How different would the Masters be

[Patrick_Mucci]

if they didn't reverse the nines ?

Would it be a major ?

Did the reversal of nines and TV combine to catapult The Masters into a major ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Still a major - yes.

Less dramatic - yes. 

[Sam Morrow]

Still be pretty darned cool. I've never played it or been there but my years of viewing I think that the course would still provide an exciting finish.

[Alex Castro]

The reversing of the nines was almost bound to happen, wasn't it? Augusta has almost always been about the Masters over anything else.  Isn't that the reason why the course has evolved the way it has; to promote the tournament and provide the most dramatic, exciting finish possible year after year? I mean, Amen Corner is simply more exciting as holes 11-13 rather than 2-4.  

It's sort of the same reason the pond on 15 has grown so much; it is superbly difficult shot for late on Sunday afternoon. Seve Ballesteros finding that hazard in 1986 is a great example. Even Nicklaus felt sorry for him, but it meant so much more to the tourney that that was hole number 15 and not number 6. If it had been no. 6, who knows weather or not Ballesteros wouldn't have come back to beat Jack? Maybe Jack would have faltered? Whether McKenzie and Jones would approve of the creek becoming a pond has kind of become moot to making certain the Masters is what everyone expects it to be year after year; dramatic, green, and gorgeous.

And, as someone studying and going into the sports broadcast media, I also have to admit. Purity of design aside, modern Augusta does make for engrossing television.  

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: I have never been to Augusta so my knowledge of the front nine is very limited.  I have always felt that 17 and 18 were not the greatest finishing holes of major championships.  To me, the back nine through 16 are what make the championship so exciting.

[Jimmy Chandler]

Patrick --

How about if number 9 suddenly was the finishing hole? Imagine the pressure for someone with a one-shot lead hitting into a front pin? I would think there's much more chance for 3-putting on that green than the current #18.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Pat, A major yes and great yes. Maybe not as exciting with the back nine loaded with risk reward par 5's along with 12 and 16. The green complexes on 10,11, and 14 are so special too.

[Howard Riefs]

Informative recent article In the Augusta Chronicle about the 9's switch:

http://www.augusta.com/node/36

Somewhat dumbfounded Jack doesn't have elementary knowledge of the course history:

"I did not know that. You just told me something I've never heard," six-time Masters winner Jack Nicklaus said. "I like it better this way. I think the whole back nine is a lot more exciting than the front nine. I think we all feel that way."

[Matthew Rose]

The original course had creeks crossing some of the front nine holes, all of which were eventually buried. Also, the water hazards on some of the (eventual) back nine holes weren't as well defined.

I wonder if had the original routing been kept what they might have done with certain holes. Would #7 (now 16) have been changed to the hole it is now, had it still been the 7th?

#2 had a creek running in front of the green.... would they have turned that into a pond and made that hole the risk-reward par-five had it been the 11th?

On the other hand, I also wonder if they would have changed #6 (playing as the 15th).... at one time there was a pond there. I could have seen then destroying that wonderful green and building one closer to water.

An interesting parallel universe to contemplate, isn't it?

[Robert Kimball]

From my understanding they reversed the nines after the first tournamant because of frost delays on the low-lying areas around 10 green (the first) and Amen Corner.

That might be discusssed in that article above, I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Remember that the tournament was scheduled to catch sportswriters on their way up from spring training in Florida. That would have been in mid-late March -- still cold enough in the mornings to get some frost on occasion.

But, really, since Augusta always has been a winter course, I guess they (Cliff Roberts, et al) were thinking about how the course would play for the members the rest of the year -- a consideration that people would argue the current membership might not take so much today (meaning, they tend to focus on one week per year).

Just my 2 cents, please don't go "all green writing" on me, Mr. Mucci! 

-- Rob

P.S. I LOVE MASTERS WEEK!! IT TRULY IS CHRISTMAS FOR US GOLFERS. . . .

[Rick Shefchik]

I can't say if the course/tournament would have been better if the nines hadn't been switched, but I can say that I think 7, 8 and 9 would have made great closing holes -- especially if 7 had remained a (nearly) drivable par 4. If you were chasing the leaders, or in the lead, coming into 7, you'd know you'd have to gamble for birdie/eagle at 7 and 8, and then hope you didn't make a huge mistake on 9.

Not taking away anything from the thrills on the current back nine, but 17 and 18 may not be as exciting a finish as 8 and 9 would be.

[Sven Nilsen]

Just a thought, would we think of the course differently if the nine's had never been reversed and the television coverage had always focused on 1-9 (as the closing stretch).

I wonder how much the years of only showing the current back nine have influenced the comparison of the two.  

Without the switch, would Roberts have tried to infuse a bit of risk/reward into the holes that today seem a bit more mundane?

[RJ_Daley]

If they would have never reversed the 9s in 1935-6 (?) they would have done even more remodelling on that back 9 - now front 9, IMO.  They didn't hesitate to have RTJ redo the whole creek-pond-allignment of 16, which in my opinion was massive.  They moved 10 green considerably, and certainly lengthened all the tees on the current back 9 along with repositioned bunkers, added rough, planted many trees.  So, they did what they thought they had to do to modernize and lengthen as the B&I changed and the length factor and protecting par obstacles changed.  While they certainly made changes to the current front 9, I think the changes besides bunker repositioning and length, and narrowing, would have been even more pronounced, had the original 9s been retained.  

They wanted it to be a Major, and would then or now do whatever is necessary to grow and cultivate the mystique and cult of the Masters.  So, yes I think it would have been a major, no matter what, and it would have been a bit different series of hole designs if the original back 9 was not reversed to the front.  Hell, they may have dug 3 more ponds, planted palm trees, and added a waterfall for all we know....  

[Patrick_Mucci]

The original course had creeks crossing some of the front nine holes, all of which were eventually buried.

I don't think the front nine creeks were in play like the creeks/water on the back nine.
Some, like on # 5 were closer to the tee.

Also, the water hazards on some of the (eventual) back nine holes weren't as well defined.

I think they were well defined, but, they certainly weren't of the scope that they are today

I wonder if had the original routing been kept what they might have done with certain holes.
Would #7 (now 16) have been changed to the hole it is now, had it still been the 7th?

I believe that the change was made, based solely on the quality of the hole and not it's residence (front or back nine)

#2 had a creek running in front of the green.... would they have turned that into a pond and made that hole the risk-reward par-five had it been the 11th?

The 1932 Olmsted schematic doesn't reveal a creek in front of the 2nd green.
There is a ravine to the left of the hole that had a creek in it, but I don't recall seeing or reading about a creek that passed in front of the 2nd green.  Can you direct us to photos or schematics displaying the creek.

On the other hand, I also wonder if they would have changed #6 (playing as the 15th).... at one time there was a pond there. I could have seen then destroying that wonderful green and building one closer to water.

Instead, they brought the water to the hole by expanding the creek/pond that fronted that green.

An interesting parallel universe to contemplate, isn't it?

It is said that while the frost issue was a real concern, at the time, they realized that the configuration of the holes on the back nine (Current) was recognized as more likely to produce an exciting finish.  It would be hard to miss that, but, AM must have had his reasons.

[Patrick_Mucci]

They wanted it to be a Major, and would then or now do whatever is necessary to grow and cultivate the mystique and cult of the Masters.  

RJ,

The overwhelming desire to want the tournament to be a major has almost nothing to do with the tournament being accepted as a Major.

Without that brilliant golf course, I doubt that tournament would have been a major, no matter how hard RTJ and CR pushed for it.

The Masters and TV was a perfect marriage at a perfect time of year.

The confluence of those three factors, that magnificent course, TV and April in Georgia catapulted ANGC and their tournament to major status,

So, yes I think it would have been a major, no matter what, and it would have been a bit different series of hole designs if the original back 9 was not reversed to the front.

Without that magnificent course, and Cliff Roberts shrewd guidance, it would have been just another tour stop. 

Hell, they may have dug 3 more ponds, planted palm trees, and added a waterfall for all we know....  

And what Majors have you seen take hold at any of The Donald's courses ?
Ponds, palm trees and waterfalls do not a major make 

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat,

A couple of follow up points.

With respect to the 2nd, there was a creek running in front of the green but it was buried in pipe prior to the opening of the course.

At the 6th (the original 15th) there was a pond, but it was filled in around 1959.  From your comment I am guessing you were referring to the current 15th.

Sven

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, my point was that no matter what the configuration of the 9s and original design scheme or maintenance presentation as it was at the outset, IF those folks that were and are the members wanted to be a major, they would make it so.  They are the movers and shakers, and are used to getting their vision achieved.  IF a major is what they wanted, then a major is what they got.  They have over time done just about anything and everything to alter the original design intent and ideas, of Jones and Dr. MacKenzie for the sake of making the toon-a-mint a yearly epic event.  They made the changes and will continue to do so, inorder to keep the competition compelling, and the eye candy something that the marketing buzz projects as something all golfers should drool over.   They were making the alterations before the big boost that color TV brought.  TV and production enhancements only added to their ability to market the mystique of The Masters (R).  What ever new technology in broadcast entertainment comes along, they'll be on top of it.  And, whatever new turf techniques and cultivation comes along that can possibly jazz it up more, they will undertake.  

It is just that the lengths that they will go to in order to meet their expectations, marketing, and prestige are not reality to the rest of the golf world as a practical matter.  So, when you ask how different would the Masters be, I believe it will continue to be as different and variable as they determine it must be in order for the ANGC organization to stay on top of the manner and style of event they wish to sponsor and host every year.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

A couple of follow up points.

With respect to the 2nd, there was a creek running in front of the green but it was buried in pipe prior to the opening of the course.
Then it never existed as a hazard for play.

At the 6th (the original 15th) there was a pond, but it was filled in around 1959.  

The Olmsted plan has it as a creek.
Can you supply any photos or references to the expansion of the creek to a pond.

From your comment I am guessing you were referring to the current 15th.

Yes, Mathew's description puzzled me and I thought he was referencing # 15, old 6th.
 

It's also come to my attention that the nines were switched TWICE.

That MacKenzie originally had the nines as they are today, and that MacKenzie switched them after the first Masters, only to have the club switch them again, subsequently.

[Sven Nilsen]

Check this thread:  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51383.25.html

The creek was dammed in 1953 and the pond formed by the dam was removed in 1959.  So there was a creek and a pond.

[Matthew Rose]

Sorry Pat.... Yes, I meant the (current) par-3 6th.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Check this thread:  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51383.25.html

The creek was dammed in 1953 and the pond formed by the dam was removed in 1959.  So there was a creek and a pond.

The 1932 Olmsted schematic shows the creek offset a good distance from the green, so in terms of influence on play, for the Masters, one has to question its function in terms of a hazard.  To the membership, I'm sure that more than a few golf balls found their way into the water.

[Sven Nilsen]

I doubt the creek or the pond had any influence on tournament play.  From the sounds of it the pond was removed for aesthetic and ease of patron flow purposes.

Your point on the two changes to the nines is interesting.  I'd like to know who were the decision makers in that process, and if MacKenzie had any say in the final outcome. 

The real problem in this exercise is that we look at the nines as they are presented today, and not as they were presented back in 1934.  The better discussion would be whether the current 10-18 presented the opportunity for more drama then the current 1-9, in the state they were in back then. 

The next topic would be to examine what was done to 10-18 to enhance the drama.

[Brad Isaacs]

I think the front nine suffers fron lack of exposure, perhaps even in this knowledgable group.

Hole 1:  take a look at last years winner and what he did on the first hole.that birdie should have been a 5 or 6 but well you know the story.

Hole 2. Birdie it. A par five not a par 4.5. That green is amazing.  The Sunday pin placement, can be gotten if you know how to play the green.

Hole 3. Driver and chip lay back hmmm what to do?  And once you get to this small green, what then. Scary short hole. 

Hole 4 The hardest of par 3 's.  how do you hit the green from 220 down hill to that rt pin placement?

Hole 5. Don't drive it left trying shorten the hole. Is this the biggest green on the course?

Hole 6. If 4 is hard, then this maybe #2. The ball can move incredible ways on this green. Tiger's shot on this hole in last round of last year.  Amazing shot.

Hole 7. They have made this into a brute. Have fortitude and hit the driver so you can have a better chance to get it close. Play conservative with fairway metal and have a long shot into that green? Better hit it high.

Hole 8. Tiger's eagle..... Put him into contention. Another par 5 and don't go left. Tht is an impossible up and down vs just difficult from right.

Hole 9.  All you have to say is Greg Norman.   

So, Pat
Yes it would be a major!
Yes it would be exciting!

It would just be different.

Are 13 and 15 great holes or are they great because of where they sit in relation to the tournament?

Can you get the ball to the right spot to come down the hill on 16? Or go straight at it and don't Greg Norman it!

The crowd noise from down in Amen corner make Augusta an incredible place to be on Master's Sunday.

Brad

(I wish Greg Norman had won a masters especially after the disaster that scarred his carreer in1996?)

[Tim_Cronin]

Pat's right about the nines being switched twice. MacKenzie's front-back plan was as it is now. He died before the first Masters – indeed, never saw the course open, and somewhere in that time span, the back became the front and vice versa in time for the inaugural Augusta National Invitation Tournament. The switch to the original configuration came before the 1935 Masters, long after MacKenzie was gone.

Otherwise, we'd have been talking about Sarazen's albatross on the par-5 6th all these years.

FYI, the fourth hole has a palm tree on it, to the left behind the gallery area and short of the green. (At least it was there the last time I was there.) But no waterfall!