Bittersweet.
Amen to that! I love this thread and never tire of looking and dissecting the photos depicting the changes to this venerable course over the years. Having viewed them for the umpteenth time, I've arrived at my conclusions regarding the original design features and elements I would like to see returned/restored per that below, based on much slower putting surface stimp speeds (9 or 10 compared to 13)
1. Hole #1: I would replace the current green complex with the more contoured putting surface of the original green, while retaining the fairway and greenside bunkers of the current hole.
2. Hole #4: Definitely redo the green and greenside bunkers according to the original Mackenzie layout. It's a much more interesting and daunting looking green compared to the present one. You may have to widen the front tongue to accommodate a pin position there, which would bring the bunkers on either side more into play, but that's the only modification to the original green I can potentially see making.
3. Hole #5: The original 5th green looks more contoured and intimidating than the current 5th green, which is pretty imposing in its current form. The false front and steeper drop-off's of the original green complex place even more emphasis on the accuracy of the approach shot. An approach missed short, far left, far right or long is sure to fall off the putting surface.
4. Hole #6: It's hard to tell from the two photos posted of the original green just how contoured it is and whether it's a more challenging/demanding putting surface than the current green. I prefer the original front bunker design to the bunker present now, but it's tough to know if the original green is an improvement over the existing green without better early year photos.
5. Hole #7: I would rebuild the original boomerang green on the current green site and place a lone front bunker along the the length of the left side, which would also catch a shot missed to the left on a front right pin position. I would also have mounds behind the green making a pitch to it from that position extremely difficult to keep on the putting surface.
6. Hole #8: I'd return to the original mounding flanking both sides of the green and restore the green complex to it's original design. I liked how the original green wrapped around the last mound on the left, creating a hard to access, back left pin position that's not present on the current green - which is narrow in the front and open in the back.
7. Hole #9: Not even close. The original #9 green is way more interesting and intimidating than the present one. I also prefer the lone bunker fronting it to the bunkers flanking the left side of the current green. The only modification I might make to the original green is widening the front right tongue to accommodate a pin position on that portion of the green. It's likely too narrow and perhaps to steep to have one from what I can tell from the first photo of it.
8. Hole #10: Had the large bunker flanking the left side of the original green been built closer to it (as depicted in the sketch) I'd probably prefer it to the current green complex. Unfortunately, there was such a large gap between the green and bunker that I can't see the bunker playing much of a factor in the players decision making process in how their drive was played. I suspect this partially explains why they moved and redid the entire green, as the hole likely played easiest on the course during the first few Masters.
9. Hole #11: The original green looks to have been larger than the current, crescent shaped green. Unfortunately, because the only photo of the original green is so bright it's hard to make out the details of the contours (the same problem exists with the first photo of the original 6th green). That said, from the details I can make out it appears to be a more contoured putting surface that offered more pin positions to the current green site. Also, rather than damming Rae's Creek to create a pond that bordered the left side of the green, I'd either leave the rough where the drop-off was or perhaps put a sand bunker in its place to create a tough up and down. Lastly, according to the sketch of this hole there's what appears to be a bunker placed in the middle of the fairway in the landing area for a drive. Does anyone know if that was actually constructed? I don't recall seeing photos of the original fairway for that hole with a bunker present, so I am guessing this design element was left out. It would have been interesting to have that hazard intact forcing players to pick a side of the fairway from which to play their approach shot from.
10. Hole #12. There's something about the rustic appearance of the original #12 green that I prefer visually-speaking to the current green complex. I definitely like the size, shape and contours of it better than the current 12th green. Perhaps the best of both worlds would be to combine the putting surface and contours of the original 12th green with the height, bunker styling and front drop-off of the current green complex?
I don't have any major gripes with the changes made to holes 13, 14 and 15 over the years. While the current 13th green is smaller than the original green site, it by and large plays, putts and receives shots the same. Little appears to have changed to 14 since it was originally built outside of it being lengthened over years and trees added to both sides of the fairway. The green complex looks relatively the same, thus the hole pretty much plays as it was originally intended. While the narrow right side of #15 green no longer exists, it's relatively the same green as it was in 1934 - with the only major differences being the increased size of the pond fronting the green and the addition of the bunker on the right side.
The 16th hole boils down to a matter of taste. The current hole is nothing like the original 16th hole. While I love the shape and contours of the original #16 green, the bunkers to the back left were useless and I question how much Rae's creek played a factor in club selection given the short length of the hole? If the pin was front right you could miss long and get up and down easier than you could on #12. I suspect these things came into play in Clifford Roberts and Bob Jones decision to completely redesign the hole to what it is now - one of the most dramatic finishing par 3's in golf.
I don't have a major issue with the current #17 green, but would love to see a return of the original large mound fronting the left side in place of the front left bunker. I think it's visually a much more intimidating obstacle or hazard and creates a blind approach if the pin is on the left side of the green. I'd also like to see Ike's tree back. I miss seeing it on the camera shot from behind the tee on television. Something seems off to me about the tee shot with it missing from view.
I prefer the original 18th green and Mackenzie bunkers to what we have now. There's more front to back slope and curvature to it and I like the rustic greenside bunker styling to the pristine round-shaped bunkers that protect the green now. I have no problem with the bunkers that were added to the left side of the fairway in the 70's and felt they were needed to better challenge the players drive and provide a more difficult approach to the green for an errant tee shot.
I'm sure others here have their preferences, likes and dislikes, which is what makes this such an engaging and entertaining topic. Even more so with this typically being Masters week. I would love to hear others thoughts and comments regarding ANGC course design changes they would make if they were in charge and see if we can arrive at a consensus on those that should be made to specific holes.