In Praise of the Golf Course that Belongs to Augusta National Golf Club

[Niall C]

Bob

You are correct, the changes to TOC is an old discussion and perhaps belongs on another thread so as not to sidetrack this one but it's hard to not respond to the all out attack on Dawson and the R&A regarding the changes. To characterise Dawson as having sole say on any changes is to totally mis-state the position.

With regards to doctoring championship courses, the main changes to most courses prior to Open's was to put in bunkers and put back tees. I take your point that after the Low changes there was perhaps limited work by way of new bunkers ( I hesitate to say none because I suspect that there may have been a few more added and some taken out after that date - time to reread Scott MacPherson's book) however there was plenty of discussion about it and reworking of existing bunkers as well as the new tees that were put in to show that there wasn't a no touching policy.

David

My suggestion that MacK had considerable experience of building on clay was based on the abundance of that type of soil in this country and the number of courses built on clay. Certainly MacK wrote about it in some of his articles and I think off the top of the head that he also wrote about it in Spirit of St Andrews.

In terms of actual examples, in Scotland you have Pitreave and Pollock and Erskine which are both redesigns.

Niall

[DMoriarty]

Niall, if not Dawson, then who is responsible for the decision to make the changes?   Can you provide some further insight as to how the process works? 

As for whether the was or wasn't a "no touching policy," the Eden green itself has always been controversial.  When was the last time it was modified before recently?

Thanks for the info on MacK and clay courses. 

[Niall C]

David

With regards to TOC and the management of it, I have no inside track and only know what I learned from going on the Links Trust website and from reading their Annual Reports that outlined the management structure. From what I recall the Committee dealing with the course management was made up of 7 members of which 2, perhaps more, were from R&A Greens Committee or whatever they call it. At the time when the TOC threads were going about I think I suggested that perhaps Dawson wasn't even one of those R&A reps on the Committee but I think I read since that he is definitely on the Committee.

The point however is that there is a clear management structure that decides these things and the suggestion that Dawson, or even the R&A dictate what happens or that changes are made on a whim just doesn't bear scrutiny.

I appreciate that Bob and others believe that TOC shouldn't be touched under any circumstances and I respect that, I don't agree with it, but I respect their view. What I think is wrong, and does them no favours, is personalising the issue and pretending its a dictatorship.

As an aside, I've never met Dawson but know those who have and have dealt with him in a professional capacity and they tell me he is a very effective manager/administrator who I suspect has got a strong influence in the direction of travel of the R&A. That said, given the calibre of people on the various committees in the R&A I doubt they are going to be dictated to, but thats just my take on it.

Niall

[DMoriarty]

Thanks Niall,  I don't know if the personalization of the discussion is appropriate and accurate or not, but I just assumed when Bob or someone is talking about Dawson it is a shorthand way of referring to the decision making process there, whether he is actually calling the shots or not.  Sometimes with committees one person is really calling the shots (CBM at NGLA is a possible example) and sometimes not.  It is hard to tell from the outside.

As to my second questiont, are you aware of any major (or minor) alterations to the contours of the Eden green before these.   If so, when were they? 

[Robert Kimball]

The fact that Augusta National gave us perhaps one of the coolest pictures in golf is reason enough to love it. It's Christmas in April starting next week.

[Simon Barrington]

...Opposing such ideas were John Low, Herb Fowler and other R&A members (I suspect, but without clear evidence, the Colt was involved. He was Low's classmate from Cambridge days and a friend.) who had very different ideas about how hazards ought to function. They liked the how the old hazards on TOC affected play. Better yet, they were in a position to preserve them and that's just what they did.

At different points over the first years of the 20th century, Low and Fowler served on the R&A Green Committee. They, Colt, Alison, Hutchings, Hutchinson, Hall Blyth and others involved in golf design also served on the powerful R&A Committee on the Rules. Low was the most prominent voice on both committees. He pushed back against the kinds of criticisms noted above.  Thank goodness.

Low and Fowler did add about 13 bunkers to TOC from about 1899 to 1904, most at the sides of holes 2 through 7. (The why and wherefore of those new bunkers is a longer, interesting story.) They were not the kind of bunkers that Taylor, Hilton et al. wanted to see added. For that reason they created a firestorm when built. The arguments they triggered gave rise, I think, to some of the earliest articulations of the basics of strategic golf architecture. Low was at the center of that back and forth. A remarkable moment...

Bob   

Bob,

I have recently been researching more on James Braid (a life's work) and also coincidentally digging into Augusta's design and connection to TOC, hence looking at these old posts

(BTW, Bobby Jones invited James Braid to play in the 1938 Masters, but of course Braid's well published sea-sickness precluded that).


I found the following, which you may already be aware of, but perhaps may be of interest to the wider group?

Regarding the new bunkering on TOC for the Open in 1905 signficant criticism came from several professionals (led by JH Taylor of course as "shop-steward") including;

Willie Anderson (2x US Open Champion)
“In my opinion they have ruined St Andrews…it is only possible to ‘shoot’ on the line on two of the eighteen holes…a drive a few yards off the intended line being penalised a deal worse than a bad pull or slice”

&

Alex Smith (Carnoustie born but US resident)
“Bunkers have been added in bunches recently, all in the line of the cups.”

One notable quiet/absent voice ahead of the Championship was James Braid, who IMHO was the facilitator or "Bridge" between the Penal group ("Professionals" & Hilton) and the Strategic group (Low et al.)

Braid was of course crowned Champion Golfer that year and after receiving the trophy in front of the R&A he was asked about the changes to the course, he replied
“In my opinion the new bunkers put in greatly improved the course, and the only fault with them is being too small.
You certainly have to use more thought than before as to the direction of your drive,
but this is surely as it should be on a course when playing for a championship"

Thus it is clear that Braid was both wholly understanding of strategic principles in design and embraced these changes as being appropriate.
He clearly explained his belief in these in "Advanced Golf" (1908)

This of course is interesting as he has by some been mistaken for being in the penal school (by dint of being a Professional) that is not so.

He did like a penal individual hazard (or many) but he placed these, strategically.

Subsequently he went on to successfully remodel Prestwick, Royal Cinque Ports (Deal), Troon (then Old now Royal) and Carnoustie for subsequent Opens. He was the original "Open Doctor".

Cheers

[Garland Bayley]

...Opposing such ideas were John Low, Herb Fowler and other R&A members (I suspect, but without clear evidence, the Colt was involved. He was Low's classmate from Cambridge days and a friend.) who had very different ideas about how hazards ought to function. They liked the how the old hazards on TOC affected play. Better yet, they were in a position to preserve them and that's just what they did.

At different points over the first years of the 20th century, Low and Fowler served on the R&A Green Committee. They, Colt, Alison, Hutchings, Hutchinson, Hall Blyth and others involved in golf design also served on the powerful R&A Committee on the Rules. Low was the most prominent voice on both committees. He pushed back against the kinds of criticisms noted above.  Thank goodness.

Low and Fowler did add about 13 bunkers to TOC from about 1899 to 1904, most at the sides of holes 2 through 7. (The why and wherefore of those new bunkers is a longer, interesting story.) They were not the kind of bunkers that Taylor, Hilton et al. wanted to see added. For that reason they created a firestorm when built. The arguments they triggered gave rise, I think, to some of the earliest articulations of the basics of strategic golf architecture. Low was at the center of that back and forth. A remarkable moment...

Bob   

Bob,

I have recently been researching more on James Braid (a life's work) and also coincidentally digging into Augusta's design and connection to TOC, hence looking at these old posts

(BTW, Bobby Jones invited James Braid to play in the 1938 Masters, but of course Braid's well published sea-sickness precluded that).


I found the following, which you may already be aware of, but perhaps may be of interest to the wider group?

Regarding the new bunkering on TOC for the Open in 1905 signficant criticism came from several professionals (led by JH Taylor of course as "shop-steward") including;

Willie Anderson (2x US Open Champion)
“In my opinion they have ruined St Andrews…it is only possible to ‘shoot’ on the line on two of the eighteen holes…a drive a few yards off the intended line being penalised a deal worse than a bad pull or slice”

&

Alex Smith (Carnoustie born but US resident)
“Bunkers have been added in bunches recently, all in the line of the cups.”

One notable quiet/absent voice ahead of the Championship was James Braid, who IMHO was the facilitator or "Bridge" between the Penal group ("Professionals" & Hilton) and the Strategic group (Low et al.)

Braid was of course crowned Champion Golfer that year and after receiving the trophy in front of the R&A he was asked about the changes to the course, he replied
“In my opinion the new bunkers put in greatly improved the course, and the only fault with them is being too small.
You certainly have to use more thought than before as to the direction of your drive,
but this is surely as it should be on a course when playing for a championship"

Thus it is clear that Braid was both wholly understanding of strategic principles in design and embraced these changes as being appropriate.
He clearly explained his belief in these in "Advanced Golf" (1908)

This of course is interesting as he has by some been mistaken for being in the penal school (by dint of being a Professional) that is not so.

He did like a penal individual hazard (or many) but he placed these, strategically.

Subsequently he went on to successfully remodel Prestwick, Royal Cinque Ports (Deal), Troon (then Old now Royal) and Carnoustie for subsequent Opens. He was the original "Open Doctor".

Cheers

As opposed to more modern open malpracticers.

Thanks for the info Simon.

[Richard Hetzel]

I am not gonna bash Augusta National, BUT I would like to see them help out THE PATCH " a little".

[MCirba]

I am not gonna bash Augusta National, BUT I would like to see them help out THE PATCH " a little".

Richard,


I played the storm-ravaged Augusta Municipal (aka The Patch) this past Christmas week and my understanding is that the course closed Jan 1 for work by Beau Welling and Tom Fazio, with funding through ANGC.


Hoping it turns out well and tracks to a successful completion.

[jeffwarne]

I am not gonna bash Augusta National, BUT I would like to see them help out THE PATCH " a little".

As someone who grew up playing quite a bit of "competitive" golf at The Patch, I'm really saddened to see its demise.
While I can appreciate ANGC helping out, I wdo wonder what it will become.
No doubt many will praise the appearance of grass, but it had a lot of qualities so many of us travel far and wide for back before the city ran it to the ground because they couldn't stand the thought of the operator making a profit, then got lost in a series of ugly city political battles leading to turnover and underqualified management.
It provided low cost fun golf in firm fast conditions for many years.
They lost a couple of great/good holes in 15 and 18 to the new clubhouse and range, and the conditions, always rough and ready to begin with, deteriorated beyond plinko on the greens, though more recently they were a bit better.
Hopefully the market it served isn't priced out-there is no shortage of mid range golf available in the Augusta area. The Patch was low range but always fun to play.
Nearby Forest Hills, a Donald Ross classic where Bobby Jones won his 5th event of 1930 was lost to the world of inane design 20 or so years ago when they decided to make it tougher for their college tournament.

[Joel_Stewart]

I am not gonna bash Augusta National, BUT I would like to see them help out THE PATCH " a little".

As someone who grew up playing quite a bit of "competitive" golf at The Patch, I'm really saddened to see its demise.
While I can appreciate ANGC helping out, I wdo wonder what it will become.

My question is does that clientele, the inner city Augusta residents want a Tom Fazio course jammed down their throat? Maybe the ANGC people are using the old Steve Jobs theory on why Apple never used focus groups, because the clients didn't know what they wanted. I have to believe that another architect would have been better suited then Fazio.

[Michael Morandi]

When did Augusta go to super quick greens?  I’m assuming sophisticated agronomy techniques made it doable. Is this its gift or curse to golf?

[Mark Mammel]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Fried Egg Instagram post showing how each hole has changed over the decades.  It's very interesting to see how many of the design features we see on most Mackenzie courses have been removed by the many cooks that have stirred this pot  over the years. I've had the good fortune to see the course on a few occasions from 1992 to 2022 and even over that time the change is remarkable. As has been said in this thread, courses change with time, for many reasons, and the course today is beautiful, dramatic, and a test for the best players. It resonates for all of us, especially those old enough to remember the black & white back 9 only days. Still, I wish the bunkers still had some Mackenzie left!
https://www.instagram.com/p/DIENpzRO32f/

[Simon Barrington]

When did Augusta go to super quick greens?  I’m assuming sophisticated agronomy techniques made it doable. Is this its gift or curse to golf?

Post 1982.

They introduced Bent grass to the greens in 1981, but got it a little wrong (so much so that according to the Fried Egg they actually had to dye the greens green for TV to cover bare spots)

But in 1982 they got it right with a new "Super", Billy Fuller, who managed the grow in of the new surfaces...from there it has just got quicker & quicker...

To answer your question - a curse, for others, as they seek to keep up, but with neither the budget nor low levels of play that ANGC has...
"Keeping up with the (Bobby) Jones's" is a fools errand and speed has neutered many a green since...as slope gets removed due to excessive pace.

IMHO we have exceeded "The Sitwell Limit" (TM) - When speed overcomes topography & interest....not just at ANGC, but largely as result of their incredible agronomy, hard work and investment (which is far beyond the reach of others, yet they try in vain to match this unreachable level in any way they can...)

[Niall C]

Simon


You've been involved with professional golf tournaments in the UK from what I recall. In your time doing that, how many courses had the green contours changed to facilitate faster green speeds ?


Niall

[Simon Barrington]

Simon

You've been involved with professional golf tournaments in the UK from what I recall. In your time doing that, how many courses had the green contours changed to facilitate faster green speeds ?

Niall

Hardly any, as the Clubs generally acquiesced to the suggestion of the Tournament Director (and/or Agronomist) of slowing the speed down (or more correctly not speeding it up too much) if it got to that limit.

Primarily, as their budget didn't stretch to rebuilding greens. The issue was less prevalent as speeds were not as fast as today, but already on their way there.

There are more numerous examples in the US of greens being reconstructed with less slope, I don't think that is in doubt. Budgets are far larger for "renovations" stateside.

I hope I don't speak incorrectly or out-of-turn (with apologies to both the Club & Jim Urbina if I am incorrect) but even Pasatiempo has softened slopes in some areas (or had to provide controlling slopes) to accommodate modern green speeds.
For me that is a shame, and something that started at Sitwell Park many many years ago...hence my conjecture of "The Sitwell Limit" (TM)

In my time of being involved with running events I never lost a day to rain, but I did once have to call a tournament a day short for "unplayable" greens due to the combination of slope, speed and wind (which had shifted unexpectedly).

That was on a links course, there is very good reason why the R&A run The Open at c.10ft, and focus more on consistency, trueness, and firmness readings (Clegg Hammer etc.)

However, I have seen "normal" non-Tournament Members' Clubs rebuilding interesting greens due to excessive speeds that are now possible due to improved agronomy by skilled Course Managers.
Due to the example of Augusta and PGA Tour venues influencing those less interested in GCA than we, they simply would prefer to spend £15,000 or considerably more to rebuild a green and take out interesting slope, rather than simply tell the Course Manager there is a reasonable limit on (their precious & sought after) speed.
That is economically unsustainable, and sadly reduces the uniqueness of their courses (but they are not as focused on that being as important, as we might be).

[Tags:]

Tags: