[Patrick_Mucci]

if you watch The Masters highlights on the golf channel.

The Golf Channel recently aired the 1989, 1990 and 1996 Masters in consecutive hours.

What was interesting was the point from which the competitors were hitting their approach shots, and with what clubs.

A wide open ANGC proved a worthy test.

Can highlights of each Masters be purchased, and if so, dating back to what years, and in what formats are they available.  And, lastly, what's the cost ?

[Gene Greco]

  Agreed, Patrick. In 1996, Norman and Faldo and the field were hitting seven irons into #11 and you could see the competitors knees buckling if their ball landed on the wrong side of the pin. Witness Norman's 3 putt from four feet.

BTW  Did you notice ME (yes, me) sitting like a statue  in back of Norman with hands supporting my chin to prevent moving even one micron while he was hitting his tee ball into the drink on #16?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gene,

From where it splashed, that ball looked to be VERY poorly hit, never having a chance of finding land by a huge margin.

I also noticed them hitting 8 and 7 irons into # 12.
5-woods and 2-irons into # 13, and that was in 1996.

Club selection in 1989 and 1990 is even more interesting.

I'd love to know if a series is available in DVD.

[Gene Greco]

Patrick:

    I sat on that tee all Sunday and it was by far the most poorly struck shot of the day. He appeared to be unable to grip the golf club as he was preparing to hit his shot. The tension was the most I'VE ever felt at a sporting event and the end result of his tee ball left ME naseous - one can only imagine the sickness he must have experienced.

Obviously, I have a copy of the 1996 Masters produced by the club since I'm the co-star    and it is the same as what you watched tonight on the golf channel. I would imagine there are other years available and you can call the club to confirm (and send you copies based on availability).

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Can highlights of each Masters be purchased, and if so, dating back to what years, and in what formats are they available.  And, lastly, what's the cost ?

Pat-

  Amazon.com usually stocks Masters highlights for most of the past 8-9 years.  

  A well stocked public golf shop up by you might have them, too, although I can't recall any up in your neck of the woods.   Try Fairway Golf Ctr. in Edison if you're down that way--it's on Stelton Rd.  

  Cost, IIRC, was about 15-30 bucks.  

[Jim Nugent]

Would ANGC still give the players a worthy test today, if it were wide open?

Or have the changes been necessary to keep the winning scores in the 270's or higher?    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Nugent,

I don't think it would.

When you see where these fellows were hitting their approach shots from in 1989-1990 compared to today, it's mind boggling even though the course today is over 7,400 yards.

It's not just the scoring, it's the obsolescing of the architectural features.

In 1999 the golf course played 6,925 yards as a par 72.
You may recall that guys were hitting 3-wood, 8-iron into
# 13 and driver sand/lob wedge into # 18.

Without moving and extending bunkers and lengthening tees, none of the fairway bunkers would come into play and these fellows would be hitting wedges (P,S and L) into most par 4's and mid to short irons into all of the par 5's and mid to short irons into all of the par 3's.

[Jeff Doerr]

Patrick,

My sense on ANGC over the last 20 years is that there seems to be some sort of tweaking every year. It seems like the golf magazines always have every nuance of change detailed for us before the tournament.

My question to the group is:

"Are yearly changes necessary to maintain the image that ANGC is the greatest test of tournament golf in the world?"

It seems that the USGA and the R&A do the same thing by bringing in "Open Doctors" to get the 'old' course ready for the 'new' boys.

Technology has madated a lot of changes, but are some made just because we like the new and improved?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I don't think that ANGC holds itself out to be the greatest test in tournament golf.

However, I think ANGC wants to continue to present itself as a challenge/test for the greatest golfers in the world.

[Glenn Spencer]

I taped all of those yesterday myself. I had seen them 50 times, but like Patrick said, it was interesting to see them in succession. I like the game and the sport so much more back then. All you had to do was play well and you could be in contention to win the tournament. The same is not true today.

[Phil Benedict]

Is the '97 Masters part of the series?  On Thursday, Tiger hit driver/wedge on 15 and made an eagle.  Slung his drive off the mounds on the right side of the fairway.  He was using a 975D driver and played the Titleist Professional 90 ball - technology that's probably the midpoint between persimmon and balata and what's available today.  The course wasn't big enough to handle that guy, although it was plenty tough for everybody else.  The development of the ProV1 and similar balls and spring-like effect is what made it too small for everyone else.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Is the '97 Masters part of the series?  On Thursday, Tiger hit driver/wedge on 15 and made an eagle.  Slung his drive off the mounds on the right side of the fairway.  He was using a 975D driver and played the Titleist Professional 90 ball - technology that's probably the midpoint between persimmon and balata and what's available today.  The course wasn't big enough to handle that guy, although it was plenty tough for everybody else.  The development of the ProV1 and similar balls and spring-like effect is what made it too small for everyone else.

Phil

I was standing 20 feet away from him when he hit that wedge.  It was an amazing comeback from a poor front 9. The sound the ball made off his clubs was just different then everyone else.

I have a lot of old tapes from the 80's - 90's - mostly last rounds of US Opens but also the 89 Masters and even the Skins Game at PGA West when Trevino made his ace on 17.  They are fun to watch every so often.

Pat - watching Faldo win at Muirfield over Azinger on the golf channel yesterday was also an eye opener for the long iron approaches to par 4's.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I taped all of those yesterday myself. I had seen them 50 times, but like Patrick said, it was interesting to see them in succession. I like the game and the sport so much more back then. All you had to do was play well and you could be in contention to win the tournament. The same is not true today.

Glenn

I think you're right, watching them in succession was an added treat.  Although, it's still painful to watch Norman's implosion.  But, you have to give Faldo credit, he shot 67 on the last round, even though he could have shot 71 and won.

Today, Justin Leonard was on the golf channel and he stated that he's too short, that he lacks a good 10-15 yards and has hired a trainor to try to help him get more yardage.

Here's a PGA Tour Pro who not that long ago won the British Open and other tournaments, who now says that he's too short to compete.

I think that says alot about what's happened in the last 10 to 15 years.

[Phil Benedict]

Glenn

I think you're right, watching them in succession was an added treat.  Although, it's still painful to watch Norman's implosion.  But, you have to give Faldo credit, he shot 67 on the last round, even though he could have shot 71 and won.

Today, Justin Leonard was on the golf channel and he stated that he's too short, that he lacks a good 10-15 yards and has hired a trainor to try to help him get more yardage.

Here's a PGA Tour Pro who not that long ago won the British Open and other tournaments, who now says that he's too short to compete.

I think that says alot about what's happened in the last 10 to 15 years.

Pat,

Interesting comment by Justin Leonard.  He has the same equipment as everyone else, but is now too short.  His problem is either (i) more high swing speed guys are playing high level golf now; (ii) guys with high swing speed gain a disproportionate advantage from the equipment or (iii) contemporary course set ups favor the long hitter.

[Eric_Terhorst]

All you had to do was play well and you could be in contention to win the tournament. The same is not true today.

Glenn,
I don't disagree with the underlying theme of this thread--that technology is difficult for even a great and challenging course like ANGC to contend with--but I don't know why "playing well" doesn't = contention any more.  Do you mean you HAVE to hit 300+ off the tee at Augusta to contend?  Do you mean that a guy who averages only 280 but putts lights-out won't have a chance?

I remember Tiger's 1997 Masters victory as being total domination in every facet--yes, he bombed the ball and was hitting shorter approach shots than everybody else, but it also seemed like he made every putt under 20 feet.  

And the year Crenshaw won his second he finished ahead of comparatively bigger hitters Love and Norman.  

[Sean Leary]

Patrick,

Do you notice a difference in where you hit the ball on your drives now at your home courses compared to the pre-Pro V phenomenon?  Maybe it isn't applicable with health issues you have had and increasing age, but I am just curious, as you are still obviously a very good player.  I play a different everyday course now than I did then myself, so I don't have a perspective of exactly how much farther I hit it with the new technology.

[Aaron Katz]

Personally, I notice very little difference.  The biggest difference is the forgiveness of the driver.  Does that allow a pro to go at it a little bit harder?  Probably.  I'm probably 7 - 10 yards longer with the driver than I was in 1997, at age 18.  I was using a standard Big Bertha knock off a the time.  I'm probably half a club longer with 7iron-Pwedge.  I can hit a 2-iron off a tee maybe ten yards longer because I can knock the spin off of it.  I find that the new balls are harder to get up in the air though, which makes long irons these days maybe a bit more difficult actually.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I remember Tiger's 1997 Masters victory as being total domination in every facet--yes, he bombed the ball and was hitting shorter approach shots than everybody else, but it also seemed like he made every putt under 20 feet.

That's partially because: when you never hit more than a 7iron into any par 4 and medium to short irons into par 5's you're going to have a huge advantage over guys hitting much longer clubs.

Plus, it's been my casual observation over the years that it's easier to get a wedge inside of 20 feet than it is a 5-iron.

Tiger had MORE putts under 20 feet because he was hitting shorter irons into those greens.

And the year Crenshaw won his second he finished ahead of comparatively bigger hitters Love and Norman.

That was in 1995, a little ahead of the leap in distance and, perhaps they just had an off tournament.

When Justin Leonard states that he's too short to compete today, what else do you need to know about the impact of increased distance upon the game ?  

Aaron Katz,

You don't notice the difference because your data base, your experience is limited.

How far were you hitting the ball in 1989 and 1990, the dates referenced in this thread ?

I'll give you one of my old Power Bilt or MacGregor drivers and some old, but new golf balls, and bet that your distance and accuracy loss in substantial, if not alarming.

And, as you lose confidence to hit the ball in play, your distance will erode further, as your swing speed decreases in an attempt to keep the ball in play.

[David_Tepper]

Before this thread degenerates (if it hasn't already) into another "short hitters can no longer compete at the Masters (or elsewhere)" threads, let us look at the facts.

Tim Clark was the runner-up at this year's Masters. Chris Di Marco  was the runner-up as last year's Masters and would have won if his chip shot did not lip out on the 72nd hole.

26 golfers posted the 10 lowest scores at this year's Masters. Among those 26 golfers were Clark, Olazabal, Weir, Jimenez, Mayfair, Oberholser, Verplank, Pampling, O'Hern and Hensby - not exactly members of the "bomb and gouge" crowd.

PGA Tour events were won this year by Toms, Oberholser, Triplett, Donald, Pampling, Maggert, Immelman, Pavin and Durant.

If Justin Leonard (who was in a playoff for the PGA 2 years ago) wants to use his lack of length, strength or physical stature to rationalize his 109th place finish on the PGA Tour money list, he is welcome to do so. He is only kidding himself.

[Eric_Terhorst]

That's partially because: when you never hit more than a 7iron into any par 4 and medium to short irons into par 5's you're going to have a huge advantage over guys hitting much longer clubs.

Plus, it's been my casual observation over the years that it's easier to get a wedge inside of 20 feet than it is a 5-iron.

Tiger had MORE putts under 20 feet because he was hitting shorter irons into those greens.

Patrick, I thought I anticipated these comments, and I agree, but to clarify my point is this:  Tiger had 116 putts in 1997.  At least 10% of those were likely short putts that he "should have" made to be the champion, and he did.  If not, we would have had a golf tournament.  But his confidence on the tee, between the tee and green, and on the green, led him to a dominant victory that weekend.  If he had putted poorly--i.e., not "played well" his "bombing" wouldn't have made a difference.  If your point is that a bomber can win at Augusta just because he hits it farther than everybody else, then why doesn't John Daly have a Jacket?

When Justin Leonard states that he's too short to compete today, what else do you need to know about the impact of increased distance upon the game ?  

Truly, no question about it, I'm gonna need to know a lot more than what Justin Leonard says.  Jim Furyk says his lack of length hurts him, but at least he's not whining about it. Plus it seems like just a little while ago Leonard--and Furyk--won majors...

[David_Tepper]

Here is another interesting fact relative to the "too short to be competitive" debate.

Of the top 35 money winners on the 2006 PGA Tour, only 8 players ranked in the top 50 on the driving distance list.  15 of those top 35 players ranked HIGHER than #100 on the Driving Distance list.

Justin Leonard was#109 on the money list and #154 on driving distance. Jim Furyk was #2 on the money list and #159 on driving distance. Leonard ranked #149 in greens in regulation. Furyk ranked #4. Lack of distance is not Leonard's (only) problem.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()