Pacific Dunes vs Augusta National - Match Play

[John Kavanaugh]

Mark,

Pacific Dunes was not a random choice.  It is simply the only course on Ted's excellent list that I have played.  

On a side note...Please God, send me a sign that Ted has played Sand Hills.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm confuddled about the ratings of the #13's.  Three of the four who've done the hole by hole thing think that ANGC wins this matchup.  I don't get it.  Number 13 at PD has got to be one of, if not the best hole on the course.  A world class hole.  ANGC 13 looks from TV to be a fun hole, but it seems to require only one type of tee shot - a draw - to a narrow landing area.  The risk reward second is most likely not an option for most of us most of the time.  The green does look really interesting.  I understand that almost every hole at Augusta is probably scoring high on the goose bump factor, because of the Masters and the exclusivity, but is that really part of an architectural matchplay?

Bryan, the 13th at PD is a beautiful, outstanding golf hole, but the tee ball there will accomodate any number of shots with no real advantage to be gained by favoring either side of the fairway.  It's a straight forward golf hole.  

The tee ball at Augusta's 13th  is the ultimate strategic challenge:  skirt the hazard and be rewarded with a shorter shot into the green at a preferred angle off a flatter lie (a threefold advantage).  An awful lot of tee shots wind up right in the pine straw, which creates a real dilemma for the tournament participant who feels like he'll lose a shot to the field by playing safely for a 5.  Sue me, but there are a couple of strategic pines over there that are perfectly placed to compound the issue.  Put the pin on the right and the hole requires a draw from the tee and fade from the fairway to get anywhere close in two.  How good is that?  

Then again, even after reaching the green in two there's no guarantee of a birdie given the contouring.  For the player who lays up, real talent and steel nerves are required to get the third close, regardless of the hole placement.  Heck, I even like Jack's little swale.  

Mike

Well Said Michael...my thoughts exactly.

And to add to that, if going for the green in 2, without the creek on the right, the golfer would be best to play a fade off a draw/hook lie.  PD 13 is a super hole, but AGNC 13 is one of the best par 5s on the planet in my opinon.

[Eric Johnson]

Eric,

Which back tee box are you referring to. The back tee on the card, or the hidden back tee??  

The tippy-tips, aka the further back tees.

[Michael Dugger]

For starters, one of these courses sets in a traditional links golf setting, the other in an old nursery.  Some of you don't seem to give a damn, to me this difference is tremendous.

Since when does a longer course mean a better course.  I just don't buy into this argument.  It identifies the better player, surely, but does it make a course better???  I don't think so, for one.

I'd give Augusta #8 over PD.  Perhaps 11.  13 would be a dogfight I'd give to Augusta.  I'll give Augusta the 14th.  The 15th at PD offers enough challenge at the green, without the use of water, to give it the nod over Augusta's.  16 would be a close battle but I think the Aug. version is slightly overrated.  So what it has a big steep green, a lot of courses do.  

Pacific take 17th and 18.  

Have you forgotten about the entire left 2/3 of the 18th hole at Pacific, Jakab?  The way the rugged native seamlessly ties into the terrain.  I've been over there before, it is a horrible place to be.  So what about the 18th "turbo" bunker, as you call it.

18 Augusta is a slog up the hill.  Big deal  Will someone convince me, sans history and fast greens, why Augusta Nat'l is so great?

[Joe Hancock]

Will someone convince me, sans history and fast greens, why Augusta Nat'l is so great?

From the sound of it, i would say it is unlikely....

Joe

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan, the 13th at PD is a beautiful, outstanding golf hole, but the tee ball there will accomodate any number of shots with no real advantage to be gained by favoring either side of the fairway.  It's a straight forward golf hole.  

The tee ball at Augusta's 13th  is the ultimate strategic challenge:  skirt the hazard and be rewarded with a shorter shot into the green at a preferred angle off a flatter lie (a threefold advantage).  An awful lot of tee shots wind up right in the pine straw, which creates a real dilemma for the tournament participant who feels like he'll lose a shot to the field by playing safely for a 5.  Sue me, but there are a couple of strategic pines over there that are perfectly placed to compound the issue.  Put the pin on the right and the hole requires a draw from the tee and fade from the fairway to get anywhere close in two.  How good is that?  

Then again, even after reaching the green in two there's no guarantee of a birdie given the contouring.  For the player who lays up, real talent and steel nerves are required to get the third close, regardless of the hole placement.  Heck, I even like Jack's little swale.  

Mike

Michael,

Arguably the 13th at PD gives you a bit shorter second shot from a better angle by hugging the left side off the tee.  Certainly if you want to run a second shot to the green into the prevailing winds the left side is a preferred option.  Coming in from the right requires carrying the bunkers with the huge dune looming to right and the cliffs a little left and long.  The fairway also presents a real probability of an uneven lie.  

Although there is no competitive scoring info for PD 13, I'd bet it would play over par even for the Tour players given the prevailing summer winds.

Despite the good features of ANGC 13 the reality is it's the second weakest hole on the course in resistance to scoring.  I think I'd give that factor to PD.  Aesthetics I'd give to PD because I like links and oceans better than pines and flowers.  But I could see that being a push.

Is the tee ball at AGNC really strategic?  There is one good place to put it.  And, the rest are bad places - side hill, downhill lie requiring a fade second shot.  Who would strategize trying to hit it right centre of the fairway to get that lie?  The hole is short enough that the pros can easily hit it through the fairway into the pine straw.  I doubt that is a strategic approach on their part. If you draw the tee shot as you've suggested you can hit a straight second and get close to any pin position, can't you.  Fading it would be safer to a right pin, but not absolutely necessary.

The green at Augusta is more entertaining, but that goes with it being a short 5 rather than a long 4.  PD's green fits the hole.

Anyway, to me the two holes are a push.  But, it's a big world.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bryan, I would say the tee shot on 13 ANGC is strategic because in most cases the penalty is exacted on the shot afterwards and not on the tee shot. You're not necessarily punished immediately.

The exception being if the golfer goes too far left. But even then recovery isn't out of the question, unless you try the Ernie Els play.

Fantastic, just fantastic, hole IMHO. One of the very best examples of "half par."

Mark

[Kalen Braley]

Bryan,

A few comments on 13 at ANGC.  I wouldn't agree that the hole is "weak" because its not resitant to scoring.  The reality is that while you can get a 3 there, you can also take a 6 or 7 pretty easily as well.

As for playing out to the right?  Its called taking a safe route.  After all the stream runs all the way down the left hand side and going in there on the tee ball will make it tough just to save bogey.  While you can play a draw into that green, it brings the creek more into play and just a slight push instead of the intended draw will lead to a watery grave.  In addition, scoring an eagle requires the player to play two agressive shots.  Tee ball - hug the left hand side bringing the creek very much into play, 2nd shot - playing over the creek to a undulating green where missing short, left, right, or long will lead to a tough up and down for birdie and bring even bigger numbers into play.

I think there is a ton of strategy on this hole and is nothing short of world class.  While 13 at PD is an excellent hole, its not in 13 at ANGCs league IMO.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mark,

Sure it's a great hole.  But, for a hole to be strategic, doesn't it have to present some different options or strategies for playing the hole.  What are the viable options (that you'd want to avail yourself of) off the tee?

Kalen,

I didn't say it was a weak hole; I said it was weak from a resistance to scoring point of view.  Despite the risk/reward and the occasional train wreck, every year it ranks on average as second easiest on the course. On average, it doesn't resist scoring very well.  The hole requires a drive of 280 or so with a draw to the left side leaving a second shot of 190 or so. Dropping in a second shot from 190 shouldn't be that challenging for the Tour players.  It's interesting that you are talking about the ease or difficulty of making eagle and the problems of saving a birdie from a miss.  By the way missing right or short is in the creek isn't it? Surely an eagle should require great shots.  

The fairway in the LZ is maybe 25 yards wide.  Narrow fairways don't leave many strategic options off the tee IMHO.

If you had the opportunity to play it once, what would your strategy be?  If you could play it ten times, what other strategies would you try?

But, sure it's a great hole that I'd love to play (more than once).  

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bryan,

It does present options; the choice depends on how much risk the golfer is willing to assume.  But the reward is commensurate.

If the player takes the safe route on his tee ball, he still could go for the green if he's not too far right.  (Wasn't Faldo a little out of position when he went for it in 1996?) Or he could play himself back into position and for potential birdie by laying up short of the creek to the proper spot. (Olazabal in 1999.)

Left is probably the only realistic eagle line but it's not the only birdie line. It's probably not even the best birdie line from a risk-reward perspective. And left is where 7s and 8s lurk.

Everyone talks as though the hole is an almost-eagle, gimme birdie but it's not.

For example, Els in 2002:
R1 4
R2 4
R3 5
R4 8

Mickelson in 2004 and 2006:
R1 5
R2 4
R3 5
R4 4

Tiger in 2005:
R1 6
R2 4
R3 4
R4 5

It's such a fantastic hole to watch when it comes down to the last pairing in a simulated match-play.  Faldo and Norman in 1996...Olazabal and Norman in 1999, their two putts, that has to be one of the best moments of at least the last 10 tournaments.  You know, when Norman looked over his shoulder and pointed his finger at Ollie, who fingered Norman right back.  Didn't we feel like voyeurs stealing a glimpse of unalloyed excellence?

Mark

[John Kavanaugh]

Just tonight out at the course we were talking about Tiger putting into Rae's creek from 13 green.  Everyone is a buzz the night before the tournament like at no other course.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

JakaB & Tom Huckaby,

How do the putting surfaces of both first holes compare to one another ?

You do consider putting surfaces an integral, if not critical, component of a hole, don't you ?

[Phil McDade]

Faldo was so uncertain about his lie on the 13th on Sunday in '96 that he switched clubs. He has said that lie -- a hook lie to a green (and usually a pin position) that begs for a fade -- is one of the toughest a golfer faces anywhere. He rated his second shot into the 13th that day (it set up a birdie) as the best shot he hit all day, which is saying something for a 67 with no bogies on Sunday chasing a six-stroke lead.

Look where Nicklaus hit his second shot from on 13 on Sunday in '86. He darn near had a stance in the rough, he was that close to the left edge of the fairway (and he was clearly playing for eagle and birdie at worst). His second shot set up a birdie, trumped a few minutes later by Seve's all-world second shot at 13 to about five feet for an eagle that most folks thought clinched it for him. 15 thought otherwise.

[Jim Nugent]

Slightly OT, but not really: how does ANGC do in match play against other famous courses?  For example, against some of the Doak 10's, like TOC, Merion, CPC, Crystal Downs?  

We have to define our terms, especially which tees and course setups we're talking about.  I'm wondering if match play is a good way to compare courses.  Medal play would seem to me better.  After all, in golf one player can shoot lower than the other over 18 holes, by several strokes, but still lose in match play.  

[John Kavanaugh]

JakaB & Tom Huckaby,

How do the putting surfaces of both first holes compare to one another ?

You do consider putting surfaces an integral, if not critical, component of a hole, don't you ?

Patrick,

The first green at Augusta is one of the most memorable I have ever seen...I don't remember the first green at Pacific so it wouldn't be fair for me to compare.

[JESII]

JakaB & Tom Huckaby,

How do the putting surfaces of both first holes compare to one another ?

You do consider putting surfaces an integral, if not critical, component of a hole, don't you ?

Patrick,

The first green at Augusta is one of the most memorable I have ever seen...I don't remember the first green at Pacific so it wouldn't be fair for me to compare.

Sounds like you just did...

[John Kirk]

Disclaimer:  I have never played Augusta National, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I consider Pacific Dunes #1 to be the weakest hole on the course, with its environmentally protected dunes right of the green out of play.  The tee shot from the back tees (370 yards) is very tough, perhaps the toughest on the course.  Augusta wins #1.

All the discussion here about Augusta #13 seems to be tailored to the professional player.  Even at 465 yards, where the championship tee used to be, a 265 yard draw leaves a 200 yard shot with the ball above your feet, on a shot that strongly prefers a fade.  Pretty hard shot, and not a terribly good bet for a 0-10 handicap player.  With that said, it is regularly mentioned as a great risk reward hole.

I see Pacific Dunes having clearly better holes at 4, 6, and 7.  I see Augusta having clearly better holes at 1, 10, 12, and 14.

[Kalen Braley]

JakaB & Tom Huckaby,

How do the putting surfaces of both first holes compare to one another ?

You do consider putting surfaces an integral, if not critical, component of a hole, don't you ?

Patrick,

The first green at Augusta is one of the most memorable I have ever seen...I don't remember the first green at Pacific so it wouldn't be fair for me to compare.

Your memory is failing you john.  I've only played it once and I remember the 1st green at PD very well.  That being said I'm sure if I ever were to play ANGC I would also remember it as well.  

[Mike Hendren]

Mike Cirba,

I appreciate your attempt to assuage my paranoia.  Really.  

That said, it's not a great big world and somebody on this thread is wrong.  I will acknowledge it just might be me.

Pacific Dunes and Augusta National Golf Club are not in the same league, in my firm (and perhaps erroneous) opinion.

Mike

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

If you read my analysis, you'll see that I did mention the green on 1AN.  I didn't mention such on 1PD because the deal was already done.  That is, the green on 1AN is supposed to be so wild, so cool, so great, that it didn't matter what the green at 1PD held, it loses in the comparison.

From my brief take on this, in reply #6:

#1 Augusta to me just looks like a very strong test of golf, a very tough golf hole, very difficult opener.  It seems to be a difficult drive rewarding finding the proper angle... with an approach to a fiendish green where you really need to get the ball in the right place or suffer some brutally difficult putts.


But nice try.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

I appreciate your attempt to assuage my paranoia.  Really.  

That said, it's not a great big world and somebody on this thread is wrong.  I will acknowledge it just might be me.

Pacific Dunes and Augusta National Golf Club are not in the same league, in my firm (and perhaps erroneous) opinion.

Mike

Mike,

They are far different in the "type" of course they each represent.  I would think most folks would find them at least within the same league, however, as seems evident in most of the recent rankings.

I have to admit that it's difficult to separate the mystique and persona of ANGC from the golf course itself, which is an obviously great course as you and I discussed last year.

When even a guy like Kavanaugh becomes so emotionally overwhelmed just walking the first hole that he can't see straight, there are powerful forces at work that make objectivity difficult.

[Tom Huckaby]

But Mike C., you just hit the crux of the problem I have with the way people try to assess golf courses on this site.

If these powerful forces exist, and so many feel them, why shouldn't they count?

I've said it many many times before and I'll say it again.  If you want to assess golf course architecture, fine, go ahead, but make sure and also include all that goes into that - skill in construction, sticking to budget assuming that's a value, overcoming permitting obstacles, all the behind the scenes stuff that goes into getting from design concept to playable golf course.

If you want to assess golf courses as played by golfers, of course none of that matters... but these "powerful forces" and many other things having nothing to do with design most certainly do.

I believe I try to argue this at least once a month.  Will you be the first to get it?

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I don't believe I've ever discounted those "environmental factors" prior.   You can no more divorce CP or PB from the Pacific Ocean (the favored exercise of the hypothetical architectural purist) than you can put Merion into the Rocky Mountains.  

In fact, that's a big part of what makes each course unique.   I know that GD used to use some type of historical relevance factor, but I don't think that captures the whole point.   I think a better category would be "aura", or "mystique", which when so palpable as in the case of ANGC, no one can rely deny it as a physical presence.

[Tom Huckaby]

Very cool, Mike - then you do understand.

I was just put off by your statement that it's difficult to be objective about the course being played today.  I don't see why one needs to be.

TH

[Phil McDade]

But Mike C., you just hit the crux of the problem I have with the way people try to assess golf courses on this site.

If these powerful forces exist, and so many feel them, why shouldn't they count?

I've said it many many times before and I'll say it again.  If you want to assess golf course architecture, fine, go ahead, but make sure and also include all that goes into that - skill in construction, sticking to budget assuming that's a value, overcoming permitting obstacles, all the behind the scenes stuff that goes into getting from design concept to playable golf course.

If you want to assess golf courses as played by golfers, of course none of that matters... but these "powerful forces" and many other things having nothing to do with design most certainly do.

I believe I try to argue this at least once a month.  Will you be the first to get it?

 

Huck:

So that raises a question (far afield from the origins on this thread, but what the heck..) -- what's the best "non-aura" course out there?

I agree with you about the aura thing -- so Augusta, Merion East, and such are played with a sense of: Geez, this is where Jones, Tiger, Jack, et al. walked and played and won championships. I agree -- cool stuff. But even courses that have held (relatively) nothing in terms of tournament importance still are said to have an "aura" about them, e.g., Pine Valley, Cypress, perhaps even San Francisco CC.

I have mine, but I'll await others.....

[Tags:]

Tags: