[Tim Schmidt]

In the new issue of Golf Digest, Ron Whiten writes that when the fourth hole at Augusta National is moved over to its new location after this years tournament, Fazio will be restoring it to a more Redan style that they say is closer to the original.

I thought Jones and MacKenzie meant it to be built as an ode to or like the concept of the Eden at St. Andrews?

What article did I miss on this one?

[Brian Phillips]

Tim,

I have a copy of John McMillans version of Augusta when it was first played.  The fourth does not look like a Redan to me.  Possibly a reverse Redan but the green looks too wide to be classed as a Redan.  The green that John has designed does not slope away from the tee but towards it.

I do not know how much his design is correct but what I have on the screen does not look like a Redan.

Hopefully John will see this thread and jump in.  If you have JN6 his version is really good to analyse.

Cheers Brian

[Mike_Cirba]

Of course it was a redan!  Since we seem to be in the business of historical revisionism, as well as the dilution and corruption of terminology (i.e. "restoration"), why NOT a redan??  What did Jones and Mackenzie know anyway?

After all, were they really trying to emulate The Old Course?  How would we really know what they were thinking anyway?...they aren't around to ask them.  Just because Jones might have said to someone that he wanted to create an "Eden" there, how do we know that said person didn't misinterpret Jones?  After all, "redan" and "eden" sound very similar...  

In any case, we're talking about what the course needs NOW, to challenge the current and future crop of pros.  Let's just do it to modern standards, and then call it whatever the hell we want!  

Who'll care, except for those nut cases on that website..

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Tim,

Not to worry, you didn't miss anything.

The fourth was always meant to be a tribute/copy of the Eden hole.

If Fazio is claiming that it was meant to be a Redan, then I now understand why Geoff Shackelford and Tommy Naccarrato are in such a huff about Riviera.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Mike,
A member at Riviera has been labeling all of this "stuff" revisionist history. Until now, even with Fazio's remarks about MacKenzie really not being the architect of the course because he wasn't around much, I have not really believed the spin would come to the revisionist label, but it has. The new Golf Digest helps fuel the cause, as do the actions of the Masters folks in general. There seems to be a complete lack of regard for anything ever written in past books or articles, apparently to justify this all important cause of creating a championship "test." Of course, the test has always been there, hasn't it? Or are all the former winners untested champions and Hootie is finally getting the house in order?

The recent changes are meant to ensure that the egos of the people in charge won't be damaged like they were when Tiger shot -18. How sad that all of these folks put their sense of self-importance above the tradition of the event (which was not to worry about scores, but to provide exciting golf...even Cliff Roberts reluctantly endorsed the excitement over control of par concept).

The Redan reference by Ron is a mystery to me, hopefully he'll come on and tell us what this means or more likely if that was an editor having too much fun with his article. I definitely recall references by MacKenzie or Jones to some redan-like qualities intended for #6, but never #4.  The more hilarious notion thrown out and endorsed by Ron and Digest, is the club's talk of someday picking up and relocating the 13th further back in the woods in future years. Fazio really wants to pick up and recreate these old holes: 14 at Riviera, 4 at Augusta, oh, and that one we won't talk about but which would blow the minds of even his biggest fans.

Jaime Diaz also has a piece in the issue proclaiming that the course is now (finally?) a complete championship test. As if the prior course somehow failed the game and the Masters as an elite even, and as if the changes will finally make this an interesting, modern day course!?  Hootie's whole anti-tradition mindset (get rid of past champions, world rankings over wins, change to threesomes) provides the best example of how the club seems to want to justify changes now as a part of everyday business at Augusta for the last seventy years. Yes, there have been changes over the years, but nothing as swift, bizarre or contradictory to Jones' concepts as what has happened the last four years.

Oh wait, I forgot, all of these course changes are being made for the kids in high school and college, not Tiger and his pals! Gosh, you'd think they could at least spin this a bit more consistently.
Geoff

[Mike O'Neill]

Geoff,

I asked this on another thread without any response. What was Bobby Jones doing while so many of the changes were taking place at Augusta? What was his role and what sort of decisions did he have to make? So much of what has changed happened during his life. Where was he?

I know a lot of this is probably common knowledge, so forgive my ignorance.

[John_McMillan]

Geoff Shackelford is right - it was the 6'th which was modeled after the "Redan."  The model for the 4'th was the Eden hole at St. Andrews.  If the GD quote is accurate, then its an intersting question whether the mistake is Whitten's or Fazio's.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

Do you feel it's a denial of their legacy, or reflective of our disposable society in general, this distancing of themselves from their history, their traditions.

I see it at other clubs as well, almost a disdain for the founding fathers and original architects, a desire to bring, and prepare their courses for the modern era.

Every now and then companies, charities, organizations and golf clubs make mistakes, including their choice of CEO or COO.  Time alone will tell.

[Geoff Shackelford]

Mike,
It seems that many of the changes were Jones' idea, or the result of his bringing in someone like Perry Maxwell. I do wonder how many of those made in the late years of his life were Jones' idea, but either way, they were usually subtle changes, or as Clifford Roberts called them, "improvements." Sure, there were some odd moves and things like the new 16th, but the basic architecture seemed to function awfully well up through 1997, and I guess I find the recent stuff perplexing because it's less consistent with the past "improvements" and so different from what Bobby Jones and MacKenzie and Cliff Roberts had proven to work. The contradictory course changes spin campaign seems to expose their own confusion with what to do as well. (I miss the old days of the Masters week guessing game and arguments over what had been changed!).

Patrick,
This shift in approach has Hootie written all over it, and I know in talking to some people in the know when it comes to Augusta, he and Championship Committee chairman Will Nicholson (former USGA Prez) are taking on the course changes with pleasure. Furthermore, some fans of former chairman Jack Stephens are really perplexed by Hootie's approach, since he was Stephens protege, and Stephens stuck to the traditions...because the traditions worked! Everything about the place, the way it was run, etc.. was perfect. Sure, they had the racial issues which needed fixing and those seem to have been resolved, however, Hootie seems determined to cater to the PC police or to appease the media's annual lame suggestions about expanding the field, longer TV coverage, etc... for what? To be popular? For respect? The Masters wasn't working okay before he came along?

As for golf in general, the anti-tradition, anti-history mindset is bizarre considering how much financial value people place on history. When it comes to actually enjoying, appreciating or building upon the past, the same people who pay $125,000 to join some great old place don't seem to care once they are in the door. So, I'd vote for laziness and just a pure lack of interest in much of anything as the primary culprits when good clubs go bad. Appreciating the past and how knowledge of it can guide you into the future requires a little humility, research and thought, things people seem reluctant to do these days, particularly at many of the upper crust golf clubs. And now, they have Augusta to point to as an example of how to move into the next era in golf...a scary thought.
Geoff

[Mike O'Neill]

Geoff,

Let's say that Bobby Jones was responsible for a lot of the early changes at AN, say for example changing the green at #9. Did he then set the tone for change? I am beginning to wonder if he was the force, being such a tournament player and all, that put into motion this idea that the course should function first and foremost for the Masters.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike O'Neill,

"The Making of the Masters" by David Owen is a terrific book on the subject, one I think you'll enjoy.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()