[PThomas]

from the Apil GD:

"Jack Nicklaus and other past champions have bemoaned the way the second cut, denser trees and added length essentially eliminate the multiple approach angles available from the wider fairways and more option-rich trouble areas that Bobby Jones favored in the original design.....

But the fact is, the tenets of the course as dsigned in 1934 are no longer relevant in terms of fully testing the modern professional.  For the first few decades of the Masters, most approaches to par 4s were hit with middle to long irons with lower ball flights than those clubs produce today.  As such, it was beneficial to come in to the then-firm Bermuda greens from an angle that provided the length of the green to work the ball toward the pin.

But in today's aerial game, approach shots even with longer irons are launched higher and have more stopping power, making the propoer angle of approach much less essential to keeping a shot around the pin.  ANd modern large-headed drivers are much easier to hit straight than their wooden predecessors.

Giving today's player a fairway as wide as Augusta's old ones would be an invitation to bomb with impunity, which would produce even longer drives and further marginalize the course.  If Jones had been able to see the way the tournament was the played the past few years his first reaction wouldn't be "What happened to my angles?" but rather "What happened to my landing areas?"

agree/disagree?

[JESII]

Seems to make sense to me based on what I've read of Augusta and what I know of the PGA Tour game of today. Actually an incredibly astute observation, if you ask me.

[mike_malone]

 Augusta is such a special situation with tree plantings. They can afford to plant fully grown trees and take them out if they want. Money seems not to be a concern. I also have noticed that the branches seem to start well up in their trees which allows some kind of a shot. So, using trees to knock down the flight of an offline shot for a pro does make some sense.

   They are trading in the strategy of angles for the difficulty of execution. Diaz's statement that green side bunkering is diminished by the current flight of the ball makes sense.


    I really don't understand why they want to change the course. Why not just see who gets the lowest score. But they love to tinker there.

[JESII]

Mike,

Don't you think it's pretty universal for club members to hold a fair amount of pride in the challenge of their golf course? No matter what course it is. I would think there changes are motivated by human nature.

[mike_malone]

 Jim,

  I expect you are right. But there is a point where so many changes are made to "make it harder" that it becomes a different course. The challenge is to adjust to a changing game but preserve values built into the course.

   The character of a course can be lost by eliminating angled play. So, one may be able to cheer the fact that the winner was near par but at the cost of the course's soul.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

It all depends on your point of view.
Do you want the course to play as perhaps Jones and Dr Mac intended, or are you content with the intial design being destroyed score wise every year?

If you are on the side of the course maintaining it's challenge, Jamie is correct..personally I like to see the players challenged more than I do somebody shooting at least 20 under par.

[jeffwarne]

I just finished reading Stan Byrdy's book "The Augusta National Golf Club-Alister MacKenziezie's Masterpiece"
A good read detailing the changes at Augusta from 1934.
It does not include this year's changes.
Great pictures and very interesting quotes and insights.
a very interesting thing I noticed was bunkers in the middle of the fairway have been systematically removed from the original design (2,5,8,14,18)

Back on topic about angles .
My belief is that as green speeds increase,contours are softened ,thus making it easier to hold a green from a bad angle.
Say you had a green with a severe right to left slope that stimped at 7 and was barely(or fairly) puttable. An aproach from the right side of the fairway would be difficult or impossible to hold.
This same green stimping at 11.5 would have to have far less slope to be barely (or fairly) puttable. Therefore, an approach would be far easier from the same right side of the fairway due to less slope.
This is compounded by the fact that many greens must be maintained softer to obtain such a speed, making it easier to hold from a bad angle.
Therefore the angles game is just about gone anyway, and certainly throw in 35 yards to the average tour drive and most angles are obsolete for tournament players.

Golf would be a better game with a reduced distance ball, slower,firmer ,slopier,healthier (less expensive) greens (which would still demand extreme touch downhill, and great skill severely uphill)

[mike_malone]

 I would imagine there are creative ways to achieve the goal of preserving the initial values  and adjusting to the modern pro game without dramatically changing the course.

  It could be a job for supergcaer!

[mike_malone]

 Jeff,

   You could be that supergcaer!


    This really does point to Augusta holding the line against constant course changes and instead adapting the tools to the course.

    Can't they run their tournament anyway they want to?

[Dan Herrmann]

   They are trading in the strategy of angles for the difficulty of execution. Diaz's statement that green side bunkering is diminished by the current flight of the ball makes sense.

This is SO true.  When I first set sights on #7 green last year, (my maiden pilgrimmage to AGNC) I asked myself, "How will they hit this green?"  It's tiny, completly surrounded by bunkers, and it's fast.

Well - they all hit the green, at least the guys I saw.

It really is a different game for the world's best today.

[PThomas]

bumping this one back up one time...I thought it would generate a lot of discussion, but I've been wrong before!

[Tony Ristola]

A lot of changes in recent years.
I'm waiting for the next one.
Renaming the course to Pine Alley.

[BCrosby]

Jaime Diaz completely misses the point.

Of course the pros don't care about angles.

Of course the pros all hit high approaches with spin.

Of course the pros have, at worst, middle irons approaches at ANGC and go pin hunting on all holes all the time.

The issue is that trying to change a historic course to challenge the pros is a fool's errand and the ANGC/Fazio axis ought to know that. There is no course anywhere in the world that will test the pros in terms of forcing them to play angles into greens. That's part of the history of golf that is now gone forever.

The issue at ANGC (and the issue that Diaz fans on) is that they have made changes at ANGC that permanently affect the way the course plays during non-Masters weeks. That's at the heart of Whitten's criticism.

If playing angles don't matter for the pros, they do matter for average players. The width of the course is now gone, not just for the week of the Masters, but forever. Average players can't take out the new trees. They can't take out the new rough.

If it were just a matter of lengthening ANGC it would be much less objectionable. The average guy can always play shorter tees if he wants. He can move up and play something like the course MacK and Jones designed. No big deal.

But you and I can't go out and play the old, wider Mack corridors because they are gone. You now have to play a narrow course that dictates every shot, a la a US Open venue. You find the irrigation pipe and follow it.

And that's the real tragedy of the Fazio changes. Where once you had an option to play something like the MacK/Jones course, that option is now foreclosed. Not just for Masters participants. But now for everyone, all the time.

And that's another way of saying that the last nail in the coffin of Mack's once very special course has been driven home.

Bob

[George Pazin]

I, for one, don't think they'd be tearing it up scoring-wise if the changes hadn't been made.

Read this month's Golf, with the recaps of the event over the years 1966, 76, and 86. It says Jack was hitting it 350 in '66 (sure, that's anecdotal, but still) and the number of years that people have gone really low were not all that common. Heck, one of the lower tournaments was posted by Crenshaw in his second win, which was without benefit of new technology, and by someone not noted for his great length.

I wish someone would have a little faith in those green complexes. I truly believe they are that good. Too bad Hootie and Co. don't agree.

Also, note that when Jack started ripping it up, and Bobby made his famous comment, they didn't immediately go out and add 400 yards, rough and trees!

Very few people seem to really understand the course and how it was designed. Maybe I'm not one of 'em, but I have more faith in Jones and Mackenzie than Hootie and Fazio.

[Phil Benedict]

At the end of the day a 21 year old kid came in and shot 18 under on their course (22 under for the last 63 holes) and they were unwillingly to risk the possibility of that kid (or someone else) humiliating their course by breaking 60 or shooting 25 under.  "Protecting" the tournament course trumped "preserving" the members' course.  This shouldn't be surprising because it's the Masters that ultimately sets ANGC apart from all other courses.  It just wouldn't do to have the pros treat it like a Bob Hope course.  Maybe they wouldn't have but Hootie wasn't going to take the chance.

[Craig Sweet]

I have said this before....I don't think its worth ruining your course to hold the Masters, or any tournament on it.

Hootie and his clan should pony up the money to buy more land, hire Doak or someone to design and build a new course for the Masters,move the tournament to that new course, and then renovate the existing AGNC back to its 1930 era layout.

[Voytek Wilczak]

I just went to masters.org and listened to the recent O'Meara and Love interviews. Both guys (a short and a long hitter) said that the recent changes will favor the long hitter who putts well.

Well, that narrows it down...

[Scott Cannon]

from the Apil GD:

"Jack Nicklaus and other past champions have bemoaned the way the second cut, denser trees and added length essentially eliminate the multiple approach angles available from the wider fairways and more option-rich trouble areas that Bobby Jones favored in the original design.....
I think this is a true statement. If this is true, Could AGNC produced a sterned and more "original intent" facelift onother way?


But the fact is, the tenets of the course as dsigned in 1934 are no longer relevant in terms of fully testing the modern professional.  For the first few decades of the Masters, most approaches to par 4s were hit with middle to long irons with lower ball flights than those clubs produce today.  As such, it was beneficial to come in to the then-firm Bermuda greens from an angle that provided the length of the green to work the ball toward the pin.
Could they (Mr.Johnson et al ) added length and then tucked the pin in a way that would require an approach from the correct side of the fairway to allow a shot that would have a romote chance of stopping within birdy range?


But in today's aerial game, approach shots even with longer irons are launched higher and have more stopping power, making the propoer angle of approach much less essential to keeping a shot around the pin.  ANd modern large-headed drivers are much easier to hit straight than their wooden predecessors.

Giving today's player a fairway as wide as Augusta's old ones would be an invitation to bomb with impunity, which would produce even longer drives and further marginalize the course.  If Jones had been able to see the way the tournament was the played the past few years his first reaction wouldn't be "What happened to my angles?" but rather "What happened to my landing areas?"

agree/disagree?

[Voytek Wilczak]

from the Apil GD:

"Jack Nicklaus and other past champions have bemoaned the way the second cut, denser trees and added length essentially eliminate the multiple approach angles available from the wider fairways and more option-rich trouble areas that Bobby Jones favored in the original design.....
I think this is a true statement. If this is true, Could AGNC produced a sterned and more "original intent" facelift onother way?


But the fact is, the tenets of the course as dsigned in 1934 are no longer relevant in terms of fully testing the modern professional.  For the first few decades of the Masters, most approaches to par 4s were hit with middle to long irons with lower ball flights than those clubs produce today.  As such, it was beneficial to come in to the then-firm Bermuda greens from an angle that provided the length of the green to work the ball toward the pin.
Could they (Mr.Johnson et al ) added length and then tucked the pin in a way that would require an approach from the correct side of the fairway to allow a shot that would have a romote chance of stopping within birdy range?


But in today's aerial game, approach shots even with longer irons are launched higher and have more stopping power, making the propoer angle of approach much less essential to keeping a shot around the pin.  ANd modern large-headed drivers are much easier to hit straight than their wooden predecessors.

Giving today's player a fairway as wide as Augusta's old ones would be an invitation to bomb with impunity, which would produce even longer drives and further marginalize the course.  If Jones had been able to see the way the tournament was the played the past few years his first reaction wouldn't be "What happened to my angles?" but rather "What happened to my landing areas?"

agree/disagree?

Patent infringement!!!!

(just kidding)

[David Kelly]

from the Apil GD:
If Jones had been able to see the way the tournament was the played the past few years his first reaction wouldn't be "What happened to my angles?" but rather "What happened to my landing areas?"

Now I think it would be, "What happened to my golf course?"

[Chris Kane]

The issue at ANGC (and the issue that Diaz fans on) is that they have made changes at ANGC that permanently affect the way the course plays during non-Masters weeks. That's at the heart of Whitten's criticism.

If playing angles don't matter for the pros, they do matter for average players. The width of the course is now gone, not just for the week of the Masters, but forever. Average players can't take out the new trees. They can't take out the new rough.

With due respect to the members and those lucky enough to play there as their guests, IMO what goes on at Augusta National outside the Masters is way down the list of issues.  

First, ANGC is arguably the most influential golf club in America - their course is probably the best known, and serves as a model for courses everywhere (rightly or wrongly).  When they add rough which depletes available playing angles, narrow the course with trees and alter their green complexes to make approaches more difficult (ie. the back of 7), it affects how so many golfers everywhere think about architecture, and what is their ideal course.

Major championship golf (and professional golf more generally) has a lot to answer for - what is ideal for for a tournament is not always ideal from an architecture perspective, and our courses pay the price.

Second, they're making the Masters less interesting to watch.  It is still a wonderful spectacle, and rising up 5am in early April to watch the first day on television is one of the highlights of my year.  But the course setup ten years ago was more conducive to entertaining golf than what will be presented in a few weeks time.

The odds of my ever playing ANGC are pretty long, but if I do, and my experience is lessened by the changes, I'll think also of the many other courses I play where vandalism of great design has been inspired by the things they're doing at Augusta.

[Sean_A]

Jaime Diaz completely misses the point.

Of course the pros don't care about angles.

Of course the pros all hit high approaches with spin.

Of course the pros have, at worst, middle irons approaches at ANGC and go pin hunting on all holes all the time.

The issue is that trying to change a historic course to challenge the pros is a fool's errand and the ANGC/Fazio axis ought to know that. There is no course anywhere in the world that will test the pros in terms of forcing them to play angles into greens. That's part of the history of golf that is now gone forever.

The issue at ANGC (and the issue that Diaz fans on) is that they have made changes at ANGC that permanently affect the way the course plays during non-Masters weeks. That's at the heart of Whitten's criticism.

If playing angles don't matter for the pros, they do matter for average players. The width of the course is now gone, not just for the week of the Masters, but forever. Average players can't take out the new trees. They can't take out the new rough.

If it were just a matter of lengthening ANGC it would be much less objectionable. The average guy can always play shorter tees if he wants. He can move up and play something like the course MacK and Jones designed. No big deal.

But you and I can't go out and play the old, wider Mack corridors because they are gone. You now have to play a narrow course that dictates every shot, a la a US Open venue. You find the irrigation pipe and follow it.

And that's the real tragedy of the Fazio changes. Where once you had an option to play something like the MacK/Jones course, that option is now foreclosed. Not just for Masters participants. But now for everyone, all the time.

And that's another way of saying that the last nail in the coffin of Mack's once very special course has been driven home.

Bob

Bob

I think you are mistaken when you say angles don't matter for the pros.  Perhaps at Augusta this is true, but I watched three events last year where angles were very important.  Strangely enough, one of the three was The Forest of Arden event between Brum and Coventry.  This course offers nothing particularly special in its design, but when the organizers had it playing playing firm the players had fits holding greens from rough or even downwind from fairways if they had to fly bunkers.  Angles aren't just down to architecture, the maintenance of the course is just as important.

Ciao

Sean

[BCrosby]

Sean -

Personal experiences vary, but in watching pros in the US for the last 40 years or so, I've seen little evidence that angles of approach matter much. And over the last five yers or so, angles seem to matter even less. If that is possible.


Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()