What Influenced Bobby Jones?

[BCrosby]

Phil - Mike Young showed me the newspaper article you found several months ago. Mike and I were both very surprised. It explains why the Bobby Jones muni course has one of the best clubhouses around. That's tough property, though. It goes from flood plain to very severe hills. I wonder if they had access to the Bitsy Grant tennis property. It would have been something to see. You need to read the history of Ansley GC. It's peregrinations around Atlanta have been remarkable.

Sebastien - ANGC se trouve a Augusta pour plusiers raisons. A l'epoque Augusta etait l'un des premier resort d'hiver aux Etats Unis.

That changed in the 30's when Florida became the primary east coast resort destination, but at the time ANGC got off the ground Augusta was still a main watering hole for big money from the NE and the Midwest. Since they wanted a national membership and since it was always intended as a winter course, it made sense to built it where the members were likely to spend their winters.

There was great upset in Atlanta that it was not built here. Of the original membership, only one or two men were from Atlanta (outside Jones's own family). The grumbling about the situation continued for many years. One of the reasons Jones built Peachtree was to heal that wound.

Bob

[Dan Boerger]

Phil - Many here (particulary Wayne and Tom) are more qualified to comment on the best approach to 11 at Merion. That said, it's my opinion that as long as you are basically at the end of the fairway, you'll be in position to go after the green. There really is no good way to miss this green, but I alway favor long and left anyway. It's a trecherous second shot no matter what your position. I also think what makes this part of the course special is that you know you need to score before get to 14. I'm a really average golfer and I was 5 over after 13 the last time I played there. Then, the course took souless revenge on me.

[TEPaul]

Sebastien:

Ask the man why it is he speaks good French. But not on here, on the IM.  

Bob:

In the late 1920s Atlanta thought they were competing with Florida as a winter resort for Northeasterners and Midwesterners? I didn't know that. It seems to me by the late 1920s Flager had sort of out competed with himself up and down the Florida East Coast. Seems like there was a lot to pick from down there then.

[TEPaul]

Phil McD;

In my opinion it doesn't make that much difference where you are in the fairway on Merion's 11th. The whole idea is to just get it in the fairway and fairly far down for a short iron approach.

Pretty much the entire deal on that tee shot is just put it in the short grass because if you don't the decision of what to do next can get really hard. And by really hard I don't just mean it can be hard to hit that green from the rough, I mean the other options just aren't much good either. I mean if you're going to lay it up somewhere the only place really is somewhere on the left in more rough and getting on the green from there is tough too.

That fairway is completely blind and I sure never tried to fool with putting it on one side or the other for a better angle in. I'd take it right in the middle every time, thank you very much, just to better insure not getting in that rough.

Originally, that hole didn't have the rough it does today and it had a lot more fairway width. It also had fairway over the first creek in that semi-island and I think also to the left of it.

And that is always the question architecturally on that hole---eg should it have that rough or should it have the original fairway width?

To be honest, I've always been pretty ambivalent on the answer to that question.

But the hole is nothing like ANGC's 13th, that's for sure.

[KBanks]

This is not to digress unduly from a good thread, and it may be covered in Dr. Klein's book, but did Donald Ross' chagrin at not getting the Augusta commission result in him lavishing more attention on Pinehurst No. 2 (and perhaps Seminole)?.

I recall reading this somewhere, but it could be a GCA folk tale.

[Peter Pallotta]

Really interesting stuff, gents, thanks.

It seems that, if we take Jones' words and actions at face value, what he wanted at ANGC was BOTH a fine, playable, "members club" AND a "championship lay-out" able to challenge the best golfers in the world.  I assume that this idea/goal had TOC as its inspiration.

But what still seems striking is that, in pursuit of these twin goals, Jones then went on to help design a course with few bunkers, no rough, wide fairways, and large greens, on a very hilly inland piece of property -- in short, went on to build a very DIFFERENT course than TOC, a uniquely "American" course that nonetheless incorporated the playing strategies of TOC.

Was this, i.e. all of what ANGC was aiming for and achieved, a "first" in American golf/golf courses?

Peter

[BCrosby]

Would you say at the time ANGC began to come into being that even though Jones and MacKenzie may not have known each other all that well that TOC had basically completely transfixed Jones and that he realized there probably wasn't a designer who understood TOC and its architectural essence like MacKenzie did?

TOC was a sort of litmus test for Jones. He had thought long and hard about the course. What you thought of TOC was a big deal to Jones.

No one had thought more about TOC than MacK. MacK was in many respects a tutor to Jones about TOC and, by implication, Jones's tutor to the whole world of gca. It's hard to think that Jones's change of heart about TOC didn't have  something to do with MacK.

MacK was a big, loud personality and a full-throated advocate (in print and in person) for strategic golf design and the TOC. You couldn't miss him in a crowded bar. He loved the rough and tumble of an argument. Like his buddy Max Behr. And they got into some nasty arguments with people who didn't share their views. People were called very bad names.

But the point is that they cared deeply about the future of gca and expressed themselves passionately. I think a young, curious, very bright Jones found all of that enormously appealling. All that opened doors for him and changed the way he saw golf courses.

Put differently, when Jones picked Mack to do his course, he wasn't picking an architect out of a pile of resumes. He was picking a man who had been a mentor.


Bob

[Phil_the_Author]

Bob,

I apologize as I thought that I had emailed you copies of the 4 newspaper articles I uncovered regarding Colonial.

You asked, "I wonder if they had access to the Bitsy Grant tennis property?"

In the AJ's article dated 10/6/28, Ansley is quoted as saying, "We have set out to get the best golf course in this part of the country and we're going to get that first. The clubhouse, construction of tennis courts, polo fields and all that can come later. We're after a golf course."

I have no idea if the tennis courts were ever built, but there is that possibility as well.

There are several site street boundaries for the Colonial Club listed in the AJ. If you have a map of Atlanta, take a look at these boundaries:

1- "Collier Road between Northside Drive and the Seabord Railway." 10/6/28
2- "The club is to be located in the Collier road and Northside drive section, starting three blocks west of Peachtree road... Location of the tract is in line with the city's most beautiful residential development, being on the north side, between Peachtree road and Northside drive, and about a quarter mile north of Peachtree Station... The Colonial Club property will be roughlyy triangular in shape, bounded by Collier Road, starting some 140 feet east of the Seabord Air-Line right of way, Northside drive, and the Seaboard tracks. Two strips to the east of the Seabord are included in the club land..." 9/2/28
 Check your email as I'll send you copies of the articles...

[BCrosby]

Phil -

That's a big piece of property. It would have included what is now the Collier Hills neighborhood right up to where the RR tracks cross under Collier Road. That would have made for a terrific layout.

Does a routing exist? I would love to see it if you have one.

I'd bet the Bitsy Grant tennis center was originally built for the club.

Bob

[BCrosby]

A brief note in response to some of the above.

The mantra that a course will "challenge the best players but be fun for the everyday golfer" has been around since the beginning of golf. It is now a brain cell killing cliche.

There was nothing special about Jones and MacK making similar claims for ANGC. The claim had been made about countless courses before them.

What is distinctive about ANGC is how Jones and MacK tried to implement the idea.

Bob

[JESII]

Bob,

Is that to say...at the green end?

[Phil_the_Author]

Bob.

I'm still doing a lot of legwork, though I have some exciting potential leads.

I am hoping to finally be able to write something about this in late February. There are some remarkable possibilities out there. For example, if I have located the original plan, which I have yet ti verify, we will be able to check it against what is on the ground. It would be wonderful if a hole or two or maybe a few greens still existed.

[BCrosby]

Sully -

At both ends. ANGC is not a hard course for mediocre golfers. They often will post some of their best scores there. That's always been true about the course and why it is so loved.

OTOH, scratch golfers have all they can handle. It isn't just that good players have to pay for weak shots or bad putts. They do, of course. It's that you'll pay frequently because you couldn't resist the temptation to try to do something you couldn't pull off. Not something the course forced you to do. That's a reason why it is loved by so many good players. The course seduces you, it sucks you in. (I'm intentionally avoiding reprising the debate about how it matches up with the Tigers, the Phils and the VJ's. I'm talking about good amateur players.)  

In those senses, ANGC stretches the envelope in both directions. It is more accommodating to bad golfers than most great courses and it is at least as challenging to most scratch golfers - challenging for all the right reasons, imho. It's a special place. (Less special than it used to be because of the fw narrowing, but that too is a topic for another thread.)

Bob

[JESII]

I appreciate you couching that response in terms of the good amateur and the average amateur. It seems in that context they accoplished their goal, or at least very close to it in that the course challenges and pleases both classes.

Must be quite a place.

I'm not interested in the Master's preparation debate today either.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Peter,

I recently read David Owen's book "The Making of the Masters:  Clifford Roberts, Augusta National, and Golf's Most Prestigious Tournament" and found it a great read with lots of information about the course's and founders' history.  It seems authoritative, though the historians here may feel differently, as I notice some differences in the anecdotes related in this thread and the same stories in the book.

If you're interested in how the course and the tournament came to be and evolved, I recommend it.

[Jim Nugent]

At its opening, ANGC was seen a revolutionary course because it was designed to challenge the best golfers in the world AND had  (i) a paucity of bunkers, (ii) no rough, (iii) extraordinarily wide playing corridors,(iv) reachable par 5's and (v) large greens. The common wisdom (then and now) is that if you want to test the best golfers in the world you build  a course that has the exact opposite of such features.

It is in that sense that MacK and Jones pushed the strategic envelope. They took the strategic principles you find at TOC (and some other courses) and stretched them to the breaking point.

Did Ross design any courses like that?  i.e. wide playing corridors, few bunkers, no rough and large greens?  Did he take the strategic principles you find at TOC and apply them en masse?

Also, I wonder what the course rating and slope for ANGC would be?  If mid to high handicappers score well, slope might not be that high, if they don't play the tips.  

BTW, Bob, kudos on some really informative (and well-written) posts.  

[James Bennett]

Following on from the observations of Bob Crosby and others, I recently read a quote by Bobby Jones that showed what he valued, and what he didn't.  Not necessarily related to why he chose Mack and Augusta, but it shows some of his values.

From Geoff Shackleford's "The Golden Age of Golf Design" on page 29, regarding...

the furrowing of bunkers at Oakmont which apparently in the early years was eventually deemed too penal.  After the 1925 US Open at Oakmont, even Bobby Jones wrote an essay about the unfairness of furrowed bunkers.  Bobby Jones is quoted  as saying

"The Oakmont bunkers seemed to say
'well, here you are in a bunker, and it doesn't matter how good you are, or how much nerve you have, the only good thing you can do now is blast.'
Yet, a furrowed bunker, supposedly to reward a skilful player, absolutely precludes the use of a recovery shot requiring more than the application of a strong back and a willing heart! I should never care to argue for anything which would lessen the difficulty of the game, for its difficulty is its greatest charm. But when, in spite of the great improvements in the ball, in seeking to preserve the difficulty and to make scoring as it was in the old days, we make the mistake of destroying the effect of skill and judgement in an important department, I cannot help protesting."

Interesting stuff which (from the previous thread respondents) appears to pre-date his meeting mith Mack.  Yet a series of common values between Mack, Jones, Augusta and the Old Course can be seen.  

Perhaps Augusta should not be compared as a template of St Andrews (which it clearly isn't) but more an embodiement of rewarding the skilful, nerve-free player.  Perhaps that is why Tiger won by so many shots at Augusta (and at the Old Course) before the fairways were narrowed - the course identified him as the best.

James B

[James Bennett]

Martin Bonnar, Bill McBride

as we know, nothing is new on GCA.  We discussed the time of the name change of the 10th hole at St Andrews perhaps a year ago.  I had a tea-towel from my 1970/71 trip to the UK when I was 11 which showed #10 as 'the tenth'.  The tea-towel was bought at Lilywhites in London.  That was the trip when I visited Glencruitten (see recent thread) - a pity no-one else repsonded to that thread.

GCA determined then (I think through Hux and others) that the hole was changed in title shortly afterwards, in Jones honour.

James B

[TEPaul]

Bob Crosby:

A couple of other questions on the original concept of ANGC.

It had only 22 bunkers originally, right? Do you suppose that was the way Jones and MacK intended the course to be or hadn't they gotten around to including more at that point?

If a real paucity of bunkers was the way they intended the course I wonder what they felt about the effects of the far more dramatic topography of ANGC compared to the far more rumpled TOC as to overall playability and as a test. Seems like ANGC possesed some of that interesting effect we sometimes call "gravity golf" that TOC certainly never had. I wonder if the dramatic topography of ANGC was the prime reason for so few bunkers. By the way, this was sort of Flynn's modus (go light on bunkers if you have great topography).

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Maybe. I've never seen anything where they talked about a trade-off between contouring and bunkering. But it makes some sense.

ANGC holes do have a lot of movement. Not just up and down from the ridge the clubhouse sits on, but everywhere on the course. Even "flat" holes like 3 or 14 have a lot of movement. I assume much of that is original.

It's interesting that just after ANGC opened, many commentators made a big deal about the lack of bunkers. Some saw it as a design breakthrough. First, because it was so different. Second, because it reduced maintenance expenses, a big issue as the Great Depression was taking hold. But I don't think upkeep expense had anything to do with their decsion to minimize bunkering at ANGC.

Bob

 

[TEPaul]

"Some saw it as a design breakthrough. First, because it was so different."

Bob:

Do you recall who some of them were who thought that?

To really understand the original concept of ANGC, I guess it's necessary to sort of segregate the thinking of those there around the design and construction of the course from what-all happened later like after the onset of the Master and after Ciiff Roberts began to assert himself on the golf course. Would that be accurate to say?

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Also, if one is simply able to look at the land as it was pre-construction and compare that to what got built, ANGC just may be one of golf architecture's minimalist designs.

I wonder if there is a pre-construction topo around. In the hands of a dedicated analyst you wouldn't believe some of the interesting things that can show regarding what they were up to there in the beginning. Of course one would also need to construct a pretty good design evolution of what happened over the years too.

[john_stiles]

Perhaps a peak at an early photo of ANGC would be in order.  

I would imagine that little dirt was moved except at the greens, tees, and bunkers.  that little dirt was about 120,000 cu yds.

It illustrates not only that few bunkers were used, but that those few were often spectacular.

When first opened, the course had quite a few centerline hazards as well.  The photo shows the creeks before they were piped or damned.

The 14th is in the foreground with a hugh centerline bunker. The clubhouse and Magnolia lane is at the top of the photograph. The large bunker at the 10th cannot be seen.

Stan Byrdy's book, 'The Augusta National Golf Club' has many old photos. The photo on page 42 is a very early aerial.

[Peter Pallotta]

This is getting more interesting all the time.

Using a dramatic inland property, shaping it very little, having so few bunkers, getting the 'playable for all levels' right, in practice and not just in theory -- and all this in the name of achieving the strategic options of TOC, a course thousands of miles away and hard against the sea.

Wow. That Bobby Jones was a boy-genius! (Others too)

Peter
(just saw it - John Stiles, thank you for posting that).

[BCrosby]

Tom -

I'll check my files at home on what some of the commentators said. It's pretty interesting.

As you note, you need to separate the ANGC thinking pre and post The Masters phenomenon. The success of The Masters caught everyone off guard. Post-Masters there were all sorts of issues that came into play that very few courses need to deal with. You look at your course differently when it is going to host a Major every year.

That was compounded by the mixture (or better, the admixture) of the personalities of Roberts and Jones. Roberts knew nothing about gca. No, it was worse than that. He thought he knew something about gca, but in fact didn't. So he could be dangerous when it came to design issues and sometimes it showed. OTOH, the one thing Roberts did know how to do was run a big golf tournament and he didn't let anyone or anything get in his way. Including Jones.

Bob