[Brian Phillips]

Rich,

Is that all you have played...?  That isn't much is it...you forgot Skibo

Brian

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike Cirba,

David;

INSTANT MESSAGE TO ALL GREEN CHAIRMEN:

ANGC planted a whole bunch of trees, narrowed the fairways with Bermuda rough, and lengthened holes and moved up to #2.

Talk about mixed messages!!

I don't know if I would quantify the number of trees planted as a whole bunch.  I think you might be presenting a false impression that the course has been choked down considerably.

I also think that you have to look at narrowing the fairways in the context of their width pre-narrowing.  ANGC is not a narrow golf course.  If you want narrow, come play in Westchester, you'll learn how to walk single file and still have a conversation with your foursome.

As to the rough, I'm not so sure that it is a permanent fixture, and would like anyone familiar with the club to comment on its presence for the members pre and post Master's week.

I think lengthening # 13 made all the sense in the world and can't see how one could object to same.

ANGC is a very good golf course, but, it does serve more than one master.

[Gary_Smith]

Just think, the annual orgy of ANGC bashing is just about here!! Can't wait!    Mike was probably just signalling the troops.    Just kidding, Mike.

Mr. Mucci,

You are correct about #13, IMHO. I also look forward to seeing how #5 will play.

The real golf season starts in two weeks!

[ForkaB]

Brian

Last I heard Skibo was still not in the United States, although given the accents you will hear there from most of the members, you might think so.

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci posted these two paragraphs;

"I don't know if I would quantify the number of trees planted as a whole bunch.  I think you might be presenting a false impression that the course has been choked down considerably."

"As to the rough, I'm not so sure that it is a permanent fixture, and would like anyone familiar with the club to comment on its presence for the members pre and post Master's week."

Pat:

When it comes to some courses and some architects you seem to be a complete stickler that certain things should be restored exactly as they were originally intended--ex; the bunker to the right of GCGC and some other features of GCGC such as #12 green and possibly features on other holes.

However, when other courses are discussed such as ANGC you seem to defend some of the alterations to the course as not so bad because they're only being done in degrees.

Don't you think you should strive to be more consistent in the direction these courses appear to be going?

Do you not realize that ANGC was intended to have very wide fairways? That, in fact, was much of the original design point of the golf course--much of the original architectural purpose of the design--many tee shots at ANGC were intended to be a golfer's choice--and width was needed to accomplish that. It was essential in fact. That kind of golfer's choice tee shot placement only served to enhance many of the mysteries of how best to approach various greens and hole locations--something that through the ages many touring pros could actually never really agree on. Frankly, what could be more interesting and sophisticated in architecture than that? Is that not basically the same theme as TOC---the very thing Jones/MacKenzie were attempting to emulate?

The width of fairways and lack of trees in the hole corridors were for an essential purpose--actually for the same purpose.

So I suggest you think more about trying to stay consistent in principle when it comes to the design intent of various golf courses.

You do understand what width of fairway and lack of trees meant to Bobby Jones and Alister MacKenzie, don't you?

If you understand those things and support them don't defend a golf course just because it happens to be going in the wrong direction only in degrees. You should be defending them only if they're going in the right direction!

Do you think ANGC has been going in the right direction with their design intent regarding narrowing fairways and planting more trees in original hole corridors these last few years or don't you? That's the point you should be concentrating on here as you seem to do on other courses.

If you don't do that your thinking begins to seem inconsistent, to say the least.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

There is no universal principle that applies to every golf course and every golf hole on the planet,
except, tee it up here, and get it in the hole there.

I'm also not like others who make blanket condemnations of the changes, without bothering to consider that some of them might have merit.  You should praise the positive changes and be critical of the ones you find objectionable.

If you'll read "The Making of The Masters" you might want to consider editing your post.  I'm not so sure that your interpretation agrees with history.

Would you classify ANGC fairways, today, as wide or narrow ?

Many if not most classic courses were built with elasticity in mind.  If it was acceptable to lengthen a hole to PRESERVE its strategy years ago, why wouldn't it be acceptable today ?

You also have to differentiate between hypothetical and actual changes.

It's one thing to talk about potential changes, it's quite another to evaluate an actual change, especially since you have the benefit of the ultimate test, playing the hole.  

There is not a doubt in my mind that the lenghthening of the 13th hole has positive results on the intended strategy of the hole.  I don't think that the good Doctor, Bobby Jones or anyone else EVER visualized guys hitting 3-metals up over the trees leaving 8-irons or less into that green.  That hole will benefit from the lengthening.  Just go back to the old highlights of The Masters when a perfect drive was needed to get around the corner so that the best players in the world could hit a 3-wood off of an uncomfortable lie into that green.  And, failing the perfect drive, they had to lay up and hit a dicey 3rd shot in to that green.  

Don't get caught up in the sometimes popular idea that NO changes are good.  Some are very good, like the new tee on
# 16 at Pine Valley.

I think that the 10th hole at ANGC is a better hole today, than its predecessor.  Likewise with # 16.

The 3rd hole at GCGC has been lengthened and I concur with that change.

The 8th hole at NGLA has been lengthened and I concur with that change.

Isn't the most important mission,
Preserving the strategy, the design integrity of the hole, or possibly improving it, rather than clinging to a rigid position that nothing should be changed ?

My position isn't contradictory because it's based on a case by case, hole by hole evaluation, and where I think a change would be beneficial I endorse it and where I think a hole should stay the same I endorse it, and where I think a hole should be restored I endorse it, and when I think a combination of the above should be done, I endorse it.

Why is it that no one, including some of the supposed gurus on this site objected to the lengthening and narrowing of Merion which took place over the years ?  You know my position on reclaiming the fairways so I needn't repeat it here.

Should Merion obliterate all of the tees that were added over the years to provide additional length ?  The tees that were intended to PRESERVE the design integrity of the holes ?

Hasn't # 11 at Friar's Head been lengthened ?

Rigidity has its place, fortunately, it has nothing to do with golf courses.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Redanman,

Shinnecock has probably had more tees lengthened than any other course around.  It continues to be a real test for the best players in the world because of its lengthening, and the winds.

[Mark_Fine]

Don't know what the rules are with GW and GM but with GD, you don't have to play the course to rate it.  I know some people here prefer to just walk it and study it rather than play.  That's probably where those votes come from for Augusta but who knows.  

[TEPaul]

Patrick said;

"There is no universal principle that applies to every golf course and every golf hole on the planet,"

Patrick:

That's certainly true! That is so true! And because it is it's encumbant on an architect or a good architectural analyst or those that administer a golf course well (that's an excellent one) that they understand what that unique principle of that golf course was intended to be.

You appear to be again a discusser who attempts to shift the subject at hand. I virtually said nothing about adding tee length or not to ANGC although you did.

What I was talking about was width and trees. Do you know that the width of ANGC was done originally for a purpose? That purpose involved the fairway widths and the lack of trees encumbering that width.

If that was an original principle and purpose and it was valid why compromise it now even to a degree? That's my question to you.

1. Do you understand that original principle and purpose?
2. Do you agree with it? And if not, why not?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

I understand the intent and construction that occured circa 1934, but that doesn't mean it's universally applicable today.

Would ANGC be and play differently if no modern day irrigation systems existed ?

Is ANGC still WIDE by modern standards.

How invasive, to the lines of play, are the trees you mention, and how many trees were added and to what locations ?
You make it sound as if wholesale alterations were effected which choked the course down to narrow corridors of play.

Let's just start, hole by hole, on the front nine, we'll do the back nine later.

Could you tell me where all of the trees have been planted ?

This can be a site of extremes, where a tidbit of information is magnified out of proportion.

I think you and I experienced a bit of that when we both walked and played Merion.

[TEPaul]

"Shinnecock has probably had more tees lengthened than any other course around."

Patrick;

What you may fail to realize is that tee length expansion through the years at Shinnecock was and is all planned tee length elasticity by Toomey and Flynn in 1930. And there's still more to go even beyond the 2004 Open.

William Flynn was by no means an advocate of increased distance--just the opposite in fact. What he did realize however--and wrote about---was that the regulatory bodies were probably not likely to do what they needed to in controlling the distance of the ball. He wrote about that 75 years ago.

What he did not write about and obviously would probably not have advocated is narrowing down his fairway widths to less than 30 yards.

Frankly Flynn was one of the biggest users of the so-called reverse dogleg in architecture and the ideal area of approach to many of his greens was from the outside of those doglegs--areas that will be way out in the rough for the 2004 Open.

Does that sound like an intelligent thing to do for the design intent of a golf course?

What it sounds like to me is just a way to regulate score.

[TEPaul]

"I understand the intent and construction that occured circa 1934, but that doesn't mean it's universally applicable today.

Would ANGC be and play differently if no modern day irrigation systems existed ?

Is ANGC still WIDE by modern standards."

Patrick:

For the final time--I'm not talking about anything universal here--but you are. Why are you doing that?

What I'm talking about is ANGC and the way it was designed. Who the hell cares about what's going on with 'modern standards' of courses designed long after ANGC was? ANGC was designed in the 1930s and with a particular principle and purpose in mind.

What you're suggesting or at least implying is the transmogrified golf course is better today with its reduced width and increased encroaching trees than it was as originally intended by Jones/MacKenzie--and I'm definitely not prepared to admit or accept that suggestion. The width of those fairways was not some idle occurence--it meant a great deal to the spectrum of choices of how to play those golf holes!

Stop deflecting this subject. If you don't agree with those original wide fairways and lack of encroaching trees just come straight out and say so!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

What encroaching trees are you refering to ?

Could you cite a hole where a tree encroaches on the lines of play, and how it encroaches on the line of play ?

[tonyt]

ANGC has NOT narrowed it's beautifully wide fairways. It does so for The Masters. An acquaintance who has been a member's guest for many years told me that over the past two years, every game he has played has been on the open wide fairways faithful to Dr Al's creed. He has never had a flyer yet.

The GD rankings don't rank how a course is set up for one tournament. So we can criticise the rough during Masters week, but only for Masters week.

[corey miller]

Pat- in a prior post you mentioned that any changes should be looked at on a case by case basis.  You also mentioned that you believe the changes at Augusta were positive on 13,10,16.  I have no reason to believe otherwise though I would tend to like as little change as possible as it lowers the chance that something gets messed up.

Do you believe the changes at Augusta were positive for all golfers or just the Pga guys in the one tournament?


I would suspect at most clubs no change is needed for 98% of the golfers.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Corey Miller,

I don't know how YOU would define "benefiting", but I do believe that the changes are broadly beneficial to most "golfers"

We are told that Ross tinkered with Pinehurst for about 26 years, that Crump intended changes at Pine Valley, that Pete Dye altered Crooked Stick and other courses, so I'm not so certain that a course shouldn't be changed.

How much involvement did AM actually have at ANGC ?
How many site visits, pre, during and post construction ?
What might he have done had he continued to actively consult with the club over the years ?  Who can say, absolutely ?

I remember watching The Masters, when the best players in the world occassionally got home on # 13 and # 15 with
3-woods, not wedges or 8-irons.  I'd like to see that element returned.  It's probably easier to do on # 13 due to the dogleg nature of the hole and pitch of the fairway, so a little more length should have a restorative value, strategically, and make the play of the hole more interesting to both golfers and spectators.

But, that's just my opinion.

[TEPaul]

"What encroaching trees are you refering to ?

Could you cite a hole where a tree encroaches on the lines of play, and how it encroaches on the line of play ?"

Pat:

I don't know--I've never been to ANGC. But if you tell me there are no trees today that encroach on the original lines of play of the original fairway widths of that golf course I won't mention this subject again. But first you need to tell me there are no trees today that encroach on those original fairway widths. Can you tell me that?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

If you don't agree with those original wide fairways and lack of encroaching trees just come straight out and say so!

My point is, that you can't make an opinion or hearsay based statement about the golf course and its component features, and posture it as FACT.

That merely diseminates false information.

You also can't take a particular and extend it to a universal.

I think, that if you're going to make a definitive statement about a hole or a golf course, that you should be intimately familiar with what you're talking about.

At Pine Valley, Gulph Mills, Merion and other courses I would consider you an expert based on your extensive first hand knowledge. I think you're out of your element at ANGC.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Have you read Brad Klein's recent article on ANGC...if you haven't I recommend it.

[TEPaul]

"You also can't take a particular and extend it to a universal."

Patrick:

For the last time--and this will be my last time I'm not making any universal statement here. But you keep saying I am. Why in Christ's name do you keep doing that and saying that? You can have the last word on his if you want it because not a soul on here is EVER going to take anything you say seriously if you just keep avoiding the subject, shifting the point and making up bizarre responses to people's questions.

All I asked you about is the width of the fairways at ANGC and the direction the club has gone in in that context by narrowing them down as they have--growing in the fairway lines from the way they were designed and also if trees have encroached on those old fairway widths and angles. I ask that to get you to answer if you agree or disagree with the DIRECTION the golf courses has gone in with narrowing thoses fairways and playable angles down. I could easily sit and ask a guy like Nick Faldo that question and he is able to give his opinion instantly. But with you---you're incapable of any answer at all! Why is that?

That's all I'm asking you here. Who said a damn thing about something universal--except you about five times now?

At ANGC, originally, that (very wide fairways) was a design principle of Jones and MacKenzie. I don't have to go to that golf course to understand that. For Christ sake Pat, they wrote about that principle extensively, they spoke about it, numerous others did and they meant it to apply to ANGC the way it did to TOC.

Are you actually trying to deny that? Are you saying Jones/MacKenzie were lying about that or they secretly didn't really mean it? If that's what you're saying who would take anything you say about ANGC seriously?

So just answer the question which is do you agree or disagree that those ANGC fairways should have been narrowed at all? Then anyone can see where you might stand on a fairly fundamental design issue of ANGC.

This has nothing to do with anything universal--just fairway width at ANGC.

I don't think you're able to answer this incredibly simple question because you really don't agree with what they've done there by narrowing them down and for some reason you find it unsupportive of someone to admit that.

Why do I feel you're next post will once again fail to answer a very straight forward question? Frankly, this is getting to be laughable!

[ChipOat]

Oh boy - I get to combine my thoughts from a whole bunch of past threads.

As to changes to "great" golf courses:  Although there is a risk that the changes are buggered up and for the worse, I endorse the concept and have cited the same examples as Senor Mucci - Ross/Pinehurst, Dye/Crooked Stick.  I've also noted Macdonald/National.  Finally, I happen to think that most of what's been done to Merion since 1923 through 2002 has been for the better.

As to changes to ANGC:  Augusta has been my principal example that excellent golf courses can be made better.  With all due respect to both Brad Klein and Daniel Wexler regarding the original ANGC, without the Masters-induced changes to the course, I believe Augusta National would have become the Pasatiempo of the East after Bob Jones' death - wonderful layout, nice membership, limited public access, cult reputation amongst the cognoscienti (spell?).

Whether ANGC is #2 or #5 or #10 - I don't know (although it's a slam dunk Top 10 IMO and I haven't played it in almost 25 years).  But it is unquestionably (to me) a far superior golf course than the original MacKenzie/Jones creation.

As to encroaching trees (i.e. Stupid Trees):  "Ike's Tree" has been a prime example of this unfortunate golf architecture strategy since at least the 1950's.  Ike must have been one smart guy to have lobbied for its removal.  Also,since the new back tee was built on #8, an already existant, but formerly innocuous tree is now an obstacle on the tee ball - precluding a draw or straight ball and forcing a fade.

But those are just my opinions.

[Matt_Ward]

To pick up Mike Cirba's comments I believe the top ten goes like this:

PV
ANGC
CP
Oakmont
PB
SH
Merion / East
OH / South
WF / West
OH / East

Again, how does SH merit a position at #6? I also have to question Oak Hill / East jumping into the top ten. Is the course really that good. I enjoyed the demands the course provides but the nature and proliferation of trees really lessens its appeal for me. Congrats to Oakmont and to WF / West -- they are two true and legitimate tests that link golf's past and show how they have maintaiend the spirit of their original designers.

I also understand Pacific Dunes cracked the top 50! Congrats to Tom Doak ...

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

You're drawing a conclusion in the presentation of your question.

It's akin to the question, "when did you stop beating your wife" ?  The implication is that the person queried has committed that act, when that may not be the case.

This is why I keep repeating to you that your premise is  flawed.

You keep saying trees have encroached on the lines of play as if it's a fact.  So, I've asked you to identify the culprits, which you've been unable to do.  Perhaps that is because there has been no systemic encroachment by trees to the lines of play on each and every hole.
Thus, your question is flawed and can't be answered.

If one or two trees have encroached on the lines of play other than Ike's tree, you can't then extend those particulars to universals, and that's also what I'm trying to get across to you.

TonyT posted that the fairways for the members haven't been narrowed for the members and that you shouldn't judge the golf course based on a week or three out of the year.
When I played there, the fairways were as wide as can be and no trees, other than Ikes tree, which I'm 3 out of 4 at hitting, encroached on the lines of play.

I realize that additional changes have taken place since, but I've yet to see any evidence of systemic hole by hole tree encroachment.

And, we're told that the "rough" is for the tournament.

Do you care how a course is prepared for a PGA competition ?

Is Shinnecock and Merion judged by their narrow USOPEN setup when they host the tournament

[Matt_Ward]

Just to throw a tickler out there for those who care I understand a noted California and New York course both dropped off the top 100 GD listing.

I also understand that two courses from Georgia (beyond Augusta and Peachtree) made the listing plus one rather unique course from Illinois.

I-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g !!!

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Any word on how The Ocean Course here on Kiawah Island fared this year?  I'm on pins and needles... :-/

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()