[Dale_McCallon]

I know that the majority opinion of people on this site is that the latest changes at ANGC are a travesty and have turned the club into a joke of a golf course.  

We talk about how Hootie is ruining this masterpiece, but let me ask this.  If you were an architect, and Hootie came to you with a proposal, would you really say no.  Would you really turn down the chance to put the most famous golf course in the world on your resume?  I say criticize Faz all you want, but the more times his name gets mentioned during the Masters, the more developers line up to give him a call.

[John Kavanaugh]

I for one support all the changes made over the years at ANGC...I look forward once again to jump starting my spring with the greatest tourney of all.  Don't ya think Bobby Jones wanted the best players in the history of the game to be at the Champions Dinner....Without question the least dud filled roster of any tournament ever held year after year.  Without using the names of ex-Presidents...name a dud on the list.

[John Kavanaugh]

You can't look at the following and not bow to the men who have been stewards of this great course::::

WINNING STATISTICS
Name, Victory Year, Years Before Victory, DOB,
Champions Age (Yrs-Mnths-Dys),Winning Score (margin), Deceased
Tommy Aaron   1973   11   02/22/37   36-1-18   283 (1)   
George Archer   1969   3   10/01/39   29-6-12   281 (1)   09/25/05
Seve Ballesteros   1980   4   04/09/57   23-0-4   275 (4)   
1983   7   26-0-2   280 (4)
Gay Brewer   1967   6   03/19/32   35-0-21   280 (1)   
Jack Burke   1956   7   01/29/23   33-2-10   289 (1)   
Billy Casper   1970   14   06/24/31   38-9-20   279 (PO)   
Charles Coody   1971   6   07/13/37   33-8-29   279 (2)   
Fred Couples   1992   9   10/03/59   32-6-9   275 (2)   
Ben Crenshaw   1984   13   01/11/52   32-3-4   277 (2)   
1995   24   43-2-29   274 (1)
Jimmy Demaret   1940   2   05/24/10   29-10-28   280 (4)   12/28/83
1947   6   36-10-27   281 (2)
1950   9   39-10-30   283 (2)
Nick Faldo   1989   6   07/13/57   31-8-22   283 (PO)   
1990   7   32-8-21   278 (PO)
1996   13   38-8-27   276 (5)
Raymond Floyd   1976   12   09/04/42   33-7-7   271 (   
Doug Ford   1957   5   08/06/22   34-8-1   283 (3)   
Bob Goalby   1968   9   03/14/29   39-1-0   277 (1)   
Ralph Guldahl   1939   3   11/22/11   27-4-11   279 (1)   06/11/87
Claude Harmon   1948   3   07/14/16   31-8-28   279 (5)   07/23/89
Ben Hogan   1951   10   08/13/12   38-7-26   280 (2)   07/25/97
1953   12   40-7-30   274 (5)
Herman Keiser   1946   2   10/07/14   31-6-0   282 (1)   12/24/03
Bernhard Langer   1985   3   08/27/57   27-7-18   282 (2)   
1993   11   35-7-15   277 (4)
Sandy Lyle   1988   7   02/09/58   30-2-1   281 (1)   
Phil Mickelson   2004   12   06/16/70   33-9-26   279 (1)   
Cary Middlecoff   1955   10   01/06/21   34-3-4   279 (7)   09/01/98
Larry Mize   1987   4   09/23/58   28-6-20   285 (PO)   
Byron Nelson   1937   3   02/04/12   25-2-0   283 (2)   
1942   8   30-2-9   280 (PO)
Jack Nicklaus   1963   5   01/21/40   23-2-17   286 (1)   
1965   7   25-2-21   271 (9)
1966   8   26-2-21   288 (PO)
1972   14   32-2-19   286 (3)
1975   17   35-2-23   276 (1)
1986   28   46-2-23   279 (1)
Mark O’Meara   1998   15   01/13/57   41-2-30   279 (1)   
Jose Maria Olazabal   1994   8   02/05/66   28-2-5   279 (2)   
1999   13   33-2-6   280 (2)
Arnold Palmer   1958   4   09/10/29   28-6-27   284 (1)   
1960   6   30-7-0   282 (1)
1962   8   32-6-30   280 (PO)
1964   10   34-7-2   276 (6)
Henry Picard   1938   5   11/28/06   30-4-7   285 (2)   04/30/97
Gary Player   1961   5   11/01/35   25-5-9   280 (1)   
1974   17   38-5-13   278 (2)
1978   21   42-5-8   277 (1)
Gene Sarazen   1935   1   02/27/02   33-1-12   282 (PO)   05/13/99
Vijay Singh   2000   7   02/22/63   37-1-18   278 (3)   
Horton Smith   1934   1   05/22/08   25-10-3   284 (1)   10/14/63
1936   3   27-10-14   285 (1)
Sam Snead   1949   10   05/27/12   36-10-14   282 (3)   05/23/02
1952   13   39-10-10   286 (4)
1954   15   41-10-16   289 (PO)
Craig Stadler   1982   6   06/02/53   28-10-9   284 (PO)   
Art Wall   1959   4   11/25/23   35-4-11   284 (1)   10/31/01
Tom Watson   1977   4   09/04/49   27-7-6   276 (2)   
1981   8   31-7-8   280 (2)
Mike Weir   2003   4   05/12/70   32-11-1   281 (PO)   
Craig Wood   1941   8   11/18/01   39-4-19   280 (3)   05/08/68
Tiger Woods   1997   3   12/30/75   21-3-14   270 (12)   
2001   7   25-3-9   272 (2)
2002   8   26-3-15   276 (3)
2005   11   29-3-11   276 (PO)
Ian Woosnam   1991   4   03/02/58   33-1-12   277 (1)   
Fuzzy Zoeller   1979   1   11/11/51   27-5-4   280 (PO)   

[RJ_Daley]

John, how many on that list played a course that was relatively static in design-remodelling-and with relatively equal equipment?  When, and what exponential rate did equipment and course design and set-up change.  I'd put the take off point at about 1996-8.  I think there was a great deal of equipment and course parity from about end of WWII til the mid 90s.

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't think you can ignore the change on the greens from bermuda to bent in around 81...

[RJ_Daley]

Yes John I agree, bermuda conversion to bent is a pretty significant factor.  When you look at film in even the 60s and 70s, those players were giving their putts a pretty wristy whack, it seems to me.  Along with that green turf conversion, I'm guessing that the surrounds began to react a lot different to, given the nature of the transition maintenance-encroachment issues of bermuda into bent.  So, the finesse game probably really started to change with the bent greens.

But, the bones of the course, with the tee ball, placement and working it, and the approaches, using relatively equal equipment was static, as I see it from 40s to late 80s-90s, I think.  Trees, rough, and lengthening as a concession to the long game result of equipment advancements began with the FAZ at Hootie's invitation.

John, do you think that anytime in the foreseeable future that a premier player is going to yawn at the prospect of playing the Masters, and just take the week off to go fishing?

[John Kavanaugh]

They reversed the nines after the first year of the tournament.  Changes have never ended since.

And...No, players or spectators will never grow bored of the Masters..I'm not sure why but somebody has to get the credit and who better than those in charge..

[CHrisB]

I know that the majority opinion of people on this site is that the latest changes at ANGC are a travesty and have turned the club into a joke of a golf course.

Dale,

I know you are exaggerating, but... There are 1500 people in the Discussion Group, and while quite a few have voiced their opinions quite forcefully in opposition to the changes, I wonder if we took a survey of everyone what the results would be.

I for one don't really have a problem with the changes that have been made to ANGC. As long as they don't change the greens too much, and as long as the trees don't get so thick that we start seeing more pitchouts than recoveries, then I'm OK with it.

I had much more of a problem seeing Tiger having a clear wedge into #15 in 1997 after missing his tee shot wide right, than seeing Tiger having to thread it up through the trees into #17 last year after missing his tee shot wide right.

[Robert Thompson]

They reversed the nines after the first year of the tournament.  Changes have never ended since.

And...No, players or spectators will never grow bored of the Masters..I'm not sure why but somebody has to get the credit and who better than those in charge..

I mean, really, who are Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Mike Weir, Tom Weiskopf and others when it comes to commenting on Augusta? They don't like the latest round of alterations, but what do they know? Clearly the voice we should be listening to is John K.

[John Kavanaugh]

I had much more of a problem seeing Tiger having a clear wedge into #15 in 1997 after missing his tee shot wide right, than seeing Tiger having to thread it up through the trees into #17 last year after missing his tee shot wide right.

The voice of sanity finally finds Golfclubatlas after all these years...thank you, thank you, thank you...

[Ryan Farrow]

I think they should change the Masters location to Oakmont every year the Steelers win the Superbowl. At least Fazio did real restoring work at Oakmont getting rid of all those trees.

I think this question goes back to the whole jumping off the bridge thing. Only here it sounds like God is telling you to jump.

[Jim Nugent]

I think they had to do something to the course.  Lengthen it for sure.  Toughen it.  Chris gave the reason.  Don't have much opinion on the actual changes, which I haven't seen.  

[Dale_McCallon]

They reversed the nines after the first year of the tournament.  Changes have never ended since.

And...No, players or spectators will never grow bored of the Masters..I'm not sure why but somebody has to get the credit and who better than those in charge..

I mean, really, who are Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Mike Weir, Tom Weiskopf and others when it comes to commenting on Augusta? They don't like the latest round of alterations, but what do they know? Clearly the voice we should be listening to is John K.

One of the things I've learned from this site is that Player and Palmer know nothing about golf architecture.  And Nicklaus was just as clueless till he hooked up with Doak.  So maybe these guys opinions should be dismissed as well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()