News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters winners - is it the architecture?
« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2008, 12:37:13 PM »
Jay -

a little sidebar to a good question. For me, just as impressive as Mr. Nicklaus' win in 1986 was his finish in 1998 - I think he finished in 5th or 6th, at 58 years old and not long after he'd had an artificial hip replacement. I think he could've done even better, but (unlike in 1986, when he still really believed he could win) he got demoralized after a bogie at #12. Anyway, I remember being impressed by two things in particular - that his iron play was simply outstanding, and that he took so much advantage of that iron play play because he'd learned where best to put the ball on the green (or at least where NOT to hit it). Of course, some of that has to do with being Jack Nicklaus and some with his years playing Augusta....but yes, I'd imagine some of it was 'enabled' by the architecture itself.

Peter   


Peter, I would attribute this more to 6 wins and playing the course 40+ times than anything else, IMHO.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Mark Bourgeois

Re: Masters winners - is it the architecture?
« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2008, 02:41:49 PM »
What!

Terry, you're entitled to change your position (just like Ron Whitten!) but I recall last year's position was to savor the suffering of the pros, US Open-style.

My position: I don't care whether the changes have ruined the architecture, either.  But I do care whether the changes ruin the *tournament*.

BTW I re-viewed last year's final round the other day to see if it was as awful as I recalled.  Yep, it sure was -- although an "assist" needs to go to Lance Barrow. I think we viewers were saved from an even-worse fate by Stuart Appleby's interminable dithering.  It forced Barrow to go "Chirkinian-lite" and throw us patron dogs a few quick-cut bones.

That aside aside, watching Zach lay up again and again, watching Tiger wrap a club around a tree, watching Padraig pitch over the trees to 17 green...ugh.

And if the first few rounds this year look like a repeat of last year, then, no, I won't be watching, for the first time in forever.  Anybody know where the PTA is next week?

Mark

I don't mind seeing the pros suffer, not that I advocate girdling the fairways and growing crazy rough, since the course is primarily just an outdoor television set for a tournament.  Personally, I would like to see the course the way it was way back when, because I greatly prefer classic courses to the newly altered versions.  I say this as if I ever really had a chance to play it!  My game doesn't need the new tee boxes and it surely doesn't need more trees to tighten a driving area (as if I'd hit it that far anyway). 

The analysis is simply different if the course is going to host a major.  For example, I wish we didn't have to build back tee boxes and alter greens at Olympia, but we wanted the Open and you have to pay the piper, so I'm willing to sacrifice my quainter view for the purpose of accommodating the tour.  One's personal preferences can be set aside unless one is a bit of a zealot.

My beef with the ANGC whining is that it ignores the business and sporting realities of the event itself.  But from what you say, you won't be watching, so you're a man of principle.

I almost believe you!!!

Don't damn me with that "man of principle" praise! I won't purposely avoid the telecast, won't serve some principle or register a protest.  I might watch some of it, all of it, or none of it -- you can bet I'll start off hopeful, naively so if the past is prologue -- but if / when I drop off it will be for the same reason that tunes me out of pretty much every other golf (and tennis) telecast.

Boredom...

Mark

Jay Flemma

Re: Masters winners - is it the architecture?
« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2008, 06:25:35 PM »
Luckily, I work for the greatest stats guy in sports, Sal Johnson.  I'm gonna see what Sal thinks about that formula posed a few posts above or maybe he can help us read between the stats and get to the bottom of the question...

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back