[Jim Johnson]

I don't really think of 10, 11, or 18 as birdie holes.

As they played in '07...
hole #10...99 bogeys, 15 doubles, 3 others vs. 21 birdies
hole #11...117 bogeys, 22 doubles, 4 others vs. 15 birdies (102 more bogeys than birds)
hole #18...124 bogeys, 12 doubles, 3 others vs. 26 birdies (almost 100 more bogeys than birds)


JJ

[Jim Nugent]

What was lowest score on the back nine this year?  Lowest on Sunday? 

Speaking of Jack and 1986, one of his sons said that he could not have hit that 2nd shot on 17 any more: trees now block that angle. 

[Tim_Cronin]

Jim, that was Jackie who noted the trees. Of course, let's not forget Jack pulled his tee shot about 25 (maybe 35) yards off line, somehow clearing the Eisenhower tree and ending up in a clearing, from which he had a shot between a pair of trees. Another few feet to the left or right, and Jack is lucky to par 17, which means we're looking at a playoff with Kite and Norman. There's a "what if?" for you!

[Sean_A]

There is no question that the Masters has become more like the US Open in that hitting smaller fairway targets has become more important and apparently the 280ish score is similar.  However, the variety of shots played at Augusta is still wider probably because the course is still wider (including around the greens) than a typical US Open venue. 

BTW its great how people are sucked into -8 as the winning score - what a wonderful Masters scam.

Ciao   

[JESII]

I disagree. Tour Pros are smart enough to know when to get aggresive and when to play it safe. I didn't see anyone play anywhere close to the hole location on 11 on Sunday. For a hole to be a good birdie possibility in my book, you have to be able to get the ball to within 10 feet or so and no one tried that shot on 11. Sure you can play to the front right and get lucky and make a bomb, but that's luck, not skill. I'll agree that the Sunday pin position on 18 gives a good chance at birdie, but 10, 11 14 and 17 are just too tough now. The course will give up 68's but that is not a low enough score to give the wild swings we were used to; ones that make for a dramatic back nine on Sunday.

10 and 11 might be the toughest consecutive par 4's on the planet...especially with the Sunday hole locations this year. Both are great half par holes...which I thought was loved around here, no?

14 and 17 are absolutely birdie holes for these guys. Both typically leave a wedge or short iron into the green and many of the hole locations seem to "collect" balls...more on 14 than 17.

Pete, of all the 30's shot on the back nine over the years, how many featured two eagles?



Sean,

I am slow this morning...what's the scam?

[Jim Nugent]

Sully, Sean probably means the par 72, compared to par 70 for most Open courses. 

But to turn ANGC into par 72, they would have to shorten two holes.  Almost certainly 13 and 15.  Lots more pro's would likely hit mid to short irons into those greens, like they used to.  I think scores would come down a fair amount. 

[JESII]

I wonder how they would feel if they played 10, 11, 13 and 15 a total of even par for the week. I think they are all half par holes.

I'll go get the numbers for the top 10.

[JESII]

The Top 10 guys:

#10     6 over       166 strokes
#11     11 over     171 strokes
#13     8 under     192 strokes
#15     18 under   182 strokes


Not sure what any of it means, but they look like tough 4's and easy 5's to me.

[Sean_A]

I disagree. Tour Pros are smart enough to know when to get aggresive and when to play it safe. I didn't see anyone play anywhere close to the hole location on 11 on Sunday. For a hole to be a good birdie possibility in my book, you have to be able to get the ball to within 10 feet or so and no one tried that shot on 11. Sure you can play to the front right and get lucky and make a bomb, but that's luck, not skill. I'll agree that the Sunday pin position on 18 gives a good chance at birdie, but 10, 11 14 and 17 are just too tough now. The course will give up 68's but that is not a low enough score to give the wild swings we were used to; ones that make for a dramatic back nine on Sunday.

10 and 11 might be the toughest consecutive par 4's on the planet...especially with the Sunday hole locations this year. Both are great half par holes...which I thought was loved around here, no?

14 and 17 are absolutely birdie holes for these guys. Both typically leave a wedge or short iron into the green and many of the hole locations seem to "collect" balls...more on 14 than 17.

Pete, of all the 30's shot on the back nine over the years, how many featured two eagles?



Sean,

I am slow this morning...what's the scam?

The scam is originating the reporting of "scores" as +/- off par rather than counting the strokes.  I understand its done for convenience sake, but perhaps its gotten a bit out of control in its effect on how golfers perceive par and that relationship to courses. 

Ciao

[JESII]

That is interesting.

Let's put the Genie back in the bottle and try to imagine what the effect on GCA would have been if this change in perception had not occurred.

Par fives would have been lengthened...so to would par fours...so would par threes...and golfers would possibly lose their reputations for being idiots because they would have to learn what 247 strokes through 65 holes means when they have taken 261 through 70 holes themself...

I am sure you have other consequences of this scam in mind so don't hold back...

[RJ_Daley]

I think that it boils down to style and character of the toon-a-mint.  As the Masters continues to be a grind like the US Open, I really believe the viewing audience will get thinner. 

I think that the demands of the U.S. Open are traditionally the grind, and the historical allure of the Masters is the event that gets the sap running each spring.  That whole flavor of the first ritual event of spring has been part of the Masters from the begining, because the course was always marketted for the "northern" crowd, in memberships and sports writing. 

Thus the aura of the most brilliant greenery, like Easter Lillies is part of it.  It has its own style, and I don't think you can really separate the aura of new spring, golfers fancy coming out of winter and turning to that fresh spring, and a sparkling and exciting tournament with all your old favorite golfers in contention. 

Why even hold on to all the tradition of inviting all the past champions back to compete with the new young guns, if not to give them a course where they don't embarrass themselves into not being able to play it competitively?  That is all the Master's really markets at the end of the day, 'tradition of the Masters'.  It is practically their by-line and logo. 

Can anyone deny that some of the most compelling and exciting Masters were the ones that a +40 year old could compete and contend.  Only Jack '86, Crenshaw, '95, O'Meara '98, Singh '00, were over 40 years old in the modern era.  Doesn't that keep the viewers and lovers of the tradition coming back... to watch old favorites still compete on a course where crafty clever play can still prevail? 

If it continues to be a grindfest, I believe the allure of the "traditional" Masters will wane.  It won't get the sap running in the spring anymore.  It will be just another tough championship that only a small handfull of strong top players can really contend, and the rest of the field will be made to look like foozlers and hacks...

[Tim Pitner]

I'd like to see ANGC get rid of the rough and shorten some of the par 4s, but a lot of this talk is ridiculous.  Because of the wind, Sunday's round at this year's Masters was extremely difficult--I don't think that makes it comparable to Shinnecock or Oakmont.  I think the more valid concern is that Augusta is starting to resemble something like Quail Hollow. 

BTW, as a major championship, I wouldn't mind seeing Augusta go against tradition, increase the size of the field and let in more players with a chance to win.  Personally, I'd prefer to watch a golf tournament, not an ode to spring and all the Nantzian schmaltz that goes with it. 

[RJ_Daley]

Did you folks see John Stewart the other night, when he did the bit on the Pope's visit, and  "where have we heard this reverant tone before"?   

So he shows CNN and Wolf Blitzer talking in hushed tones, and a few expert talking heads talking in hushed tones about the Pontif's arrival, and what all the sybolic mumbo jumbo protocol means. 

Then Stewart rubs his chin and thinks back and says, hmmm it seems to me it sounds like.... then it fades to the Master's lead in with smaltzy Nance singing his pean and ode to Augusta, and the whispered voice-over of the others cooing about the tradition and beauty of the ANGC, in cathedral hushed tonal quality.  It was very funny... 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()