So how did the 15th hole perform at this year's Masters ?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Was it the disaster that Mark Fine and others predicted ?

Or, did it provide for risk/reward and drama ?

[Sean Leary]

Seemed to work well, but it seemed like there few blow ups there.

Soft greens helped it immensely.

[Pat Howard]

Beautifully!

[Ronald Montesano]

Go here:  http://www.masters.com/en_US/scores/stats/cstats.html

15th hole ranked as the easiest hole overall...4.5719 stroke average, 9 eagles, 135 birdies, 24 bogeys, 2 doubles, the rest pars.

#16 ranked 16th on Thursday, 18th on Friday, 16th on Saturday and 18th on Sunday.

The four par fives, #3 and #14 were the only holes to play under par on average for the week.

Quite successful, say I.

[Kalen Braley]

It ranked the easist hole on the course with:

4.57 Stroke Average
9 Eagles
135 Birds
122 Pars
24 Bogeys
2 Double Bogeys

It seemed to provide plenty drama today with players trying to make eagles to play catch up. It was also playing downwind today so some big drives were struck with shortish approaches.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I never said the hole was a disaster (those are your words).  All I said was that the hole was narrowed to the point where "few decisions were required by the players" eliminating much of the risk/reward and I think the scores at least today showed it.  I think today there was only one bogie and one double and two eagles on the hole ALL DAY - not exactly a risk/reward hole.  There was little temptation - if you didn't hit a perfect drive you laid up.  With the soft greens, the downhill wedge shot was not too difficult.  I still will argue that I would have liked to seen more of the guys who didn't hit a perfect tee shot have to think about laying up vs. having the decision made for them because of pine trees.  That is where the risk/reward comes into play and the scoring variation.  If you disagree Pat, maybe you can explain the risk/reward factor. 
Mark

[PThomas]

did they grow the grass longer near the pond in front of the green??  somone's ball from a few days ago stopped instead of rooling back in, which is pretty rare there

[BigEdSC]

I was disappointed.

This was the first Masters that I can remember that they did not use the short right pin position.  The four positions that they used tended to be in the back of the green, which to me, took the pond pretty much out of play.  I've sat in the stands at 15 many a year and watched the drama of the front right pin.

If you were above the short right hole, there was many a difficult putt to get it close.  Also watching many a person spin the ball back into the water.

I just didn't see any drama of the ball going into the water, except for maybe Perry's ball today, but that had no chance of going into the water.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

did they grow the grass longer near the pond in front of the green??  somone's ball from a few days ago stopped instead of rooling back in, which is pretty rare there

Yes, it was not shaved as in previous years.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

I was disappointed.

This was the first Masters that I can remember that they did not use the short right pin position.  The four positions that they used tended to be in the back of the green, which to me, took the pond pretty much out of play.  I've sat in the stands at 15 many a year and watched the drama of the front right pin.

Ed,

There's not a pro in the field that would try to squeeze their approach between the pin and pond.

The intelligent play is to hit to the center-center/back of the green.

In addition, the bank was not shaved as it had been in previous years, and, it did rain at night.

If you were above the short right hole, there was many a difficult putt to get it close.  

Any putt from above the hole is difficult on that green.
Just ask Phil.

Also watching many a person spin the ball back into the water.


Not this year.
The bank was not shaved.

I just didn't see any drama of the ball going into the water, except for maybe Perry's ball today, but that had no chance of going into the water.


You didn't see any drama ?

Everytime someone went for the green there was drama.

Now you're going to complain because PGA Tour Pros, the best golfers in the world executed their approach shots as planned ?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,

I never said the hole was a disaster (those are your words).  All I said was that the hole was narrowed to the point where "few decisions were required by the players" eliminating much of the risk/reward and I think the scores at least today showed it. 

Absolutely NOT.

Player after player gunned for the green in two

I think today there was only one bogie and one double and two eagles on the hole ALL DAY - not exactly a risk/reward hole. 

That's absurd.

How many two putt birdies were there ?

How many birdies from a chip and putt ?

What you again fail to understand is that the length of the hole, with soft conditions due to rain, still allows golfers to hit, driver 5-iron.

The trees on the LEFT were always there, which is something you failed to admit for some time.  It appears that the trees on the right had NO influence over play today.  Since the trees on the LEFT were always there, golfers going left were faced with the same strategic options as golfers have been for the last 4 or 5 decades or more.

The issue you raised was the narrowing, vis a vis trees on the right.
Evidently, it was a none issue.

There was little temptation - if you didn't hit a perfect drive you laid up.


That's NOT true.
You didn't need to hit a "perfect" drive to go for the green.
Drives hit left ALWAYS had to lay up, so nothing about the hole changed for any golfer driving left.

I didn't see one ball that went right today, did you ?
If not, then the trees you objected to had no impact on play and results.

With the soft greens, the downhill wedge shot was not too difficult. 


You can't stop Mother Nature from raining on the golf course.
However, the downhill wedge shot to that green is challenging, especially with the element of pressure.

When the best golfers in the world are chunking 9 irons or air mailing 8 and 7 irons from a flat tee, don't take a downhill sidehill lie, over water, for granted.

I still will argue that I would have liked to seen more of the guys who didn't hit a perfect tee shot have to think about laying up vs. having the decision made for them because of pine trees. 

I saw guys who hit good to great drives lay up, so how can you attribute laying up solely on the shoulders of the pine trees ?

How many drives weren't in a position to go for the green ?
[/color]

That is where the risk/reward comes into play and the scoring variation. 
If you disagree Pat, maybe you can explain the risk/reward factor. 

Sure, the risk/reward factor has become muted due to distance.

I don't see much of a risk in PGA Tour Pros hitting clubs ranging from wedge to 4 iron into that green, which, on a normal day, would be the clubs of choice

The trees on the LEFT were always there, so any drive hit left suffered the same consequences as always.

The question is, how much influence did the trees on the right exert ?
I saw NO balls hit right.
However, I did not see the entire telecast all four days, so I would have to rely on a worthy statistician to supply that info.

However, that info would have to be evaluated in terms of margin of error.
A tee shot 30 yards off the right fairway wouldn't be deemed eligible to qualify for a lost opportunity since that shot almost never had a chance to go for the green.

[John Kirk]

Amazing how many of the leading players successfully drove it into the narrow opening.  300-320 yard drives into a 35 yard gap, over and over. 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

John Kirk,

How many times must I remind you and others,

"Those guys are good"  They're really, really, really good.

[Doug Siebert]

I think what John was getting at is why were they all able to hit it in that space on 15 all day, but spent so much time in the woods on other holes with wider driving areas?

I'd disagree with what you said to Mark about the trees on the right not influencing strategy.  Just because players weren't hitting into them doesn't mean they didn't influence strategy.  That's like saying the pond in front of the green didn't affect anyone's strategy - I didn't see anyone hit into it this weekend....

I think the fact that those trees on the right have been added influenced more players to try to hug the left side than I recall from years past.  I remember it used to be much more rare to see players far enough left to where they need to hook their approach, because they didn't want the added difficultly of hooking a long approach to a green guarded by water, or to risk missing their drive left into the creek.  Before the trees on the right were added that was a safer line, taking the creek out of play, taking any need to work your approach out of play, paid for with a long approach.  I think the added length has been neutralized to some extent by the trees on the right encouraging players to play further to the left than they used to.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
Someone (I think it was Charlie) on one of the other threads posted an old aerial of #15.  Can you point out the original trees on the left?  Thanks,
Mark

[Anthony Gray]

   Drama.

[BCrosby]

After spending a couple of days at the Masters, the 15th did play wonderfully.

That is partly attibutable to the row of trees taken out on the right. It is a little wider in the LZ now. They should take more trees out on the right, but this is a good start.

And the 2nd cut is now a little lower, not just on 15, but all over the course.

Also contributing was perfect weather and strong helping winds the days I saw the hole.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,
Someone (I think it was Charlie) on one of the other threads posted an old aerial of #15.  Can you point out the original trees on the left?  Thanks,
Mark

Mark,

I think you'll find them in the center of that fairway.

Your refusal to admit that those trees have been IN the left fairway for decades and decades, despite photographic evidence that proves their existence, and the personal observations of more than a few participants is the height of arrogance.

That you chose an inaccurate cartoon sketch as evidence to bolster your position was disingenuous.

Those trees have probably been there for over 50 years.
Yet you claimed that they were planted subsequent to 1997 which is totally false.

Just admit that you F'd up on your claim regarding the trees on the left.

On another thread, you already admitted, to Jim Sullivan that the trees on the left existed previously, so why are you trying to disclaim their existence on this thread ?

[Kalen Braley]

Pat,

We have proof they were indeed there.  Look at this artist rendering of Gene Sarazen's shot heard round the world.  You can clearly see Gene hitting his approach shot right next to those trees on the left.

Irrefutable Evidence!!!   

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

I think what John was getting at is why were they all able to hit it in that space on 15 all day, but spent so much time in the woods on other holes with wider driving areas?

I don't know that that's an accurate statement on John's part.

Who spent so much time in the trees on the other holes ?

I'd disagree with what you said to Mark about the trees on the right not influencing strategy.  Just because players weren't hitting into them doesn't mean they didn't influence strategy. 

But, they don't influence strategy, the green influences strategy.  No one wants to come into that green from the right rough to a narrow green with water front, left and back, with a green that slopes sharply toward the water on the left.

So, whether there are trees or rough there it makes no difference.
The golfer wants to be in the fairway irrespective of what's to his right in the DZ.

That's like saying the pond in front of the green didn't affect anyone's strategy -

No it's not, it's not even remotely close.
That's a bad analogy.

I didn't see anyone hit into it this weekend....

I think the fact that those trees on the right have been added influenced more players to try to hug the left side than I recall from years past. 


I don't think so.
Hugging the left side is no bargain either.
They want to be in the middle of the fairway, plain and simple.

I remember it used to be much more rare to see players far enough left to where they need to hook their approach, because they didn't want the added difficultly of hooking a long approach to a green guarded by water, or to risk missing their drive left into the creek. 

Going left has been jail for decades and decades, there's nothing new about that.

Before the trees on the right were added that was a safer line, taking the creek out of play, taking any need to work your approach out of play, paid for with a long approach. 

I think the added length has been neutralized to some extent by the trees on the right encouraging players to play further to the left than they used to.

I totally disagree.

[PThomas]

Kalen, who hit that shot heard round the world??

[Kalen Braley]

Paul,

Ha ha ha, thanks....at least Snead is a Masters legend too!!   

Edited and fixed.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Kalen, who hit that shot heard round the world??

Paul,

Remind me, what year did Sarazen hit that shot ?

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
Those three or so trees in the middle of that fairway look just like those that are there now don't they    You need to learn how to interpret aerials    I said there were always trees on the left but MORE have been added.  Maybe you think those there now are all "originals".  It would not surprise me if you did.

[JESII]

Mark, what do you think the original intent of those trees on the left was?