[David Stamm]

Pat, I'll have to check my history, but I thought Roberts idea came later to host a USGA event in an attempt to give the course exposure and help boost sagging memberships.

I seem to recall that ANGC was never envisioned to be a "major" tournament venue, simply a dream fulfilled by Jones and a place for he and his close friends to mingle and enjoy. Roberts was the one who pushed for the course to host a tournament and when the USGA shut them out then he decided to hold their own, all in an effort to keep the club afloat. I'll have to hit the books and see.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

What gave you the idea that I want to see pure restoration of ANGC? I'm not even sure what that would mean.

You'll have to trust me on this, but ANGC did not seek a US Open because they wanted an excuse to tighten their fw's. They sought a US Open for image and financial reasons. When they couldn't schedule a US Open, they went to the Masters invitational concept. Both ideas were, at the time, about raising badly needed revenues.

I don't know where you get the idea that Jones loved TOC because of its resistance to scoring. And resistance to scoring was certainly not why TOC served as a model for many design concepts MacK built at ANGC. In fact, something like the opposite was the case.

I agree that most of the golf world does not want to see desert golf scores. But why do you think that is? Is it because it makes the course look bad? How much of that reaction is just the way we were taught to think? Is the notion that such courses don't "test" players sufficiently?

But the notion that harder courses weed out better players has no empirical basis. It's one of those fact free assumptions people make. Great players win with pretty much the same frequency on easy, middling and hard courses. Doesn't matter much.

Pros would tear up lots of great courses, from NGLA to PV to Chicago Golf to Cypress to Bandon Trails to Pac Dunes. Would your view of those courses change if Tiger posted a 21 under at any of them? Because we all know he could any time he teed up.

I think resistance to scoring as a criterion of the quality of a course - given technology changes in the last ten years - needs to be seriously rethought. At some level it matters, but only after lots of other more relevant factors are considered.

Which is another way of saying that changing great courses to resist low scores by the greatest players today is not a very good idea. Let's live with lower winning scores. Because the alternative is much more costly.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, I'll have to check my history, but I thought Roberts idea came later to host a USGA event in an attempt to give the course exposure and help boost sagging memberships.

David,

I think that might be a fallacy.

Roberts put forth the idea to host an Open in 1932, the same  year that construction began on the golf course.

In addition, neither the U.S. Amateur, a huge event, nor the U.S. Open had ever been held south of the Mason-Dixon line and RTJ wanted to address that issue.  His desire to do so was one of the reasons he built his own golf course.  ANGC has been conceived from the begining as a venue where championships would be held.

The time of year that Open's were held was a major impediment to ANGC ever getting an open.[/color]

I seem to recall that ANGC was never envisioned to be a "major" tournament venue, simply a dream fulfilled by Jones and a place for he and his close friends to mingle and enjoy. Roberts was the one who pushed for the course to host a tournament and when the USGA shut them out then he decided to hold their own, all in an effort to keep the club afloat. I'll have to hit the books and see.

Include David Owen's book in your research.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

What gave you the idea that I want to see pure restoration of ANGC? I'm not even sure what that would mean.

You'll have to trust me on this, but ANGC did not seek a US Open because they wanted an excuse to tighten their fw's.


What club has ?
[/color]

They sought a US Open for image and financial reasons.


I think they always envisioned hosting a championship tournament, Amateur or Open.  Don't forget, in 1932-4 Amateur golf was big, perhaps far bigger than professional golf.[/color]

When they couldn't schedule a US Open, they went to the Masters invitational concept. Both ideas were, at the time, about raising badly needed revenues.

While money was a concern, it didn't preclude the idea and hope that ANGC would host championships in the future.[/color]

I don't know where you get the idea that Jones loved TOC because of its resistance to scoring.

I never said that, that's your reinterpretation of my referencing the connection between the two courses.[/color]

And resistance to scoring was certainly not why TOC served as a model for many design concepts MacK built at ANGC. In fact, something like the opposite was the case.

Whether it be 1932 or 2007, the concept of hosting a "championship" is inextricably entwined with the concept of scoring[/color]

I agree that most of the golf world does not want to see desert golf scores.

But why do you think that is?

I think it's because almost ANYONE can shoot a low number on those courses, whereas, it usually takes a special golfer to produce very low scores on a "championship" venue that's hosting a major[/color]

Is it because it makes the course look bad ?

Yes.
When the entire field or the majority of the field has the course for lunch, its stature gets tarnished.[/color]  

How much of that reaction is just the way we were taught to think ?

Not that much.
I believe that it's inherent in the concept of a hosting a championship on a "championship" rather than a mundane venue.[/color]

Is the notion that such courses don't "test" players sufficiently?

I think that's part of it, especially when the entire, or majority of the field has a field day at the course's expense.
[/color]

But the notion that harder courses weed out better players has no empirical basis.

I'm not so sure that I buy into that when it comes to Majors.
Winners of Majors tend to produce outstanding records for themselves.  I'm not so sure that the Greater Milwaukee or Hartford Opens produced the same pedigree.[/color]

It's one of those fact free assumptions people make. Great players win with pretty much the same frequency on easy, middling and hard courses. Doesn't matter much.

Perhaps, but, mediocre players don't excel on difficult courses that host majors.[/color]

Pros would tear up lots of great courses, from NGLA to PV to Chicago Golf to Cypress to Bandon Trails to Pac Dunes.


Only because they haven't been prepared to present a challenge commensurate with the talent that will compete.

And, PV has beefed up their defenses...... for amateurs.[/color]

Would your view of those courses change if Tiger posted a 21 under at any of them?

In the context of hosting a major ?  Absolutely.

In the context of every day member play ?  No.[/color]

Because we all know he could any time he teed up.

I think resistance to scoring as a criterion of the quality of a course - given technology changes in the last ten years - needs to be seriously rethought. At some level it matters, but only after lots of other more relevant factors are considered.


Bob, you keep ignoring reality and the facts.

ANGC serves two MASTERS, and therein lies a good deal of the problem.

In the past you might be able to accomodate those diverse interests, TODAY, I don't believe you can.[/color]

Which is another way of saying that changing great courses to resist low scores by the greatest players today is not a very good idea.

Yet, even local courses are adjusting, trying to keep their venue relevant when it comes to higher competitions.

I'd like to see ANGC come out with a competition ball.
I think that solves many of the problems.[/color]

Let's live with lower winning scores. Because the alternative is much more costly.

Not if you can easily afford it.[/color]

[BCrosby]

Pat -

Fixing the design issues at ANGC by fixing balls or equipment is not on the table. So let's get real world.

If the organizing principle steering further changes to ANGC is keeping Masters winning scores at or near par, it does not take a lot of imagination to figure out what kind of changes those will be. In fact, it's childs' play.

The most interesting issue raised by ANGC is that it challenges our long-held beliefs about resistance to scoring.

For all sorts of reasons, I think those long-held beliefs need to be rethought. From the ground up.

Because in the absence of a roll back of technology, rethinking our assumptions about resistance to scoring is the least bad of the options left on the table.

Bob  

[Phil Benedict]

I'm not into MacKenzie nostalgia so I don't much care what the course looked like in 1935.  I would get rid of all the trees they planted in the Fazio era and eliminate the first cut, but keep the 500 or so yards they have added since the late '90's, with the possible exception of the most recent increase in yardage to #7 (from 410 to 450 or whatever is now).

[David Stamm]

Pat,


  I re-read David Owens book last night and came across some interesting info that I had forgotten about.


He mentions that Jones had very much wanted to change the fact that the South had not hosted an USGA event. While this was something that he had hoped ANGC would be the one change this, it wasn't something they could actively pursue for a number of reasons.  

  He had mentioned that the USGA had solicited the club about hosting, but Roberts had probably made the suggestion to Prescott Bush (GHW's father) that the club would make a suitable site. At the time, the club had only been opened 6 months and Roberts worried about "finishing touches". The club simply just did not have the facilities to host a tournament of that magnitude. What they had at the time was rudimentary at best (meaning all non course issues ie clubhouse). Roberts had hoped by hosting a tournament that the USGA would foot the bill by finishing up the course and facilities. This would also allow them to pay off AM what they owed him by providing him with a contract with the USGA to finish the work.


   As you know, the club's financials were of Roberts primary concern and anything that could help him gain exposure for the club and sell the needed memberships was of top priority. Getting the USGA to come and help this cause was, it appears, the real reason, AT THAT MOMENT. The very future of it's existence was at stake. However, there were a few logisitical problems as well. The USGA would have to hold it several months earlier than usual and the qualifying would have to be held even earlier than that. At that time of year, most pro's held club jobs that paid them a salary, a salary that they counted on. This would be major sticking point because the main purpose at that time for hosting an event was exposure, exposure to the top players at the time in the hopes that the word would spread about the club and hopefully generate the much needed memebrships. But there was something else. Roberts was counting on the players to come because ANGC was Jones project and hoped that the players would feel compelled to come because of this fact. Roberts felt that in order to get the best turn out, Jones himself would have to play. This wasn't possible because Jones amateur status would then be called into question because of his endorsement contracts, something Roberts would not have let happened. The only way to get Jones to play and not jeporadize his image would be to host a tournament themselves. They needed Jones, plain and simple, and the only way this could happen and make it a win-win was to have their own tournament.



   Why am I bringing all this out? Well, it's true that the course was envisioned as a future championship site, but the deprssion and the hard times the club experienced in the early days put this dream on the back burner for the time being. Surviving was their only concern at the time. It's ironic that hosting a USGA event was something they needed out of necessity, more so than want.


One final thought. The club was envisioned as a country club. Because of the financial turmoil that the club faced, they had to pare down the other ideas, such as tennis courts, swimming pools and eventually selling home sites. I believe this process trickled down to the course as well. Both Stan Byrdy's and David Owen's books talk about how AM used certain features on the course for economical reasons, such as using mounding in spots instead of defending with bunkers. Perhaps Roberts felt all along that when times got better that they could go back and reintroduce ideas that initially just weren't financially possible then.

[BCrosby]

David -

Good summary.

It's true that ANGC was designed by MacKenzie to be (among other things) a major venue.

Which is why I find it odd that people justify subsequent changes as being necessitated by the fact that ANGC turned out to be a major venue.

I don't mean that to suggest that nothing should have ever been changed.

The point is that MacK would not have been surprised to learn that major tournies would be played on ANGC. That was not something he forgot to think about when he designed ANGC.

Bob  

[Jason Topp]

I just re-read Sam Byrdy's (appropriate name, poor spelling for a golf writer.....) "Alister MacKenzie's Masterpiece - Augusta National Golf Club" again.  That should be required reading for anyone answering this thread since it show the original, and dates of all major changes to each hole.

I consider this book to be the best read ever on the issue of restoration because it extensively documents (1) original intent; (2) original look, (3) changes over time.

I would need to play the course some to be sure what I would change.  I do think it is a shame the bunkers and greens do not look like they originally did.  I think all of the added length was necessary except the short par fours on the front nine.

As a tournament course, I think it has gotten less exciting except when they put the pins in bowls and even that seems contrived.  I wonder how the tournament would play if they kept the length, kept the firmness but slowed down the greens a bit.  

[David Stamm]

Is Clifford Roberts book worth having?

[BCrosby]

It's not very enlightening about his role in changes to ANGC, but definitely worth having.

You can get it on ebay for a reasonable price.

One of the under-appreciated books on ANGC is Charles Prices' published about 20 years ago. In fact, I think Charles Price as a golf writer is badly over-looked. He was very good.

Bob

[David Stamm]

It's not very enlightening about his role in changes to ANGC, but definitely worth having.

You can get it on ebay for a reasonable price.

One of the under-appreciated books on ANGC is Charles Prices' published about 20 years ago. In fact, I think Charles Price as a golf writer is badly over-looked. He was very good.

Bob

Thanks Bob. I agree, Charles Price is underrated.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is Clifford Roberts book worth having?

David,

I can't comment on the merits of possession, but, it would seem to represent the acquisition of a perspective not yet presented, and therefore, unique and informative.

Where can I obtain a copy ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David -

Good summary.

It's true that ANGC was designed by MacKenzie to be (among other things) a major venue.

Which is why I find it odd that people justify subsequent changes as being necessitated by the fact that ANGC turned out to be a major venue.

I don't mean that to suggest that nothing should have ever been changed.

The point is that MacK would not have been surprised to learn that major tournies would be played on ANGC. That was not something he forgot to think about when he designed ANGC.

Bob,

I've said that all along.

But, I don't think that AM had the slightest concept, in 1932, of what was to come in 2007.

Furthermore, I don't think that any of us, in 1977, had any concept of what was to come in 2007.

So, you can't view AM's limited vision of presenting a challenge to the best players of his time, in the context of how he would have prepared ANGC for the 2008 Masters.

The leap is beyond quantum, even if he was around in 1977.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Stamm,

I'll respond to your lengthy post, but, probably not until Wednesday evening.

What you and others appear to forget is that the U.S. Open wasn't a big money maker for clubs in the 30's 40's and 50's.

Many clubs lost money on USGA events.

I also didn't interpret Owens' remarks as you have.

ANGC was always envisioned as being a "championship" venue, especially by Jones.  Hence prepping it accordingly should come as no surprise.

Golf courses have to have a strong degree of "relevance" if they're to present a challenge to the best players in the world.  And that relevance means presenting a stern test, an all encompassing challenge.

As recently as the 60's, many also forget that golfers had to "hammer" putts when the greens were Bermuda.  This also affected chips, pitches and full shots.  If ANGC was returned to greens that stimped at 6 or maybe 8, the golf played on that course would be vastly different than it is today.

The Masters wasn't envisioned as a Bing Crosby Clambake.
It was never intended to be a social gathering with a tangential, casual competition to boot.

[David Stamm]

David Stamm,

I'll respond to your lengthy post, but, probably not until Wednesday evening.

What you and others appear to forget is that the U.S. Open wasn't a big money maker for clubs in the 30's 40's and 50's.

Many clubs lost money on USGA events.

I also didn't interpret Owens' remarks as you have.

ANGC was always envisioned as being a "championship" venue, especially by Jones.  Hence prepping it accordingly should come as no surprise.

Golf courses have to have a strong degree of "relevance" if they're to present a challenge to the best players in the world.  And that relevance means presenting a stern test, an all encompassing challenge.

As recently as the 60's, many also forget that golfers had to "hammer" putts when the greens were Bermuda.  This also affected chips, pitches and full shots.  If ANGC was returned to greens that stimped at 6 or maybe 8, the golf played on that course would be vastly different than it is today.

The Masters wasn't envisioned as a Bing Crosby Clambake.
It was never intended to be a social gathering with a tangential, casual competition to boot.

Pat,


   Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier. I think this an important thread.


I realize the Open wasn't a big money maker. However, if you remember in Owens book, Roberts had hoped that by having an event there that the cost of completing the course and facilities would be footed by them. And during the dark days of the depression, ANY possibility of making money must've looked awful tempting considering the dire straits of the club.


I also understand the idea was always to make a championship venue, I merely was pointing out that club wasn't in a position to even pull it off in the beginning. It was logistically problematic.

In regards to the Bermuda, you're right, many forget that this was origianlly the grass surface used. I often wonder how much the greens have been softened over the years to even accomodate the speeds that were acheived by the bent. The greens would've been impossible to putt had bent been used in the beginning, which is really ridiculous for me to say because then those wild greens would've never been so wild then to begin with ( if that makes any sense at all  ).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()