Mike,

Langer was poised to win the tournament before his problems at 13 and 15....the lengthening of 13 or something caused him to hit in the trees long and reduce his chances of hitting close to make eagle or birdie....he made par.  On 15 he hit the ball short into the water for whatever reason you may choose...but trees or length or removed turbo mounds might have come into play.....Langer plays those holes at three under and posts a score....the other guys press and lose.....boring.

Jim,

Living in the midwest...I must say...that is not rough and those are not trees....let em grow some 4 or 5 inch bluegrass rough and plant some mighty oaks instead of those skinny ass pines with no limbs below 20 feet....

I think it should be discussed and noted how the available ground game at Augusta negates the planting of these so called trees.....is there a hole on the course where the green cannot be reached in regulation from the trees....and that rough....my God people it is a second cut...calling that rough is like calling me cut.

Tom Mc,

Absolutely nothing.  My comment was specifically addressed to A. G.'s inquiry on which tees are typically in play.

Barney,

Glad to see someone discuss the "rough."  It sure was easy to see a lot of ball when it came to rest there.  Perhaps it widens the course by breaking balls that are headed into the trees - be they new or old.  Regardless, for those of us "diggers" it would likely be the optimal turf from which to golf the ball.

Mike

"Tom Paul,
You've beaten the maintenance meld horse to death."

Mike Hendren:

Absolutely and positively not and in my opinion, the Masters, particularly Sunday's round is total proof of it. I think it was Dunlop White on this thread who mentioned that ANGC's fairways were pretty firm fast and they were but with the ideal maintenance meld and particularly for something like the Masters I always make a huge distinction between firm and fast fairways (or "through the Green) from the firmness of the GREENS themselves. In my opinion, for players like those the FIRMNESS of the GREENS themselves is basically the total key. And combining that green surface firmness with the speed they were running on those greens is what made that tournament and particularly Sunday so great. To me that was the total key and ANGC nailed that aspect right on the mark. The green firmness has to be right at that point where players like that can't really spin their approach shots well which allows them to hit it right at pins normally. The key is if their pitch marks pull up any dirt at all they aren't firm enough and the pros don't need to think anywhere near as much. Just a very light dent is what identifies the ideal firmness for something like that tournament and with that speed the greens were running they really had to pick their contour and slope mark somewhere else with real thought and sometimes not near the pin and just let the ball FILTER on the contours of those magnificent greens. That kind of thing truly makes those good players have to READ the architecture bigtime. The only problem happens if they just go a snitch over on that green surface firmness and the ball won't hold at all. That can turn a tournament into the opposite effect where even ideal shots can get too easily screwed. That's when those pros start screaming but they weren't screaming on Sunday because ANGC nailed the green firmness and speed  on the mark.

In my opinion, the way they had those greens ratcheted up in both speed and firmness the effect and playability of all the architecture was huge. It doesn't get any better than that. Adding to that is the pin placements and rotations. That just completes the picture in how they can get most any scoring effect from those pros they want.

Jim:

Help me understand your last comment -- you say you have NEVER seen a tree that improved a golf course and then you say the ones on the right side of ANGC's 15th is OK. Hello?

Jim -- the Sherwood Forest to the right is inane. The green is demanding enough to require a properly positioned tee shot. The trees on the right are nothing more than added impediments that fly in the face of what the hole was originally envisioned. It's like adding obstacles for the sake of just doing so.

If the trees were removed the demands the hole presents would still be present without making the hole into some sort of bowling alley that flies in the face of what Augusta was originally intended. To borrow a phrase from years ago supporters said "let Reagan be Reagan" I say the following "let the old Augusta be Augusta."

Jim:

Let me be clear -- there are a number of "improvements" that August has added that have clearly helped certain holes such as #10 and #16 -- I would seriously debate you on your thinking that #7 and #11 are better.

With that in mind Jim -- how do you feel about the Sherwood Forest added to the right side of #11? Wasn't Augusta suppose to be fashioned after TOC with wide fairways for interesting and exciting playing angles. How does adding trees to create bowling-alley type fairways fit with that genesis?

Jim -- the 15th is no bargain of a hole because of the shape and angle of the green -- that's always been the case. Let's not forget that with the pressure of the event it's no bargain of a shot even if some big strong dude pumps it out there 350 yards! The tee shot still requires you to be on the "correct" side when approaching the target. Also, because of the length the players are almost always required to go for it (minus Chip Beck) in order to stay close to the top of the leaderboard. There's also the matter of the 100-yard pitch which is likely the toughest shot to master given the lie, angle and green dimension.

Regarding the Eisenhower tree it's OK with me to take the ax to it. Jim -- I'm in agreement with you that some change can be good and some is likely to be overdue. However, adding trees doesn't cut it and I think your original assertion is quite accurate.

Jim
I thought Seve was in the left center of the fairway and he snap hooked into the pond. Left center today would result in a lay up.

When Jones and MacKenzie designed ANGC these were the requirements they put forth...the essential for their ideal golf course:

1. A really great course must be a constant source of pleasure to the greatest possible number of players

2. It must require strategy in the playing as well as skill, otherwise it can not continue to hold the golfer's interest

3. It must give the average player a fair chance, and at the same time, it must require the utmost from the expert who tries for the sub-par score

4. All natural beauty should be preserved, natural hazards should be utilized, and artificiality should be minimized

Does the course today reflect these ideals?

"But it seems to me that the very fact that the course (the Old course) can be easy when it can be likewise be very difficult is a virtue rather than a fault, because it is an indication of the variety that can be found there. The only course that weill remain dfficult under all conditions will be one that is designed and kept for golf of a stereotyped, monotonous character, and this makes a most uninteresting proposition. Unfortunately one finds too many courses of this nature in America. Our tendencies over here have been to lengthen the holes, and to pull the bunkers closer in to the greens, in order to provide an examimnation in mechanical skill." --Bobby Jones

Substitute trees for 'bunkers'.

I too have been going to the Masters for about 40 years. (In my case off and on during some periods. I can claim to have followed Hogan his last year there. My father, god bless him, insisted.)

I agree in principle with Jim's take on the 15th. Things had gotten out of hand in the mid-90's. I watched group after group bomb drives into the 17th fairway and hit short irons back down the hill to the 15th green. I'm not sure trees were the answer (there was a Mucci thread recently were we discussed possible alternatives), but something had to be done.

But is ANGC a better or worse course? Compared to what? Oakmont? Merion? Fernandina Beach Municipal? ANGC in 1934?

The question conflates two very different notions. The first is whether it is a venue that holds up against world class players in a major tournament. If resistance to scoring is your measure, then yes, it is a better course today. It has followed the tried and true USGA "monster course" formula. It works every time.

(I've often wondered what NGLA would look like today if a major tournament was played there every year. I suspect nothing like the present course. After a couple of 25 under winning scores, even the estimable NGLA managers would cave.)

The second notion embedded in the question is whether the course - absent the demands put on a course by world class players - is better on pure architectural terms now than it was designed to be by its designer? By the usual measures we use to judge a course's architectural merits, is it better? Is it more strategic? Does it call for more and varied shot choices? Are there challenging yet doable recovery opportunites?

In my opinion the answer to the second question is no. Clearly no. An enormous amount of unique and interesting architecture has been lost.

The changes made to 7, 10, 11, 18 have made them better holes for Masters play but far less interesting architecturally.

Take 7. It was modeled on 18 at TOC. It had a Valley of Sin, a funky putting surface, the whole bit. It was, like the 18th at TOC, a hole longer players might drive. But tremendous risks were associated with that choice. Roberts, however, couldn't bear the notion that players might drive one of his par 4's and so we get this hole that requires - to paraphrase Jones - two "mechanically perfect" shots right down the middle to an elevated green. By any measure, it is a difficult hole. But profoundly devoid of shot choices.

Similar analyses apply to 10, 11 and lots of other holes at ANGC.

Some of the best architecture ever put in the ground in the US was at ANGC. Too much of it is now lost.

That is a shame. I'm not convinced that plowing under that extraordinary architecture for the purpose of hosting an annual major tournament was worth the price.

Bob

 

 

Tom -

Yes, it is very hard to keep the architectural interest of a course and at the same time buttress it against low scores by world class players. It's extremely difficult. And I don't have any easy answers.  

But at a minimum we need to be clear about what has been lost.

The current USGA formula is, I believe, inherently and inescapably anti-architectural. The evidence has been pouring in for more than 50 years. It is bad for courses; it is worse for popular perceptions of what good architecture should be. And it has finally infected ANGC, a course I once thought immune to the disease.

I would have hoped that people at the USGA would now, after all this time, see this too. Similarly, I would have thought that their house architects would have also seen it.

I still hope that some brave soul, either from the ranks of architecture or from the USGA (I've given up on Hootie), will stand up and say there has to be a better way to test the best players. At some point someone has to have the guts the say that setting up courses with high rough, narrow fairways and added length is not a solution but a failure of the imagination.

Bob

P.S. I am very interested in seeing how they do things at Shinnie.

So..Kelly Blake Moran,

Are you saying that your enjoyment of a course is based on your ability to strike a golf ball.   I have been taught that should not matter or come into play in ones opinion of a course.....and now all I hear is...it just ain't as good if it is too hard for me.   I don't get what the difficulty of a course has to do with its architecture if the course is not too difficult for a mans potential....you do still design practice facilities..don't you.

BCrosby
Your posts #41 and #43 are wonderful.  Very good work that should be required reading for all of us.
Thanks for the effort!

  Typically the difficultly should not be moderated for man's potential, but rather man should seek to increase their potential to meet the difficulties, which I must say is easy to say and harder to practice

That is what I have been trying to say for years....thanks.