[Mike_Young]

I just had a lunch discussion with a former tour player who was discussing the changes at Augusta.  His was the best analogy I have seen. 
His words were.....If tennis was to take Wimbeldon and convert it to clay all we would have would be a second French Open.....ANGC has given us a second US Open.....
That is exactly what we now have.....

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

I know this has been thrown out there by many, but the scores don't seem to suggest this.  When is the last time someone shot -8 at a US Open? Or was at -11 after 54 holes?

Why can't this just be what it is which is tougher weather conditions than normal the past two years?

[Mike_Young]

Kalen,
I disagree.  A different type of golf is being played.....many of the pros will tell you but they cannot say a word in public with endorsements and TV etc hinging on such.....

[David Stamm]

Kalen, keep in mind that at least 2 of the par 5's would very likely be converted to par 4's if the USGA got a hold of the course. This would have an effect of the over/under score, no? While the ANGC is not a modern version of the massacre at Winged Foot, I'm not so sure that with a little more gnarly rough that it would be that far off....

[Kalen Braley]

David,

I would agree that if the USGA got thier paws on it, they would do this...but the fact remains that they haven't.  And sure maybe they would bump the rough up, but the fact is, its not and the current rough is pretty benign by these guys standards.

I think all the moaning and whining is more about the big names not providing an exciting finish more than anything else.  Was there any talk about this when DiMarco and Tiger had thier shoot-out a few years back.  Or when Phil won his 1st major.  There was rough back then, and the par 5s played the same..but there wasn't any grumbling.

And I'd bet dollars to donuts if tiger had shot a 68 on the final day to win this thing, everyone would be whistling a different tune.   

[Phil Benedict]

Kalen,

The difference in par scores is largely due to the fact the Masters is par 72 and US Open par 70.  Trevor's total score, 280, is about what wins most Opens.

However, I think the comparison of the two events is a stretch.  The Open features penal rough that is virtually impossible to recover from - most guys just chip out.  There are occasions at Augusta where players chip out of the woods, especially since they added all the trees, but this happens less frequently than pitching out of the rough at the Open.  Advancing the ball from the rough is not a problem at Augusta.

What Augusta has in abundance that affects scoring and is not present at the typical Open set up is water hazards.  Augusta has extremely challenging greens but so do many Open venues (eg Oakmont, Pinehurst and Winged Foot).

I guess the similarity between the two events may be a matter of the way they feel (lots of hard pars and few birdie opportunities), not in the way the courses actually play.

[Kirk Gill]

I understand the analogy, but at the same time......there is a huge difference in my mind between the fairway widths at Augusta and those at US Open venues, and there is most definitely an enormous difference between the "second cut" at ANGC and the multi-inch rough found at the US Open.

It may not be the Masters of old, and defensive play may be more in effect due to all of the changes. I get that. The analogy is fair, but substantial differences remain.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mike

A second Open or a second PGA?

Mark

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

The difference in par scores is largely due to the fact the Masters is par 72 and US Open par 70.  Trevor's total score, 280, is about what wins most Opens.

However, I think the comparison of the two events is a stretch.  The Open features penal rough that is virtually impossible to recover from - most guys just chip out.  There are occasions at Augusta where players chip out of the woods, especially since they added all the trees, but this happens less frequently than pitching out of the rough at the Open.  Advancing the ball from the rough is not a problem at Augusta.

What Augusta has in abundance that affects scoring and is not present at the typical Open set up is water hazards.  Augusta has extremely challenging greens but so do many Open venues (eg Oakmont, Pinehurst and Winged Foot).

I guess the similarity between the two events may be a matter of the way they feel, not in the way the courses actually play.

Phil,

I think thats a pretty good explanation of the differences.  For me, I just keep coming back to the numbers.  8 under is a slighty better than average finishing total at the Masters so I don't really get the US Open comparisons being so loud.  Sure if you want to make a par adjustment to bring that 8 under back to even par fair enough.

But if thats the case, then the Masters has always been a US Open-ish track, not just in recent years.  Because based on a par 70, the average finish at the Masters would be over par.  So why no grumbling in years past?  And why such a big deal now when its always had these type of finishing scores?

[Sam Sikes]

It is not the winning score that matters, but the fact that so few players were in contention.  I have no problem with the winning score, but I don't think Trevor would have shot much lower if the changes had not been made. i.e. the small trees, mowing the grain in the fairways toward the tee, lengthening #7 etc.

The winning score was -8, but how many players were under par?   Not many.

I personally think the changes suck.  Mowing the grain of the fairways toward the  tee just pisses me off.  How much more can you trick up a golf course.  Not only do the players get less roll, but bump and run shots stop dead. Not to mention that they spin the wedges more from the fairway.  Just make it firm and fast.  That is when it will be most difficult.

pathetic attempt to conduct a major championship in my opinion.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - that seems like a perfect analogy to me too. It's nice and simple. It's not even about what's better or worse, i.e. the French Open is a great tournament and so is Wimbledon, but they're DIFFERENT tournaments, and more importantly, different kinds of TESTS. That's part of what makes them BOTH interesting, e.g. we watch to see if a player who wins on a fast surface can win on a slower surface too (and then win on the U.S. Open surface etc). I don't think it's too much to ask or expect that golf's four majors should strive to have -- and maintain --- that uniqueness....if nothing else than for the sake of history.

Peter

[Mike_Young]

Mike - that seems like a perfect analogy to me too. It's nice and simple. It's not even about what's better or worse, i.e. the French Open is a great tournament and so is Wimbledon, but they're DIFFERENT tournaments, and more importantly, different kinds of TESTS. That's part of what makes them BOTH interesting, e.g. we watch to see if a player who wins on a fast surface can win on a slower surface too (and then win on the U.S. Open surface etc). I don't think it's too much to ask or expect that golf's four majors should strive to have -- and maintain --- that uniqueness....if nothing else than for the sake of history.

Peter

You say it better than myself.
I understand taller rough etc.....but the winners that week are in the fairway on both courses....and both courses have players looking for pars not birdies.....whereas before the fn and excitement was in the ability to go get the birdies if you wished to challenge.....IMHO

[Will MacEwen]

It is not the winning score that matters, but the fact that so few players were in contention.  I have no problem with the winning score, but I don't think Trevor would have shot much lower if the changes had not been made. i.e. the small trees, mowing the grain in the fairways toward the tee, lengthening #7 etc.

There also seems to be a shift away from encouraging aggressive play (with corresponding risk), and allowing the heroic recovery shot, which is also a component of aggressive play.  To me it is not the score, but the style.

[A.G._Crockett]

To me it is not the score, but the style.

Bingo!  That is the analogy to the Open.

[Phil Benedict]

Bashing Augusta is a GCA annual rite of spring, which I think is mostly sincere distain for the course changes and the way the course has played in the past two years.  What's interesting this year is that the general media has picked up the thread more so than in the past.  

Frankly, I think this may have something to do with the architecture but more to do with the last two winners.  The media wants Tiger to win with Phil the default second choice.  I wonder if Tiger and Trevor's finish positions were reversed if the mainstream media would care about the way the course played.  The story practically writes itself - Tiger, Grand Slam, Earl, Elin, new father, Hank, dominance, Jack's record etc.  Throw in the bit about Augusta slapping Stevie on the wrist for not wearing his hat for color and you've got your story.

The interesting question is whether the club will be at all responsive to the mainstream criticism.  Like other entrenched institutions (eg the Bush Administration or Communist Party), Augusta is loathe to admit a mistake, and it would be hard to reverse the work of the past 10-years, such as the first cut and all the trees, without tacitly admitting mistakes were made.  The easiest thing to do would be to increase tee flexibility, particularly on the par 5's, and say it was to take into consideration varying playing conditions.

[Chip Gaskins]

i look at the US Open as a set up that doesn't really allow recovery shots....or at least creative recovery shots, i don't call wedges back into the fairway recovery shots.

as much as the masters has been a bore for the last few years, i do think it still offers players some creativity to try and save par.

#13 and #15 would be par 4s at the US Open.

the right side of #11 green would have a bunch of tall rough.

[Kalen Braley]

Bashing Augusta is a GCA annual rite of spring, which I think is mostly sincere distain for the course changes and the way the course has played in the past two years.  What's interesting this year is that the general media has picked up the thread more so than in the past.  

Frankly, I think this may have something to do with the architecture but more to do with the last two winners.  The media wants Tiger to win with Phil the default second choice.  I wonder if Tiger and Trevor's finish positions were reversed if the mainstream media would care about the way the course played.  The story practically writes itself - Tiger, Grand Slam, Earl, Elin, new father, Hank, dominance, Jack's record etc.  Throw in the bit about Augusta slapping Stevie on the wrist for not wearing his hat for color and you've got your story.

The interesting question is whether the club will be at all responsive to the mainstream criticism.  Like other entrenched institutions (eg the Bush Administration or Communist Party), Augusta is loathe to admit a mistake, and it would be hard to reverse the work of the past 10-years, such as the first cut and all the trees, without tacitly admitting mistakes were made.  The easiest thing to do would be to increase tee flexibility, particularly on the par 5's, and say it was to take into consideration varying playing conditions.

Phil,

I completely agree with this as stated in one of my prior posts.

The focus of one of the many criticsms I've heard is not going for the green in 2 on 13 and 15.  If the conditions are adverse and its playing into a 20-25 MPH headwind, why is it so tough to see that most players if any won't be able to make it?

I've read many threads on GCA.com over the last 1.5 years how a good aspect to a course is how it can play differently under various weather conditions.  Well ANGC played very very tough on Sunday, and yet we are turning around and bashing it for playing too tough in brutal conditions?  These guys were just trying to hit fairways and greens in those conditions, why would they be shawshbuckling and charging in those conditions?

[Jim Johnson]

Scores (according to par) at last year's US Open at Oakmont, and this month's Masters...

Rounds of even par or better...

2007 US Open:
Thurs = 4
Fri = 3
Sat = 6
Sun = 4

2008 Masters:
Thurs = 27
Fri = 29
Sat = 24
Sun = 9


JJ

[Chuck Brown]

Bashing Augusta is a GCA annual rite of spring, which I think is mostly sincere distain for the course changes and the way the course has played in the past two years.  What's interesting this year is that the general media has picked up the thread more so than in the past.  

Frankly, I think this may have something to do with the architecture but more to do with the last two winners.  The media wants Tiger to win with Phil the default second choice.  I wonder if Tiger and Trevor's finish positions were reversed if the mainstream media would care about the way the course played.  The story practically writes itself - Tiger, Grand Slam, Earl, Elin, new father, Hank, dominance, Jack's record etc.  Throw in the bit about Augusta slapping Stevie on the wrist for not wearing his hat for color and you've got your story.

The interesting question is whether the club will be at all responsive to the mainstream criticism.  Like other entrenched institutions (eg the Bush Administration or Communist Party), Augusta is loathe to admit a mistake, and it would be hard to reverse the work of the past 10-years, such as the first cut and all the trees, without tacitly admitting mistakes were made.  The easiest thing to do would be to increase tee flexibility, particularly on the par 5's, and say it was to take into consideration varying playing conditions.

I think you are quite right.  I also think that the people who complain about what equipment technology has done to Augusta are also right.  There's no requirement that the two be mutually exclusive, unless one absolutely needs to explain the actions of the popular press.

The undercurrent of the complaints about changes to the golf course at Augusta is that ANGC is unique among the majors in that it is the one annual host site.  And while we can learn something about what equipment technology is doing to the game by observing the extent to which The Old Course needs to be re-contorted every 8 or 10 years, Augusta is the purest barometer of changes, year by year.  And becuase of the kind of golf course Augusta is (designed to play fast and bouncy, without the score-controlling tricks of the USGA), it is also "the canary in the coal mine" for technology advances.

[Pete Lavallee]

The focus of one of the many criticsms I've heard is not going for the green in 2 on 13 and 15.  If the conditions are adverse and its playing into a 20-25 MPH headwind, why is it so tough to see that most players if any won't be able to make it?

Not true, the focus of the criticsms is that it is now impossible to shoot a 30 on the back nine on Sunday. Nobody is expecting two double eagles on the par 5's so to get to 6 under on the back you would need 6 birdies or an eagle and 4 birdies. So you still need to be able to birdie some of the par 4 holes to reach this target. This is why the back plays so differently; there aren't 4 birdieable par 4's on the back nine anymore.

[Kalen Braley]

The focus of one of the many criticsms I've heard is not going for the green in 2 on 13 and 15.  If the conditions are adverse and its playing into a 20-25 MPH headwind, why is it so tough to see that most players if any won't be able to make it?

Not true, the focus of the criticsms is that it is now impossible to shoot a 30 on the back nine on Sunday. Nobody is expecting two double eagles on the par 5's so to get to 6 under on the back you would need 6 birdies or an eagle and 4 birdies. So you still need to be able to birdie some of the par 4 holes to reach this target. This is why the back plays so differently; there aren't 4 birdieable par 4's on the back nine anymore.

Pete,

There were 217 birdies or better on the non-par 5's this week on the back 9.  That would indicate to me there be plenty of birds available for someone to make a run under normal conditions, especially in light of the limited field size this week.  Sunday was just brutal weather, and the course shouldn't be blamed for not providing the charge and drama.

[Pete Lavallee]

Kalen,

Which par 4's on the back nine are birdie holes in your opinion?

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

Which par 4's on the back nine are birdie holes in your opinion?

Every single one.  Immemalman birdied 11 twice, Tiger birdied 11 and 18 on Sunday.  Every hole had at least a dozen birds over the week, most more than a couple of dozen.  And considering the small field size, and eliminating the "golden years" guys and amateurs, the field was even smaller. 

[Pete Lavallee]

I disagree. Tour Pros are smart enough to know when to get aggresive and when to play it safe. I didn't see anyone play anywhere close to the hole location on 11 on Sunday. For a hole to be a good birdie possibility in my book, you have to be able to get the ball to within 10 feet or so and no one tried that shot on 11. Sure you can play to the front right and get lucky and make a bomb, but that's luck, not skill. I'll agree that the Sunday pin position on 18 gives a good chance at birdie, but 10, 11 14 and 17 are just too tough now. The course will give up 68's but that is not a low enough score to give the wild swings we were used to; ones that make for a dramatic back nine on Sunday.

[Kalen Braley]

I disagree. Tour Pros are smart enough to know when to get aggresive and when to play it safe. I didn't see anyone play anywhere close to the hole location on 11 on Sunday. For a hole to be a good birdie possibility in my book, you have to be able to get the ball to within 10 feet or so and no one tried that shot on 11. Sure you can play to the front right and get lucky and make a bomb, but that's luck, not skill. I'll agree that the Sunday pin position on 18 gives a good chance at birdie, but 10, 11 14 and 17 are just too tough now. The course will give up 68's but that is not a low enough score to give the wild swings we were used to; ones that make for a dramatic back nine on Sunday.

Pete,

I would agree that shooting a 30 on the back 9 is very difficult...but I would also maintain its always been this way.  I can think of Jacks swashbuckling win in 86 where I think he did this.  But other than that, I'm not sure how often this has actually happened.  So I don't think its fair to say if it didn't happen this time around then its a disappointment, if history shows it happens infrequently anyways.

And that is sort of the theme of my posts that I've been trying to get across over the last couple of days.  I dind't see anything out of the ordinary this year that doesn't match historic trends.  Every year can't be 86 or Phil grinding his way to victory, and history shows they happen much less often than otherwise.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()