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

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

To further the discussion, I'm copying below the list of changes made to the 12th.  I'd agree that the bulk of the changes have been made to the surrounds, but the fact is the green has been raised and the putting surface is smaller today than when the course opened.  Add in the changes to the area behind the green, and it is hard to say that the hole is "mostly intact."

Hole 12 - Golden Bell - Par 3

1934 - 150 yards - The tee was positioned beneath a frame of three pines, which soon died.  The wide, flat green was built by cutting earth from the far bank of Rae's Creek and depositing it on a ledge.  The original bunkering consisted of a long, skinny one in front and a tiny one atop a hill behind.

1939 - 155 yards - Roberts directed Maxwell to enlarge the green on the right by digging out dirt from the bank behind the green with the possibility of exposing rock.  Roberts wrote "I think it will add to the thrill of the hole, as a very strong shot will strike the rock and bounce most anywhere."  A month later he wrote Maxwell to say "We do not wish to expose any rocks on the bank."  Maxwell turned the pits into bunkers.

1951 - 155 yards - For years the area between the tee and the creek as an oft flooded bog (in 1936 rowboats were considered to get players to the green).  When Rae's Creek was dammed for flood control in 1950, a tiny stream off the tee was buried in pipe, and the entire area was raised a bit.  A swale was created behind the green to remove water, and the bunkers were relocated.

1966 - 155 yards - The arched Ben Hogan Bridge was added in 1958, its grass surface soon replaced by artificial turf.  Further changes were made in 1965 to address flood control, including bringing in dirt with wheelbarrows to raise the entire putting surface 18 inches.  Land between the tee and creek was raised another two feet, and side-by-side-split-level tees were built, the Masters tee being lower than the tee used by the members.

1982 - 155 yards - When all greens were converted to bent grass in 1980, it was decided to slowly rebuild to the sand bases better for growing bent.  When construction reached the 12th green in 1981, warming coils were placed beneath the green, a concept later duplicated elsewhere.

2011 - 155 yards - Despite the flood control measures taken, a portion of the hole was damaged in an October 1990 flood.  It was quickly repaired.  The bunkers have remained in the same positions for 60 years, although the width and depth of the green has gradually shrunk due to its reconstruction and new mowing patterns.

[Kalen Braley]

So Pat here are the changes:

Then - No bunkers, Now - 3 bunkers
Then - Two tier green, Now - Flat Green
Then - Smaller green, Now - Larger green, mostly on right side
Then - Much wider creek left to its own vices, Now - Dammed Creek
Then - No flowers and fauna, Now - Flowers and shrubs
Then - Green was lower, Now - Raised.


"Arguably the most famous par 3 in golf (and surely the most consistently dramatic) the 155-yard 12th has undergone several significant changes over the decades, most of which seem largely forgotten today.  To begin with, though a set of published drawings showed both this and the thirteenth greens as having been planned bunker-free (“It will be noted there is not a single bunker at either of these holes” – MacKenzie), the evidence is clear that the front bunker was indeed included during initial construction.  The two rear bunkers were added sometime later, carved into the rear hillside above a shallow, poorly draining swale that originally backed the putting surface.

With this swale’s seemingly permanent dampness causing numerous embedded ball issues (including a famous 1958 ruling that helped Arnold Palmer to win his first Masters), a substantial project was undertaken in 1960 to elevate the entire green area some two feet.  The net result makes for interesting viewing when comparing pre- and post-1960 photos: the rear bunkers, once carved into the back hillside at a level noticeably above the putting surface, are now drawn almost level.

Perhaps more significant are the changes that have overtaken the green itself, for today’s flattish, almost symmetrical putting surface belies a far more colorful past.  Indeed, prior to a 1951 expansion, the right side was considerably smaller than the left, requiring some major skill (not to mention guts) if one elected to have a desperation go at the traditional final round pin.  Additionally, as suggested in MacKenzie’s green sketch, this smaller right side was elevated significantly above the left – a substantial difference from the relatively flat surface in play today. "

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

Let's break the 12th down to its key components:

-a 8 or 9-iron par 3 (for most)

That's not remotely accurate.
I've never hit less than a 7 iron and the members and guests I've played with hit considerably more.
In the 1962/72 highlight of the Masters I believe they show Palmer and others hitting 5, 6 and 7 from 155.
Do (most) golfers today, members and guests, hit the ball better than Palmer and other competitors in 1962/72 ?
What statistics did you rely on that led you to declare that most hit 8 or 9 iron into that green ?
I'm sure the older members and their guests would love to be able to do that, myself included.

with a green angled from left to right

The angle isn't that noticeable.

-a central fronting bunker

The bunker occupies a small portion of the overall green profile.

-a tough recovery from behind the green

That's true if you go left, not true if you go right.

-the inability to bounce the ball into the green (whether due to a water hazard or otherwise)

That's true, it's an aerial shot, not unlike the approach to # 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 18.

There have been a slew of golf holes built since 1934 that have these attributes. 

Could you name 10 on non-replica courses ?

Of those listed, some may come closer to matching these four components, but they are all at least variations on the theme.  It is no secret that Nicklaus thinks the 12th is one of the toughest par 3's ever built, and has borrowed the concept in a few of his designs (including MV).  It would not surprise me in the least if he had the hole in mind when coming up with the new 5th at PB or the 8th at Sebonack (TD may have a bit more information on this).

The 8th at Sebonack bears NO resemblance to the 12th at ANGC, especially in terms of playability.
Have you played both ?

There's probably less resemblance at # 5 at PBGC.
Have you played both ?

From the date of construction of the 4th at Deal, it is fairly evident that that hole was not the inspiration for the 12th.  But MacKenzie had previously built several similar holes, so it is not hard to surmise that the 12th was not a novel concept in his mind when constructed.  What I find interesting is that on a course where he tried to incorporate ground game options as much as possible, he built the 12th and the 15th, two holes where this option was entirely eliminated.

It's also eliminated on the approaches to the 4th, 6th 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th and to a good degree, the 18th.

While it's alleged that ANGC should be a derivative of TOC, the terrain and features within the terrain at ANGC are so vastly different from those at TOC that one has to question that allegation.

This leads to the penal nature of the 12th.  As nerve-wracking as it is from 155 for the pros, it must be pure terror for a mid- to high- handicapper from 145. 


I think the golfer arrives at the tee with mixed emotions.
He's just played three long, difficult holes, and now he has this seemingly benign par 3 of around 145-155.
No more fairway woods or long irons like on the previous holes.
# 12, probably more than any other hole, can be affected by the wind due to the slim margin of error, depth wise, at the green.
The green is very wide, so the lateral margins are ample, but, the golfer has a choice.
He can aim right to the fatter part of the green.  If the hole is cut there, even though it's a little longer, it's probably easier or less frightening.
But, if the hole is cut to the left, a three putt is almost certain.
If the hole is cut in the middle, behind the bunker, two putting from the right is very doable.

Its not a do or die hole like the 12th at Sawgrass, but it is a hole that requires a minimum carry.  I have no doubt that the bulk of ANGC is a lot of fun to play from the Members Tees (and to answer your question I have not had the honor), but the 12th is not like the rest of the course in this regard. 

It really is.

Heroic carries are required on # 4, # 6, # 7 and # 10, so the golfer has been prepped.
And, it's hard to find a green narrower than # 3 green, so the golfer has been prepped for that as well.

Not that there is anything inherently wrong in having one or two holes that provide a high level of challenge. But to say the course is clearly playable and enjoyable for all levels of golfers without pointing out that these types of holes are present is too simplistic of a statement. 

Not at all.
Those who play the course, love the course and want to return for repeat plays.
Your lack of experience is leading you to make erroneous statements.

There's probably a great deal of enjoyment had by walking the same course that you've seen on television. 

No question about it, it's a thrill to walk a course you've seen, every year, for decades, where golfing history has been made.
Your degree of familiarity makes you feel like you know it like your own course.
But, you're shocked by the elevation changes, the slopes, on the fairways AND greens.
Nothing you see on TV can prepare you for that.

There's also probably a great deal of fun in trying the shots that you've seen the pros hit, including at the 12th. 

I think part of the joy is walking off the green with a par or better and thinking to yourself, "I wonder how much ____ would have paid for my birdie/par on Sunday

It has to be a blast to hit and hold the 12th from 145 or 155 yards.  But going to your bag to pull out another Titleist is probably no fun at all.
While my play is limited, I've never heard anyone complain about having/getting to hit ANOTHER shot into # 12 green.
I'd venture to say that alot of golfers wouldn't mind playing # 12, twelve times even if they only had 13 balls in their bag.

Here's a short list of replica courses built in the last 50 years:

Golden Ocala (1986)
Grand Cypress New Course (1988)
Cypresswood Tradition Course (1988)
Boyne Ross Memorial Course (1989)
Tour 18 Course (1992)
Royal Links (199)
Tribute at the Colony (2000)
World Tour Golf Links (1999)
Angel Park (1990)
Oakhurst (1998)
Sandhollow - The Links (2008)
Bear's Best (2002)
Renditions Golf Club (2002)
Wooden Sticks (2002?)


This is where you've missed the crux of this thread.
It's not about replica "courses" it's about replica holes on non-replica courses.

Just a guess, but the idea of replica courses coincided with the heights of the latest course construction bubble. 
With a ton of courses being built, the replica idea represented a niche market, giving the player the ability to experience many of the toughest, greatest and most widely known golf holes, including in some cases the 12th at Augusta.  I look at it purely as a marketing ploy.  Instead of building a new design, why not build holes that every player would want to experience but could not, whether due to access, cost or location.
That may be, but that's entirely off the mark regarding this thread, which isn't about replica "courses" rather, replica holes on non-replica courses.

To examine why these types of courses aren't being built with the frequency that they were in the 1980's and 90's is an exercise in examining the changes in the golf construction business in general.  Call it the Keiser effect.  There's been a steady paradigm shift from the glossy to the jagged, from high dollar projects to the found course.  With minimalism being the buzzword of the day and the average builder of a course paying a bit more attention to the bottom line, we're seeing more Greywalls, Hidden Creeks and Steamsongs and fewer Shadow Creeks.  Under the new model, the occasional Redan, Cape or Alps style hole does get built, but only where the qualities of those holes was already evident on the ground. 

Now you're getting warm

I'd bet that if the components of the 12th at Augusta presented themselves on the right site, that style of hole would be built as well. 

To think, in 80 years, that those components never presented themselves, seems a stretch.
With modern equipment, what didn't present itself, could be manufactured, just like NGLA and others

With a few rare exceptions, the courses being built today are not being built as tournament course. 

Agree

Thus it is highly likely that any such "replica" would be a bit softer than the 12th at Augusta, a better fit for a course played regularly by members or paying customers.

I thought about the above statement, and would venture to say that if I approached the membership of the clubs in my area and said, you know the par 3 on the front/back nine, well, we're going to redo it and make an identical replica of # 12 at ANGC, I bet there'd be an overwhelming approval rating.

One last point.  When I was discussing the changes made in a replica that would make it more playable, I was specifically referring to replicas of the 12th at Augusta.  I don't have the answer to this question, but I'd bet that the copies that have been built have features that make them a bit easier for the average player.  Perhaps the recovery from behind is a bit easier, or there's a bit more room in the front for a miss.  The point was that these holes are being built for the consumer golfer, not the professional.  And they're probably being built to provide the 12th at Augusta experience, with a little less bite.

You could be right, a softer, kinder version might be more palatable.
But, golfers are a funny breed.  Almost masochistic in their desire to play difficult holes, holes and courses well beyone their abilities.
But, I wouldn't want a dumbed down version, I'd rather have the real McCoy.
And I think the average golfer, given the opportunity to play the 12th at ANGC in his own back yard, would jump at the opportunity.

Everything I've heard about Old Macdonald has been positive.
While the holes aren't exact replicas, they're representative of the theme.

Certain holes have a unique allure and I think # 12 at ANGC has that unique allure, appealing to the broad masses.

[Sven Nilsen]

Kalen:

To be accurate, there were bunkers when the hole opened for play (one in front and one behind).  In its earliest stages, the bunkers behind the green were set into the hillside above the green.  Today, the rear bunkers are at the same level as the green.  

The Golf Digest account of the changes suggests that the green has actually been reduced in size over the years.

[Kalen Braley]

Sven,

You are correct, and I just realized why i was confused as there are "two" 12th hole threads going on at the same time...I was getting my posts crossed.

Here is what I said in the other thread...

I can't find a picture of it, but I've seen pictures of the original 12th hole and it looks very different to what it is now.

Perhaps Dr. MacK wasn't the "thief" of the 12th hole, but whoever it was that re-designed it to its current form.

ANGC 12 may have "opened" with those bunkers in place, but my point was that it wasn't according to the original design that Dr. MacK had intended.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Would you detail for us how the 12th hole, as a golf hole isn't mostly intact since 1934.

This is the second time I've referred you to this thread:  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51383.50.html
So, you're quoting another source, one I've read, the question I posed to you remains, tell us how the hole and the play of the hole has changed substantively since 1934.

b]

By whom ?

To start with, by several other posters in this thread.

Could you name them, and also indicate if they've EVER played the course.

To expand the group beyond our little universe, any member or guest that would have a hard time hitting a shot of 145 yards that would have the requisite height necessary to hold the green. 

First you told us that (most) are hitting 8 or 9 iron.
Last I observed, 8 and 9 irons don't have any problem attaining the requisite height.
Since you claim that (most) are hitting 8 or 9 iron they shouldn't have any problem with this hole, should they ?

It is perhaps the most penal hole at Augusta. 

How can you make that statement absent personal experience ?

Is not # 4 more penal, more difficult ?
170 versus 145 yards, OB long, deep bunker short, trouble right.

How about # 11 ?

I'll bet most will par # 12 before they par # 11 and scores over par will be just as high or higher.

# 13 ?  # 15 ?  # 16 ?

When I think penal the words "eminently playable" don't immediately pop into my mind.

At 145 yards, it's eminently playable.
It's not like the required carry at # 8 at PBGC.
The fact that the hole has remained, mostly intact, for 80 years tells you that it's eminently playable by member and guests alike.

Have you EVER played the hole ?

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I have not. 

However, I've watched the tournament every year since I was in high school, I have a very acute imagination and I read. 
That's terrific, but unfortunately not sufficient to comment on the playing merits/demerits/qualities of the hole.
To establish a time frame, when did you get out of high school.

When Jack Nicklaus says its one of the toughest par 3's in the world for the pros, in my mind that means it is an even tougher hole for the average golfer.  I covered all of this above.

I'm certainly interested in what Jack Nicklaus and any other Master's competitor has to say about the course, however, one needs to ascertain context.

If I'm competing in the Masters and in the locker room and another competitor or perhaps myself had a good/bad experience at # 12 and a reporter asks me what I think about the 12th hole......... is there any other response ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, in your title to this thread you ask if "the 12th hole at ANGC is one of the great par 3's in golf?".  
A few of us, who granted have not had the opportunity to play Augusta National, have said that the hole is not one of the great par-3s in golf.  
We have given reasons, mostly related to the penal nature of the hole and the size of the green, but you have dismissed them because we have not played the hole.

I agree that only once a golfer has played a hole can he truly appreciate its qualities.  
Preferably the golfer has played the hole several times, and thus has seen varied winds and pin positions.  

It seems that you are one of only a handful of golfers on this board to have played Augusta.

To ask a question, dismiss the answers of the group, and then say "Jim, if you don't know by now, I doubt that my analysis would shed any light upon the substance and quality of the hole" does not add substance to the discussion.

Mark,

You're evidently unaware of prior histories with regard to participants on this site and thus may or may not understand the context and reason for the original question.

Please tell me why this hole is one of the great par-3s in golf.

I'll be glad to in an IM, but first, it's dinner time.

[Andy Troeger]

Am I the only one, who after reading about the changes at the top of page two, agrees with Patrick's original statement that the hole is mostly intact? The biggest changes are to alleviate flooding between the tee and the creek. Unless one plans to lay up, are those differences really that dramatic? Every hole evolves to a point--this doesn't sound all that unusual, especially compared to the rest of the course!

Kalen,
I don't think any of your first three summary statements are correct, based on the 1934 and 2011 paragraphs.

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

I don't even know where to begin.  At times you make my points, at times you argue against them.  Elsewhere you completely misconstrue my words and start to argue about assertions I didn't make.  

As Tom said earlier in the thread, most players can't play a hole like the 12th at Augusta.  When replicas, copies, homages or variations have been built, they have been built with a less penal nature.

Its a great hole for the Masters.  One that I am sure everyone that gets to play Augusta appreciates.  But that does not mean it is a hole that is a great hole for the average player.  

I play golf occasionally with a guy in his 60's who doesn't carry the ball as far as he used to and doesn't hit as high.  If he were to play the 12th, he'd probably be hitting a mid-iron (as you suggested).  If he doesn't catch if flush, he's probably in the drink, in the bunker or hitting into the bank (with the possibility of rolling back into the water).  If he does catch it clean, its unlikely his lower shot is going to hold the shallow green.   As a righty, his long miss is most likely going to be a shot to the left, missing the safe area you indicated can be found long right.  A recovery from behind the green, with the water looming behind, does not look benign.  

I'll save the discussion of the changes in the ground game options of the course and MacKenzie's and Jones' inspirations and intents
for other threads.  I'm also not going to argue with you that the folks lucky enough to play Augusta don't enjoy every moment of it, to do so would be asinine.  But I will stand strong on the thought that the 12th is a great hole for the pros, but is a bit much for the average guy.

Sven


  

[Sven Nilsen]

Andy:

The green has been significantly changed and raised, the bank in front of the green is steeper, the area behind the green has seen drastic changes and the surface of the bridge is now astro-turf.  For a hole of 155 yards, these are not just simple changes.

Pat:

Can we do away with the if you haven't played it you can't comment stance, at least when it comes to discussing Augusta?  If there's a course that has received more coverage, I'm not aware of it.  I think watching the hundreds of tee shots to 12 that we have all seen over the years provides a sufficient basis for those that have not had the pleasure of playing to participate in the conversation.  That foundation is only stronger with the addition of Ran's write-up, the various IMO pieces on Augusta and the countless threads over the years that have discussed the course.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

I don't even know where to begin.  At times you make my points, at times you argue against them.  Elsewhere you completely misconstrue my words and start to argue about assertions I didn't make.  

You'll hae to be more specific

As Tom said earlier in the thread, most players can't play a hole like the 12th at Augusta.  

Tom is wrong.
The 12th has been played by thousands and thousands and thousands of golfers over the last 80 years and the hole remains mostly intact, especially in terms of playing characteristics.

If it was unplayable, at ANGC of all places, they would have changed it long ago.

When replicas, copies, homages or variations have been built, they have been built with a less penal nature.

That's absolutely untrue.

Its a great hole for the Masters.  One that I am sure everyone that gets to play Augusta appreciates.  But that does not mean it is a hole that is a great hole for the average player.  

The Masters is an event held over four (4) days a year.
Who plays the course for the balance of the year ?  The members ?  Their guests ?
What do you think is closer to the average handicap,  +2 or 14 ?

I play golf occasionally with a guy in his 60's who doesn't carry the ball as far as he used to and doesn't hit as high.  If he were to play the 12th, he'd probably be hitting a mid-iron (as you suggested).  If he doesn't catch if flush, he's probably in the drink, in the bunker or hitting into the bank (with the possibility of rolling back into the water).  If he does catch it clean, its unlikely his lower shot is going to hold the shallow green.  

Since you've never played the hole, how can you assess the holding qualities of the green for the average golfer.
According to you, noone hitting a club below a 7 iron can hold the green.
That's absurd.
You do realize that golfers are allowed to tee their ball up on a tee, don't you ?
Since when is hitting a green in regulation a right of entitlement ?
There's plenty of room right of the bunker


As a righty, his long miss is most likely going to be a shot to the left, missing the safe area you indicated can be found long right.  
A recovery from behind the green, with the water looming behind, does not look benign.  

If he takes a Phil Mickelson full wedge swing perhaps, but putting or chipping with a 6-iron is not an onerous shot.

I'll save the discussion of the changes in the ground game options of the course and MacKenzie's and Jones' inspirations and intents
for other threads.  I'm also not going to argue with you that the folks lucky enough to play Augusta don't enjoy every moment of it, to do so would be asinine.  But I will stand strong on the thought that the 12th is a great hole for the pros, but is a bit much for the average guy.

Then why have the custodians of the course and the members retained its playing characteristics/qualities for 80 years ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy:

The green has been significantly changed and raised, the bank in front of the green is steeper, the area behind the green has seen drastic changes and the surface of the bridge is now astro-turf.  For a hole of 155 yards, these are not just simple changes.

They are simple changes and you wouldn't even notice them if someone didn't tell you about them.

Since when is 18 inches a significant elevation change ?
If you played one year, and the green was raised 18 inches, you'd never notice it the next year.

Tell us, how does that change the playing characteristics of the hole ?

The "bridge" is astro turfed and you call that a material change ?
The bridge is far removed from the green and irrelevant in terms of playing characteristics of the hole.

Pat:

Can we do away with the if you haven't played it you can't comment stance, at least when it comes to discussing Augusta? 

No, we can't.
You can't comment on the playing characteristics of a hole you've never played.
You made definitive statements about the hole that were grossly erroneous.
First you told us that "most" hit 8 or 9 iron into that green.
Then, contradicting yourself, you told us that golfers hitting "clean" mid irons couldn't hold the green.

You held yourself out as an authority on the play of the hole.
I don't know how someone who has never played a hole can hold themselves out as an authority on the play of the hole.
Hence, I challenged your opinions.
Of the two positions/opinions, I think mine is more fact based


If there's a course that has received more coverage, I'm not aware of it.  I think watching the hundreds of tee shots to 12 that we have all seen over the years provides a sufficient basis for those that have not had the pleasure of playing to participate in the conversation. 
I disagree.
I too thought that I knew alot about ANGC and the play of ANGC prior to playing, based on my watching the Masters for 40+ years, but, I had a rude awakening when I actually played the course.  NOTHING you see on TV prepares you for play on the golf course beyond a general idea.
It is dramatically different in person.

That foundation is only stronger with the addition of Ran's write-up, the various IMO pieces on Augusta and the countless threads over the years that have discussed the course.

You can read Ran's write up and threads about ANGC until the cows come home and it won't prepare you for the actual playing experience.
The course is vastly different from what you see on TV.
The elevation changes, slopes and visuals can't be seen on TV or gleened from reading.

It's kinda like sex, someone can tell you all about it, but, until you actually experience it, you don't have a clue.

[Sven Nilsen]

Did you play the hole as it was in 1934?  If not, you have no credibility to discuss the changes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Did you play the hole as it was in 1934?  If not, you have no credibility to discuss the changes.

Sven, you ignorant slut.

It's the SAME hole.

You're confusing the window dressing, the peripheral effects with the playability of the hole.

Please limit your posts to topics you comprehend.

As to assigning credibility, when it comes to the 12th hole and ANGC, you're not one of the mulitple choice answers.

[Sven Nilsen]

Let's skip the multiple choice part of the test and go to the T/F section:

1.  The green has the same contours as it did in 1934:  True or False

2.  The bank at the front of the green is the same:  True or False

3.  The rear bunkers are at the same level they've always been with respect to the green surface:  True or False

4.  The size of the putting surface is the same:  True or False

Extra Credit:  Most pro's hit an 8 or 9 iron (which is what I meant):  True or False

Edit:  To give you a hint, I refer back to Dan Wexler's words on the subject:  "the 155-yard 12th has undergone several significant changes over the decades, most of which seem largely forgotten today."  If you're looking for credibility, I think he has some.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's skip the multiple choice part of the test and go to the T/F section:


Sven, the absurdity of your desperate test is that NO course can pass it.

Have someone explain the word, "substantive" to you.

1.  The green has the same contours as it did in 1934:  True or False

2.  The bank at the front of the green is the same:  True or False

3.  The rear bunkers are at the same level they've always been with respect to the green surface:  True or False

4.  The size of the putting surface is the same:  True or False

Extra Credit:  Most pro's hit an 8 or 9 iron (which is what I meant):  True or False

Now we're supposed to ordain what you meant versus what you type ?  ?  ?

Since when has discussing how the members and guests play a hole involved contexting the answer with the play of PGA Tour Pros ?

Edit:  To give you a hint, I refer back to Dan Wexler's words on the subject:  "the 155-yard 12th has undergone several significant changes over the decades, most of which seem largely forgotten today."  If you're looking for credibility, I think he has some.

Sven, that's just HIS opinion and you don't know the context in which he was using the word "significant"
He certainly wasn't using it to define the play of the hole.

The hole originated at 150 yards, it's now 155 yards.
The location of the green is the same with very few alterations.
ie, the hole is mostly intact.

[Sven Nilsen]

Who is Jud?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Who is Jud?

Another participant on GCA.com.

[Sven Nilsen]

I believe the context of Dan's words were related to a substantive examination of the changes to the 12th hole at Augusta with the goal of surmising if the hole is better now than it was then. 

[Mark_F]

Then why have the custodians of the course and the members retained its playing characteristics/qualities for 80 years ?[/b][/size][/color]

Patrick,

How many members would have enough influence to change the hole? 

How many of the seemingly annual changes to the course are for the benefit of dues-paying members? 

[Morgan Clawson]

Pat -

Since you've been blessed with playing ANGC, I would appreciate it if you would stop asking questions, and tell us a wonderful story or two.

[Chris DeNigris]

Pat's totally on the money on this one.

The changes since birth are subtle at most. Hardly signficant and really haven't altered the playing characteristics of the hole.

It is arguably the best par 3 on one of the greatest courses in the world...that would seem to seal the deal on it's own inherent greatness.

How many rank and file 10-15 handicappers would be "terrified" at hitting this shot? Really? Give me a 7 iron and a sleeve of Bridgestones and I wouldn't feel bad if I dunked one before finding a bunker. If I hit a good shot and held the "eminently unplayable" green then I'm sure I'd be elated. Hardly scarred for life by the unspeakable trauma.

If you haven't played it- or maybe haven't even set foot on the tee box- how can you possibly conclude that the hole is too tough for the members or their guests? And to incessantly argue the point against someone who's had repeated plays and is intimately knowledgeable of the hole, the course, it's members and guests....How is one that presumptuous?

Maybe it's too unique to be mimicked.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Then why have the custodians of the course and the members retained its playing characteristics/qualities for 80 years ?[/b][/size][/color]

Patrick,

How many members would have enough influence to change the hole? 

Individually or collectively ?
And,
Over what period of time ?

How many of the seemingly annual changes to the course are for the benefit of dues-paying members? 

I would think every one, save for the narrowing of the golf course.
Even though the golf course has ample width, I think the narrowing embarked upon a few years AG was a step in the wrong direction for membership play.

Except for the superior amateur member, the lengthening of the Masters tees has had little impact on the great majority of the members.

I may have forgotten some of the changes but can you list the one's that have disadvantaged the members ?

[Sven Nilsen]

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.

He backed up that claim by saying that the club didn't see any need to make any changes to that hole.  Irregardless of the extent of any changes (I'll let Pat take on Dan Wexler to prove that point), 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.  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.  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.  Changes are not made to make it easier for the 65 year old member and his guests.

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

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

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

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

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

"No matter what happens with equipment, that hole will always be a delicate shot.  It might be the toughest shot you ever hit.  The margin of error is minute." - Scott Verplank

"You're always worried." - Padraig Harrington

"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.]

"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.]

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

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.  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.

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.  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.  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.  

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

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).


 

[Mark Saltzman]

Ian Andrew's take: http://ianandrewsgolfdesignblog.blogspot.ca/2012/04/12th-at-augusta-national-best-par-three.html