Report from Augusta National

[BDEJ]

YTTseng -

I seem to be in the minority in support of your comments most specifically related to ANGC. In one of your more recent posts, you comment, "Why would you play low shots short of the green if there is little wind and the greens hold the shots?"

All this rhetoric about MacKenzie's intent for this and that......  etc. Did Mackenzie build ANGC with the foresight to predict that players would be "bombing" drives today with 280+ carries and that stimpmeter readings would be where they are at today? Not to mention the 'magic' that can be performed with todays balls? I think not!

Also, regarding Mackenzie's influence on the design of ANGC..... Fazio commented that he thought Joneses selection of the Great Doctor over Ross had more to do with the fact that Jones would have more say in the setup (which he wanted) by choosing the former. MacKenzie living on the West coast would not be as "Hands On" as Ross would have been. Fazio believed that Jones had more of an influence in the design than most people realize or give credit.

I can't believe all of the "Fazio Bashing" from all of the "Arm Chair" Architects out there. I do prefer the great courses of the 20's over most recent designs, and am a big fan of Fazio, but there are parts of his work that I am not particulary fond of...

[Ran Morrissett]

BDEJ,

Did you see last year's Open at St. Andrews? The ONLY type shot that held Tiger in (relative) check all of last year was the need to use the ground.

Once you remove that skill requirement, the professionals are left with aerial shots, which comes the easiest to them, and it's bombs away.

MacKenzie was always cognizant of advances of technology, frequently included it in his writings, and appreciated that St. Andrews held up well in the change from the gutta to the Haskell ball in part because the skill to work the ball along the ground was not diminished.

The surest way to challenge the best is to ask them to control the trajectory of their shots - and MacKenzie understood that better than anyone.

Nonetheless, the view of "who cares what MacKenzie thought?" is the most popular one at ANGC, with the resulting architectural mess the direct consequence.

Cheers,

[BDEJ]

Ran -

Yes, I did see the Open. Tiger could not have been kept in too much check, as he still "dusted" the field. (His ability to not land in one bunker the entire tournament ranks right up there with not having a 3-putt at ANGC back in '97)

You mention about "removing that skill requirement" in reference to the "knock down" and "bump and run" shots as if it is more of a design strategy than function of the elements, (I.E. - WIND!) ANGC is not located on Kiawah. The risk of error is minimized by hitting aerials from strategic landing areas to greens for approach shots, as opposed to hitting a 150 knock down shot that lands say 5-10 yards in front of the green and then navigates itself close to the pin. (Hopefully)

I am in favor of courses that require you to think and allow you the option to hit a choke down, knock down, 8 iron from 100 yards out to a slighty elevated green with a back pin as much as anybody.

St Andrews and other 'Open' courses will never be rendered obsolete as long as the wind blows, and I do not see that changing in my lifetime.

Regarding MacKenzie's cognizance of technology advances, lets talk modern day cognizance, not references to changes from the "gutta" to the "Haskell" which has nothing to do with today's game. Are you telling me that the MacKenzie, as good as he was, had the vision to see the game as it being played today from both an equipment and conditioning standpoint?

I think Ross understood all about shot placement as well as anybody. If you did not set yourself up for a good approach, you would not score, period. Easy to make bogey, but difficult to make par. This is best exemplified by the high rating and low slope at Aronomink.

"Accept the Challenge of Change!"

Peace,

[T_MacWood]

BDEJ
Change is inevitable. But not all change is good.

Change should require careful thought and study. The world of golf has unfortunately been subjected to some very poor leadership resulting in some very sad moves. If you hold a work of art that the golf world treasures, you do not hand it over to someone whose past actions have proven he does not share the same appreciation. Will those at ANGC, Merion, Pine Valley, Riviera, Aronimink, Bel-Air, etc. be looked upon years from now as very confused souls, who neither did their homework nor understood what they had? Will history look upon these golf courses as prime examples of what not to do?

[Ran Morrissett]

BDEJ,

Yes, I clearly do think that using the grounds undulations is a design strategy and that holes can/should/must be designed to favor the ground game regardless of the elements. MacKenzie obviously did too based on his telling quote in my other post.

As for The Open last year, the wind never  got up for most of the tournament, yet holes like 5 and 6 continually baffled Woods. I am suggesting that there are very powerful design lessons to be learned in that fact, regardless of the wind.

I do agree with you that MacKenzie could not have possibly predicted that ANGC would spend $6 million per anum on the upkeep of ANGC.

As for technology, MacKenzie saw the impact that the switch from gutta to Haskell ball had and it was far greater than what we have seen in the past decade. I don't think that it is a coincidence that his ideal hole would stand up today just as well as it did when he won the Country Life Lido prize in 1914, so yes, I think he had some idea as to what it would take to give holes an enduring quality.

I wish I could I agree with you that the double digits of 'architects' that have worked on ANGC is a great example of "accepting the challenge of change" but instead I see the opposite: an uncoordinated effort by numerous people trying to piece meal together a solution that is outdated almost as soon as they unveil it.

Cheers,

[Tags:]

Tags: