Hello Ran and welcome to new lurkers from Golf World (UK & I)

[Tony_Muldoon]

The UK&I magazine has just launched its Augusta issue, featuring a ‘discussion' on the changes to the course. It's an odd article and I'm not sure the participants were ever in the same room or even in a conference call together as there is virtually no discussion or attempt to counter each others point of view.

They seek the views of a panel on the changes to the course under the heading Paradise Lost?  Paraphrasing:

Donald Steel excuses Augusta and says it's the balls fault.  Fazio has done what most of us would do. He does say about 8 or 9 years Augusta were very close to a tournament ball

Ross McMurray of European Golf Design thinks the changes are completely inevitable. No one points out that architects earn money redesigning courses because of how far the ball now flies.

Dave Thomas quotes Jack as saying it looks like the changes were done by someone who doesn't play golf.

Kyle Phillips mostly agrees with Ross. But is most upset with Augusta and the influence it has on demands for course conditioning.

Ran Morrisset is listed as Partner in Cabot links and founder of golfclubatlas.com  He attempts to keep his powder dry for the first Q. then the stated topic is Mackenzie vs narrow fairways and rough. He says he believes Jones and Dr Mac would be agin' it and how far the course has since moved from their inspiration St Andrews. No one else comments on this Q.

The next Q is supposed to be about long hitters. Bafflingly Ran's response to it is to critcise the lack of ground options today on 7, 10 and 17.

Next we have a discussion on HOLE 11.  DT says the character of the hole has been changed from a second shot hole. Ran says he groans at the changes.  No one else comments

What about 13 and 15?
DS waffles. Ran believes Dr Mac would have them played now as par 4's 465 and 490.   Ross says 13 is an example of how changes have worked.  Kyle P is broadly in favour of 15.  I'm not sure what DT thinks of the changes.

And that’s it.  

If Ran was brought in to represent a traditionalist view and the two Archs a modernist one then the article serves to show how far we all are from any consensus about what to do on a classic course with the modern ball flying so far.  Steel has given up and Thomas believes the changes ahve not been well done but offers no alternatives.


Congratulations to Ran who presumably got paid for expressing his views, unlike the rest of us poor saps on here.  He attempts to give specific answers to (most) questions and to offer real alternatives.


I'm guessing that more than a few new lurkers will have discovered the site due to Ran's participation and hope you have fun here.  Do remember to have a look at the other sections including the in my opinion and course reviews- there's some excellent material there.

If you hang around long enough you'll discover how to become a poster and share your views with the golf world.

[Eric Franzen]

Congratulations to Ran who presumably got paid for expressing his views, unlike the rest of us poor saps on here.  He attempts to give specific answers to (most) questions and to offer real alternatives.

Tony,

What makes you think that Ran or the other people who contributed to the article actually got paid? - if that's what you mean... I have never heard of golf magazine's paying people to be quoted in articles? (well, not in articles/features of this kind).

From your description it sounds like the article was put together by mailing out questions to the contributors. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Still, it is one of the most time efficient ways to gather opinions from people that have a busy schedule and are spread out all over the world.

Cheers,

Eric

[Tony_Muldoon]

Tony,

What makes you think that Ran or the other people who contributed to the article actually got paid? -
Cheers,

Eric

Rats, you mean I won't be able to retire early and live the life based on granting the odd interview?

 Back to the drawing board.

Early Retirement plan NO 347, rev. X.

[Eric Franzen]

Tony,

Don't give up yet, bro.

Make Elin divorce Tiger and make your move. If you succeed... well, I am quite certain that News of The World and the rest of them will wave some cash in your direction for the odd interview.

Eric

[John Keenan]

I was in the UK last week and happened to flip through it and was pleasantly surprised to see Golf's Most Beloved  figure photo smiling at me.

Nice article and photo. Is it only available in UK&I ?

[Andy Levett]

Tony
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll definitely buy the mag now, which I wouldn't otherwise have done.
Incidentally, I'd be very surprised if Ran (or Steel,Thomas et al) were paid. It's debatable whether they should be, but the point is moot, as there's just not the money in the budgets.
Print media in the UK is run by the beancounters and it's getting worse.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

15 is a hole which creates issues for me. I do not see how that green could be receptive to the sort of shots which a long par 4 calls for. I agree that Dr. Mac and frankly most of the archtitects we discuss on here would make 13 a long par 4 now. However both as risk reward par 5 s are the least of my objections to the changes at Augusta National.

[Bill_McBride]

I say keep 13 and 15 as par 5s; Sunday on the back nine at the Masters is still the best golf watching of the year.  As long par 4s they are b-o-r-i-n-g; as short par 5s they are excitement without parallel.  Since the entire field is playing the same holes, what the hell is the difference if those holes are par 4s or par 5s?  Lowest score wins.  The water hazards make both holes potential eagles to double bogies.  Doesn't get much more exciting than that.

[RJ_Daley]

What are the new farthest back maximums of those holes now as par 5s?  Isn't 11 still at the newest tips about 470-80, and 15 about 510?  How does par designation really effect the way they will play those two holes at those lenths?  Isn't the only real factor in changes to those holes, the new and ever lengthening rough up both holes right sides, and new tree plantings.  Does par really have anything to do with the way anyone good enough to be in the Masters will play those holes VS narrowed, roughed and treed?

[Adrian_Stiff]

I read this article, it was a shame that the 'changes' were only really featued from the last '10' or 'Tiger' era. There was no real clarification of the original design ideas. I think many would not have understood Rans' points. I  would like to see a more detailed article on the changes since 1934.