[David Stamm]

I just purchased Stan Byrdy's book, "Alister Mackenzie's Masterpiece- The Augusta National Golf Club". While I've always known about the significant changes that have been done to the course over the years, I never realized just how significant until I saw the side by side sketches. Byrdy has a sketch of each hole, with a circa 1930 sketch on the left and the hole as it presently is on the right. It's truly astonishing. I've always scoffed every April when I hear the CBS crew go on about Mack.'s design, when in actuality, I don't think the man would recogize the course other than the routing. This book just reinforces that sentiment.

While we all know that Mack. was the real designer there, I get the sense members have really strayed from what Mr. Jones ideas were as to what made a great course. He and Mack. shared a love of TOC and wanted to emulate that the best they could on the property. While it's true the course has had to evolve in reaction to the technology of the game, I wonder how much of the course stills holds true to the concepts that the two men had in trying to duplicate the shots found at TOC. It seems the course is played more and more through the air there. Sure there is oppurtunities to run the ball up, such as at the 14th, but I wonder if they would be pleased if they saw the course today. Any thoughts?

[Bill Gayne]

David:

They wouldn't recognize all the routing because the nines were reversed.

Geoff Shackelford wrote a novel based on what MacKenzie's thoughts would be if he returned today. Like everything else Shackelford has written it's worth reading.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/good-doctor-returns/

[BCrosby]

David -

The Byrdy book is excellent. There have indeed been major changes to ANGC. Very few of them made in the spirit of MacK's original design goals. (The exception that proves the rule is the wonderful restoration of the 8th green complex soon after Cliff Roberts death. Thanks to Byron Nelson, btw.)

ANGC was intended to be a radically strategic design. Lakeside, Pasa and other courses started down that road, but ANGC, circa 1935, took it the extra mile.

Much of what made ANGC so original is now gone. And more seems to be disappearing every spring.

Outside of GCA, there aren't many people who appreciate what has gone on there over the decades. There has been a massive (and very effective) media campaign to portray those changes as extending MacK's design objectives. The truth is quite the opposite.

Bob

[John Kavanaugh]

I would say that achitecturally and competitively Mackenzies mission statement for Augusta National remains fully intact.

[Mike_Cirba]

I would say that achitecturally and competitively Mackenzies mission statement for Augusta National remains fully intact.

John,

That's patently untrue and shows a real disregard for Mackenzie's design philosophies, as do the most recent changes.

The PR spin that comes out of the club in regard to the changes is more tightly controlled than a Pravda copywriter in 1975.

[BCrosby]

Enlightening, John.

Bob

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

If my statement is untrue, patently as you say..give me what you think the original mission statement for Augusta National might have been..in your opinion of course.

[BCrosby]

John -

I'm not in the mood to do your homework. It's just a thing I have. Try buying MacK's SofSA, try reading Bob Jones's books, try looking at any decent history go gca.

Heaven knows, you might pick up a thing or two.

Bob

[John Kavanaugh]

Here is what the mission statement was not.  "Augusta National is a museum to post depression design challenges that will remain intact in the face of technology and advances in the skill levels of the greatest players of the game even if we only become a quaint members course."

[JESII]

I do not know Augusta other than what I see on TV, and do not know much of the history of alterations, but I do feel that any golf course is subject to the goals and motives of it's ownership.

Perhaps at some point the ownership model will change and the course will be returned to what you all see as MacKenzie's intent or design philosophies.

Two questions:

What year would be selected as the ideal for the Augusta National GC as it regards upholding his intentions?

Taking into full consideration the technological advances in golf clubs and balls in the 75 years since ANGC was thought of, how much different, and specifically how, is the golf course today from then?

[John Kavanaugh]

Does anyone believe that either Bobby Jones or Mackenzie would be disappointed to know that their dream of a course still holds one of the top three tournaments held in the world every year...The place was close to bankruptcy at one point and now is easily the most coveted membership in the world...This ain't John Lennon and the song Revolution, Mackenzie and Jones don't have the street cred to pull it off.

[BCrosby]

John -

That's an odd mission statement. Where did you find it? Or did you just make it up?

JES II -

The pressure to host a major every year has had an important impact on changes at ANGC. From literally the beginning, ANGC has had to deal with the games of the best players in the world. Up until the last five years or so, some (but by no means all) of those changes made some sense. For example, RTJ's 16th is probably a better hole than MacK's original.  Many of the other changes I think were mistaken. I think they made ANGC less interesting without adding the "resistance to scoring" they were trying to get.

There is no question that the course need to add more length. That has been done in spades. I don't think they had much choice about that. I wish, for example, that they had lengthened 7, 10, 11, 15 and 17 earlier and foregone the other, quite dramatic changes they have made to those holes.

But what has happend in the last five years cuts directly against everything MacK wanted at ANGC. And that was width. If ANGC stands for anything it is wide playing corridors. With the addition of an enormous number of trees (those added at 11, 15 and 17 are only the beginning of the story) and the addition of much tighter and thicker rough, that core objective has been violated.

To the point that I think ANGC has lost much of what made it a distinctive, landmark design.

Bob

[John Kavanaugh]

John -

That's an odd mission statement. Where did you find it? Or did you just make it up?

That is obviously an example of what the mission statement is or was not...Why can't you or Mike Cirba just post the mission statement for the club in the eyes of either Jones or Mackenzie as you see it.  Why not share your homework with the class instead of playing the bully with name calling and conjecture.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think there are many instances where golf courses of NOW are not the ones they perhaps were and in some respects, credit needs to go to the committees' and superintendents that have implemented; new bunkers, tee extensions, green modifications, tree planting etc etc. Golf courses are very much changing and evolving.
I know Colt was advanced enough to have a tree planting schedule within his design spec, and so thought fowardly of a 20, 50 year look, but many of the older courses were 'layed out'. Tom Morris would walk out with 36 stakes. I suspect much of the pre 1900 stuff was done this way.. ie a routing.
Augusta has made quite dramatic changes over the last 60 years and to my knowledge the only thing that has not changed is the basic routing. Im not sure how much credt can be placed on the original designing v todays Augusta. McKenzie and Jones may not even have envisaged the 13th or 15th as two shotters, the 7th and 11th were probably meant to be a drive and pitch, now they are stretched to near par 5 territory. Clearly some credit can be assigned but Im not sure you can say "It's a MacKenzie"

[JESII]

Bob,

The width component is surely the greatest change. Presumably (remember, I have not been there) becuase the initial product was so wide even by American standards of the day that now bringing in that width is a bit like shock therapy to those of you that have loved the unique nature of what was there.

Considering the reduced spin todays balls and drivers employ (especially side spin), do you think the course plays considerably more narrow today than at its inception?

I know some of the holes have changed dramatically in this regard, but in total, has shot dispersion narrowed at the same pace as their fairways for the elite player?

[BCrosby]

Jim -

Yes, the changes are dramatic. I played there last week. The first time since the addition of trees on 11 and 17. I expected the dramatic changes on those holes. (Though I was surprised on 17 when, after feeling good about a little draw around the Eisenhower tree, I found my ball in the middle of a piney wood. I had to play it out behind the 7th green and wedged on from there.)

What I did not expect was that the impact of the growth of trees on other holes. For example, the left side of 1, 9 and 14 and the right side of 15. Those trees were planted several years ago and have now grown in to be a real factor.

By any measure, adjusting for new technology or otherwise or compared to other top flight courses, however you want to compare things, many holes play very narrowly.

What makes all this doubly ironic is that ANGC is the only highly ranked course I know of that has added trees to narrow playing corridors in the last 20 years. The double irony being that it is the only course among the top rank whose explicit design thesis was to provide wide playing corridors.

Bob

[JESII]

as someone who has never been there but has played many of the other top courses in the country, plus a few overseas, would I be awstruck by the width of the golf course if I were to ever see it?

Sure, this is hypothetical and subjective, but looking at it through a very narrow prism, does it stand out today as compared to others in that top echelon because of its width (at least in certain places)? Or has it lost all of its uniqueness?

[David Stamm]

Jim -

 

What I did not expect was that the impact of the growth of trees on other holes. For example, the left side of 1, 9 and 14 and the right side of 15. Those trees were planted several years ago and have now grown in to be a real factor.

By any measure, adjusting for new technology or otherwise or compared to other top flight courses, however you want to compare things, many holes play very narrowly.

What makes all this doubly ironic is that ANGC is the only highly ranked course I know of that has added trees to narrow playing corridors in the last 20 years. The double irony being that it is the only course among the top rank whose explicit design thesis was to provide wide playing corridors.

Bob

Bob, I guess that's what I started this thread for. It's hard to tell from TV in general, but from what you stated, the course is playing much narrower than I think Dr. Mackenzie or Mr. Jones intended. I think when reading what the two of them wanted the course to play like (TOC), I don't know how any one can come to any other conclusion that the design concept of ANGC has been compromised recently (5 years). TOC offers wide playing corridors and planting trees runs contrary to that. Something that hasn't been mentioned either has been the addition of bunkers throughout the years. I believe the amount has doubled and that also seems to run contrary to what Byrdy calls Mackenzie's Less is More philosophy. And certainly adding rough is not what the good doctor had in mind. Something about looking for lost balls??

[BCrosby]

David -

Your last point is a good one. MacK built greens and green complexes at ANGC such that being out of position was a very big deal. It was enough to have the wrong angle to a green. Layering rough and trees on your out of position mistake would have been something MacK would have objected to pretty vehemently.

An interesting historical footnote is that Roberts wanted MacK to "toughen up" the 3rd with more bunkers and trees. MacK objected very strongly and his design was retained.

Bob  

[BCrosby]

Jim -

My best guess is that you would find ANGC to play much more narrowly that PVGC, perhaps slightly more narrowly than Merion but wider than Rolling Green. But individual views may vary. Those kinds of comparisons are hard to nail down.

Bob

[Jason Tetterton]

Bob:

Do you see any similarities between Alister MacKenzie's Augusta National and the work that he did at Palmetto during the same time period?  Is one able to get a feel for MacKenzie's Augusta by playing Palmetto today?

Jason

[BCrosby]

Jason -

Others will know more about Palmetto than I (Tom Doak, for example), but my undertanding is that MacK never actually visited Palmetto. He did, I think, suggest some changes and those changes were made.

I'm not sure what those changes were. I do know that looking out from the first tee you see before you a par 4 with a classic strategic bunkering scheme with MacK-looking bunkers. Some of that may be Doak's restoration. In any event, just that simple first glance tells you right away that you will be playing a very special course.

Good question. Sorry I can't help more. I hope Tom or others will fill in the blanks.

Bob

[Matthew Hunt]

I'dd Love see it Retored.

Can you see the origanal holes on the web

[Aaron Katz]

When I was at Augusta, I did not find it to be the type of "blow it anywhere" course that some people make it out to be.  At most you could argue that the rough lines are spaced further apart than most "championship" courses.  But the corridors themselves didn't strike me as any wider than a lot of classic era courses that don't have tree overgrowth problems.    

[Phil Benedict]

On another thread someone was lamenting the fact that Winged Foot was planning to modify some of their greens to make them more suitable for modern tournament play.  Basically, Winged Foot is willing to change design features going back to Tillinghast for something that happens once every 10 years - hosting the US Open or some other major event.  Interesting set of priorities for sure.

But Augusta hosts a major every year, and I think the tournament takes precedence over everything else, including the quality of play for the members and adherence to original design principles.  Even with the added distance, the course with its original width was vulnerable to the modern pro and modern equipment, particularly at par 72.  So in order to protect against the eventuality of someone shooting 25 under and the winning score being consisting better than 15 under, the club decided to take out some of the width by adding trees.  In terms of protecting the Masters brand, I think they probably did the right thing, even if it would make MacKenzie and Bob Jones cringe.

One gratuitous change given all the trees they have planted is the second cut.  I think they could get rid of that without too much effect on scoring.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()