The original 10th green at Augusta National

[Kyle Harris]

A photo from Chip Gaskin's blog offers a perspective of the 10th green from the left side of the fairway bunker.



I understand that the hole as designed by Jones and Mackenzie had the green places next to this bunker and I felt that Chip's photo offered a nice vantage point of comparison between the Perry Maxwell green of today and the original location of the old green.

Does anybody know if the green sloped from front to back? The depression in front of the present green would have made for an interesting rear hazard if the model of cutting all non-tree areas as fairways was followed.

[Chris Cupit]

Kyle,

It has been years since I played but I thought I remember the green sloping hard to the players left and slightly from back to front.  greenside bunker shot seemed to really run away from you!  Also, anything left edge of green or worse kicked way left.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

It has been years since I played but I thought I remember the green sloping hard to the players left and slightly from back to front.  greenside bunker shot seemed to really run away from you!  Also, anything left edge of green or worse kicked way left.

Chris, is that the present green or the area next to the fairway bunker? I'm talking about the original location of the green, which is next to the amorphous fairway bunker.

[Tom_Doak]

Kyle:

I'm pretty sure the original tenth green was to the right of the fairway bunker pictured, in a bit of a hollow that slopes front to back.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle:

I'm pretty sure the original tenth green was to the right of the fairway bunker pictured, in a bit of a hollow that slopes front to back.

Tom,

Geez, darned if you're not right. Golden Age of Golf design even has a diagram, and yes, it looks as if the green was designed to slope away from play. Seems the green also curled around the bunker such that back left hole locations would be behind the bunker except from the right side. With the drop away over the back - that must have made for a very tricky pitch.

[Jim Nugent]

And wasn't that originally number one, not number ten?  What kind of an opener would that have been?  

[David Stamm]

Jim,

   The hole was the opener in 1934, but the nines were reversed the following year.

[Jim Nugent]

Great picture.  They sure smoothed out the lines of that bunker.  I wonder when that happened, who was the force behind it and why?  Maintenance issues?  

 

[David Stamm]

Great picture.  They sure smoothed out the lines of that bunker.  I wonder when that happened, who was the force behind it and why?  Maintenance issues?  

 

In 1937 the hole was altered due to drainage issues. Maxwell was brought in to make the changes to the green. I can only assume the drainage issues stemmed from the greensite sitting in such a low area of the property.

[Jordan Wall]

David,

That is an awesome picture.  I too, like Kyle, had thought the green was actually to the left of the bunker.
It is really neat to see such an old picture of the course.

Also, I love the rugged edge of the bunker(S).
Much has changed..

Cheers,
Jordan

[BCrosby]

To see the green for your second on the original 10th, you had to drive to a small plateau on the right side of the fw. An interesting, tough choice from the tee. That little plateau is still there but now irrelevant.

Since Maxwell's changes, the play from the tee is just a big, uninteresting rope hook.

Note in the 1934 picture that the 11th tee was up to the right of the 10th green. The 11th played as a slight dogleg right with a blind Woking-type centerline bunker about 230 yards out.

Bob  

[Ryan Farrow]

Jordan, change in heart over the last year or so?


and.... couldn't we do this for every hole at Augusta?

[Jordan Wall]

Ryan,

That picture just solitifies how much better those bunkers looked back then.

However, with Augusta and the repuation it has now, those bunkers would never work, at least in retaining that reputation.  Augusta, at least to the people I know, is always awed as the perfect course - perfect bunkers, perfect conditions, fast greens, and all that.  Because the truth is, to most people interested in golf, they dont really take account in the architecture of a course.  It really is about conditioning, aestethics, and all that.  The way Augusta is now, it is the poster golf course for all those qualities that most people admire.

I just think that if the bunkers looked more ragged then so many people would despise them, in such a way that we (GCA) despised the addition of trees.  And quite simply, its because the average golfer cannot see past how a golf course looks or plays.  You and I, and others on this site can look past the outside of a golf course and really examine a course for all its worth. I look at that old picture of 10 and cant help but see how perfect that bunker fits in with the surrounds.  Unfortunately, 99% of people would think it looks terrible...not manicured enough or something of the like.

But to answer your question, perhaps I have changed my mind a bit.  Forr good reason though, of course.

Cheers,
Jordan

[Matthew Hunt]

Ryan,

That picture just solitifies how much better those bunkers looked back then.

However, with Augusta and the repuation it has now, those bunkers would never work, at least in retaining that reputation.  Augusta, at least to the people I know, is always awed as the perfect course - perfect bunkers, perfect conditions, fast greens, and all that.  Because the truth is, to most people interested in golf, they dont really take account in the architecture of a course.  It really is about conditioning, aestethics, and all that.  The way Augusta is now, it is the poster golf course for all those qualities that most people admire.

I just think that if the bunkers looked more ragged then so many people would despise them, in such a way that we (GCA) despised the addition of trees.  And quite simply, its because the average golfer cannot see past how a golf course looks or plays.  You and I, and others on this site can look past the outside of a golf course and really examine a course for all its worth. I look at that old picture of 10 and cant help but see how perfect that bunker fits in with the surrounds.  Unfortunately, 99% of people would think it looks terrible...not manicured enough or something of the like.

But to answer your question, perhaps I have changed my mind a bit.  Forr good reason though, of course.

Cheers,
Jordan

Good post Jordan, my friends and I sometimes debate which is the better golf course and which is better conditioned RCD or Augusta.

Happy Chritmas Everyone

Matthew Hunt

P.s Or 'Happy Holidays' to our Stateside faternity .

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan,

That picture just solitifies how much better those bunkers looked back then.

That may be because that's a grainy, black and white photo without a lot of resolution.[/color]

However, with Augusta and the repuation it has now, those bunkers would never work, at least in retaining that reputation.  Augusta, at least to the people I know, is always awed as the perfect course - perfect bunkers, perfect conditions, fast greens, and all that.  

Because the truth is, to most people interested in golf, they dont really take account in the architecture of a course.  It really is about conditioning, aestethics, and all that.  

The way Augusta is now, it is the poster golf course for all those qualities that most people admire.

I don't agree with that.
ANGC remains a wonderful golf course, to play and observe.
The architecture remains brilliant.

Holes # 7, # 10 and # 16 are widely regarded as far superior to the original models.[/color]

I just think that if the bunkers looked more ragged then so many people would despise them, in such a way that we (GCA) despised the addition of trees.  

I'd disagree with that as well.

IF ANGC changed their look tomorrow, they could justify it in a historical perspective AND, nearly everyone would embrace it.  Remember, this is ANGC, home of The Masters.

Fads come an go.

Who knows, perhaps 20 years from now they'll bear a closer resemblance to the photos than their current look, but, it's almost impossible to maintain the lines on jagged bunkers, they change annually.[/color]

And quite simply, its because the average golfer cannot see past how a golf course looks or plays.  You and I, and others on this site can look past the outside of a golf course and really examine a course for all its worth. I look at that old picture of 10 and cant help but see how perfect that bunker fits in with the surrounds.  

That bunker was located in an area with poor drainage, thus, the look of the bunker may have been a function of weather and drainage rather than predominantly thru man's hand.

It may have also served as a buffer for hooked or pulled balls, preventing them from rolling into the woods.

MacKenzie himself declared the hole to be "comparitively easy", which I find acceptable for a starting hole.  

Theres NO doubt that Maxwell's version is a superior hole in almost every category, save, "ease".

Maxwell greatly improved the hole, and I think that the Good Doctor himself would agree with the change.[/color]

Unfortunately, 99% of people would think it looks terrible...not manicured enough or something of the like.

Again, I think the look would become an "adopted" look due to ANGC's significant influence on American Golf[/color]

But to answer your question, perhaps I have changed my mind a bit.  Forr good reason though, of course.

[JohnH]

I've always felt that the original #10 (or #1 as it was originally) had a Cypress Point feel to it with that staggered bunker.

[Jordan Wall]

Ryan,

That picture just solitifies how much better those bunkers looked back then.

That may be because that's a grainy, black and white photo without a lot of resolution.[/color]

Perhaps.  I've never played the course so my comments are based solely on pictures.  That picture looks good.

However, with Augusta and the repuation it has now, those bunkers would never work, at least in retaining that reputation.  Augusta, at least to the people I know, is always awed as the perfect course - perfect bunkers, perfect conditions, fast greens, and all that.  

Because the truth is, to most people interested in golf, they dont really take account in the architecture of a course.  It really is about conditioning, aestethics, and all that.  

The way Augusta is now, it is the poster golf course for all those qualities that most people admire.

I don't agree with that.
ANGC remains a wonderful golf course, to play and observe.
The architecture remains brilliant.

Holes # 7, # 10 and # 16 are widely regarded as far superior to the original models.[/color]

Pat, I don't disagree that the course is wonderful, both to play and observe.  And I do not disagree about the three holes you mention.  However, I think that Augusta has been a poster child for fast greens, perfect conditioning in all course aspects, and challenge (especially in regard to length).  I believe this is the spark that the majority of people see in the course.

I just think that if the bunkers looked more ragged then so many people would despise them, in such a way that we (GCA) despised the addition of trees.  

I'd disagree with that as well.

IF ANGC changed their look tomorrow, they could justify it in a historical perspective AND, nearly everyone would embrace it.  Remember, this is ANGC, home of The Masters.

Fads come an go.

Who knows, perhaps 20 years from now they'll bear a closer resemblance to the photos than their current look, but, it's almost impossible to maintain the lines on jagged bunkers, they change annually.[/color]

Pat, very true.  The way Augusta is presented, especially in regard to the bunkers, could very well change.  I just dont see it happening.  If it did, I could see plenty of justification for it though.  It would certainly look better, in my opinion, to part the bunkers back to their original look.

And quite simply, its because the average golfer cannot see past how a golf course looks or plays.  You and I, and others on this site can look past the outside of a golf course and really examine a course for all its worth. I look at that old picture of 10 and cant help but see how perfect that bunker fits in with the surrounds.  

That bunker was located in an area with poor drainage, thus, the look of the bunker may have been a function of weather and drainage rather than predominantly thru man's hand.

It may have also served as a buffer for hooked or pulled balls, preventing them from rolling into the woods.

MacKenzie himself declared the hole to be "comparitively easy", which I find acceptable for a starting hole.  

Theres NO doubt that Maxwell's version is a superior hole in almost every category, save, "ease".

Maxwell greatly improved the hole, and I think that the Good Doctor himself would agree with the change.[/color]

It could be very true that the hole is far better now then it was way back then.   However, I still like how the old bunker looked better than the bunker in it's current form.

Unfortunately, 99% of people would think it looks terrible...not manicured enough or something of the like.

Again, I think the look would become an "adopted" look due to ANGC's significant influence on American Golf[/color]

I'm sure your right.  The way people awe over Augusta, I think people would be willing to accept any changes they make.

But to answer your question, perhaps I have changed my mind a bit.  Forr good reason though, of course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jordan,

You have to remember, every April, It's "Show Time"

This is a MADE for TV event.

The colors, the contrasts, the flowers, the mowing patterns, and then, The Tournament.

ANGC has taken on a life that extends far beyond the architecture.

ANGC and The Masters have become Icons of American golf.
Admired and emulated by most.

Hence, IF ANGC decided to swing back to more natural looking bunker edges, I think you'd see that style copied across America within a very short time.

Tommy Naccarato posted some black and white pictures of Friar's Head and I must say that the black and white contrast brings a unique quality to pictures of golf courses, especially ones with an abundance of sand.

If the picture of # 10 was colorized, I don't think you'd be as enthusiastic about the look.

Downstairs in the Balusrol Clubhouse, I think there's a neat photo of Trevino playing from behind the 4th green at Baltusrol during the Open in 1967.  In that photo the bunker edges have long grass, certainly not a manicured look.

The shaggy look.

Somehow, over the years, that look went to the manicured look.

I like the challenge presented by the shaggy look.

So, while I agree with your desire to see that look returned, I don't think it will  happen until a club hosting a Major Tournament has that look.

That's one of the reasons that I was bitterly disappointed that Merion and not NGLA got the Walker Cup.

Merion's had plenty of air time, but, exposing NGLA to the golfing audience might have had a far more beneficial effect, architecturally, maintainance wise and perhaps, looks wise, on American golf.

[Jordan Wall]

Pat,

Given the nature of Augusta and how the course is maintained, would the bunker edges ever be scruffy anyways?  Being that there is virtually no rough on the entire golf course, I would think that if the bunkers were returned to their original form, that they would without a doubt be maintained and there would be absolutely no shagginess.

As I understand your post, you seem to like the shaggy edges, due to their challenge.

Would you like the bunkers at Augusta if they were brought back to original form, yet with the edges maintained?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jordan,

Sure, but, if you're going to bring back the jagged edges, why maintain them in a crisp fashion ?

Wouldn't that erode the lines ?

[Bill Gayne]

What strikes me about the 1934 picture is the separation of the bunker from the edge of the green. I'm guessing but it looks to be ten to fifteen feet at spots with a ridge. The ridge could potentially allow the ball to roll into the bunker or onto the green?

I like the idea of a lateral bunker offset from the green with short mowed grass between the green and bunker. It's been a couple of years since I've been to the Masters but from memory all of the bunkers are now directly on the edge of the green

[Jordan Wall]

Jordan,

Sure, but, if you're going to bring back the jagged edges, why maintain them in a crisp fashion ?

Wouldn't that erode the lines ?

Pat,

I guess I misunderstood.
My representation of shaggy was the long grass on the edges of the bunkers, similar (I thought) to what Merion does.

However, now I see what you are saying and completely agree.

If Augusta renewed the bunkers I would hope they would look similar to what they did in that older picture.