[Mike Hendren]

Tony, thanks for posting your list.  It's a solid one indeed and I like a fellow who backs up his opinion.   Well done.  

Tony and Matt, you seem to like the golf course in its 1980's iteration.  As for the 7th exactly, I assume then that you like the fact that: 1) the unbunkered green was rebuilt in 1938 , eliminating the right hand tongue and adding front bunkers: 2)  25 yards were added in 1951;  and 3) the putting surface was rebuilt and elevated and  back bunkers added in 1951.  

I agree that the trees planted right of the 11th fairway are an abomination.  Apparently, however you have no qualms with the removal of the centerline fairway bunker.  

Matt are the changes to the 7th, made during Jones' lifetime consistent with his 1932 quote:  "This hole is similar in character to the Eighteenth Hole at St. Andrews, Scotland.  There is a deep hollow at the front of the green which it is necessary to attack at the correct angle for par figures to be obtained.  At this hole it will also be desirable to play a run-up shot as it will be exceedingly difficult to retain a pitch in the usual position of the flag."

How about this excerpt from a 1959 quote by Jones regarding the 11th, which played 445 yards at the time:  "The second shot is usually played with a 3-iron or a stronger club...."  While the hole has been extended an additional 45 yards since then, I don't recall many players pulling a 3-iron for the second recently.  Sure, the hole was straightened, but that's the only way to accomodate the increased distance since the original tee was directly behind the 10th green.  Sure the trees are stupid, but the integrity of the second shot remains, does it not?

Changes to Augusta National Golf Course are in its DNA.

Also, have the changes not been less impactful for normal member play?

Mike

[Jason Goss]

Congrats to my good friend and college room mate Chris Morris and his staff for breaking into the top 100!  Can't wait to come out to Vesper and check out your work!

[Tim Bert]

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

We all KNOW that you have a lot of good golf ahead of you... therefore there must be 30 better courses than ANGC.

How's that for logic?

Completely unrelated to Chip's comment, this thread has re-affirmed for me that I'd rather PLAY golf with people that enjoy the same courses as me than DISCUSS golf course ratings with people that don't.  I'm going to try to do more of the former this year.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Could the rating of Augusta be influenced by lack of rater play...I mean how many raters from any magazine can truly have access to the likes of Cypress and Augusta on a yearly basis?
As such then they are certainly influenced by what they see on TV or read in magazines or on sites like this if they indeed submit a rating for that course.
I would like to know how many ratings for a course like Augista are actually submitted in a given rating period.

[John Kavanaugh]

You don't have to play a course to lower its ranking.  You simply rate other courses ahead of it.

[Mike Hendren]

Tony, after running over your excellent list again, I can't help but wondering about changes to a handful of courses on it that I've played. Notably,

Covering up the creek at the 6th and 10th holes of the Cascades as well as significant changes to the 14th and 15th.

The tunnel holes at Plainfield.

The truncating of the 1st and 2nd holes at Pasatiempo. 

I ain't as good as I once was, my how the years have grown.
- Toby Keith

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

But John...surely to even be on a list it has to have a ranking based upon play .....otherwise you have nothing to compare against.
I can play say at Pine Valley and give it a number , but unless I actually play Augusta, it should not even be on my list...that is my point.
Even if I were to give 6 courses 10's, unless I play Augusta I cannot put them ahead of the place, I simpy should not rank Augusta...see my point?
Am I making any sense?
The Dallas Morning News for instance does not evn place a course in the rankings if it does not get suffiecient rounds for evaluation...

[K. Krahenbuhl]

The Dallas Morning News for instance does not evn place a course in the rankings if it does not get suffiecient rounds for evaluation...

Is this any different than what Golfweek does?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Kyle, that is my qusetion re: how many people actually get to play ANGC on a yearly basis?
How many individual ratings does it take to get on the final rating?
I have been fortunate enough to play Cypress and realise it may have been a once in a lifetime opportunity.
If I rated the course for a magazine and never get to play it again, how long would my rating evaluation stay in the computer?
Does my rating count to eternity?
these kind of questions affect true evaluation dont you think?

I know probably about 30 raters from various magazines and only one of them has actually played ANGC, so I am just asking if it should even be on the list at all ?

I know these ratings are primarily for entertainment value, whichever magazine publishes them but I just wonder hwo level a playing field we are dealing with in terms of evaluation.

[David Camponi]

Frankly, why is Augusta STILL in the top ten.

Check out the fantastic photo in this month's GD which shows how the 11th has been completely bastardized with what is there now.

The proof sticks out like a sore thumb.

I have been fortunate to play ANGC a couple of times a year for as long as I can remember and although I do not like some of the changes it is without question one of the 2 or 3 best inland courses in the world.

Toss up: Red Ledges Or Augusta....Matt what say you?

[Brad Klein]

It takes a minimum of 15 votes to make the top-100. Courses with 14 votes can't make it. Augusta National has 34 votes in the last 7 years, including 5 in 2010.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Thanks Brad...so an individual rating stays in effect for seven years?

[Kyle Harris]

Huntingdon Valley is in Abington, PA not Abingdon, PA.

[Mark Saltzman]

Matt,

At the risk of entering into a discussion of ANGC with people that so clearly know so, so much more about it than I, let me give a slightly different perspective re raters and ANGC.

You wrote about the bastardization of #7 by adding 100 yards, thereby changing the characteristic of the approach into the green.  Clearly when the pros play the hole during the Masters the hole is different and is not being played as originally designed.  When a rater visits the course, however, does he still not play the course off the old member tees.  How many raters play the course from the same tees the pros play it from? The hole remains a wood and short iron for the vast majority of people who play the hole.  Should it be the job of the rater to rate the course based on a set of tees that but for a few accomplished golfers who visit the course, are played only 4 days a year?  I would argue no.  Raters of varying ability levels visit golf courses and amongst them they will probably play all of the sets of tees any given course has to offer, but most will not play the tips and thus most will see many of the holes at the lengths that they were designed to be played.

If I were to visit Torrey Pines (South), should I rate the course based on the tees I see, or should I rate it based on the sets of tees that are closed 361 days a year (tips on 13 and 16 (I think...the last par three)?

I have no comment re the location of ANGC in the top 10, 30 or 100.  If I played it, I would rate it, but having never played or walked most of the courses in the top 30 I could not make any educated comment.

Mark

[Jim Nugent]

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. 

#7 is listed at 450 yards now.  So a 280 yard drive should leave around 170, not 130.  I've never seen the hole, but I get the impression from posts her at GCA.com that few top golfers hit driver off the #7 tee.  It's too narrow these days.  If so, those 170 yards could easily be 200 or more.  And isn't that the common complaint now?  That a green designed to take pitching wedge now requires 5 iron, 4 iron or even more club?

[Carl Nichols]

Frankly, why is Augusta STILL in the top ten.

Check out the fantastic photo in this month's GD which shows how the 11th has been completely bastardized with what is there now.

The proof sticks out like a sore thumb.

I have been fortunate to play ANGC a couple of times a year for as long as I can remember and although I do not like some of the changes it is without question one of the 2 or 3 best inland courses in the world.

Toss up: Red Ledges Or Augusta....Matt what say you?

David:
That's very cool that you've been able to play it that often.  What are the other 2-3 inland courses you're referring to? 

[Anton]

Im all in favor of change.  But not a departure from the core values of the course.  The key features to ANGC were the open fairways, reachable par 5s, lack of rough, speedy greens, the hills, the bounces, the roars, etc.... The great mid length par 4s.  It is now more like a US OPen venue.  Next will be 8" rough and 15 yard wide fairways. 

[Anton]

Matt,

I am definitely joking about Seaview Bay.  :-) 

the Executive Course is just outside the Top 10000 on my list.  That is sarcasm by the way. 

I will be curious to see the changes at PVGC this year though.  It is also under the "tweaking" of Tom Fazio like ANGC.  Not sure if he is the best fit for courses with such great history.  I would rather see these facilities hire the likes of Coore + Crenshaw or Engh or Doak. 

[John Kavanaugh]

I would rather see these facilities hire the likes of Coore + Crenshaw or Engh or Doak.
 

The sarcasm never stops.

[Tim Martin]

Im all in favor of change.  But not a departure from the core values of the course.  The key features to ANGC were the open fairways, reachable par 5s, lack of rough, speedy greens, the hills, the bounces, the roars, etc.... The great mid length par 4s.  It is now more like a US OPen venue.  Next will be 8" rough and 15 yard wide fairways. 

There are no more reachable par 5`s, speedy greens, hills, bounces and roars? Hmm...

[Anton]

13 is reachable and is still great (along with 12) because they really havent been touched too much.  16 is great.  15 has a lot of lay-ups now because the green is as hard and tilted as Nascar track.  8 is not reachable for most and neither is 2.  Roars are hit and miss.  Speedy greens but how much can you really stand to sit and watch ball after ball after ball ....... trickle off the green and into water or a chipping area or whatever.  My 'opinion' is that it has lost a lot of its key ingredients and is getting to be more + more like a US Open venue. 

Thanks John.  My sarcasm NEVER stops and it ticks my wife off quite regularly. 

[Matt_Ward]

Jerry:

Oh boy -- with all due respect -- you are lost on this one buckeroo.

You AUTOMATICALLY concede a top ten position for ANGC IRRESPECTIVE of what has happened there. I don't.

The changes made reflect a complete opposite direction from which ANGC was originally intended. Jerry -- don't you get that? Do you understand that Jones & Mackenzie wanted a parksland version of TOC?

Under your logic / rationale (shall I call it that?) -- I don't "accept things as a given." I am well aware of the stature of ANGC and have said the previous course -- before Hootie and TF and others did what they did -- the course was just fine -- tweaking a few tees for some additional length was OK (minus the abortion of the 7th hole, to name one glaring example).

Changes made to the course effect the architectural intent -- whether they effect the average member or just Lefty -- the action done changes the fundamental nature of the course.

Jerry, another error on your part -- I never said changes weren't necessary -- but please defend for me the ones made by Hootie and the pic seen in the current issue of GD of the 11th hole. Please knock yourself out with your defense of that one. Changes need to be in line with the fundamental intent of the course itself. Those Hootie era changes fail that miserably.

ANGC is not immune to taking a fall when merited. I understand the significance of The Masters and don't have to be lectured on that front. But the original intent of the course has been altered considerably and for proof just ask any of the key players who there prior to Tiger's first win in '97.

Jerry -- your statemt on "always" being a top ten course because of its beauty demonstrates at least for me how out of touch you are (all due respect) regarding the core elements that have been throw out the window. ANGC is indeed beautiful but my points go far beyond that isolated and limited dimension.

[Carl Nichols]

Jerry:

Oh boy -- with all due respect -- you are lost on this one buckeroo.

You AUTOMATICALLY concede a top ten position for ANGC IRRESPECTIVE of what has happened there. I don't.

The changes made reflect a complete opposite direction from which ANGC was originally intended. Jerry -- don't you get that? Do you understand that Jones & Mackenzie wanted a parksland version of TOC?

Under your logic / rationale (shall I call it that?) -- I don't "accept things as a given." I am well aware of the stature of ANGC and have said the previous course -- before Hootie and TF and others did what they did -- the course was just fine -- tweaking a few tees for some additional length was OK (minus the abortion of the 7th hole, to name one glaring example).

Changes made to the course effect the architectural intent -- whether they effect the average member or just Lefty -- the action done changes the fundamental nature of the course.

Jerry, another error on your part -- I never said changes weren't necessary -- but please defend for me the ones made by Hootie and the pic seen in the current issue of GD of the 11th hole. Please knock yourself out with your defense of that one. Changes need to be in line with the fundamental intent of the course itself. Those Hootie era changes fail that miserably.

ANGC is not immune to taking a fall when merited. I understand the significance of The Masters and don't have to be lectured on that front. But the original intent of the course has been altered considerably and for proof just ask any of the key players who there prior to Tiger's first win in '97.

Jerry -- your statemt on "always" being a top ten course because of its beauty demonstrates at least for me how out of touch you are (all due respect) regarding the core elements that have been throw out the window. ANGC is indeed beautiful but my points go far beyond that isolated and limited dimension.

Matt, what classic courses do you have above ANGC? 

[Sean Leary]

Im all in favor of change.  But not a departure from the core values of the course.  The key features to ANGC were the open fairways, reachable par 5s, lack of rough, speedy greens, the hills, the bounces, the roars, etc.... The great mid length par 4s.  It is now more like a US OPen venue.  Next will be 8" rough and 15 yard wide fairways. 

The key features to ANGC or the Masters?

The rough is negligible (and probably helps the members) and the fairways are still by far the widest in tournament golf.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean L:

The second cut is not an original intent of ANGC and the fairways -- have been narrowede considerably -- see the GD pic of the 11th hole now. Please outline for me why the changes were needed and how they line-up with what Jones / Mackenzie envisioned ? Also, think about the past changes that made considerable sense -- the 16th hole by RTJ -- the movement for a new tee to the 11th by RTJ after WWII.

The overreaction came about because of 3-4 people who hit long tee shots and it got some plenty upset. Never mind that what Tiger did there in '97 is no less what Nicklaus did in '65 -- frankly if one takes into account technology over the years the club they hit were roughly comparable.

Sean A:

Original intent comes from the actions of the two men (Jones and Mackenzie) who wanted a parkland version of TOC. They didn't want "second cuts," -- or the insertion of pine trees to bottleneck drive zones -- or the inclusion of back tees taken to the upteeenth degree.

If you can access the current version of GD -- please see the current pic of the existing 11th hole -- feel free to defend the existing hole and tell me how that version fits into what Jones / Mackenzie envisioned ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()