[Thomas Dai]

Interesting passage on page 24 of George Waters splendid new book ' Sand and Golf' -

"In many ways Royal Melbourne is what MacKenzie intended Augusta National to be - an inland course that embodies the best principles of links golf. The wide fairways and strategic options allow players of all abilities to make their way around the course, while the hazards and greens keep the best players on their toes."

atb

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bill,

This is from a letter dated 1 Nov 1932 from Miller to the Olmsted Brothers' project manager William Marquis. Marquis commissioned the topo that Mackenzie used for the course. Subsequently Olmsted Bros used the topo to show the course and the plats for housing around the property.

None of the Olmsted guys were golfers or understood golf course design. So when they drew the map of course they put in rough. Every course has rough, right? So I interpret this passage and the correspondence as Miller, Berckmans, and Marquis truly not appreciating that Jones and Mackenzie really planned for no rough. I infer it was so radical as to be beyond their comprehension. It was that radical. Miller certainly understood golf course construction if not design.

To me it's another example of how misunderstood the original design could be. At least that's the generous interpretation one could give to the various "improvements" Roberts inflicted on the design after Mac's death.

Mark
Mark

[Bill_McBride]

I thought Scott's suggestions were quite courageous, given he's the defending champion.
Nothing too radical, just a few of the newer trees, and the second cut-pretty sane advice to make a course that's great, a little better.

Sounds like he understands strategy, course design and of course the pro game.
And it's not like this is sour grapes of a guy who has been frustrated here-he's the DEFENDING champion.
Scott is a class act, and it seems like his comments could potentially at least get a conversation going.

If we don't care(don't need to agree with them ,but certainly be aware) what the best players in the world say about our most famous, iconic, and familiar historic courses.......
then I'd say we deserve the fate our classic courses get,and there's not a lot of point in our discussions.... which don't carry nearly the weight of a Master's champion's.

Adam Scott, like most Australian pros, gets to play Royal Melbourne a lot more than American pros - or the poobahs at Augusta National.

[Bill Brightly]

I''d like the powers to be at Augusta National to spend a long weekend at Royal Melbourne. IMHO, no words would have to be spoken... and changes would take place.

[RJ_Daley]

Bill, what makes us think that the movers and shakers of ANGC haven't had their own excursions to the Sand Belt of Melbourne?  Heck, they have a short distance to drive to see Pinehurst #2.  I don't think it has anything to do with the current powers that be, and all the previous ANGC committeemen to be unaware or unexposed to these more pure concepts of wide and open strategic hole array that AM or Ross designed and conceptualized.  They all read "The Spirit of St. Andrews".  They aren't ignorant of the writings and comments of AM and Bobby Jones as to the sort of golf course and challenges that were intended.  They simply have their own highly successful and iconic event to run and grow incredibly wealthy in the trust fund that makes the money on the Masters event, and that is that!

I think it is just down to the mentality that  [it is our toon-a-mint, and we will darn well set the course up and redesign it to the notions we have for what hazards and challenges we want to present to the participants]. 

[Bill Brightly]

Bill, what makes us think that the movers and shakers of ANGC haven't had their own excursions to the Sand Belt of Melbourne? 

I don't know if they have or not. But I am guessing they have not. I just know that one round on RM opened my eyes to the importance of width and playing angles. Everything else was just talk before that. And I can't see how an Augusta member would not be profoundly moved by RM.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill, what makes us think that the movers and shakers of ANGC haven't had their own excursions to the Sand Belt of Melbourne?  Heck, they have a short distance to drive to see Pinehurst #2.  I don't think it has anything to do with the current powers that be, and all the previous ANGC committeemen to be unaware or unexposed to these more pure concepts of wide and open strategic hole array that AM or Ross designed and conceptualized.  They all read "The Spirit of St. Andrews".  They aren't ignorant of the writings and comments of AM and Bobby Jones as to the sort of golf course and challenges that were intended.  They simply have their own highly successful and iconic event to run and grow incredibly wealthy in the trust fund that makes the money on the Masters event, and that is that!

I think it is just down to the mentality that  [it is our toon-a-mint, and we will darn well set the course up and redesign it to the notions we have for what hazards and challenges we want to present to the participants]. 

If they have been to the Sandbelt, they didn't pay much attention when making changes to ANGC.   And don't forget, many of the more egregious changes were made long after Mr. Roberts shuffled off, many by the current crowd. 

[Rees Milikin]

Bill, what makes us think that the movers and shakers of ANGC haven't had their own excursions to the Sand Belt of Melbourne?  Heck, they have a short distance to drive to see Pinehurst #2.  I don't think it has anything to do with the current powers that be, and all the previous ANGC committeemen to be unaware or unexposed to these more pure concepts of wide and open strategic hole array that AM or Ross designed and conceptualized.  They all read "The Spirit of St. Andrews".  They aren't ignorant of the writings and comments of AM and Bobby Jones as to the sort of golf course and challenges that were intended.  They simply have their own highly successful and iconic event to run and grow incredibly wealthy in the trust fund that makes the money on the Masters event, and that is that!

I think it is just down to the mentality that  [it is our toon-a-mint, and we will darn well set the course up and redesign it to the notions we have for what hazards and challenges we want to present to the participants]. 

If they have been to the Sandbelt, they didn't pay much attention when making changes to ANGC.   And don't forget, many of the more egregious changes were made long after Mr. Roberts shuffled off, many by the current crowd. 

I wonder how many of them give a crap?

[James Bennett]

Hmmm,  I'm thinking he is going to show up big and like Pinehurst.   

Phil or Adam Scott for the US Open?

Very funny post Paul, perhaps unintended. I expect you meant 'lefty' Phil.

I am sure Adam's father Phil Scott will like Pinehurst. Phil is a pro golfer.

[Jordan Caron]

Many of these changes were made to Tiger proof the course if I remember. Well, it's been 9 years since he last won

Since Tiger is clearly not the same player, can the Tiger proofing of Augusta be eliminated?

[MClutterbuck]

I think the posters who are bringing in the notion of Scott understanding the MacKenzie architecture as an Australian who has played the more faithful retention of AM's original design principles, are the ones on the right track.  Heck, maybe like his fellow countryman Ogilvy, Scott actually has read the various books about AM's body of work, and AM's book, and his love of the game and it's field of play is in accord with many of the posters and contributors of this site.  Perhaps Scott is sympathetic with the notions expressed for over a decade now by writers like Geoff Shackelford, who took on the changes ANGC Masters Committee instituted to 'toughen up' the course with all the tree additions, instituting a 'second cut', and all the rest, because he knows that while this was done to bring the course more in line with professional tour player challenge, it isn't in accord with the pleasurable excitement and game that golf course architecture as AM practiced, was intended to serve.... the wide range of golfers.  Maybe Scott knows that this ANGC approach is not for everyman's club to emulate and should be 'cryit doon'.  I'll just bet Adam Scott and Geoff Ogilvy have shared a nice bottle of Australian red over a relaxing meal at home and discussed these issues.  Maybe Mike Clayton has insight into the potential that this is a prevailing Australian golfer mindset.

I was recently told of an historic club dinner that Scott attended and then spoke to the members at RM this winter.  I don't know the specifics of those remarks, but was told of his lingering with the members there for the evening, and perhaps these matters came up.  If you were the reigning champ of the Masters, and had the opportunity to have an evening with the proud and knowledgeable of their history members of RM, what would you discuss that ties those two things together. 

While agreeing with these statements, I think it is worth noting that from the members tees (where I believe a large chunk of "wide range of golfers" would play from), the course is surprisingly wide and actually easier than most would expect. The problems for most of these players start at the green. The Masters tees are a different matter, especially on those holes that have a huge difference such as 11.

[RJ_Daley]

While not having ever seen of played the member tees, let alone a tinkers chance in hades that I ever will, I think Mr. Clutterbuck makes a good point.  ANGC from the tees around 6100-6300, must be a very different animal.  But, if the greens don't also get slowed down considerably, it still seems that it would be very dicey for the average Joe.

[Bill Brightly]

Given the terrain change and the severity of the greens, I'm sure the course course is a stern test from any tee for "the average Joe." But that does not address Scott's point:


"...that's where I'd start. Do away with the rough and get it as firm and fast as you can and see some balls running into the trees and the pine straw. That would be fun, because that was an amazing feature of the course for so long."

[MClutterbuck]

While not having ever seen of played the member tees, let alone a tinkers chance in hades that I ever will, I think Mr. Clutterbuck makes a good point.  ANGC from the tees around 6100-6300, must be a very different animal.  But, if the greens don't also get slowed down considerably, it still seems that it would be very dicey for the average Joe.

6365 yards from member tees. The slope of the greens is where most of the difficulty is. Both to chip and putt. But it is not even close to being a tough course, i would say it is perfect for members. Rewards all the good drives and good approaches. As per putts, my guess is you need 10 rounds to start understanding it.

[Tom_Doak]

6365 yards from member tees. The slope of the greens is where most of the difficulty is. Both to chip and putt. But it is not even close to being a tough course, i would say it is perfect for members. Rewards all the good drives and good approaches. As per putts, my guess is you need 10 rounds to start understanding it.

Not even close to being a tough course?  Compared to what other courses from 6300 yards?  It isn't the toughest course in the world, but it's certainly tougher than most.  Not many amateurs will go 18 holes without a ball or two or three in the water, and of course most won't go 18 holes without several three-putts.

[Jim Nugent]

M. Clutterbuck: have you played ANGC?  Strictly from watching on TV, #15 looks real hard for average golfers, with the shot to the green causing lots of water problems. 

Many of these changes were made to Tiger proof the course if I remember. Well, it's been 9 years since he last won

Since Tiger is clearly not the same player, can the Tiger proofing of Augusta be eliminated?

Even without Tiger, the players score real low at ANGC.  Since year 2000, most winners have shot in the 270s and have averaged in the 60s.  Unless players start hitting the ball considerably shorter/less straight, I don't expect ANGC to open up the course.   

[MClutterbuck]

6365 yards from member tees. The slope of the greens is where most of the difficulty is. Both to chip and putt. But it is not even close to being a tough course, i would say it is perfect for members. Rewards all the good drives and good approaches. As per putts, my guess is you need 10 rounds to start understanding it.

Not even close to being a tough course?  Compared to what other courses from 6300 yards?  It isn't the toughest course in the world, but it's certainly tougher than most.  Not many amateurs will go 18 holes without a ball or two or three in the water, and of course most won't go 18 holes without several three-putts.

Tom, I was discussing from tee up to the green it is not tough. Chipping and putting is really tough and I believe the average 15 handicap will three putt about 9 holes fiche does not know the greens. Members do not three putt as much.

I do not play much in the US, but for example I found Spyglass, Stanford, Muirfield Village, Preserve, and Pebble to be much tougher.

[Mike Schott]

6365 yards from member tees. The slope of the greens is where most of the difficulty is. Both to chip and putt. But it is not even close to being a tough course, i would say it is perfect for members. Rewards all the good drives and good approaches. As per putts, my guess is you need 10 rounds to start understanding it.

Not even close to being a tough course?  Compared to what other courses from 6300 yards?  It isn't the toughest course in the world, but it's certainly tougher than most.  Not many amateurs will go 18 holes without a ball or two or three in the water, and of course most won't go 18 holes without several three-putts.

 

Tom, I was discussing from tee up to the green it is not tough. Chipping and putting is really tough and I believe the average 15 handicap will three putt about 9 holes fiche does not know the greens. Members do not three putt as much.

I do not play much in the US, but for example I found Spyglass, Stanford, Muirfield Village, Preserve, and Pebble to be much tougher.

I think Tom's point about the water is spot on. As a fairly high handicap golfer, 12, 13, 15 and maybe 16 all have potential to add 2 strokes to my score. And 12 in particular is going to be trouble as there's no bail out.

[MClutterbuck]

M. Clutterbuck: have you played ANGC?  Strictly from watching on TV, #15 looks real hard for average golfers, with the shot to the green causing lots of water problems. 

Many of these changes were made to Tiger proof the course if I remember. Well, it's been 9 years since he last won

Since Tiger is clearly not the same player, can the Tiger proofing of Augusta be eliminated?

Even without Tiger, the players score real low at ANGC.  Since year 2000, most winners have shot in the 270s and have averaged in the 60s.  Unless players start hitting the ball considerably shorter/less straight, I don't expect ANGC to open up the course.   

I was fortunate to play 3 rounds. I am a 12 handicap playing mostly out of a very tough Nicklaus course back home but play better than that on other courses. I tried to go for the green in 2 on 15 the first time, missed it way right and short (no grandstands) and made par. Green is really wide from there. Second time I had a really good score and caddy convinced me to lay up to 100 yards. I birdied. Third time my ball back spinned into the lake and double bogeyed. The green is not as tough as others on the course.

[Garland Bayley]

Tom, I was discussing from tee up to the green it is not tough. Chipping and putting is really tough and I believe the average 15 handicap will three putt about 9 holes fiche does not know the greens. Members do not three putt as much.

I do not play much in the US, but for example I found Spyglass, Stanford, Muirfield Village, Preserve, and Pebble to be much tougher.

Chipping is only tough for those that expect to get up and down with their chips. A large portion of 15 handicaps don't expect to get up and down with their chips. A 15 handicap might hit 3 or 4 greens in regulation. Those 3 or 4 are the candidates for 3 putts. The others greens will be a chip and two putts. Anyway that's how it is in my experience. How would that change if I went to ANGC? Are you saying I couldn't chip close enough to two putt?

[MClutterbuck]

Tom, I was discussing from tee up to the green it is not tough. Chipping and putting is really tough and I believe the average 15 handicap will three putt about 9 holes fiche does not know the greens. Members do not three putt as much.

I do not play much in the US, but for example I found Spyglass, Stanford, Muirfield Village, Preserve, and Pebble to be much tougher.

Chipping is only tough for those that expect to get up and down with their chips. A large portion of 15 handicaps don't expect to get up and down with their chips. A 15 handicap might hit 3 or 4 greens in regulation. Those 3 or 4 are the candidates for 3 putts. The others greens will be a chip and two putts. Anyway that's how it is in my experience. How would that change if I went to ANGC? Are you saying I couldn't chip close enough to two putt?

I guess it depends on your short game and putting. I consider myself a better than average wedge and chip player, and a worse than average putter, especially for short putts. I play better on very fast greens than slow greens and my home course has super fast greens. I believe ANGC speed wise was about the same as my club the days I played and was comfortable with the speed. However, the greens have so much contour, that 3 putting is likely even from a short distance on many pin positions. It is just not easy to hit them firm enough to counter the brake, when you risk putting off the green if you miss the hole. I averaged 7 three putt greens per round.

I can tell you I have much more respect for the pros since then. At ANGC it is also key to be below the pin position on every putt.

As an example towards your chipping question, the first day on #1 the pin was set maybe 7 feet from the front, on a narrow portion of the green with severe slopes on 3 sides. I found it nearly impossible to leave a chip close to that small target from just short and right of the green. Anything short would come back to me, and anything long would fall of the green on the other side. Anything left of the flag ended up rolling back to the fairway as well. To that position, a 12 handicap I believe would think hard about playing further back of the green to a wider area and into 3 putt territory.

Based on personal experience, your number of 3-4 greens in regulation is way, way low. I think this is the biggest misconception about ANGC and well worth a discussion. I would love to hear the experience of other 10-15 handicappers.

[Bill Brightly]

Hitting 3-4 greens in regulation as a 15 hdcp seems normal on the AVERAGE course. My handicap bounces between 3 and 5 and maybe hit 8 or 9 per round.

But Garland, the chips and pitches around the 15th green have to be some of the hardest you'll find anywhere, right? I think if I was over the green I'd take a chip and 2 putts and run, praying I don't hit it long and into the water in front.

[RJ_Daley]

Well, from the info Mr. Clutterbuck is providing and what we saw from A.S. collapse at Bayhill, it looks like the wand putter will see more than his share of 2 putt chips and three putt GIRs.  It makes you wonder how he held it together with the wand, last year to win.  

Trying to understand A.S.'s comments about the rough and tree plantings, can anyone say with certainty (or remember from broadcast information) what did the greens stimp approximately, when the course was still set up with no rough, and no planted trees and pine needle mulch?  I'm guessing in the 12ft range prior to say... '96.  Or, were the stimps by then, already north of 13?

[Garland Bayley]

I guess it depends on your short game and putting. I consider myself a better than average wedge and chip player, and a worse than average putter, especially for short putts.

I would be the opposite.

I play better on very fast greens than slow greens and my home course has super fast greens. I believe ANGC speed wise was about the same as my club the days I played and was comfortable with the speed. However, the greens have so much contour, that 3 putting is likely even from a short distance on many pin positions. It is just not easy to hit them firm enough to counter the brake, when you risk putting off the green if you miss the hole. I averaged 7 three putt greens per round.

The most contoured greens I have played are Tetherow during Kidd's extreme contour phase recently called out by Keiser in his interview. Everyone complained of many three putts. I found no problem.

I can tell you I have much more respect for the pros since then. At ANGC it is also key to be below the pin position on every putt.

As an example towards your chipping question, the first day on #1 the pin was set maybe 7 feet from the front, on a narrow portion of the green with severe slopes on 3 sides. I found it nearly impossible to leave a chip close to that small target from just short and right of the green. Anything short would come back to me, and anything long would fall of the green on the other side. Anything left of the flag ended up rolling back to the fairway as well. To that position, a 12 handicap I believe would think hard about playing further back of the green to a wider area and into 3 putt territory.

Based on personal experience, your number of 3-4 greens in regulation is way, way low. I think this is the biggest misconception about ANGC and well worth a discussion. I would love to hear the experience of other 10-15 handicappers.

Since ANGC has large greens, 3-4 in regulation is probably low for there. More likely 3-4 on a course with average sized greens.

[MClutterbuck]

Hitting 3-4 greens in regulation as a 15 hdcp seems normal on the AVERAGE course. My handicap bounces between 3 and 5 and maybe hit 8 or 9 per round.

But Garland, the chips and pitches around the 15th green have to be some of the hardest you'll find anywhere, right? I think if I was over the green I'd take a chip and 2 putts and run, praying I don't hit it long and into the water in front.

I think you can expect more than 8 or 9 at ANGC. Two members kept telling me that and I did not believe them.

I went on to hit 14 greens in regulation on my second round there, and always more than 10 in 3 rounds...I am a 12 handicap (up from 8 when I played at propertly rated US courses) and admit I played a lot better than average those days.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()