Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: V. Kmetz on March 01, 2014, 05:20:09 PM
-
Hello,
I wanted to focus on JUST that hole and believe that a new thread is worthy, given how Pat's thread got a benign hijack from "how can ANGC keep Masters challenge and preserve original principles" to a particular discussion of this hole.
1. I think imperceptibly, some are wrongfully slaving to Mackenzie's comments on this hole. They may have thought they were building an ode to the Tom Morris' 18th hole of TOC, but they were wrong. It may have had a Valley of Sin, a similar orientation of green, a simple corridor, point A to B view, but as a few have pointed out...they did not replicate the hole. There's no out of bounds (and weren't as many trees) on the right to trouble the slice. So the virtues of cleaving left (as one does on the TOC, I observe) and having to play over the VoS are lost. There was no OB immediately behind to trouble the basher (though I don't know if that was being reached with ANY degree of frequency in the absence of winds and firm turf at TOC). And lastly, as jw among others pointed out...there's no ancient town and very origins of the game to frame the activity. This, I chorus with...
1a. An agreement with Pat in that this is not a very distinctive hole in terms of golf commands or strategic thinking; moreso, when you remove the elements cited above. It's a rather plain hole if moved from its sacred spot and position in the round. It's arcane and anachronistic yet I can fully understand how the desire to pay architectural tribute was formed in Jones/Mackenzie and even for them, it was a spot of indulgent nostalgia to shoehorn the philosophy and say so, in commentary.
2. Be all that as it may, I still maintain that with a cunning re-design of the putting surface, a bunkerless hole of 290-340 could be instituted here and satisfy the thing that Jones/Mack "wanted" for this hole, even if they did not have or follow the model of what they "said" that was.
It won't happen, I know - but I believe it could; and if it did, it would indeed be a one hole answer to the question Pat originally asked.
cheers
vk
-
I like 2
-
Why not leave it like it is?
330 from the members tees, tight tee ball demanding accuracy not distance, hole is heavily defended at the green with bunkers and green contours.
is something wrong with this?
-
Mac, Brian S.
You're right, everything's hunky-dory on ANGC (to me)...but this is just the extended answer to Pat's question in the other thread "How can ANGC?":
Re: How can Augusta keep "original principles" and maintain Masters challenge/interest?
#7, #16, #11, #10 are the leading, most fertile subjects for where substantive changes have been made, that may have altered those principles of the original Jones/Mackenzie course.
This was a theory-to-practice question and my answer was in the same spirit.
And my overall answer to Pat, way back in that thread, was that I feel ANGC has indeed satisfied the tenets of the question over the last 15 years of substantive changes. They have kept up with the elites while maintaining a course of worthy principles for all play.
It's just that #7 is one of the holes that has been SO radically altered from what it was and how it played in the first iterations, that it was merely fun speculation to imagine what might be techincally restored there and still make for a good ANGC hole.
It's fine and if I can locate my green jacket in time, my vote at the next ANGC Board meeting will be for no changes. (Right) ::)
cheers
vk
-
Can anyone post photos/aerials of what the hole looked like in the 30s and what it looks like now?
-
Why not leave it like it is?
330 from the members tees, tight tee ball demanding accuracy not distance, hole is heavily defended at the green with bunkers and green contours.
is something wrong with this?
It's too narrow
-
For Mac,
Outside of some drawings, this is the best I can do, a close up of a 1934 photo in Frank Christian's book:
The 7th green is at the far left side of the photo in the vertical center, the "Valley of Sin" would appear to be in the "crook" of the L-shape, with a further continuation of its large up-slope creating a tapered swell into the green surface itself.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/4t4suu.jpg)
Also kind of cool to see the old 2nd green in the central foregound, as well as the young Eisenhower tree, the bunkerless 15th only guarded by a stream, and the old 16th with three footbridges across the stream that would be dammed up to create today's fronting pond - all of these in the top background.
cheers
vk
-
VK - just because you noted several other holes (other than the 7th) of the Mackenzie-Jones original design, here's a quote from somone who played that original design - I share it here not because I know whether it is generally valid or not (ie more than one man's opinion), but because I'd never seen it posted before and because that 'one man' was Gene Sarazen who, even at 94 years old, seemed sharp as a tack.
"No, I wasn't impressed [by the design]. I didn't care for it. It was not a good course when Jones and Mackenzie finished it -- a very poor design. Hell, number eleven was a drive and a pitch. They used to drive the seventeenth hole. Sixteen was a terrible hole, one hundred yards over a ditch. And the first hole should've been like St Andrews' [wide open] first, but it wasn't anything like it....[Years later] I remember going out for drinks with Roberts one evening and I told him that number sixteen is a terrible hole. One hundred yards over a ditch. 'Now go get Trent Jones', I said".
And apparently the club later did listen to Sarazen on this (and other things?) As I say, just because I hadn't seen it posted before. From Curt Sampson's book "The Masters - Golf, Money and Power in Augusta, Georgia", pages 34 and 89.
Peter
-
VK,
I think the VOS is short of the green
(http://i57.tinypic.com/4t4suu.jpg)
-
PM,
The photo isn't sharp enough (the one in christian's book or my more blurry close up) for me to say definitively. My only physical evidence from this photo is the discernible swell on the horizontal (player's, not viewer's left) fat of the L...this I "match up" with the thing they say they copied (18 TOC), the Mackenzie description, the Byrdy drawing and the Byrdy photo below:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/4t9cvr.jpg) (http://i62.tinypic.com/9fqluf.jpg)(http://i60.tinypic.com/pu9fk.jpg)
PP,
I so agree. And while I can't possibly know for myself (or even have to disagree) about the worthiness of disdain in Sarazen's remarks, this is why:
1. I originally answered PM's question to the effect that: "Augusta has kept up with the elites while keeping many intended original principles." The club has done a magnificent job of keeping the excitement, the gambles, the rewards and the punishments in the course's Masters soul and the three dozen people who have played the course in non Masters time have been unanimous in their enthusiasm for the golf there. I don't subscribe to the "poor agronomic leadership" criticisms, because even before there was subsurface air, and ultra-plush, shaved perfection...it was STILL a leader in physical beauty by any era of comparison. It was almost always a "showpiece" after WW II and the ethos of physical beauty was present in the original inspirations, if not the first fledgling execution.
2. I state that 11 and 16 could/should never return to what they were (as well as #10- I admit I haven't thought about #17 that much) which leaves...
3. Hole Number 7 as perhaps the one and only opportunity to see a 1932-1938 original hole be largely restored and its renovation be redacted with little loss of challenge and continued interest in each hole as part of a greater architectural whole.
cheers
vk
-
Peter,
Thanks for sharing the Sarazen quote. From old film he sure seems like an interesting character and someone not afraid to speak his mind.
It would have been fascinating to see a discussion with Jones/Mackenzie and Sarazen on Augusta as a whole.
-
PM,
The photo isn't sharp enough (the one in christian's book or my more blurry close up) for me to say definitively. My only physical evidence from this photo is the discernible swell on the horizontal (player's, not viewer's left) fat of the L...this I "match up" with the thing they say they copied (18 TOC), the Mackenzie description, the Byrdy drawing and the Byrdy photo below:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/4t9cvr.jpg) (http://i62.tinypic.com/9fqluf.jpg)(http://i60.tinypic.com/pu9fk.jpg)
I don't have your graphic skills, but, I believe the swale is in front of the green.
Topographically, that's the low portion of the hole, not between the raised green and a mound.
PP,
I so agree. And while I can't possibly know for myself (or even have to disagree) about the worthiness of disdain in Sarazen's remarks, this is why:
1. I originally answered PM's question to the effect that: "Augusta has kept up with the elites while keeping many intended original principles." The club has done a magnificent job of keeping the excitement, the gambles, the rewards and the punishments in the course's Masters soul and the three dozen people who have played the course in non Masters time have been unanimous in their enthusiasm for the golf there. I don't subscribe to the "poor agronomic leadership" criticisms, because even before there was subsurface air, and ultra-plush, shaved perfection...it was STILL a leader in physical beauty by any era of comparison. It was almost always a "showpiece" after WW II and the ethos of physical beauty was present in the original inspirations, if not the first fledgling execution.
2. I state that 11 and 16 could/should never return to what they were (as well as #10- I admit I haven't thought about #17 that much) which leaves...
3. Hole Number 7 as perhaps the one and only opportunity to see a 1932-1938 original hole be largely restored and its renovation be redacted with little loss of challenge and continued interest in each hole as part of a greater architectural whole.
cheers
vk
-
VK,
In order to try to give you and others perspective, pretend that the question I posed was asked in 1964, 1974, 1984, 1994 and 2004.
Do you still think the answer would be that "everything's hunky-dory" ?
What you morons are missing is that the course can't remain static in order to present a challenge to a corps of players whom, along with technology, aren't remaining static.
Do you now grasp that concept ? ;D
Mac, Brian S.
You're right, everything's hunky-dory on ANGC (to me)...but this is just the extended answer to Pat's question in the other thread "How can ANGC?":
Re: How can Augusta keep "original principles" and maintain Masters challenge/interest?
#7, #16, #11, #10 are the leading, most fertile subjects for where substantive changes have been made, that may have altered those principles of the original Jones/Mackenzie course.
This was a theory-to-practice question and my answer was in the same spirit.
And my overall answer to Pat, way back in that thread, was that I feel ANGC has indeed satisfied the tenets of the question over the last 15 years of substantive changes. They have kept up with the elites while maintaining a course of worthy principles for all play.
It's just that #7 is one of the holes that has been SO radically altered from what it was and how it played in the first iterations, that it was merely fun speculation to imagine what might be techincally restored there and still make for a good ANGC hole.
It's fine and if I can locate my green jacket in time, my vote at the next ANGC Board meeting will be for no changes. (Right) ::)
cheers
vk
-
7 has become the worst hole on the course IMO, so I do hope they consider some change to it.
As much as the original horseshoe thing looks cool, somehow I doubt they would consider making a change that radical.... but I guess the 8th hole changed a lot in the 60s and 70s and was somewhat "restored", so maybe they can do something similar.
Honestly, they'd improve it tenfold overnight by simply shortening it 50 yards and cutting down a few trees, without doing anything else.
-
PM,
No Pat, I agree/agreed with that all along...no way it could remain static and to be sure, I am not arguing--theoretically, practically, anything-- that the 1934 course (just as an "original" starting point) would do.
I've just thought/maintain that if that COULD be executed in one spot on the course...#7 makes the most sense. I know you disagree with that, but there it is anyway.
(BTW - have you been swayed at all by the Byrdy photos/drawings that the VoS on #7 was right there at the left green front or do you maintain it was further back in the fairway?)
I've think the AGNC changes have largely been excellent and befitting a profiled tournament course that seeks to be playable for its members.
I'm also one of those who don't think the concession to increased distance by the advent of further back tees (as one technique Augusta has used) is a disgrace to a course's architectural integrity.
Sure, I'd like to see a roll-back or tournament ball...less infallibility and specialization in equipment and maintenance practices that don't drive local golf budgets to ruin, but I don't think __(your course here)______________ was ruined, or its pure reputation disgraced by placing a US Open on it in the modern reality.
cheers
vk
-
VK,
I just feel that the club is too invested in the current 7th to reject it's current form in favor of it's original form.
But, I could see modifications to # 10, 11 and 14 that would retain the overall continuity while enhancing the challenge.
-
PM,
The photo isn't sharp enough (the one in christian's book or my more blurry close up) for me to say definitively. My only physical evidence from this photo is the discernible swell on the horizontal (player's, not viewer's left) fat of the L...this I "match up" with the thing they say they copied (18 TOC), the Mackenzie description, the Byrdy drawing and the Byrdy photo below:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/4t9cvr.jpg) (http://i62.tinypic.com/9fqluf.jpg)(http://i60.tinypic.com/pu9fk.jpg)
PP,
I so agree. And while I can't possibly know for myself (or even have to disagree) about the worthiness of disdain in Sarazen's remarks, this is why:
1. I originally answered PM's question to the effect that: "Augusta has kept up with the elites while keeping many intended original principles." The club has done a magnificent job of keeping the excitement, the gambles, the rewards and the punishments in the course's Masters soul and the three dozen people who have played the course in non Masters time have been unanimous in their enthusiasm for the golf there. I don't subscribe to the "poor agronomic leadership" criticisms, because even before there was subsurface air, and ultra-plush, shaved perfection...it was STILL a leader in physical beauty by any era of comparison. It was almost always a "showpiece" after WW II and the ethos of physical beauty was present in the original inspirations, if not the first fledgling execution.
2. I state that 11 and 16 could/should never return to what they were (as well as #10- I admit I haven't thought about #17 that much) which leaves...
3. Hole Number 7 as perhaps the one and only opportunity to see a 1932-1938 original hole be largely restored and its renovation be redacted with little loss of challenge and continued interest in each hole as part of a greater architectural whole.
cheers
vk
There is no reason difficulty wise that the original horseshoe shape couldn't be used with back slope off created and bury a couple elephants under the new green. I don't like trends but I think a reachable Par 4 is something Dr Mack would like if he were designing today. That L shaped green could be made very penal to less then accurate approaches. The idea of surrounding greens with bunkers is over done IMHO. I wished they would of modified in 38' instead of scraping it too early. This is obviously something the club isn't going to do, unfortunately.
-
BCowan
The original 7th had no bunkering, nothing to really deter a modern PGA Tour player from going for the green and either putting or chipping for an eagle.
The hole would be nothing more than a long par 3 for them, so why revert to yesteryear ?
The 18th at TOC has water, OB right and OB just behind the green.
You can't equate the two holes.
There's a reason why Prestwick no longer hosts the British Open ! ;D
-
You could make the green very skinny and crowned. You don't need bunkering, water, and OB to make a devilish short Par 4. I never brought up 18th hole at TOC. You want the tour player to go for the green. You aren't imagining a new designed green which is very very penal. Do you think the greenside bunkers at Riviera 10th hole make it tough, meaning if they were replaced with depressions of shaved grass would it play as tough?
-
BCowan
The original 7th had no bunkering, nothing to really deter a modern PGA Tour player from going for the green and either putting or chipping for an eagle.
The hole would be nothing more than a long par 3 for them, so why revert to yesteryear ?
The 18th at TOC has water, OB right and OB just behind the green.
You can't equate the two holes.
There's a reason why Prestwick no longer hosts the British Open ! ;D
Where is water on TOC #18? Hopefully you aren't counting the burn 30 yards in front of the tee? ;D
-
Bill,
It may be 30 yards, or more, but, it's still a hazard and I'll bet golfers have hit into it. :D
-
The only comment I'll add is for anyone that has walked ANGC either during the Masters or playing, the back tee on #7 is so blatantly out of character with the rest of the course as to be jarring.
I like what Perry Maxwell did with the green complex but that green was never meant to be on a 450 yard hole down a bowling alley.
Ken
-
Ken,
Agreed, it seems like a radical departure, a break in continuity, if you will.
I suppose there are those who feel that there's nothing wrong with a hole that tests the golfer's ability to be precise off the tee.
Tough to argue that the best players in the world shouldn't be subject to that examination.
-
Bill,
It may be 30 yards, or more, but, it's still a hazard and I'll bet golfers have hit into it. :D
The OOB right determines play of that hole. The farther left one bails, the more the Valley of Sin affects the approach shots.
The burn in front of #1 has nothing to do with play of the hole.
-
Bill,
It may be 30 yards, or more, but, it's still a hazard and I'll bet golfers have hit into it. :D
The OOB right determines play of that hole. The farther left one bails, the more the Valley of Sin affects the approach shots.
The burn in front of #1 has nothing to do with play of the hole.
I never said that it did !
-
Bill,
It may be 30 yards, or more, but, it's still a hazard and I'll bet golfers have hit into it. :D
The OOB right determines play of that hole. The farther left one bails, the more the Valley of Sin affects the approach shots.
The burn in front of #1 has nothing to do with play of the hole.
I never said that it did !
Other than to call it "a hazard!" ;D. Doesn't a hazard have to have something to do with the play of the hole?
-
Bill,
It may be 30 yards, or more, but, it's still a hazard and I'll bet golfers have hit into it. :D
The OOB right determines play of that hole. The farther left one bails, the more the Valley of Sin affects the approach shots.
The burn in front of #1 has nothing to do with play of the hole.
I never said that it did !
Other than to call it "a hazard!" ;D. Doesn't a hazard have to have something to do with the play of the hole?
Bill, you may not be aware of it, but, the hazard cuts right across the 18th hole, from far right to far left.
And, I'll bet that more than a few balls have found it.
-
Bill,
I think it may be a 100+ yard carry down the right side, but, I was never good at measuring on Google Earth.
-
I don't think too much needs to be done.
Open up the landing area a bit, and eliminate the fronting bunkers. The bunkers are almost an advantage for the better player--making the area in front a low area of short grass would certainly restore some of that balance of "hard for pros, better for ams," and would be more reminiscent of the original design.
The hole as is doesn't play especially long for current Masters competitors, so it doesn't really need to be shortened, especially if tree removal makes people a little more willing to hit driver. I like the idea of a pro on the tee deciding between driver, which might leave a wedge approach for which the spin will need to be carefully controlled vs. a shorter drive and a potentially longer but less likely to spin iron in.
-
Bill,
I think it may be a 100+ yard carry down the right side, but, I was never good at measuring on Google Earth.
The photo op bridge is not more than 30 yards in front of the tee. You may be looking at Granny Whatshername's Wynd.
-
Bill
Pat is just about spot on...
from the middle of the tee:
103 yards to carry the burn at its extreme right entrance into the course
85 yards to carry the Swilcan Bridge section of it.
cheers
vk
-
Bill
Pat is just about spot on...
from the middle of the tee:
103 yards to carry the burn at its extreme right entrance into the course
85 yards to carry the Swilcan Bridge section of it.
cheers
vk
I hate that.
-
VK,
I just feel that the club is too invested in the current 7th to reject it's current form in favor of it's original form.
But, I could see modifications to # 10, 11 and 14 that would retain the overall continuity while enhancing the challenge.
I know it Pat, you're correct (didn't they just have an additional redesign to the back left by ___?___); they are never going to consider it.
As to #10 and #14, I just feel the former holds up well for the present, and the latter might really get into the member's kitchen (that's a tough, awkward tee shot as is for Joe Golfer, if not Tommy Tour Ball).
cheers
vk
-
Bill,
I have empathy with your reception of this most unfortunate news...
cheers
vk
-
Bill
Pat is just about spot on...
from the middle of the tee:
103 yards to carry the burn at its extreme right entrance into the course
85 yards to carry the Swilcan Bridge section of it.
cheers
vk
I hate that.
I know,
but it helps make my day ;D
-
VK,
Remember, some narrowing has taken place, so why not restore width and bunkering at the same time ?
-
Pat,
You mean on #14...?
If so, I'm not up to date on where the member's tee is currently (Masters tee was moved to 445[?] a few years ago) and how much narrowing has gone on to the left.
It's split in my mind because while I feel the Masters pros should have to navigate a pronounced draw over that reverse camber of rising drive zone and would be adequately sanctioned by a restoration (in some form) of that old bunker...I would worry that everyday play is magnetized by that right side and I want everyday players to have (what must be) the wonderful experience of playing to that green from the broad acres of fairway. (After #3, this is my favorite hole on the course).
When I watched an old Billy Casper play that hole in 2001, my instinct was that much could be improved for the everyday player by just placing the member's tee a yard or so further to the right with a re-aim straight down left center. Perhaps with such an amendment, the restored fairway bunker doesn't trouble the everyday player as much as I would want it to trouble the Masters' player, whose technology and infallible tools are rendering the genius and breathtaking nature of that green and approach, more and more irrelevant each year.
cheers
vk
-
VK,
# 14 has been narrowed significantly over the years, and when you consider the high left to low right slope of the terrain, it effectively narrows it more.
Removing the trees planted over the last 15 years and reintroducing the large bunker and possibly more bunkers might be more in keeping with the original design principles.
-
''Removing the trees planted over the last 15 years and reintroducing the large bunker and possibly more bunkers might be more in keeping with the original design principles.''
I like your ideas, except one bunker is all that is needed. A penal bunker is all that is needed, hence it was designed with the Spirit of St Andrews, was it not? Doing more with less.
-
I hear you guys on trees being bad on a golf course. But I'm not 100% opposed to them all the time.
Like 7 at Augusta National, 7 at Pasatiempo is a short par 4 lined with trees. I didn't find Pasa, as a golf course, overly treed. So, I thought the 7th was a decent change of pace. Short enough to demand accuracy and not need distance off the tee...and the challenge around the green with the contours and bunker complexes made for a very entertaining hole...per my taste in golf.
I think 7 at Augusta has a very similar feel to it.
I like both holes. And given the golf course(s) as a whole, I'm not overly put off by the trees on those specific holes.
Also, the trees at both holes are not overly dense as to preclude recovery shots.
Due to the holes length, driver is not mandated off the tee. It can be hit to try to get a closer pitch shot into the green, but due to the shortness of both holes (from member tees) a much lesser club could be hit as well...if the tightness of the fairway is an issue for someone's specific game. Despite the tightness, the tee shot has options due to the length of the holes.
But if your point/argument is that trees are bad...PERIOD. Okay. You won't like either hole. I get it.
As I said in a different thread, I do like the option of having the hole be drivable for the pros playing in The Masters. The chance for an eagle would be cool and a neat way for someone to try to make up strokes...or give some back to the field if they mess up. Options/choices/decisions/tactics/strategy.
-
I hear you guys on trees being bad on a golf course. But I'm not 100% opposed to them all the time.
Like 7 at Augusta National, 7 at Pasatiempo is a short par 4 lined with trees. I didn't find Pasa, as a golf course, overly treed. So, I thought the 7th was a decent change of pace. Short enough to demand accuracy and not need distance off the tee...and the challenge around the green with the contours and bunker complexes made for a very entertaining hole...per my taste in golf.
I think 7 at Augusta has a very similar feel to it.
Prior to the changes to #7 tee at ANGC, I would agree with you Mac. Hole #3 garners a lot of well deserved attention because of the options off the tee and challenge of the green for approach shots and putting. Once Perry Maxwell made the changes to #7 green, it presented a similar challenge to #3.
There's nothing wrong with challenging the best players with a short drive and pitch hole and #7 at 350 yards accomplished that. #7 was an easier birdie but never an easy birdie. Psychologically, if a player missed birdie from 50-100 yards it's a let down. Great. So is #10 at Riveria. Now at 450 yards, the hole has turned into a tough par and lacks much excitement.
Ken
-
Ken...
I think you might be right on the 450 yard version of the hole. However, frankly, I cannot comprehend how the pros play. I have no idea if 450 yards is long for them or not. The hole plays 330 from the members tees. I could hit driver down to 4 iron off that tee and feel pretty good about my approach shot. If they could do the same at 450, then I think the hole would be okay.
But, again...I simply cannot grasp how the distances impact the pro game. Is 450 short for them or not? If they hit 3 iron off that tee...how far would the ball go? Then, how far out would they be? What club would that be for them?
That is Augusta's challenge, right? Keep it a playable and fun members course, but also keep it relevant for the pros at The Masters.
Great points, Ken.
-
Mac,
I agree with trying to guess what touring pros hit on each club anymore. The catch is someone like a Dustin Johnson could hit a 3 iron 250 if he wanted, but there's no way he wants 200 yards into that green even if it's with a 7-8 iron. If I'm not mistaken, the average length guys were able to go at the green with a 7-8 iron after teeing off with driver. That's still scary given how shallow the green is.
I agree with Pat that Augusta hosts the Masters and the tournament should try to present a challenging set-up each year. It's not just the added length of #7. It's not just the trees and how narrow the corridor is. It's not the introduction of rough. It's all of those along with a massive cantor of the fairway from left to right. #7 use to be an exciting hole because birdies and even close hole outs occurred. Now, it's usually get by with par and move on.
Ken
-
Ken,
Agreed.
The hole is fraught with danger and a par is a good score.
While these guys are great, I would doubt that anyone looks at the hole as a birdie hole.
-
Is it me or do we all seem to be focused on how the holes play in The Masters?
That is just one week out of the year...the rest is members play.
-
''Is it me or do we all seem to be focused on how the holes play in The Masters?''
I agree with you. Mac, do you think surrounding a green with bunkers and radically changing its original L shape is good for the members? Usually surrounding a green with bunkers is easy for a pro to get up and down and makes it harder for the average golfer/member. It seems as though the 7th hole is better as more of a risk and reward type hole? I think a modification of the original green shape could lead to very high numbers without any hazards. Crown and thin out L shaped green with fall out long would be really neat. Build the green up too and play it at 330 yards? Under tournament conditions you could have some poorly executed chips going back and forth off the green. Just my 2 cents...
-
Is it me or do we all seem to be focused on how the holes play in The Masters?
That is just one week out of the year...the rest is members play.
Mac,
It's a tight and difficult driving hole for mere mortals as well.
The green is challenging and if you miss it, you've got your work cut out for you.
-
Is it me or do we all seem to be focused on how the holes play in The Masters?
That is just one week out of the year...the rest is members play.
How much member play does ANGC get? With a national membership and short season, I'm guessing not much.
I think we should focus on the tournament. It's annual and it's the poster child for the high-tech challenge golf course architecture faces.
Suppose the club did not hold a pro tournament. Suppose the course was the same now as in 1934. Wonder where it would stand in the various course rankings?
-
Jim,
I think the course would be very highly rated without the tournament, just like Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and others that don't host events
I don't think there's a shortage of member play.
It's a wonderful golf course
-
I heard that Billy Payne has implemented a change in culture there and that members are discouraged from coming to the club more than twice or three times a week. Of course, I have no way of verifying that but I wouldn't be massively pleased with that if I was a member living in Atlanta!
Brian S,
It's not your typical local club.
It has a far reaching National membership.
Visiting 2 to 3 times a week seems like alot of golf to me. ;D
What's the source of your statement ?
-
I heard that Billy Payne has implemented a change in culture there and that members are discouraged from coming to the club more than twice or three times a month. Of course, I have no way of verifying that but I wouldn't be massively pleased with that if I was a member living in Atlanta!
Brian S,
It's not your typical local club.
It has a far reaching National membership.
Visiting 2 to 3 times a week seems like alot of golf to me.
What's the source of your statement ?
Patrick, reading comprehension....... ;D
-
(http://i57.tinypic.com/4t9cvr.jpg) (http://i62.tinypic.com/9fqluf.jpg)(http://i60.tinypic.com/pu9fk.jpg)
VK - just because you noted several other holes (other than the 7th) of the Mackenzie-Jones original design, here's a quote from somone who played that original design - I share it here not because I know whether it is generally valid or not (ie more than one man's opinion), but because I'd never seen it posted before and because that 'one man' was Gene Sarazen who, even at 94 years old, seemed sharp as a tack.
"No, I wasn't impressed [by the design]. I didn't care for it. It was not a good course when Jones and Mackenzie finished it -- a very poor design. Hell, number eleven was a drive and a pitch. They used to drive the seventeenth hole. Sixteen was a terrible hole, one hundred yards over a ditch. And the first hole should've been like St Andrews' [wide open] first, but it wasn't anything like it....[Years later] I remember going out for drinks with Roberts one evening and I told him that number sixteen is a terrible hole. One hundred yards over a ditch. 'Now go get Trent Jones', I said".
And apparently the club later did listen to Sarazen on this (and other things?) As I say, just because I hadn't seen it posted before. From Curt Sampson's book "The Masters - Golf, Money and Power in Augusta, Georgia", pages 34 and 89.
Peter
What I can't understand with this quote is Sarazen is criticizing everything that most on GCA praise and it gets overlooked. Is #15 a poor hole due to him making Double eagle? Was the original #16 much different lengthwise compared to #7 at Pebble? Don't we cherish pitch and putt holes on GCA? How is the original 7th at ANGC any different? Many people criticized TOC there first few times around, even Jones. 'Now go get Trent Jones', I said"- crickets on here from this last sentence by Sarazen.
I wonder what Dr Mack would think about the massive changes to #7? Does anyone think that making the original L shaped green more difficult and having it play 350 yards would make for better Tournament golf than surrounding the green with bunkers? As Tom Doak mentioned in another thread that the (i think it was the USGA) didn't think #10 at Riviera was too good. Does anyone on GCA think it would be cool to see a restored or a tweaked version of the original L shaped 7th at ANGC?
-
I heard that Billy Payne has implemented a change in culture there and that members are discouraged from coming to the club more than twice or three times a month. Of course, I have no way of verifying that but I wouldn't be massively pleased with that if I was a member living in Atlanta!
I'd be thrilled if I could only play twice a month.
:-)
-
(http://i57.tinypic.com/4t9cvr.jpg) (http://i62.tinypic.com/9fqluf.jpg)(http://i60.tinypic.com/pu9fk.jpg)
VK - just because you noted several other holes (other than the 7th) of the Mackenzie-Jones original design, here's a quote from somone who played that original design - I share it here not because I know whether it is generally valid or not (ie more than one man's opinion), but because I'd never seen it posted before and because that 'one man' was Gene Sarazen who, even at 94 years old, seemed sharp as a tack.
"No, I wasn't impressed [by the design]. I didn't care for it. It was not a good course when Jones and Mackenzie finished it -- a very poor design. Hell, number eleven was a drive and a pitch. They used to drive the seventeenth hole. Sixteen was a terrible hole, one hundred yards over a ditch. And the first hole should've been like St Andrews' [wide open] first, but it wasn't anything like it....[Years later] I remember going out for drinks with Roberts one evening and I told him that number sixteen is a terrible hole. One hundred yards over a ditch. 'Now go get Trent Jones', I said".
And apparently the club later did listen to Sarazen on this (and other things?) As I say, just because I hadn't seen it posted before. From Curt Sampson's book "The Masters - Golf, Money and Power in Augusta, Georgia", pages 34 and 89.
Peter
What I can't understand with this quote is Sarazen is criticizing everything that most on GCA praise and it gets overlooked. Is #15 a poor hole due to him making Double eagle? Was the original #16 much different lengthwise compared to #7 at Pebble? Don't we cherish pitch and putt holes on GCA? How is the original 7th at ANGC any different? Many people criticized TOC there first few times around, even Jones. 'Now go get Trent Jones', I said"- crickets on here from this last sentence by Sarazen.
I wonder what Dr Mack would think about the massive changes to #7? Does anyone think that making the original L shaped green more difficult and having it play 350 yards would make for better Tournament golf than surrounding the green with bunkers? As Tom Doak mentioned in another thread that the (i think it was the USGA) didn't think #10 at Riviera was too good. Does anyone on GCA think it would be cool to see a restored or a tweaked version of the original L shaped 7th at ANGC?
Would today's Green speeds actually make the original 7th at ANGC more difficult? Was the Good Dr a Visionary while ''thee squire'' a stationary man of his time?
-
Some overall thoughts on ANGC's 7th:
The current green is not a bad one and doesn't need fixing - it also is not out of character with the rest of the course. If a restoration / re-styling were to occur then the bunkers may need rearranging but I think the approach does pose a unique challenge fitting of The Masters.
When I began replying I wanted to express interest in a re-thinking of the fairway, but then I read the quote below.
Bobby Jones on the 7th hole -
"Length is certainly not at a premium here, but the narrow fairway seems to have an added impact because it suddenly confronts the player just when he has become accustomed to the broad expanses of the preceding holes. ... The second shot is normally a steep pitch, often with a wedge, and precise judgment of range is required."
So now I'm not so sure... At 440 yards today, the pros hitting driver do often have wedge into the green, and the nature of the putting surface's back to front slope allows for mid-iron approaches and requires control of spin for wedge approaches. This seems like an ideal combination for a hole that calls for accuracy off the tee in tournament golf. There is also an option to lay back off the tee and use some of the fairway connecting to the 3rd hole, but a recovery from this area requires a hard right to left shot from 200 yards to the fortress-like green. But maybe that's a reasonable penalty for missing off the tee?
The 7th hole is my least favorite at ANGC (from my years of viewing/studying the course), but I think it serves its purpose and I don't have any quick-fixes in mind that are any better.
-
This could be a question for a new thread but does anyone wonder if the original greens and holes that were so drastically changed like #7 and #16 could have benefited or been better received with green speeds closer to lets just say 10?