Report from Augusta National

[YTTseng]

I played Augusta National twice in November and was most impressed by the changes. There is a good chance that we will be able to see whether pros are able to hit mid-irons from the fairway.

The added distance on the holes does not destroy our ability to compare current performance with prior performance.  It enhances our ability to do so.

At most, the course has been lengthened by 5%.  Pros hit the ball more than 5% farther than they did in the 1950s and 1960s.  Those were years in which it was not uncommon for the pros to lay up on Nos. 13 and 15.

Why do so many of you attack Fazio's work at Augusta?  

[TEPaul]

Can't wait to see today's tour pros hit mid  irons from some of the fairways like they did in the 1950s and 1960s.

YTTseng, you certainly seem to be a guy who gets around so to answer you about why some criticize the work at ANGC of Fazio can we agree to watch this year's changes at next year's Masters about how those changes will play out to make today's tour pros play some of the clubs and shots that the tour pros played in the 1950s and 1960s?

And if we can agree on that can we ask you to tell us why today's tour pros can't play those fairway from the same widths as the tour pros did in the 1950s and 1960s?

[YTTseng]

TEPaul:  Sure, let's watch the 2002 Masters to see how the 2001 changes are received.  I predict that they will be well received by viewers but not by most of the pros.  

Most of the pros (other than the best ones, like Woods) don't like difficult courses, so they won't like the changes at Augusta.  (They complained a great deal in private about Pinehurst at the recent US Open.)

Is your point about the rough that the fairways were wider in the 1950s and 1960s?  I agree.  They had to be narrowed to keep up with the distances that players hit the ball today.  

[GeoffreyC]

YTtseng

Why if the pros are forced to hit similar clubs into much slicker, faster, bent grass greens should they have to narrow the fairways and add trees?  

I have not played Augusta but I did get to see the Masters in 1997.  This course is perfect for wide fairways and hard fast conditions. If it rains low scores will be the rule but if it doesn't then let the ball roll. I don't get why you need length and narrow fairways and rough.  Please explain. Thanks

[John_McMillan]

YTT -

Is resistance to scoring the only thing which makes Augusta National a good course?

Were Fazio's changes about anything other than increasing the course's resistance to scoring?

When Augusta National was opened, it was the second longest championship course in the US at the time - so it is supposed to play long.  I'm not opposed to adding length to the course.  However, the current braintrust seems to be focused with the winning score at the Masters Tournament in a way Bobby Jones or Cliff Roberts never were.

Have Fazio's changes made the course more interesting or just more resistant to scoring?  If there are any instances of the former, Fazio himself certainly hasn't sold those.

[TEPaul]

Whoa, YTT, everything was going so well in this discussion! But then; "The fairways had to be narrowed to keep up with the distances they hit the ball today."

What? Added tee length has to do with the distances they hit the ball today. Width has nothing to do with it! Zero! Actually the ball probably moves less sideways than it did in the 1950s and 1960s. Theoretically they will be playing from the same distances into the greens (or using the same mid-irons as they did back then). Would you please give the answer to the question about the fairway width one more try?

[aclayman]

And while your at it try these too.
Specifically what are all the names of those you call you, doing the bashing?
and,
Why do you predict that the viewers will enjoy more, what I consider to be less excitement, associated with the added length?

I guess it could be assumed that the TV will follow the leaders only, again, and that really does limit the field. I completly agree with the Emperor that my nap will come much sooner come Masters sunday.

[Ran Morrissett]

YTTseng,

Most people on this site bash whatever work is done at Augusta (regardless of who does it) for the simple fact that none of us like seeing perhaps the most revolutionary design every built in this country being "un-done."

By un-done, I mean not one single change to the course in the past 20 years has been done with an eye toward being consistent with MacKenzie's design theories.

Bob Jones selected MacKenzie for very good reasons and I think it is a shame that no one at ANGC seems to even care about MacKenzie and his design philosophies. Instead, through this and that architect, ANGC has continually made the design less and less special and unique. And that's a great shame.

In fact, if Jones had never started The Masters, and the design could have been left alone and unchanged in relative obscurity, one could make a powerful argument that it is the finest course in the world, given how strategic and playable it was for one and all. Such days are forever gone  

YTTseng, by the way, how'd you hit'em while you were there? That first tee is pretty darn scary - even with no none there  

[YTTseng]

GeoffreyC:  I agree that Augusta plays well with wide, fast fairways, but not if it means that pros are hitting wedges to 460-yard par fours.  Augusta narrowed the fairways and added trees in a futile attempt to manage its course.  

My personal view, however, is that longer rough would add a challenge to the course that it presently lacks.  The slick greens  are, in my view, a bit over the top.  During normal member play days, the greens are quite manageable, and the flagsticks are in reasonable positions.  I would prefer that the greens play that way during the Masters.    

The best solution probably would be to require the pros to play a ball that goes only around 270 yards, tops.  Augusta is quite an interesting course if you're forced to hit mid- and long-irons to the par fours and par fives.  Since Augusta decided not to require everyone to play a short ball, the next best solution was to add length to some of the holes.

J.  McMillan:  The changes have made Augusta more interesting for the simple reason that we will get to see whether pros can get the ball close to the flagstick from more than 150 yards.  I'm of the old school:  I like to see if a pro can hit the green from a downhill, sidehill lie of 190 yards to the hole.

TEPaul:  I don't understand your question.  Do my answers above satisfy you?  I don't know if we disagree on the point I am making (or trying to make).  You're  from Philadelphia, aren't you?  Wouldn't you agree that Merion would be a better (and more reasonable) test for pros if (1) 500 yards were added to the course or (2) a ball that carried only 270 yards was required?  I don't like to see Merion with 6 inches of rough, but it's necessary under present conditions.

[YTTseng]

R. Morrissett:

I appreciate your comments about MacKenzie's original intent.  I plead guilty to ignorance.  The course has changed so much since his original design that I can't even remember what the original design was, other than knowing that the fairway bunkers on No. 10 are located where the green was and other than recollecting that the course was supposed to emulate a links course.

What was the origianl intent?  I'd like to know.  And why would the course be one of the best ever if that intent had been followed?

As to your question, I hit the ball pretty well.  I've always had a tough time with the tee shot on No. 1 because of all the anxiety that goes along with hitting that shot in front of the people that you imagine are watching you.  But after that shot, the beauty of Augusta is that it is actually quite playable and enjoyable for the average golfer and still poses a good challenge for the average golfer.

[TEPaul]

YTT:

I thought we were getting somewhere with our discussion, but I suppose not. You don't understand my question about the width of Augusta's fairway compared to what they used to be and were designed as? Then I'm sorry, I can't help you and I'm sure not going to ask again.

Merion?

I'd widen those fairways back to what they used to be, make those greens firm and US Open speed, make the course "through the green" screaming fast, forget about the 500 extra yards (which is impossible) and let those "really good" boys tee it up and play some golf.

And you know what, if somebody shot 10 over, 10 under or 15 under, I'd give them the Goddamn trophy and tell them they'd really played some golf!

[TEPaul]

YTT:

Your reply to Ran Morrissett!? Surely you're joking!? I'm Tom Paul from Gulph Mills G.C. in Philadephia, would you care to tell me more about who you are? If not, I do understand.

[John_McMillan]

YTT -

I'm from the even older school that likes to see a variety of shots and strategies.  Do the changes at Augusta increase this variety?  In your example, you increased the distance of the shot from 150 to 190 yards, but then also added the hypothetical of being from a downhill / sidehill lie.  Are there in fact any examples of this from Fazio's changes?  If you push the tees back at #2, don't you put the pros into a FLATTER area of the fairway?  

Is there anything intrensically more pleasurable about watching a 190 yard shot than a 150 yard one?  I like to watch pros who can control the trajectory of their shots, play differently shaped shots, and manage their games under different challenges.  Augusta's original design promoted a variety of these options.  How are they increased or preserved under Fazio's changes?  

[YTTseng]

JMacMillan:  MacKenzie's original design may have promoted all of the shots to which you allude.  But golfers in 1930 did not carry their tee shots 300 yards or hit 160-yard wedges. It's time to accept the fact that the classic courses  do not pose a challenge for today's pros unless the speed of the greens is increased to a speed that was unheard of when the courses were designed and unless the rough is increased to a length that was never intended.  

I've watched Tiger Woods hit a soft wedge into No. 18 at Augusta.  No one can convince me that MacKenzie intended his course to play that way.

Tom Paul of Gulph Mills G.C.: Do you really think that Merion at 6,500 yards and a greed speed of 15 on the stimpmeter would provide the test for the pros that Hugh Wilson intended?  One of the great shots of the modern era is Hogan's two iron at Merion on No. 18.  Would you have the same emotions today if David Duval hit a nine iron?      

[John_McMillan]

YTT -

You seem as obsessed as Augusta National with scoring at the Masters Tournament.  Would the 1986 Masters have been an even better tournament if it had been won by Scott Simpson with a score of +4?  If not, then winning score must not be the ultimate measure of a championship, so tell me more about the types of shots and strageties that will face competitors in the Masters than the fact that they will be hitting an 6 iron instead of an 8 iron on a particular hole.

To another point - pros like difficult courses, they don't like complex ones, which was the source of criticism of Pinehurst for the '99 Open.  

[Ran Morrissett]

YTTseng,

Jones's favorite course was St. Andrews and you are no doubt familiar with his numerous famous quotes regarding her.  In general, Jones admired that TOC was fun for all levels of golfers regardless of age and yet, with certain hole locations, became vexing enough to challenge the very best. MacKenzie shared his same passion for TOC and was the ideal man to re-create some of the strategic dilemma posed by TOC's wide fairways, challenging greens, and hazards. All of this with little rough nor the need to hunt around for your golf ball.

Most importantly, the ground game was KEY and judging how to use the terrain was crucial in working shots toward certain hole locations. This remains true at TOC to this day and it was certainly true with the initial design at ANGC.

So what has happened in the past 50 years at ANGC? They have added trees, narrowed fairways and added bunkers in front of greens, all of which is moving in the opposite direction from Jones's and MacKenzie's initial shared vision.

The ground game is long gone from ANGC. Just look at what happened on the front side alone: the greenside bunker that was added to the 1st hole, the 2nd bunker that was added to the 2nd green, and the bunkers were added across the front of the 7th green all contributed to the demise of the ground game. And that's before we even get into a discussion as to where they moved the 10th green!

Though it was already in its death spiral, the ground game disappeared when the green speeds went off the map. No one would ever think to bounce an approach shot into such greens as the 5th and 14th anymore.

The initial design at ANGC could have been every bit as timeless as the one at TOC, which plays just as wide today as it did 20 and 40 years ago and no one seems intent on growing rough at TOC and narrowing it - why should Augusta be different?

I am sure of this fact: the 80 year old members at the R&A have a heck of a lot more fun playing their course than the 80 year old members at ANGC now do. The stewards of ANGC have consistently put The Masters ahead of the enjoyment of their membership and what makes that so wrong is that the two AREN'T MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Just look at the West Course at Royal Melbourne.

Cheers,

[ForkaB]

Ran

Just when was the ground game last played at ANGC?  I have been watching it (albeit from the telly) since the late 50's and I don't remember any changes in the ground game aspects of the course over the past 40 years.  Maybe you (or someone older or with more on the ground (as it were) experience can enlighten me).

Rich

PS--they have in fact grown the rough at TOC since I first played there over 20 years ago, most notably and most regrettably to the left of the 17th fairway--remember Tiger hacking his way out of there in 2000?  As I and others have mentioend elsewhere and often, they have also altered the playing characteristics of many of the bunkers and added susbstanital length to the course in this most recent period, too.  All things must change (it seems)--even TOC.  I very much doubt if the 80-year old members (or even the 40-50 year old ones) of the R&A play TOC from the tips, or see any need to--any more than do the members of ANGC.

[Ran Morrissett]

Rich,

The ground game was doomed from the start at Augusta. For instance, after opening in 1932, Roberts wanted to place a deep cross bunker across the 3rd green in 1933 - just one year after it had opened! Jones and MacKenzie were against it and as MacKenzie wrote,

"a cross bunker would convert it into an ordinary stereotyped hole and would nullify all the subtleties of the undulations of the approach to which we gave so much time and thought."

While Jones and MacKenzie won that battle, MacKenzie's death the next year and Jones's ceasing to play much after 1938 with WWII and his syringomyelia illness didn't bode well for the ground game.

And sure enough, subsequent changes started to minimize the opportunity for the ground game. For instance, the wall of bunkers that were built across the 7th green were done in 1938.

Some holes like 5 and 14 could still accept a low chasing shot but no player even entertains it anymore with the current green speeds of the last 20 plus years.

As for TOC, my point was that a weaker player can enjoy TOC from the right set of tees as he can chase the ball along the ground and up onto the greens. In many ways, that's still the best and most fun way to play the course. No such luck at Augusta. A hole like 10 is a mugging for the weaker player and yet, when MacKenzie left there, it would have been an absolute joy to play and use the slope to run a ball onto the green from well back.

Cheers,

[TEPaul]

YTT:

Can't say if I'd have the same emotions watching David Duval hit a 9 iron to #18 as Hogan's 1 iron. I wasn't around for Hogan's 1 iron. That was fifty years ago and golf has survived in the interim somehow.

Firstly, Merion is a bit longer than you say stretched out and it is a par 70. Total card yardage at Merion is a little misleading anyway as the course has some of the best really short par 4s around which brings down the total card yardage.

Duval would have to really tag one on #18 anyway as the tips are 488yds.

But anyway this isn't about total card yardage it's about why you think ANGC has to have it's fairway's narrowed if the pros are going to be playing the course from the same spots as in the 1950s and 1960s. You said you wanted it to be the same as the 1950s and 1960s, now why wouldn't you want them to play from the same width fairways as they had back then too? Are you aware at all that the wide fairways were very much the design intent of ANGC or have you not ever heard about that before?

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Ran

See your points.  Given that it is 50+ years since Augusta played the way McK apparently desinged it, is it not perhaps time to declare it NLE and not worry about any changes they choose to make from year to year?

[YTTseng]

RMorrissett:  Thank you for the insight into the intent of Augusta's design.  For better or worse, I don't think it is possible to return to any sort of ground game at Augusta for the pros or even single-digit amateurs.  Even if there were no bunkers on the course, I cannot think of many holes where I would choose to land my approach shot short of the green.  Why bother if there is little wind and the greens hold most shots?

Given that, I think that the changes in the length of the course are appropriate, although I think it would be better if the Augusta officials simply imposed a uniform ball requirement.

TEPaul:  I agree that a portion of Merion plays long for a short course, namely, Nos. 3-6 and 16-18.  Don't you agree that, with the exception of No. 11, Nos. 7 to 13 (which generally are fairly short) are  not as interesting as the other holes and that the rough needs to be excessively long in order to make some of those holes of US Open quality?    

[Ran Morrissett]

Rich,

Sad but true. This latest round by Fazio wasn't as big a deal to me as some other,  more minor work in the past. The reason? The course was no longer as interesting before he started his 2000/2001 work. Now it's just even less interesting  

YTTSeng,

I am sorry you feel that way about ANGC but the 'less is more' approach to design which MacKenzie perfected at ANGC is quite fascinating to me. To think that "all the subtleties of the undulations of the approach to which we (MacKenzie and Jones) gave so much time and thought" are permanently gone from 17 of the 18 green complexes is truly a gigantic loss for the art form of golf course architecture.

Anyway, glad you played well there!

Cheers,

[Mike_Cirba]

YTTseng;

I have to ask if you would explain how you think holes 7-13 at Merion would be markedly improved with the introduction of high rough (and I'm assuming narrowed fairways).

Personally, I think if they played firm and fast through the green, they'd be better served with a fairway cut to the OB line on 7&8, and to the left of the fairway bunkers on the left of each.  9 & 13, being par threes surrounded by sand (and water front and right of 9) probably wouldn't be  candidates for high rough, and on 10, I'd frankly rather see them restore the gorse and love grass in the front bunker and right side driving zone and cut the fairway to the Ardmore Ave property line.  On 11 & 12, just make it one fairway split by the bunker line.  

I'd be curious how you think each hole would be better served or somehow more challenging by forcing tournament competitors to drive with long irons into narrow fairways on each (which they can generally do in their sleep)?

[TEPaul]

YTT:

No I do not think that Merion needs excessive rough to make any of it's holes of US Open quality. Just the opposite in fact. It needs the designed width of it's fairways and firm conditions so the ball will bounce and roll excessively and even tour players will have something to think about.

Merion has no holes that are in the slightest bit uninteresting--it has 18 top notch holes!

[aclayman]

Half full analysis:
Compare the attitude, treatment and stigma associated with a "golf pro" in 1937 to the multi-million $ media/adverising polished image of today. Versus all the physical changes to ANGC and/or et al. And see which has changed more?  Quantifying shall be of your own chosing, just specify.

[Tags:]

Tags: