[V. Kmetz]

Hello,

I wanted to focus on JUST that hole and believe that a new thread is worthy, given how Pat's thread got a benign hijack from "how can ANGC keep Masters challenge and preserve original principles" to a particular discussion of this hole.

1. I think imperceptibly, some are wrongfully slaving to Mackenzie's comments on this hole. They may have thought they were building an ode to the Tom Morris' 18th hole of TOC, but they were wrong. It may have had a Valley of Sin, a similar orientation of green, a simple corridor, point A to B view, but as a few have pointed out...they did not replicate the hole.  There's no out of bounds (and weren't as many trees) on the right to trouble the slice. So the virtues of cleaving left (as one does on the TOC, I observe) and having to play over the VoS are lost. There was no OB immediately behind to trouble the basher (though I don't know if that was being reached with ANY degree of frequency in the absence of winds and firm turf at TOC). And lastly, as jw among others pointed out...there's no ancient town and very origins of the game to frame the activity. This, I chorus with...

1a. An agreement with Pat in that this is not a very distinctive hole in terms of golf commands or strategic thinking; moreso, when you remove the elements cited above. It's a rather plain hole if moved from its sacred spot and position in the round.  It's arcane and anachronistic yet I can fully understand how the desire to pay architectural tribute was formed in Jones/Mackenzie and even for them, it was a spot of indulgent nostalgia to shoehorn the philosophy and say so, in commentary.

2. Be all that as it may, I still maintain that with a cunning re-design of the putting surface, a bunkerless hole of 290-340 could be instituted here and satisfy the thing that Jones/Mack "wanted" for this hole, even if they did not have or follow the model of what they "said" that was.

It won't happen, I know - but I believe it could; and if it did, it would indeed be a one hole answer to the question Pat originally asked.

cheers

vk

[BCowan]

I like 2

[Mac Plumart]

Why not leave it like it is?

330 from the members tees, tight tee ball demanding accuracy not distance, hole is heavily defended at the green with bunkers and green contours.

is something wrong with this?

[V. Kmetz]

Mac, Brian S.

You're right, everything's hunky-dory on ANGC (to me)...but this is just the extended answer to Pat's question in the other thread "How can ANGC?":

Re: How can Augusta keep "original principles" and maintain Masters challenge/interest?

#7, #16, #11, #10 are the leading, most fertile subjects for where substantive changes have been made, that may have altered those principles of the original Jones/Mackenzie course.

This was a theory-to-practice question and my answer was in the same spirit.

And my overall answer to Pat, way back in that thread, was that I feel ANGC has indeed satisfied the tenets of the question over the last 15 years of substantive changes.  They have kept up with the elites while maintaining a course of worthy principles for all play. 

It's just that #7 is one of the holes that has been SO radically altered from what it was and how it played in the first iterations, that it was merely fun speculation to imagine what might be techincally restored there and still make for a good ANGC hole.

It's fine and if I can locate my green jacket in time, my vote at the next ANGC Board meeting will be for no changes. (Right)

cheers

vk

[Mac Plumart]

Can anyone post photos/aerials of what the hole looked like in the 30s and what it looks like now?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why not leave it like it is?

330 from the members tees, tight tee ball demanding accuracy not distance, hole is heavily defended at the green with bunkers and green contours.

is something wrong with this?

It's too narrow

[V. Kmetz]

For Mac,

Outside of some drawings, this is the best I can do, a close up of a 1934 photo in Frank Christian's book:

The 7th green is at the far left side of the photo in the vertical center, the "Valley of Sin" would appear to be in the "crook" of the L-shape, with a further continuation of its large up-slope creating a tapered swell into the green surface itself.

Also kind of cool to see the old 2nd green in the central foregound, as well as the young Eisenhower tree, the bunkerless 15th only guarded by a stream, and the old 16th with three footbridges across the stream that would be dammed up to create today's fronting pond - all of these in the top background.

cheers

vk

[Peter Pallotta]

VK - just because you noted several other holes (other than the 7th) of the Mackenzie-Jones original design, here's a quote from somone who played that original design - I share it here not because I know whether it is generally valid or not (ie more than one man's opinion), but because I'd never seen it posted before and because that 'one man' was Gene Sarazen who, even at 94 years old, seemed sharp as a tack.

"No, I wasn't impressed [by the design]. I didn't care for it. It was not a good course when Jones and Mackenzie finished it -- a very poor design. Hell, number eleven was a drive and a pitch. They used to drive the seventeenth hole. Sixteen was a terrible hole, one hundred yards over a ditch. And the first hole should've been like St Andrews' [wide open] first, but it wasn't anything like it....[Years later] I remember going out for drinks with Roberts one evening and I told him that number sixteen is a terrible hole. One hundred yards over a ditch. 'Now go get Trent Jones', I said".

And apparently the club later did listen to Sarazen on this (and other things?)  As I say, just because I hadn't seen it posted before. From Curt Sampson's book "The Masters - Golf, Money and Power in Augusta, Georgia", pages 34 and 89.

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

VK,

I think the VOS is short of the green

[V. Kmetz]

PM,

The photo isn't sharp enough (the one in christian's book or my more blurry close up) for me to say definitively. My only physical evidence from this photo is the discernible swell on the horizontal (player's, not viewer's left) fat of the L...this I "match up" with the thing they say they copied (18 TOC), the Mackenzie description, the Byrdy drawing and the Byrdy photo below:





PP,

I so agree. And while I can't possibly know for myself (or even have to disagree) about the worthiness of disdain in Sarazen's remarks, this is why:

1. I originally answered PM's question to the effect that: "Augusta has kept up with the elites while keeping many intended original principles." The club has done a magnificent job of keeping the excitement, the gambles, the rewards and the punishments in the course's Masters soul and the three dozen people who have played the course in non Masters time have been unanimous in their enthusiasm for the golf there.  I don't subscribe to the "poor agronomic leadership" criticisms, because even before there was subsurface air, and ultra-plush, shaved perfection...it was STILL a leader in physical beauty by any era of comparison.  It was almost always a "showpiece" after WW II and the ethos of physical beauty was present in the original inspirations, if not the first fledgling execution.

2. I state that 11 and 16 could/should never return to what they were (as well as #10- I admit I haven't thought about #17 that much) which leaves...

3. Hole Number 7 as perhaps the one and only opportunity to see a 1932-1938 original hole be largely restored and its renovation be redacted with little loss of challenge and continued interest in each hole as part of a greater architectural whole.

cheers

vk

[Tim_Weiman]

Peter,

Thanks for sharing the Sarazen quote. From old film he sure seems like an interesting character and someone not afraid to speak his mind.

It would have been fascinating to see a discussion with Jones/Mackenzie and Sarazen on Augusta as a whole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

PM,

The photo isn't sharp enough (the one in christian's book or my more blurry close up) for me to say definitively. My only physical evidence from this photo is the discernible swell on the horizontal (player's, not viewer's left) fat of the L...this I "match up" with the thing they say they copied (18 TOC), the Mackenzie description, the Byrdy drawing and the Byrdy photo below:



I don't have your graphic skills, but, I believe the swale is in front of the green.
Topographically, that's the low portion of the hole, not between the raised green and a mound.

PP,

I so agree. And while I can't possibly know for myself (or even have to disagree) about the worthiness of disdain in Sarazen's remarks, this is why:

1. I originally answered PM's question to the effect that: "Augusta has kept up with the elites while keeping many intended original principles." The club has done a magnificent job of keeping the excitement, the gambles, the rewards and the punishments in the course's Masters soul and the three dozen people who have played the course in non Masters time have been unanimous in their enthusiasm for the golf there.  I don't subscribe to the "poor agronomic leadership" criticisms, because even before there was subsurface air, and ultra-plush, shaved perfection...it was STILL a leader in physical beauty by any era of comparison.  It was almost always a "showpiece" after WW II and the ethos of physical beauty was present in the original inspirations, if not the first fledgling execution.

2. I state that 11 and 16 could/should never return to what they were (as well as #10- I admit I haven't thought about #17 that much) which leaves...

3. Hole Number 7 as perhaps the one and only opportunity to see a 1932-1938 original hole be largely restored and its renovation be redacted with little loss of challenge and continued interest in each hole as part of a greater architectural whole.

cheers

vk

[Patrick_Mucci]

VK,

In order to try to give you and others perspective, pretend that the question I posed was asked in 1964, 1974, 1984, 1994 and 2004.

Do you still think the answer would be that "everything's hunky-dory" ?

What you morons are missing is that the course can't remain static in order to present a challenge to a corps of players whom, along with technology, aren't remaining static.

Do you now grasp that concept ?


Mac, Brian S.

You're right, everything's hunky-dory on ANGC (to me)...but this is just the extended answer to Pat's question in the other thread "How can ANGC?":

Re: How can Augusta keep "original principles" and maintain Masters challenge/interest?

#7, #16, #11, #10 are the leading, most fertile subjects for where substantive changes have been made, that may have altered those principles of the original Jones/Mackenzie course.

This was a theory-to-practice question and my answer was in the same spirit.

And my overall answer to Pat, way back in that thread, was that I feel ANGC has indeed satisfied the tenets of the question over the last 15 years of substantive changes.  They have kept up with the elites while maintaining a course of worthy principles for all play.  

It's just that #7 is one of the holes that has been SO radically altered from what it was and how it played in the first iterations, that it was merely fun speculation to imagine what might be techincally restored there and still make for a good ANGC hole.

It's fine and if I can locate my green jacket in time, my vote at the next ANGC Board meeting will be for no changes. (Right)

cheers

vk

[Matthew Rose]

7 has become the worst hole on the course IMO, so I do hope they consider some change to it.

As much as the original horseshoe thing looks cool, somehow I doubt they would consider making a change that radical.... but I guess the 8th hole changed a lot in the 60s and 70s and was somewhat "restored", so maybe they can do something similar.

Honestly, they'd improve it tenfold overnight by simply shortening it 50 yards and cutting down a few trees, without doing anything else.

[V. Kmetz]

PM,

No Pat, I agree/agreed with that all along...no way it could remain static and to be sure, I am not arguing--theoretically, practically, anything-- that the 1934 course (just as an "original" starting point) would do.

I've just thought/maintain that if that COULD be executed in one spot on the course...#7 makes the most sense.  I know you disagree with that, but there it is anyway.

(BTW - have you been swayed at all by the Byrdy photos/drawings that the VoS on #7 was right there at the left green front or do you maintain it was further back in the fairway?)

I've think the AGNC changes have largely been excellent and befitting a profiled tournament course that seeks to be playable for its members.

I'm also one of those who don't think the concession to increased distance by the advent of further back tees (as one technique Augusta has used) is a disgrace to a course's architectural integrity.

Sure, I'd like to see a roll-back or tournament ball...less infallibility and specialization in equipment and maintenance practices that don't drive local golf budgets to ruin, but I don't think __(your course here)______________ was ruined, or its pure reputation disgraced by placing a US Open on it in the modern reality.

cheers

vk

[Patrick_Mucci]

VK,

I just feel that the club is too invested in the current 7th to reject it's current form in favor of it's original form.

But, I could see modifications to # 10, 11 and 14 that would retain the overall continuity while enhancing the challenge.

[BCowan]

PM,

The photo isn't sharp enough (the one in christian's book or my more blurry close up) for me to say definitively. My only physical evidence from this photo is the discernible swell on the horizontal (player's, not viewer's left) fat of the L...this I "match up" with the thing they say they copied (18 TOC), the Mackenzie description, the Byrdy drawing and the Byrdy photo below:





PP,

I so agree. And while I can't possibly know for myself (or even have to disagree) about the worthiness of disdain in Sarazen's remarks, this is why:

1. I originally answered PM's question to the effect that: "Augusta has kept up with the elites while keeping many intended original principles." The club has done a magnificent job of keeping the excitement, the gambles, the rewards and the punishments in the course's Masters soul and the three dozen people who have played the course in non Masters time have been unanimous in their enthusiasm for the golf there.  I don't subscribe to the "poor agronomic leadership" criticisms, because even before there was subsurface air, and ultra-plush, shaved perfection...it was STILL a leader in physical beauty by any era of comparison.  It was almost always a "showpiece" after WW II and the ethos of physical beauty was present in the original inspirations, if not the first fledgling execution.

2. I state that 11 and 16 could/should never return to what they were (as well as #10- I admit I haven't thought about #17 that much) which leaves...

3. Hole Number 7 as perhaps the one and only opportunity to see a 1932-1938 original hole be largely restored and its renovation be redacted with little loss of challenge and continued interest in each hole as part of a greater architectural whole.

cheers

vk

   There is no reason difficulty wise that the original horseshoe shape couldn't be used with back slope off created and bury a couple elephants under the new green.  I don't like trends but I think a reachable Par 4 is something Dr Mack would like if he were designing today.  That L shaped green could be made very penal to less then accurate approaches.  The idea of surrounding greens with bunkers is over done IMHO.  I wished they would of modified in 38' instead of scraping it too early.  This is obviously something the club isn't going to do, unfortunately.

[Patrick_Mucci]

BCowan

The original 7th had no bunkering, nothing to really deter a modern PGA Tour player from going for the green and either putting or chipping for an eagle.

The hole would be nothing more than a long par 3 for them, so why revert to yesteryear ?

The 18th at TOC has water, OB right and OB just behind the green.

You can't equate the two holes.

There's a reason why Prestwick no longer hosts the British Open !

[BCowan]

You could make the green very skinny and crowned.  You don't need bunkering, water, and OB to make a devilish short Par 4.  I never brought up 18th hole at TOC.  You want the tour player to go for the green.  You aren't imagining a new designed green which is very very penal.  Do you think the greenside bunkers at Riviera 10th hole make it tough, meaning if they were replaced with depressions of shaved grass would it play as tough?

[Bill_McBride]

BCowan

The original 7th had no bunkering, nothing to really deter a modern PGA Tour player from going for the green and either putting or chipping for an eagle.

The hole would be nothing more than a long par 3 for them, so why revert to yesteryear ?

The 18th at TOC has water, OB right and OB just behind the green.

You can't equate the two holes.

There's a reason why Prestwick no longer hosts the British Open !

Where is water on TOC #18?   Hopefully you aren't counting the burn 30 yards in front of the tee?   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

It may be 30 yards, or more, but, it's still a hazard and I'll bet golfers have hit into it. 

[Ken Fry]

The only comment I'll add is for anyone that has walked ANGC either during the Masters or playing, the back tee on #7 is so blatantly out of character with the rest of the course as to be jarring.

I like what Perry Maxwell did with the green complex but that green was never meant to be on a 450 yard hole down a bowling alley.

Ken

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ken,

Agreed, it seems like a radical departure, a break in continuity, if you will.

I suppose there are those who feel that there's nothing wrong with a hole that tests the golfer's ability to be precise off the tee.

Tough to argue that the best players in the world shouldn't be subject to that examination.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

It may be 30 yards, or more, but, it's still a hazard and I'll bet golfers have hit into it. 

The OOB right determines play of that hole.  The farther left one bails, the more the Valley of Sin affects the approach shots. 

The burn in front of #1 has nothing to do with play of the hole. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

It may be 30 yards, or more, but, it's still a hazard and I'll bet golfers have hit into it. 

The OOB right determines play of that hole.  The farther left one bails, the more the Valley of Sin affects the approach shots. 

The burn in front of #1 has nothing to do with play of the hole. 

I never said that it did !

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()