Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mike Hendren on March 24, 2014, 11:00:36 AM
-
Rather than hijack another thread and as a service to others, I thought I'd make a pre-emptive strike in hopes of getting the annual bashing over with well in advance of the tournament:
I continue to marvel at the manner in which so many participants on this site manufacture criticism and cheap shots at dynamics and elements that simply don't exist at Augusta. Also, the cry to "put 'em back the way they was" merely suggests that too many of you are drinking too much Yokumberry Tonic.
I don't know much about golf architecture, but am always greatful for those who know less. I simply can't fathom how anyone can miss Augusta's greatness. (And I'm not even trolling for tickets, btw.)
Dang you all.
Bogey
-
ANGC is great on many levels. The Masters is great on many levels. To the extent that the organizers have diminished some of the architectural features of the design of the golf course, it has done little to diminish the greatness of either the course or the tournament. This is probably the case because of the institutional memories that we all have for all of the great moments in the Masters past. From the "Yes, Sirrrrrrrrrrrrr" to Norman dunking a couple to the odd double eagle or hole-in-one to Bubba's awe-inspiring recovery shot, these memories have the effect of muting some meaningful criticism of the course architecturally speaking.
Don't get me wrong, I hate to see clubs planting trees to redirect play and I hate to see rough planted where it really doesn't belong and I hate to see places like Merion get altered architecturally for the sake of hosting a championship, but the greatness of Merion or ANGC is pretty hard to diminish.
-
Sure, let's keep it simple: with all the changes, I'd still rather watch golf played at Augusta every single year than at Merion. To my inexperienced and inexpert eyes, the former's architecture and intention still shines through, while of what the latter once was or intended to be I have no idea.
Peter
-
So anyone who criticiszes the design or setup believes the course is not great. Got it, thanks.
-
Sunday afternoon watching the back nine is still the best day of the year. Unless it's boring.
-
The bigger issue for me is what the average golfer takes away with them when they see "GREAT" courses like Augusta and Merion plant trees and grow rough and narrow fairways and make everything lush and green. If I'm ever tough on those courses, it's because I'm sick of hearing guys equate those set-up decisions with great golf course architecture because TV has never told them otherwise.
And not just intellectually; I'm speaking mainly of the trickle-down effect that it causes with the design and conditioning of our everyday courses.
-
Clearly ANGC is a great, great course.
That said, my eyes about jumped out of their sockets when I saw images of the circa 1934 course, in the Tiger Woods game. It was easy for me to understand why some might yearn for the old days...
-
I'm not so sure there's as much criticism of Augusta National around here as people would like to believe.
There is a bit of Augusta Syndrome talk, but I think for the most part everyone understands the unique position the club holds in regards to championship golf, and that not every course can look the way it does.
What I do read into most of the comments made regarding the changes to the course is that those changes represent a fascinating study into how the game has evolved. Its a course originally designed with the Scottish links-style game in mind that has been altered over the years to keep pace (or outpace) the manner in which the best players in the world play the game. It also represents one of a handful of courses that exemplify one of the master's greatest work, as well as the work of a number of other prominent architects over the years. Its one of the greatest courses to play the "what if" game, and I think that's mostly what is taking place when people talk about the original version.
Its easy to claim Augusta hatred, but I think it is possible to appreciate the course for what is today and at the same time critically examine the evolution it has undergone.
-
Noteworthy things are not immune to criticism. If Merion or Goat Hill had been the home of an annual major championship since 1934, developed by Bob Jones, with the championship lineage of The Masters, we might be talking about what they once were, comparing them to what Augusta still would be. That should make sense.
Augusta National Golf Club/the course is a victim of Augusta National Golf Club/the spring invitational.
-
Mike,
In case your comments were directed at me, let me point out that my recent thread questioning whether Augusta needed any bunkers was actually intended to praise the course and my 15th hole thread is really only about one hole (or even one shot).
Anyway, Augusta is unique as the only venue permanently hosting a major championship. The club also faces the challenge of balancing the original design concept - playable for all, but challenging for the expert - with the demands of hosting the tournament. Overall, the club does that pretty well, IMO.
But, we are here to discuss/debate golf architecture and it can't be all praise.
I once had a conversation with the someone who was the CEO of a well known company and a member at Augusta. The funny thing was at the time I didn't know who he was even though I was at a cocktail party hosted by his company. Crazy!
The discussion was really good with me mostly criticizing Augusta for not taking the lead on the golf ball distance issue. This gentleman listened and mostly asked questions why I felt the way I did.
He demonstrated that even as a corporate CEO and member he was comfortable with criticism of both the course and the club.
-
There's so much to love about Augusta:
1. It is, almost without question, the world's greatest course for television viewing. The tall pines lining the fairways and huge slopes throughout the course give a backdrop that allows viewers to see ballflight in a way unlike any other course on Tour. The best example is the incredible 13th, the site of filming for the best Hogan footage I've ever seen (search YouTube for Ben Hogan ball flight).
2. Speaking of the 13th, it may be the world's best par 5, and Augusta may have the best collection of 3 shot holes in the world as well.
3. It's among the most well-realized courses in the world aesthetically. I get that there are a handful of non-members who wish it looked "scruffier" or something, and we can nitpick about the first cut and things like that. But the restrained use of huge flash-faced bunkers, wide corridors of monochromatic fairway, and the pines give the course a nearly unmatched sense of place that measures up to and enhances its lofty status in the game. It has none of the houses of Pebble Beach, the hotel signs of The Old Course, out of place bunkers of Merion, or highways of Oakmont. It's hard to believe that you're watching an urban course when you see the place.
Regardless of how well the course upholds its intended architectural principles (and I think it does it better than most would give credit for), it upholds the history of the game as well as any. As the game has modernized, become more technologically driven, and become infiltrated by capitalism, Augusta is a rare place that still makes Rickie Fowler's clothes look stupid, beer carts seem ridiculous, housing developments seem like an intrusion on the game, and wielders of cavity backs and ProV1s look overmatched as shotmakers.
-
So anyone who criticiszes the design or setup believes the course is not great. Got it, thanks.
What Mark says. Sheesh.
Bob
-
Mark, Bob - what happened to you two charmers this morning, take your grumpy pills? On most days, two facile and elegant thinkers such as yourselves would have readily made/recognized the distinction between greatness (which is what Bogey's referring to) and relative greatness (the subject of countless threads about the changes to Augusta). I imagine Bogey out there waiting (with all of us) for that beginning of spring that is the Masters, and asking that, for a while at least, we all 'inhabit' the former context and not the latter, so as to make his waiting pristine. Is that too much for a long time poster to ask? Well, apparently it IS too much for the likes of you two... :)
-
Noteworthy things are not immune to criticism. If Merion or Goat Hill had been the home of an annual major championship since 1934, developed by Bob Jones, with the championship lineage of The Masters, we might be talking about what they once were, comparing them to what Augusta still would be. That should make sense.
Augusta National Golf Club/the course is a victim of Augusta National Golf Club/the spring invitational.
That is the singlemost flattering paragraph involving Goat Hill ever written, though the Goat Hill Invitational has been gaining traction over the last 10 years or so. ;)
Bogey's just putting up a preemptive strike before the annual bashing begins ;D
-
Bogey,
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some folks here participate very actively offering heartfelt, beautifully written comments on courses they have never played or even seen in person.
ANGC has always been a work in progress. It was undergoing considerable changes when Bobby Jones was alive and probably will continue to see nips and tucks long after all current members are no longer around. That we second guess so frequently the decisions of what has to be one of the best informed and most capable, conservative memberships says something. I just shake my head and enjoy every minute of the telecast I can watch.
-
Rather than hijack another thread and as a service to others, I thought I'd make a pre-emptive strike in hopes of getting the annual bashing over with well in advance of the tournament:
I continue to marvel at the manner in which so many participants on this site manufacture criticism and cheap shots at dynamics and elements that simply don't exist at Augusta. Also, the cry to "put 'em back the way they was" merely suggests that too many of you are drinking too much Yokumberry Tonic.
I don't know much about golf architecture, but am always greatful for those who know less. I simply can't fathom how anyone can miss Augusta's greatness. (And I'm not even trolling for tickets, btw.)
Dang you all.
Bogey
Bogey,
I have to say that "bashing" is a pretty poor choice of words. On a website dedicated to frank discussion about golf course architecture, it is hard to think of a better course to use as a platform for dialogue . Let me count the ways:
1. It is a course that everyone is familiar with, and we get to see it every year. I know that few have played it and television does not capture the great elevation change, but it is still a course that can be intelligently discussed by most gca members. As a private club that opens itself up to an annual televised tournament, AGNC invites this type of discussion.
2. The original design comes from one of the greatest architects ever along with one of the greatest players. Yet that design has been altered in many ways. We like to discuss changes that occurred to ODG courses here.
3. Throughout its history the course was altered by a very strong club leader. We could write thousands of pages on great old courses that were drastically altered by powerful club leaders. That topic is very relevant here.
4. An incredible number of trees have been added and the playing corridors dramatically reduced. This is another common theme at thousands of courses in the U.S. Many courses are eliminating trees. Is it not worthy to discuss if AGNC should do the same?
5. To many in the U.S., ANGC represents the gold standard in how golf courses should be maintained. You and I may not agree with that, but for the past 40 years superintendents far and wide have been responding to pressure from their memberships to make their courses greener and the putting surfaces faster. The way I see, AGNC is an annual reminder to golfers what is "possible" given unlimited budgets. That is a pretty relevant topic, no?
I could go on, but the point is that ANGC is such an ideal tableau for what it is we do here on GCA.COM. It's discussion, not bashing.
Cheers,
Bill
-
Tim, your excellent thread prompted my thoughts. Arguably, the fairway bunker at the 8th is the only strategic bunker on the grounds. Without it, players could bomb their drives down the extreme right side and set up a highly favorable angle for their second to the green.
I'm mainly curious why everyone's suddenly playing nice with respect to the course. Bashing (sorry Bill - I typed before reading your sensible post) it is a hallmark of this site. Perhaps there's still hope of being invited to attend. I had so hoped the detractors would punch themselves out in advance of the invitational.
Then again, I am convicted by criticism from our two stalwarts, particularly The Cros who I admire greatly.
One more thought - I think Jones' description of the original course does the present version a tremendous disservice. I don't think it was ever a geniune homage to The Old Course or links golf in general.
For some strange reason I've fallen in love with Augusta and Merion. Perhaps it's because I didn't ruin my experiences at either by teeing it up.
-
Rather than hijack another thread and as a service to others, I thought I'd make a pre-emptive strike in hopes of getting the annual bashing over with well in advance of the tournament:
I continue to marvel at the manner in which so many participants on this site manufacture criticism and cheap shots at dynamics and elements that simply don't exist at Augusta. Also, the cry to "put 'em back the way they was" merely suggests that too many of you are drinking too much Yokumberry Tonic.
I don't know much about golf architecture, but am always greatful for those who know less. I simply can't fathom how anyone can miss Augusta's greatness. (And I'm not even trolling for tickets, btw.)
Dang you all.
Bogey
Bogey,
I have to say that "bashing" is a pretty poor choice of words. On a website dedictated to frank discussion about golf course architecture, it is hard to think of a better course to use as a platform for daliague. Let me count the ways:
1. It is a course that everyone is familiar with, and we get to see it every year. I know that few have played it and television does not capture the great elevation change, but it is still a course that can be intelligently discussed by most gca members. As a private club that opens itself up to an annual televised tournament, AGNC invites this type of discussion.
2. The original design comes from one of the greatest architects ever along with one of the greatest players. Yet that design has been altered in many ways. We like to discuss changes that occurred to ODG courses here.
3. Throughout its history the course was altered by a very strong club leader. We could write thousands of pages on great old courses that were drastically altered by powerful club leaders. That topic is very relevant here.
4. An incredible number of trees have been added and the playing corridors dramatically reduced. This is another common theme at thousands of courses in the U.S. Many courses are eliminating trees. Is it not worthy to discuss if AGNC should do the same?
5. To many in the U.S., ANGC represents the gold standard in how golf courses should be maintained. You and I may not agree with that, but for the past 40 years superintendents far and wide have been responding to pressure from their memberships to make their courses greener and the putting surfaces faster. The way I see, AGNC is an annual reminder to golfers what is "possible" given unlimited budgets. That is a pretty relevant topic, no?
I could go on, but the point is that ANGC is such an ideal tableau for what it is we do here on GCA.COM. It's discussion, not bashing.
Cheers,
Bill
Few are familiar with ANGC outside Masters week. The greens are still fast and tough to put, but approaches hold. Further, few are familiar with Member tees. Fairways are wide and the first cut is very playable. The course is really fair for the average golfer.
-
Rather than hijack another thread and as a service to others, I thought I'd make a pre-emptive strike in hopes of getting the annual bashing over with well in advance of the tournament:
I continue to marvel at the manner in which so many participants on this site manufacture criticism and cheap shots at dynamics and elements that simply don't exist at Augusta. Also, the cry to "put 'em back the way they was" merely suggests that too many of you are drinking too much Yokumberry Tonic.
I don't know much about golf architecture, but am always greatful for those who know less. I simply can't fathom how anyone can miss Augusta's greatness. (And I'm not even trolling for tickets, btw.)
Dang you all.
Bogey
Bogey,
I have to say that "bashing" is a pretty poor choice of words. On a website dedicated to frank discussion about golf course architecture, it is hard to think of a better course to use as a platform for dialogue . Let me count the ways:
1. It is a course that everyone is familiar with, and we get to see it every year. I know that few have played it and television does not capture the great elevation change, but it is still a course that can be intelligently discussed by most gca members. As a private club that opens itself up to an annual televised tournament, AGNC invites this type of discussion.
2. The original design comes from one of the greatest architects ever along with one of the greatest players. Yet that design has been altered in many ways. We like to discuss changes that occurred to ODG courses here.
3. Throughout its history the course was altered by a very strong club leader. We could write thousands of pages on great old courses that were drastically altered by powerful club leaders. That topic is very relevant here.
4. An incredible number of trees have been added and the playing corridors dramatically reduced. This is another common theme at thousands of courses in the U.S. Many courses are eliminating trees. Is it not worthy to discuss if AGNC should do the same?
5. To many in the U.S., ANGC represents the gold standard in how golf courses should be maintained. You and I may not agree with that, but for the past 40 years superintendents far and wide have been responding to pressure from their memberships to make their courses greener and the putting surfaces faster. The way I see, AGNC is an annual reminder to golfers what is "possible" given unlimited budgets. That is a pretty relevant topic, no?
I could go on, but the point is that ANGC is such an ideal tableau for what it is we do here on GCA.COM. It's discussion, not bashing.
Cheers,
Bill
...what Bill said!
-
Tim, your excellent thread prompted my thoughts. Arguably, the fairway bunker at the 8th is the only strategic bunker on the grounds. Without it, players could bomb their drives down the extreme right side and set up a highly favorable angle for their second to the green.
I'm mainly curious why everyone's suddenly playing nice with respect to the course. Bashing (sorry Bill - I typed before reading your sensible post) it is a hallmark of this site. Perhaps there's still hope of being invited to attend. I had so hoped the detractors would punch themselves out in advance of the invitational.
Then again, I am convicted by criticism from our two stalwarts, particularly The Cros who I admire greatly.
One more thought - I think Jones' description of the original course does the present version a tremendous disservice. I don't think it was ever a geniune homage to The Old Course or links golf in general.
For some strange reason I've fallen in love with Augusta and Merion. Perhaps it's because I didn't ruin my experiences at either by teeing it up.
Mike,
The 15th hole thread inspired much more discussion, but I thought the Augusta bunker thread might have been more interesting. Wish more people jumped in on that one.
Yes, the 8th hole fairway bunker does have a big influence, at least certainly for the Masters. Not sure it is as important for a mid handicap player who probably isn't thinking he can reach the green anyway so being a bit further left off the tee isn't so bad. The middle of the fairway is just fine.
-
ANGC and Goat Hill mentioned in the same sentence, Jeff is walking on cloud 9.
-
Few are familiar with ANGC outside Masters week. The greens are still fast and tough to put, but approaches hold. Further, few are familiar with Member tees. Fairways are wide and the first cut is very playable. The course is really fair for the average golfer.
I don't doubt a word that you wrote.
But how the members tees play outside Masters Week has had an infinitesimal influence on golf in America, while the effect of Masters Week on television has been profound and farreaching.
-
Consider the source...
-
Tim, your excellent thread prompted my thoughts. Arguably, the fairway bunker at the 8th is the only strategic bunker on the grounds. Without it, players could bomb their drives down the extreme right side and set up a highly favorable angle for their second to the green.
I'm mainly curious why everyone's suddenly playing nice with respect to the course. Bashing (sorry Bill - I typed before reading your sensible post) it is a hallmark of this site. Perhaps there's still hope of being invited to attend. I had so hoped the detractors would punch themselves out in advance of the invitational.
Then again, I am convicted by criticism from our two stalwarts, particularly The Cros who I admire greatly.
One more thought - I think Jones' description of the original course does the present version a tremendous disservice. I don't think it was ever a geniune homage to The Old Course or links golf in general.
For some strange reason I've fallen in love with Augusta and Merion. Perhaps it's because I didn't ruin my experiences at either by teeing it up.
Mike,
The 15th hole thread inspired much more discussion, but I thought the Augusta bunker thread might have been more interesting. Wish more people jumped in on that one.
Yes, the 8th hole fairway bunker does have a big influence, at least certainly for the Masters. Not sure it is as important for a mid handicap player who probably isn't thinking he can reach the green anyway so being a bit further left off the tee isn't so bad. The middle of the fairway is just fine.
From the members tees, 8 is listed at 480. Yes, it's uphill, but that's still going to get a lot of people thinking greedy thoughts on the tee. If anything, since it's just 220 to carry that bunker from the member tee, it might not be far enough out. Most guys who can reasonably think about reaching a 480 yard, significantly uphill, hole in two can also carry 220 on their drive. The drive is uphill but certain;y not as severely as the second shot.
Overall, I agree ... that fairway bunker is probably the most strategic on the course, however. (On second thought, maybe the bunkers on one, fairway right and green side left.) Most bunkers out there aren't badly placed, but removing them generally alters very little about the strategic options.
-
Few are familiar with ANGC outside Masters week. The greens are still fast and tough to put, but approaches hold. Further, few are familiar with Member tees. Fairways are wide and the first cut is very playable. The course is really fair for the average golfer.
I don't doubt a word that you wrote.
But how the members tees play outside Masters Week has had an infinitesimal influence on golf in America, while the effect of Masters Week on television has been profound and farreaching.
I would generally agree. It's a shame that the lesson so widely "learned" is that "green is good," and not anything about the quality firmness adds.
-
Come on, Mike. This is supposed to be a website devoted to frank discussion of golf course architecture. If the discussion here ruins your viewing experience, maybe you (and others) should tune it out for a few weeks.
Or maybe Ran should consider branching out into a less critical, "teen" version of the site. A place where those with nothing but love in their hearts could meet in a "frictionless environment" and post pictures of their latest crushes. No criticism or frank commentary allowed. Just pretty pictures and banal discussions about which member of One Direction is cutest. And no meanies allowed.
One more thought - I think Jones' description of the original course does the present version a tremendous disservice. I don't think it was ever a geniune homage to The Old Course or links golf in general.
Now this is more like it! Here you are telling us that, when it comes to ANGC, you know better than Bobby Jones and Dr. Mac. I knew you could be just as critical and cynical as the rest of us.
-
Few are familiar with ANGC outside Masters week. The greens are still fast and tough to put, but approaches hold. Further, few are familiar with Member tees. Fairways are wide and the first cut is very playable. The course is really fair for the average golfer.
I don't doubt a word that you wrote.
But how the members tees play outside Masters Week has had an infinitesimal influence on golf in America, while the effect of Masters Week on television has been profound and farreaching.
It does. So we should add a warning to the Masters telecast: "don't try this at home". Some are critiquing ANGC because it is unplayable for the average amateur, and that is certainly not true. The course is fantastic for members and it's guests fromOctober to April while it remains open, and that requires the overseeding. We should not try to copy ANGC. And we should not judge it on the basis of Masters tees, and ultra firm greens which is 1 week a year.
I have played probably 25 courses in the US. ANGC was one of the 2 fairest, one of the 2 most fun, and save for the really tough putting probably one of the most easy to score.
-
Few are familiar with ANGC outside Masters week. The greens are still fast and tough to put, but approaches hold. Further, few are familiar with Member tees. Fairways are wide and the first cut is very playable. The course is really fair for the average golfer.
I don't doubt a word that you wrote.
But how the members tees play outside Masters Week has had an infinitesimal influence on golf in America, while the effect of Masters Week on television has been profound and farreaching.
It does. So we should add a warning to the Masters telecast: "don't try this at home". Some are critiquing ANGC because it is unplayable for the average amateur, and that is certainly not true. The course is fantastic for members and it's guests fromOctober to April while it remains open, and that requires the overseeding. We should not try to copy ANGC. And we should not judge it on the basis of Masters tees, and ultra firm greens which is 1 week a year.
I have played probably 25 courses in the US. ANGC was one of the 2 fairest, one of the 2 most fun, and save for the really tough putting probably one of the most easy to score.
That's one hell of a provision ... ;)
-
Few are familiar with ANGC outside Masters week. The greens are still fast and tough to put, but approaches hold. Further, few are familiar with Member tees. Fairways are wide and the first cut is very playable. The course is really fair for the average golfer.
I don't doubt a word that you wrote.
But how the members tees play outside Masters Week has had an infinitesimal influence on golf in America, while the effect of Masters Week on television has been profound and farreaching.
It does. So we should add a warning to the Masters telecast: "don't try this at home". Some are critiquing ANGC because it is unplayable for the average amateur, and that is certainly not true. The course is fantastic for members and it's guests fromOctober to April while it remains open, and that requires the overseeding. We should not try to copy ANGC. And we should not judge it on the basis of Masters tees, and ultra firm greens which is 1 week a year.
I have played probably 25 courses in the US. ANGC was one of the 2 fairest, one of the 2 most fun, and save for the really tough putting probably one of the most easy to score.
That's one hell of a provision ... ;)
The putting? It is, but members know the greens and putt on them much better than guests, therefore scoring well.
-
And we should not judge it on the basis of Masters tees, and ultra firm greens which is 1 week a year.
Why not? That "one week a year" is the only ANGC that 99.9999% of golfers know anything about. So why not discuss it on those terms?
I believe everything you say about how the course plays for members, and agree that it sounds like a treat. I've no doubt I'd love it. But almost every only sees it for the one week a year, and that is the course that has all the influence. Perhaps there is something to be learned about gca by comparing and contrasting our annual snapshots of the course over time.
Your "warning" is great idea, but it isn't going to happen. And even if it did, it would be ignored.
-
And we should not judge it on the basis of Masters tees, and ultra firm greens which is 1 week a year.
Why not? That "one week a year" is the only ANGC that 99.9999% of golfers know anything about. So why not discuss it on those terms?
I believe everything you say about how the course plays for members, and agree that it sounds like a treat. I've no doubt I'd love it. But almost every only sees it for the one week a year, and that is the course that has all the influence. Perhaps there is something to be learned about gca by comparing and contrasting our annual snapshots of the course over time.
Your "warning" is great idea, but it isn't going to happen. And even if it did, it would be ignored.
I am just saying we should not talk about unfair design or talk changing the design because amateurs can't play the course, as some we're saying. because they are playing the course fine, except for putting on the greens. And my guess is nobody wants those greens flattened.
Now, as for critiquing course from Masters tees... It is fair game.
-
...
One more thought - I think Jones' description of the original course does the present version a tremendous disservice. I don't think it was ever a geniune homage to The Old Course or links golf in general.
...
...
I don't know much about golf architecture, ...
Well, at least you got one thing right. ;D
-
MClutterbuck,
I don't recall anyone saying amateurs can't play Augusta. Any criticism of the course from an amateur's perspective has always been highly selective, that is focusing on a very limited number of shots.
-
'' And we should not judge it on the basis of Masters tees, and ultra firm greens which is 1 week a year. ''
I recall Mr Palmer saying he wished Augusta would go back to Bermuda for the greens used to be much firmer!
-
Are there any intermediate tees now that the back is stretched so far that there must be a 1000 yard difference. Every person I know who has played it either played the front or the back and no one has ever said they played the in between.
-
Gentlemen,
Sven suggests, and it is what I have read over the years, that
"It is a course originally designed with the Scottish links-style game in mind that has been altered over the years to keep pace."
and Mike Hendren writes
"I don't think it was ever a geniune homage to The Old Course or links golf in general."
My question is what were the specific ideas in regards to St. Andrews that Bobby Jones and Clifford Roberts, using Mackenzie, were trying to emulate? Was it options via width of fairways? Was it free running fairways? Was it reward through precise placement of golf shots? Was it perplexing greens? A mixture of all of these things? Some aspects beyond my ken?
If that is the case are these initial approaches being adhered to or have some of these aspects become redundant or overly emphasised over the years?
The original land and landscape does not seem to me to be ideal as a parcel to "mimic" linksland. Was there ever quotes from players of renown suggesting that it harked back to such?
Cheers Colin
-
Colin,
Template holes.
Mark
-
Are there any intermediate tees now that the back is stretched so far that there must be a 1000 yard difference. Every person I know who has played it either played the front or the back and no one has ever said they played the in between.
No intermediate or shorter tees exist. Just Masters and Member tees1070 yard difference in 15 holes with 3, 6 and 12 being essentially the same tee.
-
And we should not judge it on the basis of Masters tees, and ultra firm greens which is 1 week a year.
Why not? That "one week a year" is the only ANGC that 99.9999% of golfers know anything about. So why not discuss it on those terms?
I believe everything you say about how the course plays for members, and agree that it sounds like a treat. I've no doubt I'd love it. But almost every only sees it for the one week a year, and that is the course that has all the influence. Perhaps there is something to be learned about gca by comparing and contrasting our annual snapshots of the course over time.
Your "warning" is great idea, but it isn't going to happen. And even if it did, it would be ignored.
I find it interesting that you and all the others blame the influencer and not the influenced.
-
Colin writes:
"The original land and landscape does not seem to me to be ideal as a parcel to "mimic" linksland. Was there ever quotes from players of renown suggesting that it harked back to such?"
If Bobby Jones counts as a "player of renown", I suggest you read virtually anything he wrote about ANGC. Time and again he and MacK make it abundantly clear that the models for holes at ANGC came from TOC and other famous links courses.
I have no idea why anyone would be confused about that.
Bob
-
I find it interesting that you and all the others blame the influencer and not the influenced.
The same thought occurred to me in Mike Young's "marketing has ruined GCA" (loose quote) thread. Of course, I don't pull a Coors Light off the shelf because all of a sudden I'm going to be transported to Siberia to party with a bunch of Russian models.
-
The band Haim claims to be influenced by Kendrick Lamar. I didn't know who they were, but I heard that quote and also heard that they had a song called "The Wire," so I figured I should check them out. It turned out to be incredibly infectious, but not at all a gritty rap about the drug trade that harkened to K-Dot and the Barksdale Clan that I was expecting.
I suspect anyone who showed up at Augusta National on the first day and expecting to see a links-inspired homage to The Old Course felt about the same way I did. Artists say lots of ridiculous things about who or what influenced them. No one would ever have put "Augusta National" and "links" in the same sentence if Jones and Mackenzie hadn't done it first.
-
Colin writes:
"The original land and landscape does not seem to me to be ideal as a parcel to "mimic" linksland. Was there ever quotes from players of renown suggesting that it harked back to such?"
If Bobby Jones counts as a "player of renown", I suggest you read virtually anything he wrote about ANGC. Time and again he and MacK make it abundantly clear that the models for holes at ANGC came from TOC and other famous links courses.
I have no idea why anyone would be confused about that.
Bob
But Bob, is that what they put on the ground? I think the terms "models" and "templates" are a stretch. "Inspiration," yes, but models and templates?
Also, even oft-posted black and white photograph looking toward the clubhouse with the 15th in the foreground shows tree plantings early on.
Hence my confusion.
Bogey
-
Jason,
Have you read what Jones, Mackenzie, or contemporaries such as Grantland Rice actually wrote about the course when it opened? I get the impression you are arguing simply for the sake of argument, choosing not to encumber yourself with facts.
-
Jason,
Have you read what Jones, Mackenzie, or contemporaries such as Grantland Rice actually wrote about the course when it opened? I get the impression you are arguing simply for the sake of argument, choosing not to encumber yourself with facts.
Mark, perhaps they were in cahoots?
As for facts, look no further than the original 7th green and explain to me how that "models" (to use Ron Whitten's term) the home hole at The Old Course. I'll even spot you disregarding OB right.
Bogey
-
I find it interesting that you and all the others blame the influencer and not the influenced.
What are you talking about? I didn't "blame" anyone. Did you even read my post?
-
I find it interesting that you and all the others blame the influencer and not the influenced.
The same thought occurred to me in Mike Young's "marketing has ruined GCA" (loose quote) thread. Of course, I don't pull a Coors Light off the shelf because all of a sudden I'm going to be transported to Siberia to party with a bunch of Russian models.
Of course not, you do that right there in Texas.
-
Mark, as I said, I don't trust that an artist's influences will show up clearly in his work, and I believe Jones and Mackenzie saw the influence of links courses where no one else would. Grantland Rice was Augusta's most noted propagandist during its early years and was prone to making wildly inaccurate claims about the course (he overestimated the attendance of Augusta National's first Masters by the heretofore only-seen-on-Maury-Povich 2000%, for instance).
You told Colin that Augusta used template holes. Can you explain six holes at Augusta, how they fulfilled the requirements of a template hole when the course opened, and offer their counterparts from The Old Course or other noted links courses? I'm open to the idea. I just don't see it myself and need someone to explain it with some specific examples.
-
No doubt Mike's tongue is firmly in cheek, but the rest of this effort to rewrite the history of ANGC is rather bizarre. Do we really love the tournament so much that we are willing to discard the history and the architectural intentions of the place just so we don't have to think a critical thought of the current tournament course?
Seems to be a trend around here.
-
Colin writes:
"The original land and landscape does not seem to me to be ideal as a parcel to "mimic" linksland. Was there ever quotes from players of renown suggesting that it harked back to such?"
If Bobby Jones counts as a "player of renown", I suggest you read virtually anything he wrote about ANGC. Time and again he and MacK make it abundantly clear that the models for holes at ANGC came from TOC and other famous links courses.
I have no idea why anyone would be confused about that.
Bob
But Bob, is that what they put on the ground?
Bogey
Jones and MacK certainly thought so.
Not that my opinon matters in the grand scheme, but I think they had every right to think they had pulled it off. MacK circa 1935 didn't just use the links templates he said he used. He used them in remarkably original ways. To borrow an expression from the '60's, he built templates on acid. Something few architects had the imagination to pull off. Even more rare, he had a boss who allowed him to do it.
To dismiss all that is to miss what made ANGC so special then and why it is less special today.
ANGC is nonetheless still a wonderful course. But I weary of those who insist that after all the changes it has gone through, nothing is really different.
Bob
-
Mark, as I said, I don't trust that an artist's influences will show up clearly in his work, and I believe Jones and Mackenzie saw the influence of links courses where no one else would. Grantland Rice was Augusta's most noted propagandist during its early years and was prone to making wildly inaccurate claims about the course (he overestimated the attendance of Augusta National's first Masters by the heretofore only-seen-on-Maury-Povich 2000%, for instance).
You told Colin that Augusta used template holes. Can you explain six holes at Augusta, how they fulfilled the requirements of a template hole when the course opened, and offer their counterparts from The Old Course or other noted links courses? I'm open to the idea. I just don't see it myself and need someone to explain it with some specific examples.
Jason,
I will agree with you that artists can see things others can't. If you look at the Road Hole Tom Doak built at Cape Kidnappers, you will see a classic example. It's brilliant and seems so obvious after it has been built, but I would hardly claim I would have come up with the idea at that site.
-
Bob and David, we're not far from agreement. I just think intent and influence are more descriptive. Model and template are a stretch and perhaps mask the nuanced genius of The Good Doctor and the original Sir Bob.
I do think my primary issue is the wholesale invocation of this intent and influence to detract from the great golf course that exists today.
Cheers.
Boges
-
I was going to say that it would be interesting to know/read what the early Masters participants thought about how well Jones and Mackenzie had realized their intentions; but then it struck me that perhaps very few of those golfers had ever actually been to St. Andrews (I can think of Tommy Armour and Gene Sarazen as exceptions - were there many more?), and fewer still would have understood and appreciated The Old Course as much as Dr Mac (first) and Bobby Jones (second).
Peter
-
Bob and David, we're not far from agreement. I just think intent and influence are more descriptive. Model and template are a stretch and perhaps mask the nuanced genius of The Good Doctor and the original Sir Bob.
I do think my primary issue is the wholesale invocation of this intent and influence to detract from the great golf course that exists today.
Cheers.
Boges
Bogey:
And now we're back to my point, which is just because we like to discuss the history and the changes and the reasons for those changes, that doesn't necessarily mean we are detracting from what the course is today.
But it seems that others read it that way. My guess this has more to do with the sensitivities and/or perceptions of the readers, and not the intentions of the writers.
Sven
-
Peter -
A number of early Masters participants would have played TOC. Most of the better pros and amateurs traveled to Britain for Ryder Cup and Walker Cup matches. Most of them used the free boat ticket to tour Britain playing golf either on their own or in exhibitions. TOC would have been a stop. Many used the trip to play in the Open and the British Am.
The 1926 Walker Cup was played at TOC, for example. (It's my guess that Jones first got to know MacK there.) So when MacK talked about the 4th at ANGC as being based on the Eden hole, the 5th on the Road, the 6th on the Redan, the 7th on the 18th at TOC, and so forth, the references would have been familiar.
Bob
-
Thanks, Bob - I simply didn't know that. And that means that Jones and Mac, in expressing their intentions is such detail, knew that there'd be many golfers there in the early years who'd know if they'd succeed or not.
PS Thanks for the IM, abnd for the good humour; I was about to write to say that even life-long Torontonians like me have to strain to remember a longer and greyer and colder winter.
Peter
-
Bob, with respect to "intent" what do you make of the relatively quick and dramatic changes made by Maxwell under Jones' stewardship? Do those changes, coupled with the pine sapplings visible in most early photographs in any way reflect a disagreement with or disappointment over Mackenzie's original design?
Bogey
-
Mark, perhaps they were in cahoots?
As for facts, look no further than the original 7th green and explain to me how that "models" (to use Ron Whitten's term) the home hole at The Old Course. I'll even spot you disregarding OB right.
Bogey
I'll take a stab, not just of the green but the entire hole. That is what Mackenzie said inspired #7.
Both holes were of similar length. Both had pretty wide open tee shots. Both had zero bunkers. Both had trenches running in front, that encouraged similar approach shots.
So: length on each, similar. Drive on each, similar. Approach on each, similar. No bunkers, similar. Valley of Sin type trench guarding each, similar.
That's a fair amount of similarities between two holes.
Mackenzie was real clear that he was not trying to copy any holes. He saw that as a recipe for failure. I also haven't seen him claim he was building a links course. He said he employed the basic principles of some of the best holes in the world, where they fit ANGC's site.
-
And we should not judge it on the basis of Masters tees, and ultra firm greens which is 1 week a year.
Why not? That "one week a year" is the only ANGC that 99.9999% of golfers know anything about. So why not discuss it on those terms?
I believe everything you say about how the course plays for members, and agree that it sounds like a treat. I've no doubt I'd love it. But almost every only sees it for the one week a year, and that is the course that has all the influence. Perhaps there is something to be learned about gca by comparing and contrasting our annual snapshots of the course over time.
Your "warning" is great idea, but it isn't going to happen. And even if it did, it would be ignored.
I find it interesting that you and all the others blame the influencer and not the influenced.
JC,
It is not abpout placing "blame" on ANGC. Rather, it is about understanding what happens to a golf course over time and why. I know for a fact that my club in northern New Jersey planted about one thousand white pines and spruces in the late 60's and early 70's and our club leaders thought they were doing a great thing. Of course these guys get the "blame" because they planted the trees. They created "separation between holes" and "more demanding shots" and thought they were doing a great thing. They boasted "just like Augusta" and who could argue with that?
-
Bob, with respect to "intent" what do you make of the relatively quick and dramatic changes made by Maxwell under Jones' stewardship? Do those changes, coupled with the pine sapplings visible in most early photographs in any way reflect a disagreement with or disappointment over Mackenzie's original design?
Maxwell's major changes were to the 7th and the 10th.
The 7th: Horton Smith and others complained that it was drivable. Stan Byrdy believes the green (in a slight bowl) also had drainage problems. So the green was moved about 20 yards back and slightly higher up the hill it is on now.
The 10th: Much the same story. Pros thought it was too short with the green adjacent to the surviving big bunker in the fairway. The orignal green also had drainage issues, so it was moved back 50 or so yards to its present location.
ANGC was one of the few courses MacK designed in clay. If he made a mistake at ANGC, it was that he didn't fully appreciate the speical problems clay-based golf courses present.
I am not a fan of Maxwell's changes. The original 7th and 10th would be more fun for amateurs. But I get why Jones thought the holes needed to be changed. Partly for drainage reasons, partly for Masters competition reasons.
Bob
-
Bob, do you think the original 7th at ANGC was easier than #18 at TOC? The complaint you mention -- that the original 7th was drivable -- was true then of #18 at TOC.
If Augusta's version was as hard, I wonder why that was ok at St. Andrews, but not Mac's course that was attempting to follow the same general principles?
-
Just fyi, here's a sharp-as-a-tack Gene Sarazen at 94 years old, thinking back to when he first played Agusta-The Masters.
"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".
Peter
-
Jim -
I'd guess it's down to two different mindsets. Until Peter Dawson last year, TOC didn't care much about how it held up against the best professionals. (Dawson changed all that. TOC's unique historic status no longer weighs in the balance.)
ANGC, to assure its survival in the 1930's, worried about how Masters participants saw the course. It matterred when players thought some holes were too easy. It could affect the reputation of the Masters, the club's financial lifeline. Combine that with chronic drainage headaches on 7 and 10 ....
As much as I regret those changes, it should be noted that Jones picked Maxwell on the basis of his prior association with MacK. So Jones was at least trying to maintain the architectural bloodlines of the course.
Bob
Bob
-
Thanks, Bob - I simply didn't know that. And that means that Jones and Mac, in expressing their intentions is such detail, knew that there'd be many golfers there in the early years who'd know if they'd succeed or not.
PS Thanks for the IM, abnd for the good humour; I was about to write to say that even life-long Torontonians like me have to strain to remember a longer and greyer and colder winter.
Peter
I would love to have a drink with Bob Crosby and Peter Pallotta some time. I figure I would be about twenty minutes behind ten minutes into the conversation.
-
Thanks, Bob - I simply didn't know that. And that means that Jones and Mac, in expressing their intentions is such detail, knew that there'd be many golfers there in the early years who'd know if they'd succeed or not.
PS Thanks for the IM, abnd for the good humour; I was about to write to say that even life-long Torontonians like me have to strain to remember a longer and greyer and colder winter.
Peter
I would love to have a drink with Bob Crosby and Peter Pallotta some time. I figure I would be about twenty minutes behind ten minutes into the conversation.
How about if you abstained from the drink and let those two guys have more? Would that level the field?
You'd be fine, Bill. You'd probably have to find a way to out-polite them though.
Joe
-
Regardless of how much any of you drink...count me in for a back seat and a smile...
-
Peter -
A number of early Masters participants would have played TOC. Most of the better pros and amateurs traveled to Britain for Ryder Cup and Walker Cup matches. Most of them used the free boat ticket to tour Britain playing golf either on their own or in exhibitions. TOC would have been a stop. Many used the trip to play in the Open and the British Am.
The 1926 Walker Cup was played at TOC, for example. (It's my guess that Jones first got to know MacK there.) So when MacK talked about the 4th at ANGC as being based on the Eden hole, the 5th on the Road, the 6th on the Redan, the 7th on the 18th at TOC, and so forth, the references would have been familiar.
Bob
Bob
I am thinking this is still a small percentage of pros on the "circuit". I reckon pros back then were like pros today. They play golf for money and pay very little attention to history and design. The viewpoints we get in mags then and now is from a small percentage of pros.
Ciao
-
Thanks, Bob - I simply didn't know that. And that means that Jones and Mac, in expressing their intentions is such detail, knew that there'd be many golfers there in the early years who'd know if they'd succeed or not.
PS Thanks for the IM, abnd for the good humour; I was about to write to say that even life-long Torontonians like me have to strain to remember a longer and greyer and colder winter.
Peter
I would love to have a drink with Bob Crosby and Peter Pallotta some time. I figure I would be about twenty minutes behind ten minutes into the conversation.
How about if you abstained from the drink and let those two guys have more? Would that level the field?
You'd be fine, Bill. You'd probably have to find a way to out-polite them though.
Joe
Abstain? You talking to me? Not likely! ;D
-
Jim -
I'd guess it's down to two different mindsets. Until Peter Dawson last year, TOC didn't care much about how it held up against the best professionals. (Dawson changed all that. TOC's unique historic status no longer weighs in the balance.)
ANGC, to assure its survival in the 1930's, worried about how Masters participants saw the course. It matterred when players thought some holes were too easy. It could affect the reputation of the Masters, the club's financial lifeline. Combine that with chronic drainage headaches on 7 and 10 ....
As much as I regret those changes, it should be noted that Jones picked Maxwell on the basis of his prior association with MacK. So Jones was at least trying to maintain the architectural bloodlines of the course.
Bob
Bob
Bob
Who exactly is TOC ? If you are referring to the R&A then I think it a fallacy that they were unconcerned about how the course played to the top am's and pro's and wrong also to say they never did anything about it.
As an aside I'd also suggest that MacK did his fair share of work in clay.
Niall
-
Niall -
I was using 'TOC' as shorthand for the R&A and/or The Links Trust (depending on the era). I think my meaning was reasonably clear.
To retrace an old argument, Dawson (without public comment or consultation) is now vested with the authority to "improve" TOC. He is confident that he best knows how to do that. The first phase of his changes will be completed over the next several years. There's no reason to think he won't make more changes thereafter. Given the unique position TOC holds in the history of golf and golf architecture, his presumption gives new depth and breadth to the word.
As for concerns about the pros, other than extending some tees, what changes were made to TOC from, say, 1905 through 2012 in response to their game?
Bob
-
I am thinking this is still a small percentage of pros on the "circuit". I reckon pros back then were like pros today. They play golf for money and pay very little attention to history and design. The viewpoints we get in mags then and now is from a small percentage of pros.
Ciao
"They play golf for money and pay very little attention to history and design."
A former European Ryder Cup player is supposed to have once said something akin to "I don't give a ........... about course architecture and all that stuff. I play for money, and if the money's right, I'll play on an airport runway".
atb
-
Niall and Bob,
I don't know the history of all the changes at TOC, but I am always surprised about much criticism by top golfers there was about certain famous holes, particularly the Eden hole and the Road Hole. To me it is impressive that in the face of this criticism that the holes managed to keep their character (although there were probably some changes along the way.) Perhaps this is a because TOC (whatever that means) didn't care about the opinions of top players, or perhaps it was because there criticisms were countered by the many other top figures who love the holes the way they were.
Niall, Maybe this is the wrong thread, but I am curious as to the examples of MacKenzie working in clay?
-
Niall and Bob,
I don't know the history of all the changes at TOC, but I am always surprised about much criticism by top golfers there was about certain famous holes, particularly the Eden hole and the Road Hole. To me it is impressive that in the face of this criticism that the holes managed to keep their character (although there were probably some changes along the way.) Perhaps this is a because TOC (whatever that means) didn't care about the opinions of top players, or perhaps it was because there criticisms were countered by the many other top figures who love the holes the way they were.
Huh, I just posted a question relating to this thought over on the "controversy" thread -- a little synchronicity on a Thursday night.
-
David writes:
"To me it is impressive that in the face of this criticism that the holes managed to keep their character (although there were probably some changes along the way.) Perhaps this is a because TOC (whatever that means) didn't care about the opinions of top players, or perhaps it was because there criticisms were countered by the many other top figures who love the holes the way they were."
Your observation is one that goes to an important turning point in the history of golf architecture, I think.
Circa 1900 Vardon, Taylor, Hilton, Garden Smith, Hutchinson and others criticized those holes, mostly on the grounds that they lacked cross bunkers ("... you could play Eden Hole with a putter..."), and on the grounds that there was inadequate room to hold the green after you carried what was, in effect a cross bunker (the Road Hole bunker). That is, even with a well struck approach hit over the Road Hole bunker wouldn't hold the green, ergo the 17th was "unfair". Taylor lost an Open when that happened to him in the final round. He ended by doubling the hole. He never forgot it.
There were lots of critics circa 1900 who marked down not just those holes, but the TOC more broadly for its paucity of good cross hazards. In that regard, Sandwich was thought to be a better model and generally preferred by those same critics.
Opposing such ideas were John Low, Herb Fowler and other R&A members (I suspect, but without clear evidence, the Colt was involved. He was Low's classmate from Cambridge days and a friend.) who had very different ideas about how hazards ought to function. They liked the how the old hazards on TOC affected play. Better yet, they were in a position to preserve them and that's just what they did.
At different points over the first years of the 20th century, Low and Fowler served on the R&A Green Committee. They, Colt, Alison, Hutchings, Hutchinson, Hall Blyth and others involved in golf design also served on the powerful R&A Committee on the Rules. Low was the most prominent voice on both committees. He pushed back against the kinds of criticisms noted above. Thank goodness.
Low and Fowler did add about 13 bunkers to TOC from about 1899 to 1904, most at the sides of holes 2 through 7. (The why and wherefore of those new bunkers is a longer, interesting story.) They were not the kind of bunkers that Taylor, Hilton et al. wanted to see added. For that reason they created a firestorm when built. The arguments they triggered gave rise, I think, to some of the earliest articulations of the basics of strategic golf architecture. Low was at the center of that back and forth. A remarkable moment.
All of which is just one of many reasons why it is important to retain as much of the historic character of TOC as possible. And why trying to "improve" it now, more than a century on, is so frightening.
Bob
-
Bob, Recently I went back and reread the influential "Best Golf Holes" articles from Golf Illustrated, where some of these ideas were being hashed out, albeit sometimes indirectly. It was certainly an interesting period in the development of gca.com. One aspect I find fascinating is that the discussion actually started out as a 'Most Difficult Golf Holes' discussion, but quickly morphed into a best holes debate. In some ways the tension between to two sides was even present in the way they framed the debate.
It is difficult to imagine today that many high profile courses would have the wherewithal to sustain the criticisms of the modern day equivalents of Taylor, Hilton, et al. and I wonder if in some ways that is because of the change in relative golfing prowess between the top golfers and the club golfers. What I mean is that, while some were obviously more accomplished, back then it seems like they were all playing the same game, on the same course, and often with each other. Whereas today the top golfers seem to occupy a different world ability wise. They are so superior as players that their perceived perspective seems to carry more weight when it comes to courses like ANGC and, unfortunately, TOC. Who is the modern equivalent of a Low who can stand up to the real or perceived pressures the modern professional game puts on these courses? There doesn't seem to be anyone who is up to the task.
-
Bob
You are correct, the changes to TOC is an old discussion and perhaps belongs on another thread so as not to sidetrack this one but it's hard to not respond to the all out attack on Dawson and the R&A regarding the changes. To characterise Dawson as having sole say on any changes is to totally mis-state the position.
With regards to doctoring championship courses, the main changes to most courses prior to Open's was to put in bunkers and put back tees. I take your point that after the Low changes there was perhaps limited work by way of new bunkers ( I hesitate to say none because I suspect that there may have been a few more added and some taken out after that date - time to reread Scott MacPherson's book) however there was plenty of discussion about it and reworking of existing bunkers as well as the new tees that were put in to show that there wasn't a no touching policy.
David
My suggestion that MacK had considerable experience of building on clay was based on the abundance of that type of soil in this country and the number of courses built on clay. Certainly MacK wrote about it in some of his articles and I think off the top of the head that he also wrote about it in Spirit of St Andrews.
In terms of actual examples, in Scotland you have Pitreave and Pollock and Erskine which are both redesigns.
Niall
-
Niall, if not Dawson, then who is responsible for the decision to make the changes? Can you provide some further insight as to how the process works?
As for whether the was or wasn't a "no touching policy," the Eden green itself has always been controversial. When was the last time it was modified before recently?
Thanks for the info on MacK and clay courses.
-
David
With regards to TOC and the management of it, I have no inside track and only know what I learned from going on the Links Trust website and from reading their Annual Reports that outlined the management structure. From what I recall the Committee dealing with the course management was made up of 7 members of which 2, perhaps more, were from R&A Greens Committee or whatever they call it. At the time when the TOC threads were going about I think I suggested that perhaps Dawson wasn't even one of those R&A reps on the Committee but I think I read since that he is definitely on the Committee.
The point however is that there is a clear management structure that decides these things and the suggestion that Dawson, or even the R&A dictate what happens or that changes are made on a whim just doesn't bear scrutiny.
I appreciate that Bob and others believe that TOC shouldn't be touched under any circumstances and I respect that, I don't agree with it, but I respect their view. What I think is wrong, and does them no favours, is personalising the issue and pretending its a dictatorship.
As an aside, I've never met Dawson but know those who have and have dealt with him in a professional capacity and they tell me he is a very effective manager/administrator who I suspect has got a strong influence in the direction of travel of the R&A. That said, given the calibre of people on the various committees in the R&A I doubt they are going to be dictated to, but thats just my take on it.
Niall
-
Thanks Niall, I don't know if the personalization of the discussion is appropriate and accurate or not, but I just assumed when Bob or someone is talking about Dawson it is a shorthand way of referring to the decision making process there, whether he is actually calling the shots or not. Sometimes with committees one person is really calling the shots (CBM at NGLA is a possible example) and sometimes not. It is hard to tell from the outside.
As to my second questiont, are you aware of any major (or minor) alterations to the contours of the Eden green before these. If so, when were they?
-
The fact that Augusta National gave us perhaps one of the coolest pictures in golf is reason enough to love it. It's Christmas in April starting next week.
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d181/kimballa/ANGC/smokin.jpg) (http://s35.photobucket.com/user/kimballa/media/ANGC/smokin.jpg.html)
-
...Opposing such ideas were John Low, Herb Fowler and other R&A members (I suspect, but without clear evidence, the Colt was involved. He was Low's classmate from Cambridge days and a friend.) who had very different ideas about how hazards ought to function. They liked the how the old hazards on TOC affected play. Better yet, they were in a position to preserve them and that's just what they did.
At different points over the first years of the 20th century, Low and Fowler served on the R&A Green Committee. They, Colt, Alison, Hutchings, Hutchinson, Hall Blyth and others involved in golf design also served on the powerful R&A Committee on the Rules. Low was the most prominent voice on both committees. He pushed back against the kinds of criticisms noted above. Thank goodness.
Low and Fowler did add about 13 bunkers to TOC from about 1899 to 1904, most at the sides of holes 2 through 7. (The why and wherefore of those new bunkers is a longer, interesting story.) They were not the kind of bunkers that Taylor, Hilton et al. wanted to see added. For that reason they created a firestorm when built. The arguments they triggered gave rise, I think, to some of the earliest articulations of the basics of strategic golf architecture. Low was at the center of that back and forth. A remarkable moment...
Bob
Bob,
I have recently been researching more on James Braid (a life's work) and also coincidentally digging into Augusta's design and connection to TOC, hence looking at these old posts
(BTW, Bobby Jones invited James Braid to play in the 1938 Masters, but of course Braid's well published sea-sickness precluded that).
I found the following, which you may already be aware of, but perhaps may be of interest to the wider group?
Regarding the new bunkering on TOC for the Open in 1905 signficant criticism came from several professionals (led by JH Taylor of course as "shop-steward") including;
Willie Anderson (2x US Open Champion)
“In my opinion they have ruined St Andrews…it is only possible to ‘shoot’ on the line on two of the eighteen holes…a drive a few yards off the intended line being penalised a deal worse than a bad pull or slice”
&
Alex Smith (Carnoustie born but US resident)
“Bunkers have been added in bunches recently, all in the line of the cups.”
One notable quiet/absent voice ahead of the Championship was James Braid, who IMHO was the facilitator or "Bridge" between the Penal group ("Professionals" & Hilton) and the Strategic group (Low et al.)
Braid was of course crowned Champion Golfer that year and after receiving the trophy in front of the R&A he was asked about the changes to the course, he replied
“In my opinion the new bunkers put in greatly improved the course, and the only fault with them is being too small.
You certainly have to use more thought than before as to the direction of your drive,
but this is surely as it should be on a course when playing for a championship"
Thus it is clear that Braid was both wholly understanding of strategic principles in design and embraced these changes as being appropriate.
He clearly explained his belief in these in "Advanced Golf" (1908)
This of course is interesting as he has by some been mistaken for being in the penal school (by dint of being a Professional) that is not so.
He did like a penal individual hazard (or many) but he placed these, strategically.
Subsequently he went on to successfully remodel Prestwick, Royal Cinque Ports (Deal), Troon (then Old now Royal) and Carnoustie for subsequent Opens. He was the original "Open Doctor".
Cheers
-
...Opposing such ideas were John Low, Herb Fowler and other R&A members (I suspect, but without clear evidence, the Colt was involved. He was Low's classmate from Cambridge days and a friend.) who had very different ideas about how hazards ought to function. They liked the how the old hazards on TOC affected play. Better yet, they were in a position to preserve them and that's just what they did.
At different points over the first years of the 20th century, Low and Fowler served on the R&A Green Committee. They, Colt, Alison, Hutchings, Hutchinson, Hall Blyth and others involved in golf design also served on the powerful R&A Committee on the Rules. Low was the most prominent voice on both committees. He pushed back against the kinds of criticisms noted above. Thank goodness.
Low and Fowler did add about 13 bunkers to TOC from about 1899 to 1904, most at the sides of holes 2 through 7. (The why and wherefore of those new bunkers is a longer, interesting story.) They were not the kind of bunkers that Taylor, Hilton et al. wanted to see added. For that reason they created a firestorm when built. The arguments they triggered gave rise, I think, to some of the earliest articulations of the basics of strategic golf architecture. Low was at the center of that back and forth. A remarkable moment...
Bob
Bob,
I have recently been researching more on James Braid (a life's work) and also coincidentally digging into Augusta's design and connection to TOC, hence looking at these old posts
(BTW, Bobby Jones invited James Braid to play in the 1938 Masters, but of course Braid's well published sea-sickness precluded that).
I found the following, which you may already be aware of, but perhaps may be of interest to the wider group?
Regarding the new bunkering on TOC for the Open in 1905 signficant criticism came from several professionals (led by JH Taylor of course as "shop-steward") including;
Willie Anderson (2x US Open Champion)
“In my opinion they have ruined St Andrews…it is only possible to ‘shoot’ on the line on two of the eighteen holes…a drive a few yards off the intended line being penalised a deal worse than a bad pull or slice”
&
Alex Smith (Carnoustie born but US resident)
“Bunkers have been added in bunches recently, all in the line of the cups.”
One notable quiet/absent voice ahead of the Championship was James Braid, who IMHO was the facilitator or "Bridge" between the Penal group ("Professionals" & Hilton) and the Strategic group (Low et al.)
Braid was of course crowned Champion Golfer that year and after receiving the trophy in front of the R&A he was asked about the changes to the course, he replied
“In my opinion the new bunkers put in greatly improved the course, and the only fault with them is being too small.
You certainly have to use more thought than before as to the direction of your drive,
but this is surely as it should be on a course when playing for a championship"
Thus it is clear that Braid was both wholly understanding of strategic principles in design and embraced these changes as being appropriate.
He clearly explained his belief in these in "Advanced Golf" (1908)
This of course is interesting as he has by some been mistaken for being in the penal school (by dint of being a Professional) that is not so.
He did like a penal individual hazard (or many) but he placed these, strategically.
Subsequently he went on to successfully remodel Prestwick, Royal Cinque Ports (Deal), Troon (then Old now Royal) and Carnoustie for subsequent Opens. He was the original "Open Doctor".
Cheers
As opposed to more modern open malpracticers. ;D
Thanks for the info Simon.
-
I am not gonna bash Augusta National, BUT I would like to see them help out THE PATCH " a little".
-
I am not gonna bash Augusta National, BUT I would like to see them help out THE PATCH " a little".
Richard,
I played the storm-ravaged Augusta Municipal (aka The Patch) this past Christmas week and my understanding is that the course closed Jan 1 for work by Beau Welling and Tom Fazio, with funding through ANGC.
Hoping it turns out well and tracks to a successful completion.
-
I am not gonna bash Augusta National, BUT I would like to see them help out THE PATCH " a little".
As someone who grew up playing quite a bit of "competitive" golf at The Patch, I'm really saddened to see its demise.
While I can appreciate ANGC helping out, I wdo wonder what it will become.
No doubt many will praise the appearance of grass, but it had a lot of qualities so many of us travel far and wide for back before the city ran it to the ground because they couldn't stand the thought of the operator making a profit, then got lost in a series of ugly city political battles leading to turnover and underqualified management.
It provided low cost fun golf in firm fast conditions for many years.
They lost a couple of great/good holes in 15 and 18 to the new clubhouse and range, and the conditions, always rough and ready to begin with, deteriorated beyond plinko on the greens, though more recently they were a bit better.
Hopefully the market it served isn't priced out-there is no shortage of mid range golf available in the Augusta area. The Patch was low range but always fun to play.
Nearby Forest Hills, a Donald Ross classic where Bobby Jones won his 5th event of 1930 was lost to the world of inane design 20 or so years ago when they decided to make it tougher for their college tournament.
-
I am not gonna bash Augusta National, BUT I would like to see them help out THE PATCH " a little".
As someone who grew up playing quite a bit of "competitive" golf at The Patch, I'm really saddened to see its demise.
While I can appreciate ANGC helping out, I wdo wonder what it will become.
My question is does that clientele, the inner city Augusta residents want a Tom Fazio course jammed down their throat? Maybe the ANGC people are using the old Steve Jobs theory on why Apple never used focus groups, because the clients didn't know what they wanted. I have to believe that another architect would have been better suited then Fazio.
-
When did Augusta go to super quick greens? I’m assuming sophisticated agronomy techniques made it doable. Is this its gift or curse to golf?
-
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Fried Egg Instagram post showing how each hole has changed over the decades. It's very interesting to see how many of the design features we see on most Mackenzie courses have been removed by the many cooks that have stirred this pot over the years. I've had the good fortune to see the course on a few occasions from 1992 to 2022 and even over that time the change is remarkable. As has been said in this thread, courses change with time, for many reasons, and the course today is beautiful, dramatic, and a test for the best players. It resonates for all of us, especially those old enough to remember the black & white back 9 only days. Still, I wish the bunkers still had some Mackenzie left!
https://www.instagram.com/p/DIENpzRO32f/
-
When did Augusta go to super quick greens? I’m assuming sophisticated agronomy techniques made it doable. Is this its gift or curse to golf?
Post 1982.
They introduced Bent grass to the greens in 1981, but got it a little wrong (so much so that according to the Fried Egg they actually had to dye the greens green for TV to cover bare spots)
But in 1982 they got it right with a new "Super", Billy Fuller, who managed the grow in of the new surfaces...from there it has just got quicker & quicker...
To answer your question - a curse, for others, as they seek to keep up, but with neither the budget nor low levels of play that ANGC has...
"Keeping up with the (Bobby) Jones's" is a fools errand and speed has neutered many a green since...as slope gets removed due to excessive pace.
IMHO we have exceeded "The Sitwell Limit" (TM) - When speed overcomes topography & interest....not just at ANGC, but largely as result of their incredible agronomy, hard work and investment (which is far beyond the reach of others, yet they try in vain to match this unreachable level in any way they can...)
-
Simon
You've been involved with professional golf tournaments in the UK from what I recall. In your time doing that, how many courses had the green contours changed to facilitate faster green speeds ?
Niall
-
Simon
You've been involved with professional golf tournaments in the UK from what I recall. In your time doing that, how many courses had the green contours changed to facilitate faster green speeds ?
Niall
Hardly any, as the Clubs generally acquiesced to the suggestion of the Tournament Director (and/or Agronomist) of slowing the speed down (or more correctly not speeding it up too much) if it got to that limit.
Primarily, as their budget didn't stretch to rebuilding greens. The issue was less prevalent as speeds were not as fast as today, but already on their way there.
There are more numerous examples in the US of greens being reconstructed with less slope, I don't think that is in doubt. Budgets are far larger for "renovations" stateside.
I hope I don't speak incorrectly or out-of-turn (with apologies to both the Club & Jim Urbina if I am incorrect) but even Pasatiempo has softened slopes in some areas (or had to provide controlling slopes) to accommodate modern green speeds.
For me that is a shame, and something that started at Sitwell Park many many years ago...hence my conjecture of "The Sitwell Limit" (TM)
In my time of being involved with running events I never lost a day to rain, but I did once have to call a tournament a day short for "unplayable" greens due to the combination of slope, speed and wind (which had shifted unexpectedly).
That was on a links course, there is very good reason why the R&A run The Open at c.10ft, and focus more on consistency, trueness, and firmness readings (Clegg Hammer etc.)
However, I have seen "normal" non-Tournament Members' Clubs rebuilding interesting greens due to excessive speeds that are now possible due to improved agronomy by skilled Course Managers.
Due to the example of Augusta and PGA Tour venues influencing those less interested in GCA than we, they simply would prefer to spend £15,000 or considerably more to rebuild a green and take out interesting slope, rather than simply tell the Course Manager there is a reasonable limit on (their precious & sought after) speed.
That is economically unsustainable, and sadly reduces the uniqueness of their courses (but they are not as focused on that being as important, as we might be).
-
A note that it is also much harder to rebuild a green in the UK and get it back up to the same standard as the rest.
There are greens at The Renaissance Club that I might rebuild, except that even if you took them out of play the day after the Scottish Open [which the members don't want to do], it would be almost impossible to deliver them back into perfect condition by the same time the next year. Fescue grows slower, and the growing season is so much shorter! Augusta closes in summer when the grass is growing its fastest and changes are easily made; that is not true of winters in Scotland.
Also, Simon, your 15k estimate for rebuilding a green is unfortunately less than half the current cost.
-
A note that it is also much harder to rebuild a green in the UK and get it back up to the same standard as the rest.
There are greens at The Renaissance Club that I might rebuild, except that even if you took them out of play the day after the Scottish Open [which the members don't want to do], it would be almost impossible to deliver them back into perfect condition by the same time the next year. Fescue grows slower, and the growing season is so much shorter! Augusta closes in summer when the grass is growing its fastest and changes are easily made; that is not true of winters in Scotland.
Also, Simon, your 15k estimate for rebuilding a green is unfortunately less than half the current cost.
Thanks Tom,
I did say "or considerably more" the £15k starting point was one I know was put in c. 2-3 years ago...a pretty rudimentary job with no tie-ins of merit (but happily not as bad as Clifford Roberts "let's open up the view to the Patrons" attempt on the 8th at ANGC!)