[V. Kmetz]

There are a dozen or so research voices HERE that I would trust BEFORE Ron Whitten, and as many as 50 or 60 more that I would put on EQUAL terms, but let me summarize the nexus of this #1/#9 disagreement:

Those who are claiming that the design of #1/#9 at Augusta National intentionally permitted play down #1 for shots off #9 Tee are saying in essence:

1.  This was meant to be a "double wide fairway" ala TOC. This was #10 and #18 in Mackenzie's route, so think of #1 and #18 at the TOC. Given Jones and Mackenzie's proclivities, that's not unreasonable, yet...

Why then, when Mackenzie and Jones have a written record on design intents, with references to the classic holes they hoped to evoke, is this feature not mentioned?  

2.  In the absence of a stated design intent, it was a revealed "accident" of the route, quickly discovered in the first five years of the course and first three of Masters play and changed.

But even in the latter case, is there any evidence that the "tee-left" trees, the green shape and bunkering were altered to dampen a strategic advantage, or a instead a safety enhancement?  Then as now, if you're walking up the first fairway, ascending to plateau in the drive zone, you're blind to shots coming from the area of #9 tee, coming directly at your emerging head.

To me, failing direct evidence (not Whitten's say-so...I'd love to see or even hear his evidence for the pronouncement), this was more a accidental feature, that I'm sure a few tried or accidentally tried and even got away with. Was this accident, and this accident alone responsible for, or a catalyst for changes in subsequent iterations/ appearance of the hole? - I don't know

ED ODEN:

"Vinnie, Maxwell's work started in late 1937 and was, presumably, finished by the 1938 Masters.  If the aerial is from July of 1938, then the changes would have just been completed."

Had to start after Dec 2, 1937 (They hosted the 1st Senior PGA) and had to be completed by April 1 (1938 Masters). Things were different then, of course, but that seems a bit tight to me, especially when that interim was the "heart" of ANGC "member's season," and would've caused the greatest disruption to their enjoyment of the grounds -

While there's multiple evidences that Maxwell was working on #10 in 1937 (easily scheduled as the "first change" because the new green site wouldn't have interfered with play, while the old one could remain) Owen's book details that Horton Smith was the catalyst voice for the 7th green change, but the date is ascribed to 1938 (probably "after" the Masters).

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, excepting the 10th, the Maxwell shovels were doing their heaviest work between April 4 1938 - Nov 1, 1938. (They also hosted the Second Senior PGA in Dec 1938)  Given the date of July 1938 for the aerial and the seeming "freshness" of the 7 re-design (though I admit it's hard to precisely discern), I'm thinking that the Maxwell work was mostly done during that period of 1938.

The more interesting notions for me are:

1.  Was the new 10th green ready for the 1938 Masters, or were they in the last year of the old one, while the new one was being readied?

2.  If yes, was it ready as early as Nov 28 (for the Senior PGA)?

3.  Dismissing years for the moment:  what were the sum of all the Maxwell-changes?

1. 10th green
2. 7th green
3. #9 green
4. ?
5. ?
6. ?
7. ?
.....?

cheers

vk

[Sven Nilsen]

VK:

No one is saying it was intended to be a double-wide fairway.

Whether the "discovery" of this option was accidental or intentional is a question for which the answer has probably long since faded away.

To look at this question from another angle, I'd like to hear a valid reason for the alterations to the 9th green and surrounds that took place in 1937/38 that does not involve negating the incentive to play down the first fairway.

Sven

[V. Kmetz]

That's a good question Sven.

Are green-side changes for the Ninth hole itself, and to what extent they are made solely and utterly for play coming from the first fairway?

eg. what value to #9, if played as intended down its own fairway, do those changes reflect?

cheers

vk

[Sven Nilsen]

The first green that Maxwell worked on was the 3rd.

Here's a list of the work that he did (I may have missed a spot or two):

3rd - front tongue of green removed and bunkers reshaped (1937)
4th - green flattened, tongue widened and bunkers pushed closer to the collar (1938)
5th - Maxwell rolls added to the green (1937)
7th - Green reshaped by Maxwell in 1937, completely rebuilt in new location in 1938 by Maxwell at the suggestion of Horton Smith
9th - Green redesigned and greenside bunkers altered/adjusted (1938), Maxwell requested to add back a portion of the tongue (1939 date given)
10th - Green moved back (date given as 1938, but Jones wrote Maxwell after the '38 Masters noting the improvements to the hole, raising the question of whether the work was done in 1937)
12th - Green enlarged to the right using dirt dug out from behind the green (the pits created being turned into bunkers) (1939)
14th - front of green altered and knobs added in the fairway to create potential bad bounces on approaches (1939)
17th - green remodeled and bunkers added at its front (1938)
18th - front tongue of green eliminated after the 1937 Masters (date of work given as 1938)

There are other bits and pieces of work from the early years (including the changes to the bunkers behind the 13th green and work on the early version of the 16th) that do not have names attached.  There's a chance some of this was undertaken by Maxwell or at the same time he was doing the work noted above.  As for the dates provided above, I don't know if they are supposed to reflect the time the work took place or the year of the tournament for which those features were in play.

[Jim Nugent]

Following Sven's "other angle" approach, why did ANGC add those trees left and front of the 9th tee, if it wasn't to stop players hitting down #1? 

[Sven Nilsen]

Following Sven's "other angle" approach, why did ANGC add those trees left and front of the 9th tee, if it wasn't to stop players hitting down #1? 

Jim:

The response you're going to get is that the club started developing isolated playing corridors, and that the trees would also serve to protect those on the 9th tee from errant approaches from the first fairway. 

The Olmsted plan notes that the map as drawn reflects certain proposed areas of foliage addition, indicating there was a plan in place to add to the existing tree lines at certain places on the course.  The location in question is not amongst them.

Sven

[Jim Nugent]

Sven, based on the graphics in the GD article, those trees didn't isolate #1 from #9 much.  Still was a lot of open space between the two.  It also doesn't look like the trees gave much protection to the 9th tee.  But they did a great job blocking drives from the 9th tee down the 1st fairway.  A perfect stymie. 

[V. Kmetz]

Sven

What are the basic source or sources for your detail on the Maxwell contributions?

Byrdy and Owen's books don't square with the run-down you gave

cheers

vk

[Alex Miller]

I think the shape of the 9th green pre-Maxwell changes is key.

We should argue whether or not Mackenzie intended for players to play down both corridors or not, and the shape of the green would lead me to believe that #1 fairway was designed as a very real option for play. Everything the Dr. did had clear intent. I cannot recall a "mistake" of the same degree from Mackenzie and find the premise of him building a green with this shape without considering playing down the first fairway a viable option is difficult to believe. Much more difficult than Pat Mucci's well-explained argument against playing down the first.

It's possible that logistical issues were found due to this very real playing option (shots coming off the 9th tee to blind players walking up 1), but seems like something that could be more easily overlooked than accidentally designing a green which rewards play from the "wrong" hole's fairway.


(Can anyone who's played the new Tiger Woods video game chime in? What are the shot values?  )

[Patrick_Mucci]

Go to page 98 in " The Making of the Masters" and look at the bottom photo on the next page and look at the downhill sidehill slope of the first fairway and the bunker you have to carry to get there ?

Notice the size and configuration of the fairway bunker on # 1 and the trees on the other side of the 1st fairway.

How many people supporting play down # 1 have actually been to the course and have observed the terrain and the relationship of thefeatures ?

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

David Owen (the author of the book you just cited), was on Live From the Masters a moment ago.  He specifically commented on players "sneaking a drive" onto the first fairway to get a better angle into the 9th green.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

David Owen (the author of the book you just cited), was on Live From the Masters a moment ago.  He specifically commented on players "sneaking a drive" onto the first fairway to get a better angle into the 9th green.


Did he name the players and the year and the result, or is this just the perpetuation of another myth ?

Why didn't David put that in the detailed description of each hole in his book ?

I suspect because there's no substantiation of same and that play down # 1 was by accident, not intent.

Look at the photo and tell me if you think that's a preferred angle
Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

The only myth is the one you're trying to perpetuate, that being that players did not intentionally employ this strategy.

[Jim Nugent]

Not sure if anyone has posted this photo, but it shows the #9 green in 1935.  The two tongues of the horseshoe look like false fronts with zero pin positions. 

[Alex Miller]

That left side doesn't look like a false front to me at all...

And the right side is inconclusive to me. At 1930's greenspeeds it very well looks to be pinnable.

[Sven Nilsen]

Its all about the angles.

The right side was very much a false front, a feature that Maxwell tried to preserve when he redid the green and eliminated the left side.

What get's lost in all of the back and forth is that we're talking about an era when bouncing the ball into the greens was a key element of not only the play of a course but also the principles that went into its creation.  Go back and read MacKenzie's and Jones' thoughts regarding the style of course they were looking to create.  Then go and look at all of the greens that had tongues or avenues of approach that were designed to accept a bouncing ball, often times with features on the greens themselves designed to deflect the roll of the ball towards certain pins if the approach was from the proper angle.

The original 9th hole, in particular, is a fascinating study.  That old left side tongue (or root if you think the green looked like a tooth) is a wonderful feature. 

Playing the hole from the ninth fairway, how does one go about getting to a left side pin (not necessarily a pin on the tongue itself, but one just above that position, almost in the same location as we see in the photo that Jim posted).  You could try an aerial shot, playing over the bunker.  With this idea in mind, wouldn't the best play be up the left side of the 9th fairway, shortening the approach as much as possible allowing for the shortest shot in with a lofted club?

Or you could try to run one up the right side and use the contours to have the ball turn left (and perhaps backwards) and feed to the hole.  With this strategy, it appears that the best angle of approach would be from the far right side of the fairway.  End up in the wrong spot on the green, and who knows if a putt could even get to the hole.

Or, just maybe, you find another avenue to attack the hole.  Think Sunday afternoon, you're four back to the leader, and you want to make some birdies and eagles coming in.  You know from standing on the first tee that the pin is on the left side of the green, and you know that getting close for a reasonable putt at birdie is going to be a challenge.  So maybe you decide to take it down the first fairway, adding a bit of risk to the drive, but knowing that if you pull of two good shots you're probably going to have a better chance at birdie than if you played the hole down the designated corridor. 

Sven

[David Stewart]

Well put, Sven.

[Bryan Drennon]

I don't know if this is relevant or just hilarious but I am currently playing the 9th hole on the 1934 version of the video game.


Here's the regular view down #9 (above).



Here's the view of a tee shot down #1 (above). Just for a little realism I'm using Old Tom Morris with wooden shafted clubs. If you look in the middle of the screen, there's a white flag symbol, indicating the line the flag is on. I'm starting to see why they would want to take that line now. It's directly at a left flag and doesn't look any tighter that the standard route down 9 fairway.


The first time around, I hit driver 287 down #1 fairway and I'm probably 10 yards short of the creek (above). The pin's tucked in the front left of that boomerang each time. It seems from the game view that it would have been a great angle to come in from for a left pin. It looks like the creek is about 300 yards from the tee, most likely out of reach in that era. The lie at the bottom of the hill is flat, but I'm not sure many would have hit it that far back then. So we'll ignore this drive. I just wanted to see how far it was to the bottom of the hill.


Here's the view down #1 after a 240 drive. It leaves a considerably shorter shot of 137 (as opposed to 164) after the same length drive down #9


Here's another view from 1 fairway but more from above.



Here's the view (above) looking back down 1 from the 9th green.



This is another drive of 240 but this time down the 9th fairway. It leaves 164 to the pin (27 yards longer than down #1). Yard for yard, going down the 1st fairway to a far left flag is considerable shorter. Surprisingly, the angle from 9 fairway looks nearly as good as it does from the 1st fairway. I've always thought or heard that the reason players chose to go down 1 fairway was for the angle, but my guess seeing this would be only to get a shorter shot. One tradeoff would seem to be a guaranteed downhill lie, since there are no terraces, but really nothing most golfers couldn't handle with a short iron. I suspect many golfers would have chosen this route to get a 137 yard shot instead of a 164 yard shot.

[Alex Miller]

This is my new favorite thread!

Thank you, Bryan! The angle is surprisingly good from #9 (18 then), but I think your screenshots are evidence enough for me. Now let's see how others take it.   

Interesting that in the 1934 version displayed from the video game that there are still some small trees planted in line with the first fairway. Perhaps this was demand a truly well-struck shot to gain the benefit of a shorter approach with a better angle, or perhaps they were meant to grow in later years. Whatever the case, in 1934 I would play down #1 to that pin, no question.

[Sven Nilsen]

I'm enjoying this as much as David Owen noting on Live From today that Nick Price is quoted as saying the 12th hole punishes the two common misses for a right-handed player, short right and long left.

[Alex Miller]

I'm enjoying this as much as David Owen noting on Live From today that Nick Price is quoted as saying the 12th hole punishes the two common misses for a right-handed player, short right and long left.

This is our week Sven!  Now let's hear why we're a bunch of morons.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven

What are the basic source or sources for your detail on the Maxwell contributions?

Byrdy and Owen's books don't square with the run-down you gave

cheers

vk

VK - They're from the thread I did last year on the history of the changes to the course (derived from a couple of different sources).  You can find the thread on the 2nd page right now.

Curious as to the differences.  I'm sure if Ed Oden or Chris Clouser see this, they could add a bit of color.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

The only myth is the one you're trying to perpetuate, that being that players did not intentionally employ this strategy.

There's NO DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE THAT ANY PLAYER INTENTIONALLY EMPLOYED THIS STRATEGY.

Please tell us, which players intentionally employed the strategy, in what round, in what year.

Making a statement without an iota of concrete proof doesn't give it credibility.

Who would intentionally risk the bunker, trees, creek and severe downhill/sidehill lie to a green that required a carry over a bunker to a green that slopes away from them ?

Please name these players and cite the specifics in term of the round and year along with proof that they intentionally played # 9 down # 1.

Absent that proof, it's simply a myth.

[Sven Nilsen]

I'm enjoying this as much as David Owen noting on Live From today that Nick Price is quoted as saying the 12th hole punishes the two common misses for a right-handed player, short right and long left.

This is our week Sven!  Now let's hear why we're a bunch of morons.

Alex:

That moron list includes names like Ron Whitten, David Owen, Daniel Wexler, Bob Crosby, Jeff Warne, Will Lozier, yourself and the other sensible folks that chimed in this year and last on these topics.  I have no issue being included in that company.

Sven

[David Stewart]

The only reason someone would be moronic enough to drive down the first fairway in 1934 in a tournament would be if their tennis-playing girlfriend caddied for them at the then non-existant par 3 tournament the day before.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()