All talk and no action ?

« **on:** October 12, 2007, 09:39:09 PM »

Time after time I read posts where the poster claims that he would restore Augusta.

So, here are the questions.

What specifically would you restore ?

What holes ? What features ?

To what year would you restore the golf course ?

And, how would your restoration fare against the PGA Tour Pros who come to town every April ?

Don't deflect, dismiss or diminish the significance of that event in the context of your restoration work.

The Masters and ANGC are inextricably entwined.
They are, as one.

Be prepared to defend your proposed work !

« **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2007, 10:35:59 PM »

Pat, since about .015% of the GCA.com posters (a connected lot in deed) and about .00015% of all golfers will ever play ANGC, it seems to they we don't necessarily care if it is "restored" per se. What most people identify with is the toon-a-mint. In that regard, I doubt anyone is saying restore it to Dr. Mac's era, or any era thereafter. I think what people recognise is that they don't want to see it remodelled in the manner it has been. They want to see a course for swashbuckling and the great invited field all having a reasonable chance to win with clever play and grafty shot making. They don't want a bomb bombfest between narrow, tree pinching-in FWs, long rough, that takes out many players via those course set up and presentation elements.

Maybe if more of the public had a chance to play it, they would want it to be "restored" to earlier times conditions and ideals, something like done at Pasatiempo. But, I don't think many average players can effectively play as a matter of talent as the course is presented to us every year under the competition conditions.

So, I don't know that you actually read "time after time" that posters are saying they would restore ANGC; what would it matter to them?

« **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2007, 10:41:42 PM »

Pat

I have not been to Augusta to either view the tournament in person or play the course nor do I have enough knowledge to write specifically about the work done by the various architects who have worked on "the National".

All I would say is that it seems to me that after watching the tournament year after year on television, the course has evolved to meet the demands of game at the level it is now played. The "powers that be" who believe themselves to be the custodians of the golf course and the club continue to make changes that they believe will present the greatest challenge to the best players in the game, all of whom aspire to wear the green jacket. I do not believe that the changes made year after year have anything to do with improving the golf course for the members of the club who play the course from October through the day before the tournament begins.

I had the distinct pleasure to play Palmetto Golf Club last week and based on what I was told, at some point in the past, the "National" and Palmetto were similar in nature and design and members of both often chose Palmetto over the National and Bobby Jones made mention of this in correspondence at the time.

My round of golf at Palmetto was sheer joy and the members I played with were constantly pointing out work that had been done over the years, a green added to or subtracted from, a new bunker or one removed and for the life of me I could not tell what had been there 75 years ago or what was done this past offseason when the club was closed for some major turf work. I give credit to Leeds, McKenzie, Doak and Hanse for their sure hand in guiding this great course from the original 3 holes built in 1892 though today.

18 holes, each playing distinctly different from any other, varying yardages and direction. Greens seemed to flow naturally from fairways and then continued on to the following tee. To my eye, the bunkering was the most natural man made element to be found, all placed as if by nature itself and then the the course built around them as if by accomodation.

If in fact Augusta National was at one time similar in "feel" to Palmetto, I feel sorry for the membership who no longer can enjoy the walk I encountered. To your specific point however, I now understand fully why the National has undergone the changes it has over the years. As you point out, the tournament and the course are as one and with that essential truth above all others built in to the true character of the golf course, it would have to evolve to meet the demands of the game as it is played.

No other tournament played year after year on a single course generates as much enjoyment for the viewer or demands as much from the professional. That is a credit to the changes made and the club willing to pursue the greatness required to meet that standard.

« **Reply #3 on:** October 12, 2007, 10:42:48 PM »

Although I don't know ANGC very well there is one feature I just learned about (and saw on an old photo) I would definitely restore.

It is that fairway bunker on #8 that appeared to be almost in the middle of the fairway (which was obviously wider in that day).

That thing looked to be almost a perfect example of a Max Behr "line of charm" hazard feature.

There's no question in my mind that bunker and that arrangement is better than anything else they could possible do or have done on that tee shot.

« **Reply #4 on:** October 12, 2007, 11:08:13 PM »

As a point of info... I went on the other thread where you asked, what 5 courses would you remodel. out of 51 replies, there were 5 mentions of ANGC. That thread is nearly 5 years old! That hardly qualifies as 'time after time'. $:-\$

« **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2007, 11:25:30 PM »

RJ:

You're right. That Patrick Mucci would say that so many other courses should be restored but not ANGC (the Michael Jackson of all golf course architecture) is the absolute height of hypocrisy. It's worse than hypocrisy---it's boot-lickin' and it's pusilanimous as all getout. No, it's even worse than that---it's the worst form of ass-kissin' one could possibly imagine. The man wants to take 50,000 trees off Pine Valley and take the course's look back to 1923 but he wouldn't even dare take a damn pen knive to a tree at ANGC. I'll tell you right now, that guy has no more substance than a bowl of jello.

(I thought about a smiley but I bagged the thought).

« **Reply #6 on:** October 12, 2007, 11:54:48 PM »

Tom, you really ought to consider sitting down with Patrick sometime when you both have a lazy afternoon to spare, and tell him how you really feel about various things. You know, I actually don't think some of those things you mentioned above actually ever occured to him...

« **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2007, 01:03:57 AM »

Quote from: RJ_Daley on October 12, 2007, 11:08:13 PM

As a point of info... I went on the other thread where you asked, what 5 courses would you remodel. out of 51 replies, there were 5 mentions of ANGC. That thread is nearly 5 years old! That hardly qualifies as 'time after time'. $:-\$

Yeah, but Dick, I hear over and over again in many other threads about the monstrosity ANGC has become. In the 5 courses thread, one of those who listed ANGC said "for obvious reasons", or words to that effect. And his reasons WERE obvious to me, because I've heard them so many times in this DG.

Tom's post was quite funny, though.

« **Reply #8 on:** October 13, 2007, 10:43:48 AM »

I just re-read Sam Byrdy's (appropriate name, poor spelling for a golf writer.....) "Alister MacKenzie's Masterpiece - Augusta National Golf Club" again. That should be required reading for anyone answering this thread since it show the original, and dates of all major changes to each hole.

For me the restoration point would vary by hole. How could you not want Maxwell's 1938 green in the design? I think that hole could do without the final lengthening to over 450. I think it was okay to take it to 410 in 2002, though.

Ditto RTJ's version of the 16th, which replaced a 100 yard hole that was too similar to 12 anyway?

Perusing the book and its original photos, it struck me that MacKenzie may have been using too much depression era thinking in using a minimum of bunkers rather than a 'create a masterpiece for the legend of our time" thinking. IMHO, he overused the freak greens (holes 4, 6, 7, 9, had "L" or "U" shapes with very narrow pinning areas, and 8 and 18 were greatly elongated and narrow) to compensate for the idea that there should be fewer bunkers.

Other greens like 2 and 7 were plain dull looking and needed to be changed. Sarazen called it a poor course.

I really don't have much heartburn with most of the changes made over the years, given the look of most of the original greens. I do lament the excessive narrowing and tree planting. Even if they wanted to narrow some landing areas, that would be okay, but I don't think there is any evidence that narrowing the course has kept scores high.

BTW, I understand the next big project - developing the surrounding land they bought as parking has started, and its scheduled to be a three year process, with the new range open in 2010.

« **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2007, 10:54:09 AM »

Jeff Brauer,

I wasn't looking for intelligent, well reasoned and researched answers.

I was looking for answers such as those supplied by TEPaul.

RJ Daley,

One thread doesn't constitute the sum total of discussion regarding ANGC and restoring it.

Since 10 % of posters on the thread you cited mention ANGC I'd say that's a significant number considering the thousands of golf courses that exist.

« **Reply #10 on:** October 13, 2007, 11:10:08 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on October 12, 2007, 11:25:30 PM

RJ:

You're right.

That Patrick Mucci would say that so many other courses should be restored but not ANGC (the Michael Jackson of all golf course architecture) is the absolute height of hypocrisy.

Where did I state that SO MANY other courses should be restored, but not ANGC ?

You continue to fabricate and deal in "revisionist history" totallly absent the facts. But, that's no surprise, that's SOP for you.[/color]

The man wants to take 50,000 trees off Pine Valley and take the course's look back to 1923 but he wouldn't even dare take a damn pen knive to a tree at ANGC.

You're 50 % correct, which is incredibly high for you.

I would remove a large number of trees.
I've never quantified it, as you've exaggerated the number, but, I would definintely remove a good number of trees and restore the SANDY off fairway nature of PV circa 1923.

If nothing else, a comparision of old and new, aerial and ground level photos of # 12 should convince you of the need.

As to ANGC I would make changes.
I've tried to educate you on the concept of lateral elasticity and you keep insisting that you're not late on your electricity bill.

Since I'm consistent, while you're eratic, I'd remove the trees that were recently planted at ANGC.

As to other changes, I might consider, I'll wait until the thread evolves or flutters before responding.[/color]

I'll tell you right now, that guy has no more substance than a bowl of jello.

The beauty of jello is it's ability to conform to its environment.
I like its adaptability, its flexibility and .... its taste when fruit is added. I also like its elusive quality, the difficulty it presents when one tries to grasp it, kind of like you and intelligent thought

But, I'm glad you brought up Pine Valley.

Look at all the changes they made.

ALL in the name of beefing the golf course up for the better amateur player.

Imagine what they would have done to the golf course had they hosted an annual event for the best golfers in the world for the last 73 years. [/color]

« **Reply #11 on:** October 13, 2007, 11:31:09 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on October 13, 2007, 10:54:09 AM

Jeff Brauer,

I wasn't looking for intelligent, well reasoned and researched answers.

I was looking for answers such as those supplied by TEPaul.

Dammit, I am so out of touch with this discussion group, and seemingly getting more so every day!

« **Reply #12 on:** October 13, 2007, 02:40:55 PM »

Pat,

I think that the best way to "restore" Augusta is by there establshing the long-ago suggested "Masters Championship golf ball" that would dial back the distance.

Instead of 6-8 irons we'd see 5-woods and 3-irons hit into 15 again...

It is these type of shots and the decisions of making them that is what I find most missing.

« **Reply #13 on:** October 13, 2007, 03:53:09 PM »

Pat -

We've been around this horn eight or nine times now. Maybe more.

Let me cut to the main issue.

Do you care if the field goes low at The Masters?

Where you come out on that question drives the answers to what you would restore.

MacKenzie and Jones are on record as saying that good players on their game ought to go low at ANGC. Busting par didn't faze them in the least. It was a course designed to allow good play to result in very low numbers.

The golf world has never quite grasped that concept. The golf world believes the opposite. Winning scores at or around par seems to be very, very important to most people.

Which explains the architectural direction of ANGC in the recent past and for the foreseeable future.

Unless there is a tectonic shift in the way people view scoring at The Masters (I'm not holding my breath), unless people get over the idea that a low score means a "defeat" for the course, every year from here on ANGC will look and play more and more like a US Open venue.

Trust me, until those attitudes change there is going to be zero talk and zero action about restoring much of anything at ANGC.

Now if you change your question to remove consideration of scoring at The Masters....

Bob

« **Reply #14 on:** October 13, 2007, 04:02:44 PM »

First of all, I'd defer to Bob Crosby with regard to all things Augusta.

Aside from that, I'd like to see:

1) remove the "second cut";

2) return 17 and 18 to 199X's length - it's not like they were birdie holes before, even with shorter irons, they just weren't slog holes;

3) Return the driving corridors of #11.

Aside from that, I can think of other changes, not necessarily s important (reducing length on #1, returning #7 to a shortish par 4, etc.).

« **Reply #15 on:** October 13, 2007, 05:08:28 PM »

Scoring aside, I'd like to go back to just before they laid the green astroturf on the bridges.

« **Reply #16 on:** October 13, 2007, 05:17:38 PM »

Lloyd -

That stuff is awful.

I'm not sure what the problem was with good old wood planking.

Bob

« **Reply #17 on:** October 13, 2007, 05:42:00 PM »

BCrosby,

My view of ANGC and/or The Masters is irrelevant.

You can't fantasize about the issue, as most tend to do,
you have to accept the realities of the situation and the fact that the relationship is set in concrete.

You can't "disconnect" ANGC from The Masters.

Jones and MacKenzie intended the golf course to present a challenge to the best players, and once you make that part of the golf course's foundation, resistance to scoring becomes a relevant issue.

Busting par isn't the issue.
Good play should produce good scores.
But, Jone's and MacKenzie never envisioned guys hitting sand wedges into # 18 or # 15 on their second shots, nor having guys hit 3-wood/8-iron into # 13 by driving over the trees.

The architectural principles and intended play as set forth by J&M have been reduced, minimalized, or rendered obsolete by the advances in hi-tech balls and equipment.

If you left the tees and greens in their 1934 location the course and the tournament would be viewed as a pitch and putt contest.

As the "first" of the Majors, you can't ignore the fact that the golf course NEEDS to test not accomodate the best golfers in the world.

« **Reply #18 on:** October 13, 2007, 05:47:15 PM »

Bob,

I would grant the gist of your argument about par, but would you make a distinction between "going low" and winning scores in the range of 270, 272, 276 (and possibly headed lower)? Do you think the club's founders would make that distinction?

« **Reply #19 on:** October 13, 2007, 05:57:26 PM »

Pat, I don't know the impact to the tour players and ultimately the tournament with changes I'm about to cite. I'd like to think that adding more thought processes to each hole, which I believe would be the case if some of the holes were restored, would challenge the players in a different way and add more excitement to what we've seen in the last tournament. As for what time would I choose, I can't say. I do think that there have been some elements added to the course that have been an improvement, but I'm not sure if I'm saying that because it makes the course more challenging for the players, or it's an architectural improvement. Here's what I would like to see, based on what the course was in 1930's.

2- I'd like to see the hole's original tee shifted back to the left and fw corridor widened. I'd also like to see the green returned to it's original shape and size with the original front center bunker in place because I think it would add some interesting angles coming into some of the pin placements depending on where on the fw you are on.

3- I'd like to see the center bunker returned on the fw.

4- I'd like to see the green returned to it's original size and shape. This would entail the front part of the green extending further down towards the fw. I think it would make a very unusual tournament pin placement, but I don't think the players would stand for it.

5- Make the 2 left fw bunkers back into one and actually place part of it back into the fw. I'd also widened the right side of the fw and bring the mounding back.

6- Return the Redan features to the hole which includes the original shape, which was far more interesting. Perhaps return the tributary fronting the green complex.

7- Again, return the green to it's former shape. I understand why the bunker's were added, but the former green looked really neat and must've played wonderfully with pin back left.

9- Widen the fw corridor and return the green to it's former shape as well as bringing the front greensdie bunker back. The pin options with the old green were far more intersting.

10- It'll never happen, but return the green to it's original site.

11- Remove the right fw trees and retunr the tee back to the right.

12- Return the green to it's former shape and bring the creek on the front left more into play the way it was designed. This would be a very challenging shot for the players with the pin front left.

13- I'd like to see the original greenside (back) bunkers, but that's straining at gnats.

14- Put the fw bunker back on the right. Return the mounding that used to front the left side. This would've complelled the player to challenge the fw bunker to have a clearer shot to the green.

15- Widen the fw and get rid of the right side trees. I would also return the green shape to reacquire the front right placement that must've been a bear.

16- I think the original hole was really neat, but I tend to agree with Jeff, it may have been a bit repeatitous. I think the present hole was a change for the better for the overall course.

18- Return the original fw bunkers shape and placement, widen to original fw width, as well as returning the green to it's original shape. I think this would give even greater flexibility to pin placements.

« **Reply #20 on:** October 14, 2007, 12:51:42 AM »

David, what was the former shape of #12 green?

On #18, do you mean the fw bunkers that were there in the 1930's? If so, would you fill in the bunkers that are there now? On the pix I've seen, the original bunkers look out of play.

« **Reply #21 on:** October 14, 2007, 11:49:19 AM »

Pat -

There's not a single course built before 1960 that doesn't need to be lengthened from it original yardage. ANGC is no exception. That would be true whether or not it held a major tournament every year.

The more interesting question is how much of the other stuff that has been done to ANGC since 1934 do you want to roll back? Things like trees, rough and fw narrowing; the elimination of ground game options (largely due to Maxwell); the "rationalization" of green and green surrounds and so forth.

Your answer to that question turns on your appetite for low winning scores at The Masters. If you don't care very much, all sorts of MacK design features become restoration options.

If you do care (and the powers that be seem to care very, very much) then restoring some of MacK's design features is a non-starter.

No, that doesn't go far enough. If you want to see winning scores near par, you will want to make many additional changes that push ANGC closer to, say, Winged Foot of a couple of years ago.

M&J wanted to do something at ANGC that was pretty radical. One aspect of that was to be agnostic about low scores. It is a concept that is much more radical than people first appreciate. Can you imagine, for example, any of Crump, Fownes, H. Wilson, or MacDonald expressing such views? Low scoring on their courses was (and is) viewed as troubling. They would have seen it as a defeat. Whatever else a good course may be about, it's not supposed to give up many 66's. That's pretty much the view of the golf world today too (save for a couple of nutcakes at GCA).

We've all been brought up to think that way. I include myself.

M&J tried to break out of that mindset and ANGC was supposed to be their their test case. (That's not all ANGC was supposed to be about, btw.) For a variety of reasons, their experiment didn't last very long.

But it seems to me that coming to grips with the scoring issue is a predicate to how and what you restore at ANGC. It sets the parameters for that discussion.

Bob

« **Reply #22 on:** October 14, 2007, 12:17:06 PM »

Pat -

Sorry to go on, but thinking about the issue, consider the following hypothetical (ah, memories of sweaty palms at law school):

Let's assume a couple of easy changes are made at ANGC. Let's assume they remove all of the new trees on 11, 15 and 17 and restore fw widths to where they were 10 years ago. Keep the new back tees.

Let's further assume that those changes reduce the field's scores by 1.5 strokes per round, which strikes me as a reasonable guess. That means the four day field scoring will be 6 strokes lower than it would otherwise be. It also means that those changes may mean even more strokes saved for players like Tiger, Ernie, Phil etc. Let's say 8 strokes lower over four days for top tier players.

Whether or not that lower scoring bothers you will have direct bearing on whether or not you like my easy, cheap and quick restoration ideas.

Bob

« **Reply #23 on:** October 14, 2007, 12:19:40 PM »

Quote from: BCrosby on October 14, 2007, 11:49:19 AM

There's not a single course built before 1960 that doesn't need to be lengthened from it original yardage. ANGC is no exception. That would be true whether or not it held a major tournament every year.

Then, you'd concede that pure restoration is out of the question ? Yes ?[/color]

The more interesting question is how much of the other stuff that has been done to ANGC since 1934 do you want to roll back?

Things like trees, rough and fw narrowing; the elimination of ground game options (largely due to Maxwell); the "rationalization" of green and green surrounds and so forth.

You can't forget the removal and replacement of the Bermuda, which had a substantive impact on the play of the golf course[/color]

Your answer to that question turns on your appetite for low winning scores at The Masters. If you don't care very much, all sorts of MacK design features become restoration options.

It's not a quantitative question. The fact is that ANGC hosts a Major every year and neither the club nor the network nor the viewing audience want to see desert golf scores. Resistance to scoring remains a critical element.[/color]

If you do care (and the powers that be seem to care very, very much) then restoring some of MacK's design features is a non-starter.

Could you list which ones you feel are non-starters ?
I think the club could produce a reasonable degree of lateral elasticity.[/color]

No, that doesn't go far enough. If you want to see winning scores near par, you will want to make many additional changes that push ANGC closer to, say, Winged Foot of a couple of years ago.

Unfortunately, It seems clear that that's becoming a universal trend which filters down to the local level[/color]

M&J wanted to do something at ANGC that was pretty radical. One aspect of that was to be agnostic about low scores. It is a concept that is much more radical than people first appreciate.

I disagree with that position.
ANGC lobbied to host U.S. Opens prior to the creation of the Masters.

J&M may have felt that par 5's should be par 4.5's, but, I don't think, on a global sense, that they felt that par was an irrelevant number at ANGC.

If we're to connect ANGC to TOC as many do, you can't ignore Jones's troubles at TOC and its resistance to scoring.

And, you can't examine and analyze ANGC solely in the context of J&M. You must consider and factor in Cliff Roberts's considerable influence.

While doing so, you must also diminish MacKenzie's direct involvement[/color]

Can you imagine, for example, any of Crump, Fownes, H. Wilson, or MacDonald expressing such views? Low scoring on their courses was (and is) viewed as troubling. They would have seen it as a defeat.

Whatever else a good course may be about, it's not supposed to give up many 66's. That's pretty much the view of the golf world today too (save for a couple of nutcakes at GCA).

We've all been brought up to think that way. I include myself.

M&J tried to break out of that mindset and ANGC was supposed to be their their test case. (That's not all ANGC was supposed to be about, btw.) For a variety of reasons, their experiment didn't last very long.

I don't agree with that premise.
I believe Jones felt that a good golf course should yield to a good to great round and that meant that a 66 wasn't the end of the world for that golf course.

ANGC sought the U.S. Open prior to creating The Masters.
That should speak to their perceptions of the future of the golf course.

Gotta run, but, "I'll be back"[/color]

But it seems to me that coming to grips with the scoring issue is a predicate to how and what you restore at ANGC. It sets the parameters for that discussion.

You can't deal with fantasy, you have to deal with reality.
The Masters is an intregal part of ANGC, they are as one in many areas.

You can't ignore the existance of The Masters.
It's significance as a Major and that it's here for the foreseeable future.

Hence, you and the others have to deal with things as they are, not as you'd like them to be.

You have to deal with the question in the context of the real world, not a make believe world.[/color]

« **Reply #24 on:** October 14, 2007, 12:53:08 PM »

Quote from: Jim Nugent on October 14, 2007, 12:51:42 AM

David, what was the former shape of #12 green?

On #18, do you mean the fw bunkers that were there in the 1930's? If so, would you fill in the bunkers that are there now? On the pix I've seen, the original bunkers look out of play.

Jim, the green on 12 used to be wider (deeper) on the left side and actually cascaded somehwhat towards the water's edge, providing a really scary pin placement. There was also a bunker on the left side. The bunker in the front center also was skinnier and wider and the front edge went right to the water's edge.

The fw bunkers (18) that are there now are not where the fw bunker (note singular) was before. It appears from the sketches that I have seen that the present bunkers were moved back about 30-40 yds and the old bunker was enveloped by fw. So yes, I do think if it was returned to it's original postition in would be very much in play. Mind you, to get the most out of this, the green would need to be returned to it's original shape and size and therfore the fw bunker would dictate where to hit the tee shot in relation to the pin placement.

News:

Patrick_Mucci

RJ_Daley

grandwazo

TEPaul

RJ_Daley

TEPaul

RJ_Daley

Jim Nugent

Jeff_Brauer

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Jeff_Brauer

Phil_the_Author

BCrosby

George Pazin

Lloyd_Cole

BCrosby

Patrick_Mucci

Gary Daughters

David Stamm

Jim Nugent

BCrosby

BCrosby

Patrick_Mucci

David Stamm