Maybe the explanation could be that it is much easier to try to duplicate what we can see as opposed to reproducing the mufti-faceted aspects of the playing conditions and presentation. Said another way, without actually experiencing the turf conditions and ground contours, some may think that simply reproducing the look will take care of the playing characteristics.
That of course assumes that the "Augusta Effect" actually carries the weight that some assert. I'm not completely sure either way.
Matt, that makes a lot of sense to me. The next question I would have, then, is to wonder why people notice the things they notice at Augusta. How can the average club member miss the incredible suspense that comes when a ball hits the middle of the 7th or 2nd greens on Sunday and starts tracking, slowly at first, toward the hole? How can they miss the fun of watching a well-struck drive bound down the hills at 10 and 11?
Of course, we're genetically hardwired to love certain aspects of a course presented like Augusta, as I've mentioned through this thread so far. But as someone who hopes to be an evangelist for how much more fun golf becomes when played on the right course with the right maintenance meld, it sure seems like I'd rather make Augusta my ally than my enemy. I suspect
people love Augusta because it's green with tall trees and white sand, which is not the same as loving green, tall trees, and white sand
because of Augusta. But regardless of why people love it, their love for it is impossible to ignore. And if someone at my club loves Augusta, it really gives the perfect opportunity to open up a discussion with that person about how awesome it is when those balls start trickling toward holes and the cheers start getting louder, or how great it is to see that a course doesn't need super thick rough to challenge great players if it has width, firm conditions, and angles.
Aaron, I understand how people define the Augusta Effect. It's a convenient concept, but it's clearly based on reductionist thinking as it incorrectly attributes public attitudes about golf course maintenance to Augusta National Golf Club. Augusta isn't the reason people appreciate immaculate conditions. The immaculate conditions are the reason people appreciate Augusta.
I remain open to changing my mind as soon as someone can explain how Augusta inspired the "tapis vert" (translation: green carpet) written of at Versailles palace in the 1700s, or how it influenced the proliferation of the immaculate, short, green English lawn in the 18th century, or how Augusta inspired Abraham Levitt to write that "No single feature of a suburban residential community contributes as much to the charm and beauty of the individual home and the locality as well-kept lawns" in the 1940s, before color television brought the greenery of Augusta to our homes. It's really very obvious that our affection for green, well-maintained grass did not begin with Augusta National. Yet the Golf Architecture Illuminati insist that Augusta is to blame for many of modern golf's problems, and in doing so, they continue to undermine their own public credibility when discussing ideal golf course presentation and architecture. There's no quicker way to get fellow club members to tune your thoughts about golf courses out than to tell them how Augusta is doing it all wrong, and in fact, Augusta does so many things right that we could make huge waves at our own clubs if we could just uphold its virtues a bit more effectively.