What version of Augusta National was best?

[Adam_F_Collins]

I've seen a variety of books and old pictures - there have been a lot of changes.

Which version of the course was/is best?

Anything you'd like to have back? Anything you'd like to add?

[James Bennett]

I'd love to see the 13th played from the old tee on one day of the 4 days.  Probably goes for a lot of the holes.  Mix it up over the first three days, with the tips on Sunday.

I recall in the past that one of the par 3's (4 or 6?) has used different tees during the week.  Certainly occurred in the 60's - Nicklaus referred to it in his 'Golf My Way' I think.

[TEPaul]

I've never been there myself and don't really know that much about the eras of the course's design but I sure enjoyed the set-up and play today. That course definitely has an ultra high intensity level and architecture that makes real excitement and/or the highly improbable a common occurennce. ANGC the way they had it today is definitely not a golf course remotely like the boring birdie-fest shootouts we generally see from the tour pros.

[rgkeller]

For tournament play for professionals, the current version is the best.

[Gary_Smith]

My, my, my, it is soooooooooooooooo nice to see some open minds about the changes to ANGC. I've been traipsing around this forum for maybe 5 years now, and this time of the year usually gets all kind of whining and bitching about the bastardization of ANGC.

Of course, not all of the regulars have chimed in yet.  

[Bill_McBride]

In addition to placing the cups in exciting places like they finally did last year to great effect, the course could stand to get back to the MacKenzie roots by cutting the rough way back and cutting down all the trees planted in places like right of #11 fairway and right of #15.  MacKenzie is alleged to have had The Old Course in mind when designing Augusta National; today's "toughening" with rough and trees in strategic locations doesn't fit with that ideal.

But one good change over the original course was the switching of the nines early in the history of the Masters.  Imagine the tournament not being contested over today's back nine Sunday afternoon!

[Philippe Binette]

Today's version is OK because it's difficult to think somebody would show up and redo the bunkers like it was in 1935...

Added length is a little too much, but I'd liked to see the wide fairways like in 1995 because that's how the course is intented to be played...

14th with its angled fairway would be tougher with a wider fairway

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Arnold Palmer has said it played best with bermuda greens.  Something about the firmness of the greens when they were bermuda.  I have doubt doubt the greens today roll better with bent.  I suppose only the right angle or well struck shot would hold, otherwise a run up was required.  I would like to hear him explain it in more detail sometime.  Though it seems Arnie is not a detail guy.

[Matt_Ward]

Play Augusta pre-97 when Tiger caused the green suits to unnecessarily worry about the relevance of the course.

The "second cut" and the silly tree additions (e.g. 11th and 15th) are not needed. Ditto the inane yardage increase for the 18th hole. The original hole at 410 yards was more than sufficient to keep their attention.

The only good addition I can see off the top of my head -- the new fairway bunkers at #5. The original ones were no longer in play.

Frankly, Augusta has changed the fundamental character of the course from being a wide open layout to one that has been sprinkled far more than my tastes accept a wide variety of interventions that run counter to the Jones / Mackenzie philosphy.

[T_MacWood]

Although the course was sparsely bunkered from the start, acknowledging MacKenzie's creative strength who would not prefer his original freeform features?

Is the bunker at 10th the only true MacKenzie bunker that remains?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Foster Collins,

How could one answer that question without having played both versions ?

Or, are you accepting wild guesses ?

[rgkeller]

Adam Foster Collins,

How could one answer that question without having played both versions ?

Or, are you accepting wild guesses ?

Half of the posters here believe that architectural judgments can be made without playing the course.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Patrick,

If the discussions here were limited to those "qualified" by the fact that they had spent enough time on the ground to really "know" the intricacies of the design there, this board would be a very quiet place.

Consider the amount of discussion around Augusta. It is one of the often discussed courses, yet one that is little known - physically by most golfers. However, because of the long tradition and public nature of the Masters, there are many deep-seeded opinions and beliefs regarding the course, its design and the way it plays.

Beyond that, there are many well-educated, experienced designers and afficianados here who have detailed knowledge of the course's history and development. They have information regarding what has been changed, when and the reasoning behind those changes. I'm interested in their perspectives on those changes.

If all of this amounts to "wild guesses" in your mind, then yes, that's exactly what I'm asking for.

Of course, "on the ground" experience is especially desirable in every case - but I understand that it is too rare to expect or demand. And in many historic aspects - impossible.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
If you said you preferred the old 12th GCGC to the current version, should we characterize that statement as a wild guess?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Not at all.

There have only been two versions of the 12th green, the current and the old.

I've played the current a hundred times or more.
I didn't like it the first time I played it. I didn't like it the last time I played it.  And, I didn't like it any of the times in between.

At ANGC there have been a myriad of changes over the years.
And, I would doubt that many have played just one version, let alone the dozens of others.

But, if you want to hazard a wild guess based on no personal experience go ahead and do so, it's never stopped you in the past.

Adam,

I understood your question and the context in which it was asked.

I know the question was well intended, meant to provoke discussion and have fun.

The problem is it feeds into the discussion of architecture without supporting evidence, and that's not good for this site, because, extended to extremes, it becomes a chat room of idle thoughts or fantasy.

Without playing a hole, or even seeing a hole in person, how does one develop a feel for how it plays ?

Just look at Mike Cirba's post on ANGC.

He's seen it on TV a hundred time or more, yet, he was amazed at how different it was in person.  So, how valid were his impressions before he actually saw the golf course in person ?

Lastly, I was having fun, and the question wasn't really directed toward you, it was intended for the cognoscente on this site.  

[T_MacWood]

"How could one answer that question without having played both versions?"

Pat
Evidently you are expempt from your own requirement.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

That may be true.

However, the situation at # 12 at GCGC is blatantly obvious.

It's a bad hole in its present form.

From the right side hump that prevents balls hit to the right side of the green from remaining on the green to the sharp front left fall off, to the poorly positioned bunkers, with terrible internal configurations, preventing reasonable recovery, the hole loses to the original, BY DEFAULT.

It has no, repeat, no redeeming features or qualities.
Just ask your friend, the Emperor.