Is the 12th hole at ANGC is one of the great par 3's in golf ? And if so,

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris:

Please don't put words in my mouth.  Pat used the phrase "eminently playable."  I never said it was "eminently unplayable."  There's a difference between being "eminently unplayable" and being extremely difficult for the average player.

How would you know, you've NEVER played the hole.

He backed up that claim by saying that the club didn't see any need to make any changes to that hole.

That's a fact, no substantive changes have been made to the hole, it plays essentially today, the way it played in 1934.  

Irregardless of the extent of any changes (I'll let Pat take on Dan Wexler to prove that point),

You don't know what Daniel Wexler and I would agree or disagree on if we engaged in a discussion.
How can you pretend to speak for either of us ?
And, there's no such word as "irregardless"

I don't see how anyone can argue that changes are made at Augusta to address anything other than the way the course plays for the pros.  

Again, how can you make such a wild claim ?
Let's start by discussing the placement/movement of the members tees.
Is that done solely for the pros ?

To argue that the membership didn't ask for any changes to address playability for their level of game is ludicrous when we're talking about Augusta.  

Not sure what you mean here, but, it's a matter of record that members have asked for changes to benefit their games.

Changes are made to improve the course for the tournament, whether to defend par, to adjust for increased green speeds, to recover pin positions that lost their viability or to improve spectator flow and viewing.  

Are you on the committee ?

Changes are not made to make it easier for the 65 year old member and his guests.

Really ?
What about the removal of trees ?
Widening fairways ?
Moving the Members tees ?
Was that not done for the members/guests ?

Here's a sampling of quotes from some of the big names that have played the 12th over the years:

Sven, you're transitioning from obtuse to dumb.
Don't you think you should consider the context in which the quote/response was made.
Don't you think you should consider where the people below were when they were asked questions about # 12 ?
Do you think they were playing # 7 or # 17 at Pebble Beach ?
# 10 at Winged Foot ?


"It is not necessarily impossible, it seems to require more skill than I have at the moment." - Ben Hogan

Now you would have us to believe that the 12th hole is beyond Hogan's ability.
And, if Hogan can't play it, my god, how can members and guests play it ?
I know, they must skip the hole and walk to # 13 tee.

"Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday." - Tiger when asked when he felt comfortable standing on the tee.

That statement is a reflection on Medal play when it counts versus practice round play.
So now Tiger is uncomfortable every time he stands on the tee during the Masters.
Maybe he's uncomfortable standing on every tee during the Masters.
He seemed to have some difficulty right off the bat on # 1 and # 2 today.

"It doesn't matter what the conditions are, every year the toughest shot at Augusta is number 12." - Tiger, again.

Tougher than the shot into # 5, 6, 10, 11, 15 and 18 ?   At 155 at most ?

"The hole eventually makes you look like a fool." - Ben Crenshaw

Well I guess alot of golfers haven't been made fools of yet.
How do you think the hole compares to # 7 at PBGC.
# 11 at Pacfici Dunes ?
# 10 at Winged Foot ?

"No matter what happens with equipment, that hole will always be a delicate shot.

Agree.  It's certainly not a power shot. 

It might be the toughest shot you ever hit.  The margin of error is minute." - Scott Verplank

It's far from the toughest shot I've ever hit.
Have you played # 1 at Prestwick ?
# 8 at Pebble Beach ?
# 10 at WFW ?

"You're always worried." - Padraig Harrington

Ditto # 7 and # 17 and # 18 at Pebble
# 11 at Pacific Dunes
# 10 at Winged Foot
The first eight holes at Quaker Ridge.
Etc., etc..

"It would be a nothing hole if it was square, but the genius is the angle." - Geoff Ogilvy  [I really like this one, as someone said earlier that the angle was not even noticeable.]

The angle is barely noticeable and Olgivy's statement is foolish at best.
If the green was square, with the corners at 12, 3, 6 and 9 O'clock the hole would be far, far from a nothing hole.
It's not the diagonal nature of the green, it's the shallowness of the green,
But, you wouldn't know that because you've NEVER seen the hole in person.

"Given the brutish angle of the 12th green, if you intend to go for the heart of the target area then suddenly think: 'No, I'll go left,' you will have too much club.  But if you decide to go right, you will come up short." - Nick Faldo [Again with the angle.]

"Brutish" angle ?
"Brutush" is a word that's inapplicable to the angle that the green sits to the GOLFER.

But, again, you wouldn't know since you're relying on the words of others without any basis for judging their words.

"Next year, I think I'll lay up short." - Dan Forsman

And then what ?

Another quote conjured up explicitly for the media.

Now Pat will say that all of these quotes have to be taken in context, and that they were probably uttered 20 seconds after the speaker dunked one in the creek.  Whatever, the facts speak for themselves.

What facts ?
You've never seen the hole.
You've never played the hole.
You have absolutely NO first hand knowledge regarding the hole, yet, you hold yourself out as an expert.


Since 1934, the 12th has played to a stroke average of 3.29, the second hardest hole on the course (the 10th is the hardest).  
It is 155 yards.  It is a really tough hole.

NO, it isn't.

The stroke average takes into consideration penalty strokes.
You'll find that holes with water and/or OB tend to do that.

The questions asked here are if it is one of the great par 3's in golf and if so, why the hole hasn't been duplicated.  

For once, you're correct.

The answer to the first part is unequivocally yes.  

As part of a tournament course it offers a challenge of the highest level.  I'm not arguing its genius, for that purpose.

The answer to the second part is that it has, and the copies all have softened the hole in some way.  

What copies ?
If there were all these copies I wouldn't have posed the question.

I agree that it would be almost impossible to duplicate all of the conditions that make the 12th unique, and difficult.  Those are the conditions that cause the hole to be such a stern test for the pros.  Guys who hit their irons higher and farther than the average player, who can land a shot on a shallow target and have it hold, who can dial up the fade or a draw called for by the days pin and conditions.  

There's only one problem.
Those guys are only in town for four days of play.
The rest of the season, the members and guests play the hole every day.
And, the hole hasn't changed, in substance in almost 80 years.
If it was so unplayable for the members, and there's only a 10 yard difference in the tees, they would have altered the hole considerably, decades ago.

Remind me again, how many times have you played it ?

But even if you could duplicate those conditions, I don't think it would happen.  An earlier poster stated that they would not build a hole like the 12th because "most golfers can't play a hole like that."  


Then how do the members and guests do it every day in season except for four days ?

Remember, ANGC isn't a club populated by 30 year old long ball hitters.

Pat disagrees with this statement.  
I'll concede I haven't played the hole, so I don't have any practical experience with its difficulty.  

But I can read what the best players in the world say about it, and if its tough for them, it must be even harder for the rest of us.  Perhaps the statement should have been "it is too tough of a hole for a course that is built for member play or the consumer golfer."  

Have you had private, off the record conversations with any of them about the hole  ?

If not, then you're just repeating "fluff"  fodder for the media and fans.

I think that is what the speaker was getting at.  Very few courses are built to present the ultimate challenge.

# 12 is far from the "ultimate" challenge.
But, it's fun to play with an adequate amount of challenge, as is every hole at courses like ANGC, PV, GCGC and others. 

There are some, and those courses will have their fans.  In fact, one such course (Butler) was brought up earlier and one of its holes was compared to the 12th.  The hole at Butler is softer.  Another example brought up earlier was Muirfield Village.  That hole, too, is softer.  There are others that are similar, whether intentional or not, including the 16th at Wine Valley, the 17th at Bear Creek and a hole at Conway Farms, to name a few.  Perhaps there's more room to miss, or the green is bit bigger, or the fronting water hazard is replaced with a hollow.  But they exist, and they all in their way pay homage to the 12th.

What's harder, the 12th at ANGC or the 17th at Sebonack ?

The 12th at ANGC or the 13th at Pine Tree ?

Forget scoring average, which hole is harder to make a birdie or par on, the 12th at NGLA or the 17th at Sebonack or the 13th at Pine Tree ?

I need to make par to win a tournament.
Which hole do I pick, the 17th at Sebonack or the 12th at ANGC.

Now, ask me which hole is more fun to play ?
Tough to beat the 12th at ANGC.
And, I'm no masochist, other than wanting to debate with you

The question posed wasn't whether or not a 10-15 handicap would be terrified of the shot but absolutely thrilled by the experience.  They probably would be on both accounts, and I doubt anyone has ever walked away from Augusta feeling "scarred."  The question is why this hole hasn't been copied with more frequency.  I'm happy to move past the tangential arguments and debate the reasons given above further if you'd like (and I don't think we even need to discuss the maintenance issues posed earlier in the thread).

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps modern day architects have shied away from mirroring # 12, lest they be accused of being unoriginal copy cats ?
Might that be a factor ?

[Brad Isaacs]

Pat,

Next time in Vegas........ Southern highlands 12th  150 from the usuall blue tees. Usually a breeze to contend with, and downhill only a little. It has the same type of angle as Augusta. Same basic shape, no front bunker but there is water and a bank behind.  In addition supposedly the last hiole Robert T Jones Sr. Had any input on. A variation yes, which I think there are a lot of. I have enjoyed each of the copies that I've played, and long to play rather than just view the real thing.

I think Jack N. has done it a number times, and a lot of them are number 12( Muirfield, Hills at Lakeway or whatever they call it now )
Most are much bigger greens than Augusta though, and I think tournament pressure only magnify 's the pressure.

I think the angst that it puts in you, to play this type of hole, makes it a lot of fun even if it is difficult for the average golfer, whatever that is.

Brad

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad,

On my next visit to Vegas, I'll definitely get to Southern Highlands.
Is it possilbe to still engage in night putting with the Dean's daughter ?

I've heard so much about it, and, if it wasn't for Kerry Packer, I might have been involved in the course with Arthur G.

Jack Nicklaus introduced an iteration at MV.

When are you coming East ?

[Matthew Sander]

"It would be a nothing hole if it was square, but the genius is the angle." - Geoff Ogilvy  [I really like this one, as someone said earlier that the angle was not even noticeable.]

The angle is barely noticeable and Olgivy's statement is foolish at best.
If the green was square, with the corners at 12, 3, 6 and 9 O'clock the hole would be far, far from a nothing hole.
It's not the diagonal nature of the green, it's the shallowness of the green,
But, you wouldn't know that because you've NEVER seen the hole in person.

"Given the brutish angle of the 12th green, if you intend to go for the heart of the target area then suddenly think: 'No, I'll go left,' you will have too much club.  But if you decide to go right, you will come up short." - Nick Faldo [Again with the angle.]

"Brutish" angle ?
"Brutush" is a word that's inapplicable to the angle that the green sits to the GOLFER.

But, again, you wouldn't know since you're relying on the words of others without any basis for judging their words.

Pat,

I hate to get involved in this informative back and forth, but I'm puzzled by your insistence that the angle of the 12th green isn't a major factor in its challenge/difficulty, rather it is the shallow nature of the green. I agree that the latter is significant, but can't both characteristics work together to maximize the challenge?

You have said that the angle is almost unnoticeable from the tee. Is the visual ability to determine the angle all that germane? Whether or not you can sense the angle, the angle is there and it is significant. Below is a screenshot of a satellite view of the hole. The green is in some shadow, but you can tell that from where the tee is in the upper right hand corner the angle is quite severe.



And yes, I've been there  .

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

In the past 48 hours you've defended your rather obtuse opinions (on this thread and others) by contradicting or avoiding statements from Dan Wexler, David Owen, Jack Nicklaus, Tom Doak, the producers of the official Masters App, Ben Hogan, Tiger Woods, Ben Crenshaw, Geoff Ogilvy, Scott Verplank, Padraig Harrington, Nick Faldo and this little nugget from Ian Andrew:

"No wonder this has become the most copied par three in the world."

You may have played Augusta, but I'm starting to think that there are a lot of people out there who know it a lot better than you.

Sven

[Steve Burrows]

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps modern day architects have shied away from mirroring # 12, lest they be accused of being unoriginal copy cats ?
Might that be a factor ?[/b][/size][/color]

If this is the case, then how does one account for the proliferation of other "template" holes that are quite popular, golf holes that virtually no designer shies away from recreating at some point in their career?  Other template style holes are almost indiscriminately introduced to golf courses worldwide, which is, in part, a measure of both their strategic merit and popularity.  Being called a copy-cat does not seem to be a real issue.  But as you say, the 12th at Augusta is rarely reproduced.  Tom Doak provided a rational early in the thread for why he doesn't include such a type.  His opinion (as a practicing professional) on the potential shortcomings of such a hole should certainly not be ignored.

Beyond that, perhaps, it is actually possible that the 12th at Augusta is simply not "one of the great par 3's in golf?"  At its core, the golf hole is a mid-iron over water.  The varied strategy that exists in many other template style holes is just not present.  So if it is a great par 3, if only in the context of the grounds of Augusta National.  Its greatness (if one does accept that it is great) is not as easily transferable or recontextualized as many of the other extant templates.

Moreover, what would a multitude of copies actually prove?

[Sven Nilsen]

with a green angled from left to right

The angle isn't that noticeable.

Pat:

Reading back through some older threads and came across this one from 2004 where you were discussing angled features (
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,15395.msg264092.html#msg264092).  Here's the opening post:

"Do angled greens, angled bunkers, angled creeks and angled mounds create the best architectural challenges to the golfer ?

Many talk about the road hole at TOC being one of the best holes in golf.  Isn't it the angled fairway, bunkers and green that create that assessment ?

Others speak of the greatness of Amen Corner.  Aren't the angles at # 12 and # 13 at ANGC largely responsible for the great challenge the holes offer ?"

This year you maintained that the angle of the green on 12 isn't that noticeable (and that the hole isn't that difficult).  Yet in 2004 you were using the 12th as an example of a great use of angles (as well as a hole that offers a great challenge).  Seems to be a bit of a disconnect.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I hate to get involved in this informative back and forth, but I'm puzzled by your insistence that the angle of the 12th green isn't a major factor in its challenge/difficulty, rather it is the shallow nature of the green. I agree that the latter is significant, but can't both characteristics work together to maximize the challenge?

You have said that the angle is almost unnoticeable from the tee. Is the visual ability to determine the angle all that germane? Whether or not you can sense the angle, the angle is there and it is significant. Below is a screenshot of a satellite view of the hole. The green is in some shadow, but you can tell that from where the tee is in the upper right hand corner the angle is quite severe.

And yes, I've been there  .



Have you played the hole ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps modern day architects have shied away from mirroring # 12, lest they be accused of being unoriginal copy cats ?
Might that be a factor ?[/b][/size][/color]

If this is the case, then how does one account for the proliferation of other "template" holes that are quite popular, golf holes that virtually no designer shies away from recreating at some point in their career? 

Would you cite/identify the template holes that modern architects have crafted ?

Other template style holes are almost indiscriminately introduced to golf courses worldwide, which is, in part, a measure of both their strategic merit and popularity. 

Would you identify them as well ?

Being called a copy-cat does not seem to be a real issue. 

Of course it is, it can be deemed as representing a lack of creativity.
And, what architect wants to be thought of in those terms ?

But as you say, the 12th at Augusta is rarely reproduced.  Tom Doak provided a rational early in the thread for why he doesn't include such a type.  His opinion (as a practicing professional) on the potential shortcomings of such a hole should certainly not be ignored.
No one has ignored them.
The question is, how much weight do you attach to them.

Beyond that, perhaps, it is actually possible that the 12th at Augusta is simply not "one of the great par 3's in golf?" 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but, I would ask, have you played the hole ?

At its core, the golf hole is a mid-iron over water.  The varied strategy that exists in many other template style holes is just not present. 

Would you describe that "varied strategy" on the "short", one of the famous templates ?

The "redan" ?

Redans from tees elevated well above the putting surface ?

The Biarritz ?

The Biarritz from tees elevated well above the putting surface ?

So if it is a great par 3, if only in the context of the grounds of Augusta National.  Its greatness (if one does accept that it is great) is not as easily transferable or recontextualized as many of the other extant templates.

Like the "short" ?

Moreover, what would a multitude of copies actually prove?

Besides architectural and playing merit and popularity ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

with a green angled from left to right

The angle isn't that noticeable.

Pat:

Reading back through some older threads and came across this one from 2004 where you were discussing angled features (
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,15395.msg264092.html#msg264092).  Here's the opening post:

"Do angled greens, angled bunkers, angled creeks and angled mounds create the best architectural challenges to the golfer ?

Many talk about the road hole at TOC being one of the best holes in golf. 
Isn't it the angled fairway, bunkers and green that create that assessment ?

The angle of # 17 at TOC is severe

Others speak of the greatness of Amen Corner. 
Aren't the angles at # 12 and # 13 at ANGC largely responsible for the great challenge the holes offer ?"

Let's stick with # 12, since that's the focus of the discussion.

The angle is benign, much more benign than # 13 at Pine Tree.
It's the "shallowness" of the green that creates the major problem, not the degree of the angle.

This year you maintained that the angle of the green on 12 isn't that noticeable (and that the hole isn't that difficult). 


That's correct.

Yet in 2004 you were using the 12th as an example of a great use of angles (as well as a hole that offers a great challenge). 

You need to reread what I typed, not what you intentionally infer.

Seems to be a bit of a disconnect.

Not if your reading comprehension skills are up to snuff.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I've never played the hole, but a kidney shaped green that's positioned at a 40/45 degree angle to the tee, like #12, is about as 'severe' as you can get, especially when it's only 30' deep in the middle.     
The two lines coming from the bottom of the photo are the same distance (155 yds) from the tee. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

Redraw your red line to the front of the right side of the green and the front of the left side of the green, not the front of the right side and the back of the left side.

Thanks

[Jim_Kennedy]

Par,
The shorter, horizontal line is at a 90 degree angle to the tee box.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
The vertical line is directly back to the center of the tee. Get out your protractor and I think you'll see a 40/45 degree angle.

[Ben Sims]

Patrick,

Since you have PLAYED the hole, it is surprising to me to see you dismiss the angle so nonchalantly.  If you would, could you please delineate between the angle not being "that noticeable" from the tee and the angle having a large impact on the architecture of the hole?  It seems to me that you are asserting that the angle is not a large part of what makes the hole unique and/or difficult.  

I agree with you that the shallowness of the green is a large part of what makes the hole, but I would argue that the angle is just as important.  Based on my remembrance of the yardages from the sprinkler heads on the tee, there is a rather obvious difference in front, middle, and back pins.  Seemed pretty noticeable to me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Since you have PLAYED the hole, it is surprising to me to see you dismiss the angle so nonchalantly.  If you would, could you please delineate between the angle not being "that noticeable" from the tee and the angle having a large impact on the architecture of the hole?  It seems to me that you are asserting that the angle is not a large part of what makes the hole unique and/or difficult.  

Ben,

It's a good question.
My answer is that with rare exception I'm going to hit the same club into that green.
Thus the horrendous angle everyone wants to claim, doesn't exist in terms of playabilty.

I agree with you that the shallowness of the green is a large part of what makes the hole, but I would argue that the angle is just as important.  Based on my remembrance of the yardages from the sprinkler heads on the tee, there is a rather obvious difference in front, middle, and back pins.  Seemed pretty noticeable to me.

Jim,

You're getting closer, would you draw a red line connecting the front left and front right of the green.

Would you draw a blue line connecting the back right to the back left of the green as well.

thanks

[Jim_Kennedy]

No, I'm not going to draw any more lines.  

The back left edge of the green is the same distance from the tee as the front right edge of the green.

The centerline of the green sits on a 40/45 degree angle to the tee, that's plain to see.

Forty-five degrees, either way, is the most acute angle that a rectangular or kidney shaped green can be positioned in respect to the tee box on a one shot hole.

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat Mucci in 2004:  "Aren't the angles at # 12 and # 13 at ANGC largely responsible for the great challenge the holes offer ?"

Pat Mucci in 2012:  "The angle isn't that noticeable."

What am I inferring?  Those are your words, direct quotes.  They contradict.

We can only work with what you typed, Patrick.