Augusta National Golf Club

« **on:** March 12, 2004, 10:09:57 AM »

Having been called out by JakaB for leaving Augusta National Golf Club off my top ten list and having dined in repentence at Waffle House this a.m., here's my take:

In another thread Patrick Mucci, my favorite Golden Domer, wrote:

Quote

I've always had my own categories for golf courses.

They are:

Championship
Sporty
Membership

Question: Better than any course in the States, does Augusta National Golf Club fit the bill in EACH and EVERY CATEGORY?

Championship: Has it identified the great players (even with the occasional Ford, Aaron, Mize, Brewer), caused great chokes and charges, withstood the test of time?

Sporty: The pitch to the 3rd hole, the back right pin location at 6, the pitch at the 7th, the challenge at 12, the reachable par fives on the back with dicey pitches for the timid or less talented, the front pin location at 16 just to name a few. Fun play around the greens everywhere.

Member: Simply as good as it gets. With the exception of 12, no penal features that cannot easily be avoided - plenty of room right of 11 and 13 and behind 15. Room off the tee (despite the foolish tree planting there remains room to golf your ball and recover). Local knowledge at a premium. With the exception of 4, 7, 12, 13 & 15 adequate opportunity to run the ball in. A great walk with the only climbs being 8 and 18. CBS Sports funding the entire year's budget.

Are there any better all around courses?

Mike

« **Reply #1 on:** March 12, 2004, 10:18:05 AM »

Wow... that's a hell of a good question, Mike. My first thought was there have to be others that surpass Augusta.. but each seems to fail on one criterion or another... think about it...

Sand Hills - championship? No history of such, hard to believe it could ever occur.

NGLA - has history, but very long ago, and I do believe today's players could eat it up.

Cypress - ditto.

Now each of these might have enough edge over Augusta in the SPORTY and MEMBERS category to overcome Augusta's edge on CHAMPIONSHIP... that's a tough one. But they do have this weakness, where it's hard to say Augusta has a weakness in any of the three, as you so eloquently list.

Then you think about Shinnecock... man you have to be one hell of a strong player to call that sporty... so I think it fails there...

Here are three though that come to mind that might give Augusta a run for its money in terms of being strong in all three categories:

1. The Old Course.

2. Royal Melbourne.

3. Pebble Beach

Of course 1 and 3 don't have "members", per se, but I'm imagining if they did...

So perhaps Royal Melbourne is the only contender?

There must be others. Like most things I post here, I haven't given this more thought than the time it takes to type it.

TH

« **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2004, 10:27:00 AM »

JakaB,

Good point - no small climb up no. 5.

Tom, note that I limited the question to U. S. courses. I share your love for Pebble Beach but would it really be a great members course? Seems it would call for the same shot time after time with the middle of the green being acceptable every single time, excepting 17, as opposed to the FABULOUS internal contours at Augusta National Golf Club.

The ultimate trump card, which greens would you rather putt throughout the year?

Funny you mention The Old Course. I am beginning to believe that the kinship between it and Augusta National Golf Club is closer than we think. At both places, I can see a crafty old codger going low.

Mike

« **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2004, 10:30:15 AM »

Open it up to the world!

And re Pebble, man those greens are just so damn tough to read, so tricky... I'd never get tired of them. They are tricky in a very subtle way, as opposed to the yip-inducing monsters that Augusta might be.

But of course we do need to factor in conditions, and obviously Augusta wins big-time there.

But then comes the biggest trump card of all, making your ultimate irrelevant: whilst the members sit all summer in Georgia and look at their course suffer... we'll be playing golf in CA. So how great of a "members course" is Augusta after all if it is closed half the year?

TH

« **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2004, 10:42:38 AM »

I am amused by the thread questioning Sorenstam's 73 at Augusta National Golf Club. I have no doubt she shot 73 because the can GOLF THE BALL - precisely what is required there.

The course has perhaps the most elastic set-up of any in the country. To wit:

Years ago a gentlemen from Nashville was invited to play at Augusta and drew Cemetery as his caddie. On a windless day when the bermuda greens were less than slick, the pin placements in the most accomodating positions (and obviously before the advent of rough and tree-planting) the gentlemen stood on the 10th tee, ecstatic with his front nine 41. With a notable hint of pride in his voice, he turned to Cemetery and asked: "Tell me Cenetery, how does my game compare with the President's (Ike's)"? Cemetery's reply? "Very similar, sir, he ain't worth a s**t neither!"

Mike

« **Reply #5 on:** March 12, 2004, 10:49:12 AM »

Mike in the fall or summer I might challenge this post. However, as the flowers start to bloom in my yard, I know the Masters will be here in a few weeks. A southern gnetleman knows that there is only one club to call Best All Around Ever and it is Augusta National and the Masters.

« **Reply #6 on:** March 12, 2004, 10:50:48 AM »

OK, fair enough JB. Far be it from me to argue with TWO southern gentlemen about one of their own.

Base it on right now, and there is no competitor in this great nation.

But talk to me in July.

TH

« **Reply #7 on:** March 12, 2004, 11:09:43 AM »

Mike says, my paraphrasing, "I'm beginning to see the Old Course and Augusta having a lot in common."

I think that's exactly what Bob Jones was looking for when he hired MacKenzie after the 1929 Amateur and having an opportunity to play both Cypress Point and Pasatiempo as they opened. By that time MacKenzie had drawn his map of St Andrews and I guess was acknowledged as an expert on the Old Course.

There's not much resemblance between the two courses today, but I understand that MacKenzie endeavored to create the same challenges at Augusta that Jones relished at TOC. Then Cliff Roberts undermined him every step of the way, not even paying his final bill for design of ANGC.

« **Reply #8 on:** March 12, 2004, 11:57:53 AM »

Mike- Perhaps Pat will respond to this?

Taken from a scottish newsletter, the subject is Craig perry and wha a gentleman he is:

Quote

But what I remember most vividly is that his very good crack at winning
the Masters in 1992 was destroyed by the appalling behaviour of the
galleries (or 'patrons' as Augusta National insists on calling them).
After rounds of 69, 66 and 69 he led by one from home favourite and
all-round good egg Fred Couples, with whom he was paired for the final
round. What the history books and television pictures do not show,
however, is that Craig ballooned to a 78 on the last day because the crowd
was so disgustingly biased. Every one of Craig's strokes on the front nine
was accompanied by coughs, the sounds of portable chairs collapsing or any
other noise the gallery could throw at him - it was and remains one of the
worst examples of partisanship ever seen on a golf course. Fred was
completely blameless and, if memory serves, even apologised to Craig but
the damage was done. And this is not to say that Craig would have won but
I believe he was robbed even of the chance.

Is this really what happened?

« **Reply #9 on:** March 12, 2004, 12:17:26 PM »

Mr. McBride nails it.

As I recall, there were 5 or 6 of the original holes at ANGC named after holes at TOC. There is no question but that Jones' vision for ANGC was closely linked to TOC.

Jones was profoundly influenced by TOC. He disliked penal courses and saw TOC and its strategic features as the only real alternative to penal courses - if they were to serve as venues for major torunament golf.

That's one reason why he included a discussion of TOC and MacK's 1926 map of TOC at the back of his best book. He chose MacK to design his course because he believed - correctly - that MacK was the living archtiect with the deepest understanding/appreciation of TOC.

(I don't think seeing Cypress or Pasa was pivotal in Jones' decsion to hire MacK, btw. I think he had decided that Mack was the guy long before the '29 Amateur.)

It was this vision for ANGC that Cliff Roberts never grasped. He kept pushing to toughen it up along USGA lines. The Cliff Roberts' mantle was picked up by Hootie and the Fazio.

The voice of Bobby Jones at ANGC has been totally silenced.

ANGC (and golf generally) are the worse for it.

Bob

« **Reply #10 on:** March 12, 2004, 12:34:41 PM »

Bob, from what I've read, Jones' loss in the first round at the Amateur at Pebble Beach in 1929 did lead to the selection of MacKenzie because Dr. MacK had not been in the U.S. much before that time. Jones was familiar with his work at TOC and may have been interested in his involvement with ANGC, but hadn't started planning the course until about this time. So playing CP and Pasatiempo energized the plans and the selection of MacKenzie. Either way, it's a great story! The great Bobby Jones gets knocked out of the Amateur in the first round and ANGC's TOC-like design results.

« **Reply #11 on:** March 12, 2004, 12:55:56 PM »

Bill -

Let me quibble with you a little.

Jones met MacK at the Walker Cup matches at TOC in 1926. They spent a couple of weeks that year playing TOC together (what would you pay to join that group for a round or two!?). MacK's map had just been published and caused something of a sensation. First, because it was the first detailed map done of TOC.

Second, because there was talk at the time that TOC was "obsolete".

MacK (and Jones too, but the record is spotty) vehemently objected to the latter notion. In fact the genesis of the Mack map was probably to counter the claims that TOC needed to be retired from the Open rota.

I think Jones and MacK were very close long before the '29 Am.

I agree with you that his ideas about building a new course did not form until about '29 or later. But there's no doubt in my feeble (febrile?) mind that if Jones was going to build a course, MacK was going to be his guy. And not prmarily because of what Jones saw at Cypress, but because of their shared respect for TOC dating to '26.

Bob

P.S. The interesting footnote to the MacK TOC map is that after publication, Mack spotted an error in it. He was going to correct it, but changing the printing molds was too expensive. MacK - as far as I know - never revealed where the error was.

Has anyone spotted it? I haven't, but I don't know TOC as well as many here.

« **Reply #12 on:** March 12, 2004, 01:07:46 PM »

I think Sand Hills would qualify on all three counts. One thing that no one mentioned about ANGC is that it has two very different maintenance melds. The Master's version and the member play version. Using that, SH could certainly qualify on all accounts in my book.
I would love to see what the pro's would do to ANGC under member conditions. That would be an exciting Sunday back nine.

« **Reply #13 on:** March 12, 2004, 01:12:15 PM »

Ed:

Now you know I love Sand Hills - I do consider it the finest course on this planet - but using the categories here, well.. even I can't put Sand Hills up there on "championship" category. Oh, it is difficult enough from the back tees, for sure. But given no championship has ever been held there nor is ever likely to be, I can't give it many points.

Compare to Augusta on this... it's such a mismatch that to me, it doesn't make up for Sand Hills superiority in the other two categories - and I would say SH is indeed superior in those, from what I see on TV anyway!

TH

« **Reply #14 on:** March 12, 2004, 01:19:09 PM »

Mike -

I think the only thing that really supports your premise is the notion that a championship course must really test players relative to par.

I think there are lots of great courses that could host championships that would be mighty compelling, even if par were destroyed. Cypress, Riviera (pre recent work), NGLA, just work your way through the top 20 and I think you'd see that if you weren't falling victim to the USGA's notion of protecting par, there are plenty of other candidates.

No one would ever call Oakmont sporty, but I think the members would rightly feel it's as good all around as any. Same might be true for Shinnecock. As long as a member is not living or dying by the scorecard, I'd say they're probably as good as any.

Then there's courses like Pacific Dunes, Rustic Canyon, The Rawls Course, etc. They're certainly sporty and would be terrific member courses (I'm still trying to figure out a way to convince my family to move to Lubbock

) and, provided you are not obsessed with the "test" notion of golf, would even be suitable tournament venues as well.

Give up your obession with par, Mike!

P.S. The pitiful start to that SFGC thread notwithstanding, there was indeed plenty of great discussion back in the glory days. Just not as much anger or obsession with ratings.

« **Reply #15 on:** March 12, 2004, 01:21:52 PM »

I didn't read Mike's initial post closely enough. True enough that SH doesn't have the history, and isn't likely to ever. However, I certainly think it could be a worthy championship course if it was tricked up like all the other US major courses are. Of course, ANY 7,400 yd.course could host a major if it was tricked up like the courses are nowadays.

« **Reply #16 on:** March 12, 2004, 01:29:08 PM »

George:

I don't think Mike is obsessed with anything (other than how much fun he's gonna have in a few weeks).

I think he's just asking an interesting question, and that is what courses capture all three of these elements the most.

And to me, I still put Pebble Beach up there, but Augusta is damn tough to beat.

Obsession with par or with score has nothing to do with why a course like Shinnecock (sticking to one I have played) is not "sporty", to me anyway. It's because the shot requirements are just so damn difficult - score or no score - to me it's just very hard to call that sporty. Oh yes, the greens are wonderful as are the surrounds, and one will face shots requiring creativity there. But that's if one gets there at all... a great man once said, "all it requires is perfect shots." And that is very true. To me that just flies in the face of "sporty."

So yes, some courses are strong in one or two of these areas, as you mention. And I don't think Mike is making any value judgments here - or if he is he shouldn't! This isn't a question of "best", this is a question of which courses capture all three - which is damn hard to do.

If the question is "best", then for me "sporty" and "members" weigh about 10 times as much as championship...I've made it pretty clear I much prefer those to "test of golf" and while history does matter, it's never gonna matter as much to me as the other two... but that's not the question here.

TH

« **Reply #17 on:** March 12, 2004, 01:43:45 PM »

George, par for me is 82

Certainly Oakmont and Shinnecock are prime candidates. I'm speculating, though (having seen neither), that over time they would simply beat me to death notwithstanding my 6.1 vanity GHIN Index.

By analogy, I was bludgeoned to the point of disorientation at Carnoustie and have never been so glad to finish a round. By comparison, I could have continued to loop around The Old Course until I could no longer put one foot in front of the other.

I'm guessing one doesn't take the beating at Augusta that they might at Oakmont and Shinnecock. That's saying something for a course that has hosted more majors than any other in the world.

Mike

« **Reply #18 on:** March 12, 2004, 02:04:47 PM »

Mike -

You're still a good bit up on me.

Maybe is has to do with the individual. I felt beat up at Mystic Rock because there was so much water and rock that I was losing balls constantly. (Heck, the way I've played recently I would feel beat up on the driving range.) Obviously the rough at Oakmont would be a major obstacle with mid to high handicappers, but I think the speed of the greens and surrounds at ANGC would be almost as taxing.

Huck -

Maybe the shot requirements at Shinney and Oakmont are indeed too daunting for most, but I still think with the proper mindset they would provide much joy. You GD raters all the same, obsessed with the pencil and the scorecard.

Seriously, though, you have to admit your reason for DQing NGLA and Cypress is related to par.

« **Reply #19 on:** March 12, 2004, 02:14:30 PM »

George:

You have me very wrong. I have absolutely no need for pencil and scorecard, and par has nothing to do with any of this.

I DQ each of Cypress and NGLA IN THIS CONVERSATION ONLY because the way the game is today, each is too short to really give the best the challenge they require. Each could easily be played sans' woods, and to me that's not what a "championship" course ought to ask.

Of course you do know that these two courses are tied for 2nd place in my personal best in the world list, right? So remind me again, how am I tied to scorecard and pencil?

At Shinnecock, the challenge is there big time - oh good lord it is. You'll see in June if you don't remember from a few years ago. But sporty? I don't see it. A course where all that's required is perfect shots is never going to be sporty, and this has nothing to do with score. It has to do with CHANCE OF SUCCESS, period.

Of course it's a fantastic golf course, though. I enjoyed my round there IMMENSELY! I just have a very hard time calling the course sporty, that's all. Great? Hell yes - one of the top 5 in the country without a doubt.

TH

« **Reply #20 on:** March 12, 2004, 02:37:15 PM »

Ease up, Huck, I'm just teasing you. No evil Moriarty intentions, I assure you.

Like I said initially, I think it depends on one's notion of "championship test" and "sporty".

Tons of guys opted for irons at Muirfield and Lytham - does that mean they weren't tests? Sounds like the same thing at recent Crump Cups - is PV not a championship test?

Lots of holes at last year's Amateur were won with bogeys. Does that mean Oakmont's too tough to be considered a great course for its members?

For me, the answer to these questions is an unequivocal NO. But, if one has different criteria, I can see agreeing with a lot of Mike's initial premise. Mike's point re: Carnoustie perfectly exemplifies my point. Other mid to high handicappers have indicated they love Carnoustie - maybe it has to do with one's outlook. Heck, Mike's almost as big a grump as JakaB!

We all know you'd be happy anywhere....

« **Reply #21 on:** March 12, 2004, 03:02:12 PM »

Gotcha, George. I am a little testy!

But re the rest, to me there's a difference between using irons because it makes sense - as at Muirfield, Lytham, Pine Valley - and using them because you just plain don't need woods, as might be the case at NGLA and Cypress. But again, this really doesn't matter for shit to me, this is all just reason as to why each might not reach the highest standards of the "championship" category.

And re Oakmont, well.... seems to me the getting beat up factor would be high enough so that it fails a bit on "members" category also. OK, so par shouldn't matter. But don't you want to be able to hit a green once in awhile and have it hold? Don't you want to be able to actually make a putt? Don't you want to be able to get out of a bunker in one shot every so often? Actually hit a fairway? Be able to hit something other than wedge out of the rough? Positives in this game are pretty fun also.

TH

« **Reply #22 on:** March 12, 2004, 03:55:10 PM »

Quote from: George Pazin on March 12, 2004, 02:37:15 PM

. Heck, Mike's almost as big a grump as JakaB!

George,

I am wounded to my very core

Quote

"Hey you don't know me if you don't like me."
- Dwight Yoakum

« **Reply #23 on:** March 12, 2004, 04:16:02 PM »

Mike,
I would think your thoughts would be more west coast oriented this month with the upcoming festivities you have in store.

« **Reply #24 on:** March 12, 2004, 04:18:07 PM »

Brother Ed,

It is way to early to start losing sleep. Can't wait to see you and the guys.

I have a hard time believing that this time last year I had never met a single member of the treehouse.

Your fellow tea-drinker,

Mike

News:

Mike Hendren

THuckaby2

Mike Hendren

THuckaby2

Mike Hendren

Tiger_Bernhardt

THuckaby2

Bill_McBride

A_Clay_Man

BCrosby

Bill_McBride

BCrosby

ed_getka

THuckaby2

George Pazin

ed_getka

THuckaby2

Mike Hendren

George Pazin

THuckaby2

George Pazin

THuckaby2

Mike Hendren

ed_getka

Mike Hendren