[Mike Hendren]

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.

Matt,

Mackenzie likely tired of shaking his head in disbelief in the late 1950's, by which time most of the damage had been done, much of it at the hands of Jones et al.

Mike

[Phil Benedict]

Matt,

You are probably correct that architecture was important in the past because of the type of play it encouraged.  However, at this point the Masters is so imbedded in the public consciousness that I'm not sure architecture matters as much.  If anything, the look of the place at this time of year is more important with the advent of hi def.  All the flowers and schrubs have a lot to do with how the general public relates to the event, and Augusta takes great care to make sure they look spectacular.

[Matt_Ward]

Michael:

Have to disagree.

The club made smart calls right after WWII with RTJ and his work on the "new" back tee at #11 -- and in extending the hole to roughly 445 yards with the pond on the left side.

Ditto his work at the "new" 16th hole.

I also credit the club for inserting the left fairway bunker complex at #18 -- the "Nicklaus-proofing" attempt to keep people from bailing to the far left away from the pines.

I'm not saying that all the "improvements" as Cliff Roberts was fond of saying -- were 100% correct -- but the overall track record prior to '97 seemed to be a better fit in keeping the Jones / Mackenzie design still foremost in mind and not in doing what Hootie and team have done since then.

[jeffwarne]

matt,
Agreed that many changes at Augusta have gotten away fron Mackenzie and Jones original gameplan.
some awful, "mallgolf trees" dictating corridors of play as well.

That said, comparing eagles made in the 80's and 90's(or even the 70's) to current levels on 13 and 15 only suggests to me that the ball had gotten ahead of the design prior to that.
Sarazen's famous double eagle was hit with a four -wood.
(a side note-wonder how famous The Masters would be if Chip Beck had faced that shot)

#8 NEVER used to hit in two (with respect to Bruce Devlin), now despite the tee being back and a much tougher return the original green, it's hit quite often.

To clarify, I hate the trees, don't care for the rough.
but I think the lengthening of 2,8, 13 and 15 have restored those holes to roughly their original design length, but sadly not width.

[Wayne_Kozun]

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.

No way, no dissing my homeboy - Larry Mize is the weakest Masters champ of the last 30 years.  

He has only won 4 PGA tourneys.  Weir has 7, including a WGC event, the Tour Championship (both near majors) and 2 LA/Nissan Opens which have pretty strong fields, including Tiger most years (at least pre 2007).  O'Meara has won multiple majors and has 16 victories in total.  Woosie has only 2 US victories but 42 international victories and played on 8 consecutive Ryder Cup teams.

Mize is the weakest by a country mile.

[JESII]

The Masters became The Masters because of Bobby Jones. Not the architecture, not the width. Bobby Jones!


Matt,

I am not going to check out the stats on Wier, can you prove to me that his chipping and putting stats are out of the ordinary for a winner. It is my contention that every Masters champion has an extraordinary chipping and putting week.


This line cracks me up..."I also credit the club for inserting the left fairway bunker complex at #18 -- the "Nicklaus-proofing" attempt to keep people from bailing to the far left away from the pines"[/i]...because the philosophy that contributed to that decision was the exact same philosophy that drove all of the tree planting decisions.

[RJ_Daley]

I have to say that I am most in agreement with Robt Thompson and Phil Benedict.  

But, my own take is that the Masters is basically class psychological warfare.   It is a yearly display of ostintatious herd mentality, marketing, preening, and declaration that we are better than you.

The ANGC of members put on the yearly dog and pony show, market it to the max, tell you that everything about their club and them by association is some sort of pinnacle to be pined for and covetted.  The idea that tickets trade hands in the scalper's market at over $1000 so that "golf enthusiasts" can parade around the lush and heavenly gardens, for a chance to be seen by other beautiful people, and to go home and tell their club buddies that they were "there" is an exercise in elitism.

Everything about the yearly ritual is by design an effort to tell you where your place is; and that you must continue to worship at the alter of materialism and class envy to chase the illusion that you too can also be a part of it, if you get lucky and they like you.  

Those that say I'm over the top, and that the club does so many fine charitable things for the community might ask, how much beyond the $$$ that is generated by the marketing of the event is donated by the members?  Does the charity come from the pockets of the members, or does the event generate $$.  

I am glad that by one means or another, the marketing of the event does some good.  I am sure that some of the ANGC members are great people.  Ironically, they are positioned to do the game some good by setting a trend.  But, they don't exercise that power in deference to not generating controversy that could jeopardize their highly cultivated image of perfection and the $$$ gravy train.  So, conventional marketing ideals reign in all their decision making about the course and the event.

But as it is, a tournament/event that declares itself to be a pinnacle in golf (the game and the course) it is a humbug.

[Andy Doyle]

The Masters became The Masters because of Bobby Jones. Not the architecture, not the width. Bobby Jones!

If that's the case, I'd sure like to see them stick with a course more in the philosophy Jones wrote and spoke about.

I looked at the pics in the mag again last night. Hate, hate, hate the "rough."

Andy

[JESII]

Andy,

Not Bobby Jones the architect, it was Bobby Jones the man, Bobby Jones the player. Through the 30's and 40's his name and energy associated with the event built the tournament into one of, if not the, top tournaments in golf.

I asked the question I did because I feel that once the tournament gained the momentum it did these changes became inevitable. You guys speak of the architectural integrity of the golf course as if it would be preserved just by not touching the thing...tell me what you would think about Tiger hitting his three-wood over the corner on 13 and wedging it onto the green from the 465 tee? Tell me about the architectural integrity of hitting lob wedge into #18.

The tournament evolution forced these (or similar) changes into effect. It's easy to bitch because the course was more enjoyable for us mortals in it's original form, but that hasn't been the focus in decades.

Sorry!

[Dan_Callahan]

No way, no dissing my homeboy - Larry Mize is the weakest Masters champ of the last 30 years.  

I'm sure you're right. That's kind of my point. It's hard to point at any champion of the past 30 years and identify a fluke. I think it's the only major that can make that claim.

[RJ_Daley]

How can you ever get a real fluke winner?  It is not an open with qualifier where a tincup character can make it it.  They all had to be somebody before they get in.  Only, if one of the amatuer invitees wins will there be much of a fluke.

[Phil Benedict]

No way, no dissing my homeboy - Larry Mize is the weakest Masters champ of the last 30 years.  

I'm sure you're right. That's kind of my point. It's hard to point at any champion of the past 30 years and identify a fluke. I think it's the only major that can make that claim.

They had a bunch of fluky winnners in the 60's:  Goalby, Aaron, Coody, Brewer.  Just not in the last 30 years.

[Wayne_Kozun]

No way, no dissing my homeboy - Larry Mize is the weakest Masters champ of the last 30 years.  

I'm sure you're right. That's kind of my point. It's hard to point at any champion of the past 30 years and identify a fluke. I think it's the only major that can make that claim.

You're right - it has this in common with the Open Championship at St Andrews, although that depends on your view of John Daly.  I believe the winners there since 1970 are Nicklaus, Nicklaus, Seve, Faldo, Daly, Woods, Woods - all multiple major winners who already had a major championship before their victory at St Andrews.

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

If you see some sort of logical extension to the massive and error prone tree inclusions post '97 that have come since the insertion of a left fairway bunker on #18 then you must be sipping some great kool-aid. Send me some -- OK.

You also need to check out the club selection that Nicklaus had in '65 when he shot his record tying 18-hole round of 65 and 271 total. He had much the same club selection situation that Tiger had when he won in '97 and he did it with wooden clubs and that wonderful long distance ball called the Macgregor Tourney. So what?

Last question -- have you seen the pictures in the current issue of Digest and are you defending what has been done (e.g., the 4th, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 18th, to name just a few)? Does the spirit of what Jones / Mackenzie matter to you and if it doesn't why is it that other courses (e.g. Merion, to name just one) must follow some sort of historial connection to its past?

In regards to the beliefs of Bobby Jones -- his thoughts on what a golf course should be came from what was there prior to the maximization of the silly inclusions since 1997.

[Matt_Ward]

Mea culpa on my part -- Nicklaus shot a record tying 64 in his win in '65.

[George Pazin]

As much as I continually tweak Matt for our different tastes in architecture, I think's he's mostly right on this issue.

What is most bothersome to me is the pace of significant change. I think the most recent leaders of the club (read: Hootie and cohorts, too early to say on the new guy) and their minions are/were more concerned with getting into Golf and Golf Digest than anything else.

A prudent caretaker might not simply say "Hands off" to all changes, but he would at least let a couple years go by to truly see what effect the changes are having. It's like a scientist changing ALL of the variables in an experiment each time he came up with a new one. How do you learn that way?

Answer: you don't. And I'd argue they haven't.

Jim, interesting take on The Masters success being credited solely to Mr. Jones. Other great players have hosted events, formally or informally, and none touch The Masters. I think the course has had a great deal to do with the tourney's success. The design was tailor made for exciting Sunday afternoons. Lately, it has certainly had a different feel. I personally found the 98 and 99 Masters more exciting than almost any of the last 5, though I'd have to think about why that's the case. Recent winners just seem to grind it out more, at least superficially.

[JESII]

Matt,

RE: your post #32:

Explain to me how the decision making process that led to the insertion of those bunkers on #18 is any different from the decision making process that has guided the tree plantings in recent years.

I have not seen the current Digest, and I have never seen the golf course. I am also the biggest proponent of tree removals on this site, so my motivation for arguing with all of you guys that constantly bring up these tree issues at Augusta is not "environmentally" driven.

I thought I remembered significant differences in Nicklaus' approach clubs and Woods...although I could easily be mistaken on that...is there a link to the data or could you cut and paste?

The Masters guys consider approach length when they discuss "integrity of design". Where you all get so worked up is that they ignore approach angles (width). The point of my question much earlier was that once the course and club became subject to the golf tournament too much momentum had built up. Despite what you all say about allowing width to offer an ideal approach position to particular pins, the pros do not need those angles. Giving them only makes the course substantially more forgiving. Name a pin those guys can't get to after a 300 yard drive to the wrong side of the fairway. You hold all the cards on this as I have never been there to refute, but if you're honest with yourself, I'd be curious if you can come up with one.

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

The decision process on the insertion of the bunkers on the left side of #18 took quite some time before being carried forward. The bunker complex has made #18, IMHO, a better hole. One other thing that may have slipped your attention -- the tree intrusion is a direct contradiction to the idea that Augusta would have W-I-D-E fairways and that it reflect the connection that Mackenzie and Jones sought to replicate at Augusta with TOC.

Another thing -- you have NEVER seen Augusta firsthand. I saw it prior to all the changes in the mid-70's and have seen firsthand what has been done since Tiger's win in 1997. It is not thought out properly and is nothing more than a "gotcha" mentality.

Another thing -- take a good look at the pictures that Digest showed in its current issue. They speak VOLUMES on what was at one time a premier layout BECAUSE of the intent to feature wide fairways, contoured greens and the absence of rough. Choked down fairways are the hallmark of the USGA -- not what made August so great for so many years.

I never made a case against trees for environmental reasons. I simply said -- again and again -- that Augusta with trees to the point of a massive choke-hold FLIES IN THE FACE of what made the course great to start with. That the powers-that-be, starting with Hootie after the '97 win by Tiger, have simply overreated to the max. It's akin to the USGA inserting the Lon Hinkle spruce tree at Inverness at the US Open in '79.

If you need a link on what Jack hit to the greens at August in '65 -- try reading Jack's book, "Golf My Way." I believe Nicklaus references it within the book. Think of it this way -- after Jack torched the place in '65 with a 64 round and four rounds equating to 271 -- he won the next year and his score was 288 -- even par. Just because a person shoots lights out one year doesn't render the course obsolete or weak. The folks running Augusta then (Cliff Roberts) understood that and didn't clamor for all the kind of upheaval you saw post Tiger.

When you say the pros don't need the angles to play Augusta -- I have to say you are dead wrong. Part of your ignorance simply comes from not having seen the course and only then would you be able to see the error in your thinking. Augusta was built on angles and on rewarding players who achieved the desired playing angles and could hit the ball hit and have it stop. You need to see the what the 5th and 11th, to name just two holes, where the preferred angle makes a huge difference. Do you think Nicklaus at his prime --when he was hitting 300-yard plus tee shots with wooden heads and that fly-as-far Tourney ball didn't realize that angles from the proper side would add to his opportunity at scoring? Read what Jack has said on what he sees has happened at Augusta. I can tell you this -- it's not flattering.

The thing you are missing by a wide mile is that all the changes Hootie and company put into place after '97 were nothing more than ways to cut out the other type of players who could possibly win even though they may not hit the ball mega miles off the tee. That's since changed. Just ask Crenshaw -- the darling of this site -- what he truly believes has happened with the place he loves so dearly.

Augusta National was truly, at one time, an event that simply was beyond all others. What's so funny is that here is a club that is quick to jettison it's connection to its founders and the intent of its course -- but is so quick to draw a line in the sand about women being members. I can only wish the thinking of the latter could have been applied to what they did with the former. It makes me and others what the priorities of the club should be given the heritage of the club and what the Masters has meant to golf.

[JESII]

Matt,

Enough hot air to keep the GOODYEAR blimp afloat for all of Masters week, but very little substance other than continued whining about decisions you do not agree with.

How can you not see that the bunkers being added to #18 were strictly a defensive measure against the bomb-and-gauge approach...exact same as all of their recent tree plantings.

They have decided they want driving accuracy to be part of their test, and you can no longer test tour level driving accuracy solely with green complex defenses...can't be done.

[jeffwarne]

JES,
The bunkers on 18 were placed there in response to Jack's version of bomb and gouge. They also planted a line of trees after seeing Jack play left into the (old members) practice area. So you're right that the decisions are similar.

I do agree with Matt about not liking many of the new trees and rough (esp. # 11) , and that angles are of less strategic importance and accessibility.
And yes Jack did hit 8 iron into #2 en route to a course record 64 ,as well as a lot of other prodigious drives.
And Matt correctly points out the course played much tougher the next year.
One of the traditions of Augusta though is that the course has ALWAYS been changing.

I started going to Augusta in the early 70's and my impression of the place from watching was that it was really long . I played it in 1977 as a reasonably long hitting 15 year old and this was confirmed.
With the exception of #7, I feel the distance changes of the past few years only restore what was there in my early viewings and playings.(although not exactly on each and every hole)

As the ball got hotter in the 80's and 90's the course got shorter and shorter.

Crenshaw is a great guy, architect, and historian so I'm sure watching history change every year pains him.
However, the course has now gotten too long for him participate at a respectable level, as short and crooked just won't work at all now, whereas he could gut it out a few years back and post a reasonable #.
I would argue that short and crooked wasn't working for Doug Ford in the 1970's though either.

Jack complains that he can't compete there anymore but I doubt he would've given much credence to Gene Sarazen complaining it was hard for him to compete at age 67.
The ball getting hotter every couple years had allowed shorter or aging players to hit the ball far enough given the limited length changes(compared to the ball) at Augusta until 2001.

I for one will be glued to the TV set in April (my guess is I won't be alone), that is on the days I'm not there.
I've been to three US Opens and frankly found them poor viewing and disappointing.
The Masters never disappoints.

[G Jones]

All,

Here is something to note... I picked this up while playing all last year at the course Bobby grew up on - East Lake...

East Lake had two courses before the AAC left and one had the projects built on top of it. Bobby was once asked which course he prefered, and he said he preferred course No.1 (the current course, which had almost no trees back then) because "trees have almost no place on a golf course" (approx quotation - memory as to exact words is faulty - too much kummel).

I believe he meant that trees shouldn't come into play too much, or shouldn't be the major factor in a hole, rather than shouldn't exist at all. And certainly with his belief in chopping away the lower branches of trees to allow people to swing a club under them he didn't like to use them as too harsh a hazard. With this in mind I think he might have not been best pleased with the current tree planting regime at angc.

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

Hot air my foot.

You keep on pissing in your shorts about what I say and more importantly what I know -- yet you have never been at the course or understand the comments from past champions who have opined quite clearly on the so-called improvements to the course.

The bunker additon to #18 is a night and day situation. When the opportunity arises and you actually get to walk the grounds I believe then you will see what I have been saying.

Try to get the Digest issue and study what has been inserted into the picture. The original flow of Augusta has been changed to such a degree that it runs completely counter to what the course was originally intended to produce.

[JESII]

Matt,

You say "The bunker additon to #18 is a night and day situation"[/i]...please explain...night and day from what?

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

If you think the addition of a bunker complex to the left of the drive zone on #18 is equivalent to the MASSIVE TREE DISTORTIONS the club has carried out since 1997 then we are seeing things completely different.

Augusta has added bunkers through the years -- if memory serves, the solitary bunker to the right of the 15th green was added to prevent people from bailing out in that direction and away from the frontal pond. If one were to equate such an additional bunker with the silly and inane tree plantings that completely choke the fairway then, as I said in the preceding paragraph, we are viewing things from totally different perspectives.

Like I said before -- if you had walked August prior to 1997 and seen what was there and now see what has been done I would think you would be more aware of the point I am raising.

[JESII]

Matt,

I did not say the result was the equivalent, I said the motiviation was identical. I do not think you have refuted that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()