News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Peter Pallotta

For me, this and similar threads end up flat... for who and why, for what purpose?  I mean none of us are playing the course, right? Or having our ear bent by ANGC members about how its no fun anymore? It's entirely for spectacle and watching elite play upon, correct?

What isn't one receiving in spectacle value currently?  For every eagle on #15 that is being thwarted...an interesting, fretful hold of par is being tested... for every sideways pitch someone doesn't like... there is a compelling pursuit to hold position in the tournament... and the bunkers, what does it matter to anyone individual on the board?... many/most of the bunkers have been in their general location and only tweaked in their monumental appearance for more than 70-75 years.

It is a remarkable course, maybe the most remarkable course, as is, as stewarded over the years by the Masters Tourn Com and the club.  I would pay attention to arguments that tell me WHY it ought to, needs to, should try and be beyond remarkable... who would that serve?

If it's just to whack around the keyboard on a GCA board, ok (but what good information debate does it exchange beyond the same well held opinion in the other myriad threads related to this topic)... specifics, yes...it's fun and worthy to consider for our spectacle and our interest whether or not #7 could fly in the Masters as the Home hole style it was in Mackenzie's design...is there a way is a fun and worthy puzzle... but to just belt out some dissent on trees and bunkers that have been for many years amidst many enjoyable spectacles is ... flat. It's a great course and most often a spectacular tournament to watch.
Good post.
What I saw the past weekend was a remarkable course ideally designed, calibrated and maintained as a well-rounded and complete championship test for the best golfers in the world (at which course several generations of the world's best golfers have gone out and proven themselves the best... 6 and 5 and 4 and 3 times each) -- and that  nonetheless remains wonderfully playable for its members and guests from the regular tees at c. 6300 yards.
 

Bill Gayne

  • Karma: +0/-0
I don't think anyone is advocating a return to this, but can't a happy medium be found vs the amount of trees that are there now? 7 and 17 might be the starkest contrast in this pic between what was originally there, and the bowling alleys they are now...
The area between 3 fairway, 7 fairway, 17 fairway, and 15 fairway may be the most congested portion of the entire course. With the distance players hit their drives today, how important are those trees in protecting play and patrons along the adjacent holes?


If it's for safety they may want to grow more trees. I was out there with my brother in law about five years ago and it was three weeks before the Masters. Bubba is playing a practice round with his wife. My brother in law says to me "watch this" and he deliberately hits the ball into the adjacent fairway. He takes his time walking over to his ball and playing back. He gets back and I ask him what was that all about? He wanted Bubba to have wait on him because he figured everybody else waits on Bubba.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2022, 09:27:47 PM by Bill Gayne »

Bill Gayne

  • Karma: +0/-0
To make it simple I just believe that Augusta can be a very special place if the pros could approach the greens from many angles and not from as many trees and with fewer green side bunkers.


  It would be a better presentation for the existing site if firm.


Mike,


If the suggested ideas were implemented the member and guest play would see many more angles. I think the pros would quickly figure out the best lines and follow each other.


Bill

Mike Wagner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Beyond the obvious reason the premise being silly:


The way you talk about angles, it's almost like you're making the most elite players in the world out to be 15 handicaps.  They're not.  Did you ever consider that by removing the trees, they may purposefully play towards easier angles?  It would happen ... guaranteed ... and the greatness of the greens would be away instantly.


No trees are a mental green light out there.

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
   The pros (and members too, for that matter) would still try to hit their tee shots in the fairways. The only difference would be they would have unimpeded shots to the greens when they hit bad tee shots. Mike seems to think this would be an improvement. I disagree.

Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Beyond the obvious reason the premise being silly:


The way you talk about angles, it's almost like you're making the most elite players in the world out to be 15 handicaps.  They're not.  Did you ever consider that by removing the trees, they may purposefully play towards easier angles?  It would happen ... guaranteed ... and the greatness of the greens would be away instantly.


No trees are a mental green light out there.
Exhibit A for this would no doubt be 11 where Tiger was fortunate to find the open area right of the tree line in 2019 IIRC. Might as well blast and play out of the 2nd cut or whatever they would have there. Pine needles are not a significant hazard IMO for lies, uneven natural sandy areas would be more so if trees were gone.
BTW I'm not advocating for anything really as this course is alone in Frankenstiening it's way to unknown territory to keep pace with tech gains and today's players. Nothing wrong with that, however it has been botoxed so much it has lost it's original character, which we can see the change from earlier photos.  However the star as we know are the greens and those have been maintained excellently so it will always be a huge test with that alone.
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0

What isn't one receiving in spectacle value currently?  For every eagle on #15 that is being thwarted...an interesting, fretful hold of par is being tested... for every sideways pitch someone doesn't like... there is a compelling pursuit to hold position in the tournament... and the bunkers, what does it matter to anyone individual on the board?... many/most of the bunkers have been in their general location and only tweaked in their monumental appearance for more than 70-75 years.


VK,


I understand what you're saying here, but this is basically the same justification the USGA has used for decades to create insanely difficult US Open setups as well.




V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0

VK,

I understand what you're saying here, but this is basically the same justification the USGA has used for decades to create insanely difficult US Open setups as well.


I don't think you have this correct... AGNC and the USGA (and everywhere) may share length-steroids and green speeds as a means of offering "scoring defense," but they couldn't be more different in other techniques to establish challenge... of Frankenstein rough and 22 yd wide fairways, while at ANGC the fairways are 40 at their narrowest and the debate is about half inch second cut... artificial pars of 70 that seem to exact more rigor...while ANGC has thankfully seen no need to call #s 2 and 13 "par 4s" so the winning score won't be so far under par. .. The USGA courses have obliterated trees, not planted them...Augusta has never lost their course as I believe the USGA did twice at Shinnecock and ANGC has never presented their course in capricious condition, as I believe the USGA did at Chambers. AGNC hasn't resorted to tee gimmicks of "making" drivable 4s out of something, or flipping the card pars of holes from their traditional previous appearances.


But what I genuinely avert from in your short post is the idea that the USGA makes a bad spectacle (imo they don't) and that now the debate isn't about what's there and its particulars, but that they are using the same rationale to create an insanely difficult course...and that in so doing, one's spectacle may be ruined. I don't care (and I can't see how most of you thoughtful posters do) what rationale, means, support, wealth or fantastical technology ANGC uses to produce the Masters...they've got my blessing, as they've been doing it right for nearly 90 years....producing a continually updated course that's a marvel for a usually thrilling tournament.


*ADDENDUM - for all objectors* - I think the "Masters/TV  effect" is something that is legitimate as a poor model, arguably responsible for influencing unsustainable maintenance practices at our local clubs and select American courses 60-30 years back, but these modern debates of stewardship are WAY overstated as a matter of original design destruction, or illegitimate design practices...too-aspirational in plush maintenance? Yes.  Lack of fidelity to Mackenzie or Jones' original concept? No way...Why? because there's a "designed recovery grove of trees right of 11...trees between 15 and 17 that weren't there? Please. Sure, probably like you, I haven't played the course; but if its disqualifying in this case... well... it's a hole in the mission of the board.


As interest and time permits, I'd go measure for measure with any voice here who furthers that allegation, that this isn't the essential golf experience located by Mackenzie as inputted with, and curated by, Jones...and an apt, calibrated (great word, Peter) hi-fidelity, necessarily modern iteration of this fantastic design on bold property. Thank god it's not still 6750, Thank god, 7, 10, 11 and 16 are different and not 4 more sand wedges; thank god the trees have grown up and new ones birthed; thank God the banks are shaved, and the greens maintained to cm tolerance...it'd be a joke to watch elites on TV play a miniature golf course; the Masters would be closer to the Par 3 contest, or it might be a fond, nostalgic senior event with carts...yukking it up, vamping for the crowds. I can sooner imagine Mackenzie being thrilled that the elites of the game are still grappling with it, that it receives so much positive attention and oftentimes curated (first by Jones himself) with special emphasis placed on the genius of its bones and organs, if not the skin of his design. If there's objection from any poster, come, explain to us how I'm wrong; as this is the only place from where I hear-- thankfully scant -- complaint.
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Did I miss anyone mention how the trees cause the wind to swirl on the course? 


The changing winds at Amen Corner are as much a part of the Masters as the Pimento Cheese sandwich.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back