Possible Changes at ANGC

[Matt_Cohn]

Matt Cohn:

Get real.

You hear about 3-4 guys that hit driver / wedge and then ipso facto the entire field is doing likewise.

That doesn't happen as much as you and the folks at Augusta think.

I agree. It does not happen now. But I wouldn't want it to be that way; that's why I'd rather not go back to 7,000 or 7,100 yards, where there would be a ton of driver/wedge stuff. I agree that it is currently a long golf course.

[Matt_Ward]

Matt C:

Keep this in mind -- the folks at Augusta do make the course play a tad shorter and easier with the feeding friendly pin placements on the weekend -- especially Sundays.

When people talk about length it's not just what Bubba Watson, J.B. Holmes and Tiger hit into the greens. The strong guys will hit wedges - big freakin deal. The issue is about leveling the playing field and giving more players the wherewithal to be in the hunt. The lengthening of #13 and #15 -- in concert with the inane tree plantings especially on #15 have reduced the number of go to shots for the second on both holes in recent years. I want to see players take risk but they won't do that with so little probability of success.

Distance is often touted by the commentators and others but inside the ropes and when you measure up all the players and what they actually hit into the greens the choice of clubs for approaches is still beyond the wedge and automatic short iron that many believe is the choice for all players.

Lessening the total length of the course would not be an admission of failure but a clear move to returning Augusta to the kind of wild free-for-all that made The Masters grand golf theater.

[Sean Leary]

I've always felt that the "first" cut made Augusta look like a Nationwide Tour course on tv.
I would much rather see one cut length and the removal of a lot of trees to re-open some of the approach angles.  If the approach angles were available, the new length while still an issue would be less if a "precision" player was playing well, especially in firm conditions
Of course, I never played the tournament, and am commenting out of some other's experiences 

Pat,

Did you ever come close to qualifying?  Back then you pretty much had to win a tournament, correct?

[Matt_Cohn]

Matt C:

Keep this in mind -- the folks at Augusta do make the course play a tad shorter and easier with the feeding friendly pin placements on the weekend -- especially Sundays.

When people talk about length it's not just what Bubba Watson, J.B. Holmes and Tiger hit into the greens. The strong guys will hit wedges - big freakin deal. The issue is about leveling the playing field and giving more players the wherewithal to be in the hunt. The lengthening of #13 and #15 -- in concert with the inane tree plantings especially on #15 have reduced the number of go to shots for the second on both holes in recent years. I want to see players take risk but they won't do that with so little probability of success.

Distance is often touted by the commentators and others but inside the ropes and when you measure up all the players and what they actually hit into the greens the choice of clubs for approaches is still beyond the wedge and automatic short iron that many believe is the choice for all players.

Lessening the total length of the course would not be an admission of failure but a clear move to returning Augusta to the kind of wild free-for-all that made The Masters grand golf theater.

We're in agreement on the par-5's, just not the par 4's. Keep in mind that the average winning score in the 10 years prior to Tiger was about 281 (-9), so while it may have seemed like a wild free-for-all, it was by no means a birdiefest.

This year's PGA Tour average driving distance is 287, which counts shots in the rough, mishits, non-drivers, etc. The average good drive hit by a PGA Tour player, it's safe to say, goes 300 yards, so any hole which plays under 430 yards is, under normal conditions, a driver and a wedge.

If played at pre-Tiger yardages, holes 1, 3, maybe 5, 7, 9, 14, and 17 - that's six or seven out of 10 par-4's - are wedge approaches for the average tour player, not just Phil or Bubba.

Furthermore, aren't green contours and strategic angles (to the extent they haven't been eliminated by trees or rough) much more relevant with 7-irons than wedges? To me, that alone is reason enough to support keeping the length where it is now.

Finally, I think the list recent winners basically makes a mockery of the belief (which I once had as well) that only long hitters have a chance at Augusta National.

[Pat Burke]

I've always felt that the "first" cut made Augusta look like a Nationwide Tour course on tv.
I would much rather see one cut length and the removal of a lot of trees to re-open some of the approach angles.  If the approach angles were available, the new length while still an issue would be less if a "precision" player was playing well, especially in firm conditions
Of course, I never played the tournament, and am commenting out of some other's experiences 

Pat,

Did you ever come close to qualifying?  Back then you pretty much had to win a tournament, correct?

[Pat Burke]

I've always felt that the "first" cut made Augusta look like a Nationwide Tour course on tv.
I would much rather see one cut length and the removal of a lot of trees to re-open some of the approach angles.  If the approach angles were available, the new length while still an issue would be less if a "precision" player was playing well, especially in firm conditions
Of course, I never played the tournament, and am commenting out of some other's experiences 

Pat,

Did you ever come close to qualifying?  Back then you pretty much had to win a tournament, correct?

Sorry guys hit wrong tab and sent no response on previous.
Effectively I never felt I was close to qualifying.  Best finish was 3rd, and I was always a miserable one day qualifier, so only played in one US Open ('92).  Always felt my best chance would  have been finishing high in another major, but only played one of each.  I spent most of my career feeling like Schlepprock, and just missing qualifying for one thing or another, but as a grow older, it becomes easier to realize, I just wasn't quite at a high enough level to get in the 4 majors enough.  Kind of ironic, because I always played well in tough conditions, and hard/fast greens.
highlight of my career was being exempt for The Open in '95.  Best golf weeks of my life

[Matt_Ward]

Matt C:

Glad we are in agreement with the par-5's but the par-4's need help too.

The 1st is way too long for what the hole means to the entire field. keep in mind that many Masters were served well when the hole was a max of 410 yards -- uphill and often times encountering a stiff headwind from the west. Just getting to the top of the hill was not small feat and only the biggest of the biggest could think of driving over the bunker on the right. Players were routinely hitting 6 and 7-irons to the hole at 410 yards because of the terrain. Now you have players hitting longer irons and hybrids!

Then the additional trees on the left have only served to narrow the hole further.

Put the hole back to the tees it played previously. It still statistically does well. It doesn't need to be a monster right from the get go.

The 5th was fine for the additional length because too many players were using simpel 3-metal shots out to the right and avoiding the bunker complex on the left. Repositioning the bunkers on the left was also needed because stronger players could routinely go down that side if they wanted to and have a short pitch to the green.

The 7th is an absolute joke now. The hole was fine at 365 yards -- it is inane at 465 yards. The green was not changed and the length of shot hit into it now is beyond reason.

The 9th is fine for its length and direction.

Ditto the 10th -- but the 11th needs to be widened on the right because of the added length that's been inserted into the mix.

I have less issue with #14 but the tee box on #17 was pushed too far back and therefore the opportunity for birdies on that hole has been reduced. The 18th is also way too long -- 460 yards through a narrow chute and going u-p-h-i-l-l signifcantly are all elements of overkill in my mind.

Matt, you keep making this grand one-size-fits-all propostion that "average" tourplayers all get the same amount of distance. Have you seen personally what some of these players do off the tee? I'm talking Zach Johnson, Larry Mize, Mike Weir, shall I go on. There's this automatic assumption on your part that the average tour guy is hitting it 290 yards or more on command with each swing. That's not the case. Averages don't reflect the median distance achieved by the players.

Keep in mind guys like Holmes, Watson and Woods can reach those turbo boosted landing areas where the separation between what they hit and what others can't reach only adds to the further separation between them.

Matt, you also need to accept the switcheroo nature of officials at Augusta. The first two rounds can be extremely taxing and borderline to US Open conditions - tees maxed out to 7,400 yards and then with the first cut's involvement, the planting of trees, etc, etc. The greens are juiced up for the opening rounds -- see what players have said about green speeds during practice rounds and when the actual event starts. You also have the involvement of the officials in minimizing tee max distances later on in the event -- especially on weekends - and in placing pins where the natural contours feed the ball to the hole.

There was nothing wrong with the course prior to Hootie's major flipping around of what Mackenzie and Jones envisioned. Somehow you and others need to explain to me what was so wrong. You keep on harping on wedge approaches -- but I've answered that a zillion times -- only a very small handful of players were doing that and even with wedge in their hands -- what were they actually scoring ?

Last item - if you think the wins by Weir, Johnson and Immelman were exciting Masters -- then you and I are on vastly different planets in regards to that. The tournaments have become plodding affairs, the nature of Augusta's design was to highlight creativity and imagination -- that's not the case now and the added distance to the course has only served to bolster extreme conservative routes to get a Green Jacket.

There's a clear outcome with that storyline ...

zzzzzzzz

[Ronald Montesano]

Jason Topp...outstanding analysis.  Can't have all the two-shotters playing alike.  What exactly is Augusta?  It's a zero if you think about it...a wonderful piece of property that has had its hair dyed so many times that no clear evidence of the original color remains (save for a gorgeous bald spot on the 10th fairway.)  No doubt 12 and 13 are untouchable, but is 15 that great a hole?  Is sixteen a great hole without that green?  I look at Old Town Club as an Augusta-style property that has gone in the proper direction.  Too bad the powers that be on Washington Road are all about glitz, glamour, and trophy wives.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rees Jones told me the other day that the club was moving the tees forward on #7 and #15 this winter.  I haven't seen any notices from the club about changes, but they are less likely to talk about that sort of shift.

Tom Doak,

Could you comment on the picture of the 1st green.

Is it safe to say that it's NOT a USGA spec green ?

How do they completely rebuild a green and in such a short period of time  get it to play like the other greens by April 6, 2009 ?

I'm baffled by how a brand new green can play like greens that have been there for years and years.  Can you explain how they can do that to us ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason Topp...outstanding analysis. 

Can't have all the two-shotters playing alike. 

What exactly is Augusta? 

A great golf course, from inception to today.

It's a zero if you think about it...a wonderful piece of property that has had its hair dyed so many times that no clear evidence of the original color remains (save for a gorgeous bald spot on the 10th fairway.) 

That's an absurd statement.
The routing and the individual holes remain essentially the same.
While the Micro architecture may have changed, the Macro architecture is mostly in tact, save for # 10 and # 16.

Have you ever played the golf course ?

No doubt 12 and 13 are untouchable, but is 15 that great a hole? 


Absolutely.

Is sixteen a great hole without that green? 

Yes

I look at Old Town Club as an Augusta-style property that has gone in the proper direction. 

Too bad the powers that be on Washington Road are all about glitz, glamour, and trophy wives.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

ANGC hosts a Major, EVERY Year, something that NO other club in the world does.  It's a unique, wonderful golf course.

[Ronald Montesano]

Ahh, good.  Got someone's attention.

I'll certainly retract (if warranted) if you know someone who can get me a go round the course.

Augusta National, when compared to the courses of the new millenium, reminds me of a tired Hollywood former starlet, long in the tooth, caking on make-up in order to remain viable.  You implied the same line of reasoning yourself when referencing the excavation of the first green.  When was the last time anyone dug up a green at the Old Course?   They seem to do these things every year, this plastic surgery, these agricultural breast implants.  It tires me.

Augusta National should be more than it is.  I hold out hope that Billy Payne not only "gets it," but is crafty enough to convince the crowd that a return to the subtlety of MacKenzie and Jones might be a good thing.

[David_Tepper]

Pat Mucci -

Have you read the current GCA Feature Interview with Sandy Tatum? He says this about AGNC:

"On a national scale, Augusta National.  There is none of that Jones/Mackenzie designed course there, it’s gone.  It was Jones's concept.  Here was maybe the single most important person in the history of golf in many respects, at least up to the time that Tiger Woods realizes his potential, and the course he and Mackenzie designed is no longer there."

Your thoughts?

DT

[Bill Gayne]

Ahh, good.  Got someone's attention.

I'll certainly retract (if warranted) if you know someone who can get me a go round the course.

Augusta National, when compared to the courses of the new millenium, reminds me of a tired Hollywood former starlet, long in the tooth, caking on make-up in order to remain viable.  You implied the same line of reasoning yourself when referencing the excavation of the first green.  When was the last time anyone dug up a green at the Old Course?   They seem to do these things every year, this plastic surgery, these agricultural breast implants.  It tires me.

Augusta National should be more than it is.  I hold out hope that Billy Payne not only "gets it," but is crafty enough to convince the crowd that a return to the subtlety of MacKenzie and Jones might be a good thing.

I'm reading Scott McPherson book about the history of the Old Course and changes have actually been made quite frequently. The changes have been in response to technology resulting in lengthening the course usually done prior to Opens. A couple of months ago there was a thread about Hell bunker and you will see the photographs of the changes over the decades.

As to ANGC, what's the problem with 16 green?

Tell me more about "glitz, glamour, and trophy wives" at ANGC.

[Ronald Montesano]

There's nothing wrong with the green; the putting surface makes the hole.  Without it, it's another par three over a pond, a far cry from the subtle creek that ran through in the early days.

[Dunlop_White]

Augusta has also added more square footage to some putting surfaces. If the tee on Hole 7 has been moved forward as Tom suggests....that would be a great reversal.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ahh, good.  Got someone's attention.

I'll certainly retract (if warranted) if you know someone who can get me a go round the course.

Augusta National, when compared to the courses of the new millenium, reminds me of a tired Hollywood former starlet, long in the tooth, caking on make-up in order to remain viable. 

How can you make a comparison of any golf course that you've never played ?

You obviously know very little about how ANGC plays.

You implied the same line of reasoning yourself when referencing the excavation of the first green. 

No I didn't.
Evidently you didn't understand the questions I asked Tom Doak

When was the last time anyone dug up a green at the Old Course?   


I'm not familiar enough with the TOC to answer that question, but, I do know that they completely revamped the 17th hole greenside bunker not too long ago.

They seem to do these things every year, this plastic surgery, these agricultural breas-t implants. 

ANGC has been doing it since 1934, this is nothing new

It tires me.

Since you've never played the golf course you wouldn't know the net effect of any changes on the playability of the golf course.

You wouldn't know if a change was positive, negative or neutral on play.


Augusta National should be more than it is. 


In what way ?

I hold out hope that Billy Payne not only "gets it," but is crafty enough to convince the crowd that a return to the subtlety of MacKenzie and Jones might be a good thing.

What subtlety ?

Could you identify the subtlety on each hole ?

And, are you stating, unequivically, that you favor a pure restoration to 1934 ?

[Jim Nugent]

This year's PGA Tour average driving distance is 287, which counts shots in the rough, mishits, non-drivers, etc. The average good drive hit by a PGA Tour player, it's safe to say, goes 300 yards, so any hole which plays under 430 yards is, under normal conditions, a driver and a wedge.

Yet average driving distance at ANGC the past few years has been around 275.  Tiger has only averaged low 280's.  I don't know why -- conditions, weather, extra rough and trees?  But length has been greatly neutralized there lately.  I think that is a big reason the scores have not been lower. 

Does the tour measure drives on holes where players may not hit driver?  I thought not.   

[Doug Siebert]

Its been unseasonably cold for the two most recent Masters, particularly so in 2007.  I think if there is one of those perfect weather Masters where it is 80 degrees and sunny with light winds next year that even if they change nothing the winner will shoot less than 280.

[TX Golf]

Doug,

How can you say it has been unseasonably cold with the severe amounts of GLOBAL WARMING going on as we speak!!! 

[Matthew Rose]

Obviously I'd like to see the rough gone... not holding my breath on that one though.

Play #1 at about 420-430. Play #7 at about 385. I thought #17 was good at 425.

I'd like to see #11 shortened a bit, at least on Sunday, to entice more aggressive play. I didn't enjoy watching the entire field lay up 20 yards short and right.

One thing that I think is interesting is how they've not changed the length of #16 the entire time. I keep expecting them to push it back to 220 yards one of these days. Not that I would want them to, or anything.

I'm definitely in favor of the variable tee idea that seems to be floating around here.... shorter or longer holes depending on conditions. I think that the best thing Augusta can do is create more variability in the setup.

[Ian_L]

Here's a thought...

As far as I know (which isn't much), the Masters is not controlled by the PGA Tour.  So couldn't they enforce stricter equipment standards?  Would you like to see the course largely unchanged with players hitting persimmon woods and older golf balls?  I'm sure it's much too late, and I see some definite problems with this, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ian,

somewhere in the backlog of threads is one about the possibility of a Masters Ball. It has also been discussed outside GCA but I think until ANGC realises that through altering the course they can't combat the advance in technology whilst keeping the same sort of character at the tournament it won't happen.

[Bill Gayne]

Here's a thought...

As far as I know (which isn't much), the Masters is not controlled by the PGA Tour.  So couldn't they enforce stricter equipment standards?  Would you like to see the course largely unchanged with players hitting persimmon woods and older golf balls?  I'm sure it's much too late, and I see some definite problems with this, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

I've read media reports that this idea (a Masters ball) has been discussed within the ANGC leadership and the bottom line is that they want the Masters to be played by the rules of golf as set by the USGA.

[Ronald Montesano]

1.  It would be an interesting standoff between the competitors and the brass if Augusta mandated exclusive tournament equipment.  However, it would not define the competencies of the times and would require an asterisk.  Sort of like when the US Am went to stroke play for a few years and then returned to match play (although no asterisks are attached, it still looks funky when glancing at records.)

2.  I equate the Augusta changes with the TPC changes.  It seems to me that as TPC continues its chase to be the fifth major, Augusta seems threatened in being the 4th major.  I wonder if there lies a major below-the-surface rift of skullduggery between Jacksonville and Augusta.  The other three majors are governed by associations, while the 4th is an independent operation shrouded in mystery.  Which stands out?  Which does Finchem think he has the best chance of replacing?

3.  No doubt my reasoning is jaded by seeing Augusta every single year.  Changes go on at other courses, yet their media effect is diluted over the course of years.  Augusta is in the spotlight, getting the 3rd degree, every season.

4.  Having written those two points, it seems that Masters will always be the major of change.  Same property, different course each year.  Any return to bygone appearances and playability would be yet another alteration to the course.  So be it...

[Dan Herrmann]

I'd do 3 things:
1.  Lose the first cut
2.  Shorten #7
3.  Shorten #15 and cut down the grove of trees on the left.