Does the awesome leaderboard vaildate the changes?

[D. Kilfara]

Ran,

To answer your original question - as originally phrased, yes, 99.99% of the golfing world probably would have looked at the Saturday night or Sunday morning leaderboard and said that it validated the recent changes.

Given that everyone save Tiger vomited away his pride on Sunday, and that only one golfer broke 70 in relatively benign scoring conditions, do you think the world should now turn around and revise its opinion to say that ANGC is ridiculously difficult and needs revising?

One leaderboard - four rounds in a small-field tournament is a ridiculously small sample, at least when trying to define the issue scientifically - cannot possibly validate anything. Tiger's victory (or as the BBC's Steve Rider put it, "more of a mass surrender than a victory procession") was dictated far more by individual performances than by the golf course, wasn't it? I think one thing people are overlooking in saying that the changes to ANGC favor the long hitter is that ALL courses favor the long hitter - the guy who's hitting a short iron into a green is always going to have an advantage over the guy who's hitting a medium iron. The gap between long hitters and short hitters is widening; golf course setup has rather less to do with that than talent and equipment, and under the pressures of a major championship that gap is even wider. Does anyone think the short shot-shapers going to be able to better compete at Bethpage or Muirfield than they were this week? Or at any other major venue on the horizon? (I'm asking in honest ignorance...maybe someone does think that, and if so, I'd be interested to hear their reasoning.)

Cheers,
Darren

[Tom_Egan]

Tiger wins by 3 shots over a very high quality top 10 finishers.  Stop the presses!

What did anyone expect to happen?  On any type of course?  Pristine or remodeled by your worst nightmare of a nature-meddling earth mover?  Pre- or post-Hootie?  Were we happier when Gay Brewer was winning?  Charles Coody?  The luminescent George Archer?  Breathtaking Tommy Aaron?  How about Herman Kaiser?  Was that more to your liking?  Wasn't the course nearer in those days to the Jones/Mackenzie vision?  (All these were fine men and fine players; mentioned only to make a point.)

Is the angst-fest over the TOM FAZIO (horror of horrors) re-do one of the classic symptoms of male menopause?

This whole sturm und drang thing is reminiscent of the Annual Convention of Buggy Whip Manufacturers circa 1915.

Yes ------ please, God, let the USGA get a clue and some guts on the ball/distance issue.  But let's not FREEZE the game!  
 

[A_Clay_Man]

Line of the day.-

 "It's like watching a train wreck, only in slow motion".
Possibly the last thing he'll say covering Augusta??-David Feherty

Second best line was when Venturi was hoping Goosen would make and Tiger miss on 17 just so they would have something to talk about.  

[TEPaul]

Don't know about the changes (because I don't know that much about ANGC) but that was a helluva overnight leaderboard and Sunday leaderboard (can't get much better than that one). I'd also never seen holes 3-7 before, unfortunately didn't see the beginning of the telecast and holes #1 & #2, but 3-7 look like some very neat holes to me! Not that familiar with #14 either and I love the look of that bunkerless hole particularly the green-end.

Really awesome greens on that course! I thought Woods's remarks about the changes in Butler Cabin following his win were very interesting too.

[Paul Richards]

A Clay Man:

I really enjoyed Feherty's comments about the train wreck,
because, at the time, they were so apropos.

I HOPE that Augusta doesn't bag him over that comment,
because it was so TRUE at the time.  He is a pleasure to
listen to, and I think Hootie and Co. are a bit more
enlightened these days ...

[Mike_Cirba]

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Oh wait...is it over already?  Damn...must be that male menopause again...that nasty combination of penal-envy and "straight-driving challenge" induced hot flashes.  

Would the 86 Masters ever happen on the new course?  Hardly.  

There used to be such a fine line between eagle or birdie and bogey and worse.  Now, it's drive it straight and scramble for par. Guess they got what they wanted.

[D. Kilfara]

C'mon, Mike...don't overreact. What you saw yesterday was a bunch of lily-livered "professionals" in full choke mode against one of the two or three best golfers history has yet seen. What did that have to do with the golf course? All ANGC did was facilitate the collapse - it allowed Ernie and Vijay to implode much more colorfully and spectacularly than most other courses would have.

The 1986 Masters was won by the player who played the best that week - driving, approach play, short game, putting - as are most tournaments. All else being equal, I have a pretty fair idea that Nicklaus would have won that tournament on yesterday's golf course, too, and he would have won it just as inspirationally.

There's EVERY chance that next year's Masters will feature at least one or two decent Sunday performances from Tiger's fellow competitors, that we'll have a rollicking back nine and a last-hole showdown, and that we'll all walk away with better tastes in our mouths. But that's down to the backbones of golf's second-tier superstars, not the golf course - isn't it?

Cheers,
Darren

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Darren
Right, the entire field choked, well everyone except Maruyama. The new golf course promotes boring play. Did Tiger Woods play inspired golf? I didn't see it, he was grinding like crazy coming down the back nine - what did he shoot 37? Former champions Singh and Olazabal refused to be interviewed following the round - any idea why? Well at least we got rookie McGinley's rosey report.

In 1986 there was a birage of birdies and eagles from the leaders, even Seve was on a roll before the wheels fell off on 15 (he eagled 13, he shot 36 and was passed like he was standing still). Nicklaus and Norman (four straight birdies) both went crazy. Kite shot 33. Who had a similar back nine yesterday? I have my doubts if Nicklaus makes the cut at the new and improved ANGC in 1986.

Tom Egan
Mentioning freezing the game on a thread regarding ANGC - if any course is the least frozen it is Augusta National. Is there a square inch of that course that hasn't been changed?

[D. Kilfara]

Tom,

You have to realize that the final day of the 1986 Masters was a freak phenomenon, the likes of which may never be repeated. For all of the exciting golf on that fateful Sunday, don't forget that Nicklaus's winning score was 279 (-9) - three shots higher than Tiger's winning score yesterday, and equal with Goosen's effort in second place. I just don't see how you can say "the new course promote boring play" on the basis of one golf tournament, nor is it fair for you to compare this Masters or indeed any other golf tournament to the 1986 Masters in terms of drama.

Fundamentally, there is NO way to guarantee a dramatic finish in a golf tournament - if one guy plays much better than anyone else, it's going to be a laugher no matter what the course setup is like. Which is precisely my point in saying that Tiger played much better than anyone else: he shot under par on Sunday and let the field collapse around him. I don't think he played great, but he did what he had to do, and for that he deserves praise and adulation. I think the other guys played so poorly because they can't help but blink when forced to stare Tiger in the eye, not because the course had anything to do with it.

Why wouldn't Nicklaus have made the cut on today's golf course in 1986? From memory, I don't recall him being any shorter off the tee than anyone else was on the Sunday...obviously, if playing today's course he would have to have the advantage of better equipment, just like everyone else. Why else wouldn't he have made the cut?

Cheers,
Darren

[Jeff_Lewis]

Questions?
1. Was the Masters entertaining? No.
2. Would the course be playable with firm and fast conditions? No.
3. Do we already have a US Open and PGA championship for the "defense of par". Yes.
4. Do we know enough from one time around the track to judge the "new" Augusta? Probably not.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Daren
I'm not sure how many Masters you've watched but exciting golf on the back nine is the rule not the exception. Great leaderboard or not so great leaderboard.

Do you think the entire field with the exception of Maruayama was blown away by Tiger, even those out of contention? That makes no sense. He does deserve praise, he survived the brutal test that is now the Masters.

Didn't Player have similar final round in his last victory? Six birds on the back nine.

How about Crenshaw in '84 only 4 pars on the back 3 birds and 2 bogies. '85 Langer 4 birds and a bogey. '87 Mize 3 birds and 3 bogies to Norman 4 birds and 3 bogies. '88 Lyle 2 birds, double and a bogey. '89 Faldo 4 birdies and a bogey. '90 Faldo 3 birdies and bogey. '91 Woosnam 1 bird and 2 bogies, Olazabal 3 birds and 2 bogies. '92 Couples 1 bird, Floyd 2 birds and 2 bogies, Paven 3 birds and 1 bogey. '93 Langer 2 birds and bogey. '94 Olazabal eagle and bogey. '95 Crenshaw 3 birds and bogey, Love 4 birds and bogey. '96 Flado 3 birds. '97 Woods 3 birds. '98 O'Mera 4 birds and bogey, Couples eagle, double bogey and bogey, Duval 4 birds and bogey. '99 Olazabal 3 birds. '00 Sing 3 birds and 2 bogies. '01 Woods 3 birds and bogey.

This year: Woods 1 bird and 2 bogeys, Goosen 2 birds 1 bogey, Mickelson 1 bird, Olazabal 2 birds, Els 1 triple. The leaders shot even on the back with an average of seven pars between them. Zzzzzzzz
Tiger was so intimidating, that even intimidated himself on the back nine.

Who knows what the Nicklaus of '86 would have done on this new and improved course. I do know the final round would've been effected by the new trees and rough, for one he would have been lucky to par #17 from the new trees and Seve would have been in the new rough and trees on the right of #15 - two of the most dramatic shots in golf history wouldn't have occured.

[TEPaul]

Darren;

Yes, short shot-shapers will win over the longer hitters and an unusual amount of time on certain courses with certain set-ups even if those courses happen to be long or very long! The best example is definitely the US Open setups no matter where they are. The history of the US Open is riddled with such a thing! Clearly the short shot-shapers do not win everytime but an inordinate amount of time they do against the long hitters. Remember the likes of Simpson, Irwin, Janzen and Corey Pavin--certainly even Trevino!

If this kind of thing happens to Tiger Woods one more time though, he'll probably just take everything more than his 3 iron out of his bag and beat them at their own game though!

[TEPaul]

Jack Nicklaus playing the way he did in 1986 would not have made the cut this year because of changes to ANGC???

Whoa! That absolutely screams for a definition, redefinition or something clever! That's totally preposterous! How could that be? Because Nicklaus was not mentally tough enough, couldn't hit accurate enough approach shots, recover or putt well enough, or he wasn't long enough?

Not on your life!

[RobertWalker]

There is no question that the Changes kept Mickelson from making a run at the leader.
Additionally, lengthening the 13th hole caused Ernie to hook his tee shot, and then forced him into a PM like state where he attempted to hit his 2nd shot through some swiss cheese.
The changes also kept Vijay's 2nd shot from landing on the 13th green, and finally, the same changes were obviously on his mind when he hit a phat 3rd shot on 15.

wow, what an incredibly boring tournament!

Tiger just can't help it.......

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
If I'm not mistaken the 46 year old Nicklaus was washed up 1986. He shot 74/71 in the first two rounds on the gentle old ANGC - how would that translate on the new longer and narrower course, and what was the cut this year +2 or +3? We'll never know.

[D. Kilfara]

Tom,

You're talking to a veritable Masters-aholic, here, so I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about.

I don't think that the entire field was "blown away" by Tiger. Tiger plodded along and did what he had to do; the key was that nobody else was able to pressure him, and after Goosen fell 3-4 shots behind early, nobody ever had a sniff of him. It's to Tiger's immense credit that he stayed within himself and knew that he only needed to play percentage golf to win.

My point is that you cannot make sweeping statements about "the boring test that is now the Masters". I was bored to tears because the Vijays and Ernies kept shooting themselves in the foot, not because the golf course made for less exciting golf. Here's a good example of what I mean: take no. 16 - one of the holes that hasn't been changed.

In 1986, Nicklaus hit his near-ace and the crowds exploded; two golfers in an earlier group (Crenshaw and one other? my memory fails me) both hit approaches to within inches of the hole (I remember Nantz making a crack about the two golfers playing "Can You Top This?"); Seve hit an approach which miraculously stopped on top of the lip of the bunker, from whence he improvised a two-putt par from a very awkward stance; Norman hit a grand shot which came down off the bank to within a couple of feet from the hole, from where he made birdie. All very exciting stuff.

With the pin in the same place in 2002, Tiger bailed right and two-putted; most of his competitors fell short; nobody really threatened making an interesting shot. Of the top 8, only Singh and Goosen made birdies, both thanks to 20-foot putts. Do you want to blame the golf course for everyone's lack of execution, or Tiger doing the smart thing and bailing right? I'd rather just say that some years we're blessed by exciting golf, and some years it so happens that great shots aren't made, crucial putts are missed, and the best golfers in the world don't quite manage to reach the heights of, well, of the 1986 Masters.

Note that I'm not saying I like the changes - far from it. I just don't think you can blame them for what happened yesterday.

Cheers,
Darren

[Mike_Cirba]

Robert Walker,

No, the changes affected nothing.

The changes were clearly NOT responsible for the fact that only 1 (ONE, Uno) of the best players in the world shot in the 60s yesterday on a soft golf course with little wind.

That happens every year at the Masters, right?

[D. Kilfara]

Tom M. - if you're going to construct a valid hypothetical (re: Nicklaus missing the cut in 1986), you're not allowed to mix apples and oranges! If Nicklaus shot 74-71 on the 1986 course, then say he might have shot 76-73 on the 2001 course (that's if you assume that the 2001 course is two shots tougher). But then everyone else would have also been four shots worse after two rounds as well, right? So the cut line would have eliminated the same golfers as it did in 1986, at least in theory. Too, what might everyone have shot on the 1986 course with today's equipment, better fitness/technique/swing speed, etc.? I think if you put today's equipment in the hands of a 46-year-old Nicklaus, he might have scored even better in 1986 than he did.

Tom P. - I hope you're right about shot-shapers still having a chance, because the professional game needs the shorter shot-shapers to have a chance *somewhere* for it to be at all interesting, at least in my eyes.

Cheers,
Darren

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Darren
You don't like the changes, but they have no effect. Would be even discussing 1986 right now if Seve is forced to pitch out on #15? Or if Nicklaus bogeyed #17 form the new 30 year old pines?

[D. Kilfara]

Tom - If things had been different, they wouldn't have been the same. I'm inclined to believe that with the extended trees up the left in '86, Seve - who had been driving the ball beautifully - would have favored the right side more than he did. But then, if he had to lay up short, maybe he would have choked on his third shot instead of his second. As for Nicklaus on #17, who's to say whether or not he would have had an opening to skip the ball into the green? We can carry on guessing about these hypotheticals until we're blue in the face, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere, because I think we have different approaches to counterfactual history.

Anyway, I don't like the changes at ANGC because of the dangerous precedents the club continues to set - I want a competition ball for the pros, not the continued stretching of every classic course until they can't be stretched any more. And I don't like them because I always did like the strategic effects of an Augusta without rough. And I don't like them because my adolescence was spent watching the thrilling Masters of 1986-1996, and I can recognize that those formative experiences make me inherently resistant to change. I *do* like the changes in that they did succeed in making a number of holes on the golf course play in effect to a similar length as what it did during the 1986-1996 period - remember Norman's blocked 4-iron on 18 in 1986? Can you imagine Norman's nearest modern-day equivalent (probably Mickelson) ever hitting anything even *close* to a 4-iron into 18 with the course set up how it was last year?

But most of all, I don't think the changes dictated a boring golf tournament. I've seen the "old" ANGC produce a winning score of 285 (-3) in my lifetime - 1987 - and I've now seen the "new" ANGC produce a winning score of 277 (-11). I think the imposing presence of Tiger Woods, and the mental havoc he seems to wreak on his fellow competitors, increases the chances of boring major championship golf taking place. I've seen Tiger do similar things at Pebble Beach and St. Andrews, too, which makes me think that maybe it's Tiger and not the golf course. But feel free to disagree....

Cheers,
Darren

[George Pazin]

Whatever happened to journalistic integrity? Shouldn't somebody on TGC at least have mentioned the possibility that the course changes may have resulted in the most boring Masters in recent memory?

Is there not a single pro or commentator that likes a potential birdie hole at no. 18? Do they all think 18 should be a brutal test?

How about Saturday highlighting of clubs that Tiger hit into 18, 2001 v. 2002? Didn't anyone notice that his 7 iron landed closer than his sand wedge & the result was still birdie?

And was anyone else as frustrated with the number of camera shots held on golfers after their tee shots, leaning or grimacing, while we were left to wonder what happened?

Thank God it's Kenny last year - the call on Els's first blunder on 13 was simply nonexistent.

[George Pazin]

For anyone who believes in the leaderboard theory, was this year's leaderboard that much different from last year's, or any of the last four years, for that matter?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Darren
I'm glad to see you've gotten in touch with adolecent psyche, I've been in touch with my current brain and its telling me the changes have altered the course strategically. There is no historical equivalent to the narrowness caused by numerous new trees and rough. But as a Masters-aholic you may recall it differently.

There have been imposing forces at ANGC in the past and I can't recall the entire field crashing and with it the exciting nature of the back nine. I believe Woods won last year and there were quite few scores in the 60s (13) - did something occur this past year to increase the intimidation factor?

I suspect there will be changes made to ANGC to bring back the excitement - especially on the back nine. Shorten the 7th, 8th, 10th and 11th, remove the rough of 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15, removal of numerous trees and lighten up on some of the pin positions. I don't think anyone was pleased with the product, CBS wasn't, the players weren't and Hootie looked bewidered - I don't even think Tiger liked it.

What changes do you expect or would you recommend on the Old Course to bring the bunkers back into play? Or would you recommend new bunkers be built?

[Mike_Cirba]

George Pazin,

Journalistic integrity?  Ha!

Is anyone else gagged by the $$$-driven self-censorship that goes on between the tournament and the network?  I swear they could pave the entire course in gold bricks and asphalt, and the boys from CBS would be forced to applaud the changes "from the booth".  

Is Peter Kostis the worst?  Probably.  Simply because he doesn't seem to know any better.    

[Jeff_Lewis]

Just went through the last decade's leaderboards. We could do a real statistical analysis in terms of the total world ranking of the top 10 finishers...but, looking subjectively, the conclusion would appear to be that the field in this tournament is so limited, that the leaderboard is always impressive. One or two pretenders max in the top 10, consistently, year after year whether the course has rough or rain or wind or whatever.