[Mike Hendren]

Wow, the open season on Augusta National Golf Club opened early this year.    I continue to believe that even in its current iteration it is among the best golf courses in the world under any criteria. 

Based upon my most recent visit during the 2009 Masters,  in my opinion - admittedly heavily biased toward classical designs,  it ranks ahead of Sand Hills and therefore Golfweek's entire modern list.  As for its classic counterparts, I have played Shinnecock Hills, Cypress Point Club, National Golf Links of America, Pebble Beach Golf Links and Crystal Downs among Golfweek's top ten.  Only Shinnecock is superior to Augusta National Golf Club in my opinion. 

I can't help but thinking that if Augusta's detractors thought they had even the slightest chance of gracing its premises one day they might not be so quick to criticize it. 

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

ANGC should be out of the top 30.   Not the same as it used to be.

Tony, let's assume you have it at 31.  Name 30 courses that were constructed prior to 1960 that are better.

Mike

[Matt_Ward]

Michael:

Let's be clear -- Hootie and company f*cked up the place big time. Anyone who knows what ANGC was meant to be understands that.

There was nothing major league wrong with ANGC in the first place -- a couple of people got a major league knot in their shorts because they see 3-4 guys hit PW into #11 and they think the whole course needs to be redone.

And the concept of Jones / Mackenzie -- to have an inland TOC in GA -- was turned on its head with an April US Open set-up.

Take a look at the pic in GD for the 11th hole. It is completely out of character with what the original intent called for.

To prove my point -- the powers-that-be have to place the pins in receptive places and a few tees pushed forward to give the world's best an opportunity to go low in the last 36 holes in order to keep the event exciting.

In regards to being at ANGC -- been there numerous time for the tournament going back to my days at South Carolina. The course I saw then was majestic -- didn't need any stupid "second cuts" or grass that was pushed back towards the tee and other such inane "improvements." How bout that marvelous change with the "new" 7th hole ? Makes wonderful sense -- let's keep a green designed for short shots and push it back nearly 100 yards. Brilliant.

ANGC gets a free ride for its past PRESENTATION -- it also gets huge mileage because people see The Masters event as a bulletproof shield. What's so funny is that the people who provide the screen for one course will then go out of their way and cry foul when things are done to courses that host the US Open.

I would play Sand Hills in a heartbeat over the NEW ANGC -- if it were the old ANGC -- the one prior to the 7th and 11th being bastardized -- ditto for the extension of the tee at #1 and the 18th -- along with the silly second cut and tree plantings -- then I would play THAT ANGC.

I won't say ANGC has 30 courses ahead of it but I will say this -- it falls closer to the back end of the 2nd overall ten than the beginning in my mind and I'm happy to provide the names of courses that do just that for me.

[Mac Plumart]

I can't help but thinking that if Augusta's detractors thought they had even the slightest chance of gracing its premises one day they might not be so quick to criticize it.  

Let's hope this isn't true.  This site is supposed to be about frank and honest commentary.  Say what you mean and mean what you say.  Otherwise, this whole thing is a sham.

[Matt_Ward]

Mac:

It isn't -- for me.

Stand by each word I said thus far.

[Mac Plumart]

I know Matt.  I was posting as you were typing.  My post wasn't direct at you.

[Matt_Ward]

Mac:

ANGC gets plenty of rave reviews FROM WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST -- who doesn't get goosebumps at watching the '86 final round ?

The course allowed for major swings -- it was a blend of real adventure and drama.

When I see other golf courses fall a number of spots and ANGC just goes cruising along within the top ten I know plenty of people aren't seeing the course for what it is TODAY -- they are locked into a viewpoint from years back.

How truly sad ...

[Mike Hendren]

Matt, thank you - I just won a $5 bet with my wife that someone would invoke the name of "Hootie" within the hour.  (Reminds me of the premise that once one invokes the name of Hitler he immediately loses the argument.) Frankly, the membership and tournament committee have been screwing up the golf course from day one.  Hootie's no greater culprit than Bobby Jones and Clifford Roberts in that regard.

I am on record agreeing with you totally on nos. 7 and 11.  However, have those holes been dramatically changed for everyday member play?  Ditto on the extension of the tees at 1 and 18.  

Upon further thought I think Golfweek's ranking of Augusta National Golf Club at #10 (if that's correct - I haven't seen the list) enhances the credibility of the raters.  Using the same published criteria that Brad Klein uses in his course reviews, I'd assign the following ratings:

Ease and intimacy of routing:  10
Integrity of original design:  7
Natural setting and overall land plan:  9
Interest of greens and surrounding chipping contours:  10
Variety and memorability of par 3's:  10
Variety and memorability of par 4's:  10
Variety and memorability of par 5's:  10
Basic Conditioning: 10
Landscape and tree management:  5
Walk in the park test:  10
Overall rating:  9

I'm interested how others rate the course with these criteria.

Kindest regards pardner,

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

Also, with respect to forestation at least Augusta does not have to rake bunkers in the woods.  I don't need to tell anybody which course ranked above it does.

Mike

[Matt_Ward]

Michael:

Spend the $5 wisely -- maybe you can send it to ANGC as a contribution to bringing back the OLE ANGC !!!

Do eveyone a favor and admit the obvious -- Hootie was the key man for when those changes came on board. I give full credit to ANGC for the changes that made sense -- flipping the nines after the 1st event -- changing the nature of the 16th holes -- ditto for what RTJ did with the 11th in making it play 445 yards.

Hootie and his inner circle got royally pissed because they see 3-4 guys hit a PW into the 11th so then they abort the hole and create what Whitten so wonderfully mentioned in the current GD issue. Take a GOOD HARD LOOK at the existing 11th hole. Looks great -- right? I barf when I see that -- nothing wrong with what the hole provided for so many years. The second cut is totally misplaced -- ditto for the stupid pines and pine straw that's been added.

Care to defend the stupid "new" 7th hole? Please knock yourself out trying on that front.

Amazingly, the chairman of the club didn't even understand the premise of the course to start with -- of how they bastardized what Jones & Mackenzie saw as its greatest attribute -- wide fairways that accentuated playing angles.

You say 10th in the ratings is fine -- so be it -- for you.

The only reason the pros score in the final 36 holes is because they place the pins in receptive areas -- exhibit #1 is the collection place always used for the 16th hole -- frankly, I thought the former spot -- check out the pin spot for the '75 Masters for the 16th hole on that Sunday was even more demanding and the Nicklaus birdie there has become even more legendary than the one he had in the '86 final round.

ANGC gets mileage from what people REMEMBER of the place from years ago -- the current version should have lowered the course even further -- barely, hanging onto a position within the 2nd ten of layouts. Having a major helps do that -- ditto to all those spineless types who don't want to incur any wrath from a possible chance to play the course.

[Adam Clayman]

There are plenty of examples of course that have elements changed. That does not mean that the entirety deserves to be significantly dismissed as a quality, top notch design.

The changes that hurt ANGC can easily be remedied. Just not as easily as a maintenance issue.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

Can always count on you playing the contrarian role.

The issue isn't about "plenty of examples of courses that have elements changed."

The issue -- which you must have missed -- is does such changes align themselves to the original intent of what the course was about for so many years.

Can you lay out a defensible argument for the 11th hole pictured in the current GD issue ? Please knock yourself out with that one.

The issue is also not about "the entirety deserves to be significantly dismissed as quality" -- you must have missed what I wrote. I duly noted the flipping of the nines in 1935 -- the changes made to the 11th and 16th holes by RTJ. 

No, my contrarian friend -- the issue is that the powers-that-be royally screwed up the place by abandoning its original intent to be something totally different. That to me is no different than what Tom Fazio did to Inverness or Oak Hill and shall I go on and on ?

Easily remedied ?

Then why not do them.

Of course -- in doing so -- someone would have to admit that what was changed was WRONG.

That would take real leadership -- I'd like to see good ole boy Billy Payne lecture Hootie the way he took the time to lecture Tiger last year.

Guess what?

Ain't happening !

[Anton]

Mike,

- Pine Valley
- Merion
-Oakmont
-Nat Golf Links
-Bethpage
-Aronomink
-Plainfield
-Baltusrol
-Cypress
-San Fran
-LA
-Riviera
-Oakland HIlls
-Maidstone
-Shinny
-Somerset
-Winged Foot
-Pastiempo
-Crystal Downs
-Prairie Dunes
-Chicago
-Seminole
-Yeamans
-Cherry Hills
-Congressional
-Pinehurst No 2
-Hollywood
-laurel Valley
-Cascades
-Garden City
-Philly
There's 31.  No 32 would be Seaview Bay just to tick off the individuals who debated over it last week.  :-)
I would put many Modern courses ahead of ANGC.  Of course I am only kidding about Seaview Bay.  Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Friar's Head, etc. would be higer up on my list. 

I'm not saying I don't appreciate the history of the course and the beauty of the place or its conditioning.  What I am saying (souly my opinion) is that it has lost its appeal to me over the last 10 yrs.  The course has greatly departed from what Bob Jones had in mind.  the incorporation of rough and narrowing the playing corridors has had a huge impact of the course.  No 7 was lengthened way too much and is no longer a great mid length par 4.  No 11 has had more facelifts than Cher.  No 15 is no longer as exciting.  Many players and former champions and journalists and so on have voiced the same feeling.  I understand a need to change with the times and technology but it has gone way to far.  The course was at its prime in the 80s in 90s in my opinion.  Then Augusta National got scared that their course was being overpowered which I really dont believe to be the case in reality.  Tiger ripped it apart one year (1997).  No one else was close to him that year.  So what?  Just because one man plays really well all of a sudden they called in the bulldozers and planted more trees.  All courses need 'tweaking' but ANGC got a bit carried away. 

[Anton]

And btw Matt.....You hit the nail on the head with your thoughts.  No 7 was meant to accept short irons.  Keep the green in the same spot, add 100+ yards, and lets see if a 3,4,5 iron can stick. 

The par 5s are not even that much fun anymore to watch.  Granted 13 is still wonderful bc they havent messed with that too much.  But 2 + 8 + 15 had the wind knocked out of them. 

If the Masters wants to appeal to the youth of the game then they need to bring back the excitement to the tourney.  Kids and fans want to see excitement.  Watching ball after ball after ball roll off a putting surface into water or a chipping area is only fun the first couple times.  Not every 2 mins. 

[Sean_A]

Upon further thought I think Golfweek's ranking of Augusta National Golf Club at #10 (if that's correct - I haven't seen the list) enhances the credibility of the raters.  Using the same published criteria that Brad Klein uses in his course reviews, I'd assign the following ratings:

Ease and intimacy of routing:  10
Integrity of original design:  7
Natural setting and overall land plan:  9
Interest of greens and surrounding chipping contours:  10
Variety and memorability of par 3's:  10
Variety and memorability of par 4's:  10
Variety and memorability of par 5's:  10
Basic Conditioning: 10
Landscape and tree management:  5
Walk in the park test:  10
Overall rating:  9

I'm interested how others rate the course with these criteria.

Kindest regards pardner,

Mike

Bogey

I would love to know how folks judge integrity of original design.  That seems to require an awful lot of knowledge about any given course.  For any but the most well read raters this category strikes me as a farce.  Then you have the question of what is the original design.  No, this category reeks of meaningless numbers. 

I would also question basic conditioning.  How in the hell does a one, two or three time visitor decide on the quality of the conditioning?  Thats a category for members and the odd few people who are INTIMATE with a course over a good period of time in all seasons when the course is open.  This category reeks of scores based on reputation.

Ciao 

[Jim Nugent]

Another point about how Bogey rates ANGC, using Golfweek's criteria:  the final score is not a straight arithmetic average.  The rater can decide that some categories are more important, and grade them higher in coming up with the final score. 

Also, the final score only serves to help the rater RANK any particular course.  You could come up a final score of 9.8 for a course.  If you score 30 other courses 9.81 or higher, that 9.8 doesn't crack the top 30.   

[Jonathan Cummings]

Jim - you are correct except GW raters can only vote an overall score using half scales. ... 7.5, 8, 8.5, 9...  A score of 9.8 is not allowed.

Sean - as Jim points out the category scores are just a tool for the rater to use to arrive at a final rating.  The rater is not obligated to even use the categories.  The overall score is all that is used to determine the GW rankings. 

GW was smart enough to long ago realize that an arithmetic sum of rating "components" (like with Digest) can never be meaningfully combined in such a way to arrive at an overall score.  What you point out is very trun.  Integrity of design, for example, would have to be well studied to be meaningfully graded.

Matt - you rave about the lack of up to date ratings on Augusta - you may be right.  But there is a practical side to the rating game.  Unless you have access and a panel of 100,000 raters how in the world do you get regular up to date visits to every ballot course by a statistically significant number of raters?  You can't.  You do the best you can, make honest averages with the data you have and publish the rankings.

JC

[Jerry Kluger]

Jonathan: So if a rater scores a course with 5 10's and 6 5's he can still give an overall rating of 9 based upon how he feels it ranks against other courses - if that's the case then the only reason for all the different categories is to give him something to think about but it still is his comparative rating to other courses. 

[Matt_Ward]

Jonathan:

You missed my point by as far as Tiger or Dustin can miss a fairway - it's not about "up to date ratings of Augusta" -- they are up-to-date -- the issue is that people still hold back because of identity of The Masters event and what they have seen from YEARS PAST. That presentation -- the one from the glory years of TV is still imbedded in their heads. They've marked the course down but its movement as been almost glacial in a downward way.

In the case of ANGC -- you don't need to have an army of people plan separate visits. They can see firsthand when the tournament is played each year.

Did you see the pic of the 11th hole in the current issue of GD ?

How does one possibly defend such "changes" as being aligned to the original intent of the course ?

Jonathan, take off the bean counter hat that you always use -- the issue is that if one has one's eyes open -- you can see without question the original intent of Jones / Mackenzie has been completely turned on its head by Hootie and the changes that followed.

For all the people who bitch and moan here about TF and what he did to Oak Hill / East, Inverness and a host of others -- the same standard should apply to ANGC. Is the course noteworthy -- sure. Is it still worth its place among the pantheon of elite / elite courses. Not in my book -- not until they come to their senses and ditch the second cut, the excessive tree plantings, the inane lengthening that was not needed, etc, etc, etc.

Time for good ole boy Billy Payne to take the lecture wheel like he did in throwing Tiger under the bus last year and say we are now going to return to what ANGC was meant to be and that a number of changes were not improvements but undercut what The Masters and ANGC is truly about.


Tony:

Please -- let's not get out of hand when you say Seaview Bay is #32 and right behind ANGC.

You must be eating some serious Fruit Loops for breakfast if you think that's even remotely the case. Just tell me your joking on that front OK.

ANGC still has much to offer -- but I don't see it as a top ten layout any longer -- falling down a few spots is one thing -- crash landing is quite another thing.

[Jerry Kluger]

Matt: Sometimes you have to accept things as a given and ANGC is one of the wonders of golf - period.  It is a gem which was brilliant in its creation and unfortunately some things have been done in order to keep it relevant in hosting perhaps the most significant tournament in golf.  You can argue about which tournament is the most important but the Masters is watched by so many non-golfers because of the beauty of the course.

You fault the club for the changes made to the course but very few have anything to do with play other than for the tournament.  How would you expect them to stay relevant in light of technology if they did not make changes.  Imagine Wrigley or Fenway with metal bats - I don't think they would exist today if metal bats were brought into the game - how about a more lively baseball!

ANGC will always be a top 10 course in my book because of its beauty, conditioning, greens/complexes, and variety of holes.

[jim_lewis]

Matt:

You (or all people) are not suggesting that raters should update their rating of a course based on watching in on television or looking at photos in a magazine.......or you? It takes a while for ratings of courses with highly limited access to move because, even for raters, it takes a while for enough to re-visit those courses, and ratings should be changed only the course has been seen in person, not by seeing pictures or listening to the opinions of others.

Jim

[Chip Gaskins]

If there are 30 better courses than ANGC then I have a lot of good golf a head of me.

[Mike Hendren]

I would love to know how folks judge integrity of original design. 

Ciao 

Sean, in my mind the rating of golf courses is a highly subjective exercise, only slightly mitigated by a set of stated criteria.  In reviewing Golfweek, the Integrity of Original Design is defined as the "extent to which subsequent changes are compatible with the design and enhance the course rather than undermine or weaken it."  We could easily debate that definition, but I guess you have to start somewhere.

Let's take the much maligned (and rightfully so I believe) changes to the 7th at Augusta National Golf Club.  In 1934 the hole played 340 yards. Assuming the player drove the ball 240 yards he was left with a pitching wedge or nine-iron in.  Today, let's assume the player drives the ball 280 yards.  He is then left with 130 yards in - a pitching wedge or nine-iron approach.  (Today's player might not take driver given the absurd encroachment of planted trees).   One could opine that the design integrity has been preserved by extending the tee 70 yards.   Another could opine that the hole is radically changed. 


Just saying.

Bogey

[JNC Lyon]

Mike,

- Pine Valley
- Merion
-Oakmont
-Nat Golf Links
-Bethpage
-Aronomink
-Plainfield
-Baltusrol
-Cypress
-San Fran
-LA
-Riviera
-Oakland HIlls
-Maidstone
-Shinny
-Somerset
-Winged Foot
-Pastiempo
-Crystal Downs
-Prairie Dunes
-Chicago
-Seminole
-Yeamans
-Cherry Hills
-Congressional
-Pinehurst No 2
-Hollywood
-laurel Valley
-Cascades
-Garden City
-Philly
There's 31.  No 32 would be Seaview Bay just to tick off the individuals who debated over it last week.  :-)
I would put many Modern courses ahead of ANGC.  Of course I am only kidding about Seaview Bay.  Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Friar's Head, etc. would be higer up on my list. 

I'm not saying I don't appreciate the history of the course and the beauty of the place or its conditioning.  What I am saying (souly my opinion) is that it has lost its appeal to me over the last 10 yrs.  The course has greatly departed from what Bob Jones had in mind.  the incorporation of rough and narrowing the playing corridors has had a huge impact of the course.  No 7 was lengthened way too much and is no longer a great mid length par 4.  No 11 has had more facelifts than Cher.  No 15 is no longer as exciting.  Many players and former champions and journalists and so on have voiced the same feeling.  I understand a need to change with the times and technology but it has gone way to far.  The course was at its prime in the 80s in 90s in my opinion.  Then Augusta National got scared that their course was being overpowered which I really dont believe to be the case in reality.  Tiger ripped it apart one year (1997).  No one else was close to him that year.  So what?  Just because one man plays really well all of a sudden they called in the bulldozers and planted more trees.  All courses need 'tweaking' but ANGC got a bit carried away. 

I've never heard of a course called Seaview Bay.  Have you ever played The Executive Course?  It's right next to Galloway National.  Not sure how it matches up with Augusta though.

[Carl Nichols]

Mike,

- Pine Valley
- Merion
-Oakmont
-Nat Golf Links
-Bethpage
-Aronomink
-Plainfield
-Baltusrol
-Cypress
-San Fran
-LA
-Riviera
-Oakland HIlls
-Maidstone
-Shinny
-Somerset
-Winged Foot
-Pastiempo
-Crystal Downs
-Prairie Dunes
-Chicago
-Seminole
-Yeamans
-Cherry Hills
-Congressional
-Pinehurst No 2
-Hollywood
-laurel Valley
-Cascades
-Garden City
-Philly
There's 31.  No 32 would be Seaview Bay just to tick off the individuals who debated over it last week.  :-)
I would put many Modern courses ahead of ANGC.  Of course I am only kidding about Seaview Bay.  Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Friar's Head, etc. would be higer up on my list. 

I'm not saying I don't appreciate the history of the course and the beauty of the place or its conditioning.  What I am saying (souly my opinion) is that it has lost its appeal to me over the last 10 yrs.  The course has greatly departed from what Bob Jones had in mind.  the incorporation of rough and narrowing the playing corridors has had a huge impact of the course.  No 7 was lengthened way too much and is no longer a great mid length par 4.  No 11 has had more facelifts than Cher.  No 15 is no longer as exciting.  Many players and former champions and journalists and so on have voiced the same feeling.  I understand a need to change with the times and technology but it has gone way to far.  The course was at its prime in the 80s in 90s in my opinion.  Then Augusta National got scared that their course was being overpowered which I really dont believe to be the case in reality.  Tiger ripped it apart one year (1997).  No one else was close to him that year.  So what?  Just because one man plays really well all of a sudden they called in the bulldozers and planted more trees.  All courses need 'tweaking' but ANGC got a bit carried away. 

Tony-
Do you really think Congressional and Laurel Valley [to pick two obvious ones on your list that I also happen to have played] are better than ANGC?  You can certainly quibble about several holes at ANGC, or at least the changes to them, but that is more than true at LV and Congressional, if that's  your standard.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()