Masters Setup Makes No Sense...

[Tim Martin]

Tim, I don't understand the logic of the need to "be there" to see how soft the greens are.

Do they allow you to walk on the green and hit a few shot to see how soft the greens are when you attend the tournament? Does what you see on TV tell you nothing about how soft/firm the greens are?

I understand that some of the finer points of the course are impossible to tell on TV, but the firmness of the green isn't one of them.

Rich- With the amount of slope and contouring on these greens they can only be so firm. I thought the course was set up and played beautifully. I didn`t hear any of the players lamenting the "softness" of the greens.

[Richard Choi]

Richard, what you're not understanding is that the ball doesn't move as much.
Golfers drive it straighter and longer, thus, in order to remain relevant as a challenge, you can't provide football field DZ's.

Pat, I get your point. But then wouldn't you agree that all the constipation about tree plantings and how they have narrowed the course over the years is kinda moot point? If anything, they should narrow the course more, would you not agree?

And, I don't recall anyone bouncing the balls short of the greens at Pebble.

On what holes ?

Pat, I dstinctly remember having to land the ball short of the green on both #9 and #10, among others.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Because it takes less strategy and imagination and offers less variety in play.

OKAY, take me on a hole by hole account of how you'd play the ground game at ANGC

[John Kavanaugh]

ANGC clearly wanted a set up of very receptive greens that were ultra fast. That is exactly what they got and most here seem to love it as well. Good for all of you. Go back to your home club and try and do the same if it makes for such outstanding golf.
Me, I'll always desire firmer greens and a little less speed. And yes, I think ANGC is a great course as well and would have been even more appealing today with a little more bounce in the greens and a little less speed. Set up like that, I believe the winning score would have been very close to what we got today, but there would have been fewer in the hunt. Maybe that's a bad thing.
JK, yes, the players were using side banks and back boards all day to spin shots closer to the hole. Exciting stuff, but not quite as testing as when you know if your just a little off your liable to bounce right over. As soft as the greens were the players knew the chance of their ball bounding away from them was very small, thus we got to witness very aggressive play and lots of low scores. Exactly what I'm sure the folks at ANGC wanted, CBS wanted, the players wanted, and what most of the rest of you here wanted. I found it a little too orchestrated.  

Tiger shooting even on the back nine while Chas with no e birdies the last four to win was hardly orchestrated.  These guys are so good that if the greens were truly soft they would simply throw darts.  By any standard short of make believe the greens today were firm.  

[Doug Sobieski]

All day long golfers aimed away from the pin in order to use the ground to get closer to the hole. Ie: The ground game.  

Bingo.

To me, the ground game is a situation where I'm thinking about where I need to land the ball so that something that I hopefully anticipated will happen afterward so that the ball tracks closer to the hole. The excitement of the shot starts once the ball is on the ground, regardless of whether it comes in high or low.

At ANGC, with #12 possibly the only exception, every green has hole locations where players play away from the hole (sometimes beyond it) and allow for contours to produce the desired result. Even on a hole like 3, where the shot comes in aerially, there is a ground component that must be addressed, i.e. can I hit it long right with the appropriate spin to allow it to come back and to the left toward the hole. Schwartzel did it to perfection on 3 today. Is that NOT the ground game? Is it only when the ball is coming in low and going forward? That's a very narrow definition.

Aerial to me connotes a game of darts. Hit it from Point A, and have it land and stick at Point B. That is certainly not what Augusta is. How often are we rewarded with excitement as the ball trickles SLOWLY, sometimes toward and sometimes away from a hole location.

I guess the next time I'm showing someone around Ballyneal, I'll need to tell them that when hitting to the back right bowl on 8, if they throw it high up the hill with a wedge and let it trickle back toward the hole, that is NOT the ground game because it came in high and backpedaling.

Doug

[Richard Choi]

Rich- With the amount of slope and contouring on these greens they can only be so firm. I thought the course was set up and played beautifully. I didn`t hear any of the players lamenting the "softness" of the greens.

Tim, when have you ever heard PGA players lamenting about the soft greens anywhere? If it was up to them, the greens would be so soft, the balls would plug where they land.

But if you listen to the press conferences, you will hear a lot of players who were suprised at how receptive the greens were.

Perhaps, I should just chalk up Firm & Fast to the same category as Fast Play around here at GCA. Everybody talks a good game, but in reality, they are anything but.

[JC Jones]

ANGC clearly wanted a set up of very receptive greens that were ultra fast. That is exactly what they got and most here seem to love it as well. Good for all of you. Go back to your home club and try and do the same if it makes for such outstanding golf.
Me, I'll always desire firmer greens and a little less speed. And yes, I think ANGC is a great course as well and would have been even more appealing today with a little more bounce in the greens and a little less speed. Set up like that, I believe the winning score would have been very close to what we got today, but there would have been fewer in the hunt. Maybe that's a bad thing.
JK, yes, the players were using side banks and back boards all day to spin shots closer to the hole. Exciting stuff, but not quite as testing as when you know if your just a little off your liable to bounce right over. As soft as the greens were the players knew the chance of their ball bounding away from them was very small, thus we got to witness very aggressive play and lots of low scores. Exactly what I'm sure the folks at ANGC wanted, CBS wanted, the players wanted, and what most of the rest of you here wanted. I found it a little too orchestrated.  

Don,

I agree with your biggest beef, which I think feeds the rest of your comments.  What ANGC is and does  should not be attempted on a macro scale.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Richard, what you're not understanding is that the ball doesn't move as much.
Golfers drive it straighter and longer, thus, in order to remain relevant as a challenge, you can't provide football field DZ's.

Pat, I get your point. But then wouldn't you agree that all the constipation about tree plantings and how they have narrowed the course over the years is kinda moot point?

Rich, I've maintained, that even with the narrowing, which I think diminishes the "member-guest" play, the fairways remain very generous.

Did you see the view from behind # 15 green, looking back at the fairway ?
You could play a football game on that space short of the pond.


If anything, they should narrow the course more, would you not agree?

One could make that argument.
Howevr, the difficulty for ANGC is that they have to serve two masters, the PGA Tour Pros and everyday golfers.
That's not easy.

And, I don't recall anyone bouncing the balls short of the greens at Pebble.

On what holes ?

Pat, I dstinctly remember having to land the ball short of the green on both #9 and #10, among others.

# 9 ?
You have to walk single file when approaching # 9 green.
It's like threading the eye of a needle

[John Kavanaugh]

Didn't Tiger hit every fairway on the back and still shoot even?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don Mahaffey,

Don't you think that there's an enormous challenge in trying to get the perfect blend of speed and firmness ?

And, no matter how sophisticated your systems, if Mother Nature doesn't co-operate, it's almost impossible for 7 days.

[Brent Hutto]

I guess the next time I'm showing someone around Ballyneal, I'll need to tell them that when hitting to the back right bowl on 8, if they throw it high up the hill with a wedge and let it trickle back toward the hole, that is NOT the ground game because it came in high and backpedaling.

I guess one meaning of "ground game" is "the game played by those who can neither hit the ball high, make the ball spin or reach greens in regulation strokes without the extra distance increment of significant roll in addition to their limited carry distance".

That's a lot of what happens when I visit England to play links and heathland courses. I can play them at a length that would be totally unmanageable back home on soft parkland layouts because my drives (if aimed well) will roll out 30, 40, 50 yards and on approach shots I often only have to carry the ball to a point 15 yards short of the green for it to end up pin high. For weaker players that is very pleasurable.

I for one have never bought in Dr. MacKenzie's statement about the ability to play a course from one end to the other with a putter being a mark of quality architecture. It's a mark of a course that is enjoyable by even with the weakest player. And yes, if you can provide that while also be a fun challenge for very good players that's a nice job of architecting. But I draw a distiction between "the kind of course I can have the most fun on" and "great courses". Especially if we're talking major championship venues. There is a danger on this forum of conflating the two...

[JC Jones]

I for one have never bought in Dr. MacKenzie's statement about the ability to play a course from one end to the other with a putter being a mark of quality architecture. It's a mark of a course that is enjoyable by even with the weakest player. And yes, if you can provide that while also be a fun challenge for very good players that's a nice job of architecting. But I draw a distiction between "the kind of course I can have the most fun on" and "great courses". Especially if we're talking major championship venues. There is a danger on this forum of conflating the two...

That is an interesting statement by Dr. Mac.  How many of his courses is one able to do that?

[jeffwarne]

Pat,

I didn't say ANGC isn't a wide course. It just isn't as wide as it used to be. And all I am saying that the width does not matter anymore (because as you said it is all about the aerials at ANGC) and it really wouldn't matter much if they wanted to narrow it even further.

The last US Opens at Pebble and Shinny where the greens were very very firm forced players to bounce balls into the green because anything landing in the middle was going to bounce off. And I promise you it will be the same at Chambers (as it was during US Am).

Just to play Devil's advocate, was anything proven with Shinnecock's goofy setup in 2004. other than the fact that Goosen could make more 10-15 footers than anyone else?,( since no one could get the ball onto the greens)
Watching pros hit 3 iron off 6 tee was a real treat.
and clearly nothing was proven at Pebble where the entire field did not make a putt on those abysmal greens-


To your original point though, ANGC could play firm and fast for the tournament when the weather cooperates if they did not overseed, but conditions would sure suck in Jan-feb.
Also to your point. the course was not as firm and fast as I've seen it in years past.(but then they'd be hititng it 400)

[Gary Slatter]

IMHO it was a great TV golf tournament on a perfect US-style golf course.   I fell too many holes would be unplayable if they were any firmer.  I've heard only great comments about the 2011 Masters as witnessed on TV this week.  Personally it was too green at times, but at times not as green as usual.  Imagine how good Tiger will be when he plays all 72 like he played 18 this week?

Richard, good effort but ANGC is not your F&F course, never was.  I saw many ground shots this week.  The other Choi seemed to be hitting one every hole.  The Old is along the ground in the summer, once the mats come out, it becomes an air game course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

All day long golfers aimed away from the pin in order to use the ground to get closer to the hole. Ie: The ground game.  

Bingo.

That's simply NOT TRUE

To me, the ground game is a situation where I'm thinking about where I need to land the ball so that something that I hopefully anticipated will happen afterward so that the ball tracks closer to the hole. The excitement of the shot starts once the ball is on the ground, regardless of whether it comes in high or low.

How would you play # 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 under that theory ?

At ANGC, with #12 possibly the only exception, every green has hole locations where players play away from the hole (sometimes beyond it) and allow for contours to produce the desired result.


Where would that be on # 1, # 2, # 4, # 6, # 7, # 8, # 9, # 10, # 11, # 13, # 15, # 16, # 17, and # 18.

And, is that a universal irrespecitve of where you are in the fairway or rough ?
OR, does your location in the fairway or rough, dictate the angle of attack into the hole location/s ?

Even on a hole like 3, where the shot comes in aerially, there is a ground component that must be addressed, i.e. can I hit it long right with the appropriate spin to allow it to come back and to the left toward the hole. Schwartzel did it to perfection on 3 today. Is that NOT the ground game? NO it's NOT the ground game.

Is it only when the ball is coming in low and going forward? That's a very narrow definition.

Depends upon what your definition of is is  

Aerial to me connotes a game of darts. Hit it from Point A, and have it land and stick at Point B. That is certainly not what Augusta is. How often are we rewarded with excitement as the ball trickles SLOWLY, sometimes toward and sometimes away from a hole location.

Then you have the wrong definition.

I guess the next time I'm showing someone around Ballyneal, I'll need to tell them that when hitting to the back right bowl on 8, if they throw it high up the hill with a wedge and let it trickle back toward the hole, that is NOT the ground game because it came in high and backpedaling.

I wasn't aware that they're holding the Masters at Ballyneal next year.
Tha'ts really a inane comment.
Would you equate the conditions ?  The velocity of the wind ?
Are you a graduate of the TEPaul/Ray Charles school of architecture ?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Don Mahaffey,

Don't you think that there's an enormous challenge in trying to get the perfect blend of speed and firmness ?

And, no matter how sophisticated your systems, if Mother Nature doesn't co-operate, it's almost impossible for 7 days.

Patrick,
Yes, I do.
I also know from personal experience that the tour set up guys will always err, heavily, on the side of soft over firm. The “these guys are good” mentality is about show casing player’s talents and those talents are best on display, at least according to the tour, when players are going low and making birdies. The majors have always been a welcomed respite from that mentality, but now with the PGA and The Masters mostly embracing the “these guys are good” set up mentality we are now left with both Opens if we want to see a firm golf course.
The guys at ANGC are the best in the business and they have every available tool and resource. That set up we saw this week was exactly what ANGC wanted. I’m afraid the USGA is probably going down that road as well as going low and making a lot of birdies is what the modern golf viewer wants. I don’t want to watch a train wreck, but firm greens give the tournaments an added dimension that I enjoy. I’ll always watch the Masters and I love the course. I just think the golf would be better with firmer greens. Obviously I’m in the minority, like 90-10 minority it seems. I don’t think most of the guys on this thread would enjoy playing my course.

[jeffwarne]

Don Mahaffey,

Don't you think that there's an enormous challenge in trying to get the perfect blend of speed and firmness ?

And, no matter how sophisticated your systems, if Mother Nature doesn't co-operate, it's almost impossible for 7 days.

Patrick,
Yes, I do.
I also know from personal experience that the tour set up guys will always err, heavily, on the side of soft over firm. The “these guys are good” mentality is about show casing player’s talents and those talents are best on display, at least according to the tour, when players are going low and making birdies. The majors have always been a welcomed respite from that mentality, but now with the PGA and The Masters mostly embracing the “these guys are good” set up mentality we are now left with both Opens if we want to see a firm golf course.
The guys at ANGC are the best in the business and they have every available tool and resource. That set up we saw this week was exactly what ANGC wanted. I’m afraid the USGA is probably going down that road as well as going low and making a lot of birdies is what the modern golf viewer wants. I don’t want to watch a train wreck, but firm greens give the tournaments an added dimension that I enjoy. I’ll always watch the Masters and I love the course. I just think the golf would be better with firmer greens. Obviously I’m in the minority, like 90-10 minority it seems. I don’t think most of the guys on this thread would enjoy playing my course.

Firmer greens would make the back pins more interesting (and potentially accessible)
but it would further play into the bombers hands......

I have seen the greens firmer at ANGC-

[Richard Choi]

For what its worth, the Masters Setup makes perfect sense to me now.

I was confused because I thought they narrowed the fairways, grew rough and whatnot to protect the par. And I was confused why they would leave the green so receptive when they are trying to protect the par.

But now I realize that protecting the par is not the goal. What they want is an exciting Masters event. For that, they want fast, receptive greens. If you look at it from that point of view, the entire setup makes perfect sense and you understand why they would want to narrow the fairways.

Of course, from everything I have read about the course, that may go contrary to what Dr. Mackenzie or Bobby Jones originally intended for this course, but I understand that is not their primary objective.

It makes the event a bit less interesting for me. But I understand I am not a normal Masters viewer and the vast majority of the TV watchers and patrons are quite happy with this setup.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don,

I'd agree, I'd prefer to see firmer greens, but, I didn't think the greens were "soft"

[Tim_Cronin]

Every golf course setup is orchestrated. In this case, it was Toscanini conducting Beethoven's 9th. Incredible show, exactly what the green jackets wanted (along with most of the rest of us in the general public, some of whom understand architecture, some not).

[David Kelly]

Firmer greens would make the back pins more interesting (and potentially accessible)
but it would further play into the bombers hands......

I have seen the greens firmer at ANGC-

Phil Mickelson said after his round yesterday, "The greens are more receptive than they have ever been."

[Richard Choi]

Phil Mickelson said after his round yesterday, "The greens are more receptive than they have ever been."

He must not have walked the course like JC...

[Doug Sobieski]

Patrick:

I'm not surprised you misinterpreted everything I wrote. It's akin to how my grandparents don't get a lot of things they see on TV. It gets tiresome having to explain things to them. And if I agreed with your opinion, then we'd both be wrong

Doug

[JC Jones]

Phil Mickelson said after his round yesterday, "The greens are more receptive than they have ever been."

He must not have walked the course like JC...

Only I didn't make any comment about the receptiveness of the greens.

[Adam Clayman]

The changes to the green contours over the years has made the putting much less exciting. I saw so many over reads this week it actually made some pros look silly. I ASSUME this flattening has made it very difficult to read how a putt will continue on it's decaying orbit. This observation is not limited to watching the Masters on TV but also the playing of many courses built by high profile modern archies. There's no question that this year tyhe outcome was exciting and the maintenace of the course was no different than most definitions of The Augusta Syndrome