[Rick Shefchik]

Matt,

Tiger may well hold to his recently-stated opinion about Augusta National no matter what happens in the next few years, but it's also possible that his comments were made in the heat of the moment (just as you are accusing ANGC of changing the course in the heat of the moment after Tiger's blow-out win in 1997.)

We discussed the 1966 Masters earlier on another thread. I quoted Jack Nicklaus's comments -- written years later -- that the conditions were very difficult due to a dry spring and high winds that week.

But immediately after that tournament, he was not so generous or measured in his assessment. He told Golf Magazine, "After we shot lights out the year before, it appeared as though they [the tournament officials] weren't going to let that happen again. The grass on the fairways was long enough that you couldn't put any spin n the ball, and the greens were hard as a rock."

A few year's worth of perspective...

[Jim Nugent]

Seve in his prime could win at Augusta or any other course, if he got hot enough. 

He never won a U.S. Open.  Probably because the courses did not fit his game.  Matt's point is that ANGC has become more like a U.S. Open layout.  Easy for me to believe that Seve would have a real hard time there, just as he did at the Open. 

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.

The numbers don't add up:  there are 11 more scores on 13 than 15.  Eagles don't account for that big a difference, do they?  Also, those aren't numbers for the entire tournament, are they?   

That said, the holes seem almost identical, except for the number of bogeys.  And the average scores were also almost identical.  Not much between those two holes, scoring-wise.   

[Jeff Grossman]

Last night or the night before on the golf channel there was a report that the Masters committee is considering add some tees to provide more flexability for less than ideal conditions to try and temp the players more on the par 5's.  Dont know how accurate the report is but just wanted to let everyone know.

[JESII]

I think Matt Ward deserves the credit for the highest rated Masters of all time...coming in 2009...everyone going for every par 5 in two will have us all on the edge of our seats from Thursday at breakfast through the inevitably riveting playoff between the top 7 players in the world on Sunday afternoon...

Would they play a three and a four? Or two two's and a three? Or all seven together like winter gangsomes?

[Mark Bourgeois]

The notion that anyone can win is another notch on the Masters' US Open belt.

When they start making changes to improve the reward side of the equation I expect all you Hootie fans out there to boycott the tourney!

[George Pazin]

Here's an interesting take, worthy of a read and further contemplation:

Masters analysis off the mark

I said during last year's Open that all too often, there's a story to sell and everyone is out there selling it.

I stand corrected with Mr. Barrett - nice clear thinking in contrast to the same old same old.

[Rick Shefchik]

George,

Wake up and smell the paint thinner, partner. If you and so many others on this site want to float your boats with unwatchable Masters like the one we saw this year, you can just keep tap-dancing. Candidly, Barrett is manipulating the numbers to defend a course that is sooooooooo far from what Bob Jones and Alister Mackenzie meant it to be -- the St. Andrews of the Georgia pines. Why don't you come clean and admit you've never been to ANGC?

[Mark Bourgeois]

George

For all I care they could hold the tournament in a landfill. You judge a tree by the fruit it bears.  I have now watched the final round of 2007 three times, to whether / if I really found the play boring. Answer: yes.  The architecture's not wholly to blame.  When the length of rounds extends by an hour that's the equivalent of robbing us of 25 percent "golf action per hour."  And CBS has decided to feed us storylines instead of action, which means we have to suffer the preshot routines of the Stewart Applebys of the world as well as announcers who make themselves part of the process. Maybe they're not to blame though as they've got to find a way to fill all this extra time and if there aren't big moves up the scoreboard then if they were to reach deeper into the barrel the quality of golf action still would degrade anyway.

End of the day, 2007 in a nutshell was Tiger breaking his 4 iron on 11. And longer rounds aren't entirely the fault of Bob Rotella, either.  There's an architecture / I&B angle there.

As for 2008, Barrett is wrong to blame the weather.  Bobby Jones chose the first week of April in hopes that time of year would produce windy and dry conditions.  He also wrote of the architecture producing scores as low as 30 on the back nine.

The conclusion I draw from his two comments was that conditions such as Sundays a) ought to be desirable and b) shouldn't preclude charges on the back. How ironic that it took the wet and still conditions of Saturday to produce the type of interest on the back nine that we look for on Sunday.  Reality has been reversed.

Speaking of backwards, Barrett conflates the front nine and the back nine to look at rounds in toto.  Used to be the front nine did more damage.  At any rate, the scoring opportunities increasingly are spread across the entire 18, so the "drama" gets stretched out over the round rather than compressed into the second nine.

Yet another way the Masters is becoming more like the US Open.

Mark

[Matt_Ward]

George:

It's very easy -- and predictable on your part -- to throw forward one commentary and then stake your claim that the really inside dope being pushed forward by Dave Barrett is really the real deal.

Augusta was a grand course -- people still need to explain to me why the massive flip flop from its original genesis. There was nothing fundamentally wrong to merit such a grand change to what one sees today.

A pity indeed.

[George Pazin]

George:

It's very easy -- and predictable on your part -- to throw forward one commentary and then stake your claim that the really inside dope being pushed forward by Dave Barrett is really the real deal.

And this differs from your approach how?

[Matt_Ward]

George:

There have been a good deal more articles on the state of Augusta and what has happened there then the solitary piece you offered as "evidence" that something is amiss with the unhappy campers who see Augusta jettisoning its original formula for success.

George, you still play the tap dance game and avoid the central question -- what was "broken" with Augusta to do the kind of major changes that fly clearly in the face of what Jones & Mackenzie envisioned ?

I mean do you see the "new" Augusta as superior to the "old" one that worked fine until the powers that be (Hootie and the Gang) decided to completely abort the greatness of the old Augusta because of what one, two or three players were hitting into some of the greens on some of the occasions?

Do you support the "second cut" addition ?

Do you support the massive number of new trees that cause a corset effect on a number of holes there ?

Do you believe additional length has to be added to the point of distoring the nature of a number of holes (e.g., 1st, 7th, 11th, to name just three).

The current state of Augusta is to dampen down the potential for low scores to such a degree that the overall charm and excitement of the event is now waning for a good many more people than those who see it otherwise.

End of story ...

[Dan Kelly]

Wake up and smell the paint thinner, partner.

Someone really ought to say:

Now *that's* funny.

(Sounds like a Russ Daly lede, to me.)

[Dan Herrmann]

Paraphrasing Matt, The Masters has lost a lot of its charm.

Does anybody know how the course plays today for members versus 10 years ago?  Does the second cut exist on a day-to-day basis, and are the members' tees playing at about the same yardage they always have?

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

The problem, as I see it, with your central argument is that you paint with too broad of a brushstroke.

You lump together all of the changes made at Augusta, condemn them in unison, and long for the course that existed before the changes. This, despite a fair mountain of evidence -- cited on this DG and in other forums -- that changes in club and ball technology have clearly led to measurable increases in distance (as well as straighter ball flights) in the last 20 years. You also seem to ignore statistics on this thread, regarding e.g., eagles per tournament, without any corresponding statistics on your end to augment your argument. (You ask us to go find them -- see reply #114 -- without doing the work yourself to buttress your case.)

I know a lot less about Augusta than you do, but I can't help but think Jones and Co. didn't design, in particular, holes 13 and 15 to make golfers think about what kind of shot they wanted to play off the tee, and what shot they would play for the second based on the outcome of their tee shot. The extraordinary use of the terrain on those two holes, by any rationale assessment, would lead one to conclude that Jones envisioned those holes being played in a variety of ways, for both different skill sets of golfers (Johnson vs. Woods) and different outcomes of particular shots. Lengthening those holes, it seems, is a defendable approach to maintaining the integrity of how Jones thought those holes ought to be played, I'd argue.

You harp on the second cut of rough, and excess tree planting, and in some respects I can see your point. But as folks like Pat Mucci (who's among DG posters has actually played the place post-changes, I believe) point it, there is still ample width among the fairways, and perhaps its not a bad thing at the Masters to have golfers pause on the tee before pulling their driver on every hole (and the TOC reference you keeping bringing up is, I'd suggest, something of a false one. TOC in Open set-up/conditions has never been a all-driver, all-the-time course, pre- or post-technology boom. Nicklaus never played 12 with a driver off the tee, and rarely played 16 that way. Tiger regularly attacks TOC with a variety of clubs off the tee -- sometimes driver on 12 to blast OVER the green and play back, sometimes fairway wood/2-iron on 14 off the tee for better placement for his 2nd into the green.)

Finally, I have yet to see you or anyone else address the benign nature that is emerging in recent years of the course's most famous hole, #12. It's now the easiest par 3 on the course, and is little more than a wedge/9-iron at the Masters for most players. Think that's what Jones envisioned for that hole?

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

"Broadstroke" -- come again ?

You mention the distance the pros gained -- how does that impact the scores that were being made ?

Phil, how about a simple concession from the pro-Augusta crowd that Hootie practically had a coronary because he saw Tiger hit a short iron into #15 (out of how many total times ?) and the same thing happened with Phil into #11. Big freakin deal ! Does anyone ask the next question -- did Tiger have a tap-in for eagle or a tap-in birdie for Phil ?

How about the singular fact that you and a number of others keep missing by a country mile that in years past Augusta was unrivaled for pure golf entertainment -- the kind where people could make up ground and where the idea of "moving day" on Saturdays past was indeed exciting stuff.

You asked about eagles -- Phil, where have they been the last few years. Look at holes #13 and #15 -- those were the two in question. How many attempts have been made to go for the green in two ? More than in years past ?

Geeze, I didn't know there was such a fan club for seeing that most exciting of shots (forgive me as I hold on dearly for my life to my computer) for the 90-100 yard wedge shot.

The genesis of Augusta was to be the American parksland equivalent of TOC. Now you have second cuts, massive tree inclusions and a corseting of holes with even more length added for the sake of "Tiger proofing" the course. Is that really what people want to see? I sure as hell don't.

Phil, take your argument on the back nine par-5's. The added length has practically said to anyone with less than above average distance to normally lay-up with the 2nd. Why take the chance -- go for the sure thing indeed. In sum -- the club opted to take out of the equation the risky play and enforce for the short to mid-length players a general sameness time after time. In years past -- the mid-length players had to go for the green because eagle was indeed a doable thing for the stronger players.

Phil, when you hedge with the "in some respects" comments on the second cut and tree invasion -- then you are being a stuck in the mud beyond comprehension. The premise of Augusta was TOC -- if you saw the course in the 70's and 80's it worked so well for so many years. Now Tiger emeges and all hell breaks loose. The angles that Augusta provides for proper positioning still work -- it's a belief in the original intent from Jones / Mackenzie that's been abandoned because of bruised egos tied to what CERTAIN people hit into CERTAIN holes.

Phil, you mention the clubs people hit into TOC -- good point. Ask yourself this -- why the inane desire to lengthen the 7th at Augusta ? What was wrong with the hole previously ? Many players opted for different styles to play the hole from driver to 3-metal to even 1 or 2 irons off the tee. It was a great transition hole and the relative narrowness of the fairway from years ago made sense given the short length of the hole. The folks at Augusta bastardized the hole to make it nothing more than long and narrow par-4 to a severely sloped green. Great thinking indeed. Is that really improvement ?

One other thing -- if you think #12 is so "benign" to be a wedge or 9-iron with all types of players then you really need to understand the greatness of that hole. Ask players to name a hole where the fear of the unknown still prevails and the 12th can strike as quickly as possible.

Just remember Phil -- Augusta was the place where golf excitement was born and furthered through the years. The course has been now doctored to be what Jim Furyk rightly said after this year's event that the fun element is no longer the same when playing there.


 

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

I've acknowledged, in previous threads, that I don't like the changes at 7. I agree with you there.

Snedeker, a short player by any standard, twice went for the green in two on 13 and got wet both times; Johnson, similarly length-challenged, didn't go for the green on 13 in 2007 and came away a winner. Tiger and Mickelson nearly always go for 13 in two; Goosen -- very long -- famously took an iron off the tee there. I actually like the variety of ways that hole can be attacked, but to each his own.

No. 12 played as the easiest par 3 this year; it was among the top third easiest holes of the tournament. That doesn't strike me as a hole that strikes fear in professional golfers anymore.

 

[George Pazin]

George:

There have been a good deal more articles on the state of Augusta and what has happened there then the solitary piece you offered as "evidence" that something is amiss with the unhappy campers who see Augusta jettisoning its original formula for success.

George, you still play the tap dance game and avoid the central question -- what was "broken" with Augusta to do the kind of major changes that fly clearly in the face of what Jones & Mackenzie envisioned ?

I mean do you see the "new" Augusta as superior to the "old" one that worked fine until the powers that be (Hootie and the Gang) decided to completely abort the greatness of the old Augusta because of what one, two or three players were hitting into some of the greens on some of the occasions?

Do you support the "second cut" addition ?

Do you support the massive number of new trees that cause a corset effect on a number of holes there ?

Do you believe additional length has to be added to the point of distoring the nature of a number of holes (e.g., 1st, 7th, 11th, to name just three).

The current state of Augusta is to dampen down the potential for low scores to such a degree that the overall charm and excitement of the event is now waning for a good many more people than those who see it otherwise.

End of story ...

Curiously, I agree with many of your points. I don't think anything was lacking in the original design, I don't think most of the changes were necessary, and I really hate the second cut and the additional trees.

I just don't agree with your conclusion that this year's Masters was unusually dull due to the changes. I don't think it was that dull (maybe not a firecracker year, but how many of those have we had?) and even if it was, I don't think it was due to the changes.

 

[George Pazin]

No. 12 played as the easiest par 3 this year; it was among the top third easiest holes of the tournament. That doesn't strike me as a hole that strikes fear in professional golfers anymore.

Like most holes of this length, the ability to strike fear is entirely weather dependent. No professional, and really even few golfers in general, get nervous over a 160 yard shot. Even a lesser golfer like me doesn't.

[Phil McDade]

George:

From 1942 (I'm guessing when the committee started keeping stats) through 2007, 12 played to a stroke average of 3.3, making it the second hardest hole historically on the course, and the hardest among the course's par 3s. This year it played at 3.094, easiest of the par 3s. Perhaps a one-year blip, but I note that it has been playing below its historic 3.3 average in recent years, including an all-time low stroke average of 3.03 in 2002.

What gives? Might one answer be that ball and club technology has allowed players to hit shots with wedges and 9-irons that -- with improved spin technology -- essentially sit down quickly on what is admittedly a very shallow green? Were players hitting "harder" balls with 7 and 8-irons into that green 20-30 years ago, thus the higher scoring average historically?

[George Pazin]

George:

From 1942 (I'm guessing when the committee started keeping stats) through 2007, 12 played to a stroke average of 3.3, making it the second hardest hole historically on the course, and the hardest among the course's par 3s. This year it played at 3.094, easiest of the par 3s. Perhaps a one-year blip, but I note that it has been playing below its historic 3.3 average in recent years, including an all-time low stroke average of 3.03 in 2002.

What gives? Might one answer be that ball and club technology has allowed players to hit shots with wedges and 9-irons that -- with improved spin technology -- essentially sit down quickly on what is admittedly a very shallow green? Were players hitting "harder" balls with 7 and 8-irons into that green 20-30 years ago, thus the higher scoring average historically?

My guess? Part one-year blip, part more forgiving technology. More the former than the latter, primarily due to the weather.

[jeffwarne]

George:

From 1942 (I'm guessing when the committee started keeping stats) through 2007, 12 played to a stroke average of 3.3, making it the second hardest hole historically on the course, and the hardest among the course's par 3s. This year it played at 3.094, easiest of the par 3s. Perhaps a one-year blip, but I note that it has been playing below its historic 3.3 average in recent years, including an all-time low stroke average of 3.03 in 2002.

What gives? Might one answer be that ball and club technology has allowed players to hit shots with wedges and 9-irons that -- with improved spin technology -- essentially sit down quickly on what is admittedly a very shallow green? Were players hitting "harder" balls with 7 and 8-irons into that green 20-30 years ago, thus the higher scoring average historically?

Or Phil it could be that players are better than they were in 1942 -19xx. (thus lowering the scoring average of one of the few holes that hasn't changed much.
Also, the fields are deeper now, whereas previously many of the foreign invitees, past Champions, and multiple amateurs had no chance to win. Now they have run out out most of the past champions, the foreign players can and do win, and there are very few amateurs.

[Phil McDade]

George:

In 2008, a number of holes played harder than their historical averages -- in a year when the average score was slightly (half-stroke) easier (73.79 vs. 74.24 historically). Holes playing harder included 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13. Interestingly, those include some of the holes most criticized by Matt Ward for Augusta's recent treatment, through lengthening and other changes.

Matt seems to think 12 is still a difficult/frightful hole for the players. Perhaps, but its recent history suggests it's playing easier.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Check the birdie ratio on #12 versus that of other holes.

I don't doubt the overall stroke average but many players are exercising tremendous caution when playing the hole and avoiding the DB or worse.

The extreme lenthening of the other holes you mentioned more than proves my point. In years past #1 has played as the toughest hole - prior to the extreme lengthening there -- no need for the overkill in my mind.

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

No. 1 has rarely played as the course's toughest hole, either in individual tournaments or overall. Its historical ranking has it as the 7th hardest hole, behind (in order of historical difficulty) 1, 12, 4, 11, 5 and 18. (18, significantly lengthened in recent years, played easier in 2008 than its historical average, both in terms of strokes per hole and -- perhaps more importantly -- its rank among the other 17 holes. Historically is plays as the 6th toughest hole; in 2008, it played as 8th toughest.) Yes, #1 has played hard in past years, notably in 2007 (when it played to nearly 4.5 strokes), but even in very tough conditions, it has played a bit easier than 10 and esp. 11. Is the lengthening at 1 overkill? Perhaps, although I can see the argument for a very tough opener. But the lengthening of 7, 10, 11 and 17 make for a better argument re. overkill.

#12 had 40 birdies in '08, compared to 17 at #4, 36 at #6, and 41 at #16. (#12 had 38 bogies, 9 doubles, and 3 others.) It had the highest total of pars made there among the course's par 3s. I stand by my argument that it is emerging as a relatively benign hole for Masters tournament players.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

#1 was the hardest hole on several occasions long before they tinkered with what one sees today. My point is that the original starting hole provided a reasonable possibility at birdie -- while still providing a bogey or worse possibility for those falling prey to nerves or poor shotmaking.

Regarding #18 -- the added distance makes the hole now play in a one dimensional format and limits the amount of interplay the bunker complex on the left now comes into play. Playing the hole at 405 yards as it did for so many years makes the decision at the tee one that can go in a myriad of directions from driver to 3-metal to anything else the player decides upon.

Phil, again you do the tap dance qualifier -- with the "perhaps" tag to #1. There's no reason to simply throw into the equation a cure for something when the actual hole (pre-Tiger) was not broken to start with.

Keep in mind the prevailing westerly wind comes right into your face at #1 and getting to the top of the hill -- while also avoiding the bunker on the right had more of a possibility in happening when played at the 405-410 range.

Phil, you made my argument / re: the 12th. More and more players are opting for the safe route and being quite happy with predictable pars rather than pushing the envelope for the elusive birdie. No, they are not making as many high numbers but the respect element is clearly present.

When you say "benign" hole -- keep in mind the fact that satisfaction for many players at #12 is getting par and moving forward. No they don't get as many birdies but clearly they are avoiding anything of a high score nature as well.

Phil, the botton line which many people who are pro-Augusta changes can't make is why the massive overkill and the clear abandonment to the Jones / Mackenzie philosophy of a parksland version of TOC. Augusta was doing quite well even when Tiger emerged -- the changes have simply made the course more demanding while not doing anything from the entertainment element which made the event so great for so many years.

Kudos to folks like Kerry Haigh (PGA) and Mike Davis (USGA) for understanding that connection.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()