[Mike Hendren]

I've always been intrigued by the narrow "tongues" Mackenzie frequently designed at Augusta.  Only the 5th at Pasatiempo includes such a feature front right, but they seem ubiquitous at Augusta:


Front left at the 4th.
Front right at the 7th - quite clumsy in appearance imho.
Front right (and less so left) at the 9th - puts the narrow 15th at Fenway to shame. 
Front left at the 11th - more modest but inaccessible between the hump in the fairway and the creek.
Front left at the 13th - really?  I mean, really?
Front left at the 16th.


Many appear too narrow to be pinned.  Could they be?   How are they reconciled with The Old Course, his purported inspiration for the design?


Simply artistic flair?  Nightmares from the Boer War? 


Bogey

[Kalen Braley]

I guess, with the exception of the 4th, that may be why they're all gone now.  But perhaps back then they weren't as bad with much higher grass length on the green, and maybe chipping while on the green wasn't a no-no back then.

P.S. Don't forget about the 6th (shown the on the left), it certainly had a tongue too!

[Tom Bacsanyi]

They look awfully steep in the old photos, so I think they probably became unpinnable very early on. They are cool though!, I like the old 9th green with two tongues around a bunker.

[Sean_A]

Could the tongues have been ground game access to the main part of the greens? I've always liked these sort of positional ramps to severely pitched greens.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

There were few tongues sticking out of greens at ANGC back in the 1930's - see -


I find the now numbered 18th particularly fascinating as the hole and green complex are somewhat akin to a project that I've been working on - https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/thomas-david-sphinx-in-your-back-garden/
Here's an enlarged photo of the above ANGC now numbered 18th -

and here's a relatively recent photo the old WGC green mentioned in the piece referenced above -

The tongue or ramp in both are clearly visible although the ANGC version is no longer mowed at putting surface height. The WGC green was built in 1927, one of the last completely new MacKenzie courses built in the UK. There were other similar tongues on its greens too. Some still exist. Other UK-MacK' courses of the same era have some too.
Now the perhaps controversial bit ... from experimenting on the old green highlighted in the piece above I tend to reckon that the tongues might, just might, have had one or two puttable locations given the height of cut, frequency of mowing and putter loft likely to have been the norm back in the day. Not an everyday pin, but an occasional one. The balance of the time I suggest the tongues, even though cut at putting surface height, were played as ramps designed such that lower flighted shots played with longer woods and irons and less lofted clubs, mashies and niblicks not SW/LW's, could be run-up the ramp towards the pin location. Ground game not aerial based golf.
However, on softer clay based ground with inland grasses rather than sandy/fescues, this method of approaching greens isn't playable consistently. I've read this is why ANGC changed some of its green approaches, the now numbered 7th and 18th being prime examples, over time.
So there we go, make of it what you will.
As to the status of the old WGC green highlighted in the piece referenced above, well let's just say it's currently, um, dormant.
atb

[Pete Lavallee]

Bogey,


At Pasatiempo don’t forget the one at the back of the 6th green and the two at the back of the 13th green.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I always had the impression that Mac made up for his depression induced fewer bunkers theory with at least one Sunday pin.  Hence, the narrow tongues.  Since most are at the front, the run up explanation makes sense as well.

[Mike Hendren]

I've given the ground game theory a lot of thought and remain skeptical.  For example, look at the photo above of the 18th.  The tongue could only be used to access the greater green if approaching from the extreme right of the fairway.  That's consistent with the right-hand tongue at the 9th.  The angles are generally poor.  Moreover, the tongues at the 11th, 13th and 16th (today's order) are fronted by or adjacent to water. 


Is is possible the tongues were designed for surface drainage?


Would anyone advocate their restoration?


Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()