Is Augusta National Golf Club a PENAL Course?

[Mike Wagner]

I like the definition of penal meaning no options.

But.....

If we defined penal (as related Augusta) as a course that will abuse mis-hit shots, and more specifically, chips and putts, then I would say it is one of the most penal courses on the planet.

[Tim Gavrich]

Even though scores were extremely low (by Masters standards) today, I thought the course was set up very nicely.  There were plenty of birdie opportunities and plenty of places where trouble lay in wait.  The only thing I would change from today about ANGC, from a viewing perspective at least, is the first cut.  The Augusta I saw on television (in brilliant HD, fortunately) today was the Augusta that produces great television every Easter Sunday.

[Carl Rogers]

Is this another way of saying it is more challenging off the tee for the world's top 100.

If your perspective is that of a single digit handicapper, playing form the member tees with green speeds in the 9 to 10 range, off the tee, it is more penal because of all the trees, driving chutes and rough.  The course does not exist for average golfers.

2 more thoughts ...

1. The 3 dimensional models with all the trees on television reflect a very claustrophobic course.  Let's hope a few of the trees disappear so that there could be the possiblility of recovery shots from the trees.

2. The scores at the Masters will be a function of the weather.  Rain will create lower scores.

[Mike Wagner]

I think Faldo just answered the question.  He described winning the Masters by "pulling off shots that NO other golf course demands."

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Is this another way of saying it is more challenging off the tee for the world's top 100.

If your perspective is that of a single digit handicapper, playing form the member tees with green speeds in the 9 to 10 range, off the tee, it is more penal because of all the trees, driving chutes and rough.  The course does not exist for average golfers.

From the "Members Tees" what holes have driving chutes ?

What rough ?  It's benign.

2 more thoughts ...

1. The 3 dimensional models with all the trees on television reflect a very claustrophobic course.  Let's hope a few of the trees disappear so that there could be the possiblility of recovery shots from the trees.

So you're going to base your assessment on how the golf course plays on the basis of TV models ?

It's a wide golf course with a few narrow holes (# 7)

2. The scores at the Masters will be a function of the weather.  Rain will create lower scores.

Rain would make the course play longer, ergo, higher scores.

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick,

I assume you are talking about members not pros when you say that softer conditions will raise scores.  Because where pros are concerned, the scoring benefits of softer greens WAY outweigh the scoring hit from less roll in the fairway.  As I think this weekend's scoring proved.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

I assume you are talking about members not pros when you say that softer conditions will raise scores.  Because where pros are concerned, the scoring benefits of softer greens WAY outweigh the scoring hit from less roll in the fairway.  As I think this weekend's scoring proved.

Doug,

I don't know what you can scientifically conclude from this year's scoring.

As to "Softer Greens", how do you quantify that ?

Softer than other years ?
Softer than other years when it rained ?
Softer than last Tuesday ?

When PGA Tour Pros are hitting short to mid irons into greens, do "softer greens" make a difference ?  If so, how much of a difference ?

At ANGC I would think that "trajectory" would have a more profound influence on scoring.

What can't be forgotten is that the GOLF BALL is almost perfect, when compared to balls from years ago, thus putting with a prefect sphere is more accurate than putting with an out of shape sphere, which results in better scoring, as does the conditions of the greens.

When they roll the greens specifically to remove spike marks, you know you're putting on a superior surface.

[Doug Siebert]

Oh I agree that putting is far more consistent than it was in years past both due to improved green quality and the modern ball.

I judge softness of the greens by the ball marks left behind.  There were noticeable marks left behind, some of them digging up divots as the ball lands.  I know when my approaches dig up divots on the green they are quite soft and I can generally treat the green like a dartboard.

When I've watched past Masters I can remember some years when it was softer than this and some when it was firmer.  I always prefer watching major golf (or playing golf) when the greens are very firm - which I define as the point where you can't see the ball mark on TV (or when I'm playing I cannot find any evidence of a ball mark on my own approaches)

So on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is greens that are soaked by several inches of rain and they are playing lift/clean/place in the fairways and 10 where they are so firm they are like concrete as the greens at TOC during a dry summer are, I'd say today's were perhaps a 3 when the leaders started and a 4 when they finished.