[Carlyle Rood]

From MacKenzie's site plan, I've created a quick sketch of how the original 10th at Augusta National may have looked in perspective.

How many would have preferred this hole to the current?

[Mike Benham]

My initial opinion is that the approach shot to the green is to similar to #11, both requiring a downhillright-to-left shot with enough trouble short and left, that 9 out of 10 golfers will aim for the right third of the green.

Perhaps that is why they changed the green location.

[ForkaB]

Mike

The trouble with your theory is that when they changed the 10th, the 11th was a completely different hole to what it is today!  That latter hole was changed, in 1950, from a drive and a pitch left-to-right dogleg to the hole we know today.  This is all according to Herbert Warren Wind, who also says that the original 10th green was "situated in a hollow at the bottom of a long and steep slope" and "had presented drainage problems from the outset."  If this is true.....

Carlyle

...wouldn't the perspective of the 10th look a bit different than your fine effort?  More blind, and no skyline effect, at least?

PS--in the same essay "The Master's Fiftieth Anniversary" HWW also says about the original Augusta course:

"(Bobby Jones) was aware that there were quite a few holes that needed strengthening, and he meant it when he told people who really knew golf that he would welcome any sugestions that they might have for improving this or that hole."

Do we not agree that many of the changes made to MacKenzie's design have "improved" the course?  Might not Jones even be happy with some of the most recent changes, in the same spirit of continuous improvement?

[A_Clay_Man]

Rihc- Assuming what Booby would like now, is probably a lesson in futility., However, do you really think he would've changed his core position on recoverability?

[BCrosby]

John MacMillan has done a magnificent reconstruction of the original 10th. I hope he will see this thread and repost his graphic. It's remarkable.

Rich -

No doubt many changes to ANGC were inevitable. For one thing, it was the only design MacK did in clay. Drainage was a problem at 10 and a couple of other holes.

That said, the original 10 was a fascinating hole. Today you rope a big hook into the catch basin valley, then hit a middle iron to a big open green. MacK's hole required a drive to the narrow ledge on the right side of the fairway if you wanted to open up a beautifully bunkered, fall-away green. It would have been a terrific short par 4.

But more generally, the history of changes to ANGC is hard to separate from the history of the rocky relationship between Cliff Roberts and Jones. From the very beginning Roberts wanted to make changes to the course that, at first, both Jones and MacK resisted and, later, that Jones resisted. But as Jones got more feeble in the late 40's and Robert's power over the club increased, Roberts found it easier and easier to implement his ideas. Many of which were hair-brained. One episode we know about, for example, are the monstrously bad changes at 8 implemented by Cliff Roberts. Jones opposed them.

Bottom line, I think it is wrong to assume that all changes to ANGC had the Jones imprimatur. Having looked at the question a bit, I now think the presumption should tilt in the other direction. Remember, Jones and Roberts weren't speaking for the last couple of decades of Jones' life and weren't getting along very all that well before they went radio silent.

It's my personal (and perhaps idiosyncratic) view that Jones poured his heart into MacK's course and, except for engineering necessities, was very reluctant to change it. Further, as Robert's gained clout and was able to impose his views (views similar to those of the USGA today, i.e., resistance to scoring is the only real measure of the worth of a design), Jones was increasingly alienated from the day-to-day decisions at ANGC until at some point he fell out of the loop altogether.    

Bob

 

[Carlyle Rood]

Mike

Carlyle

...wouldn't the perspective of the 10th look a bit different than your fine effort?  More blind, and no skyline effect, at least?

The shot was more blind.  Although it depended on where you hit your tee shot as to how blind it was.  From up close (where my sketch seems to be), the left side of the green would be entirely blind.

I've used a little artistic license.  I actually intend to use the sketch in an Internet survey that I'm putting together for class right now.

C

P.S. There's actually a lot of green behind that bunker.  The green is nearly symmetrical from a 45-degree axis.  The bunker effectively is in play only when the pin is up front.  It's a brilliant optical illusion.

[ForkaB]

Thanks Carlyle.  It's a great sketch.  Keep up the good work!

Bob

Thanks too.  You obviously know a lot more about ANGC than do I.  I was just citing Wind, who wrote his essay in the mid-80's, well after Jones died.  He seems to believe that Jones was more active in and supportive of the changes than you imply.  Was he wrong?

Adam

What was Jones' "core position on recoverability?"  I honestly do not know, nor do I see any significant change in "recoverability" at ANGC over the past 30 years, outside of that related to the increasing speed of the greens.  Thanks in advance.

[Mike Benham]

Mike

The trouble with your theory is that when they changed the 10th, the 11th was a completely different hole to what it is today!  That latter hole was changed, in 1950, from a drive and a pitch left-to-right dogleg to the hole we know today.  This is all according to Herbert Warren Wind, who also says that the original 10th green was "situated in a hollow at the bottom of a long and steep slope" and "had presented drainage problems from the outset."  If this is true.....

The trouble is that I did not know that the 11th was also changed or that the questions was time sensitive.  Thanks for the knowledge ...

Mike

[ForkaB]

Mike

I just thought you were saying they changed 11 because they didn't wan't two similarly playing greens in a row.  Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.

[Carlyle Rood]

What was Jones' "core position on recoverability?"

I get the impression from his writing, that Jones believed that a golfer should be able to recover from a poor shot, as long as that recovery shot were of sufficient difficulty to justify an outcome comparable with two well-played shots.  In other words, you should be able to recover from a poor shot if you play the recovery shot exceptionally well.

Some would argue that the player who hit a better drive should be rewarded by explicitly penalizing the opponent who hits a poor drive.  I'm not in that camp.  I believe the player hitting from the fairway has already been rewarded because the following shot is much easier and has greater room for error.

I think this is why Jones and MacKenzie collaborated so well.  I think they both believed, principally, that golf should reward good play rather than punish poor play.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

I did not mean to imply that Jones was not involved in changes. He was. But as the years rolled by and as he became more and more debilitated, he was - necessarily - less and less involved. On the flip side, as Jones' influence waned, Roberts' waxed. And his was a whole different sensibility.

There is a blank chapter at the heart of ANGC's history. It may never be written, but it had an enormous impact on the course. The title to the chapter would go something like "The Decline and Fall of the Jones/Roberts Friendship" or maybe "A Tale of Two Egos" or maybe "The Shootout at the 8th Green".
My guess is that no one still alive could or would give an un-expurgated account of their relationship. Too bad. It would be fascinating.

Bob
 

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Carlysle,
Your getting a more and more deft hand with the pencil!

when I saw your opening post, I like Bob, thought of John McMillian's excellent computer reandering of the hole and while your drawing is close, from memory it seems as if the original featured the bunker somewhat on higher ground then the green, as well as the bunker had the true MacKenzie jagged/roughed-edged look to it.

Somebody, anybody get John McMillan out of hibernation, he can hopefully post his rendition also.

[A_Clay_Man]

rihc- In my formative years I was never that enamoured with the pretty flowers and lush green grass. I was however intrigued by the fact that there wasn't a stitch of rough.

The loss of that aspect of the course, speaks volumes, to me, on how those making the changes really understand what makes this sport, this sport. It ain't resistance to scoring by growing rough and adding trees, as they and others have done.

Why does someone/place like Mark Struder and his membership at Oakmont understand the intricasies related to their designs but the good ol boys, don't?

[Carlyle Rood]

Carlysle,
Your getting a more and more deft hand with the pencil!

when I saw your opening post, I like Bob, thought of John McMillian's excellent computer reandering of the hole and while your drawing is close, from memory it seems as if the original featured the bunker somewhat on higher ground then the green, as well as the bunker had the true MacKenzie jagged/roughed-edged look to it.

It is on higher ground.  I've got to learn how to create more depth in my perspectives--even for the sketches.  (I've omitted the jagged edges for the time being because I intend to use the image in an Internet survey of golf aesthetics.)

What really interests me about the sketch, however, is how misleading the size of the green and the proximity of the bunkering is.  I'm really starting to appreciate MacKenzie's camouflaging skills.

[ForkaB]

Adam

To me, the intorduction of minimal rough at ANGC has enchanced the "recoverability" aspect rather than diminished it.  For one thing, it has eliminated a lot of the "punch the ball out low off the pine needles because you have no other option" shots which were never a highlight of the Masters.  Perhaps you can enlighten us with some examples of specific situations where the changes made have diminished the challenge of the course and/or our enjoyment of watching the best players in the world play that course every year?

Tommy

I agreee with you that John McM's stuff was fantastic, and would be posted permanently on this site if I ran the zoo......However, as neato as (probably) were things such as the boomerang 9th green, were they necessarily "better" than what ensued, particularly given Jones' apparent intent of building a golf course to test the greatest players in the world?  I don't really know.   Just asking.

[A_Clay_Man]

Rihc- My all time favorite was John Huston's 2 on 18. He pushed his drive into the tenth fairway and the rest is history. As I understand it, that type of excitement has been lost.

[ForkaB]

Adam

I think you understand incorrectly.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()