[jeffwarne]

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

[Jim Nugent]

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.     

[BCrosby]

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

[Matthew Rose]

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.

[Mike Bodo]

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.

[Philip Hensley]

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

[Thomas Dai]

Here’s a Golf Digest hole-by-hole history of changes etc piece - https://www.golfdigest.com/story/complete-changes-to-augusta-national
Atb

[Ben Hollerbach]

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.





I almost didn't recognize this as the 12th when I first saw it.

[Ben Hollerbach]

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.

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?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()