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

[Jason Topp]

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?

[Philippe Binette]

not to confuse anybody

it's Ron Whitten the writer...

there's Rod Whitman the architect

[RJ_Daley]

Thanks for the clarification Philippe, at first I was afraid Rod had gone off the rails... 

[Mike_Cirba]

With all due respect to Ron Whitten, I love the breadth of his research but I question the depth and judgement of his conclusions.

He was wrong about Joe Burbeck and I think in this case, if you follow his thinking to a logical conclusion one would have to argue for planting thousands of trees down the fairways of the Old Course and digging ponds in front of several greens.

Perhaps it's just his attempt to distract from golf course ratings being released this week that people still feel are relevant. 

[David Stamm]

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 just finished reading Whitten's article last night, so I'm still pondering some of his points. Claiming it's not really a MacKenzie course because he was hardly there is kind of ironic coming from the Ross ghost writer (Golf Has Never Failed Me). For him to suggest that AM was "hardly there" is just silly. He first visited the site in July of 1931 and roughed out the tees and greens. He came back in September and stayed into October. After his departure at this time the progress of the construction was stalling because frankly the club did not know if it could carry out the plans for the course because of financing issues. In other words, the Depression made them fearful of whether this could be pulled off. The club finally proceeded in Feb of 1932. AM returned in March and stayed until April to do the final contouring of greens, etc. The actual construction time was 76 days. This hardly constitutes "hardly there". One thing is certain, virtually nothing of Mack remains there today, so in a sense, RW is right. Perhaps he should've said AM IS hardly there. I find it thought provoking that Stan Byrdy points out in his book that nowhere on the property is there to be found any mention of AM in the form of a plaque or marker commemorating his contributions to ANGC and yet we have such things to celebrate historic players. Perhaps they could use the money they still owed him to make good on this in the future.....

[wsmorrison]

I did not read the Whitten article, so the following assumes the explanations are accurate.

1.  This is not really a Mackenzie course.  Mackenzie was hardly there.

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not change was necessary or the results of the change.  Does anyone really think that if MacKenzie spent more time on site (I don't know how much time he spent) that it would merit being unchanged?

2.  Lengthening was appropriate and Jones himself did a lot of it. He did not want a bunch of drive/pitch holes.

Nothing wrong with lengthening unless you create a strategic disconnect.

3.  Narrowing makes sense because Jones wanted to reward accurate driving to a specific spot.

Reward accurate driving to a specific spot, but don't make it obvious where that spot is with narrowing.  Make the golfer think and throw temptation in there as well.  Narrowing often does not make sense, even if done properly (i.e. not pinching in the correct line of play) reduces the amount of strategic thought required to play a hole.  When you narrow a fairway down so that there is less temptation to swing hard, less choices to be made as far as distance, shot shape and trajectory,or added roll-out away from ideal approach angles it is simply a bad idea.
 
4.  Elimination of run up approaches makes sense because no one plays that way anymore.

Ridiculous.  Firstly, I disagree that no one plays run up shots anymore.  Secondly, I disagree strongly that taking the option away and thus creating one way to approach the green is a good idea, especially when the hole was designed that way.  Maintenance practices may have taken run up shots away, but that disconnect should be fixed and options, if intended, retained.  What's the average age of the membership?  My guess would be that most of the membership play run up shots.  That alone is good cause to retain it.

5.  Trying to aritificially replicate scottish contours in Georgia clay did not make sense because it was unnatural.

What Scottish contours were replicated in Georgia clay?

6.  No one plays angles anymore so narrowing hurts nothing.

That is a crock.

7.  The last few Masters have had exciting finishes.

My guess is the number of birdies on the back 9 of the final rounds is way down after the changes.  It isn't so much about making up ground as not losing ground.  There are more groans heard in the crowd down the back stretch than cheers.  That is a bad change. 

[Matt_Ward]

I too read R Whitten's article and have to say he did generalize a bit when he said that "dozens of guys (PGA Tour stars) are hitting it 300+ yards. I don't doubt there are people doing it but it's far less than he suggests.

The second point is to piggy-back on what Wayne M mentioned. The amount of birdies and eagles is down considerably since the institution of the changes. The excitement of the back nine is more about groans than cheers.

Last point -- IMHO, the powers that be at Augusta simply overdosed on the Tiger proofing situation. There wasn't anything wrong on a grand scale with the facility either just before or after Tiger arrived. Lengthening a few holes is fine -- save for the inane extension at the 7th, but throwing in trees and second cut rough was nothing more than a big time over reaction.

[Dan Herrmann]

I think the perfect rebuttal to Ron's article was written by Bob Jones himself.   If you're ever lucky enough to visit The Masters, you'll get a Spectators Guide.  In this Guide, is a course description by Mr. Jones.

Read it, and you'll see that Jones opinion is very much in line with Wayne's opinion.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Wow... I gasped when I saw the title of this thread!

Jeff Mingay
Senior Associate
Rod Whitman Golf Course Design 

[jeffwarne]

lengthening certain holes makes sense as technology changed (not #7 by 90 yards)

Using comments from Jones in 1951 only indicates that MACKENZIE had much to do with the original Golden Age design, and that Jones was slowly succumbing to "Modern theory" (1950 being around when the Dark Ages began).

"the last few Masters have had exciting finishes?"
Were they boring before?

[David Stamm]

"the last few Masters have had exciting finishes?"
Were they boring before?

Bingo. Nice point, Jeff.

[Joey Smith]

I was sorry to read # 4 and # 6.  It has become an air assault game.  I don't think that is necessarily a good thing. 

ANGC is about length and putting.

I do love the place and the annual April event though...

[Paul Richards]

the title blew me away

I knew that Ron Whitten would NEVER have stated this about Augusta........


 

[Jason Topp]

not to confuse anybody

it's Ron Whitten the writer...

there's Rod Whitman the architect

Thanks - I fixed it

[Jason Topp]

Wow... I gasped when I saw the title of this thread!

Jeff Mingay
Senior Associate
Rod Whitman Golf Course Design 

Please give my apologies

[Jeff_Brauer]

Haven't read the article, so I base this on the opening post.

First, Ron writes to be at least somewhat controversial.  This article is odd in the fact that it seems aimed at 1500 golf club atlas posters. Does the general golf public really believe that the changes were wrong headed, even if a few pros have said so?

Second, I think he missed the main point that would bolster the argument best - it was designed primarily as a members course and has turned into primarily a tournament course so it makes sense that the design changes (including eliminating run up options if they have) respond more to tour pros via Fazio's stat analysis than minimizing bunkers, wide fw, etc.

And, given that it is still on former nursery property, and every hole is named after a tree type, doesn't tree planting in some form, even if we quibble with the actual locations, make some sense?

I agree that a plaque for MacKenzie would probably be appropriate, but the Masters has some long memories. I wonder if they fell out with Mac over him having the gall to ask to get paid?

[Jim Nugent]

Second, I think he missed the main point that would bolster the argument best - it was designed primarily as a members course ...

Is that true?  The timing, for one thing, makes me wonder.  They started holding the Masters almost immediately after opening: one year later I think. 

I'd like to see the articles by/about Jones that led Whitten to his conclusions.     

[PThomas]

i wonder how much different the course would like if the club had unlimited room instead of being hemmed in for the most part

i wonder if the former was the case if we would see even longer holes with a lot fewer trees

[Phil Benedict]

I read the article and came away with the impression that the impact of changes on the membership is a secondary consideration.  For instance, the comment that "nobody plays the run-up shot anymore" describes modern pros but certainly not handicap golfers, particularly when the average age is as high as the Augusta membership.

In another article in the same issue Tiger opined that the second cut has made the course easier because it stops balls from running into the trees.

[Peter Pallotta]

Here are some snippets of the article Mackenzie wrote (I think in 1931), right around the time he was working with Jones on Augusta. Interestingly, in his hole-by-hole description, Mackenzie always lists two yardages/tees: the "Regular Distance" and the "Championship". (On the-then first hole, those were 395 and 420 respectively; and this 25 yard difference seemed to be the average one between the two tees). I don't know how common that was back then, but it seems clear that he and Jones intended from the very start to make Augusta BOTH a members course and a championship test.

"In setting about the task of creating the Augusta National Golf Club course, Mr. Robert T. Jones, Jr. and I have shot at the mark of trying to create the ideal inland course. To accomplish such an aim, one must obviously be equipped with a thorough knowledge of the art of golf course design and be supplied with material with which there is at least a reasonable possibility of attaining that lofty goal....

.. Doubt may be expressed as to the possibility of making a course pleasurable to everyone, but it may be pointed out that the "Old Course" at St. Andrews, Scotland, which Bob likes best of all, very nearly approaches this ideal...

...It is usually the best holes that are condemned most vehemently by those who fail to solve their strategy. Bob Jones realizes this so strongly that when asked his opinion about the design of Augusta National, he said that the course would differ so markedly from others, that many of the members at first would have unpleasant things to say  about the architects. A few years ago I would have agreed with Bob, but today, owing to his own teaching, the work and writings of C. B. Macdonald, Max Behr, Robert Hunter, and others, Americans appreciate real strategic golf to a greater extent than even in Scotland, the Home of Golf...."

Peter

[BCrosby]

I guess Ron missed this re trees at ANGC:

"The last time I saw [Jones] I told him about a rather morose Scottish caddy I’d had who took a dim view of things American, but especially the golf courses – which he’d been told – had lots of trees.  We were sitting out on the porch of his Augusta cottage and Jones looked down at the towering Georgia pines, the great cathedral nave, of the plunging tenth fairway.  “I don’t see,” he said deadpan, “any need for a tree on a golf course.” 

Alistair Cooke, Memories of the Great and the Good

I also note that one of the leading gca's of our time (Fazio) and its leading commentator on architecture have concluded that playing angles don't matter at ANGC. Now I can forgive fact-free asssertions. Or assertions of fact where the facts are less than clear. What I don't understand is asserting as fact things that are plainly counter-factual.

Bob

[Chuck Brown]

I make a very serious distinction between:

1)  Saying that the changes to ANGC are pretty good "under the circumstances" (the "circumstances" being golf balls that go too far), and;

2)  Saying that the changes to ANGC are problematic, because they are indicative of a very serious problem in golf (the "problem" being golf balls that go too far).

[JSlonis]

If my memory is correct...in the last couple of years, hasn't the setup for the Final Round been a bit shorter than previous days?  I think some of the holes were set up with the tees shorter in order to add some excitement back to the event.  With the tees moved up, I recall Tiger making a bad bogey on #3 after trying to drive it up near the green.

[Dan Kelly]

4.  Elimination of run up approaches makes sense because no one plays that way anymore.

Rebuttal?

If no one plays that way anymore, why eliminate the possibility? (Of course, some people do play that way anymore. I do, often.)

[Adam Clayman]

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.