[Mike Hendren]

The only other place I've seen so many tongues on greens is at Von Hagge's Nashville Golf & Athletic Club.  I'll stipulate that the routing's outstanding.  Otherwise?

Bogey

[Jason Thurman]

If you don't think the original 4th green looks awesome, then I can only conclude that you wouldn't much care for Art Hills golf courses.

[Ian Mackenzie]

The only other place I've seen so many tongues on greens is at Von Hagge's Nashville Golf & Athletic Club.  I'll stipulate that the routing's outstanding.  Otherwise?

Bogey

I'm confused. Did you just start a thread that calls out ANGC by using two short sentences and then retreat back to the safety of your computer? OK...what exactly is this?

1. A meatless bone?
2. Troll post?
3. A blatant contrarian approach designed to fuel debate?

[John Connolly]

I'm confused. Did you just start a thread that calls out ANGC by using two short sentences and then retreat back to the safety of your computer? OK...what exactly is this?

1. A meatless bone?
2. Troll post?
3. A blatant contrarian approach designed to fuel debate?

Number 3.

[Jason Thurman]

I think it's a legit topic. My impression isn't that Mike is calling out the current version of the course. Instead, I think he's more looking at all the alterations to the course, begun almost immediately after its initial build was completed, and also the early photos that have been floating around this site in recent weeks, and simply asking if the original design wasn't all that great.

It's a fair question, given all the lamentation of the loss of the course's original design intent and calls to restore the course to something more like its original iteration, to wonder if that original design intent was really attained and if it was worth preserving.

[Sven Nilsen]

No.

AM and BJ's course worked for the way the game was played back then.

The modern version works for the way the course is played today.

I don't think anyone is saying the course should be restored to the original version.  What I've read (and said) is that a study of the way the course has evolved, particularly how the changes made reflect the way the game itself is different, make for an interesting study.  There were probably a few misses in the first iteration, just as there are certainly a few lost features that would add something today.

What I still don't understand is why the Mackenzie bunker edges were altered.  The party line is that they were removed for ease of maintenance.  Seems ironic in this day and age with what we know about the place.

Sven

[David Stamm]

I don't think anyone can make a blanket statement that the course "back then" would not make for compelling tournament golf now.

Imagine if 10's green was put back to it's original location and move the tees up. With modern technology, viola, short drivable par 4.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Is the routing outstanding?  And many feel that using the old house as clubhouse to save money in turn forced some average holes on the property.  To me, the most natural holes out there are 12 and 13, with 16 (not an original) being next. There are several decently routed holes, but also some awkward uphill holes as well.

As to the feature designs, given the money they do rake in, I can imagine a movement to restore the bunkers to a more MacKenzie-ish edge, which would be a nice touch.  Keeping bunkers in a 1950-60's mode makes no sense, really.  Of course, it would generate buzz, but ANGC really doesn't need any buzz, so it s probably not on the table. 

As to width, I fear that boat has sailed, as they use stats and measurements to determine how and where to alter the course to suit the modern shots as they see them.  OT< but they have to like that a shorter hitter has won, to counteract the old "bombers paradise" image they had.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think Sven has the right approach/perspective. In that context, I think Augusta has retained the course's essential ethos as a venue for championship golf remarkably well. One way to measure that is to look at the range of players -- past and present -- who have won Green Jackets. Long ago, the course suited/showcased Hogan and Snead, but also Demarat; and later the course served equally as well for Palmer and Nicklaus as it did for Player and Casper; and later still, it has been the venue for exemplary play by T Watson and (again) Nicklaus but also for Crenshaw and Faldo; and now over these last few years it has welcomed Woods and B Watson and Phil, but also Zach Johnson and Mike Weir and Jordan Speith.

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

The routing of the course is brilliant.

The individual hole designs brilliant too.

Since ANGC is the only course to host a major every year the course had to morph as the game morphed due to improved I & B.

The course has retained significant width despite the protests of the unknowing.

Mother Nature has and will continue to influence conditions.

The course has to meet one of the most difficult challenges in GCA.
Namely, presenting a challenge to the broadest spectrum of golfers, the hacker to the PGA Tour Professional.
Only a few courses can meet that challenge.

Is there a "Golden Age" course, unaltered, that could present a challenge to the modern day PGA Tour Pro ?

I think not.

[Grant Saunders]

As to the feature designs, given the money they do rake in, I can imagine a movement to restore the bunkers to a more MacKenzie-ish edge, which would be a nice touch.  Keeping bunkers in a 1950-60's mode makes no sense, really.  Of course, it would generate buzz, but ANGC really doesn't need any buzz, so it s probably not on the table. 

Jeff (and Sven)

I have posted previously about the bunker shapes and edges at Augusta.

For me, the current style and shape perfectly compliment the whole package of aesthetics, presentation and theme they have employed throughout the property. Everything is done cleanly with sharpness of lines (mowing, bunker, gardens, vistas etc) working well with the long smooth slopes and uniform texture and colour of the course.

To me, a less distinguished bunker edge would simply look out of place when context is applied and the package is considered as a whole.

It may not be everyones cup of tea (particularly on here) but I feel they should actually be acknowledged for producing a product where their intent is manifested in every aspect of the course and surroundings rather than some mismatched combination of styles and philosophies.

[Tim_Weiman]

Is the routing outstanding?  And many feel that using the old house as clubhouse to save money in turn forced some average holes on the property.  To me, the most natural holes out there are 12 and 13, with 16 (not an original) being next. There are several decently routed holes, but also some awkward uphill holes as well.

As to the feature designs, given the money they do rake in, I can imagine a movement to restore the bunkers to a more MacKenzie-ish edge, which would be a nice touch.  Keeping bunkers in a 1950-60's mode makes no sense, really.  Of course, it would generate buzz, but ANGC really doesn't need any buzz, so it s probably not on the table. 

As to width, I fear that boat has sailed, as they use stats and measurements to determine how and where to alter the course to suit the modern shots as they see them.  OT< but they have to like that a shorter hitter has won, to counteract the old "bombers paradise" image they had.

Jeff,

Your comments about the clubhouse and its impact on the routing fascinate me. Do you know whether anyone has taken a topo of the property, assumed a different clubhouse location and then produced a routing that might be better?

Feels like that might be an interesting exercise even if, of course, nothing would become of it.

[Mike Hendren]

No.

AM and BJ's course worked for the way the game was played back then.

Then why was the 7th green totally redesigned within 5 years of opening?   Jones' hyperbole is at work when he described the original 7th as being "similar in character to the eighteen hole at St. Andrews, Scotland.

Within 15 years the 9th green had been changed from the tooth shape to the current orientation well bunkered on the left side.

The 10th green was moved back and left within four years of opening.

A new 16th green was built 13 years after opening.

Greenside bunkers were aded to the 17th within a dozen years of opening.

The large front tongue of the 18th green was gone by 1947.

Did Jones throw the deceased Mackenzie under the bus in the first 25 years the course was open, or were the changes improvements?   Where else has Mackenzie's work been modified to the extent Augusta National was from opening to 1960?

Ian, fwiw I've been an Augusta apologist for a long time here.  I don't think there's a better course in the world - though several might be its equal.  All I can base my opinion on is what's in the ground there after spending 7 days spectating there over the past 25 years.  The vintage photographs don't convince me that the place has gone to heck in a handbasket at the expense of a bunch of criminals.  

Respectfully,

Mike

[Bill Brightly]

No.

AM and BJ's course worked for the way the game was played back then.

The modern version works for the way the course is played today.

I don't think anyone is saying the course should be restored to the original version.  What I've read (and said) is that a study of the way the course has evolved, particularly how the changes made reflect the way the game itself is different, make for an interesting study. 

Sven

What Sven writes here is so important. Whether we like or dislike the changes made to Mackenzie's design is not the point. Augusta's changes reflect the changes in the the game. Study the changes to Augusta, or the changes in the game, and you'll be studying the same history.

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike:

You need to look a little closer (and read my post in the other thread about Clifford Roberts).  It was Roberts, not Jones, that started the move away from Mackenzie's ideas.

7th - Changed by Roberts at the suggestion of Horton Smith.  Admittedly, Jones did not think the original version worked the way they envisioned.

9th - Changes to the green were requested by Roberts.  A year after the right side run up was removed, Roberts requested part of it be put back.

10th - Jones reluctantly agreed to the changes, which were mostly made due to the wetness of the area of the old green.

16th - R. Trent Jones suggested change.

17th - Roberts noted he was displeased with how the run up nature of the hole had been changed.  Here, it seems, he wanted to keep Mackenzie's ideals intact.

18th - Like the 9th, the removal of the tongue was at the request of Roberts.

Point is, it is unfair to Bobby Jones to say he threw Mackenzie under the bus (a bit of hyperbole on your part), as it was Roberts driving almost all of the changes to the course.

Sven

[V. Kmetz]

Hello,

Did Nature and Man's Usage Whiff at The Old Course?

I mean c'mon, while the very lifeblood of the board is to exchange about sub-sub-nuances of GCA, we sometimes all operate from some indefinite baseline of perfection; and whether it be "original intents" "tech bastardizations" "service to elite tournaments" there's always some hammer to throw at the statue of David. There must come a cyclical point in the minds of some who critique courses, that such speculations has become more heat than light.

Is Merion or WFW or Oakmont or Pebble or Pinehurst or Riviera or AGNC or wherever "diminshed" by their course biographies in taking their place among the historic courses? From what state is the decay...how can you prove it was "better then?"

And this thread has made me further distrust the term "natural" as an objective compass point in contemporary GCA. I understand what it means in terms of golfing ground, economics and sustainability, yet it seems we've lost or are shutting our minds to the recognition that to re-imagine and alter portions of a landscape to create golfing properties and visual aesthetics that weren't there on the "Fourth Day" of Genesis can be, and often is, just as valid as finding entirely natural shelves and rumpled contours near some fortuitous bit that Moses owned.

As to some of the ANGC specifics of what I've heard here (and in like threads):

The 7th hole WAS similar in character to the 18th TOC...a 350 yard bunkerless hole over rumpled ground to a green with a pronounced depression eating into the front left corner of the green...No, there wasn't OB, a historic in-town finish nor heavy environmental winds, but the character of the ground has/had many parallels. To recognize or assess that such an conceptual iteration didn't distinguish the hole in relation to its 17 brethren is not a defeat, nor a "whiff," nor a "bastardization" of the McKenzie "intellectual heritage" - it's the organic biography of the very act of making a golf course.

The 16th is also a substantial place that, because so altered, doesn't make me rue the "loss" of some value, nor does it highlight how much Jones/Mac were right or wrong or misguided in their first imagining of the hole. The quiet beauty of that sunken glen, the thrill of a short iron shot over water, using the banked curvature of the green to navigate the various hole locations...all are still present in RTJ's 1947-48 redux. Imo, it's OK to want something else for the hole, when basic character and setting are maintained. It doesn't mean anybody was wrong originally and it doesn't mean the want of change signals a loss of spirit or authenticity or a renege on "more perfect" values.

There's other elements I would address but its late and I want to leave on this note for now.

cheers

vk

[Josh Tarble]

Jeff, Sven and others,

I also wonder if the site was a little more severe than Dr. Mac was used to working with?  When I look at pictures of the old 4th, 10th and 11th (among others), I see things that look wonderful in concept and drawing but perhaps they just didn't work as well as they envisioned.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Is the routing outstanding?  And many feel that using the old house as clubhouse to save money in turn forced some average holes on the property.  To me, the most natural holes out there are 12 and 13, with 16 (not an original) being next. There are several decently routed holes, but also some awkward uphill holes as well.

As to the feature designs, given the money they do rake in, I can imagine a movement to restore the bunkers to a more MacKenzie-ish edge, which would be a nice touch.  Keeping bunkers in a 1950-60's mode makes no sense, really.  Of course, it would generate buzz, but ANGC really doesn't need any buzz, so it s probably not on the table. 

As to width, I fear that boat has sailed, as they use stats and measurements to determine how and where to alter the course to suit the modern shots as they see them.  OT< but they have to like that a shorter hitter has won, to counteract the old "bombers paradise" image they had.

Jeff,

Your comments about the clubhouse and its impact on the routing fascinate me. Do you know whether anyone has taken a topo of the property, assumed a different clubhouse location and then produced a routing that might be better?

Feels like that might be an interesting exercise even if, of course, nothing would become of it.

Tim,

I met some distant cousin, twice removed or whatever, of Mac's many years ago. While I never saw the documents he said he had, he said that family lore was that Mac wasn't fond of the clubhouse in the corner and the up and down routing and thought it limited what he might have done.  I was never quite sure what to make of that, but it struck me as fascinating, too. 

I have pulled out the routing and topo, but never gotten around to really studying the alternates myself.  In general, clubhouses in corners and on high hills do provide some inherent limitations and from that standpoint, I can easily believe that in theory, there may have been better routings.

I don't know of anyone who has tried alternate routings, but it would be a fascinating study, maybe the direction the Lido competition or GD armchair architect ought to go one year!  I guess we would also have to go back and study if Olmstead and the land plan had any effect, but I have never heard it was anything other than a secondary concern.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()