[Phil Benedict]

It seems that Chip's and Patrick's idea of width means counting the first cut as fairway rather than rough.  Why do ANGC's defenders discount what Crenshaw and, for that matter, Jack Nicklaus have to say about the course and how it's changed?  Don't Jack and Ben know what they are talking about?  Why does Ben say it plays differently under the new championship setup?  Has he lost his mind?

ANGC is an example of the trouble with the dictatorship governance model - it only takes one bad one to muck things up.  

[John_Cullum]

ANGC is an example of the trouble with the dictatorship governance model - it only takes one bad one to muck things up.  

It's nothing a few chain saws and a fleet of mowers can't handle. It has been an interesting experiment. I would like to see most of the added trees disappear. 11 is a problem. You can't have hole go from being one of the most difficult in the championship to one where they get to pitch a dart at the hole

[Tom Birkert]

Firstly, a disclaimer - I've never been, let alone played, Augusta.

Secondly, I grew up looking forward to the excitement of The Masters - someone making a charge on the back 9, eagles, bogeys etc. It's no longer as fun to watch as it was.

Thirdly, it is often stated that the Powers That Be want the pros to be hitting similar clubs for approach shots to ones they used to in the past. That's all well and good, but the greens now are so much firmer and quicker that this is unfair. If the greens were at the speed they were back then I could understand the logic more.

[Phil Benedict]

ANGC is an example of the trouble with the dictatorship governance model - it only takes one bad one to muck things up.  

It's nothing a few chain saws and a fleet of mowers can't handle. It has been an interesting experiment. I would like to see most of the added trees disappear. 11 is a problem. You can't have hole go from being one of the most difficult in the championship to one where they get to pitch a dart at the hole

As a technical matter the fixes are easy - changing the mowing patterns and cutting down some trees.  Politically it's a different matter - eliminating the first cut would be an admission of error, calling into question the basic governance model of the club, which is that the emporer can't be wrong.

[John_Cullum]

But there's a new emperor in town, and he's no wall flower. This guy is credited with being the visionary for the Atlanta Olympics and then convincing (or succesfully bribing) the Int'l Olympic Committee.

[JESII]

Jim,
If Pat has played that course as much as he says, he knows how narrow it has become (relative to what it once was).  He just likes to debate and some of us don't have all day like he does.  Do you think Ben Crenshaw is clueless with his comment about how the width has dramatically decreased? 

Here is one comment - the 15th hole was in my opinion designed to tempt the pro golfer to go at that green in two (even with a marginal tee shot).  Today, you have a very narrow fairway window (pacing it off about 20 yards wide) in the primary pro landing area, which is narrower than most U.S. Open landing areas.  If you miss that window, all you can do is pitch it down in front of the green and play a wedge in - now that is really exciting    Furthermore, the whole right side has been cluttered with trees which not only restricts the tee shot and forces pitch outs, but ruins one of the best panaromic views on the golf course.  You used to be able to stand there and look out over an amazing piece of property.  Now you look at the back of grove of pine trees    If they had any sense as to what was intended for that golf hole, they might have placed an old Mackenzie shaped fairway bunker on the right instead of those stupid trees.  Now the golfer who misses right would have to think about going at that green from a bunkered lie 230 or 240 yards away.   What great temptation!  It would make these guys think!!  The trees do the exact opposite as there is no option if you are behind them.  Someday maybe someone will figure this out.  This is the kind of drama that make Augusta National exciting. 

Mark

Now that is actually helpful, thank you.

"Do I think Ben Crenshaw is clueless..."?

No, not at all...do you take into consideration the primary use of a course/project when you are discussing your intentions with a club?

Re: #15...how far from the tee is that 20 yard pinch?

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Of course I take into consideration the primary use (that is what the club's vision/mission statement is all about).  A project is not successul if it does not satisfy that vision.  I think my example of what would have been a much better vision for #15 would work just fine. 

As far as yardage, I didn't measure it with my range finder when I was there but I believe its in the 300 yard range give or take.  There are no angles for your second shot (if you are going for the green in two) on that hole.  The only option is hit your tee shot long and straight through the shoot.  If you aren't planning to go for the green in two you might as well hit a mid iron off the tee. 

[Mike Benham]

Options are a myth for the everyday player, not because the courses don't offer them but because the golfer can't take advantage of them.

[George Pazin]

Options are a myth for the everyday player, not because the courses don't offer them but because the golfer can't take advantage of them.

Define "can't".

I ask for the following reason: if by can't you mean can never, as in a 300 yard carry or hoisting an iron to the moon to hold a surface only available to aerial approach, then I might agree. But if you mean can't do it consistently enough to take advantage, then I think I disagree.

-----

As for the larger topic, ANGC would obviously never been described as narrow. Yet I think it was designed with a certain functional narrowness that would allow for superior play to take advantage while inferior or poorly thought out play would suffer. To me, that's why someone like Long JD has never really contended at The Masters, despite his awesome length and wonderful touch with the flat stick.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If Pat has played that course as much as he says, he knows how narrow it has become (relative to what it once was). 

That's not the issue.
The issue is, is the course narrow ?
It's not.
That the course has become narrower doesn't mean that the course is narrow.  If fairways were at 45 yards and are now 35 yards, that's still a wide fairway, despite the narrowing.  That's what you and others don't get.


He just likes to debate and some of us don't have all day like he does. 


I work a good 10 hour day, sometimes longer, devote ample time to my family and have some time left over for my hobbies.  Just because I may be more capable of multi-tasking than others doesn't dilute the substance and logic of my positions.

Mark, I asked you how many times have you played ANGC.
Why haven't you answered that simple question ?

Do you think Ben Crenshaw is clueless with his comment about how the width has dramatically decreased? 

I read Crenshaw's article.
Anyone who has played the golf course knows that it's generally NOT a narrow golf course.

Here is one comment - the 15th hole was in my opinion designed to tempt the pro golfer to go at that green in two (even with a marginal tee shot).  Today, you have a very narrow fairway window (pacing it off about 20 yards wide) in the primary pro landing area, which is narrower than most U.S. Open landing areas.  If you miss that window, all you can do is pitch it down in front of the green and play a wedge in - now that is really exciting    Furthermore, the whole right side has been cluttered with trees which not only restricts the tee shot and forces pitch outs, but ruins one of the best panaromic views on the golf course.  You used to be able to stand there and look out over an amazing piece of property.  Now you look at the back of grove of pine trees    If they had any sense as to what was intended for that golf hole, they might have placed an old Mackenzie shaped fairway bunker on the right instead of those stupid trees.  Now the golfer who misses right would have to think about going at that green from a bunkered lie 230 or 240 yards away.   What great temptation!  It would make these guys think!!  The trees do the exact opposite as there is no option if you are behind them.  Someday maybe someone will figure this out.  This is the kind of drama that make Augusta National exciting. 


The trees on the right were planted in the rough.

Golfers who hit the ball left were always blocked by the pines.

Has it become narrower in the gap, yes, but, golf balls don't curve as they much as they used to.   I have no qualms about forcing a PGA Tour Pro to have to hit a straight drive, especially when they're driving the ball 300 to 350 and more.

Or, did you prefer it when golfers were hitting sand wedges into that par 5.

[Matthew Mollica]

Mathew,

Look at the DZ  short of the trees on # 15.
It's rather generous.

Look at the LZ short of the pond.
It's rather generous.

If you drive your ball anywhere in the fairway on # 15 you have a shot, either to the green or to the fairway short of the pond, leaving you a relatively short approach into the green, which can result in birdie or par.

If the hole was a par 4, tee shots in the left portion of the fairway would have no opportunity to hit the green in regulation, almost always causing a bogie.

Hence, since getting to the green in two is not a problem for the PGA Tour Pros, requiring them to hit their drives in the optimal location in order to do so is a reasonable test.

Thanks for the reply Pat. I suspected that was your take on things. It's obviously different to mine.
Mark Fine's previous post serves as a great reply / statement of my position on this hole.

It is worth repeating -

If Pat has played that course as much as he says, he knows how narrow it has become (relative to what it once was).  He just likes to debate and some of us don't have all day like he does.  Do you think Ben Crenshaw is clueless with his comment about how the width has dramatically decreased? 

Here is one comment - the 15th hole was in my opinion designed to tempt the pro golfer to go at that green in two (even with a marginal tee shot).  Today, you have a very narrow fairway window (pacing it off about 20 yards wide) in the primary pro landing area, which is narrower than most U.S. Open landing areas.  If you miss that window, all you can do is pitch it down in front of the green and play a wedge in - now that is really exciting    Furthermore, the whole right side has been cluttered with trees which not only restricts the tee shot and forces pitch outs, but ruins one of the best panaromic views on the golf course.  You used to be able to stand there and look out over an amazing piece of property.  Now you look at the back of grove of pine trees    If they had any sense as to what was intended for that golf hole, they might have placed an old Mackenzie shaped fairway bunker on the right instead of those stupid trees.  Now the golfer who misses right would have to think about going at that green from a bunkered lie 230 or 240 yards away.   What great temptation!  It would make these guys think!!  The trees do the exact opposite as there is no option if you are behind them.  Someday maybe someone will figure this out.  This is the kind of drama that made Augusta National exciting. 

Matthew

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I have not played it as much as you but I have walked the course probably a hundred times, attended about eight Masters events in a row at one point - I know the golf course. 

By the way, your memory is going - those trees on the right on #15 were planted in what was once the fairway.  At one point there were a series of mounds over there as well all kept at fairway grass height!  Pull out an old Masters program if you don't believe me.  In planting those trees, they also dramatically tightened up #17.  That bunker I suggested might have worked quite well for both holes. 

Once again, who wants to see the pros chipping out on that hole (#15) unless they hit it perfectly straight.  That was NOT the original intent of the hole.  They might have made the hole tougher with those stupid trees, but they sure didn't make it any better and far less exciting and less dramatic then it once was.  If you are down this May, have another look at the architecture (and don't focus so much on your golf game) 

[Chip Gaskins]

Mark-

I didn't reply earlier to your mention of installing a bunker on the right side of #15 because I didn't honestly think you were serious.  You said "230 or 240 yard bunker shot" to a green bordered in front by a shaved bank and water long.  Though I do think that would be a great addition there (especially if MacK thought so) between #17 and #15, there is no way you really think pros would have a strategic choice from that spot.  Seriously, pros lay up there from inside of 210 yards from the middle of the fairway sometimes (Zach Johnson, Mike Weir, Chip Beck, etc).  You can't be saying they would be tempted to go for the green out of a fairway bunker at 230...are you?

Chip

[Patrick_Mucci]

By the way, your memory is going - those trees on the right on #15 were planted in what was once the fairway.  At one point there were a series of mounds over there as well all kept at fairway grass height!  Pull out an old Masters program if you don't believe me.  In planting those trees, they also dramatically tightened up #17.  That bunker I suggested might have worked quite well for both holes. 

Mark,

The mounds were added long after the course opened, then removed.
I'm familiar with the area

The 1934 aerials show trees IN the left side of the fairway.

No one is questioning whether or not they narrowed the fairways, they did.
The question is, is ANGC a narrow golf course.
I maintain that it isn't.

And, wasn't there a premise that indicated that the longer the tee shot the more accurate it had to be ?   I don't want to see an errant drive go unpunished.  I don't want to see a guy make a birdie from the parking lot.

If you're hosting a major and testing the best players in the world, it should be a stern test.

As to the degree of the narrowing, I'm sure we could debate that on a hole by hole basis.  Surely, # 10  and # 13 aren't narrow, they're about as wide as you can get.

Once again, who wants to see the pros chipping out on that hole (#15) unless they hit it perfectly straight.  That was NOT the original intent of the hole. 

I don't know that any of us know the original intent.
Part of the problem with # 15 is the inability to lengthen the hole.
Would you prefer golfers hitting wedge seconds into that hole, which is what occured recently, or, placing a premium on accuracy where a great drive is rewarded with a mid or short iron approach into that green ?


They might have made the hole tougher with those stupid trees, but they sure didn't make it any better and far less exciting and less dramatic then it once was. 

Did you see JB Holmes drive into the water on the sudden death hole last week ?   Should he have been rewarded for hitting an errant drive, which is what you're implying ?

If someone has a 4 shot lead and pulls or pushes his drive, shouldn't he be penalized.  Or, like years ago, should he just be able to hit a 4-iron onto the green from the mild rough ?

If you are down this May, have another look at the architecture (and don't focus so much on your golf game) 

Fortunately for me, I'm still able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Mark_Fine]

Chip,
I am totally serious.  My suggestion would be a dramatic improvement from what is there now.  And yes many would go for that green from that range out of a fairway bunker - you darn well bet "they would think about it" and that is what makes things exciting - options.  Pitching out from trees is not exciting and not what Jones or Mackenzie intended.  It's downhill and for those guys and only an iron shot for many.  There is not a player in the field that couldn't knock it on with a good solid shot.   

Here is a quick look at how that hole has changed - sorry I didn't have time to put in some more images but it shows the point of just how narrow that hole has become in just the last few years (even though guys like Pat won't admit it). 

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
You are still missing the whole point of that golf hole.  The idea was to get lots of guys going for that green in two, not just the guy who can hit it straight into a 20 yard wide opening!  The idea on that hole and on the 13th hole was to create temptation (not mitigate it)! 

I remember taking with Geoff Shackelford one day about the 13th at Augusta National. For many years, the creek fronting the green was a combination of trickling water, pebbles, grass, and an occasional sand bar. This “irregularity” added to the temptations of a player who was not sure whether to risk going for the green in two shots. By offering danger and also the chance of recovery, the hazard in front of No. 13 created major headaches for the best players in the world. But then someone decided the hole would be better served if the creek were filled with several feet of water, thus eliminating the opportunity for those occasional recovery shots. This was supposed to make the short par-5 more difficult (like Pat is suggesting for #15, make it more penal for a bad shot). But raising the water level actually made the hole simpler for the best players in the world. Now that the creek offered no chance of recovery, a good player who was 235 yards away with a hanging lie had virtually no temptation to go for the green. The decision was already made. Had the creek stayed unpredictable with an off-chance of recovery, the same player might well have attempted to reach the green in two. Fortunately, they finally figured this out and portions of that irregular element have been restored to this creek.  Maybe they will eventually figure this out on #15 as well.  A cool Mackenzie style bunker placed properly would help matters in several ways and restore more temptation and excitment to that golf hole.

[Phil Benedict]

One point about the evolution of ANGC is that seemingly small changes can have major consequences to the way a hole plays.  Patrick's statement that a 35-yard fairway that used to be 45-yards wide is still a wide fairway is a little glib; the narrowing by 10 yards can change the playing strategy of he hole, especially at the championship level.

One example Geoff Ogilvy gave is the way the extra 25 yards has changed the 13th hole.  On the surface it doesn't seem to be that big a difference (510 vs 485 yards), particularly with the advances in technology.  But Ogilvy says at the new yardage it's near impossible to shape the tee shot to get into position where it makes sense to go for the green.  The shot shape called for is straight for 270 yards with a left turn at the end.  Even pros don't have that shot, so you end up with lots of guys laying up from the hanging lie they get towards the right side of the fairway.  It's not the same hole with fewer players gambling on their second shot.

[JESII]

Phil,

510 today is the rough equivalent to what in 1986? I would guess about 475 when you take both shots into consideration...forget about the 1934 equivalent...

You began that post discussing the width reduction impacting strategy "especially at the championship level" but used as your example a hole whose primary change has been added length...are there any holes where a reduction in width has eliminated the more aggressive strategy? After all, it's the aggressive play that makes the Masters so exciting, right? 

My understanding of the old 13th hole was that it took one really great shot and one good shot to get on the green in two...they could fall in either order, but those were the requirements. The arguments supporting more excitement on the par fives all seem hollow in that they want to allow a mediocre shot (of the two) to potentially result in an eagle putt.

Brandt Snedeker (not one of the bombers) hit a 5-iron into the creek last year on Sunday...I would say he hit a great drive to get a 5-iron in his hands and that a merely good shot would have found the green...if you don't want to try for the great drive, you should have to hit a great shot from further back and up in the hill to have an eagle putt.

[Phil Benedict]

Jim,

Your point that I started with width and gave an example of length is valid. 

As to the example I used, I only repeated what Ogilvy said about the hole and why there are more lay ups now than there used to be.  Frankly I have no idea whether what he says is statistically accurate, but he believes it.  I agree with you that the extra yardage on 13 shouldn't make that much of a difference, but Ogilvy thinks it does.  Maybe he's wrong.

My bigger point is that Augusta's defenders tend to be dismissive of what the players say about the impact of the changes in the last 10 years.  Overwhelmingly, the sentiment is that it's a different course and that the Masters has changed as a result.  Crenshaw, Jack, Arnie - even Tiger says you can't take the same line around the course anymore after they added "about 500 yards and a million trees."  I guess none of these guys know what they are talking about.  Hootie (and Patrick) had it right all along.

[JESII]

Phil,

It's not that Hootie had it right, or any of that...it's that if there is one guaranteed consistency in golf it's that the players will bitch about a change just because they have to re-adapt. The next time a player makes a critique that is anything other than their own best interests will be the first...it just so happens that they get plenty of supporting ammunition because of the history and personalities involved at Augusta.

I will guarantee you that a player comparably matching Ben Crenshaw's mold will win the tournament again...

I will also guarantee you that someone will shoot 31 on the back nine to win again...

If we are to take those two statements as fact (I know, it's not a fact yet but let's just play along...) is there anything to bitch about?

The integrity of the course has been changing since the beginning and these current conditions will most likely be different 10 years from now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

If you're as familiar with ANGC as you say you are, you KNOW that the illlustration on the left DOESN'T represent or replicate # 15 as its existed from 1934 to present date.

How could you leave off the tall pines that have been in the middle of the left side of the fairway in the DZ since 1934 ?

The illustration on the left is a fraud and NOT representative of how the hole looked in 1997.

[Phil Benedict]

I will guarantee you that a player comparably matching Ben Crenshaw's mold will win the tournament again...

I will also guarantee you that someone will shoot 31 on the back nine to win again...

The first has already happened twice - Mike Weir and Zach Johnson.  As to the second, I think back 9 scoring at Augusta is a bit contrived because their are so many greens with low spots where approach shots gather.  Put the flags in those low spots and you will get low scoring in normal weather conditions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Sullivan,

OK, I'll bet lunch or dinner against someone shooting 31 on the back to win.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
The hole was what it was.  I didn't fabricate anything.  I was there in 1997 and that fairway was miles wide and those mounds I talked about were cut at fairway height.  I have a photo of the hole looking back from the green and it is quite clear.  I'm sure if we kept going back in time we could see and document much of the evolution of that golf hole.  It is a fascinating exercise to do.  The bottomline, however, it that #15 has DRAMATICALLY narrowed in the recent past. 

You remind me of members at clubs who say to me, "Mr. Fine that tree was always part of the hole.  Why do you want to cut it down?"  I then show them photos of the hole 50 years after the course was built (still with no tree) and they walk away shaking their heads in disbelief finaling realizing that the tree was not as old as they thought it was 

[John_Cullum]

Mark,

If you're as familiar with ANGC as you say you are, you KNOW that the illlustration on the left DOESN'T represent or replicate # 15 as its existed from 1934 to present date.

How could you leave off the tall pines that have been in the middle of the left side of the fairway in the DZ since 1934 ?

The illustration on the left is a fraud and NOT representative of how the hole looked in 1997.

I didn't think that looked right either. There were tall pines on the left side of the fairway about 180 from the green. If you hit your drive too far left in the fairway, you were stymied by those trees

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()