The Changes to ANGC - A Hole by Hole History (All Holes Updated)

[Matthew Rose]

Anything different for 2013?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

Two questions for you.

WHY would a golfer intentionally choose to play a riskier tee shot down # 1 only to be faced with a far more difficult approach shot into a green that slopes severely away from them, versus playing a safer tee shot down # 9 to a green that slopes, like a back board, facing into them ?

Did you see Tiger's chip on Friday from slightly above the green, from the approximate angle you'd come in from on # 1, and how he couldn't hold the green anywhere near the hole ?

I'll answer it for you.  They weren't there.

Yes they were.
Those trees seperating # 9 from # 1 were there from the very begining.

In addition, there's a nasty bunker in # 1 fairway.

Add to that the downslope in the DZ on # 1 AND, the WATER HAZARD fed by the down slope and you have every reason NOT to go down the 1st fairway.

Making it even less desirable is the angle and slope of the green from the 1st fairway.
The green slopes severely AWAY from the golfer from the 1st fairway, whereas, the green slopes toward the golfer from the 9th fairway.

Bottom line, it's the wrong play for a number of substantive reasons.



It was possible, and players were acting on that possibility.

I've marked the following photo and schematic to show the two lines of play (these are rough sketches, but however you want to draw the lines it works):

The markings don't reflect the downslope the golfers would end up on, the possibility of hitting their drive into the trees and/or bunker, the poor angle into the green and the extent that the green slopes severely away from them, making the decision to play down # 1 a horrible decision.





The landing area for this shot would have been in the widest part of the 1st fairway, past the fairway bunker (you can do the math and figure out an approximation of how far the bunker would have been from the 9th tee).  Take a look at the third picture that Chris posted.  You can see the downhill nature of the land on both sides of the trees.  The turbo boost would have been in effect for a drive to either fairway.  Now look at the schematic.  The angle of attack to a left pin is a lot better from the 1st fairway.  You wouldn't want to hit in to a right pin from that spot, but with a left pin the 1st fairway did offer an advantage.  

How convenient of you to ignore the water hazard on # 1.
There is no water hazard traversing the entire fairway on # 9, like there is on # 1

To prevent this strategy, the club did two things.  First, they had Maxwell redo the green,

By what documentation do you attribute Maxwell's redo of the green a direct defense of driving down # 1 ?

adding bunkers on the left side that would require a carry for any shot from the 1st fairway.  

The 1934 greenside bunker already protected an approach from the 1st hole, and more importantly, the severe slope of the green protected an approach from the 1st fairway.

As noted, the scale of the bunkers changed over time (one being removed), making the shot from the 1st a bit easier.  As a second measure, the club planted trees to the left of the 9th tee in an attempt to block the clear line to the 1st fairway.  These trees, and additional trees, now make up the wide swath of foliage that can be seen in Chris' third photo.

There were existing tall trees in 1934 in the critical area, the club just planted more trees, almost everywhere, to create isolation/seperation.
You can see the small pines by the green and tee in the 1934 photos.

Have you ever played # 9 ?

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

You do realize you responded to a conversation we were having a year ago?

Everything I wrote with regards to players driving down the first fairway from the ninth tee has been independently verified to me by members of a prominent Atlanta golf family that have had historically strong ties to the course.  I am completely comfortable with my presentation of the facts.

If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to take this offline.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

You do realize you responded to a conversation we were having a year ago?

YES

Everything I wrote with regards to players driving down the first fairway from the ninth tee has been independently verified to me by members of a prominent Atlanta golf family that have had historically strong ties to the course.  I am completely comfortable with my presentation of the facts.
Those aren't facts, they're third party recollections, recollections from 80 years ago.
Not so sure that I'd offer them as the "Gospel"

If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to take this offline.

I'd be happy to.
Bunkers, trees, water hazards, down hill lies, poor angles of attack and negative green slopes make playing down # 1 an unattractive alternative.

[V. Kmetz]

1.  As to this more recent contention about 1 and 9, on my observation, Pat would have to be right.  The lower half of the first fairway has not been the way to deal with that approach -- hooky downhill lies just about everywhere and the creek bottom to catch the really big hit.  I'm sure it was tried and repeatedly tested, both intentionally and unintentionally.

2.  Maybe this has been covered in thsi thread...but when did the "Member's tee" (originally the only tee) on #11 finally become abandoned?" From Google Earth's historical imagery, the "avenue" from that tee was closed in 2004-05 and now it's basically the "Master's tee" for #15...but when was play abandoned from that spot for member's playing #11

cheers

vk

[Mike Hendren]

In 2010 during Friday's round I was walking up the left side of the first fairway when a ball came to rest just in front of me, obviously from the 9th tee.  Thinking "I've got to see this" here comes Bubba Watson and caddy through the pines directly at me.  The lie was severly downhill and sidehill to boot with an absolutely awful angle for the approach across the greenside left-hand bunkers.  Watson lashes at the ball and sends a high hook directly at the green.  I was astonished. 

There's no way anyone would want to approach that demanding green from that angle and that lie.  No way.

Bogey

[Sven Nilsen]

Bogey:

All of this falls into the historical context of how the hole played "back then" and not how it plays now.

The original green had a wing that pointed towards the first fairway, as can be seen in this picture:



and as drawn in this schematic:



Here's a closeup of the two holes:



Up until 1938, if the pin was on the left the better angle was from the first fairway.  In 1938, the bunkering was changed and the left wing of the horseshoe shaped green was eliminated.  

There have been a slew of comments of late regarding how hard it was historically for players to get down to the bottom of the hill with their drive down the ninth fairway.  So even if they played down the conventional fairway, chances were they were going to have a difficult downhill lie.  

I'd also suggest folks take a look at the Olmsted plan (and the photos above) and note just how far from the 9th tee (and how close to the first tee and the 9th green) the creek bed in the first fairway lay:



Remember, we're talking about the time period prior to the mid-1950's.  Even with the tees being 40 yards closer than they are today, the hole still measured 420-430 yards.  It would have taken a drive of at least 300 yards to reach the creek bed, and that's probably a generous underestimation.

I'll concede that the benefits of this approach became questionable once the green and the bunkering were altered in 1938.  However, the Whitten write-up notes that the bunkering was softened between '38 and the early 50's, perhaps alleviating some (or much) of the risk.

[Sven Nilsen]

Just for the hell of it, here's a photo looking down the first fairway taken in 1941:

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just for the hell of it, here's a photo looking down the first fairway taken in 1941:

Sven, the problem with this photo is that it only shows the upper plateau from in front of the bunker to the green, it doesn't show the extreme slope from the front of that bunker back toward the 1st tee.  In addition, the creek which runs across the entire first fairway at the bottom of that slope is fed by that slope which acts as a turbo boost.

Anyone familiar with the nature of the terrain, angles, bunker/s, trees, configuration and slope of the green realizes that the only reason to play down #1 is when you've hit an errant drive off the 9th tee and you have no choice in the play of your second shot.

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

That photo was a throwaway, hence the "just for the hell of it."  I would have included it in my first post if I thought it had any bearing on the conversation. 

Humor me on this scenario.

Its pre-1938, and the pin is cut on the left side of the green (right about where it is in the photo below).  Draw a straight line from the tee to the pin (the Olmsted plan above can be used for this exercise).  Now take a look at how far off that line a shot would be if played to the first fairway as opposed to the ninth fairway.  The difference is noticeable, meaning on similar length drives, the guy going left would have the shorter shot to the green.

Now take a look at the angles of approach to that left side pin.  From the first fairway, you do not have to challenge the bunkers, and you're playing up the leftside tongue which lies on an upslope on the green (rising to what is today the back left of the green).  Compare that to a shot from the ninth fairway, which is going to have to either (a) come over the bunkers and stop on a very narrow area of the green (this shot is almost perpendicular to the general layout of the left side of the original green) or (b) play a shot on a line right of the pin avoiding the bunkers that works off of the high back portion of the green turning back towards the hole. 

Now remember that in those days players weren't driving down to the bottom of the hill on the ninth.  So the lie that you'd have hitting from the ninth fairway was most likely going to be a bit tricky, especially for option (a) above.  You might have a tough lie coming from the first fairway as well, but at least the shot you had to hit had the benefit of not having to challenge the bunkers and on a line into the green that had plenty of depth.

Of course, all of this changes when the left side of the green is eliminated.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

That photo was a throwaway, hence the "just for the hell of it."  I would have included it in my first post if I thought it had any bearing on the conversation. 

Humor me on this scenario.

OK

Its pre-1938, and the pin is cut on the left side of the green (right about where it is in the photo below).  Draw a straight line from the tee to the pin (the Olmsted plan above can be used for this exercise).  Now take a look at how far off that line a shot would be if played to the first fairway as opposed to the ninth fairway.  The difference is noticeable, meaning on similar length drives, the guy going left would have the shorter shot to the green.

Sven, you keep ignoring the awkward downhill lie, the Creek that would be in play that traverses the entire 1st fairway, the fairway bunker on # 1 fairway, the trees that could come into play on the drive and the angle of attack into the 9th green that runs away from you and the shallow depth of the green and small target it presents from that angle, and you still have to carry the greenside bunker to get to the green from the 1st fairway.

Now take a look at the angles of approach to that left side pin.  From the first fairway, you do not have to challenge the bunkers, and you're playing up the leftside tongue which lies on an upslope on the green (rising to what is today the back left of the green). 

Yes, you do have to challenge and carry the greenside bunker.
Any shot that drifts right, and that's what will happen off the downhill lie on # 1 fairway, will end up in that bunker.
And, you're not playing to an upslope, you're playing to a green that falls away from you from high left to low right

Compare that to a shot from the ninth fairway, which is going to have to either (a) come over the bunkers and stop on a very narrow area of the green (this shot is almost perpendicular to the general layout of the left side of the original green) or (b) play a shot on a line right of the pin avoiding the bunkers that works off of the high back portion of the green turning back towards the hole. 

The shot from the 9th fairway to the 9th green is uphill to a green that slopes from back to front, thereby being more receptive to your approach.  And by playing down # 9 you don't have to worry about trees, fairway bunkers and creeks running across the entire fairway.
It's the prudent choice.

Now remember that in those days players weren't driving down to the bottom of the hill on the ninth. 

That's not true, who told you that ?
But, to humor you, if it wasn't true that would leave you with a very awkward lie on # 1 fairway whereas there's a flatter plateau on # 9 fairway


So the lie that you'd have hitting from the ninth fairway was most likely going to be a bit tricky, especially for option (a) above. 
That's just not true.
Where are you getting your information from ?
There's a nice plateau for drives on # 9, no such plateau exists on # 1

You might have a tough lie coming from the first fairway as well, but at least the shot you had to hit had the benefit of not having to challenge the bunkers and on a line into the green that had plenty of depth.

That's also not true, just take a look at the 1934 aerial

Of course, all of this changes when the left side of the green is eliminated.

Not really, all of the prudent reasons for playing down # 9 fairway already existed.

I tried to humor you, but your lack of familiarity with the terrain and features is causing you to draw flawed conclusions.

One thing you learn from watching the PGA Tour Pros is that if there's an advantage to playing a hole a certain way, they almost all exploit it, and that didn't happen on # 9

[Sven Nilsen]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven, look how close your blue line comes to the huge fairway bunker on # 1

In addition, you've deliberately chosen a drive of limited length to avoid the creek and to prove your point.
Your showing a second shot almost as long as the drive and you're ignoring the downhill nature of the terrain in the DZ

And you've used a schematic of the green that doesn't reflect the actual configuration of the green, the "as built"
Why didn't you use the 1934 aerial photo of the actual green which clearly depicts the invasive nature of the greenside bunker and the narrowness of the back left of the green?

The reason is that those facts, along with others, defeat your position which is based solely on hearsay

[Will Lozier]

I've been following this debate and Sven's hypothetical about the left pin placement makes total sense regardless of Pat's stern opposition.  Pat, is a shot from the 9th fairway, from a downhill and hanging lie, to a (back) left pin needing to carry the entire bunker with just a few yards of depth really easier than a (possibly slightly shorter) shot from a downhill (but not hanging) lie, to a (now) front left pin needing to carry just a piece of the bunker to hit a very narrow but deep sliver of green that does not appear to slope away from the player from that angle.  Furthermore, a faded tee shot (possibly with a 2 or 3-wood) worked away from the fairway bunker would work rather well and would surely not be in danger of reaching the hazard.  Not sure what is so difficult about seeing that possible play with that particular pin?!  Lastly, to say that Sven's last diagram showed a approach "almost as long as the drive" is simply ridiculous and proof that you need a geometry review. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Draw the lines however you want and use whatever photos or other plans you'd like.  The one's that I used work to tell the story.

Here are the facts:

1.  The Olmsted plan is to scale and that scale is noted in the top right hand corner of the plan itself (the full version of which is copied below).  The scale is in feet, and the numbers marking the segments are noted are 100, 0, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500.  Three segments from the scale equal a hundred yards.

2.  The creek is approximately three segments removed from the green (less than that on the lower side and slightly more on the higher side).  Therefore, the creek was less than 100 yards from green.

3.  The oval I added above in the first fairway extends from approximately 225 to 275 yards from the tee determined using the scale provided on the map.

4.  The blue lines I added have a ratio of 13 to 8.  That is the same ratio that a 250 yard drive and a 153 yard approach have.

5.  The hole measured 420 yards (most likely measured using the angle of the dogleg).  Even if it was only 400 yards on a direct line, it would have taken a drive of close to or over 300 yards to get to the creek.

6.  The gap between the tree line and the bunker measures out (using the scale again) to around 40 yards.  Hardly a small target, and probably wider than I've noted.  I'm giving you the benefit of the foliage coverage drawn by on the plan, which seems to exaggerate the actual possible interference when compared to the photos of that area contained in this thread (those were some scraggly looking trees back then).
  


Here's another view:

[Sven Nilsen]

I've been following this debate and Sven's hypothetical about the left pin placement makes total sense regardless of Pat's stern opposition.  Pat, is a shot from the 9th fairway, from a downhill and hanging lie, to a (back) left pin needing to carry the entire bunker with just a few yards of depth really easier than a (possibly slightly shorter) shot from a downhill (but not hanging) lie, to a (now) front left pin needing to carry just a piece of the bunker to hit a very narrow but deep sliver of green that does not appear to slope away from the player from that angle.  Furthermore, a faded tee shot (possibly with a 2 or 3-wood) worked away from the fairway bunker would work rather well and would surely not be in danger of reaching the hazard.  Not sure what is so difficult about seeing that possible play with that particular pin?!  Lastly, to say that Sven's last diagram showed a approach "almost as long as the drive" is simply ridiculous and proof that you need a geometry review.  

Will:

Is there any doubt the tee shot would have been a fade peeling off the right edge of the bunker?

Certainly seems like it was doable, and as Pat said, if there was an advantage to be had, those old pro's would be the guys to find it.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've been following this debate and Sven's hypothetical about the left pin placement makes total sense regardless of Pat's stern opposition. 

Pat, is a shot from the 9th fairway, from a downhill and hanging lie, to a (back) left pin needing to carry the entire bunker with just a few yards of depth really easier than a (possibly slightly shorter) shot from a downhill (but not hanging) lie, to a (now) front left pin needing to carry just a piece of the bunker to hit a very narrow but deep sliver of green that does not appear to slope away from the player from that angle. 

Yes.

Surely you've heard of shaping your shot.
And the terrain to the right of the green assists in keeping the ball in the area, but, who in their right mind, would go pin hunting from either position ?

In addition, you must be a moron to let Sven's depiction, meant to predispose one's conclusion, unduly influence your view.

Getting to the DZ ON # 9 is relatively easy, with little in the way of impediments.
To get to Sven's DZ on # 1 you have to challenge trees, a huge fairway bunker and a creek leaving you with a downhill lie to a target to your right which requires carrying a bunker, to a narrow strip of green that along with the nearby terrain slopes from high left to low right.

Furthermore, a faded tee shot (possibly with a 2 or 3-wood) worked away from the fairway bunker would work rather well and would surely not be in danger of reaching the hazard. 

You're delusional.
What if you cut it too much or double cross it ?
Then what, double bogey or worse.
And what's the reward ?

If you hit a 3-wood you'd have a long iron or a wood into that green.
How would that trajectory work given the configuration of the green  ?

How many times have you and Sven played # 9 ?

Not sure what is so difficult about seeing that possible play with that particular pin?!  Lastly, to say that Sven's last diagram showed a approach "almost as long as the drive" is simply ridiculous and proof that you need a geometry review. 


Go ahead and measure the distance of the approach as a percentage of the distance of the drive and tell me what you get.
Sven deliberately capped the driving distance for the express purpose of avoiding the creek which is fed by the slope on # 1 fairway.

Your lack of familiarity with the terrain limits your understanding of the spacial relationships.

As to geometry, I excelled at both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry.
I would venture a guess that you never heard of non-Euclidean geometry, which means that you can't understand why playing down the 9th fairway is the prudent choice irrespective of hole location  

[Will Lozier]

I've been following this debate and Sven's hypothetical about the left pin placement makes total sense regardless of Pat's stern opposition.  

Pat, is a shot from the 9th fairway, from a downhill and hanging lie, to a (back) left pin needing to carry the entire bunker with just a few yards of depth really easier than a (possibly slightly shorter) shot from a downhill (but not hanging) lie, to a (now) front left pin needing to carry just a piece of the bunker to hit a very narrow but deep sliver of green that does not appear to slope away from the player from that angle.  

Yes.

Surely you've heard of shaping your shot.
And the terrain to the right of the green assists in keeping the ball in the area, but, who in their right mind, would go pin hunting from either position ?

In addition, you must be a moron to let Sven's depiction, meant to predispose one's conclusion, unduly influence your view.

Getting to the DZ ON # 9 is relatively easy, with little in the way of impediments.
To get to Sven's DZ on # 1 you have to challenge trees, a huge fairway bunker and a creek leaving you with a downhill lie to a target to your right which requires carrying a bunker, to a narrow strip of green that along with the nearby terrain slopes from high left to low right.

Furthermore, a faded tee shot (possibly with a 2 or 3-wood) worked away from the fairway bunker would work rather well and would surely not be in danger of reaching the hazard.  

You're delusional.
What if you cut it too much or double cross it ?
Then what, double bogey or worse.
And what's the reward ?

If you hit a 3-wood you'd have a long iron or a wood into that green.
How would that trajectory work given the configuration of the green  ?

How many times have you and Sven played # 9 ?

Not sure what is so difficult about seeing that possible play with that particular pin?!  Lastly, to say that Sven's last diagram showed a approach "almost as long as the drive" is simply ridiculous and proof that you need a geometry review.  


Go ahead and measure the distance of the approach as a percentage of the distance of the drive and tell me what you get.
Sven deliberately capped the driving distance for the express purpose of avoiding the creek which is fed by the slope on # 1 fairway.

Your lack of familiarity with the terrain limits your understanding of the spacial relationships.

As to geometry, I excelled at both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry.
I would venture a guess that you never heard of non-Euclidean geometry, which means that you can't understand why playing down the 9th fairway is the prudent choice irrespective of hole location  

Of course, I must be a moron...to let blah, blah, blah.  Remember, you're the one who hosted a moron dinner.  

First off, drawing a long to mid-iron off a hanging downhill lie might be the hardest shot in golf.  Surely you know this...if not you are an imbecile.  

A faded 2 or 3 wood - you must know that a 2-wood was a popular club in the era we are referring to given your infallible knowledge of all things golf, all things really - would have been plenty of club to leave a mid to short iron along this shorter path to the green especially at the hole's original length.  And what if you double crossed it?  The high lip of that fairway bunker on #1 is in the opposite direction.  Again, surely you know how to hit a proper fairway bunker shot.  And, if you cut it and found yourself in the relatively small strand of pines, punch out and try to make a great 4 or a simple 5.  Who knows, maybe one could even get his second into the greenside bunker and get up and in for a more traditional par.  What a lame excuse for the complete denial of a clear possible strategy.  What if you try to play a draw down #9 in an effort to reach the bottom flat and leave it out to the right trying to avoid the big hook.  Your now in the worst possible position.  So what...all missed shots carry a consequence.  And we've already stated the reward to a very specific pin.

Sven's diagram is plenty realistic - both approaches are about 60% the length of the tee shots?  A 250-yard drive followed by a 150-yard approach down the shorter "Sven's Way".  You said you excelled in math?  I do see what you mean about Sven deliberately avoiding the possibility of a drive reaching the creek though - he is clearly untrustworthy and shady!

My lack of familiarity with the terrain...blah...  I have never been to ANGC...oh, wait, I have been as I both live in Atlanta and am friends with the Dir. of Tourn. Ops.  I must have no clue because I disagree with you...

I am a math teacher with an engineering degree so of course I've never heard of...what kind of geometry?

Lastly, how many times have you played the 9th at ANGC in it's original design?  With no trees blocking the route down #1 and the original boomerang green?  

[Sven Nilsen]

Just wanted to make sure Pat saw these again:

1.  The Olmsted plan is to scale and that scale is noted in the top right hand corner of the plan itself (the full version of which is copied below).  The scale is in feet, and the numbers marking the segments are noted are 100, 0, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500.  Three segments from the scale equal a hundred yards.

2.  The creek is approximately three segments removed from the green (less than that on the lower side and slightly more on the higher side).  Therefore, the creek was less than 100 yards from green.

3.  The oval I added above in the first fairway extends from approximately 225 to 275 yards from the tee determined using the scale provided on the map.

4.  The blue lines I added have a ratio of 13 to 8.  That is the same ratio that a 250 yard drive and a 153 yard approach have.

5.  The hole measured 420 yards (most likely measured using the angle of the dogleg).  Even if it was only 400 yards on a direct line, it would have taken a drive of close to or over 300 yards to get to the creek.

6.  The gap between the tree line and the bunker measures out (using the scale again) to around 40 yards.  Hardly a small target, and probably wider than I've noted.  I'm giving you the benefit of the foliage coverage drawn by on the plan, which seems to exaggerate the actual possible interference when compared to the photos of that area contained in this thread (those were some scraggly looking trees back then).

[Patrick_Mucci]

[quote author=Will Lozier link=topic=51383.msg1282530#msg1282530 date=1365051064

Of course, I must be a moron...to let blah, blah, blah.  Remember, you're the one who hosted a moron dinner.  

Yes, I felt it was the least I could do for a growing cadre of morons

First off, drawing a long to mid-iron off a hanging downhill lie might be the hardest shot in golf.  Surely you know this...if not you are an imbecile.  

What qualifies you to comprehend the nature of the lie or the location of the drive ?

Are you aware of the plateau in the DZ on # 9 ?

A faded 2 or 3 wood - you must know that a 2-wood was a popular club in the era we are referring to given your infallible knowledge of all things golf, all things really - would have been plenty of club to leave a mid to short iron along this shorter path to the green especially at the hole's original length.

I used a Toney Penna 2-wood for a driver for a considerable amount of time and am very familiar with their performance.
What you and Sven don't understand is that you want to drive the ball as far as possible on # 9
Doing so leaves you with a flat/good lie, the more you lay back, the worse the lie and the longer the shot, but I'm sure that both of you have more experience playing the hole than I do.
Remind us, how many times have you played the hole ?]

And what if you double crossed it?  

Will, your transitioning from moronic to ignorant

The high lip of that fairway bunker on #1 is in the opposite direction.  

You don't know what you're talking about and are making yourself look foolish

Again, surely you know how to hit a proper fairway bunker shot.  And, if you cut it and found yourself in the relatively small strand of pines, punch out and try to make a great 4 or a simple 5.  

You've now entered the realm of blindly stupid.
Just punch out to a severe downslope with a creek at the bottom ?
Or, just punch out to a severe downslope and face one of the more difficult shots in golf.
If you can't control and get your driver where you want it, what makes you think you can hit a long iron off a sidehill lie and make a 4 or a 5.

Just to be able to put your responses in context, what's your handicap and how much medal play tournaments do you play in ?

Who knows, maybe one could even get his second into the greenside bunker and get up and in for a more traditional par.  What a lame excuse for the complete denial of a clear possible strategy.  What if you try to play a draw down #9 in an effort to reach the bottom flat and leave it out to the right trying to avoid the big hook.  Your now in the worst possible position.  

Actually, you're in a good position.
Listen, Wiil, I'm trying to be polite, but your ignorance and arrogance are getting in the way.
Now you're going to try to tell me how to play a hole that I've played often, despite the fact that you've never played the hole.
Do you realize how stupid that makes you look ?

So what...all missed shots carry a consequence.  And we've already stated the reward to a very specific pin.

The problem is that there are degrees of consequences and the risk is not worth the reward.
And, the reward is NOT as you indicate, the reward you reference is purely hypothetical on your part

Sven's diagram is plenty realistic - both approaches are about 60% the length of the tee shots?  A 250-yard drive followed by a 150-yard approach down the shorter "Sven's Way".  You said you excelled in math?  I do see what you mean about Sven deliberately avoiding the possibility of a drive reaching the creek though - he is clearly untrustworthy and shady!

So guys were driving it 250 in 1934 ?  ?  ?
Please, spare us your hypotheticals

My lack of familiarity with the terrain...blah...  I have never been to ANGC...oh, wait, I have been as I both live in Atlanta and am friends with the Dir. of Tourn. Ops.  I must have no clue because I disagree with you...

Irrelevant
How many times have you played # 9

I am a math teacher with an engineering degree so of course I've never heard of...what kind of geometry?

Says you.

Lastly, how many times have you played the 9th at ANGC in it's original design?  With no trees blocking the route down #1 and the original boomerang green?  

You're both blind and in denial, tall pines separated # 1 from # 9 from the very beginning, just take a look at the 1934 photo.
Do you see the tall trees ?
Do you see the big bunker on # 1 ?
Do you see the Creek that runs across the entire 1st fairway

As to playing the 9th hole, I've played it infinitely more times than you have
[/quote]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just wanted to make sure Pat saw these again:

1.  The Olmsted plan is to scale and that scale is noted in the top right hand corner of the plan itself (the full version of which is copied below).  The scale is in feet, and the numbers marking the segments are noted are 100, 0, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500.  Three segments from the scale equal a hundred yards.

The Olmsted plan is irrelevant since the "as built" the actual hole differs from the drawing.
Look at the aerial photo taken in 1934 and you can see how incredibly narrow those fingers of the green are.
They bear NO resemblance to the Ollmsted drawing
What part of that don't you understand

2.  The creek is approximately three segments removed from the green (less than that on the lower side and slightly more on the higher side).  Therefore, the creek was less than 100 yards from green.

The aerial of the actual hole, as built, is the governing document, not an inaccurate schematic

3.  The oval I added above in the first fairway extends from approximately 225 to 275 yards from the tee determined using the scale provided on the map.

4.  The blue lines I added have a ratio of 13 to 8.  That is the same ratio that a 250 yard drive and a 153 yard approach have.

There's only two (2) problems with your calculation.
1.     The hole wasn't 403 yards in length, it was 420
2.     The 9th fairway was leveled off in the DZ, thus # 9 doesn't have the "hanging lie" that you and Will allege.
        But, # 1 fairway had no such plateau, therefore the lie was exponentially more difficult.

5.  The hole measured 420 yards (most likely measured using the angle of the dogleg).  Even if it was only 400 yards on a direct line, it would have taken a drive of close to or over 300 yards to get to the creek.

But, you're ignoring the angle of attack, the direction of a drive down # 1 from # 9 tee

How convenient of you to ignore the steep slope leading to the creek.
But, if I accept your measurements, that puts the stand of trees and deep fairway bunker right in your DZ.
You can't have it both ways

6.  The gap between the tree line and the bunker measures out (using the scale again) to around 40 yards.  Hardly a small target, and probably wider than I've noted.  I'm giving you the benefit of the foliage coverage drawn by on the plan, which seems to exaggerate the actual possible interference when compared to the photos of that area contained in this thread (those were some scraggly looking trees back then).

The plan is inaccurate and can't be used.
You have to use the "as built" the photo from 1934.

If you want to jerk yourself around, go ahead and use an inaccurate rendering by other than the architect of record, but if you want to be serious with any credibility, you have to use the aerial photo of the hole taken in 1934

[Brett_Morrissy]

Sven, are you able to read what the contours are on that map? what distance are they?

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven, are you able to read what the contours are on that map? what distance are they?

Brett:

If you mean the topo lines, I don't think they're marked on the map.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brett,

The topo lines are irrelevant on the schematic of # 9 because the slope was significantly altered during construction with the creation of a flat plateau in the DZ.

That plateau was specifically created to provide a level DZ for the golfer.
Thus the golfer has a fairly level lie.

No such plateau exists in the first fairway

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

What a load of intellectual bullcrap.

Obfuscation at its finest, and not a rational thought to be found anywhere.  

A few examples:

You know full well that I've stated many times in this thread that the 9th was 420 yards.  You also know full well that its a dogleg, and the 403 yards of straight line distance may be pretty damn accurate.

You also know full well that a portion of the 9th fairway was leveled to accommodate Cliff Roberts' notoriously short drives (a part of the fairway that most players would only consider as their ball was flying over it).  To claim that the fairway was leveled off in the DZ is an intentional misrepresentation of the complete story on your part.  

You also know that the Olmsted plan is an exceptionally detailed and almost comprehensively accurate depiction of the location of the holes, fairways, tees and assorted natural features.  The map also corresponds with a high degree of accuracy to all photos from the era, including the aerials.  If there are inaccuracies, they are minor.  In the case of the inaccuracy regarding the shape (not the location) of the 9th green, if anything the photos will only further the points I've already made regarding the difficulty of getting to the left side of the boomerang from the 9th fairway.  I challenge you to present an overlay of the Olmsted map against any of the aerial photographs, maps or any other record of the course.  The results will astound you.

You also know that the presence of the creek (which was a dry creek bed unless it was raining) has little bearing on this conversation.  The creek lay 300 yards from the tee, it was out of range.  

Finally, you know exactly how wide the first fairway is and was and you know from pictures that the tree line between the first and the ninth was nowhere close to what it is today.  The gap was at least 40 yards between the bunker and the trees.  The shot would not have been difficult.  What's so funny about this is that you claim I'm trying to have things both ways.  Go back and read what you wrote earlier about players back then not being able to hit it 300 yards.  Yet you keep harping about the creek being a factor.  You, Pat, are the one that can't have it both ways.

I've come to expect it by now, but I'm always amazed by the selective presentation of information, the intentional emphasis on irrelevant items and the complete disregard for common sense and science that pervade your utterances.  Its not even moronic, as the arrogance and disdain for reality you display is not the result of ignorance, rather a pernicious attempt to waylay the truthseeker all in the name of eristical glory.  Its not that you're acting the fool, its that you try to play everyone else as the fool, a strategy laden with disrespect and dishonesty.

Sven

No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.

-Karl Popper