Augusta PR campaign due to?

[Tim_Weiman]

TE Paul:

I'm very skeptical about your suggestion that golf ball manufacturers could not or would not produce a golf ball to meet Masters specifications.

Perhaps it is not the best analogy, but I grew up in the oil industry which has experienced a gradual tightening of fuel specifications over the last twenty five years in response to environmental legislation.

There was a recurring pattern of the industry initially claiming it could not meet proposed regulations.  However, before too long enough engineering minds got together and the issues were solved.

Companies like Titleist, Nike, Spalding, etc., all have enough talent to get the job done.  Just the threat of a competitor being awarded a long term contract would be plenty of motivation.

As for the pro's contracts, I would imagine the IMG boys would easily handle that issue as well.  Would you like to tell Tiger that your company wasn't going to produce a Masters spec ball?

The problem is not whether a Masters or competition ball could be introduced.  It could easily be done.  The problem is that the appropriate authorities are not currently inclined to do so.

Brian B:

It is never absurd to suggest that people in positions of power should set an example appropriate for others to follow.

Augusta National is well within its rights to address the golf technology arms race by continuing to pour money into lengthening their course.

They should not, however, expect people to refrain from pointing out that the club is setting a bad example for the golf industry.

The club may chose not to listen.  That's their right.  But, doesn't this mean people concerned should speak out all the more?

I'm curious about your views: do you think Augusta is setting a good or bad example for the golf industry?  Do you really believe a great number of clubs aren't influenced by what Augusta does?  Do you think more publicity should be given to your suggestion that the golf industry should not try to emulate Augusta?  Do you believe Augusta is not in a very good position to influence the golf technology arms race?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pine Trees don't seem to do well when influenced by man.

Irrigation, fertilization, fumigation, and soil depth seem to take their toll.

[TBJ]

Mr. Mucci

I don't disagree at all with thought and concept of preserving the intent of the original architect.  I believe in most cases that is an esteemable goal.  

To be honest I certainly don't disagree with many of the intelligent, and I stress intelligent, posts on this topic.

What bothers me are the attacks by Mr. Nacarrato on the Fazio group, Dye, or anyone who doesn't share his view.  I certainly respect his right to his opinion (again which he seems to do little of for those who differ from his).  Suffice to say I have spent more time building and maintaining golf courses than Mr. Nacarrato.  Surely this makes me no expert,  but the thousands of hours I have spent on all manner of courses building, maintaining and studying has not been with closed eyes.  So when he attacks in the manner he does - personal and slanderous - against persons he has never met, I take exception.  I certainly was not invited into this forum and maybe this should be my last post.  But I do know what I am talking about when it comes to many of these topics.  I have simply felt a voice needed to be raised.

[George Pazin]

TBJ -

Please please please do not let that be your last post - all posts are welcome & indeed encouraged. There is nothing many of us like more than real world experience & the desire to express one's opinion.

However, I must ask:

Do you not see that Tommy's opinion & your disdain for it are two sides of the same coin? You cannot encourage everyone to voice his or hew opinion, & then question the voicing of it. Notice I said, the voicing of it. You can question anyone's opinion as much as you want, but you seem to be questioning Tommy's voicing of his opinion more than his actual opinion.

Sorry for all the written confusion, but I would rather see you address the questions asked of you than simply question others' "bashing" whoever the flavor of the month is.

[Tim_Weiman]

TBJ:

Tommy Naccarato can tell you that many times, both in GCA posts and private conversations, I counseled him against personal attacks on Tom Fazio or anyone else in the industry.

Why have I done that?  Because Tommy does engage in "Fazio bashing" from time to time and because I believe personalizing the issues we come here to discuss serves no purpose.

That said, I would encourage you to stick around and to view people like Tommy as refreshing.

From what I can see, the golf industry is a pretty small community and most people are very reluctant to speak out publicly on industry matters.

Without the Tommy Naccarato's of this world there would be very little discussion on matters pertaining to golf architecture.  We would probably only hear self serving comments from folks in the industry.

Rather than run away, engage Tommy.  Push him to explain his views.  Tell him why you disagree.

That's what we are here for.  

[TEPaul]

Calm down boys! Just calm down now! If you don't like someone's opinion or even the voicing of it, just tell him to f...off (with one of those smileys) and go onto to the next subject.

[Brian B]

Tim,

I think Augusta is doing what they feel necessary for the tournament and the membership. As any other club should do what they believe is right for their own purposes. This is what gives character to a club and course. This is why I joined the club I belong to and not the Nicklaus course just down the street.

Yes I do believe that a great percentage of clubs are NOT influenced by Augusta. If you try this you're going to have thousands of green super's going postal.

Why would you give more publicity to Augusta as something not to emulate? I'd think you would try to find a situation that is a little more reasonable and has a little more in common with the majority of other clubs to promote. I believe the idea of promotion is for something positive.

Whether or not Augusta is in a position to influence the, as you put it, "technology arms race" is not the point. It's not Augusta's resposibility to do this as it's not the responsibility of my club or yours. I believe that it's the responsibility of the governing body for the game. If Augusta felt that this was as big of an issue as you do they would probably take it up with the USGA and this obviously is not the case.

[TBJ]

Sirs

Thanks for the sentiment.  I do understand that the greatest aspect of golf architecture discussions is that everyone has a differing opinion.  Give 100 designers a piece of land and you will get 100 different golf courses.

I do feel that there is a tremendous amount of merit to be had studying and preserving the great courses.  But I also believe this;  I think it is extremely hard to compare the game as it is played today as to how it was when these courses were built.  Sarazen hits a 4 wood into #15, Tiger hits a wedge.  Score in relation to par may not matter to some, but Mr. Cirba and Mr. Nacarrato can not believe it was the intent for players to be hitting the short irons they do into the greens.  I simply refuse to believe it - even if my name isn't Dr. Mackenzie - as Mr. Nacarrato so astutely pointed out.  The game has changed.  Should the great courses of the golden era be lengthened, tightened, recontoured, or regrassed to fit today's 'standards'.  Perhaps, perhaps not.  But to whom do the members of these clubs owe any responsibility?

I know that the bunkering at Merion was done for one reason.  They wish to host a USGA event again.  The bunker faces had become overgrown and broken down.  Members were losing balls in these faces.  The USGA refused to even consider Merion unless they did something.  Yes, the Fazio group did the work.  Because of Mr. Fazio's ego? I don't think so.  Being from Philly, I am certain Mr. Fazio has friends in the club who approached him.  To me, this seems a bit more plausable than Mr. Fazio's ego running amok.  But then, I couldn't be certain.  My name is TBJ, not Tony Nacarrato.

This is one example of how

[Tim_Weiman]

Brian B:

I share your view that the USGA and the R&A have the primary responsibility for addressing the golf technology arms race.

For that reason, people at GCA, myself included, have expressed our disappointment with their efforts to date in many GCA threads.

I will continue to do so.

But, I am surprised you are so quick to let Augusta off the hook.  After the USGA and the R&A, no other entity is in a better position to play a constructive role on this subject.

Why not encourage them to do so?

Why are you so intent on shielding Augusta from criticism?  They are big boys.  They can certainly handle it.

Keep in mind that the annual Masters broadcast is not likely to include any expression of what is wrong with the idea of spending ever increasing amounts of money lengthening golf courses.  Rather, I am willing to bet there will be subtle (or not so subtle) suggestions that lengthening the course was the ONLY solution to the technology problem.

That is all the more reason why we should continue to speak out in this forum.  It's the best "equal time" most of us will find.

The folks at Titleist and Callaway certainly don't appear shy about expressing their point of view.  We shouldn't be either.

[Tony"the Tiger" Naccarato]

LBJ, (I know it is TBJ, but I owe you one! )
If you understood JUST how close our opinions are, I think you would be shocked.

Yes, the equipment has changed (Especially in the last 7 years) and all the more reason to stop this idiocracy before it really does the game further damage.  My concerns are for the game first and not to satisfy my ego.

One of the first things I think of when talking of ANGC/Equimpment/Course changes is the famed "Shot Heard Round The World" by Sarazen. Especially when it comes to thinking of just how ridiculous of a point that all of the equimpment has gotten. I know you probably feel the same, there has to be some sort of closure don't you think?

This once remarkable design that was the brainchild of two of Golf's more intriguing figures--Dr. Alister MacKenzie and Robert Tyre Jones no longer exists. It is a different course now just as you suggest the game is a different game. Why? Technology seems to be the simplest answer, but I think it is a lot of too many hands in the pot.

Look at the changes overseen by Clifford Roberts by RTJ. Roberts had enough disdain for Dr. Alister MacKenzie, a man he STIFFED for the cost of the design, that making changes to the club after WWII were enevitable. The country was finally out of its darkest financial times and the club was somewhat fiscally sound. (Thanks to Roberts)

Those changes were the result of the "Architect Of The Hour" which of course was the man most probably responsible for turning golf course architecture into a viable sales trade--Robert Trent Jones. Whom, it has been suggested took advantage of some creative initialing to tie himself to the great champion.

While I have stated that many think Augusta's most beautiful hole--the 16th is a result of RTJ, I feel that it came at a cost of other pertinent features of the course, most notably the damning of a natural drainage creek which welcomed disaster during very inclement condtions; the ultimate loss of several remarkable greens which had fallen victim to green speeds that rendered them unfair; (Ironically these were push-up greens) Dramatic natural bunkering that became orgainized and tidy, and enevn worse, featureless.

Roberts would eventually employ George Cobb to do work at the club, and they would eventually find themselves rebuilding features that he was ordered to remove (The mounding right of the 8th green, for one.) this didn't last long either, and just like the features that disappeared, so did more of the design features and strategy. The worse being the further altering of the dramatic closing holes that had made the tournament even more historic and famous

With Tom Fazio recreating what he feels will guide ANGC into the 21st century, this means LOTS of change, and who does he have at his side to urge him on? The Most Recognizable Chairperson since Clifford Roberts--Hootie Johnson, who seems to be welcoming this change to protect the sanctity of the tournament. Something that Bobby Jones once said that, "If the Masters Tournament ever once threatened the sanctity of the club, the event was to be ended immeidately without regard."

I see a pattern here that is very similar to the RTJ/Clifford Roberts years. It represents a complete disregard for the history and the principals, while maintaining that the game is changing and they better be moving along with it, instead of securing the foundation of which the game grew to the respect which the club itself was founded.

Unfortunately I have to end this right now, and I would like to continue and I hope you do too. Who knows, we might learn something from each other and hopefully it can be carried forward to those who never had chance to learn exaclty how the game was perceived in an age gone by, not unlike the way we have so ruthlessly forsaken the history that was left for us.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TBJ,

Like you, my initial forays into discussions evolving into debates on architecture may have become a little heated, even contentious.  I quickly realized that some were very passionate, perhaps overly sensitive, about a number of issues.

I spent a lot of time defending Rees Jones and others, including Fazio on some issues.

I won't say that you need a flak jacket and helmet when you first enter this site on certain subjects like Merion, ANGC, Rees, Fazio, etc.,etc., but it helps.

Once the site gets used to you and your well voiced opinions, things settle down.

If you read an earlier post by Tom Paul, he was amazed that Tommy Naccarato called me his friend because Tommy and I had some knock down, drag out fights over a variety of issues.  But, we have become friends, we enjoy each other, respect our positions, but still disagree on an occassional subject.

I've met so many nice people through this site, and I hope you will to.

So, don your battle gear, voice your opinions and have fun.

Oh, one other thing, I think individuals who post under their name receive earlier recognition and credibility, but that's your choice to make.

Getting back to the subject, I wonder if
NGLA and GCGC held a tournament every year that was televised for four (4) days, what kind of message that would send to the golf world, and would the pressures generated through the telecast cause them to alter the course in any way ?

Lastly, many on this site, including myself  are upset/disappointed, etc.,etc., that many wonderful classic golf courses have been altered/scarred/disfigured forever by modern day arhcitects that would rather place their fingerprints all over the course, rather than preserve the original fingerprints.

[BillV]

It is apparent that something is lacking inour lives when we approach 70 posts on a thread such as this.

If ANGC® didn't host the Masters®, why would this happen?  Boy oh boy does ANGC® have you guys by the short hairs and they don't even want ransom.

This topic is crying out for the input of one BarneyF.

[BarnyF]

BillV,

I have been blessed with three children and the privilage of watching the Masters every April....My children sometimes dissapoint me...the Masters never does.

[BillV]

Barn-o-boy

I have been overcome by the emptyness of the hype of the Masters® for years now and want to know,is there hope for me in holy scripture of the Masters® program or a Steve Martinesque message in the scoreboard at the tone-a-mint of tournaments?  Is Tiger truly the new Messiah as the Earl of Earl has suggested in SI years ago?  

The changes at ANGC® remind me of the crass commonality and "modernization" of the Latin mass of the Roman Catholic Church starting in the 1960's. Kumbaya-lite. Tommy the Tiger has it in italics above.

What was before is no longer any good.  Bullshit.  Maybe it would be nice if what was old would truly become new again.

What a lot of this is about is the fact that we are on the verge of losing the largest group of remarkable golf courses due to advancing technology.  ANGC® gets it wrong yet again. And we all slurp it up like a drug.

[GeoffreyC]

I have been lucky enough to see Augusta in 1997.  The great routing, vast undulating property and amazing green complexes are evident still.  I was no more then 30 yards from Tiger when he hit wedge into 15 on Thursday and he had a shorter approach then that into 11. Let them lengthen it as much as they want.

I think the quote that Tommy uncovered from Bobby Jones himself speaks entirely to to issue addressed here

"Hootie Johnson, who seems to be welcoming this change to protect the sanctity of the tournament. Something that Bobby Jones once said that, "If the Masters Tournament ever once threatened the sanctity of the club, the event was to be ended immeidately without regard."

It is quite obvious that the wishes of Bobby Jones to first run a club where his friends could enjoy the game of golf and second to host an invitational tournament is no longer the case.  Therefore we should accept the FACT that Augusta National is a tournament course and its original features which make it a joy to play for the members are no longer of major priority.  

Let it go. Forget about Augusta National and be VERY grateful that no big professional tournaments will ever get to National GOlf Links, GCGC et. al. !!

[Mike_Cirba]

TBJ,

Welcome, and please do stick around and chat.  We only half as nasty and twice as crazy as we seem.  

However, as Patrick Mucci mentions, there are some strong opinions and heated passions that drive this board so be prepared to take much of it with intellectual curiosity, open-mindedness, and good humor.  Bottom line; if you have a love for golf course architecture, you'll find compatriots here.

Now, back to discussion...  

I find it very interesting that you mentioned the USGA would not consider Merion for future events unless they did something about their bunkering.  That contention has been alluded to before, but it's the first time I've heard it stated as fact.  

The fact is also that most people (including most in here familiar with the situation) recognized that bunker restoration work needed to be done and was in fact ongoing with a different architect and lots of meticulous handwork, prior to Tom Fazio's involvement.    

Differences over approach and timing eventually led to a different contractor and architect.  The resulting bunker work was done in a much quicker timeframe (less than a year for 120+ bunkers) and others can make their own judgements on the results.

As to the USGA, I wonder if they haven't been a little disengenuous with Merion.  Everyone knows what "USGA event" Merion is seeking; the US Open.  In past years, Merion has done a lot of work to try to curry USGA favor (including the bunker work, as per your post), yet it seems their are two unchangeable realities that the USGA has only previously hinted at;

1) The golf course is too short.  Recently, a head USGA official (can't recall the name at the moment) stated publicly that pros would be approaching greens at Merion with wedges on over 12 holes.  Whether that is overstatement or not, it seems that after years of asking Nick Price and others for their opinions of the course, the USGA has come to the "too short" conclusion, despite the addition of a number of new "championship" tees by the club in recent years.

2) There is not enough space for corporate tents, et.al., nor enough space for the 30,000+ paying spectators the USGA wants each day.  Best estimates are that Merion could only support about 13,000 people on the grounds.

I understand and mostly support the desire of Merion to do whatever they felt they had to for another US Open given the historic nature of the club and the greatness of the golf course.  

I only wish the USGA had been more forthright about their intentions, or lack thereof, in a more expedient manner.  It seems the club has done a lot of work in an effort to convince the USGA otherwise.  

Perhaps I'm wrong, and I hope I am, but it seems to me that the USGA has deemed Merion as only worthy for a US Amateur, and perhaps a Senior Open.  The Amateur seems strange to me, because like the Buy.Com tour fellas, the Amateurs tend to hit the ball even further than the touring pros.  If Merion is deemed too short to provide an adequate test for one group, then I don't understand the paradox.  

[Tim_Weiman]

GeoffreyC:

I'm very grateful that professional tournaments will never make it to NGLA, GCGC, Cypress Point, Crystal Downs and so on.

But, I am at a complete loss to understand why we should "let it go" when it comes to Augusta.

I doubt any club has more influence on golf in America today than Augusta.  Certainly there aren't many.

Augusta is a major contributor to the groupthink mentality pervasive in the golf industry today.  This mentality involves equipment manufacturers and course owners spending ever increasing amounts of money in pursuit of length that is only relavent to less than one percent of the golfing public.

I find it interesting that we expect something different from other industries.  We expect the Microsofts and Intels of this world to produce ever cheaper products so more people can enjoy their benefits.

Why are we so quick to let leading golf organizations off the hook?

Why are we so quick to dismiss a "consumer" point of view?

Geoffrey, I don't mind anyone disagreeing with my point of view.  If my thinking is faulty, I'd rather learn why.

But, I am struck by the occasional reference to shut down the discussion.  Isn't discussing matters pertaining to golf architecture why we come here?

Augusta, as a private club, has every right to do whatever it wants with its golf course.  Equipment manufacturers are free to run advertisements poking fun at ruling bodies; they can even run misleading ads against the "golf architect's union".

In the marketplace of ideas, we can and should also offer other points of view.  Don't you think?

[GeoffreyC]

Tim

I agree with you, however, I think it is clear that Augusta National Golf Club has as its primary objective the hosting of a major championship every year.  As such, their objective is to present a golf course that challenges 100 players out of the population of 26 million golfers. I think its hopeless to expect anything different unless the equipment issue is addressed. Perhaps my saying to "let it go" was not appropriate but don't hold your breath waiting for any kind of reversal of policy. Too bad Bobby Jones didn't have a son to carry on his legacy at AGNGC.

I think what needs to change are the writers and announcers that continue the myth that this is Bobby Jones and Alister MacKenzie's venue and that Augusta, its conditioning and greens speeds are something to be emulated.

[TBJ]

Mr. Naccarato

I am ceratin that there are issues, concepts and thoughts on any number of subjects for which we might agree.  However, if I may expand the topic a little, I see two major differences.

1.  I do not believe, "The game is in serious trouble my friends. We now have the Fazio organization to thank for it."  Simply ludicrous.

2.  Golf courses change, period.  Is it natural?  Is it forced?  Is it for the better?  Yes, many times, and sometimes.  The crux of the debate and indeed all of these discussions can be boiled down to a statement that is truth to you and all manners of grey to me.  The preservation of America's great courses, with respect to original design intent, should be the single most important aspect of any reconstruction or remodeling (if indeed any work should be allowed at all).  The thoughts, ideas, even plans of the original architect should be consulted, reviewed and act as the ultimate arbitrator.  I do not mean to put words in your mouth, I am just attempting to condense the discussion.  I believe that with some of the work that is going on at these clubs, the original design intent is being defended.  You can say the courses shouldn't be altered, equipment should.  You can say turning over one spade of Mackenzie graded earth is a tragedy.  You can even intone that Mr. Fazio, Mr. Jones, or Mr. Cupp are the second coming of the antichrist (of which you are not far from), but in REALITY change is constant.  There is not one - NOT ONE - golf course that plays today the way it did in 1930.  From this point on players will always hit drives over 300 yards, knock down wedges from 150, and hit it straighter and more consistently due to equipment.  This will not change.  I understand your points, I just feel that the world is not that simple.    

[Lou_Duran]

Mr. F- I relate totally to your short post.  I visited ANGC one year and look forward to the tournament with great anticipation each spring.  I can't recall the last time I was disappointed.  Talk about a golf course that is the epitome of eye candy!  I seriously doubt that many of its members have concerns about the continual changes to the course.  Most probably play it at a much shorter length and are relatively unaffected.

Concerning the personal attacks on some architects, primarily Fazio and Nicklaus, I think that it greatly detracts from this site's credibility.  Valid criticism of somone's work is fair game.  We have every right to voice our opinions, no matter how uninformed or how offensive we might be in doing so.  How seriously these opinions are considered is based not only on the rationale behind them, but also on how they are presented.  I am doubtful that the influential, substantive membership of ANGC gives any thought to the content of this site, so I took Lynn's original question as strictly tongue-in-cheek.  

[GeoffreyC]

Lou Duran

I would not be too sure that ANGC members are not lurkers.  While sitting in the dining room at Pine Valley earlier this year the topic of conversation of the members at the next table was the Golf Digest ranking of Pebble Beach at number 1 and the GolfClub Atlas website and discussion group.

Now this does not mean that the members views will change in any way but the voice of GCA IS being heard.

[Tim_Weiman]

GeoffreyC:

It sounds like we agree on most points.  In fact, a while back I expressed that Augusta has essentially become a tournament players club.  I could easily construct an argument that this is going too far, but clearly there is a big difference between Augusta and say, other Mackenzie course clubs.

Anyway, I'm not holding my breath awaiting a change in policy at Augusta.  Nor do I expect a change in the commentary by journalists on Masters broadcasts.  That would cost them their jobs pretty quickly.

So, we are left with this forum.  That's why I react strongly against suggestions that criticism of Augusta is "getting old" or that we should "let it go".  Augusta is plenty well insulated.

[Tim_Weiman]

Lou Duran:

I completely agree with your assessment that personal attacks are damaging to the credibility of this site.

Issues like the influence of Augusta National on golf in America can easily be discussed without personally atacking club members or contractors that work for them (e.g., Tom Fazio).  And, they should be.

I happen to also agree with GeoffreyC that Golfclubatlas.com is gradually receiving more and more attention in the golf world.  Whatever flaws may exist, Golfclubatlas.com is still the most open, wide ranging forum to discuss golf architecture matters.

Unfortunately, many people in the golf industry are still intimidated, they lurk but do not post.  Or they post anonymously.

I hope that will gradually change.

We aren't necesarily an easy crowd, but anyone with the self confidence to subject their views to examination will eventually feel at home.

[Brian B]

Tim W. - I never said that you should not express your point of view and I think this forum is a great way to do so. In the beginning I simply stated that these cries about Augusta Nation Golf Club making changes to their course are getting old. We've been doing this for years and it has no effect on AGNC. They apparently don't care about what the public has to say regarding renovation to their course. They are going to make changes as they deem necessary.

I'm not sheilding Augusta from critisizm. I protecting my point of view that I don't believe it's the responsibility of a single club to stand up against what some people feel is ruining the integrity of the game and the courses it's played on. Especially a club that is like none other.  I believe it should be up to the members of ANGC to decide if they want to take a stance on this issue. Maybe a better solution would be some form of golf club assosiation that can help feild these issues. Like I said before, I don't have the answers but let's not scrutinize an individual club for not taking a stance on the issue.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

So after all this commentary about Merion, Clifford, Bobby and RTJ, I am still trying to figure out why the club, that millions of golfers would love to play just once, has millions of dollars in the bank, is running a Public Relations campaign.  Is it Fazio?  Is it Hootie?  I think both are attempting to head off a lot of negative publicity from the short hitters next April.  If they want the old second shot values back why aren't they taking the fairways back out to their original widths?  One final comment, the club today feels an obliagtion to put on a first rate Major Championship.  That is fine.  But it influences the Rivieras' and Oakmonts' to do the same.  That is the downside in all of this.