[Chip Gaskins]

after reading a few of the comments on other posts about angles at AGNC got me thinking about how narrow #7 was.

i would say there is one angle on #7 and that is STRAIGHT.

notice all the new small pines planted right off the fairway.  no one in our group hit the fairway, all made bogey.

pic is looking back from the green to the tee



hitting this fairway with a driver is nearly impossible.  and once you miss it all you can do is punch out because there is no way to hit it under the pine branches and hold the table top green (which is awesome)

can anyone tell from this old picture what the old #7 used to look like and were there multiple ways (angles) to play it?

[McCloskey]

Is that large bunker at the bottom of the picture on hole 14?
I have never noticed that before in previous old pictures.
There also appears to be a fairway bunker on the left side of the 18th fairway.   I didn't think any fairway bunkering was on #18 until the two there presently were added to keep players from hitting out in the range with their new found power

[Kalen Braley]

Chip,

It appears to be pretty wide open, a far cry from what it is today.  It also looks as if it was originally meant to be a shared fairway with #3, but that's just speculation.  Green appears to be L-shaped as well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The green looks to be a goofy L shape, way too exagerated. IMHO.

We will never know what green fronting contours were and how they played. It seems like if the pin were in the narrow part of the L there would be an advantage of being as far right as you dared, much like TOC.

The trees sheltering the tees were always there, but they apparently weren't concerned about how they might grow, common to many, many courses.  Or, they wanted or accepted that trees on a Georgia course were a necessity and wanted them around fw, but maybe not as close as they became when they grew.

[john_stiles]

When I first posted this photo three or four years ago,   my post was about the use and loss of centerline hazards. 

Many of those centerlines (all ??) have been eliminated.  This photo doesn't show the centerline bunker on the 11th.

The bunker on the 14th was huge, very wide and very long.  It is the dominate feature in the photo.
 
You need to look at the old photos and sketches and list of changes that Stan Byrdy captured so well in his book, ' The Augusta Mational Golf Club'.

The book describes very well the changes to the 7th.  It was a bunkerless L shaped green with what appears to have been interesting contours.

The ground level photo of the 7th green in Byrdy's book doesn't make the green look goofy. 

Reading between the lines,  the book implies the green area was revised as the hole was originally considered weak.   In 1938,   Perry Maxwell added three bunkers and rebuilt the green as Byrdy's book explains. 
Although for the 14th hole,   the Byrdy sketch might better show how this bunker feature dominated this hole.

An original of the photo, versus this copy that I bought,  hangs in the clubhouse.      Would be interested to hear if the image in the clubhouse encompasses the entire course.

[CJ Carder]

There also appears to be a fairway bunker on the left side of the 18th fairway.   I didn't think any fairway bunkering was on #18 until the two there presently were added to keep players from hitting out in the range with their new found power

Granted my experience is not great, but for as long as I can remember, there's always been a bunker there.  Tiger just started bombing over it in 97. 

[john_stiles]

From Byrdy's book,  it seems a bunker was always in the 18th fairway, albeit a large single bunker.   

It looks like this hazard was moved back, and left, and split into two bunkers.   

In 2002 or thereabouts,   a new tee was constructed to substantially lengthen the uphill 18th and prevent mere mortals, of this decade,  from airmailing them.

[Phil Benedict]

The current fairway bunkers on 18 were added in the '60's after Jack Nicklaus started bombing it way left.  The bunker in the photo is closer to the center of the fairway.  I guess Cliff Roberts or someone decided he didn't like that kind of bunker and got rid of it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

I think one of the features in the old photos that go unnoticed or unmentioned are the tiny saplings.

Those tiny dots on the photo were intended to grow into mature, tall pines.

So when you look at old photos, such as the one you posted, you have to view it in the context of future growth of those trees and how that impacts the look and play of those holes.

As to # 7, the view from the tee is intimidating.
I won't say that you have to walk single file down the fairway, but, it is narrow.

I think it's unfortunate that the golf course's primary master is The Masters.

I had hoped that somehow the club could employ a form of horizontal elasticity, narrowing the course for The Masters and opening it back up for member play, but, the clubs location, climate and time of the year the tournament is held, preclude that.

While ANGC remains a marvelous golf course, The Masters clearly takes precendence over the members in terms of the configuration of the golf course. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Is that a cut of rough on the left side of 14 across from the bunker?  Maybe the newest changes are just restoring it back to what it was!

[john_stiles]

Some of the very early ground level photos show very wide fairways and minimal rough, if any rough. 

Some of the small trees in the early photos, such as the above aerial,  are trees left from the nursery as you can see in other early photos of course construction.

Tress were cleared from the nursery property so any trees you see were those left.  In the early ground level photographs,  you can see a few trees that were planted, but not many.

It was completed in  " just 76 working days"  from  " February 10, 1932 until seeding on May 27, 1932 "  by the account in Byrdy's book.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am just speculating here, so fling no arrows, but since that appears to be rough around 14 fw, particularly on the left, and it appears nowhere else why was it added?

Could it be that Jones realized early on that a bunker on the outside of the fw on a dogleg really never came into play strategically and rough was the easiest, quickest fix to guard the shortcut?

If so, how would that fit into the supposed "width philosophy" attributed to Jones and Mac by many here?

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Stiles,

I don't believe that the Berckman Nursery that preceded ANGC was a pine tree nursery.

My recollection was that it was a nursery for "fruit" and "ornamental" trees.

Perhaps that's the reason that holes are named after trees.
Interestingly, none of the holes currently bear the name of a "pine", although, originally, # 12 (#3) did have the name "Three Pines".

The original green on # 7 had an L like shape to it, almost like a boot.

[BCrosby]

The desire for width at ANGC is not something that posters here "attributed" to MacK and Jones. It is what they said they wanted at ANGC. It was a central design goal. That is not something about which reasonable men might disagree. So let's get our history straight.

As for "rough" in the above photo, I'm not so sure. Looks to me like a winter picture in which some areas were overseeded and other areas not.

Not to let facts intrude on the Whitten/Bauer take on things, but from someone who has attended Masters since the early 60's on a pretty regular basis, there was for decades very, very little rough at Augusta and what was there was light, non-penal stuff.

Bob

[JESII]

Bob,

From my understanding...never been there...it is still "light, non-penal stuff", no?




Also...were they overseeding in 1934?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bob,

First, no argument on the light rough or no rough at Augusta. I think that in general, that has been fairly well documented. I only attended one Masters pre "second cut" and don't actually recall any rough that year.

History in written word is history, old photos is another.  Old photos document what was truly there.  Words could be marketing, misstatements, etc. as well as perfectly thought out design philosophy.

What I see in the photo posted in this thread is a variety of hole widths - narrower on 2 and particularly 18 where mature trees were present, and more open on the holes that had no tree cover.

I could be wrong, but I think I do see rough on the 14th hole.  Look how the cut line goes around the bunker.  What one photo can't tell is whether it was winter, how long it lasted, why it was there, etc. However, on a discussion group about golf architecture, I see no point in not discussing why it was there in that photo.

Given these photo facts, I can see how a reasonable man might disagree, if not in total, at least to the fact that they were perhaps flexible on the rough and width issues on particular holes to make the best hole.

Or is really that important to trumpet/perpetuate possibly wrong opinions about ANGC here at all costs?

[BCrosby]

JES -

The current rough is brutal. Not US Open stuff, but you pay.

Yes, overseeding has been around since at least the 1920's in the South. Bermuda goes dormant and greens (and sometimes fw's) were overseeded. In fact on many courses, including East Lake, each hole had two greens, one for Bernuda in the summer and one for rye in the winter.

My guess is that ANGC started overseeding fw's early on because they wanted to host a tournament in the spring before the Bermuda greeened up.

Bob

[JESII]

Bob,

Interesting on both counts, thanks.

[BCrosby]

"Or is really that important to trumpet/perpetuate possibly wrong opinions about ANGC here at all costs?"

Jeff -

I might ask you the same question.

We can argue all day about whether the fw width in the pic is wide enough for you. They look very wide to me. How much wider do they have to be before they would count as wide for you?  

The point is that there can be no doubt that width was a MacK design goal. There's also no doubt that Jones thought and all contemporary commentators thought (that is, the people who actually saw the course early on) that ANGC had remarkably wide fw's. They thought the course was nothing less than revolutionary in that regard. So I don't know. Maybe Ron and you know something they didn't.

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

Nice deflection, bob. You could be all pro cornerback!  The fw's look plenty wide to me. In fact, it looks like 15 was intended as a double fw if you ask me, with planted center trees to make it so!

Its not whether they are wide enough for me.  Nor is it the general principle of the matter.  Jones was experimenting with the anti Oakmont, where bunkers only mattered for good players, etc., and average players could play the game other times.  I also sense that Mac was trying out his new scheme of reducing bunkers because of the depression. But, since that wouldn't sell well for Jones course, they also put the positive spin on it that it was pure strategic architecture.  Of course, it was, and it influenced designs right up to this day.

Its about golf architectural discussion on specific holes as they were in the date of that photograph, because we are a GASP! - golf architecture discussion group!

The only questions I have asked are about specific holes from that photo.

What does a narrow 18th (which is fact, then and now) fit into the width scheme?  Did Jones think that the finisher required more challenge and narrowing was the way to do it?  Or was it wide just because that's what the land gave them in most spots?

And, is that rough on 14, and why is it there. I gave the reason I think it was there - to guard the shortcut on that hole.

Ron said he did find some documents he had never seen or seen referred to that early on Mac and Jones gave up on replicating St. Andrews too closely in favor of following the Georgia landscape as more practical.  That and the keeping of trees around any fw that had them naturally is the reason that I believe that they weren't totall anti-tree and all about width.  Overall, that doesn't strike me as an earth shattering conclusion!

Lastly, I have always wondered why the fact that Jones started changing the course almost immediately and continuously doesn't factor into the discussions here more.  How can we defend maintaining original design intent when Jones himself seemed heck bent on changing it as necessary for the tournament?  Is there any evidence that he ever stopped a change (discussed merits of, yes, but vetoed a change) during his life? 

[Chip Gaskins]

maybe I should not have started the this thread. 

i did pick by far the narrowest hole to put in the subject line...and now after going back through all the tee shots (www.thelaststop.typepad.com) the only ones that are narrow are #7 and #18.  otherwise the rest of the tee shots still (at least in my mind) have that feel of width that MacK wanted.

now the new "second cut" starts a different discussion because it affects all the holes...

[john_stiles]

Pat,

Yes.   Look at the old photos in all the books.  There were many trees on the course.   There were many large pines trees on the course.  Many were removed.    

The old 'ground level' photos show many small trees were exisiting when the course was built.     One of the few places it actually looks like trees were planted was behind the 7th green.  

The original 7th green did look quite interesting from the ground level photograph  but true to the present direction of the club with respect to the tournament,  the hole proved too easy. It was thought to be a weak hole.  By 1938 the green had been revised and bunkers added.  

Look at the old photos and you can notice trees, many tall pines, left on the property when cleared.   But then,  through the years,  you can notice the plantings in the 50s and 60s that substantially filled in many areas and narrowed the holes, or created the corridors we recognise today.

Course changes have been much about the tournament since the earliest days.  Usually you will also see a golf professional being consulted, like Horton Smith or Byron Nelson, etc. regarding revisions


Jeff,

If you want to see wide,  look at some of the old photos of the hill on no. 2.
or the first.   The corridor was very wide, and the fairway was very wide with only a few tall pines left, and very few saplings in place.   The same with the first hole, etc., etc.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chip,

Never apologize for starting a thread.


Actually, there is some disagreement on whether 7 is narrow.  Looking at it again, the double fw with 3 and that tongue on the right of No. 7 green, and what looks like a mound on the front left, makes the tee shot on 7 as close to TOC as any on the course, no?

But, that concept was apparently declared "too easy" early on and Maxwell came in to redo that green and a few others.  Somewhere, very early, they drifted away from the Spirit of St. Andrews with their changes.  I am kind of playing devil's advocate as to when the line got crossed. But, it certainly didn't start with Fazio!

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

You obligate me to keep fixing your history. For example:

"I also sense that Mac was trying out his new scheme of reducing bunkers because of the depression. But, since that wouldn't sell well for Jones course, they also put the positive spin on it that it was pure strategic architecture."

Where did you get that idea? MacK was talking about minimizing bunkers well before the Great Depression. It's an idea that had been floating around since Behr in the mid-20's. I know of nothing MacK or Jones said that the design for ANGC was driven by maintenance concerns. I would love to see what you've got on that.

Where do you get the idea that it "wouldn't sell well for a Jones course"? Is there any evidence that they came up with their design philosophy for ANGC as an ex post rationalization? I would love to see what you've got on that too, because it would be a bombshell.

As for Jones's involvement with changes, no doubt he was. It's unclear to me how many were his ideas, how many were made at Robert's insistence or some combination of both. Some were dictated by drainage, some by agronomy, some for purposes of play at the Masters.

It is public record, however, that Jones objected to Robert's proposed toughening of the 3rd and changes to the 8th. 

But if the topic is width, one thing is quite clear. At no point during his life did Jones advocate the narrowing of playing corridors.

Bob 

 

   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bob,

And of course you wouldn't!  I think it is now pretty well documented that ANGC started among financial problems, but always tried to maintain the high road, as you would expect. It is always tough to market memberships if there is a sense that the project is in a "death spiral" to use a phrase from another thread.

But, there is no writing, or no other author saying this. I am just connecting the dots based on all I have read about ANGC and my other experience. 

My "sense" comes from the two public courses Mac did after the crash which had fewer bunkers than his standard.  Certainly Mac advocated fewer bunkers than, say Oakmont, but the 28 or so at ANGC was clearly less than his "typical" course of a few years earlier, like RM, CP, etc. 

I agree there is some great, minimalist philosophy in using the bare minimum of bunkers necessary, and only in places where they affect play.  But, again connecting the dots, it isn't hard to imagine them saying "and there are some cost savings, too!" at some point.  No bombshell there.

I recall that there were some ill advised changes to No. 8 green. I would call that one version of it, done by Roberts himself, (if I recall) may have been the one referred to as a pancake on the hill. I think that got them into the idea of using gca's for the work, since it came out so bad. Interesting to hear about the third.  What era are you speaking of?

Lastly I never said he advocated narrowing. I suggested that he accepted it where it fell naturally and felt it was an appropriate challenge, perhaps especially for the 18th. Do YOU think he would have left the 18th as narrow as it is if he didn't think the occaisional tee shot through narrow chute of trees was unacceptable on his dream course?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()