot 69 my first trip around--certainly a highlight in my rather mediocre golf life

Anyway, as a very naive eighteen year old I did not know what I was really playing.  I was asked (and delighted to talk about) my round and I can distinctly remember feeling that the course played tighter off the tee than the corridors suggested.  I have since played in about ten USGA and R & A Championships and have caddied in PGA Tour events and for my dad in other USGA events so I am not suggesting the narrowness felt there is at all similar.  I am saying that even as a young and dumb kid I sensed that while keeping a ball in play at ANGC may be easy, it really was important to hit the proper side of the fairway or you had a tough next shot.

Again, the touring professionals may be able to play from any position but the equipment changes and increased quality of play also had a huge impact decreasing the necesity of "proper" angles or approaches.  As to distance at the old #1 I flew the fairway bunker and still had a 7 iron from 145-150.  I reached #2 with a 2 iron but had to hit 4 iron into #9 after a weak drive to the right.  #10 was a 7 iron!  Again, this showed me how hitting the right portion of the fairway with the correct shot dramatically shortened or lengthened the course.  

I had the good fortune to play again a couple of years ago and also played the back tees.  The course is hugely different and certainly a longer, narrower and more penal course that severly punishes wayward drives with trees versus the old problem of having an inferior approach angle.  I get it and understand why this was done but it is a fundamentally different course.  I also realize trhe course has been changing since day 1 and the difference between 1988 and 2008 may be about the same as previous years' changes.  I also realize that all of us tend to romanticize the course we "grew up with".

I would certainly say that the landing zone on #1 is tight.  You can no longer hit it over the bunker on the right to set up the best angle and the only play is between the huge bunker and the ever growing trees on the left.  I watched many players in less than ideal conditions not even reach the right bunker.  I am sure it has happened but I have never seen anyone carry that bunker in recent years.

#5 is another hole where the play is now 3-woods for many to keep the new bunkers on the left out of play.  The old and best line was over the left corner but that approach is gone.  Again the new play is between trees and bunker or lay up.

#7 is tight and 100 yards longer.  The width is not ridiculous by USGA standards but it is the depth (or lack of it) in the green that makes the 7th so much different.  Again, I've seen the pros play wedges in today!  But, I've also seen pros back at the cross walk with 200 yards in.  I don't know the answer but it is almost impossible to have a par four long enough to prevent the best of the best from having short shots without also forcing the best of the best who may not be bombers from having ridiculous shots in to the greens.  Controlled length should have advantages so that isn't that big a deal to me I guess.

#9 is certainly through a chute, #11 is another chute and while the DZ is decently wide when you get to it, the narrowness is getting out of the chute.  Not a problem for the elite so much but it is not a wide shot.

I was alsways struck by how difficult the drive is on #13.  It is very hard to hook it enough to get it in the proper position and given the severe angle of the dogleg it is a very narrow DZ.

The biggest difference must be 15, 17 and 18.  AGain, they are not narrow in a USGA sense but 17 in particular is another chute and a tight target to hit from the new tees.  18 is another hole where the fairway where the ball ends up may have some decent width but that doesn't tell the whole story.  Just measuring the width of a fairway at 290 doesn't tell you how wide or narrow a tee shot plays.

Anyway, sorry for the long post and again--just one guy's opinion.

[JMEvensky]

Chris Cupit,thanks for taking the time to post your experience and opinions.That was an interesting read.

[David Camponi]

JC you are 100%  correct; and people who haven't seen the course and comment on it's narrowness show there stupidity.

ANGC is the widest parkland course in the world; the fway widths at ANGC are wider than PV, Shinnecock, and all the other favored courses on this board; is it somewhat narrower than it used to be...yes...but it is still EXTREMELY WIDE.  Only an idiot says they would rather play 100 courses than ANGC; that comment makes me want to puke, but I am sure this guy would love to play.....(fill in the blank) which probably plays 10x softer than Augusta and also is 20x as narrow. 

Also a point often not made is that from the member tees Augusta plays exactly like everyone here wants it to, unless you are capable of playing in the Masters then that is where you should be playing from. 

People talk about a hole like 7 being narrow, but 7 is probably the only hole that one would consider of normal width for a US parkland course, By the way Adam Scott hit SW into it on Sunday.

[David Camponi]

Chris, great post, and that is from the Masters tees; with your ability you could easily play the holes the way you wanted; from the "members" tees.  The chutes are elliminated and the holes play similarly to how they did 15+ years ago.

[Tim Martin]

Bob,

Great seeing you at the party on Friday night and it was a pleasure meeting your wife, Betsy.  You definitely outkicked your coverage!

I have always hesitated to weigh in about the width for fear of being "greened"   but I have been fortunate enough to visit the course around fifty times and even more fortunately, have been able to play both pre and post tree planting.  What follows is just one guy's opinion:

I first played in successive years in 1987 and 1988 while in college and while I was playing well.  Certainly I am not even good enough to be a professional but I was able to play the tips and even shot 69 my first trip around--certainly a highlight in my rather mediocre golf life

Anyway, as a very naive eighteen year old I did not know what I was really playing.  I was asked (and delighted to talk about) my round and I can distinctly remember feeling that the course played tighter off the tee than the corridors suggested.  I have since played in about ten USGA and R & A Championships and have caddied in PGA Tour events and for my dad in other USGA events so I am not suggesting the narrowness felt there is at all similar.  I am saying that even as a young and dumb kid I sensed that while keeping a ball in play at ANGC may be easy, it really was important to hit the proper side of the fairway or you had a tough next shot.

Again, the touring professionals may be able to play from any position but the equipment changes and increased quality of play also had a huge impact decreasing the necesity of "proper" angles or approaches.  As to distance at the old #1 I flew the fairway bunker and still had a 7 iron from 145-150.  I reached #2 with a 2 iron but had to hit 4 iron into #9 after a weak drive to the right.  #10 was a 7 iron!  Again, this showed me how hitting the right portion of the fairway with the correct shot dramatically shortened or lengthened the course.  

I had the good fortune to play again a couple of years ago and also played the back tees.  The course is hugely different and certainly a longer, narrower and more penal course that severly punishes wayward drives with trees versus the old problem of having an inferior approach angle.  I get it and understand why this was done but it is a fundamentally different course.  I also realize trhe course has been changing since day 1 and the difference between 1988 and 2008 may be about the same as previous years' changes.  I also realize that all of us tend to romanticize the course we "grew up with".

I would certainly say that the landing zone on #1 is tight.  You can no longer hit it over the bunker on the right to set up the best angle and the only play is between the huge bunker and the ever growing trees on the left.  I watched many players in less than ideal conditions not even reach the right bunker.  I am sure it has happened but I have never seen anyone carry that bunker in recent years.

#5 is another hole where the play is now 3-woods for many to keep the new bunkers on the left out of play.  The old and best line was over the left corner but that approach is gone.  Again the new play is between trees and bunker or lay up.

#7 is tight and 100 yards longer.  The width is not ridiculous by USGA standards but it is the depth (or lack of it) in the green that makes the 7th so much different.  Again, I've seen the pros play wedges in today!  But, I've also seen pros back at the cross walk with 200 yards in.  I don't know the answer but it is almost impossible to have a par four long enough to prevent the best of the best from having short shots without also forcing the best of the best who may not be bombers from having ridiculous shots in to the greens.  Controlled length should have advantages so that isn't that big a deal to me I guess.

#9 is certainly through a chute, #11 is another chute and while the DZ is decently wide when you get to it, the narrowness is getting out of the chute.  Not a problem for the elite so much but it is not a wide shot.

I was alsways struck by how difficult the drive is on #13.  It is very hard to hook it enough to get it in the proper position and given the severe angle of the dogleg it is a very narrow DZ.

The biggest difference must be 15, 17 and 18.  AGain, they are not narrow in a USGA sense but 17 in particular is another chute and a tight target to hit from the new tees.  18 is another hole where the fairway where the ball ends up may have some decent width but that doesn't tell the whole story.  Just measuring the width of a fairway at 290 doesn't tell you how wide or narrow a tee shot plays.

Anyway, sorry for the long post and again--just one guy's opinion.

Chris-Great post and thanks for the perspective.

[Mark Chaplin]

Chris - excellent stuff. Could it be that the punishment 20 years ago of an approach from the wrong side of the fairway is insufficient to fully test modern players with 2011 equipment?

[RJ_Daley]

Camponi, please feel free to puke your guts out....

I also appreciate Chris's post. I'll trust his well documented observations on the ground, and perspective of a skilled player.  I particularly appreciate his kind and gentlemanly effort to state some facts and real world observations.

I will continue to believe that ANGC has changed to a narrow, overly defined with stark contrasts of maintenance and tree planting-mulch and exaggerated bunkering presentations like color contrast features, where less options to golf your ball as your skills and imagination would allow, jailhouse and trick shot penalty-not originally intended by MacKenzie.  Yet, it is still more interesting from 150 yards in and still amazing greens.  I'll continue to state for myself that it is not a course I'd salivate to play and I can think of 100 or more courses I'd rather play ahead of ANGC.  I simply am not a fawning sycophant for ANGC and all its aura, as it has evolved.  As a personal trend of preference in the golf I like to watch and where I'd choose to play, are 'the Open' style of golf and its venues, ahead of the US Open style of venues.  That is just me- what I like.  I never said you folks who are outraged at my preferences, had to like it.

I'll continue to believe that the changes were the only way to keep the toon-a-mint relavant to a hotly competitive venue.  But, I don't see it as a design that is where I'd wish to spend my golfing time as an average player.   

But, this website continues to devolve into a place where an opinion given with plenty of caveats, and offered as one man's perspective, draws overt insults of being called an idiot, obnoxious, and cretin (I'll give Mucci a pass because we actually have met and he knows full well I am a very high functioning moron  ).

[Chris Cupit]

Chris - excellent stuff. Could it be that the punishment 20 years ago of an approach from the wrong side of the fairway is insufficient to fully test modern players with 2011 equipment?

I think that is exactly correct.  Even then an elite player could pull off a terrific shot from an out of position location and I think that was part of the charm of the course.  I also think there are more extremely talented players today who can do what a handful in the past could do.  It is so much harder to separate yourself in golf today as more and more players have "all the shots". 

I am one that wishes technology had been limited to keep the standards of play the same but I also recgonize that without the mengthening and narrowing only severley tricked up greens and hole locations would keep scores from becoming 20 under par or more.

As to comparative difficulty and width here are some comparisons that people may know enough about to reference:

Royal County Down--narrow holes with unplayable/lost ball on nearly every tee shot and strong winds only making driving more difficult.
Merion--Maybe the toughest course to score on I've ever played.  Played the new tees in 2009 and thought the course was VERY difficult and the driving very demanding.
Pine Valley--played the same day as Merion and while there is trouble everywhere I found the trouble more mentally challenging than anything else.  I felt the course had very ample width and to me, it was a far easier driving course than ANGC or any of the above courses.  A good player who is driving it solidly really should never get it out of play there.  This may be a course that kills the average player though who will hit 2-3 tee shots far enough off line to get into terrible trouble.

Also, unless the greens are very firm and fast and the holes set in tournament locations, I think this is the easiest of the four courses.  When courses are prepped for extreme tournament play, any course can be set up to be impossible.  Day in and day out with normal set up from the tips I would say PV is the easiest to shoot a score on and the course I'd feel most comfortable on the tee.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Amazing to see the narrowing of the tournament course over time:
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/georgia/augusta-changes

 

[George Pazin]

His comment about there being 100 golf courses he'd rather play than ANGC is so crazy it isn't worth arguing.  It is the product of sour grapes and very little more.

You really don't know Dick at all if you mean this honestly. He doesn't share as much of his wisdom on here anymore, but if you were to dig around in the archives from 2000 to maybe 2003, you would understand much better his perspective and what he's saying.

-----

Thanks for the report, Bob.

If I were to walk ANGC with only one guy, it'd be Bob.

-----

Bob,

Great seeing you at the party on Friday night and it was a pleasure meeting your wife, Betsy.  You definitely outkicked your coverage!

I have always hesitated to weigh in about the width for fear of being "greened"  but I have been fortunate enough to visit the course around fifty times and even more fortunately, have been able to play both pre and post tree planting.  What follows is just one guy's opinion:

...

Anyway, sorry for the long post and again--just one guy's opinion.

One of the very best posts I have ever read on here, on ANGC or anywhere. Well done, the whole post is terrific.

[Richard Hetzel]

It'll never happen, Chip.  That genie stays in the bottle.

They could SWEETEN THE POT to the point where no one would want to skip it. If a tourney ball ever happens, it would be at ANGC.

Personally, I would like to see it happen.

[BCrosby]

I've been out of the loop for a couple of days. Good thread.

Chris -
 
Betsy asked me to say hello. Is there something I should know?

Your thoughts on playing ANGC over the years are terrific. Let me add a couple of my own.

One of the things under-appreciated about ANGC is how enormously wide it once was. TOC width, maybe more so. Even today you can feel its massive scale. Over the last several decades that width has been reduced, in some places a little (1, 2, 15 and other holes), and in some places it has been eliminated entirely (11, 17 and on chutes off the tees at 9 and 18). But the 7th, 11th and 17th aside, ANGC remains a relatively wide course. At least when compared to most other US majors venues. With the exception of the holes noted, there are playing choices off tees.

ANGC's original width was important to MacK and Jones. It was key to what they wanted to do architecturally. The loss of that original width should be deeply regretted, especially so by people who know and care about the history of golf architecture.

There was a time - not so long ago - when its unique, amazing width was on full view. Its enormous, open expanses of beautiful turf combined with a paucity of bunkers and a reliance of contours and ground movement made ANGC an important course in the history of architecture in the US.

All that is being eroded away.  In some cases it is obvious. Think 11, 17, maybe 15. It is less obvious on other holes. Thousands of fill-in trees have been planted on virtually every hole that will continue to grow and pinch playing corridors further. So things are not trending in a good direction. As ANGC's width continues to erode, MacK's and Jones' bold architectural experiment will gradually disappear from view.
 
Most worrisome is that the ANGC and their architectural consultants don't seem to care much about that. Their priority is hosting the Masters and they will do what they think necessary to make the course resistant to scoring. As the Bubbas, the Dustins, the Johnny Vegas and their cohorts bomb away, maintaining what is left of ANGC's historical width will become less and less important to the powers that be.
 
So buckle your seat belts. I fear the worst is yet to come. Whatever our affection for the old ANGC, we are on the wrong side of history.
 
Bob

[RJ_Daley]

Bob, again another fine post and observations.  The Masters has evolved to what they determined it had to become to maintain the competition status of one of the 4 majors.  The degree of difficulty could only be achieved (perhaps arguably by some) via the parkification, narrowing and tree placing obstacles, bunker expansion, lengthening, and introduction of rough with narrow to typical FW widths seen at other tour professional venues.  While you and others say there is still width out there, I think you are also acknowledging that the width is tempered with vertical tree corridor restricting obstacles and demanding length of those shots where once a choice of ball flights on drives and approaches were many, now they are confined largly to one flight pattern on a given hole. 

One simply can't ignore the fine illustrations demonstrated by the above link to show the progression of this parkification tree and corridor definition over the years 1935 to present.  But, I accept that it is what it is as a matter of decision by the ANGC to remain competitive in the sense of a major test in context with the modern equipment and modern player strength and training.  I just know, I am not one to get fired up to ever actually play there (never happen anyway)  because I seek the sort of venue it once was, which most importantly would be a design that players/members of diverse skills can engage and have fun playing. 

But, there are still a 100+ places where one can play who does more enjoy that original game that MacKenzie and Jones saw when they first evaluated that old relatively open farm land, and contemplated an "old course"style layout for an invitation tournament, and member funhouse.  When they start planting trees, and bringing up starkly defined rough lines at TOC or some of "the Open" venues as a matter of effort to make it more challenging for the best players in the world, then I'll begin to believe that the heart and soul of golf is extinguished.  But, that isn't so at this point, and there are enough proponents in the GCA field to still see those design values and concepts to promote width as a matter of playing choices, skill options and fun to play upon and over interesting land without contrived aerial tree planted obstacles and confined playing corridors.

I didn't hate the tournament this year, or most years for that matter.  I enjoyed the test offered and the competition as it unfolded.  The course did what they intended to do, which was to provide that once a year experience of their invitational, best players in the world test.  BTW, I won our local men's club pool last year, and darned if I didn't get 2nd this year!    Maybe, that is some small evidence that I do 'get it' relative to what has been done to meet the modern player's skill set.  But actually, it means I'm just a lucky cheesehead... 

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

From the inception of ANGC, Jones and Roberts envisioned a course that would host championships.

As to MacKenzie's vision, Roberts complained in late 1931 that he didn't spend enough time on site.

Are you sure that ANGC isn't more a  product of Marion Hollins and Wendell Miller, in conjunction with Jones and Roberts ?

[RJ_Daley]

Are you sure that ANGC isn't more a  product of Marion Hollins and Wendell Miller, in conjunction with Jones and Roberts ?

No.  Had they mentioned anything to you about it? 

[Mark Bourgeois]

The sample size is too small to confirm anything statistically, but what hypotheses can people come up with based on this comparison?

Average # Masters appearances at time of first green jacket for competitors who claimed first jacket 1949-99: 6.9
Average # Masters appearances at time of first green jacket for competitors who claimed first jacket 2000-11: 6

Pct change: -13

[Matthew Mollica]

From the inception of ANGC, Jones and Roberts envisioned a course that would host championships.

Pat, what references support this assertion? I do not believe hosting championships was Jones' or Roberts' chief objective.

MM

[Patrick_Mucci]

From the inception of ANGC, Jones and Roberts envisioned a course that would host championships.

Pat, what references support this assertion?

The historical record.

Including the April 13, 1933 letter from Herbert Jaques, the sitting President of the USGA to ANGC.

The letter Roberts wrote to Charles Sabin.
Roberts enlisted the lobbying help of Grantland Rice and wrote that he and Bob Jones would get on a train and visit with anyone hesitant about the matter

Roberts, in HIS book about the club, said that the idea of hosting the Open had first arisen in late 1932.
Subsequently, in January of 1933 hes sent Prescott Bush a guest card and invited him to play at ANGC.
Bush was the sitting Chairman of the Tournament Committee of the USGA.

The historical record is clear, ANGC in the form of Roberts and Jones wanted to host the US Open and once they were turned down, Roberts almost immediately began formulating the Masters.  In 1933, after he was rejected by the USGA he approached the PGA with his plan, and thus the tournament was born.  


I do not believe hosting championships was Jones' or Roberts' chief objective.

Could you cite for me where anyone stated that it was Jones and Roberts "chief" objective ?

However, it was one of the primary objectives

MM

[Michael Dugger]

Your opinion is always valued by these ears, RJ.

I'm with ya.  My number might not be 100 but there are A LOT of courses I'd rather play than Augusta.

[Garland Bayley]

RJ Daley,

Talk about being obnoxious to try and prove a point.  Have you ever been to ANGC?

I was there Wednesday, it is not a narrow golf course.  Not even a little bit.

Well, Dick gets to see the 18th hole one TV for one thing. Measuring on Google Earth, I get a 22 yard wide channel to drive your ball through.
At 13, it is 30 yards wide. At 11, it is 25 yards wide. The approach at 15 plays through a 30 yard wide opening. The drive at 2 goes through a 28 yard wide opening. The tee shot at 6, 30 yards. The tee shot at 9, again under 30 yards. On a couple of holes if the high handicapper wants to avoid the mass of trees on one side, there will be a few strategicly located trees on the other side that will hinder his play, though they don't make the tunnel or gate like on the holes I measured above. I consider that to be more than a little bit narrow for a course supposedly patterned after TOC.

[Garland Bayley]

JC you are 100%  correct; and people who haven't seen the course and comment on it's narrowness show there stupidity.

ANGC is the widest parkland course in the world; the fway widths at ANGC are wider than PV, Shinnecock, and all the other favored courses on this board; is it somewhat narrower than it used to be...yes...but it is still EXTREMELY WIDE.  Only an idiot says they would rather play 100 courses than ANGC; that comment makes me want to puke, but I am sure this guy would love to play.....(fill in the blank) which probably plays 10x softer than Augusta and also is 20x as narrow. 

Also a point often not made is that from the member tees Augusta plays exactly like everyone here wants it to, unless you are capable of playing in the Masters then that is where you should be playing from. 

People talk about a hole like 7 being narrow, but 7 is probably the only hole that one would consider of normal width for a US parkland course, By the way Adam Scott hit SW into it on Sunday.

For some reason, Pine Valley doesn't all come through clearly for me on Google Earth. However, from what I measured and what the fuzzy looking holes looked like, I don't think there is any corridor through the trees there under 40 yards in width.

When you go about saying things like Augusta National is the widest parkland course in the world, your reflect poorly on yourself. Most people would label that kind of talk as a crackpot that is willing to make unsubstantiated statements.

And by the way their is spelled T-H-E-I-R. Claiming a superior intellect, you should know that.

[jeffwarne]

RJ Daley,

Talk about being obnoxious to try and prove a point.  Have you ever been to ANGC?

I was there Wednesday, it is not a narrow golf course.  Not even a little bit.

Well, Dick gets to see the 18th hole one TV for one thing. Measuring on Google Earth, I get a 22 yard wide channel to drive your ball through.
At 13, it is 30 yards wide. At 11, it is 25 yards wide. The approach at 15 plays through a 30 yard wide opening. The drive at 2 goes through a 28 yard wide opening. The tee shot at 6, 30 yards. The tee shot at 9, again under 30 yards. On a couple of holes if the high handicapper wants to avoid the mass of trees on one side, there will be a few strategicly located trees on the other side that will hinder his play, though they don't make the tunnel or gate like on the holes I measured above. I consider that to be more than a little bit narrow for a course supposedly patterned after TOC.

What on earth are you talking about?
I could dispute ALL those bogus numbers, but 13 30 yards wide?
really?
6 is par 3 -30 yards defined by what?
and even if it were, which it's not, they're hitting 8 irons...