[Mark Bourgeois]

According to correspondence in the Olmsted Brothers archives, Mackenzie spent about one month on property in March 1932 to oversee the final contour work on the greens.

Additionally, regarding the trees and shrubbery, in September 1931 Berckmans inventoried the property in detail, noting specific varieties on topographical maps used by Mackenzie.

Regarding the relocation of trees and shrubbery, more information below.

Although Mackenzie spent a shockingly brief time (IMHO) on property routing the course, and though he did not see the opening day course, this was not a drive-by operation. Unless major changes were made after March 1932 without his knowledge or permission, he would have known, down to specific locations of specific fauna, in great detail what his course looked like.

One possible exception are the fairway mowing lines: Mackenzie and Jones gave explicit instructions there should be none but Olmsted Brothers' drawings and topos sketched in fairway mowing lines, of which Wendell Miller, Mackenzie's project manager, approved:

"I appreciate very much the assistance you have given Mr. Berckmans in the matter of fairway outlines. As you probably learned from Mr. Berckmans, both Mr. Jones and Dr. Mackenzie are of the opinion that we should continue to mow all of the area which was seeded to fairway length but I, personally, think that the course will look better if a definite outline is given to the fairways. Your delineation of the fairways seems to be correct with the exception of a few minor changes which I have noted on the plan." -- letter dated 1 November 1932 from Miller to Olmsted Brothers.


Trees and shrubbery



Excerpt of trip report from Olmsted Brothers partner William Marquis dated October 4-7, 1931



Source: Olmsted Associates Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

[Ben Sims]

I hope I'm not assuming his position too much, but I agree with Mark B. For one suppose that Mackenzie was unawares or would ultimately disapprove of what is shown in those photos from 1935 is to take a bit of license. Further, Jones was as familiar with what was being done as anyone outside of Mackenzie. Is there any reason he would've approved of shapes outside of what he and Mackenzie had discussed?

For what it's worth, color me as someone that doesn't understand the love of the early photos. Actually, check that. I understand why some of this particular board would appreciate them. I just don't agree that it is a better aesthetic or even better from a playability perspective.

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

3000 members was expected? Wonder what the most they ever had was?

I read somewhere that that first couple of years they only had a small number of members, something like 75, due to the Great Depression and dues were an equivalent in today's dollars of a few thousand.

Imagine being able to scrape that together and see what became of you club 30+ years later, the most coveted membership in the world perhaps.

[Joshua Pettit]

Does anyone have the original Mackenzie hole descriptions?  They would be a nice addition to this thread, especially if paired with the photos of each hole.

Sven

Sven,

I posted MacKenzie's hole by hole descriptions from the first Masters program on this thread, as well as the article he wrote (down at the bottom):

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58239.0.html

[Sven Nilsen]

Does anyone have the original Mackenzie hole descriptions?  They would be a nice addition to this thread, especially if paired with the photos of each hole.

Sven

Sven,

I posted MacKenzie's hole by hole descriptions from the first Masters program on this thread, as well as the article he wrote (down at the bottom):

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58239.0.html

Josh:

Thanks for linking that thread.  If I can scrape enough time together I'll try to get the photos and his writeups/drawings in a side by side comparison.

Sven

[Joshua Pettit]

Sven,

Here are both the 1934 and 1935 Masters programs.  The 1935 program has MacKenzie's hole descriptions next to a photo, plan view and section view of each hole.

1934 Program: https://pacgolf.box.com/Augusta1934
1935 Program: https://pacgolf.box.com/Augusta1935

[Sven Nilsen]

Thanks Josh.

Didn't realize until just now that I'd seen these photos before, that being in the actual Programs.

Sven

[Will Lozier]

The original 9th, 10th, 13th & 16th greens look particularly fascinating!

I did notice the 2nd Masters program incorrectly pictures the 5th for the 7th hole. Ironically, I was flipping through Golf Magazine's Masters preview today at the grocery where they incorrectly gave the diagram for one of the holes, I believe the 5th for the 7th?!?

[Jud_T]

"The Beautification Committee proposes to further beautify the property of the Augusta National Golf Club by concentrating in the vicinity of each hole a massed profusions of a distinctive variety of trees or plants that bloom during the winter season."

[Jason Thurman]

How many of the changes from the original do you think were initiated for maintenance reasons rather than to make the course more difficult?

Since the first "Tiger Proofing" nearly all changes have been to toughen the challenge to the pros, but its seems the bunker changes "back in the day" were done to make maintenance easier. True?

This is what I suspect as well. I'm not sure how much of the evolution of the bunker shapes happened naturally and how much was intentional, but there's no question that it would be easier to rake in and mow around the bunker shapes there today. Of course, some of that benefit might be offset by the ones that have been added. It's also completely feasible that the water hazards were "formalized" from their earlier, rugged appearance for maintenance purposes too.

That fourth green looks horrible. Were slivers of green like that more common back in the days of longer cuts, lofted putters, and stymies? Maybe players in the 30s could "chipputt" a ball from a tongue to another section of the green through the air. That just seems like it'd be a maintenance and playability nightmare today, and I don't see much payoff for it. It just seems purposelessly gimmicky. There are a few more of those tongues apparent in these photos. I applaud the experimentation, but I'm not a fan of the result (at least in the photos).

[Sven Nilsen]

This photo supposedly depicts Walter Hagen on the course during the first Masters.  Is this a view looking back towards the 12th tee from well left of the green?

[Joshua Pettit]

This photo supposedly depicts Walter Hagen on the course during the first Masters.  Is this a view looking back towards the 12th tee from well left of the green?

That's what it looks like to me.  You can see the two different bridges -- that's where the creek splits.

[Niall C]

Excellent thread. Agree very much with Jeff B's comments about how courses evolve and adapt and perhaps the original designers weren't quite as good as we sometimes give them credit for. I think that applies to others as well as MacKenzie. Also agree with the comments on bunkers, again they seem fairly bland and simple in comparison to even his first creation at Alwoodley where we do know he had a direct hand in how they were built.

What strikes me about the these photos is the greens mostly seem to be either set head on or across the way, rather than at an angle. Of course that could be the camera position or indeed a clever deception in the design or maybe I'm not taking into account the internal contours. Any way what seems most at odds with point 4 in MacKenzies article where he talks about having the minimum of artificiality is some of the mounding around the greens which seems quite crude.  

Niall

[Mike Hendren]

Great pix, but my first impression is that we should stop clamoring for the return of the course to its original design.....it seems like most of the changes are improvements, even if you want to believe the recent narrowing is a problem.  ANGC is really a poster child for how to improve a golf course and generally stay with the designers intent while correcting deficiencies.

I agree, well said.

The designers intent has been lost.  The game has changed and the course has been altered to adapt to those changes.  Mac and Bobby designed a course for the 1930's, not for the modern game.

That alone is reason to study how the course has been altered.

Sven, can we go with "stated intent."  Arguably, the golf course that opened bore little resemblance to the beautiful artistic sketchings of Mackenzie and the eloquent descriptions of Bob Jones.  Is is possible that neither fell in love with the final product?   The tweaking began soon after the first mowing, no?

Mike

[Sven Nilsen]

Great pix, but my first impression is that we should stop clamoring for the return of the course to its original design.....it seems like most of the changes are improvements, even if you want to believe the recent narrowing is a problem.  ANGC is really a poster child for how to improve a golf course and generally stay with the designers intent while correcting deficiencies.

I agree, well said.

The designers intent has been lost.  The game has changed and the course has been altered to adapt to those changes.  Mac and Bobby designed a course for the 1930's, not for the modern game.

That alone is reason to study how the course has been altered.

Sven, can we go with "stated intent."  Arguably, the golf course that opened bore little resemblance to the beautiful artistic sketchings of Mackenzie and the eloquent descriptions of Bob Jones.  Is is possible that neither fell in love with the final product?   The tweaking began soon after the first mowing, no?

Mike

Mike:

The answer to your question is Clifford Roberts.

We'll never know what changes might have been made in the early years if AM had survived and stayed on as the consulting architect.  Maxwell was the right guy to bring in, and many of the changes he made were in the same line as the "stated intent."  Others, like moving the 10th green, were due to playability issues.

At some point, Roberts became more important in the grand scheme of the course's evolution than Jones.  I think that probably happened soon after the course was built, with the future of the club getting tied pretty tightly to the success of their tournament, and CR bulldogging his ideas into reality. 

As time went on, Roberts would work with the leading experts of the time to adapt the course to how it was then being played.  Bunkers were moved as they became obsolete, tees were lengthened, etc.

I think the course probably played pretty close to the original AM/BJ intent in those early years, and where the original construction didn't match those ideas, I think they made some adjustments to make it so.  The ground game aspects are still visible today in places, although you have to parse through a lot of history to determine if many of those features existed back then. 

The shots I enjoyed the most over the weekend were the ones were a ball would take a hard turn on a green, or where a player would intentionally use a slope to feed the ball to the hole.  I have to think Alistair Mackenzie would have enjoyed watching those shots as well.

Sven

[BCrosby]

Cliff Roberts wanted to add a cross bunker that extended across the 3rd fairway. He thought the hole was too easy. MacK and later Jones had to head him off.

CR, not  long after Jones died, rebuilt the 8th green in the form of a flat circle and removed the mounding around the green. Nelson and Finger restored the green to the MacK design after CR died in the late '70's. It is the only 'restored' hole at ANGC and, not coincidentally, one of its best.

And those are just the changes CR wanted to make that are well documented. Given his personality, I suspect he had strong opinions about many other changes. I also suspect that a lot of energy was expended resisting his ideas, perhaps not always successfully. We'll never know the full story.  

Bob



  

[Benjamin Litman]

FWIW, I note that Mr. Spieth himself retweeted the 1935 ANGC pictures on his Twitter feed early in Masters week. Embracing GCA (see also, e.g., Lydia Ko at Royal Melbourne earlier this year) seems to pay off for the pros.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()