Annex Thread - The 7th at Augusta National

[Bill_McBride]

I heard that Billy Payne has implemented a change in culture there and that members are discouraged from coming to the club more than twice or three times a month. Of course, I have no way of verifying that but I wouldn't be massively pleased with that if I was a member living in Atlanta!

Brian S,

It's not your typical local club.

It has a far reaching National membership.

Visiting 2 to 3 times a week seems like alot of golf to me.

What's the source of your statement ?

Patrick, reading comprehension.......

[BCowan]

VK - just because you noted several other holes (other than the 7th) of the Mackenzie-Jones original design, here's a quote from somone who played that original design - I share it here not because I know whether it is generally valid or not (ie more than one man's opinion), but because I'd never seen it posted before and because that 'one man' was Gene Sarazen who, even at 94 years old, seemed sharp as a tack.

"No, I wasn't impressed [by the design]. I didn't care for it. It was not a good course when Jones and Mackenzie finished it -- a very poor design. Hell, number eleven was a drive and a pitch. They used to drive the seventeenth hole. Sixteen was a terrible hole, one hundred yards over a ditch. And the first hole should've been like St Andrews' [wide open] first, but it wasn't anything like it....[Years later] I remember going out for drinks with Roberts one evening and I told him that number sixteen is a terrible hole. One hundred yards over a ditch. 'Now go get Trent Jones', I said".

And apparently the club later did listen to Sarazen on this (and other things?)  As I say, just because I hadn't seen it posted before. From Curt Sampson's book "The Masters - Golf, Money and Power in Augusta, Georgia", pages 34 and 89.

Peter

   What I can't understand with this quote is Sarazen is criticizing everything that most on GCA praise and it gets overlooked.  Is #15 a poor hole due to him making Double eagle?   Was the original #16 much different lengthwise compared to #7 at Pebble?  Don't we cherish pitch and putt holes on GCA?  How is the original 7th at ANGC any different?  Many people criticized TOC there first few times around, even Jones.  'Now go get Trent Jones', I said"- crickets on here from this last sentence by Sarazen. 

   I wonder what Dr Mack would think about the massive changes to #7?  Does anyone think that making the original L shaped green more difficult and having it play 350 yards would make for better Tournament golf than surrounding the green with bunkers?  As Tom Doak mentioned in another thread that the (i think it was the USGA) didn't think #10 at Riviera was too good.  Does anyone on GCA think it would be cool to see a restored or a tweaked version of the original L shaped 7th at ANGC? 

[Mac Plumart]

I heard that Billy Payne has implemented a change in culture there and that members are discouraged from coming to the club more than twice or three times a month. Of course, I have no way of verifying that but I wouldn't be massively pleased with that if I was a member living in Atlanta!

I'd be thrilled if I could only play twice a month.

:-)

[BCowan]

VK - just because you noted several other holes (other than the 7th) of the Mackenzie-Jones original design, here's a quote from somone who played that original design - I share it here not because I know whether it is generally valid or not (ie more than one man's opinion), but because I'd never seen it posted before and because that 'one man' was Gene Sarazen who, even at 94 years old, seemed sharp as a tack.

"No, I wasn't impressed [by the design]. I didn't care for it. It was not a good course when Jones and Mackenzie finished it -- a very poor design. Hell, number eleven was a drive and a pitch. They used to drive the seventeenth hole. Sixteen was a terrible hole, one hundred yards over a ditch. And the first hole should've been like St Andrews' [wide open] first, but it wasn't anything like it....[Years later] I remember going out for drinks with Roberts one evening and I told him that number sixteen is a terrible hole. One hundred yards over a ditch. 'Now go get Trent Jones', I said".

And apparently the club later did listen to Sarazen on this (and other things?)  As I say, just because I hadn't seen it posted before. From Curt Sampson's book "The Masters - Golf, Money and Power in Augusta, Georgia", pages 34 and 89.

Peter


   What I can't understand with this quote is Sarazen is criticizing everything that most on GCA praise and it gets overlooked.  Is #15 a poor hole due to him making Double eagle?   Was the original #16 much different lengthwise compared to #7 at Pebble?  Don't we cherish pitch and putt holes on GCA?  How is the original 7th at ANGC any different?  Many people criticized TOC there first few times around, even Jones.  'Now go get Trent Jones', I said"- crickets on here from this last sentence by Sarazen. 

   I wonder what Dr Mack would think about the massive changes to #7?  Does anyone think that making the original L shaped green more difficult and having it play 350 yards would make for better Tournament golf than surrounding the green with bunkers?  As Tom Doak mentioned in another thread that the (i think it was the USGA) didn't think #10 at Riviera was too good.  Does anyone on GCA think it would be cool to see a restored or a tweaked version of the original L shaped 7th at ANGC? 

Would today's Green speeds actually make the original 7th at ANGC more difficult?  Was the Good Dr a Visionary while ''thee squire'' a stationary man of his time?   

[Alex Miller]

Some overall thoughts on ANGC's 7th:


The current green is not a bad one and doesn't need fixing - it also is not out of character with the rest of the course. If a restoration / re-styling were to occur then the bunkers may need rearranging but I think the approach does pose a unique challenge fitting of The Masters.


When I began replying I wanted to express interest in a re-thinking of the fairway, but then I read the quote below.


Bobby Jones on the 7th hole -
"Length is certainly not at a premium here, but the narrow fairway seems to have an added impact because it suddenly confronts the player just when he has become accustomed to the broad expanses of the preceding holes. ... The second shot is normally a steep pitch, often with a wedge, and precise judgment of range is required."


So now I'm not so sure... At 440 yards today, the pros hitting driver do often have wedge into the green, and the nature of the putting surface's back to front slope allows for mid-iron approaches and requires control of spin for wedge approaches. This seems like an ideal combination for a hole that calls for accuracy off the tee in tournament golf. There is also an option to lay back off the tee and use some of the fairway connecting to the 3rd hole, but a recovery from this area requires a hard right to left shot from 200 yards to the fortress-like green. But maybe that's a reasonable penalty for missing off the tee?




The 7th hole is my least favorite at ANGC (from my years of viewing/studying the course), but I think it serves its purpose and I don't have any quick-fixes in mind that are any better.

[BCowan]

This could be a question for a new thread but does anyone wonder if the original greens and holes that were so drastically changed like #7 and #16 could have benefited or been better received with green speeds closer to lets just say 10?