Augusta, what to do...

[Chip Gaskins]

So after watching the 1997, 2001, and 2002 Masters highlights (sorry, slow New Year's Day, which is good) on the Golf Channel I question what exactly Augusta was left to do: Tiger hit wedge twice to 15 in 1997, Tiger hit 8 iron into #2, Phil hit a 94 yard wedge into #11 in 2001, etc.

At that rapid rate of change the course would become obsolete very fast for Major championship play.

We know what Fazio (and Marsh Benson) did in the early 2000's with adding 500+ yards.

SO, the question is, what do we think Coore & Crenshaw, Doak & team, Hanse & Shack, etc would/could/SHOULD have done to reestablish some resemblance of normal play while still respecting Jones/Mackenzie's GCA intent if they were the firms given the opportunity?

I assume the first answer is remove the fake rough they have now.  So don't recommend that.

Should they:

New bunkers?

Deeper bunkers?

Faster greens?

Slower greens?

New "Mackenzie tongues" on greens?

Add trees?

Remove trees?

[Bill Gayne]

1. remove trees
2. Take on the fight and eventual lawsuits for a tournament ball
3. Accept lower scores relative to par.

[Ronald Montesano]

2.  Lawsuits...How could there be lawsuits?  It's their tournament!!

[Chip Gaskins]

How about architecture ideas

I realize a tournament ball would be the quickest / easiest fix, but that seems unlikely even tough Augusta National is the very unique position to make it happen for tournament golf.  Would pros skip it?  of course not, so they would play the pro ball which would start that slippery slope that manufacturer would oppose but at that point the horse might be out of the barn.

Now, back to GCA, how about shorten the #3 hole?  put the central bunker back in #11, or put the fairway bunker back on #14.

[Bryan Drennon]

I'm not an architect, but I've wondered if they could make the course play firmer. They seemed to have accomplished that at Sawgrass with the recent renovations and I think that ANGC has a lot of the same issues they were having. With firmer conditions, the course could play more like Pinehurst #2, which has no trouble resisting low scores with very little rough. You could then eliminate the rough and many of the trees they've added for defense. It also brings some of the shorter hitters back into the fold and puts the emphasis back on playing angles and the greens themselves.

[Matt_Ward]

Chip:

What was broken to necessitate the changes made ?

Egos pure and simple.

Remove the second cut -- completely inane.

Chop the silly trees to the right of #11 and on #15 -- clear the fairway a bit at #7 and return it to the 365-yd range it was.

Return the 1st hole to something more appropriate -- 420 yards works -- the 455 yard-marks makes the hole a beast to anyone less than 320-yard tee shots.

Let the players play and accept the fact that low scores when conditions warrant will happen. Nothing wrong with it. Nicklaus shot 271 in '65 and the next year was over par for the same 72 holes. Mother Nature can be a very willing ally when needed.

[Adam Clayman]

Return severe contours to both fwy and greens, that have slowly been softened year after year.

[Tim Gavrich]

I think that ANGC's time as a purely architecturally great golf course has come and gone.  Its handlers seem far more concerned with giving the pros hell for four days every year than preserving whatever Mackenzie's original intent was.  I personally believe that club and ball performance is pretty close to its ceiling, so I would be very surprised if the golf course is lengthened further in the future.  As it is, Augusta is one of the best and fairest championship tests in golf.  I would be willing to posit that the Masters has had as much or more drama over the last 10 years than any other major championship.  It is pretty clear that the golf course does not give any playing style an unreasonable advantage over any other, since both short (Weir, Zach Johnson) and long (Woods, Mickelson, Cabrera) players have won in the last ten years.  If there is a better back nine in golf for a major championship, another back nine where "anything can happen and probably will," I would like to see it.

Augusta is a course built primarily for players of a different sort of golfer than most of us GCA types.  It's no ultra-strategic Sand Hills or NGLA-type course, but I don't think it aims to be, for better or worse from the GCA.com perspective.

[Sean Leary]

Return severe contours to both fwy and greens, that have slowly been softened year after year.

Which ones Adam? If they effectively play the same due to increased green speed, and you can get more hole locations (always a good thing), why mess with it. Prairie Dunes number 2 is a good example of this that you would be familiar with.

[Wade Whitehead]

What would happen to scoring if the greens rolled at no more than 9?

WW

[CJ Carder]

Return severe contours to both fwy and greens, that have slowly been softened year after year.

Along with removing the 2nd cut, I think this probably makes the most sense.  Allowing balls to trickle / roll off in to the woods on holes like 2, 7, 9, 10, 14, and a few others would help to alleviate the need for SO much extra length, though SOME added length was inevitable, particularly on the par 3's and par 5's.  Regardless of the argument for / against lower scores, you just can't have players hitting wedges or 9-irons in to par 5's and expect to be taken seriously by the golfing public.

I'm really not sure what removing some of the trees would've done (that odd grove to the right of 11 not withstanding).  Augusta is still pretty wide by major championship standards and making it wider would've only encouraged players to bomb away attempting to get closer to the greens.  I don't particularly care how fast or sloped the greens are, with these balls and grooves, and the talent that the players have, wedges in to every single green is not only "boring," it also defeats ALL the strategy.

One of the steps that I think Augusta has taken over the last few years that really gets overlooked is their use of technology is managing the conditions of the greens (i.e. the sub-air system, etc).  Sure it's a bit artificial and doesn't really set a fair standard for everyone else (how many other courses have $$$ to do that?), but it does show that they are committed to a firm and fast course.

[Adam Clayman]

Sean, I was specifically thinking about the back shelf on 13 when I wrote that. But also, some of the really odd looking humps that were visible in the first televised Masters. (1960) The 17th fwy had a conical shaped mound that if it's still there is probably more like a speed bump or pimple. Please don't assume I've been there caisuse I have not. these are just observations from the images I have seen over the years.

CJ, The sub air system doesn't necessarily imply they are committed to F&F. It means they are committed to controlling the thump.

Controlling the receptiveness of the greens, especially on Sunday, has been quite evident in the last few years.  

edit; To Mark's question below;
  Lowered par.

[Mark Chaplin]

From my memory the Masters is played in April and it gets pretty wet at times, I fail to see how you can get reliable F&F conditions at that time of year. As much as people want to criticise ANGC this post poses a great question, what could they have done differently.

[Mark McKeever]

I would love to see them make the bunkers rough looking like they used to be.  Although I am pretty sure this will never happen.

Mark

[jeffwarne]

Augusta is a course built primarily for players of a different sort of golfer than most of us GCA types.  It's no ultra-strategic Sand Hills or NGLA-type course, but I don't think it aims to be, for better or worse from the GCA.com perspective.

Tim,
Can you explain why NGLA is more "ultra-strategic" than ANGC for players playing appropriate tees?
I would argue that from the back tees for touring pros(at both courses) there is far more strategy at AGNC.
I would also argue that an absence of fairway bunkers at AGNC allows the shorter hitter/member playing appropriate members tees to choose the side of the fairway for optimum approach, rather than having lines chosen and  dictated by fairway bunkers.

[Mike Hendren]

Sean, I was specifically thinking about the back shelf on 13 when I wrote that.

Adam, I had the good fortune of sitting in the bleachers across the 14th fairway right of the 13th green at this year's Friday round.  The pin was on the left shelf (the narrowest portion of the shelf that wraps around the left and back of the green) about 1/3 of the way back from the front of the green.   By far, the shots that finished closest to the pin (say inside 8 feet) were second shots.  Very few were able to pitch the ball for their third shots from the extreme right side of the fairway into the slope and finish near the hole.  Most, fearing going into Nicklaus' trough, left their third shots 10 to 12 feet short and most of them misread their birdie putt.  In fact I think I saw more eagles than birdies.  Norman, bless his heart, was in prime position to make the cut until he punched a long iron out of the pine-straw on his second that ran all the way into the creek.  After dropping, his pitch went over the green into Jack's trough, where he left his 5th on the way to making double. 

Tim Gavrich writes: "I think that ANGC's time as a purely architecturally great golf course has come and gone." Tim, we'll just have to disagree on that statement.  For me that's like saying Sue the dinosaur's time as an archeological treasure has come and gone just because all that's left is the bones. 

Augusta National remains a brilliant golf course.  It is only 1 day away from being the best golf course in the world in my opinion.  In that time, one could take a few extra swipes mowing the fairways and returning the intended width, cut down trees encroaching on the 7th, 11th, 15th and 18th and mow new tee boxes at the first and 7th and let the greens grow an extra day.   Matt Ward has it about right. 

Mike

[jeffwarne]

Sean, I was specifically thinking about the back shelf on 13 when I wrote that.

Augusta National remains a brilliant golf course.   , one could take a few extra swipes mowing the fairways and returning the intended width, cut down trees encroaching on the 7th, 11th, 15th and 18th and mow new tee boxes at the first and 7th and let the greens grow an extra day.   

Mike

Mike,
Dead on.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike H:

I like your take on this as well.

Chip's question was specifically about what Coore and Crenshaw or I would have done in 1998 ... I suspect we wouldn't have done a lot of the things they did do.  But if I was asked to come in now, my recommendations would be a lot like yours.  But don't make it sound so easy; if it ever happens, that club could afford to pay for some good advice.

[Matt_Ward]

Michael H:

I agree with you -- the desire to return ANGC back to where it can be as a strategic brilliant course is not that hard to do.

That rests with the leadership there now and it's about time the new regime started to undo plenty of the ill-considered Hootie interventions.

ANGC needs to realize it's in the entertainment business -- no doubt the folks in charge place the pins in more accessible areas for the weekend to do that -- that tells me they are understand it somewhat but the egos tied to what the pros can score is still present. Dumping the inane second cut, the invasion of tree clutter and trying to put back into play the real tees for certain holes -- see the 1st and 7th, to name just two, would make a fine start.

[john_stiles]

The second cut and trees are an issue IMO as others have said,  and would be better without these to return to former GCA glory.

Greens are okay,  as they are probably only over the top for a few weeks for the best players in the world.  Slower greens in early April might mean a real run at 59 in the toonamint.

All this effort, all this gnashing of teeth,  all this, all this for a ball that can be sold at a profit for $1 a piece.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip Gaskins,

Your initial post seems to imply that those architects would have artistic license and I don't think that's the case.

It may be that there are some items on a priority list that ANGC wants to address.

On the other hand, perhaps ANGC is seeking a solicitation of ideas, though I would doubt it.

I don't think you can view ANGC as you can any other golf course in the world.
ANGC is different from all the rest.
They're a membership club, open for a limited season, that hosts a Major event toward the end of their season.
Thus, they serve several Masters (pun intended)
However, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is The Masters.

For a while, and for the foreseeable future, I believe that it's "The Masters" that will drive most, if not all, architectural changes.

And as such, I think that's where the focus of any architect will be.

[Bradley Anderson]

When I was there during the Masters it looked like the bounce and roll of the ball tracked perfectly on the same line as its flight. Now on most golf courses that does not happen. It seems to me like the fairways are too perfectly land-leveled. But I don't know if making the fairways less uniform would help protect par there. Probably not because those guys hit the ball so high.

I wonder what our architects on here think about that?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley,

With pitched fairways like # 2, # 3, # 9, # 10, # 11, # 13, # 14 and # 18 how is it possible that the ball, upon impact, continues with it's flight path direction rather than a path determined by the contour of the ground ?

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

I am sure you have played there and can comment on the way the ball reacts to the fairways.

You are obviously right - the fairways are canted and pitched, but it seemed to me when I was there that those were some very broad sweeping movements with no minor movement within them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad,

# 5 and # 7 and other fairways have minor movement in them, but, you have to remember, that the entire course is on the side of a rather large hill, and that Mother Nature, rain, gravity, fruit farmers, gang mowers and 75 years of fertilizing and top dressing have a way of leveling the ground.