ANGC/Wexler/Links

[BCrosby]

There is a wonderful piece by Dan Wexler in the current Links magazine about changes to ANGC over the years. It appears to be an exerpt from his new book.

I highly recommend it to everyone. It is the best summary yet of the modifications to ANGC and how they have degraded so many of the design objectives of MacK.

Just terrific. A must read.

Bob

[Norbert P]

Bob, I agree.  It is a very good article but I wish they would have placed more before and after picts.  Wexler did a great job of describing changes but seeing it would have helped my feeble mind.  (I guess I should buy the book, eh?)  It even shocked me that LINKS would even allow something so controversial to be printed.  It's good to see as they've been a getting a little light lately.  

 (I noticed "Bikini waxed greens" or "mob scene" was never used.)

[Joel_Stewart]

Agree with Slag.  The photos of #13 from 1948 and today are great and personally I like the 1948 version better.  

I was watching the 1972 Masters last night on Golf Channel and was surprised at (in todays terms) how bad the condition of ANGC was.  

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Thanks for the tip. Looking forward to reading it. Dan Wexler is a cool, level-headed and experienced architecture analyst, in my book. We need more architecture writers like Dan Wexler.

[Norbert P]

Joel,  (On page 65) I'm not sure if the camera perspectives are the same but the contouring is totally changed as well.  They've put a swale back and left of green before back slope.  Another method of banishing the ground game.

  MacKenzie's bunkers are splattered nicely but isn't it odd that he left saplings in them?  

  The new bunkers do absolutely nothing for me.  No artistic expression whatsoever that I can discern.  If I ever play there I'll wear a lab coat.

  I find it sad that the members would rather present props for television than to venerate Bobby Jones and Alister by upholding their original design intent and character.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Excellent article (in between the cardboard ad pages).  Reading it one would think that Maxwell was the bad guy with all the changes that Wexler describes.  But I imagine that to a large degree he was doing what he was told.  I wonder who was calling the shots on some of these changes?

Funny to read this article the same week that GS ranks the course #2.  Makes you think that if many of the changes hadn't been made this course would occupy the permanent #1 spot in rankings of this sort.

{this is my first post that mentions the rankings....please forgive me}