[Thomas Dai]

It IS a garden, the holes are named for the specific trees pulled form the Fruitlands nursery that the property once was.

May I suggest that golf courses, even elite ones, are first and foremost sports pitches not gardens nor alboretums.
Mind, given that some players are chewing stuff and then gobbing it on the ground maybe it's more sports inclined than I'm suggesting.
Well done Hideki.
atb

[Tim Martin]

I liked the way the course played as compared to November. Way more compelling to watch IMO.

[Sean_A]

I liked the way the course played as compared to November. Way more compelling to watch IMO.

Although, there was a massive difference in firmness between fairways and greens.  IMO, this is far from ideal.

Ciao

[Bernie Bell]

I love Augusta.  Matsuyama's caddie seems to have some respect for it also.  Maybe I don't know enough yet to always be disappointed in the golf I'm watching.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't really like Augusta as much. I used too but I think it has got ugly over the years.


I understand it is a minor opinion but it has morphed in 50 years to something that I dislike more than like. A lot that I now don't like has been by the 'need' to extend the course, the design intent for many has been lost and the course plays only 'true' to those that bash it 350.


I think the bunkers are too big. I dislike the green shapes. The trees are now too tall for some corridor widths so they look disproportionate. The slopes are too steep which means balls are carted off hundreds of feet and so the skill ability is taken away from almost any golfer. There are very reduced ground options. The pine straw in circles around the trees looks very contrived. The greenside bunkering is very severe.


I think I could love it again with a bunker re-do and wispy fescue like yesteryear, some options of the ground game brought in.


Anyone with me at all or am I off my head.

Agree with the highlighted.  Outside of this group, I doubt 2% of the world doesn't like Augusta for what it is, not some idealized version of what it might have been.


Not trying to be harsh, just realistic.  And, even if you don't like the bunkers, it brings up the question of just what era a course should be returned to?  Its original configuration, which was due in part to budget issues as much as design philosophy, or at it's tournament peak, which may not have even happened yet?


I loved watching it yesterday, the drama is still there just as Jones intended, the fw still looked pretty wide to me (thinking most of 15 from drone shot from behind green) even if not as wide as it once was, scale still seemed to be there, although I admit a few shots from behind the tee looked a bit narrow, etc.


Lastly, while I agree courses generally don't have to be arboretums, this one was a nursery and it has been part of it's charm.  Are we so dogmatic that not even one course can be beautiful and perfectly maintained with sharp bunker edges, etc., or did TEPaul's big world theory exit when he exited this website?


Anyway, I enjoyed the telecast for what it was, not some version of what I thought it should be.  Just saying.

[jeffwarne]

It IS a garden, the holes are named for the specific trees pulled from the Fruitlands nursery that the property once was.

May I suggest that golf courses, even elite ones, are first and foremost sports pitches not gardens nor alboretums.

Wait, if a golf course is laid out on a links, isn't it "first and foremost" a links?
and if a golf course is laid out on a nursery, or  arboretum, why can't it be first and foremost a garden or arboretum with a course within it, the same as a links is?

[Ian Mackenzie]

Looking at the tree-walled corridors of the first hole, I was reminder of Eugene Country Club....;-)


HUGE trees just steps from the FW...EVERYWHERE...if it was any other course, the cry for the chain-saw would be LOUD..!!...;-)


I guess ANGC is the new example of the strategic importance of, well, TREES.

[Bernie Bell]

Looking at the tree-walled corridors of the first hole, I was reminder of Eugene Country Club....;-)


HUGE trees just steps from the FW...EVERYWHERE...if it was any other course, the cry for the chain-saw would be LOUD..!!...;-)


I guess ANGC is the new example of the strategic importance of, well, TREES.

What's wrong with that?  To me, one of the most thrilling shots of the tournament was Matsuyama's first shot after the rain delay on Saturday.  After sitting an hour in his car thinking about his drive into the woods on 11, he came back to hit an epic punch recovery to 20 feet and brushed it in to start his birdie run.  IMO if anything they oughta plant more trees on 11 to block off that alleyway to the right. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

Looking at the tree-walled corridors of the first hole, I was reminder of Eugene Country Club....;-)


HUGE trees just steps from the FW...EVERYWHERE...if it was any other course, the cry for the chain-saw would be LOUD..!!...;-)


I guess ANGC is the new example of the strategic importance of, well, TREES.

Steps away from the fairway on a 45+ yard wide fairway is very different than trees steps away from a 30-yard wide fairway. The trees may be towering, but they never feel like they are cramping the playing corridors.


Tree's have been integral in the strategy around Augusta for a very long time. Especially on holes like 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17*, and 18.


*17 w/ Eisenhower pine.

[Jason Thurman]

If Augusta National is a sporting field first, and not an arboretum, then I would suggest we keep our criticism focused on the sporting field itself and not the surrounding gardens.


You don't have to love the look of the woods in bloom on 12 and 13, for example. But if you want to tell me those holes are anything other than fabulous sporting fields for conducting a major championship, I think you're confused.


Some of you have been yelling "Trees bad!" for so long that you don't remember WHY trees are sometimes bad. I don't see a single one that needs to be chopped down at Augusta. The turf is fantastic, there's plenty of meaningful width, and recovery shots from the trees consistently produce some of the most exciting risk/reward moments of the tournament. What, exactly, is the problem?

[Thomas Dai]

Here's a now coloured old b&w photo of the founder of ANGC, the chap who famously said "I don't see any need for a tree on a golf course", standing atop the remains of some trees that had just been removed during construction of um, ANGC.
atb

[David_Tepper]

"May I suggest that golf courses, even elite ones, are first and foremost sports pitches not gardens nor alboretums."

Thomas D. -

What about the rhododendrons that border so many English golf courses?

https://www.google.com/search?source=univ&tbm=isch&q=rhododendrons+on+english+golf+courses&client=firefox-b-1-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZjL-NjfnvAhWSKDQIHQRcCnIQjJkEegQIARAB&biw=1366&bih=654

DT

[David Ober]

I don't really like Augusta as much. I used too but I think it has got ugly over the years.


I understand it is a minor opinion but it has morphed in 50 years to something that I dislike more than like. A lot that I now don't like has been by the 'need' to extend the course, the design intent for many has been lost and the course plays only 'true' to those that bash it 350.


I think the bunkers are too big. I dislike the green shapes. The trees are now too tall for some corridor widths so they look disproportionate. The slopes are too steep which means balls are carted off hundreds of feet and so the skill ability is taken away from almost any golfer. There are very reduced ground options. The pine straw in circles around the trees looks very contrived. The greenside bunkering is very severe.


I think I could love it again with a bunker re-do and wispy fescue like yesteryear, some options of the ground game brought in.


Anyone with me at all or am I off my head.

Completely agree.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Looking at the tree-walled corridors of the first hole, I was reminder of Eugene Country Club....;-)


HUGE trees just steps from the FW...EVERYWHERE...if it was any other course, the cry for the chain-saw would be LOUD..!!...;-)


I guess ANGC is the new example of the strategic importance of, well, TREES.

What's wrong with that?  To me, one of the most thrilling shots of the tournament was Matsuyama's first shot after the rain delay on Saturday.  After sitting an hour in his car thinking about his drive into the woods on 11, he came back to hit an epic punch recovery to 20 feet and brushed it in to start his birdie run.  IMO if anything they oughta plant more trees on 11 to block off that alleyway to the right.

Nothing "is wrong with that"...it was merely MY snarky $.02...;-)


Trees as a strategic element of a course is somewhat antithetical to current GCA dogma including most of the real architects that post here.


Seems lots of courses that were designed by the ODGs uncover their lost aerials, see the "tree-free" landscape, the retained GCA then sells them on a retro-restoration and part of that is ALWAYS "tree remediation" and it is usually rather significant.


ANGC seems to get a pass here on trees. that's all.
I guess the no rough thing and wide corridors allow for it.

[Thomas Dai]

"May I suggest that golf courses, even elite ones, are first and foremost sports pitches not gardens nor alboretums."
Thomas D. -
What about the rhododendrons that border so many English golf courses?
https://www.google.com/search?source=univ&tbm=isch&q=rhododendrons+on+english+golf+courses&client=firefox-b-1-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZjL-NjfnvAhWSKDQIHQRcCnIQjJkEegQIARAB&biw=1366&bih=654
DT

You mean that none-native specie introduced into GB&I by garden/botany enthusiasts (rather than golfers) in the 18th/19th centuries that spread quickly to the detriment of native specie and is damn difficult to get rid of as the roots make new shoots.
Atb

[Jason Thurman]

Ian, I don't see at all that Augusta gets a free pass on trees, either here on GolfClubAtlas.com or elsewhere. I hear complaints all the time about the trees there, especially the ones added on 11 and 15 some 20 years ago.


And while you're right that there's plenty of anti-tree dogma in the GCA world these days, I think a lot of that dogma gets repeated by people who've lost sight of the principles that lead to the conclusion "trees are bad."


I don't buy that trees are just inherently something to keep off a golf course. But they do have a tendency to negatively impact turf, choke out recovery options, and hamper width. At Augusta though? They're not hurting the turf, there's almost always a recovery shot available, and there's plenty of width. Almost the entire course offers 40+ yard wide corridors, and I would argue that the couple holes that don't are perfectly appropriate on a course that's looking to test players in an annual major championship.


The problems that get solved when trees get cut down aren't problems at Augusta National.

[Kalen Braley]

Jason,

I don't doubt Augusta has wonderful turf, but when you have a virtually unlimited budget to work with, don't know how valid a statement that really is.  I'm guessing there are more than a few spots out there that would be difficult to keep up without an army of human and monetary resources..

[Ted Sturges]

Some observations:


1.  Agree with Tom Doak that the added trees, now a decade + later are having a big impact on the course.  If not addressed, it will continue to affect play and the tournament (in a negative way IMHO).


2.  The "ground game" at ANGC seems to only be evident for balls leaving putting surfaces, not approaching them.


3.  Though I agree that the club's investment in golf in Asia is awesome and the fact that it resulted in a Japanese champion 10 years later is amazing, and I also agree that ANGC has done more to grow the game than just about any organization I can think of...I must also point out that golf in America (and other places in the world) generally costs more because of ANGC.  Golf clubs everywhere have taken large steps and small to "look as pretty" as that place...and that makes golf cost more for everyone.


TS

[Jim Franklin]

There have been no major changes to Augus...

Oh! Sorry... wrong website. 

 

[Adam Lawrence]

"May I suggest that golf courses, even elite ones, are first and foremost sports pitches not gardens nor alboretums."
Thomas D. -
What about the rhododendrons that border so many English golf courses?
https://www.google.com/search?source=univ&tbm=isch&q=rhododendrons+on+english+golf+courses&client=firefox-b-1-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZjL-NjfnvAhWSKDQIHQRcCnIQjJkEegQIARAB&biw=1366&bih=654
DT

You mean that none-native specie introduced into GB&I by garden/botany enthusiasts (rather than golfers) in the 18th/19th centuries that spread quickly to the detriment of native specie and is damn difficult to get rid of as the roots make new shoots.
Atb

Yes, rhodies are basically weeds, albeit very pretty ones. It's true that they are/were closely associated with a number of heathland courses. Swinley Forest is perhaps the best example. I was very surprised when I heard a few years ago that Swinley was embarking on a project to remove a lot of them.


But in the end if you are a heathland course then the most important plant is heather, and any that are incompatible with the success of heather should really be removed.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sad to say, I've long been a victim of fashion and a dupe to expert opinion. But no more.

Once, many years ago, I thought Augusta a great golf course, the best I'd ever seen on tv or read about in books.

But then I got here, and became aware of the fashionable argument that the course was ranked so high (ie too high) mostly because of the prestige that comes with hosting a major-the Masters, and the familiarity we have with the course from watching the dramatic finishes it produces year after year after year; and I became aware too of the expert opinion/analysis that decried the post-Tiger renovations and the bastardization of the original Mackenzie-Jones vision. There was nothing more 'sophisticated' than a been-there-done-that attitude towards Augusta.

Luckily, and finally, I am passed all of that now: I have returned to the beginner's mind I once had and can once-again recognize today's Augusta as one of the very best golf courses in the entire world, and maybe the best of all: a stunningly unique and site-specific masterpiece, and a magnificent test of championship golf that yet epitomizes the very essence of strategic golf and is truly playable by all -- and with a set of greens of such greatness and whole-hole-integration that they leave the countless copy-cat pretenders around the globe way back in the dust.

I know this now, as a fact. And, in the famous words of British non-golfers Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend, "I won't be fooled again!"

[JESII]

Yes, thank you Peter!

[Jason Lietaer]

1. Sometimes we talk about Augusta National as though it's just another golf course but it's not. At least not anymore. It's a stadium...a living one, but a stadium nonetheless. Its peers are no longer other golf courses but other hallowed athletic grounds: Wimbledon, Churchill Downs, Yankee Stadium, Old Trafford, Wembley, Lambeau Field...


As far as you look at it that way I think it's the finest of them all. In my opinion, the only other one that has the same mix of personality, familiarity, gravitas and nostalgia is Wimbledon.


2.  The ground game? I'm in my mid 40's and have been watching the Masters since the mid 80's when I was a boy. I don't remember anyone playing the course much differently than they do today. Did Seve and Olazabal (to pick two examples) play different shots around the greens? Sure. But as long as I can remember people have been attacking the course through the air.


3. Width and trees: there's another thread going on about people playing Augusta. I haven't played it but I know at least 6 or 7 people who have and the feedback when they get back is almost universal: a) impeccable conditioning b) incredible service c) hard to lose a ball other than in the water on the back "wow, it was pretty wide open!"[size=78%] and d) the greens are diabolical[/size]


The things we ask for -- width and options -- are available on most holes except perhaps 1, 5, 7, 18. And most tell me that from the members' tees it's pretty playable but they got the shit kicked out of them on the greens.


I was there a few years ago for a practice round. Standing behind each tee I was shocked at the amount of room there was on almost every shot outside number 7. There is plenty of room to hit the golf ball.


One final thought: after a pretty uneven time about 15-20 years ago (reactionary "Tiger-proofing" and political missteps) the course leadership hasn't seemed to put a foot wrong in quite some time. I was remarking just the other day how well most of their moves have been received. Outside a few of us carping about how tight #7 is, their brand has never been stronger.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ted S,


2.  The "ground game" at ANGC seems to only be evident for balls leaving putting surfaces, not approaching them.[/size]


LOL, great line.[/color]

[Tim Martin]

I liked the way the course played as compared to November. Way more compelling to watch IMO.

Although, there was a massive difference in firmness between fairways and greens.  IMO, this is far from ideal.

Ciao

Sean-I agree that there was little conformity in firmness between November and April. That said even with three days of practice before the tournament proper it was difficult to make the adjustment but players still seemed to be praising the setup. I’ve read more than once that ANGC didn’t want to see -20 win again this Spring and that was certainly accomplished with the firmness.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()