The Masters 2007 versus Shinnecock 2004

[George Pazin]

Well, I didn't get to see nearly as much of this year's Masters vs. the US Open at Shinnecock, but I was (in the minority yet) flat out enthralled with Shinney, while The Masters left me wanting. I haven't quite figured out yet why - maybe I'm disappointed Tiger didn't play well while in contention, maybe I'm disappointed Goose didn't pull off another dry-as-a-bone miracle, maybe I subconsciously dislike Hootie that much, or maybe I just found the golf more compelling at Shinney.

Yet most seem to have the opposite opinion. The setup at Shinney was roundly thrashed, while the setup and current version of Augusta seems to be very well received by most on here.

I can tell you one HUGE difference for me - no tree shot spectaculars and no repeated burials at sea on the wonderful Shinneock Hills.

Which did you prefer AND WHY? Please be as specific as possible.

 

[Adam Clayman]

George,

Other than the bounce of the ball I didn't really sense too much similarity.

Both would've been perfect , if... the ridiculous rough lines at Shinney(and ANGC) were removed, or at least widened (at SHGC)to bring the bunkers into play and the trees plantings at Augusta were less dictatorial.

Pin positions in this years Masters on Thursday and Friday seemed ill-suited for the difficult weather conditions.

If man's hands are going to decide matters, it would be nice if they were conceived with fore thought based on the expected natural conditions. (weather)

[ed_getka]

I didn't see a lot of the Shinnecock Open, but I preferred this Masters to that Open. The primary reason is that on the day the championship was won the golfers could golf at Augusta. Shinnecock was virtually unplayable on Sunday after being close to perfect for 3 days from most accounts. Just my 2 cents.

[John Foley]

IMHO Shinnecock will always be the best major venue in the US. Hands down. Why?

- Green contours as good as any
- The strageic nature of the bunkers, ensuring the correct angles we're played.
- Not one tree in play!!

Great finishing holes!

[tlavin]

The 04 Open was marred by a failure to timely respond to an agronomic emergency.  As a result, the golf course was unplayable on Sunday.  They were on a high wire when deciding whether to water the greens on Saturday night and, in immediate retrospect, they erred.  In this year's Masters, in direct contrast, they put water on the golf course on both Friday and Saturday night and preserved the difficult but playable condition of the golf course.  The committees are operating within a hair's breath of catastrophe if there's no rain during a major championship because the usual management calls for bringing the putting surfaces as close to moribund as possible in order to maintain the proper speeds.  The committee seems to have acted responsibly this year, because there were no unplayable hole locations and the greens, while fast, held shots and were not criminally fast.  I don't think it's total speculation to suggest that the Masters committee learned something from the Shinnecock experience.

[Adam Clayman]

The 04 Open was marred by a failure to timely respond to an agronomic emergency.  As a result, the golf course was unplayable on Sunday.  

Yet every hole that day was birdied by someone.

How is that unplayable?

The forecast called for a high probability of rain. Would you have authorized the sprinklers being turned on overnight?

[PThomas]

I think a little more water on the greens before Saturday's round would have been advisable

they did so for Sunday's , and the day's play was much more enjoyable to watch vs. Saturday's, which was just one big train wreck

[Doug Siebert]

They did put water on the greens before Saturday's round, perhaps not as much as on Sunday because I only saw a few shots on Saturday leave ball marks visible to me, while nearly every ball that landed on the greens on Sunday left a visible ball mark.

It was a "train wreck" on Saturday because the winds were gusting up to 30 mph and the temperature barely nudged above 50, and then only for a short time.  I guess you can argue they should have made the greens more receptive to counter the difficulty created by the wind and cold, but blaming the high scores on the decision not to water the greens (or rather not water them enough) is missing the reason as why they were so high.  What's wrong with an average score of 77 in conditions so difficult?  If the wind howls like it is capable of howling in Scotland for the Open, they could see average scores over 80, even without a setup some feel is unfair.  What would you recommend they do to counter that, play from the ladies' tees?

Would you advocate, as a rule, softer greens if the winds are strong as a way of compensating for that wind?  Isn't the ability to negotiate strong wind without getting the crutch of soft greens part of a complete set of challenges to determine the best golfer?  Most years (especially at the Masters) players who can't handle the wind as well get a pass on this test, but not this year.

[PThomas]

They did put water on the greens before Saturday's round, perhaps not as much as on Sunday because I only saw a few shots on Saturday leave ball marks visible to me, while nearly every ball that landed on the greens on Sunday left a visible ball mark.

YES I THINK THEY PUT MORE ON SUNDAY THAN SAT

It was a "train wreck" on Saturday because the winds were gusting up to 30 mph and the temperature barely nudged above 50, and then only for a short time.  I guess you can argue they should have made the greens more receptive to counter the difficulty created by the wind and cold, but blaming the high scores on the decision not to water the greens (or rather not water them enough) is missing the reason as why they were so high.  What's wrong with an average score of 77 in conditions so difficult?  If the wind howls like it is capable of howling in Scotland for the Open, they could see average scores over 80,

THAT SEEMS A BIT OF EXAGERATION DOUG..I DON'T EVER REMEMBER SEEING SCORES THAT HIGH THERE!

even without a setup some feel is unfair.  What would you recommend they do to counter that, play from the ladies' tees?

I DIDN'T SAY THAT!

Would you advocate, as a rule, softer greens if the winds are strong as a way of compensating for that wind?  MAYBE JUST A TAD SOFTER THAN THEY WERE....I WONDER HOW CLOSE THEY WERE TO LETTING THINGS GET OUT OF CONTROL AS AT SHINNECOCK?
Isn't the ability to negotiate strong wind without getting the crutch of soft greens part of a complete set of challenges to determine the best golfer?  

I DO SEE YOUR POINT!
Most years (especially at the Masters) players who can't handle the wind as well get a pass on this test, but not this year.

[Doug Siebert]

I agree completely, I think the wide scoring swings are what make for an intesting and fun tournament, not setups that encourage nearly everyone to go for par 5s in two or result in plenty of eagles and birdies.

The reason people hate narrow US Open layouts with thick rough (if they really took the time to think about it) is not because the scores are high because the golfers are beat into submission and have to accept a finishing score over par, but because such a setup narrows the range of possible outcomes on those holes.

It would be interesting to see the standard deviation of per hole scores this year and in say 1997, 1986, 1975, and 1960.  I have a feeling this year's are well within the norms, and better than almost any US Open that's been contested in the past 40 years.