[Patrick_Mucci]

Given:

In 1934 a brilliant design was created on an unusual piece of land.
The golf course serves two masters, the membership and The Masters, but, not necessarily... equally.

Questions:

1     Are the architects/names of the architects who altered ANGC
       subsequent to opening day immaterial ?

2     Is the evolving golf course, more of a reactionary product of the
       previous tournament, rather than the forward thinking creativeness of
       architects who make alterations for the future ?

3     Is the course today, its current architecture, merely a combination of
       its original genius and the evolution of the PGA Tour ?

4     If, and it's a big hypothetical if, If there was an I&B rollback to 1980
       would ANGC's architecture follow that retro path ?

5     What changes were the most dramatic ?

6     Which architectural changes had the greatest effect on scoring for the
       Pros ?

7     Which architectural changes had the greatest effect on the
       membership ?

More questions will be posed.

I only ask the following.  Please THINK before posting.
Then, go back and think some more, type your post, edit it, think some more, reedit it, then post it.

TEPaul,  I realize that that's asking too much of you, so, I've granted you a special exemption.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Patrick

Those first two questions are very interesting if obviously leading.
 (Can I answer your questions piecemeal?)

It doesn't seem like the club has proceeded from a long term plan. Rather, over the years the changes seem to have been made sort of ad hoc - at least, that's what they've let us see of the processes.

Maxwell's change to 7 green was the result of a player suggestion.  Mickelson makes the mistake of booming one on 11, and who should happen to be right there but Hootie and the Faz!

But does the record show the closeness of the guidance given by the club? Did the club tell the architect simply to "toughen up" a hole or did they tell him to lengthen, narrow, add bunkers, etc? Does that matter anyway? The club is accountable to their choices of architects and the changes made. It's their club, their decisions. If they got bad advice, then for a club with this caliber of members and wealth, then surely that's their fault.

I find it difficult to believe the club never formulated a 5 year plan, though. Hootie would have seen plenty of those at NationsBank. Was there no plan, and if not do you think one would have made a difference?

I'd like to think it would but you still have the same people making the same decisions, so probably not.

If I understand a point you are making about the Tour or the evolution of the Tour as the culprit or explanation. These guys always have done it their way, haven't they? This is a private club, albeit one that understands quite fully their status as a major derives from both the de facto support of the players and the Tour's de jure designation of it as a major.

But you don't think architectural issues would ever ever threaten either of these designations, do you? I mean realistically.

And while I think they have been justified in their decision not to keep the course exactly as it was at opening, it doesn't follow that the decisions they made were the only possibilities. Does it?

Patrick, one big thought your questions have sparked for me, which frankly I hadn't really thought of in this manner, is to look at the changes in the context of the governance model. To look at the process by which decisions have been made.

People on this site periodically praise the dictator governance model, but architecturally look what it's given us here!

Considering this club is supposed to be composed of the (male) best and brightest, had those talents been tapped might we have gotten a different outcome?

What if Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates were tasked with "Masters architecture?" Assuming Jack and Arnie were not allowed to have a relationship with any designers used, would the decision making improve?

Mark

PS I am not an architectural purist when it comes to the tournament. Instead, I believe the club should do whatever is necessary to present a competition where big moves occur both ways on the leaderboard and where wounds are self inflicted - the product of decisions made freely. It just seems to me that the strategic school of design, with the heroic school mixed in here and there, is the best way to accomplish that. Not the penal, which is where the architecture continues to head.

Or, as RT Jones wrote so well:

"The finishes of the Masters Tournament have almost always been dramatic and exciting. It is my conviction that this has been the case because of the make-or-break quality of the second nine of the golf course. This nine, with its abundant water hazards, each creating a perilous situation, can provide excruciating torture for the front runner trying to hang on. Yet it can yield a very low score to the player making a closing rush. It has been played in 30 during the tournament and in the medium 40s by players still in contention at the time."

[Rick_Noyes]

Patrick,

Having thought and re-thought this I came up with the following:

1.  If you are inferring that the architects chosen only brought their seal of approval to what the club's green's committee had already decided to do, then yes, their names are immaterial.

2.  For sure the evolution was reactionary.  But I think the case could be made that all re-models, renovations and/or restorations are reactionary.  Possibly forward thinking would be the replacement of bent grass for bermuda.  Since the event is played in April and the course is only operational during the cooler seasons, this made sense.

3.  Yes, as the game, the players and equipment have evolved.  So has the course.

4.  I would think not, if I understand that I&B is equipment.  Holes would play longer from the back tees in current use, but who says they have to use them.  The par 5's would probably play as three shot par-5's, but as usual, that would still favor the longer hitters.

5.  Dramatic changes?  I would have to say that the reversal of the nine's after the first Masters would be dramatic.  I would say that the change in 16, from a 120 yard shot over a creek to it's current state as well as the installation and subsequent removal of the pond at 6 would qualify as dramatic.

6.  Effect on scoring- none.  Except for the spikes by Mr.'s Floyd, Ballesteros, Nicklaus and Woods, I would guess that the scoring has been about level.

7.  Probably none (other than they are the ones that have to pay for them, in which case you could say all of them).  To my knowledge there have been no changes to the teeing areas from which the members play.  They are privy to the same technological changes in equipment as the pros, so I'll stand by none.

Having read and re-read, edited and re-edited, I'll post.

Rick

[John Moore II]

I am not totally familiar with all the workings of ANGC, so I will answer the only question I really know.
2. Yes, I would say that the changes at Augusta are very reactionary. There seemed to be quite a bit of time prior to 1997 when only small changes happened from year to year. But recently, it seems that major changes have taken place nearly every year.
--To answer the main title question...I would say that certainly the changes are a product of the PGA Tour and the players. I can't believe that any architect would simply come in and change the original Mackenzie and Jones work without significant prodding from someone, just the same as I can't see an architect changing Cypress for the same reason. I certainly think that architects should bear a very, very small portion of the blame for the changes.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,  I realize that that's asking too much of you, so, I've granted you a special exemption."

Patrick:

Thank you but I shan't be needing an exception. That is far too much for anyone to answer.

All I can say is that in my opinion, whatever the true and accurate answers to all those questions, and whether they be appropriate or not to the golf course because of the annual Masters tournament, it's just a damn crying shame it had to happen to perhaps the one golf course whose ORIGINAL design and concept just may've been the best example ever of a new and revolutionary way for golf's and architecture's future.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

While I won't be answering your specific questions, what I can do is in a very short paragraph outline for you those original and key elements of ANGC which made for a revolutionay design and a revolutionary concept for the future of golf and architecture.

But to do even that you will have to ask me nicely----extremely nicely!

[Dave_Miller]

Patrick:

While I won't be answering your specific questions, what I can do is in a very short paragraph outline for you those original and key elements of ANGC which made for a revolutionay design and a revolutionary concept for the future of golf and architecture.

But to do even that you will have to ask me nicely----extremely nicely!

Tommy and Pat:
The two of you can never ask one another nicely for anything. 
Therefore Tommy I am asking nicely.
Best
Dave

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tom

Maybe this isn't the right thread for this, but what was revolutionary about ANGC that MacKenzie hadn't done already, in particular at:
Meadow Club
Royal Melbourne
Alwoodley

Or was it not revolutionary but the first opportunity for the golfing world to see those elements?

Mark

[Jay Flemma]

Pat I answer a lot of those questions in my masters preview piece for PGA.com and in my fazio interview, coming shortly.  I discuss a little of that in my earlier thread on p.2.

[David Stamm]

Given:

In 1934 a brilliant design was created on an unusual piece of land.
The golf course serves two masters, the membership and The Masters, but, not necessarily... equally.

Questions:

1     Are the architects/names of the architects who altered ANGC
       subsequent to opening day immaterial ?

I think it became immaterial over time.

2     Is the evolving golf course, more of a reactionary product of the
       previous tournament, rather than the forward thinking creativeness of
       architects who make alterations for the future ?

I would say that the last decade has been more of the former rather than the latter. This is pure specualtion but I think they are asked to not take it to the limit in terms of lengthening so there is room for growth, albeit there isn't much room left.

3     Is the course today, its current architecture, merely a combination of
       its original genius and the evolution of the PGA Tour ?

Since there is very little of the original genuis left I think it's SOLELY the evolution.

4     If, and it's a big hypothetical if, If there was an I&B rollback to 1980
       would ANGC's architecture follow that retro path ?

No. They wouldn't know what to put back. I can't imagine the criteria for deciding at what point in the history timeline should the course be changed back to.

5     What changes were the most dramatic ?

Jeez, where to begin?? 12 not withstanding, the par 3's have had HUGE changes. 7 also comes to mind. 10 had it's entire green moved. I could go on and on...

6     Which architectural changes had the greatest effect on scoring for the
       Pros ?
The relation of the greens and the switching to bent.

7     Which architectural changes had the greatest effect on the
       membership ?

Not sure, I've never seen mere mortals play the course.

More questions will be posed.

I only ask the following.  Please THINK before posting.
Then, go back and think some more, type your post, edit it, think some more, reedit it, then post it.

TEPaul,  I realize that that's asking too much of you, so, I've granted you a special exemption.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Given:

In 1934 a brilliant design was created on an unusual piece of land.
The golf course serves two masters, the membership and The Masters, but, not necessarily... equally.

Questions:

1     Are the architects/names of the architects who altered ANGC
       subsequent to opening day immaterial ?

I think it became immaterial over time.

2     Is the evolving golf course, more of a reactionary product of the
       previous tournament, rather than the forward thinking creativeness of
       architects who make alterations for the future ?

I would say that the last decade has been more of the former rather than the latter. This is pure specualtion but I think they are asked to not take it to the limit in terms of lengthening so there is room for growth, albeit there isn't much room left.

3     Is the course today, its current architecture, merely a combination of
       its original genius and the evolution of the PGA Tour ?

Since there is very little of the original genuis left I think it's SOLELY the evolution.

How can you say that very little of the original genius is left when almost all of it remains ?[/b]

4     If, and it's a big hypothetical if, If there was an I&B rollback to 1980
       would ANGC's architecture follow that retro path ?

No. They wouldn't know what to put back. I can't imagine the criteria for deciding at what point in the history timeline should the course be changed back to.

I think they're a lot smarter than you give them credit for.
I think they'd know exactly what and where to roll back and to what degree.  If I&B went to 1980, why wouldn't the golf course return to that date with margins for improved tinkering ?[/color]

5     What changes were the most dramatic ?

Jeez, where to begin?? 12 not withstanding, the par 3's have had HUGE changes. 7 also comes to mind. 10 had it's entire green moved. I could go on and on...

# 12 remains intact.
How have # 4 and # 6 had huge changes other than tee lengthening ?

6     Which architectural changes had the greatest effect on scoring for the
       Pros ?
The relation of the greens and the switching to bent.

Switching to bent is an agronomic, not an architectural change.

I don't understand "the relation of the greens" reference.
Could you explain what you meant by that ?[/color]

7     Which architectural changes had the greatest effect on the
       membership ?

Not sure, I've never seen mere mortals play the course.

More questions will be posed.

I only ask the following.  Please THINK before posting.
Then, go back and think some more, type your post, edit it, think some more, reedit it, then post it.

TEPaul,  I realize that that's asking too much of you, so, I've granted you a special exemption.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

Those first two questions are very interesting if obviously leading.
 (Can I answer your questions piecemeal?)

It doesn't seem like the club has proceeded from a long term plan. Rather, over the years the changes seem to have been made sort of ad hoc - at least, that's what they've let us see of the processes.

Long term plans are overrated, mostly a compromise and at odds with the retention of the original architecture, unless, it's a restoration with funding obstacles.

What's the long term plan for Cypress, Pine Valley, Seminole, etc., etc..
And, why would you have a long term plan at these clubs and others ?

If you're going to make changes, why does it take a "long term" to implement them ?  Why not make the changes during one off season ?

Does everyone have a long term plan for their marriage ?
It's tough to predict what will happen tomorrow and next week, let alone five years from now.  And so it is with play on the PGA Tour.

ANGC is unique in that it hosts a Major EVERY year.

Last night I was watching a Masters Highlight.
I forget the year, maybe 2001, where Tiger beats Duval and Mickelson, coming down the last 3 holes.  On # 18, Tiger hits a perfect 330 yard drive to the middle of the fairway.

For those of you who have never played ANGC you can't appreciate how super-human and spectacular that drive is.  It's uphill, doglegs right, is narrow as hell and uncomfortable.... visually.  That drive was inconceivable to the golfing world only a few years earlier.

When I played ANGC in 1999 I couldn't dream/imagine/fathom a tee shot of that caliber.
And, not just for 1999, but, for 5 years to come.  So, less than two years later, this quantum leap in productivity occurs.  How do you plan for that ?

When you look back, pick 5 year increments, and then tell me how you could have visualized what was going to occur over the upcoming five years in the context of "playability".   I don't see how you could, in SPECIFIC terms.

So, this notion of a five year plan is unrealistic and antiquated.
Less than two years after you created a five year plan after the 1999 Masters, your plan would be obsolete, useless. 

It seems that ANGC makes "rolling" adjustments based on the most recent play, in a forward looking context.

Personally, I don't like the narrowing, vis a vis trees and rough lines, but, I'm not responsible for hosting a Major every year that tests the greatest golfers in the world.[/color]

Maxwell's change to 7 green was the result of a player suggestion.

That's NOT entirely true.
As early as 1933 Roberts wrote to Dr Mac and expressed his dissatisfaction with the hole.   Ed  Dudley, the club's first head professional had made suggestions about changes at the green end, which Roberts liked.  So, the club was looking to change the hole from its inception through 1938, when Horton Smith who won the 1st and 3rd Masters made suggestions that appealed to RTJ and Roberts and resulted in the present 7th green.[/color]

Mickelson makes the mistake of booming one on 11, and who should happen to be right there but Hootie and the Faz!

But does the record show the closeness of the guidance given by the club? Did the club tell the architect simply to "toughen up" a hole or did they tell him to lengthen, narrow, add bunkers, etc? Does that matter anyway? The club is accountable to their choices of architects and the changes made. It's their club, their decisions. If they got bad advice, then for a club with this caliber of members and wealth, then surely that's their fault.

What bad advice did they get ?
Hole # 10 is VASTLY improved, and I believe the same applies to # 16.[/color]

I find it difficult to believe the club never formulated a 5 year plan, though. Hootie would have seen plenty of those at NationsBank. Was there no plan, and if not do you think one would have made a difference?

WHY would you formulate a five year plan when you can make every change deemed necessary in one year ?

And, do you really believe that anyone in golf had the vision to understand what was about to take place from 1980 to today, in five year increments ?[/color]

I'd like to think it would but you still have the same people making the same decisions, so probably not.

I think you could be micro critical of almost any change at any club, but, with the exception of the narrowing, I don't see many misteps at ANGC over the years.  And, not to defend the narrowing, but, ANGC is the venue of a Major, EVERY year.  It's the ONLY course that has that distincition, thus they have to march to the beat of a different drummer.

IF the Masters were held in October, they could probably exercise horizontal elasticity regarding fairway width, but, with an early April date, that's unrealistic.[/color]

If I understand a point you are making about the Tour or the evolution of the Tour as the culprit or explanation. These guys always have done it their way, haven't they? This is a private club, albeit one that understands quite fully their status as a major derives from both the de facto support of the players and the Tour's de jure designation of it as a major.

At some point, and it's a debatable point in time, the club transitioned from an architecturally oriented member's golf course to an architecturally oriented golf course for the PGA Tour Pros/Masters.[/color]

But you don't think architectural issues would ever ever threaten either of these designations, do you? I mean realistically.

I'm not sure I understand the question.[/color]

And while I think they have been justified in their decision not to keep the course exactly as it was at opening, it doesn't follow that the decisions they made were the only possibilities. Does it?

Again, you have to context that question within the framework of the hosting of a Major, annually.  While the decisions/changes weren't the only possibilities, they may have been the most prudent/viable possibilities.

Certainly, you can't question the change at # 10, can you ?
The change at # 16 ?

What changes, understanding the tug of war between architecturally preparing a course for the membership and the PGA Tour Pros, do you question ?[/color]

Patrick, one big thought your questions have sparked for me, which frankly I hadn't really thought of in this manner, is to look at the changes in the context of the governance model. To look at the process by which decisions have been made.

People on this site periodically praise the dictator governance model, but architecturally look what it's given us here!

Here's where we disagree.

God knows how terrible this course would be (if that's possible considering the bones/structure/soul of the course, it's routing over that terrain) if the club was run democratically.

And, I also believe that those in charge at ANGC have been/are astute men, keenly aware of the dual demands placed upon the golf course by the needs of the membership and the needs of the Masters.  It's an extremely difficult task to serve two masters, with divergent needs, very well.  Just ask a married guy who's got a mistress, how easy that juggling job can be.[/color]

Considering this club is supposed to be composed of the (male) best and brightest, had those talents been tapped might we have gotten a different outcome?

There is NOT A DOUBT IN MY MIND, that the architectural product borne through democracy would have been FAR, FAR worse, irrespective of the talent of the membership.

Remember, just because one's pockets are lined with gold, doesn't mean that they sing well in the shower too.[/color]

What if Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates were tasked with "Masters architecture?" Assuming Jack and Arnie were not allowed to have a relationship with any designers used, would the decision making improve?

Ask Tom Doak what he thinks of that idea.
It's a formula for disaster.
Design by committee, ergo compromise after compromise would be forced upon the golf course.

That may be the worst architectural concept I've ever encountered in my entire life, with the exception of meeting TEPaul.[/color]

PS I am not an architectural purist when it comes to the tournament. Instead, I believe the club should do whatever is necessary to present a competition where big moves occur both ways on the leaderboard and where wounds are self inflicted - the product of decisions made freely.


And how would you go about insuring that that occurs each and every year, taking into great consideration, Mother Nature and the weather ?[/color]

It just seems to me that the strategic school of design, with the heroic school mixed in here and there, is the best way to accomplish that. Not the penal, which is where the architecture continues to head.

What are your hole by hole suggestions with respect to blending strategic design with heroic design ?[/color]

Or, as RT Jones wrote so well:

"The finishes of the Masters Tournament have almost always been dramatic and exciting. It is my conviction that this has been the case because of the make-or-break quality of the second nine of the golf course. This nine, with its abundant water hazards, each creating a perilous situation, can provide excruciating torture for the front runner trying to hang on. Yet it can yield a very low score to the player making a closing rush. It has been played in 30 during the tournament and in the medium 40s by players still in contention at the time."

I don't believe that # 10, # 11 and # 18 were ever "birdie" holes.
Not 50 years ago, not 25 years ago, not 10 years ago and not today.

But, # 12, # 14, # 16 and # 17 remain birdiable, and # 13 and # 15 remain eagle holes.  Hence, I believe that the back nine today, for today's golfers, remains a nine that can yield low scores along with disastrous scores.

What would you change on the back nine ?[/color]

[Steve Kline]

If the course had retained its full width, with virtually wall to wall to fairway, I don't think people would be discussing the changes at Augusta nearly as much. Lengthening the course was necessary as Tour players are hitting it astronomical distances. They could have done that incrementally but that would not have been economical - so they did it in one feel swoop. The only hole where the increased distance seemed to get out of hand to me was #7. So if we remove a number of the trees that were planted and removed the "second cut" I think most people wouldn't get so worked up about the changes. Unfortunately the issue of the width seems to be the driving force behind the entire design of the course so the powers that be have messed with the very foundation of what Jones/MacKenzie/Roberts created. And in my opinion, that is why the changes over the last 10 years have been so hypercriticized. Also in my opinion, the criticizers are correct.

[David Stamm]

Given:

In 1934 a brilliant design was created on an unusual piece of land.
The golf course serves two masters, the membership and The Masters, but, not necessarily... equally.

Questions:

1     Are the architects/names of the architects who altered ANGC
       subsequent to opening day immaterial ?

I think it became immaterial over time.

2     Is the evolving golf course, more of a reactionary product of the
       previous tournament, rather than the forward thinking creativeness of
       architects who make alterations for the future ?

I would say that the last decade has been more of the former rather than the latter. This is pure specualtion but I think they are asked to not take it to the limit in terms of lengthening so there is room for growth, albeit there isn't much room left.

3     Is the course today, its current architecture, merely a combination of
       its original genius and the evolution of the PGA Tour ?

Since there is very little of the original genuis left I think it's SOLELY the evolution.

How can you say that very little of the original genius is left when almost all of it remains ?[/b]

Pat, come on. Almost every green has either been moved, has lost significant surface or re-contoured. 3, 12, 13,17 (sort of) and 14 are the closest to what was intended. The bunkering is not even close in most cases and the ones the that IS the closest isn't even functional (10 fw).

4     If, and it's a big hypothetical if, If there was an I&B rollback to 1980
       would ANGC's architecture follow that retro path ?

No. They wouldn't know what to put back. I can't imagine the criteria for deciding at what point in the history timeline should the course be changed back to.

I think they're a lot smarter than you give them credit for.
I think they'd know exactly what and where to roll back and to what degree.  If I&B went to 1980, why wouldn't the golf course return to that date with margins for improved tinkering ?[/color]

I'm not questioning their intelligence, I just can't imagine how they would decide at what point in history do they "restore" so since the course because there has been so many chefs in the kitchen.

5     What changes were the most dramatic ?

Jeez, where to begin?? 12 not withstanding, the par 3's have had HUGE changes. 7 also comes to mind. 10 had it's entire green moved. I could go on and on...

# 12 remains intact.
How have # 4 and # 6 had huge changes other than tee lengthening ?
Sorry, I meant to say with the EXCEPTION of 12. 4 has lost green surface in the back and in the front where some rather neat pin placements can no longer be used. The right side had a big falloff and little one on the left. The 6th green was somewhat similar excpet reversed in terms of shape with a tongue on the front that brought the bunker into play even more with a pin placement. And all these holes have lost the shape and size of the bunkers.

6     Which architectural changes had the greatest effect on scoring for the
       Pros ?
The relation of the greens and the switching to bent.

Switching to bent is an agronomic, not an architectural change.

I don't understand "the relation of the greens" reference.
Could you explain what you meant by that ?[/color]

What I was trying to say in my weird use of the English language was that it would seem to me that the faster the greens got the player would have to re-evaluate his approaches to those greens, no? The use of bent allowed this. I realize I was stretching by citing the grass switch and I knew you would ding me on it not being an architectural switch.  . Since there are so many to choose from in terms of design, I'll go with 16.

7     Which architectural changes had the greatest effect on the
       membership ?

Not sure, I've never seen mere mortals play the course.

More questions will be posed.

I only ask the following.  Please THINK before posting.
Then, go back and think some more, type your post, edit it, think some more, reedit it, then post it.

TEPaul,  I realize that that's asking too much of you, so, I've granted you a special exemption.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, come on. Almost every green has either been moved, has lost significant surface or re-contoured. 3, 12, 13,17 (sort of) and 14 are the closest to what was intended. The bunkering is not even close in most cases and the ones the that IS the closest isn't even functional (10 fw).


David, I don't agree with that.

As to the bunkering, you're confusing window dressing with substance.
Just because a bunker no longer has frilly edges doesn't mean that it's lost it's strategic function.

How are the greenside bunkers substantively different ?

How are the fairway bunkers substantively different ?[/color]

I'm not questioning their intelligence, I just can't imagine how they would decide at what point in history do they "restore" so since the course because there has been so many chefs in the kitchen.

If I&B went to 1980 performance standards, I think they'd figure out the rest quite easily.  As to so many chefs, I don't know that that's been the case over the last few decades.  In addition the changes post 1980 are well documented.  Undoing them wouldn't be a difficult task.[/color]

Sorry, I meant to say with the EXCEPTION of 12. 4 has lost green surface in the back and in the front where some rather neat pin placements can no longer be used. The right side had a big falloff and little one on the left

Are you sure it's not the reverse ?
 
How did # 4 lose green surface in the back and front ?
Isn't that loss of cupping areas due to non-architectural changes, more a by-product of increased speeds on the greens in relation to the slopes in those areas.[/color]

What I was trying to say in my weird use of the English language was that it would seem to me that the faster the greens got the player would have to re-evaluate his approaches to those greens, no?

I don't know, but, that's got nothing to do with architectural changes.
[/color]

The use of bent allowed this. I realize I was stretching by citing the grass switch and I knew you would ding me on it not being an architectural switch.  . Since there are so many to choose from in terms of design, I'll go with 16.

I agree that # 16 has been changed substantially at the green end, but, you have to ask yourself, was that change for the better ?

Same for # 10 and # 7.

I believe all three holes were weak from inception and that those in charge at ANGC recognized that as early as 1934.

So, was that a flaw in the original design ?
You could sure build a good case for that argument.[/color]

The 6th green was somewhat similar excpet reversed in terms of shape with a tongue on the front that brought the bunker into play even more with a pin placement.

And all these holes have lost the shape and size of the bunkers.

Again, I'm not so sure I agree with that.
Shaping can be a product of the maintainance practices, and, what bunkers over 74 years remain virtually unchanged ?  As to size, some have been enlarged, not shrunk.

I think you have to remember that while ANGC might have started as a member's club that sought to host a championship, it's now a club that hosts a Major that's played by the membership.   The emphasis and/or forces driving the architecture have switched places.[/color]

Steve Kline,

I believe that you are incorrect.

ANGC remains a VERY WIDE golf course.

It's certainly narrower than it was 9 years ago, but, it remains generous off the tee on most holes.

[Matthew Rose]

5.  Dramatic changes?  I would have to say that the reversal of the nine's after the first Masters would be dramatic.  I would say that the change in 16, from a 120 yard shot over a creek to it's current state as well as the installation and subsequent removal of the pond at 6 would qualify as dramatic.

When did #6 have a pond? Is there a photo of this anywhere?

Seems kind of pointless.... I've always thought it was a good hole, overshadowed by the more famous one-shotters on the other side.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Rose,

I believe it was ORIGINALLY a creek or tributary to Rae's Creek, and NOT a pond that meandered from below and left of the current 6th tee, down into the current pond on # 16.  It was well short of the green and didn't come into play unless a shot was topped.  It's questionable if the creek was even visible from the back of # 6 tee.  In 1955 the creek was dammed and a pond formed, but, it was still 30 yards short of the green and not in play.

The tee on # 6 is highly elevated, thus, even line drives begin their flight well above the 6th green and the fronting ground below it.

Shortly thereafter, in 1959 the pond was removed and the creek piped.

It was not a prominent feature, nor was piping it a dramatic change as Rick Noyes alludes to.  Rick might have forgotten that the pond was created 21 years after the first tournament, and that it wasn't original.

Rick Noyes,

Flipping the nines isn't an architectural change.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()