Well, were the changes at Augusta good or bad?

[cary lichtenstein]

We all saw it, what does everyone think. Changes were good, bad or indifferent?

[Jason Topp]

My impressions from television:

I would love to see the rough eliminated and many of the new trees chopped down.  I think I would prefer to see 7 shortened.  Other than that, I think they have it about right in light of today's game

The increased length seems pretty appropriate.  Most of the long hitters still could get pretty short irons on many of the par fours.  I liked seeing a 240 yard par three.  

The par fives on the back seem much more difficult to hit in two than before they lenthened them modestly.  13 seems to have been restored to its former glory.  15 is pretty tricked up.  2 and 8 both seem like great holes to me.

It seemed to me that 7 played as intended by Hootie and the Gang.  Driver for the long hitters resulted in a short iron.  A more conservative tee shot resulted in a much more difficult approach.  I don't know enough about how it played before to opine on whether this changed hole is as good as the old one.  It does seem to me to be a good straight tight hole with choices.

For tournament purposes, were players still making a strategic choice on 11?  It sure seemed like Phil gained an advantage by going left off the tee - an advantage no one else seemed to take.  It also appeared he made a different choice than the others.  Perhaps 25 yard wide fairways still provide strategic options at that level of play?

It was a boring final round, but I view that as due to poor putting as opposed to the course.  Tiger and Couples putt differently and it would have been a very exciting tournament.

While I think the changed course is the furthest thing from the St. Andrerws ideal it was supposed to emulate, it is still a fantastic tournament venue.

[tonyt]

Many of the holes lengthened over the past couple of waves of changes were the predominant holes on which they chose to move the markers forward. Many of these holes played between 12-25 yards shorter than when the markers are back.

This could mean two things. Firstly, that the new length is at least partially superfluous, and/or that the organisers have the intelligence to know that you don't need to open every new toy to play with all at once and that the new length is to be used when they feel it is appropriate and not just automatically. I'd like to think that they recognised the value in shortening holes a little now and then to retain certain character.

[jeffwarne]

I like most of the changes (length) and some of the trees.
Eliminate the row planting of new smaller trees by chopping out about 50%( randomly so it looks and plays more "natural")and allows room for creative recoveries.
Also eliminate the rough so balls run into the trees and there are no greenside flops from fluffy lies a la Tiger at #7.

I must say they may have it right though.
It's the first site to eliminate flogging and identify the better players-with all due respect to the one time Open(both British and US) wonders

[A.G._Crockett]

The length seemed about right, given that the course was playing fast.  I would think that in wetter conditions, only bombers would have a chance, but that is true to an extent anywhere, anytime.

My real issue is the rough.  It seemed to me that it stifles creativity and recovery skills to have that rough stop errant drives from running on into real trouble.  Either the rough has got to be just insanely high (read U.S. Open) or it should be gone completely (read original intent).  At it's current length, it makes little sense to me.

[Paul Payne]

I have to say I was very skeptical of the changes when I heard about them. After having watched the tournament over the weekend I may have changed my mind.

In short I think the added length achieved their primary goal which was to put a lonoger iron or wood in the golfers hands on the approach shots. This did in the end, require much more finesse into the greens than I recall over the last 5 years or so.

I particularly liked watchinig the approaches on number 15. I think the original dilema of a long shot into a shallow green fronted by water then backed by trees and more water was once again realized.

Also, last year I was there during practice on Monday. When we watched on 13 it appeared to be a fairly simple par 5. Most of the drives were landing all the way past the corner where the shot in was pretty straightforward. A player could even land the right or the left side of the fairway. This year the drives were landing right on the bend causing a player to draw a little more to hit the green in two, or they were blasting through the initial bend to the right and into the pine straw. That is a test indeed to still hit the green in two. In the end, this longer play caused the green's undulation to become more of a factor again, where before, with a shorter shot, the players could avoid the wrong side of the green more easily.  

I don't want to sound like I'm a fan of constant tweaking, but I really do think that this year the course played tough and fair. This year the tournament was great but I really enjoyed watching the course.

 

[Jeff_Mingay]

See Bob Crosby's field report in another thread.

Sad.

[John Kirk]

I was going to start a thread, but this subject is close enough.

1.  The length changes are fine, though #7 would probably be a better hole at 425 yards.

2.  The new bunker placement at #1 and #8 did not work.  No one, and I mean no one, tried to carry them.  I have heard conflicting reports about the distance required to carry them.  Before the tournament, one publication listed the carry as 319 yards.  During the tournament 330 yards to carry was commonly quoted.  In either case every player played away from them, or didn't have to worry about them.

Think about it.  Nobody played a second shot from the front of that #1 bunker.  Mickeslon made birdie from the back of it in round 3.  Tiger was worried his drive had drifted in there in round 4, but came up short.

The bunkers on #2 and #5 were similarly placed, but I couldn't tell whether driving over the bunker would yield a significantly better approach to the green.  Nevertheless, I never saw a player attempt to carry these bunkers.  Tiger hit 3 wood on #5 to stay short.  Big drives on #2 were long enough to fly into the bunker, but were right of it.

In my mind, the Masters committee miscalculated, and made the carry distance too far for anyone to consider taking the risk.  The bunkers on #1 and #8 should be about 15 yards closer to the tee box.

The increases in driving distance have been overhyped.  The guys are hitting it further, no doubt.  But no one thinks carrying the ball 319 or 330 yards is worth the risk, or even achievable.  They just don't hit it that far.

3.  I was disappointed to see every hole in its Sunday location, exactly the same as two years ago.  The Masters committee must have felt that 2004 was a very exciting finish, and this was a guaranteed recipe for success.  But this year the formula resulted in a breakaway finish for one contestant, and the tournament was over with 45-60 minutes of play left.  Great tournament this year, until about 6:30 EST.

I'd like to see them break away from the rote formula of the Sunday pin locations, and mix it up a little.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Kirk,

# 1 and # 8 are both slightly uphill making the carries effectively longer.

I also believe that the wind was out of the west, effectively in their face, thus making the carries even longer.

If there's a benefit to doing something, the pros will do it, if they can.

In this case, I don't believe they could carry it 330, uphill, into the wind, wouldn't you agree ?

[Jeff Fortson]

I like most of the changes (length) and some of the trees.
Eliminate the row planting of new smaller trees by chopping out about 50%( randomly so it looks and plays more "natural")and allows room for creative recoveries.
Also eliminate the rough so balls run into the trees and there are no greenside flops from fluffy lies a la Tiger at #7.

I must say they may have it right though.
It's the first site to eliminate flogging and identify the better players-with all due respect to the one time Open(both British and US) wonders

I agree except for two things.  

I think 100% of the trees on the right on #11 lshould be cut down.  There was only one 3 there the entire weekend.  That's not good for the tournament.  

Also, the only reason there are "one-time Open wonders" is because it's so hard to qualify for the Masters.  The U.S. and British Opens have a much higher chance of having a "no-name" winner simply because of the qualifying policies of their tournament in comparison to the Masters.  No?


Jeff F.

[Glenn Spencer]

The changes were wonderful if you want to challenge the games greatest players in a fair manner for one week during early April. From a golf course perpspective, I can't say, but it appeared to play like a great test and I loved the fact that a player just went skyrocketing up the leaderboard with a round of 69. -7 is a great winning score. I for one, don't see 7455 as an extremely long golf course, so I think there will be even more changes in years to come.

[Jon Wiggett]

One of the things that has made the Masters and Augusta so special is the fact that up until recent years it was realistic to expect someone to shoot 6 under on the last 9 holes or 4 under in the last 4 and so catch or pass the leader at the end of the tournament. This year I have to say the last day was more grind than anything else and one of the most boring Masters finishes I have witnessed in the last 25 years.
The tournament half resembled a US Open which is a shame as the character of the tournament has changed and for me the Masters is in danager of losing its magic. Lets hope the powers that be realise this and give us back the real Masters instead of this weak imitation of another tournament.

[A_Clay_Man]

The changes made the MASTERS just another tour stop.  The dramatic potential, of the tournament, has been designed out.



Glenn,

if you want to challenge the games greatest players in a fair manner for one week during early April.

Could you please elaborate on why you think this test is fairer?

[Sean Leary]

One of the things that has made the Masters and Augusta so special is the fact that up until recent years it was realistic to expect someone to shoot 6 under on the last 9 holes or 4 under in the last 4 and so catch or pass the leader at the end of the tournament. This year I have to say the last day was more grind than anything else and one of the most boring Masters finishes I have witnessed in the last 25 years.
The tournament half resembled a US Open which is a shame as the character of the tournament has changed and for me the Masters is in danager of losing its magic. Lets hope the powers that be realise this and give us back the real Masters instead of this weak imitation of another tournament.

I disagree. Tiger  and Jose Maria were very close to shooting very low scores on the back nine..

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

Both Tiger and Jose shot 34 on the back nine which is good but not exactly 30 or 31. That is the point I am trying to make. A few years ago Tiger and Jose would have shot low scores on the back nine. The best players being very close to shooting very low scores on the back nine is not what has made the Masters the great event that it is.

[John Kavanaugh]

Sean,

Both Tiger and Jose shot 34 on the back nine which is good but not exactly 30 or 31. That is the point I am trying to make. A few years ago Tiger and Jose would have shot low scores on the back nine. The best players being very close to shooting very low scores on the back nine is not what has made the Masters the great event that it is.

Jon,

If 2000 Tiger was there yesterday he would have shot 30 or 31...It was more of a different Tiger than a different course..

[Jon Wiggett]

John,

as far as I know the best back nine score on Sunday was 33 by Cabrera and Jobe although I have not checked the scores. I don't know what the low score was in 2000 but I am willing to bet it was under 33 and there are quite a few players including Tiger who are capable of shooting lower.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jon,

It was because they couldn't make a putt from inside 10 feet...The ball striking was there for a run.  Here is a theory...The tight landing areas took such an emotional toll on the players they had nothing left mentally to make the clutch putts...

[RJ_Daley]

I think the changes at 11, narrowing and taking more target out of the right side, was the most significant.  Both Tiger and Phil made bogey there 3 out of the 4 days.  

15 showed that Phil was more prepared than Tiger, in my view.  Phil birdied it all 4 days, and Tiger was all over the map on that hole from birdie to double bogey.

I think Phil was better prepared to play the altered course.  He had a game plan with his two drivers, and seemed to be the better tactician.  Most of the positive changes are between Phil's ears.

Tiger missed the putts on 17 (unlike Nicklaus 86) or he would have played the final in 3 or 4 under.  

Some of the Masters continues to compel the viewer.  12, the little "golden bell" continues to toll for an unfortunate or lucky player most years.  Mediate or Mattice, Hoch choked or Couples lucks out and stays up in 92.  

Also, I found it interesting that Phil made bogey 3 of 4 days at 18, and Tiger made birdie 3 out of 4.  I'm not sure what that means.

I'll say the changes are sad for the traditional nostalgic fan who loves the lore of golf and architecture, even though they will likely never get to play there anyway.  And, the changes are in keeping with the mentality of the tour mind set and state of the game's equipment and distance realities.  The changes will tend to favor the grinder like the US Open, and the big Sunday back 9 charges will fade from memory.

[John Kavanaugh]

RJ,

Didn't Tiger three jack 11 and then miss eagle putts on 13 and 15..missed a short birdie on 12 and then what..three jacked 17.  The only people that screwed up yesterday were the players...It could have been the greatest Masters ever...

[Sean Leary]

I was amazed that they stopped showing Tiger live (or close to it) .  Did they even show the 3 putt on 11?  Didn't show him at all on 14.  12, 13 and 15 were shown well after he had hit his approaches..

[John Kavanaugh]

I was amazed that they stopped showing Tiger live (or close to it) .  Did they even show the 3 putt on 11?  Didn't show him at all on 14.  12, 13 and 15 were shown well after he had hit his approaches..

No they didn't show him...The only thing worse was the coverage of Clark's bunker shot on 16...Why the hell couldn't we see the ball roll past the hole instead of him and his caddie making faces..

[Sean Leary]

One more change they need to make is Wadkins. I thought he was awful yesterday, and I didn't have high expectations for him to begin with.  Woulda loved Johnny Miller yesterday...

[RJ_Daley]

No doubt there was a real possibility for a multi player play-off when they all started the back 9.  But, the grinder won, not a charger.

[RJ_Daley]

I don't know if Phil tried to play his tee ball to the left side of 11, but I think Watkins called it right when he went against conventional wisdom and said he liked that play from that left side better.  It resulted in Phil making his only par there of the week, whilst Tiger stayed on the bogey train there.   I thought it was Wadkins best master's performance.  He made several comments about why some player's fouled up when they didn't think about what history instructs the successful players to do on certain holes, and they failed.

[Tags:]

Tags: