Ron Whitten article arguing that they got the changes to Augusta Right

[John Kavanaugh]

Haven't read the article yet, BUT, what comes to my mind are... Mr. Whitten just built an 8000 yard monstrosity. And, Cliff Robert's influence in '51 was something a gentleman wouldn't necessarily go against.
 There are clearly at least two factions in our GCA argument. One, contains the powers that be at places like Pebble Beach and ANGC. While the other, holds greatness to a keener definition. Mr. Whitten has picked his camp and pitched his tent with what appears to be more for the status quo. Longer more expensive and ill-conceived architecture for the future.

Adam,

Are you saying that Ron has lost credibility as a critic because he became an architect? 

[Adam Clayman]

No, His views about the direction GCA should take, have been expressed before. He fails to see the logic in a rollback of the USGA ball specs, and has stated so in the past.

Mr. Whitten gets a lot of respect because he was one of the first to bring GCA into the conversation in modern times. I'm not sure I have ever read a single review of a course that I'm familiar with that I agreed 100% with him. His ideas on how to make things better, on a specific course, always seem forced. I'll cite his notion of moving the final hole at Twin Warriors to the most peaceful section of the golf course and his idea to frame the 18th at Ballyneal with bunkers on the far right side as just two examples where I disagree with his conclusions (ideas). 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam and others, nice to know you don't even have to read the article to thrash Mr. Whitten.  As to Erin Hills being 8000 yards, I put that in the moderate camp anymore - didn't Big John Daley finish one at 10 or 12K?

Is it right to demand that every written piece in a magazine adopt your preference for a ball rollback as its premise?

And how does advocating golf course changes constitute advocating the "status quo?" I think those who think a golf course should never change would be the status quo adocates, no?  Or, the "status was" and in some cases, "status never was, but we imagined it was".

Dan Kelly,

I agree for Augusta, at least. For most courses, maintaining play options that no one uses is a waste of money (i.e. ill concieved double fw) but I doubt Augusta is strapped for cash.

But really, which run up options have been taken away by design and which by irrigation?

Lastly, to all:

Can we actually admit, after looking at Byrdy's book, which clearly shows such convoluted, un artistic and clearly freak greens to a large extent that ANGC REALLY wasn't a great course in its original design if you LOOK at the features, and not the image you have built up in your mind?

[Jason Topp]

Lastly, to all:

Can we actually admit, after looking at Byrdy's book, which clearly shows such convoluted, un artistic and clearly freak greens to a large extent that ANGC REALLY wasn't a great course in its original design if you LOOK at the features, and not the image you have built up in your mind?

I'll take a look again tonight.  I found the book to be a revelation for the opposite reason - the course seemed so artistic and interesting.   

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, I prefaced my remarks and felt the info within this thread was enough to make a comment about the divide of factions. Slamming Mr. Whitten was not my intent. Discussing the subtext of the issue was.

As for my preference for a rollback, you clearly read too much into it. You do not know what that preference is, unless you are psychic. Mr. Whitten is on record in an article he wrote awhile back.

It is nice to finally see a GCA stand up for his brotheren because a rollback would kill business.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

Fair enough. I view those odd shaped greens as something Mac would like (as Doak notes in his book, he was noted for Freak greens)  However, if pros then were like pros now, I can't imagine they would like horseshoe greens, et al. and as the tourney grew in importance, want them changed.

I think history shows that Roberts, contestants, and others were all making suggestions early on to improve the course from their perspective.  In fact, Ron shared with me some of the correspondance he reviewed in writing the article in the form of letters to Maxwell regarding the 9th green, etc.

He said the original was like a pancake on top of a hill.  That doesn't sound like a very flattering description of a green that would merit it being "saved" in its wondrous original form.  As always, I could be wrong. In fact, I almost certainly am to some degree!

Adam,

You said, "Mr. Whitten has picked his camp and pitched his tent with what appears to be more for the status quo. Longer more expensive and ill-conceived architecture for the future. "

Sounds like a broad based thrash to me, whereas your specific incidences of disagreement (even though I can't recall either the articles or holes in question) go down quite a bit easier.

As to the rollback issue, I just can't see taking a writer to task for reporting on how things are and are likely to be.  It would be like asking a political reporter to assume that Bush wasn't president these last four years because you don't agree with Bush's views. Oh wait, we are doing that on another thread......

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, I still don't see how identifying his camp is thrashing.
My quote is a statement on how I view his slant.
 
BTW, How do you know the original ANGC was inferior? Bob Jones intent was to build the greatest course in the country. He doesn't seem like a guy who would fail.

Of all the course I've learned about on here, ANGC national is the saddest case. Let's admit, it has been butchered practically since Jones and Mac walk off the property. Be it through old pictures or what I remember from watching TV as kid, the elements that make for great golf have been softened.

Is this what Tommy meant when he said "You win"?



 

[Richard Choi]

Counternote:

Tiger has stated that narrowing of the fairways at ANGC has actually made it easier by stopping the balls from going into pine straws.

I doubt that Tiger cares much about Fairways Hit percentage during Masters.

[Jim Nugent]

Counternote:

Tiger has stated that narrowing of the fairways at ANGC has actually made it easier by stopping the balls from going into pine straws.

I doubt that Tiger cares much about Fairways Hit percentage during Masters.

I didn't see last year's Masters.  But didn't Tiger bogey 17 and 18 two rounds in a row, because he missed fairways on the right, and had no shot into the green?

And didn't he dump his 2nd shot on 15 the final day into the water, at least in part because he was trying to play a real hard, real low percentage shot around some trees on the right? 

My impression was that those missed fairways -- almost all on the right -- cost Tiger dearly in 2007. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, I prefaced my remarks and felt the info within this thread was enough to make a comment about the divide of factions. Slamming Mr. Whitten was not my intent. Discussing the subtext of the issue was.

As for my preference for a rollback, you clearly read too much into it. You do not know what that preference is, unless you are psychic. Mr. Whitten is on record in an article he wrote awhile back.

It is nice to finally see a GCA stand up for his brotheren because a rollback would kill business.

Broadbrushing Ron by saying he supports ill concieved architecture or that he fits in any easily defined camp AND saying I support him or oppose rollbacks because its good for business are both patently false and misleading statements.  Nuff said.

As to who wins, I have been around here long enough to know that I can't win, at least here.  I don't know how anyone else feels.

Back to the architecture, I have agreed the changes started almost immediately and that is a matter of historical record. 

I guess I don't KNOW that ANGC was inferior.  My opinion is that I don't necessarily see a great course in the original, old photos. I specifically don't like the freaky green shapes used by Jones and Mac to compensate (I think) for reduced bunkering.  But my opinion is based on looking at Byrdy's book as I type, not some generalized deal that Jones was a great man and couldn't fail.

BTW, I don't know your age, but if it was great when I saw it as a kid on TV, I was influenced by a course that had, by then, already had every original green changed, some several times.  So to bemoan the continued change of ANGC is kind of a lark to me.  At what point in time do we draw the line and say, yes they got it right......RIGHT NOW!.....and we don't dare change it. 

Personally, while I don't agree with every change (just like you don't agree with all of Ron's proposals and reviews) when I watch the Masters, I think the players provide 90% of the excitement and the gca about 10%.

Enjoy the day and the discussion.....

[Richard Choi]

I didn't see last year's Masters.  But didn't Tiger bogey 17 and 18 two rounds in a row, because he missed fairways on the right, and had no shot into the green?

And didn't he dump his 2nd shot on 15 the final day into the water, at least in part because he was trying to play a real hard, real low percentage shot around some trees on the right? 

My impression was that those missed fairways -- almost all on the right -- cost Tiger dearly in 2007. 

He DID state that he finds it easier because it is less likely that his drives will end up in the woods. So your examples where he hit it into the woods really doesn't change anything he has said (similar for ball in the water).

Think of it this way, if Tiger pulls/pushes the drive at 18 a little bit, the chance that his tee shot will stop short of the woods is much greater with the rough than without. Obviously, if he slices/hooks big time, it won't matter. But he can work the ball however way he wants it from the Masters rough. Much tougher from the pine straws with branches all around you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ingteresting article in Golf Digest Masters Preview.  He bases his article on some 1951 magazine articles by Bob Jones that explained the changes to the course up to that point.  Among his arguments:

1.  This is not really a Mackenzie course.  Mackenzie was hardly there.
2.  Lengthening was appropriate and Jones himself did a lot of it. He did not want a bunch of drive/pitch holes.
3.  Narrowing makes sense because Jones wanted to reward accurate driving to a specific spot.
4.  Elimination of run up approaches makes sense because no one plays that way anymore.
5.  Trying to aritificially replicate scottish contours in Georgia clay did not make sense because it was unnatural.
6.  No one plays angles anymore so narrowing hurts nothing.
7.  The last few Masters have had exciting finishes.

The only thing Whitman says was wrong is that when they lengthened they got rid of the 6900 yard tees.

Rebuttal?

I think some of his points have merit in the context of The Masters.

As to play by other than the best golfers in the world, I was hoping that ANGC could engage in horizontal elasticity.

[Jim Nugent]

Richard, my point is that Tiger should care about missing fairways at ANGC.  That may have cost him the tournament last year.   

[George Pazin]

Though I generally agree with Jim Nugent's shrewed analyses, in this one instance, I defer to my other rule: don't question Tiger.

At any rate, the article is a compelling read. I just have one question: Is it really not possible to encourage the style Fazio says is no longer played (shaping shots versus bomb and gouge)?

My hunch is he's wrong, but that's based on watching tournaments like the Open at Sandwich and the US Open at Shinney. Last I checked, he has built several hundred more courses than I have played.

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

I had coffee with a Tour player the other day. According to him, he still works the ball a bit. Not like the old guys used to, but still sets up for fade or draw.  We know Tiger does. One of the Golf Channel shots of the year was his big honkin fade around trees to reach the green.

So, they can still do it if they want to or have to.

[JESII]

Jeff,

How can you make them have to?

That, to me, is the key to returning viewing interest to golf...

I'll suggest that it starts with real firm greens. Once you have them, you can dictate angles of attack...then it matters where you approach from...that's when people start to shape shots from the tee and into the green...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jes

I've always thought the ONLY way to make them is to have trees infringing between ball position and target. Firm and fast certainly encourages it strongly, though.  Also, green angle, ground hazards, etc. can mildly encourage, but not force a certain shot pattern, because the combo of such things incrementally improve odds of success.  If coming over a bunker, the player naturally just has to leave a little more latitude.

[Richard Choi]

Jim, I don't think Tiger would disagree with a contention that he HAS to put his drives between the trees.

What I am contending is that, as long as the drive is between the woods, Tiger won't care whether or not it is on the fairway or in the rough, especially if that position gives him a better angle. And that Tiger finds Augusta easier because the rough helps him keep the ball out of the trees.

[George Pazin]

Jeff,

How can you make them have to?

That, to me, is the key to returning viewing interest to golf...

I'll suggest that it starts with real firm greens. Once you have them, you can dictate angles of attack...then it matters where you approach from...that's when people start to shape shots from the tee and into the green...

I agree wholeheartedly, and will add that it continues with firmness in the fairway as well. People seem loath to allow it, because it means even longer drives, yet almost every time it happens, the players struggle, due to things like where the ball runs to. Firm fairways also encourage the better player to shape his drive to keep it in the fairway.

[Lou_Duran]

"Of all the course I've learned about on here, ANGC national is the saddest case. Let's admit, it has been butchered practically since Jones and Mac walk off the property. Be it through old pictures or what I remember from watching TV as kid, the elements that make for great golf have been softened."  Adam Clayman

Adam,

May I have a chance to experience your disappointments and butcheries.  My, my, how your palate has been refined!

Other than length, short rough lines, some trees, and tournament setup, has ANGC really changed that much?  Aren't they not now hitting some of the same clubs they did 30 years ago before the technological revolution?

Ralph Plummer, the now deceased dean of Texas golf architects, opined back in the 1970s that the only way they could make Augusta National relevant again to the pro game was to narrow the course by growing rough, and to add some distance in the few spots they could.  That the various chairmen proceeded as cautiously as they did was probably good.

I still very much look forward to the tournament each year.  My only visit to the property for the practice rounds years ago was a great revelation.  I can't conceive a better, more elaborate presentation of a golf course for that type of tournament.  The British Open may be as equally unique as it is different.

BTW, firm and fast on red Geogia clay is a totally different animal than that at St. Andrews or any sand based course.  We played a round the Sunday before at Goshen Plantation and hard as marble probably comes as close to describing the conditions.  If the greens had similar undulations and speed as Augusta, that course would have been unplayable.  A prototypical MacKenzie design probably does not work outside the sandbelt.  Judging by his work at the Jockey Club where he was not nearly as bold, he seemed to recognize the limitations of heavy, clayish soil.   

[Jason Topp]

Lastly, to all:

Can we actually admit, after looking at Byrdy's book, which clearly shows such convoluted, un artistic and clearly freak greens to a large extent that ANGC REALLY wasn't a great course in its original design if you LOOK at the features, and not the image you have built up in your mind?

I finally did look and the answer is no.  The only real freaky greens to me were the 4, 7 and 9 the 4th.  Even those greens probably play ok given their slope and the remedy would have been minor softening of the tongues on those greens rather than significant changes. 

The negative changes in my view (I've never been to the course so this is based entirely on the book and TV):

1.  Trees - formerly a really open course similar to Bandon Trails.  Now character of 11, 15, 17 at least have been changed dramatically.  I suspect the impact has been much greater on the tournamenttthan on the average golfer.  15 is no longer as exciting as it once was in the tournament.

2.  Elimination of bunkers in fairway.  Original course had nearly all bunkers in the fairway - 3, 5, 8, 14, and 18.

3.  Loss of ground game features on many holes - such as valley of sin on 7.

4.  Loss of artistry in Bunkering and greens - now much more standardized in appearance.

5.  It seems to me that the greens have gotten so fast in the last few years that some of the holes (especially 13 and 15) have become less exciting tournament holes.

I would love to see a tournament with:

1.  More trees taken out
2.  The greens slowed down a bit to make putting and greenside play a little less defensive
3.  The rough eliminated

My guess is that those changes alone would restore the charges up and down the leaderboeard that were the norm in this tournament prior to the last few years.  I would keep the length.  I think it is needed.  I agree with Whitten on the 6900 yard tees.

I will see the course for the first time this year and cannot wait.  I will revisit this post after that time and see if my impressions have changed.

[Peter Pallotta]

This is a very good thread,  partly because of the questions it raises. One that's very interesting to me is what weight we should give the words of those who built the course. What I mean is, should what Dr. MacKenzie or Bob Jones *said* about Augusta be taken at face value and judged to be accurate reflections of their honest intentions, and should those words trump everything else; or should we try instead to look behind and around and beyond the words to, say, the marketing and economic angles that we know or might assume were likely involved.  I think that question goes far beyond just Augusta, and I'm not sure of the answer. But from what MacKenzie *said* at the time, Augusta is certainly no longer the course he intended. What that's *worth* is another question, but here's some more snippets of what Dr. MacKenzie said in 1931 (after talking about St. Andrews as the course that very nearly approaches his ideal, and which "Bob likes best of all"):

"...It is well to have a mental picture of the World's outstanding holes and to use this knowledge in reproducing their finest golfing features, and perhaps even improving on them. At Augusta we are striving to produce eighteen ideal holes, not copies of classical holes, but embodying their best features, with other features suggested by the nature of the terrain....While I am aware that it is difficult to make a word picture of a golf hole that will convey a clear impression of its appearance, I am including here brief notes including in some cases mention of famous holes elsewhere to which resemblance is had...

#1 - The hole will embody the most attractive features of the 13th Hole at Cypress Point, California, and the 4th at Alwoodly, one of the best of the British Inland Links....

#2 -  This will be a most fascinating hole, without a single bunker, I don't know any other quite like it.

#4 - The hole will have some of the best golfing features of the seventeenth hole at Cypress Point, California, and the ideal hole depicted in C. B. Macdonald's book.

#5 - The hole embodies some of the features of the sixth hole at St. Andrews, Scotland.

#6 - This will be a three-shot hole to most golfers. A stream will be diverted so as to form a similar loop to the first hole of St. Andrews.

#7 - This hole, over a stream, is somewhat similar to the best hole (seventh) at Stoke Poges, England. It will probably be a better hole than the one at Stoke Poges as the green will be more visible and the background more attractive.

# 8 - The construction of this green will be somewhat similar to the famous fourteenth at St. Andrews (reversed). It will be necessary to attack the green from the right, and it will be essential to play a run-up shot, if the par figure is to be attained.

# 13 - This hole is very similar to the famous eleventh (Eden) at St. Andrews. There have been scores of attempted copies of this famous hole, but there is none that has the charm and thrill of the original. Most copies are failures because of the absence of the subtle and severe slopes which create the excitement of the original hole, and also because the turf is usually so soft that any kind of a sloppy pitch will stop.

# 14 - This will be a similar type of hole to the famous seventeenth, the Road Hole at St. Andrews.

# 15 - This will resemble the Redan Hole at North Berwick (Scotland), but here, owing to its extreme visibility, lay of the land, and beauty of the surroundings, we feel sure that we shall be able to construct a much more attractive hole than the original Redan.

# 16 - The hole will be similar in character to the eighteenth Hole at St. Andrews, Scotland. There will be a large deep hollow at the front of the green which it will be necessary to attack at the correct angle for par figures to be obtained. At this hole, it will also be desirable to play a run-up shot...
 
# 17 -  It may be compared to the seventeenth Green at Muirfield, Scotland.

# 18 - This will be a hole of the Cape type played slightly down hill. A long straight drive to the right will give an easy second to the green...."

So it seems clear to me that what Dr. MacKenzie and Bob Jones *intended* was to pull off the marvelous (and surprising) feat of recreating in the Georgia hills/clay a British links course in general, and St. Andrews in particular.

I don't know enough to know if they pulled it off, or if so how long it lasted. But my question is, shouldn't we simply accept Dr. MacKenzie's words as the clearest and truest description of what they *hoped* it might be? And shouldn't what *anyone* else has ever said about it take a back seat to that?  It seems to me that, if they're talking about Augusta the *golf course*, the first question an historian/commentator should be asking is: "How long has it been since the golf course has struck anyone as an homage to the British links?" But as Jeff B said earlier, the whole subject of this thread is curious, i.e. "This article is odd in the fact that it seems aimed at 1500 golf club atlas posters..."

Peter

Edit- Thanks, Jason.

[Jason Topp]

Please note that Peter's quotes are with the 9's reversed.

[Jim Nugent]

Bobby Jones didn't die till 1971.  Did he not have any say over changes at ANGC, from 1933 to say the mid 1960's? 

Just the timing of things suggests that Bobby likely approved of much of the course's transformation, for its first several decades.  He may even have taken part in it.  Or did Cliff run that show completely? 

I'd really like to see the articles about/from Bobby, that Whitten based his conclusions on. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

Thanks for looking all that up. My Byrdy book was at home so I reviewed the comments you made. That book doesn't include the source material you have, for instance not mentioning that Redan features of the current sixth as originally designed. 

I looked again and had remembered a tongue of the type I don't like sticking out in front of 6.  But, as your earlier post suggested, its not as dramatic as I recalled and not as dramatic as 4, 7, and ( (current)  And, I had never noticed the Redan aspects of the original hole.

I am still trying to figure out from old sketches and pictures how the current ninth was ever a cape hole.......as per the words of MacK.

As to your question, in some cases, I am merely suggesting that the work itself be the trump card.  I recall discussions here about gca's writing against blind shots, but sometimes allowing them, usually in conditions where they couldn't do much about them, or perhaps because they didn't get to the field to change them. 

So, maybe its no big deal to suggest that yeah, where they had trees they made it narrower, and maybe that means absolutely nothing to the history of ANGC.  But it was there, and to me, that trumps any written statements that may be interpreted as width always had to be a design component.

And, as suggested, I still wonder how valid the contention that Jones was happy with the course is, given that he started changing it almost immediately based on the ideas of competitors in his tourney. 

Say what you want about this years or any years changes, it was obviously in club culture to change the course.  So, it may not be that they were unhappy per se originally, but that the culture of seeking "perfection" started early and they simply were not above changing the course for any particular reason if experience proved it would make it better.