[JESII]

I have not been to Augusta.

I like to battle with the guys that criticize Augusta for two reasons; the first is that I want people to substantiate claims made on here, and the second is that I really just like a good fight. Why else would I stick my nose in the Merion epic? Those guys actually research the stuff they talk about, way out of my league.

But...

What I see when watching the Masters is a great degree of indecision before shots, or surprise at the results after a shot.

There is a common statement on here that the Par number on the scorecard should not matter. You should just play each hole the way you think will give the best chance at the lowest score. I think it is reasonable for us hackers to think that way because we should naturally accept bogey much more than we do. The guys on TV are thinking of each hole as either a birdie or a par opportunity.

Augusta seems to have a high, extremely high, percentage of holes that ae a really tough par, or fully expect to make a birdie.

Starting a round with the knowledge that 7 holes are going to be brutally difficult pars, and 7 others are going to be great chances to make a birdie (to offset one of the inevitable bogeys) provides so much of the underlying tension to a round of golf that I think, regardless of the lack of ultra low scoring this year or last, that watching the Masters is as good as golf viewing can get.

I love the US Open - because every round I play is a struggle to make par on each hole, and every hole at an Open is tough, so I like to watch them live my golf experience.
I also love The Open - because I love links golf more than any other type...by a long way - even with the crappy BBC feed.

But for one golf tournament each year, the Masters is it...and I give full credit to the architecture...even today after all of the changes that so many think have diluted the course and its effect on the tournament.


1) Am I correct in thinking there are an extremely high number of half-par holes for the guys in the tournament?
1a) If so, does it really matter that it is 7 hard par and 7 expected birdie? As opposed to 4 hard par and 10 expected birdie for excitement?

[Phil McDade]

Sully:

Good topic. I'm not sure I agree with the premise. Augusta seems to have emerged as a course with about four half-par holes, with the rest being a collection of a few easy-par holes, and a bunch of tough par/really tough par holes.

Some stats:

Four holes on average this year played under par -- the four par 5s. The average score ranged from 4.77 (15) to 4.84 (13). All yielded far more birdies than bogies, in ratios of roughly 3:1 up to 4:1. The back nine par 5s yielded far more eagles (8 at no. 13, 3 at no. 15, compared to 3 total eagles on the front nine par 5s), but also far more double-bogeys or worse (12 on no. 13, and 10 on no. 15, compared to a total of 8 doubles or worse on the front nine par 5s combined). In short, the back nine par 5s -- based on this year's stats -- played much more as true risk/reward holes than the front nine par 5s. But in general, the par 5s were the only holes on the course that I might consider true half-par holes if that means having a legitimate birdie option.

The only other half-par holes on the birdie side were the short par 4 3rd, and interestingly the 12th. No. 3 had a near-equal distribution of reward to risk -- 44 birdies, 44 bogeys, and four doubles. No. 12 had 40 birdies and 38 bogeys, but also 9 doubles and 3 others, all of those presumably water-bound tee shots.

Everything else on the course seems to be a tough par. Even the second-easiest par 4 -- no. 14 -- had nearly twice as many bogeys (55) as birdies (32). It may not be a tough par, but it doesn't quite fit my notion of a half-par hole (on the birdie side of things) if it's yielding far more bogeys than birdies.

Holes 11, 10, 7 and 1 (the four toughest holes this week) all played to a stroke average of 4.25 or higher -- which to me is a half-par hole on the bogey side.

I think the course now has four birdie/half-par holes (the par 5s), a few others where there is a decent chance of scoring birdie (3, 12, 14, 16, maybe 6 -- although all of those on average scored over par for the week), and a bunch of hard pars/half-par holes on the bogey side.

This during a week when arguably there were three very good scoring days, and only one really tough scoring day.

[JESII]

Phil,

I do not consider only the birdie holes to be half par...#11 is also a half par hole.

[John Burzynski]

"Once you get these guys thinking, they're in trouble."  --Pete Dye

I know that the above quote wasn't about Augusta, but I think that it applies in this situation.  These golfers are pro's, the 'best of the best', why shouldn't they have to agonize a bit on whether to drive or lay up, go for a birdie or play it safe for par?  It adds to the excitement for the viewer, and maybe some of the shots and play don't become so predictable and routine.  The average viewer (and that probably includes me) eats this tuff up.

[Ken Moum]

Phil,

I do not consider only the birdie holes to be half par...#11 is also a half par hole.

I agree, and when the half is above par, I think it flummoxes good players even more. When they hit a poor drive on a hole #11, they probably should lay up.

But it's a par 4!! They have to give it a go. As much grief as someone might get for laying up on 13 or 15, at least they say they were playing for par, with a chance for birdie.

It's why I actually like the USGA penchant for making five pars into four pars. It's nothing but a mind game.

K

[JESII]

And I think having so many half pars on the course adds to the value of each one and does not dilute...When you, as you say, miss a drive on #11 and play for 5 and make it, you have just added pressure to the "birdie" holes because you have used one of your allotted bogeys...

[Phil McDade]

Phil,

I do not consider only the birdie holes to be half par...#11 is also a half par hole.

Sully:

Agreed. Presumably, a half-par hole is a par 5 or par 4 that averages 4.5 (leaving the par 3s out of the discussion; I've never heard of a par 3 that averages 2.5 on the tour, to say nothing of a major.)

The problem is that I'm not sure there are alot of half-par holes at Augusta anymore, and really not the 7 each that you describe. Let's be generous and say a half-par hole is any hole that plays within a quarter (.25) stroke of its par, on either side (a 1/4-stroke below on the birdie side, a 1/4-stroke above on the bogey side).

This year, that list for holes on the birdie side is limited to the par 5s, and only one of those -- 15, at an average of 4.78 -- comes close to my generous definition. The other par 5s played to 4.8 to 4.84 -- birdie chances for sure, but not really half-par holes.

On the bogey side, 11, 10, 7, and 1 all played between 4.24 (1) to 4.35 (11) -- within my broad definition of a half-par hole. The par 3 4th played at 3.23, and the par 4 5th at 4.23, again close to my "Augusta" definition of a half-par hole. But after that, the next-hardest hole was the 9th at 4.1978 -- yes, a hard par, but not really what I might call a half-par hole.

Again, as mentioned on other threads, it appears as if Augusta is emerging as a course that limits the kind of wild swings in scoring seen in years past. It has four birdie holes, with the rest being a range of a few relatively benign holes (3, 14) relative to par, and then a bunch of tough-to-very-tough-to-par holes.

I'd like to see if Augusta can find some way to make its par 4s in particular less of a slog and more of a risk-reward option, like no. 3.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()