[Matt_Ward]

Hats off to the excellent article by Bill Fields (Golf World) on the state of what is happening with Augusta National. On top of the review by Ron Whitten and with the benefit of the photos that were added -- it's clear the original intent of Jones / Mackenzie is being completely ignored for this "new" Augusta.

The comments by past champions -- notably Jack & Arnie -- speak volumes on what is happening. I can't fathom the life of the "second cut" and the inane addition of all the trees to a whole host of holes.

Augusta used to provide for the kind of entertainment that made tuning in a must. Frankly, the layout lives off the branding of the Masters -- it's time the architectural merits are seen for what they are (ill-informed to say the least) and the course should take a major drop from the very top of the ratings charts it has long maintained.

Augusta has decided to be the early version of the US Open --I personally though that event only happned in June -- it's nor coming earlier in April.

How truly sad indeed.

[Jason Mandel]

Matt, I'm not defending this years changes.  However, let's wait until the tournament is played to see what the results will be.  The excitement the last few years has not been lacking.

For my money, this masters is still a lot more exciting than a US OPEN.  Here's hoping that this years tournament comes cloase to the last few.

Jason

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

OK -- fair enough.

But for all those here on GCA who overdoes on photos and have no hestitation to say things based on such evidence -- I would dare say the photos GolfWorld ran on the changes to the holes in question is proof positive that the "old" Augusta has been jettisoned in order to for this new fangled version that bears closer similarity to a US Open motif than what Jones / Mackenzie envisioned.

[John Kirk]

I thought a big reason the Masters was considered exciting two years ago, when Phil Mickelson made lots of birdies down the stretch, was pin placements.  Certain holes at the Masters have pin placements where the ball feeds down close to the hole, and several of these placements were used on Sunday that year.

I'm trying to remember them all.  Back left on #14 and #16 are definite birdie pin placements.  Balls feed down to the front right pin on #13, and back right on #15 is the best eagle pin.  Front left, below the ridge, is where Sandy Lyle and Phil Mickelson made birdie on #18 the last day.

There are "easy" pins on the back nine, and if a player gets it going, he can hit it close on many holes and shoot a very low score.

I think the bigger question is whether this constitutes exciting golf.  Approaches within a five yard radius have easy birdie putts; all other misses struggle to make par.

At the time I thought Mickelson's victory was exciting, but felt the drama was contrived somewhat, as all easy pins were saved for Sunday.

[cary lichtenstein]

I think it will be very interesting to see what happens at the Masters this year. I personally always liked the excitement generated on the back nie with all the possible eagles and birdies on nearly every hole.

The last 2 years the tournament returned to that the last day via pin placements that were receptive to scoring and the tournaments were great.

With the ball going so far, let's give it a chance to play out and see how the new setup works. I do agree that #7 and #11 may have been ruined, but they pretty much left the greens alone, so they can always restore the old tees if things don't work out.

These guys hit the ball 100 yards past  me, and reduce everything to drive and a short iron. I would not mind seeing them hitting 4 irons into some greens the way Hogan did.

The winner will be some bomber with a great short game...sounds like Tiger or Mickelson to me.

[A.G._Crockett]

Though they will probably get some rain today, my guess is that AGNC will be significantly firmer than it has been for the last couple of Masters, based on GA's spring weather so far.  In light of that, it might be a better read on the changes that have been made than we've had before.

If the course truly IS firm and fast, it would be a wonderful fantasy to see the tournament played twice; once with and once without rough, both at the current yardages.

[JESII]

I'm curious of all those on here that constantly bitch about the narrowing of playing corridors at Augusta, and the direct reduced enjoyment of watching the tournament, how does it add to your viewing entertainment for a player to hit a ball 50 yards off the center of the fairway and be left with a clear, unobstructed approach shot to the green?


Now tell me this (because I'm sure intended playing angles will be the first response from some of you), do any of the holes that have been narrowed offer an advantage to approaching the green from one side of the fairway or the other (as opposed to dead center)?  

[tlavin]

I'm sure that "those in the know" are right-that the narrowing of Augusta is ruining the intent of MacKenzie and Jones, but we have to remember that we are not talking about a golf club that has much real interest in the true architectural traditions of the golf course.

We're talking about an organization run by a bunch of captains of industry that use the golf course as a television stage for a four-day run that makes the club many millions of dollars.  And that is the case with or without commercials!  

The Masters has become everything that is great about sports and everything that is bad about sports.  The organizers want to make sure that their facility holds up against the strongest part of the new wave of great players.  In order to do that, they have to lengthen the course to inhuman proportions and create tunnel-vision tee boxes.  The result may indeed do harm to the vision of the designers of the golf course, but nobody had the kind of vision to contemplate the way the game would change.

I dare say that nobody had the vision to imagine that the golf game would become the billion dollar baby that it is now either.  The sponsors, television networks and competitors all do quite well, thank you, but we can't forget that the club is really making out like bandits.  You could feed a third world country off the concession profits alone.  This enables guys like Warren Buffet to only pay a $5000 initiation fee and dues that are probably less than the typical golfclubatlas habitue.

Putting it bluntly, these guys will do whatever they can to make sure that their cash cow continues to produce its mother's milk.    They don't want to take the risk that the scores will start to resemble the Bell South, because that will take the shine off their event.  If they trash a national treasure in the process, they will laugh all the way to the cash station.

Which is located right behind the clubhouse, if memory serves.

[mike_malone]

 Seve's shot from the parking lot was exhilarating.

   Jim,

   It is hard to remember these shots since they aren't allowed much anymore.

[JESII]

Terry,

Are you suggesting that the powers that be at Augusta would rather "destroy" the golf course (at least its original intent) than be subjected to a dues increase? That's what your post said to me.

Mayday,

How many shots have been played at the British Open since that one you referrenced? Surely there are more recent examples of the viewing benefits of letting players hit it all over the park, no? Oh wait, that instance you referrenced was an anomaly wasn't it. What was more of a miracle, Seve hitting it close to the hole out of that parking lot or Seve actually missing the fairway by 60 yards and having a clear easy shot to the green? Certainly the British Open is not set up to let players drive it all over the world and still approach the greens unimpeded, is it? I've never played St. Andrews, but even there it seems there is a real reward for controlled accurate driving, am I correct?

[tlavin]

Terry,

Are you suggesting that the powers that be at Augusta would rather "destroy" the golf course (at least its original intent) than be subjected to a dues increase? That's what your post said to me.

No, that is clearly a bit of hyperbole on my part, but I think it's fair to say that purity of design is way down on the list of considerations.  These guys don't need any money, but they clearly run the toonamint with resistance to scoring and profit as the dominant issues.

[JESII]

I agree with the protection of par statement, but profits, explain that to me considering the reported low cost (relative to other majors) of everything on-site and the low television commercialization practice. I'm not suggesting they don't make money on TV commercials, but I bet they could make more if run with that goal in mind.


People will very easily pooh-pooh the protection of par idea, but how many of us would feel Augusta were holding up in the realm of majors if 20 - 25 under par were required to win the tournament? There has to be a balance and I think that's all they are really trying to find.

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm curious of all those on here that constantly bitch about the narrowing of playing corridors at Augusta, and the direct reduced enjoyment of watching the tournament, how does it add to your viewing entertainment for a player to hit a ball 50 yards off the center of the fairway and be left with a clear, unobstructed approach shot to the green?


Now tell me this (because I'm sure intended playing angles will be the first response from some of you), do any of the holes that have been narrowed offer an advantage to approaching the green from one side of the fairway or the other (as opposed to dead center)?  

JES,
It isn't so much a matter of the center not being better.  In fact, everyone says that the trick at ANGC is to be on the proper side of the center.  

I think the issue that bothers many is that the course was designed to let balls that were hit off the center to run and run and run into trouble.  Now, that doesn't happen nearly as much.  I think that's why the players that are also involved in architecture (Crenshaw, Nicklaus, Palmer, Weiskopf) have been so overwhelmingly negative.

[JESII]

A.G.

So are you saying the addition (or expansion) of the second cut is more the issue than the trees?

[tlavin]

I agree with the protection of par statement, but profits, explain that to me considering the reported low cost (relative to other majors) of everything on-site and the low television commercialization practice. I'm not suggesting they don't make money on TV commercials, but I bet they could make more if run with that goal in mind.

Sure the pimento and cheese sandwiches only cost a couple bucks and the beer is relatively inexpensive, but they make scandalous amounts of money in the merchandise tent where everything is Masters private label (uneven quality, big price) or Bobby Jones (great quality, big, big price).  They would make more money with more commercials, but they make PLENTY regardless.  

All of the money issues aside, this tournament is organized and run by a bunch of private citizens, not the PGA tour.  They can run it any way they want and they choose to tweak, modify and/or butcher the course, depending on your point of view.  I don't really care what they do to the course, because I'll probably never play it and if I ever were lucky enough to play the course, I'm sure the pro tees would be way back in my rear view mirror.

The one thing you can't debate about the Masters is that it is truly the psychological start to the golf season.  All across America, golfers really get a lot of energy when the Masters rolls around.  I'm pumped up about golf again and it won't matter to me how tight the teeing areas look or which way the ball feeds in the fairways.  I just want to see some drama.

Methinks we'll see plenty, no matter how much the changes may have done disservice to the architectural backbone of the course.

[BCrosby]

JES II -

One of the (former) glories of the back nine at ANGC was that off line shots did not mean you were automatically out of the tournament. That is less likely now. One miss on Sunday and you are playing just for place and money.

Approach angles?

You wanted to approach 11 from as far right on the fairway as you could. Tiger used to hit it as close to the hill on the right as possible without getting too far up the slope. It opened up the front of the green and gave you a hook lie to a hook green. Too far up the hill was not good, however. Trees now foreclose that option. They now force the dumbest possible approach, which is over the pond.

There was a time when you could approach the 15th from the rough of 17. Flatter lies there, but you had to approach the green from a less than ideal angle. An interesting trade-off, to be sure. That was how Love, Norman, Woods and others elected to play 15 in the 90's. Trees now foreclose that option.

The 17th green is amazing. You want to approach it from the right cuz the front half of the green falls off that way. Especially with a front pin (think Sunday pin), the right is a better angle than approaching from the middle of the fairway. Mack's preferred approach is not a real option now. New trees.

These are non-trivial changes. We'll see how they play out. There are still enough juicy holes on the back at ANGC to allow a charge. But it's less likely. More people will take themselves out of the hunt with a drive that is barely offline. Others will play more conservatively.

As the years roll by and more pines are added and they get bigger and fatter, and the rough gets taller and thicker, and the fairways getter narrower and narrower, those magical charges from the back like Gary's or Jack's or Faldo's or Arnie's or Sarazen's will become more and more rare.

Sunday's at MacK's masterpiece will increasingly become a day to hold on and hope to avoid disaster.

That's not a good thing for golf. It's a worse thing for golf architecture.

Bob  

[Brent Hutto]

As the years roll by and more pines are added and they all get bigger and fatter, and the rough gets taller and thicker, and the fairways getter narrower and narrower, those magical charges from the back like Gary's or Jack's or Faldo's or Arnie's or Sarazen's will become more and more rare.

Remember a couple years back when Tiger had the lead and nobody could make a run at him on Sunday? Ernie Els and a few others were called out on TV for throwing up all over themselves and playing dead because the Tiger Effect. I think there were some bad choices of course setup and pin placement that year which contributed to that outcome. With the new philosophy (tunnel tees, trees, punitive rough) we may eventually get to the point where that's the norm. So the only winners will be the TV announcers who can blame the also-rans for being chokers just like at the US Open and PGA Championship.

Ask yourself this. Would it be a good thing for a latter-day Faldo to win the Masters with 18 straight pars on Sunday?

That's not a good thing for golf. It's not a good thing for golf architecture.

So instead of the "Augusta effect" being that every course in the world wants to be super-lush, super-green, super-perfect we'll be able to add super-penal to the mix. Just the ticket for turning all those $60 5-hour rounds into $70 6-hour ones.

[George Pazin]

I've never played St. Andrews, but even there it seems there is a real reward for controlled accurate driving, am I correct?

It seems to me that the current powers are more intent on penalizing errant driving, as opposed to the original goal of the designers (Mackenzie and Jones), which was more to reward thoughtful, accurate driving.

I do think there's a difference in these philosophies, it's not simply semantics.

In the first instance, one cares less about a preferred side of the fairway, opting instead to penalize "fairly" anyone who misses the fairway. Conversely, in the latter, one attempts to make one side of the fairway (or even rough) preferred by making the approach easier from that side (through green orientation, pitch, surrounds, etc.).

In this latter philosophy one accepts that someone might make a spectacular recovery (an exciting part of the game, or at least that's what BJ believed) from the "wrong" side, believing that in the long haul, said erratic driver will be sufficiently penalized that the better player - and better thinker - will eventually prevail.

It might be premature to suggest that we will be seeing another US Open, but I don't think it's premature to criticise the powers that be for their decisions regarding the course.

[BCrosby]

An interesting historical footnote is that MacK's first drawing of 17 had it as a par 5 length hole (he didn't designate par) that angled out right and turned back left. (The 15th was a probably a par 4, with the 17th fairway and the 15th fairways appearing to form a continuous "fair green" where the bend in 17 touched the edge of the 15th fairway.)

The current 17th green is, according to Charles Price, the green that was built for that original hole. The approach shot was to come from what is now the trees that separate the 15th and 17th fairways.

Bob

[Brent Hutto]

George,

To put it even more simply, it's the difference in rewarding the perfect drive versus penalizing the errant drive.

The traditional setup of ANGC for the Masters was trying to provide opportunities where choosing just the right shot off the tee and executing it exactly produced a good chance or birdie or eagle. The width and openness to recovery shots made par still possible for the player who chose the "right" shot and fail in execution.

If you grow the rough and narrow in the playing corridors with trees, the penalty for a poorly hit "right shot" can get so severe that it's foolish to attempt it. When the penalty for missing a fairway is greater than the payoff for shaping a drive into the perfect slot, then everyone in the field is smart enough to just play for keeping it in the fairway.

We get to see that crap any weekend we want to the turn the TV on. Heck, most of us get to play that crap any time we want to show up at the golf course. For my game, when the rough is up during the summer I guarantee you I'm just thinking about being able to hit an approach from the short grass and not about what angle I'd rather have into the green. Typical PGA Tour setups and US Open style rough tend to make the best players in the world adopt the scared-shitless tee shot "strategy" of a 20-handicapper and then see who can putt the best on impossible greens (hint, when this is done correctly the answer will always be Retief Goosen).

Apparently, Hootie and the boys would rather see the Masters won with a score of -6 by the guy who avoided having to hit approach shots out of the "second cut" than see someone shoot 14-under by hitting one perfectly-shaped tee shot after another and playing the contours the way Bobby Jones would have if he could hit it 320 yards. I hope that bright idea is extinguished quickly.

[JESII]

Terry,

If what you say is accurate about the Masters merchandise then I'll retract my statement to an extent. I still don't see how anyone could argue that profit is one of their top priorities (at least as it compares to other tournament organizers).


Bob Crosby,

The points you make are very interesting, and those type of position specific holes are the ones I was interested in. Considering the fact that the game has evolved into an aerial attack, do any of the changes you referrenced make sense as far as demanding skill from the winning players. When does one shot take a player out of contention more today than it did 20 years ago? The addition of these trees would seem to me to add one stroke for a chip out as its most severe penalty, am I missing something?

My question a few posts back about whether or not any of the holes that have been narrowed offer a clear advantage to being on the side of the fairway as opposed to the middle was meant to suggest that there is a risk/reward component on the tee shots now that was not there in the past. Does the risk outweigh the reward? If so, then in the past, did the reward outweigh the risk?

To me, it all comes down to the greens, if they are firm, players struggle. Trouble, you cannot guarantee firm so what do you do?

[A.G._Crockett]

JES II -

One of the (former) glories of the back nine at ANGC was that off line shots did not mean you were automatically out of the tournament. That is less likely now. One miss on Sunday and you are playing just for place and money.

Approach angles?

You wanted to approach 11 from as far right on the fairway as you could. Tiger used to hit it as close to the hill on the right as possible without getting too far up the slope. It opened up the front of the green and gave you a hook lie to a hook green. Too far up the hill was not good, however. Trees now foreclose that option. They now force the dumbest possible approach, which is over the pond.

There was a time when you could approach the 15th from the rough of 17. Flatter lies there, but you had to approach the green from a less than ideal angle. An interesting trade-off, to be sure. That was how Love, Norman, Woods and others elected to play 15 in the 90's. Trees now foreclose that option.

The 17th green is amazing. You want to approach it from the right cuz the front half of the green falls off that way. Especially with a front pin (think Sunday pin), the right is a better angle than approaching from the middle of the fairway. Mack's preferred approach is not a real option now. New trees.

These are non-trivial changes. We'll see how they play out. There are still enough juicy holes on the back at ANGC to allow a charge. But it's less likely. More people will take themselves out of the hunt with a drive that is barely offline. Others will play more conservatively.

As the years roll by and more pines are added and they get bigger and fatter, and the rough gets taller and thicker, and the fairways getter narrower and narrower, those magical charges from the back like Gary's or Jack's or Faldo's or Arnie's or Sarazen's will become more and more rare.

Sunday's at MacK's masterpiece will increasingly become a day to hold on and hope to avoid disaster.

That's not a good thing for golf. It's a worse thing for golf architecture.

Bob  

This is great, great stuff.  Thanks for taking the time to write it.

[JESII]

This question occurred to me overnight, what impact does the mound just short of the 11th green have on play? How about visually? Does it effect one side of the fairway more than the other?

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

I've read your comments on this this thread. Can you really say the "new" 11th hole is much better with Sherwood Forest on the right side than it was before.

Isn't the Hootie reaction to Mickelson having a SW into the green massive overkill akin to dropping a nuc on an ant hill ?

[TEPaul]

I have no idea what ANGC has done this year tree-wise and rough-wise with their fairway narrowing direction.

Matt Ward says the course looks like the US Open has come early. If that's true then ANGC must be planning on letting this so-called "second cut" (their new rough?) grow up considerably from the way it was when they first started instituting that "second cut" program or at least the way it was about five years ago.

If they are letting that rough grow up to around 4 inches then the course is going to play like a US Open. But if they are keeping that second cut rough at the length it was about five years ago it shouldn't be much if any problem for those players.

And here's why I say that. Maybe four years ago during lunch Gil Hanse and I had a discussion about that with Nick Faldo. He said he thought it was a pretty stupid thing to do to institute a "second cut" rough like that because that just wasn't the way ANGC had been designed but he also said he actually preferred to hit the ball out of that second-cut rough it was so low anyway.

So if they're still maintaining that second-cut rough the way Faldo described it that really isn't a problem and it's a far cry from a US Open rough set-up.

Narrowinng in with the trees is a whole different matter. Obviously I wish they wouldn't do either.                    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()