The Masters makes Augusta, not the other way around...

[Garland Bayley]

The Masters literally makes Augusta, because money from the Masters is pored into modifications of Augusta every year. It maintains some of Alister MacKenzie's routing for the Masters, but probably should not be called an Alister MacKenzie course for the Masters.

[Garland Bayley]

I agree with Peter that the repeated viewings enhance the tournament, but I also think that the course is perfect for TV, which has augmented it's status. 

TV has augmented it's status. Isn't that part of Frank's opening argument?

The slopes and risk/reward choices at Augusta are so obvious and severe that they can be appreciated on a TV, whereas a lot of the other great courses are muted in the TV medium.

The slopes were never so obvious before HDTV. In fact, in the early years CBS did such a poor job of showing the slopes that ABC made a concerted effort to poach the broadcast from them using that argument. Eubanks, Augusta

We all know about the bowl on 16, the false front on 9, the tight corner to navigate off the tee on 13, the fear of being long or short on 15, etc.... Since the ball moves so dramatically on slightly missed shots, it's easier to appreciate the difficulties of the course.

We'll mark you down as a supporter of Frank's original thesis for the thread then. Thanks!

Thanks for scoring my opinion, Garland. And no, TV was not mentioned in the opening post.

"The Masters makes Augusta" Is not The Masters a TV event? It is there implicitly. Without TV there would be no discussion about this.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
We will never know what would have happened if The Masters was played at another venue?  What we do know is that for longer than I can remember (probably dates to 1935 and Sarazen's double eagle on #15), the phrase "The tournament doesn't begin until the back nine on Sunday" holds pretty darn true.  Maybe we'd be saying the same thing if Sarazen made that shot at ____ Golf Club?  Maybe not 

I don't know the history exactly, but I am pretty sure the phrase "The tournament doesn't begin until the back nine on Sunday" originated with TV, not with Sarazen. Besides, IMO, the phrase is meaningless. Every tournament that has a close finish could claim that phrase. If I remember correctly the stat given on Sunday was 22 of the last 27 tournaments had the winner come from the last pairing. So in reality the phrase should be "The tournament is pretty much over by the end of Saturday afternoon."

[Garland Bayley]

George,

I've got to take you to task. In what way did the course elevate the event? What is special about the course that elevated the event that is not present in other equal courses who's events haven't been elevated?

Exactly how high are you when you ask questions like this?

I suppose about as high as Frank was when he started the thread.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I would also drop anything I am doing, buy the last airplane ticket available, even if it were $9,000 first class, and be there tomorrow to play ANGC, if I got invited. I would not do that for PBGL. 
...

News flash! You don't need an invite to play PBGL.

I appreciate your comments. For the most part our opinions are highly subjective. Like Kalen, I would put Pebble up over Augusta in a match play.

I would suggest that perhaps the most objective evaluation we can get is the CG where they are both 9.

[Garland Bayley]

Simple question: Would any other $150 resort course produce the drama and finishes Augusta does, year in and year out? My money says no.

My money says given enough hype most any course would do.

Not even close. Riviera is a fantastic course, by all counts. And it regularly draws a top tier field - not as good as The Masters, but top notch nevertheless. How many fantastic finishes does ANYONE (besides Geoff Shack and Tommy N ) remember there?

If it were the major, and Augusta just a tour stop, the tables would be completely turned.


Lord knows I love Tom D, am a charter member of the BB club, having invested in a course on the other side of the world that it's looking like I'll never even see let along play, but how in the wide wide world of sports is ANGC not a 10?

Well, Tom wrote "Holes I could do without: 1st, 9th, 15th, and 18th." And for a 10 he wrote "if you skipped even one hole, you would miss something worth seeing." Capice?

What hole would anyone skip over and feel like they didn't miss anything? I disagree entirely with the current presentation of the course, with the second cut, and the added trees, the silly driving corridors of 7, 11, 18, but good Lord, if you don't think every hole at ANGC does stir something, doesn't provide a shot or three worth savoring, well, all I can say is you are flat out spoiled, or the courses listed as 10s must be beyond crazy good, so good I can't even imagine any golf course being that good. I've seen plenty of posters criticise holes on just about every 10 (except PV, to my recollection).


17 and 18 Pebble versus ANGC is ANGC 2-0 in my book, if only because of the greens and topography. (That might change slightly if Pebble ever returned to the sandscape version with a realistic green size for 17 at Pebble....) Pebble's strongest holes, the stretch of 6-10, well, those aren't even ANGCs strong holes and they still give them a run for the money. As breathtaking as the 8th at Pebble is, I'd argue the 8th at ANGC is every bit as compelling.

See Kalen.

And no, I haven't played either, I've walked Pebble twice and watched ANGC a billion times, so my opinions are equally uninformed on both!


I'm the only Pete Dye critic on this entire board of 1500 people, yet I still recognize that Sawgrass HAS produced some thrilling tournaments and thrilling finishes. Does The Players make Sawgrass or the other way around? My money says the golf course provides the thrills that have resulted in The Players being the unofficial 5th Major (it's the 4th major to me, but again, I'm weird like that).

One of the most thrilling finishes I have seen was my club's championship with a play off between four players. Three of them had won before, and the one that hadn't made an amazing putt on the 4th play off hole to close out the final opponent. Just to get to a four way play off two people had to birdie 18. IMO it is the players and the play that produces thrilling finishes, not the course. Or, maybe I will have to get Tom to come rate my club and give it the 9 it so obviously deserves.


Terry Lavin is dead on right in his much earlier post - Augusta the course MADE The Masters into a major, and arguably the most consistently compelling major at that. The fact that so few of us will ever get to play it is an issue related to the membership, not the golf course.

Let's agree to disagree on that.
-----


Just wanted to add, excellent post, VK, a few posts back.

[Garland Bayley]

...
The first TV broadcast of ANGC was in 1956, and the first color broadcast was in 1966. Jack won 2 Masters and Arnie won 4 Masters in that 10 year frame. There were 22 years where the tournament grew in popularity and it was never seen on TV and another 10 where no one knew how green the grass was or what colors the flowers were.

...

A small nit here. According to Eubanks book Augusta, they were still giving away tickets to get the attendance up in 1956 when it was first broadcast. If you mean it was growing in popularity with the players, granted. Not so sure it was growing in popularity with the public.

[Frank M]

I suppose about as high as Frank was when he started the thread.

To be clear, I was not high and never have been. I'd say everyone else is riding the high of The Masters...which tugs Augusta National along.

[Garland Bayley]

I suppose about as high as Frank was when he started the thread.

To be clear, I was not high and never have been. I'd say everyone else is riding the high of The Masters...which tugs Augusta National along.

Exactly my point. I was not high and never have been.

[Mike Wagner]

Frank, of the courses you've played, what which one would you say required the most absolute precision with regards to approach shots?

Every single one since my goal is to always get as close as possible to the hole 

I could list a bunch of courses really, but The National Golf Club of Canada is almost in my back yard and is pretty exacting, so I'll start there. No. 2..that's...um...2....Pebble requires pretty precise approaches with its small greens. I can go on but I don't see the point of the question.

Understood.  The point I'm making is that there is a huge difference in what is required to play ANGC well vs. other courses.  I can give you my example of a course that requires absolutely precision iron shots - The Palms.  You can't get away with ANYTHING there.  Augusta requires exact precision under the most pressure these guys feel all year.  It also architecturally has the most dramatic back 9 opportunities of anywhere I can think of.  So, my point is, it's hard to understand just how good these guys play on one of the most dramatic stages in the game.  It's beyond brilliant.


Take Rory's 130 yard shot into 3 on Sunday for example.  That's not happening anywhere else.

[Mike Wagner]

George,

I've got to take you to task. In what way did the course elevate the event? What is special about the course that elevated the event that is not present in other equal courses who's events haven't been elevated?

Exactly how high are you when you ask questions like this?

I suppose about as high as Frank was when he started the thread.

Now that's funny

[Wayne_Kozun]

Isn't Augusta National without The Masters called Old Town?

Isn't Peachtree a better analogy of ANGC without the Masters?