[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

[JESII]

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?

[Patrick_Mucci]

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  .

[JESII]

Pat,

Are you saying the left portion of the old ninth green sloped away from the first fairway?

[Jim Nugent]

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. 

[jeffwarne]

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.

[MClutterbuck]

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.

[Sven Nilsen]

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.

[Benjamin Litman]

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).

[Sven Nilsen]

Here's an April 1934 Golf Illustrated article on the first Masters.

[Jim Nugent]

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.   

[Sven Nilsen]

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

[Thomas Dai]

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?

atb

[Greg Smith]

Bumping again.  Don't want it to fall too far down in this part of the season.

[Josh Bills]

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.

[BCrosby]

Bumping this excellent ANGC thread. Thanks for retrieving, Brian.


Bob

[Matt_Cohn]

3,000 members? That changed! 

[Sven Nilsen]

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 -

[Mike Bodo]

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.

[V. Kmetz]

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

[Bret Lawrence]

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

[Mike Bodo]

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.

[Sven Nilsen]

I don't think this plan made it into the thread.

[Tommy Naccarato]

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.

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)

[David Davis]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()