[Ryan Farrow]

Natural disasters, large scale member and management kidnapping, communist invasions… is there any chance that Augusta can be saved?

The more and more I read about what kind of a golf course Augusta National used to be the more disappointed I get. I still don’t understand how two of golf’s greatest minds did not make a course that could withstand the test of time.

If the course was restored overnight how do you think the public would react to such a change?

[Tom_Doak]

Ryan:

One of my top ten things to do is to build an old-Augusta styled course somewhere in northern Georgia someday, so people can see what it must have been like.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Tom,

What course today would you consider to be closest to the old Augusta?

[Michael Whitaker]

Tom - How about building it in northern SC!  

[Ed Gulewitz]

Augusta has changed, but I really don't think it can be "revived".  

I hated to see it change over the years, I guess because I always felt I was connected to the place for several reasons.

But really I think the place has changed more inside the clubhouse than on the golf course.  What I mean is that the place once was the incarnation of Bob Jones and Clifford Roberts, I believe they were primarily concerned about golf first, and their membership was composed of guardians of the game.  Now I get the feeling that it is the reverse, membership sees themselves as bigger than golf and merely look at membership as a prized trophy to prove they have made it big.  Therefore, I think decisions on the course and its design become distilled through that perspective.

In other words, Augusta National is Trumpified.  I think Trump uses his courses and properties to magnify his media and financial footprint.  Fine, let him, he has that perogative. There is room for that.  But when Augusta moves in this direction, then what takes the place of what Augusta National?  I mean, where is the refuge of the shrine to golf?  Augusta is becoming the shrine to something else.  I don't know what it is now, but it is different.

I still love the place, and hope to see it one day, but it is not the place I grew up dreaming of as a boy, junior golfer and dreamer.  Maybe this is something that Nicklaus and Palmer may feel too.  They have had the courage to be upset with the course changes, but we may never know what they think about the membership, and if the membership is the same type of guardians of the game as Messers Jones and Roberts?

[Tim Gavrich]

If the course was restored overnight how do you think the public would react to such a change?

Ryan--
The "public" doesn't get to play ANGC.  Heck, they (we) don't even see it but during one week in April each year.  The problem is that the members don't seem to be as concerned as we are; they are not as enlightened.  And as long as the Hooties are concerned about defending par and unwilling to make certain changes which would undoubtedly restore the real (GCA) honor of the golf course, we shall see no real revival, I believe.

[Jim Nugent]

Ryan:

One of my top ten things to do is to build an old-Augusta styled course somewhere in northern Georgia someday, so people can see what it must have been like.

Tom -- would you try to recreate as much of the course as possible?  Or just use the design styles?  How much of the original course would it really be possible to recreate?

[john_stiles]

If it was revived,  would it look something like this ?

The course had a few more central hazards once upon a time.




So, in north Georgia,  would we have an ANGC tribute and  another course in harmony with the landscape ?

[BCrosby]

As long as they play the Masters there every year, it won't happen.

(Imagine what would have happened to NGLA if they had played a major there every year since 1934. Hosting a major puts a lot of pressure on a course, its members and its architects.)

But Tom D is on the money. If someone were to build a new course to the ANCG 1933 specs, I think it would be one of the great courses in the US. Out the gate.

Ironically (and I am writing this against my own interests) the best place to build that course would not be north Georgia, but somewhere with sandier (sp?) soil. I'm not sure MacK ever fully appreciated the difficulties of working in clay. His design for ANGC might actually have worked better somewhere other than north GA.

Bob

[Mike Hendren]

At least they don't have bunkers in the trees - raked, no less.

Mike

[John_Cullum]

Would we want the 16th restored to the original, and the 10th? I feel those holes must be better under the current route.

[John Kavanaugh]

If I was a member I would keep and be happy with the current direction the course has and is going.  It is just one of many courses a guy belongs to..and besides the tournament it must be a cool place to spend a weekend or two.  If it is one of many clubs that you play and it hosts a major why not keep it up to test the best in the world...why not.  That is the question..why not...Would it really be fair to the golfing world to put your own selfish interests first.  That is not in the spirit of the game.

[BCrosby]

John C. -

Build 'em both per the 1933 specs.

MacK's 10th was much more interesting than the current hole. As far as ordinary golfers hit it these days, you may want to move MacK's tees back a bit, but the original 10th was a great hole. (Full defense of the glories of MacK's 10th provided on demand.)

As for the 16th, yes, in some absolute sense the new hole may be better. But it looks and plays as pure RTJ from the 1950's. Which is what it is. So you gotta stick with MacK's 16th, warts and all. Though I suspect it was a better hole than people usually think. I would love to find out one day.

Bob  

[TEPaul]

Bobzee;

Hmmm. Do you think it would be worthwhile to design and build a true original spec ANGC on sandy based soil in China?  

After-all, some say China is the wave of the future? ANGC was supposed to be the wave of the future in golf design, correct? Well, the good old US of A had its chance with that wave of the future design 75 years ago and they completely buggered it up in the interim.  

[Dan Herrmann]

According to Brad Klein's book, the only MacKenzie left is the fairway bunker on 10.

[Phil Benedict]

Augusta pre-2000 was becoming increasingly vulnerable to the modern pro and modern equipment.  The average winning score had been trending lower.  With the course left untouched and equipment improving, 25-under was possible and 15-under normal.

Hootie decided something had to be done to prevent the course from becoming appropriate for the Bob Hope but not for a major.  And can you blame him?  It's the Masters that gives the club the cache, more so than the course.

Let's face it, how many of the courses we love can stand up to the modern pro under normal course conditions?  Look at Winged Foot this week.  The set up is totally inappropriate for regular play.

Hootie had four options for toughening up the course:  add length, add (or expand) hazards, add trees, add rough.  He (and Fazio) chose to deploy all four to some degree.  Most of the objections on this site are about the trees.  It seems to me the alternative to the trees would be more penal rough, which may have been better in that it's temporary whereas trees are not.  Penal rough, however, is less in keeping with the Augusta brand, while trees have been part of the brand for decades.

I think Hootie did what he did to protect the brand.  It's time to get over it.  The old Augusta is gone forever.

[BCrosby]

Phil -

Hootie can do whatever he wants. He can dig the place up and start over. His club, his course. In a sense that has already happened.

But spare us the talk about preserving the spirit of MacKenzie and Jones. Save us from Fazio's bragging about duplicating shot values from the original course.

They can't have it both ways. You can't make your course resemble a US Open venue and, in the same breath, claim a connection with MacKenzie, Jones and the tradition of great strategic architecture.

If they want to brag about the new ANGC as Winged Foot on the Savannah, that's one thing. But simple honesty dictates that they stop beating the MacKenzie/Jones drum.  They left the house a long time ago. Hootie and Fazio held the door.

Bob

[rjsimper]

Revived is an incorrect term unless you A- go back to the very beginning which would result in a layout with which you'd find yourself surprisingly unfamiliar, or B- gather a consensus on what the golden moment of ANGC was, when the course was at it's absolute best (Some, not in agreement with my opinion) would say that it is at its absolute best right now.

Besides, there will be no going back to what ANGC was unless they decide to prioritize the golf course over the tournament, and that has not happened, nor do I see it happening any time soon.

[Phil Benedict]

You can't make your course resemble a US Open venue and, in the same breath, claim a connection with MacKenzie, Jones and the tradition of great strategic architecture.

The problem with strategic architecture is that it doesn't faze the modern pro, because of long carry high flying balls.  Angles matter less with current technology.  Most tour courses have increased penal elements to counter the modern pro, Augusta being in the forefront of this trend.

The only places left that can get by without penal hazards are ones where weather is a factor.

Tom Doak may want to build an homage to the old Augusta, but he won't want the pros to play it.

[rjsimper]

I wonder how a course  built for today's professional would play out -

ANGC was built for the tournament.

Could a super-sized ANGC work today - bringing the angles back in to play based on a 210 yard 5 iron and a 290 yard carry driver?

Yes, it would have to be over 8000 yards, most likely, but imagine an old-style Augusta, just supersized (both in width and length).  Could it work?

[BCrosby]

Ryan -

Maybe. You'd have to stretch things out to 8000+. For many holes there isn't room to do that.

Phil -

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. ANGC elected - in the hallowed tradion of the USGA - to protect par at the Masters against the modern pro game. They believe that objective more important that preserving what is left of MacK's design.

It's a choice they made and have been implementing for the last decade or so.

That is a factual matter beyond dispute and we both understand the motivations for it.

My point is simply that they ought to be honest about that. They need to stop cloaking what they are doing under the mantel of MacK and Jones. To do so is nothing more than propaganda, it is an embarrassing fib and, worst of all, it is a disservice to the genius of Alister MacKenzie.

Bob

[rjsimper]

Ryan -

Maybe. You'd have to stretch things out to 8000+. For many holes there isn't room to do that.

Sorry - did not make myself clear.

What I meant was, an ANGC type course, but NOT ANGC - I am against all the lengthening there, but say a similar site was found and someone with a similar vision decided to build a course based on the same principles upon with ANGC was created, but with today's game in mind rather than Bobby Jones's game

[BCrosby]

Ryan -

Sorry. I misunderstood.

Probably. You would have little choice, I think. The original ANGC was about 6500 yards. Nobody builds par 72 6500 yard courses these days.

Bob

[Phil Benedict]

Phil -

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. ANGC elected - in the hallowed tradion of the USGA - to protect par at the Masters against the modern pro game. They believe that objective more important that preserving what is left of MacK's design.

It's a choice they made and have been implementing for the last decade or so.

That is a factual matter beyond dispute and we both understand the motivations for it.

My point is simply that they ought to be honest about that. They need to stop cloaking what they are doing under the mantel of MacK and Jones. To do so is nothing more than propaganda, it is an embarrassing fib and, worst of all, it is a disservice to the genius of Alister MacKenzie.

Bob

Bob,

I agree with you that their PR is hyprocracy.  I don't think they care about MacKenzie.  From their world view he was a hired hand.  Bob Jones is another matter, but they can cynically invoke his name knowing that most of their public won't know the difference.  Let's face it, a lot of what the Masters is about has nothing to do with golf - time of year, shrubbery and the like.

Phil

[Ryan Farrow]

If it was revived,  would it look something like this ?

The course had a few more central hazards once upon a time.




So, in north Georgia,  would we have an ANGC tribute and  another course in harmony with the landscape ?

Jordan, this once again proves my point that those ragged edge bunkers would look great on any course and any property.

Tom, good luck trying to build that course. Maybe I can add that on my “to do list” just in case you never get the chance.

To the rest of you, if The Masters was on TV tomorrow and the original course had replaced the current day ANGC which course do you think the viewers and golfing fans would embrace. Would explaining all the changes that were done over the years help sway the audience to embrace the historic course over the modern day melting pot?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()