ANGC Course Changes ? Updated for 2021 Masters

[playa]

First order of business is to lengthen 13.

Nobody should be hitting wedge or 9 iron second shots. Nobody.

 

The only ridiculous drive on that hole was Bubba in 2014.. The hole is perfect now. It will not be near as good if they change it.

 

I agree. It might be the most entertaining hole on the course. Last year the eagles and double bogeys were about equal. On Sunday there were three eagles and three double bogeys. I hope they don't change it at all.

Totally. Most of the biggest moments and biggest roars every Masters Sunday come on 13 and 15, and plenty of big oohs and ahhs. I think they've got the risk/reward equation just right on 13, don't change a thing.

[15th Club]

They need to restore #8 to reflect the designer's original intent. Other than that, I think it's great.

 

 

 

I don't understand the comment that accompanies this picture. The picture, from about 1956 or so, is of the Eighth green after one of the few changes to the golf course that was personally and privately initiated by Clifford Roberts, who was not an architect. (Roberts approved and denied a great many suggested changes that were proposed by a great many architects and players; this one was on him alone.) And Roberts' reason for this horrible design aberration had nothing to do with the quality of play; rather, it was to provide spectators with better sightlines from the area around the green.

 

As this David Owen blog-post makes clear, Jones and others were furious over the Roberts change that really did go against the intent of the course's original design:

 

http://www.myusualga...m/tag/jamboree/

 

As far as I can tell, the commenter who posted that picture had no idea about its meaning and history. The change in the Eighth green that is so easy to ridicule in that old photograph is much like the changes we are often seeing made to golf courses to combat technology (balls)- produced distance gains. Like changing a hole for spectator sightlines, changes made to guard against technologically-produced distance are rarely good, often destructive and even more often fraught with unintended consequences. It's best that golf course architecture not be left to club chairmen or golf ball manufacturer executives. Instead, leave it to architects.

 

I'm not surprised in the least that it went over your head. Well done.

 

I do not believe that in a paragraph, you could reasonably and clearly explain what your point was. Your picture did not show the "original intent" 8th green. It showed a horrifically-altered 8th green from the 1950's. Which was eventually restored at considerable effort.

 

To be painfully clear; the 8th green already HAS been restored, "to the designer's original intent." After a very bad alteration, away from "the designer's original intent."

 

Are you praising the importance of preserving a golf course designer's original intent? Because I am; and in the ball rollback debates, I did the same. And you were dismissive and sarcastic about the importance of preserving golf course architecture and the designer's intent in those debates.

[buckeyefl]

Two very different things but you know that already.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

They need to restore #8 to reflect the designer's original intent. Other than that, I think it's great.

 

 

 

I don't understand the comment that accompanies this picture. The picture, from about 1956 or so, is of the Eighth green after one of the few changes to the golf course that was personally and privately initiated by Clifford Roberts, who was not an architect. (Roberts approved and denied a great many suggested changes that were proposed by a great many architects and players; this one was on him alone.) And Roberts' reason for this horrible design aberration had nothing to do with the quality of play; rather, it was to provide spectators with better sightlines from the area around the green.

 

As this David Owen blog-post makes clear, Jones and others were furious over the Roberts change that really did go against the intent of the course's original design:

 

http://www.myusualga...m/tag/jamboree/

 

As far as I can tell, the commenter who posted that picture had no idea about its meaning and history. The change in the Eighth green that is so easy to ridicule in that old photograph is much like the changes we are often seeing made to golf courses to combat technology (balls)- produced distance gains. Like changing a hole for spectator sightlines, changes made to guard against technologically-produced distance are rarely good, often destructive and even more often fraught with unintended consequences. It's best that golf course architecture not be left to club chairmen or golf ball manufacturer executives. Instead, leave it to architects.

 

I'm not surprised in the least that it went over your head. Well done.

 

I do not believe that in a paragraph, you could reasonably and clearly explain what your point was. Your picture did not show the "original intent" 8th green. It showed a horrifically-altered 8th green from the 1950's. Which was eventually restored at considerable effort.

 

To be painfully clear; the 8th green already HAS been restored, "to the designer's original intent." After a very bad alteration, away from "the designer's original intent."

 

Are you praising the importance of preserving a golf course designer's original intent? Because I am; and in the ball rollback debates, I did the same. And you were dismissive and sarcastic about the importance of preserving golf course architecture and the designer's intent in those debates.

 

I certainly know you cannot.

Here goes on my end: Leave the course alone. It's perfect now. Changes could very well make it worse. Stop worrying about scores/distance/what club people are hitting.

Is it OK with you if I have that opinion?

[Ajit]

They need to restore #8 to reflect the designer's original intent. Other than that, I think it's great.

 

 

 

I don't understand the comment that accompanies this picture. The picture, from about 1956 or so, is of the Eighth green after one of the few changes to the golf course that was personally and privately initiated by Clifford Roberts, who was not an architect. (Roberts approved and denied a great many suggested changes that were proposed by a great many architects and players; this one was on him alone.) And Roberts' reason for this horrible design aberration had nothing to do with the quality of play; rather, it was to provide spectators with better sightlines from the area around the green.

 

As this David Owen blog-post makes clear, Jones and others were furious over the Roberts change that really did go against the intent of the course's original design:

 

http://www.myusualga...m/tag/jamboree/

 

As far as I can tell, the commenter who posted that picture had no idea about its meaning and history. The change in the Eighth green that is so easy to ridicule in that old photograph is much like the changes we are often seeing made to golf courses to combat technology (balls)- produced distance gains. Like changing a hole for spectator sightlines, changes made to guard against technologically-produced distance are rarely good, often destructive and even more often fraught with unintended consequences. It's best that golf course architecture not be left to club chairmen or golf ball manufacturer executives. Instead, leave it to architects.

 

I'm not surprised in the least that it went over your head. Well done.

 

I do not believe that in a paragraph, you could reasonably and clearly explain what your point was. Your picture did not show the "original intent" 8th green. It showed a horrifically-altered 8th green from the 1950's. Which was eventually restored at considerable effort.

 

To be painfully clear; the 8th green already HAS been restored, "to the designer's original intent." After a very bad alteration, away from "the designer's original intent."

 

Are you praising the importance of preserving a golf course designer's original intent? Because I am; and in the ball rollback debates, I did the same. And you were dismissive and sarcastic about the importance of preserving golf course architecture and the designer's intent in those debates.

 

I certainly know you cannot.

Here goes on my end: Leave the course alone. It's perfect now. Changes could very well make it worse. Stop worrying about scores/distance/what club people are hitting.

Is it OK with you if I have that opinion?

 

But Ashley, it was perfect in 1934 having been designed by the finest architect in the history of the game. They've changed it dozens of times since and probably made it worse more often than not. Make Augusta Great Again!

[15th Club]

Good. Then we agree. Leave the course alone. Preserve it, for all of its essential shot values, and if any changes need to be made (they have always, always, always tinkered with the golf course), let them be in keeping with the original vision of Jones and Mackenzie.

 

I hope they do leave the course alone; but sadly, the coming changes (dramatic alteration of the tee at 13 and the boundary with ACC; and a new tee at 5, effectively pushing out the figurative line of the golf course property) will be done to combat golf ball distance.

 

I'm going to take this as a positive; at least you are not suggesting, "Grow the rough longer, pinch the fairways, move the fairway bunkers, soften up landing areas to prevent roll, build new tees farther back..."

 

As for how the game is played, I'll leave it to the Masters Tournament Committee (for ANGC) and the USGA (for the US Open) and the R&A (for the Open Championship). I expect that they are developing some new ideas about distance and equipment, and how the game is played.

[buckeyefl]

You mean solutions to non problems? Oh im sure Mikey is working on another grand idea.

 

They are making changes as they always have. We've all watched how their "Tiger proofing" worked out.

[cardoustie]

Any word on changes for 2019 ??

 

They bought the land - for quite a pretty penny - to do the lengthening on hole #13 .. not sure if this is happening before April 2019

 

Still would like to see 16 have some extra yardage back onto it

[BNGL]

Be on the lookout for new additions to include potential housing and museums. Have heard an extreme rumor of an additional 18 holes way way down the road.

[Golfer4Life]

Are they still using Eminent Domain to continue to steal property on the cheap and chasing people and businesses out of the area?

 

I used to live there, seen it all.

[BNGL]

Are they still using Eminent Domain to continue to steal property on the cheap and chasing people and businesses out of the area?

 

I used to live there, seen it all.

 

Occasionally yes but for the most part they want it as quietly as possible. Paid upwards of 200 percent value in some instances

[KrazyTrain18]

I won't get into the ball/distance debate here, but I would support the lengthening of 13. That hole is awesome but its slowly playing less as intended and is a "worse hole" when guys are playing from flatter lies further up. The beauty of seeing hanging lie 2 irons needs to return!

[Golfer4Life]

Are they still using Eminent Domain to continue to steal property on the cheap and chasing people and businesses out of the area?

 

I used to live there, seen it all.

 

Occasionally yes but for the most part they want it as quietly as possible. Paid upwards of 200 percent value in some instances

 

When I was there it wasn't too quiet, lol...

[BNGL]

Are they still using Eminent Domain to continue to steal property on the cheap and chasing people and businesses out of the area?

 

I used to live there, seen it all.

 

Occasionally yes but for the most part they want it as quietly as possible. Paid upwards of 200 percent value in some instances

 

When I was there it wasn't too quiet, lol...

 

Gotta be totally honest what properties specifically were brought under ANGC control via eminent domain?

[cardoustie]

Per one article .. 3 places haven't sold out .. Walgreens, Wendy's and an Olive Garden

[TheWalkingGolfer]

I always hear how much better 16 is better when the green was flipped but haven’t seen a picture of it. Curious how it was because I love the current hole.

 

All you really need to do is take tons of trees out, rebuild bunkers, and a few greens especially 9.

[rangersgoalie]

1: Get rid of the perfectly sculpted bunker edges and bring back the Alister Mackenzie jagged edge style

 

2: Fix 11 clear some trees on the right returning it to more of a dog leg right.

 

Ok.....I like this poster!

[rangersgoalie]

Add a bunker short of #9 green. The slope there is a little comical. Lengthen #15 a bit so that it requires more than a 5 or 6 iron in for the big boys.

 

Restore the original 9th green

[ALIF]

“Lengthen #15 a bit so that it requires more than a 5 or 6 iron in for the big boys.”

 

I think the committee decided a few years ago that too many players were laying up on 15 so they decided to soften the green complex. I know souped up Sergio hit 8 iron for his approach last year but Rose hit 4 iron which is probably more typical.

 

 

Seve hit 5 iron (chunked into water) there in 1986 and so did Jack (hit 5 iron). So guys have been hitting 5 iron into #15 for over 30 years. That didn’t just happen a couple of years ago.

[elwhippy]

Without doubt the most changed course in history. ANGC members would put a spoiler on a 250GTO and alter the shape of a 59 Les Paul. Why on earth they are changing the fifth is mystery. Already a great test. Or are they actually playing onto the hands of the longer hitters?

[Roadking2003]

Are they still using Eminent Domain to continue to steal property on the cheap and chasing people and businesses out of the area?

 

I used to live there, seen it all.

 

ANGC has no eminent domain power.

[Roadking2003]

“Lengthen #15 a bit so that it requires more than a 5 or 6 iron in for the big boys.”

 

I think the committee decided a few years ago that too many players were laying up on 15 so they decided to soften the green complex. I know souped up Sergio hit 8 iron for his approach last year but Rose hit 4 iron which is probably more typical.

 

 

Seve hit 5 iron (chunked into water) there in 1986 and so did Jack (hit 5 iron). So guys have been hitting 5 iron into #15 for over 30 years. That didn’t just happen a couple of years ago.

 

Yes, somebody should tell Sergio how easy that short hole plays.

[Roadking2003]

There is no need to lengthen 13 or 15. Both are very exciting holes with eagle to double bogey in play.

 

Last year on #15 there were more doubles or higher than eagles.

 

On #13 they could make the tee shot more challenging by increasing the slope down by the creek.

[toc]

Per one article .. 3 places haven't sold out .. Walgreens, Wendy's and an Olive Garden

 

Stay strong Olive Garden. Always a lovely experience.

[Rangeballz]

Per one article .. 3 places haven't sold out .. Walgreens, Wendy's and an Olive Garden

 

Stay strong Olive Garden. Always a lovely experience.

 

And Wendy's is not far behind.......

[toc]

Per one article .. 3 places haven't sold out .. Walgreens, Wendy's and an Olive Garden

 

Stay strong Olive Garden. Always a lovely experience.

 

And Wendy's is not far behind.......

 

How dare you sir. How dare you compare fast food to fine Italian dining.

[gioguy21]

Per one article .. 3 places haven't sold out .. Walgreens, Wendy's and an Olive Garden

 

Stay strong Olive Garden. Always a lovely experience.

 

And Wendy's is not far behind.......

 

How dare you sir. How dare you compare fast food to fine Italian dining.

as an italian, how dare you call that fine italian dining.

[cardoustie]

Rangersgoalie ... how many times did you play in the Masters? Would love more feedback on ANGC from a former tour player

 

I think it is funny that there is a lot of work historically on 13 and 15 and they are the exciting finishing holes down the stretch

 

Five is already a pig and they keep making a long uphiller even harder

 

Perhaps the work needs to focus elsewhere as others have said ...

 

Let's change the bunker edging to start .... let's get some AM traps that have gone AWOL back in play at today's yardages (280-325 out)

[North Texas]

Are they still using Eminent Domain to continue to steal property on the cheap and chasing people and businesses out of the area?

 

I used to live there, seen it all.

 

ANGC has no eminent domain power.

 

That's kind of what I was thinking. Why would ANGC have eminent domain power?

 

Not to mention that "stealing property on the cheap" is most likely not close to being accurate.

[delmer]

Are they still using Eminent Domain to continue to steal property on the cheap and chasing people and businesses out of the area?

 

I used to live there, seen it all.

 

ANGC has no eminent domain power.

 

That's kind of what I was thinking. Why would ANGC have eminent domain power?

 

Not to mention that "stealing property on the cheap" is most likely not close to being accurate.

 

That post about ANGC using eminent domain is awesome. The pump millions back into the local economy and every time you hear about them buying property it seems like they grossly over pay.

 

Back to the topic. I think Augusta is nearly flawless as it is and I hope they continue to do minor tweaks to it. The OP said something about adding 30 yards to 16 and I think that is possibly the worst idea I've ever heard. That hole is great as it sits because it is on the razor of edge an easy 2 or a hard 3 on Sunday. It usually plays 181 on Sunday and I just think playing it at 211 would ruin it. It would certainly make it more difficult but you would take one of the most exciting holes in golf and turn it into a lame one.