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

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

You know the following tale as well as anyone.  The fact that you have misrepresented the story twice in two posts is despicable.

"Clifford Roberts, Augusta National’s co-founder and first chairman, liked to say that he made only one contribution to the original design of the course. During the construction of the ninth hole, he persuaded the contractor to create a level landing area in the steeply tilting fairway at the distance he normally drove the ball (about 180 yards). “The engineer was not at all enthusiastic about accommodating me,” Roberts wrote in his book about the club, “but finally agreed to bring back a tractor and do the job.” Roberts later told friends that he had requested the change because he didn’t want any of his matches with Bobby Jones to be decided by his luck at hitting a fairway wood to an elevated green from a downhill, sidehill lie. The current ninth hole was then the eighteenth, and Jones customarily either gave Roberts nine strokes or allowed him to begin their matches with a nine-up edge. Even so, Roberts needed all the help he could get.

Roberts’s difficulties with the second shot on the ninth hole were shared by most of the club’s other members, who, like him and unlike Jones, weren’t long enough off the tee to come close to the ideal driving area, at the bottom of the hill. And neither Jones nor Alister MacKenzie, who designed the course, was at all disapproving of Roberts’s modification. In consultations among the three, Roberts’s role was to supply the viewpoint of the average golfer, and Jones and MacKenzie both solicited his opinion. Roberts’s landing area is still visible in the ninth fairway, and it still receives plentiful use from members and guests, as well as from occasional Masters competitors."

-Taken from David Owen's descriptions of the 9th hole on his blog, as also relayed in "The Making of the Masters."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

I've played from that flattened plateau numerous times, have you ?

There is no flattened plateau in the steep slope in the 1st fairway is there.

So which is the preferred DZ ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

What a load of intellectual bullcrap.

It doesn't surprise me that the facts disturb you

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

To the contrary, rational thought abounds

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.

No, it's not because of the trees in the direct line and the margins that prudent golfers observe in the play of a hole.
To gain some perspective on your views, what's your handicap.
In a medal play event, what golfer would play a drive one foot from trees versus a wide open fairway ?

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.  

Now you're editorializing, inserting your own assessment of Cliff Roberts' drives.  That's disingenuous.
That flattened area is in the DZ, and anybody who flies it over that DZ, as you state, would reach the base of the slope, and if they can reach the base of the slope in the 9th fairway, then they can reach the base of the slope in the 1st fairway and that means that they're in the creek

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 Olmsted map is grossly inaccurate when it comes to the 9th green.
Only a moron, comparing the 1934 aerial of the 9th green to the 9th green in the Olmsted plan would state that the Olmsted Map is an accurate depiction.   When it comes to the 9th green, the Olmsted map is inaccurate and you know it.
To state otherwise is to flat out lie.


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.
When it comes to the 9th green, the focus of this discussion, the Olmsted schematic is inaccurate.
And it's that very inaccuracy that your argument depends on.
Deal with reality, not inaccurate maps drawn prior to construction.
Deal with reality and reality is the 1934 aerial of the 9th green

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.  

Not according to you.
First, a huge portion of the DZ on # 1 is on a steep downslope
Second, you've already told us that drives flew the flattened plateau and reach the bottom of the slope on # 9, hence, by your own words they'd reach the creek on # 1

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.  

That's irrelevant.
The FACT is that those were tall mature trees in between the 1st and 9th fairway and they had to be avoided, meaning that the golfer had to thread the needle between those trees and the huge bunker in the first fairway and the golfer had to avoid the trees just past the bunker complex to the left of the first green

The gap was at least 40 yards between the bunker and the trees.  The shot would not have been difficult.  

Then why didn't everybody play it that way ?

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.

You claimed that golfers flew the flattened plateau and reached the bottom of the slope on # 9, ergo they would reach the creek at the bottom of the slope on # 1.

And if they couldn't, then they'd be on a downslope between trees and a formidable bunker with a very difficult shot into anon-receptive green.

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.  

There's no selective presentation, just facts.
Remind us again, how many times have you played the 9th hole.

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.  

The fact is that you're wrong about the preferred method for playing # 9.
Your premise is based upon hearsay, 80 years removed.
You have absolutely no personal experience in playing the hole and choose instead to rely upon an inaccurate schematic that doesn't reflect the 9th green as built, while at the same time ignoring a 1934 aerial photo that clearly depicts the sliver of a target that you deliberately misrepresent vis a vis the Olmsted schematic.

You can't deal in reality because the 1934 aerial photo completely blows away your argument which is based upon an inaccurate rendering

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.

If anyone has been dishonest, it's YOU.
By Trying to present an inaccurate schematic as the guiding document and rejecting an actual aerial photo taken in 1934.

In addition, I was the one who cited the flattened plateau on # 9, not you, you had to go and look it up after I mentioned it's existence.
And then you disingenuously inserted your description of Cliff Roberts drives as being short to further your argument, so when it comes to dishonesty, you're the leader.  Roberts wasn't as long as Jones, but he wasn't "notoriously" short as you dishonestly indicated.  Now if you were honest, when you quoted David Owen on the 9th hole, you would have added that Jones drove it to the bottom of the slope on # 9.  And, if he drove it to the bottom of the slope on # 9, then he could drive it to the bottom of the slope on # 1 and into the creek.   In addition, if your method was the preferred play, why didn't Owen indicate that that was the way Jones played the hole ?

The fact is, you have no experience in playing the 9th hole, no experience based ideas about distance, lies, angles and the play of # 9.
The foundation of your argument is the Olmsted schematic, a schematic that does NOT accurately depict the 9th green, along with hearsay removed 80 years.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about.
You have no first hand experience in playing the 9th hole and are basing your argument on theory, not reality.

Try debating about a golf hole that you've actually played, that might help you in terms of your credibility.

[Sven Nilsen]

Try debating about a golf hole that you've actually played, that might help you in terms of your credibility.[/color]

You're killing me Smails.

I laughed out loud when I read that line.  Its the key move in your act of deception and misdirection.  The hole that allowed for this option no longer exists and it didn't exist when you played the course.  Its too bad you don't have the imagination to see that it could have been (and was) played in the manner I've laid out.

I have it on higher authority than yours that (a) it was possible, (b) it made sense under certain circumstances and (c) it happened.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Try debating about a golf hole that you've actually played, that might help you in terms of your credibility.[/color]

You're killing me Smails.

I laughed out loud when I read that line.  Its the key move in your act of deception and misdirection.  The hole that allowed for this option no longer exists and it didn't exist when you played the course.

But, the alternative, playing it down # 9, remains and is unchanged.
And I  have played that and can comment on it's play.
And while the green has changed, the approximate location and uphill configuration of the second shot remains unchanged.

In addition, I've walked on that first fairway numerous times, I'm familiar with the topography and juxtaposition of the features.
And neither you nor Will have.

Neither one of you have any first hand experience playing the 9th hole or examining the 1st fairway from the 1st fairway.

Its too bad you don't have the imagination to see that it could have been (and was) played in the manner I've laid out.

This is where you don't get it.
I never said that it couldn't be played in that manner, only that it wasn't the preferred or prudent method.

You are aware of course that Ed Furgol, in winning the U.S. Open at Baltusrol, played down the 18th fairway of another course and then to the green of the intended course.  That doesn't mean that his play that particular day should be adopted as "the" method of play as you've insisted.

I have it on higher authority than yours that (a) it was possible,

I never said that it wasn't possible, in fact, I stated that an errant drive probably left the golfer little choice in the matter, but, that it wasn't a prefered method of play for the prudent golfer.

(b) it made sense under certain circumstances and

Sure, if the golfer hit an errant drive and ended up in the 1st fairway he had little choice, but, off the tee, it wasn't the prudent play.

(c) it happened.

So did Ed Furgol's play down the 18th hole of another course, but, that doesn't mean it's the prefered or prudent method of play, irrespective of hole location.

[Will Lozier]

Pat,

Please tell me where anyone said that the play down #1 fairway was the preferred route or prudent play, in general?  All I've read from Sven or myself is that with a left pin on the original green, that play was certainly possible and even thoughtful and, was used by players more accomplished than yourself.  And, with confirmation from a source more familiar with the course and club than even you - shocking and unbelievable I know! .

Oh, and other than the "you have no credibility because you haven't played the hole" angle, you've tried the "what's your handicap?" line as well.  Honestly, it doesn't deserve a response for obvious reasons.  But I will tell you (again) that I am a former PGA member & professional caddie who has competed in both Open Qualifiers.  But, since those aren't the answers you presumed to hear, I'm sure you won't address it.  I was and am a decent player - which is all I've ever claimed to be - who has some grasp of GCA and golf strategy, like MANY others on this website who you continue claim don't when not in agreement with you.  Please tell us again how many times you've played this version of ANGC's 9th with vintage equipment.

See if you can respond like an adult this time, seriously.

Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Please tell me where anyone said that the play down #1 fairway was the preferred route or prudent play, in general?  All I've read from Sven or myself is that with a left pin on the original green, that play was certainly possible and even thoughtful and, was used by players more accomplished than yourself.  And, with confirmation from a source more familiar with the course and club than even you - shocking and unbelievable I know! .

Will, the debate was NEVER about play being "possible", it was always about play down # 1 being "prudent"

Would you tell us what golfers deliberately played down # 1 when playing # 9 ?

Oh, and other than the "you have no credibility because you haven't played the hole" angle, you've tried the "what's your handicap?" line as well. 
Both are relevant since you offered your opinion on how to play the hole.
Evaluating your opinion based on your personal playing experiences on # 9 and knowing your handicap provide context.
Why are you reluctant to answer those questions z?

Honestly, it doesn't deserve a response for obvious reasons.  But I will tell you (again) that I am a former PGA member & professional caddie who has competed in both Open Qualifiers.  But, since those aren't the answers you presumed to hear, I'm sure you won't address it.  I was and am a decent player - which is all I've ever claimed to be - who has some grasp of GCA and golf strategy, like MANY others on this website who you continue claim don't when not in agreement with you. 

Then you shouldn't have any problem telling us your handicap and how many times you've played # 9.

Please tell us again how many times you've played this version of ANGC's 9th with vintage equipment.

I've certainly played with more old equipment than you and I'd guess that I've played # 9 more than you

See if you can respond like an adult this time, seriously.

I answer direct questions, I don't hide  from them like a child.
Answer the direct questions I asked you.
Handicap ?
Number of times you've played # 9 at ANGC ?

[Will Lozier]

Pat,

Please tell me where anyone said that the play down #1 fairway was the preferred route or prudent play, in general?  All I've read from Sven or myself is that with a left pin on the original green, that play was certainly possible and even thoughtful and, was used by players more accomplished than yourself.  And, with confirmation from a source more familiar with the course and club than even you - shocking and unbelievable I know! .

Will, the debate was NEVER about play being "possible", it was always about play down # 1 being "prudent"

Would you tell us what golfers deliberately played down # 1 when playing # 9 ?

Oh, and other than the "you have no credibility because you haven't played the hole" angle, you've tried the "what's your handicap?" line as well. 
Both are relevant since you offered your opinion on how to play the hole.
Evaluating your opinion based on your personal playing experiences on # 9 and knowing your handicap provide context.
Why are you reluctant to answer those questions z?

Honestly, it doesn't deserve a response for obvious reasons.  But I will tell you (again) that I am a former PGA member & professional caddie who has competed in both Open Qualifiers.  But, since those aren't the answers you presumed to hear, I'm sure you won't address it.  I was and am a decent player - which is all I've ever claimed to be - who has some grasp of GCA and golf strategy, like MANY others on this website who you continue claim don't when not in agreement with you. 

Then you shouldn't have any problem telling us your handicap and how many times you've played # 9.

Please tell us again how many times you've played this version of ANGC's 9th with vintage equipment.

I've certainly played with more old equipment than you and I'd guess that I've played # 9 more than you

See if you can respond like an adult this time, seriously.

I answer direct questions, I don't hide  from them like a child.
Answer the direct questions I asked you.
Handicap ?
Number of times you've played # 9 at ANGC ?

Child?

Being such a math whiz, can't you figure it out based on my British Open Qualifier experience?  Surely you'd know having playing in one yourself, no?  Hint: I've told you before.

And I've also told you I've not played ANGC unlike yourself - only ever claimed to have been on property and to have a good friend with a great job.  How many times did you play #9 with an open path down #1 and to the original boomerang green to a left pin?  Don't run from this one!

Going to sleep...hope to get an answer by sunrise!

Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

You continue to deflect and avoid the question.
As to qualifiers, golfers sometimes manipulate their handicaps in order to get into qualifiers, so let's do away with diversionary tactics and just tell us[/color]

Surely you'd know having playing in one yourself, no?  Hint: I've told you before.

Will, I keep many numbers in my head, but your handicap isn't one of them

And I've also told you I've not played ANGC unlike yourself -

That, I remembered, but it needed repeating

only ever claimed to have been on property and to have a good friend with a great job. 

How many times did you play #9 with an open path down #1 and to the original boomerang green to a left pin?  Don't run from this one!

NO ONE ever played down # 1 from # 9 tee with an "open path".
You need to study the 1934 photos more carefully

[Will Lozier]

You continue to deflect and avoid the question.
As to qualifiers, golfers sometimes manipulate their handicaps in order to get into qualifiers, so let's do away with diversionary tactics and just tell us[/color]

Surely you'd know having playing in one yourself, no?  Hint: I've told you before.

Will, I keep many numbers in my head, but your handicap isn't one of them

And I've also told you I've not played ANGC unlike yourself -

That, I remembered, but it needed repeating

only ever claimed to have been on property and to have a good friend with a great job. 

How many times did you play #9 with an open path down #1 and to the original boomerang green to a left pin?  Don't run from this one!

NO ONE ever played down # 1 from # 9 tee with an "open path".
You need to study the 1934 photos more carefully

How many times did you play to the original 9th green?  How many times did you hit an approach from the 9th fairway to a back left pin on the boomerang green?  I'll guess since you won't answer the question...as many times as Sven and I - never. 

[ChipOat]

I haven't read all the posts yet, although it appears that a spitting contest has developed.

If this post is repetitive, my apologies.

Some years ago, there was at least one thread on GCA that bemoaned any changes to ANGC and that playing The masters on the original 1934 version, or doing away with The Masters altogether, was both pure and preferable.

My response was 1) many golf courses have been amended for the better so long as the original designer, or one of their disciples, was always on hand to examine, think and ensure some continuity.  The examples I used, and still do are Pinehurst (Ross), Merion (Flynn) and National (Macdonald).  For awhile, you could include Crooked Stick (Dye) in that group.  While Pat Mucci and I agree that member-driven golf committees often get it wrong, I rejected then, and I reject now, the philosophy that Golden Era courses are, somehow, sacrosanct.  As Ross, Flynn, Macdonald and Dye showed, watching how a course plays often creates ideas many years after the fact.

While Mackenzie died early, ANGC has the benefit of observing many (not all - but enough) ) of the the best players every April since 1934 except for WWII.  That is, the laboratory is re-opened every year under championship conditions.  I believe ANGC is a far more worthy championship golf course as a result of almost all the ongoing amendments.  Even the "second cut" has proven necessary.

All that said, I do wish that so much of the "improvements" did not include the planting of trees (e.g. #15) although I don't really have a problem with it.  I DO have a problem with those few trees that are my hated Stupid Trees - they encroach on ball flight either within 150 yards of the tee box or from anywhere in the fairway.  The two glaring examples at ANGC are on the 8th tee box and, alas, the sacred Eisenhower Tree which forces only a single shape for the drive (a draw) in order to find the fairway.  No straight ball and no fade.

Other than that, I'm fine with it. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Chip:

I think the big question isn't whether the golf course was "better then than now," but rather if the game of golf itself was changed for the worse.

ANGC provides a historical study of not only the changes to a single course over time, but a study of how the game has evolved over the years.  The hosting of an annual tournament for the best players in the world and the history of changes made over the years to adjust the course to provide a suitable challenge in each era is unprecedented.  There's also a bit of a ripple effect over time, as tees being moved and increased green speeds have altered the way certain hazards and contours affect play, resulting in new iterations that can only be viewed as improvements when placed under the microscope of how the course is now played.

There are remnants of the MacKenzie and Jones (and even Maxwell) ground game ethos still lingering on the course, although these days the major themes are centered around length and aerial precision.  But every once in a while you get shots that echo of how the course played years ago, like Tiger's screaming hook into the 8th green, his chip from the back of the 16th green, Oosthuizen's slow feed to the right pin on the 2nd, Poulter using the bank on the 6th to get to the front left pin, someone trying to bounce one in to 11 or somebody using the contours on the 14th or 17th green to feed a ball to the hole.  Those are the shots that make watching this tournament really fun for me.  The rest of it is just watching extremely strong and skilled players try to hit to their number while dealing with all the pressures that go hand in hand with the thought of slipping on a green jacket.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

You continue to deflect and avoid the question.
As to qualifiers, golfers sometimes manipulate their handicaps in order to get into qualifiers, so let's do away with diversionary tactics and just tell us[/color]

Surely you'd know having playing in one yourself, no?  Hint: I've told you before.

Will, I keep many numbers in my head, but your handicap isn't one of them

And I've also told you I've not played ANGC unlike yourself -

That, I remembered, but it needed repeating

only ever claimed to have been on property and to have a good friend with a great job. 

How many times did you play #9 with an open path down #1 and to the original boomerang green to a left pin?  Don't run from this one!

NO ONE ever played down # 1 from # 9 tee with an "open path".
You need to study the 1934 photos more carefully

How many times did you play to the original 9th green?  How many times did you hit an approach from the 9th fairway to a back left pin on the boomerang green?  I'll guess since you won't answer the question...as many times as Sven and I - never. 

But, I have played the 9th hole, which from tee to fringe is virtually unchanged in 80 years.
And, I have walked down the middle of the first fairway numerous times, so my experience and understanding of the play of # 9 and the 1st fairway is exponentially greater than the two of you combined.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven & Chip,

I think it's a combination.

ANGC was always intended to host a major championship, to test the best players of the day.

ANGC can't change the way golf is played or the I&B with which it's played, ergo, ANGC has to be reactive to the changes in the I&B (game) in order to continue to provide a test for the best players.

That fact results in ongoing changes.

As to the trees, and I prefered the width found in 1999, a review of the 1933-4 photos reveals that they were planting trees to seperate the holes from the very begining.  (Is Pine Valley to blame ? )

The difference, and that which I object to, is not the planting of trees to seperate the holes, but, the planting of trees to narrow the playing corridors.

[Will Lozier]

Being such a math whiz, can't you figure it out based on my British Open Qualifier experience? 

You continue to deflect and avoid the question.
As to qualifiers, golfers sometimes manipulate their handicaps in order to get into qualifiers, so let's do away with diversionary tactics and just tell us

What I hate, I mean, love about you is your persistency.  The computer still says 2.5 based on scores well over a year old but I would say I should be no better than a 4 right now and haven't played since mid-November.  My putting is for shite - having a two-year-old, coaching a high school spring sport, and teaching while playing 10-15 times a year and not practicing will do that.  What again is your point?  And, since I've not actually played the hole, my ability shouldn't matter because according to you, I have no credibility on the issue.

[David Stewart]

I just picked up on this thread this afternoon, but it seems obvious that the easiest approach to a pin on the left finger of the old green would be from the fairway in #1 (old 10). It also appears from the picture taken in the mid 30s that there would be room to drive the ball into that fairway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Being such a math whiz, can't you figure it out based on my British Open Qualifier experience?  

You continue to deflect and avoid the question.
As to qualifiers, golfers sometimes manipulate their handicaps in order to get into qualifiers, so let's do away with diversionary tactics and just tell us

What I hate, I mean, love about you is your persistency.

It helps.............sometimes  

The computer still says 2.5 based on scores well over a year old but I would say I should be no better than a 4 right now and haven't played since mid-November.

That's surprising.
Based on your writings I would have thought you a good 22.

My putting is for shite - having a two-year-old, coaching a high school spring sport, and teaching while playing 10-15 times a year and not practicing will do that.

It doesn't get easier.  

What again is your point?  

Context

And, since I've not actually played the hole, my ability shouldn't matter because according to you, I have no credibility on the issue.

While that's true, at least you can relate to what's physically possible but mentally ...... questionable.

David,

If it was so obvious, why wasn't it done routinely ?
Are you sure you read the replies ?

[Joe Sponcia]

Sven,

Thank you for the time you put into this piece.  It made my morning.  

Chris Buie,

I've always wondered what the 7th green looked like before the change, thank you for posting the picture.  That is probably my favorite spot to take first timers.  You just can't understand how small the target is until you see it in person.  It looks like a par 6 to me.

[JReese]

With the Masters just a few weeks away, this great thread deserves a bump.

[Jim Sherma]

This is a great picture of the 5th green. I never saw this angle before and really appreciate the severity of the contours.

Hole 5 - Magnolia - Par 4

[Sven Nilsen]

Adding in some more old photos.  Some of these might be repeats from earlier in the thread.

1st Hole


1941

1st and 9th Holes


Date Unknown

2nd Hole



7th Hole



9th Hole


1934


Feb. 1933 Golf Illustrated


Date Unknown


Date Unknown

[Sven Nilsen]

10th Hole


Post Maxwell Changes


Post Maxwell Changes


Post Maxwell Changes


Post Maxwell Changes


Post Maxwell Changes


Post Maxwell Changes


Post Maxwell Changes

12th Hole




Date Unknown


Date Unknown


Date Unknown


1952

13th Hole


Feb. 1933 Golf Illustrated

15th Hole



16th Hole


Date Unknown


Date Unknown

18th Hole


Feb. 1934 Golf Illustrated


Jan. 1933 Golf Illustrated

[Sven Nilsen]

Aerials and Plans


1930


Date Unknown


1934


1941


June 1932 Plan


Watercolor Sketch


Olmsted Plan


Date Unknown


Plan of the Course from the 1935 Masters Program


MacKenzie's Approach and Putt Course

[Sven Nilsen]

An early article on the course.

June 1932 Golf Illustrated

[Will Lozier]

Sven,

Great work!  Looking at these new pics, it seems less likely that anyone would have ever driven down the 1st when playing to a left pin on the old 9th green. 

Cheers