Lessons of Augusta?

[Tony Ristola]

Kelly:  The Making of the Masters is an illuminating book.  Really gives a deeper look at Clifford Roberts, far beyond the cliches most have heard.  It explodes a whole host of myths and false reporting about the club, the tournament, and complaints by others.  Gives great detail about the real hardships the club went through to survive.  Hats off to Mr. Owens.

I didn't get to see but a few highlights of the tournament, but from the book, The Making of the Masters, the member and tournament tees have been listed from original to today.  The club has certainly lengthened the course for the pro's, the result of Golf's weak governing bodies, and unless my memory is serving me very badly, the club has shortened the course from the members tees over the years.  

How many of the back-9 hole locations were traditional Sunday placements?  I saw the hole-in-ones...that was typical Sunday...didn't Jack almost can it there in 86?

[TEPaul]

Tony:

How in the hell have you been Pal? Don't be such a stranger---maybe you are in Germany but communicating on GOLFCLUBATLAS takes mere seconds!  

[Gary_Smith]

Jim Lewis says "I have little patience with those who hit a poor tee shot and then complain that they have no chance at making eagle."

Amen.

[George Pazin]

Jim Lewis says "I have little patience with those who hit a poor tee shot and then complain that they have no chance at making eagle."

Amen.

This statement sounds reasonable on first take, but I wonder if it does not result in more boring, less entertaining play.

Wouldn't a difficult but doable (at least tempting in the eyes of the player) recovery shot lead to more entertaining and variable results? As opposed to automatically being blocked out and simply pitching out or tossing up a little layup shot?  More 3s and 8s and fewer 4s and 5s?

If the recovery shot option is at least there, even if it's not utilized, we can second guess the player all day long on the site! Plus, we can listen to Matt tell us what should have happened!!  

[Gary_Smith]

Jim Lewis says "I have little patience with those who hit a poor tee shot and then complain that they have no chance at making eagle."

Amen.

This statement sounds reasonable on first take, but I wonder if it does not result in more boring, less entertaining play.

Wouldn't a difficult but doable (at least tempting in the eyes of the player) recovery shot lead to more entertaining and variable results? As opposed to automatically being blocked out and simply pitching out or tossing up a little layup shot?  More 3s and 8s and fewer 4s and 5s?

If the recovery shot option is at least there, even if it's not utilized, we can second guess the player all day long on the site! Plus, we can listen to Matt tell us what should have happened!!  

George,

I must be a little slow. The Lewis statement is still reasonable to me after three takes.  

George, let me ask you a couple of questions. Does Langer's second shot this year from beneath the trees on 13 fairway qualify as difficult but doable?

Did Singh's second shot back in 2000 from behind the trees on the left side of 15 fairway (the same trees Mickelson was behind) qualify as difficult but doable?

Certainly, the recovery element should be there in golf, as in life.

Just as certainly, to routinely blast the teeball anywhere on a 5 par, and still have eagle possibilities every time, is a sign of poor golf architecture.

[George Pazin]

I would say no and yes to your two questions.

Let me use an example to illustrate. If Langer's ball had been in a slightly more forgiving lie, the chip out would have been rather simple and the resulting pitch would, while being more exacting than a pitch on most courses due to the severity of #15 green, have been a relatively easy par. Similarly, if the trees hadn't been there, he would've been left with a difficult decision like Beck or Strange in the 80s: go for it with a very tough shot at eagle, or lay up. This year, and in the last few years, it's been a much clearer decision - very few people have attempted Vijay's daring shot.

It's obviously all a matter of degrees, but I don't think a poor tee shot should automatically mean zero chance at eagle. To me, that's penal design, not strategic. I'd rather see Seve eagle and double bogey from all over the yard than Langer methodically dissect a course. Both are great champions, so I suppose it's personal preference in many respects.

[Gary_Smith]

I would say no and yes to your two questions.

Let me use an example to illustrate. If Langer's ball had been in a slightly more forgiving lie, the chip out would have been rather simple and the resulting pitch would, while being more exacting than a pitch on most courses due to the severity of #15 green, have been a relatively easy par. Similarly, if the trees hadn't been there, he would've been left with a difficult decision like Beck or Strange in the 80s: go for it with a very tough shot at eagle, or lay up. This year, and in the last few years, it's been a much clearer decision - very few people have attempted Vijay's daring shot.

It's obviously all a matter of degrees, but I don't think a poor tee shot should automatically mean zero chance at eagle. To me, that's penal design, not strategic. I'd rather see Seve eagle and double bogey from all over the yard than Langer methodically dissect a course. Both are great champions, so I suppose it's personal preference in many respects.

George,

Langer's second shot on Sunday off the pine needles from underneath the trees to the back of the 13th green does not fit your "difficult but doable" criteria??  

I am not saying that a poor tee shot should automatically mean a zero chance at eagle. I am saying that to routinely blast the teeball anywhere and still have eagle in play is poor architecture. There is a difference in the preceding two sentences.

[T_MacWood]

Gary
What do you think MacKenzie and Jones were thinking....creating so much width?



Today if you are anywhere other than right third of the fairway....chances are you are blocked by trees...what a contrast

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Great picture. I've never seen it before. Where did you get it?

Bob

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

I don't know what MacKenzie and Jones intended, but I doubt if they ever imagined that tournament players would be hitting short irons for their second shots to the green on #15. As recently as the mid 70's most players who went for that green in two hit fairway woods.  Nicklaus hit one of the great long irons in history to the green in 1975.

George:
I don't think the mission of the architect is to create excitement for the fans. Langer's problem on #15 was that he hit a poor pitch out that did not reach the fairway. Had he hit a good recovery shot, he still had a good shot at birdie, not a bad result considering his poor tee shot.

It seems to me that an eagle on a par 5 should require two exellent shots and a good putt.  If either the first or second shot is not good, an eagle should be out of the question, barring a miracle third shot. Long hitters should have an advantage over the shorter hitter, if they can hit it in the fairway. Short and straight should be able to compete with long and crooked.

I think Bobby Jones has been quoted as saying that a good par 5 should provide an opportunity for the talented and bold player to reach the green in two. I don't think that includes long and crooked.

[T_MacWood]

Bob
I found the photo doing web search...I actually found this photo in old obscure book many years ago, but the clarity of this Internet version is much better than the picture I have. The old 7th is looks very interesting. And the merged fairways of the #3 and #7. I also like the look of the fairway bunker on the 14th...very MacKenziesque.

Looking at the aerial it strikes me how unique and revolutionary the design was...there was really nothing quite like it...there is nothing like it today either.

Jim
If par is the concern, why not do what the US Open does every year, change the par from 5 to 4. The strategy of the 13th and 15th would not be effected by arbitrary par figure. The 17th at St.andrews was once par-5. A well designed hole has an indestructability no matter the equipment advancements or the par designation.

The 15th has no where to go yardage wise...they had a choice...retain the original strategy or trick up the hole...they chose trick up the hole by creating a super small tree infested window.

[CHrisB]

Tom MacWood,
Terrific picture. Thanks for sharing... Interesting that today's 18th looks pretty narrow even back then.

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

I agree completely that #15 should be played as a par 4. If you refer to my post #36, you will see that I am on record endorsing that idea.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

The single most misunderstood fact in the history of architecture is the radical nature of the orginal ANGC. It's hard to exaggerate its wildness. Done not just to be different but to extend the sui generis features of TOC to a modern setting. No one else has ever attempted anything like it on any serious scale. Jones' and MacK's architectural vision was extraordinary and under-appreciated, then and now. Jones experts don't get it. Few students of gca get it. (An exception is Wexler.)

One of the reasons the original course has gotten so little attention is because it didn't last long. Which is why the early pictures are so important.

I suspect the picture you found was taken by Frank Christian, now deceased I believe, who published a very nice book about 10 years ago on the Masters. He was the ANGC official photographer.

There are many unpublished Christian pictures taken just after opening day. I've seen some. Many are of the individual greens taken at fairway level. They knocked me out of my chair. They are now in private hands and I don't know what will become of them.

The aerial you posted, as interesting as it is, flattens out the course; you don't get a feel for the contouring. Which was/is at the heart of the greatness of the course.

Bob

[danielfaleman]

The Masters is now nothing more than another made-for-television event, as are most all other pro golf tournaments.

Woooooo Tiger! He made $60 million last year!

Yeach.

[A_Clay_Man]

Awesome picture Tom. Doesn't look much like a tree nursery from here!

The single most misunderstood fact in the history of architecture is the radical nature of the orginal ANGC.

BC, Is that misunderstanding about the course or the site?

[BCrosby]

Adam -

The course. The site is wonderful, but there are lots of wonderful sites around.

There has never been anything like ANGCourse as it was built by Jones and MacK. Nothing. Ever.

Bob