'Anonymous Architects' Offer No-Holds Barred Opinions on Augusta National

The home of the Masters is golf's most recognized course, and it's always changing. So what works? What doesn't? Two designers dished to Joe Passov.

No golf course produces more fireworks down the stretch year after year than Augusta National Golf Club. Just when you think that this year’s Masters can’t top the one before, it does — and the course setup and drama-inducing individual holes are key components in elevating the excitement.

Yet, not every hole rocks the house at Augusta. And overall, the presentation looks vastly different than what Alister MacKenzie and Bobby Jones originally envisioned. Is today’s Augusta National really all that? Can and should it be improved? If so, how? And what to make of the course changes for 2022?

We asked two architects to weigh in, but promised them anonymity so they could express themselves freely. One (we'll call him Mr. X) has competed in multiple major championships, the other (Mr. Y) has designed courses with multiple major champions. Here are their unvarnished assessments of Augusta National.

On the changes for 2022

In mid-February, Augusta National announced “significant hole changes” for the 2022 Masters tournament. For the par-4 11th hole, “Masters tees moved back 15 yards and to the golfer’s left. Fairway recontoured and several trees removed on right side.” 

Mr. X: I see the change as a positive. I was never a fan of the trees they planted down the right side of the hole. Traditionally that was a wide-open hole that played long. Players were coming into that green with a long iron and with high risk on the left side. As [Ben] Hogan famously said, if he ever hit that green, you’d know he pulled it. The added length puts a longer club into players’ hands, which is in keeping in historical context with the type of iron that was hit into that green complex. Back in the day, it was common to hit 4-, 5-, 6-irons into that green. So putting a longer club and changing the angle is good.

Rather than having all those pines they planted down the right side, I’d go with some Augusta-style, sweeping-type mounding, which is exactly what you have short and right of the 11th green. Short and right, you’ve got this mound that kicks balls into the hazard, it propels balls forward. Mounds on the right side of the 11th fairway would create movement that would cause players to be slightly uncomfortable in their stance. I would have the left side flatter, which would encourage drives to that spot, which would then bring the water more into play.

Mr. Y: That was always an awkward shot from the latest tee, moved about 10 years ago, as it was sent back into the woods but an angle that was rather straight and fought the slope. The hole drops severely from right to left so I would imagine that the new tee sets up a more proper right-to-left tee shot where a player can sling a sweeping draw up the right side and see the ball release and run left. Sounds like a tough hole got longer but maybe plays slightly easier (at least more fair) and might help the shorter player who can drill a low ball that runs like it snuck into the tournament through a hole in the fence.

For the par-5 15th hole, “Masters tees moved back 20 yards and fairway recontoured.”

Mr. X: Adding length is basically an equalizer to put a longer approach club in a player’s hands. It’s a very exciting hole except for the layup shot. The layup shot is terrible. It’s almost pointless. Moving the tee back will allow some players to not get quite as close to the trees on the left. If you’re not so close to them, you can hit a slinger around those trees and attack the hole and go for it. But you’re doing so with a longer club.

And a slight recanting of the fairway can end of being like I described on number 11, where you’re just not quite as comfortable on certain stances coming into that green because that’s a shallow target — one of the most difficult targets in golf, especially with the added excitement and pressure of the Masters. The simple fact that it’s a very shallow target and you’re coming into it with a fairly long club is certainly going to be exciting.

The heroic shot on the 15th, going for the green in two, is high on the excitement meter. There’s a lot of penalty if you don’t pull it off, whether you’re short or long. But if you’re laying up, it’s either a punch under the trees or a wedge-type play. There’s no strategy on the layup because of the club selection that you’re making, other than leaving yourself a yardage that you like for the third shot.

The third shot on the 15th is actually one of the most difficult on the course. ... I don’t know if there’s a more difficult wedge shot in the game.

The third shot on the 15th is actually one of the most difficult on the course. I’m not saying that the third shot should be changed or eliminated, I just don’t think the layup second shot is interesting. The third shot is interesting because it’s a very difficult wedge shot. I don’t know if there’s a more difficult wedge shot in the game.

I would reduce the pond ever so slightly on the right side and create a landing zone short and right of the green. It might be more significant for the members than for tour players, but it would add some excitement. You’d be adding a third category on the second shot. Right now, it’s basically two options—you lay up short of the water or you go for the green. There is no middle option. At the same time, I would add more pond to the left of the green. That would make that left hole location really exciting.

Mr. Y: I spent my early days listening to older pros who played the tournament in the early years (the Palmer era) and they spoke of how that landing area favored the longer hitters. Average drives would land up on the fairway before a strong slope pitched to the pond fronting the green (which actually had a path down the middle long ago). They had zero chance of attempting to hit the green in two but longer players caught the run-out and had a huge advantage.

Adding 20 yards, coupled with a green that punishes anything short, obviously, as well as anything hot and through the green would seem to set up a lot more layups this year, especially if the turf is wet and not as firm. Remember that the trees that have been added also eliminate a lot of angles that previously left a green-light second. This one will be interesting to watch.

On the overall presentation

Mr. X: I think it’s presented beautifully. Augusta plays better when it’s firm and fast and they’ve done everything they can to ensure it does, from sandcapping so much of the course to installing SubAir systems beneath the greens. It keeps everything as dry as possible.

I like the second cut. When I first attended the Masters in 1977, when Tom Watson beat Nicklaus, it was all one cut and that was kind of magical. But that was back in the day of a different trajectory shot. The players today hit it so far and so high. The second cut brings in enough of a difference in the shot contact, especially when the greens are firm. If the greens are soft, the second cut doesn’t matter as much. Therefore, it does put a premium on hitting it in the fairway.

On the original course, the premium was on angle. Unfortunately, to an extent, athletic ability has reduced the importance of angle. Athletes are bigger and stronger. The ball goes further and they hit the ball so much higher. Angle doesn’t matter like it used to.

I think they’ve got the green speeds and firmness combination just right. They’ve have the data, they’ve done the experimentation. They know exactly how edgy they can go and still be OK.

These are not [Alister] MacKenzie bunkers. You don’t see Pasatiempo out here, you don’t see Cypress Point. But if Bobby Jones was the guy who said, “Let’s do it this way,” who’s to argue that?

Mr. Y: The past winners I’ve talked to prefer the 1990s-era setup, before all the significant length was added and the second cut. As a viewer and if I were to go out and play it, I prefer the original design intent, the playbook, so to speak, of wherever you hit it, there was fairway all over the place.

That didn’t mean that being in the fairway meant that it was a good place to be. There’s also the argument that by eliminating the second cut and extending the fairway cut makes the ball roll out to places where you don’t want to be. Sometimes, that first cut stops the ball from rolling into a worse place.

Augusta essentially has zero outside influences, no mountains, no ocean, no big water element. Here, what you see is what you get and it’s all within the confines of their own property. 

What always impresses is the setting. When you think about Pebble Beach, Cypress Point, Ballybunion and the great links courses — they have a cornucopia of colors. It’s sensory overload because you introduce the ocean. Augusta essentially has zero outside influences, no mountains, no ocean, no big water element. Here, what you see is what you get and it’s all within the confines of their own property. Maybe only Pine Valley compares in beauty that’s all self-contained.

A lot of people get worked up about how the course has changed over the years, how the bunker styles and strategies don’t reflect what MacKenzie and Jones intended. I disagree. Sure, it’s deviated through the years. It’s adjusted. But the basic playbook remains.

In the big picture, there is probably the right number of bunkers in the right places. Yes, they have the more simple style, without fingers or grass noses. It’s certainly not what everybody wants out of a golf course today, the latest Coore-Crenshaw look. That’s not what the bunkers at Augusta National are, but that doesn’t mean they don’t play the right way.

The only criticism of the bunkers that gets people sideways is one I agree with — that the sand is so blindingly white. Because the sand is so white, they appear like snow patches. In the full sun, you lose the shaping of the bunker, the actual concave face of the bunkering. It all just looks like a mirror looking back at you. Augusta really takes on a different character late in the day, when you get a change of sun angles, because the bunkers start to show off their shapes.

I love the setup and presentation. The course does what most courses aspire to but never achieve, as it caters to the elite player demanding they not just hit fairways and greens as in any other event, but must hit precise spots. The slightest misses are punished and leave long, difficult putts. That is why you see winners always seem to avoid three-putts. That is not only a nod to putting prowess but also to properly negotiating the course. At the same time, it is a find-your-ball, user-friendly course that average players can play — as long as they avoid the Masters tees!

Overall, they’ve done a great job of keeping pace with player abilities, with equipment, with technology, with green speeds. I don’t think the course has been tricked out to some level where the full field can’t play it. Maybe the fairway cut has narrowed, but the penalty for not being in the fairway isn’t gouge and try and get it out somewhere into the fairway. That’s the U.S. Open, or Bay Hill a few weeks ago.

You can still hit shots at Augusta. I don’t think they’ve eliminated the concept of a recovery. I think that’s what MacKenzie and Jones wanted. I can’t think of a single time as a viewer of that tournament when I thought, “Boy, that guy got screwed. He hit a good shot but he ended in a bad situation because it used to be fairway and it’s not anymore."

Which holes you would change, and how would you change them?

Mr. X: The sixth needs another hole location desperately. That’s a weakness to the hole, because hole location variety is so limited. There’s only about three.

Seven was designed for a short iron. It’s now become a longer hole, but the players hit it so far. What would make the hole more interesting was if there was a run-up gap between the bunkers. Then you could hit one out of the trees and run it up, actually onto the putting surface. If they did that, we would also see some run-up shots that bring the back bunkers into play. Providing that run-up gap would lead to some incredibly exciting recovery shots because a lot of players miss the seventh fairway.

17 needs more teeth, especially with a right-side hole location.

The 18th has one big thing that’s different than typically found at Augusta. Augusta’s known for width and 18 is exceptionally narrow. If you’d widen the left side, you’ll put a longer club in players’ hands and a longer club from a variety of lies.

Mr. Y: The fifth hole is the one that maybe got too tough for the bottom half of the field. It’s gotten narrower and narrower and they moved the fairway bunkers forward to the point that even if you fly those bunkers, it’s no good. That’s the hole that’s deviated the most from the original playbook. It’s got a brutal green as well. It’s turned into a hole that has the least room, the least tolerance for anything other than a perfect tee shot.

You could make an argument that the 17th hole should provide more penalty for a mis-hit shot. But it’s got a brutal green. And look what’s in front of it. You’ve got 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Maybe it’s not the supermodel that those other holes are, but it still functions well. Maybe adding a fairway bunker would put more emphasis on hitting a better tee shot, but I can’t say I’ve ever watched a tournament and said “Wow, I’m going to do some errands while they play 17.”