[TEPaul]

BobC:

For you to even mention Bendelow being a possible designer of ANGC (even considering he was dead) only means to me you have no real knowledge or appreciation for the golf architectural talent of Brer Rabbit. As I'm sure you know the guy's real name was Brother Rabbit (although some called him "Brer" or "Buh" for short) because he came from a big family of Augusta Rabbits but all his siblings were girls. The guy was one helluva deceptive architect who could make challenging look easy. He was the ultimate architectural trickster and I think he designed ANGC. But the stumpheads at ANGC starting with Roberts apparently thought he was up no good and they sicked the Tar Baby on him and did in both he and his ultimate "looks easy/plays challenging" original ANGC design.

The idiots should have listened to him when he warned them: "Brother Foxes,  you can do anything to me but please don't throw me and my architectural design of ANGC into that there Briar Patch."

By the way, BobC, if you aren't aware of it "Briar Patch" was BrerR's colloquialism for trees and rough.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

I just did a little Google and Wicki research on Brer Rabbit.

Wow, that guy is my kind of man! I mean how can you not admire a guy who came up with  "It's trouble that makes the monkey chew on hot peppers." ?

On further research, it's possible the person who had the most to do with the design of ANGC may've been Joel Chandler Harris.

Ron Whitten may be onto something.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think it was Jim Blaukovitch, even though he wasn't born yet.

[TEPaul]

Is it true that Mackenzie and Jones were going for a golf course and design at ANGC that had remarkably wide fairways and basically no rough on the course?

Is it true that the original design was also intended to have only those 22 bunkers and some right in the middle of things (lines of charm)?

What about some of those close-cropped grass mounds on some of the holes?

What about the greens and their angles and contours or slopes seemingly undefended by sand bunkering or defended by it incredibly minimally.

If all those things are true, what other design or design concept had ever been attempted quite like that?

Let's try to see if those guys really were trying to do something architecturally radical with ANGC and if they were well aware of it.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

You might be on to something with Brer Rabbit. Joel Chandler Harris' house is just down the road from here. My mother used to read the books to my brothers and me. We watched the Disney cartoons religiously. I know my Brer Rabbit.

Now that I think about it, when Brer Rabbit disppeared into the "briar patch" it was really Scottish gorse. He also called it his "line of charm" vs. the "line of instinct" that Brer Fox and Brer Bear thought he would take. A very clever guy who could work with the terrain he was given.

Yep. Case closed. I never saw the obvious gca connections. It must have been Brer Rabbit.

Bob   

[Garland Bayley]

Bob,

You are in rare form today. I'm lovin' it.

...
Now that I think about it, when Brer Rabbit disppeared into the "briar patch" it was really Scottish gorse. He also called it his "line of charm" vs. the "line of instinct" that Brer Fox and Brer Bear thought he would take. A very clever guy who could work with the terrain he was given.
...

...
If Whitten says MacK didn't have much to do with ANGC (and Ron is a very serious person) and Jones says he didn't, then that leaves Bendelow.

The fact that Bendelow was dead should be overlooked because it does not fit our theory. ...

Ron Whitten doesn't think so. In fact Ron Whitten doesn't think MacKenzie had much to do with the original design.

Since Ron is a very important person who talks directly with Billy Payne and Tom Fazio about these things, all the changes to ANGC are just fine.
...

[Matthew Mollica]

I think it is pretty clear from the record that the intent of Augusta National was to create a golf course that was challenging for the highest caliber player and also enjoyable for the club member.   That's a tough order and one that required fixes.

ANGC was always intended to be a championship venue, hence, fine tuning after opening day would seem to be natural progression.

I'm not sure I agree with these views. Reading Clifford Roberts' account of the early days at the Club it doesn't seem a championship venue was a primary focus. I'm happy to be proved wrong however.

MM

[john_stiles]

Matthew,

I'll look at other references as to Roberts quotes as compared to what was actually constructed.

A national invitational with arguably the best PGA and amateur players was held as early as 1934, and course changes to #10 and #7 were made very early in 1937 & 38 because the holes were thought to be too easy. 

I have read that the changes to #7 in 1938, for example,  followed the suggestions of Horton Smith, Masters Champion, who I presume was not a member.   

With Bobby Jones hitting tee shots from the still dirt tee boxes of the unfinished course,  it would seem there was considerable effort to make the course of championship caliber.   Wasn't that the point of the best player in the world constructing a course.

And it seems like a championship venue was an early focus, at least from 1934 until today.

The venue part started soon after opening or maybe even before.


BobC,

I have played Uncle Remus.   Have you ?

[Edwin Roald]

I have a recording of a radio interview that O.B. Keeler had with Bob Jones in the 60's. There, Mr. Jones says very clearly that when they first set out to design and build the course they had no notion of ever hosting a tournament.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have a recording of a radio interview that O.B. Keeler had with Bob Jones in the 60's. There, Mr. Jones says very clearly that when they first set out to design and build the course they had no notion of ever hosting a tournament.

Edwin,

Jones's memory, 30 years later, conflicts with written documents dating back to 1933 and 1934 wherein the idea of ANGC hosting a USGA Open had originated back in 1932, and that shortly thereafter, in 1933 ANGC had made arrangements with the PGA to host the tournament in 1934.

Cliff Roberts had discussed the idea of hosting the 1934 Open with the President of the USGA. Subsequently, he asked Grantland Rice to "encourage" USGA officials to lean in the direction of having ANGC host the Open.

Documents state that Roberts indicated that he and Jones would visit anyone who was hesitant about the idea of ANGC hosting the Open.

The USGA, in early 1933, wrote that ANGC would not be the venue for the 1934 Open, but, that the USGA was favorably inclined for a future Open at ANGC

It was immediately subsequent to that, that Jones and Roberts decided to host their own Tournament, announcing their intention to the PGA in 1933.

The PGA's official announcement of their tournament schedule for 1934 lists the event at ANGC on March 22, 23, 24 and 25.

Jones's radio interview is at odds with the written record.

[BCrosby]

Keeler died in 1953, so I'd guess the interview took place earlier than the '60's or it would been a bit one-sided.

Pat/Ed - I think each of you are partially right.

When designing ANGC, neither Jones nor MacK had any conception that ANGC host a major tournament on a regular basis. It was not sold that way to the original members, there was no talk about anything like that in the writings by either man at the time. Jones even resisted the idea when it came up later (more about that below.) Certainly the course was intended to challenge good golfers who sought to go low. But ANGC was not designed with some "resistance to scoring" concept in mind. To the contrary, the notion was anathema to MacK and Jones. ANGC was not designed to be a better Winged Foot or Merion or Oakmont. They had very different, even radically different, design ideas in mind. It was never intended as a big tough championship course along those lines. MacK and Jones actually wanted to see low scores posted by good players when playing well. It was a confirmation of their ideas. (Which is one of the reasons that I find it so appalling that the Whitten/Payne/Fazio Axis use the resistance to scoring meme to justify their most recent changes. They haven't just missed the boat. They missed the dock.)

The Great Depression hit and all their economic models for the club got crushed. Here is where I think Pat is partly right. Holding a major tournament became a matter or survival. To be clear, it was not a matter of publicity. Jones had given ANGC all the public recognition it could possibly want. It was a matter of revenues to support operations. Unlike PV or Shinnie or Cypress or Chicago GC, the bulk of ANGC's members did not live nearby (ANGC was and is a true national club. There have always been very few Atlanta members, but that is another story). Jones resisted the idea of a big tournie at first, but pretty feebly.

Due to the pressure to attract a world class group of pros annually for a big tournament, I think that the ideas of architectural cloddhoppers like Roberts and Horton Smith and others became ascendent. How much Jones pushed back, if he did at all, I don't know.  Whatever was said in private, Jones was certainly complicit in public.

Did many of the changes contradict things MacK and he had said previously on the record about ANGC? Yes. Interesting is that while MacK was till alive, he and Jones stopped Roberts from "toughening" the 3rd, for example. OTOH, Roberts' egregious changes to the 8th were made in the 50's, and Jones made no public protest.
 
Did the changes seem to contradict things Jones said later in life about gca generally? Yes. See Alistair Cook's book and Jones's own books. So that's the heart of the mystery for me. Hidden in the heart of that mystery is the relationship between Jones and Roberts. We know for the last three decades of his life Jones avoided Roberts' company. But that's about all anyone knows. And most of the people that would know for sure have now passed on.

BTW Pat (you and I have argued this before), I do not think the Maxwell changes at 7 and 10 were obvious improvements. I'm not a fan of Maxwell's changes. (I do like many of RTJ's however.) Certainly the changes increased resistance to scoring on those holes, but at the price of less interesting architecture. I do not believe, for example, that MacK would have signed off on them. Maxwell's change to the 10th also caused a rerouting of the 11th, to that hole's detriment. A change I also think MacK would have found objectionable. So I look forward to our annual argument about those two holes.

Bob 

         

[TEPaul]

BobC:

That post above is some good background on ANGC and Roberts and Jones.

However, the question I would like to see considered and discussed on here is if ANGC as it was originally designed was supposed to be something of a radical break-through in golf and architecture? If it was perhaps the best example extant at that time of some very different concepts in architecture and strategic golf?

If it really was to have extremely wide playing corridors and no rough and very minimal bunkering and if it was to be a strategic design almost wholly reliant on topography and even constructed mounds and green angles again with minimal bunkering this really would've been something not tried before. What else had ever been done with that particular design makeup or even close to it?

That is the first question that should be considered. If it turns out that was true then we can get into what happened in its future and why next.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Another ways of looking at ANGC's architectural evolution is to consider how the golf course may've evolved over the years if Clifford Roberts never existed and the course was essentially in the hands of only Bob Jones all those years he lived.

[BCrosby]

BobC:

However, the question I would like to see considered and discussed on here is if ANGC as it was originally designed was supposed to be something of a radical break-through in golf and architecture? If it was perhaps the best example extant at that time of some very different concepts in architecture and strategic golf?

If it really was to have extremely wide playing corridors and no rough and very minimal bunkering and if it was to be a strategic design almost wholly reliant on topography and even constructed mounds and green angles again with minimal bunkering this really would've been something not tried before. What else had ever been done with that particular design makeup or even close to it?

Tom -

ANGC was intended to be revolutionary. That's what MacK and Jones thought they were doing. That's what they thought they had built. That's how contemporary observers with any expertise in gca saw ANGC at its opening.

The heart of that revolution was taking the elements that they believed made TOC the best course in the world and emphasizing those to a degree that had never been done before. Specifically the idea was to stress

- width and playability,
- little rough, few bunkers,
- reliance on existing contours,
- large asymmetric greens that stressed angles of approach
- water hazards that inflict tough, disproportionate penalties because they are only engaged with longer clubs if you are trying for a sub-par score.

Those are the things usually cited in the abstract. But you got to look at the pictures in Byrdy's book to grasp how wild MacK's implementation was. It was strategic golf on acid. Terrific, edgy, gutsy stuff. It was almost a satire of strategic concepts. Over the top features that were and remain unprecedented in the history of gca. (ANGC was not the only place MacK was trying this wild stuff. See Pasa and Crystal Downs for slightly toned down versions.) There has never been anything like it. For that reason, because of the uniqueness of ANGC as an architectural experiment, it's loss hurts. Everyone, but especially the Ron Whitten's of this world, ought to feel that loss.

Very few people (thanks in part to the tireless efforts of gca commentators in the mass media) have an appreciation of the daring nature of that experiment. Yes, if ANGC has been kept closer to its original form and the Great Depression hadn't intervened, I think RTJ's Dark Ages might have turned out very differently. But who knows.

The urge to recover parts of ANGC is not just me being a purist about old gca. (In fact I'm not a purist about those things.) It's that ANGC was a special case. It was a unique architectural experiment carried out with great courage by the best golf architect ever to trod this mortal coil.

For those reasons I would would have thought people with a sense of the history of gca would pause a moment before cheering on the bulldozers.

Bob   

P.S. You and I have talked before about how Max Behr probably influenced MacK in stretching traditional strategic ideas. Indeed, the Spirit of SA was written roughly at the same time Mack was designing ANGC and only B. Jones appears more frequently in the book than Max Behr. I think Behr had a profound influence on MacK's thinking late in his career, including what he did at ANGC. BTW, old Joshua appears frequently as well.     

[BCrosby]

BobC,

I have played Uncle Remus.   Have you ?

John - There are many reasons to seek out new courses, but that might be the first course I need to play based solely on its name. Damn, gotta make another trip. That's a notch I must have on my belt. When do you want to go?

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob Crosby,

I don't think that you can discount the fact that the USGA never held the two most important tournaments on their schedule, the Amateur and the Open, in the south.

I think Jones, and perhaps Roberts, fancied the idea of bringing one of those two events to ANGC, even before the course was built.

I don't think resistance to scoring was an inherently imbeded concept within the minds of golfers, the PGA and the USGA, so, I don't think specific features were conceived or altered with that concept in mind in 1932-34.

Jones certainly understood championship golf and the venues upon which it was contested.

I find it hard to believe that a man with his skills, backround, record and love for the game WOULDN'T think or conceive of the idea of building a golf course that could be a championship venue.  Especially as HIS home course.

As to # 10, I'm not alone in my belief that the hole in it's original form was very weak.

I believe it was intended as such because it was the opening hole and a great way to get the golfer to the lower portion of the golf course.

Originally at 410 and 430 with a hundred foot drop in elevation, at a course in warmer climates, the hole played considerably shorter than it's yardage, and, there wasn't a fairway bunker to impede the drive.

In that configuration, it was a fairly benign, bland hole.

MacKenzie himself called the hole comparitively easy.
I think he intended that, as it was the opening hole, the introduction to the golf course.  But, once the nines were reversed, it's function changed.
No longer was its purpose to gently introduce the golfer to the wonderful adventure that lay ahead.

In addition, I don't know that maintaining a green, consistent with the others, in that low, damp area would have been an easy task, even for ANGC.

I believe the change to # 16 was also an improvement.

As to # 7, I'd champion that change as well, however, I find the subsequent narrowing of the hole an objectionable change.

I anxiously await your reply.
However, I'm off to see if I can hit some balls around noon.

[TEPaul]

"I don't think resistance to scoring was an inherently imbeded concept within the minds of golfers, the PGA and the USGA, so, I don't think specific features were conceived or altered with that concept in mind in 1932-34."

Patrick:

I think you're wrong about that and I think that can be proven by numerous articles to that effect about certain of the older courses that held championship events, not the least being TOC itself. What Jones did there scoring-wise in 1925 was the talk of the town and was probably the very thing that put him on the spot and made him begin to evaluate architecture as he and Behr and Mackenzie came to evaluate architecture. Jones was clear that he felt a really good course (championship course) could and should yield low scores if the competitor really used his head and played great golf. This fact can be proven by Jones' own remarks from this time and who can deny that what Bob Jones said at that time got the attention of golf and golfers like no other?

The point is Joshua Crane used the very fact of Jones' scoring at TOC in 1925 as clear evidence that the course and its architecture was obsolete and needed to be improved scientifically to create far more "control". This, in essence, was the beginning of the real Crane and Behr/Mackenzie/Jones debate about penal and strategic architecture and what the two concepts meant.

For the likes of Behr and Mackenzie to have come up with some of these radical new design ideas we've been talking about here they basically could not possibly have found a better ally than Bob Jones!

You really do need to read some of Behr's articles from the 1920s to this point. One of them was even entitled "Bobby Jones and St Andrews (Experience of Star is Argument Against Golf Course Standardization)". Essentially Behr's point with Jones was that if Bob Jones, the greatest golfer in the world, could agree with these philosophies they were proposing then any golfer could and should.

Of course, as something of a counterpoint to the foregoing, Behr also said that Jones, despite being the greatest golfer in the world, was also an amateur, not a professional, and for that reason at least, allowed Jones the capacity to be able to play the game for the sheer joy of just playing it.

[Jim Nugent]

Bob -- real interesting post.  I wonder about one point you made though. 

You said the depression hit, and that threw Jones/Roberts' economic model out the window.  While there's no exact date for the depression, it's usually thought to have started in late 1929 or early to mid 1930. 

So wasn't the country already in the depression, before ANGC was designed?  I believe the club opened in 1933. 

And if so, could that mean they always intended the course to host an important tournament for the world's top players?   

[KBanks]

Bob,

I can't remember the citation, but didn't MacKenzie use the term "world's wonder inland course" in describing ANGC? (In crediting Bob Jones for the impact of his ideas upon the design, if I remember the context correctly).

It's a phrase pregnant with meaning, and which seems suggestive of a certain revolutionary intent.

Ken

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You must be confused, we're not talking about the British Open or TOC, we're referencing the PGA, and golf in America circa 1934.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You reference whatever you want and I'll reference what I want.

"I don't think resistance to scoring was an inherently imbeded concept within the minds of golfers, the PGA and the USGA,"

Well, I do. I think it was becoming a driving force in golf and one that was going to effect architecture and did effect architecture and golf bigtime both back then and into the future. One of the most significant influences on that mentality was probably Joshua Crane and some of his articles in 1926 and on when he said that Bob Jones' scoring in the British Open indicated that TOC could no longer be considered the championship course that some claimed it was and had been. Maybe you don't think that was significant but I certainly do, and Bob Crosby does too. I doubt you're even aware of those articles, much less read them, that essentially created this Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie/Jones debate that has been referred to as the "Penal vs Strategic" debate. This was definitely golf and architecture's philosophical debate that emanated out of that time via those participants.

ANGC and the very idea of its radical architectural ideas and features may have been the result of it on the part of Mackenzie/Jones and certainly abetted and enhanced by Behr's philosophies and writing.

You should read what Bob Jones himself wrote about the differences between what he referred to as one dimensional American championship golf courses compared to the interesting strategies and variability in golf architecture best represented by TOC. You should read what Behr wrote at length on that subject, and Mackenzie too.

I hope you're aware that the Mackenzie/Jones design at ANGC was suppose to utilize what they felt were some of the primary strategic ramifications of TOC on a highly topographical and ultra wide golf course in Georgia.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

You reference whatever you want and I'll reference what I want.

Good.  That way I'll remain on topic while you drift to irrelevancy.[/color]

"I don't think resistance to scoring was an inherently imbeded concept within the minds of golfers, the PGA and the USGA,"

Well, I do. I think it was becoming a driving force in golf and one that was going to effect architecture and did effect architecture and golf bigtime both back then and into the future. One of the most significant influences on that mentality was probably Joshua Crane and some of his articles in 1926 and on when he said that Bob Jones' scoring in the British Open indicated that TOC could no longer be considered the championship course that some claimed it was and had been.

Maybe you don't think that was significant but I certainly do, and Bob Crosby does too. I doubt you're even aware of those articles, much less read them, that essentially created this Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie/Jones debate that has been referred to as the "Penal vs Strategic" debate. This was definitely golf and architecture's philosophical debate that emanated out of that time via those participants.

First, I'd prefer for Bob Crosby to speak for himself.
He doesn't need a ventriliquist.

Penal vs Strategic isn't confined to a medal play context.

If you examine golf in AMERICA in the early days, Pros weren't allowed in the clubhouse and most golf was played at MATCH play.  AMATEUR golf was in vogue, NOT Professional golf.  The focus wasn't on scoring as it is every week on TV today.  Even the PGA Championship was contested at Match play.[/color]

ANGC and the very idea of its radical architectural ideas and features may have been the result of it on the part of Mackenzie/Jones and certainly abetted and enhanced by Behr's philosophies and writing.

There is nothing radical about the architectural ideas at ANGC, unless you consider TOC and its design principles "radical architecture".[/color]

You should read what Bob Jones himself wrote about the differences between what he referred to as one dimensional American championship golf courses compared to the interesting strategies and variability in golf architecture best represented by TOC.

Tell me if you can, how NGLA and GCGC, certainly the latter being an American Championship course, was one dimensional and deviated from
the interesting strategies and variability in the golf architecture best represented by TOC, a flat golf course on sandy soil ?[/color]

You should read what Behr wrote at length on that subject, and Mackenzie too.

For this topic, I'm more interested in what Roberts and Jones wrote on, or did at ANGC.[/color]

I hope you're aware that the Mackenzie/Jones design at ANGC was suppose to utilize what they felt were some of the primary strategic ramifications of TOC on a highly topographical and ultra wide golf course in Georgia.

I was aware of that long before you became interested in GCA.
Basically, you're a "Tommy come lately" to GCA, a rookie of sorts. [/color]

[TEPaul]

BobC:

Look at that post #46 of Patrick's. That is a perfect example of why golf probably missed not just the essence of the Crane debate but also the point of the original ANGC and its architectural significance in America from which a guy like Roberts and others basically corrupted its original essence. Too many people just can't see the forest for the trees, as it were. Give them five 2s and the chances of them getting to ten isn't very good.

Nevertheless, let's not give up hope on the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie/Jones debate.

[TEPaul]

BobC:

I just read over, one more time, Behr's original piece called "The Correct Use of Penalty (Answering Joshua Crane and Further Developing the Subject)" from The Country Club Magazine (And Pacific Golf & Motor).

Particularly, seeing as Behr cut out just about the whole first page of that article in his future articles on the very same subject with the very same article title, I think the time has come to put that original article on here. I read it again very carefully just now and there just isn't a more appropriate piece that gets to the heart of what he and apparently Mackenzie, and perhaps Jones too meant to say on this "penal vs strategic" debate and issue.

There is no question at all to them of the necessity of perhaps complete lack of the use of rough or penal rough in golf and architecture and he even discusses in specific detail why that is all important to strategy via architecture. There also seems little question that that experiment was a whole lot of what ANGC was supposed to be, and why it would be so different than most anything certainly over here that came before it.

And also since Behr wrote that article in 1926 in response to Crane's article on TOC, one can clearly see that Crane very much took issue with TOC because it was one of those rare examples of a course that he said made no distinction between fairway and rough!

Essentially, it just doesn't get any clearer than it is in that article. Even saying that I can totally understand how many golfers and probably a lot on here would take issue with it or just not understand the significance of it, particularly philosophically, and particularly when it comes to the concept of penalty and the various ways of looking at that.

In many ways Behr's point about the purpose of hazards and the concept of "penalty" vs Crane's seeming point about the purpose of hazards, including penalizing rough, really is a "glass half empty/glass half full" kind of thing. In other words, it really is two completely different ways of looking at the very same thing! 

To take the entire issue of golf and architecture into an even more "divisible" framework and context (as Behr might say) he really does get into the importance of emotion and even why it's so important in the playing of the game and even in the analyzing of architecture and golf and why just scientific or mathematical analysis alone falls well short when it comes to appreciation.

[RSLivingston_III]

BobC:

I just read over, one more time, Behr's original piece called "The Correct Use of Penalty (Answering Joshua Crane and Further Developing the Subject)" from The Country Club Magazine (And Pacific Golf & Motor).

Particularly, seeing as Behr cut out just about the whole first page of that article in his future articles on the very same subject with the very same article title, I think the time has come to put that original article on here. I read it again very carefully just now and there just isn't a more appropriate piece that gets to the heart of what he and apparently Mackenzie, and perhaps Jones too meant to say on this "penal vs strategic" debate and issue.

There is no question at all to them of the necessity of perhaps complete lack of the use of rough or penal rough in golf and architecture and he even discusses in specific detail why that is all important to strategy via architecture. There also seems little question that that experiment was a whole lot of what ANGC was supposed to be, and why it would be so different than most anything certainly over here that came before it.

And also since Behr wrote that article in 1926 in response to Crane's article on TOC, one can clearly see that Crane very much took issue with TOC because it was one of those rare examples of a course that he said made no distinction between fairway and rough!

Essentially, it just doesn't get any clearer than it is in that article. Even saying that I can totally understand how many golfers and probably a lot on here would take issue with it or just not understand the significance of it, particularly philosophically, and particularly when it comes to the concept of penalty and the various ways of looking at that.

In many ways Behr's point about the purpose of hazards and the concept of "penalty" vs Crane's seeming point about the purpose of hazards, including penalizing rough, really is a "glass half empty/glass half full" kind of thing. In other words, it really is two completely different ways of looking at the very same thing! 

To take the entire issue of golf and architecture into an even more "divisible" framework and context (as Behr might say) he really does get into the importance of emotion and even why it's so important in the playing of the game and even in the analyzing of architecture and golf and why just scientific or mathematical analysis alone falls well short when it comes to appreciation.

z
I, for one, would be very interested in reading that article.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()