ANGC 1938 v 2013 aerial comparison

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

Then your list of experts should have no trouble identifying the players who intentionally took that route, along with the round and year.

You inability to produce just one name says everything anyone needs to know.

Why is no one addressing the issue of the fairway bunker, trees, steep sidehill/downhill slopt, etc, etc.. versus, a flatted plateau in the middle of the 9th fairway meant to produce a great lie ?

[Alex Miller]

Sven,

Then your list of experts should have no trouble identifying the players who intentionally took that route, along with the round and year.

You inability to produce just one name says everything anyone needs to know.

Why is no one addressing the issue of the fairway bunker, trees, steep sidehill/downhill slopt, etc, etc.. versus, a flatted plateau in the middle of the 9th fairway meant to produce a great lie ?

Why is there no burden to produce a name of someone who says it absolutely didn't happen and they have proof? Given the evidence presented I think such a strong case would be made that we would need real evidence either way to "prove" a point of view.

Trees? Been addressed numerously.
Sidehill//downhill? #9 has opportunity for uneven lies, but even-so a very good golfer can likely deal with it. #9 has a plateau as does #1, yet #1 gets no credit for it's possible flat lies?
Bunker? If players were able to hit that fairway off the first (tenth) tee why should they not be able to do so the other way? #9 is wider but the reward could very well be worth the risk, especially because...

a great case has been made for the advantage gained by going down #1 fairway. Improved angle to the left pin position and a shorter approach shot.

Also, where else has Mackenzie seemingly been so thoughless in the construction and design of a golf hole if play down #1 wasn't a real option? As Sven mentioned, there are clear "tongues" throughout ANGC and other Mackenzie courses which encourage a golfer to approach from certain angles and use the ground game.

[Sven Nilsen]

Alex:

To be clear, I'm not asserting the idea that MacKenzie and Jones contemplated this option in their design.  I put that in the category of things I know I don't know.

Sven

[Alex Miller]

Alex:

To be clear, I'm not asserting the idea that MacKenzie and Jones contemplated this option in their design.  I put that in the category of things I know I don't know.

Sven

Understood. I am asserting that it is a possiblity, but ultimately something we can't know. Even so, I think that it can't be ignored for this discussion as one of the best way we (in the present) can figure out how golfers from long-ago played a golf hole is by lookng at the architectural evidence. In this case, that evidence leads me to believe there is a possibility that the architect intended for #1 fairway to be a viable route, especially since Mackenzie has such a good track-record of forcing strategic golf decisions from the player at other courses of his.

[Neil_Crafter]

Mackenzie described this hole as:

"This will be a hole of the Cape type played slightly downhill. A long straight drive to the right will give an easy second to the green."

The Cape character was provided by the encircling left side bunker. He never mentioned a line of play down the 1st hole or suggested it on his plans. In fact his green plan for this hole showed a curved line to get to a pin in the back left. The green in this plan was not as exaggerated a boomerang as was finally built on the ground, and why that is the case I do not know.

My take is that this whole 'play down the 1st' thing is a furphy.

Here's the June 1932 plan of the two holes. Note that Mackenzie draws an encircling bunker around the left side of the green. Then the green plan itself, which shows the same green and bunker shape as the overall plan. So at some time in construction the encircling bunker was reduced and the left portion of the green extended further out.

[Sven Nilsen]

Alex:

I have to admit that I hadn't even contemplated the intentional aspect in the design until it was brought up earlier in this thread.  As Neil notes (and I interpret his comment to be about the design of the hole, not the play), I still don't think it was intended.

It does raise an interesting conversation regarding the openness of the original course, and the options provided by the resulting width.  Are there other spots on the course that present similar unconventional lines of play?

I was intrigued by a comment made on the broadcast today that Nicklaus used to drive from the first tee onto the ninth hole to get a better angle into the first green (supposedly up until the early 70's).  

Sven

[Alex Miller]

Neil,

Thank you for that post and those diagrams! Ok, so clearly the green was planned to allow the ball to curve back to a left pin (off a very difficult lie to do so).

Perhaps a mistake was made and there were some mis-calculations. The overhead you have shows just how wide the play down #1 would have been and equally how much shorter that route is to the green. Also I notice a lack of trees by the tee (yet again).

I must admit I put a great deal of faith into the fact that Mackenzie knew what he was doing with regard to angling the green for an approach from #1, but the evidence points to me being wrong. However I don't think that means the option for a play down #1 was not there. I still contend that there is a clear advantage or at least temptation for the golfer to play down #1 fairway for a left pin position.


To recap:
I am probably wrong with regard to Mac's design intent.
I still think that people played down #1 to #9 green for other reasons.

[Sven Nilsen]

The tournament website has a photo (number 47 of 54 in this link:  http://www.masters.com/en_US/course/holes/hole1.html) taken in 1948 that shows the landing area in the first fairway on a direct line back to the tee.

I don't think the website allows for saving and copying of photos, and I'm not sure if I want to try.

Sven

[Mark Bourgeois]

I'm enjoying this discussion, keep it going. I certainly hope we get to discuss other changes / holes at some point, such as:
* the jungle left of the creek on 13 -- should it be cut back?
* what that circular area *right* of the creek is on 16? Could it be a new green?!
* those "shrubs" on 15 fairway -- what were they and were they supposed to grow into something big? Why were they put there? Was the hole exposed somehow as weak?
*

Meanwhile, going back to the aerial comparisons, something that kind of caught me was the change *outside* the course: a lot of infrastructure has been built. Clearly some is tournament related but then there are all the cottages plus a major maintenance area. Viewed collectively, the impression one gets isn't of a club so much as an enterprise.

I am not sure what this says about golf but I'm not sure it's positive. On the other hand, for me it's not a course it's a TV studio so bring it on!

[Patrick_Mucci]

To recap:
I am probably wrong with regard to Mac's design intent.
I still think that people played down #1 to #9 green for other reasons.

What are the other reasons ?

Sven,

With the Tournament commencing in 1934 and the green being redesigned in 1938 prior to the 1938 Masters, that's only four years of tournament play to the original green, hence, a very limited field.  With the attention and coverage focused on the Masters it's easy to indentify those in the field in those four years, so which ones intentionally played down the 1st fairway, in what round and in what year ?

Your very nice summary of each hole in your "Changes to ANGC, a Hole by Hole History"  omits any reference to a bunker complex being added into the slope on # 1 fairway and any mention of play down the 1st fairway.

What you and other morons can't understand is all the prudent reasons to play down # 9 and all the prudent reasons NOT to play down # 1.

Why would anyone, intentionally, play down a hole with an assortment of negatives to do so, abandoning play down a hole with an assortment of positives to do so ?

Accidently, ala Furgol, yep, I believe that happened.  But, intentionally, ........ well, you'd have to be a moron.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Neil,

Thanks for helping to dispel another myth 

[Sven Nilsen]

What did Neil dispel?  He noted that the hole as built is not the same hole as laid out in the sketches he posted.  That has nothing to do with the actual play of the as built hole, but it does shed some light on the intention of the architects.

Listen, I get it that you had a bad day.  First you mistakenly thought Rory was going to have his girlfriend caddy for him.  You subsequently realized it was just for the Par 3 contest.  Next you had the audacity to full out bluff regarding your supposed knowledge of First Amendment law, a bluff you won't even attempt to back up in writing with any kind of analysis.  And finally, the weight of public opinion on this issue came crashing down on you like a surfer caught a little to deep in the curl.  You're grasping at straws while resorting to your typical tactics of insult and deflection.

To paraphrase the immortal Mike McDermott:  "Are you satisfied now, Patrick? Because I can keep busting you up all night if you like."

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

What did Neil dispel?  

That golfers in the tournament intentionally played down the 1st hole.

Didn't you read MacKenzie's description of the hole ?

Why would anyone trade and easy par 4 for a hard one, one fraught with trouble in the form of bunkers, trees, downhill/sidehill lies, creeks and a green that sloped away from them.

Only you and your following of blind morons, most who have never set foot on the terrain cling to the myth.

He noted that the hole as built is not the same hole as laid out in the sketches he posted.  

I can assure you that the 9th hole, to to fringe, was built as designed.

That has nothing to do with the actual play of the as built hole, but it does shed some light on the intention of the architects.

It has everything to do with the play of the hole.
Why would you forfeit and easy hole and replace it with a hard one, one where you might make a big number ?

Listen, I get it that you had a bad day.  

Today, I had a day that you could only fantasize about.
I had a spectacular day.
So much for the accuracy of your analyses

First you mistakenly thought Rory was going to have his girlfriend caddy for him.

No mistake, she caddied for him today 

You subsequently realized it was just for the Par 3 contest.  Next you had the audacity to full out bluff regarding your supposed knowledge of First Amendment law, a bluff you won't even attempt to back up in writing with any kind of analysis.

I neither have the time or inclination to write a detailed analysis of the First Amendment, especially for you.
And, especially since the First Amendment has nothing to do with this thread and you're intentionally trying to divert attention from your erroneous conclusions 

And finally, the weight of public opinion on this issue came crashing down on you like a surfer caught a little to deep in the curl.  You're grasping at straws while resorting to your typical tactics of insult and deflection.

I think you'll find my facts... accurate, and my reasoning.... prudent.

Fact is, you've never played # 9 and you've never walked down the 1st fairway, and you've based your entire argument on your interpretation of two dimensional photos and hearsay.

Stick to subject where you have some familiarity with the topic.

To paraphrase the immortal Mike McDermott:  "Are you satisfied now, Patrick? Because I can keep busting you up all night if you like."

You can try to bust me all night, all day, all week, all month and all year.
I've battled cancer for close to a decade, which makes battling you, child's play.
If you think you can wear me out, go ahead and try.
It's pretty simple, you don't know what you're talking about, and I do.

You're a fraud, pretending to be an expert.
You have no first hand experience in playing the hole.
You have no first hand experience in understanding the configuration of both fairways.
You have no understanding of the risks involved in deviating from play down the 9th fairway.
You've never seen anyone intentionally play down the 1st.
You haven't been able to name just one golfer who intentionally played down the 1st fairway in the tournament, despite the fact that there's only a handful of potential candidates.  You can't name the year and you can't name the round, yet, you insist that golfers intentionally played down the 1st fairway, based upon alleged hearsay..........from about 80 years ago ?  ?  ?

Why don't you name your alleged source, then we can try to research the claim ?

You just want to be right in an arguement with me, and sadly, you can't be, so, you'll try to redouble your misguided efforts.

What a joke.

As I stated, stick to topics where you have some semblance of knowledge.
On this one, you're out of your league.

[Sven Nilsen]

Although I have zero respect for your argumentative nature, I do have a lot of respect for the fight you waged in your battle with cancer.  If the latter begot the former, then your obstinacy is forgiven.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Although I have zero respect for your argumentative nature, I do have a lot of respect for the fight you waged in your battle with cancer.  If the latter begot the former, then your obstinacy is forgiven.

Without it, I wouldn't be here to debate you, with or without the green ink.
People with lesser stages than me gave up and unfortunately, aren't here.
Maybe I was lucky, but, being stubborn sure helped, as did a good (not recognized by you yet) sense of humor.

But, I would appreciate you answering the questions I posed about the choices presented from the tee.
Why would you take a dangerous path when an easy one was inherently presented ?

Thanks

[Alex Miller]

Although I have zero respect for your argumentative nature, I do have a lot of respect for the fight you waged in your battle with cancer.  If the latter begot the former, then your obstinacy is forgiven.

Without it, I wouldn't be here to debate you, with or without the green ink.
People with lesser stages than me gave up and unfortunately, aren't here.
Maybe I was lucky, but, being stubborn sure helped, as did a good (not recognized by you yet) sense of humor.

But, I would appreciate you answering the questions I posed about the choices presented from the tee.
Why would you take a dangerous path when an easy one was inherently presented ?

Thanks

I'll answer this (it's been answered already too). YES! depending on the circumstance. If I need a birdie and the pin is on the left going left leaves a shorter shot from a better angle, though possibly off a greater downslope. #1 still has a decently wide landing area that I've already (supposedly) navigated and if it's good enough for play from that direction it's good enough for me standing on #9 tee.


If I found this a successful strategy I would consider this play everytime depending on pin position.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Although I have zero respect for your argumentative nature, I do have a lot of respect for the fight you waged in your battle with cancer.  If the latter begot the former, then your obstinacy is forgiven.

Without it, I wouldn't be here to debate you, with or without the green ink.
People with lesser stages than me gave up and unfortunately, aren't here.
Maybe I was lucky, but, being stubborn sure helped, as did a good (not recognized by you yet) sense of humor.

But, I would appreciate you answering the questions I posed about the choices presented from the tee.
Why would you take a dangerous path when an easy one was inherently presented ?

Thanks

I'll answer this (it's been answered already too). YES! depending on the circumstance. If I need a birdie and the pin is on the left going left leaves a shorter shot from a better angle, though possibly off a greater downslope. #1 still has a decently wide landing area that I've already (supposedly) navigated and if it's good enough for play from that direction it's good enough for me standing on #9 tee.

Alex,

It was an easy short hole from the 9th fairway.

Why on earth would you need a birdie on the 9th hole ?

That's got to be one of the dumbest, let me correct that, most moronic excuses/explanations/reasons that I've ever heard.

If I found this a successful strategy I would consider this play everytime depending on pin position.

Really ?  Then why isn't it documented anywhere ?

[Ed Oden]

Following up on Neil's post, anyone interested in seeing all of Mackenzie's hole descriptions can find them here... http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51827.0.html

Personally, I don't see what is so far fetched about the possibility that someone might on occasion have chosen to play #9 down the 1st fairway if it suits their game or the conditions of the day.  Just because that plan of attack isn't appealing to everyone doesn't mean that it won't make sense to others.  I've certainly seen that scenario play out on any number of other holes, including at my home course, where I'm on the greens committee.  In my experience, the alternative fairway route is never the predominant route.  In fact, it rarely happens and most golfers wouldn't even consider it.  But it only takes a few reports of guys taking a road less traveled before a club starts thinking about ways to restrict alternative routes that affect the architectural integrity of the design or create safety issues.  So, if people were in fact playing down #1 at ANGC, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the powers that be tried to stop it.  Just my two cents.

[Matthew Essig]

I don't know if this is relevant or just hilarious but I am currently playing the 9th hole on the 1934 version of the video game.


Here's the regular view down #9 (above).



Here's the view of a tee shot down #1 (above). Just for a little realism I'm using Old Tom Morris with wooden shafted clubs. If you look in the middle of the screen, there's a white flag symbol, indicating the line the flag is on. I'm starting to see why they would want to take that line now. It's directly at a left flag and doesn't look any tighter that the standard route down 9 fairway.


The first time around, I hit driver 287 down #1 fairway and I'm probably 10 yards short of the creek (above). The pin's tucked in the front left of that boomerang each time. It seems from the game view that it would have been a great angle to come in from for a left pin. It looks like the creek is about 300 yards from the tee, most likely out of reach in that era. The lie at the bottom of the hill is flat, but I'm not sure many would have hit it that far back then. So we'll ignore this drive. I just wanted to see how far it was to the bottom of the hill.


Here's the view down #1 after a 240 drive. It leaves a considerably shorter shot of 137 (as opposed to 164) after the same length drive down #9


Here's another view from 1 fairway but more from above.



Here's the view (above) looking back down 1 from the 9th green.



This is another drive of 240 but this time down the 9th fairway. It leaves 164 to the pin (27 yards longer than down #1). Yard for yard, going down the 1st fairway to a far left flag is considerable shorter. Surprisingly, the angle from 9 fairway looks nearly as good as it does from the 1st fairway. I've always thought or heard that the reason players chose to go down 1 fairway was for the angle, but my guess seeing this would be only to get a shorter shot. One tradeoff would seem to be a guaranteed downhill lie, since there are no terraces, but really nothing most golfers couldn't handle with a short iron. I suspect many golfers would have chosen this route to get a 137 yard shot instead of a 164 yard shot.

This shows that it was completely possible to hit a drive down the first fairway, even if there were small trees that had to hit over. Every hole in the game is based off of pictures that ANGC had so the trees are accurate.

Many players would take a shorter shot off of a STEEP downhill lie in the first fairway compared to a longer shot over a bunker. Just look at how well Zach Johnson did laying up on every par 5, meaning he had to hit from the STEEP downhill lie on 15. If you didn't hit the shot quite right and was hit thin in the 1st fairway, you had room to roll the ball up with the aid of a sideboard.

[Sven Nilsen]

Although I have zero respect for your argumentative nature, I do have a lot of respect for the fight you waged in your battle with cancer.  If the latter begot the former, then your obstinacy is forgiven.

Without it, I wouldn't be here to debate you, with or without the green ink.
People with lesser stages than me gave up and unfortunately, aren't here.
Maybe I was lucky, but, being stubborn sure helped, as did a good (not recognized by you yet) sense of humor.

But, I would appreciate you answering the questions I posed about the choices presented from the tee.
Why would you take a dangerous path when an easy one was inherently presented ?

Thanks

Asked and answered.  

But to humor you, to shorten the hole and create a better angle to a pin that from the 9th fairway may require a draw from a fade lie.  I'd rather play (A) a 100-120 yard knockdown shot to a green rising away from me than (B)(x) an aerial approach to a sliver of a green over the widest portion of a daunting bunker or (y) a running shot that will need to be perfectly judged to catch the contours needed to feed the ball to the hole.  In short, I like my odds from the first fairway a lot better, and any misses on my approach from that angle will leave an easier recovery than a miss from the 9th fairway.

Its almost the same reason why I would want to approach a left pin on 15 from the right side of the fairway or a right pin from the left.  The angles work better.

[Alex Miller]

9 used to be 18. THAT'S WHY YOU MAY NEED A BIRDIE ON IT!

[Jim Nugent]

Couple questions.  How far was the fairway bunker on #1 from the 9th tee?  How wide was the 1st fairway at that same point? 

Pat -- you've raised some good points, but have not proved your position yet.  For one thing, it looks like players could shorten their 2nd shots by 25 to 30 yards by driving down #1.  That is a major advantage, that amounted to 2.5 to 3 less clubs on the approach.  And from what I see in the photos, the drive down #1 does not look that dangerous. 

I'm also struck by that little grove of trees the club planted in 1956.  It doesn't protect the 9th tee very well if at all.  But it perfectly blocks this play down #1.  Is this just coincidence? 

Would like to learn Ron Whitten's sources, because he builds most of the first 22 years of changes to #9 around this play. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Jim:

You're joining a battle that has been waging for about a year now.  Most of what you asked was covered here:  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51383.125.html.  My guess is that the bunker was about 180-220 yards from the 9th tee and that the fairway was at least 40 yards wide at that point (and much wider closer to the first tee).

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

9 used to be 18. THAT'S WHY YOU MAY NEED A BIRDIE ON IT!

Really ?

Are you sure that they didn't flip 9 & 18 more than once ?

In what year did they play # 9 as # 18 in The Masters ?

[Jim Nugent]

Sven, I just read a fair amount of the thread you linked.  One photo really jumped out:



In the first photo, I'm 99.99% sure the 9th tee is behind that clump of 4 small tree/bushes on the left side of the 1st fairway, going up towards the first green.  This shows driving down the 1st fairway was a straight line towards the 9th green, especially for a left side pin.  Just like the TW game shows, and other photos indicate as well.  

The 1st fairway looks plenty wide for a drive off the 9th tee.  The trees on the one side look sparse, and the bunker on the other side looks quite far off the line of play.  In any case the bunker looks close enough to the 9th tee that it didn't come into play much.  

If the creek was 300 yards out, very few players could reach it.  Those who could would quickly learn in practice what club to hit off the tee.  Getting to hit an 8 iron into the green, instead of a 5 or 6 iron, would make this a very tempting drive.  

This does raise the question.  With this seemingly big benefit, why didn't all the players in the Masters play down #1, all the time?  Was it because of the golfers playing #1 themselves?  Or was the drive riskier than it seems?    

[Tags:]

Tags: