The Masters - A Field Report

[Brian_Marion]

From a participants view, how much of the past mystique of The Masters has been the course, the treatment they recieve while there, the history, etc? In other words. Given the total experience is 100%, how much of a percentange are the above? How much does the course changes in recent years degrade the tournament in the eyes of those who play, report, etc?

My point is that the course is beginning to fall out of favor for the pros, the media and architects around the world. Could it happen that The Master's could become the last of the Majors? Could it happen that, in a few years, the Master's is no longer considered a major?

I could especially see this if ANGC instituted a touney ball for everyone.

[Dan_Callahan]

You can say that the course can defend itself, but I think the members would disagree with that. I am no Masters historian, but as near as I can figure, Phil's winning score of -7 was the highest since 1989, when Faldo won with a -5 (I think this is right, and I think Weir won with a -7 in 2003). And it wasn't as if there were brutal weather conditions to contend with—very little wind, relatively firm fairways and greens that were softened by Saturday's rain.

The members wanted to put some teeth back into the design, and the winning score proves they were successful—for this year at least.

Again, I'm not saying I like the changes, I just think it sure looks like the members accomplished what they set out to do.

[A.G._Crockett]

This is a wonderful discussion, started by an eloquent and thoughtful post.  As to falling in the rankings, let me pose this question about ANGC:

If you had seen that course on TV as the first-time host of the Azalea Classic (actually used to be such an event in Wilmington, NC ), what would you have thought of the course?  My guess is that it would have seemed constrictively narrow to a point of being tedious for great golfers and nearly unplayable for average golfers, but with a remarkable set of greens.  All in all, no more appealing (except from the standpoint of conditioning) than any of a thousand other golf courses in the country.

Since the greens are what has been left more of less alone, what does that tell you about the addition of rough and lots and lots of trees?  Has either increased the quality of the course?

If you can manage to factor out the emotion and significance of the Masters, how does the course look then?

[George Pazin]

Dan, take a closer look at scores over the years.

Hogan set a record in the 50s, Jack broke it in the 60s, Floyd tied it in the 70s, and Tiger broke it in the 90s.

Crenshaw had one of the lowest winning scores when he won in '95.

Tiger put together low totals in both '01 and '02, after the initial bouts of Tiger proofing went into effect.

Other times, much higher scores won. What was it when O'Meara edged Freddie and Duval? -9? -10?

There is a lot more that goes into a low score than trees and rough (if you can even call that 2nd cut rough). The changes are a knee jerk reaction to a problem that didn't even exist.

[BCrosby]

Jim Nugent -

What you get standing next to Tiger - and what you miss on TV - is the force of his turn through the ball. That it is so fast and so perfectly in balance is other-worldly.

No, let me start again.

Tiger generates his power with his big body parts. Unlike a Love or a Beem or a Couples, who swing with tons of lag (which, btw, allows them to look like ther aren't swinging very hard) Tiger's power comes out of his torso. It's a turning, whirling, stunningly aggressive athletic move. It sends out local shock waves.

No. that's not quite it.

Standing next to him, the ball explodes off his club face with a sound you don't hear from other players. It's a 105 howitzer v. a 30 mm canon.  Both are powerful but one is throatier, more basso profundo. More angry. He hits the ball in anger. He wants to hurt the ball. Other players just want to hit it well.

That doesn't get it either.

Tiger's shot drills into the air and then lifts to unimaginable heights. Other great players' shots just seem to lift to the heights. You get the sense that he punctures the air and the air fights back more; that if Tiger and other great players hit balls in a vacuum, Tiger would hit it twice as far as they do; that drag has more of an effect on his shots than on others'. It's as if he is out on the edge of things, pushing the laws of physics and mother nature is pushing back.

Naw, that's silly. That doesn't capture it.

I give up.

I do know this. We are blessed be alive to see someone of his talents. It's something like what it would have been to be alive when Mozart first performed Don Giovanni. We're fortunate be around to see it.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Without the narrowing in by trees the golf course could easily defend itself simply through green surface firmness, particularly with the speed those greens were running. The only problem with defending a golf course with green surface firmness is it's dependent on the weather.

No matter what course you put tour pros on they are always going to score better with greens that are receptive compared to truly firm. In my opinion, that's just a given.

[Dan_Callahan]

But isn't that the tactic that got the USGA crucified at Shinny?

[George Pazin]

Yep. But for no good reason, imo. To me, Shinnecock and Sandwich were the 2 best majors of the millenium to date.

The outcry over Shinnecock was more of a media and player overreaction than anything meaningful, again imho.

[BCrosby]

Dan -

That was not the tactic that got the USGA in trouble at Shinnnie.

It was the implementation of that tactic that got them in trouble.

Brad -

I wish I could have been there to see Hootie's reaction to your question.

For years the 7th has been a terror for handicap players. It was carrom golf. Off one pine into another, all the way to the green. For that reason I always thought it was the weakest hole at ANGC.

My guess is that 11 and 17 will be even worse for the high handicapper. I can't imagine how they can stay out of the trees. You can't sport an 18 handicap and keep it in those fairways. Period.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Do you realize that Tiger's ball speed is in the neighborhood of 185-190mph? This is according to the USGA's on-course computer tests. That is very fast and translates into a swing speed of app 130mph. I realize to see someone hit the ball that hard is incredible to watch.

Now just imagine what it's like to see Long John Hurley, that 18 year old Nebraska bomber, hit the ball. His ball speed is in the neighborhood of 195-200mph+. That translates into a swing speed of about 135 mph. This is also according to the USGA's on-course computer testing (to date they say that's the highest they've seen).

Sometimes Tiger says if people think he's long they should see some of these kids coming up behind him. Obviously he's not kidding and he must be talking about the likes of Nebraska's Long John Hurley. The sound and the flight is something to behold. My initial reaction was how fast the ball gets out there but the thing that really got me is even if you try his arms are going so fast through the impact zone you just can't see them.  

[Brent Hutto]

There are two basic definitions of the word "strategy", one that we like to use on this forum and one that the rest of the world uses. The usage favored by the RotW is practically the same as "course management". For the best players in the world, the GolfClubAtlas type of strategy, meaning setting up the angle of the approach by choice of a driving target and using the contours of the ground to maximum benefit, will soon be completely extinct.

The venues of most major championships and even routine weekly Tour stops now work from the a definition of the game of golf in which there is a clearly desirable line or point target for every shot. So-called "strategy" mostly comes down to managing ones errors so that if the desirable target is not attained, the result leaves the possibility of recovering without losing a shot. Think about the big purple "FedEx Reliability Zone" depicted on televised Tour coverage, that is a clearly graphic way of manifesting what the Tour players are supposed to be thinking about on those holes. If you can get it there, you can go for the green and of course the goal is to reach the green in two (in that sense, a "Par 5" is to the Tour players what most "Par 4" holes are to me which is a hole that can be reached by two well-struck shots).

When it is expected that every player in the field knows the targets on each hole, then it becomes obvious that missing those targets should be punishable. Gradually, the idea of multiple targets each with a fractional-stroke risk and reward possibility (and where the risk and reward weighting varies among players) gives way to one preferred target and all that's left is decide how much margin for error the players shoud be allowed and how to properly punish exceeding that margin.

The goal then is for there to be one clear set of targets to be gained from tee to green in order for the lowest score to be possible. From this point of view, strategic width ("strategic" in our GCA sense) and recovery options just serve to muddy the waters and inevitably lead to lower scores. If you can "miss" the "target" (generally somewhere close to the center of the fairway about 270-290 yards from the tee) and still have a shot to the green which leaves you putting for birdie then of course average scores will be lower than if any "miss" leads to not being able to reach the green and control your ball. In other words, when there's more than one way to get the ball where you need it to be on the green more people will accomplish that goal and that leads to more birdies.

Now the surest way to identify the best player from among an elite field is with seventy-two holes of golf, contested at medal play, on a long and difficult course with narrow margins for error and severe penalties for off-line shots. That's just the way it is. Unless you're blessed by holding your tournament at the Old Course at St. Andrews on a blustery day then you're going to have to give up a lot of what we like to call "strategy" if you want to do the best job of identifying that supposed "best player" (who will if this is taken to an extreme actually be the "best grinder" from among 100 or so very skilled players). In some cases, and this was traditionally true at the Masters, you can toughen up the greens enough to offer an Old-Course-like experience and still maintain the ability to identify great champions. But when technology works against you and the weather doesn't cooperate it is likely that your toonamint will drift afield from the near-par scores and intense pressure associated with competition at the highest levels.

Here's the problem. While this kind of 72-hole torture test makes great theater and offers a sublime challenge to fraction of a percent of players for whom being forced to precisely execute exquisitely controlled shots for four days is what the game is all about...it stinks for the 12-handicapper. What would be an interesting but potentially superfluous set of strategic options to Phil Mickelson is actually enough breathing room to actually play the game to players of lesser accomplishment. So the question becomes how far a course like Augusta National wants to go in absolutely assuring its ability to offer a US Open caliber experience to the Masters field at the cost of becoming punishing to its members and guests the rest of the year.

And as Augusta National goes, so goes the desires of elite clubs throughout the world.

[Jim Nugent]

Bob, you made several real interesting posts in this thread.  Thanks.

I asked a related question in another thread, and haven't seen an answer.  Phil says he got an extra 20 to 25 yards from his new driver, after working with the Callaway technicians.  Would other pro's add 20 to 25 yards with this type of driver?  Could Tiger?  Or was Phil kind of lagging behind the technology curve...or is this something unique to his particular golf swing?  

Imagine what happens to the game if all the pro's can hit the ball 25 yards longer, almost overnight, by adopting the Phil Driver.  

[BCrosby]

TEP -

I would love to see this Hurley kid. There are people with faster swing speeds than Tiger. But what amazes me about Tiger is his balance/control. It's his combination of brute force and grace that's what is so magical.

Holmes and Watson both hit it a little farther than Tiger, but both have trouble keeping their feet after a swing. They are on the edge, swinging out of their shoes, barely under control and it looks like it.

Bob

[A.G._Crockett]

Bob, you made several real interesting posts in this thread.  Thanks.

I asked a related question in another thread, and haven't seen an answer.  Phil says he got an extra 20 to 25 yards from his new driver, after working with the Callaway technicians.  Would other pro's add 20 to 25 yards with this type of driver?  Could Tiger?  Or was Phil kind of lagging behind the technology curve...or is this something unique to his particular golf swing?  

Imagine what happens to the game if all the pro's can hit the ball 25 yards longer, almost overnight, by adopting the Phil Driver.  

Again, if Phil had gotten all the distance increases that he has claimed equipment from companies that pay him lots of money have given him, he would be hitting the ball 600 yds. now.

[wsmorrison]

Bob,

I have seen John Hurley up close and it is a wonder to behold.  It took me a while before I could pick up the ball coming off the clubface.  It wasn't even a blur at the start--I simply couldn't pick it up and I have 20/15 vision.  He only takes the club back halfway but is so strong and uses both lag and large muscles so well that he creates unbelievable clubhead speed.  He isn't even optimized yet, I don't think.  Is that right, Tom?  That young man has gifts you cannot learn.  If he continues to improve and his short game catches up--the sky is the limit.

[TEPaul]

"Holmes and Watson both hit it a little farther than Tiger, but both have trouble keeping their feet after a swing. They are on the edge, swinging out of their shoes, barely under control and it looks like it."

Bob:

In person or on TV one can see that Tiger Woods's balance and "flow" through the ball is amazing.

I do realize power hitters like Watson and Holmes do come out of their shoes and maybe don't stay on balance but that is not the case with this young Hurley. If anything he has every bit the balance and "flow" through the ball Tiger does.

If you really want to be astounded, I've got to tell you that for all Hurley's awesome power he does not even come near parallel on his backswing and he can hit the ball up to 400 yards and stand right there holding his finish until his ball hits the ground about 10-12 seconds later.  

Some power hitters don't even look the part. Not true with Hurley. Anyone can look at him once and it wouldn't surprise a soul he's that long.

The young man looks like he was weaned on beef, corn and milk! He looks Nebraskan!  

He also reads GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and I still hear from him from time to time. Last time I spoke to him I asked him if anyone had ever hit it by him and he simply said; "Not yet!"

How would you like to stand on the tee with Tiger and watch him launch his best like you described and then get up there like Hurley and blow one right over him, and be able to say, "Take that you pussy"?  

I know I've put on here before what that kind of power can do on a drive but the ultimate that I saw they're still talking about at Philly C.C. and I guess they always will.

Visualize a 400 yard hole, fairly straight and uphill enough that the green can't be seen from the tee. This was in neutral conditions, no wind, fairways not particularly firm etc.

Hurley's ball ended up one foot in front of the left greenside bunker (essentially one foot in front of the green itself).  

[A.G._Crockett]

(Apologies in advance for a cut and paste from another thread.)

Think of it this way:

The club keeps the banks on 12, 13, and 15 shaved down so that errant shots roll into hazards that are completely penal.  However, they grow rough that PREVENTS errant shots from rolling into trees that would require creativity, imagination, and shotmaking skills to escape.

On what planet does THAT make architectural or competitive sense?

[Kirk Gill]

The scary thing though is how american clubs take their cue from ANGC....

I have not played at the huge number of clubs that many of you have, but with all the talk of how influential ANGC is to clubs across the U.S., I have never played at a club that had no rough whatsoever, the way that Augusta used to be before the recent "second cut." How many other clubs actually took their cue from Augusta and made all playing surfaces purely fairway? The only examples I can think of off-hand are desert-type courses, where there is fairway, a narrow collar of rough, and then open desert, but this isn't really an emulation of Augusta.

I'm sure others have done it, but who?

And since Augusta is so influential, and now has their low, second cut of rough that really doesn't severely affect the players other than stopping the rolling of the ball into the edges of the course, will other clubs that now have deep rough surrounding their fairways succumb to the Augusta influence and make their rough less penal.

Or is Augusta not as influential as many seem to believe?

[George Pazin]

Or is Augusta not as influential as many seem to believe?

Maybe it's that Augusta is as influential as others can afford ($$$).

[TEPaul]

I certainly never knew that ANGC was once ALL fairway. I would seriously doubt that. It was just that their fairways were intentionally wide, as part of the design intent of the golf course.

[Dunlop_White]

Tom Paul,

I remember when everything was fairway height, but for the greens and fringes. Actually, an old aerial in the Men's Grill shows that there was originally a strip of rough cut between holes....with few trees, if any, serving as separation.

Bob Crosby,

Yes, seeing Tiger (and all the pros) drive the ball is simply mind-boggling. What launch angles! Their drives look like my nine irons when leaving the face of the club. Which leads me to the next question.....why was everyone talking about how the course was firm and fast. With these launch angles nowadays, I saw very little role in the fairways. They are all hitting it high and landing it softly. The greens had very little role-out also, compared to many prior years.

I haven't looked at the data yet, but I believe the changes continue to promote conservative play. Scoring averages can be deceiving, so look to see if there were fewer high and low numbers carded on the changed holes, with more pars. As such, I think this is the reason the scores were bunched and the field was very competative going into Sunday afternoon.

Of course, I could be all wrong!!

[Adam_F_Collins]

From what I saw, it came down to the greens. I keep wondering why a club wouldn't just mess with green speed?

It's so simple to do, and it makes it very difficult to score. Start them out slow, and speed them up over the four days...voila - scores go up.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dunlop White,

Doesn't the subdivision plan drafted by Olmsted Bros seem to indicate fairway lines ?

A [size=4x]1932 [/size]aerial clearly shows rough.

[Dunlop_White]

Pat Mucci,

Yes! The aerial shows rough -- thin strips of it between holes 14, 15, and 17 -- separating these vast fairways.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dunlop White,

There's also rough that's highly visible that surrounds the 9th and 18th fairway, the 7th and 8th.

I think the concept that no rough ever existed, especially when Dr Mac and RTJ designed and built the golf course, is a myth that's grown beyond belief.

[Tags:]

Tags: