Original Bunkers at Augusta

« **on:** September 03, 2006, 11:47:25 PM »

Does anyone have a picture or two of what these guys used to look like?

« **Reply #1 on:** September 03, 2006, 11:53:58 PM »

Ron Watts' site has photos of Augusta back in the 40s

http://www.historicgolf.com/page_personal.cfm?subjectid=801&categoryid=2

« **Reply #2 on:** September 03, 2006, 11:56:22 PM »

I love the look of the bunkers as they are today..

« **Reply #3 on:** September 04, 2006, 07:14:59 PM »

Ryan,

There are a number of books, including, "The Making of The Masters", which have pictures of the original bunkers.

Photos circa 1932-1935 and 1941-1948 reveal fairly clean lines, not unlike today's bunkers

« **Reply #4 on:** September 04, 2006, 07:22:54 PM »

I thought I saw some aerials and a few sketches of more rugged natural bunkers at augusta. Why did Mackenzie stray away from natural looking bunkers here? Even the shapes took on some odd forms that I have never seen in his work.

« **Reply #5 on:** September 04, 2006, 07:27:37 PM »

Ryan,

I wouldn't call some of the bunker shapes at CPC natural.

They have a unique look, but I wouldn't confuse that look with a "natural" look.

« **Reply #6 on:** September 04, 2006, 07:37:11 PM »

The best book I've seen that shows the original Augusta National as well as the architectural evolution of the course is found in "The Augusta National Golf Club: Alister MacKenzie's Masterpiece"
By Stan Byrdy. published by Ann Arbor Media Group.

« **Reply #7 on:** September 04, 2006, 07:43:01 PM »

Thanks Wayne, it's on the Amazon.com wishlist, along with about 20 others.

« **Reply #8 on:** September 04, 2006, 09:27:25 PM »

Ok. I found some pictures in Shakelford's book "The Golden Age of Design" that show more rugged and irregular shaped bunkers behind 13 and 16 green. How long did these last? Why were they changed?

« **Reply #9 on:** September 04, 2006, 09:50:33 PM »

Ryan,
Did you ever hear of this guy named Robert Trent Jones

The book Wayne references is a good one. Many many architects have had their hand in at AN.
Mark

« **Reply #10 on:** September 04, 2006, 11:16:37 PM »

Ok, I knew I saw these before and I was trying to tell jordan that the bunkers did not always look as they did today and in fact they were more rugged that what they look like now. Matt's pictures (thanks for the link by the way) kind of had me worried for a second but again it's suprising how much a course can change in so few years, even back then.

These pictures were taken before the course was opened. I found these in Geoff Shackelford's book "The Golden Age of Design":

13 green

16 green

« **Reply #11 on:** September 05, 2006, 10:21:47 AM »

I don't think Ron Watts's pictures really tell the whole story here. A lot changed relatively quickly at Augusta. If you look at aerials from the first two or three years of the course, you'll see a lot of true MacKenzie bunkers. The 1948 aerials show a lot of non-symmetrical shaped bunkers, but they look more like abstract amoeba shaped, as opposed to what something like the "fairway" bunker on 10.

The 9th hole in particular underwent a massive change. It used to be a true horseshoe green with a MacKenzie bunker smack dab in the middle. It was possible to have a putt with the bunker directly in the player's line. The severe back to front pitch of the green made it possible to hit around the bunker and feed the putt to the hole, however.

« **Reply #12 on:** September 05, 2006, 10:45:28 AM »

Stan Byrdy's book, 'The Augusta National Golf Club', is one of the best as to showing some old bunker vistas & includes photos from many sources.

I posted a GCA topic, something centerline hazards at ANGC or such, and included a marvelous, very early 1933ish, oblique aerial of the hazards. I will 'dig' up that old photo and post again.

« **Reply #13 on:** September 05, 2006, 10:55:45 AM »

Here is an old aerial oblique which you may not find elsewhere.

It doesn't show the 'on the ground' details as in the collection of excellent photos from Byrdy's book, but it does show some old centerline harzards that no longer exist.

There is some detail of the knarly centerline bunker on the 14th hole.

« **Reply #14 on:** September 05, 2006, 11:44:23 AM »

John Stiles,

That's a great photo.

Ryan, notice the size of the bunkers in John's post.

Also look at the lines.

As to the 16th hole photo you posted, that hole NLE.

By what criteria do you define the bunkers behind # 13 as rugged ?

Just because they're finger like and into the hill behind the green doesn't make them rugged. I haven't seen any photos of bunkers with frilly edges.

« **Reply #15 on:** September 05, 2006, 11:58:57 AM »

John thanks for the pictures.

Pat, from that distance there does seem to be some ruggedness and heavier growth around the bunkers perimeter. I just call them like I see it. If I am wrong let me know, more importantly, show me.

« **Reply #16 on:** September 05, 2006, 12:00:59 PM »

The picture of 13 is too far away to tell but the one of 16 does show a little more detail.

« **Reply #17 on:** September 05, 2006, 12:21:24 PM »

Quote from: Ryan Farrow on September 05, 2006, 11:58:57 AM

John thanks for the pictures.

Pat, from that distance there does seem to be some ruggedness and heavier growth around the bunkers perimeter. I just call them like I see it. If I am wrong let me know, more importantly, show me.

I can give you a fish, or teach you to fish, which do you prefer ?

Think in terms of the abiilty to mow the surrounding terrain and then think of the ability to mow the surrounding terrain
near the bunkers on # 8, # 3 and # 14.

One can't view a specific, unusual feature and make a generalization about all of the features

« **Reply #18 on:** September 05, 2006, 01:46:45 PM »

Pat, I'm sorry if I am making generalizations but this is all I have to go by now. Of course it would be very difficult to mow around that bunker on 16 and those guys on 13. But if they did not mow around those why would they mow around the others? Even from the aerial shot it looks like the fairway bunkers were cut around in a circle (particularly the monster at the bottom of the photo).

« **Reply #19 on:** September 05, 2006, 02:00:22 PM »

This thread bring up an interesting question.

When do you think ANGC was at it's best? Strategically, aesthetically, etc, etc.

What year?

Personally I don't think it was early on and I don't think it is at present.
I'll have to give more thought to the year(s) that I like the course the best.

« **Reply #20 on:** September 05, 2006, 07:23:16 PM »

Quote from: JWL on September 05, 2006, 02:00:22 PM

This thread bring up an interesting question.

When do you think ANGC was at it's best? Strategically, aesthetically, etc, etc.

What year?

Personally I don't think it was early on and I don't think it is at present.
I'll have to give more thought to the year(s) that I like the course the best.

JWL,

That's the dilema presented by Tom MacWood's desire to restore golf courses to their architectural high water mark.

In theory, it sounds great. But, in reality, who makes that decision, and who's going to enforce it.

With respect to ANGC, while I don't have the specific year, I'd say it would be prior to the narrowing of fairways, introduction of rough and planting of trees, which have occured in recent years.

Keeping with TEPaul's theories, I'd have to go with the post Bermuda era.

News:

Ryan Farrow

Matthew Delahunty

Jordan Wall

Patrick_Mucci

Ryan Farrow

Patrick_Mucci

wsmorrison

Ryan Farrow

Ryan Farrow

Mark_Fine

Ryan Farrow

Aaron Katz

john_stiles

john_stiles

Patrick_Mucci

Ryan Farrow

Ryan Farrow

Patrick_Mucci

Ryan Farrow

JWL

Patrick_Mucci