Augusta National: "Who Spoiled The Fun?"

[Martin_Powell]

Links Magazines Masters issue explores who exactly spoiled the course at the ANGC.  Daniel Wexlers' article claims that it has been totally de-MacKenzied.

In your opinion, who primarily is responsible for the transgressions on the course? Tiger? Equipment manufacturers? Hootie? Fazio? Media? Money?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Martin,

Spoiled may not be the correct word, the golf course remains terrific despite all of the changes.

Perhaps "altered" would be more appropriate.

One of my tests, with respect to whether or not I like a golf course is, would I like to play it again, and like Maidstone and many others, after I holed out on # 18, I walked right over to the 1st tee to start all over again.

There seems to be this silly notion that the changes at ANGC
have made it an unworthy golf course, and nothing could be further from the truth.

[Matt_Ward]

Martin:

If time permits I would suggest you read Brad Klein's review of ANGC in the latest GW. It is well done and it's an assessment I share.

ANGC benefits greatly from having a major championship each and every year. This exposure and fanfare is unlike any other golf event during the calendar year even though the US and British Opens are more important, in my opinion.

ANGC benefits from a heritage that takes the name of Bobby Jones and combines that with the coming of spring, the attention of the public and its tie to all the names that have played the course over the years.

In my mind, ANGC is not within America's top ten courses. I have to say that I have not personally played the course but I have been on the grounds during the Masters no less than 40 times over the last 25 years -- including last year when major changes to the course were made.

ANGC has been dramatically altered and is no where near being the same kind of course where you will see a wide range of players capable of sustaining high level for 72 holes. The course has become more and more an aerial / power game and the uniqueness of the course, with all its angles and playing strategies, has been further condensed with items such as tree plantings and the infamous "second cut."

I just wish they had let the course be what it was because then the qualities of the course needed a gentle tweaking at best. It will be interesting to see how the course plays this year if conditions are dry. Last year wet conditions made the course slower and as a result only the long hitting players had an opportunity to win. We shall see ...

[BCrosby]

The changes at ANGC that Wexler talks about date from the late 1930's. Changes were made in every decade thereafter. They continue today. They have been made for many reasons, some known and some unknown.

Compared to changes made by Perry ('38/'39) and RTJ ('48/'49), the recent changes made by Fazio are relatively minor.

AN is still a great, great course, however. Just not much like the one designed by MacK.

Bob

[Dave_Miller]

Get Brad's article it gives the best assessment of Augusta I have read in a long, long time.
Best,
Dave

[Rick Shefchik]

Wexler's specific point was that the back nine has not produced the kind of wild finishes and comebacks we associate with the Palmer-Nicklaus era -- in otherwords, within most of our lifetimes/memories.

He suggests that the course has added rough, trees and length to make it more like a U.S. Open course and less like the risk/reward shooting gallery it used to be -- fairly recently, if his point is accurate. So we're looking at the most recent Fazio adjustments and even some of the suggestions made by Nicklaus and others with the chairman's ear over the past 15 years or so.

I don't know if I buy the argument completely -- not every Masters can be like '60 or '86 -- but it does seem as though birdies and eagles are harder to come by on the back nine than they used to be. If you're the USGA, that's what you want. If you're the Green Coats, is that what you want?

[Gary_Smith]

I think the sheer nature of competition and pursuit of the great prize will over time elevate play, overcome the changes to ANGC, and return her to the risk/reward shooting gallery.  

[Dan Kelly]

My copy just now arrived.

Could someone please tell me:

In between which pair of advertising inserts am I likely to find that story?

Sheesh!

I have a hard time imagining that the ad dollars in Links are well spent, given that the profusion of stiff-paper inserts makes it hard to read the damned thing until you've spent 10 minutes ripping out all the ads. And those 10 minutes are the 10 minutes I wanted to spend reading it!

[Jim_Kennedy]

With tongue-in-cheek I fault Jack Nicklaus for spoiling the fun. After he tore the place up in 1965 it's never been the same.
Intrerestingly enough I read an article that said ANGC set the course up short that year in part due to a perception that only long ball hitters were able to win there.

[TEPaul]

"There seems to be this silly notion that the changes at ANGC
have made it an unworthy golf course, and nothing could be further from the truth."

Patrick:

I wouldn't say that if I were you. I've never really heard even critics of ANGC say it's an 'unworthy golf course'. What they have said, though, is ANGC should've left the course alone far more than they have. I've yet to see an architectural analyst cogently explain to anyone what was wrong with the course in the first place. Can you do that?  

[ForkaB]

Anybody who doesn't think that the Masters is not fun is a grump--today, yesterday, tomorrow, new course, old course, Maxwell or Fazio, ProVIxxx or Kro-Flite.

Does anybody know if Dr. MacKenzie had a sense of humo(u)r?

[Norbert P]

Does anybody know if Dr. MacKenzie had a sense of humo(u)r?

  He played golf in his pajamas and big fuzzy slippers.  

[Steve_L.]

I think Bob got it right - except for the routing (although the nines WERE reversed) it hasn't resembled the good doctor's work for several decades...  As much as any course - ANGC has undergone many changes, re-do's, change reversals, and the like.  Fazio's recent changes just touched holes which hadn't been previously adjusted.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Who birdied # 17 and # 18 to win ?

TEPaul,

What specifically should they have left alone ?
Have them/you run it down on a hole by hole basis, and then we can debate each architectural change.  Most don't even know what the changes are, but like to repeat the mantra, and many who complain about the changes have never played the golf course.

I happen to think that the changes to # 7, # 10 and # 16 were for the better.  And, I also think lengthening the 13th hole this year will make it a better hole in light of the distance problem.  I could list many changes that I think were beneficial, but, let's have the those who feel that the changes were bad for the course list them starting with the first hole.

Question for you and others:

If a fairway bunker ceases to be a factor in the play of a hole, is it an extension of the original architects intent to have the tee moved to bring the bunker back into play, or to have the bunker moved to continue to keep it in play ?

Or should the bunker be allowed to lose its tactical/strategic value and remain where it is ?  Like the Maginot Line ?

[Steve_L.]

Pat,

I totally agree with you about 7, 10 and 16.  Extra length at 13 will be an improvement too with todays technology...  

I would've preferred to see ANGC left without rough and without the added trees...  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve L,

I would generally concur with you about the rough and trees, and the loss of any bunker.

[BCrosby]

What changes were made to #16? Do you mean #17?

The change on #7 leaves the hole with no landing area. There is a severe slope in the fairway left to right that players were once challenged to hit past. (An interesting challenge because of the tight, tree-lined fairway.) Now no one can get past the swale. The hole is now makes little sense with few good options. Darren Clarke had similar comments on #7 the other day. He was right.

Why do you like the changes to 10? Instead of hitting a rope hook 3 wood/2i from the tee, they now hit a rope hook driver/3wood to the same spot. There has been no appreciable change in the hole's scoring average. Not that it should matter anyway. An example of Fazio/Hootie adding distance for distance's sake. I don't get the hubbub. There has been no real change in the playing options.    

Bob

[Jeff Goldman]

If I have Pat Mucci's reference correct, the last wild finish was 1998. Not only did O'Meara birdie 17 and 18, but Couples put it in the water on 13 and eagled 15, Furyk put it over the green in the water on 15, Duval made a huge run that was stopped by a couple inches on 16 (it stayed up), etc.,etc.  The question that was raised is is that kind of finish more or less likely now (16 is still the same I know)?

Jeff Goldman

[Steve_L.]

Bob,

Historic changes to 10 and 16 are what you are referring to rather than recent changes to 10...  The historic changes at 10 (moving the green back), and sixteen (by RTJ Sr.) are good.

In general I think the recent changes of purely increased length don't improve #7 or #10.  

[BCrosby]

Sorry, didn't catch that you were referrring to historic changes.

I'll agree with you about RTJ at #16.

I don't agree with you about the Maxwell changes to #'s 7 and 10 (and probably #1 too). Wexler's new book sums up my humble opinons (which pre-dated his terrific book, for what it's worth) on the changes to those holes. (I'm checking into copyright violations as we speak. )

It is one of the ironies of ironies that RTJ, an architect who poo-pooed old strategic courses and established his reputation by building heroic, "Monster" courses, should have made changes to ANGC (see also his changes to #11) that were more strategic and interesting than the changes made to ANGC by a giant of the Golden Age and former partner of MacKenzie himself.

Bob

[Norbert P]

Should the bunker be allowed to lose its tactical/strategic value and remain where it is ?  Like the Maginot Line ?

 Pat, The line located in France or Viet Nam?  

  The bunkers of the line in France now support many mushroom farms.
  The fortifications in the line in Viet Nam are probably tourist destinations.  
  
  Either way, they are now "strategic" economic items, not penal martial ones.   Augusta knows all too well the use of strategic economic items.  It's become a stage for TV more than a venue for play of its members.  That priority bias presents the land with pampered insincerity.  Has it become a princess?

Has Augusta shaped pro golf or has Pro golf shaped Augusta?   Who's expectations pushed the other to change?
Mutual?  Was it really necessity? Simple evolution?

  "The only thing that stays the same is that everything is changing."  Unk

[Jamie_Duffner]

I think Bobby Jones and Mac are perpetually spinning in their graves.  The course is certainly worthy, but the intent of Jones and Mac have been completely stripped from the course.  It is not even close to the St. Andrew's of the USA.  It's pure aerial.

I think the changes to 16 and 10 were good and necessary, but Hootie and Fazio simply prefer a different course to Bobby Jones and MacKenzie.  Fazio talks about the changes to 5 by mentioning tree plantings to narrow the landing area.  On last years change to 9, he talks about tree plantings down the right side to "pinch the landing area."  I could go off on Fazio here, but put simply he just doesn't subscribe to the philosophy of MacKenzie.  Hootie clearly sides with Fazio. While added length and moving bunkers was inevitable, the narrowing of the course saddens me the most.

[Carl_Williams]

Jamie Duffner,

Wasn't Bobby Jones alive when many of the changes were made ?

Wouldn't that indicate that he approved of them ?

Has anyone seen any written evidence that Bobby Jones opposed the changes made during his lifetime ?

[Jamie_Duffner]

CW - not talking about the complete redo of 16 or 10, but the recent narrowing of the course via tree plantings and rough.  I'm sure if Jones were alive today he would not oppose lengthening, but the addition of trees at the corners of doglegs and narrowing driving areas with rough would concern him.  Jones never wanted holes or landing areas framed or pinched with trees.

[Forrest Richardson]

I don't know WHO, but I can assure you that it bagan when the "Bonus Hole No. 19" was nixed from the routing. This was among MacKenzie's most prized aspects. I believe it got cancelled in favor of additional length....gee, might that have been a crystal ball of sorts.....?