[Terry Lavin]

If he's not entitled to an opinion, nobody is.

To say that he's decidedly in the minority is inarguable and I'm sure he could care less about that fact.

[Kevin Lynch]

Was Augusta National really the only club that Trevino played that had an "elitist" atmosphere?   Didn't he win tournaments at other blue-blood courses?  If so, why was he able to set aside those differences at other venues but not at Augusta?

I don't really know the answer, but thought I'd add it as a consideration of whether Trevino was able to separate his personal feelings vs. the quality of the Golf Architecture. 

I don't know the culture of Winged Foot, Baltusrol, or Medinah (the other courses he named as greats), but do you think he felt those places were warm to Mexican-Americans?

I have no idea whether his struggles with Augusta/The Masters have anything to do with the club or not, but the above doesn't seem like a great comparison. A PGA Tour event is a PGA Tour event wherever it's played. The Masters has a culture and feeling all its own that is clearly very different from other tour stops, or even majors that are run by the big national organizations.

I guess I was addressing the question of whether Lee was able to separate his feelings between the culture of the club and the architecture of the course. 

My point was that Trevino was able to praise courses like Winged Foot, Baltusrol and Medinah, even though they may not have been the best atmosphere, either.  I'm not sure if Augusta is more culturally secluded than these other clubs, or if we just notice it more because the Masters is held every year (vs. once a decade in the USGA/PGA rotation). 

Still, if Trevino was as culturally sensitive as some say, I don't think he would have "accepted" it any more at a PGA or USGA site than he would have at Augusta (but I could be completely wrong about that).

[Matthew Petersen]

Was Augusta National really the only club that Trevino played that had an "elitist" atmosphere?   Didn't he win tournaments at other blue-blood courses?  If so, why was he able to set aside those differences at other venues but not at Augusta?

I don't really know the answer, but thought I'd add it as a consideration of whether Trevino was able to separate his personal feelings vs. the quality of the Golf Architecture. 

I don't know the culture of Winged Foot, Baltusrol, or Medinah (the other courses he named as greats), but do you think he felt those places were warm to Mexican-Americans?

I have no idea whether his struggles with Augusta/The Masters have anything to do with the club or not, but the above doesn't seem like a great comparison. A PGA Tour event is a PGA Tour event wherever it's played. The Masters has a culture and feeling all its own that is clearly very different from other tour stops, or even majors that are run by the big national organizations.

I guess I was addressing the question of whether Lee was able to separate his feelings between the culture of the club and the architecture of the course. 

My point was that Trevino was able to praise courses like Winged Foot, Baltusrol and Medinah, even though they may not have been the best atmosphere, either.  I'm not sure if Augusta is more culturally secluded than these other clubs, or if we just notice it more because the Masters is held every year (vs. once a decade in the USGA/PGA rotation). 

Still, if Trevino was as culturally sensitive as some say, I don't think he would have "accepted" it any more at a PGA or USGA site than he would have at Augusta (but I could be completely wrong about that).

Kevin, That makes sense I just think that at Augusta there is no way to avoid "the culture." That tournament is all about the Augusta mystique. More to the point, the tournament is put on by the club.

However, when the PGA comes to Medinah, the PGA moves in and runs the show. The "culture" of Medinah is therefore considerably muted for the week.

[Kalen Braley]

After reading all the comments on this topic, I can understand both sides of the issue.  The main point seems to be...at least to me:

His personal feelings towards the place and the experience of the "Masters" has led him to have a skewed view of the course itself.  Whether this is true or not, I don't know....but it certainly seems this way.  So as a result, his comments seem like sour grapes instead of actual objective critique of the golf course.

[Garland Bayley]

After reading all the comments on this topic, I can understand both sides of the issue.  The main point seems to be...at least to me:

His personal feelings towards the place and the experience of the "Masters" has led him to have a skewed view of the course itself.  Whether this is true or not, I don't know....but it certainly seems this way.  So as a result, his comments seem like sour grapes instead of actual objective critique of the golf course.

He gave you an objective critique of the golf course. He says he asks people what are the great holes at ANGC. For the most part they tell him #3 & #12. He says that is not enough for a course to be considered great. Tell me how that is not an objective critique. He set a numeric threshold on great holes somewhere north of 2, and then got others data and found it did not meet the threshold.

[Kalen Braley]

After reading all the comments on this topic, I can understand both sides of the issue.  The main point seems to be...at least to me:

His personal feelings towards the place and the experience of the "Masters" has led him to have a skewed view of the course itself.  Whether this is true or not, I don't know....but it certainly seems this way.  So as a result, his comments seem like sour grapes instead of actual objective critique of the golf course.

He gave you an objective critique of the golf course. He says he asks people what are the great holes at ANGC. For the most part they tell him #3 & #12. He says that is not enough for a course to be considered great. Tell me how that is not an objective critique. He set a numeric threshold on great holes somewhere north of 2, and then got others data and found it did not meet the threshold.

That's because you are quoting what other people said, not what HE said.  This is what he said:

"I cringe every time I watch it"
"There’s no way you can say it’s a great course"
"It was never a great course."
"The course is just crazy"
"It’s ludicrous"
"But it’s not a great course"

These quotes, which I will remind again are what HE said, don't sound objective to me.

[Kenny Baer]

"He said it's not a great course. Is there one other person who would agree with that?"

Jim Sullivan -

Johnny Miller might.

But do you think AGNC would be anywhere as highly regarded as it is if it was not on TV every year hosting the Masters?

DT
[/quote
YES without question. I think it is the greatest parkland course in the world.

[Kevin Lynch]

 

Kevin, That makes sense I just think that at Augusta there is no way to avoid "the culture." That tournament is all about the Augusta mystique. More to the point, the tournament is put on by the club.

However, when the PGA comes to Medinah, the PGA moves in and runs the show. The "culture" of Medinah is therefore considerably muted for the week.

Matthew,

Excellent points regarding the "muting" effect and the organization running the events.  I have to agree with you.

[Garland Bayley]

After reading all the comments on this topic, I can understand both sides of the issue.  The main point seems to be...at least to me:

His personal feelings towards the place and the experience of the "Masters" has led him to have a skewed view of the course itself.  Whether this is true or not, I don't know....but it certainly seems this way.  So as a result, his comments seem like sour grapes instead of actual objective critique of the golf course.

He gave you an objective critique of the golf course. He says he asks people what are the great holes at ANGC. For the most part they tell him #3 & #12. He says that is not enough for a course to be considered great. Tell me how that is not an objective critique. He set a numeric threshold on great holes somewhere north of 2, and then got others data and found it did not meet the threshold.

That's because you are quoting what other people said, not what HE said.  This is what he said:

"I cringe every time I watch it"
"There’s no way you can say it’s a great course"
"It was never a great course."
"The course is just crazy"
"It’s ludicrous"
"But it’s not a great course"

These quotes, which I will remind again are what HE said, don't sound objective to me.

So you are saying his subjective opinion agrees with his objective survey. What's the crime in that?

Is it any worse than the GD raters that would have access to ANGC happening to be well connected rich dudes that have access to the place? Notice that some of the members of this website that subjectively agree with me on many things don't have access to rate ANGC. Interestingly a high percentage of them have played Cypress Point.

EDIT

Interestingly Geoff Ogilvy has pointed out its shortcomings too. Although I get the sense that Geoff would not say "It was never a great course."

[Garland Bayley]

More Trevino on GCA

"My advice to architects: Before you build a course with deep bunkers, railroad ties, forced carries and water everywhere, just remember that no Donald Ross course has ever gone Chapter 11."

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/myshot_gd0205#ixzz1IIkFq6Tb

[Phil Benedict]

Nearly half the driving holes are dogleg lefts (2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14).  Isn't that going a bit overboard favoring a particular shot shape?  I know left-to-right players have won there, but should a great course have such a pronounced bias?  It also favors high ball and long hitters.  To what extent do other championship courses play favorites, in the sense of playing style, the way Augusta does?

[jeffwarne]

Nearly half the driving holes are dogleg lefts (2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14).  Isn't that going a bit overboard favoring a particular shot shape?  I know left-to-right players have won there, but should a great course have such a pronounced bias?  It also favors high ball and long hitters.  To what extent do other championship courses play favorites, in the sense of playing style, the way Augusta does?

Augusta definitely plays favorites.
 Nelson, Hogan, Demaret, Snead, Player, Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson, Woods, Faldo, Ballesteros

[Tony Ristola]

If Augusta were designed today, would it be considered great? Would it be headlined in the golf magazines as great? Would it be rated higher than say Pacific Dunes? Old MacDonald? Dormie Club? Friar's Head?... if all five came out in the same year?

Just something worth considering.

.

[jeffwarne]

If Augusta were designed today, would it be considered great? Would it be headlined in the golf magazines as great? Would it be rated higher than say Pacific Dunes? Old MacDonald? Dormie Club? Friar's Head?... if all five came out in the same year?

Just something worth considering.

.

That's pretty strong company but,
I'm pretty sure ANGC could hold it's own against Dormie Club.
Considering Friar's Head was open 10 years before Golf Digest rated it at all, I'd be comfortable saying yes....

but to your point, surely you could say the same thing about Oakmont or Winged Foot

[Michael Whitaker]

I may have my stories mixed up here, but didn't Trevino first have words with ANGC over his caddy? The pros used to be required to use the ANGC caddies and I think Trevino was one of the first players to take issue with that. I seem to remember him complaining publicly about the regulation and threatening not to play if he couldn't use his caddy. Maybe I have him confused with another player???

What year did ANGC start letting the pros use their own caddies?

[Matt_Ward]

Phil B:

How then do you explain such winners as Larry Mize and Zach Johnson, or even Langer to name just three - none hit it either long or high ?

How do you explain that a great fader of the ball -- Nicklaus and Hogan -- won at ANGC ?

Talk about favorites and styles being maxed out - what would you call a traditional US Open set-up -- seemd to favor the predictable and robotic play of a number of players -- players like Seve were never going to be able to handle that type of style.

[Sean_A]

I have never played Augusta nor would I ever in my wildest dreams expect to (thats why I never include the course on my bucket lists), but I have walked it a few times.  The thing which strikes me is how fun (and very playable) the course looks to be for the handicap player and yet its a championship venue.  I don't expect there are many courses which pull this off as Augusta and this is where I see the biggest similarity with TOC.  I know it sounds cheesy for some, but being playable, fun and challenging for all golfers is still the highest compliment I can think of.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

I have never played Augusta nor would I ever in my wildest dreams expect to (thats why I never include the course on my bucket lists), but I have walked it a few times.  The thing which strikes me is how fun (and very playable) the course looks to be for the handicap player and yet its a championship venue.  I don't expect there are many courses which pull this off as Augusta and this is where I see the biggest similarity with TOC.  I know it sounds cheesy for some, but being playable, fun and challenging for all golfers is still the highest compliment I can think of.

Ciao

So true.
Not true of Winged Foot, Pine Valley, and Oakmont.
I always hear how huge the landing areas are at Pine Valley-you still have to get it airborne(although that's more the case at ANGC than it was in its' original form)
and the changes that are so often criticized include a "second cut" which is EASIER for 90% of golfers to hit off than a tight fairway.

[George Pazin]

If Augusta were designed today, would it be considered great? Would it be headlined in the golf magazines as great? Would it be rated higher than say Pacific Dunes? Old MacDonald? Dormie Club? Friar's Head?... if all five came out in the same year?

Just something worth considering.

.

Considering recent "Best New" winners have also been courses like The Alotian, Black Rock and Dallas National, I see no reason why ANGC wouldn't be considered great.

[Rick Shefchik]

If Augusta were designed today, would it be considered great? Would it be headlined in the golf magazines as great? Would it be rated higher than say Pacific Dunes? Old MacDonald? Dormie Club? Friar's Head?... if all five came out in the same year?

Just something worth considering.

.

Considering recent "Best New" winners have also been courses like The Alotian, Black Rock and Dallas National, I see no reason why ANGC wouldn't be considered great.

And considering that The Alotian was modeled after Augusta National and came up short...

[john_stiles]

He played in the Masters 20 times, and did not play 4 times when he was probably invited.

In his golf life,  he won about 89 times, 29 on Tour, 29 on Senior Tour, and 21 other events like European events, or World Cup, or Canadian PGA, etc. 

He was a proven winner, a great player.    He obviously won on many courses that were great and not great by his own opinion,  and probably won at many exclusive clubs.      He had 20 cracks at it.  His record shows a best of  T10  on two occasions.     The ANGC doesn't seem to favor low ball hitters, who preferred playing left to right.

Great champions probably don't like to admit they were just another contender at certain venues. 

Would be more believable if he had done better, and had said he was welcomed with open arms.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()