Augusta Study: Part 1
Interests Align for first time ANWA Paricipant Catie Craig.
With a passion to design and compete, we attempt to kill two-birds with a single stone:
Tournament prep, and a design study of ANGC.
Catie is a senior at WKU (read) and has earned her first invite to the coveted Augusta National Women’s Amateur (ANWA).
What makes her stand out among an already distinguished field is her keen interest in-and active pursuit of- a career in golf course architecture and design.
I asked Catie for 3 points of interest around Augusta National-
The first will be the subject today.
Part 1: GROUND GAME: Utilizing lost parts of the game among high level players.
[Ground Game: Instead of flying the ball to the hole, using the ground to run a shot up to the green.]
(Catie’s Notes)
Is [using the ground game] a strategy [for Augusta] or a lost feature due to technology?
A couple examples of where ground game was originally used:
Hole 1 (run-up shot)
Hole 3 (run-up shot)
Hole 4 (left tongue of green)
Hole 5 (run-up shot)
Hole 7 (now has unoriginal bunkers greenside)
Hole 14 (run-up shot)
The idea of using the ground game to my advantage was realized when playing at home with my grandpa who uses slopes to mosey their ball onto the green in ways I never even considered.
Trajectories - It’s an advantage to hit the ball high or low into greens, but probably less so than before at this golf course. What changes caused that?
(Walker’s Notes)
Love that you were brought up on running the ball to the hole vs. just flying it there… Golf needs more chasing shots into greens, and that was (part of) the genius built into the design.
Bottom line- further carry distances mean changes to the course. Playing surfaces get better every year. That’s less friction, less slope and more benign shapes.
I like to think about the greens as the piece of art and everything else as the room it sits within. This is what Mackenzie and Jones understood.
ANGC was built to emulate:
Ground game (Old Course)
Greens (Pasatiempo)
Bunkering (Cypress Point)
The Masters changed Augusta National forever starting in 1934, and the golf course gradually lost its Mackenzie flare at the expense of the tournaments success. Post 2001, it’s the golf club and ball technology that removed most of the ground game from the original design.
(Q’s for Catie)
Let’s make peace with technology - so in this case we’re ok with further carry distances, control, spin.
If, after softening the contouring to the greens around Augusta National the course was not fit to defend itself, would Augusta have been better off restoring wildness in the greens first before messing with length, bunkers, etc?
And, as a kicker, if Augusta’s current green complexes were (even close to) as severe as they once were, wouldn’t the ground game be more necessary even with today’s tech?
I’m thinking of 8 green here mostly as an example. Another way to ask the question would be: If every hole evolved more like 8 and less like 7, would ground game be a bigger deal than it currently is?
(Catie)
The 8th hole is a perfect example of a well evolved hole, I’m happy you brought it up. While lengthened to 570 yards from the original 500 yards, the green complex and surrounding hillocks are virtually unchanged. Of course in years past architects added bunkers and flattened the mounds, but the blind punchbowl eventually found its way back.
Players still have the option to use the ground to their advantage to perfectly catch one of the surrounding mounds. Going for it in two is not some silly mistake. Players have the option to use the ground to perfectly catch one of the surrounding mounds. There is something so thrilling about running up the ball to a blind punchbowl and discovering if you have a putt for eagle or a tricky chip.
That is what's so great about hole 8… you are offered the option to go aerial or non-aerial. When given the option to attack a shot two different ways, indecisiveness starts to come into play, which leads to doubt, which leads to poor shots.
The uncompromising muse of hole 7 is a far cry from the original run-up shot by the addition of bunkers. If restored to the original design where a pitch shot was incredibly hard to keep on the wild green, then players wouldn’t have the decision already made for them. They’d have to stop and consider that using the ground might just be the best way to tackle their shot.
Augusta National was meticulously routed so the player has to acknowledge the ground game from the tee box on every hole to ensure a thoughtfully executed aim, trajectory, and ball flight will be rewarded by the lay of the land. It’s a skill that is not only valued but required because the fairways were never softened like the greens have been throughout the decades.
If the greens were restored back to Jones’ and Mackenzie’s severity then there would have been no need to add extra defense mechanisms like bunkers around the greens. The extreme contours matched with a dangerous pin would be enough of a hazard by itself.
Lengthening the course was inevitably needed (as Mackenzie’s 3rd design principle predicted) to defend the ever changing technology, but ground game isn’t really affected by length.
After researching, I’ve realized how much more I need to utilize the ground in my strategy. Hole 11 for example is one that won’t get out of my head and I might just need to learn from my grandpa and use the ground to scoot the ball to the green at the ANWA.
(Closing)
Thanks for reading Part 1 of 3 of our Augusta Study!
ANWA R1 Tee Time: 8:35AM: Hole 1: Champions Retreat