[Chip Gaskins]

Would MacKenzie & Jones be happy to hear a Masters winner say I don't have to play "perfect" golf?

I would say absolutely yes for MacKenzie.  His view of golf and architecture always seem to revolve around fun and options.

I am not sure about Mr. Jones.  He loved the Old Course, but I suspect he may have wanted a more demanding test?

Thoughts?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Chip,

The past few days exemplified what a major is all about, i.e., you want to win, you better bring your major league abilities to the party. As seriously impressed as I am by the shotmaking (the best of it happening from places other than the fairway) and the obvious talent that was on display, I do believe it was the course that drew it out of the players.

 

[Anthony Gray]

  I think that is what makes The Masters so appealing to the general public. It is not target golf and you get to see the heroic shot as well as the disaster. More drama makes for better viewing.

  Anthont

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

Phil could have blown himself out of the tournament on 9, 10 and 11 yesterday and he was lucky with his lie on # 13.

His recovery skills were exceptional.

For the most part, ANGC remains a wide and/or wide open golf course, and that allows for margins of error, which he capitalized on.

[Jerry Kluger]

Chip: I think they would be happy as most of the holes still play the way they were intended to although 16 no longer has the teeth that it used to and they would not appreciate players hitting 3 wood off the tee on 18.

They would not be happy with what will happen at PB for the US Open.  6 inch rough and narrow fairways will lead to no recovery shots and boring golf.

[Adam_Messix]

Alister MacKenzie would be very happy and Bobby Jones would be downright thrilled to hear these comments because if taken in context, they describe exactly what they were looking for at ANGC.  They were looking for a course that would be strategic and heroic, not penal.  Mickelson's point is that you don't need to be driving if perfectly to play ANGC well, even today.  It gives you a chance to play the heroic recovery shot if you have the game and bravery (or should I say stupidity) to try it.  I can here the moaning begin about how some of the changes over the years have taken some of this away, but I don't remember seeing anyone this week being put in a position where they had absolutely no shot like you would see at a U. S. or Open Championship.

[A.G._Crockett]

I didn't hear Phil use the word "perfect", but I did hear an interview earlier in the week in which he said that he loved the course and felt comfortable there because he could recover.  He talked about the angles of play, etc., and in that regard I think both MacKenzie and Jones would have been thrilled with his evaluation. 

I think that the criticisms here of what has been done to the course in recent years, especially with tree plantings, are reflective of the fear of loss of the original intent of Jones and MacKenzie for what ANGC would be.  Apparently, there is still enough of it left to please Mickelson.

[John Shimony]

I assume Jones and MacKenzie would agree that there is no such thing as "perfect" golf and hence would be fine with Phils performance and victory. 

But will his style be able to overcome Pebble Beach where they have reportedly moved some fairways, such as number 8, closer to the ocean.  I forget on which side Phil missed fairways this weekend but his WFW miss was left and that should not matter at PB other that on number 18, correct me if I'm wrong.

His recoveries from the greenside rough will definitely be more difficult but he has contended before on US Open courses and this one should be somewhat more forgiving in terms of length of rough.

[Kyle Harris]

Hmm, this is a question about the rest of the field, is it not?

Who played perfect golf last week?

[Matthew Petersen]

I assume Jones and MacKenzie would agree that there is no such thing as "perfect" golf and hence would be fine with Phils performance and victory. 

But will his style be able to overcome Pebble Beach where they have reportedly moved some fairways, such as number 8, closer to the ocean.  I forget on which side Phil missed fairways this weekend but his WFW miss was left and that should not matter at PB other that on number 18, correct me if I'm wrong.

His recoveries from the greenside rough will definitely be more difficult but he has contended before on US Open courses and this one should be somewhat more forgiving in terms of length of rough.

Most of his misses off the tee on Sunday were right--he was right on 9, 10, 11, and 13.

[John Shimp]

He is talking about hitting it perfectly I think.  He played near perfect golf (no bogeys) on Sunday. 

Augusta is tighter than ever but the lack of rough gives you a chance to lay a heavy hit on it to recover.

[Thomas McQuillan]

Hmm, this is a question about the rest of the field, is it not?

Who played perfect golf last week?

Lee Westwood apart from the final day and Ian Poulter for the first two days

[Tom_Doak]

I didn't get to see much of The Masters because I was traveling, but I did see the middle of Sunday's round while waiting for a plane at LGA.

In the space of seven holes -- 9 thru 15 -- I watched the eventual champion drive it into the trees four times [including three crashing hooks that would have been o.b. on most courses in Palm Springs], yet complete those holes in three UNDER par.  And if that wasn't wild enough, Tiger over the same space made more crazy swings in seven holes than Hogan, Nelson and Snead made in their combined lifetimes; if he'd been playing with Hogan's driver he probably would have whiffed his tee shot on 13.  And yet HE shot three under for the day.

Now, I am all in favor of great recovery play, and it sure does make for exciting finishes.  And yet, I think I can sympathize today with the rest of the field, who must be wondering how two guys who were hitting it all over the golf course could wind up at the top at day's end.

I noted that neither Mickelson nor Woods have decided when they're going to play their next tournament, but you can rest assured it is NOT likely to be at Harbour Town.

[Matthew Petersen]

I didn't get to see much of The Masters because I was traveling, but I did see the middle of Sunday's round while waiting for a plane at LGA.

In the space of seven holes -- 9 thru 15 -- I watched the eventual champion drive it into the trees four times [including three crashing hooks that would have been o.b. on most courses in Palm Springs], yet complete those holes in three UNDER par.  And if that wasn't wild enough, Tiger over the same space made more crazy swings in seven holes than Hogan, Nelson and Snead made in their combined lifetimes; if he'd been playing with Hogan's driver he probably would have whiffed his tee shot on 13.  And yet HE shot three under for the day.

Now, I am all in favor of great recovery play, and it sure does make for exciting finishes.  And yet, I think I can sympathize today with the rest of the field, who must be wondering how two guys who were hitting it all over the golf course could wind up at the top at day's end.

I noted that neither Mickelson nor Woods have decided when they're going to play their next tournament, but you can rest assured it is NOT likely to be at Harbour Town.

I have always been more a fan of the US Open than the Masters (as a kid, if I'd been told I could win just one of them I'd have taken the Open in a heartbeat), but it's this that makes me want to reconsider. Golf is more than just driving it well. If a player has the ability to make great recovery shots from tough places, more power to them. Sadly, overly penal (whether due to hazards or just thick, high rough) do limit this. They make driving the ball more important than any other facet of the game.

Maybe I'll have changed my tune on this point by the time mid-June is here, but if the guys who finished behind Phil and Tiger are asking themselves questions maybe they should start with, "Why can't I make a 4 from the middle of the fairway if Phil/Tiger can make that number from out of the trees?"

[Tom_Doak]

Matthew:

I'm not saying I think the "fairways and greens in regulation" players are RIGHT, just that I can sympathize with them this time.  Last weekend seemed to show that with modern equipment, it really doesn't matter at all how badly you drive it, as long as you hit it within a 7-iron distance to the green and don't hit it directly behind a tree.

What I really found amazing was that both Tiger and Phil could have NO IDEA how to swing the driver, and then go up into the pine straw and hit a 7-iron that landed on the head of a pin, exactly where it needed to below the hole.  It's like the driver swing has no relation to the rest of their game.

[jeffwarne]

Matthew:

I'm not saying I think the "fairways and greens in regulation" players are RIGHT, just that I can sympathize with them this time.  Last weekend seemed to show that with modern equipment, it really doesn't matter at all how badly you drive it, as long as you hit it within a 7-iron distance to the green and don't hit it directly behind a tree.

What I really found amazing was that both Tiger and Phil could have NO IDEA how to swing the driver, and then go up into the pine straw and hit a 7-iron that landed on the head of a pin, exactly where it needed to below the hole.  It's like the driver swing has no relation to the rest of their game.

Nobody did that better than Seve

[Brent Hutto]

What I really found amazing was that both Tiger and Phil could have NO IDEA how to swing the driver, and then go up into the pine straw and hit a 7-iron that landed on the head of a pin, exactly where it needed to below the hole.  It's like the driver swing has no relation to the rest of their game.

Several years ago when the trends toward launch angle optimization and very tall tees to allow hitting on the upswing were just taking hold I asked my teaching-pro buddy if it was now necessary to learn a specific driver swing in addition to your normal swing with the other clubs. He said golf was a tough enough game with only one swing and that the guys who tried switching back and forth between an extreme uppercut with the driver and a conventional swing otherwise were risking messing up both.

Perhaps in a small way that's what you're observing for Tiger and Phil. Unlike circa 2003-4 when I asked that question it may be accepted now that having an extreme driver swing is a necessity to play power golf at the elite level. I can see how switching back and forth a dozen times a round presents a challenge.

[jeffwarne]

I didn't get to see much of The Masters because I was traveling, but I did see the middle of Sunday's round while waiting for a plane at LGA.

In the space of seven holes -- 9 thru 15 -- I watched the eventual champion drive it into the trees four times [including three crashing hooks that would have been o.b. on most courses in Palm Springs], yet complete those holes in three UNDER par.  And if that wasn't wild enough, Tiger over the same space made more crazy swings in seven holes than Hogan, Nelson and Snead made in their combined lifetimes; if he'd been playing with Hogan's driver he probably would have whiffed his tee shot on 13.  And yet HE shot three under for the day.

Now, I am all in favor of great recovery play, and it sure does make for exciting finishes.  And yet, I think I can sympathize today with the rest of the field, who must be wondering how two guys who were hitting it all over the golf course could wind up at the top at day's end.

I noted that neither Mickelson nor Woods have decided when they're going to play their next tournament, but you can rest assured it is NOT likely to be at Harbour Town.

I thought it was impossible to hit it crooked with modern equipment.

The real truth is these guys are good enough to beat the rest of the field when swinging poorly.
and if playing an OB lined dogtrack or US Open prepped course, they'd simply hit more irons,hybrids, and fairway woods, and still emerge near or at the top.

[jeffwarne]

What I really found amazing was that both Tiger and Phil could have NO IDEA how to swing the driver, and then go up into the pine straw and hit a 7-iron that landed on the head of a pin, exactly where it needed to below the hole.  It's like the driver swing has no relation to the rest of their game.

Several years ago when the trends toward launch angle optimization and very tall tees to allow hitting on the upswing were just taking hold I asked my teaching-pro buddy if it was now necessary to learn a specific driver swing in addition to your normal swing with the other clubs. He said golf was a tough enough game with only one swing and that the guys who tried switching back and forth between an extreme uppercut with the driver and a conventional swing otherwise were risking messing up both.

Perhaps in a small way that's what you're observing for Tiger and Phil. Unlike circa 2003-4 when I asked that question it may be accepted now that having an extreme driver swing is a necessity to play power golf at the elite level. I can see how switching back and forth a dozen times a round presents a challenge.

Brent,
Good drivers have been hitting the ball on the upswing for years-they just didn't need long tees because the heads were so small

[Matthew Petersen]

Matthew:

I'm not saying I think the "fairways and greens in regulation" players are RIGHT, just that I can sympathize with them this time.  Last weekend seemed to show that with modern equipment, it really doesn't matter at all how badly you drive it, as long as you hit it within a 7-iron distance to the green and don't hit it directly behind a tree.

What I really found amazing was that both Tiger and Phil could have NO IDEA how to swing the driver, and then go up into the pine straw and hit a 7-iron that landed on the head of a pin, exactly where it needed to below the hole.  It's like the driver swing has no relation to the rest of their game.

I quite agree. What was even more interesting to me was that Tiger's troubles weren't just with the driver, they were with any club he chose to hit of the tee. At both 10 and 13 (maybe elsewhere) he tried to hit his "stinger" fairway wood shot that stays low and rolls ... but actually popped it up! The struggles he had off the tee made it all the more impressive how dialed in he was with his irons.

[John Shimony]

I assume Jones and MacKenzie would agree that there is no such thing as "perfect" golf and hence would be fine with Phils performance and victory. 

But will his style be able to overcome Pebble Beach where they have reportedly moved some fairways, such as number 8, closer to the ocean.  I forget on which side Phil missed fairways this weekend but his WFW miss was left and that should not matter at PB other that on number 18, correct me if I'm wrong.

His recoveries from the greenside rough will definitely be more difficult but he has contended before on US Open courses and this one should be somewhat more forgiving in terms of length of rough.

Most of his misses off the tee on Sunday were right--he was right on 9, 10, 11, and 13.

Then Mickleson is really if for trouble at PB.  I'll still be rooting for him though.

[Frank M]

I don't see why not....golf courses are meant to test a players' overall ability. It doesn't mean you have to be perfect in every category. Phil was definitely the best overall player this past weekend.

[MikeJones]

I'm sure there are plenty of guys who drove it into the woods who didn't make the cut. The fact that you get some of guys cutting loose and then playing amazing recovery shots that would be impossible on many courses, makes for great TV and my personal opinion is that it's a more complete test of skill too.

Augusta is Augusta and for all the moaning and gnashing of teeth here about how the rough and course alterations were going to change the character of the course, they obviously have not in any way. The Masters has always been about great drama, amazing recovery shots and tests of character around Amen Corner. Nothing has changed, this last Masters was as good as I've ever watched.

Of course golf would be a lesser game if every course rewarded the same thing and so I have nothing against tree lined, tight courses with no margin for error as tests of skill in tournament golf. Given a choice though, I certainly know which type of course would be more fun to play and isn't that what golf is about?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()