[Jud_T]

On the flip side, we sometimes have talked about flattening two of our most severe greens. Both have lost quite a few pin placements and both funnel approach shots all over their surface, sometimes vexingly. I would hate to see those greens neutered. It will cost money and character, and erode some of the classic appeal of our course (which has barely changed since 1923 aside from a few trees and is one of William Langford and Theodore Moreau's most well-preserved designs). Pointing to the severe slopes at Augusta might just talk someone into reconsidering the idea that a putting surface that funnels an imprecise approach some 50 feet away from its target can be a good thing.

Jason,

I will personally volunteer to set up a tent nearby and begin operation "Occupy Langford" all summer to insure noone comes near those greens with anything other than a mower, hose, cup, sand, small tine aeration tool or putter.  I reserve the right to shout "Noonan" however anytime you play through...

[DMoriarty]

Pointing to the severe slopes at Augusta might just talk someone into reconsidering the idea that a putting surface that funnels an imprecise approach some 50 feet away from its target can be a good thing.

Or they might wonder why you'd want to emulate conditions that not even the pros can safely navigate. 

Augusta cuts both ways.  There are great things to emulate, and not so great things to emulate. Unfortunately, IMO, some of the most obvious and glaring aspects of the course fall into the latter category, and some of the good things (firm conditions and interesting green contours) sometimes seem to be overwhelmed by the not-so good (excessive green speeds.)

[Nigel Islam]

Garland, I agree with Bill. He didn't say a word that I disagree with.

I'm not saying our clubs should all aspire to look and play like Augusta National. I'm saying that when we try to be voices for firm and fast, resistance to flattening of green contours, and resistance to thick rough and narrowing, among many other things, it may be in our best interest to say things like "Augusta hasn't flattened their greens. Why should we?" There's simply no other club whose ideals carry as much legitimacy in the eyes of average member at our clubs.

Admittedly, I'm coming from a place of bias. I belong to a middle class 1923 classic parkland country club with bold greens and cool weather turf. I fight the battle against "Green at all costs!" at every Greens Committee meeting. I will never convince the other guys on the committee that Augusta isn't the ideal. My only chance is to convince them that Augusta-like conditions have more to do with firmness and options than with lushness and difficulty.




Ben, you make some good points with your last post. There are a lot of elements of classic design that cost money. Width isn't cheap, and while it's possible to save money by lowering inputs and getting firmer conditions, there comes a point of diminishing returns. You will notice that I've not once suggested clubs should install Sub-Air, pursue faster greens, or do more landscaping. I would, however, love for my club to cut some trees back to widen our playing corridors. We're currently a bit claustrophobic in spots, and I'd love to see big, regal, wide corridors (almost like Augusta!). Tree management costs money, but the hope would be that we can save a bit on maintenance costs thanks to improved airflow and attract more members and rounds to our instantly-improved course to make up the difference. It's foolish and naïve, but sometimes I believe it's possible.

On the flip side, we sometimes have talked about flattening two of our most severe greens. Both have lost quite a few pin placements and both funnel approach shots all over their surface, sometimes vexingly. I would hate to see those greens neutered. It will cost money and character, and erode some of the classic appeal of our course (which has barely changed since 1923 aside from a few trees and is one of William Langford and Theodore Moreau's most well-preserved designs). Pointing to the severe slopes at Augusta might just talk someone into reconsidering the idea that a putting surface that funnels an imprecise approach some 50 feet away from its target can be a good thing.

Having played Jason's course I can attest to the fact that it would be a tragedy if any of those greens were touched. I think the point Jason is making is that there is a lot of complaining about some of the money Augusta National throws around, but that perhaps we could look to some of the things they do right without spending a lot of money as a model. I understood where you were coming from Jas. You can stay at the keyboard

[Tom_Doak]

A lot of you are missing the point. Of course club's haven't emulated Augusta's architecture. They haven't emulated Augusta at all, really.

There is plenty of scientific literature that discusses the innate human attraction to green vegetation. People liked green grass and tall trees long before Augusta existed, and before it was televised in color, and before it was televised in HD. They may cite Augusta when they talk about their love of green and trees, but don't confuse that with actual causation. Augusta isn't the reason that golfers love green grass and tall trees.

The Augusta Effect is a myth. And it's too bad, because if Augusta really did influence the retail golfer as much as we think, we'd be playing a game far more similar to the one this site so often sings the praises of. However, the fact that Augusta is such a widely accepted template of what a great golf course should be actually gives those who love strategic, firm and fast, classic golf a lot of ammunition. Rather than demonizing Augusta and telling our fellow club members that the course is overrated, we should instead be telling our fellow club members things like:

     - "Our bunkers are way too shallow - they're nothing like Augusta. Their bunkers are real hazards, like they're supposed to be."

     - "Our rough is way too thick - we should try to maintain it more like Augusta's."

     - "Our greens are much too receptive to long irons - we should try to get them firmer so that balls roll out and feed up and down slopes like at Augusta."

     - "Why do you want to flatten that green? Augusta doesn't have flat greens. Remember Tiger's chip at 16?"

     - "Why do we need six sets of tees? Augusta just has two."

     - "Our fairways are much too soft - we should try to firm them up like the ones at Augusta so that short hitters get some roll and big hitters run off into the trees when they miss."

Jason:

All of this was very well said.  (You should have stuck to this, instead of speculating about the maintenance budget at Augusta.)

The truth is, the Augusta effect is not just a golfer-driven phenomenon.  Everyone in "the golf business" has been using examples from Augusta and the U.S. Open as a way to win their arguments for many many years, including superintendents who want more money for fast greens, low-handicaps who like step cuts, etc.  That's why it is so important that Augusta and the USGA set a good example for others, instead of the "do as we say, not as we do" approach ... and why it's important that WE use examples from courses that everyone admires, too.

Selling "brown" is difficult.  Selling parts of it as "Augusta-like" has a better chance of success.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()