Geoff Ogilvy on "his" Augusta

[Bruce Wellmon]

On Golf.com
(Forgive me if this has been discussed already)
Rather interesting.....................

http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,2062483,00.html

[Lynn_Shackelford]

The usual stuff which is pretty simple and will probably be implemented slowly as they "unHootie" the course.

I am interested most in slowing down the greens and thereby creating more hole locations which could be fun.  Arnold Palmer used to say he wished they would have kept the bermuda greens.  They weren't so fast and they were still firm.  I think firmer and putting at 11 or 12 would accomplish what both are saying and re establish the intent on some holes.

[jeffwarne]

Good stuff.

Notice he didn't say anything about length (other than providing some teeing variability)
Love his comments about speed of greens-with slower greens, they could use faster pin placements and produce putts equally fast if not faster if a ball were poorly placed

In an era of architectural enlightenment and rediscovery, it's a shame to see such a great course go backwards in some regards (slightlY)

[Carl Nichols]

Do these shortcomings really take ANGC out of the top 10 classic, as some have claimed on another thread?

[BCrosby]

Do these shortcomings really take ANGC out of the top 10 classic, as some have claimed on another thread?

I don't see why not. The changes over the last 10 years have been significant and adversely affected the architectural quality of the course. ANGC is the only major course I know of that has systemaically narrowed its playing corridors over the last decade, in some cases quite dramatically.

You do that, you pay a price in the rankings. Assuming the rankings are credible.   

Bob  

[Carl Nichols]

Do these shortcomings really take ANGC out of the top 10 classic, as some have claimed on another thread?

I don't see why not. The changes over the last 10 years have been significant and adversely affected the architectural quality of the course. ANGC is the only major course I know of that has systemaically narrowed its playing corridors over the last decade, in some cases quite dramatically.

You do that, you pay a price in the rankings. Assuming the rankings are credible.   

Bob  

Bob:
I just wonder whether, if a course like Fisher's Island were subjected to the same level of scrutiny, people would find just as much to complain about. 

[BCrosby]

Carl -

I don't think it is a matter of the extra scrutiny ANGC gets. It's a matter of the changes actually made to the course, particularly the most recent ones. Those changes are highly unusual for a course of ANGC's status.

If fw's at Fisher's, PVGC, CPC, NGLA (or any other top 25 course) had been similarly narrowed by the addition of hundreds of new trees, they would have richly deserved (and probably would have received) the same down grade as ANGC in the GolfWeek historic course rankings.

Bob  

[Steve Kline]

At the same time that Augusta has added trees, added rough, and narrowed playing corridors other courses have cut down all their trees - Oakmont - and others have widened their fairways and got rid of all rough - Pinehurst. I like the trend of the other courses and not Augusta.

[Matt_Ward]

The thing about any time you have super fast greens 12+ is that pinnable areas actually decrease and you must use the same spots.

I mean -- how many time must the pin for #16 be places in the SAME gathering location on the left side ?

BCrosby:

What lowering in the ratings are we talking about ?

ANGC is still #1 w GD and even in GW still merits a top ten placement.

Frankly, the "prestige" of the tournament has blinded many people to what has happened. When I see the drop of Pinehurst #2 (prior to the work of C&C) I see no reason why ANGC would have suffered a similar drop as well.

[BCrosby]

Matt -

I don't follow ratings very closely, but the last time I looked a couple of years ago ANGC had dropped from the top three in GW to 11th or 12th. Maybe that changed this year. Don't know. But it was a precipitous drop for a course of ANGC's standing.

That you could add hundreds (maybe more) of trees, grow up rough where there had been none previously, therby changing how an important historical course plays in material ways - if all that does not affect the rating of ANGC, it is an indictment of the credibility of the rating program. If those sorts of changes to ANGC don't change its rating, what in heavens name would?

It's another reason why Brad Klein's ratings remain the least bad of the bunch.

Bob

[Carl Nichols]

Carl -

I don't think it is a matter of the extra scrutiny ANGC gets. It's a matter of the changes actually made to the course, particularly the most recent ones. Those changes are highly unusual for a course of ANGC's status.

If fw's at Fisher's, PVGC, CPC, NGLA (or any other top 25 course) had been similarly narrowed by the addition of hundreds of new trees, they would have richly deserved (and probably would have received) the same down grade as ANGC in the GolfWeek historic course rankings.

Bob  

Bob:
I'm not arguing that the changes were good or otherwise trying to defend them, or even whether the changes shouldn't merit a negative change in ANGC's ranking.  Instead, I'm questioning whether those [high-profile] changes are sufficient to bump ANGC out of the top 10 courses in the country as it currently exists (and as all of the other courses currently exist).  I've only played three of the Golf Digest top 10 and have never stepped foot on the grounds at Augusta, so I'm limited in having a personal view on this, and that's why I'm just asking questions.

It would be interesting to know whether there's anyone on GCA who's played ANGC who has 10 other courses in the U.S. ahead of it. . .

[BCrosby]

Carl asks:

" Instead, I'm questioning whether those [high-profile] changes are sufficient to bump ANGC out of the top 10 courses in the country as it currently exists (and as all of the other courses currently exist)."

For the reasons I give above, the changes are easily sufficient to knock ANGC down the ladder. The narrowing of the playing corridors directly contravene the express design goals of MacK and Jones. Whose views, I would think, ought to be given some weight.

But even if you don't care about MacK's and Jones' views, the course's current narrowness commits two cardinal design sins. It makes ANGC less interesting to play and less interesting as a venue for what is supposed to be the most dramatic championship in golf.

For such changes, ANGC should pay a price. I figure that Brad Klein got it about right.

Bob