News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Geoff Shackelford

Augusta was one-dimensional?
« on: April 11, 2002, 05:08:09 PM »
Peter Kostis said today that Augusta National used to be a "one-dimensional" test of golf but that now it is a more complete test of golf because of the changes (excuse me, the course now has "strength," whatever that means :) ).

Now, I may be missing something here, but with the newly regraded 11th, isn't there really only one type of tee shot called on whereas before there were options? I would consider that a move toward one-dimensional golf, I guess others just consider that too democratic and easy?

And, if the course was so one-dimensional all of these years, then how come so many famous players won there, and how come we celebrate their accomplishments every year (well, except starting this year? Were all of these past players just one-dimensional golfers whose game fit the one-dimensional course? Should we put an asterick by the names of all pre-2002 winners since after all, each major golf publication and most of the players has made the same implication: that Augusta is NOW a major championship test, apparently replacing the one that wasn't?


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2002, 05:20:31 PM »
I have a question for Geoff, or any you ANGC history buffs.  When would you say that the golf course was at the peak of the maintenance-design-playing equipment meld.  My guess would be the late 70s to early 80s, but obviously only a guess since I never have seen it other than the old reruns.  I'm not looking for the answer of which was the greatest year of the tone-a-mint competition, necessarily.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Robert "Cliff" Stanfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2002, 05:22:57 PM »
I agree with you.  I had to watch Peter Alliss on BBC.  He commented that something was missing...the excitement...the crowd presence....the birdies.  He said the Birdies.  Who cares about the birdies.  I thought some the shots were great and the choking of Padraig...Marias second at 2, Appleby out of the creek and phil's uncanny spin blade to the down slope? Sick

The only thing that wasn't missing was the idiotic statements of Peter....all he could talk about was how Padraig walked like a sailor and he said it all day and also how Sergio was getting a 5'oclock shadow at an early age....maybe the commentators are whats missing.  I mean turn the picture off and it sounds like bunch of old ladies at the golf club planning a bake sale on the 18th green...diets and fashion...ha what a joke who cares whats Alliss or Costis thinks.

I mean is Peter Alliss the sailor in YMCA or what?

I thought it was great to see the guys putting from the hollows(phil?) and missing shorties...but it was also nice seeing them bow up on the driver and pull it or yank it into the trees....from what I saw there was some splendid shots from the needles today...DLIII had a few as well as Jimenez.  Jimenez, what a laid back dude, shave the mustache and put a red nose on him and you have Ronald McDonald with that hair of his!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Gary Smith (Guest)

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2002, 05:48:07 PM »
Geoff,

Would the fade asked for on 11 tee be a nice change of pace for a course known for favoring the draw?

Do you see any design positives in the 2nd shot at 11 because of the change?

Do you see any positives in any of the other changes at ANGC?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike O'Neill

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2002, 05:58:48 PM »
Geoff,

I didn't see or hear Kostis. What exactly did he say? What did he mean by one-dimentional? The short game? Putting? What?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2002, 07:36:11 PM »
RC,
I'll take Peter Alliss against the rest of the golf announcing field any day of the week.

Geoff,
If I had a dime for every time a sports writer or announcer wrote or said the exact opposite of what was really true then they would be sponsoring me for a membership at ANGC.  I stopped looking for insight from the guys in the booth a long time ago.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

Geoff Shackelford

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2002, 07:47:23 PM »
Mike,
Kostis' comment comes during the Garcia interview if you can catch the replay. I'm assuming he is referring to the long held myth that to win at Augusta, you could hit long, wild, hooks and putt well and that was the essence of the event. Right!

Gary,
I'm still waiting to see the positives, but I subscribe to a different design school than the folks at Augusta, so that's probably not a big surprise. The design school I subscribe to is the one that says #11 used to be really interesting because you could poll the field and players had their preferences as to how to shape and place the tee shot, and where they felt best approaching a green from for that days hole location. That to some is easier golf and not as "demanding," but I say, wait until June if you want to see who hits it the straightest, you can watch that at Open. Uncertainty about course management issues fuels more questioning and doubt for good players, and when that uncertainty happens you find out who is really the best all around golfer. It's "multidimensional" golf.  I discussed this concept with a certain two time Masters winner recently, and he concurred that the 11th hole was far more interesting and exciting with players taking their own route, and it was fun (for him anyway) to hear each players different rationale for how to approach it best. And the averages certainly would say the hole played plenty tough that old option-filled way!

The other school, the one that requires the player to hit a fade off 11 tee now and justifies this idea because Phil Mickelson had 94 yards in last year, says "this is where we want you to hit to, and where we want you to hit into the green from," and I've found that players love that school of design, because it's easier for them at the end of the day to step onto the tee and hit shots without thinking of options, even if the playing corridor is narrowed. It's one-dimensional, the authoritarian school of design, and the players in response must obey to the wishes of the architect. Definitely not Bobby Jones' philosophy. Also, I just don't buy the justification that forcing one type of shot levels out a supposedly draw heavy design, the course has produced a variety champions as a supposed right to left shotmakers course this long, might as well stick to what worked.

But I think this narrowing down of options helps explain why most Tom Fazio courses are so easy for good players, and why his attempts to make courses more difficult by emphasizing tougher physical requirements and eliminating thought, are not making things tougher (in Riviera's case, the holes changed played easier statistically post-Fazio because the mental side of the game was dumbed down to one approach, as opposed to many.)

But again, that's all design philosophy stuff, and if that's what Augusta wants to do, fine, let 'em, their right. What I have a problem with, and have over the last few months in reading pre-tournament coverage, is the continuing notion floated by people like Peter Kostis during today's telecast, implying that the course was not somehow a complete test or a true "major" championship test, and now it really truly is. What makes it harder for me to understand is that when writers I respect, write similar things (probably where Kostis gets the idea), I think it takes a lot of courage to somehow downplay the track record of the course. That notion undermines the accomplishments of the people who were successful there, or anyone who loves the history of the Masters. It is the most revered tournament in the world, the one most people would kill to win, but now in looking back, it was incomplete? The course was one-dimensional? I'd love to see Kostis tell Nicklaus that to his face. I'd say yes, it was one-dimensional, it's always been great, interesting and difficult to win!

Oddly, I haven't heard many former champions endorse the changes for having finally turned this supposedly waywad ship around, usually it comes from folks who don't play the game very well or apparently feel the past is not worth a dime, or well, I don't know, they just have to write something. Hootie Johnson does the same thing, only worse. He refers to keeping things in line with Roberts and Jones, but then directly contradicts their philosophy (by the way, IBM commercials shot on the Augusta National property using the images of the course and entrance drive to push products??? Cliff Roberts IS spinning in his grave tonight).

Either way, the notion that the problem has been fixed is a subtle but disrespectul (and perhaps unintentional) jab at the history of Augusta, the design of Augusta, the creators and at all of the men who have won there. All of this disrespect for the past has been going on for the last few years, it hit a new low with Fazio's declaration on Golf Talk Live that it's really not a MacKenzie course because he lived on the west coast and Jones lived closer to the course (try reading Mr. Fazio, you'd be amazed what you'd learn). Personally, I have great respect for anyone who won that tournament on any version of the course, they had to do a lot of incredible things to win. They still do, but why ever even make the implication that somehow Augusta National, the most popular and successful tournament host course in the history of the game, was ever anything but a complete and dramatic test of golfer's skill and character? What does that accomplish? Seems like rather one-dimensional thinking... :)
Geoff
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ian

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2002, 07:52:55 PM »
Geoff,

I think the Peter Kostis is one dimensional, may be we should lenghthen him too.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike Cirba

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2002, 08:22:23 PM »
In many ways, it seems to me that The Masters has moved much closer to being the type of uni-dimensional challenge offered by the US Open.  

The great thing about the Masters in the past is that it offered an opportunity for literally every type of great player to win.  You had straight plodders like Faldo and Langer, swashbucklers like Woosnam and Ballesteros, technicians like Strange (who blew it trying to be a swashbuckler), artists like Olazabal, funky guys like Zoeller and Floyd, bombers like Woods, Couples, Singh, and Nicklaus (in his prime), overachievers like Player and Mize, and scramblers like Watson and Crenshaw.

In a way, the Masters was probably the closest US tournament to the British Open, which is a major reason for such an international championship roster.  Conversely, the list of US Open winners for instance, is hardly as varied or glamorous.

I'm not sure that the new focus on "straight length" won't change that dynamic, and make it more like the survival test we see at the US Open many years.  I guess we'll see.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Gary Smith (Guest)

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2002, 08:56:35 PM »
Mike,

Sure doesn't look as tight and penal out there, with the exception of the landing area at 7, as some of the U.S. Open sites I've seen.

I think for any tournament to be a real test, there has got to be a fairly decent premium on driving accuracy. I don't think the ANGC changes will lead to the totally defensive golf that I've seen at some National Opens.

I also see the various types you described, such as Olazabal, Watson, Woods, and Goosen (same style as Strange?) having good days today.  Doesn't Garcia play a decent swashbuckler?

 

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TFA

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #10 on: April 11, 2002, 08:56:59 PM »
Mike

Reading Ron Whitten's article he mentioned how tees were, yes, moved back, but also to the right and to the left to favor draws AND fades in some instances.  So I don't see how the focus is on 'straight length'.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TFA

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #11 on: April 11, 2002, 09:30:08 PM »
Mike

I looked this up as well and yes, it is early in the tourney, but here are the first round leaders and their tour rank for driving distance.

1.    D. Love III               9
T2.  S. Garcia                 15
T2.  A. Cabrera               8
T4.  R. Goosen                80
T4.  P. Harrington            NA
T4.  P. Mickelson             17
T7.  S. Verplank              150
T7.  J. Parnevik               99
T7.  C. Dimarco               43
T7.  E. Els                      NA
T7.  J. Olazabal               77
T7.  T. Woods                 2
T7.  M. Jimenez               108
T7.  N. Price                   137
T7.  V. Singh                  38
T7.  J. Leonard               106

No, the course was not one dimensional and NO the course has not become one dimensional.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #12 on: April 11, 2002, 09:40:48 PM »
My skeptic nature saw too many positive comments in Butler's Cabin to think it was the rage to rave over the course changes.
Sergio's little smirk spoke volumes after he had towed the line with the comment that "it suits the course".

 If you think about it though, to be playing there and to be negative would be counter productive.

I also thought that the recovery shots from the closely mown areas and the pine straw( new trees or not) was exciting, just like it used to be!. The rough was a joke. What was that? A whole 2" of the nasty  ::) stuff?

One eagle at 13? that sucks!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #13 on: April 11, 2002, 09:44:14 PM »
Put the hole on top on 13 and you'll see plenty of eagles.  That hole location was cut too close to the water to yield a lot of 3s.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

sashby

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #14 on: April 11, 2002, 11:47:20 PM »
ClayMan:

Did we see the same interview?  My take was that Sergio had the air of someone who thinks he's gonna win this tournament.  He mentioned that since he likes to move the ball on every shot, the course is set up perfectly for him.  He shot his best ever round at Augusta at 68.  To me, he didn't look like he was hiding any negative feelings, IMO.  

It seems from player interviews most of the players are greatly in favor of the changes.  Davis Love, Greg Norman, Jack Nicklaus, and Ben Crenshaw (all who know a teensy bit about course architecture) have all given ringing endorsements.  Perhaps they are the best judge.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2002, 05:21:05 AM »
The original intent of the golf course was to provide options - not unlike the Old course. Every year that philosophy seems to be less and less apparent. The drives through narrow shoots at #7 and #18 require but a single choice. The repositioning of the tees and addition of trees and rough call for only one type of shot at #1, #9, #10, #11 and #15. Doesn't the elimination of thought run contrary to Jones and MacKenzie's original intent?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Daley

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #16 on: April 12, 2002, 05:41:29 AM »
One-dimensional: that's like being in a prism!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2002, 05:43:54 AM »
For a really good description of strategic golf in its purest form, and an excellent example of what it is and isn't, how it works best and how it doesn't at ANGC, Geoff Shackelford's analysis of hole #11 on his 9:27pm post should be required reading.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike O'Neill

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2002, 05:52:49 AM »
I saw two highlights of the first round. The option that Tiger took on 15 was awesome. He could have hit short of the pond, hit to the right side of the green or hit for the flag--he hit a huge sweeping hook at the flag. Jim Nantz rightfully pointed out that that was a daring option on a Thursday. We might see the same thing attempted on Sunday in a do or die situation. Interesting options all around if you look for them.

The tee shot on 18 has been through a narrow shoot of trees for at least the last 25 years that I have been watching the Masters. Many a golfer has found trouble in those trees. And I don't think when the hole was shorter a lot of players were hitting irons there. They have always hit driver or three wood in my limited experience.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2002, 06:57:38 AM »
Mike
Your exactly right about the 18th. Do you think moving the tee back another sixty yards has increased the narrowness? Has the new tee increased or decreased options or left them about the same?

Why did Tiger's shot at the flag require a sweeping hook? Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand the new tee on 15 - with a low overhanging tree on the right - will force most players into that same basic position. Has the narrowing of the tee shot at the 15th with a number of trees increased or decreased options?


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

GeoffreyC

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2002, 07:32:38 AM »
My observations from Thursday at Augusta was that the added length was fine but I wish they would chop down a whole bunch of trees to open up playing corridors.

My biggest complaint is the changes have been the final evolution into a target golf course. The ground game seems to be dead but for a few recovery shots that I found to be the most interesting shots of the day.  The two approach shots from 220 on #14 that ran through that amazing green were sheer fun to see. The other highlight was the recovery shots around the 14th green especially from the front short of those mounds to that back pin.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

jim_lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2002, 07:53:01 AM »
Tom:

I don't think there is a new tee at #15.  My understanding is that yesterday the tee markers were placed to the extreme right of the teeing ground. The effect was to bring a branch from a tree on the right into play requiring the player to keep the tee shot low or to hit a fade. I have never noticed that before. I will check it out this weekend and confirm.

Jim
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Crusty"  Jim
Freelance Curmudgeon

DMoriarty

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2002, 08:37:55 AM »

Quote

It seems from player interviews most of the players are greatly in favor of the changes.  Davis Love, Greg Norman, Jack Nicklaus, and Ben Crenshaw (all who know a teensy bit about course architecture) have all given ringing endorsements.  Perhaps they are the best judge.

sashby:

I saw some of these interviews and, while all were gracious and polite (as would be expected), I am not sure that I saw any ringing endorsements.  I guess it just depends on what you are looking for.  

Certainly, the players seem in agreement that the changes are aesthetically pleasing, blend very well with the course, and "look like Augusta National."  (A skeptic might think that some of the players feared for the worse after seeing Fazio's work at Riviera, and were relieved to see that Augusta still looked like Augusta.)

With regard to the merits of the changes, I heard a mixed message.  For example, Davis Love said something like, they are making it longer, so we will hit it longer;  this benefits the big hitters; if they want to test skills other than length, lets go to Merion;  but if they want to test length the big hitters will go out and find more length.  

Ben Crenshaw was very tactful and noted that the changes blended beautifully.  When asked how his approach might differ from Fazio's, he said that golf was about fun shots and facing fun choices, and that he liked to build short par fours with challenging options and short par threes that are extremely difficult, because these holes were fun.  At one point he said something like,"if every hole becomes a long slog, golf wont be as much fun."  

I only saw a little bit of a Norman interview, but thought he had specific criticisms of the changes on at least one hole.  

I guess it just depends on what you are looking for when you read.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

DMoriarty

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2002, 08:40:22 AM »
Last sentence should say "when you listen" not "when you read."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Hootie

Re: Augusta was one-dimensional?
« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2002, 08:43:39 AM »
A_Clay_Man

Excuse yourself on the rough comment...its the second cut.  We will be sending a letter to ask that you not attend the tournament. ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back