Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jeff_Brauer on July 31, 2005, 01:25:24 PM
-
I am reading "MacKenzies Masterpiece - Augusta National" which features many old photos of the original course, a list of changes over the years, etc.
This is the type of book I would love to see done on all the top courses in the country, which should ideally each have their gca heritage documented as well. I would also love to see more information on who and why certain changes were made in such a logical fashion. Even with this book, it would be great to find unearthed archives telling us more of how that design process went along.
But it does raise the almost heretic question, "Was the MacKenzie/Jones design for Augusta National really a masterpiece as originally designed?" According to the book's title - yes - but from it's pictures and text, the answer seems to be "No".
Gene Sarazen is quoted as being particularly critcial of the original design, noting how short the par 3's are, especially 16. He called both 16 and 11 terrible holes, as being too short. In fact there was not much difference between 16 and 12 in the original design, another sign of repitition we don't usually associate with the Good Dr. He also said it wasn't a "very good design when finished by MacKenzie and Jones." His advice was among the earliest taken, and photos taken as early as 1940 already show big changes, a tacit admission that they knew they had big problems, even while the Jones PR machine could put a positive spin on making it the best possible course, etc. That the course was substantially renovated so much so quickly, when funds were so limited during the depression implies to me that they really, really wanted to remodel. And, I think they had to, based on photos in the book.
Comparing the photos of the design to those of Cypress Point, even though the book credits Wendell Miller and the Olmstead Bros. as building both courses, the detailing doesn't look as good as the California efforts.
Many pictures show flatter bunkers instead of concave bowls(the picture of the second hole green bunker in particular), and pimply, pointy mounds rather than full slopes, etc. I see at Cypress Point. (esp. on greens 3 and 17)
The original design included many "freak greens" of extravagant and awkward shape. Greens such as 4, 6, and 7 were "L" shaped, with narrow tongues extending well forward of where they are today. The forward part of 4 - a good length par 3 for its day looks to be only a few yards wide. Even greens 2 and 10 showed "L" or "r" shapes, although they were softened in construction. 9 was a "U" shaped green similar to one still existing at Pasa. All 4 greens could require a putt around a corner, which skilled competitors would have to have complained about.
I once heard from a descendant of MacKenzie I met in Singapore tell me that Jones was a strong, but detrimental, influence on design, which explains why it doesn't really look like other MacKenzie courses in both routing and details. He felt others fleshed out the concepts and details, and decided to use the existing house as clubhouse, which limited the routing.). For that matter, MacKenzie, until the depression started wasn't truly concerned with economy in bunkering espoused at Augusta, and sparse bunkering is one reason this design looks different from earlier work, I think.
A couple of questions to Tom Doak and other Mac historians.....Why wasn't this Mac's Crownig achievement (at least in original form?)
Is it a result of MacKenzie not doing many site visits because he wasn't getting paid? The book claims that MacKenzies efforts in the field came just prior to seeding and focused on the putting surfaces. (BTW, by my count, 9 of the 18 greens had signifigant changes in shape and bunkering from MacKenzies last routing plan.)
Did Mac and Jones get along after all? While they clearly admired each other before working together, its not a given that the marriage would work out, no matter how well the dating went!
Were decisons made based more on economies or a rush to get open due to financial concerns? (it was built pretty fast)
Were the awkard greens a function of the Jones (and MacKenzie depression inspired) philosophy of minimal bunkering, and an attempt to make the course challenging without them? (In other words, were they experimenting to get the philosophy right?) Or were the unique shapes perhaps an ode to St. Andrews wildly shaped double greens?
Most importantly, did the ANGC original design truly embody MacKenzie principles as much as other courses he designed?
-
But it does raise the almost heretic question, "Was the MacKenzie/Jones design for Augusta National really a masterpiece as originally designed?" According to the book's title - yes - but from it's pictures and text, the answer seems to be "No".
Jeff,
I have had the same burning question for the last year. I, like you think that the original design was not a masterpiece. The routing is of course very good.
I own the following books:
The Making of The Masters - David Owen 2003
The Masters - Curt Sampson 1998
The Story of the Augusta National Golf Club - Clifford Roberts 1976
Augusta National & The Masters - Frank Christian 1996
The Augusta National Golf Club - Stan Byrdy 2005
Nearly all of the greens (if not all) have been changed and looking at some of the old photos I can understand why. Who is to blame? That is hard to know.
To me it is not a MacKenzie masterpiece at all. Some of the bunkering, mounding and greens are very poor and look very false and not natural as the Doctor preached. I just wonder how good was MacKenzie at green designs?
Did his green designs rely on a good contractor that really understood what he wanted? Are his greens left to chance when you see his old sketches...how could they intrepret those type of drawings without him being on site more than he was?
Is Cypress Point so good because MacKenzie could follow up the work all the time and Royal Melbourne so good because Mick Morcom was superb at bunkering?
One example of poor work is the bunker at the back of the 12th hole. It just looks like a bomb crater 10 ft above the green at the back. It is pratically out of play and looks very ugly.
Brian
-
Jeff,
Cypress Point was constructed by American Golf Course Construction Company which was run by Robert Hunter Jr. and Sr.
-
Jeff and Brian:
I am not of the opinion that the original design of Augusta National was way better than the modern version, however, I think you are both selling it short.
MacKenzie's designs always had some severe greens which some people felt to be "freak greens." And (to answer Brian's query) EVERYONE'S greens rely on a good contractor to get what the designer wants. Wendell Miller's company was good, but they didn't have the touch of Maxwell or Fleming or Hunter or Morcom, and if MacKenzie wasn't there much, it's probable the greens didn't have the same quality of shaping to them.
However, the routing was there; a lot of the best holes were there from day one; and as for some guy in Singapore who thinks Jones was a detrimental influence, that's just too specious to comment upon.
MacKenzie was changing his philosophy of design at the time of Augusta. Bayside had only a few bunkers, and so did Augusta, which was a radical change from Cypress Point, The Valley Club and Royal Melbourne. I'm sure that makes it less noteworthy in the eye-candy era today, but that doesn't mean it was a failure.
Brian: I am sure MacKenzie's work was better when he had all of his best people around. I am sure you will be, too, someday when you've found and trained associates of your own ... but should we therefore conclude that you have no talent yourself?
-
Found an article where Mackenzie criticises freak greens, which was a surprise! I'll get it copied and post it.
I was surprised that all the greens at Augusta have been changed to some degree-most of them quite radically. But are the sketches of the orignal greens wholly accurate or only based on the photos presented?
-
"Was the MacKenzie/Jones design for Augusta National really a masterpiece as originally designed?"
Jeff
Yes, a revolutionary masterpiece. Was it MacKenzie's greatest masterpice? No, that would be Cypress Point...and few courses stand up to it in comparision.
I've looked at this new book (looked at the pictures, I haven't read it)...and I like it. There are some new pictures I hadn't seen before, but unfortunately the original ANGC remains a not very well documented course...photographically. You would have thought with all the publicity, due to Jones and the Masters, there were would be a wealth of excellent photographs, unfortuantely that's not the case.
In fact the photos of all the green complexes aren't very good at all, I agree the features do look flat, but I suspect that maybe a result of the photography. If I recall correctly there are two old photos of the 3rd green and greenside bunker in the book, and they offer a contrast of flat and not so flat photos. The main set of green pictures is frankly not very good. I don't believe there many (if any) good photos of the few fairway bunkers.
Its difficult to compare ANGC to CPC, one course was heavily bunkered, the other was sparsely bunkered...mounding and undulations being the main design elements, which don't come across too well in photos. The other aspect that is sometimes lost in photos is the scale of the features...the scale was unusually large. The scale of the bunkers, the scale of the mounds, the scale of the greens and their undualtions, and the scale of the fairways and the scale of the relatively open landscape.
Another problem was the timing of the project--the major American golf magazines were going under as ANGC was coming to be. MacKenzie's death didn't help either; God knows had he been alive he would have had a crack photographer record him playing every inch of the golf course.
I'd wouldn't put too much weight into Sarazen's architectural opinion; he's never struck me as a student of golf design. And Sarazen was not big fan of MacKenzie's work; he had some bad experiences at Moortown and Troon Portland. Was the course specifically designed as Championship venue?
Comparing Miller to the others is difficult to do. As TD said MacKenzie underwent a major architectural transition after the stock market crash, and Miller's projects are not as well documented--Bayside, Jockey, ANGC and Palmetto.
My impression of ANGC was a course well ahead of its time. There had never been anything quite like it before, and there really hasn't been anything quite like it since.
-
If by chance, you can post pictures, it would be greatly appreciated.
-
Regarding Sarazen's comments, and not necessarily applying this notion to that particular example (Sarazen & Augusta), but both the past and present are overloaded with greats of the game who will harshly criticise great golf courses. Almost but not quite no matter how architecturally savvy the player in question may be, such comments cannot be accepted as universally sound and an accurate cross section of the great archie minds of the time.
-
I made my first trip to Augusta this year.
From what I've seen of photographs, I am not nearly as critical of the original features as Jeff and Brian seem to be, and I also felt that quite a few of the original holes were rather brilliant in concept.
However, I'm not nearly so enamored of the routing as others seem to be. Yes, the course does have Amen Corner as an example of the wonderful use of Rae's Creek and that's hard to dispute, but...
As I mentioned in a thread back in April, there are many areas of the course where one feels that things get too cramped, too forced, and ultimately confined, there are others where parallel, back and forth holes happen without much in the way of seeming thought to alternatives, and at least one very large, wide stretch between 10 and 8 where good golfing ground lies completely unused.
I left feeling that the routing could have been improved although in my completely pedestrian, civilian opinion, I don't believe that I could come up with a better one. Instead, I just felt that a gifted architect with creative imagination and talent spending considerable time onsite could have done so.
-
Jeff,
As Tom Mac has noted, I wouldn't put a single stock into anything Sarazen had to say about the course or any course by or having anything to do with MacKenzie. They both detested each other and staged quite a campaign against one another in the press. I think the brunt of it was because of Sarazen's comments regarding Troon's Portland Course when he failed to qualify for the British Open in like 1925. (or some year like that) Apparently the course had Sarazen's modus operandi and defended itself quite good.
I think it was in American Golfer where MacKenzie wrote a diatribe called, Vandelism and it was a direct attack on Sarazen and his thoughts of changing the diameter of the hole to around double the size in an effort to speed-up play and soften the difficulty of the game. I'll try to find it later and post it.
Also, I had talked to Desmond Muirhead about that incident with MacKenzie, and he almost automatically took MacKenzie's side, simply because he knew what it was like to work with Gene Sarazen.
It was a partnership that didn't last long, but the golf course they produced--Soboba Springs is not a bad track. It's actually quite good.
-
Compared to some of his other projects, my impression is MacKenzie spent quite a bit of time at ANGC.
I don't see the 12th and old 16th as all that similar. I actually think the approach to the 13th and the 16th look more similar.
Speaking of the detail work not be up to snuff...I really like the look of the bunkers behing the 13th green. They look like scars in the hillside...almost like natural erosion.
-
Jeff Brauer:
Very well put together initial post. There's much to think about out of that initial post of yours.
You're so right that any course of significance needs to have its architectural evolution documented as best as can be done. The more any course has of the "whys", "who", "when" and "how" of its entire evolution, the better it can be analyzed as to what it was, how well it worked in play and what it was like at any time compared to any other time.
In many ways, though, ANGC is so unique compared to other significant courses of its era or any time, and obviously that because of the uniqueness of an annual world class tournament played on it every year for so many decades. It's pretty hard to imagine that any golf course anywhere that goes through that scrutiny in that particular way annually is not going to change and evolve in all kinds of ways.
I believe in what's called the "test of time" and that fortunately or unfortunately really does involve opinions of how any golf course is played by those who play it. I think for anyone to significantly discount the importance of this particular fact and reality is to basically discount the fact of the importance of golf itself as the necessary nexus of golf architecture.
The interesting historical and contemporary dynamics between great golf architects and great golfers is a long and interesting one but it is a necessary ingredient of great golf architecture. For anyone on here or elsewhere to say otherwise is foolish, in my opinion. To do so is frankly looking at a fascinating subject and a fascinating golf course in a virtual vacuum.
-
I don't know much of anything about the history of ANGC, the relationships of MacKenzie, Jones, Roberts et al.
However, I do think or suspect that there were some real philosophical changes in the wind amongst some in the art and business around the time that course was conceived and built.
It seems like a loose group were experimenting in some very interesting ways in both golf and architecture. Things like a larger cup, half strokes for putts, floating balls (to lighten the weight and prevent a technological clobbering of the game by I&B), and all kinds of actual golf architectural experimentations---eg less bunkering in the name of cost efficiencies and perhaps some perceived purity of architecture as it related to actual play.
To preface a discussion of a course like ANGC and it's perhaps wholly unique original design intent I suspect there were some fascinating connections we need to know a lot more about between a number of people that sort of centered around the concept and creation of ANGC. I feel most of those connections, even if perhaps in only a philosophical way were happening and emanating from those in and around California---eg MacKenzie, Jones when he was there and even the elusive and mysterious philosophies of Max Behr.
But to me, ANGC and it's concept has always been elusive and fascinating. Was it supposed to be a tournament course or was it supposed to be that and so many other things too---eg in fact the "Ideal" course that could accomodate all in so many different ways and be cost efficient too (we can't forget how important cost efficiency in both construction and maintenance had become to some of those architects, at least in theory)?
But until far more is known about the original idea of what ANGC was supposed to be I keep wondering if it may not have been perhaps a bit too sophisticated, at least in concept, for the mindset of the general golfing public.
I'm a huge fan of Max Behr and his philosophies on golf and archtiecture but the more I know about him and them (his philosophies), and also given the knowledge of what has transpired in the ensuing years since he wrote, I wonder more every day if perhaps the thing he was most off the mark on is just how much Man, the golfer, really cared about the things Behr felt would be, or almost had to be, so important to the golfer.
-
Tom MacWood,
I agree the concept was revolutionary and has set the basic pattern of golf design until this very day, with more and more turf, fewer bunkers, and greens with contours that are puttalble until you speed them up one week a year. I am only wondering about the details of design, not the concept.
Thanks for the info on the Sarazen - Mac rift, which I was unaware of. Unfortunatly, so was the author of the book or he might have put the remarks in context. However, it does seem others agreed with him, since changes were made soon thereafter. And, that perhaps set a trend that continues to this day. Augusta is usually leading edge, and is actually quite revolutionary in its evolutionary state.....
I am not really sure Mac spent lots of time there, given the documented visit by Hollins in his place, and the fact he wasn't getting paid to come. I know he was there for routing, perhaps the start of clearing, and again to oversee the final contouring of greens. Tom D would know more about interim visits.
As to the scale of the photos, I am comparing them to the B and W photos of CP in Geoff's book, and I presume the scale would be about equally evident between the two. I don't see any "jarring" cone shaped mounds at CP - all the slopes there were tied in very gracefully. It makes me wonder if, in absence of MacKenzie, no one knew better, or if they were in a rush. Maybe the contractor was cutting corners. Did Olmstead build other courses?
Tom Doak,
I clearly did not say it was a failure - I asked if it was a masterpiece. It's a fair question to ask, since by in most respects, it was a dream job among dream jobs. Not only a good, but perhaps not great site, but the most famous client and high profile project of its time.
In essence, it would be the equivalent of you (or someone else) rebuilding Pac Dunes signifigantly within seven years. If that happened, would you expect someone to ask if you had made the most of your opportunity?
They would question whether your best contractor was there, how much input the owner had, what your relationship was, how many field visits, etc. etc. etc. And there wouldn't be much sympathy for any excuse as to why it wasn't right the first time, just like in the good old day!
For that matter, knowing it would likely be a tournament course, even if his style was emerging, would you consider that the place to experiment with a proliferation of new ideas? It could be that they wanted ANGC to be fairly radical and different. I don't know, I am just asking.
The gent from Singapore pointed out that the routing didn't feel like any other MacKenzie routing, and I happen to agree. I can't think of too many Mac holes running or sliding up hills like on ANGC. Of course, it is basically a hillside site sloping from the clubhouse to Raes Creek, and its probably the best solution available, given Macs talents.
My biggest question is in the details - particularly the green shapes, location and shaping of come mounding and bunkers.
Just some food for thought.
-
I don't know where to begin. Lots to say.
Whether or not ANGC was/is a masterpiece is a question reasonable people might disagree about. I think it was and is. I also think MacK's original design was a better design than the current hodge-podge.
(The current hodge-podge may serve as a better venue for a major golf tournament every year, but I do not believe it is better architecture. Quite the contrary.)
More relevant (and beyond dispute) is that ANGC was seen at its opening as revolutionary. It wasn't seen as just another great course. It was seen as being very different, a break from other great American courses. From Grantland Rice to Donald Ross to Tommy Armour to A.W. Tillinghast, the course was unlike any other they had seen.
We all know the litany. Few bunkers, few trees, no rough, essentially no o.b., very wide playing corridors, dramatic greens, some with crazy outlines. Wild, extreme contouring virtually everywhere.
It was a daring, radical design that was not appreciated by some (Sarazen, some other pros like Horton Smith and most important of all, Cliff Roberts). But most everyone else raved about it. Including, specifcally, most other architects at the time. Many seemed to say that they had glimpsed the future.
My guess is that these "revolutionary" aspects of ANGC might have changed perceptions about good design if it hadn't been for the onset of the Great Depression, WWII, the post war depression and the virtual absence of new course construction until about 1960. By then a course built in 1932 had lost its hold on practicing architects. They wanted to sell themselves as doing "modern" stuff.
I also believe the design concepts that informed ANGC and made it so revolutionary in 1933 have had a rebirth. They are reflected in the best of the new stuff. It's hard to play Sand Hills or Wild Horse and not see it, for example. I suspect that C&C would not hesitate to acknolwedge their debt.
I think ANGC, like NGLA, was one of the critical, watershed American designs. Certainly ANGC was more pivotal to the history of gca than the more polished CPC. It pointed to new directions that are just now being fully realized.
Gene Sarazen nothwithstanding.
Bob
-
Jeff
As far as I can tell Jones never intended ANGC to be the site of an annual professional event. In fact in the articles written in 1931, 1932 and 1933 there is no mention of the course hosting any tournament...just the opposite the focus appears to be building a course the average guy could enjoy.
From what I understand the Masters was Roberts' idea. Regarding the numberous changes over the years, I give Cliff Roberts credit for that trend as well. The changes were designed to strengthen the course for one week in April. And it appears most of the changes were in response to complaints from the pros...not exactly a recipe for architectural advancement IMO.
Regarding the cone shaped mounds...ANGC was a continuation of what MacKenzie had done at Bayside and the Jockey Club--wide fairways, very few bunkers, bold contours and undulations (both built by Miller's company). A modern version of St. Andrews...which was in concert with Jones's thoughts on golf architecture.
I don't believe the Olmsted Brothers had anything to do with the consturction of ANGC. It is my understanding they were hired to plan the housing development, remodel the clubhouse and were in charge of the landscaping.
Did Sarazen complain about 11 and 16 or 10 and 16? I thought the 10th was the hole thought to be too easy...it was original designed as the first.
-
I remember seeing this picture of 8 green when it had a tiny ridge running all around it..the picture was from the 1950s...UGH!!!!
-
Tom -
Early on Roberts and Jones had wanted to host a US Open. But the USGA would not move to a spring date. The "Invitational" tournament was Roberts' idea and Jones was a reluctant participant. At least initially.
My read is that the Masters quickly became important to the club for reasons of financing and status. As you note, there was concern that the course match up with world class players if it was going to be center stage in the golf world every year.
It was the interesting, funky short par 4's - holes that MacK built often at his other great courses (see CPGC, RM) - that didn't cut it with some of the professionals. Thus big changes to 7, 10 and 11 were made early on. A little later, the short 16th was probably changed for similar reasons. It was not all Roberts' doing. Jones had a role as well.
The Olmstead firm was brought in primarily to lay out a housing plan that was to surround the course. (They did some work in and around the clubhouse too.) Except for one house near the second tee (torn down in the '60's) the residential development plan was never implemented. I suspect because the revenues from the Masters meant they didn't need the money.
My recollection is that Wendell Miller's company, recommended by MacK, built the course.
Bob
-
So I guess MacKenzie died before they could pay his fee. :'( :P
-
Bill -
Technically the debt owed to Mack (or to his estate) along with some other debt owed by the club was eliminated in a receivership proceeding sometime in '33, I believe.
What is a little troubling is that by '33 Jones was already very rich. He could have easily paid the MacK fee (and maybe other club debt too) out of his own pocket. It wasn't a big number. Even in the aggregate. I don't know why he didn't do it. Especially since the receivership, while they kept it very low key, was somewhat embarrassing for all involved with the club.
Bob
-
Jeff B: Sorry to pick on you, I was also trying to respond to Brian Phillips who was even harder on the design than you were.
To the best of my knowledge, MacKenzie made three visits to Augusta as you suggested, for a few days per visit. One of these was strictly to do the routing and initial design, before construction started.
You are right that I would not consider any course to be my best work if we had to re-work it significantly not long after it was built. However, a lot of people would say that the TPC at Sawgrass is one of Pete Dye's seminal works, and it was reworked every bit as much as Augusta in its early years [though no one has asked Tom Fazio to come in and spruce it up lately].
I don't think Dr. MacKenzie had his choice of construction guys to use on the project, although with the Depression in progress, I'm not sure who else was even in the business to consider as an alternative. Wendell Miller was based in New York and had worked with MacKenzie before, so Cliff Roberts probably made that decision ... MacKenzie would not have produced the detailed budget that would satisfy Roberts.
I do believe that MacKenzie and Jones thought of the design as somewhat experimental in nature. You are correct that most living architects would not take that chance on a high-profile project of their own -- those at the high end of this business seldom take any chances at all, that's my #1 lament about their work. However, the good Doctor was unafraid to experiment at any time in his career (see the Sitwell Park chapter), and anyway I'm not sure that the Augusta National project was nearly as "high profile" in 1931 as we all see it today. MacKenzie probably believed he and Jones had several years to make refinements to the course if they wanted to, before it hosted a signficant event.
Unfortunately, Dr. MacKenzie did not live long enough to judge the success of the experiment, and it was left to others to determine what pieces required fixing.
-
However, I'm not nearly so enamored of the routing as others seem to be. Yes, the course does have Amen Corner as an example of the wonderful use of Rae's Creek and that's hard to dispute, but...
As I mentioned in a thread back in April, there are many areas of the course where one feels that things get too cramped, too forced, and ultimately confined,
WHERE ?[/color]
there are others where parallel, back and forth holes happen without much in the way of seeming thought to alternatives,
Could you cite specific examples ?[/color]
and at least one very large, wide stretch between 10 and 8 where good golfing ground lies completely unused.
Perhaps you forgot that that's where the 18th hole and the original practice area were located.
I'd call that pretty good use of the land.[/color]
I left feeling that the routing could have been improved although in my completely pedestrian, civilian opinion, I don't believe that I could come up with a better one. Instead, I just felt that a gifted architect with creative imagination and talent spending considerable time onsite could have done so.
How much onsite time did Donald Ross devote to routing his many golf courses ? You mistake inate, inherent talent, genius, for work.
You could stay onsite for ten years and not come up with the routings of the talented architects. It doesn't require time, it's not a function of punching the clock, it requires talent. Or, put another way, the more talented the architect, the less time needed onsite to develop the routing.
I think the routing at ANGC is brilliant.
The holes are layed out masterfully on an enormous slope.
Unless of course, like Tom MacWood, you think the land is FLAT. ;D[/color]
-
Wendell Miller was based in California in the mid to late 20's--Toluca Lake (he had moved there from Ohio). I suspect Max Behr introduced Miller to MacKenzie. By 1929 he had moved his office to Chicago, although his home was in Columbus.
I believe his first project for MacKenzie was St. Charles or Jockey, although he was working with MacKenzie as early as 1929 according to letters to and from Ohio State. When he built Bayside, Miller moved his office to NYC. Which was also convenient to the ANGC project....NYC being in many ways the HQ of that project.
I don't believe it was a case of MacKenzie being stuck with Miller. MacKenzie chose Miller to construct his courses in the period prior to his death.
-
Bob Crosby:
Your post #14 is so interesting and somewhat haunting to say the least. Your post #19 is so interesting too. Regarding the latter, the purpose of that move seems pretty transparent as well as Jones's lack of financial help to the new club. I guess the moral of those stories is it isn't a great idea to automatically glorify some of these icons as is sometimes automatically done on a site like this. That is, not if you really care to look at the truth of history accurately.
How about Roberts's financial support of ANGC Bob? Isn't it true that the Wall-Streeter (?) damn nearly went personally broke supporting the club? Do you think that fact added to the sometimes difficult dynamic between Jones and Roberts? I can't see how it could help but add to it.
Isn't it something how personal tragedies of one type or another seems to surround some of the best golf projects ever done? ANGC, PVGC, Merion, NGLA, Pasatiempo, the latter part of the lives of Park Jr, Tillinghast or even to a degree George Thomas, etc. And in the game itself the life of Philadelphia's great Johnnie McDermott is something to ponder. Wow, what a sad story!
-
Tom -
The early financial travails of ANGC are indeed interesting. I suspect we know nothing like the full story.
What we do know is that Roberts insisted from the beginning that Jones contribute no money. Jones offered a couple of times, but Roberts insisted that any additional funds come from the other members.
Ironically, as the economy got worse and worse - the depth of the Depression was '33/'34 - Jones was doing quite well. Between fees for his films, payments from Spaulding to endorse (and help design) a set of clubs and, most importantly, a gift to him (from his buddy Robert Woodruff) of several major Coke-a-Cola bottling operations, Jones was sitting pretty.
Roberts appears to have been quite careful with his money as well. I've seen nothing indicating he made any unusual financial sacrifices to ANGC. But I may not have the whole story. We do know that by the end of WWII Roberts was quite wealthy. He managed Eisenhower's money starting about then.
So it seems likely that you had a group of men who, at a personal level, were able to fund ANGC's debt out of rounding errors on their tax returns. But they didn't. Why they permitted the Mack debt and other debt to be cancelled is unclear. I plan to visit the Richmond County (Augusta county seat) courthouse someday and look back through the records.
Bob
-
"What we do know is that Roberts insisted from the beginning that Jones contribute no money. Jones offered a couple of times, but Roberts insisted that any additional funds come from the other members."
Bob:
That's very interesting. I've sure never heard that before. Do you have any idea why that would've been? Do you even know how early Roberts got involved in ANGC? Was he part of the planning when it was just a vision of Jones's? That's the way it began---as a vision of Jones's, right? Or were there others such as Roberts first who got Jones into it in the beginning? How early did the planning of ANGC start anyway? Was it before the Crash? Was it before Jones quite the game and perhaps had something to do with his amateur status? I've heard some fairly conflicting stories too about the situation of Jones's amateur status---some that he knew precisely about it and that he planned to give it up and others that the USGA had to come to him. The latter from Skee Riegal, no less, who was around back then, sure did know him well and probably should know what was really going on.
-
"Why they permitted the Mack debt and other debt to be cancelled is unclear."
It sure is unclear. But in things like that the truth is usually the same---it's a clever mechanism to not pay what you owe.
The opposite of that is a remarkable story of one W.E. Hutton brokerage firm on Wall Street (the other and smaller Hutton brokerage co).
Hutton & Co went into bankrupcy about 30 years ago. Bill Hutton was protected by corporate law from being personally liable but like the extraordinary gentleman he always was he did not look at the situation that way. He went far beyond corporate law in bankruptcy and dipped way into his own money and eventually, so they say, paid off everything debt dollar for dollar. It took him quite a while but he got it done, so they say. There're basically not people like that around anymore---that was the good old days of real businessman ethics and strong personal principles.
Probably not that different from the Merrill Lynch reformation and the way Merrill treated the Lynch family following the sudden death of Lynch after the Merrill Lynch handshake that apparently no one but them was aware of.
-
I was in the bookstore last night and picked up the Augusta book again that Jeff refers to. He's right...the shaping looks to be fairly primitive and nowhere near as good as Mackenzie was capable of.
I have no qualms about the boomerang greens (some greens look terrific, in fact), but the bunkers seem fairly non-descript (even with their jigsaw edging) and out of scale, and the mounding seems awful.
It made me think Mackenzie was not around for the fine detail shaping and that the job was handled by someone only peripherally aware of what he wanted on the ground.
-
I was in the bookstore last night and picked up the Augusta book again that Jeff refers to. He's right...the shaping looks to be fairly primitive and nowhere near as good as Mackenzie was capable of.
How do you know that ?
Maybe the shaping came out exactly as Mackenzie intended it.[/color]
I have no qualms about the boomerang greens (some greens look terrific, in fact), but the bunkers seem fairly non-descript (even with their jigsaw edging) and out of scale, and the mounding seems awful.
Now you can add MacKenzie to the list Rees in on.[/color]
It made me think Mackenzie was not around for the fine detail shaping and that the job was handled by someone only peripherally aware of what he wanted on the ground.
Miike,
It's amazing how you and others come up with theories when the course doesn't suit your tastes.
Would Cliff Roberts and Robert Trye Jones have been aware of what was wanted on the ground ?
Maybe your expectations are beyond AM's ability to produce.
Maybe you and others have deified him, when he's just a man ?
Maybe you and others have overrated his abilities ?
Do pictures tell the entire story ?[/color]
-
Patrick,
When did I deify Mackenzie?
I've studied his works, including original photos, and my opinion is that he was one of the greatest ever, and possibly the very best, at making man-made features appear natural, and blended them in exceptionally well almost everywhere he worked.
I'm not sure how Jones/Roberts, et.al. ended up with a course that looked as it did in terms of the features on the ground. Have you seen the book?
I would say that minimally the shaping was less than natural-looking, and some of it looked pretty awful.
As far as whether he was capable of producing "better", one needs only to see Cypress, or Crystal, or virtually any of his courses to see the obvious answer.
I'm asking the question that I think Jeff is. How did that happen?
The only thing I can think of is that the course possibly opened early, was only sort of a "prototype" at that point, and Mackenzie intended to work there for a long time in the future which never happened. That's total speculation, of course, but I don't know how else to explain it.
-
Patrick,
When did I deify Mackenzie?
Last tuesday.
You were a Johnny come lately.[/color]
I've studied his works, including original photos, and my opinion is that he was one of the greatest ever, and possibly the very best, at making man-made features appear natural, and blended them in exceptionally well almost everywhere he worked.
Mike, he was working with a highly sloped site in Georgia.
Tell me which bunkers he failed with ?[/color]
I'm not sure how Jones/Roberts, et.al. ended up with a course that looked as it did in terms of the features on the ground. Have you seen the book?
I've seen several books and numerous photos in the clubhouse. Roberts wasn't disappointed, Jones wasn't disappointed, I'm not disappointed, why are you disappointed ?
And, can you identify the specific examples that disappoint you ?[/color]
I would say that minimally the shaping was less than natural-looking, and some of it looked pretty awful.
Natural ? For a highly sloped piece of property in Georgia ?
Could you be specific and identify each feature you're disatisfied with ?[/color]
As far as whether he was capable of producing "better", one needs only to see Cypress, or Crystal, or virtually any of his courses to see the obvious answer.
This is where you and others lose their minds.
Did you happen to notice the difference in the two sites ?
[/color]
I'm asking the question that I think Jeff is. How did that happen?
The only thing I can think of is that the course possibly opened early, was only sort of a "prototype" at that point, and Mackenzie intended to work there for a long time in the future which never happened. That's total speculation, of course, but I don't know how else to explain it.
Ah, the MacWood method of deductive reasoning.
You don't know the answer, so you speculate, and eliminate any other possibilities because you haven't come up with them.
Where did MacKenzie live ?
How far a commute is that from Augusta, Georgia ?
What year was ANGC built ?
What year did MacKenzie die ?
Do you think that an individual who was never paid for his work would continue to return, traveling across the country "for a long time in the future" to continue to work and incur expenses while not getting paid ?
[/color]
-
Patrick,
I don't understand your tone. I'm giving my impression of the original course based on what seem to be features that clearly don't blend in with the surrounding terrain from the pictures I've seen (i.e. the mound to the left of 17, the greenside bunker on 2, the front left "tongue" of green on 4, the mounds around #8 green, the green out well to the right of the interesting bunker on 10, and several pimples that just seem to appear randomly on many holes).
I'm frankly surprised. I had believed the original course was more of a masterpiece and although the basic holes are very sound and some are brilliant in concept, the details seem to be askew.
I think Mackenzie clearly hoped to have a long-term relationship with the club, until they stiffed him, that is. I can't blame him for not coming back, but although he left the "bones" of a great course, it wasn't until it was fleshed out over time that it became the course that it is today.
I was surprised to see myself looking at the modern day pictures and seeing the course improved. I had expected the opposite.
-
The thing I'd most like to know about the original ANGC (somewhat apart from the aesthetic details of the individual features of the course such as the bunkers and mounds early on) is if there was truly something about the course (or was supposed to be) that was a novel departure (or experiment in some way, if you will) in architecture.
I was talking to Bob Crosby about this last night. He knows the course for years and seems to be looking into and looking to reanalyze any early material on it.
Particularly interesting would be to find something that shows some philosophical connection regarding ANGC between the ideas of MacKenzie, Jones and perhaps Max Behr and the West Coast contingent of that time such as Hunter and even Thomas.
Bob pointed out that there was a rash of good architectural books done in a window of a few years in the mid to late 1920s just preceding the creation of ANGC. It seems those fellows mentioned and some others were really looking to push the architectural envelope in various ways at that time.
Was ANGC one of the most daring architectural experiments in that way at that time? And if so how? Did economy factor into the equation as well? ANGC was quite inexpensive for that time (apparently $100,000 to do) Was that part of the point---eg the concept?
Very wide fairways, minimal bunkering (22), extremely rolling land (random gravity golf), highly complex greens and green-ends. Was this an attempt at minimal architecture (economy) that produced maximum unobvious strategies?
Were those mentioned collaborating with each other philosophically, even if loosely, on this one? Was this supposed to be some example of a new and unique "ideal" in architecture? If so, how well did they pull it off and how well was it understood? Or was it misunderstood?
Bob:
Why did you say you think Roberts may have insisted Jones not put his own money into ANGC?
-
Another thing I particularly like about Bob Crosby's direction in looking into the entire history and particularly the concept of ANGC is that he feels dedicated hagiographical attempts on Jones and his own life should be minimized in the future and all the truth about him throughtout his entire life should be better known. And Bob's a huge fan of Jones. I couldn't agree more. Jones was clearly a complex man, and that and the reasons why are simply very interesting. Is there more to know about Jones about-face on TOC in 1926? Was his journey from beginning to end more complicated than those who've chronicled him have told? I don't know but I'd like to know. To me there's nothing much finer than redemeption. If that was part of his journey that's the type of story I feel truly inspires.
-
I was in the bookstore last night and picked up the Augusta book again that Jeff refers to. He's right...the shaping looks to be fairly primitive and nowhere near as good as Mackenzie was capable of.
I have no qualms about the boomerang greens (some greens look terrific, in fact), but the bunkers seem fairly non-descript (even with their jigsaw edging) and out of scale, and the mounding seems awful.
It made me think Mackenzie was not around for the fine detail shaping and that the job was handled by someone only peripherally aware of what he wanted on the ground.
Mike,
Thank you for actually responding to the intent of the original post - looking at specific pictures (since we can't view the original) and discussing the features as they were, rather than all sorts of other things. Had you thought they were great, that would have been okay, too. Like you, I wonder why Pat has to break down every word of your post.....
Pursuant to Doak's, thread, all we needed to do on this thread was too buy a cup of coffee and look at a book to make an intelligent response. However, I do understand some of the wanderings, especially on a Jones thread.
I can speculate as to why Roberts wouldn't allow Jones to put money in. First, as a financial advisor, the idea of UOPM (using other peoples money) has been around forever. I think the idea that other people would especially pony up money to be associated with a celebrity has been around forever.
From a legal perspective, I wonder if they made Jones a limited partner, where he specifically could not be liable for any debts incurred by the separate ANGC corporation. Had he put money in, he may have been able to have been deemed a/the general partner according to the structure of the incorporation papersand possibly liable for some debts, so Roberts was strict about that to protect his fortune.
Like Tom Paul, I lament that it is that way, although I disagree that the 20's was more full of honest men than today (Teapot Dome Scandal, Robber Barons, etc.) Jones may have been a top drawer guy, but he was a lawyer, and presumably knew how to protect himself financially. It does seem that he could have found a way to pay Mac's bill, though. Anyone who can't pay their bills, especially when documented ability to do so is there, will have their character called into question, even if a celeb. It's one of those subjective issues in judging his character that might rank up there with the policies against or at least indifferetn to African Americans - was he was simply a man of his times/region, or should he be held to a higher standard?
I will label all of the above as pure speculation on my part. Sorry if it offends Jones fans or anyone else in any way, especially if it is wrong......which it well could be.
-
"Like Tom Paul, I lament that it is that way, although I disagree that the 20's was more full of honest men than today (Teapot Dome Scandal, Robber Barons, etc.) Jones may have been a top drawer guy, but he was a lawyer, and presumably knew how to protect himself financially. It does seem that he could have found a way to pay Mac's bill, though. Anyone who can't pay their bills, especially when documented ability to do so is there, will have their character called into question, even if a celeb. It's one of those subjective issues in judging his character that might rank up there with the policies against or at least indifferetn to African Americans - was he was simply a man of his times/region, or should he be held to a higher standard?"
JeffB:
There you go---that's great. That's the kind of interesting discussion I like to see on here.
Some may say---OH NO, let's not open history's real door because there might be something in there abhorent to our sensibilities today and to the perception of our beloved icons and heroes. That's precisely Bob Crosby's point about Jones and all this, I believe. IE, let's just look at the truth of it---it's far more interesting and educational that way. It can help us see how far we've come, at least, or if in fact we really have, at the very least in our heart of hearts---in our real character in the dark.
Were those men back then more honest than we are today? Were they, in the converse, more the ruthless robber barons? Well, we don't really know do we unless we look at them in the light of their own times and try not to transpose them into our own times in which they did not live and could not have known or understood?
ANGC indifferent to African Americans? One could probably say that about them today, as some have, but what about ANGC in Jones time when it began? Bob Crosby tells me that some of the bigwigs in Georgia at that time with whom Jones, ANGC et al rubbed shoulders, perhaps even a Georgia US Senator may have been card carrying members of the Ku Klux Klan. If they were, I don't call that 'indifference to blacks', do you?
Am I trying to indict the south back then, Georgia, ANGC or Bob Jones? Not at all----just like Bob Crosby whose a Georgian, I'm only trying to look at the truth of any time to see what the world was like during that time and how it may've been different than our own time. Only then can we begin to better understand our journey, from where it came and where it may go.
-
TEPaul,
I only vaguely remember the details of a discussion here (and elsewhere during the Martha Burke saga) about whether Jones was anti black or indifferent. As I recall, some thought he was typical of well to do southerners at that time, and others thought he was moderate. I don't recall anyone thinking he was a civil rights activist, but again, I could be wrong.
-
"TEPaul,
I only vaguely remember the details of a discussion here (and elsewhere during the Martha Burke saga) about whether Jones was anti black or indifferent. As I recall, some thought he was typical of well to do southerners at that time, and others thought he was moderate. I don't recall anyone thinking he was a civil rights activist, but again, I could be wrong."
Jeff:
Even though all this is probably very much off the topic of the orignial ANGC and its architecture back then, I hope the contributors on here will put up with it because obviously some of us think it's a fascinating sideline nonetheless---eg how some of these men in architecture back then looked at the world is sometimes interesting to what they did in architecture, certainly with the cultures of their clubs and such.
Is it important to know what Jones's real feelings and particularly his positions on an issue like African Americans (a term that was probably never used in Jones's time and has apparently morphed from his time to our time from negroes (or worse) to blacks to African Americans---God don't you love our use of euphemisms and political correctness to make us feel better about ourselves somehow? ;) ) in his own time? I think so. It seems Bob Crosby does too.
I guess the most interesting question is---should Jones be considered a worse man or a more racist man if he held the very same beliefs and positions on African Americans in our times that he may have in his own time?
To be honest, personally, I'm not sure what to say or feel about that---and that's why I think the question is so interesting.
On the other hand, and this may sound contradictory, I feel that it's pointless, and somewhat ridiculous to take a man like Thomas Jefferson, and his beliefs about African Americans which was fascinating, to say the least, on both sides of the issue, and plunk him in our time and accuse him of being a virulent racist. Jefferson was a man of his own time, not ours, and should be looked at in the context of his own time only----in my opinion. (had Jefferson somehow been able to imagine our time---which spookily he just may have ;) ---only then would that transposed analysis of his feelings and positions in his own time work).
-
Iīd be real interested to learn about the real Bobby Jones. Are there any good biographies, that donīt merely fawn over their hero? What is the story about Bobby perhaps losing his amateur status?
IMO this would be a real interesting topic for a thread here.
-
"What is the story about Bobby perhaps losing his amateur status?"
Jimbo-Baby:
There seem to be a couple of stories about that too and they don't all appear to correlate very well, to say the least. I never even thought about that until I got to talking to someone, in the supermarket of all places, who obviously played with and against Jones and apparently knew him well.
He told me the USGA basically came to him and told him he couldn't be an amateur anymore---this due, I think, to that instructional film he made and made a ton on. I just can't believe Jones didn't just basically go to the USGA and tell them what he was going to do first----which was basically do that film and drop his am-status because of it. But this guy said---no they came to him on that before Jones told them what he was going to do or did with the film and that Jones then said; "OK, I quit competitve golf altogether because I definitely do not want to ever play competitive golf as a professional.
Knowing what I've always heard about Jones, his understanding and respect for the rules of the game, something seems sort of off about that guy's story, though.
-
I don't understand your tone.
I'm partially breaking your chops, but to be serious,
I don't know what you expected of the guy.
Like many, I think you focused on minutia and overlooked the important stuff, like the routing and individual hole designs on a piece of land that is on a steep slope.[/color]
I'm giving my impression of the original course based on what seem to be features that clearly don't blend in with the surrounding terrain from the pictures I've seen (i.e. the mound to the left of 17, the greenside bunker on 2, the front left "tongue" of green on 4, the mounds around #8 green, the green out well to the right of the interesting bunker on 10, and several pimples that just seem to appear randomly on many holes).
The bunker on # 10 wasn't meant to hug the green, it was offset. If you look at some pictures of CPC you might see a similar configuration.
I think this notion of "blending in" is nonsense, and used by some to nit pick at good golf courses when they can't think of anything of substance to criticize.
Did Charles Blair MacDonald, Seth Raynor and Charles Bank's design's blend in ?
How exactly, on a highly sloped piece of land in Georgia, should the features have blended in ? And, why should they have blended in ?
MacDonald, Ross and Tillinghast used mounds, why was it inappropriate for AM to do so ?[/color]
I'm frankly surprised. I had believed the original course was more of a masterpiece and although the basic holes are very sound and some are brilliant in concept, the details seem to be askew.
I don't know if anybody deemed the golf course a "masterpiece". Certainly, it was an excpetional golf course that entertained seasonal play in the winter.
How are the details askew ?[/color]
I think Mackenzie clearly hoped to have a long-term relationship with the club, until they stiffed him, that is. I can't blame him for not coming back, but although he left the "bones" of a great course, it wasn't until it was fleshed out over time that it became the course that it is today.
Mike, he was 63 when the golf course was completed.
Life expectancy in the 30's wasn't much beyond his age, hence I doubt he hoped to have a long term relationship with the club.
Roberts also felt that MacKenzie wasn't spending enough time at ANGC in 1931, and as a result, MacKenzie send Marion Hollins to do his bidding. Marion Hollins was wealthy at the time. MacKenzie probably had good reasons for doing so. Neither ANGC nor MacKenzie were doing well financially.
I don't think MacKenzie had any intention of having a long time, substantive, on site relationship with ANGC.
I forget whether or not ANGC made him an member or honorary member. But, if they didn't, doesn't that tell you everything you need to know ?[/color]
I was surprised to see myself looking at the modern day pictures and seeing the course improved. I had expected the opposite.
Many, like yourself, who have seen the golf course in person, gain a heightened respect for it's design. Others, who have never seen the golf course keep telling us that the old course was superior, architecturally, as if any and all subsequent alterations have detracted from the architecture and play of the golf course.
Up until the recently intensified tree planting program, many of the changes have been for the better..[/color]
-
Patrick,
I agree with most of your points, not the least of which is that the ANGC on the ground today is superior to Mackenzie's original version that I've only seen in pics.
I also agree that many of the changes over the years have been good, but the recent tree-planting and narrowing with rough have been stupid ideas.
I don't think this "blending in" is nonsense, however, and I don't think you do either. If a feature looks like a sore thumb, such as the pic of the mound left of 17 at ANGC, even you would have to admit that your aesthetic sensibilities get jarred. The weird thing, and the original point, is that this IS Dr. Mac we're talking about, NOT Rees Jones.
I'm used to it from Rees. ;)
-
Mike,
What some seem to forget is the practical nature of early golf course construction, including, during and after the depression.
You never know when a mound might have a very practical application and reason for its existance.
Hence, you can't make the call absent critical information relating to its construction. You can't base your judgement solely on photographic evidence.
It would be like taking a single photo of you as you're about to hit a chip shot and drawing a conclusion relative to the pending result. Your form might look good, but, we all know what's about to happen, and it isn't pretty, sort of like my short putting.
-
Patrick,
You don't think you can look at photos of ANGC and determine that relative to CPC the shaping appears less natural? Even if there was a practical need for a mound (like burying tree stumps) why shouldn't it look as good?
One simple question for you - did you actually look at the pix we are speaking of, and base your opinions on those, or are you just spouting off as normal? ::)
-
You don't think you can look at photos of ANGC and determine that relative to CPC the shaping appears less natural?
No, I don't think that you can look at select photos and make that call.
Conversely, you can look at photos taken from angles other as the golfer sees the course and draw incorrect conclusions.[/color]
Even if there was a practical need for a mound (like burying tree stumps) why shouldn't it look as good?
Some of it depends upon the angle the photo is taken from.
A prime example is NGLA's greens.
Photos taken from the approach angle don't reflect an artificial look.
Photos taken from behind the green reflect a highly artificial look.[/color]
One simple question for you - did you actually look at the pix we are speaking of, and base your opinions on those, or are you just spouting off as normal? ::)
Well, I'm spouting off as normal, but, I have seen the pictures.
The picture of the mounds on page 102 is taken from an awkward angle and not reflective of what the golfer sees as he approaches the hole. The picture on page 101 is more representative of what the golfer sees and I don't find those mounds objectionable.
Mounds at ANGC are an integral part of the design, systemically, hence, their appearance isn't out of the ordinary. And, I don't find them objectionable, even if they are photographed at unflattering angles.
"I'm ready for my close-up Mr DeMille"
A photo or number of photos taken from awkward angles or angles that the great majority of golfers will never see is akin to watching a play from behind the scenes, it's not representative of what the producers and directors wanted you to experience.[/color]
-
Good to hear you have at least seen the pix! For the limited evaluations I was trying to make, I am very comfortable in viewing pictures and knowing what I see. What was that old Groucho Marx line - "Who are you going to believe - Pat Mucci or your own eyes?" ;)
I don't have the book with me, so I can't respond directly, but some of the pix I am referring to are from the golfers perspective. I recall one of the third hole from the landing area, for example. The golfer would see that angle, and the mound back left of the green is a "pimple" and poorly executed, IHMO. Your opinion may vary, but that is the nature of a discussion board.
Your comments about non normal viewing angles are interesting to me. My first day at K/N they took me by Kemper Lakes. The back of the fill pad on green 5 faced Rt. 22 on the way in, and was flat and straight. I wondered why they didn't dress it up, and their answer was similar to yours - few golfers would ever see the back of the green so they didn't spend much effort on them. Given the public viewing angles, or even views as you might see from other areas of the course, I generally try to make the back side of the greens somewhat artistic, although I have heard a few comments on the Quarry 8th, as being decidedly not so! ::)
Back to the topic at hand, my comments on Augusta specifically were noting the many wrap around green shapes, which I don't think would ever be considered good tournament golf design by better players, even if they may be fun. For that matter, how many unusual greens per course would be "good design?"
As to the mounds, it struck me that the mounding tied into slopes at CPC almost imperceptibly - the toes of slopes in the b and w photos clearly show a lot of fill went in to blend them. The mounds in the b/w photos of ANGC don't tie in naturally, as they end aprubtly at natural grade, the tops are peaked, rather than with long rollovers, and and they are much steeper on the side slopes - on a site with broad natural rolls, where arguably, broad tie in slopes would be even a better fit than CPC. Both sites have a grand natural scale, as well.
If things happened then as they do now, I suspect that w/o Mac's help, they would be a result of a contractor who has poor supervision, or is trying to make the project work on low bid by moving less earth. Of course, that is just speculation, but makes sense given the finances. Its just interesting to know in the last few years (with several books) how one of America's great courses really struggled along by virtue of its bad timing, and how it got (arguably) much better as times improved.
-
Jeff,
I believe the picture you referenced on # 3 has a mound with a bunker cut into it, and not a mound behind the green as you indicated.
What may be lost in the picture is the swale fronting the green, especially on the left side, and the green's quick rise from that swale. The green is elevated above its surrounds on the left, and yet, the green retains a steep high right to low left slope..
Originally there were a tremendous number of wrap-around greens. I liked them, but, some might find their numbers to be a bit of overkill.
As to the mounds and the comparison between ANGC and CPC you have to remember that ANGC is built on the side of a pretty steep slope. CPC, as a whole, enjoys far flatter terrain hence, there's not a need to raise greens substantively.
In addition, there's a large scale to ANGC, a feeling of a big golf course, not unlike BPB and as such, I don't find the mounds unsettling, obtrusive or offensive.
I don't know what lies beneath the mounds and I don't know the purpose of all of them, but, I found them far less invasive or unattractive than you did.
Like you, I was surprised to learn of the club's shakey begining and early years. An older friend of mine told me that he was invited to join, but, he deemed the club too remote, the golf season and weather a bit iffy compared to going to Florida for the winter, so he passed on the opportunity.
He indicated, that in retrospect, that he wished that he had joined.