[Mike Hendren]

Rather than hijack another thread and as a service to others, I thought I'd make a pre-emptive strike in hopes of getting the annual bashing over with well in advance of the tournament:

I continue to marvel at the manner in which so many participants on this site manufacture criticism and cheap shots at dynamics and elements that simply don't exist at Augusta.  Also, the cry to "put 'em back the way they was" merely suggests that too many of you are drinking too much Yokumberry Tonic.  

I don't know much about golf architecture, but am always greatful for those who know less.  I simply can't fathom how anyone can miss Augusta's greatness.  (And I'm not even trolling for tickets, btw.)

Dang you all.

Bogey

[Terry Lavin]

ANGC is great on many levels.  The Masters is great on many levels.  To the extent that the organizers have diminished some of the architectural features of the design of the golf course, it has done little to diminish the greatness of either the course or the tournament.  This is probably the case because of the institutional memories that we all have for all of the great moments in the Masters past.  From the "Yes, Sirrrrrrrrrrrrr" to Norman dunking a couple to the odd double eagle or hole-in-one to Bubba's awe-inspiring recovery shot, these memories have the effect of muting some meaningful criticism of the course architecturally speaking.

Don't get me wrong, I hate to see clubs planting trees to redirect play and I hate to see rough planted where it really doesn't belong and I hate to see places like Merion get altered architecturally for the sake of hosting a championship, but the greatness of Merion or ANGC is pretty hard to diminish.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sure, let's keep it simple: with all the changes, I'd still rather watch golf played at Augusta every single year than at Merion. To my inexperienced and inexpert eyes, the former's architecture and intention still shines through, while of what the latter once was or intended to be I have no idea.   

Peter

[Mark Bourgeois]

So anyone who criticiszes the design or setup believes the course is not great. Got it, thanks.

[Bill_McBride]

Sunday afternoon watching the back nine is still the best day of the year.   Unless it's boring. 

[Mark Fedeli]

The bigger issue for me is what the average golfer takes away with them when they see "GREAT" courses like Augusta and Merion plant trees and grow rough and narrow fairways and make everything lush and green. If I'm ever tough on those courses, it's because I'm sick of hearing guys equate those set-up decisions with great golf course architecture because TV has never told them otherwise.

And not just intellectually; I'm speaking mainly of the trickle-down effect that it causes with the design and conditioning of our everyday courses.

[Jim Nugent]

Clearly ANGC is a great, great course. 

That said, my eyes about jumped out of their sockets when I saw images of the circa 1934 course, in the Tiger Woods game.  It was easy for me to understand why some might yearn for the old days...

[Sven Nilsen]

I'm not so sure there's as much criticism of Augusta National around here as people would like to believe.

There is a bit of Augusta Syndrome talk, but I think for the most part everyone understands the unique position the club holds in regards to championship golf, and that not every course can look the way it does.

What I do read into most of the comments made regarding the changes to the course is that those changes represent a fascinating study into how the game has evolved.  Its a course originally designed with the Scottish links-style game in mind that has been altered over the years to keep pace (or outpace) the manner in which the best players in the world play the game.  It also represents one of a handful of courses that exemplify one of the master's greatest work, as well as the work of a number of other prominent architects over the years.  Its one of the greatest courses to play the "what if" game, and I think that's mostly what is taking place when people talk about the original version.

Its easy to claim Augusta hatred, but I think it is possible to appreciate the course for what is today and at the same time critically examine the evolution it has undergone.

[Ronald Montesano]

Noteworthy things are not immune to criticism. If Merion or Goat Hill had been the home of an annual major championship since 1934, developed by Bob Jones, with the championship lineage of The Masters, we might be talking about what they once were, comparing them to what Augusta still would be. That should make sense.

Augusta National Golf Club/the course is a victim of Augusta National Golf Club/the spring invitational.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike,

In case your comments were directed at me, let me point out that my recent thread questioning whether Augusta needed any bunkers was actually intended to praise the course and my 15th hole thread is really only about one hole (or even one shot).

Anyway, Augusta is unique as the only venue permanently hosting a major championship. The club also faces the challenge of balancing the original design concept - playable for all, but challenging for the expert - with the demands of hosting the tournament. Overall, the club does that pretty well, IMO.

But, we are here to discuss/debate golf architecture and it can't be all praise.

I once had a conversation with the someone who was the CEO of a well known company and a member at Augusta. The funny thing was at the time I didn't know who he was even though I was at a cocktail party hosted by his company. Crazy!

The discussion was really good with me mostly criticizing Augusta for not taking the lead on the golf ball distance issue. This gentleman listened and mostly asked questions why I felt the way I did.

He demonstrated that even as a corporate CEO and member he was comfortable with criticism of both the course and the club.

[Jason Thurman]

There's so much to love about Augusta:

1. It is, almost without question, the world's greatest course for television viewing. The tall pines lining the fairways and huge slopes throughout the course give a backdrop that allows viewers to see ballflight in a way unlike any other course on Tour. The best example is the incredible 13th, the site of filming for the best Hogan footage I've ever seen (search YouTube for Ben Hogan ball flight).

2. Speaking of the 13th, it may be the world's best par 5, and Augusta may have the best collection of 3 shot holes in the world as well.

3. It's among the most well-realized courses in the world aesthetically. I get that there are a handful of non-members who wish it looked "scruffier" or something, and we can nitpick about the first cut and things like that. But the restrained use of huge flash-faced bunkers, wide corridors of monochromatic fairway, and the pines give the course a nearly unmatched sense of place that measures up to and enhances its lofty status in the game. It has none of the houses of Pebble Beach, the hotel signs of The Old Course, out of place bunkers of Merion, or highways of Oakmont. It's hard to believe that you're watching an urban course when you see the place.

Regardless of how well the course upholds its intended architectural principles (and I think it does it better than most would give credit for), it upholds the history of the game as well as any. As the game has modernized, become more technologically driven, and become infiltrated by capitalism, Augusta is a rare place that still makes Rickie Fowler's clothes look stupid, beer carts seem ridiculous, housing developments seem like an intrusion on the game, and wielders of cavity backs and ProV1s look overmatched as shotmakers.

[BCrosby]

So anyone who criticiszes the design or setup believes the course is not great. Got it, thanks.

What Mark says. Sheesh.

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark, Bob - what happened to you two charmers this morning, take your grumpy pills? On most days, two facile and elegant thinkers such as yourselves would have readily made/recognized the distinction between greatness (which is what Bogey's referring to) and relative greatness (the subject of countless threads about the changes to Augusta). I imagine Bogey out there waiting (with all of us) for that beginning of spring that is the Masters, and asking that, for a while at least, we all 'inhabit' the former context and not the latter, so as to make his waiting pristine. Is that too much for a long time poster to ask? Well, apparently it IS too much for the likes of you two...

[jeffwarne]

Noteworthy things are not immune to criticism. If Merion or Goat Hill had been the home of an annual major championship since 1934, developed by Bob Jones, with the championship lineage of The Masters, we might be talking about what they once were, comparing them to what Augusta still would be. That should make sense.

Augusta National Golf Club/the course is a victim of Augusta National Golf Club/the spring invitational.

That is the singlemost flattering paragraph involving Goat Hill ever written, though the Goat Hill Invitational has been gaining traction over the last 10 years or so.

Bogey's just putting up a preemptive strike before the annual bashing begins

[Lou_Duran]

Bogey,

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  Some folks here participate very actively offering heartfelt, beautifully written comments on courses they have never played or even seen in person.

ANGC has always been a work in progress.  It was undergoing considerable changes when Bobby Jones was alive and probably will continue to see nips and tucks long after all current members are no longer around.  That we second guess so frequently the decisions of what has to be one of the best informed and most capable, conservative memberships says something.  I just shake my head and enjoy every minute of the telecast I can watch.

[Bill Brightly]

Rather than hijack another thread and as a service to others, I thought I'd make a pre-emptive strike in hopes of getting the annual bashing over with well in advance of the tournament:

I continue to marvel at the manner in which so many participants on this site manufacture criticism and cheap shots at dynamics and elements that simply don't exist at Augusta.  Also, the cry to "put 'em back the way they was" merely suggests that too many of you are drinking too much Yokumberry Tonic.  

I don't know much about golf architecture, but am always greatful for those who know less.  I simply can't fathom how anyone can miss Augusta's greatness.  (And I'm not even trolling for tickets, btw.)

Dang you all.

Bogey

Bogey,

I have to say that "bashing" is a pretty poor choice of words. On a website dedicated to frank discussion about golf course architecture, it is hard to think of a better course to use as a platform for dialogue . Let me count the ways:

1. It is a course that everyone is familiar with, and we get to see it every year. I know that few have played it and television does not capture the great elevation change, but it is still a course that can be intelligently discussed by most gca members. As a private club that opens itself up to an annual televised tournament, AGNC invites this type of discussion.

2. The original design comes from one of the greatest architects ever along with one of the greatest players. Yet that design has been altered in many ways. We like to discuss changes that occurred to ODG courses here.

3. Throughout its history the course was altered by a very strong club leader.  We could write thousands of pages on great old courses that were drastically altered by powerful club leaders. That topic is very relevant here.

4. An incredible number of trees have been added and the playing corridors dramatically reduced. This is another common theme at thousands of courses in the U.S.  Many courses are eliminating trees. Is it not worthy to discuss if AGNC should do the same?

5. To many in the U.S., ANGC represents the gold standard in how golf courses should be maintained. You and I may not agree with that, but for the past 40 years superintendents far and wide have been responding to pressure from their memberships to make their courses greener and the putting surfaces faster. The way I see, AGNC is an annual reminder to golfers what is "possible" given unlimited budgets. That is a pretty relevant topic, no?


I could go on, but the point is that ANGC is such an ideal tableau for what it is we do here on GCA.COM. It's discussion, not bashing.

Cheers,

Bill

[Mike Hendren]

Tim, your excellent thread prompted my thoughts.  Arguably, the fairway bunker at the 8th is the only strategic bunker on the grounds.  Without it, players could bomb their drives down the extreme right side and set up a highly favorable angle for their second to the green.  

I'm mainly curious why everyone's suddenly playing nice with respect to the course.  Bashing (sorry Bill - I typed before reading your sensible post) it is a hallmark of this site.  Perhaps there's still hope of being invited to attend.  I had so hoped the detractors would punch themselves out in advance of the invitational.

Then again, I am convicted by criticism from our two stalwarts, particularly The Cros who I admire greatly.

One more thought - I think Jones' description of the original course does the present version a tremendous disservice.  I don't think it was ever a geniune homage to The Old Course or links golf in general.  

For some strange reason I've fallen in love with Augusta and Merion.  Perhaps it's because I didn't ruin my experiences at either by teeing it up.

[MClutterbuck]

Rather than hijack another thread and as a service to others, I thought I'd make a pre-emptive strike in hopes of getting the annual bashing over with well in advance of the tournament:

I continue to marvel at the manner in which so many participants on this site manufacture criticism and cheap shots at dynamics and elements that simply don't exist at Augusta.  Also, the cry to "put 'em back the way they was" merely suggests that too many of you are drinking too much Yokumberry Tonic.  

I don't know much about golf architecture, but am always greatful for those who know less.  I simply can't fathom how anyone can miss Augusta's greatness.  (And I'm not even trolling for tickets, btw.)

Dang you all.

Bogey

Bogey,

I have to say that "bashing" is a pretty poor choice of words. On a website dedictated to frank discussion about golf course architecture, it is hard to think of a better course to use as a platform for daliague. Let me count the ways:

1. It is a course that everyone is familiar with, and we get to see it every year. I know that few have played it and television does not capture the great elevation change, but it is still a course that can be intelligently discussed by most gca members. As a private club that opens itself up to an annual televised tournament, AGNC invites this type of discussion.

2. The original design comes from one of the greatest architects ever along with one of the greatest players. Yet that design has been altered in many ways. We like to discuss changes that occurred to ODG courses here.

3. Throughout its history the course was altered by a very strong club leader.  We could write thousands of pages on great old courses that were drastically altered by powerful club leaders. That topic is very relevant here.

4. An incredible number of trees have been added and the playing corridors dramatically reduced. This is another common theme at thousands of courses in the U.S.  Many courses are eliminating trees. Is it not worthy to discuss if AGNC should do the same?

5. To many in the U.S., ANGC represents the gold standard in how golf courses should be maintained. You and I may not agree with that, but for the past 40 years superintendents far and wide have been responding to pressure from their memberships to make their courses greener and the putting surfaces faster. The way I see, AGNC is an annual reminder to golfers what is "possible" given unlimited budgets. That is a pretty relevant topic, no?


I could go on, but the point is that ANGC is such an ideal tableau for what it is we do here on GCA.COM. It's discussion, not bashing.

Cheers,

Bill

Few are familiar with ANGC outside Masters week. The greens are still fast and tough to put, but approaches hold. Further, few are familiar with Member tees. Fairways are wide and the first cut is very playable. The course is really fair for the average golfer.

[Joe Sponcia]

Rather than hijack another thread and as a service to others, I thought I'd make a pre-emptive strike in hopes of getting the annual bashing over with well in advance of the tournament:

I continue to marvel at the manner in which so many participants on this site manufacture criticism and cheap shots at dynamics and elements that simply don't exist at Augusta.  Also, the cry to "put 'em back the way they was" merely suggests that too many of you are drinking too much Yokumberry Tonic.  

I don't know much about golf architecture, but am always greatful for those who know less.  I simply can't fathom how anyone can miss Augusta's greatness.  (And I'm not even trolling for tickets, btw.)

Dang you all.

Bogey

Bogey,

I have to say that "bashing" is a pretty poor choice of words. On a website dedicated to frank discussion about golf course architecture, it is hard to think of a better course to use as a platform for dialogue . Let me count the ways:

1. It is a course that everyone is familiar with, and we get to see it every year. I know that few have played it and television does not capture the great elevation change, but it is still a course that can be intelligently discussed by most gca members. As a private club that opens itself up to an annual televised tournament, AGNC invites this type of discussion.

2. The original design comes from one of the greatest architects ever along with one of the greatest players. Yet that design has been altered in many ways. We like to discuss changes that occurred to ODG courses here.

3. Throughout its history the course was altered by a very strong club leader.  We could write thousands of pages on great old courses that were drastically altered by powerful club leaders. That topic is very relevant here.

4. An incredible number of trees have been added and the playing corridors dramatically reduced. This is another common theme at thousands of courses in the U.S.  Many courses are eliminating trees. Is it not worthy to discuss if AGNC should do the same?

5. To many in the U.S., ANGC represents the gold standard in how golf courses should be maintained. You and I may not agree with that, but for the past 40 years superintendents far and wide have been responding to pressure from their memberships to make their courses greener and the putting surfaces faster. The way I see, AGNC is an annual reminder to golfers what is "possible" given unlimited budgets. That is a pretty relevant topic, no?


I could go on, but the point is that ANGC is such an ideal tableau for what it is we do here on GCA.COM. It's discussion, not bashing.

Cheers,

Bill

...what Bill said!

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim, your excellent thread prompted my thoughts.  Arguably, the fairway bunker at the 8th is the only strategic bunker on the grounds.  Without it, players could bomb their drives down the extreme right side and set up a highly favorable angle for their second to the green.  

I'm mainly curious why everyone's suddenly playing nice with respect to the course.  Bashing (sorry Bill - I typed before reading your sensible post) it is a hallmark of this site.  Perhaps there's still hope of being invited to attend.  I had so hoped the detractors would punch themselves out in advance of the invitational.

Then again, I am convicted by criticism from our two stalwarts, particularly The Cros who I admire greatly.

One more thought - I think Jones' description of the original course does the present version a tremendous disservice.  I don't think it was ever a geniune homage to The Old Course or links golf in general.  

For some strange reason I've fallen in love with Augusta and Merion.  Perhaps it's because I didn't ruin my experiences at either by teeing it up.

Mike,
 
The 15th hole thread inspired much more discussion, but I thought the Augusta bunker thread might have been more interesting. Wish more people jumped in on that one.

Yes, the 8th hole fairway bunker does have a big influence, at least certainly for the Masters. Not sure it is as important for a mid handicap player who probably isn't thinking he can reach the green anyway so being a bit further left off the tee isn't so bad. The middle of the fairway is just fine.

[Chuck Glowacki]

ANGC and Goat Hill mentioned in the same sentence, Jeff is walking on cloud 9.

[Bill Brightly]

Few are familiar with ANGC outside Masters week. The greens are still fast and tough to put, but approaches hold. Further, few are familiar with Member tees. Fairways are wide and the first cut is very playable. The course is really fair for the average golfer.

I don't doubt a word that you wrote.

But how the members tees play outside Masters Week has had an infinitesimal influence on golf in America, while the effect of Masters Week on television has been profound and farreaching.

[Ronald Montesano]

Consider the source...

[Matthew Petersen]

Tim, your excellent thread prompted my thoughts.  Arguably, the fairway bunker at the 8th is the only strategic bunker on the grounds.  Without it, players could bomb their drives down the extreme right side and set up a highly favorable angle for their second to the green.  

I'm mainly curious why everyone's suddenly playing nice with respect to the course.  Bashing (sorry Bill - I typed before reading your sensible post) it is a hallmark of this site.  Perhaps there's still hope of being invited to attend.  I had so hoped the detractors would punch themselves out in advance of the invitational.

Then again, I am convicted by criticism from our two stalwarts, particularly The Cros who I admire greatly.

One more thought - I think Jones' description of the original course does the present version a tremendous disservice.  I don't think it was ever a geniune homage to The Old Course or links golf in general.  

For some strange reason I've fallen in love with Augusta and Merion.  Perhaps it's because I didn't ruin my experiences at either by teeing it up.

Mike,
 
The 15th hole thread inspired much more discussion, but I thought the Augusta bunker thread might have been more interesting. Wish more people jumped in on that one.

Yes, the 8th hole fairway bunker does have a big influence, at least certainly for the Masters. Not sure it is as important for a mid handicap player who probably isn't thinking he can reach the green anyway so being a bit further left off the tee isn't so bad. The middle of the fairway is just fine.

From the members tees, 8 is listed at 480. Yes, it's uphill, but that's still going to get a lot of people thinking greedy thoughts on the tee. If anything, since it's just 220 to carry that bunker from the member tee, it might not be far enough out. Most guys who can reasonably think about reaching a 480 yard, significantly uphill, hole in two can also carry 220 on their drive. The drive is uphill but certain;y not as severely as the second shot.

Overall, I agree ... that fairway bunker is probably the most strategic on the course, however. (On second thought, maybe the bunkers on one, fairway right and green side left.) Most bunkers out there aren't badly placed, but removing them generally alters very little about the strategic options.

[Matthew Petersen]

Few are familiar with ANGC outside Masters week. The greens are still fast and tough to put, but approaches hold. Further, few are familiar with Member tees. Fairways are wide and the first cut is very playable. The course is really fair for the average golfer.

I don't doubt a word that you wrote.

But how the members tees play outside Masters Week has had an infinitesimal influence on golf in America, while the effect of Masters Week on television has been profound and farreaching.

I would generally agree. It's a shame that the lesson so widely "learned" is that "green is good," and not anything about the quality firmness adds.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()