Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on April 01, 2012, 12:24:56 AM
-
WHY hasn't the hole been copied/replicated more often ?
Dick Wilson made a reasonably good version at # 13 at Pine Tree, but there seems to be a paucity of replicas.
Are modern day architects fearful of producing replicas ?
With all the exposure the hole has gotten over the years, why hasn't there been a greater demand for replicas ?
With earth moving equipment available after 1948 why don't more courses have a replica of # 12 ?
-
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,49515.0.html
Discussed in this thread, and the template was named.
-
Sven,
The thread you cited doesn't begin to discuss the questions I posed
-
Patrick:
Augusta's 12th is not an easy hole to replicate [correctly] because you have to have two features: a steep bank behind the green, and a water feature in front that you can work right to the edge of. The latter would probably have to be a man-made pond nowadays, because nearly all states would have a buffer zone on Rae's Creek so you couldn't build a green that close.
And even if I had those features to work with, I would be unlikely to build a green that's less than 40 feet wide, on a diagonal to the tee. Most golfers can't play a hole like that.
-
Pat,
I've not played it but I understand how part of it's significance is the change in distance and forced with respect to hole location. The right handed golfer must be particularly precise, the left handed player not nearly so (provided the target is the middle of the green).
Butler National ourside Chicago has several greens that slope from either back right to front left or back left to front right. The fourth hole would be a good example. I wish I had the skills to show the green area from the sky but like #12, the green runs from back right to front left. There is a large bunker just short of the green to gather imprecise shots.
As fan and a fan of Phil Mickelson, I was particularly disappointed in 2009, when during the final round he was the only player in contention to go in the water. As the only left handed player in contention, he wasted his advantage in one of the most exciting Masters I remember. Granted he's also made 2 twice during final rounds to go on to win.
-
Is the 12th really one of the great par-3s in golf, or is it just a great hole for the very best players in the world? It seems the precision demands are very high for anyone but a scratch golfer or better and the penalty for any traditional righty miss is severe.
I suspect it is not replicated because most golfers would not enjoy it.
-
Sven,
The thread you cited doesn't begin to discuss the questions I posed
Pat:
Perhaps I should have said that the thread had information on a handful of the "replicas" that do exist. There are several holes noted in that thread that contain the same or similar features as the 12th at Augusta, including the 16th at the Club at Bond Head North, the 12th at Muirfield Village, the 5th at Pebble, the redesigned 16th at the Cal Club, the 11th at Butler (as noted by Steve Salmen), the 8th at Sebonack and the 17th at The Ocean Course.
The thread also contains a theory that the 12th at Augusta may have been based on the 4th at Deal (although the current configuration of that hole came about in 1938) and that MacKenzie had designed a few holes in Scotland with the same basic features, including the 3rd at Pitreavie and the 7th at Stoke Park.
To answer the specific questions:
It is one of the great par 3's in golf, but only due to its role in the Master's and as others have said only as a test of skill at the highest level. Its a true test of nerve, and provides a tremendous amount of drama for a hole of 155 yards.
It hasn't been replicated too often because most courses are designed to be played by all levels of golfers, unlike ANGC which has evolved into a tournament course. It is simply too penal of a hole for the average player.
Not sure what you mean by modern day architects, but the trend towards taking what the land offers is a general movement away from building replicas. For a while, there were replica courses popping up everywhere. That trend has seemed to have faded away.
Here's an article discussing five other replicas in detail: http://brianmccallen.com/golf/golf/270/almost-augusta-clones-of-the-twelfth.
For your last two questions, there has been a demand and the creation of those replicas is certainly easier using modern day equipment. The interesting question to me is how those replicas may have been built to provide a bit more playability.
Sven
-
Is the 12th really one of the great par-3s in golf,
Yes
or is it just a great hole for the very best players in the world?
It's also a great hole for the very best players in the world.
It seems the precision demands are very high for anyone but a scratch golfer or better and the penalty for any traditional righty miss is severe.
Not really.
The hole is only 145 from the members tees and 155 from the Masters tees.
Missing the green right is no big deal.
Being short or long is worse
The green at # 13 at Pine Tree is a more difficult target from the back tee at about 159.
I suspect it is not replicated because most golfers would not enjoy it.
Just the opposite is true.
At 145, power is not a prerequisite, hence it's an enjoyable hole for the average golfer who is faced with far too many 180-220 par 3's
-
Tom Doak,
Offsets from waterways have to be a modern day architectural disadvantage, a crimp in creativity, but with modern day equipment, creating a large berm as a backdrop shouldn't be a difficult task.
Dick Wilson substituted sand for fronting water on # 13 at Pine Tree and it came out quite well.
Steve,
Could you explain how a lefty has an advantage over a righty on # 12 ?
-
Sven,
The thread you cited doesn't begin to discuss the questions I posed
Pat:
Perhaps I should have said that the thread had information on a handful of the "replicas" that do exist. There are several holes noted in that thread that contain the same or similar features as the 12th at Augusta, including the 16th at the Club at Bond Head North, the 12th at Muirfield Village, the 5th at Pebble, the redesigned 16th at the Cal Club, the 11th at Butler (as noted by Steve Salmen), the 8th at Sebonack and the 17th at The Ocean Course.
I don't see any resemblance between # 5 at PBGC, # 8 at Sebonack and # 12 at ANGC.
I'm not familiar enough with the other holes to draw a conclusion
The thread also contains a theory that the 12th at Augusta may have been based on the 4th at Deal (although the current configuration of that hole came about in 1938) and that MacKenzie had designed a few holes in Scotland with the same basic features, including the 3rd at Pitreavie and the 7th at Stoke Park.
That may or may not be a reasoned theory.
To answer the specific questions:
It is one of the great par 3's in golf, but only due to its role in the Master's and as others have said only as a test of skill at the highest level.
Have the others who have said that, who have positing that it's only a great hole for the most skilled golfers EVER played the hole ?
Its a true test of nerve, and provides a tremendous amount of drama for a hole of 155 yards.
It does the same thing from 145 yards
It hasn't been replicated too often because most courses are designed to be played by all levels of golfers, unlike ANGC which has evolved into a tournament course. It is simply too penal of a hole for the average player.
The Masters is only conducted on four (4) days per year.
Do the members skip # 12 during their rounds ?
Have you ever played ANGC ?
The course is clearly playable and enjoyable by all levels of golfers from the Members tees, which play all of 6,365 yards.
The misguided notion that ANGC can't be played, enjoyed or appreciated by all levels of golfers is so ridiculous that it's beyond belief.
Not sure what you mean by modern day architects, but the trend towards taking what the land offers is a general movement away from building replicas.
"taking what the land offers" is site dependent and not an architectural trend.
In addition, crafting a template and "taking what the land offers" are not mutually exclusive.
The Redan at Hidden Creek proves that
For a while, there were replica courses popping up everywhere.
When in the last 50 years have replica course been popping up everywhere ?
Could you name ten (10) ?
That trend has seemed to have faded away.
When did that happen ?
Here's an article discussing five other replicas in detail: http://brianmccallen.com/golf/golf/270/almost-augusta-clones-of-the-twelfth.
Those are replica COURSES, courses where all of the holes are replicas, or theme courses.
I'm referencing replica HOLES on a non-themed course, like the 13th hole at Pine Tree
For your last two questions, there has been a demand and the creation of those replicas is certainly easier using modern day equipment.
The interesting question to me is how those replicas may have been built to provide a bit more playability.
Replicas are "inherently" playable, so I'm not sure I understand the incremental improvement in playability with how modern day replicas are built.
Could you expand on your statement using Redans, shorts, bottles and Edens ?
Sven
-
Pat,
The hole favors better left handed players because their misses tend to be long right or short left. That is the shape of the twelfth green from the tee. Right handed players tend to miss long left or short right, neither of which are good on #12. I did qualify by saying the advantage is if the target is the center of the green. Bad things can happen to anyone going aggressively at a flag and missing.
-
Pat:
Let's break the 12th down to its key components:
-a 8 or 9-iron par 3 (for most) with a green angled from left to right
-a central fronting bunker
-a tough recovery from behind the green
-the inability to bounce the ball into the green (whether due to a water hazard or otherwise)
There have been a slew of golf holes built since 1934 that have these attributes. Of those listed, some may come closer to matching these four components, but they are all at least variations on the theme. It is no secret that Nicklaus thinks the 12th is one of the toughest par 3's ever built, and has borrowed the concept in a few of his designs (including MV). It would not surprise me in the least if he had the hole in mind when coming up with the new 5th at PB or the 8th at Sebonack (TD may have a bit more information on this).
From the date of construction of the 4th at Deal, it is fairly evident that that hole was not the inspiration for the 12th. But MacKenzie had previously built several similar holes, so it is not hard to surmise that the 12th was not a novel concept in his mind when constructed. What I find interesting is that on a course where he tried to incorporate ground game options as much as possible, he built the 12th and the 15th, two holes where this option was entirely eliminated.
This leads to the penal nature of the 12th. As nerve-wracking as it is from 155 for the pros, it must be pure terror for a mid- to high- handicapper from 145. Its not a do or die hole like the 12th at Sawgrass, but it is a hole that requires a minimum carry. I have no doubt that the bulk of ANGC is a lot of fun to play from the Members Tees (and to answer your question I have not had the honor), but the 12th is not like the rest of the course in this regard. Not that there is anything inherently wrong in having one or two holes that provide a high level of challenge. But to say the course is clearly playable and enjoyable for all levels of golfers without pointing out that these types of holes are present is too simplistic of a statement. There's probably a great deal of enjoyment had by walking the same course that you've seen on television. There's also probably a great deal of fun in trying the shots that you've seen the pros hit, including at the 12th. It has to be a blast to hit and hold the 12th from 145 or 155 yards. But going to your bag to pull out another Titleist is probably no fun at all.
Here's a short list of replica courses built in the last 50 years:
Golden Ocala (1986)
Grand Cypress New Course (1988)
Cypresswood Tradition Course (1988)
Boyne Ross Memorial Course (1989)
Tour 18 Course (1992)
Royal Links (199)
Tribute at the Colony (2000)
World Tour Golf Links (1999)
Angel Park (1990)
Oakhurst (1998)
Sandhollow - The Links (2008)
Bear's Best (2002)
Renditions Golf Club (2002)
Wooden Sticks (2002?)
Just a guess, but the idea of replica courses coincided with the heights of the latest course construction bubble. With a ton of courses being built, the replica idea represented a niche market, giving the player the ability to experience many of the toughest, greatest and most widely known golf holes, including in some cases the 12th at Augusta. I look at it purely as a marketing ploy. Instead of building a new design, why not build holes that every player would want to experience but could not, whether due to access, cost or location.
To examine why these types of courses aren't being built with the frequency that they were in the 1980's and 90's is an exercise in examining the changes in the golf construction business in general. Call it the Keiser effect. There's been a steady paradigm shift from the glossy to the jagged, from high dollar projects to the found course. With minimalism being the buzzword of the day and the average builder of a course paying a bit more attention to the bottom line, we're seeing more Greywalls, Hidden Creeks and Steamsongs and fewer Shadow Creeks. Under the new model, the occasional Redan, Cape or Alps style hole does get built, but only where the qualities of those holes was already evident on the ground. I'd bet that if the components of the 12th at Augusta presented themselves on the right site, that style of hole would be built as well. With a few rare exceptions, the courses being built today are not being built as tournament course. Thus it is highly likely that any such "replica" would be a bit softer than the 12th at Augusta, a better fit for a course played regularly by members or paying customers.
One last point. When I was discussing the changes made in a replica that would make it more playable, I was specifically referring to replicas of the 12th at Augusta. I don't have the answer to this question, but I'd bet that the copies that have been built have features that make them a bit easier for the average player. Perhaps the recovery from behind is a bit easier, or there's a bit more room in the front for a miss. The point was that these holes are being built for the consumer golfer, not the professional. And they're probably being built to provide the 12th at Augusta experience, with a little less bite.
-
The other key element that has not been discussed and cannot be replicated is the tall pines surrounding the green and closer to the tee on the left. They create a swirling effect of the wind making it nearly impossible to determine the correct wind and direction. Thus it places a seed of doubt in the player's mind, hence making the 155-yard shot even more difficult.
-
Is the 12th really one of the great par-3s in golf,
Yes
Pat,
What is it about the 12th hole that makes it one of the great par 3's in golf?
-
Sven,
I think your analysis of the hole misses arguably its most critical component--the shallow nature of the green. The angle and the hazards are far more prominent because the target is so small. If that green had any kind of normal depth, it wouldn't be fearful for the pros and it would be a regular par three over water.
Most of those holes you named don't look close in terms of replication. The Muirfield Village hole does get some of the components, but its still pretty different. The holes at Butler, Kiawah, and Pebble aren't close IMO. Perhaps that was the intent, but if so I'll admit that I don't think it worked. They are good enough holes, just not close replicas.
Pat,
If there's a single reason why the hole hasn't been replicated I do think its the size of the green. Enlarging the green with a 150 yard shot makes any replica less interesting, but it would be nearly impossible to maintain a green that tiny on a hole that short on a course that would get a large amount of play, so its not practical for resorts. Private clubs with limited play could make it work, but you'd still need the land or the willingness to create it to make it work.
I do think there have been MANY attempts to copy the themes of the 12th at Augusta, however. Its just that this particular hole needs all of the factors to really make it work, and most of the copies miss at least one important component.
-
Without having played it, I would imagine that the 12th at ANGC benefits from a synergy that may be geographically unique. Andy's point that the diminutive size of the green precludes constant great conditioning if the course gets more than a little daily play seems quite important.
When I've read lore about the 12th, a major factor in the difficulty of the hole seems to be the unpredictable wind patterns. I believe the April issue of Golf Digest has a protracted explanation of why and how the winds swirl and accentuate the difficulty of the hole and it seems to me that one could certainly replicate the earthbound features of the hole down to the slope of the bank of Rae's Creek. But recreating the geographical and, I'm sure, meteorological features that cause the hole to be feared by the best players in the world, must be a great deal more difficult, if not virtually impossible.
-
I believe the fifth hole at my home course (Columbia Country Club in Blythewood, SC) must have been consciously modeled on the 12th at ANGC. It's a pond instead of a creek and presumably as a concession to "every level of golfer" it was softened by making the green much larger and the bank between the hazard and the front left of the green is a bit wider. Also the front bunker takes up more of the center and right embankment.
But we've got the same steep backdrop, including an azalea bed on the left. We have the feared back bunker, the green pitches forward toward the water, the angles are quite similar and even the regular men's tee plays around 155 yards to the center of the green. And the winds definitely swirl, requiring both local experience and usually lucky guesswork to judge correctly on a breezy day.
But with the green roughly twice as wide and twice as deep as Augusta's it's a relative pushover. For us lefty golfers there's a bail-out available on the left side that's not scary at all (and the carry is only maybe 125-130 yards over there) but right-handed swingers do have the problem of fades coming up short in bunker or water and pulls/hooks finding the back bunker or even the azalea bed. Still, I lose fewer golf balls and make fewer big numbers there in a year than I would in a dozen rounds playing the 12th at ANGC.
-
Pat,
The hole favors better left handed players because their misses tend to be long right or short left. That is the shape of the twelfth green from the tee. Right handed players tend to miss long left or short right, neither of which are good on #12. I did qualify by saying the advantage is if the target is the center of the green. Bad things can happen to anyone going aggressively at a flag and missing.
Steve,
Are you basing the above comments on your play of the hole ?
Have you ever played the hole ?
If not, how can you claim that left handed players miss long right or short left, and that right handed players miss long left or short right ?
What's the basis for your general, statistical statement ?
-
Is the 12th really one of the great par-3s in golf,
Yes
Pat,
What is it about the 12th hole that makes it one of the great par 3's in golf?
Jim, if you don't know by now, I doubt that my analysis would shed any light upon the substance and quality of the hole.
-
Pat,
My sole experience(s) with the hole are through watching the best players in the game play it under tournament conditions. I can certainly formulate an opinion on that basis, but I am open to experienced input.
For starters, the hole looks like it would be brutally penal for an level player that cannot predictably hit lofted shots from the tee that carry 140 yards. The exception would be if the banks are substantially softer and the grass kept much longer during the non-tournament days. These two maintenance practices could keep a great number of balls out of the water that go into it during tournament week. Is the course kept substantially softer and slower during the other months of their golf season?
-
Pat,
My sole experience(s) with the hole are through watching the best players in the game play it under tournament conditions. I can certainly formulate an opinion on that basis, but I am open to experienced input.
For starters, the hole looks like it would be brutally penal for an level player that cannot predictably hit lofted shots from the tee that carry 140 yards. The exception would be if the banks are substantially softer and the grass kept much longer during the non-tournament days. These two maintenance practices could keep a great number of balls out of the water that go into it during tournament week. Is the course kept substantially softer and slower during the other months of their golf season?
Jim,
I can't speak to the intended maintainance practices, but, Mother Nature typically trumps them.
Remember, the course opens in Oct and closes not long after the Masters, so, seasonally, you don't see, from October, Nov, Dec, Jan and Feb what you see and experience in terms of weather and conditions, in April.
The hole has survived, mostly intact, for almost 80 years since 1934, so the club has deemed it eminently playable for their membership, guests and competitors.
It's a refreshing change versus so many 190-220-250 par 3's.
-
The hole has survived, mostly intact, for almost 80 years since 1934, so the club has deemed it eminently playable for their membership, guests and competitors.
[/b][/size][/color]
Mostly intact is not true, and eminently playable for the membership and guests is debatable.
"Arguably the most famous par 3 in golf (and surely the most consistently dramatic) the 155-yard 12th has undergone several significant changes over the decades, most of which seem largely forgotten today." Daniel Wexler
-
The hole has survived, mostly intact, for almost 80 years since 1934, so the club has deemed it eminently playable for their membership, guests and competitors.
[/b][/size][/color]
Mostly intact is not true,
Would you detail for us how the 12th hole, as a golf hole isn't mostly intact since 1934.
Start with the tee and end with the green and tell us how each feature, each component has been substantively changed over the years.
and eminently playable for the membership and guests is debatable.
By whom ?
Have you EVER played the hole ?
"Arguably the most famous par 3 in golf (and surely the most consistently dramatic) the 155-yard 12th has undergone several significant changes over the decades, most of which seem largely forgotten today." Daniel Wexler
-
Would you detail for us how the 12th hole, as a golf hole isn't mostly intact since 1934.
This is the second time I've referred you to this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51383.50.html
By whom ?
To start with, by several other posters in this thread. To expand the group beyond our little universe, any member or guest that would have a hard time hitting a shot of 145 yards that would have the requisite height necessary to hold the green. It is perhaps the most penal hole at Augusta. When I think penal the words "eminently playable" don't immediately pop into my mind.
Have you EVER played the hole ?
I mentioned earlier in this thread that I have not. However, I've watched the tournament every year since I was in high school, I have a very acute imagination and I read. When Jack Nicklaus says its one of the toughest par 3's in the world for the pros, in my mind that means it is an even tougher hole for the average golfer. I covered all of this above.
-
Is the 12th really one of the great par-3s in golf,
Yes
Pat,
What is it about the 12th hole that makes it one of the great par 3's in golf?
Jim, if you don't know by now, I doubt that my analysis would shed any light upon the substance and quality of the hole.
Patrick, in your title to this thread you ask if "the 12th hole at ANGC is one of the great par 3's in golf?". A few of us, who granted have not had the opportunity to play Augusta National, have said that the hole is not one of the great par-3s in golf. We have given reasons, mostly related to the penal nature of the hole and the size of the green, but you have dismissed them because we have not played the hole.
I agree that only once a golfer has played a hole can he truly appreciate its qualities. Preferably the golfer has played the hole several times, and thus has seen varied winds and pin positions.
It seems that you are one of only a handful of golfers on this board to have played Augusta.
To ask a question, dismiss the answers of the group, and then say "Jim, if you don't know by now, I doubt that my analysis would shed any light upon the substance and quality of the hole" does not add substance to the discussion.
Please tell me why this hole is one of the great par-3s in golf.
-
Pat:
To further the discussion, I'm copying below the list of changes made to the 12th. I'd agree that the bulk of the changes have been made to the surrounds, but the fact is the green has been raised and the putting surface is smaller today than when the course opened. Add in the changes to the area behind the green, and it is hard to say that the hole is "mostly intact."
Hole 12 - Golden Bell - Par 3
1934 - 150 yards - The tee was positioned beneath a frame of three pines, which soon died. The wide, flat green was built by cutting earth from the far bank of Rae's Creek and depositing it on a ledge. The original bunkering consisted of a long, skinny one in front and a tiny one atop a hill behind.
1939 - 155 yards - Roberts directed Maxwell to enlarge the green on the right by digging out dirt from the bank behind the green with the possibility of exposing rock. Roberts wrote "I think it will add to the thrill of the hole, as a very strong shot will strike the rock and bounce most anywhere." A month later he wrote Maxwell to say "We do not wish to expose any rocks on the bank." Maxwell turned the pits into bunkers.
1951 - 155 yards - For years the area between the tee and the creek as an oft flooded bog (in 1936 rowboats were considered to get players to the green). When Rae's Creek was dammed for flood control in 1950, a tiny stream off the tee was buried in pipe, and the entire area was raised a bit. A swale was created behind the green to remove water, and the bunkers were relocated.
1966 - 155 yards - The arched Ben Hogan Bridge was added in 1958, its grass surface soon replaced by artificial turf. Further changes were made in 1965 to address flood control, including bringing in dirt with wheelbarrows to raise the entire putting surface 18 inches. Land between the tee and creek was raised another two feet, and side-by-side-split-level tees were built, the Masters tee being lower than the tee used by the members.
1982 - 155 yards - When all greens were converted to bent grass in 1980, it was decided to slowly rebuild to the sand bases better for growing bent. When construction reached the 12th green in 1981, warming coils were placed beneath the green, a concept later duplicated elsewhere.
2011 - 155 yards - Despite the flood control measures taken, a portion of the hole was damaged in an October 1990 flood. It was quickly repaired. The bunkers have remained in the same positions for 60 years, although the width and depth of the green has gradually shrunk due to its reconstruction and new mowing patterns.
-
So Pat here are the changes:
Then - No bunkers, Now - 3 bunkers
Then - Two tier green, Now - Flat Green
Then - Smaller green, Now - Larger green, mostly on right side
Then - Much wider creek left to its own vices, Now - Dammed Creek
Then - No flowers and fauna, Now - Flowers and shrubs
Then - Green was lower, Now - Raised.
"Arguably the most famous par 3 in golf (and surely the most consistently dramatic) the 155-yard 12th has undergone several significant changes over the decades, most of which seem largely forgotten today. To begin with, though a set of published drawings showed both this and the thirteenth greens as having been planned bunker-free (“It will be noted there is not a single bunker at either of these holes” – MacKenzie), the evidence is clear that the front bunker was indeed included during initial construction. The two rear bunkers were added sometime later, carved into the rear hillside above a shallow, poorly draining swale that originally backed the putting surface.
With this swale’s seemingly permanent dampness causing numerous embedded ball issues (including a famous 1958 ruling that helped Arnold Palmer to win his first Masters), a substantial project was undertaken in 1960 to elevate the entire green area some two feet. The net result makes for interesting viewing when comparing pre- and post-1960 photos: the rear bunkers, once carved into the back hillside at a level noticeably above the putting surface, are now drawn almost level.
Perhaps more significant are the changes that have overtaken the green itself, for today’s flattish, almost symmetrical putting surface belies a far more colorful past. Indeed, prior to a 1951 expansion, the right side was considerably smaller than the left, requiring some major skill (not to mention guts) if one elected to have a desperation go at the traditional final round pin. Additionally, as suggested in MacKenzie’s green sketch, this smaller right side was elevated significantly above the left – a substantial difference from the relatively flat surface in play today. "
-
Pat:
Let's break the 12th down to its key components:
-a 8 or 9-iron par 3 (for most)
That's not remotely accurate.
I've never hit less than a 7 iron and the members and guests I've played with hit considerably more.
In the 1962/72 highlight of the Masters I believe they show Palmer and others hitting 5, 6 and 7 from 155.
Do (most) golfers today, members and guests, hit the ball better than Palmer and other competitors in 1962/72 ?
What statistics did you rely on that led you to declare that most hit 8 or 9 iron into that green ?
I'm sure the older members and their guests would love to be able to do that, myself included.
with a green angled from left to right
The angle isn't that noticeable.
-a central fronting bunker
The bunker occupies a small portion of the overall green profile.
-a tough recovery from behind the green
That's true if you go left, not true if you go right.
-the inability to bounce the ball into the green (whether due to a water hazard or otherwise)
That's true, it's an aerial shot, not unlike the approach to # 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 18.
There have been a slew of golf holes built since 1934 that have these attributes.
Could you name 10 on non-replica courses ?
Of those listed, some may come closer to matching these four components, but they are all at least variations on the theme. It is no secret that Nicklaus thinks the 12th is one of the toughest par 3's ever built, and has borrowed the concept in a few of his designs (including MV). It would not surprise me in the least if he had the hole in mind when coming up with the new 5th at PB or the 8th at Sebonack (TD may have a bit more information on this).
The 8th at Sebonack bears NO resemblance to the 12th at ANGC, especially in terms of playability.
Have you played both ?
There's probably less resemblance at # 5 at PBGC.
Have you played both ?
From the date of construction of the 4th at Deal, it is fairly evident that that hole was not the inspiration for the 12th. But MacKenzie had previously built several similar holes, so it is not hard to surmise that the 12th was not a novel concept in his mind when constructed. What I find interesting is that on a course where he tried to incorporate ground game options as much as possible, he built the 12th and the 15th, two holes where this option was entirely eliminated.
It's also eliminated on the approaches to the 4th, 6th 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th and to a good degree, the 18th.
While it's alleged that ANGC should be a derivative of TOC, the terrain and features within the terrain at ANGC are so vastly different from those at TOC that one has to question that allegation.
This leads to the penal nature of the 12th. As nerve-wracking as it is from 155 for the pros, it must be pure terror for a mid- to high- handicapper from 145.
I think the golfer arrives at the tee with mixed emotions.
He's just played three long, difficult holes, and now he has this seemingly benign par 3 of around 145-155.
No more fairway woods or long irons like on the previous holes.
# 12, probably more than any other hole, can be affected by the wind due to the slim margin of error, depth wise, at the green.
The green is very wide, so the lateral margins are ample, but, the golfer has a choice.
He can aim right to the fatter part of the green. If the hole is cut there, even though it's a little longer, it's probably easier or less frightening.
But, if the hole is cut to the left, a three putt is almost certain.
If the hole is cut in the middle, behind the bunker, two putting from the right is very doable.
Its not a do or die hole like the 12th at Sawgrass, but it is a hole that requires a minimum carry. I have no doubt that the bulk of ANGC is a lot of fun to play from the Members Tees (and to answer your question I have not had the honor), but the 12th is not like the rest of the course in this regard.
It really is.
Heroic carries are required on # 4, # 6, # 7 and # 10, so the golfer has been prepped.
And, it's hard to find a green narrower than # 3 green, so the golfer has been prepped for that as well.
Not that there is anything inherently wrong in having one or two holes that provide a high level of challenge. But to say the course is clearly playable and enjoyable for all levels of golfers without pointing out that these types of holes are present is too simplistic of a statement.
Not at all.
Those who play the course, love the course and want to return for repeat plays.
Your lack of experience is leading you to make erroneous statements.
There's probably a great deal of enjoyment had by walking the same course that you've seen on television.
No question about it, it's a thrill to walk a course you've seen, every year, for decades, where golfing history has been made.
Your degree of familiarity makes you feel like you know it like your own course.
But, you're shocked by the elevation changes, the slopes, on the fairways AND greens.
Nothing you see on TV can prepare you for that.
There's also probably a great deal of fun in trying the shots that you've seen the pros hit, including at the 12th.
I think part of the joy is walking off the green with a par or better and thinking to yourself, "I wonder how much ____ would have paid for my birdie/par on Sunday
It has to be a blast to hit and hold the 12th from 145 or 155 yards. But going to your bag to pull out another Titleist is probably no fun at all.
While my play is limited, I've never heard anyone complain about having/getting to hit ANOTHER shot into # 12 green.
I'd venture to say that alot of golfers wouldn't mind playing # 12, twelve times even if they only had 13 balls in their bag.
Here's a short list of replica courses built in the last 50 years:
Golden Ocala (1986)
Grand Cypress New Course (1988)
Cypresswood Tradition Course (1988)
Boyne Ross Memorial Course (1989)
Tour 18 Course (1992)
Royal Links (199)
Tribute at the Colony (2000)
World Tour Golf Links (1999)
Angel Park (1990)
Oakhurst (1998)
Sandhollow - The Links (2008)
Bear's Best (2002)
Renditions Golf Club (2002)
Wooden Sticks (2002?)
This is where you've missed the crux of this thread.
It's not about replica "courses" it's about replica holes on non-replica courses.
Just a guess, but the idea of replica courses coincided with the heights of the latest course construction bubble.
With a ton of courses being built, the replica idea represented a niche market, giving the player the ability to experience many of the toughest, greatest and most widely known golf holes, including in some cases the 12th at Augusta. I look at it purely as a marketing ploy. Instead of building a new design, why not build holes that every player would want to experience but could not, whether due to access, cost or location.
That may be, but that's entirely off the mark regarding this thread, which isn't about replica "courses" rather, replica holes on non-replica courses.
To examine why these types of courses aren't being built with the frequency that they were in the 1980's and 90's is an exercise in examining the changes in the golf construction business in general. Call it the Keiser effect. There's been a steady paradigm shift from the glossy to the jagged, from high dollar projects to the found course. With minimalism being the buzzword of the day and the average builder of a course paying a bit more attention to the bottom line, we're seeing more Greywalls, Hidden Creeks and Steamsongs and fewer Shadow Creeks. Under the new model, the occasional Redan, Cape or Alps style hole does get built, but only where the qualities of those holes was already evident on the ground.
Now you're getting warm ;D
I'd bet that if the components of the 12th at Augusta presented themselves on the right site, that style of hole would be built as well.
To think, in 80 years, that those components never presented themselves, seems a stretch.
With modern equipment, what didn't present itself, could be manufactured, just like NGLA and others
With a few rare exceptions, the courses being built today are not being built as tournament course.
Agree
Thus it is highly likely that any such "replica" would be a bit softer than the 12th at Augusta, a better fit for a course played regularly by members or paying customers.
I thought about the above statement, and would venture to say that if I approached the membership of the clubs in my area and said, you know the par 3 on the front/back nine, well, we're going to redo it and make an identical replica of # 12 at ANGC, I bet there'd be an overwhelming approval rating.
One last point. When I was discussing the changes made in a replica that would make it more playable, I was specifically referring to replicas of the 12th at Augusta. I don't have the answer to this question, but I'd bet that the copies that have been built have features that make them a bit easier for the average player. Perhaps the recovery from behind is a bit easier, or there's a bit more room in the front for a miss. The point was that these holes are being built for the consumer golfer, not the professional. And they're probably being built to provide the 12th at Augusta experience, with a little less bite.
You could be right, a softer, kinder version might be more palatable.
But, golfers are a funny breed. Almost masochistic in their desire to play difficult holes, holes and courses well beyone their abilities.
But, I wouldn't want a dumbed down version, I'd rather have the real McCoy.
And I think the average golfer, given the opportunity to play the 12th at ANGC in his own back yard, would jump at the opportunity.
Everything I've heard about Old Macdonald has been positive.
While the holes aren't exact replicas, they're representative of the theme.
Certain holes have a unique allure and I think # 12 at ANGC has that unique allure, appealing to the broad masses.
-
Kalen:
To be accurate, there were bunkers when the hole opened for play (one in front and one behind). In its earliest stages, the bunkers behind the green were set into the hillside above the green. Today, the rear bunkers are at the same level as the green.
The Golf Digest account of the changes suggests that the green has actually been reduced in size over the years.
-
Sven,
You are correct, and I just realized why i was confused as there are "two" 12th hole threads going on at the same time...I was getting my posts crossed.
Here is what I said in the other thread...
I can't find a picture of it, but I've seen pictures of the original 12th hole and it looks very different to what it is now.
Perhaps Dr. MacK wasn't the "thief" of the 12th hole, but whoever it was that re-designed it to its current form.
ANGC 12 may have "opened" with those bunkers in place, but my point was that it wasn't according to the original design that Dr. MacK had intended.
-
Would you detail for us how the 12th hole, as a golf hole isn't mostly intact since 1934.
This is the second time I've referred you to this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51383.50.html
So, you're quoting another source, one I've read, the question I posed to you remains, tell us how the hole and the play of the hole has changed substantively since 1934.
b]
By whom ?
To start with, by several other posters in this thread.
Could you name them, and also indicate if they've EVER played the course.
To expand the group beyond our little universe, any member or guest that would have a hard time hitting a shot of 145 yards that would have the requisite height necessary to hold the green.
First you told us that (most) are hitting 8 or 9 iron.
Last I observed, 8 and 9 irons don't have any problem attaining the requisite height.
Since you claim that (most) are hitting 8 or 9 iron they shouldn't have any problem with this hole, should they ?
It is perhaps the most penal hole at Augusta.
How can you make that statement absent personal experience ?
Is not # 4 more penal, more difficult ?
170 versus 145 yards, OB long, deep bunker short, trouble right.
How about # 11 ?
I'll bet most will par # 12 before they par # 11 and scores over par will be just as high or higher.
# 13 ? # 15 ? # 16 ?
When I think penal the words "eminently playable" don't immediately pop into my mind.
At 145 yards, it's eminently playable.
It's not like the required carry at # 8 at PBGC.
The fact that the hole has remained, mostly intact, for 80 years tells you that it's eminently playable by member and guests alike.
Have you EVER played the hole ?
I mentioned earlier in this thread that I have not.
However, I've watched the tournament every year since I was in high school, I have a very acute imagination and I read.
That's terrific, but unfortunately not sufficient to comment on the playing merits/demerits/qualities of the hole.
To establish a time frame, when did you get out of high school.
When Jack Nicklaus says its one of the toughest par 3's in the world for the pros, in my mind that means it is an even tougher hole for the average golfer. I covered all of this above.
I'm certainly interested in what Jack Nicklaus and any other Master's competitor has to say about the course, however, one needs to ascertain context.
If I'm competing in the Masters and in the locker room and another competitor or perhaps myself had a good/bad experience at # 12 and a reporter asks me what I think about the 12th hole......... is there any other response ?
-
Patrick, in your title to this thread you ask if "the 12th hole at ANGC is one of the great par 3's in golf?".
A few of us, who granted have not had the opportunity to play Augusta National, have said that the hole is not one of the great par-3s in golf.
We have given reasons, mostly related to the penal nature of the hole and the size of the green, but you have dismissed them because we have not played the hole.
I agree that only once a golfer has played a hole can he truly appreciate its qualities.
Preferably the golfer has played the hole several times, and thus has seen varied winds and pin positions.
It seems that you are one of only a handful of golfers on this board to have played Augusta.
To ask a question, dismiss the answers of the group, and then say "Jim, if you don't know by now, I doubt that my analysis would shed any light upon the substance and quality of the hole" does not add substance to the discussion.
Mark,
You're evidently unaware of prior histories with regard to participants on this site and thus may or may not understand the context and reason for the original question.
Please tell me why this hole is one of the great par-3s in golf.
I'll be glad to in an IM, but first, it's dinner time.
-
Am I the only one, who after reading about the changes at the top of page two, agrees with Patrick's original statement that the hole is mostly intact? The biggest changes are to alleviate flooding between the tee and the creek. Unless one plans to lay up, are those differences really that dramatic? Every hole evolves to a point--this doesn't sound all that unusual, especially compared to the rest of the course!
Kalen,
I don't think any of your first three summary statements are correct, based on the 1934 and 2011 paragraphs.
-
Pat:
I don't even know where to begin. At times you make my points, at times you argue against them. Elsewhere you completely misconstrue my words and start to argue about assertions I didn't make.
As Tom said earlier in the thread, most players can't play a hole like the 12th at Augusta. When replicas, copies, homages or variations have been built, they have been built with a less penal nature.
Its a great hole for the Masters. One that I am sure everyone that gets to play Augusta appreciates. But that does not mean it is a hole that is a great hole for the average player.
I play golf occasionally with a guy in his 60's who doesn't carry the ball as far as he used to and doesn't hit as high. If he were to play the 12th, he'd probably be hitting a mid-iron (as you suggested). If he doesn't catch if flush, he's probably in the drink, in the bunker or hitting into the bank (with the possibility of rolling back into the water). If he does catch it clean, its unlikely his lower shot is going to hold the shallow green. As a righty, his long miss is most likely going to be a shot to the left, missing the safe area you indicated can be found long right. A recovery from behind the green, with the water looming behind, does not look benign.
I'll save the discussion of the changes in the ground game options of the course and MacKenzie's and Jones' inspirations and intents
for other threads. I'm also not going to argue with you that the folks lucky enough to play Augusta don't enjoy every moment of it, to do so would be asinine. But I will stand strong on the thought that the 12th is a great hole for the pros, but is a bit much for the average guy.
Sven
-
Andy:
The green has been significantly changed and raised, the bank in front of the green is steeper, the area behind the green has seen drastic changes and the surface of the bridge is now astro-turf. For a hole of 155 yards, these are not just simple changes.
Pat:
Can we do away with the if you haven't played it you can't comment stance, at least when it comes to discussing Augusta? If there's a course that has received more coverage, I'm not aware of it. I think watching the hundreds of tee shots to 12 that we have all seen over the years provides a sufficient basis for those that have not had the pleasure of playing to participate in the conversation. That foundation is only stronger with the addition of Ran's write-up, the various IMO pieces on Augusta and the countless threads over the years that have discussed the course.
Sven
-
Pat:
I don't even know where to begin. At times you make my points, at times you argue against them. Elsewhere you completely misconstrue my words and start to argue about assertions I didn't make.
You'll hae to be more specific
As Tom said earlier in the thread, most players can't play a hole like the 12th at Augusta.
Tom is wrong.
The 12th has been played by thousands and thousands and thousands of golfers over the last 80 years and the hole remains mostly intact, especially in terms of playing characteristics.
If it was unplayable, at ANGC of all places, they would have changed it long ago.
When replicas, copies, homages or variations have been built, they have been built with a less penal nature.
That's absolutely untrue.
Its a great hole for the Masters. One that I am sure everyone that gets to play Augusta appreciates. But that does not mean it is a hole that is a great hole for the average player.
The Masters is an event held over four (4) days a year.
Who plays the course for the balance of the year ? The members ? Their guests ?
What do you think is closer to the average handicap, +2 or 14 ?
I play golf occasionally with a guy in his 60's who doesn't carry the ball as far as he used to and doesn't hit as high. If he were to play the 12th, he'd probably be hitting a mid-iron (as you suggested). If he doesn't catch if flush, he's probably in the drink, in the bunker or hitting into the bank (with the possibility of rolling back into the water). If he does catch it clean, its unlikely his lower shot is going to hold the shallow green.
Since you've never played the hole, how can you assess the holding qualities of the green for the average golfer.
According to you, noone hitting a club below a 7 iron can hold the green.
That's absurd.
You do realize that golfers are allowed to tee their ball up on a tee, don't you ?
Since when is hitting a green in regulation a right of entitlement ?
There's plenty of room right of the bunker
As a righty, his long miss is most likely going to be a shot to the left, missing the safe area you indicated can be found long right.
A recovery from behind the green, with the water looming behind, does not look benign.
If he takes a Phil Mickelson full wedge swing perhaps, but putting or chipping with a 6-iron is not an onerous shot.
I'll save the discussion of the changes in the ground game options of the course and MacKenzie's and Jones' inspirations and intents
for other threads. I'm also not going to argue with you that the folks lucky enough to play Augusta don't enjoy every moment of it, to do so would be asinine. But I will stand strong on the thought that the 12th is a great hole for the pros, but is a bit much for the average guy.
Then why have the custodians of the course and the members retained its playing characteristics/qualities for 80 years ?
-
Andy:
The green has been significantly changed and raised, the bank in front of the green is steeper, the area behind the green has seen drastic changes and the surface of the bridge is now astro-turf. For a hole of 155 yards, these are not just simple changes.
They are simple changes and you wouldn't even notice them if someone didn't tell you about them.
Since when is 18 inches a significant elevation change ?
If you played one year, and the green was raised 18 inches, you'd never notice it the next year.
Tell us, how does that change the playing characteristics of the hole ?
The "bridge" is astro turfed and you call that a material change ?
The bridge is far removed from the green and irrelevant in terms of playing characteristics of the hole.
Pat:
Can we do away with the if you haven't played it you can't comment stance, at least when it comes to discussing Augusta?
No, we can't.
You can't comment on the playing characteristics of a hole you've never played.
You made definitive statements about the hole that were grossly erroneous.
First you told us that "most" hit 8 or 9 iron into that green.
Then, contradicting yourself, you told us that golfers hitting "clean" mid irons couldn't hold the green.
You held yourself out as an authority on the play of the hole.
I don't know how someone who has never played a hole can hold themselves out as an authority on the play of the hole.
Hence, I challenged your opinions.
Of the two positions/opinions, I think mine is more fact based
If there's a course that has received more coverage, I'm not aware of it. I think watching the hundreds of tee shots to 12 that we have all seen over the years provides a sufficient basis for those that have not had the pleasure of playing to participate in the conversation.
I disagree.
I too thought that I knew alot about ANGC and the play of ANGC prior to playing, based on my watching the Masters for 40+ years, but, I had a rude awakening when I actually played the course. NOTHING you see on TV prepares you for play on the golf course beyond a general idea.
It is dramatically different in person.
That foundation is only stronger with the addition of Ran's write-up, the various IMO pieces on Augusta and the countless threads over the years that have discussed the course.
You can read Ran's write up and threads about ANGC until the cows come home and it won't prepare you for the actual playing experience.
The course is vastly different from what you see on TV.
The elevation changes, slopes and visuals can't be seen on TV or gleened from reading.
It's kinda like sex, someone can tell you all about it, but, until you actually experience it, you don't have a clue.
-
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/b_friday_amencornerstory_83121664_040811.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/12thatAugusta.jpg)
Did you play the hole as it was in 1934? If not, you have no credibility to discuss the changes.
-
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/b_friday_amencornerstory_83121664_040811.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/12thatAugusta.jpg)
Did you play the hole as it was in 1934? If not, you have no credibility to discuss the changes.
Sven, you ignorant slut. ;D
It's the SAME hole.
You're confusing the window dressing, the peripheral effects with the playability of the hole.
Please limit your posts to topics you comprehend.
As to assigning credibility, when it comes to the 12th hole and ANGC, you're not one of the mulitple choice answers.
-
Let's skip the multiple choice part of the test and go to the T/F section:
1. The green has the same contours as it did in 1934: True or False
2. The bank at the front of the green is the same: True or False
3. The rear bunkers are at the same level they've always been with respect to the green surface: True or False
4. The size of the putting surface is the same: True or False
Extra Credit: Most pro's hit an 8 or 9 iron (which is what I meant): True or False
Edit: To give you a hint, I refer back to Dan Wexler's words on the subject: "the 155-yard 12th has undergone several significant changes over the decades, most of which seem largely forgotten today." If you're looking for credibility, I think he has some.
-
Let's skip the multiple choice part of the test and go to the T/F section:
Sven, the absurdity of your desperate test is that NO course can pass it.
Have someone explain the word, "substantive" to you.
1. The green has the same contours as it did in 1934: True or False
2. The bank at the front of the green is the same: True or False
3. The rear bunkers are at the same level they've always been with respect to the green surface: True or False
4. The size of the putting surface is the same: True or False
Extra Credit: Most pro's hit an 8 or 9 iron (which is what I meant): True or False
Now we're supposed to ordain what you meant versus what you type ? ? ?
Since when has discussing how the members and guests play a hole involved contexting the answer with the play of PGA Tour Pros ?
Edit: To give you a hint, I refer back to Dan Wexler's words on the subject: "the 155-yard 12th has undergone several significant changes over the decades, most of which seem largely forgotten today." If you're looking for credibility, I think he has some.
Sven, that's just HIS opinion and you don't know the context in which he was using the word "significant"
He certainly wasn't using it to define the play of the hole.
The hole originated at 150 yards, it's now 155 yards.
The location of the green is the same with very few alterations.
ie, the hole is mostly intact.
-
Who is Jud?
-
Who is Jud?
Another participant on GCA.com.
-
I believe the context of Dan's words were related to a substantive examination of the changes to the 12th hole at Augusta with the goal of surmising if the hole is better now than it was then.
-
Then why have the custodians of the course and the members retained its playing characteristics/qualities for 80 years ?[/b][/size][/color]
Patrick,
How many members would have enough influence to change the hole?
How many of the seemingly annual changes to the course are for the benefit of dues-paying members?
-
Pat -
Since you've been blessed with playing ANGC, I would appreciate it if you would stop asking questions, and tell us a wonderful story or two.
-
Pat's totally on the money on this one.
The changes since birth are subtle at most. Hardly signficant and really haven't altered the playing characteristics of the hole.
It is arguably the best par 3 on one of the greatest courses in the world...that would seem to seal the deal on it's own inherent greatness.
How many rank and file 10-15 handicappers would be "terrified" at hitting this shot? Really? Give me a 7 iron and a sleeve of Bridgestones and I wouldn't feel bad if I dunked one before finding a bunker. If I hit a good shot and held the "eminently unplayable" green then I'm sure I'd be elated. Hardly scarred for life by the unspeakable trauma.
If you haven't played it- or maybe haven't even set foot on the tee box- how can you possibly conclude that the hole is too tough for the members or their guests? And to incessantly argue the point against someone who's had repeated plays and is intimately knowledgeable of the hole, the course, it's members and guests....How is one that presumptuous?
Maybe it's too unique to be mimicked.
-
Then why have the custodians of the course and the members retained its playing characteristics/qualities for 80 years ?[/b][/size][/color]
Patrick,
How many members would have enough influence to change the hole?
Individually or collectively ?
And,
Over what period of time ?
How many of the seemingly annual changes to the course are for the benefit of dues-paying members?
I would think every one, save for the narrowing of the golf course.
Even though the golf course has ample width, I think the narrowing embarked upon a few years AG was a step in the wrong direction for membership play.
Except for the superior amateur member, the lengthening of the Masters tees has had little impact on the great majority of the members.
I may have forgotten some of the changes but can you list the one's that have disadvantaged the members ?
-
Chris:
Please don't put words in my mouth. Pat used the phrase "eminently playable." I never said it was "eminently unplayable." There's a difference between being "eminently unplayable" and being extremely difficult for the average player.
He backed up that claim by saying that the club didn't see any need to make any changes to that hole. Irregardless of the extent of any changes (I'll let Pat take on Dan Wexler to prove that point), I don't see how anyone can argue that changes are made at Augusta to address anything other than the way the course plays for the pros. To argue that the membership didn't ask for any changes to address playability for their level of game is ludicrous when we're talking about Augusta. Changes are made to improve the course for the tournament, whether to defend par, to adjust for increased green speeds, to recover pin positions that lost their viability or to improve spectator flow and viewing. Changes are not made to make it easier for the 65 year old member and his guests.
Here's a sampling of quotes from some of the big names that have played the 12th over the years:
"It is not necessarily impossible, it seems to require more skill than I have at the moment." - Ben Hogan
"Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday." - Tiger when asked when he felt comfortable standing on the tee.
"It doesn't matter what the conditions are, every year the toughest shot at Augusta is number 12." - Tiger, again.
"The hole eventually makes you look like a fool." - Ben Crenshaw
"No matter what happens with equipment, that hole will always be a delicate shot. It might be the toughest shot you ever hit. The margin of error is minute." - Scott Verplank
"You're always worried." - Padraig Harrington
"It would be a nothing hole if it was square, but the genius is the angle." - Geoff Ogilvy [I really like this one, as someone said earlier that the angle was not even noticeable.]
"Given the brutish angle of the 12th green, if you intend to go for the heart of the target area then suddenly think: 'No, I'll go left,' you will have too much club. But if you decide to go right, you will come up short." - Nick Faldo [Again with the angle.]
"Next year, I think I'll lay up short." - Dan Forsman
Now Pat will say that all of these quotes have to be taken in context, and that they were probably uttered 20 seconds after the speaker dunked one in the creek. Whatever, the facts speak for themselves. Since 1934, the 12th has played to a stroke average of 3.29, the second hardest hole on the course (the 10th is the hardest). It is 155 yards. It is a really tough hole.
The questions asked here are if it is one of the great par 3's in golf and if so, why the hole hasn't been duplicated. The answer to the first part is unequivocally yes. As part of a tournament course it offers a challenge of the highest level. I'm not arguing its genius, for that purpose.
The answer to the second part is that it has, and the copies all have softened the hole in some way. I agree that it would be almost impossible to duplicate all of the conditions that make the 12th unique, and difficult. Those are the conditions that cause the hole to be such a stern test for the pros. Guys who hit their irons higher and farther than the average player, who can land a shot on a shallow target and have it hold, who can dial up the fade or a draw called for by the days pin and conditions.
But even if you could duplicate those conditions, I don't think it would happen. An earlier poster stated that they would not build a hole like the 12th because "most golfers can't play a hole like that." Pat disagrees with this statement. I'll concede I haven't played the hole, so I don't have any practical experience with its difficulty. But I can read what the best players in the world say about it, and if its tough for them, it must be even harder for the rest of us. Perhaps the statement should have been "it is too tough of a hole for a course that is built for member play or the consumer golfer." I think that is what the speaker was getting at. Very few courses are built to present the ultimate challenge. There are some, and those courses will have their fans. In fact, one such course (Butler) was brought up earlier and one of its holes was compared to the 12th. The hole at Butler is softer. Another example brought up earlier was Muirfield Village. That hole, too, is softer. There are others that are similar, whether intentional or not, including the 16th at Wine Valley, the 17th at Bear Creek and a hole at Conway Farms, to name a few. Perhaps there's more room to miss, or the green is bit bigger, or the fronting water hazard is replaced with a hollow. But they exist, and they all in their way pay homage to the 12th.
The question posed wasn't whether or not a 10-15 handicap would be terrified of the shot but absolutely thrilled by the experience. They probably would be on both accounts, and I doubt anyone has ever walked away from Augusta feeling "scarred." The question is why this hole hasn't been copied with more frequency. I'm happy to move past the tangential arguments and debate the reasons given above further if you'd like (and I don't think we even need to discuss the maintenance issues posed earlier in the thread).
-
Ian Andrew's take: http://ianandrewsgolfdesignblog.blogspot.ca/2012/04/12th-at-augusta-national-best-par-three.html
-
Chris:
Please don't put words in my mouth. Pat used the phrase "eminently playable." I never said it was "eminently unplayable." There's a difference between being "eminently unplayable" and being extremely difficult for the average player.
How would you know, you've NEVER played the hole.
He backed up that claim by saying that the club didn't see any need to make any changes to that hole.
That's a fact, no substantive changes have been made to the hole, it plays essentially today, the way it played in 1934.
Irregardless of the extent of any changes (I'll let Pat take on Dan Wexler to prove that point),
You don't know what Daniel Wexler and I would agree or disagree on if we engaged in a discussion.
How can you pretend to speak for either of us ?
And, there's no such word as "irregardless"
I don't see how anyone can argue that changes are made at Augusta to address anything other than the way the course plays for the pros.
Again, how can you make such a wild claim ?
Let's start by discussing the placement/movement of the members tees.
Is that done solely for the pros ?
To argue that the membership didn't ask for any changes to address playability for their level of game is ludicrous when we're talking about Augusta.
Not sure what you mean here, but, it's a matter of record that members have asked for changes to benefit their games.
Changes are made to improve the course for the tournament, whether to defend par, to adjust for increased green speeds, to recover pin positions that lost their viability or to improve spectator flow and viewing.
Are you on the committee ?
Changes are not made to make it easier for the 65 year old member and his guests.
Really ?
What about the removal of trees ?
Widening fairways ?
Moving the Members tees ?
Was that not done for the members/guests ?
Here's a sampling of quotes from some of the big names that have played the 12th over the years:
Sven, you're transitioning from obtuse to dumb.
Don't you think you should consider the context in which the quote/response was made.
Don't you think you should consider where the people below were when they were asked questions about # 12 ?
Do you think they were playing # 7 or # 17 at Pebble Beach ?
# 10 at Winged Foot ?
"It is not necessarily impossible, it seems to require more skill than I have at the moment." - Ben Hogan
Now you would have us to believe that the 12th hole is beyond Hogan's ability.
And, if Hogan can't play it, my god, how can members and guests play it ?
I know, they must skip the hole and walk to # 13 tee.
"Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday." - Tiger when asked when he felt comfortable standing on the tee.
That statement is a reflection on Medal play when it counts versus practice round play.
So now Tiger is uncomfortable every time he stands on the tee during the Masters.
Maybe he's uncomfortable standing on every tee during the Masters.
He seemed to have some difficulty right off the bat on # 1 and # 2 today.
"It doesn't matter what the conditions are, every year the toughest shot at Augusta is number 12." - Tiger, again.
Tougher than the shot into # 5, 6, 10, 11, 15 and 18 ? At 155 at most ?
"The hole eventually makes you look like a fool." - Ben Crenshaw
Well I guess alot of golfers haven't been made fools of yet.
How do you think the hole compares to # 7 at PBGC.
# 11 at Pacfici Dunes ?
# 10 at Winged Foot ?
"No matter what happens with equipment, that hole will always be a delicate shot.
Agree. It's certainly not a power shot.
It might be the toughest shot you ever hit. The margin of error is minute." - Scott Verplank
It's far from the toughest shot I've ever hit.
Have you played # 1 at Prestwick ?
# 8 at Pebble Beach ?
# 10 at WFW ?
"You're always worried." - Padraig Harrington
Ditto # 7 and # 17 and # 18 at Pebble
# 11 at Pacific Dunes
# 10 at Winged Foot
The first eight holes at Quaker Ridge.
Etc., etc..
"It would be a nothing hole if it was square, but the genius is the angle." - Geoff Ogilvy [I really like this one, as someone said earlier that the angle was not even noticeable.]
The angle is barely noticeable and Olgivy's statement is foolish at best.
If the green was square, with the corners at 12, 3, 6 and 9 O'clock the hole would be far, far from a nothing hole.
It's not the diagonal nature of the green, it's the shallowness of the green,
But, you wouldn't know that because you've NEVER seen the hole in person.
"Given the brutish angle of the 12th green, if you intend to go for the heart of the target area then suddenly think: 'No, I'll go left,' you will have too much club. But if you decide to go right, you will come up short." - Nick Faldo [Again with the angle.]
"Brutish" angle ?
"Brutush" is a word that's inapplicable to the angle that the green sits to the GOLFER.
But, again, you wouldn't know since you're relying on the words of others without any basis for judging their words.
"Next year, I think I'll lay up short." - Dan Forsman
And then what ?
Another quote conjured up explicitly for the media.
Now Pat will say that all of these quotes have to be taken in context, and that they were probably uttered 20 seconds after the speaker dunked one in the creek. Whatever, the facts speak for themselves.
What facts ?
You've never seen the hole.
You've never played the hole.
You have absolutely NO first hand knowledge regarding the hole, yet, you hold yourself out as an expert.
Since 1934, the 12th has played to a stroke average of 3.29, the second hardest hole on the course (the 10th is the hardest).
It is 155 yards. It is a really tough hole.
NO, it isn't.
The stroke average takes into consideration penalty strokes.
You'll find that holes with water and/or OB tend to do that.
The questions asked here are if it is one of the great par 3's in golf and if so, why the hole hasn't been duplicated.
For once, you're correct.
The answer to the first part is unequivocally yes.
As part of a tournament course it offers a challenge of the highest level. I'm not arguing its genius, for that purpose.
The answer to the second part is that it has, and the copies all have softened the hole in some way.
What copies ?
If there were all these copies I wouldn't have posed the question.
I agree that it would be almost impossible to duplicate all of the conditions that make the 12th unique, and difficult. Those are the conditions that cause the hole to be such a stern test for the pros. Guys who hit their irons higher and farther than the average player, who can land a shot on a shallow target and have it hold, who can dial up the fade or a draw called for by the days pin and conditions.
There's only one problem.
Those guys are only in town for four days of play.
The rest of the season, the members and guests play the hole every day.
And, the hole hasn't changed, in substance in almost 80 years.
If it was so unplayable for the members, and there's only a 10 yard difference in the tees, they would have altered the hole considerably, decades ago.
Remind me again, how many times have you played it ?
But even if you could duplicate those conditions, I don't think it would happen. An earlier poster stated that they would not build a hole like the 12th because "most golfers can't play a hole like that."
Then how do the members and guests do it every day in season except for four days ?
Remember, ANGC isn't a club populated by 30 year old long ball hitters.
Pat disagrees with this statement.
I'll concede I haven't played the hole, so I don't have any practical experience with its difficulty.
But I can read what the best players in the world say about it, and if its tough for them, it must be even harder for the rest of us. Perhaps the statement should have been "it is too tough of a hole for a course that is built for member play or the consumer golfer."
Have you had private, off the record conversations with any of them about the hole ?
If not, then you're just repeating "fluff" fodder for the media and fans.
I think that is what the speaker was getting at. Very few courses are built to present the ultimate challenge.
# 12 is far from the "ultimate" challenge.
But, it's fun to play with an adequate amount of challenge, as is every hole at courses like ANGC, PV, GCGC and others.
There are some, and those courses will have their fans. In fact, one such course (Butler) was brought up earlier and one of its holes was compared to the 12th. The hole at Butler is softer. Another example brought up earlier was Muirfield Village. That hole, too, is softer. There are others that are similar, whether intentional or not, including the 16th at Wine Valley, the 17th at Bear Creek and a hole at Conway Farms, to name a few. Perhaps there's more room to miss, or the green is bit bigger, or the fronting water hazard is replaced with a hollow. But they exist, and they all in their way pay homage to the 12th.
What's harder, the 12th at ANGC or the 17th at Sebonack ?
The 12th at ANGC or the 13th at Pine Tree ?
Forget scoring average, which hole is harder to make a birdie or par on, the 12th at NGLA or the 17th at Sebonack or the 13th at Pine Tree ?
I need to make par to win a tournament.
Which hole do I pick, the 17th at Sebonack or the 12th at ANGC.
Now, ask me which hole is more fun to play ?
Tough to beat the 12th at ANGC.
And, I'm no masochist, other than wanting to debate with you ;D
The question posed wasn't whether or not a 10-15 handicap would be terrified of the shot but absolutely thrilled by the experience. They probably would be on both accounts, and I doubt anyone has ever walked away from Augusta feeling "scarred." The question is why this hole hasn't been copied with more frequency. I'm happy to move past the tangential arguments and debate the reasons given above further if you'd like (and I don't think we even need to discuss the maintenance issues posed earlier in the thread).
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps modern day architects have shied away from mirroring # 12, lest they be accused of being unoriginal copy cats ?
Might that be a factor ?
-
Pat,
Next time in Vegas........ Southern highlands 12th 150 from the usuall blue tees. Usually a breeze to contend with, and downhill only a little. It has the same type of angle as Augusta. Same basic shape, no front bunker but there is water and a bank behind. In addition supposedly the last hiole Robert T Jones Sr. Had any input on. A variation yes, which I think there are a lot of. I have enjoyed each of the copies that I've played, and long to play rather than just view the real thing.
I think Jack N. has done it a number times, and a lot of them are number 12( Muirfield, Hills at Lakeway or whatever they call it now )
Most are much bigger greens than Augusta though, and I think tournament pressure only magnify 's the pressure.
I think the angst that it puts in you, to play this type of hole, makes it a lot of fun even if it is difficult for the average golfer, whatever that is.
Brad
-
Brad,
On my next visit to Vegas, I'll definitely get to Southern Highlands.
Is it possilbe to still engage in night putting with the Dean's daughter ?
I've heard so much about it, and, if it wasn't for Kerry Packer, I might have been involved in the course with Arthur G.
Jack Nicklaus introduced an iteration at MV.
When are you coming East ?
-
"It would be a nothing hole if it was square, but the genius is the angle." - Geoff Ogilvy [I really like this one, as someone said earlier that the angle was not even noticeable.]
The angle is barely noticeable and Olgivy's statement is foolish at best.
If the green was square, with the corners at 12, 3, 6 and 9 O'clock the hole would be far, far from a nothing hole.
It's not the diagonal nature of the green, it's the shallowness of the green,
But, you wouldn't know that because you've NEVER seen the hole in person.
"Given the brutish angle of the 12th green, if you intend to go for the heart of the target area then suddenly think: 'No, I'll go left,' you will have too much club. But if you decide to go right, you will come up short." - Nick Faldo [Again with the angle.]
"Brutish" angle ?
"Brutush" is a word that's inapplicable to the angle that the green sits to the GOLFER.
But, again, you wouldn't know since you're relying on the words of others without any basis for judging their words.
Pat,
I hate to get involved in this informative back and forth, but I'm puzzled by your insistence that the angle of the 12th green isn't a major factor in its challenge/difficulty, rather it is the shallow nature of the green. I agree that the latter is significant, but can't both characteristics work together to maximize the challenge?
You have said that the angle is almost unnoticeable from the tee. Is the visual ability to determine the angle all that germane? Whether or not you can sense the angle, the angle is there and it is significant. Below is a screenshot of a satellite view of the hole. The green is in some shadow, but you can tell that from where the tee is in the upper right hand corner the angle is quite severe.
(http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac72/mwsander/misc/augusta12overhead.jpg)
And yes, I've been there ;).
-
Pat:
In the past 48 hours you've defended your rather obtuse opinions (on this thread and others) by contradicting or avoiding statements from Dan Wexler, David Owen, Jack Nicklaus, Tom Doak, the producers of the official Masters App, Ben Hogan, Tiger Woods, Ben Crenshaw, Geoff Ogilvy, Scott Verplank, Padraig Harrington, Nick Faldo and this little nugget from Ian Andrew:
"No wonder this has become the most copied par three in the world."
You may have played Augusta, but I'm starting to think that there are a lot of people out there who know it a lot better than you.
Sven
-
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps modern day architects have shied away from mirroring # 12, lest they be accused of being unoriginal copy cats ?
Might that be a factor ?[/b][/size][/color]
If this is the case, then how does one account for the proliferation of other "template" holes that are quite popular, golf holes that virtually no designer shies away from recreating at some point in their career? Other template style holes are almost indiscriminately introduced to golf courses worldwide, which is, in part, a measure of both their strategic merit and popularity. Being called a copy-cat does not seem to be a real issue. But as you say, the 12th at Augusta is rarely reproduced. Tom Doak provided a rational early in the thread for why he doesn't include such a type. His opinion (as a practicing professional) on the potential shortcomings of such a hole should certainly not be ignored.
Beyond that, perhaps, it is actually possible that the 12th at Augusta is simply not "one of the great par 3's in golf?" At its core, the golf hole is a mid-iron over water. The varied strategy that exists in many other template style holes is just not present. So if it is a great par 3, if only in the context of the grounds of Augusta National. Its greatness (if one does accept that it is great) is not as easily transferable or recontextualized as many of the other extant templates.
Moreover, what would a multitude of copies actually prove?
-
with a green angled from left to right
The angle isn't that noticeable.
Pat:
Reading back through some older threads and came across this one from 2004 where you were discussing angled features (
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,15395.msg264092.html#msg264092). Here's the opening post:
"Do angled greens, angled bunkers, angled creeks and angled mounds create the best architectural challenges to the golfer ?
Many talk about the road hole at TOC being one of the best holes in golf. Isn't it the angled fairway, bunkers and green that create that assessment ?
Others speak of the greatness of Amen Corner. Aren't the angles at # 12 and # 13 at ANGC largely responsible for the great challenge the holes offer ?"
This year you maintained that the angle of the green on 12 isn't that noticeable (and that the hole isn't that difficult). Yet in 2004 you were using the 12th as an example of a great use of angles (as well as a hole that offers a great challenge). Seems to be a bit of a disconnect.
-
Pat,
I hate to get involved in this informative back and forth, but I'm puzzled by your insistence that the angle of the 12th green isn't a major factor in its challenge/difficulty, rather it is the shallow nature of the green. I agree that the latter is significant, but can't both characteristics work together to maximize the challenge?
You have said that the angle is almost unnoticeable from the tee. Is the visual ability to determine the angle all that germane? Whether or not you can sense the angle, the angle is there and it is significant. Below is a screenshot of a satellite view of the hole. The green is in some shadow, but you can tell that from where the tee is in the upper right hand corner the angle is quite severe.
And yes, I've been there ;).
Have you played the hole ?
-
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps modern day architects have shied away from mirroring # 12, lest they be accused of being unoriginal copy cats ?
Might that be a factor ?[/b][/size][/color]
If this is the case, then how does one account for the proliferation of other "template" holes that are quite popular, golf holes that virtually no designer shies away from recreating at some point in their career?
Would you cite/identify the template holes that modern architects have crafted ?
Other template style holes are almost indiscriminately introduced to golf courses worldwide, which is, in part, a measure of both their strategic merit and popularity.
Would you identify them as well ?
Being called a copy-cat does not seem to be a real issue.
Of course it is, it can be deemed as representing a lack of creativity.
And, what architect wants to be thought of in those terms ?
But as you say, the 12th at Augusta is rarely reproduced. Tom Doak provided a rational early in the thread for why he doesn't include such a type. His opinion (as a practicing professional) on the potential shortcomings of such a hole should certainly not be ignored.
No one has ignored them.
The question is, how much weight do you attach to them.
Beyond that, perhaps, it is actually possible that the 12th at Augusta is simply not "one of the great par 3's in golf?"
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but, I would ask, have you played the hole ?
At its core, the golf hole is a mid-iron over water. The varied strategy that exists in many other template style holes is just not present.
Would you describe that "varied strategy" on the "short", one of the famous templates ?
The "redan" ?
Redans from tees elevated well above the putting surface ?
The Biarritz ?
The Biarritz from tees elevated well above the putting surface ?
So if it is a great par 3, if only in the context of the grounds of Augusta National. Its greatness (if one does accept that it is great) is not as easily transferable or recontextualized as many of the other extant templates.
Like the "short" ?
Moreover, what would a multitude of copies actually prove?
Besides architectural and playing merit and popularity ?
-
with a green angled from left to right
The angle isn't that noticeable.
Pat:
Reading back through some older threads and came across this one from 2004 where you were discussing angled features (
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,15395.msg264092.html#msg264092). Here's the opening post:
"Do angled greens, angled bunkers, angled creeks and angled mounds create the best architectural challenges to the golfer ?
Many talk about the road hole at TOC being one of the best holes in golf.
Isn't it the angled fairway, bunkers and green that create that assessment ?
The angle of # 17 at TOC is severe
Others speak of the greatness of Amen Corner.
Aren't the angles at # 12 and # 13 at ANGC largely responsible for the great challenge the holes offer ?"
Let's stick with # 12, since that's the focus of the discussion.
The angle is benign, much more benign than # 13 at Pine Tree.
It's the "shallowness" of the green that creates the major problem, not the degree of the angle.
This year you maintained that the angle of the green on 12 isn't that noticeable (and that the hole isn't that difficult).
That's correct.
Yet in 2004 you were using the 12th as an example of a great use of angles (as well as a hole that offers a great challenge).
You need to reread what I typed, not what you intentionally infer.
Seems to be a bit of a disconnect.
Not if your reading comprehension skills are up to snuff.
-
Pat,
I've never played the hole, but a kidney shaped green that's positioned at a 40/45 degree angle to the tee, like #12, is about as 'severe' as you can get, especially when it's only 30' deep in the middle.
The two lines coming from the bottom of the photo are the same distance (155 yds) from the tee.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7067/6923141200_0f78f5963e_b.jpg)
-
Jim,
Redraw your red line to the front of the right side of the green and the front of the left side of the green, not the front of the right side and the back of the left side.
Thanks
-
Par,
The shorter, horizontal line is at a 90 degree angle to the tee box.
-
Pat,
The vertical line is directly back to the center of the tee. Get out your protractor and I think you'll see a 40/45 degree angle.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5329/7069289267_1f03f6117f_b.jpg)
-
Patrick,
Since you have PLAYED the hole, it is surprising to me to see you dismiss the angle so nonchalantly. If you would, could you please delineate between the angle not being "that noticeable" from the tee and the angle having a large impact on the architecture of the hole? It seems to me that you are asserting that the angle is not a large part of what makes the hole unique and/or difficult.
I agree with you that the shallowness of the green is a large part of what makes the hole, but I would argue that the angle is just as important. Based on my remembrance of the yardages from the sprinkler heads on the tee, there is a rather obvious difference in front, middle, and back pins. Seemed pretty noticeable to me.
-
Patrick,
Since you have PLAYED the hole, it is surprising to me to see you dismiss the angle so nonchalantly. If you would, could you please delineate between the angle not being "that noticeable" from the tee and the angle having a large impact on the architecture of the hole? It seems to me that you are asserting that the angle is not a large part of what makes the hole unique and/or difficult.
Ben,
It's a good question.
My answer is that with rare exception I'm going to hit the same club into that green.
Thus the horrendous angle everyone wants to claim, doesn't exist in terms of playabilty.
I agree with you that the shallowness of the green is a large part of what makes the hole, but I would argue that the angle is just as important. Based on my remembrance of the yardages from the sprinkler heads on the tee, there is a rather obvious difference in front, middle, and back pins. Seemed pretty noticeable to me.
Jim,
You're getting closer, would you draw a red line connecting the front left and front right of the green.
Would you draw a blue line connecting the back right to the back left of the green as well.
thanks
-
No, I'm not going to draw any more lines. ;D
The back left edge of the green is the same distance from the tee as the front right edge of the green.
The centerline of the green sits on a 40/45 degree angle to the tee, that's plain to see.
Forty-five degrees, either way, is the most acute angle that a rectangular or kidney shaped green can be positioned in respect to the tee box on a one shot hole.
-
Pat Mucci in 2004: "Aren't the angles at # 12 and # 13 at ANGC largely responsible for the great challenge the holes offer ?"
Pat Mucci in 2012: "The angle isn't that noticeable."
What am I inferring? Those are your words, direct quotes. They contradict.
We can only work with what you typed, Patrick.