Bob Crosby’s conversation with Garrett Morrison on The Fried Egg’s “Masters Takeaways” podcast (https://thefriedegg.com/fried-egg-podcast/takeaways-from-the-2022-masters-4/) had salient points about Augusta’s architectural legacy that I wanted to mention here and open up for broader discussion.
Bob shows his cards early and claims MacKenzie was the “best architect to ever trod the face of the earth,” which helps ground his befuddlement as to why the club would continue moving away from MacKenzie and Jones’s strategic ideals documented in the course’s first iteration.
He then goes on to say, “If the world had continued on as before, I think Augusta National would’ve changed the face of golf architecture for the next couple of decades.” Crosby’s point here is that the Great Depression and WWII had a detrimental effect on not only the MacKenzie version, but the course’s influence on subsequent American designs. It’s an interesting point, although Clifford Roberts remains largely responsible for disavowing MacKenzie’s work as quickly as he could. It’s equally worth acknowledging that, over time, decisions predominantly have indicated that—whether you agree with it or not—changes to the course be in response to professional play and the Masters tournament instead of in deference to MacKenzie. Crosby makes clear the notable exception of Byron Nelson and Joe Finger’s successful restoration of the 8th green, which Roberts had previously pulverized.
What’s interesting to me is that in our current craze towards restorations and clubs’ reappreciation of original architects’ work, Augusta has become a unique case today. ANGC remains remarkable. Its set of greens rival the best in the world, yet there remain aesthetic and playability differences from 1934’s Masters that could be brought back to better exemplify and preserve the legacy of MacKenzie’s last American course design. Yet ostensibly, the kinds of presentations Gil Hanse has made to Oakland Hills or Baltusrol, where the original architect’s work is the overriding focal point, might not be as successful at ANGC, and I think that discrepancy is why someone like Mayday started his other thread.
One disagreement I have with Crosby’s thesis is his claim regarding the standalone, radical nature of ANGC. He identifies MacKenzie as the originator of a ‘2nd stage’ of golf architecture, one that emphasizes “less bunker placement and more on contour and undulations of the natural terrain.” Augusta, according to Crosby, “was intended as a radical extension of the ideas of strategic golf course architecture unlike anything anybody had seen before,” and should have served a more noticeable role as “the beginning point for a new kind of golf architecture [...] that’s the debt Augusta National owes to golf history.”
In fairness, Morrison is the first person to use the term “radical” in their conversation, which might have planted the seed in Crosby’s mind, but I’d rather consider Augusta as a long gestating culmination of MacKenzie’s work, and a pinnacle example of the unwavering influence The Old Course had on his design ideals, but not a departure of any kind from his earlier designs.
Crosby smartly brings up Max Behr’s Lakeside and MacKenzie and Behr’s aligned philosophies toward strategic architecture as a precursor to ANGC, as well as MacKenzie’s Bayside. But the more I consider MacKenzie’s work, especially American examples Meadow Club, Pasatiempo, and Valley Club, I don’t see much difference from what MacKenzie put in the ground at those other sites, but instead it’s a continuation and refinement of the same architectural ideas he’d always had. Upon opening, those courses all featured expansive fairways and corridors where a wayward ball could be played from different holes, much in the way the Old Course continues to be played. The strategy and defense of playing a ball from an opposing fairway then usually includes a positioned bunker or difficult green contours from that more conservative, safer line of play. MacKenzie’s examples include Meadow Club 2-4, 6&16, 13&15, 9&10; Pasatiempo 1&9, 6&7, 10&17; Valley Club 2&13, 3&12. MacKenzie translated the tenets he derived from TOC into America by recreating open golf, with all turf primarily at fairway height, granting full freedom to the sporting golfer to find his or her way to the cup, defending holes with ground contour, natural features, a distilled amount of bunkering, and challenging greens. MacKenzie’s priority as an architect was designing courses accessible to all levels of play. His own quote in the Spirit of St Andrews on the golf architect’s duty is lifted almost verbatim from the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham: “He should, above all, have a sense of proportion and be able to come to a prompt decision as to what is the greatest good for the greatest number” (p. 15).
Would removing significant trees from Augusta make the course easier for the pros? Probably. Are there still ways to thin out areas or remove non original green side bunkers where more recoveries could be experienced on short grass (after all, Scheffler’s hole out runner was one of the shots of the tournaments)? Probably. Could recreating the MacKenzie aesthetic bunkering be done as a step towards rehabilitating the course’s design legacy while not affecting the annual schedule of hosting the Masters? Probably.
All to say, I quite enjoyed Mr. Crosby’s thoughts he shared with Garrett, and the biggest take away I sense in his point of view, and what’s echoed by others on this site, is that making course changes in service to the pros and in the spirit of the original architect need not be mutually exclusive.