I don't know much about Augusta National as for play, but I agree that the Sand Hills is a fine trend setter. The simplicity of the place starting from the clubhouse, the practice range, and the naturalness of the course and the porch concept make the SGC a great place. Jagged edged bunkers came back into vogue after the SGC and with the coming of Ballyneal, Dismal, Prairie Club, Wildhorse,..... it is clear to me that you can build dissimilar golf courses in similar terrain (a very broad sense) and have a variety of enjoyment.
Augusta with all its trend setting, in my opinion, has really hurt the game by courses without such revenues as the Masters Tournament wanting weed free fairways, perfect bunkers with brilliant white sand, and emerald green---everywhere except the bunkers. Think of all the golf course owners in the world that think their course should look like Augusta to be world class and now we have turf standards that are budget busters. The Sandhills , while in an environment totally different to Augusta is an example of pure pleasure at a reasonable cost. In today's world economics if I was a golf course owner I would trend toward the Sand Hills model............of course I am biased having grown up in the area.
Think of all the golf course owners who have gone out and planted fescue and "native" grasses(thus slowing play) , and built "natural" blowout bunkers requiring hand raking that wash every time it rains driving maintenance through the roof.
Should we blame Sand Hills for that?
That comment is of course tongue in cheek, but I tire of reading that ANGC ruined the golf world by running the best tournament in the world--
The Masters is played in April, and is a winter club so therefore they plant a winter grass rye which is green.
If a club can't restrain itself 1000 miles away on a different grass, ANGC shouldn't really be blamed for that.
Did the 4 Seasons ruin the Holiday Inn?
That's like saying Apple caused the recession because everybody went and bought I-phones with money they didn't have because they were so good
But if you really want a better analogy, we could blame the success of Sand Hills on the failure of so many other destination courses.
It was so good that everybody wanted to imitate its' model and success., but we all know there can't be 100 successful remote destinations.
And of course that would be silly -as silly as saying ANGC has hurt the game with impeccable conditioning.
Also, when you factor in the member's cost of traveling to and staying at Sand Hills, and the amount of fossil fuels used flying in and driving to it, is it really a reasonable cost and enviroment friendly?
Tongue in cheek again, but food for thought when we constantly bash Augusta.