Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Sven Nilsen on March 09, 2012, 10:14:29 AM
-
With the Masters just about a month away, and talk on this board already turning to the annual updates to the course, I wanted to start a thread that went through the changes to each hole from 1934 to today. I'll start things off on a hole by describing the changes, and would like to hear others thoughts on how the strategy of the holes has changed (or not), if the changes have made it a better hole, etc. If anyone has any pictures to add (whether old or new) this would be a great place to do so.
All of the descriptions I am including are paraphrased from the Golf Digest write-up of the changes over time, which has a great set of images of how the holes have changed and can be found here: http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/georgia/augusta-changes. Please add any additional changes that you are aware of that did not make it into the GD descriptions.
There a few general themes to think about during this process, including the intentions of changes requested by Clifford Roberts, changes made to accommodate spectator viewing, changes made to address increased length and certain changes that were made to recapture features of the course that had gone by the wayside (look for Byron Nelson as a GCA later in the thread).
Hole 1 - Tea Olive - Par 4
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole1_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/1FLAT.jpg)
1934 - 400 yards - Originally the 10th, players hit drives over a low valley formed by a dry creek bed to an uphill slope guarded by a splashy bunker on the right. Another fancy bunker existed left and far short of the perched green.
1955 - 400 yards - RTJ filled in the old short-left bunker and added one on the left edge of the green. The ditch, wet only when it rained, was piped underground. Poa annua in the Bermuda greens was burned away with a chemical spray.
1983 - 400 yards - Tee shifted to the right in 1972 to accommodate spectator flow. Mature pines planted in the left-hand rough to tighten drives. The green was rebuilt to grow bent grass and a front lobe was added. For the 1983 Masters, the tee was moved back 15 yards, but players weren't told. Instead the club officials said the bunker had been moved 15 yards. The scorecard yardage wasn't changed to 410 yards until 1999.
2002 - 435 yards - Green rebuilt in 1996. A second cut of rough was added for the 1999 Masters, tightening the hole. in 2002, Fazio moved the tee back 25 yards and rebuilt the fairway bunker 15 yards closer to the green (requiring a 300 yard carry). The fairway was regraded to give short hitters a level lie.
2006 - 455 yards - Fazio moved the tee back another 20 yards (327 drive required to clear the bunker). Fairway bunker was deepened and a new thumb of turf was extended into it.
2011 - 445 yards - Back of tee shortened to ease gallery flow. In 2008, the green was rebuilt to install a heating and cooling system.
Hole No. 1 - Tea Olive Par 4 1933: 400 yards 2009: 455 yards
Dan's take:
"Augusta’s famed opening par 4 – site of so many ceremonial tee shots by Jock Hutchison, Fred McLeod, Byron Nelson and Sam Snead – has undergone its fair share of alteration over the decades, though an argument can be made that at least in terms of playing angles, it still approximates Jones & MacKenzie’s strategic concept to a reasonable degree. Initially featuring the first of an original eight bunkerless greens, the opener was designed to encourage a run-up approach, though the precise configuration of the elevated putting surface (which included a protruding front-left section) made such a play considerably easier from the right side of the fairway. The most prominent single alteration was the replacement of this extended section of green with a bunker in 1951, which has limited the great majority of approaches (and certainly any played from the left two-thirds of the fairway) to the aerial route ever since. Of course, this hazard also served – at least cosmetically – to enhance the right third of the fairway’s “optimum” status, which in turn placed a greater emphasis on the large right-side fairway bunker, an invasive hazard which has existed since 1933, but which has been moved and/or expanded multiple times since World War II.
An additional change has substantially altered the holes aesthetics but done little to affect the play of the competent ball-striker: the removal of a large, impressively shaped MacKenzie bunker that sat just off the fairways left edge, some 50 yards shy of the green. Were it still in existence, this hazard would surely draw parallels to the huge, wildly shaped bunker that sits in a similar no-mans land along the 10th fairway though as we shall soon see, that bunker initially served rather a different purpose. Number one’s deceased hazard, in contrast, could never have factored very much into play for all but the weakest of golfers.
That the hole has been lengthened some 55 yards (by extending the tee backwards, onto land originally occupied by the putting green) represents at best a push in the courses battle to defend itself against modern equipment, though the deeper tees have certainly helped maintain the fairway bunkers continuing relevance in this era of unchecked technology.
Better Then or Now?
A fairly strong argument can be made that for all classes of players, the exchange of the old no-mans-land fairway bunker for the greenside hazard was a good one. True, Jones and MacKenzie’s favored run-up approach shot largely disappeared, but the move injected number one with a new strategic component, truly making the right fairway bunker the focal point and the subsequent decision whether to attempt to carry it or bail out left a fine strategic proposition. In this light, the tinkering with the bunkers size and position though anathema to purists has certainly served to strengthen the hole as well."
Edit: Dan has indicated he has no issues with using his descriptions in this thread. I hope Ran doesn't mind the inclusion with the goal of promoting further discussion on the topic.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC1.jpg)
-
Sven,
Hate to break it to you, but - in case you don't know - Dan Wexler did an excellent piece on this subject, posted in the In My Opinion section of this web site:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/wexler-daniel-augusta/
-
Jeff:
Thanks for pointing this out. I need to delve into the IMO section a bit more as I obviously missed out on this gem.
I've reached out to Dan to see if it would be okay with him to include his hole by hole discussions in this thread. I hope he says yes but completely understand if he'd prefer to leave it where it is.
I'm sure Dan's piece was well-read, but as is the case with many IMO pieces the conversation on articles in that section can be limited. The thread started by Ran when he reposted the article (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47666.0.html) only generated a smattering of responses. It did include a wonderful comment from Kevin Drum discussing how his dad would take him for a haircut on the Monday of the Masters in Augusta and the barber would fill them in on the changes made that year.
With the GD write-up, Dan's thoughts and added commentary from the treehouse, I think we'd have a pretty good repository on a range of thoughts on the changes that have taken place. Hopefully we can recreate a bit of Kevin's barbershop experience here.
-
Self-bump.
Was sort of surprised that this topic did not generate a single response. Here's a chance to examine the changes made to a course that we all know (albeit mainly from television), yet not a single voice chimes in. Is everyone afraid of losing their "golden ticket" by commenting on the "sacred cow?"
I'm happy to carry on the conversation by myself.
For the First, I picked up the following:
-The removal of the bunker short and left for a green bunker side seems to represent a shift in how the course was going to be played. It seems that MacKenzie and Jones focused on holes that could be attacked with the ground game. As the years rolled by, the emphasis on designing for an aerial attack comes through. Makes me wonder how much of this related to the maintenance meld, how much to the evolution of the player's game and how much to a preference to present one type of course over the other.
-Related to the first post, the use of trees to narrow the playing corridors is evident in the changes made to the 1st in 1983. In my mind, this represents another change from MacKenzie's focus on presenting wider playing corridors and asking the player to decide the best strategic lines (although Dan points out that the first still represents the playing angles conceived by M&J, to a degree).
-It was interesting to learn that the first real change in the length of the hole occurred in 2002. There was no reaction to the advent of the Big Bertha type drivers of the late 80's early 90's, but there was when Tiger starting bombing it over all of the trouble.
-There seem to have been many changes that were focused on the spectator experience, including changes made to improve patron flow and viewing lines.
Would love to hear other's thoughts, but if no one else wants to participate I'm happy to make this the longest single-poster thread in GCA history.
-
Maybe we're all talked out about it. Or at work.
-
Hi everybody,
I have just joined Golf Club Atlas and I can't resist joining this conversation (or at least, Sven's monologue)
I have just finished my monthly architecture column for a French golf magazine and my subject of the month is, guess what? Augusta !!
There is not a single course among American stars which has been modified as much as Augusta.
In case you don't know, there are several books that already describe all the changes hole by hole. Problem : none of them are very new and changes happen every year, so they need an update.
David OWEN, The Making of the Masters (1999)
David SOWELL, The Master, a hole-by-hole history of America's Golf Classic (2007)
Stan BIRDY, Alister MacKenzie's masterpiece, the Augusta National Golf Club (2005)
Is Augusta better now or before? That's a really good question. The course has completely lost MacKenzie's aesthetic (funny shaped bunkers, wide open fairways with few trees and no rough) but the course we see on TV doesn't look bad either, just a little too artificial maybe. Grass is a bit to green, bunkers a bit to white etc. And of course we would love to see more of MacKenzie styled bunker, the only remaining one being the one on the 10th fairway which used to guard the left part of the old green.
But let's face it : do you ever get bored when watching the Masters? Very seldom indeed, and you can really feel the tension from Thursday morning onward, when most tournaments only wake you up on the back nine on Sunday afternoon. For that only, Augusta deserves praise.
A lot of people complain that the par 5's are too short, but that's the way they were intended to be, more like par 4,5. I agree though that hole 13 has a problem. It can no longer be increased as the back tee hits the limit of the property, and it now plays really to short for the long hitters. That's a truly great hole we've (partly) lost.
I can't really blame ANGC for making all the changes they make : they have the greatest golf tournament to run every year and they need to challenge the best players at their best. If the big guys drive it 400 yards, who is to blame? Certainly not ANGC.
Now I would really want to know what new changes will be made for the 2012 edition. Any guess??
-
Patrice:
Welcome to the site. Here's a link to the thread discussing the 2012 changes: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51373.0.html
If you're not all talked out on Augusta, and you're not hung up at work, I'd appreciate hearing any thoughts you might have on how the changes have affected the strategies inherent in the various holes.
-
A lot of people complain that the par 5's are too short, but that's the way they were intended to be, more like par 4,5. I agree though that hole 13 has a problem. It can no longer be increased as the back tee hits the limit of the property, and it now plays really to short for the long hitters. That's a truly great hole we've (partly) lost.
Nothing is really lost. It is still a risk/reward hole and it still plays to a stroke average under par and is one of the easiest holes on the course as it almost always has been. A 3 really helps you, and a 4 is a must if you don't want to lose ground to the field. If anything there is now more pressure on contenders to get a 3 or 4 on the hole because it plays easier.
If they called the 13th a par 4 none of the excitement of the hole would go away.
-
Thanks to Howard Riefs for pointing out a series of anecdotes from David Owen regarding the changes to Augusta. Here are his comments on the changes made to the first: http://03547c3.netsolhost.com/WordPress/2012/03/07/masters-countdown-first-hole/.
-
Charging Onwards.
Hole 2 - Pink Dogwood - Par 5
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole2_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/2FLAT.jpg)
1934 - 525 yards - The hole had a cross bunker that was a modest carry off of the tee and the left side was bordered by a maintenance road. The road was quickly removed. A dry creek ran in front of the green but was buried in pipe before the course opened.
1947 - 525 yards - A left hand bunker was added near the green to pinch the front of the putting surface and to protect against faded second shots. All of the MacKenzie jagged edges on the bunkers were removed for ease of maintenance.
1954 - 555 yards - George Cobb rebuilt the green to extend it to the left, adding several hole locations. He also added a gallery mound on the back left of the green and rebuilt the three bunkers on the hole. A new back tee was added and the Bermuda on the greens was replaced with a hybrid that was less grainy.
1968 - 555 yards - At the suggestion of Sarazen, Cobb filled in the cross bunker and added a new fairway bunker on the outside turn of the dogleg. Cliff Roberts had drives recorded during the 1967 Masters, and after learning that most players laid up, he directed Cobb to realign the bunker to give more room and temptation on its left (the fairway here eventually shrunk to only 12 yards wide).
1999 - 575 yards - Ben Hogan urged the club to move the fairway bunker to the inside corner of the dogleg. The bunker remained. Rough and a new back tee were introduced after 1998. Fazio relocated the bunker well to the right just over 300 yards from the tee, opening up a 40 yard avenue left of the bunker.
Here is Dan Wexler's write-up:
"The par-5 second has grown 50 yards in 75 years, with the tee initially being moved back during the World War II era, then back and right in 1977, and ultimately even further back in 1999. However, the degree to which the hole has changed greatly exceeds simple size. Always a sharply downhill dogleg left that afforded the better player an opportunity to get home in two, it initially featured a near-L-shaped green bending left-to-right around a single deep bunker. This configuration naturally favored a second shot played from the far left side of the fairway an area made harder to access off the tee by Jones and MacKenzie’s placement of a vast, left-side carry bunker, and by the tree-lined turn of the dogleg.
Change initially came in 1946, when a bunker was added to the greens front-left edge, and in 1953 the putting surface itself was extended back and to the left, creating the near-triangular configuration still in play today. By 1966, the left-hand fairway bunker long since obsolete for better players was filled in, but not replaced by a new left-side bunker further downrange. Instead, at the suggestion of Gene Sarazen, a right-side hazard was added, theoretically narrowing the primary driving area but also leaving the shorter left-side route more open for attack. This newer right-side bunker has been altered/expanded since, most recently being enlarged in 1999.
It is also interesting to note that MacKenzie’s original 1931 routing map indicates plans for a creek to cross in front of the second green. This same small hazard which was an extension of the creek-turned-pond which fronts the fifteenth green was also slated to cross the first, third, seventh, eighth and seventeenth fairways, though generally in far less invasive ways. For the most part, however, this creek was piped underground during construction, though at the first and seventeenth, it remained in front of the tees until 1951, when it was finally buried in its entirety.
Better Then or Now?
The range of shotmaking skills originally required for the better player to reach the second green in two was enviable: a drawn tee ball (to carry/avoid the bunker, and follow the general turn of the fairway), then a long, controlled fade to the narrow, left-to-right bending green. Todays re-shaped putting surface, however, is a bit more neutral in which angle of approach it favors, varying daily with potential far-left and far-right pin placements. On the one hand, this can be viewed as more strategic that is, one might be inclined to flirt with the fairway bunker to open up a back-left pin one day, then skirt the treeline to get a better angle on a back-right target the next. But on a hole of this size, where distance off the tee is a primary consideration, the fact that the bunker guards the longer (and thus generally less-desirable) right side seems a bit out-of-balance. Advantage: 1933 but only just."
David Owen provides some additional thoughts on the migrating fairway bunker: 03547c3.netsolhost.com/WordPress/2012/03/09/masters-countdown-second-hole/
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC2APP.jpg)
-
Two features of the 2nd stand out:
1. The fairway bunker - The placement on the outside of the dogleg v. Hogan's request to have it moved to the left side makes for an interesting study in "penal" vs. "heroic" design. Placing the bunker on the outside of the dogleg asked the longer hitter to play a shot to the heart of the fairway. I don't see much in the way of creating strategic options in its placement. The key seems to be that you avoid the bunker and if you're long enough you have a shot at the green in two. I think I prefer the Hogan placement, as I tend to like bunker placements on the corner of the dogleg better than on the outside.
2. The nature of this hole would have been drastically changed if the creek had remained as a hazard short of the green. I don't think it would have had much of an effect on the weaker player, as they would most likely be laying up and playing their third from well short of the hazard. It would present a challenge for those going for it in two, as the addition of a hazard short of the green creates another item in the thought process, and as Pete Dye said, when you get those guys thinking they are in trouble.
The changes to the second emphasize the theme that the changes made at Augusta tracked the evolution of the game being played by those competing in the tournament. Cliff Roberts touches, including the idea of tracking where drives ended up, generally focus on making the course harder for the better player. Looking at this hole, I doubt the mid-handicapper would focus on anything other than finding the fairway twice and hitting the green on the third, whereas the pros think about avoiding the fairway bunker and leaving themselves in a position to attack the green on their second shot.
-
As with many conversations about Augusta, I'm interested that conversation nearly entirely revolves around how the course is played one week each year. There is often very little discussion for how the place plays as a golf course for members and visitors.
The fact that fairway bunker on the first hole now requires a 327-yard carry is completely irrelevant 51 weeks (minus the number ANGC is closed) per year.
I know we see the course once per year and that other major sites rotate. Still, it's interesting that we tend to talk about the place nearly entirely in terms of how elite players attack it.
WW
-
As with many conversations about Augusta, I'm interested that conversation nearly entirely revolves around how the course is played one week each year. There is often very little discussion for how the place plays as a golf course for members and visitors.
The fact that fairway bunker on the first hole now requires a 327-yard carry is completely irrelevant 51 weeks (minus the number ANGC is closed) per year.
I know we see the course once per year and that other major sites rotate. Still, it's interesting that we tend to talk about the place nearly entirely in terms of how elite players attack it.
WW
Wade:
I agree with your point, but I think its the nature of the beast. Looking at the changes, it seems like there has been a steady progression from a Members Course that hosted a tournament to a Tournament Course. There's nothing necessarily off-putting about the transformation, as the Masters has become synonymous with the course. You could say the same about TPC Sawgrass (as the recent commercials exemplify). There are probably a few other tour stops that provoke the "this is what the pros do" feelings, but these are the two examples that stand out the most.
I'll try to highlight the effect the changes have had on member play while doing the commentary. I've never been there, so I'm probably not the ideal candidate to take on the challenge. One quick thought is that there are probably very few members that play from the tournament tees, so some of the fairway hazards may present similar challenges to those faced by the pros. Hitting into those greens is probably another story, as the high, spinning approach is probably not in the repertoire of the more pedestrian golfer.
-
Hole 3 - Flowering Peach - Par 4
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole3_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/3FLAT.jpg)
1934 - 350 yards - The green was built on a natural plateau with a deep right side and a shallow left side with one left side bunker and several knobs. The tee for the next hole was just a few steps off of the putting surface. A left-side fairway bunker in Mac's style needed to be challenged to reach the left side of the fairway.
1956 - 355 yards - In 1937, Maxwell removed the front tongue of the green and reshaped the bunkers. The green was regarded in 1955 and a spectator vantage point was added on the right side.
1983 - 360 yards - In 1981 the green was completely rebuilt to address the new bent grass turf. A year later, the club considered installing a lake on the left side, but Nicklaus suggested changing the single fairway bunker to a cluster of bunkers and mounds. These changes were handled by Bob Cupp. The trees close to the tee appear to have expanding in coverage, a trend that would continue into the new century.
2011 - 350 yards - The green was reconstructed again in 1994, but the existing contours were replicated. Tree growth and the addition of rough created a premium on finding the fairway. Interesting note about yardages at Augusta: The club measures from the middle of the back tee to the farthest useable hole location, rounding the yardage to the nearest five yards.
Dan's take:
The third green was the first of the seven altered by Perry Maxwell, the sum of his work apparently being the shaving of some front-right putting surface and, perhaps, some reduction in overall contour. Beyond this, the lone obvious alteration was Jack Nicklaus’s 1982 division/expansion of a large, left-side fairway bunker into four smaller ones (thus creating an aesthetic anomaly on a course otherwise devoid of such clusters) and adding some adjacent mounds. It is also worth noting that the tee was moved slightly right in 1953 and has twice been modestly lengthened – a curious development given that the hole is listed at the same yardage today as it was in 1933. This suggests that the third was one of several holes (including the fourth, the thirteenth and the original sixteenth) that did not measure up completely to their listed opening-day yardages – though with modern measuring techniques, its current 350-yards can be taken to the bank.
Better Then or Now?
Is there a major difference? Today’s golfer can obviously place the tee ball much closer to the green, but smarter ones likely won’t, preferring to leave themselves a full wedge approach rather than a dicey three-quarter (or less) pitch. Further, the golfing world has really only known the post-Maxwell green (his work was done in 1937), and Nicklaus’s bunker work is, for the better player anyway, more cosmetic than invasive. The argument could perhaps be made that in today’s game, moving the tees forward might induce Masters participants to try and drive the green (as Tiger Woods did, leading to a memorable double-bogey six, in 2003) but that’s far more a function of evolving technology than any changes to the hole’s design."
Highly recommend checking out David Owen's take on the 3rd (http://03547c3.netsolhost.com/WordPress/2012/03/12/masters-countdown-third-hole/). There are some great nuggets in there on the conversations held between Roberts and MacKenzie, and highlights a few of Mac's design philosophies.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC3GREENII.jpg)
-
Great golf holes. I like #2 and #3. A couple of quick comments. All comments will be related strictly to tournament play. I haven't seen it in person.
-- I like how the runup shot works on #2, and when it curls around to the back right pin, usually on Sunday, that is exciting TV golf.
-- #3's green is so severe. How deep is its left side? This photo gives a great feel for the contouring. Thanks to http://www.watsonphotography.org. I will be happy to remove it if you object.
(http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/johnmkirk/P5220317-1.jpg)
-
Not sure if the photo related question was directed to me, but I have no objections to any additions to this thread, photos or otherwise.
-
Hi Sven,
I thought this picture would do a nice job of showing how the game is played at Augusta. Those greens are gently sloped but fast for the tournament. I'd guess average Masters green speeds these days are about 14-15 feet.
It ended up being a rhetorical question. It looks about 10-12 yards deep. Thanks for letting me make the occasional comment. The Masters is a cool tournament, and holes #2 and #3 are great.
-
John:
I'm guessing that your photo is taken from short left of the green. The section on the right looks incredibly difficult to hold.
Its interesting to me that the 3rd, the shortest par 4 on the course, is one of the holes that has seen the fewest changes. As David Owen illuminated, it stands as a good argument that length is always the answer for creating a challenge.
Sven
-
Gee, Sven, it has to be short right of the green, looking at the back left, doesn't it?
I love the way #4 looks behind it, too. The bunkering is so austere.
-
For those of you that have been waiting on the edge of your seat for the 4th, I apologize for the delay. Here we go:
Hole 4 - Flowering Crab Apple - Par 3
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole4_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/4flat.jpg)
1934 - 190 yards - MacKenzie's take on the Eden, the hole originally had very severe slopes and a narrow tongue of green between the two bunkers. In 1938, Maxwell flattened the green, widened the tongue and pushed both bunkers closer to the collar.
1955 - 220 yards - At Robert's direction, a gallery mound was built behind the green in 1953. In '54, a new back tee was added lengthening the hole considerably.
1964 - 220 yards - A new back tee (at the same length) was added by Cobb and graded from front to back for drainage. Based on Nicklaus' complaints that his low shots were clipping the front of the tee, Robert's suggested reversing the grade. Cobb countered by saying the regrade would created the feeling of falling downhill.
2011 - 240 yards - Scorecard yardage reduced to 205 yards in 1981. Green was rebuilt in 1994 creating a new back right pin position. Fazio extended the tee back 35 yards in 2005 requiring a long-iron or wood shot, as the hole had been played 30 years earlier.
Dan Wexler on the 4th:
"The long par-3 fourth is the first of two front nine one-shotters to have begun life bearing more than a passing resemblance to a famous Old Country standard, in this case the Eden eleventh (more properly known as High In) at St. Andrews. During the club’s much-chronicled construction, Jones was careful to point out that Augusta’s holes would only demonstrate certain salient qualities of these great British holes and not include straight, Charles Blair Macdonald-like replicas. But the fourth (of which MacKenzie observed “we may have constructed a hole that will compare favorably with the original”) was clearly an exception. Like the hallowed original, MacKenzie’s replica featured a pair of fronting bunkers modeled after the legendary Hill and Strath, as well as a green with so much back-to-front slope that the Doctor’s own sketches indicate an eight-foot rise from front apron to back collar. The original green was also more of the boomerang variety (a MacKenzie favorite), but rotated slightly counter-clockwise – unquestionably a significant difference from the original Eden. Additionally, early photos indicate the finger of putting surface which extended forward, between the two bunkers, to be extraordinarily narrow, with several yards of grass separating it from the sand on either side. Clearly unpinable, and not a feature of either the original Eden or any C.B. Macdonald/Seth Raynor replicas, the purpose of this idiosyncrasy will forever remain a mystery.
Perry Maxwell rebuilt the fourth green in 1938, diminishing its pitch and turning it more towards the 90-degree, L-shaped configuration of the present. Further, the hole has twice been lengthened since World War II, though only in recent years did its back tee reach (and ultimately exceed) the 220-yard distance that has been listed since the early postwar years. Today, the hole stands a stout 50 yards longer than in its youth.
Better Then or Now?
A great question. Today’s hole is an entirely different beast from the Eden redux of yesteryear, playing far longer, to a green of different shape and contour. But… Since MacKenzie’s original, severely sloped putting surface would have been largely unplayable in the face of modern green speeds anyway, how much can we complain?"
Unfortunately, David Owen has not moved on with his updates as rapidly as I have. In place of his thoughts on the 4th, here's his take on lawn care tips that can be learned from ANGC: http://03547c3.netsolhost.com/WordPress/2012/03/16/lawn-care-tips-from-augusta-national/.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC4TEE.jpg)
-
Gee, Sven, it has to be short right of the green, looking at the back left, doesn't it?
I love the way #4 looks behind it, too. The bunkering is so austere.
My self-diagnosed dyslexia kicking in again. Exactly what I meant to say.
-
A list of threads from the first page with more than a tangential relationship to the thoughts provoked by an examination of the 4th hole:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,31056.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51502.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51468.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51499.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51500.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51503.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51467.0.html
-
I'm enjoying this thread, Sven, and will continue to play along. My two thoughts, based on watching the Masters:
1. Seems this hole is usually a big 3-iron or 4-iron for the top players, maybe a hybrid for good senior players. They must hit it very high, as the ball generally takes a long time to hit the ground.
2. I can't remember anyone going long, and pitching back. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but since I can't remember a single shot over the green, I'd suggest the Eden concept is working. Long is dead.
-
Probably a much more manageable shot for mere mortals from the member's tees. Even at 190, it probably plays shorter than the yardage due to the drop.
The tongue at the front left of the green immediately made me think of the 15th at CPC. Wonder if MacKenzie had similar motives for creating these two features.
Reading Dan's take on the green speeds makes one wonder at what point the club realized they were going to be presenting the greens at the faster levels.
-
Hole 5 - Magnolia - Par 4
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole5_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/5flat.jpg)
1934 - 440 yards - Roughly patterned off of the Road Hole at St. Andrew's, absent the deep fronting bunker. There was an elaborate Mac bunker that is noted on three separate "as built" diagrams. The bunker was disliked by Jones, and disappeared shortly after the course was built.
1957 - 450 yards - Maxwell reshaped the green in 1937 to create ocean-wave contours. The change was noted as "a definite improvement" by Roberts, most likely referring to drainage concerns, not playability. A 1949 plan shows the original MacKenzie fairway bunker was replaced with two small ones, which became a set of three in the early 1950's. A bunker was added by Cobb after the 1956 Masters (see below re questions on this date) on the back left of the green.
1968 - 450 yards - The set of three fairway bunkers lying 230 yards from the tee was reduced to two by Cobb in 1964. He also created several fairway mounds, replacing what had been large knobs. In 1967, he expanded to the gallery mound to the left of the green. In 1981, the scorecard yardage was reduced to 435 with no changes to the hole.
2011 - 455 - Fazio moved the tee back as far as he could and filled in the old fairway bunkers while adding two new bunkers 80 yards closer to the green, requiring a carry of 315 yards to clear. The new bunkers shifted the fairway to the right and narrowed the landing area. A heating and cooling system was added beneath the green in 2008.
Wexler's words:
"The demanding par-4 fifth was, by MacKenzie’s own explanation, “a similar type of hole to the famous seventeenth, the Road Hole at St. Andrews” – this despite the absence of a road, railroad sheds, an Old Course Hotel, or any sort of fronting bunker whatsoever. But regardless of such glaring stylistic differences, the substance of the hole remains among the least-altered at Augusta, particularly the putting surface which, save for some adjacent mounding added during the 1950’s and ‘60s, has been little bothered. Despite a left-side fairway bunker being plainly apparent in MacKenzie’s plans, the fifth began life absent any man-made hazards. A single, rear bunker was added sometime after opening (its creation is sometimes dated to 1956, but it is clearly visible in prewar aerial photos) though it surely represented more of a charitable donation than an added danger, for it prevents overly aggressive shots from tumbling even further down a rear hillside.
A more visible change was the early addition of two left-side fairway bunkers, which, through frequent revision, fluctuated between being one large hazard or two smaller ones for many years. However, despite Bobby Jones citing them in his 1959 book Golf Is My Game as central to the hole’s challenge (“The proper line here is, as closely as possible, past the bunker on the left side of the fairway…”), they served primarily as little more than directional aids, for better players had little trouble carrying drives comfortably past them. They became far more significant in 2003, however, when, as a part of a Tom Fazio project to enhance the fairway’s dogleg, they were reconstructed far downrange (they are now a 310-yard carry) and placed at a more invasive angle.
Better Then or Now?
Not too terribly different, really. Adjusted for technology, the hole is certainly shorter (the back tee is flush against Berckmans Road, and thus offers no room for expansion) but the fairway bunkers are rather more in play. A demanding two-shotter then, a demanding two-shotter now."
Just like the 17th at St. Andrew's, one would assume that technology has changed the way this hole is played on the approach. With the added distance off of the tee, today's player is probably looking to launch a mid-iron for their approach, as opposed to running a shot in. Does it say something about the original architecture that the hole still offers a challenge to the modern player, despite any significant changes to green? Or is this just a factor of the faster green speeds increasing the challenge around the green while the effective distance of the hole stayed the same?
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC5GREENII.jpg)
-
What happened in 1981 that caused all the yardages to change? More accurate measurements?
-
What happened in 1981 that caused all the yardages to change? More accurate measurements?
Matt:
That's my guess. From the write-ups, it appears that most who had played the course regularly knew the yardages were off, based on the clubs they ended up hitting into the greens. Seems like the club decided to do a one time update to address the actual yardages.
Haven't found it, but I'd like to see a list of total yards as it progressed over the years.
Sven
-
Sven,
I am savouring this thread but you're going to have to go like a bat out of hell to get to the eighteenth before the 2012 champion!
These images may be a bit clunky as I scanned and reproduced this piece by Ron Whitten in the anthology The First Sunday in April - The Masters. I found it gave a slant on things which I had not realised at the time namely that top professionals were uneasy with the changes going on.
(http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/a460/Colinmacqueen/Picture4.png)
(http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/a460/Colinmacqueen/Picture5.png)
(http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/a460/Colinmacqueen/Picture6.png)
(http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/a460/Colinmacqueen/Picture7.png)
Actually it doesn't look too bad. Hope it adds to the thread.
Cheers Colin
-
Colin:
Thanks for posting the article. A fascinating read.
In response to the countless pm's I've received asking for the 6th, here we go:
Hole 6 - Juniper - Par 3
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/hole6_1954.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/6flat.jpg)
1934 - 185 yards - Designed to be a "much more attractive" version of the original Redan, the hole was dominated by the "buried elephant" in the back-right portion of the green.
1954 - 190 yards - In 1953, the creek short of the green was dammed to allow spectator flow through the area without delay at footbridges. Neither the creek or the pond resulting from the change were ever in play. For 1958, the area to the right and behind the elephant mound was increased by several feet in each direction to make it a fairer target.
1967 - 190 yards - The mud and scum filled pond was filled in after the 1959 Masters. Hole locations were used on the top of the mound (which was 8 feet higher than the front of the green), but became unviable as the increased green speeds made the slope unfair.
2011 - 180 yards - Green was rebuilt in 1981 to support bent-grass turf. In 1994, the back-right mound was flattened so it could once again contain pin placements. The green was redone in 2008 to add a heating and cooling system and rebuilt to match the contours that had been in place.
From Dan:
"In contrast to number five, the Old Country roots of the par-3 sixth were rather more apparent on opening day, for the sixth was modeled after the famous Redan at North Berwick, the game’s most copied hole. With typical modesty, MacKenzie referred to this version as “a much more attractive hole than the original,” and it did offer several prominent differences. First, whereas North Berwick’s Redan is played semi-blind over a short rise in its fairway, Augusta’s rendition is played downhill, affording a much greater sense of the hole’s angles and challenges. Second, while the original (and its legion of replicas) features a putting surface which falls away from front-right to back-left, MacKenzie’s sketch suggests that the sixth fell more sideways, into a left/front-left quadrant. Further, though not apparent in the sketch, it is widely reported that this green originally had a prominent mound very near its center – a hillock steep enough that golfers would be hard-pressed to maintain control of their ball if forced to putt over it.
In this light, it is hardly surprising that the sixth green was among Perry Maxwell’s initial 1937 renovations, a reconstruction that removed the mound, left much of the Redan-like left-side contour intact, and added a prominent right-side shelf. Also, a small creek, which sat in the valley some 75 yards shy of the green (and which was at one time dammed into a pond) was permanently buried in 1959.
Better Then or Now?
As with hole number four, modern green speeds would have surely rendered MacKenzie’s original green unplayable at least two decades ago, so the debate is largely a moot one. Still, the slightly modified Redan concept is alive and well in the putting surface’s front-left section, and the elevated right side represents a completely different strategic element – so if nothing else, it’s hard to seriously argue that the hole has gotten worse."
The 6th is the third hole in a row that borrows from the standard list of templates, albeit MacKenzie's interpretation thereof. To carry on the theme, the fronting bunker appears to have its edges softened over the years, removing the crumpled edges and replacing them with, to borrow a term, a more "amoebic" appearance.
This hole is yet another example of how changes were made due to the playing characteristics of the green under faster conditions. I think I'd rather watch today's players have to contend with the bit of quirk created by the mound, as Jimmy DeMaret did in the early years using a 9-iron to spin the ball off the top of the nob to one foot when faced with what would have been a long putt over the mound.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC6TEE.jpg)
-
Quoting the last sentance of the book excerpt, "Who wouldn't want to play Augusta National from the tees were Arnie and Jack once reigned."
My thoughts exactly, in fact the I'm not going back to play there until they put those tee boxes back...that'll teach 'em!
-
My first TV tournament recollection is Tiger Woods playing the hole last year, with the Sunday front left position. Up until that point, most of the players were hitting it 20-40 feet long, and trickling it down there for par. Tiger hits a roundhouse hook (6- or 7-iron probably) that spins hard left off the sideslope, and makes it all the way down there, and was just about the only guy who made birdie. One of the best shots I had ever seen.
The back right pin would require a straight to fade shot, wouldn't you think? I think if you miss right, it's pretty tough to make par.
I found a decent picture that shows how the left side of the green looks, courtesy of Dr. Mike Mellum. Hope that's OK, Doc:
(http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/johnmkirk/35_o.jpg)
Thanks for doing this, Sven. A great way to get excited about the Masters.
-
Thanks for doing this, Sven. A great way to get excited about the Masters.
Not a problem John. I'm doing it mostly just to go through the exercise to learn about the changes, and appreciate any additions that add to the knowledge base.
I think the part that's missing in this (other than more diagrams and photos) is a detailed look at the strategies involved. I found a write-up from 2008 by Zach Johnson's caddy that describes their thought processes for each hole:
http://www.todaysgolfer.co.uk/Golf/News/searchresults/April-08/the-masters-2008/the-masters-2008-course-guide/.
I really like the way he breaks things down based on the different pin positions, and how he describes the no-go zones on the course. It's no surprise that for a shorter player like Zach they put a big emphasis on avoiding trouble in the fairway (as opposed to attacking it) and just hitting the greens. From there, hitting a few putts will put you in contention.
-
On #6, I thought it would be good to see what it looked like, to gauge the original Redan concept against today's shape. What I did not know, before you mentioned it, are the three consecutive templates on the front nine. Makes sense.
-
Wait until we get to 7 (modeled after 18 at St. Andrews) and 8 (green based on the 17th at Muirfield). Although these aren't templates in the sense that they haven't been widely copied, its still interesting to see how the good Doctor borrowed from the classics.
-
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/6comp.jpg)
-
As Colin pointed out, time is running short before the first high-powered European luxury courtesy car ventures up Magnolia Lane. In some ways, the 80 degree weather in Chicago makes it feel like I missed the tournament altogether. Its a rare year when I see spring blooms in person before I see them while Jim Nantz's is calling me a "friend." But since we are still a week or so away, we'll move on to the Seventh.
Before we do, quick thanks to Colin for the article, John K. for the photos and Chris B. for the side-by-side historical overheads. And if anyone wants to chime in to let me know what a Pampas is I'd appreciate it.
7th Hole - Pampas - Par 4
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole7_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/7flat.jpg)
1934 - 340 yards - Intended as a version of the 18th at St. Andrew's, this hole disappointed Bobby Jones. "By championship standards, [it] played to short," he wrote. "The contouring of the green did not correspond with our original objective...too severe, or if you choose, too tricky." Byron Nelson reached the green from the tee when he won in 1937.
1939 - 370 yards - At the behest of Roberts, Maxwell reshaped portions of the green in 1937, but concluded no one could truly improve it. At the suggestion of Horton Smith, a new green was built in 1938 beyond the old one, atop a hill. Paid for by a club member, it was build with a tractor borrowed from the county. Maxwell, on direction to make the new green similar to the par-4 8th at Pine Valley, fronted the green with three bunkers.
1956 - 365 yards - As if the smallest green (3,600 sf) sitting half-blind 15 feet above the fairway wasn't testing enough, George Cobb added two bunkers behind the green before the 1955 Masters. Pines trees were also planted along the fairway. The next summer, the hillside behind the green was cleared to create a gallery mound.
2002 - 410 yards - In 1966, the bunkers had to be deepened to prevent players from putting out of them. In 1994, the green was enlarged on the left for new hole locations. A new back tee added 50 yards in 2002. Fazio explained this change by saying "long hitters were driving it past the trees and onto the upslope, leaving them a 50-yard approach they could hit with no spin and stick close to the hole."
2011 - 450 yards - In 2005, the back-right corner of the green was softened for new hole locations. Additional pines were planted on both sides of the fairway effectively tightening the playing corridor. The tee was moved back an additional 40 yards into what originally had been the maintenance yard. The new tee required a walk back from the 6th green of 80 yards.
As always, Dan's write-up gets to the heart of the matter:
"Few holes at Augusta National have been altered to the extent that the par-4 seventh has; indeed, aside from remaining in its original playing corridor, it is today an entirely different hole from that which Jones and MacKenzie created in 1933. Their original was a bunkerless drive-and-pitch modeled after the 18th at St. Andrews, running straight away and culminating in a shallow, three-tiered green with a prominent front-right finger, and a Valley of Sin-like depression guarding the front-left. Deemed too easy early in life, it was soon replaced by a “Postage Stamp” concept reportedly suggested by Horton Smith; that is, the small, somewhat elevated, and closely guarded putting surface which Perry Maxwell constructed on a rise behind the original green site in 1938. This comparably shallow target was initially fronted by the same three bunkers that remain before it today, with the back two bunkers only being added much later, in 1951.
By the new millennium, however, the club deemed that version too easy as well, leading Tom Fazio to extend the hole to 445 yards and narrow its fairway with the addition of both trees and rough. The result, while undeniably challenging, now bears zero resemblance to the Jones and MacKenzie original. It is, however, at least partially defendable if one accepts the notion that Jones’s word represents the Augusta gospel, for he clearly endorsed the narrowing concept (at least if accomplished via flora) back in 1959, when he wrote: “The tee shot on this hole becomes tighter year by year as the pine trees on either side of the fairway continue to spread. Length is not a premium here, but the narrow fairway seems to have an added impact because it suddenly confronts the player when he has become accustomed to the broad expanses of the preceding holes.”
But that said, the present version easily draws more (and louder) negative Masters comments than any hole at Augusta.
Better Then or Now?
For whom? While members might well enjoy the subtle challenges of the seventh hole circa 1933, with modern technology it would scarcely even be considered a par 4 for Masters competitors, who would drive indiscriminately towards the green and, at worst, hope for two-putt birdies from the Valley of Sin. The pre-Fazio postage stamp version, on the other hand, was still manageable for the members and quirky/fun for the pros. The present version is simply brutal unless one favors the sort of stilted, hit-it-here-or-else style of play incumbent to a modern U.S. Open, in which case we have a winner."
The write-up noted above by Zach Johnson's caddy indicates that they thought this hole to be the toughest on the course. The size of the green certainly presents a tough target on a hole of its current length.
The original "Valley of Sin" design raises the question of whether or not MacKenzie thought of this hole as driveable. Even if he did, its apparent that Jones and others preferred a hole with a bit more challenge. One has to wonder if the final result meets or pushes past their vision. It would not be surprising if the 7th green was altered further to make it more receptive to longer approaches.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC7TEE.jpg)
-
Sven,
In Australia Pampas is a high quality frozen pastry mix!!! Drive for show putt for dough.
But it is also a type of long wavy grass with obvious seed heads methinks.
Cheers Colin
-
I'm definitely not a fan of the 7th hole these days. Too long, too narrow, too one-dimensional.
It should be a drive and pitch, or at least a wedge, with the green it has. It's also ruined the flow of the golf course.... you used to be able to make a move at 7-8-9 before you got to the back nine, and that's much tougher now.
-
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/7comparison.jpg)
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/7greenComp.jpg)
The 7th is one of the most radically changed holes. As you can see from the original Mackenzie illustrations it had an angle to it - as well as a stream and a proposed fairway bunker. The green used to have much more personality and character to it, as well. Now you have a narrow, straight chute for your drive - no options whatsoever off the tee, just try to kick it through the goal posts. The quality of the tee shot is greatly diminished. The green is entirely aerial - no interesting ways to rumble up an approach shot.
All in all I think the course works well for a major championship. However, as a members course the original version would have been exquisite.
There used to be streams rolling along in many places there. Mostly they are gone which diminishes the strategic as well as aesthetic aspects of the course. Personally, I love natural streams wandering about here and there - as long as they are thoughtfully woven into the logic of the course. I love the look and the sound and opting for different ways to play around them. That's one of the things that makes the 13th so great and the 15th so aesthetically bland.
As ever, just my perspective.
(The last photo is borrowed from Ian Andrew's first rate blog. Hope that's ok Ian! http://ianandrewsgolfdesignblog.blogspot.com (http://ianandrewsgolfdesignblog.blogspot.com))
-
I would like to make a couple of comments:
Hole #2:
The hole is much less fun to watch play on since they have moved the tee back so far. Previously, most players would hit driver and gamble with the bunker. If successful they could usually go for the green from a downhill lie well past the bunker. The longer hits used middle irons. I have spent many hours on the ropes below the bunker watching second shots. If the tee shot hit the bunker, it just became a 3-shot hole. If the player missed left into the trees, he brought bogey into play.
Now, most players lay up short of the bunker, then short of the green for a short iron into the green. Only the longer hitters flirt with the bunker. For most players, even if they miss the bunker, they need a fairway wood to reach the green, so most don't evern try. It used to be an exciting gofer par 5. Now it is a three shot hole for most players.
Hole #4:
I have seen many players hit their tee shots over the green, especially when the hole location is behind the rightfront bunker. Long is a problem, but short into the face of the bunker can be worse.
The tee is usually moved up to the members tee at least one day during the tournament, not Sunday.
Back to #1:
I think that many of the pines left of the fairway beyond the bunker were added before 1983. I don't recall which year, but I do remember watching Don January play from those trees when they were only 6-10 ft tall.
Jim Lewis
-
I've changed my response totally, after reading Jim Lewis's comments. Jim, great stuff. I never said I was right about any of this.
:D
What hole are we on? Oh yeah, tight drive on #9. What?
-
I wonder how different some of those holes would be if they'd left those streams intact....
I've always loved the way the stream on #13 plays.
-
Chris,
I can't get over that black and white photograph of the original #7 green. Have you ever seen a green that looks more like a boomerang?
-
John:
To answer a question from earlier in the thread, the left side is 11 yards deep (your guess of 10-12 yards was spot on).
I've always heard that the contours at Augusta have to be seen to be believed. With the softening of the greens just on the first 7 holes alone, they must have been something to behold when the course first opened.
-
And we're back...
Hole 8 - Yellow Jasmine - Par 5
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole6_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/8flat.jpg)
1934 - 500 yards - The hole played 60 feet uphill to a punchbowl style green (similar to the 17th at Muirfield) that MacKenzie his with 9 to 12 foot high hillocks. At its narrowest point, the green was only 20 feet wide, with a 45-degree turn to the left.
1957 - 520 yards - Supposedly Roberts loved the green at the 8th (nicknamed Jane Russell due to the mounds), but deemed it appropriate to knock down the hillocks for better spectator viewing. The resulting figure-eight platform green had a vertical drop on all sides. Bob Jones got angry at Roberts, telling him he was wrecking the course. For the 1957 Masters, a sign near the green explained that the change was only temporary.
1958 - 530 yards - Cobb was called in after the '57 tournament to rebuild the green and recover the shape created by Mackenzie. The result was a green flatter and wider than the original. In place of the legendary mounds, Cobb built two ordinary bunkers because of Roberts' insistence on keeping clear sight lines for the patrons. Cobb also filled in the old fairway cross bunker and created a new one farther out and to the right.
1980 - 530 yards - After Roberts died in 1977, the club asked Cobb to restore the green again. When Cobb indicated he could not recall the original shape or contours, Byron Nelson stepped in with Joseph Finger to undertake the job. He reestablished the punch-bowl green from memory and a few old photos, and even hand-raked the final contours.
2011 - 570 yards - Fazio rebuilt the green once again in 1997, creating a new back-right shelf for a Sunday pin 111 feet from the front and 18 from the right collar. In 2001, he moved the tee back 20 yards and 10 yards to the right. The fairway bunker was moved farther down the fairway, doubled in size and deepened, requiring a drive of 315 yards to clear.
Dan's description of the odyssey at the 8th:
"The uphill par-5 eighth has traveled a lot of miles in its 75 years of existence, with its ruin-it-then-fix-it-again evolution representing the closest thing to a genuine architectural fiasco that Augusta National has ever had to endure. Originally built with a uniquely bunkerless, mound-flanked green similar to that in play today, the eighth was emasculated in 1956 when, concerned over spectator viewing and congestion, the club had George Cobb build a new, moundless putting surface which would eventually come to be guarded by bland, strategically insignificant bunkers. The failings of this concept were trumpeted far and wide (including, we are told, by Bobby Jones just as the project was getting started), ultimately resulting in the hiring of Byron Nelson and Joe Finger to rebuild the original green complex, complete with restored mounds and a back left quadrant nearly invisible from the front edge, in 1979.
Inasmuch as the present green can thus be considered “original,” the primary remaining alteration lies in the fairway bunker, which initially was a prominent, centerline hazard before being moved rightward in 1958, then enlarged and relocated once more by Tom Fazio in 2002. And the precise positioning of this hazard is key, for as Bobby Jones noted shortly after its initial move: “It is important that the ball be kept a bit to the right of center of the fairway…Should [the golfer] play left to avoid the bunker, the player must skirt the trees on the left with his second shot in order to get very near the green.”
During his 2002 work, Fazio also added a tee in close proximity to the 17th green, extending to 570 yards what began life as a semi-reachable 500-yarder upon which those trying to get home in two will, to quote Dr. MacKenzie, “be able to define the position of the green owing to the size of the surrounding hillock.”
Good thing they brought it back.
Better Then or Now?
Theoretically, save for the moving of the old centerline bunker, the present eighth plays very much like the original, with the additional 70 yards of length helping to retain the go-for-it-or-not balance of the 1933 version. Though the present, quite fascinating putting surface is not truly Jones and MacKenzie’s, it can still be said with reasonable fairness that this, the hole which has seen the most glaring desecration in Augusta’s design history, today plays as close to its original form as nearly any on the golf course."
There have been several mentions of changes made to the course to enhance the spectator experience. The changes made to the 8th green for those purposes seem to have had the greatest impact on the playing characteristics of a hole. Begs the question as to the balance of priorities inherent in many of the changes made by Roberts during his time as chairman.
There is little discussion of the narrowing of the playing corridor at the 8th, another hole that has lost a bit of its width due to the encroachment of the tree lines. One wonders if a center-line bunker would work without a bit of room on either side for a miss.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC8GREENSIDE.jpg)
-
The April 1, 1957 edition of SI has a Herbert Warren Wind write-up of the changes made that year, including a description of the changes to the green on the 8th:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1132472/index.htm
If you go to pp. 38-41 in the article (click View this Issue), there are a couple of diagrams of the various holes changed that year.
-
Consider the very long, angled bunker in the MacKenzie illustration. (The tee is at the bottom) That is a very nice piece of work. Would it not make for a much more interesting set up than the one they currently have?
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/8angc.jpg)
-
As noted on another thread, here are Mickelson's comments regarding the changes made this year to the 8th:
“The green on 8 in the front was widened. The hill on the left was softened. So little things. I felt like the back-right pin on 8 was made much more accessible. It’s much flatter, a lot more room there. You can be a bit more aggressive now into that pin.”
-
Zzzzzzzzzzzz.
-
I find it curious that the diagrams never allow for a curving shot. I see this a calling for an uphill low draw for birdie, a prescribed shot.
Have you seen the golfing exhibitions by Bobby Jones in the early thirties, after he retired? Perhaps the best thing about these videos was the way Bobby showed you he could work the ball. It's great golf to ask for a big drive, and then one big draw off the fairway each round.
I've only played two well known punchbowl holes, NGLA and Old Macdonald. On NGLA , the punchbowl is concave, deep and somewhat geometric. Conversely, Old Macdonald's 18th green is wildly irregular, and surrounded by hillocks, similar in size to Augusta National's #8 green.
A question to either Tom Doak or Jim Urbina. Did Mackenzie's execution at Augusta #8 influence how the team approached the punchbowl template?
At the end of the day, punchbowl is a fun way to play the game once a round.
-
With the 9th, we're leaving the section of the course that did not see television cameras for the bulk of the history of the Masters. I recall a weather delay back in the late 90's resulting in coverage of some of the holes on the front, but don't remember exactly when they went to cameras on all 18.
9th Hole - Carolina Cherry - Par 4
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole9_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/9flat.jpg)
1934 - 420 yards - During construction Roberts had an engineer flatten a portion of the fairway to contain his drives. The non-personal architectural nature of this decision has yet to be explained. The original green was a MacKenzie horseshoe shaped specialty with a large, natural shape bunker guarding the front. The openness of the course allowed players to drive down the neighboring 1st fairway on the left to achieve a better angle to the green.
1938 - 430 yards - Roberts asked Maxell to totally redesign and debunker the green to eliminate any reward for playing down the 1st. Gone was the boomerang shape, and five new bunkers filled the left hillside, creating a distinct advantage for a drive placed on the right side. Roberts disliked the new green's "pancake appearance" telling Maxwell it looked "like something you'd expect to see on a public links."
1939 - 430 yards - Roberts requested that Maxwell add back a portion of a tongue that had existed on the front right on MacKenzie's original version of the green, thinking it should be visible from the fairway and should permit run-up shots. In the 1939 Masters, Jones' chip from behind the green rolled off the front. That summer he had the tongue flattened a bit.
1956 - 420 yards - Perhaps because the cluster of bunkers kept getting less fearsome (on was removed in 1939, another by 1951), some competitors continued to play down the first fairway. A string of trees was planted just off the front-left edge of the tee to stop this practice.
1974 - 440 yards - A horseshoe-shaped berm was added behind the green in 1972 to serve as a viewing platform that could hold 2,000 patrons. As players were driving to the bottom of the hill, the tee was moved back about 15 yards (although one writer insisted the number was closer to 40 yards). The result was a return to players fitting approaches from hanging lies on the fairway downslope.
2011 - 460 yards - As green speeds increased, the putting surface was repeatedly reduced in slope. Portions were rebuilt in 1986, 1991 and 2007, each time to create new, puttable pin placements. Despite all of the changes, the green remains as the steepest on the course. In 2001, the tee was repositioned another 30 yards back, and more mature pines were planted on the right to complicate recoveries from the pine straw.
Dan's take:
"Dr. MacKenzie described the par-4 ninth as being “of the Cape type” which, loosely translated, describes a hole with green jutting prominently in one direction, its often-elevated edges closely guarded by hazards. The description is an interesting one because while the initial ninth green did extend leftward above a large bunker, the putting surface itself was a classic MacKenzie boomerang, its two nearly symmetrical “wings” wrapped around the single, artistically shaped sand hazard. Given the famously uphill nature of the approach, this was a most distinctive green complex indeed, yet the club once again assigned Perry Maxwell the late-1930’s task of rebuilding it, resulting in the angled, three-tiered putting surface in play today. Maxwell’s initial version, by the way, featured four left greenside bunkers, but the two that have survived would likely be the only ones relevant to modern Masters participants.
An additional aspect of playing number nine has always been the downhill tee shot, for at the hole’s original 420-yard length, only longer hitters were capable of consistently driving more than 300 yards to the flat ground at the bottom, thus avoiding having to play so intimidating an approach – over a huge false front, no less – from a downhill lie. The hole was lengthened to 440 yards in 1973 and 460 in the new millennium, meaning that even though the bottom is more frequently driven today, the 340 yards necessary to reach it means that a missed tee ball can still result in a very dicey second.
Also noteworthy was the 2002 addition of trees and rough down the right side of the landing area, an attempt at minimizing the longer hitter’s ability to simply bomb it down the preferred side without a care in the world. At a glance, this might be decried as removing a strategic option – but an equally valid argument might be made that in this era of unchecked equipment, injecting some measure of accountability in this particular location was important in retaining the hole’s fundamental balance of play.
Better Then or Now?
This is largely a question of taste. The present three-level green, with its enormous back-to-front fall, requires the deftest of touches on both approaches and chips, and inevitably provides those tragic moments when a second shot, apparently well-struck, spins back just a yard too far…then agonizingly trickles some thirty yards back off the putting surface. MacKenzie’s original green, on the other hand, still featured the false front along its front-right edge (by most accounts, it was even more pronounced than at present), but also offered numerous exciting pin positions all around the boomerang. On balance, such was surely the more unique, invigorating configuration – but the present one hardly lacks for drama either."
I'm struck by the misguided efforts to prevent players from hitting to the first fairway. The safety concerns are evident, but did they need to completely change the green to accomplish this? It seems that the tree-planting that took place down the line just to the left of the tee would have sufficed, with a little patience taken to let the trees mature into a suitable obstacle. One wonders if the addition of hazards in the landing zone on the first (from the 9th tee) would have precluded that line of play, without changing the nature of the first hole.
At this point, I wanted to note the overall difference between the tournament tees (stretching to around 7,500 yards) and the member's tee (6,345 yards). On the front side alone, approximately 330 yards has been added, with only two holes (the 3rd and the 6th) playing at around the same length originally contemplated by MacKenzie and Jones. A 30 yard per hole increase actually seems small if the intent was to account for the changes in technology. But combine the added length with the narrowing of the fairways and the addition of the "second cut," and the emphasis on distance and accuracy off of the tee becomes a premium. I make no judgments on these alterations, other than to say it would have been interesting to see a better balance between these types of modifications and those that stressed the addition of strategic choices as a method to defend par. The overall theme seems to this reader to have been a move to a more penal style, with little opportunity for the player to be rewarded by a strategic choice. With the width being taken out, the player that can take advantage of the front nine is the longer player who finds the fairway, not the player that makes the best choice/execution to set up the ideal line to the day's pin.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC9GREENBEHIND.jpg)
-
A question on eight - I read that Phil said this about 8 - “The green on eight in the front was widened. The hill on the left was softened. So little things that I felt like the back-right pin on eight was made much more accessible. It’s much flatter, a lot more room there. You can be a little bit more aggressive now into that pin. So, it was interesting.”
It played 4.75 last year, which seems about right. Will these changes make it even easier? Perhaps too easy?
-
A question on eight - I read that Phil said this about 8 - “The green on eight in the front was widened. The hill on the left was softened. So little things that I felt like the back-right pin on eight was made much more accessible. It’s much flatter, a lot more room there. You can be a little bit more aggressive now into that pin. So, it was interesting.”
It played 4.75 last year, which seems about right. Will these changes make it even easier? Perhaps too easy?
Jay:
I think it will play about the same for the old pins, and easier for the new back-right pin, perhaps lowering the scoring average slightly over the four rounds. This assumes that the back right pin is actually more accessible and that its not just more accessible for Phil.
The par 5's on the front are not big number holes, while 13 and 15 certainly are. I think that's part of the Masters mystique, in that the big risk reward moments take place on the back nine. How many guys have fallen out of contention dumping one in the water on one of those two holes. How many have climbed into contention or added to their lead with an eagle (see Nicklaus in 1986).
-
You can see the changes in the 9th green over the years. Which one do you think is best?
The fairway has been greatly narrowed. Is there anybody who thinks that makes it a better course for the members?
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/9.jpg)
-
Chris:
I'm going to go with the original. But it's probably a green that required width in the fairway to work.
Interesting to see the angle of the photo for the first picture, which has the first fairway as its backdrop. A couple of things to note:
1. For those driving over to the first, the angle to a left pin takes the bunker just about out of play. The advantage is pretty clear in the pictures.
2. As with all older photos from Augusta, I'm amazed by the changes in the openness of the course. Not that Augusta is the windiest place in the world, but I wonder how increased ground level breezes would influence the modern tour players. There's often talk about how the wind impacts shots that get above the trees, but rarely is it a massive factor.
-
Nine holes in to this history, and the one aspect of the origination of ANGC that stands out the most is how the MacKenzie/Jones collaboration seems to have been the best combination of architect/golfer to have ever undertaken a design project. The early photographs of the two of them on the course give us a clue as to their working relationship. MacKenzie as the idea man, Jones as the tester. This obviously simplifies the relationship, but who better to hit a few "test" shots to practically investigate the merits of a design idea than the best golfer of his era.
The following article from The Augusta Chronicle Masters site goes into a bit more depth regarding the pairing:
http://www.augusta.com/node/99
As Jones was quoted saying, their ideas were "synonymous." They both shared an appreciation for the playing characteristics of the Scottish classics (whether innate or learned) and attempted to translate that mantra onto the former nursery. What is missing in the historical record (or at least not yet discovered by this reader) is a memorial of their dialogue. Perhaps the process was so natural that few words were needed. From the sounds of things, the two rarely disagreed on design concepts, and when they did the level of respect they had for each other most likely carried the day.
The pro/archie combo has been duplicated many times over, and perhaps preceded the work at Augusta with different actors. It seems that often one side of the equation takes the spotlight. Coore & Crenshaw are an exception to this thought, and perhaps mirror the Alister and Bobby relationship as well as any other duo of this type, both in what they bring to the table and the respectful working relationship that exists between the two.
What gets lost in the discussions of Azalea's, second cuts of rough and pimento cheese sandwiches is that this course was the result of one of the greatest pairings of golf minds. It must have been an absolute joy for the golfer turned design "hobbyist" that was Jones to have had the opportunity to walk the ground with MacKenzie, as it would have been a treasured time for the aging architect to share the design process with a player that understood his philosophies.
As coverage of the tournament begins next week, it will be easy to focus on the individual achievements that have taken place on this hallowed ground. This year, I'll be thinking of golf as a team sport instead.
-
Making the turn...
Tenth Hole - Camellia - Par 4
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole10_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/10flat.jpg)
1934 - 430 yards - MacKenzie positioned the green in a natural saddle to the right of a dome, on which he dug an ornamental bunker. The hole dropped more than 100 feet, and some players could drive the green. All rainwater drained into the saddle, resulting in Horton Smith having to chip through standing water on the green when he won in 1936.
1938 - 465 yards - Jones reluctantly agreed to abandon MacKenzie's green site for a new green designed by Maxwell atop a hill beyond and to the left of the old one. After the '38 Masters, Roberts wrote Maxwell that "Ten is now a grand golf hole....I know Bob is particularly pleased." Jones liked that players could still reach the green with an iron on the second shot if they took advantage of slopes off the tee.
1974 - 485 yards - George and Tom Fazio were retained to enlarge the spectator areas around the 9th and 18th greens, resulting in the 10th tee being shifted back and to the left and elevated and dirt being scooped from tee to fairway to aid visibility. The result was 20 yards in added length and a sharper dogleg.
2011 - 495 yards - Tom Fazio rebuilt the green in 1999 to gain a few more corner hole locations, and in 2001 moved the tee back another 10 yards and 5 to the left. The former greenside bunker created by MacKenzie remains today despite the alterations. At 59 yards long it is the most stylized bunker on the course. Supposedly out of play, Tom Weiskopf found it with a drive of 370 yards.
From Dan:
"Originally conceived as the layout’s opening hole, the par-4 10th opened for play as a highly strategic downhill test played to a green situated some 45-50 yards shy of the present putting surface, just to the right of the sprawling (if largely vestigal) MacKenzie bunker that famously fills the fairway today. The beauty of this configuration was that it significantly rewarded the player capable of hitting a controlled tee shot to the higher right side of the fairway, for their ensuing approach was a simple, unimpeded short iron into the heart of the crescent-shaped green. The golfer whose ball bounded indiscriminately down to the fairway’s leftward reaches, on the other hand, then faced, in MacKenzie’s words, “a difficult second shot over a large spectacular bunker, with small chance of getting near the pin” – for the green would indeed have become a very shallow, sand-fronted target from that angle.
Perhaps because it was soon being judged as a mid-round hole instead of kinder, gentler opener (indeed, MacKenzie initially described it as “a comparatively easy downhill hole”), the tenth was deemed not to be challenging enough soon after opening, prompting Perry Maxwell to build the present, longer green in 1937. Well into the postwar era, the right-front was guarded by a pair of bunkers, but the present hazard was enlarged in 1968, while the smaller “pothole” bunker located just to its right disappeared.
Other changes have been limited primarily to the teeing ground, which has been moved and elevated on multiple occasions, enhancing both the hole’s length and the angle of its dogleg.
Better Then or Now?
Once again, the operative question is: for whom? The present bigger, tougher tenth is clearly better suited to tournament competition than the hole’s initial incarnation – by a wide margin. Indeed, the longer approach – which must carry the fronting hillside, yet stop below the hole, and not be missed right (sand) or left (another steep hillside) – might be considered inspirational simply in its challenge. But the original version was considerably more strategic and, for anyone above a single-digit handicap, surely more fun. So do we judge by four days in April, or the rest of the club’s golfing year?"
Gone is MacKenzie's presentation of an "opportunity" in that there no longer seems to be a premium on finding the high side of the fairway. Today's player is hoping to bang it as far down the hill as possible to shorten the approach, with little premium placed on picking a side of the fairway.
It is ironic that the one bunker that retains the MacKenzie touch is a bunker that was originally designed to be ornamental. A better memorial for the man's genius would have been a bunker that significantly influenced the play of the hole, not the bunker that most looked like his handiwork.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/images.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/1green.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC10II.jpg)
-
Sven,
Seems the original intent has been lost. Par is more difficult for those who fail to catch the slope and roll down to the left side, leaving a the shorter approach.
I enjoy watching the pros trying to hit the precise mid- to long-iron approach.
The two moments I remember best are two missed short putts during a playoff. And a long putt. Didn't Ben Crensaw sink a long (70 footer or so) one on his way to his second Masters victory?
Great stuff. This thread deserves more input from people who know the course well.
-
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/10ae.jpg)
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/10.jpg)
Mr. Wexler is right, of course. The current version of 10 is preferable for four days of the year but the old one was far better for members. That is largely the story of ANGC, is it not? The question I would be asking is how to reinstate some of the superior elements MacKenzie had while maintaining major championship playability.
What do you suppose the stroke average is for members on this hole today?
-
Heading into Amen Corner...
Hole 11 - White Dogwood - Par 4
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole11_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/11flat.jpg)
1934 - 415 yards - Although designed by MacKenzie without a bunker, Jones added a short-lived one in 1935 in the center of the fairway, over a crest 240 yards out. Sarazen disapproved of the bunker saying he couldn't see it from the tee, adding "maybe because I'm too short."
1952 - 445 yards - Before the '51 Masters, the creek was dammed to form a pond. Another dam raised Rae's Creek, and the putting surface was reshaped to create pin placements near the water. Roberts, Jones and Byron Nelson all claimed credit for the idea. For 1952, a new elevated tee was added in the pines left of the 10th green, straightening and lengthening the 11th and providing room for spectators.
1954 - 445 yards - Two bunkers were built into mounds behind the green to provide a bit more challenge for back-hole locations. In 1965, the green was rebuilt to elevate it two feet. After a 1990 flood washed away the putting surface, it was reconstructed to previous contours before the '91 Masters using laser technology and a top map on file at the club.
1999 - 455 yards - The green was rebuilt yet again to raise the putting surface and surrounds another two feet (including the location of Larry Mize's famed chip from 1987). The pond was raised a foot and the two bunkers were replaced by one on the right. The green was extend to bring hole locations within 20 yards of Rae's Creek. The tee was shifted after the loss of a large pine 180 yards in front.
2002 - 490 yards - The tee was moved back 35 yards and five yards to the right. The fairway was regraded to eliminate kicks toward the green. Fazio noted that the added length was due to the hole playing short despite the changes made three years earlier: "Why play safe when you're hitting 9-iron or sand wedge for your second shot? We've made it a middle-iron again."
2004 - 490 yards - To tighten the drive, 36 pine trees were transplanted to the right of the landing area. "It continues our long-standing emphasis on accuracy off the tee," said Hootie Johnson. Palmer was critical of the new pines, focusing on the removal of a prime spectator vantage point.
2011 - 505 yards - With the tee moved back again, the 11th became the first par 4 to measure more than 500 yards. In reaction to Palmer's criticism, several pines on the right were removed allowing for enhanced patron viewing. Grass beneath the remaining pines was replaced with pine straw, and more dogwoods were added left of the fairway, to punish errant drives.
From Dan's piece:
"One of the more comprehensively altered holes at Augusta, the long par-4 eleventh debuted as a mid-length two-shotter played from a tee situated just behind the original tenth green (i.e. short and right of the hole’s present putting surface) to a green occupying essentially the same spot as at present. This made the hole a fairly pronounced dogleg right whose primary challenge lay in placing one’s drive in the center-right section of the fairway, for anything drifting too far left brought a corner of Rae’s creek – which lay several yards left of the putting surface – considerably more into play. Early drawings indicate the presence of a centerline mound within the driving zone, presumably to help “distribute” drives leftward or rightward, but this hazard was replaced by an invisible, St. Andrews-inspired bunker prior to the first playing of The Masters. The resulting test was quirky and apparently fun, leading MacKenzie to observe: “This should always be a most fascinating hole. I don’t know another quite like it.”
Unfortunately, “always” proved to be less than 20 years, for in 1950, the hole was substantially reconfigured, with a new tee constructed to the left of the tenth green, turning the eleventh into a nearly straight 445-yarder that began with a semi-blind drive to a cresting, wooded fairway. The turn in Rae’s creek was widened into a pond and brought flush to the green’s left apron, while the back-left section of putting surface was extended behind this new and intimidating hazard. Further, two rear bunkers were added to the green complex in 1953, though only one of the pair survives today.
The resulting hole created a fascinating strategic question for better players: was the preferred angle of approach from the far right side of the fairway, where the most direct line into the front of the green could be found? Or perhaps from the far left, where the pond might be turned into something of an easier-to-measure frontal hazard?
Sadly, this intricate and fascinating strategy was rendered moot in 2002 when, at the club’s request, Tom Fazio narrowed the fairway considerably by planting both trees and rough. While this method of so-called “Tiger Proofing” was also implemented on a number of other holes, its impact on number eleven was particularly noticeable. This, combined with a recent lengthening to an absurd 505 yards, has turned a truly captivating tournament hole into a brainless, one-dimensional exercise in compulsory golf.
Better Then or Now?
How about somewhere in between? Though the eleventh circa 1935 was an inventive sort of hole, it would unquestionably have required modification in the modern era, both in terms of length and bringing the greenside water hazard more prominently into play. Conversely, the present hole – though palpably difficult – stands virtually antithetical to the very concepts upon which Jones and MacKenzie based the entire Augusta project. Remove the rough and trees, however, and once again allow the players to actually do a bit of thinking, and we just might have something…"
One wonders if the idea of "Amen Corner" influenced recent changes, in that there was an inherent need to challenge the players that is greater on this three hole stretch then elsewhere on the course. With length being less of a factor for the modern player, the club looked to a narrowed fairway and the removal of the ground game option around the green to "toughen" the 11th.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC11.jpg)
-
Hole 12 - Golden Bell - Par 3
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole12_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/12flat.jpg)
1934 - 150 yards - The tee was positioned beneath a frame of three pines, which soon died. The wide, flat green was built by cutting earth from the far bank of Rae's Creek and depositing it on a ledge. The original bunkering consisted of a long, skinny one in front and a tiny one atop a hill behind.
1939 - 155 yards - Roberts directed Maxwell to enlarge the green on the right by digging out dirt from the bank behind the green with the possibility of exposing rock. Roberts wrote "I think it will add to the thrill of the hole, as a very strong shot will strike the rock and bounce most anywhere." A month later he wrote Maxwell to say "We do not wish to expose any rocks on the bank." Maxwell turned the pits into bunkers.
1951 - 155 yards - For years the area between the tee and the creek as an oft flooded bog (in 1936 rowboats were considered to get players to the green). When Rae's Creek was dammed for flood control in 1950, a tiny stream off the tee was buried in pipe, and the entire area was raised a bit. A swale was created behind the green to remove water, and the bunkers were relocated.
1966 - 155 yards - The arched Ben Hogan Bridge was added in 1958, its grass surface soon replaced by artificial turf. Further changes were made in 1965 to address flood control, including bringing in dirt with wheelbarrows to raise the entire putting surface 18 inches. Land between the tee and creek was raised another two feet, and side-by-side-split-level tees were built, the Masters tee being lower than the tee used by the members.
1982 - 155 yards - When all greens were converted to bent grass in 1980, it was decided to slowly rebuild to the sand bases better for growing bent. When construction reached the 12th green in 1981, warming coils were placed beneath the green, a concept later duplicated elsewhere.
2011 - 155 yards - Despite the flood control measures taken, a portion of the hole was damaged in an October 1990 flood. It was quickly repaired. The bunkers have remained in the same positions for 60 years, although the width and depth of the green has gradually shrunk due to its reconstruction and new mowing patterns.
Dan's take:
"Arguably the most famous par 3 in golf (and surely the most consistently dramatic) the 155-yard 12th has undergone several significant changes over the decades, most of which seem largely forgotten today. To begin with, though a set of published drawings showed both this and the thirteenth greens as having been planned bunker-free (“It will be noted there is not a single bunker at either of these holes” – MacKenzie), the evidence is clear that the front bunker was indeed included during initial construction. The two rear bunkers were added sometime later, carved into the rear hillside above a shallow, poorly draining swale that originally backed the putting surface.
With this swale’s seemingly permanent dampness causing numerous embedded ball issues (including a famous 1958 ruling that helped Arnold Palmer to win his first Masters), a substantial project was undertaken in 1960 to elevate the entire green area some two feet. The net result makes for interesting viewing when comparing pre- and post-1960 photos: the rear bunkers, once carved into the back hillside at a level noticeably above the putting surface, are now drawn almost level.
Perhaps more significant are the changes that have overtaken the green itself, for today’s flattish, almost symmetrical putting surface belies a far more colorful past. Indeed, prior to a 1951 expansion, the right side was considerably smaller than the left, requiring some major skill (not to mention guts) if one elected to have a desperation go at the traditional final round pin. Additionally, as suggested in MacKenzie’s green sketch, this smaller right side was elevated significantly above the left – a substantial difference from the relatively flat surface in play today.
Better Then or Now?
Then – probably. Most would agree that the elevation of the green was certainly a positive, solving the dampness issues that provided the potential for endless rules controversies, and removing the “elevated” appearance of the back bunkers in the hillside. But the less-symmetrical, more-contoured putting surface was surely more interesting than that in play today, which inevitably made for even greater theater on those earlier Masters Sundays."
The damming of Rae's Creek and the expansion of the water hazard, has created the greatest "hold-your-breath" moment in championship golf. The swirling winds, the penalty for anything short, the specter of the water looming for any recovery from over the green. The shortest hole on the course provides the biggest drama.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/12thatAugusta-1.jpg)
-
I would suggest the front left to back right angling of the 12th green is a key factor. Most players are right-handed, and most players tend to pull the ball long, and push the ball short. Though I have no data to back this up, I hypothesize that right-handed golfers of all abilities have a tougher time hitting a green angled this way, with vice versa for lefties.
-
One wonders if the idea of "Amen Corner" influenced recent changes, in that there was an inherent need to challenge the players that is greater on this three hole stretch then elsewhere on the course. With length being less of a factor for the modern player, the club looked to a narrowed fairway and the removal of the ground game option around the green to "toughen" the 11th.
I can't remember the thread, but Tom Doak mentioned the beauty of Augusta's three hole stretches a year or so ago. How 4-5-6 were hard, 7-8-9 were easy, 10-11-12 were hard, and 13-14-15 were relatively easy, and how the players had to cope with the stress of players ahead of them make birdies while they struggled on the difficult portions of the course.
-
I found it. "The Genius Of The Masters, By Design", by Tom Doak.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47931.0.html
-
Sorry I didn't have time to post yesterday. Here are some more images for your consideration.
The 11th tee shot:
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/11t.jpg)
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/11aerial.jpg)
My views on the above images are predictable. I am not a fan of constricting the playing areas and removing angles and options. Today there is little opportunity for a creative recovery from a tee shot that wanders a bit off the narrowed fairway.
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/11.jpg)
Below is a photo I had in a file. I think this is the 12th hole at ANGC. If it is indeed that hole this green seems to have more contouring. Could be wrong about that - but that is how it appears to me.
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/12.jpg)
-
Chris:
The last photo was either taken during one of the floods or the changes in elevation of the green have been fairly drastic. I'd love to get a date on that photo to place it in the timeline of changes. It would help to identify the nature of some of the changes discussed. (As an aside, a gis search does little in the way of providing old photos of the course.)
John:
I've never heard anyone discuss 7 as an easy hole. I think its the 4th or 5th hardest hole on the course (not sure about that). I do think that the course comes at the player in waves, with 10-12 being a strong test of nerve, and 13, 15 and 16 presenting great birdie opportunities.
There are birdie opportunities on the front, but you never hear people talking about players making their move on that nine.
-
There are birdie opportunities on the front, but you never hear people talking about people making their move on that nine.
Unless you are TW last year.
-
If he had kept that charge going into the back nine, it would have rivaled Jack in '86. Now, its an after thought.
-
I would suggest the front left to back right angling of the 12th green is a key factor. Most players are right-handed, and most players tend to pull the ball long, and push the ball short. Though I have no data to back this up, I hypothesize that right-handed golfers of all abilities have a tougher time hitting a green angled this way, with vice versa for lefties.
yes the pull draw cuts through the wind and you are over and the push fade falls short and splashes, this occurs as most right-handers are not taking a full swing, but are trying to hit something more delicately with an abbreviated swing
best spot to watch practice rounds or tournament, IMO
-
Here's a link to a Geoff Shackleford piece from Golf Digest discussing the connections between Augusta National and The Old Course:
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2010-04/golf-shackelford-old-course-0405
Some great quotes from Crenshaw which give a bit of insight into his own design philosophies. This one stood out as noteworthy:
"They wanted to show that there are different hazards in golf other than bunkers and water to extract penalties," Crenshaw says. "The concept is so very simple. You play over here to get there. But it's got to be accommodated for and presented that way with width."
-
Leaving Amen Corner with a good chance at Eagle or Birdie...
Hole 13 - Azalea - Par 5
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole13_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/13flat.jpg)
1934 - 480 yards - MacKenzie and Jones discovered the natural hole early in their tour of the land and deciding the routing had to include it. Needing only a tee, a green and some tree removal, shallow "flash bunkers on the uphill behind the green between tree trunks were added before the first Masters. They were soon removed for oval bunkers behind the green.
1955 - 470 yards - George Cobb replaced the font-left thumb of the green with a new bunker. He also added another bunker on the left and rebuilt the existing ones around the green. Wooden bridges over the creek were converted to grass-topped rock bridges (the arched Byron Nelson Bridge at the tee was built in 1958). Cobb also shifted the tee five yards to the right to accentuate the dogleg [Note: I think they meant to the right].
1976 - 485 yards - In 1970 the club bought nearly two acres located behind the 13th tee from Augusta Country Club, with privacy trees soon planted on it. In 1975, the 13th tee was relocated onto this parcel, adding 10 yards. Cobb also rebuilt the bunkers and the green, resting the original two-levels nature. For the '76 Masters the green was "hard as a city sidewalk," and many shots bounced over it.
1984 - 465 yards - To improve drainage, the green was rebuilt by Bob Cupp, adding elevation, contour and a swale between the collar and the bunkers. Before the '84 Masters, Weiskopf was asked by Nicklaus what he thought, responding "Players won't like it" while indicating a steep dropoff left of the green. Said Jack: "This isn't close to what I told them to do." The edge wasn't softened until the '88 Masters.
1987 - 465 yards - In 1986, chairman Hord Hardin though players hitting from the rocky streamed were slowing up play. The resulting dams and moat like level of the water was extremely unpopular with players and fans. Crenshaw's take: "Golf would not be a mystery if there were not instances of two different outcomes on the same shot." The moat remained until 1996.
2011 - 510 yards - The yardage was revised to 485 in 1994 without any physical change. In 2001, a further parcel was procured from A.C.C. A new Masters tee was built on it, adding 25 yards. in 2003, the green was rebuilt again to install a heating and cooling system. Trees planted a decade ago (2001) at the far corner of the dogleg no pinch the "banked turn" tee-shot landing area.
Dan breaks it down:
"As dramatic a par 5 as has ever been built, Augusta’s legendary thirteenth has retained its general configuration fairly well – but a number of smaller, less-obvious changes have taken place. Like the twelfth, MacKenzie’s plan for the thirteenth green indicated a complete absence of sand, but again, things seem to have evolved quickly, as three flashy bunkers were carved into the back hillside either during construction or in preparation for the inaugural Masters. The putting surface itself has also been altered, being slightly re-contoured during the 1950’s, then entirely rebuilt by George Cobb in 1975. A resulting swale that bordered its left and rear flanks was ultimately judged too severe, and was subsequently softened in 1988, and even a cursory comparison of images of the fronting creek over the years makes clear the extent to which it has been widened, and otherwise cosmetically touched up.
The one really obvious change to the green complex came in 1955, when a fourth bunker was built immediately adjacent to the creek, replacing a narrow, front-left sliver of putting surface. This confined finger of green, squeezed tightly between the creek and the hillside, was a vintage piece of asymmetrical MacKenzie design, and would surely offer yet another dramatically tempting pin placement were it still in existence today.
Also evolving over the decades has been number thirteen’s length. The club originally listed it at 480 yards, but that number has been revised both upwards and downwards over the decades, ranging from a shortish 465 (its 1980’s Masters yardage) to as much as 485 during the 1970’s, when the tee was extended onto a bit of land purchased from the adjoining Augusta Country Club. More recently, as part of Tom Fazio’s new millennium makeover, even more neighboring land was purchased, allowing the hole to now measure a full 510 yards.
Better Then or Now?
Then – if we’re judging pound for pound. The only significant problem with today’s hole is that at 510 yards, the balance for Masters participants seems to have shifted a bit too far towards laying up, thereby diminishing some of the most dramatic moments in all of competitive golf. But the original version also had the front-left extension of the putting surface which, one senses, would offer particularly exciting possibilities to modern tournament players. Why not bring it back?"
One of my favorite greens on the course with the pin positions closer to the creek presenting the greatest drama. This hole and 16 may present the greatest opportunities to watch the ball in motion theory in effect.
Although this hole has been lengthened, the difference between then and now is not as extreme as can be found elsewhere, leaving a hole that has retained most of the strategic qualities inherent in the original version. Its one of the best risk/reward par 5's on the planet. The recovery options from the creek bed give it a bit of an advantage over the 15th, where the penalty for a short shot would never allow for the miraculous.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC13.jpg)
-
Borrowing the following photo from John Stiles who posted it in the Center-line bunkers thread:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/Aug_Nat_14th_stiles_.jpg)
-
Catching up with David Owen's take on the changes:
5th Hole: http://03547c3.netsolhost.com/WordPress/2012/03/22/masters-countdown-fifth-hole/
6th Hole: http://03547c3.netsolhost.com/WordPress/2012/03/24/masters-countdown-sixth-hole/
7th Hole: http://03547c3.netsolhost.com/WordPress/2012/03/27/masters-countdown-seventh-hole/
8th Hole: http://03547c3.netsolhost.com/WordPress/2012/03/28/masters-countdown-eighth-hole/
-
Adding a link to Tom MacWood's excelling IMO piece on the early days of the club:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/macwood-thomas-the-dream-decision/
-
Hole 14 - Chinese Fir - Par 4
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole14_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/14flat.jpg)
1934 - 400 yards - MacKenzie based the design of this hole on the strategy of the sixth at St. Andrews. A drive up the right side, over the sprawling cross bunker, opened up the approach. A drive to the left side would leave a half-blind run-up shot over a gigantic mound short of the green, which featured exaggerated contours.
1939 - 425 yards - MacKenzie's green had an abrupt face at its front. Maxwell merged a lower deck of the putting surface to it, then added two fairway knows on the right, so golfers from any angle had to deal with potentially bad bounces. This was the era before routine irrigation when greens were normally hard and dry requiring shots to be bounced into them.
1956 - 420 yards - After the '52 Masters, the cross bunker was filled in. So close to the tee, it had served little purpose, even though the optimal play was a draw against the fairway sloping left to right. Before the '56 Masters, two small MacKenzie mounds behind the green were converted into one broad gallery mound.
2011 - 440 yards - I 1981, the scorecard yardage was changed to 405 yards. Before 1993, the tee was shifted left, and in 2002 it was moved back 35 yards. The green was reconstructed in 1997, adding new hole locations, and in the late 1990 pines were aded to tighten the driving zone. At that time, the grand old MacKenzie mound short of the green on the left was bulldozed, an antiquity in today's aerial game.
From Mr. Wexler:
"The par-4 fourteenth could stake a claim as Augusta’s least-altered hole, save for one significant change: the 1952 removal of a huge, wildly shaped MacKenzie bunker protecting the preferred right side of the fairway. True, this bunker – which was, by a considerable margin, the largest on the golf course – would not be relevant to today’s top players, but given its prominent place upon the landscape, the aesthetic difference is enormous. Also altered is the teeing ground, which was moved leftward and forward in 1972 (to create space relative to the thirteenth green), then extended back to its current 440 yards during Tom Fazio’s 2002 reworking.
Better preserved has been the green, a true roller coaster of a putting surface whose enormous bumps and undulations lead to all manner of creative approach shots each April. But even this Golden Age work of art is not altogether intact, for its back-left corner was extended a bit in 1987, its front edge has been brought noticeably forward, and multiple flanking mounds have been soften or removed over the decades. But watching the occasional smartly played Masters approach land thirty feet from the pin, turn 90 degrees, then ultimately trickle down to within inches of the cup, one cannot help but recognize that this remains, in many ways, the last true footprint of Dr. MacKenzie at Augusta.
Better Then or Now?
In real terms, it is little different – though a net gain of 15 yards in length surely isn’t enough to negate the effects of unchecked modern equipment. MacKenzie, however, had a purpose for his lost fairway bunker: tee shots which carried it were left with a clear view of the putting surface for their second, while balls played safely left stuck the golfer with a semi-blind approach over the now-deceased frontal mounding. The bunker would little affect today’s best in its original position, but what if, like fairway bunkers at the fifth and eighth,, it was restored somewhat further downrange?"
I think Dan makes a great point on the elimination of the strategic decision created by the fairway bunker. Unlike elsewhere on the course, at the 14th the fairway hazard was eliminated, rather than moved or adapted to the changes in length. The fairway still may have a preferred side, but the only impediment to finding the better angle into the green is narrowness.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC14GREENII.jpg)
-
One last look at the old 12th:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/b_friday_amencornerstory_83121664_040811.jpg)
-
Can I ask a question about hole 13?
I understand (slightly) that the water level of the tributary to Rae's Creek has been raised and lowered over time?? Is this true? I understand that at one time that a recovery shot in front of the green was "possible" but now is not with later alterations?
The recovery shot would make the hole better IMO.
-
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/14an.jpg)
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/14a.jpg)
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/f14.jpg)
It's a tight tee shot now - not even close to how MacKenzie/Jones had it set up. The green is so strong that I don't think they need a national forest out there to defend the hole.
-
Can I ask a question about hole 13?
I understand (slightly) that the water level of the tributary to Rae's Creek has been raised and lowered over time?? Is this true? I understand that at one time that a recovery shot in front of the green was "possible" but now is not with later alterations?
The recovery shot would make the hole better IMO.
Carl:
Ask away. The tributary was dammed from 1987 to 1996, eliminating many of the recovery shots that we have seen in recent years. I'm not sure if the current iteration matches the version that was in place before 1987, or if now there is a bit more water in play. I happen to really like the possibility of watching someone try to play from the hollow, or even out of shallow water. Its one of the few areas of the course that has a truly natural feel.
Here's a photo from 2003 that shows a bit of the creek bed:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/tue3.jpg)
-
Continuing my minor contribution to the thread, it seems that most players who go for the green on #13 try to fade the ball from a hook (ball above feet) lie, even though they often end up long and left. There's a back left shelf on the green which encourages more layups, and best attacked with a low spinning approach.
I think about Zach Johnson winning the tournament by laying up on all par fives. Phil Mickelson hitting 6-iron from 202 yards in the pine straw. Curtis Strange, at the top of his game, finding Rae's Creek with his second shot. So many memorable moments here.
Augusta National presents a grand variety of special shots to execute. I challenge anyone to name a tournament course that demands a greater variety of specific shots.
-
Last chance at eagle...
Hole 15 - Firethorn - Par 5
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole15_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/15.jpg)
1934 - 485 yards - The scene of Sarazen's double-eagle in 1935. At that time, the water (described as a ditch, ravine, creek, stream and moat) was at least 20 yards short of the green, with a gentle bank, not a steep slope, in between.
1949 - 485 yards - Downstream from the 15th, the creek was dammed and piped underground, backing up water into the hollow and creating the pond in front of the 15th (some called it a lagoon). Its green side slope was now steeper and slicker. A trio of pine trees in the fairway had finally grown sufficiently to become an annoyance.
1957 - 520 yards - A formal dam left of the pond was established in 1955, its walkway designated the Gene Sarazen bridge. The next summer, dirt was hauled in to extend the tee and to create gallery mounds behind and to the right of the green. At the suggestion of Hogan, the right-hand mound was carved into a bunker before the '57 event.
1970 - 520 yards - In 1962, George Cob widened the pond so players could clearly see its leading edge. In 1969, the tee was moved back 40 yards, but the scorecard yardage didn't change. Robert directed the installation of a series of high mounds on the right side of the fairway. Meant as hazards, players ultimately used them to propel drives farther down the hole.
1999 - 500 yards - Without explanation, the official yardage was reduced to 500 yards in 1981. In the summer of 1998, mounds in the rough were removed, and several clusters of tall pines were transplanted in that area (as well as to the left) to drastically tighten the landing zone. Roberts' mounds on the right side of the fairway, mistakenly considered MacKenzie originals, were retained.
2011 - 530 yards - A new tee was built in 2005 30 yards back and 20 yards to the left of the old one. From there, the preferred drive was definitely a face into the gap between the trees. A year later, the Masters tee was extended forward about seven yards to provide the option of moving markers up in certain wind conditions.
Here are Dan's words:
"Always a short, straightaway par 5, the fifteenth has forever been reachable in two, initially because Bobby Jones believed that all par 5s potentially should be, and more recently because the presence of the eleventh fairway leaves no room to extend the tee back any further. Though, at a glance, things may not look too different today relative to the early years, the hole has seen its fair share of changes.
First, what began as a smallish creek meandering before the green was eventually widened, and enlarged into today’s famous pond, though accounts of just when this took place vary, ranging from 1947 through the early 1960’s. Also, a mound sitting just off the right edge of the putting surface was replaced by a bunker – at the apparent suggestion of Ben Hogan – in 1957. Additional mounds around the green have been added and removed, and a controversial series of mounds were added on the right side of the driving zone in 1969.
Of course, nothing has affected the fifteenth quite so much as the effect of trees along its fairway – and not just those installed around the new millennium. Once upon a time, the plain that encompasses parts of the second, third, seventh, fifteenth and seventeenth fairways was largely a wide open stretch, dotted only with the occasional pine tree. Two of those original pines formed the foundation of the large cluster of trees that now cuts into the left side of the fifteenth’s driving zone – so that particular copse is not entirely contrived – but the budding mini-forest which now occupies a stretch of former right-side fairway most certainly is.
And then there is a subtle, yet hugely important, agronomical difference: with the slope separating the front of the green from the pond now maintained with the firmness of a billiard table, the margin for error on approaches coming up fractionally short has been reduced to near nothing – a circumstance which affects heavily spun pitches more than longer irons from atop the hill, and thus might actually induce more players to go for the green in two.
Better Then or Now?
One certainly sympathizes with Masters officials who’ve grown weary of watching longer hitters reach the fifteenth green with short-iron seconds, so the hole’s recent lengthening to 530 yards certainly makes sense. The problem, once again, lies with the addition of rough and trees, both of which run directly against the philosophy of Bobby Jones, who specifically wanted players to have a go at this green in two. Jones wrote favorably of the fifteenth that “The tee shot may be hit almost anywhere without encountering trouble,” because he considered this a necessity in setting up the unique approach that has produced so many of championship golf’s most thrilling moments."
I actually think that this is one hole at Augusta where placing a premium on placement of the tee shot is appropriate (the method of doing so is still up for debate). The reward is a shot at the green, the penalty for poor execution is to have to lay up (with birdie still an option). That being said, the second into the 15th green is one of a few standout moments in the closing stretch of the tournament. There's a fine line between building up the excitement and still asking the golfer to execute shots in order to be in a position to make a move.
As we've seen in recent years, the tournament committee has the ability to change the conditioning around the 15th to make the hole easier or harder, depending on the intentions of the year. With a bit of rough on the bank, the penalty for a miss short is alleviated slightly. Of course, if you haven't maneuvered through the obstacle course in the fairway, the length of the grass on the bank has little effect.
Reading Dan's comments makes me think that the nature of this hole should be dominated by the pin positions, and the fairway should be set up so that the player has the opportunity to place their tee shot in the ideal position for attacking the day's location. I think I'd rather hear the commentators discussing how Player A's drive leaves them a tough angle into the narrow left side of the green, as opposed to hearing them discuss how they are going to play their layup from the pine straw.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC15APP.jpg)
-
I disagree with Daniel Wexler's commentary on #14. He says:
"Better preserved has been the green, a true roller coaster of a putting surface whose enormous bumps and undulations lead to all manner of creative approach shots each April. ... But watching the occasional smartly played Masters approach land thirty feet from the pin, turn 90 degrees, then ultimately trickle down to within inches of the cup, one cannot help but recognize that this remains, in many ways, the last true footprint of Dr. MacKenzie at Augusta."
-- Daniel Wexler
I strongly disagree with this comment. I think there is very little creativity expressed on #14 by the tournament players. Even though the approach is sometimes played several yards away from the target, this is one of those Masters holes where there's little room for error, a "five foot circle" that must be hit to get the short birdie putt. I get the feeling every player tries to hit a high soft approach in exactly the same place every time. I don't see the creativity at all. You have to know where to hit it, and then hit the high soft one right there.
-
Continuing what I hope is considered a critical analysis, not to be misconstrued as criticism.
Hole 16 - Redbud - Par 3
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole16_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/16FLAT.jpg)
1934 - 145 yards - Originally patterned after the 7th at England's Stoke Poges (now Stoke Park), it green was guarded by the same creek that downstream still edges the 13th. The tee was just right of the 15th green. In 1941, a tee honoring Sarazen was added left of the 15the green, 50 feet from the hole location for his double eagle in 1935.
1937 - 145 yards - After the 2nd Masters, the green was expanded to the left, and the two hillside bunkers were pulled closer to the green, creating some testy hole locations between the stream and the sand. A huge knob - similar to the mound in the 6th green - dominated the widest portion of the putting surface. Despite the changes, Jones considered this a weak link.
1948 - 190 yards - Just after WWII, Jones joined R.T. Jones in designing Peachtree Golf Club, which lead to Trent being invited to handle changes at Augusta. Trent suggested rotating the 16th hole 90 degrees, damming the creek into a pond and creating a new tee at one end and a new green, with two bunkers, at the other end. Greenkeeper Marion Luke built the suggested changes.
1949 - 190 yards - The summer after the changes were made, Trent raised the height of the back terrace and added a tiny third bunker on the left. He also dammed and piped underground a stream that had previously split the tee box. Up that stream, his work formed the pond in front of the 15th. In 1950, Roberts poured bags of copper sulphate into the pond on 16 to turn its muddy water blue.
1966 - 190 yards - In 1959, the creek that crossed the 6th fairway and fed into the pond on 16 was piped underground, but a narrow next of exposed water was retained as a hazard left of the 16th green. In 1966, that net was piped underground so that shots long and left no longer ended up wet. The back left corner of the green was also abandoned, and the area was regraded into a tightly mowed slope.
2011 - 170 yards - In 1999, the green was reconstructed to gain more hole locations at the front and back. In 2006, the green complex was rebuilt again, and the surrounding bunkers were made much deeper. The latest construction activity has occurred across the pond, in the area of the original 16th green. The vast comfortable viewing are for spectators has been improved by expanding it and adding an access staircase from the fifth green.
From Dan:
"The famed par-3 sixteenth, site of so much Masters lore and the last of the layout’s true all-or-nothing tests, bears the unique distinction of being the only hole which was not a part of the original Jones and MacKenzie design. Indeed, their original sixteenth hole – now virtually forgotten – was listed at 145 yards and ran nearly due west, emanating from alternate tees on either side of the fifteenth green. Its putting surface sat in an area between the present hole’s pond and the edge of the sixth fairway, and was flanked closely on its right by the creek that once crossed the sixth, and not so closely on its left by a pair of bunkers. MacKenzie cited the seventh at England’s Stoke Poges Golf Club as its inspiration (a rather more obscure choice than earlier St. Andrews and North Berwick influences) and seemed generally to have liked the hole.
Unfortunately, club officials were less enamored with it. Clifford Roberts estimated that the original actually measured little more than 110 yards and, we are told, early Masters participants found it far too easy. Thus Robert Trent Jones was brought aboard in 1947 to construct the present, highly dramatic sixteenth, reportedly executing a concept laid out by Bobby Jones himself.
Better Then or Now?
For the purpose of The Masters, it is difficult to argue that the current hole – despite offering little more than two really effective pin placements on a larger-than-average green – isn’t far better suited to the rigors and excitement of modern tournament play. For the membership, however, the old sixteenth might have held more charm (and obviously more MacKenzie flavor), particularly as there was room to lengthen at least its left-side tee considerably. But on balance, it would be hard to suggest that the modern hole doesn’t better suit the club’s all-around purposes, the staleness of Trent Jones’s aesthetics (at least relative to Dr. MacKenzie) notwithstanding."
Mickelson noted that the plateau on the top right of the green has been expanded for this year's tournament, making what had been a very difficult pin position not quite as difficult.
Did Jones and MacKenzie miss the mark on this one? Seeing as two holes (the 12th and the 16th) have been compared to the 7th at Stoke Park, the change in alignment and placement of the water hazard have created a greater diversity in the styles of the par 3's at Augusta. The back left pin on Sunday adds one last hold your breath moment to the tournament, with the occasional player missing the mark, finding the pond and dashing their hopes. There's plenty of room to miss right, but there's little reward in leaving one up on the high side of the green.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC16.jpg)
-
New, subtle changes to #8 and #16 greens, reports Augusta Chronicle:
http://www.augusta.com/masters/story/news/latest-news/players-notice-subtle-changes-8th-16th-greens (http://www.augusta.com/masters/story/news/latest-news/players-notice-subtle-changes-8th-16th-greens)
-
Continuing what I hope is considered a critical analysis, not to be misconstrued as criticism.
I'll assume this is a response to my one criticism of Mr. Wexler's analysis. If so, I reserve the right to disagree with him once.
-
You can see the changes in the 9th green over the years. Which one do you think is best?
The fairway has been greatly narrowed. Is there anybody who thinks that makes it a better course for the members?
Chris, what year was the top photo taken ?
Are you positive that's # 9 ?
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/9.jpg)
-
Pat:
That is definitely 9. The fairway in the background in the first photo is the 1st fairway. If you look at the stand of trees in the "V" between the 1st and 10th fairways in the first two photos, you can see the same groupings of trees.
The original green had a horseshoe shape, as depicted in the first photo. The boomerang or horseshoe green was changed in 1938, so the photo must be in the '34-'38 time period.
Sven
-
Here is the original 16th green. The original tee was almost connected to the right side of the 15th green.
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/16ang.jpg)
-
Here is the original 16th green. The original tee was almost connected to the right side of the 15th green.
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/16ang.jpg)
If the hole played like it looks like (a back-left shelf, a front-left bowl, and a back-right bowl), I think the hole would play more challenging but fair and dramatic. IMO, the hole would play better then than now. With the back-right bowl, it would add some major drama. IMO, the Sunday pin in the back-right would be more entertaining then than now because it would challenge the players, but if you hit a good shot, it would stay in/go into the bowl and you would make a birdie, while now there is a ton of area that you can hit your ball and end up close to have a tap-in birdie. While the birdies and eagles being made everywhere you look on the back-nine on Sunday is amazing, it would join the other holes on the back nine where a eagle--double or worse could be made on Sunday, too. As it is now, you never see a player make worse than a par in the last 10 groups on Sunday, it feels like.
I understand what I described the old hole like isn't exactly what it looks like in the photo, but over time, I think that is what the hole would have turned into (a bowl front-left, a shelf back-left, and a bowl in the back-right; as well as the water tighter to the green or having a steeper slope into it and the bunkers coming much closer to the green)
You could also make 17 longer with the moved green.
Bring back the original layout!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
deleted
-
Mac has graciously allowed me to borrow some of his photos taken during his practice round visit. I've updated each hole with a shot that highlights some of the areas discussed in the write-up.
Chris Buie, who has been a stalwart in updating the thread with photos from his collection, provided the following six pictures from the early days. See if you can guess what holes:
A. (http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/6angc.jpg)
B. (http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/8th-Green-1956.jpg)
C. (http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/2ndGreen.jpg)
D. (http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/8.jpg)
E. (http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/Sixth-ANGC-pond-696x1024.jpg)
F. (http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/8th-Green-1935.jpg)
G. (http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/Third-Green-1935.jpg)
-
I'll have a go...
A. #2
B. #14
C. #7
D. #8 (100% certain; have seen this photo referenced elsewhere)
E. #6 - obviously in that very brief period where there was a pond there. Great find!
F. #8 (original green, I assume)
G. #3
-
A. #10
B. #8
C. #17 (?)
D. #8
E. #6
F. #8
G. #3
-
You guys are right on D-G. For your A-C guesses, only one correct answer so far.
-
I should have looked at A closely.... didn't see the green on the hill. Almost looks like it could be #6 again.
B and C were total guesses for me.
-
You guys are right on D-G. For your A-C guesses, only one correct answer so far.
Still stumped on C, but upon further review I would guess #6 for A. Confident in my guess on B though.
edit: Looks like Matthew and I were thinking the same thing for A.
-
Alex:
You're right on A and B. C is kind of tough.
-
Is C #1?
Or #9
Never mind. I'm sticking with 1
Actually it might be 9
I don't know!!!!!!!!!
-
C is the 2nd. Kind of tough to pick up from the photo, which I am guessing is taken from the front left.
-
I would have never guessed that.
-
Wow, B is #8 as well?
This must have been after Clifford Roberts had the original plowed under. I can kinda see why they restored it later.
-
Sven,
You are going to make it to the 18th. in a canter! Well done!
This has been a terrific thread and I will have it printed out as I watch The Masters with my mate. To have a ready synopsis of the changes and the old versus newer/newest photos is fabulous. Thanks again (to everyone in fact).
Cheers Colin
-
Sven
Cheers! Wonderful thread. I am in awe of the original(ish) bunker scheme. It is so out of the park and original. If this were Dr Mac's only course and an archie saw the plan he must certainly have thought... zowie!
Ciao
-
Great stuff, Sven (and Dan W and Chris B, et. al.)
As for the 16th, I think it is a shining example of how great golf courses can be made even greater through re-design. I see the old 16th (7th) as mostly a mirror image of 12 (3), and repetition is a curse of the scoundrel. The new one is sui generis, or as the Irish would say, "Itself." There is no greater compliment for a golf hole, at least in my vocabulary.
-
repetition is a curse of the scoundrel
That reminds me of a phrase Emerson coined:
"foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
--
Jumping ahead to 17:
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/17angc.jpg)
Remove the stream, remove the artful fairway bunker and add a bunch of trees? That makes it a better hole?
-
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/8th-Green-1956.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/2ndGreen.jpg)
C is the 2nd. Kind of tough to pick up from the photo, which I am guessing is taken from the front left.
C is not the 2nd, it's an early pic of the 8th. Look closely at the shape of the green and also the little mounds that are in the fairway at the top center part of the photo (which are still there today). The pic is actually from the exact same angle as the B pic. Check out the group of mounds in the fairway in that photo. The mounds are further away because they shifted the green back and left when Mr. Roberts took out the mounds. Hard to believe but its almost the same photo many years apart
-
Bryan:
Teaches me to trust labels. You are correct, that is the 8th.
I was having a hard time reconciling how it was the second, and should have second guessed myself.
Here's another photo from the same day showing Bobby Jones putting:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/golf_g_1934masters_600.jpg)
-
As Chris said, on to the 17th...
17th Hole - Nandina - Par 4
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole17_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/17FLAT.jpg)
1934 - 400 yards - MacKenzie fashioned the green after the 14th at St. Andrews. The left side of the putting surface sloped away from the player, so it was essential to lay a run-up approach. "Until players have learned to play the desired shot," MacKenzie wrote, "the will undoubtedly be one of the most fiercely criticized holes."
1938 - 400 yards - In the summer of 1937, Maxwell remodeled the green and added three bunkers at its front. Roberts was not pleased writing to Maxwell "I do not think you should have banked up the left-hand back side of the green. This is supposed to be a run-up hole. You have changed the character of the hole by inviting layers to pitch it to the green."
1956 - 400 yards - By the mid-1950's, a pine 175 yards off the tee on the left had grown tall enough to menace short hitters. The tree was named after a member who requested it be cut down during a 1956 meeting, prompting Roberts to rule Eisenhower out of order and to adjourn the meeting.
1967 - 400 yards - A gallery mound was added left of the green in the summer of 1966. Roberts stood near the top of a stepladder positioned in the bed of a pickup truck and raised his hand to show how high he wanted the mound. Cobb was directed to fill in the far-left bunker and reshape the other left bunker so it would extend into the new mound.
2002 - 425 yards - Pines transplanted to the right of the 15th in 1999 also came into play on 17. A new back tee added that year added 25 yards. Still, the Eisenhower Tree was only 200 yards from the tee, easily cleared by good players. From 1999-2001, tall pines were transplanted beyond Eisenhower to eventually take its place and complicate hooks.
2011 - 440 yards - In the summer of '05, Fazio relocated the Master tee back another 15 yards and supervised the planting of more pines on the left near the green to reduce the air space on approach shots. The 17th fairway is now the most narrow driving hole on the course, suggesting a slight drawn around the 65-foot Eisenhower Tree or a power fade over it.
From Mr. Wexler:
"The par-4 seventeenth was originally built as the last of Augusta’s bunkerless holes, its shallow, swale-fronted putting surface leading Dr. MacKenzie to opine that “It will be necessary to attack the green from the right and it will be essential to play a run-up shot if par figures are desired.” Somewhere early on, however, this strategy was rejected by the club when it chose to add three bunkers, the two which presently front the putting surface and a third – long since removed – well short and left, the net result being that no modern run-up shot is played intentionally. For all intents and purposes, it is thus an entirely different hole than that built by Jones and MacKenzie.
Of course, the seventeenth’s most famous feature lies considerably closer to the tee in the form of the Eisenhower tree, a now-massive loblolly pine sitting some 210 yards off the tips and occupying the left third of the fairway. Named for President Dwight Eisenhower, a prominent club member whose tee shots it regularly devoured, this 70-foot-high landmark was little more than a sapling when Jones and MacKenzie elected to leave it standing during construction. Yet despite its great stature, it remains far more menacing to members than to the professionals, who can generally carry it with ease, even from the new-millennium, 440-yard tee. The trees and rough which have substantially narrowed the driving zone since 1998, however, are far less easy for Masters participants to ignore.
Better Then or Now?
This oppressive rough and tree presence has essentially turned the seventeenth into a lighter version of number seven – another narrow, thought-free, U.S. Open special. But even more disappointing is the presence of the fronting greenside bunkers, for it would be especially interesting to watch today’s professionals attempt to approach the original, hazard-free putting surface, especially under modern, ultra-firm-and-fast agronomical conditions. Save perhaps for Ike’s tree, this has largely become just another longish, uninspiring par 4 – and a far less interesting hole than it was in 1933."
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC17GREEN.jpg)
-
Before climbing the hill up 18, I wanted to share this article (stolen from the GCA FB page) written by Dr. MacKenzie regarding the origination of the course:
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1932/ag356p.pdf
A couple of items of particular interest:
A. First, MacKenzie's description of the ideal course (using the word "minimize"):
1. A really great course must be a constant source of pleasure to the greatest possible number of players.
2. It must require strategy in the playing as well as skill, otherwise it can not continue to hold the golfer's interest.
3. It must give the average player a fair chance, and at the same time, it must require the utmost from the expert who tries for sub-par scores.
4. All natural beauty should be preserved, natural hazards should be utilized, and artificiality should be minimized.
B. The Magnolias bordering the entrance drive were a hundred years old, when the article was written. In addition, the Azalea's and other flowering plants were present on the property, making it hard to argue that the course has a contrived look when it comes to foliage.
C. Just as the Old Course was a model for the features on certain holes, it was also a model for enjoyment by golfers of all levels.
D. His descriptions of the various holes are a great starting point to begin the analysis of the changes made (note that his nines are reversed). A couple of discussion points:
1. The 10th (old No. 1) was meant to be a relatively easy hole. Today it plays as one of the hardest.
2. The 12th (old No. 3) was originally 130 yards.
3. He compares the 13th (old No. 4) to the 17th at Cypress Point.
4. It is an interesting exercise to try to determine how much of the strategy he described remains.
E. I found this quote to be fascinating: "It is usually the best holes that are condemned most vehemently by this who fail to solve their strategy. Bob Jones realizes this so strongly that when asked his opinion about the design...he said that the course would differ so markedly from others, that many of the members at first would have unpleasant things to say about the architects. A few years ago I would have agreed with Bob, but today, owing to his own teaching, the work and writings of C.B. Macdonald, Max Behr, Robert Hunter and others, Americans appreciate real strategic golf to a greater extent than even in Scotland, the Home of Golf."
-
You can see the changes in the 9th green over the years. Which one do you think is best?
The fairway has been greatly narrowed. Is there anybody who thinks that makes it a better course for the members?
Chris,
That's not the 9th fairway, that's the 1st fairway.
The angle of the photo hides the 9th fairway to the left, and, they never really shared fairways at # 1 and 9.
Ditto, from a practical perspective # 8 and # 9
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/9.jpg)
-
Pat:
I don't think Chris ever claimed it was the 9th Fairway. And although the fairways weren't shared, players used to hit from 9 tee to the 1st fairway to get a better angle into the 9th green. Trees were planted to eliminate that possibility.
Sven
-
The middle photo shows the generous width and angles of the intended ninth fairway. Now the vast majority of players are just trying to just hit it in the fairway rather than aiming for a part of the fairway - greatly diminished strategy there. That is the case at ANGC with many of the holes - especially the tee shots. The club should definitely take out every blade of rough on the course right after the tournament - and keep it that way for the members and their guests.
Regarding this little triptych, the thing that stand out the most for me is how the pines branch out toward the bottom of the trunks as the years go on. As one who has spent a considerable amount of time exploring those lovely areas between fairways among the pines I can tell you it has a major playability factor. Perhaps one of tree experts can chime in on this point. Some pines don't grow limbs at the bottom of the trunk and some do.
Another thing to keep in mind this year is that Augusta was built on clay rather than sand...
-
"On July 15, 1931, The Augusta Chronicle devoted most of its front page to coverage of the announcement that Jones and his associates were founding the Augusta National Golf Club. Nearly six of its eight columns were necessary to display four articles on Jones and his new club." A headline announced:
NATIONAL CLUB WILL BE HEADED BY GREAT GOLFER
This is from the following informative collection of original articles about Bobby Jones, ANGC history, course changes and The Masters.
http://blog.readex.com/a-sports-legend-and-his-dream-bobby-jones-the-augusta-national-golf-club-and-the-birth-of-the-masters (http://blog.readex.com/a-sports-legend-and-his-dream-bobby-jones-the-augusta-national-golf-club-and-the-birth-of-the-masters)
-
Hole 18 - Holly - Par 4
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole18_1934.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/18FLAT.jpg)
1934 - 420 yards - The hole played 70 feet uphill, over a valley to a landing area about 25 feet higher, then another 45 feet up to the green. Whether the bunker right of MacKenzie's enormous stair-stepped green was deliberately shaped like the state of Texas has never been determined.
1938 - 425 yards - Like he did on the nearby 9th, Maxwell eliminated the long front tongue on the 18th green after the '37 Masters. MacKenzie's cross bunker remains a mystery. About 100 yards short of the green, it was too far off the tee to be a problem on drives but too far from the green to interfere with approaches. The bunker remained until 1956.
1947 - 425 yards - Standing on an "amphitheater mound" by the 18th at the '46 Masters, Jones watched Hogan 3-putt from 12 feet to lose by one. He said to Trent Jones "That's not fair. We've got to change that." Trent recontoured the green that summer. Recalling the putt years later, Hogan said, "The greens were so slick you could almost hear them crackle, which I liked."
1967 - 420 yards - Two summers after Nicklaus set a scoring record, two fairway bunkers were created. Roberts called them a "huge, two-sectioned bunker," probably because the club appropriated funds for only two bunkers, and Roberts also wanted one built on the 2nd. In the next Masters, Nicklaus caught the sand off the tee, made bogey and missed the cut by one shot.
1975 - 420 yards - Just a month before the '75 Masters - an unusual time to make alterations - Roberts had pine trees planted in a 75-yard gap between the existing tree line on the left and the fairway bunkers. "To provide a potential penalty for a duck-hooked tee shot," Roberts said. In 1978, Hogan wrote the club, advocating elimination of the fairway bunkers on 18, a request that was declined.
2011 - 465 yards - In 2001, Fazio moved the tee back as far as he could, stretching the hole to 465 yards. He reshaped and expanded the fairway bunkers and directed that additional pines be landed left and beyond the bunkers. It now takes a drive of 300 yards to reach the first bunker and 335 yards to carry the second one.
Mr. Wexler's take on the 18th:
"The long 18th – which, we recall, was originally planned as the ninth – was intended from the start to be a demanding par 4, both in its tee shot (played over a small valley, and through a narrow chute of trees) and its approach (long and uphill, to a tightly bunkered, two-tiered green). Of primary importance to Dr. MacKenzie was the shape and bunkering of the putting surface, for its angling against/behind the deep front-left bunker was intended to favor a drive played to the far right side of the fairway – which, in turn, mandated flirting with the forest of pine trees that has long filled the dogleg corner. Both putting surface and greenside bunkering have been modestly re-shaped over the decades (including some initial 1938 work by Perry Maxwell) but as a whole, the green complex is at least conceptually consistent with the Jones and MacKenzie original. What has changed, however, is the removal (during the late 1940’s) of a largely decorative crossbunker that filled the fairway some 60 yards shy of the green – another aesthetically imposing hazard that would not be in play for the modern golfer.
In 2002, Tom Fazio built a new tee situated so far back as to nearly impede play on the neighboring 15th hole, while also planting several trees on the outside of the dogleg to minimize the option of deliberately busting a big drive into the relative safety of the club’s practice fairway. But an even bigger change to the tee shot came in 1966 when, after reportedly witnessing a young Jack Nicklaus’s remarkable power firsthand, Clifford Roberts ordered the addition of the two deep fairway bunkers that guard the outside of the dogleg. Of course, they’re situated nowhere near where the ideal right-side tee shot will finish, but they have certainly helped to make the eighteenth – particularly at 465 yards – one of the tougher finishers around.
Better Then or Now?
Since a hole built at 420 uphill yards in 1933 was clearly never intended to be easy, today’s long and strong version of the eighteenth may not play so very much harder than what Jones and MacKenzie had in mind. But in this case, such relative consistency may be unfortunate, because while 72nd-green birdies to win The Masters have never been common, the difficulty of today’s hole minimizes such prospects tremendously. It thus appears to be precisely the sort of closer that the club’s present architectural vision calls for – which, since the U.S. Open won’t be coming there any time soon, is really rather a shame."
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/18green2.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC18GREENSIDEBUNKERS.jpg)
-
One of the questions that has stood out during this exercise is how much of the strategy created by MacKenzie and Jones in the initial design remains. Certain holes have seen drastic increases in length, some seemingly retain the same general characteristics from 1934. Technology and the increased length of the modern player have certainly had an effect, as have increased green speeds.
Earlier in the thread I linked to an article where Zach Johnson's caddy discussed their strategy for each hole during his run to victory. I thought it would be an interesting exercise to compare those thoughts with MacKenzie's own description of each hole from the article posted above. I'm going to do this in 3 hole sections, the "Then" comments being from Dr. MacKenzie and the "Now" section reflecting how today's pro plays the holes. The yardages noted are the members tees from 1934, the tournament tees from that same year and today's length noted in parens.
No. 1 – Par 4 —Regular Distance 400 Yards —Championship 430 (445).
Then: A drive that is long and straight, skirting a group of trees on the right, will be in a favorable position for the second. It will be difficult to obtain par figures from any other position.
Now: It’s 286 to reach the bunker on the right, and we can’t reach that. I actually have 294 from the back of the tee, so we don’t need to worry too much about going in there. The second shot you basically have to carry it nine or 10 on, and if you don’t it comes right back at you. If you do that it’s going to funnel into the middle of the green. That’s basically all there is to that hole – just get it past nine or 10 to the front. We had 204 yards on Thursday, and it rolled 11 yards once it got on the green. On day two we had 197, and hit a 4-iron 187 and it rolled 7 yards. How do I know? Once I’m on the green I’m looking for his ball mark. I start to count the yards as I get on the green and start looking for his ball mark. Par is really good. I mean, really good. It’s a very difficult starting hole. You’re happy as a lark to walk off there with a par.
No. 2 - Par 5 —Regular Distance 480 Yards —Championship 510 (575).
Then: An interesting three-shot hole down hill. Each shot will need to be placed with great accuracy. On the other hand, it will be quite possible for a powerful and accurate player to reach the green in two shots.
Now: If you can hit it down the left side, you can pick up an extra 20 to 30 yards because it hits the slope and rolls out. It’s 3.5 per cent downhill, which equals about 10 yards. It’s 300 yards to the bunker on the right. Don’t go left or it will run and run down into that creek on the left. (A lot of people don’t even know this is here.) We basically hit it at the bunker, and if it turns over, fine. Last year we had 273 to the front, then 282, 233 and 251 front; so Saturday was the only day we could have got there. The pin was left of the bunker, so instead we hit the second shot right so we could chip over that bunker.
No. 3 – Par 4 —Regular Distance 335 Yards —Championship 360 (350).
Then: The green here is situated on an interesting natural plateau. The left- hand side of the green is very narrow; whereas the right side is broad. It will be easy for anyone to reach the wide portion of the green with his second shot, but difficult to reach the narrow and, where it is probable, the pin will usually be placed.
Now: You can play this hole many different ways. We played driver every day. You don’t want to hit it more than 280 yards to stay on the flat part of the fairway. Once you get over that, it will run away, and if you get too close to the green, the right-hand pins are very tricky to get at. The green is the biggest defence on this hole. It’s real shallow on the left, and the ball can just scoot on and release. It’s usually a wedge into here. On the first day we had 111 to the pin, then 87, 83 and 63. If you hit it short it will roll back 30 yards from the front. You’re just trying to hit the green – just getting it on this green, even with a wedge, you’re happy. DON’T leave it short.
-
No. 4 – Par 3 —Regular Distance 160 Yards —Championship 170 (240).
Then: This hole is very similar to the famous eleventh (Eden) at St. Andrews. There have been scores of attempted copies of this famous hole, but there is none that has the charm and thrill of the original. Most copies are failures because of the absence of the subtle and severe slopes which create the excitement of the original hole, and also because the turf is usually so soft that any kind of a sloppy pitch will stop. Previous failures, followed by, comparatively speaking, increasing successes may have given us sufficient experience to war- rant us in hoping that here at last we may construct a hole that will compare favorably with the original.
Now:
The new tee they’ve built makes it very, very, difficult to hit this green. It’s 219 to the front from the very back, and it’s five per cent downhill, which equates to 10-12 yards to the front. We hit 2-iron, 4-iron, 5-iron (when they pulled the tee forward) and 3-wood on the last day. When the pin is at the front, the left trap is OK, and the front fringe is OK, but you don’t want to be in the right trap. When it’s back left, long is OK and the front bunker is OK because it will feed back down off the slope. Par is another good score.
No. 5 – Par 4 —Regular Distance 445 Yards—Championship 470 (455).
Then: This will be a similar type of hole to the famous seventeenth, the Road Hole at St. Andrews. A group of trees will form a corner of the dogleg instead of the station master's garden, and the green itself will be situated on a plateau similar to its prototype.
Now:
This is a brute. You can’t hit it in the bunkers on the left – you can’t even get to the green from there. So you have to favour the right side. Zach tends to draw it a little bit, so we always shoot down the right side and try to bring it back into the middle. And then once you hit a great drive, this hole just gets harder. The mounding around the green is just incredible, and you just can’t get that from TV. Those mounds must be five-feet tall. If you’re the least bit short it rolls all the way off the green. We try to carry it 18 on, to cover all those mounds – that’s all we want to do. You’ve just got to get over the mounds.
Unfortunately they put a pin on here about 15 on, that’s a real tricky pin. You’re better long on here, putting back to the pins. The bunker isn’t a bad place to be. Zach bogeyed it three out of the four days last year because we couldn’t get it up and down – that’s how hard it is. Club selection is tough. It’s a really difficult hole, because the green is so busy.
No. 6 – Par 3—Regular Distance 180 Yards —Championship 200 (180).
Then: This will resemble the Redan Hole at North Berwick (Scotland), but here, owing to its extreme visibility, lay of the land, and beauty of the surroundings, we feel sure that we shall be able to construct a much more attractive hole than the original Redan.
Now: The 6th green is basically as undulating as the 5th, and when the pin is over there on the right you’ve got a 10-yard square to land it in, or the ball rolls back and you’ve got an uphill 40-footer coming back. Zach hit three 6-irons in there and one 7-iron, and when that pin is right, it’s a frightening shot. If you go long, it’s no good. Go right it runs down the hill. Short, it runs down the hill. The easiest pin is when it’s front left, so you can shoot long and right and use the hill to feed it down.
-
No. 7 – Par 4 —Regular Distance 315 Yards—Championship 340 (450).
Then: The hole will be similar in character to the eighteenth Hole at St. Andrews, Scotland. There will be a large deep hollow at the front of the green which it will be necessary to attack at the correct angle for par figures to be obtained. At this hole, it will also be desirable to play a run-up shot, as it will be exceedingly difficult to retain a pitch in the usual position of the flag.
Now:
The hardest driving hole I’ve ever seen, and the green is not made for the length they’ve got the hole now. It was made for wedges and sand wedges. It’s 19 yards deep. Last year we went in with 8 and 7-irons, but that’s because the wind was helping. In 2006, we were hitting 4-irons and 5-irons. We were aiming for the front bunker and trying to get it up and down. You have no chance stopping a ball on that green with those clubs. It’s one of the narrowest fairways on the course and tree-lined. It’s probably 20-25 yards wide at its narrowest. Zach made par all four days, and that was really good.
No. 8 – Par 5 —Regular Distance 470 Yards—Championship 490 (570).
Then: A three-shot hole up hill. The green will be in a punch bowl surrounded by large hillocks nine to twelve feet high. It will be completely visible for the third shot, and a player, who is sufficiently long to get up in two, will be able to define the position of the green owing to the size of the sur- rounding hillock. It may be compared to the seventeenth Green at Muirfield, (Scotland).
Now:
It’s hard for us to get close to the bunkers, so we hit driver down the middle and hit a 3-wood over the big humps on the right side of the fairway and it opens up the long and slopey green. On the last day we had 78 yards to the hole and he wanted to hit a 54 degree wedge and I said it was a good 60. “Don’t you think it will spin too much,” he said, and I told him it would come back and be OK. So he hit it and it went past the pin by about 10 yards and then spun right back off the green. He got kind of pissy, so I said don’t worry about it, it’s an easy chip from there. So he goes up and holes the chip, and I said “I told you, don’t ever second guess me!”
There’s a ridge across the middle of this green – down which Rory Sabbatini holed an unbelievable putt last year. It’s another hole on which par is brilliant. The green is so tough to play. When the flag is back, the putt is fast as lightening and if you go two yards past it, it rolls right back off the green. The long guys like Tiger can knock it on in two, but they really have to draw it around the big pines on the left.
No. 9 – Par 4 —Regular Distance 405 Yards —Championship 430 (460).
Then: This will be a hole of the Cape type played slightly down hill. A long straight drive to the right will give an easy second to the green.
Now:
A good driving hole again. You can’t miss it left or you’re in the trees. You’ve got to favour the right side and try to catch the slope. Just hit a driver 260 and it will roll all the way down the hill. Last year we had 123, 129, 105 and 104 to the front on each day. Basically it’s a second shot hole, and it all sets up for the putt. I remember Ben Crenshaw putting up in the fringe, and seeing it come back down to the pin. Carry the front 10 yards and take whatever it gives you. The big sin is spinning it back off the front, and we did it one day. Zach was mad as can be. Just make sure you carry it so it can’t suck back down the slope, where you’re dead. You don’t get the size of the slope in front of this green on TV. It’s 2.5 per cent uphill, so six or seven yards.
-
No. 10 – Par 4 —Regular Distance 395 Yards— Championship 420 (495).
Then: This is a comparatively easy hole down hill. There will be a large spectacular bunker running left to right from 150 to 200 yards from the Tee. A long drive over this bunker will land on a plateau from which it is an easy shot to a large punch bowl green. The hole will embody the most attractive features of the 13th Hole at Cypress Point, California, and the 4th at Alwoodly, one of the best of the British Inland Links.
Now:
Hit a high hook as hard as you can and it will roll down this hill forever. I’ve never been skiing, but it sure looks like it should be a ski slope to me – just put a little snow on there and you could have a ball! It’s very severe. It’s all downhill to the green, but it looks as if it goes uphill. Left is OK, because you’re chipping back into the slope. The bunker is a really bad place to be, so you want to hit to middle of the green and if it rolls left it’s an easy up and down. On the last day last year Zach had to go to the rest room after his tee shot here. Usually he’s hyper and real quick, and I looked back and watched him strolling down the hill, very relaxed. He got to the ball, asked how far it was, and I told him it was a perfect 7-iron. He had 178 to the hole, he carried it 177 and hit it to eight feet. That’s when I knew something was kind of different about him that day. To watch him walk slowly down that hill, and then hit that shot, I was thinking: “Man, this could be good.”
No. 11 – Par 4 —Regular Distance 405 Yards—Championship 430 (505).
Then: The green is situated in the bend of a beautiful stream. The approach has a marked tilt upwards from left to right, so that the further and more accurately a drive is placed to the left the easier the second shot becomes. This will be a most fascinating hole, without a single bunker, I don't know any other quite like it.
Now:
This is probably the hardest hole on the course. Since they planted more trees down the right side it’s just brutal. We were hitting 220, 190, 209 and 232 into the green with all that water left. You can bail out right, but it’s no bargain getting up and down from there – unless you’re Larry Mize. The water is staring you right in the face, so you always try to favour the right edge of the green because there’s some big slopes over there that feed the ball down. Use the slopes to your advantage again. The drop zone is 40 yards from the front of the green, coming in over the water again. This is the second hardest hole after the 7th in my view. Take your par on here and run.
No. 12 – Par 3—Regular Distance 120 Yards—Championship 130 (155).
Then: Here is an interesting pitch shot to a long narrow green immediately over a stream. There is a steep sandy bank covered with beautiful trees beyond the green.
Now: You start thinking about 12 after you’ve hit your second shot dry on 11. You start looking around trying to get a feel for the wind. Basically, we came to the strategy that no matter where the pin is, we just hit over the middle of the bunker. No matter where the pin is, we try to get it on that skinny-ass green and take our chances. We hit three 8-irons and one 9 last year. If you just shoot for the middle of the green, you’ve got a lot of room for error. The only place you cannot hit it is right, because it can hit that bank and go in the water – unless you’re Fred Couples. That bank is probably as fast as your greens back home, and once it gets going it’s “see you later”. It’s weird because on the tee you can’t hear anything down there, or on the 13th tee because the crowds are so far back. It’s like you are playing your country club, it’s that quiet.
-
No. 13 – Par 5—Regular Distance 420 Yards— Championship 440 (510).
Then: This is played along the course of a stream with the final shot finishing to a green over the stream with a background of a hill slope covered with magnificent pine trees. The hole will have some of the best golfing features of the seventeenth hole at Cypress Point, California, and the ideal hole depicted in C. B. Macdonald's book.
Now:
This hole kind of got me sparked a bit last year. It’s a pretty good fit for Zach’s eye as he turns the ball over a bit. There’s some pine trees out there, and we just shoot at those and bring it back. We hit it into the pine straw on a couple of days, so just laid up, but he hit a really good drive on the last day and had 203 to the front, with the pin on 22. It was very, very accessible club-wise, but you’re standing on your head trying to hit a 3-iron. It’s another hole where TV doesn’t do the second shot justice – the slope is steep so the ball is way above your feet usually. If you block it a little you’re in Rae’s Creek. If you turn it over too much, you’re either in the bunker or chipping back down towards the creek. It’s just a great hole. When the pin’s on the back left, I don’t know what to do! We had that on Saturday and that’s the most brutal pin. It’s so hard to get it in that quadrant – it’s about 10 yards wide and it’s hard to keep the ball there, even with a wedge. This is the green where Tiger putted it in the water.
No. 14 – Par 4—Regular Distance 395 Yards—Championship 425 (440).
Then: The hole embodies some of the features of the sixth hole at St. Andrews, Scotland. A long drive skirting or played over a bunker on the right will give a visible shot to the green. From the left the green will be semi-blind and moreover a run up approach will be required over a succession of hillocks and hollows.
Now:
A brilliant, brilliant hole. There’s really no trouble on this hole other than the green. It’s another one – like the 5th – where there’s a big slope on the front of the green. So basically the front of the green is 16 yards on, and everything feeds to the right. We pretty much hit it at a TV tower back there, unless the pin is left.
We always make sure we’re long here, because it’s a much easier chip. For us, we’re hitting it right into a slope off the tee, so the ball is not going anywhere. Longer hitters can carry that and run down the hill, hitting 9-irons and wedges in there, while we’re hitting 5s and 6-irons. We favour the right side of the fairway, because if you draw it too much, you can be blocked out by the trees. Zach’s birdie on here was one of my favourite shots of the week. He carried his 7-iron 163 yards, and the ball rolled and rolled to 12-15 feet.
No. 15 – Par 5 —Regular Distance 460 Yards— Championship 485 (530).
Then: This will be a three-shot hole to most golfers. A stream will be diverted so as to form a similar loop to the first hole of St. Andrews. It will not only make an interesting three-shot hole, as one will be manoeuvering for position from the tee shot onwards, but also a magnificent two- shot hole, as a skillful and courageous player, aided by a large hillock to the right of the loop of the stream, will be able to pull his second shot around to the green.
Now:
There are different strategies on laying up here. Some people favour the left hand side of the fairway for a right pin, and the right side for a left pin, but we felt like it was better to lay up left on all the pins, because it gives you a good angle to the back right pin, and for the back left pin there’s a ridge that you can feed the ball off. Also, it’s a little flatter on the left side of the fairway. Going for it in two wasn’t a consideration for us – we had 266, 248, 279 and 235 on each day. If we were chasing on Sunday, we could have had a go with a 3-wood. We were walking to the green when we heard the roar for Tiger’s birdie on the 13th – and I think Zach might have peaked at the leaderboard here, just to see.
-
No. 16 – Par 3 —Regular Distance 140 Yards— Championship 150 (170).
Then: This hole, over a stream, is some- what similar to the best hole (seventh) at Stoke Poges, England. It will probably be a better hole than the one at Stoke Poges as the green will be more visible and the background more at- tractive.
Now: This is a very accessible pin on Sunday as long as you use the bank to bring the ball back down to the hole. If you get unlucky and the ball stays up on the top, you’re kind of screwed. When Zach hit the 6-iron on Sunday, I knew it was perfect. It was 176 yards, and he carried it 171 and rolled up to a few feet. I said “great shot” right when he hit it. We knew the putt was very similar to the one he’d just made on 14, and he just stood up and drained it. It was a great putt. At this point it was very important for me to keep him calm and cool - even though he was like a duck. There were so many people there it was crazy, You’re trying to block it all out, but you can’t help hearing the roar. It was deafening. The hardest pin on 16 is the one we almost made a hole in one on, at the top of the ridge. It’s so tight up there that we’d never go for that – he basically pushed his shot, then three-putted. We made bogey on 16 every day apart from Sunday, and Zach showed great mental strength to put all that behind him and make a two when it mattered.
No. 17 – Par 4 —Regular Distance 375 Yards— Championship 410 (440).
Then: The construction of this green will be somewhat similar to the famous fourteenth at St. Andrews (reversed). It will be necessary to attack the green from the right, and it will be essential to play a run-up shot, if the par figure is to be attained. We hope to make the turf of such a character that an in- different pitch will not stop on the green. Until players have learned to play the desired shot, this will undoubtedly be one of the most fiercely criticized holes.
Now:
This was a wild hole in 2007. We can’t carry the Eisenhower Tree on the left; it’s 260-something from the tee, but as it’s so high it’s really more like 280 to get over it. Most of the long hitters can bomb it right over there, but we’ve got to fit it in the fairway and place it down the right side so it’s a really difficult drive for us. And then you’ve got an equally hard shot to get it to the right part of the green. The wind was howling into our faces, and we nuked a 7-iron 180 and it only got to the front. Tiger hit a sand wedge and came up short, too. The three-putt was disappointing for us on Sunday. It looked as though it went to the left, but it drifted a bit right and he missed the four-footer coming back. I knew if we two-putted it would have closed the door on a lot of guys.
No. 18 – Par 4 —Regular Distance 390 Yards— Championship 410 (465).
Then: The tee shot is played over a valley and bank running diagonally from left to right. The longer the drive to the right the easier the second shot. The approach to the green is bunkered heavily on the left.
Now:
After the bogey on 17, I’m thinking we’ve just let a lot more guys into the tournament. We can’t reach the bunker on 18, so I said just hit it straight and if it draws a little, it’s in the fairway. But even then he’d be left with a really long second shot. The 18th plays seven per cent up hill, which is about 10 yards. He hit a 6-iron, and it was just leaking right. We were very lucky it didn’t go in the trap. From there it’s a really hard shot, so when that ball just came up short of the bunker, I took a big deep breath. You can’t miss it left. When the pin is in its Sunday position, that’s just brutal, so he did the right thing in keeping it out to the right. It was the sort of chip you dream to have to win your first Major – just release it down the hill, and it works its way to the hole.
-
There's one hole left --> #19 ("Double" or "Quits")
Looking at the Masters Timeline (http://www.masters.com/en_US/discover/timeline.html), you'll see an original stick drawing of the course, which clearly shows a 19th hole up near where today's practice green sits.
Was this hole ever built?
-
Dan:
Here's what MacKenzie wrote about the 19th:
"Nineteenth Hole—90 Yards.
Clifford Roberts, Grantland Rice and some of the other governors thought it might be interesting to have a real nineteenth hole, so that the loser could have the opportunity of getting his money back by playing double or quits.
This nineteenth hole will be an attractive plateau green, narrow at one end, where the flag will usually be placed, but wide at the other end so as to give a safety route to the player who has not the courage or skill to pitch to the narrow end of the green. In this respect the hole will be somewhat similar to the short hole going out at Lakeside, near Los Angeles, I know of only two golf courses with an actual nineteenth hole. One is Knollwood (New York) and the other the Tam-O-Shanter Club (Detroit)."
I have no idea if it was ever built, and if it was what became of it.
-
Thanks to everyone for indulging my curiosity and for playing along, I hope the thread didn't bore you too much.
Here are a few closing shots from the program for the Inaugural Masters Tournament in 1934.
4th Hole:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/lf.jpg)
6th Hole:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/lf-1.jpg)
12th Hole:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/lf-2.jpg)
-
An early view of the 18th green.
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/18gAngc.jpg)
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/19thHole.jpg)
The good doctor had more faith in the skills of his fellow golfers than I have. I am all for tight routing but in the illustrations he put several of the tees connected to the greens - as you see here on the 19th hole. A fairly slight pull or draw could easily hit a player on the next tee.
So the course has undergone a pretty strong critique here. I don't think it was gratuitous bashing. Certainly, it was not intended as such. Really its a matter of looking at different ways of presenting the course and merely asking the question which one is better. It is a little complex in this case because you definitely want it to be a course which can give the tour players a full workout. It would be fairly easy to say what would be best for a members course - aesthetically and strategically. As I said before if I was on the board I'd take a hard look at the early MacKenzie drawings/photos and see what could be retained from his work. His design was one of the best ever. Compared to his conception the course has a kind of homogenized look now. Oval greens, oval bunkers, ultra white sand, green carpet everywhere (the place is pretty far from looking natural) and narrow tree lined alleys. Not that it looks bad but several of the holes are not as distinguishable from the others as they could and perhaps should be - there is a bit too much sameness - with little strategy on too many tee shots. But its a unique course in that everyone knows it so well from years of TV viewing. Pretty much everybody has been mesmerized by the tournament broadcasts. To tamper with that image very much would disturb the deeply embedded picture that is important to so many viewers. I don't think they could digest a significant modification of this particular course very well. Maybe in increments at some point - we'll see. That would be really significant and bring about a far reaching effect - because whatever goes on here will be emulated to some extent by many, many places.
Just rambling thoughts, as usual.
-
Apolgies for the threadjack but.. the search facility doesn't work at all on my home computer.
Can anyone provide a link to the year old thread by Tom Doak on why the master provides the ost exciting tournament golf?
Great thread btw
-
Tony,
Already on page 3, but here is the link again:
"The Genius Of The Masters, By Design", by Tom Doak.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47931.0.html
-
Pat:
I don't think Chris ever claimed it was the 9th Fairway.
And although the fairways weren't shared, players used to hit from 9 tee to the 1st fairway to get a better angle into the 9th green.
I find that hard to believe as there was a good amount of tall trees in between both fairways, and, I'm not so sure that playing down # 1 fairway would give you a better angle into that green. It may have made the hole play shorter, but that play might be more fraught with risk rather than reward.
Just look at the size of those trees in the top photo.
Those aren't newly planted
There's a great early photo of Jones putting on # 9 green and you can see the stand of those tall majestic trees with the newly planted trees down the slope closer to the green.
Trees were planted to eliminate that possibility.
I'm not so sure about that.
Remember, the land ANGC sits on was a tree nursery
-
Pat:
I don't think Chris ever claimed it was the 9th Fairway.
And although the fairways weren't shared, players used to hit from 9 tee to the 1st fairway to get a better angle into the 9th green.
I find that hard to believe as there was a good amount of tall trees in between both fairways, and, I'm not so sure that playing down # 1 fairway would give you a better angle into that green. It may have made the hole play shorter, but that play might be more fraught with risk rather than reward.
Just look at the size of those trees in the top photo.
Those aren't newly planted
There's a great early photo of Jones putting on # 9 green and you can see the stand of those tall majestic trees with the newly planted trees down the slope closer to the green.
Trees were planted to eliminate that possibility.
I'm not so sure about that.
Remember, the land ANGC sits on was a tree nursery
Pat:
You're wrong on every count (on this one I'll let you argue it out with Ron Whitten).
1934 - 420 yards - The original green was a MacKenzie horseshoe shaped specialty with a large, natural shape bunker guarding the front. The openness of the course allowed players to drive down the neighboring 1st fairway on the left to achieve a better angle to the green.
1956 - 420 yards - Perhaps because the cluster of bunkers kept getting less fearsome (one was removed in 1939, another by 1951), some competitors continued to play down the first fairway. A string of trees was planted just off the front-left edge of the tee to stop this practice.
Something to think about, the club would transplant mature pines where needed.
Take a look at the 1st and 9th fairways in this picture (top of the photo).
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/Aug_Nat_14th_stiles_.jpg)
-
Pat:
I don't think Chris ever claimed it was the 9th Fairway.
And although the fairways weren't shared, players used to hit from 9 tee to the 1st fairway to get a better angle into the 9th green.
I find that hard to believe as there was a good amount of tall trees in between both fairways, and, I'm not so sure that playing down # 1 fairway would give you a better angle into that green. It may have made the hole play shorter, but that play might be more fraught with risk rather than reward.
Just look at the size of those trees in the top photo.
Those aren't newly planted
There's a great early photo of Jones putting on # 9 green and you can see the stand of those tall majestic trees with the newly planted trees down the slope closer to the green.
Trees were planted to eliminate that possibility.
I'm not so sure about that.
Remember, the land ANGC sits on was a tree nursery
Pat:
You're wrong on every count
How would you know ?
(on this one I'll let you argue it out with Ron Whitten).
It wouldn't be the first time.
He wrote that Jasna Polana a modern day Winged Foot and I challenged him on that assessment, and others in his article.
Your problem is that absent first hand experience you accept the word of others as the Gospel.
You have no context in which to judge statements and responses
Those tall trees were there from the beginning.
More were added over time
1934 - 420 yards - The original green was a MacKenzie horseshoe shaped specialty with a large, natural shape bunker guarding the front. The openness of the course allowed players to drive down the neighboring 1st fairway on the left to achieve a better angle to the green.
You could play 18 by playing down 10, but that doesn't mean it's the Preferred or prudent way to play the hole
1956 - 420 yards - Perhaps because the cluster of bunkers kept getting less fearsome (one was removed in 1939, another by 1951), some competitors continued to play down the first fairway.
Which players ?
And, did they do it intentionally
A string of trees was planted just off the front-left edge of the tee to stop this practice.
Something to think about, the club would transplant mature pines where needed.
Take a look at the 1st and 9th fairways in this picture (top of the photo).
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/Aug_Nat_14th_stiles_.jpg)
Take a closer look.
Now tell me, circa the date of the photo, where drives would end up, on both # 9 and # 1.
about equidistant off the tee ?
Then look at the shot into the green.
Also look at the narrow gauntlet a golfer would have to drive through if he drove down # 1 and also consider the angle that the ball would be coming from off the 9th tee in relationship to the corridor of trees he"d have to play through with his drive coming down # 1.
You're also forgetting about the huge bunker in the 1st fairway. Why risk getting in that bunker, especially when the golfer on the 9th tee would be aiming at or close to it.
Note, in the picture you posted, how open and unthreatening the DZ is on # 9. It's wide open. No fear of trees or bunkers, and the pronounced downslope acts as a TEPAUL turboboost.
Prudent golfers wouldn't take the route you support as "the" Prefered route
Again, your problem is that you have absolutely no first hand experience at ANGC, no concept of the terrain and the spacial and angular relationships, yet you hold yourself out as an authority based solely on your interpretation of the words of others
Are you familiar with the slope of the land at the 9th green
-
David Owen's words:
"At the same time, additional trees were planted on the left between the new tee and the members’ tee, to eliminate the possibility of tournament players’ using the first fairway as an alternate driving area."
You, on another thread:
"SN: Any suggestions on the best books to look into?"
"PM: Yes. The Making of the Masters."
Now I'm confused. Are you telling me that you are contradicting the words of the author of the book that you recommended I read about Augusta? Either you're some kind of weird supernatural creature that can't survive unless you meet your requisite number of argumentative comments a day, or your advice on reading materials is seriously flawed and unreliable.
Get it right, Patrick. And if you want to take a crap on someone's thread, go do it elsewhere.
Sven
-
David Owen's words:
"At the same time, additional trees were planted on the left between the new tee and the members’ tee, to eliminate the possibility[/I] of tournament players’ using the first fairway as an alternate driving area."
"POSSIBILITY"
You, on another thread:
"SN: Any suggestions on the best books to look into?"
"PM: Yes. The Making of the Masters."
Your logic and/or attempts at reasoning are seriously flawed.
Just because I recommended a book doesn't mean everything in it is perfect or accurate.
I also recommended Finegan's book on Pine Valley even though it contains a number of errors.
Again, your lack of first hand knowledge leads you to rely, indiscriminately, on the words of others.
Compounding the problem is your attempt to interpolate what you've read to suit your purpose.
Now I'm confused.
Are you telling me that you are contradicting the words of the author of the book that you recommended I read about Augusta? Either you're some kind of weird supernatural creature that can't survive unless you meet your requisite number of argumentative comments a day, or your advice on reading materials is seriously flawed and unreliable.
Of course you're confused, and horrible at logic 101.
Why wouldn't I take issue with statements made in a book that I was asked to suggest.
Just because I recommend a book doesn't mean that I deem it flawless.
I also recommended Finegan's book on Pine Valley to you, knowing that it contained errors.
However, it remains a good book in terms of providing you with a history of Pine Valley.
Ditto David Owen's book.
In addition, David Owen phrased the planting of trees with an implied caveat, the word "possibility".
He never stated that players played down the 1st fairway, beaning the golfers playing # 1 and the gallery, did he ?
Get it right, Patrick.
I got it right.
You're the one who doesn't have a clue.
You simply don't know what you're talking about and are merely parroting the words of others, taking every word as the "Gospel"
And if you want to take a crap on someone's thread, go do it elsewhere.
If you think you can make uninformed statements and not be challenged, you've come to the wrong site.
But, let's go to the important issues.
I asked you to look at the photo YOU posted.
I asked you questions about that photo and you refused to answer them.
WHY ?
Because you don't know the answers, OR because the answers completely undermine your position.
You ask me a question and I answer it.
I ask you a question and you avoid it or try to divert away from it.
Try being intellectually honest when engaging in discourse.
Here's the photo you posted. Try answering the questions without help from the peanut gallery.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/Aug_Nat_14th_stiles_.jpg)
-
Okay Patrick, I'll play along.
Just so we don't miss anything, lets slow this down to one question at a time.
Is this the area of the course we are discussing?
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/Aug_Nat_14th_stiles_-1.jpg)
-
The Masters app, produced by Augusta National, discusses people driving it down the first hole...thus necessitating a change in the green and planting of trees.
Now they could be wrong...but I chalk that up to an admission.
-
QED.
-
Sven,
If you don't know the area you're discussing, why do you keep typing ?
JR Potts,
You do recall that the Merion Website claimed that Wilson sailed to Europe and studied the great courses around 1910 don't you ?
Or that the officially sanctioned book on Pine Valley contained errors.
I also know what the official story on Ken Venturi's last round pairing was.
Fortunately, in the USGA library, with only two people in the room, I had a lengthy, one on one conversation with Bryon Nelson about that event and am prepared to accept Mr Nelson's account over all others.
Imagine, with golfers playing # 1 and galleries following them, someone playing down # 1 from # 9.
Secondly, look at the photo and tell me the advantages off the tee versus the disadvantages.
It's not a prudent route.
Did you know that Ed Furgol, in winning the U.S. Open at Baltusrol, when playing the 18th hole of the Lower course, played the 18th fairway of the Upper course ?
Do you know how it happened ?
-
You didn't answer the question.
Assuming we agree that that photo depicts the 1st and 9th fairways (and the area in between) as it existed in the mid-1930's, please point out the trees that were always there that would have prevented a drive to the 1st fairway.
-
I'll answer it for you. They weren't there.
It was possible, and players were acting on that possibility.
I've marked the following photo and schematic to show the two lines of play (these are rough sketches, but however you want to draw the lines it works):
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/thumb_e9fbea87fc-1.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/hole1_1934.jpg)
The landing area for this shot would have been in the widest part of the 1st fairway, past the fairway bunker (you can do the math and figure out an approximation of how far the bunker would have been from the 9th tee). Take a look at the third picture that Chris posted. You can see the downhill nature of the land on both sides of the trees. The turbo boost would have been in effect for a drive to either fairway. Now look at the schematic. The angle of attack to a left pin is a lot better from the 1st fairway. You wouldn't want to hit in to a right pin from that spot, but with a left pin the 1st fairway did offer an advantage.
To prevent this strategy, the club did two things. First, they had Maxwell redo the green, adding bunkers on the left side that would require a carry for any shot from the 1st fairway. As noted, the scale of the bunkers changed over time (one being removed), making the shot from the 1st a bit easier. As a second measure, the club planted trees to the left of the 9th tee in an attempt to block the clear line to the 1st fairway. These trees, and additional trees, now make up the wide swath of foliage that can be seen in Chris' third photo.
-
One last go, using an overhead photo:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/Hole-9.png)
The red lines indicate the angles from today's tee. The blue shows the lines of play from the old tournament tee (approx. 40 yds shorter than today). The oval is meant to delineate the area that may have contained trees in the 1930's. Even if you move that oval back closer to the tee, there is still room to attack the 1st fairway.
-
Picture-perfect (pun intended) for this thread...
Illustration of how each hole has changed through the years.
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1669422/100-ways-augusta-changed-to-make-the-masters-harder-infographic (http://www.fastcodesign.com/1669422/100-ways-augusta-changed-to-make-the-masters-harder-infographic)
(See the slideshow on top of the page)
-
Howard:
Awesome find. Just to clear the air, the "Sven Grothe" that commented on the webpage in the link is not me.
-
Perry Maxwell appears to have had a major and lasting impact on the course, especially on the greens. Did any other architect leave his fingerprints on as many great courses as Maxwell?
-
Sven,
Quick question: has the turf type been discussed on this thread - that is, what it is today - ?, and how it compares to previous - some of the images on todays telecast had some of the FW turf looking synthetic, it had that half glistening half matt look.
What is the green turf - form of bent?
-
Brett:
From what I understand, the course initially was all bermuda, but they changed the greens to bent (Pennlinks and Penncross) in 1981. They also aggressively overseed with rye.
I believe there was a bit of controversy surrounding the change-over focusing on the new speeds obtainable with bent and how it would play with the massive contours on the greens.
A little while back I read an article (not sure if I linked to it in this thread) about a guy who snuck a water sample from one of the ponds. When tested, there was no indication of any chemical runoff, suggesting that what you see on television is very natural.
Hope this helps, there are probably some other folks around here that know the particulars.
Sven
Edit: Ironically, you might want to check out this article from Australian Turfgrass Management:
http://www.sodsolutions.com/pdf/InsideAugustaNational.pdf
-
Sven / Chris,
I've enjoyed this thread tremendously and it compliments Daniel Wexler's version nicely. A lot of good material here.
Even with all the changes over the years, I still say the 13th is my favorite hole on the course. The natural use of the creek is pure genius and if I didn't know better ... I'd say this was Max Behr at work. Behr was certainly friends with the old Doc and I wonder if some of Behr rubbed off on him for this hole. I think a strength of Behr was knowing how to take advantage of natural streams and bringing them into play in a risk/reward fashion.
The other thing is you see more restraint in the bunkering when compared to say the CA work. How much of that was because of Bobby Jones is unknown to me, but I certainly notice it.
Thanks for posting and sharing guys. Great stuff.
-
Sven,
Two questions for you.
WHY would a golfer intentionally choose to play a riskier tee shot down # 1 only to be faced with a far more difficult approach shot into a green that slopes severely away from them, versus playing a safer tee shot down # 9 to a green that slopes, like a back board, facing into them ?
Did you see Tiger's chip on Friday from slightly above the green, from the approximate angle you'd come in from on # 1, and how he couldn't hold the green anywhere near the hole ?
I'll answer it for you. They weren't there.
It was possible, and players were acting on that possibility.
I've marked the following photo and schematic to show the two lines of play (these are rough sketches, but however you want to draw the lines it works):
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/thumb_e9fbea87fc-1.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/hole1_1934.jpg)
The landing area for this shot would have been in the widest part of the 1st fairway, past the fairway bunker (you can do the math and figure out an approximation of how far the bunker would have been from the 9th tee). Take a look at the third picture that Chris posted. You can see the downhill nature of the land on both sides of the trees. The turbo boost would have been in effect for a drive to either fairway. Now look at the schematic. The angle of attack to a left pin is a lot better from the 1st fairway. You wouldn't want to hit in to a right pin from that spot, but with a left pin the 1st fairway did offer an advantage.
To prevent this strategy, the club did two things. First, they had Maxwell redo the green, adding bunkers on the left side that would require a carry for any shot from the 1st fairway. As noted, the scale of the bunkers changed over time (one being removed), making the shot from the 1st a bit easier. As a second measure, the club planted trees to the left of the 9th tee in an attempt to block the clear line to the 1st fairway. These trees, and additional trees, now make up the wide swath of foliage that can be seen in Chris' third photo.
-
I've heard the famous Olmsted Plan for Augusta discussed many times, but have never seen it posted here on the site. I came across this image today, and wanted to append it to this thread.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/115_09.jpg)
-
I also know what the official story on Ken Venturi's last round pairing was.
Fortunately, in the USGA library, with only two people in the room, I had a lengthy, one on one conversation with Bryon Nelson about that event and am prepared to accept Mr Nelson's account over all others.
I'd like to hear Nelson's account. Can you tell us?
-
Real nice overhead shot of the property. (Caught this photo on Masters.com upon confirming the anticipated status of my ticket lottery application...)
(http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i352/hriefs/ANGCoverview.jpg)
http://www.masters.com/en_US/index.html (http://www.masters.com/en_US/index.html)
-
Jack Nicklaus discusses the course changes at ANGC, specifically holes #1, #7 and #18
"The changes were necessary to keep pace with today's game. It was a good course then, and it's a good course now. They've done a very good job."
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/jack-nicklaus-augusta-national-course-changes-masters (http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/jack-nicklaus-augusta-national-course-changes-masters)
-
Jack Nicklaus discusses the course changes at ANGC, specifically holes #1, #7 and #18
Jack says the greens today are mostly as Mac/Jones designed them. Is he right? Seems like a lot of the greens have changed dramatically over the years, changing not only the putting but the approach shots to them.
-
Anything different for 2013?
-
Sven,
Two questions for you.
WHY would a golfer intentionally choose to play a riskier tee shot down # 1 only to be faced with a far more difficult approach shot into a green that slopes severely away from them, versus playing a safer tee shot down # 9 to a green that slopes, like a back board, facing into them ?
Did you see Tiger's chip on Friday from slightly above the green, from the approximate angle you'd come in from on # 1, and how he couldn't hold the green anywhere near the hole ?
I'll answer it for you. They weren't there.
Yes they were.
Those trees seperating # 9 from # 1 were there from the very begining.
In addition, there's a nasty bunker in # 1 fairway.
Add to that the downslope in the DZ on # 1 AND, the WATER HAZARD fed by the down slope and you have every reason NOT to go down the 1st fairway.
Making it even less desirable is the angle and slope of the green from the 1st fairway.
The green slopes severely AWAY from the golfer from the 1st fairway, whereas, the green slopes toward the golfer from the 9th fairway.
Bottom line, it's the wrong play for a number of substantive reasons.
(http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i352/hriefs/ANGCoverview.jpg)
It was possible, and players were acting on that possibility.
I've marked the following photo and schematic to show the two lines of play (these are rough sketches, but however you want to draw the lines it works):
The markings don't reflect the downslope the golfers would end up on, the possibility of hitting their drive into the trees and/or bunker, the poor angle into the green and the extent that the green slopes severely away from them, making the decision to play down # 1 a horrible decision.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/thumb_e9fbea87fc-1.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/hole1_1934.jpg)
The landing area for this shot would have been in the widest part of the 1st fairway, past the fairway bunker (you can do the math and figure out an approximation of how far the bunker would have been from the 9th tee). Take a look at the third picture that Chris posted. You can see the downhill nature of the land on both sides of the trees. The turbo boost would have been in effect for a drive to either fairway. Now look at the schematic. The angle of attack to a left pin is a lot better from the 1st fairway. You wouldn't want to hit in to a right pin from that spot, but with a left pin the 1st fairway did offer an advantage.
How convenient of you to ignore the water hazard on # 1.
There is no water hazard traversing the entire fairway on # 9, like there is on # 1
To prevent this strategy, the club did two things. First, they had Maxwell redo the green,
By what documentation do you attribute Maxwell's redo of the green a direct defense of driving down # 1 ?
adding bunkers on the left side that would require a carry for any shot from the 1st fairway.
The 1934 greenside bunker already protected an approach from the 1st hole, and more importantly, the severe slope of the green protected an approach from the 1st fairway.
As noted, the scale of the bunkers changed over time (one being removed), making the shot from the 1st a bit easier. As a second measure, the club planted trees to the left of the 9th tee in an attempt to block the clear line to the 1st fairway. These trees, and additional trees, now make up the wide swath of foliage that can be seen in Chris' third photo.
There were existing tall trees in 1934 in the critical area, the club just planted more trees, almost everywhere, to create isolation/seperation.
You can see the small pines by the green and tee in the 1934 photos.
Have you ever played # 9 ?
-
Pat:
You do realize you responded to a conversation we were having a year ago?
Everything I wrote with regards to players driving down the first fairway from the ninth tee has been independently verified to me by members of a prominent Atlanta golf family that have had historically strong ties to the course. I am completely comfortable with my presentation of the facts.
If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to take this offline.
Sven
-
Pat:
You do realize you responded to a conversation we were having a year ago?
YES
Everything I wrote with regards to players driving down the first fairway from the ninth tee has been independently verified to me by members of a prominent Atlanta golf family that have had historically strong ties to the course. I am completely comfortable with my presentation of the facts.
Those aren't facts, they're third party recollections, recollections from 80 years ago.
Not so sure that I'd offer them as the "Gospel"
If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to take this offline.
I'd be happy to.
Bunkers, trees, water hazards, down hill lies, poor angles of attack and negative green slopes make playing down # 1 an unattractive alternative.
-
1. As to this more recent contention about 1 and 9, on my observation, Pat would have to be right. The lower half of the first fairway has not been the way to deal with that approach -- hooky downhill lies just about everywhere and the creek bottom to catch the really big hit. I'm sure it was tried and repeatedly tested, both intentionally and unintentionally.
2. Maybe this has been covered in thsi thread...but when did the "Member's tee" (originally the only tee) on #11 finally become abandoned?" From Google Earth's historical imagery, the "avenue" from that tee was closed in 2004-05 and now it's basically the "Master's tee" for #15...but when was play abandoned from that spot for member's playing #11
cheers
vk
-
In 2010 during Friday's round I was walking up the left side of the first fairway when a ball came to rest just in front of me, obviously from the 9th tee. Thinking "I've got to see this" here comes Bubba Watson and caddy through the pines directly at me. The lie was severly downhill and sidehill to boot with an absolutely awful angle for the approach across the greenside left-hand bunkers. Watson lashes at the ball and sends a high hook directly at the green. I was astonished.
There's no way anyone would want to approach that demanding green from that angle and that lie. No way.
Bogey
-
Bogey:
All of this falls into the historical context of how the hole played "back then" and not how it plays now.
The original green had a wing that pointed towards the first fairway, as can be seen in this picture:
(http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i352/hriefs/ANGCoverview.jpg)
and as drawn in this schematic:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/hole9_1934.jpg)
Here's a closeup of the two holes:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC9Zoom_zpsdbdcbe9a.jpg)
Up until 1938, if the pin was on the left the better angle was from the first fairway. In 1938, the bunkering was changed and the left wing of the horseshoe shaped green was eliminated.
There have been a slew of comments of late regarding how hard it was historically for players to get down to the bottom of the hill with their drive down the ninth fairway. So even if they played down the conventional fairway, chances were they were going to have a difficult downhill lie.
I'd also suggest folks take a look at the Olmsted plan (and the photos above) and note just how far from the 9th tee (and how close to the first tee and the 9th green) the creek bed in the first fairway lay:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/115_09.jpg)
Remember, we're talking about the time period prior to the mid-1950's. Even with the tees being 40 yards closer than they are today, the hole still measured 420-430 yards. It would have taken a drive of at least 300 yards to reach the creek bed, and that's probably a generous underestimation.
I'll concede that the benefits of this approach became questionable once the green and the bunkering were altered in 1938. However, the Whitten write-up notes that the bunkering was softened between '38 and the early 50's, perhaps alleviating some (or much) of the risk.
-
Just for the hell of it, here's a photo looking down the first fairway taken in 1941:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC-1st-green-1941_zps24377445.jpg)
-
Just for the hell of it, here's a photo looking down the first fairway taken in 1941:
Sven, the problem with this photo is that it only shows the upper plateau from in front of the bunker to the green, it doesn't show the extreme slope from the front of that bunker back toward the 1st tee. In addition, the creek which runs across the entire first fairway at the bottom of that slope is fed by that slope which acts as a turbo boost.
Anyone familiar with the nature of the terrain, angles, bunker/s, trees, configuration and slope of the green realizes that the only reason to play down #1 is when you've hit an errant drive off the 9th tee and you have no choice in the play of your second shot.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC-1st-green-1941_zps24377445.jpg)
-
Pat:
That photo was a throwaway, hence the "just for the hell of it." I would have included it in my first post if I thought it had any bearing on the conversation.
Humor me on this scenario.
Its pre-1938, and the pin is cut on the left side of the green (right about where it is in the photo below). Draw a straight line from the tee to the pin (the Olmsted plan above can be used for this exercise). Now take a look at how far off that line a shot would be if played to the first fairway as opposed to the ninth fairway. The difference is noticeable, meaning on similar length drives, the guy going left would have the shorter shot to the green.
Now take a look at the angles of approach to that left side pin. From the first fairway, you do not have to challenge the bunkers, and you're playing up the leftside tongue which lies on an upslope on the green (rising to what is today the back left of the green). Compare that to a shot from the ninth fairway, which is going to have to either (a) come over the bunkers and stop on a very narrow area of the green (this shot is almost perpendicular to the general layout of the left side of the original green) or (b) play a shot on a line right of the pin avoiding the bunkers that works off of the high back portion of the green turning back towards the hole.
Now remember that in those days players weren't driving down to the bottom of the hill on the ninth. So the lie that you'd have hitting from the ninth fairway was most likely going to be a bit tricky, especially for option (a) above. You might have a tough lie coming from the first fairway as well, but at least the shot you had to hit had the benefit of not having to challenge the bunkers and on a line into the green that had plenty of depth.
Of course, all of this changes when the left side of the green is eliminated.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/9th-Green-1935-1024x897_zps054b55d4.jpg)
-
Pat:
That photo was a throwaway, hence the "just for the hell of it." I would have included it in my first post if I thought it had any bearing on the conversation.
Humor me on this scenario.
OK
Its pre-1938, and the pin is cut on the left side of the green (right about where it is in the photo below). Draw a straight line from the tee to the pin (the Olmsted plan above can be used for this exercise). Now take a look at how far off that line a shot would be if played to the first fairway as opposed to the ninth fairway. The difference is noticeable, meaning on similar length drives, the guy going left would have the shorter shot to the green.
Sven, you keep ignoring the awkward downhill lie, the Creek that would be in play that traverses the entire 1st fairway, the fairway bunker on # 1 fairway, the trees that could come into play on the drive and the angle of attack into the 9th green that runs away from you and the shallow depth of the green and small target it presents from that angle, and you still have to carry the greenside bunker to get to the green from the 1st fairway.
Now take a look at the angles of approach to that left side pin. From the first fairway, you do not have to challenge the bunkers, and you're playing up the leftside tongue which lies on an upslope on the green (rising to what is today the back left of the green).
Yes, you do have to challenge and carry the greenside bunker.
Any shot that drifts right, and that's what will happen off the downhill lie on # 1 fairway, will end up in that bunker.
And, you're not playing to an upslope, you're playing to a green that falls away from you from high left to low right
Compare that to a shot from the ninth fairway, which is going to have to either (a) come over the bunkers and stop on a very narrow area of the green (this shot is almost perpendicular to the general layout of the left side of the original green) or (b) play a shot on a line right of the pin avoiding the bunkers that works off of the high back portion of the green turning back towards the hole.
The shot from the 9th fairway to the 9th green is uphill to a green that slopes from back to front, thereby being more receptive to your approach. And by playing down # 9 you don't have to worry about trees, fairway bunkers and creeks running across the entire fairway.
It's the prudent choice.
Now remember that in those days players weren't driving down to the bottom of the hill on the ninth.
That's not true, who told you that ?
But, to humor you, if it wasn't true that would leave you with a very awkward lie on # 1 fairway whereas there's a flatter plateau on # 9 fairway
So the lie that you'd have hitting from the ninth fairway was most likely going to be a bit tricky, especially for option (a) above.
That's just not true.
Where are you getting your information from ?
There's a nice plateau for drives on # 9, no such plateau exists on # 1
You might have a tough lie coming from the first fairway as well, but at least the shot you had to hit had the benefit of not having to challenge the bunkers and on a line into the green that had plenty of depth.
That's also not true, just take a look at the 1934 aerial
Of course, all of this changes when the left side of the green is eliminated.
Not really, all of the prudent reasons for playing down # 9 fairway already existed.
I tried to humor you, but your lack of familiarity with the terrain and features is causing you to draw flawed conclusions.
One thing you learn from watching the PGA Tour Pros is that if there's an advantage to playing a hole a certain way, they almost all exploit it, and that didn't happen on # 9
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/9th-Green-1935-1024x897_zps054b55d4.jpg)
-
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/AlteredOlmstedpicture_zps2a841636.jpg)
-
Sven, look how close your blue line comes to the huge fairway bunker on # 1
In addition, you've deliberately chosen a drive of limited length to avoid the creek and to prove your point.
Your showing a second shot almost as long as the drive and you're ignoring the downhill nature of the terrain in the DZ
And you've used a schematic of the green that doesn't reflect the actual configuration of the green, the "as built"
Why didn't you use the 1934 aerial photo of the actual green which clearly depicts the invasive nature of the greenside bunker and the narrowness of the back left of the green?
The reason is that those facts, along with others, defeat your position which is based solely on hearsay
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/AlteredOlmstedpicture_zps2a841636.jpg)
-
I've been following this debate and Sven's hypothetical about the left pin placement makes total sense regardless of Pat's stern opposition. Pat, is a shot from the 9th fairway, from a downhill and hanging lie, to a (back) left pin needing to carry the entire bunker with just a few yards of depth really easier than a (possibly slightly shorter) shot from a downhill (but not hanging) lie, to a (now) front left pin needing to carry just a piece of the bunker to hit a very narrow but deep sliver of green that does not appear to slope away from the player from that angle. Furthermore, a faded tee shot (possibly with a 2 or 3-wood) worked away from the fairway bunker would work rather well and would surely not be in danger of reaching the hazard. Not sure what is so difficult about seeing that possible play with that particular pin?! Lastly, to say that Sven's last diagram showed a approach "almost as long as the drive" is simply ridiculous and proof that you need a geometry review.
-
Draw the lines however you want and use whatever photos or other plans you'd like. The one's that I used work to tell the story.
Here are the facts:
1. The Olmsted plan is to scale and that scale is noted in the top right hand corner of the plan itself (the full version of which is copied below). The scale is in feet, and the numbers marking the segments are noted are 100, 0, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500. Three segments from the scale equal a hundred yards.
2. The creek is approximately three segments removed from the green (less than that on the lower side and slightly more on the higher side). Therefore, the creek was less than 100 yards from green.
3. The oval I added above in the first fairway extends from approximately 225 to 275 yards from the tee determined using the scale provided on the map.
4. The blue lines I added have a ratio of 13 to 8. That is the same ratio that a 250 yard drive and a 153 yard approach have.
5. The hole measured 420 yards (most likely measured using the angle of the dogleg). Even if it was only 400 yards on a direct line, it would have taken a drive of close to or over 300 yards to get to the creek.
6. The gap between the tree line and the bunker measures out (using the scale again) to around 40 yards. Hardly a small target, and probably wider than I've noted. I'm giving you the benefit of the foliage coverage drawn by on the plan, which seems to exaggerate the actual possible interference when compared to the photos of that area contained in this thread (those were some scraggly looking trees back then).
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Olmsted-real-estate-plan2_zps2f32e654.jpg)
Here's another view:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/thumb_e9fbea87fc-1.jpg)
-
I've been following this debate and Sven's hypothetical about the left pin placement makes total sense regardless of Pat's stern opposition. Pat, is a shot from the 9th fairway, from a downhill and hanging lie, to a (back) left pin needing to carry the entire bunker with just a few yards of depth really easier than a (possibly slightly shorter) shot from a downhill (but not hanging) lie, to a (now) front left pin needing to carry just a piece of the bunker to hit a very narrow but deep sliver of green that does not appear to slope away from the player from that angle. Furthermore, a faded tee shot (possibly with a 2 or 3-wood) worked away from the fairway bunker would work rather well and would surely not be in danger of reaching the hazard. Not sure what is so difficult about seeing that possible play with that particular pin?! Lastly, to say that Sven's last diagram showed a approach "almost as long as the drive" is simply ridiculous and proof that you need a geometry review.
Will:
Is there any doubt the tee shot would have been a fade peeling off the right edge of the bunker?
Certainly seems like it was doable, and as Pat said, if there was an advantage to be had, those old pro's would be the guys to find it.
Sven
-
I've been following this debate and Sven's hypothetical about the left pin placement makes total sense regardless of Pat's stern opposition.
Pat, is a shot from the 9th fairway, from a downhill and hanging lie, to a (back) left pin needing to carry the entire bunker with just a few yards of depth really easier than a (possibly slightly shorter) shot from a downhill (but not hanging) lie, to a (now) front left pin needing to carry just a piece of the bunker to hit a very narrow but deep sliver of green that does not appear to slope away from the player from that angle.
Yes.
Surely you've heard of shaping your shot.
And the terrain to the right of the green assists in keeping the ball in the area, but, who in their right mind, would go pin hunting from either position ?
In addition, you must be a moron to let Sven's depiction, meant to predispose one's conclusion, unduly influence your view.
Getting to the DZ ON # 9 is relatively easy, with little in the way of impediments.
To get to Sven's DZ on # 1 you have to challenge trees, a huge fairway bunker and a creek leaving you with a downhill lie to a target to your right which requires carrying a bunker, to a narrow strip of green that along with the nearby terrain slopes from high left to low right.
Furthermore, a faded tee shot (possibly with a 2 or 3-wood) worked away from the fairway bunker would work rather well and would surely not be in danger of reaching the hazard.
You're delusional.
What if you cut it too much or double cross it ?
Then what, double bogey or worse.
And what's the reward ?
If you hit a 3-wood you'd have a long iron or a wood into that green.
How would that trajectory work given the configuration of the green ?
How many times have you and Sven played # 9 ?
Not sure what is so difficult about seeing that possible play with that particular pin?! Lastly, to say that Sven's last diagram showed a approach "almost as long as the drive" is simply ridiculous and proof that you need a geometry review.
Go ahead and measure the distance of the approach as a percentage of the distance of the drive and tell me what you get.
Sven deliberately capped the driving distance for the express purpose of avoiding the creek which is fed by the slope on # 1 fairway.
Your lack of familiarity with the terrain limits your understanding of the spacial relationships.
As to geometry, I excelled at both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry.
I would venture a guess that you never heard of non-Euclidean geometry, which means that you can't understand why playing down the 9th fairway is the prudent choice irrespective of hole location ;D
-
I've been following this debate and Sven's hypothetical about the left pin placement makes total sense regardless of Pat's stern opposition.
Pat, is a shot from the 9th fairway, from a downhill and hanging lie, to a (back) left pin needing to carry the entire bunker with just a few yards of depth really easier than a (possibly slightly shorter) shot from a downhill (but not hanging) lie, to a (now) front left pin needing to carry just a piece of the bunker to hit a very narrow but deep sliver of green that does not appear to slope away from the player from that angle.
Yes.
Surely you've heard of shaping your shot.
And the terrain to the right of the green assists in keeping the ball in the area, but, who in their right mind, would go pin hunting from either position ?
In addition, you must be a moron to let Sven's depiction, meant to predispose one's conclusion, unduly influence your view.
Getting to the DZ ON # 9 is relatively easy, with little in the way of impediments.
To get to Sven's DZ on # 1 you have to challenge trees, a huge fairway bunker and a creek leaving you with a downhill lie to a target to your right which requires carrying a bunker, to a narrow strip of green that along with the nearby terrain slopes from high left to low right.
Furthermore, a faded tee shot (possibly with a 2 or 3-wood) worked away from the fairway bunker would work rather well and would surely not be in danger of reaching the hazard.
You're delusional.
What if you cut it too much or double cross it ?
Then what, double bogey or worse.
And what's the reward ?
If you hit a 3-wood you'd have a long iron or a wood into that green.
How would that trajectory work given the configuration of the green ?
How many times have you and Sven played # 9 ?
Not sure what is so difficult about seeing that possible play with that particular pin?! Lastly, to say that Sven's last diagram showed a approach "almost as long as the drive" is simply ridiculous and proof that you need a geometry review.
Go ahead and measure the distance of the approach as a percentage of the distance of the drive and tell me what you get.
Sven deliberately capped the driving distance for the express purpose of avoiding the creek which is fed by the slope on # 1 fairway.
Your lack of familiarity with the terrain limits your understanding of the spacial relationships.
As to geometry, I excelled at both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry.
I would venture a guess that you never heard of non-Euclidean geometry, which means that you can't understand why playing down the 9th fairway is the prudent choice irrespective of hole location ;D
Of course, I must be a moron...to let blah, blah, blah. Remember, you're the one who hosted a moron dinner. ;)
First off, drawing a long to mid-iron off a hanging downhill lie might be the hardest shot in golf. Surely you know this...if not you are an imbecile. ;)
A faded 2 or 3 wood - you must know that a 2-wood was a popular club in the era we are referring to given your infallible knowledge of all things golf, all things really - would have been plenty of club to leave a mid to short iron along this shorter path to the green especially at the hole's original length. And what if you double crossed it? The high lip of that fairway bunker on #1 is in the opposite direction. Again, surely you know how to hit a proper fairway bunker shot. And, if you cut it and found yourself in the relatively small strand of pines, punch out and try to make a great 4 or a simple 5. Who knows, maybe one could even get his second into the greenside bunker and get up and in for a more traditional par. What a lame excuse for the complete denial of a clear possible strategy. What if you try to play a draw down #9 in an effort to reach the bottom flat and leave it out to the right trying to avoid the big hook. Your now in the worst possible position. So what...all missed shots carry a consequence. And we've already stated the reward to a very specific pin.
Sven's diagram is plenty realistic - both approaches are about 60% the length of the tee shots? ??? A 250-yard drive followed by a 150-yard approach down the shorter "Sven's Way". You said you excelled in math? I do see what you mean about Sven deliberately avoiding the possibility of a drive reaching the creek though - he is clearly untrustworthy and shady! ::)
My lack of familiarity with the terrain...blah... I have never been to ANGC...oh, wait, I have been as I both live in Atlanta and am friends with the Dir. of Tourn. Ops. I must have no clue because I disagree with you... :'(
I am a math teacher with an engineering degree so of course I've never heard of...what kind of geometry? ;)
Lastly, how many times have you played the 9th at ANGC in it's original design? With no trees blocking the route down #1 and the original boomerang green?
-
Just wanted to make sure Pat saw these again:
1. The Olmsted plan is to scale and that scale is noted in the top right hand corner of the plan itself (the full version of which is copied below). The scale is in feet, and the numbers marking the segments are noted are 100, 0, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500. Three segments from the scale equal a hundred yards.
2. The creek is approximately three segments removed from the green (less than that on the lower side and slightly more on the higher side). Therefore, the creek was less than 100 yards from green.
3. The oval I added above in the first fairway extends from approximately 225 to 275 yards from the tee determined using the scale provided on the map.
4. The blue lines I added have a ratio of 13 to 8. That is the same ratio that a 250 yard drive and a 153 yard approach have.
5. The hole measured 420 yards (most likely measured using the angle of the dogleg). Even if it was only 400 yards on a direct line, it would have taken a drive of close to or over 300 yards to get to the creek.
6. The gap between the tree line and the bunker measures out (using the scale again) to around 40 yards. Hardly a small target, and probably wider than I've noted. I'm giving you the benefit of the foliage coverage drawn by on the plan, which seems to exaggerate the actual possible interference when compared to the photos of that area contained in this thread (those were some scraggly looking trees back then).
-
[quote author=Will Lozier link=topic=51383.msg1282530#msg1282530 date=1365051064
Of course, I must be a moron...to let blah, blah, blah. Remember, you're the one who hosted a moron dinner. ;)
Yes, I felt it was the least I could do for a growing cadre of morons
First off, drawing a long to mid-iron off a hanging downhill lie might be the hardest shot in golf. Surely you know this...if not you are an imbecile. ;)
What qualifies you to comprehend the nature of the lie or the location of the drive ?
Are you aware of the plateau in the DZ on # 9 ?
A faded 2 or 3 wood - you must know that a 2-wood was a popular club in the era we are referring to given your infallible knowledge of all things golf, all things really - would have been plenty of club to leave a mid to short iron along this shorter path to the green especially at the hole's original length.
I used a Toney Penna 2-wood for a driver for a considerable amount of time and am very familiar with their performance.
What you and Sven don't understand is that you want to drive the ball as far as possible on # 9
Doing so leaves you with a flat/good lie, the more you lay back, the worse the lie and the longer the shot, but I'm sure that both of you have more experience playing the hole than I do.
Remind us, how many times have you played the hole ?]
And what if you double crossed it?
Will, your transitioning from moronic to ignorant
The high lip of that fairway bunker on #1 is in the opposite direction.
You don't know what you're talking about and are making yourself look foolish
Again, surely you know how to hit a proper fairway bunker shot. And, if you cut it and found yourself in the relatively small strand of pines, punch out and try to make a great 4 or a simple 5.
You've now entered the realm of blindly stupid.
Just punch out to a severe downslope with a creek at the bottom ?
Or, just punch out to a severe downslope and face one of the more difficult shots in golf.
If you can't control and get your driver where you want it, what makes you think you can hit a long iron off a sidehill lie and make a 4 or a 5.
Just to be able to put your responses in context, what's your handicap and how much medal play tournaments do you play in ?
Who knows, maybe one could even get his second into the greenside bunker and get up and in for a more traditional par. What a lame excuse for the complete denial of a clear possible strategy. What if you try to play a draw down #9 in an effort to reach the bottom flat and leave it out to the right trying to avoid the big hook. Your now in the worst possible position.
Actually, you're in a good position.
Listen, Wiil, I'm trying to be polite, but your ignorance and arrogance are getting in the way.
Now you're going to try to tell me how to play a hole that I've played often, despite the fact that you've never played the hole.
Do you realize how stupid that makes you look ?
So what...all missed shots carry a consequence. And we've already stated the reward to a very specific pin.
The problem is that there are degrees of consequences and the risk is not worth the reward.
And, the reward is NOT as you indicate, the reward you reference is purely hypothetical on your part
Sven's diagram is plenty realistic - both approaches are about 60% the length of the tee shots? ??? A 250-yard drive followed by a 150-yard approach down the shorter "Sven's Way". You said you excelled in math? I do see what you mean about Sven deliberately avoiding the possibility of a drive reaching the creek though - he is clearly untrustworthy and shady! ::)
So guys were driving it 250 in 1934 ? ? ?
Please, spare us your hypotheticals
My lack of familiarity with the terrain...blah... I have never been to ANGC...oh, wait, I have been as I both live in Atlanta and am friends with the Dir. of Tourn. Ops. I must have no clue because I disagree with you... :'(
Irrelevant
How many times have you played # 9
I am a math teacher with an engineering degree so of course I've never heard of...what kind of geometry? ;)
Says you.
Lastly, how many times have you played the 9th at ANGC in it's original design? With no trees blocking the route down #1 and the original boomerang green?
You're both blind and in denial, tall pines separated # 1 from # 9 from the very beginning, just take a look at the 1934 photo.
Do you see the tall trees ?
Do you see the big bunker on # 1 ?
Do you see the Creek that runs across the entire 1st fairway
As to playing the 9th hole, I've played it infinitely more times than you have
[/quote]
-
Just wanted to make sure Pat saw these again:
1. The Olmsted plan is to scale and that scale is noted in the top right hand corner of the plan itself (the full version of which is copied below). The scale is in feet, and the numbers marking the segments are noted are 100, 0, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500. Three segments from the scale equal a hundred yards.
The Olmsted plan is irrelevant since the "as built" the actual hole differs from the drawing.
Look at the aerial photo taken in 1934 and you can see how incredibly narrow those fingers of the green are.
They bear NO resemblance to the Ollmsted drawing
What part of that don't you understand
2. The creek is approximately three segments removed from the green (less than that on the lower side and slightly more on the higher side). Therefore, the creek was less than 100 yards from green.
The aerial of the actual hole, as built, is the governing document, not an inaccurate schematic
3. The oval I added above in the first fairway extends from approximately 225 to 275 yards from the tee determined using the scale provided on the map.
4. The blue lines I added have a ratio of 13 to 8. That is the same ratio that a 250 yard drive and a 153 yard approach have.
There's only two (2) problems with your calculation.
1. The hole wasn't 403 yards in length, it was 420
2. The 9th fairway was leveled off in the DZ, thus # 9 doesn't have the "hanging lie" that you and Will allege.
But, # 1 fairway had no such plateau, therefore the lie was exponentially more difficult.
5. The hole measured 420 yards (most likely measured using the angle of the dogleg). Even if it was only 400 yards on a direct line, it would have taken a drive of close to or over 300 yards to get to the creek.
But, you're ignoring the angle of attack, the direction of a drive down # 1 from # 9 tee
How convenient of you to ignore the steep slope leading to the creek.
But, if I accept your measurements, that puts the stand of trees and deep fairway bunker right in your DZ.
You can't have it both ways
6. The gap between the tree line and the bunker measures out (using the scale again) to around 40 yards. Hardly a small target, and probably wider than I've noted. I'm giving you the benefit of the foliage coverage drawn by on the plan, which seems to exaggerate the actual possible interference when compared to the photos of that area contained in this thread (those were some scraggly looking trees back then).
The plan is inaccurate and can't be used.
You have to use the "as built" the photo from 1934.
If you want to jerk yourself around, go ahead and use an inaccurate rendering by other than the architect of record, but if you want to be serious with any credibility, you have to use the aerial photo of the hole taken in 1934
-
Sven, are you able to read what the contours are on that map? what distance are they?
-
Sven, are you able to read what the contours are on that map? what distance are they?
Brett:
If you mean the topo lines, I don't think they're marked on the map.
Sven
-
Brett,
The topo lines are irrelevant on the schematic of # 9 because the slope was significantly altered during construction with the creation of a flat plateau in the DZ.
That plateau was specifically created to provide a level DZ for the golfer.
Thus the golfer has a fairly level lie.
No such plateau exists in the first fairway
-
Pat:
What a load of intellectual bullcrap.
Obfuscation at its finest, and not a rational thought to be found anywhere.
A few examples:
You know full well that I've stated many times in this thread that the 9th was 420 yards. You also know full well that its a dogleg, and the 403 yards of straight line distance may be pretty damn accurate.
You also know full well that a portion of the 9th fairway was leveled to accommodate Cliff Roberts' notoriously short drives (a part of the fairway that most players would only consider as their ball was flying over it). To claim that the fairway was leveled off in the DZ is an intentional misrepresentation of the complete story on your part.
You also know that the Olmsted plan is an exceptionally detailed and almost comprehensively accurate depiction of the location of the holes, fairways, tees and assorted natural features. The map also corresponds with a high degree of accuracy to all photos from the era, including the aerials. If there are inaccuracies, they are minor. In the case of the inaccuracy regarding the shape (not the location) of the 9th green, if anything the photos will only further the points I've already made regarding the difficulty of getting to the left side of the boomerang from the 9th fairway. I challenge you to present an overlay of the Olmsted map against any of the aerial photographs, maps or any other record of the course. The results will astound you.
You also know that the presence of the creek (which was a dry creek bed unless it was raining) has little bearing on this conversation. The creek lay 300 yards from the tee, it was out of range.
Finally, you know exactly how wide the first fairway is and was and you know from pictures that the tree line between the first and the ninth was nowhere close to what it is today. The gap was at least 40 yards between the bunker and the trees. The shot would not have been difficult. What's so funny about this is that you claim I'm trying to have things both ways. Go back and read what you wrote earlier about players back then not being able to hit it 300 yards. Yet you keep harping about the creek being a factor. You, Pat, are the one that can't have it both ways.
I've come to expect it by now, but I'm always amazed by the selective presentation of information, the intentional emphasis on irrelevant items and the complete disregard for common sense and science that pervade your utterances. Its not even moronic, as the arrogance and disdain for reality you display is not the result of ignorance, rather a pernicious attempt to waylay the truthseeker all in the name of eristical glory. Its not that you're acting the fool, its that you try to play everyone else as the fool, a strategy laden with disrespect and dishonesty.
Sven
No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.
-Karl Popper
-
Pat:
You know the following tale as well as anyone. The fact that you have misrepresented the story twice in two posts is despicable.
"Clifford Roberts, Augusta National’s co-founder and first chairman, liked to say that he made only one contribution to the original design of the course. During the construction of the ninth hole, he persuaded the contractor to create a level landing area in the steeply tilting fairway at the distance he normally drove the ball (about 180 yards). “The engineer was not at all enthusiastic about accommodating me,” Roberts wrote in his book about the club, “but finally agreed to bring back a tractor and do the job.” Roberts later told friends that he had requested the change because he didn’t want any of his matches with Bobby Jones to be decided by his luck at hitting a fairway wood to an elevated green from a downhill, sidehill lie. The current ninth hole was then the eighteenth, and Jones customarily either gave Roberts nine strokes or allowed him to begin their matches with a nine-up edge. Even so, Roberts needed all the help he could get.
Roberts’s difficulties with the second shot on the ninth hole were shared by most of the club’s other members, who, like him and unlike Jones, weren’t long enough off the tee to come close to the ideal driving area, at the bottom of the hill. And neither Jones nor Alister MacKenzie, who designed the course, was at all disapproving of Roberts’s modification. In consultations among the three, Roberts’s role was to supply the viewpoint of the average golfer, and Jones and MacKenzie both solicited his opinion. Roberts’s landing area is still visible in the ninth fairway, and it still receives plentiful use from members and guests, as well as from occasional Masters competitors."
-Taken from David Owen's descriptions of the 9th hole on his blog, as also relayed in "The Making of the Masters."
-
Sven,
I've played from that flattened plateau numerous times, have you ?
There is no flattened plateau in the steep slope in the 1st fairway is there.
So which is the preferred DZ ?
-
Pat:
What a load of intellectual bullcrap.
It doesn't surprise me that the facts disturb you
Obfuscation at its finest, and not a rational thought to be found anywhere.
To the contrary, rational thought abounds
A few examples:
You know full well that I've stated many times in this thread that the 9th was 420 yards. You also know full well that its a dogleg, and the 403 yards of straight line distance may be pretty damn accurate.
No, it's not because of the trees in the direct line and the margins that prudent golfers observe in the play of a hole.
To gain some perspective on your views, what's your handicap.
In a medal play event, what golfer would play a drive one foot from trees versus a wide open fairway ?
You also know full well that a portion of the 9th fairway was leveled to accommodate Cliff Roberts' notoriously short drives (a part of the fairway that most players would only consider as their ball was flying over it). To claim that the fairway was leveled off in the DZ is an intentional misrepresentation of the complete story on your part.
Now you're editorializing, inserting your own assessment of Cliff Roberts' drives. That's disingenuous.
That flattened area is in the DZ, and anybody who flies it over that DZ, as you state, would reach the base of the slope, and if they can reach the base of the slope in the 9th fairway, then they can reach the base of the slope in the 1st fairway and that means that they're in the creek
You also know that the Olmsted plan is an exceptionally detailed and almost comprehensively accurate depiction of the location of the holes, fairways, tees and assorted natural features.
The Olmsted map is grossly inaccurate when it comes to the 9th green.
Only a moron, comparing the 1934 aerial of the 9th green to the 9th green in the Olmsted plan would state that the Olmsted Map is an accurate depiction. When it comes to the 9th green, the Olmsted map is inaccurate and you know it.
To state otherwise is to flat out lie.
The map also corresponds with a high degree of accuracy to all photos from the era, including the aerials. If there are inaccuracies, they are minor. In the case of the inaccuracy regarding the shape (not the location) of the 9th green, if anything the photos will only further the points I've already made regarding the difficulty of getting to the left side of the boomerang from the 9th fairway. I challenge you to present an overlay of the Olmsted map against any of the aerial photographs, maps or any other record of the course. The results will astound you.
When it comes to the 9th green, the focus of this discussion, the Olmsted schematic is inaccurate.
And it's that very inaccuracy that your argument depends on.
Deal with reality, not inaccurate maps drawn prior to construction.
Deal with reality and reality is the 1934 aerial of the 9th green
You also know that the presence of the creek (which was a dry creek bed unless it was raining) has little bearing on this conversation. The creek lay 300 yards from the tee, it was out of range.
Not according to you.
First, a huge portion of the DZ on # 1 is on a steep downslope
Second, you've already told us that drives flew the flattened plateau and reach the bottom of the slope on # 9, hence, by your own words they'd reach the creek on # 1
Finally, you know exactly how wide the first fairway is and was and you know from pictures that the tree line between the first and the ninth was nowhere close to what it is today.
That's irrelevant.
The FACT is that those were tall mature trees in between the 1st and 9th fairway and they had to be avoided, meaning that the golfer had to thread the needle between those trees and the huge bunker in the first fairway and the golfer had to avoid the trees just past the bunker complex to the left of the first green
The gap was at least 40 yards between the bunker and the trees. The shot would not have been difficult.
Then why didn't everybody play it that way ?
What's so funny about this is that you claim I'm trying to have things both ways. Go back and read what you wrote earlier about players back then not being able to hit it 300 yards. Yet you keep harping about the creek being a factor. You, Pat, are the one that can't have it both ways.
You claimed that golfers flew the flattened plateau and reached the bottom of the slope on # 9, ergo they would reach the creek at the bottom of the slope on # 1.
And if they couldn't, then they'd be on a downslope between trees and a formidable bunker with a very difficult shot into anon-receptive green.
I've come to expect it by now, but I'm always amazed by the selective presentation of information, the intentional emphasis on irrelevant items and the complete disregard for common sense and science that pervade your utterances.
There's no selective presentation, just facts.
Remind us again, how many times have you played the 9th hole.
Its not even moronic, as the arrogance and disdain for reality you display is not the result of ignorance, rather a pernicious attempt to waylay the truthseeker all in the name of eristical glory.
The fact is that you're wrong about the preferred method for playing # 9.
Your premise is based upon hearsay, 80 years removed.
You have absolutely no personal experience in playing the hole and choose instead to rely upon an inaccurate schematic that doesn't reflect the 9th green as built, while at the same time ignoring a 1934 aerial photo that clearly depicts the sliver of a target that you deliberately misrepresent vis a vis the Olmsted schematic.
You can't deal in reality because the 1934 aerial photo completely blows away your argument which is based upon an inaccurate rendering
Its not that you're acting the fool, its that you try to play everyone else as the fool, a strategy laden with disrespect and dishonesty.
If anyone has been dishonest, it's YOU.
By Trying to present an inaccurate schematic as the guiding document and rejecting an actual aerial photo taken in 1934.
In addition, I was the one who cited the flattened plateau on # 9, not you, you had to go and look it up after I mentioned it's existence.
And then you disingenuously inserted your description of Cliff Roberts drives as being short to further your argument, so when it comes to dishonesty, you're the leader. Roberts wasn't as long as Jones, but he wasn't "notoriously" short as you dishonestly indicated. Now if you were honest, when you quoted David Owen on the 9th hole, you would have added that Jones drove it to the bottom of the slope on # 9. And, if he drove it to the bottom of the slope on # 9, then he could drive it to the bottom of the slope on # 1 and into the creek. In addition, if your method was the preferred play, why didn't Owen indicate that that was the way Jones played the hole ?
The fact is, you have no experience in playing the 9th hole, no experience based ideas about distance, lies, angles and the play of # 9.
The foundation of your argument is the Olmsted schematic, a schematic that does NOT accurately depict the 9th green, along with hearsay removed 80 years.
In short, you don't know what you're talking about.
You have no first hand experience in playing the 9th hole and are basing your argument on theory, not reality.
Try debating about a golf hole that you've actually played, that might help you in terms of your credibility.
-
Try debating about a golf hole that you've actually played, that might help you in terms of your credibility.[/color]
You're killing me Smails.
I laughed out loud when I read that line. Its the key move in your act of deception and misdirection. The hole that allowed for this option no longer exists and it didn't exist when you played the course. Its too bad you don't have the imagination to see that it could have been (and was) played in the manner I've laid out.
I have it on higher authority than yours that (a) it was possible, (b) it made sense under certain circumstances and (c) it happened.
Sven
-
Try debating about a golf hole that you've actually played, that might help you in terms of your credibility.[/color]
You're killing me Smails.
I laughed out loud when I read that line. Its the key move in your act of deception and misdirection. The hole that allowed for this option no longer exists and it didn't exist when you played the course.
But, the alternative, playing it down # 9, remains and is unchanged.
And I have played that and can comment on it's play.
And while the green has changed, the approximate location and uphill configuration of the second shot remains unchanged.
In addition, I've walked on that first fairway numerous times, I'm familiar with the topography and juxtaposition of the features.
And neither you nor Will have.
Neither one of you have any first hand experience playing the 9th hole or examining the 1st fairway from the 1st fairway.
Its too bad you don't have the imagination to see that it could have been (and was) played in the manner I've laid out.
This is where you don't get it.
I never said that it couldn't be played in that manner, only that it wasn't the preferred or prudent method.
You are aware of course that Ed Furgol, in winning the U.S. Open at Baltusrol, played down the 18th fairway of another course and then to the green of the intended course. That doesn't mean that his play that particular day should be adopted as "the" method of play as you've insisted.
I have it on higher authority than yours that (a) it was possible,
I never said that it wasn't possible, in fact, I stated that an errant drive probably left the golfer little choice in the matter, but, that it wasn't a prefered method of play for the prudent golfer.
(b) it made sense under certain circumstances and
Sure, if the golfer hit an errant drive and ended up in the 1st fairway he had little choice, but, off the tee, it wasn't the prudent play.
(c) it happened.
So did Ed Furgol's play down the 18th hole of another course, but, that doesn't mean it's the prefered or prudent method of play, irrespective of hole location.
-
Pat,
Please tell me where anyone said that the play down #1 fairway was the preferred route or prudent play, in general? All I've read from Sven or myself is that with a left pin on the original green, that play was certainly possible and even thoughtful and, was used by players more accomplished than yourself. And, with confirmation from a source more familiar with the course and club than even you - shocking and unbelievable I know! :o.
Oh, and other than the "you have no credibility because you haven't played the hole" angle, you've tried the "what's your handicap?" line as well. Honestly, it doesn't deserve a response for obvious reasons. But I will tell you (again) that I am a former PGA member & professional caddie who has competed in both Open Qualifiers. But, since those aren't the answers you presumed to hear, I'm sure you won't address it. I was and am a decent player - which is all I've ever claimed to be - who has some grasp of GCA and golf strategy, like MANY others on this website who you continue claim don't when not in agreement with you. Please tell us again how many times you've played this version of ANGC's 9th with vintage equipment.
See if you can respond like an adult this time, seriously.
Cheers
-
Pat,
Please tell me where anyone said that the play down #1 fairway was the preferred route or prudent play, in general? All I've read from Sven or myself is that with a left pin on the original green, that play was certainly possible and even thoughtful and, was used by players more accomplished than yourself. And, with confirmation from a source more familiar with the course and club than even you - shocking and unbelievable I know! :o.
Will, the debate was NEVER about play being "possible", it was always about play down # 1 being "prudent"
Would you tell us what golfers deliberately played down # 1 when playing # 9 ?
Oh, and other than the "you have no credibility because you haven't played the hole" angle, you've tried the "what's your handicap?" line as well.
Both are relevant since you offered your opinion on how to play the hole.
Evaluating your opinion based on your personal playing experiences on # 9 and knowing your handicap provide context.
Why are you reluctant to answer those questions z?
Honestly, it doesn't deserve a response for obvious reasons. But I will tell you (again) that I am a former PGA member & professional caddie who has competed in both Open Qualifiers. But, since those aren't the answers you presumed to hear, I'm sure you won't address it. I was and am a decent player - which is all I've ever claimed to be - who has some grasp of GCA and golf strategy, like MANY others on this website who you continue claim don't when not in agreement with you.
Then you shouldn't have any problem telling us your handicap and how many times you've played # 9.
Please tell us again how many times you've played this version of ANGC's 9th with vintage equipment.
I've certainly played with more old equipment than you and I'd guess that I've played # 9 more than you
See if you can respond like an adult this time, seriously.
I answer direct questions, I don't hide from them like a child.
Answer the direct questions I asked you.
Handicap ?
Number of times you've played # 9 at ANGC ?
-
Pat,
Please tell me where anyone said that the play down #1 fairway was the preferred route or prudent play, in general? All I've read from Sven or myself is that with a left pin on the original green, that play was certainly possible and even thoughtful and, was used by players more accomplished than yourself. And, with confirmation from a source more familiar with the course and club than even you - shocking and unbelievable I know! :o.
Will, the debate was NEVER about play being "possible", it was always about play down # 1 being "prudent"
Would you tell us what golfers deliberately played down # 1 when playing # 9 ?
Oh, and other than the "you have no credibility because you haven't played the hole" angle, you've tried the "what's your handicap?" line as well.
Both are relevant since you offered your opinion on how to play the hole.
Evaluating your opinion based on your personal playing experiences on # 9 and knowing your handicap provide context.
Why are you reluctant to answer those questions z?
Honestly, it doesn't deserve a response for obvious reasons. But I will tell you (again) that I am a former PGA member & professional caddie who has competed in both Open Qualifiers. But, since those aren't the answers you presumed to hear, I'm sure you won't address it. I was and am a decent player - which is all I've ever claimed to be - who has some grasp of GCA and golf strategy, like MANY others on this website who you continue claim don't when not in agreement with you.
Then you shouldn't have any problem telling us your handicap and how many times you've played # 9.
Please tell us again how many times you've played this version of ANGC's 9th with vintage equipment.
I've certainly played with more old equipment than you and I'd guess that I've played # 9 more than you
See if you can respond like an adult this time, seriously.
I answer direct questions, I don't hide from them like a child.
Answer the direct questions I asked you.
Handicap ?
Number of times you've played # 9 at ANGC ?
Child?
Being such a math whiz, can't you figure it out based on my British Open Qualifier experience? Surely you'd know having playing in one yourself, no? Hint: I've told you before. ;)
And I've also told you I've not played ANGC unlike yourself - only ever claimed to have been on property and to have a good friend with a great job. How many times did you play #9 with an open path down #1 and to the original boomerang green to a left pin? Don't run from this one! ;D
Going to sleep...hope to get an answer by sunrise!
Cheers
-
You continue to deflect and avoid the question.
As to qualifiers, golfers sometimes manipulate their handicaps in order to get into qualifiers, so let's do away with diversionary tactics and just tell us[/color]
Surely you'd know having playing in one yourself, no? Hint: I've told you before. ;)
Will, I keep many numbers in my head, but your handicap isn't one of them
And I've also told you I've not played ANGC unlike yourself -
That, I remembered, but it needed repeating
only ever claimed to have been on property and to have a good friend with a great job.
How many times did you play #9 with an open path down #1 and to the original boomerang green to a left pin? Don't run from this one! ;D
NO ONE ever played down # 1 from # 9 tee with an "open path".
You need to study the 1934 photos more carefully
-
You continue to deflect and avoid the question.
As to qualifiers, golfers sometimes manipulate their handicaps in order to get into qualifiers, so let's do away with diversionary tactics and just tell us[/color]
Surely you'd know having playing in one yourself, no? Hint: I've told you before. ;)
Will, I keep many numbers in my head, but your handicap isn't one of them
And I've also told you I've not played ANGC unlike yourself -
That, I remembered, but it needed repeating
only ever claimed to have been on property and to have a good friend with a great job.
How many times did you play #9 with an open path down #1 and to the original boomerang green to a left pin? Don't run from this one! ;D
NO ONE ever played down # 1 from # 9 tee with an "open path".
You need to study the 1934 photos more carefully
How many times did you play to the original 9th green? How many times did you hit an approach from the 9th fairway to a back left pin on the boomerang green? I'll guess since you won't answer the question...as many times as Sven and I - never.
-
I haven't read all the posts yet, although it appears that a spitting contest has developed.
If this post is repetitive, my apologies.
Some years ago, there was at least one thread on GCA that bemoaned any changes to ANGC and that playing The masters on the original 1934 version, or doing away with The Masters altogether, was both pure and preferable.
My response was 1) many golf courses have been amended for the better so long as the original designer, or one of their disciples, was always on hand to examine, think and ensure some continuity. The examples I used, and still do are Pinehurst (Ross), Merion (Flynn) and National (Macdonald). For awhile, you could include Crooked Stick (Dye) in that group. While Pat Mucci and I agree that member-driven golf committees often get it wrong, I rejected then, and I reject now, the philosophy that Golden Era courses are, somehow, sacrosanct. As Ross, Flynn, Macdonald and Dye showed, watching how a course plays often creates ideas many years after the fact.
While Mackenzie died early, ANGC has the benefit of observing many (not all - but enough) ) of the the best players every April since 1934 except for WWII. That is, the laboratory is re-opened every year under championship conditions. I believe ANGC is a far more worthy championship golf course as a result of almost all the ongoing amendments. Even the "second cut" has proven necessary.
All that said, I do wish that so much of the "improvements" did not include the planting of trees (e.g. #15) although I don't really have a problem with it. I DO have a problem with those few trees that are my hated Stupid Trees - they encroach on ball flight either within 150 yards of the tee box or from anywhere in the fairway. The two glaring examples at ANGC are on the 8th tee box and, alas, the sacred Eisenhower Tree which forces only a single shape for the drive (a draw) in order to find the fairway. No straight ball and no fade.
Other than that, I'm fine with it.
-
Chip:
I think the big question isn't whether the golf course was "better then than now," but rather if the game of golf itself was changed for the worse.
ANGC provides a historical study of not only the changes to a single course over time, but a study of how the game has evolved over the years. The hosting of an annual tournament for the best players in the world and the history of changes made over the years to adjust the course to provide a suitable challenge in each era is unprecedented. There's also a bit of a ripple effect over time, as tees being moved and increased green speeds have altered the way certain hazards and contours affect play, resulting in new iterations that can only be viewed as improvements when placed under the microscope of how the course is now played.
There are remnants of the MacKenzie and Jones (and even Maxwell) ground game ethos still lingering on the course, although these days the major themes are centered around length and aerial precision. But every once in a while you get shots that echo of how the course played years ago, like Tiger's screaming hook into the 8th green, his chip from the back of the 16th green, Oosthuizen's slow feed to the right pin on the 2nd, Poulter using the bank on the 6th to get to the front left pin, someone trying to bounce one in to 11 or somebody using the contours on the 14th or 17th green to feed a ball to the hole. Those are the shots that make watching this tournament really fun for me. The rest of it is just watching extremely strong and skilled players try to hit to their number while dealing with all the pressures that go hand in hand with the thought of slipping on a green jacket.
Sven
-
You continue to deflect and avoid the question.
As to qualifiers, golfers sometimes manipulate their handicaps in order to get into qualifiers, so let's do away with diversionary tactics and just tell us[/color]
Surely you'd know having playing in one yourself, no? Hint: I've told you before. ;)
Will, I keep many numbers in my head, but your handicap isn't one of them
And I've also told you I've not played ANGC unlike yourself -
That, I remembered, but it needed repeating
only ever claimed to have been on property and to have a good friend with a great job.
How many times did you play #9 with an open path down #1 and to the original boomerang green to a left pin? Don't run from this one! ;D
NO ONE ever played down # 1 from # 9 tee with an "open path".
You need to study the 1934 photos more carefully
How many times did you play to the original 9th green? How many times did you hit an approach from the 9th fairway to a back left pin on the boomerang green? I'll guess since you won't answer the question...as many times as Sven and I - never.
But, I have played the 9th hole, which from tee to fringe is virtually unchanged in 80 years.
And, I have walked down the middle of the first fairway numerous times, so my experience and understanding of the play of # 9 and the 1st fairway is exponentially greater than the two of you combined.
-
Sven & Chip,
I think it's a combination.
ANGC was always intended to host a major championship, to test the best players of the day.
ANGC can't change the way golf is played or the I&B with which it's played, ergo, ANGC has to be reactive to the changes in the I&B (game) in order to continue to provide a test for the best players.
That fact results in ongoing changes.
As to the trees, and I prefered the width found in 1999, a review of the 1933-4 photos reveals that they were planting trees to seperate the holes from the very begining. (Is Pine Valley to blame ? ;D)
The difference, and that which I object to, is not the planting of trees to seperate the holes, but, the planting of trees to narrow the playing corridors.
-
Being such a math whiz, can't you figure it out based on my British Open Qualifier experience?
You continue to deflect and avoid the question.
As to qualifiers, golfers sometimes manipulate their handicaps in order to get into qualifiers, so let's do away with diversionary tactics and just tell us
What I hate, I mean, love about you is your persistency. The computer still says 2.5 based on scores well over a year old but I would say I should be no better than a 4 right now and haven't played since mid-November. My putting is for shite - having a two-year-old, coaching a high school spring sport, and teaching while playing 10-15 times a year and not practicing will do that. What again is your point? And, since I've not actually played the hole, my ability shouldn't matter because according to you, I have no credibility on the issue. ::)
-
I just picked up on this thread this afternoon, but it seems obvious that the easiest approach to a pin on the left finger of the old green would be from the fairway in #1 (old 10). It also appears from the picture taken in the mid 30s that there would be room to drive the ball into that fairway.
-
Being such a math whiz, can't you figure it out based on my British Open Qualifier experience?
You continue to deflect and avoid the question.
As to qualifiers, golfers sometimes manipulate their handicaps in order to get into qualifiers, so let's do away with diversionary tactics and just tell us
What I hate, I mean, love about you is your persistency.
It helps.............sometimes
The computer still says 2.5 based on scores well over a year old but I would say I should be no better than a 4 right now and haven't played since mid-November.
That's surprising.
Based on your writings I would have thought you a good 22. ;D
My putting is for shite - having a two-year-old, coaching a high school spring sport, and teaching while playing 10-15 times a year and not practicing will do that.
It doesn't get easier.
What again is your point?
Context
And, since I've not actually played the hole, my ability shouldn't matter because according to you, I have no credibility on the issue. ::)
While that's true, at least you can relate to what's physically possible but mentally ...... questionable.
David,
If it was so obvious, why wasn't it done routinely ?
Are you sure you read the replies ?
-
Sven,
Thank you for the time you put into this piece. It made my morning.
Chris Buie,
I've always wondered what the 7th green looked like before the change, thank you for posting the picture. That is probably my favorite spot to take first timers. You just can't understand how small the target is until you see it in person. It looks like a par 6 to me.
-
With the Masters just a few weeks away, this great thread deserves a bump.
-
This is a great picture of the 5th green. I never saw this angle before and really appreciate the severity of the contours.
Hole 5 - Magnolia - Par 4
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Lester/ANGC5GREENII.jpg)
-
Adding in some more old photos. Some of these might be repeats from earlier in the thread.
1st Hole
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC-1st-green-1941_zpsphhmnq9w.jpg)
1941
1st and 9th Holes
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/e9fbea87fc_zps2rccfz1c.jpg)
Date Unknown
2nd Hole
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Second-Hole-1948_zpslrlse9kt.jpg)
7th Hole
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC-7_zpsbw8gwgsw.jpg)
9th Hole
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC9Zoom_zps1pzomc6i.jpg)
1934
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC%209th%20-%20Golf%20Illustrated%20Feb.%201933_zpstgwli2tk.png)
Feb. 1933 Golf Illustrated
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/9th-Green-1935-1024x897_zpsxjeawjrj.jpg)
Date Unknown
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/9th-hole-1949-1024x769_zpstdaaouvo.jpg)
Date Unknown
-
10th Hole
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC10GMaxwellItem_6387_3_zps5xsiopxz.jpg)
Post Maxwell Changes
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGCMaxwell_zpsbd29ahvd.jpg)
Post Maxwell Changes
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Item_6388_1_zpsizy86xmf.jpg)
Post Maxwell Changes
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Item_6388_2_zpsbzd5fft0.jpg)
Post Maxwell Changes
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Item_6389_4_zps9dtwmlqe.jpg)
Post Maxwell Changes
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Item_6390_3_zpsbzsicmqh.jpg)
Post Maxwell Changes
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Item_6390_6_zpsd9s78rbn.jpg)
Post Maxwell Changes
12th Hole
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC%20New%2012th%20Old%203-thumb-518x253-132161_zps0mvnbonq.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC12th_zpsmsniu1o6.jpg)
Date Unknown
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/17_zpstw3z2ttn.jpg)
Date Unknown
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/cosl24_12th_zpsrfstcmp7.jpg)
Date Unknown
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta121952_zpsuzugmb1u.jpg)
1952
13th Hole
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC%2013th%20-%20Golf%20Illustrated%20Feb.%201933_zpsdvz9ipdy.png)
Feb. 1933 Golf Illustrated
15th Hole
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta%2015_zpswiysmuq9.jpg)
16th Hole
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/augusta-old-sixteen_600x357_0_zpsuaracokg.jpg)
Date Unknown
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC16th_zpsme7uhfbc.jpg)
Date Unknown
18th Hole
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC%2018th%20-%20Golf%20Illustrated%20Feb.%201934_zpsgvz86vnf.png)
Feb. 1934 Golf Illustrated
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC%2018th%20-%20Golf%20Illustrated%20Jan.%201933_zpsypluiuwn.png)
Jan. 1933 Golf Illustrated
-
Aerials and Plans
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/10-augusta-national-in-1930_zpslu71hvev.jpg)
1930
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta%202_zpshsqvjwtk.jpg)
Date Unknown
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/aerial-view-ANGC-1934_zps4v6jdk6s.jpg)
1934
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/angc1941_zpsqtzp5hq7.jpg)
1941
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGCJune1932planBW_zpsg4lrijxs.jpg)
June 1932 Plan
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC-watercolor-sketch-1024x978_zps1bfsqwyk.jpg)
Watercolor Sketch
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Olmsted-real-estate-plan2_zpsyy7xvcyi.jpg)
Olmsted Plan
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/bobbyjonescoursebymackenzie-012_zpsj4g7e9x7.jpg)
Date Unknown
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/1935MastersProgram_zpscxixdysy.jpg)
Plan of the Course from the 1935 Masters Program
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC%20MacKenzie%20Approach%20and%20Putt%20Course_zpsupdgxakj.jpg)
MacKenzie's Approach and Putt Course
-
An early article on the course.
June 1932 Golf Illustrated
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/ANGC%20-%20Golf%20Illustrated%20June%201932_zps17wwarrt.png)
-
Sven,
Great work! Looking at these new pics, it seems less likely that anyone would have ever driven down the 1st when playing to a left pin on the old 9th green. ;)
Cheers
-
Will,
Do you mean the photos that fail to show the pronounced downhill sloping nature of the 1st fairway as you approach the 9th green ?
I can understand your ignorance regarding that significant playing feature, since you've never walked and played the 1st fairway, nor the 9th fairway for that matter.
Did you bother to look at how narrow the back left section of the green is ?
Did you not notice how the green slopes away from the 1st tee toward the 2nd green.
So your play, based solely on your expertise in analyzing photographs, rather than personal experience, would be to hit off of a downhill, sidehill lie to a narrow green that slopes away from you.
Is that correct ?
-
Pat,
I haven't been there either so maybe you could help...what sort of stance does one have from the middle of the ninth fairway when hitting to the ninth green?
-
Pat,
I haven't been there either so maybe you could help...what sort of stance does one have from the middle of the ninth fairway when hitting to the ninth green?
Jim,
That's a really stupid question, actually it qualifies as "moronic"
Why don't you rephrase it and tell me how far from the green I am when I'm taking my stance, then I can more accurately tell you what kind of stance I have.
While you're calculating the distance, ask yourself if you'd want to hit to a green that slopes up to you or one that slopes away from you when you have a downhill, sidehill lie.
Did you also happen to notice the deep fairway bunker on the 1st fairway ?
Did you notice any bunkers in the 9th fairway ?
Did you notice the creek bisecting the 1st fairway ?
Did you see any creeks bisecting the 9th fairway ?
Did you notice any "plateaus" in the DZ of the 9th fairway ?
Do you see any similar "plateaus" in the 1st fairway ?
This is a great example of the blind following the blind .
-
Pat,
Are you saying the left portion of the old ninth green sloped away from the first fairway?
-
I have it on higher authority than yours that (a) it was possible, (b) it made sense under certain circumstances and (c) it happened.
Sven
Sven, did your authority see players in the Masters purposely drive down the 1st fairway? That is exactly what Ron Whitten says btw.
If so, my guess is that the drive was probably riskier (maybe a lot riskier) but if pulled off, may have shortened the approach by a few clubs.
-
Pat,
I haven't been there either so maybe you could help...what sort of stance does one have from the middle of the ninth fairway when hitting to the ninth green?
Jim,
To answer your question...
Typically one has a downhill,and ball slightly below you feet in 9 fairway, the toughest lie to hit to a green a good 40-50 feet above you.
that said, before they moved the tee WAAAY back you would see Norman, Tiger and the longest bombers down in the flat or even a slight uphill lie.
Less so now with tees way back but some( Bubba) can get there in the right conditions.
Then there's the old Clifford Roberts flat(ish) spot about 180 out.
-
I watched Cabrera hook his drive on 9 badly in 2012, landed in the middle of #1 fairway. He was disgusted and approach shot from there was really tough, little green to work with. He bogeyed.
-
I watched Cabrera hook his drive on 9 badly in 2012, landed in the middle of #1 fairway. He was disgusted and approach shot from there was really tough, little green to work with. He bogeyed.
We're talking about play back in the 30's to the old version of the 9th green. I don't think anyone said it was a feasible play to the modern version.
-
FWIW, many of the women at this year's Women's Australian Open at Royal Melbourne, including Lydia Ko, played the 18th there (RME18) by deliberately hitting their drives way left into the first fairway (RMW1).
-
Here's an April 1934 Golf Illustrated article on the first Masters.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Masters%20-%20Golf%20Illustrated%20April%201934%201_zpsjctgbsh4.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Masters%20-%20Golf%20Illustrated%20April%201934%202_zpswryri1bv.png)
-
Ron Whitten, in his GD article about the changes to ANGC, says many players in the early years purposely hit their drives on #9 down the first fairway. He says it gave them a better angle to a left pin -- and that in 1938 Roberts had Perry Maxwell redesign the green and bunkers to try and eliminate that advantage.
-
Golf Digest reposted the web-article that was the basis for this thread. Not sure if any updates were added, but always an interesting read this time of year.
http://www.golfdigest.com/story/the-complete-changes-to-augusta-national
-
Interesting thread, thanks for bumping, with many wonderful photos etc that I've not seen before.
This aerial photo, from 1934 it says somewhere above, is curious in that there are young trees, presumably planted ones(?), in certain areas. Who would have been the advocate of tree planting at this time?
(http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i352/hriefs/ANGCoverview.jpg)
atb
-
Bumping again. Don't want it to fall too far down in this part of the season.
-
Found this May, 1932 Golfdom article interesting on construction of the course and it answers Thomas' question as to how so many trees got to the edges.
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p643/jrbgolfs/MacKenzie%20and%20Augusta%20Golfdom%201932may99_Page_1_zps1qaypnll.jpg)
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p643/jrbgolfs/MacKenzie%20and%20Augusta%20Golfdom%201932may99_Page_2_zpsodf7wniu.jpg)
-
Bumping this excellent ANGC thread. Thanks for retrieving, Brian.
Bob
-
3,000 members? That changed! ;D
-
An interesting article on the work done by Perry Maxwell in the late 1930's, including the removal of "piles of dirt" that Maxwell noted as having been installed to mimic a seaside links.
May 8, 1938 Dayton Daily News -
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/A1%20Album/Augusta%20National%20-%20Dayton%20Daily%20News%20May%208%201938_zps04jul7gz.png)
-
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/10ae.jpg)
(http://sandhillsinsider.com/10.jpg)
Mr. Wexler is right, of course. The current version of 10 is preferable for four days of the year but the old one was far better for members. That is largely the story of ANGC, is it not? The question I would be asking is how to reinstate some of the superior elements MacKenzie had while maintaining major championship playability.
What do you suppose the stroke average is for members on this hole today?
Had McKenzie and Jones expanded and built the 10th green according to the diagram up top, bringing the bunker more directly into play, I would definitely be in favor of seeing this hole restored to it's original length or even shortened and have it be a driveable risk/reward proposition, akin to the 10th at Riviera. It's either that or shape the slope of the terrain between the green and bunker even more severely than originally shown, forcing mishit drives and or poorly hit chip shots from above the green to the right into it. An accurately hit long drive should have the ability to run-up on the green giving the player a chance for an eagle and most assuredly a birdie. However, a poorly hit drive could take birdie completely out of the equation, leaving the player scrambling for a par or worse.
I absolutely love this thread, as it gets me thinking warm thoughts of spring with the Master's just around the corner. The fact that I can tie this in to this weeks tournament at Riviera is an added bonus. :-)
In short, I would LOVE to see many of the holes at ANGC restored to their original intent - especially those with boomerang and tongue depressor greens, not to mention the original bunkering. Those holes would be by far more interesting visually and strategically speaking, as just think of the crazy pin positions you could have throughout Master's week? While ANGC is arguably the holy grail of U.S. golf in its current form, it could be even more legendary and iconic were the majority of holes restored to their original McKenzie - Jones design. Would the membership there ever be so bold and daring do to go that route? I seriously doubt it, but were they I would think given Ben Crenshaw's love and passion for all things ANGC, he and Bill Coore would be the perfect candidates for it.
-
Had McKenzie and Jones expanded and built the 10th green according to the diagram up top, bringing the bunker more directly into play, I would definitely be in favor of seeing this hole restored to it's original length or even shortened and have it be a driveable risk/reward proposition, akin to the 10th at Riviera. ...
In short, I would LOVE to see many of the holes at ANGC restored to their original intent - especially those with boomerang and tongue depressor greens, not to mention the original bunkering. Those holes would be by far more interesting visually and strategically speaking, as just think of the crazy pin positions you could have throughout Master's week? While ANGC is arguably the holy grail of U.S. golf in its current form, it could be even more legendary and iconic were the majority of holes restored to their original McKenzie - Jones design. Would the membership there ever be so bold and daring do to go that route? I seriously doubt it, but were they I would think given Ben Crenshaw's love and passion for all things ANGC, he and Bill Coore would be the perfect candidates for it.
I agree with the ethos, but not in the fullest measure MB envisions... here at 10, for tournament spectating, and for all the opportunity holes to come, I prefer the longer, demanding 2 shot sequence, followed by an exacting, decisive and medal-challenging green surface. While I think a restoration of the pre-Maxwell design would be a interesting turn, for me, the better one for such full "driveable 4" restoration is #7...
cheers vk
-
I'm not sure if these were already included in this thread. I didn't see them. A few pictures of Augusta in the 50's.
From the O.J. Noer/Milorganite photo collection:
https://tic.msu.edu/noerslides?location=Augusta
-
Had McKenzie and Jones expanded and built the 10th green according to the diagram up top, bringing the bunker more directly into play, I would definitely be in favor of seeing this hole restored to it's original length or even shortened and have it be a driveable risk/reward proposition, akin to the 10th at Riviera. ...
In short, I would LOVE to see many of the holes at ANGC restored to their original intent - especially those with boomerang and tongue depressor greens, not to mention the original bunkering. Those holes would be by far more interesting visually and strategically speaking, as just think of the crazy pin positions you could have throughout Master's week? While ANGC is arguably the holy grail of U.S. golf in its current form, it could be even more legendary and iconic were the majority of holes restored to their original McKenzie - Jones design. Would the membership there ever be so bold and daring do to go that route? I seriously doubt it, but were they I would think given Ben Crenshaw's love and passion for all things ANGC, he and Bill Coore would be the perfect candidates for it.
I agree with the ethos, but not in the fullest measure MB envisions... here at 10, for tournament spectating, and for all the opportunity holes to come, I prefer the longer, demanding 2 shot sequence, followed by an exacting, decisive and medal-challenging green surface. While I think a restoration of the pre-Maxwell design would be a interesting turn, for me, the better one for such full "driveable 4" restoration is #7...
cheers vk
#7 could potentially make a fun risk/reward driveable par 4 were the green reverted back to it's original, more interesting (and penal looking) shape. Can you imagine the players trying to keep a ball on the green with far back left pin - even with a lob wedge? Even if you did, were you above the hole you would have a wicked downhill putt. I don't know about the rest of you, but this green looks way more interesting and scary to me than the well-bunkered one they have now. The only thing I would perhaps do different in building this green would be to make the left side slightly deeper front to back. It doesn't appear that there is more than 24' from the front fringe to the back fringe, but that may just be due to the angle the photo was taken. I suppose even in this form the depth of the left side is no worse than the narrowest part of #12 green.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/ANGC%201935%207th_zpsge8jlzs2.jpg)
-
I don't think this plan made it into the thread.
(https://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/A1%20Album/Augusta%20Plan%20-%20April%201932_zpsfcwskebn.jpg)
-
Had McKenzie and Jones expanded and built the 10th green according to the diagram up top, bringing the bunker more directly into play, I would definitely be in favor of seeing this hole restored to it's original length or even shortened and have it be a driveable risk/reward proposition, akin to the 10th at Riviera. ...
In short, I would LOVE to see many of the holes at ANGC restored to their original intent - especially those with boomerang and tongue depressor greens, not to mention the original bunkering. Those holes would be by far more interesting visually and strategically speaking, as just think of the crazy pin positions you could have throughout Master's week? While ANGC is arguably the holy grail of U.S. golf in its current form, it could be even more legendary and iconic were the majority of holes restored to their original McKenzie - Jones design. Would the membership there ever be so bold and daring do to go that route? I seriously doubt it, but were they I would think given Ben Crenshaw's love and passion for all things ANGC, he and Bill Coore would be the perfect candidates for it.
I agree with the ethos, but not in the fullest measure MB envisions... here at 10, for tournament spectating, and for all the opportunity holes to come, I prefer the longer, demanding 2 shot sequence, followed by an exacting, decisive and medal-challenging green surface. While I think a restoration of the pre-Maxwell design would be a interesting turn, for me, the better one for such full "driveable 4" restoration is #7...
cheers vk
#7 could potentially make a fun risk/reward driveable par 4 were the green reverted back to it's original, more interesting (and penal looking) shape. Can you imagine the players trying to keep a ball on the green with far back left pin - even with a lob wedge? Even if you did, were you above the hole you would have a wicked downhill putt. I don't know about the rest of you, but this green looks way more interesting and scary to me than the well-bunkered one they have now. The only thing I would perhaps do different in building this green would be to make the left side slightly deeper front to back. It doesn't appear that there is more than 24' from the front fringe to the back fringe, but that may just be due to the angle the photo was taken. I suppose even in this form the depth of the left side is no worse than the narrowest part of #12 green.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Augusta/ANGC%201935%207th_zpsge8jlzs2.jpg)
Full on bingo here. Not just the image, but more your thoughts on what “Defense of the Green” should mean to the modern game with this stupid and ridiculous equipment. (See Wethered & Simpson’s Chapter, “Defence of the Green” in Architectural Side of Golf)
-
With the Masters looming just around the corner I think this thread should have a permanent place on top. Sven, thanks for all the hard work and research you put into this. Except for the final debate which could of been summed up in two posts rather than far too many pages it's just brilliant. I had always ignored these threads until I had enough personal expeirence to read them without tainting my views.
There seems to be very little Mackenzie/Jones left of Augusta except the general routing which makes brilliant use of the land. My new dream would now be to play a complete restoration. (I know, I said dream)
However, the first iteration of the course was simply amazing. The much discussed 9th hole was a brilliant design from the two gentlemen. The lie there even now is at least as good as anything except very long in the 9th fairway, even though the current green and speed are too severe for this angle to be a reasonably chosen line in. With the original green and the left pin placements I fully agree with you and others backing you with far more ability than myself. No doubt this was purposefully done and what a cool hole it would of been though of course not practical at other clubs given the danger to the oncoming traffic.
-
David
never say never
Augusta CC just over the fence was completely restored to a 1920's Ross version (modern greenspeeds factored in) and it was spearheaded by a very influential and well known member at ANGC.
Augusta's legacy has been one of change.
Augusta makes significant seamleass changes every year and has the luxury of being closed 4 1/2 months during PRIME growing season, so any change is possible.
I for one would welcome a thoughtful interpretive restoration led by a Ben Crenshaw and collaborative team and understand that historical concessions would have to be made (i.e. 16 was quite similar to 12 and would be a traffic nightmare-and SO much history has been made there since.
There would be little harm(and great upside) however in a resoration with modern lengths considered to #7
-
I too would love to see ANGC go back more to its roots. But what is the club's motivation to do that? Its prime mission is the Masters. Keeping the course competitive to the world's top players drives most if not all changes it makes to the course. That is why it has steadily tightened/lengthened the playing corridors. It's why ANGC paid a king's ransom for some extra land from Augusta CC. My guess is any resurrection to the early days, even partial, would have to meet the demand of challenging the pro's for the club even to consider it.
-
Jeff -
I think you are right that any restoration of ANGC, however limited, would need the involvement of Ben Crenshaw.
Interesting that the 8th is the only hole at ANGC that has been restored (sort of). That project involved Joe Finger and others, but it was headed up by Byron Nelson, a past Masters winner. In the same vein, only a Crenshsaw would have the cred to roll-back the Fazio changes.
Bob
-
If nothing else, I don't see why they couldn't bring back some of the bunker styles.... even conservatively they could do so without changing the strategy of the holes too much if that's what they were worried about.
The cluster on the left side of #3 comes to mind.
-
Bring back all of the boomerang greens and original bunkering, I say, but keep the length about where it is except for 10. I'd like to see that green return to its original location for the reasons previously expressed. It'll still play longer than it did when it was first built, but the plateaued green will make for a much more visually interesting hole and vexing hole - especially with the gigantic bunker back to the left back in play, which never sees a ball anymore where it sits in the middle of the fairway.
Just think about how cool, fun, daunting and unique Augusta would be? I mean, it's a great course as it is right now, but it can be even better in my mind if they simply returned as much as of the course as they can to its McKenzie roots. The pros may laugh and make fun of the boomerang greens as being tricked up and unfair, but screw 'em. Hit good golf shots into them and you'll be rewarded, just like virtually every course they play.
-
There is not a single course among American stars which has been modified as much as Augusta.
In case you don't know, there are several books that already describe all the changes hole by hole. Problem : none of them are very new and changes happen every year, so they need an update.
David OWEN, The Making of the Masters (1999)
David SOWELL, The Master, a hole-by-hole history of America's Golf Classic (2007)
Stan BIRDY, Alister MacKenzie's masterpiece, the Augusta National Golf Club (2005)
Is Augusta better now or before? That's a really good question. The course has completely lost MacKenzie's aesthetic (funny shaped bunkers, wide open fairways with few trees and no rough) but the course we see on TV doesn't look bad either, just a little too artificial maybe. Grass is a bit to green, bunkers a bit to white etc. And of course we would love to see more of MacKenzie styled bunker, the only remaining one being the one on the 10th fairway which used to guard the left part of the old green.
But let's face it : do you ever get bored when watching the Masters? Very seldom indeed, and you can really feel the tension from Thursday morning onward, when most tournaments only wake you up on the back nine on Sunday afternoon. For that only, Augusta deserves praise.
A lot of people complain that the par 5's are too short, but that's the way they were intended to be, more like par 4,5. I agree though that hole 13 has a problem. It can no longer be increased as the back tee hits the limit of the property, and it now plays really to short for the long hitters. That's a truly great hole we've (partly) lost.
I can't really blame ANGC for making all the changes they make : they have the greatest golf tournament to run every year and they need to challenge the best players at their best. If the big guys drive it 400 yards, who is to blame? Certainly not ANGC.
Now I would really want to know what new changes will be made for the 2012 edition. Any guess??
Looks like a new edition of the sowell book just came out last month
-
Here’s a Golf Digest hole-by-hole history of changes etc piece - https://www.golfdigest.com/story/complete-changes-to-augusta-national (https://www.golfdigest.com/story/complete-changes-to-augusta-national)
Atb
-
A couple of interesting pictures I found from the 1939 Masters,
While this is a picture of the 2nd fairway, the new 7th green can be found in the background, with what appears to be both front and back bunkers? I thought when Maxwell moved the green back prior to the 1939 tournament that only the 3 front bunkers were present.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/GqFT4rdUCQWYS_gTRcj65tvtIiLoOT2CizTzKID8-HuxGUct8KomoyKuiWnltLp9vV6xvRbfOP-lmPhJ6xG2yntXAEH1Er40mdwth5qrOfyqjYE3Gtfv52SMG3Zpnv9SUvbhG7Lebw8=w2400) (https://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/digital/collection/lane/id/970)
I almost didn't recognize this as the 12th when I first saw it.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/vMYVN5DoqLidxCYP3Qod7L1WmthBLODUKOYRBAFefDuRZAZqU_5mQQdA3wGJM2T4DdI30lLsoDvjbu1lA6ZxwG4Pii3ydkYdIoB6o9c33gehVE14y7OZSinpai6cThb076QMxv5k89w=w2400) (https://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/digital/collection/lane/id/9993)
-
While this is a picture of the 2nd fairway, the new 7th green can be found in the background, with what appears to be both front and back bunkers? I thought when Maxwell moved the green back prior to the 1939 tournament that only the 3 front bunkers were present.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/GqFT4rdUCQWYS_gTRcj65tvtIiLoOT2CizTzKID8-HuxGUct8KomoyKuiWnltLp9vV6xvRbfOP-lmPhJ6xG2yntXAEH1Er40mdwth5qrOfyqjYE3Gtfv52SMG3Zpnv9SUvbhG7Lebw8=w2400) (https://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/digital/collection/lane/id/970)
(http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/noerslides/4962-1D.jpg)
Similar Image from April 1955.
Between these two images and the following timeline, some things do not line up.
Changes to no. 2
1947 - 525 yards - A left hand bunker was added near the green to pinch the front of the putting surface and to protect against faded second shots. All of the MacKenzie jagged edges on the bunkers were removed for ease of maintenance.
1954 - 555 yards - George Cobb rebuilt the green to extend it to the left, adding several hole locations. He also added a gallery mound on the back left of the green and rebuilt the three bunkers on the hole. A new back tee was added and the Bermuda on the greens was replaced with a hybrid that was less grainy.
Changes to no. 7
1939 - 370 yards - At the behest of Roberts, Maxwell reshaped portions of the green in 1937, but concluded no one could truly improve it. At the suggestion of Horton Smith, a new green was built in 1938 beyond the old one, atop a hill. Paid for by a club member, it was build with a tractor borrowed from the county. Maxwell, on direction to make the new green similar to the par-4 8th at Pine Valley, fronted the green with three bunkers.
1956 - 365 yards - As if the smallest green (3,600 sf) sitting half-blind 15 feet above the fairway wasn't testing enough, George Cobb added two bunkers behind the green before the 1955 Masters. Pines trees were also planted along the fairway. The next summer, the hillside behind the green was cleared to create a gallery mound.
The Black and While picture shows the 7th green post moving, so the earliest it could have been take was 1939. It also shows only a singular greenside bunker on 2, so the latest it could have been take was prior to 1947, but it also shows 2 rear bunkers on 7, which were not suppose to exist until 1955?
The Color picture shows an expanded 2nd green and a lefthand greenside bunker, so the earliest it could have been taken was 1955, the same year the bunkers on 7 were expected to be added, but the rear bunkers on the 7th in the color picture look nearly identical to those in the B/W picture.
So what happened here? Is the 1939 credit for the B/W picture accurate and did Maxwell add the rear bunkers in 1939? Did Maxwell come back sometime before 1947 to add the rear bunkers to the 7th? Why is Cobb accredited with the bunkers behind 7?