Follies of Defending the "Par"

[Richard Choi]

Almost everyone is in agreement that this was an exceptional Masters. It was full of inspiring stories, heroic shots, and all around fun.

I believe much of that has to do with letting the course play without worrying about "defending the par". Players were destroying the par 5's with eagles up the wazoo, but it was also the source of major drama and excitement. The tourney directors could have made things more difficult by placing the pins in more inaccessible areas, but I am very glad that they didn't.

Did it make it a less of a major because the winner's score was as low as a typical PGA Tour stop? I would definitely argue no. This was good as any major events of the past.

I really wish ANGC will take this one step further and get rid of the rough.

Is it time that at least every major outside of US Open stop worrying about "defending the par"?

[Sean Leary]

Richard,

What do you think would be accomplished by getting rid of the rough? I think I agree with you but I am unsure on the possible impact. I think they would be in the trees more often which would be good sometimes and not others.

[Richard Choi]

Sean, it would return the original intent of the architect. I just don't think the amount of "difficulties" that the rough brings is worth going against that original intent.

[John Moore II]

Richard-are we really saying that when first designed, the course had no rough at all? The whole course was mown fairway? I find that hard to believe. I think the rough provides a great challenge for players to keep the ball in play on the correct side. And its not too penal to prevent a great recovery.

[Sean Leary]

Sean, it would return the original intent of the architect. I just don't think the amount of "difficulties" that the rough brings is worth going against that original intent.

A case can be made that part of the architects intent was to test the best players in the world, whild remaining playable for the members. Also, the first cut is theorhetically the same length as the fairways back then.

I think it just creates a little doubt in the players mind, which can be a good thing.

I would be fine if they removed the rough,  but it is not that big of a deal to me.

[Dan Herrmann]

Sean, it would return the original intent of the architect. I just don't think the amount of "difficulties" that the rough brings is worth going against that original intent.

Ding, Ding, Ding! 

From my reading of Bob Jones, the intent was to let a ball trundle into trouble on a poor shot.  Mounding was also a part of the greatness of ANGC, which could be restored to pre Fazio pretty easily.