[jeffwarne]

Amen Bill.
But then somebody might lay up on 15 and some would still think it was boring

[David Ober]

Phil:

Sorry to disagree partner.

What was wrong with the old 13th at 465 yards ?

Phil, you missed my point as much as Tiger misses fairways. The key is getting all types of players into the mix where the "go to" second shot option is more likely to happen. Laying up to hit a 90-100 yard pitch shot is a sleep-a-thon for me and countless others.

It worked for many years the previous holes and the yardages they had.

The 15th was fine without the encroachment of trees, second cut and the elmination of the turbo mounds on the right. The power brass got all bent out of shape because they see only Tiger hit 9 or PW with his second shot when the wind was slightly helping when he won in '97. I call that a massive overreaction.

No need to play them as official par-4's -- there were plenty of people who hit the water on them for the length they offered then -- just ask Curtis Strange to name just one prime candidate. You can send a quick post card to Seve for his wonderful approach in the final round in '86.

George:

The only thing about #18 is that most guys now hit driver on the hole. In years past -- when it played 410 yards there were more options in terms of what you could hit off the tee. Adding length to holes doesn't widen the playability of the hole -- it simply caters to the extra long player. That's the ironic part of the so-called Tiger proofing.

Move it back to at least 485 or so, in order that the hole at least plays longer than the USGA's recommended length for a par 5 for cryin' out loud! :-)

[Patrick_Mucci]

What was so wrong with the old 13th when it played 465 yards ?

Matt, the problem with the old 13th at 465 is that the pros were hitting 3-woods over the trees leaving themselves 8-irons into the green.

That was NEVER the intent on that hole.

There's an architectural beauty in the 13th fairway as it doglegs toward the green.  The slope of that fairway is quite unique.  RTJ, AM and CR all intended golfers to have to play off of that slope.  Thus, the hole at 465 was losing that facet due to the ability to avoid that area vis a vis cutting the corner, over the trees.[/color]

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.


With the pros flying the corner with 3-woods, the options you mention were becoming outmoded, AND, they could hit irons off the tee and get to the same spot where drivers used to be required.[/color]

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

Those mounds were NOT original.
They were added in 1969, and, there original purpose was to prevent the pros from playing a big hook on that hole.  When it became obvious that the pros were now using them as a turbo boost, they were removed in 1998.

As to the  trees, the fairway remains incredibly wide, and
I don't know if a golfer who's blasted it wide right off the tee should be rewarded with an unencumbered shot into the green, especially when this is a golf course with benign rough, for amateurs and pros.[/color]
 

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

C'mon -- let's get real.

Who was hitting 8-irons into the green ?

Tiger, Phil, maybe one or two others AFTER HITTING A WELL PLACED TEE SHOT. Oh, I see, when something is done by one or two players and they do it so well -- then the game plan is to abort the fundamental nature of the hole and make it less entertaining not only for the rest of the field but for the viewing audience. Prime example of throwing the baby out with the bath oil.

The turning point on #13 is still the challenge and getting the ball into that position is no small feat -- even when the hole played at 465 yards.

Pat, another point -- this idea that pros were flying the corner with 3-metal shots is completely off base. I've been to countless Masters since 1976 and that is not the case. The trees have grown to such a degree that any idea in doing such a thing ended a long time ago -- likely during the day of a prime time Sam Snead and company.

One other thing -- no one I have ever seen -- even when the hole was 465 yards ever hit an iron off the tee and still got home with AN IRON on their second shot.

I have no issue with lengthening the hole to say 485 yards but the turning point of the hole is still an issue but there should be no desire to turn the hole into a more likely candidate for three-shots. That is becoming more and more of the case and it is what made Masters of years past a far more entertaining mixture as players sought to make eagle while still putting into play the very real possibility in making DB.

I have less of an issue with the mounds returning at #15 but there's no defense / excuse / rationality for the silly trees and the way they bottleneck the fairway -- ditto the second cut that was thrown into the mix. The 15th used to be a hole in which players could open up with their drivers and try to propel the ball as far down the hill as possible. That has now been reduced significantly and the total number of eagles and birdies has fallen since the changes were made.

Pat -- when you say "incredibly wide" -- compared to what? The previous Augusta National championed extremely wide fairways. That was the unique aspect of Augusta that it didn't follow the standard convention that fairways HAD to be narrowed in order to produce world class golf. That was what Jones / Mackenzie envisioned with their desire to model so much of ANGC with TOC. I don't need to watch an earlier version of the US Open -- the unique character of ANGC exposed a completely different and refreshing take on what quality architecture of the type it for so long championed had at its core.

To answer your final point -- players who blasted their tee shot in any direction were not assured of some safe haven at the pre Tiger changes ANGC -- in fact many of them likely faced an even more daunting angle into the green and as a result the extra length they achieved was often counterproductive.
 

[tlavin]

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.

Wow.

[Mark Pearce]

throwing the baby out with the bath oil

I'm getting a little concerned about Matt's fixation with babies and bath oil.  Am I alone?

[Kalen Braley]

throwing the baby out with the bath oil

I'm getting a little concerned about Matt's fixation with babies and bath oil.  Am I alone?

I thought the saying was "don't throw the baby out with the bath water"... but I could be wrong.

[Dan Kelly]

throwing the baby out with the bath oil

I'm getting a little concerned about Matt's fixation with babies and bath oil.  Am I alone?

I thought the saying was "don't throw the baby out with the bath water"... but I could be wrong.

It's soooooooooooo much easier, pardner, if you oil the water first.

Or the baby.

[Mark Pearce]

throwing the baby out with the bath oil

I'm getting a little concerned about Matt's fixation with babies and bath oil.  Am I alone?

I thought the saying was "don't throw the baby out with the bath water"... but I could be wrong.

I think you're right.  But I've been wrong before.....

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

Appreciate the correction -- throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Thank you Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan for the assist in its proper usage.

One final aspect -- many times people here on GCA will advocate that the core archietctural premise be maintained. Frankly, ANGC has sought to advance a different set-up and as a result you get the outcome of harder to make pars with far fewer birdie opportunities.

Guys, check out the tapes of past Masters and candidly the overall excitement level is a good bit less than what you have been seeing since the Tiger proof changes have been instituted.

Changing the fundamental nature of the course because of what only 2-3 players are hitting into certain holes is simply an overreaction by the club and it serves a depressing response given the tremendous legacy ANGC has always seemed to provided for the glorious stage it occupies each April.

[Phil McDade]

Average number of eagles, Masters (per tournament), 1969-98: 19.6

Average number of eagles, Masters (per tournament). since 1999: 20.2

Source: NY Times, "Less Drama is Linked to Changes at Augusta," Larry Dorman, 4/15/08

[jeffwarne]

Phil,
Why let facts get in the way of a good .....(cold front)

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

You left out the total number of birdies made throughout the tourney and on the holes I cited with particular emphasis -- #13 and #15.  Also, the total number of eagles made -- specifically at #13 and #15. And the amount of attempts to go at the green in two shots -- both post and pre Tiger.

Jeff W:

Speaking of a cold front try to look at the tapes of the Masters starting with '75 and running through the emergence of Tiger. Pick out the ones that were as dull as the last two. Please knock yourself out.

[Doug Siebert]

I hate to point out something that helps Matt's position when he's so clearly wrong

But the number of eagles could have remained constant while moving to different holes.  Until the recent technology boost, 8 was pretty much unreachable and I don't know for sure but I'd guess the same is true of 2.  So if there used to be an average of 2 eagles per tournament on those two holes but they now account for say 8, it would mean a reduction in the eagles on 13 and 15.

[Phil McDade]

Doug:

Genuine question, because I don't know the answer:

When did CBS start televising anything other than the back nine at Augusta?

Is there much thrill in going for the green in two at 2 and 8? Augusta historians can chime in, but I've always though Jones/Mackenzie et al. designed 2 and 8 as legitimate three-shot par 5s, without the kind of risk/reward that they built into 13 and 15. Does anyone truly get into the kind of trouble at 2 and 8 that one can find oneself in at 13 or 15? The back nine par 5s have always struck me as holes that can lead to indecision about shot choices, whereas the front nine par 5s are largely about execution (e.g., drive it far enough on 2, on the proper side of the fairway, and you can think about going for that green in two, whereas 13 presents a much wider array of choices/options).

[Tim Gavrich]

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. 

I am as sure as can be that if the pros were worrying about 10 mph winds rather than gusty 25 mph winds, more players would have gone for 13 and 15 and you would've had your "wherewithal."  You can't possibly blame the weather on ANGC.  It provided a great test on Sunday.  Maybe it wasn't the most fun to watch, but it was great nonetheless, IMO.  Just because birdies aren't flying all over the place doesn't mean that it's not compelling or exciting golf, at least for me (though my arguments about the very same thing over on BSG are proving me in an extremely scant minority. 

[Pete_Pittock]

It was like watching a NBA All-Star game. Now it suffering through a  Pistons games with Laimbeer and Rodman. Apologies.

[Matt_Ward]

Just happened to see this stat -- the old 1st hole -- when it played 410 yards was the toughest hole for the ENTIRE course in 1988, 1989, and 1998. Again, one has to wonder about the desire to place a bunker that is 327 yards to carry on the right side -- with ample tree infestation encroaching on the right when the hole previously worked just fine.

No less than Tiger claims the "new" 1st hole is the toughest opening test in golf -- that says plenty in my book when you think of such openers in major championship play like the 1st at Oakmont and the opener at Winged Foot / West, to name just two examples that leap to the top of the page.

One other thing -- in many times the 1st plays into the prevailing wind and getting the tee ball anywhere near the top of the hill does require a solid strike of the tee ball.

As I've said many times before I see no reason to destory the essence of a wonderful course simply because of the exploits of one golfer.

[Matt_Ward]

Great comment by John Hawkins in the Masters wrap-up issue in Golf World when he opined Seve Ballesteros would be lucky to make cuts at the Augusta of now because the nature of the couse has so fundamentally changed.

[JESII]

Matt,

Do you not see the folly in that phrase by Hawkins that you think is so poignant...the entire premise of Jones and MacKenzie and the width they created was to give optional angles to play into certain hole locations...apparently it was genius and unique in the U.S.

Seve had no control of his driver...you (and Hawkins) are admitting that by suggesting he would struggle to make the cut today...and so would not be utilizing the width provided for improved angles, he would use it simply because he didn't know where the ball was going.

That has been my point all along...these guys do not need improved angles to get at any hole location they want...it is near impossible to put a long iron in their hands on a par 4 so with 6 iron or less they pretty much hit it where they want...all the width does for them is make the course easier to blast away and hit it anywhere...

[tlavin]

Great comment by John Hawkins in the Masters wrap-up issue in Golf World when he opined Seve Ballesteros would be lucky to make cuts at the Augusta of now because the nature of the couse has so fundamentally changed.

Nonsense.

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

You missed the point -- must be because you're still lost in the tree cover you prefer.

Hawkins point, which I agree with, is that the one-way oriented Augusta of today REQUIRES archer like ability to hit fairways to the max. In sum -- you get a style of play that is fairly robotic in its effectiveness and leaves little else to the imagination. Seve demonstrated the wherwithal to escape from difficult positions by hitting first rate recovery shots (an aspect also further constricted by such unique "innovations" as the second cut and the inane tree additions you embrace) and then making skillfull chips and putts to score effectively.

The Augusta of "ole" days could allow for a wider variety of players to wear the green jacket. The "new" (hardly improved) Augusta now seems hell bent on enforcing a style of play that while effective, is hardly exciting and my point is further bolstered by comments made by Jim Furyk in the article. Let's keep in mind Furyk is far from a power player and therefore his comments have even more staying power.

One further point for your own edification -- Jones / Mackenzie wanted a parkland variety of TOC at Augusta. The "version" you see today completely flies in the face of that fundamental genesis.

I guess Tiger, Furyk, Hawkins, et al, are all wrong.

Terry:

Nonsense - really ?

How bout you REALLY examine the nature of what Augusta is today and what Seve saw during his prime days. Do you really believe his game could accomodate the style of what Augusta mandates today?

Think long and hard about that.

[tlavin]

Matt,

Augusta, even in its transmogrified state, is a golf course that can be won by virtually any type of player.  A bomber with a great short game (Woods), or a methodical plodder (Immelman) or even an overachiever (Johnson) can get the deal done.  Seve in his prime could win at Augusta or any other course, if he got hot enough.  In my addled brain, it is rank speculation to suggest that the new Augusta wouldn't accommodate somebody like Ballesteros.  If Zach can do it, anybody can.

[JESII]

Matt,

The bottom 10 in the tournament averaged more fairways than the top 10 this year.

the bottom 5 averaged the same as the top 5.

Immelman led in accuracy, but Tiger was well below average...so was Cink while finishing third.

I think your statement "Augusta of today REQUIRES archer like ability to hit fairways to the max" and its implication that this is now the requirement to succeed there is wildly off base...like one of Seve's drives...

[Matt_Ward]

Terry:

Beg to differ partner.

Seve knew he had room to operate at Augusta -- similar in many ways to some of the BO venues he played. Augusta has become more difficult -- the wherewithal to make low numbers / charges is less and less the case.

I have the utmost respect for what Seeve achieved but the Augusta he played and the one we see today is vastly different.

I guess certain people on this site prefer the plodding style of play that Augusta now mandates. No comparison from what the tournament used to be like and what you see now.

JES II:

Check out the driving statistics of Zach Johnson the year before -- they nearly mirror what you got from Trevor.

There's nothing wrong with plodding like play -- but it's not what lies at the genesis of Augusta's design -- my point on the link to TOC is something you conveniently tapdanced around and what Jones / Mackenzie were looking to create. Hootie and the Gang have opted to throw their history out the window for something more sinister and dark.

I can appreciate your dodge ball attempts, but it's best to understand the fundamental nature of the architectural style that for so long was unique to Augusta. You've embraced the concept of trees being included -- nothing wrong in operating in the shadows of error.

Augusta today is more about being archer-like in your ability off the tee -- the club, through the INSERTION of second cut and corset positioned trees is further reducing the margin of error. Wide fairways at Augusta encouraged the big play off the tee in order to get nearer to the green with the shortest club possible.

Seve of yesteryear would have a much harder time in handling Augusta was Hawkins main point and I concur with it.

One other point -- the folks at Augusta have succeeded in making Augusta more demanding -- have they in fact made the course more interesting and fun -- both to viewers and competitors -- I don't see that at all and frankly the company I'm with (Tiger, Furyk, Hawkins, et al) must all be wrong too.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()