[Jason Thurman]

Augusta National hovered right around 7000 yards until around 2001, when the course began work that would eventually lengthen it to almost 7500 yards. What would have happened if, like so many other courses from its era, Augusta had been unable to add yardage due to tighter perimeter boundaries? How would a perpetually 6950 yard Augusta National have changed The Masters, the game of golf, and architecture in general?

[Greg Clark]

I'm guessing they would have planted even more trees, and grown higher rough.  I think a Masters tournament ball also may have been a real possibility.

[Garland Bayley]

Apparently you don't know that they are landlocked, and have bought property from Augusta Country Club to add length to the course.

So they are landlocked, and they solve it by buying property from neighbors is the answer. And, it is not a hypothetical answer like you were looking for.

[Jason Thurman]

[V. Kmetz]

Hi,

C'mon GJB, as JT already Wonka-ed, you defeated the letter, but not the spirit, of his question. The amount of property bought from ACC to extend #13 back 30-35 yards would still bring the course to only 6980/5 from the incarnations we saw before 1998.

I say to the spirit of JT's question that we HAVE got some idea...we can look to Merion as something of a model, but we can look to AGNC itself as another...#11 for one instance...the hole was reshaped and its dog leg nature nearly obliterated.

But if the most drastic scenario arose and the "unused parts" of the property were unavailable or had been exhausted, I suppose it would be "Trees" and "Rough" first, new hazards next...I'm not as sold that a "Masters tournament" ball would ever have been, or truly exists as an option. I see the sense of it from our GCA perspectives (including conservation and sustainability) and from a preservation of fundamental properties of the game (how like any game, it should direct and provoke you to be better, not your equipment)...but I'm not prescient enough to see how it would work without a broader implementation than the Masters.

I can see modern professionals (as coached, as agent-ed as they are) NOT wanting to re-calibrate their games for one week a year to embrace the properties of the Masters ball; I can see resistance among the ranks for that...all it would take is for one Masters winner to lead that opposition for it it to turn into a fracas that might destroy the tournament of its accord. I think it would take an effort among the international governing bodies (and entities like ANGC) to implement such a ball for their championships.

I do think, despite capitalism, there is a lot of win-win available with a reduced tournament ball and still a continued use of "advanced tech" balls at the public and club level. A bit like aluminum baseball bats, phased out as you reach the higher and higher levels of play - but still in wide use where baseball is played most, in communities and parks. (I recognize that aluminum bats involve a safety component we're not talking about here). In terms of the golf ball, it may even open up a method to feature one's local, club tournaments with a "classic" and "progress" ball divisions or "rules of the day."

cheers

vk

[Jonathan Mallard]

I'm guessing they would have planted even more trees, and grown higher rough.  I think a Masters tournament ball also may have been a real possibility.

Why is this no longer considered a possibility? No, not in the immediate future, but say 10-15-20 years?

[JESII]

Scores would have been a little lower, that's about it...no harm no foul.

Wishful thinking perhaps, but I'll go with it...

[Josh Tarble]

I'm sure fairways would be even narrower and more trees.  Boring.

I also think some interesting agronomic changes may have occurred.  For certain greens would have become silly fast - think 15, 16 on the stimp and I'm also guessing the greens would have been pushed to their absolute maximum firmness.  Not saying either would have been good, just would be interesting to see grass pushed to absolute maximum.

[jeffwarne]

I'm sure fairways would be even narrower and more trees.  Boring.

I also think some interesting agronomic changes may have occurred.  For certain greens would have become silly fast - think 15, 16 on the stimp and I'm also guessing the greens would have been pushed to their absolute maximum firmness.  Not saying either would have been good, just would be interesting to see grass pushed to absolute maximum.

Josh you do realize that ANGC at 16 would be unplayable.Completely.same with 15.
and if they did have them at 16, they would do a LOT more flattening and the course would be easier.

[Josh Tarble]

I completely realize that.

I would think nearly every green would be unplayable on those speeds.  And that's how they would want them.  Also realizing this is completely hypothetical. 

[Garland Bayley]

Objections noted, but my answer is still that they would have bought their way out of their length problem.

[jeffwarne]

I completely realize that.

I would think nearly every green would be unplayable on those speeds.  And that's how they would want them.  Also realizing this is completely hypothetical. 

hypothetical yes, but I don't agree that that's how they would want them,
or they would be that way.....

[jeffwarne]

Objections noted, but my answer is still that they would have bought their way out of their length problem.

I think you're right-they bought an entire subdivision to create free parking

[Peter Pallotta]

Scores would have been a little lower, that's about it...no harm no foul.

Wishful thinking perhaps, but I'll go with it...

I don't think it's wishful thinking. I'm not even sure the scores would be lower.

That is the majesty and mystery and magic (and vaguely unnerving aspect) of all this, i.e. that we *know* that those in charge at Augusta have the ability and smarts and resources to make anything that *has* to happen, happen.

So: do you want to see those fairways hardened and speeded up, so that any ball that lands in the fairway but with too much draw or fade spin will keep bounding away into the trees? Done.  Do you want to see those bunkers being deepened into truly fearsome, just-chip-out-backwards-and add-a-stroke-like-Open-styled-pot-bunkers-type hazards? That's done too.  Do you want to see the best golfers in the world having to play so big a draw or fade off the tee that they risk a hook and a slice at every turn, and have this accomplished simply by *shifting* the tee boxes to the right or left? Oh, very easily done.

And you know what? To my way of thinking, you could do all that and Augusta would still feel more like Augusta than Merion felt like Merion after the USGA was done with the architecture/set-up there.

[Bill Brightly]

Interesting article by Geoff Shackleford with ideas from Doak, Clayton and DeVries:

http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/masters-augusta-national-golf-club-course-architects-changes

[Garland Bayley]

Thanks for the link Bill.

"But that decision may have already been made. According to several published reports, the club has been actively scooping up real estate west of the course, with an eye toward more tee expansion on holes like the 455-yard 5th, which has become a drive and short iron in recent years."

[Bill Brightly]

I do believe that Dr. Mackenzie designed the course to allow for additional length, if needed. Obviously, the length of pro drives today far exceeds what Dr. Mac could possibly have envisioned.


I found this link where Mike Clayton wrote about the similarities between Augusta and Royal Melbourne:
http://www.augusta.com/masters/story/news/mackenzie-made-quite-impact-courses-australia

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()