[Matt_Ward]

Have to say the sky photos of a number of holes featured in the current issue of Digest could not say it more plainly on how the greatness of Augusta from years past has been morphed into something that must cause Jones & Mackenzie to be shaking their heads in collective disbelief.

The encroachment of trees -- see the 15th pictured and the 11th -- makes me cringe because years ago the width of those holes, to name just two, is what made Augusta so compelling in the first place.

Now, it has become another plastic surgery botched job. The inclusion of trees in the drive zone is a horrible addition and the idea of a "second cut" (love the internal spin control) is also out-of-place.

I loved the "ole" course a great deal. Changing it in such a heavy handed and ill-considered manner makes me yearn for years gone by when a Ben Crenshaw, Larry Mize or Mike Weir could win. Those days are long gone.

For a course that was patterened after TOC it is truly a sad day to see what has become the "modern" version. I frankly never knew that the previous version was so bad. I guess Tiger's four round total in '97 changed everything. Clearly, a major miscalculation on the parts of the brain trust there.

I can only hope the new chairman will right the wrongs.

We shall see ...

[JESII]

Matt,

Would you take the position that they should retain the architectural integrity of the course and let the winning score be what it may? Even if it were consistently 20 under par?

[Philippe Binette]

For me, no problem with the added length (except maybe on 7 but still)

the rest is just pointless... the course as the way it was won't produced many 20 under par scores...

personally, I'd just try to get te course as firm and fasr as possible

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

What does score have to do with anything save for the egos of the top echelon at the club?

I mean watching Tiger win in '97 was electric. What's so ironic is that the desire to "Tiger proof" the course has only furthered the distance between Tiger and the elite 4-5 players in the world.

One would think the powers-that-be there would have looked at the past champions list and said there's nothing broken here and we should continue full speed ahead.

Look at the photos in Digest and it's nothing short of laughable and sad at the same time.

I could care less about score -- the architectural greatness of Augusta did not need to be thrown upside down in the manner that Hootie, TF and others lumped on this masterpiece canvass from Mackenzie and Jones.

[JESII]

Which version of the course would you consider best?

I have never been there, but my imagination tells me that #18 was really cool off the tee before those bunkers went in.

When did the whole thing turn the wrong way for you?

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

Just to be clear -- a gentle tweaking of the course -- the unique and creative changes that RTJ provided with the back tee at #11 and the "new" 16th right after WWII worked magnificiently.

When Tiger won in '97 all hell broke loose. Adding a few back tees would have been fine given the surge in tee shot distances but the element of width and no rough has been a staple of the course since its inception. Going 180 degrees away from that clearly demonstrates to me how the folks there -- who project this "we adore Bobby" creed -- have gone full scale against what their founder saw as the prototype golf course -- again patterened after TOC. On top of that you have this love affair now with trees to the point of barfdom.

I can remember my first time on the property in the mid-70's and simply being in awe of the property, the width and the nature of how ball position off the tee was the key in succeeding. Yes, power was an edge if done in the right spots but now the whole thing has been turned on its head.

I didn't mention the whole bastardization of the previously unique par-4 7th. The hole has been made into some sort of silly longer par-4 to a green that was designed for short irons and which allowed for some real decisions on club usage at the tee.

I can only hope the new chairman will watch the tapes of previous Masters -- prior to Tiger's win in '97 and see what magic the place had at one time.

To paraphrase a line applied to former President Reagan when devotees urged those within the White House to let "Reagan be Reagan" -- I say the following -- "let the real Augusta be the real Augusta" -- I don't need to see an April version of what the US Open does two months later.

[ChipRoyce]

I hate to say this, but I really feel that I am no longer interested in ANGC from an architecture standpoint. I used to love its wide open fairways and heavy emphasis on risk reward par 5's and exacting approach shots.

I still love watching the Masters, but can't say the course itself has the same appeal.

[Dan_Callahan]

Other than protecting par, it's hard to tell what would scare members enough to make these changes. Looking at the champions list from the last 30 years, the worst player to earn a green jacket is Weir or maybe Woosnam or O'Meara. Those are three quality players. Almost all the others are giants like Woods, Faldo, Ballesteros, Olazabel and Nicklaus. No Ben Curtis or Shaun Micheel or Steve Jones.

[JESII]

Question:

If you could only have one, which would it be...The Masters Tournament and all of its history...or...The Augusta National Golf Club in its architectural purity (and you can choose which stage of purity is best)?

Keep in mind, the club will continue as it is, a private club run in the same manner it has been for 75 years.

I'd choose The Masters.

[Phil Benedict]

I agree with JES II that it's the Masters that creates the cache.  Otherwise Augusta would be another CPC or PV, still great but not necessarily the most coveted membership in golf.  I also agree that all the changes are about making sure 20 under or better doesn't become the routine winning score.  A major can't have scoring like the Bob Hope.

[Rick Shefchik]

I'd choose the Masters, too. And I'm not sure the point has been proven that nobody but bombers will ever win again. Chris DiMarco lost in a playoff two years ago; Tim Clark and Chad Campbell were second and T-3 last year.

I agree that the changes in the golf course didn't need to be made for the members or any other non-PGA player, but have the changes ruined the Masters? I'd wait a while to make that call.

If anything, blame the equipment manufacturers and the USGA. How were 13 and 15 going to remain risk-reward holes with the current B&I?

[Kalen Braley]

I think this is an interesting thread.  

While I'm sure many of us would love to see it returned to its old glory, would those in that same group also love to see a bomb and gouge fest on every hole where its Driver wedge into every hole by the big boys including the two short par 5s?

I think there needs to be some sort of compromise that needs to include throttling back how far the ball goes, whether it be the ball itself or the clubs.

I still love watching The Masters if for nothing else than the drama that seems to occur there every year with all the big names and the 56 minutes per hour of golf.

[Matt_Cohn]

Length and trees are separate issues. Many here (including myself) grudgingly accept the need for the new tees given current equipment. I wonder what 7,500 yards would look like without the new trees? Would it actually recapture the importance of angles and shot placement like the good old days?

[Matt_Ward]

Hey guys I think a few of you need to brush up on your history -- the course itself (the architecture that existed prior to the post Tiger panic attack) is what caused the kind of feelings people developed for Augusta. That architecture made the Masters the place of epic battles.

People need to look VERY CLOSELY at the Digest photos -- the so-called new and improved 11th hole is just an absolute joke. The inclusion of the trees is a plastic surgery inclusion that has no place -- ditto the horrific fairway cut lines you see on the 15th -- as well as the necking down of that fairway.

Without the architectural intent -- the essence of The Masters becomes a different type of event. Like I said before -- I don't mind such a set-up for the US Open -- The Masters need not follow that formula.

Rick S:

I don't know if you have been to the tournament and witnessed the demands of the two par-5's in questions -- the 13th and 15th holes. They were never routine birdie holes even when the 13th hole played at to a max of 465 yards. Ditto the 15th when it played to a max of 500 yards. Yes, for Tiger and the elite power players getting home in two was a bit more easier but keeping the holes in play for eagles has now been reduced and the added length has taken that excitement out of the event.

[Doug Spets]

Square grooves gotta be the biggest reason for the 2nd cut...but distance surely plays into it, as well.  As for the addition of trees down the right side of 11 and the 2nd cut beyond the pine straw...at least it's keeping Mickelson, et al, from bombing a drive on 11 onto the 12th tee and then hitting a 30 yard lob wedge from a perfect fairway lie.  The 2nd cut certainly isn't penal...and you can still occasionally spin it of out it.  Rye grass at just over 2 inches.   Hard and fast with no rain next month means -4 wins.

[PThomas]

fwiw, and God only knows why this just popped into my head, but here's a great example of how the course and the game has changed:

in the final round of the classic 75 Masters, Jack's 2nd to 15 was a 242 1-iron to about 15 feet!

[JESII]

Am I remembering correctly that #15 was 500 yards up until the last several years?

[Justin Gale]

I've said this before and I'll say it again - what is so wrong with 20 under par scores in a tournament?

Its one thing to lengthen a hole because of new technology to preserve its intended par and strategy. But to lengthen, narrow and toughen up a course just to make it harder for the tour pros? Whats the point in ruining great architecture for the sake of a couple of shots in tournaments?

JG

[Robert Thompson]

When you look at it now -- with the trees, and measuring 7,445 yards -- Augusta does appear very similar to a U.S. Open standard design. The problem is that the course was never intended to be a slog -- it was designed to provide exciting risks that could be turned into big rewards. It was conceived to create legendary charges on the back nine.

Currently it appears to just reward strong, conservative play. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but it wasn't the intent of Jones in creating the course.

And maybe, as opposed to making all these seemingly ridiculous adjustments, it might have been better to have simply turned the two fives on the back nine into fours and played it as a 7,100 yard par 70. Probably would have yielded the same results with a lot less monkeying around with the design.

I guess it is all proof positive that you don't have to have vision to be president of Augusta National. All you have to do is be a banker.

That said, I find it ridiculous when people suggest Augusta does what Augusta wants. If that were the case, and they really were not worried about the outside world's take on things, it would have made more sense to just have enforced their collective will on the golf ball and made a change there. Instead they bowed to the potential battering their collective egos would take should someone go too low versus par, and made changes to their crown jewel. A shame, really.

[JESII]

Robert,

Are you suggesting the committee at Augusta could have single handedly had the golf ball "rolled-back" industry wide? Or, are you suggesting they could/should have introduced their own tournament ball for that event?

[jeffwarne]

Reading the comments here , I'd suggest that some of the "suggestions" are far worse than some of the moves Hootie has made.

How do you preserve 13 and 15 with the modern ball?
Lengthen them-they've done that-quite nicely.
As Matt points out they've added some unfortuneate trees and fairway lines, but they had to be lengthened.
(he's also right about #7-yuk)
15 tee was ALWAYS a weird tee shot before with the tee shoehorned over to the right up against the treeline, forcing a fade.
The longer tee is far less awkward and i wondered for years why they didn't do it before. (spectator traffic problems no doubt)

Making them par 4's is a bad page out of the USGA's book.
Additionally, it would probably leave the holes unchanged lengthwise and ignore the fact that the effective yardage has been decreased significantly by the ball-regardless of what the par is.
Lengthening them preserves their challenge as risk reward par 5's that most in the field can reach if played properly-and creates gallery excitement with eagles and doubles a real possibility.

The second cut is not a reaction to square grooves, it's a misguided attempt to reward driving accuracy but it has the effect of rewarding balls bounding for the woods and punishing players looking for ideal angles.
Square grooves are unimportant off tight fairway lies and pine straw-they are quite important and helpful out of the second cut- so it's hard for me to see why they would ADD a second cut BECAUSE of square grooves.

One thing is certain about the modern ball and equipment.
Previously, a scratch amateur of average athletic ability could play Augusta (and other TOUR courses) and expeience the same type of shots within a certain degree of reason-while playing the same tees.

Currently, he has no chance to do that as the Tour player hits it 30-70 yards further rather than 10-30 yards further.

[Robert Thompson]

Robert,

Are you suggesting the committee at Augusta could have single handedly had the golf ball "rolled-back" industry wide? Or, are you suggesting they could/should have introduced their own tournament ball for that event?

Actually, I bet if Augusta had followed through with introducing their own ball limitations, the impact on the rest of the pro golf world might have been quite extraordinary. I'm not saying the USGA or the PGA Tour would have adopted it -- but if it proved effective, it would have been very difficult for them to ignore.

[Matt_Ward]

Guys, check the stats for the total # of eagles that you used to be possible with holes 13 and 15. They are down -- and in some years they have been way down.

The issue with added length is that it now takes out of the equation the guys who were renown for their putting -- e.g. Ben Crenshaw, Mike Weir, etc, etc.

Let's just say the course stayed at 7,000+ yards -- it would simply keep in play a greater number of players then is possible now. I can remember quite vividly when the likes of a Maurice Bembridge shot a 64 at Augusta -- or when Nick Price did the remarkable and went forward with 63 in one round. Those days are moving more and more towards the distant memory.

One other thing -- the course is no longer recognizable -- it has become a bastardization and is nothing more than a yearly attempt at "gotcha."

I mean how far back to they want to play the 1st hole ?

How about they stick the 1st tee on the back portion of the 10th hole and have both groups go off at the same time ?

The hill you face on #1 used to be cleared by a greater number of players. Now, they have pinched in the left with more trees and the bunker on #1 seems to have been deepened. Like I said before -- there is a place on the calendar for such an event -- it's usually held in June and is called the US Open.

Guys, I used to revel when April came forward. It was great theater but it's becoming painfully obvious that the powers-that-be have failed to thoroughly understand their own history and what Jones / Mackenzie created.

[JESII]

Mike Wier...renown for his putting...?

I'll repeat...

Question:

If you could only have one, which would it be...The Masters Tournament and all of its history...or...The Augusta National Golf Club in its architectural purity (and you can choose which stage of purity is best)?

Keep in mind, the club will continue as it is, a private club run in the same manner it has been for 75 years.

I'd choose The Masters.

Curious to hear your answer and explanation Matt.

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

Check out the stats of what Weir did with his win. He chipped and putted in an inconscious manner -- such situations are less and less.

You don't think Weir won because of his power game do you ?

Let me attempt to explain this a bit better -- the Masters and all the history is first and foremost tied to the architecture. Remove the architectural elements and all the history and tradition becomes more and more past oriented.

If anyone is happy with all the changes it's Team Tiger. How about they make the course 8,000 yards long -- push the tee back on the 4th so that it can play 280+ yards. More silly overreactions.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()