A thought re AGNC

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Posting this updated Royal Melbourne profile is a timely reminder of what MacKenzie stood for. Unlike another certain (green and now claustrophobic) Mackenzie course, RM hasn't elected to depart from the playing strategies and natural aesthetics that the Good Doctor espoused even though it regularly hosts the two biggest golf events (Australian Open, President's Cup) in its hemisphere.

Respectively,
Is Augusta really that claustrophobic? I spent the week at the tournament- watched a ton of recovery from the pines, 0 shots smothered by shin high rough, two Champions Tour players make the cut--Mize driving it 240 and Langer 260, and a premium on approach shots played from the correct angle.


The lack of smothering rough makes the tournament come down to how one approaches the greens (Langer) and the play around the greens (Willett, Spieth--ehh, Dustin, Westwood  )


Effectively there is still plenty of width at Augusta...especially if you are playing to those areas.


It gets tight off the tee placing a premium on the line taken.. (holes 1, 9, 10, 11, 13, 18).


If there is anything I've learned about the golf course at Augusta National, is that it's all about the tournament. Mainly the speed at which the golf course plays--which has everything to with the time of the season.


Have we forgotten that Augusta National is in AUGUSTA, GEORGIA? Wouldn't it be funny if it looked like RM? Should it really be down and brown? Should it have a bunch of NASTY NATIVE???


The Masters seems to be America's best effort to put on a most exacting and fine sporting event, and boy to they deliver. As a tournament player myself I am able to understand this. There's a reason BEN CRENSHAW is in love with the place..


Time after time Augusta identifies a current great player in the world, and lets a few wild card picks sneak in.


A lot of GCA hipsters out there, and it's en vogue to bash Augusta..but like most hipsters..you're WAY off..


Long live the Masters!

[Jason Topp]

I was surprised at the width that remains on the course the time I visited for a practice round. 

[MClutterbuck]

Ran is not way off, and you are not way off either. ANGC has lost a lot of width and strategic options. ANGC is still plenty wide and not claustrophobic, save certain tee shots for pros. It could be better. It is still great.

[Tim_Cronin]

Augusta National has amazing scale. It's big. Big – as in wide – fairways, with the exception of the pinched seventh, 11th and 17th. Big bunkers, and not just the MacKenzie bunker on the 10th. And big greens, far bigger than the usual country club layout. That's evident on television, but what – as all who visit say – can't be measured on even the 3D TV used for a couple of years is the elevation changes. Big.


MacKenzie and Jones used great imagination in this layout. Wide fairways don't always mean interesting questions posed on the second shot, but they do here. Over 80 years later, the answers are hard to solve.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Walking around Augusta again this week I couldn't help but feel how well balance the scale of the course is. As stated before, the course is very big but the proximity the next hole makes it feel rather intimate. Any sense of claustrophobia probably has more to do with the height of the pines than the width of the holes. Even the narrow driving holes like 7, 11 and 17 still have fairways over 30 yards wide. Comparing the fairway widths of Augusta to Melbourne, the latter is not a substantially wider course, only about 5 yards on average.

[Bill_McBride]

One thing I was not expecting was the long views.   I thought the pine lined fairways would block views, but we could see the stands by 15 from the second fairway.   Loved that aspect, plus you could move around the course pretty easily using the crosswalks.  Fun spectating course for sure. 

[Kalen Braley]

Bill,

I am curious.  As one who would love to see it in person someday....other than the severity of the property, (elevation differential)...what were the top 5 things that surprised you vs what you had seen on TV.  For better or worse.

Thanks in advance.

[Matt Kardash]

Augusta National has amazing scale. It's big. Big – as in wide – fairways, with the exception of the pinched seventh, 11th and 17th. Big bunkers, and not just the MacKenzie bunker on the 10th. And big greens, far bigger than the usual country club layout. That's evident on television, but what – as all who visit say – can't be measured on even the 3D TV used for a couple of years is the elevation changes. Big.


MacKenzie and Jones used great imagination in this layout. Wide fairways don't always mean interesting questions posed on the second shot, but they do here. Over 80 years later, the answers are hard to solve.

They 11th fairway is still 40 yards wide...so if that is considered to be a tight fairway on the course you know the course is wide!
The 7th is legit kind of narrow at slightly under 30 yards wide. I think it is my least favourite hole on the course.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

I am curious.  As one who would love to see it in person someday....other than the severity of the property, (elevation differential)...what were the top 5 things that surprised you vs what you had seen on TV.  For better or worse.

Thanks in advance.

1. How steep the 18th fairway is


2. How far above the rest of the course the upper 5th fairway is


3. How open the course is - you could only call 11 and 18 really tight tee shots


4. How easy it is to suddenly be 40' away when you miss the very small landing area


5. How much the banked, tight dogleg fairway on 13 reminded of a NASCAR track!

[Ken Moum]

I was impressed by the probability that I could give almost anyone I know 18 greens in regulation and win money by betting they couldn't break 100.

My brother and I were speculating about it and decided that most average golfers would putt into that water at least twice.

K

[Bill Brightly]

I've stated here many times that you cannot discuss the game that pros play and have a meaningful discussion about golf course architecture that relates to how amateurs play golf.


I've been fortunate enough to have played Royal Melbourne and walk AGNC. After one round at RM hit me like a ton of bricks: Mackenzie was a genius and understood that offering the player width did NOT mean you were making the course easier.  I have no doubt that Mackenzie would be ticked at how the course has been altered to challenge the very best pros.

[Josh Tarble]

Great thread...it's easy to take shots at Augusta National, but it truly is spectacular in person. I can just imagine how fun it would be to play.

In my opinion, one of the coolest aspects of the course is how the routing feels very intimate on a giant scale. As mentioned above, the scale of the place is amazing but the tees are steps from each green and there are several places where multiple greens and tees converge. It would be an unreal course to be a member.

[Jerry Kluger]

I was listening to an interview with Craig Stadler and he called ANGC target golf.  You must hit to one spot and then to the next spot and if you don't then you just have to figure out a way to get to the correct spot.  There aren't many options even with all of the width.  I don't know whether this makes it less than a great course but it certainly does raise a very interesting issue.

[David Stamm]

Great thread.

I am attending the tournament next year with my daughter. I can't wait to see it.

[Ben Sims]

I wonder what an apples to apples comparison of corridor width would look like between ANGC and Pinehurst #2.

[Josh Tarble]

I was listening to an interview with Craig Stadler and he called ANGC target golf.  You must hit to one spot and then to the next spot and if you don't then you just have to figure out a way to get to the correct spot.  There aren't many options even with all of the width.  I don't know whether this makes it less than a great course but it certainly does raise a very interesting issue.

Jerry,
Isn't that what strategic golf is all about? 

[Sven Nilsen]

I was listening to an interview with Craig Stadler and he called ANGC target golf.  You must hit to one spot and then to the next spot and if you don't then you just have to figure out a way to get to the correct spot.  There aren't many options even with all of the width.  I don't know whether this makes it less than a great course but it certainly does raise a very interesting issue.

Jerry,
Isn't that what strategic golf is all about?

Only if those spots are variable from day to day.

[jeffwarne]

I was listening to an interview with Craig Stadler and he called ANGC target golf.  You must hit to one spot and then to the next spot and if you don't then you just have to figure out a way to get to the correct spot.  There aren't many options even with all of the width.  I don't know whether this makes it less than a great course but it certainly does raise a very interesting issue.

That is called strategic golf.
Craig Stadler also is suggesting they move back 12, and 13 green so I have a hard time buying that he knows the definition of "target" golf which was originally coined for the bastions of mediocrity made popular in the '80's.


While I agree with his characterization of the course, he's simply using the wrong term.
There may be less options than there used to be, but there are plenty of options-especially for the shorter hitter or average player.

[Josh Tarble]

Sven,

Just judging how they played #2 throughout the week suggests it's extremely variable depending on pin position.

[jeffwarne]

Sven,

Just judging how they played #2 throughout the week suggests it's extremely variable depending on pin position.

same with layup on 8,13,15, 11
tee shot on 3,14,


1,11,7,17 and 13(and MAYBE 18) have LESS tee shot options since treeing and lengthening

[Sven Nilsen]

Josh: 

I agree.

Its when the "spots" are always the same that strategy disapears. 

Sven

[Josh Tarble]

Sven,

While I don't want to necessarily derail this thread, I think this is an interesting topic and one that touches on the brilliance of Augusta.

While I mostly agree with you, I also think there needs to be holes where the spot never changes.  The best courses in the world change over the course of 18 holes, varying their strategic concept.  A few holes need to be "hit it here or else."  For example, #13 at Augusta, the "spot" always seems to be as close to the edge of the dogleg as possible.  That allows the player to have the best angle and the shortest line.  The width just allows players who don't hit that "spot" to have different options to still make eagle or birdie.

[Sven Nilsen]

Josh: 

On 13, is the spot the same for a guy with the length to get there as it is for someone knowing they have to lay up?

I don't know the answer, but would think the second guy would be playing very safe on the drive.

Sven

[BCrosby]

Its when the "spots" are always the same that strategy disappears. 

Sven

An interesting way to think about the issue. To use your terminology, the trees added to 7, 11 and 17 obligate you to drive to the same tight "spots" on those holes day in and day out. Which is why those holes are now so much less strategic than  MacKenzie and Jones meant them to be.

Bob   

[Josh Tarble]

Josh: 

On 13, is the spot the same for a guy with the length to get there as it is for someone knowing they have to lay up?

I don't know the answer, but would think the second guy would be playing very safe on the drive.

Sven

Sven, very good question.  And I would think the short hitter would play safer as well but that wouldn't change the "ideal spot" though.