[George Pazin]

Observation about Tiger:

Do you think he's as good as in 2000? Better? It's funny to me that his first famous swing changed under Butch was to make him a more consistent golfer. Seems like his second famous swing change has made the highs higher and the lows lower. He may have more shots now, as he claims, but he seemed far more in control of his game in 2000. And the stats - sans scoring! - seem to bear that out.

George,
I think he is way better, with the exception of his driver.  He seems to remain erratic with that club no matter what he does.  It doesn't look like the same swing that he makes with the other clubs in the bag, and Faldo often mentions that he straightens up out of his swing with the driver.  When he is even close with the driver, he is virtually unbeatable; the other shots just don't vary much week to week from an incredibly high level.  (Putter last week excepted, of course.)  I would suppose that's how he ranks at the top of GIR, despite being way, way down in driving accuracy; he IS better than he used to be, and DOES have more shots.

Interesting take. Sometimes I wonder if he'd be better off if he just went back to a steel shafted driver.

[Tim Pitner]

On Matt's point, I'd argue the lengthening and changes to 13 and 15 have kept those holes as premier risk/reward holes, when keeping them at their pre-2002 lengths/features would lead to everyone going at them in two. I enjoyed watching how folks attacked them in different ways.

To me, the main alterations on the course that have affected scoring have come on the par 4s, which in the main have become much more difficult, and made it seemingly more difficult for players to go on a long under-par run of holes.

I think Phil makes a great point here--it's the par 4s that may now be unnecessarily difficult.  BTW, who excelled at the par 4s? . . . Immelman.  He set a Masters record for most under par (-10) on the par 4s (so maybe they're not so tough, after all).  I would argue that this is perhaps a better way to determine a champion, versus (pre-lengthening) seeing who can make the most birdies and eagles on par 5s rendered quite short by technology. 

Dave Cronan,

I'm sure Immelman knew he was leading based on the lack of roars for Tiger annd what Snedeker was doing.  After the mistake on #16, Immelman played like a champion with the good up and down on #17 and the terrific shot on #18 out of a horrendous divot. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Phil

15's average score was lower than 13's because more golfers played conservatively and laid up than on 13, based on what I saw over the weekend and based on what the scoring show for each day of the tournament. They took both eagle and double off the table and leveraged down their risk of bogey, too.

I don't have the data handy but it's on that other thread on the par 5s.

If I recall, 15 had more birdies and pars and fewer eagles, bogeys and doubles compared to 13.  Add in the tiny number of eagles 15 gave up and this is exactly what you'd expect to see if golfers laid up a lot on 15 and laid up more frequently than on 13.

Average difficulty does not show the complete picture and in this case doesn't even show the correct picture.

Regards
Mark

[Phil McDade]

Mark:

Here's the breakdown:

13: 87 birdies, 33 bogeys, 11 doubles, 1 other.

15: 94 birdies, 17 bogeys, 9 doubles, 1 other.

That's roughly two fewer birdies a day by the field, and four more bogeys, on 13 vs. 15.

Given the similar numbers of bad scores (doubles and worse) on each hole, I wonder if it's somewhat easier -- with drop positions, green contours, and pin positions -- to make bogey on 13 after dropping one in the creek than to make bogey on 15 after putting one in the pond. Maybe more players went for the green in two on 13, because they figured it was easier to get up and down for par on 13 than on 15 if you put your ball in the water.

Just an alternate theory.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil B:

The ability to assume with any accuracy what people would have hit in years past is speculation to the max. My God, what do you think Jack hit in '65 with his 64 round!

Please, try to explain to me and others what was soooooooooo wrong with the golf course that required such DRACONIAN changes after Tiger's win in '97? That is the $64,000 dollar question because the powers-that-be at Augusta flipped out because of what one or two or three players were hitting for their approaches. A massive overreaction that has fundamentally altered the character of the course. If you can't admit as much then further words will be useless.

The folks there simply overreacted and at the same time threw the baby out with the bath oil when they abandoned what was the crux of the success of AGNC and The Masters for so many years.

No doubt the course has become more difficult -- but it's not anywhere near as great as it used to be IMHO.

Phil M:

Check out the total number of birdies and eagles made from '97 and years before that and what has happened since then. I don't doubt the par-4's have become tougher but the need to eviserate #7 was really stupid and the idea that #1 had to be lengthened even more so defeats what made the 1st so notable for so many years -- it could be a birdie start -- now it's more about avoiding the quick bogey or even DB.

Mark B's point is head on accurate. People playing #15 conservatively have lowered the scoring average in one particular way. The eagle possibility has now been virtually lowered to almost never happening. Anytime you can have a par-5 hole that goes from a 3 to a 7 you have something of real excitement. The Masters has decided to accentuate the birdie possibility while throwing the eagle option out the window to a far less extent than years past.

[jeffwarne]

matt,
You read my post right?
I said everyone went for 13-Beck was on 15-he's not exactly a bomber.
and he was criticized for laying up.
If the world is  criticizing a short hitter for laying up on a par 5 then surely it had become a pretty automatic thing to go for it. (and that was before the TOUR professional and PRoV1's)
I also said 90's -your other examples were from the 80's-before the risk reward got completely out of whack due to technology.

Matt,
Snedeker's  no bomber, yet he had 5 iron into 13 (into the wind) on Sunday-how can you say the play is straight out then lay up?

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

It appears you're on to something with the eagle bids on 15 vs. 13. Hard to tell; if we had stats re. how many folks went for the green on either hole, vs. merely laying up, that'd be an interesting statistic. This year, 15 yielded only 3 eagles to 8 on no. 13, which suggests (pretty narrow data set) more folks may have gone for the green in two at 13 than 15 (lending credence to my up-and-down-for-par theory in reply #80!)

I completely agree with you about 1 and esp. 7. I think the Augusta folks have been correct in lengthening 13 and 15; I think the jury may still be out on the mini-jungle planted on the right side of 15. But 1 and 7 have become very tough holes, and I think their current set-up ought to be reconsidered. One of the things I always liked about Augusta was its ebb and flow -- golfers were confronted with birdie and even eagle opportunities, then quickly faced with very tough par holes, then back to the birdie-able ones, then back to the tough ones. That seems to be missing now, and the course looks like it's playing as one tough slog, with occasional chances for birdies at the par 5s.

[Phil Benedict]

Phil B:

The ability to assume with any accuracy what people would have hit in years past is speculation to the max. My God, what do you think Jack hit in '65 with his 64 round!

I don't know what Jack hit in '65 but in the final round in '64 he hit over 15 with a 7-iron, but during the second round in '63 he was one of the few to go for the green in the second round when the wind was against, and he hit 3-wood, just like Tiger hit a 3-wood into the wind during the 4th round this year.   With the change in technology I wonder how much the approach clubs have changed on 13 and 15.

[Jesse Jones]

Maybe here's a reason why Tiger missed a putt or two..

By DOUG FERGUSON
AP Golf Writer
   Tiger Woods had arthroscopic surgery on his left knee Tuesday to repair cartilage damange, his second operation in five years on the same knee. He is expected to miss at least a month while he recovers.
   The surgery, announced on his Web site, came two days after Woods finished two shots behind Trevor Immelman in the Masters. He likely will miss The Players Championship, but should return in time to play the U.S. Open at Torrey Pines.
   "I made the decision to deal with the pain and schedule the surgery for after the Masters," Woods said. "The upside is that I have been through this process before and know how to handle it. I look forward to working through the rehabilitation process and getting back to action as quickly as I can."
   The surgery was performed in Park City, Utah, by Thomas Rosenberg, who also operated on Woods' left knee in December 2002. Woods also had surgery in 1994 on his left knee to remove a benign tumor.
   Woods gave no indication his knee was bothering him the first three months of the season, when he won his first four tournaments to extend a winning streak that dated to September.
   "Tiger has been experiencing pain in his knee since the middle of last year, and when he had it looked at by his doctors, arthoscopic surgery was recommended," said Mark Steinberg, Woods' agent at IMG. "Tiger has played through the pain in the past, but knew it would be better for him to have the procedure done as early as possible."
   Steinberg said the surgery repaired cartilage damage. The 2002 surgery drained fluid from around the anterior cruciate ligament and removed a benign cyst.
   Woods won the Bridgestone Invitational and PGA Championship in consecutive weeks in August, the latter his 13th career major. After tying for second at the Deutsche Bank Championship to Phil Mickelson, he wound the final two events to capture the FedEx Cup, won his unofficial Target World Challenge in December, and won his first four events until tying for fifth at Doral last month.
   He occasionally would press his foot against a cooler on the tee box and stretch his knee, but there no other signs he was hurting.
   The recovery is expected to be four to six weeks, meaning Woods will not be able to defend his title May 1 in the Wachovia Championship. He likely will miss The Players Championship, one of three non-majors he has never missed since turning pro.
   "Of course, we're disappointed when Tiger is unable to compete in a PGA Tour event," commissioner Tim Finchem said on the tour's Web site. "There is really never a good time for an athlete -- especially one of Tiger's caliber -- to take weeks off from competition during the season. But his health concerns have to come first."

[Randy Thompson]

I agree it was the worst masters I have ever seen. It seems to me they could have set up the course where somebody could have made a charge and shot 65, I think they worry too much about settihng the course up in TIGER PROFF form. What a pitty!

[Phil McDade]

Wasn't one of the reasons Tiger changed his swing the second time around -- the Haney-based swing, away from the Harmon-based swin -- to reduce stress on this particular knee?

[Tim Gavrich]

I enjoyed every minute of Masters coverage this year.  Sure, it was a bit anticlimactic at the end, but that was only because Immelman outplayed the field.  Blaming that on the course setups doesn't seem right to me.

Matt Ward:

What makes the wedge shots on 13 and 15 for those who lay up unexciting?  On 13, you had that backstop that allowed Tiger to nearly hole out his wedge shot.  But, in order to do so, he needed to risk leaving the ball on that top shelf (not to mention the stream short of the green).  That kind of danger makes that shot very exciting.  Then on 15, you have a very touchy wedge from a severe downhill lie to a shallow green and you have to land the ball in the correct spot to keep it from going over the green.  Again, a shot where the appreciative observer recognizes the danger and holds his breath in whenever the shot needs to be hit.  Exciting (to me, at least).

The only change to Augusta that I would want to see would be the elimination of the second cut.  It's a wonderful major championship setup, I believe.  The range of winners we've seen the past few years, from shorter-hitting tacticians (Weir, Johnson) to power players (Tiger, Mickelson) to all-around strong players (Immelman) is evidence of the superb course setup.

[Doug Siebert]

Maybe the new length identifies the best Masters Champion that week, but the "good old days" when eagles and birdies were flying all over the place and the noise of the fans made for deafening roars, I sure liked that better.

In those days, I couldn't even go to the bathroom for fear of missing something.

Why do you need eagles and birdies flying all over the place?  I guess "par" matters after all huh?

There was just as much lead changing and people moving big up and down the leaderboard on Sunday as back in the days of "eagles and birdies".  And while it has been shown that there really weren't all that many more eagles or birdies back in the 90s (and certainly not in the 80s when guys were going at 13 and 15 with woods quite often) I think this is a combination of selective memory and remembering all the eagle ATTEMPTS which added excitement as can you can root for (or against) someone to make an eagle and give themselves a two shot boost, which you can't really root for on the wedge third.

I'll bet hardly anyone would be calling this year's Masters unwatchable if Tiger had made those putts all his fans are if-ing about and made a come from behind victory, even though he did not have a single eagle putt Sunday and laid up on 3 out of the 4 par 5s.  There's a lot of Tiger fans that are pissed off he didn't win and blew their hopes for a slam, I guess.  Yeah it is not very exciting when the leader coasts in and no one really threatens him all day.  But wait, don't people claim that the 1997 Masters and 2000 US Open were great majors, even though Tiger ran away with it?

So yeah, I think the fact that Tiger lost this year and last have a lot to do with the complaints, and if ANGC does nothing to the course in 2009 but Tiger wins, people will claim that the old excitement of the Masters is back, and will grab the tiniest of straws to justify that based on the course setup.  They'll talk about some 5 foot change to the mowing lines on a few holes, and maybe a couple old trees that probably got knocked down by wind or lightning and claim those changes made all the difference.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Maybe the new length identifies the best Masters Champion that week, but the "good old days" when eagles and birdies were flying all over the place and the noise of the fans made for deafening roars, I sure liked that better.

In those days, I couldn't even go to the bathroom for fear of missing something.

Birdies and Eagles NEVER flew all over the place when 30 mph winds were present.

How can you compare golf with benign conditions versus golf with chilly, windy conditions ?[/color]

[jeffwarne]

Yes,
but Patrick
that was before Hootie changed the weather

I wonder if the 1956 or 1966 Masters was unwatchable?
I'm just amazed so many comment on an event they didn't watch

[Scott_Burroughs]

If some of you thought the telecast of this year's Masters was dull, try it on the radio.  I have XM in my new car and I needed a jolt of expresso after trying to listen to it.  One of the radio guys literally described every single action a player did while trying to read a putt.  "He bends over.....to pick up a leaf....he throws it to the side....the wind blows it back....the caddie picks it up and puts it in his pocket.....he scratches his neck....hope he put on sunscreen today....I love hearing myself talk....man, my voice is silky smooth....I bet I make you pine for Lanny Wadkins to come back....."

[Dan Kelly]

I wouldn't go so far as to say I find the Masters boring now, but certainly doesn't seem as fun and exciting as before. It's like the magic is gone.

Could be you're older, too ... and have different (perhaps better) ideas of what constitutes "fun and exciting"?

For my money (or what's left of it, after paying my daughter's tuition): The only reason this year's Masters seemed a little dull is that Mr. T. Immelman played so much better than anyone else.

And it could be that we're all inflating the glories of the past -- as if 1986 were the  norm at Augusta.

What did they say? 17 of the last 18 winners have come from the final pair? Something like that, anyway. Sounds as though those legendary swashbuckling charges have been the exception, not the rule, for quite a while now ... and perhaps forever.

[George Pazin]

Wasn't one of the reasons Tiger changed his swing the second time around -- the Haney-based swing, away from the Harmon-based swin -- to reduce stress on this particular knee?

My one experience with major knee surgery tells me that there is virtually no swing motion that does not put significant stress on the front side knee. Some might be less than others, but everything stresses the lead knee.

David C -

I can see your point about everyone going backwards and I agree with it to a degree. It's a tough call for me, because I have come to believe that you see the most interesting golf when the players are pushed to their limits. I'd rather watch the dullest US Open imaginable than the Hope birdie fest (even if there were no celebs and they got a top notch field). The interesting thing about the Masters used to be that you would see both exciting good play and exciting bad play. That does seem to have been lost. I don't know if it is because of the changes or if we're simply in a bit of a bad streak.

[George Pazin]

That's very possible, Dan. If even one guy had given Immelman a scare, it would have made all the difference in the world. It's not his fault he played so well!

One thing is indisputably true in your post: I'm older.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil B:

Consider the scoring differences of Jack's win in '65 and the following year in '66. Nothing was wrong with the course when he shot 271 or came in at 289 the next year. So why all the massive changes after Tiger's win in '97?
 
The folks there, as many should know here, simply overreacted to what one or two guys are hitting into the green sites. That's not welcome in my mind and has caused The Masters to be a plodding exercise in safe play to the max. Does anyone really want a second playing of the US Open in April?

If that type of event floats your boat so be it. For me -- I'd rather go out and hit balls ...

Tim G:

The reason Phil's win was so exciting was the manner by which the course was set-up for the final round. Tees were moved up in certain spots and pin locations were generally more favorable.

Tim, I have no issue with the skill needed to hit wedge shots -- but I do have a mega problem when the bulk of the field MUST play that shot because the wherewithal to go for the green is just not that possible or worth contemplating.

I can remember vividly past Masters where people HAD TO GO for #15 in two blows because eagle could jumpstart their round or propel them further up the leaderboard. I'll say this again -- in the event you missed it --professionals are not stupid -- they will opt for the safe play if the real bait is not placed in front of their face. Check how the USGA worked magic in setting up short par-4's for the pros to go at at last year's Open at Oakmont. Bring fun and interesting shots back into the mix.


Doug S:

The issue is NOT about Tiger -- I detest the so-called "improvements" made to ANGC. My issue is not with how Trevor played or anyone else for that matter. The Augusta of 2008 is simply geared to being difficult with little connection to the strategic qualities that caused riveting television for years and years.

Jeff:

You simply have not answered my previous question for upteen times ...

What was so wrong with the old 13th when it played 465 yards ? The situation worked well for all types of players and provided a "go to" option that was quite fun to watch and often proved to be so entertaining.

Ditto the former nature of #15 -- before the silly tree infestation, second cut and the removal of the mounds which served a unique purpose.

[Phil Benedict]

Matt,

I agree they went overboard in certain areas, but the added length (other than on 7 where the character of the hole was transformed) doesn't really bother me.  They've added less than 10% to the total yardage which just about keeps up with technology.  Do you honestly believe they still should play the Masters at 6900 yards?

They trees, bunker enlargement and first cut are problematical at best, though.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil B:

I have no issue in adding a bit of yardage so long as the strategic underpinnings are left in place. What was done to the hole is just inane.

Look also at the bastardization of the "new" 11th hole. Now the angle of the tee calls for a slight fade -- you have trees alongside the right -- although a number were scacled back for this year's event and then you have the silly inclusion of the "second cut."

Phil, too many people in golf get soooooo upset with what a CERTAIN FEW people hit into a given hole that they believe it's critical to apply a 2% solution for the preponderance of the others.

Augusta WAS the hallmark of exciting golf -- the ups and downs and all the rest.

I'll say this again -- yes, adding a few yards to certain holes -- the 5th, 9th, 14th, to name just three - is OK. But when you couple the added length with all the other nonsense you get a totally different golf course. The strategic underpinnings are now completely alien to what Jones / Mackenzie envisioned. My God, even Clifford Roberts knew how to keep the event fun and entertaining with the changes brought forward by Robert Trent Jones -- with the 10th and 16th holes, to name just two past improvements.

August was not broken -- it's just the thinking, shall I call it that, which is really lost in its overall implementation.

In sum -- they threw out the baby and bath oil.

[JohnH]

I'm going to give Augusta a pass.  Treacherous Sunday winds and firm conditions undoubtedly had an adverse impact in scoring.  Wasn't the leader -11 through three rounds with a couple within 2-3 strokes?  How many times is the leader in the US Open -11 through three rounds?  I'm speculating here, but benign Sunday conditions probably would have produced a few rounds in the 60's, and a winning score of -13 or better.

As far as changes to the course, I will defer to the many here who are more qualified than me....

[jeffwarne]

Phil B:

Consider the scoring differences of Jack's win in '65 and the following year in '66. Nothing was wrong with the course when he shot 271 or came in at 289 the next year. So why all the massive changes after Tiger's win in '97?
 
The folks there, as many should know here, simply overreacted to what one or two guys are hitting into the green sites. That's not welcome in my mind and has caused The Masters to be a plodding exercise in safe play to the max. Does anyone really want a second playing of the US Open in April?

If that type of event floats your boat so be it. For me -- I'd rather go out and hit balls ...

Tim G:

The reason Phil's win was so exciting was the manner by which the course was set-up for the final round. Tees were moved up in certain spots and pin locations were generally more favorable.

Tim, I have no issue with the skill needed to hit wedge shots -- but I do have a mega problem when the bulk of the field MUST play that shot because the wherewithal to go for the green is just not that possible or worth contemplating.

I can remember vividly past Masters where people HAD TO GO for #15 in two blows because eagle could jumpstart their round or propel them further up the leaderboard. I'll say this again -- in the event you missed it --professionals are not stupid -- they will opt for the safe play if the real bait is not placed in front of their face. Check how the USGA worked magic in setting up short par-4's for the pros to go at at last year's Open at Oakmont. Bring fun and interesting shots back into the mix.


Doug S:

The issue is NOT about Tiger -- I detest the so-called "improvements" made to ANGC. My issue is not with how Trevor played or anyone else for that matter. The Augusta of 2008 is simply geared to being difficult with little connection to the strategic qualities that caused riveting television for years and years.

Jeff:

You simply have not answered my previous question for upteen times ...

What was so wrong with the old 13th when it played 465 yards ? The situation worked well for all types of players and provided a "go to" option that was quite fun to watch and often proved to be so entertaining.

Ditto the former nature of #15 -- before the silly tree infestation, second cut and the removal of the mounds which served a unique purpose.

Matt, when the golf ball goes 10% farther, a 465 yard par 5 could be lengthened correspondingly to retain the original risk reward equation.
3 wood straight  thru the "fairway" (in no danger of trouble)-8 iron is not risk reward.
driver down the left (creek)side, 5 iron is.
Hooked 3 wood five iron is
marginal drive, 3 iron is
Going for the green should be an option that the bold choose , not a demand (those are called par 4's)

And if you're going to consistently overuse an expression, get it right.
It's "throw the baby out with the bath WATER", (not bath oil)

[Bill Gayne]

I haven't read through all these Masters thread but I get the general message that the Masters lost the excitement because of narrowing the course through second cut and the addition of trees in combination with length. So forgive me if my comments have already been made.

If all the trees were removed, rough taken out, and the course shortened it wouldn't be a magical return to the Masters of the past.

This whole debate is moot until someone gets the cajones to introduce a tournament ball.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()