My day at the Masters

[Garland Bayley]

RJ Daley,

Talk about being obnoxious to try and prove a point.  Have you ever been to ANGC?

I was there Wednesday, it is not a narrow golf course.  Not even a little bit.

Well, Dick gets to see the 18th hole one TV for one thing. Measuring on Google Earth, I get a 22 yard wide channel to drive your ball through.
At 13, it is 30 yards wide. At 11, it is 25 yards wide. The approach at 15 plays through a 30 yard wide opening. The drive at 2 goes through a 28 yard wide opening. The tee shot at 6, 30 yards. The tee shot at 9, again under 30 yards. On a couple of holes if the high handicapper wants to avoid the mass of trees on one side, there will be a few strategicly located trees on the other side that will hinder his play, though they don't make the tunnel or gate like on the holes I measured above. I consider that to be more than a little bit narrow for a course supposedly patterned after TOC.

What on earth are you talking about?
I could dispute ALL those bogus numbers, but 13 30 yards wide?
really?
6 is par 3 -30 yards defined by what?
and even if it were, which it's not, they're hitting 8 irons...

The measurements are branch tips on one side to branch tips on the other. The topic I was responding to was Dick Daley not wanting to play there, and he is not hitting an 8 iron on 6. I indicated I measured "tunnels or gates". On 13 it is a gate, which if negotiated leads to a much wider playing area. Interestingly, the Golf Digest diagrams show that gate narrowing to almost 1/2 of what it was in the beginning. I think Dick and I would love to play the original ANGC where the gate on 13 was 50 some yards, not 30. Just like I love to play Bandon Trails now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

Talk about being obnoxious to try and prove a point.  Have you ever been to ANGC?

I was there Wednesday, it is not a narrow golf course.  Not even a little bit.

Well, Dick gets to see the 18th hole one TV for one thing.

Measuring on Google Earth, I get a 22 yard wide channel to drive your ball through.

At 13, it is 30 yards wide.

Garland, your yardages are off.
You can't see the left fairway margin on google earth due to the shadows and angle the aeral is taken from due to the trees blocking the margin of the fairway.

ANGC is a WIDE golf course.

Jeff was there a few days ago, I trust his assessment.

At 11, it is 25 yards wide. The approach at 15 plays through a 30 yard wide opening. The drive at 2 goes through a 28 yard wide opening. The tee shot at 6, 30 yards. The tee shot at 9, again under 30 yards.

On a couple of holes if the high handicapper wants to avoid the mass of trees on one side, there will be a few strategicly located trees on the other side that will hinder his play, though they don't make the tunnel or gate like on the holes I measured above.

I consider that to be more than a little bit narrow for a course supposedly patterned after TOC.

I''m sure you're aware that TOC has been narrowed considerably.
Did you see how narrow # 17, a blind hole at TOC is ?

Is your assessment of ANGC based upon your play of the golf course ?

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

Jeff rightly asked me how I came about getting the numbers I did. I certainly was not measuring fairway width, as I can't discern that on Google Earth. Besides, the ball does not travel the length of the hole on the ground. Well, maybe Dick Daley's game has been reduced to that level , but not for the normal player.

Patrick,

You can rant all you want about it being a wide course, but until you get a tape measure and a ladder and go make measurements that refute what I measured, you can rant all you want to no avail.

Have you measured the golf course?

My assessment is more accurate than can be obtained by playing the golf course.

[Bill_McBride]

Patrick,

Jeff rightly asked me how I came about getting the numbers I did. I certainly was not measuring fairway width, as I can't discern that on Google Earth.

Patrick,

You can rant all you want about it being a wide course, but until you get a tape measure and a ladder and go make measurements that refute what I measured, you can rant all you want to no avail.

My assessment is more accurate than can be obtained by playing the golf course.

C'mon, Garland, how can that be true if you can't measure on Google Earth?

You are going from floundering to looking a bit over your head here!

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

Jeff rightly asked me how I came about getting the numbers I did. I certainly was not measuring fairway width, as I can't discern that on Google Earth.

Patrick,

You can rant all you want about it being a wide course, but until you get a tape measure and a ladder and go make measurements that refute what I measured, you can rant all you want to no avail.

My assessment is more accurate than can be obtained by playing the golf course.

C'mon, Garland, how can that be true if you can't measure on Google Earth?

You are going from floundering to looking a bit over your head here!

Care to rewrite that so a nerd can understand what you are saying?

[Bill_McBride]

Sorry, I thought you were a scientist.

How can you say you can't measure width using Google Earth, but your width measurements are more accurate than someone who has played the course?

It's a tough position for even a nerd to support. 

[Andy Troeger]

Patrick,

Jeff rightly asked me how I came about getting the numbers I did. I certainly was not measuring fairway width, as I can't discern that on Google Earth.
Patrick,

You can rant all you want about it being a wide course, but until you get a tape measure and a ladder and go make measurements that refute what I measured, you can rant all you want to no avail.

Have you measured the golf course?

My assessment is more accurate than can be obtained by playing the golf course.

Garland,
You type more absolutely bizarre things than perhaps anyone on this board (at least in my opinion), but this one takes the cake.  Do you actually believe that last bit? This might be worse than you thinking you could analyze Sahalee from Google Earth. Heck, why would anyone play any course given your ability to be smarter from an overhead picture than from anyone else actually being there.

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry, I thought you were a scientist.

How can you say you can't measure width using Google Earth, but your width measurements are more accurate than someone who has played the course?

It's a tough position for even a nerd to support. 

That was my best guess at what you meant. If you would actually read the thread, you would find that I did measure with Google Earth, and that I did explain to Jeff how the measurements were made.

Why on earth do you think I would ask Patrick to get a ladder and tape measure to refute my measurements? You thought maybe he was so short he needed a ladder to reach fairway height? Patrick claims to be well over 6 foot tall, so you probably can put that thought out of your mind.

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

Jeff rightly asked me how I came about getting the numbers I did. I certainly was not measuring fairway width, as I can't discern that on Google Earth.
Patrick,

You can rant all you want about it being a wide course, but until you get a tape measure and a ladder and go make measurements that refute what I measured, you can rant all you want to no avail.

Have you measured the golf course?

My assessment is more accurate than can be obtained by playing the golf course.

Garland,
You type more absolutely bizarre things than perhaps anyone on this board (at least in my opinion), but this one takes the cake.  Do you actually believe that last bit? This might be worse than you thinking you could analyze Sahalee from Google Earth. Heck, why would anyone play any course given your ability to be smarter from an overhead picture than from anyone else actually being there.

Andy,

I have measured many, many golf holes on Google Earth. And guess what! They measure the same on Google Earth as they do on the score card. (Well, except for one hole at Royal Oaks, where I think they are trying to scam people into believing they have a longer course than they really do.) Now are you saying that all these courses measure their holes on Google Earth, so they score cards are wrong, because they didn't get out their with a tape measure? Or are you saying that making width estimates while playing a course is more accurate than actual measurements taken from Google Earth?

I make no claims as to how the course plays, wide or otherwise. All I did was take measurements that would support Dick Daley's feeling that ANGC is mighty narrow from what he can discern on TV.

As far as people playing courses are concerned, some of us would play golf in a parking lot. You've been around long enough to know where that comes from. I'm pretty sure Dick has fun playing golf, and just wants to limit his frustration. I'm pretty sure he has found an ideal venue for that at Wild Horse. Why would he want to frustrate himself trying to keep out of the gutters at the 18th lane at ANGC when he can avoid that type of scenario completely at Wild Horse?

[Andy Troeger]

Garland,
I'm saying that how wide the course PLAYS matters. You could be measuring trees based on their height at 70 feet when they are 280 yards (or 20) off the tee. I wonder if any golfer has ever hit one of those leaves up there? Unless you can figure out a way to measure playable width, I'm going to call your statistics rather meaningless. You can't do that from Google Earth. I absolutely can tell a lot more from playing a course and deciding whether a tree is really in the way than from some statistic you're throwing out there based on an aerial.

One thing I will give you--the truth is probably somewhere between the comments from those in the width camp and those in the narrow camp. If some folks don't really want to play Augusta, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'll play anyplace once, including places that I don't think look good on TV or via photos, but I don't place them all high on my priority list. The only reason Augusta isn't #1 on my priority list is because it wouldn't help my cause!

[Andy Troeger]

One other point about height...

Since you can't measure height on Google Earth, you also don't know if the objects are of similar height. One could be 70 feet tall (with little underneath) and another could be an azalea plant on the ground. So what if its 30 yards in between the two unless they are both right in the landing zone? And if they are in the landing zone, you need to be able to see the bottom of both objects, not measure from the widest spot of the object that might be in the air.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
I'm saying that how wide the course PLAYS matters. You could be measuring trees based on their height at 70 feet when they are 280 yards (or 20) off the tee. I wonder if any golfer has ever hit one of those leaves up there? Unless you can figure out a way to measure playable width, I'm going to call your statistics rather meaningless. You can't do that from Google Earth. I absolutely can tell a lot more from playing a course and deciding whether a tree is really in the way than from some statistic you're throwing out there based on an aerial.

One thing I will give you--the truth is probably somewhere between the comments from those in the width camp and those in the narrow camp. If some folks don't really want to play Augusta, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'll play anyplace once, including places that I don't think look good on TV or via photos, but I don't place them all high on my priority list. The only reason Augusta isn't #1 on my priority list is because it wouldn't help my cause!

What you are neglecting is that how wide a course plays is a function of the player. For high handicappers that spray the ball, every tree matters. Do you want to know why Old MacDonald is my favorite course in the whole wide world? Also, it doesn't matter too much how high the branches are, because the high handicapper is going to hit a towering drive, followed by a line drive, and then everything in between.

I assume you engaged in a little hyperbole with your comment about 280 yards from the tee. Why would anyone in their right mind be measuring there when trying to support a Dick Daley conjecture?

[Andy Troeger]

Garland,
Absolutely--some golfers need more width to play well than others. Its also the reason I rarely agree with your analysis--you worry too much about whether the 20 handicap can hit it 85 yards off line (or 85 yards period sometimes) and find it and play it. I'm perfectly capable of those misses, but I don't expect anything but trouble when it happens. I think being able to execute and avoid hazards is a large part of the game. There should be reasonable opportunity to miss those hazards or play around them in a safe manner, but my definition of reasonably opportunity is likely far less generous than yours.

[Matthew Mollica]

From the inception of ANGC, Jones and Roberts envisioned a course that would host championships.

Just so we can be clear Pat, can you please date the "inception" of Augusta National Golf Club?

MM

[jeffwarne]

Garland,
I'm saying that how wide the course PLAYS matters. You could be measuring trees based on their height at 70 feet when they are 280 yards (or 20) off the tee. I wonder if any golfer has ever hit one of those leaves up there? Unless you can figure out a way to measure playable width, I'm going to call your statistics rather meaningless. You can't do that from Google Earth. I absolutely can tell a lot more from playing a course and deciding whether a tree is really in the way than from some statistic you're throwing out there based on an aerial.

One thing I will give you--the truth is probably somewhere between the comments from those in the width camp and those in the narrow camp. If some folks don't really want to play Augusta, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'll play anyplace once, including places that I don't think look good on TV or via photos, but I don't place them all high on my priority list. The only reason Augusta isn't #1 on my priority list is because it wouldn't help my cause!

What you are neglecting is that how wide a course plays is a function of the player. For high handicappers that spray the ball, every tree matters. Do you want to know why Old MacDonald is my favorite course in the whole wide world? Also, it doesn't matter too much how high the branches are, because the high handicapper is going to hit a towering drive, followed by a line drive, and then everything in between.

I assume you engaged in a little hyperbole with your comment about 280 yards from the tee. Why would anyone in their right mind be measuring there when trying to support a Dick Daley conjecture?

Now garland,
I know you're just having a little fun so I'll play along.
The "30 yard chute" you reference on 13 is actually much wider-you're measuring shadows and using a turn point in the fairway that is for the second shot!
The "width " of the drive is a good 80 yards( and actually another 150 yards if you hit it less than 200 yards over into 12 fairway) for anyone who's not hitting it 300 and turning the corner-the area you reference is only reached by going over or around the trees by a mighty clout, and would only be as narrow (sans shadows) if all limbs were at the same height.
Looking at Google earth at the nearby Augusta CC, the tee shot on the 8th hole is about 8 yards wide using your scale, which i know from growing up there and continuing to play there frequently, is not the case.

Dick is making his analysis based on watching TV.
All courses look incredibly narrow on TV or in pictures.
It'd be a shame to pass up a chance to play a great course based on a misconception perpetuated by a TV lense.
and from the forward tees, it opens up even more dramatically.
I'm still stunned by the idea that a downhill 180 yard par 3 that seems to look "tight" on Google earth could be considered tight.
I've never seen a tree involved in play of that hole, either playing the course or in 30+ years of watching.
That would be like calling your stall on a range a "chute" (it's gotta stay online for a yard)

The course is  not narrow, and is still a bomber's paradise(and the newly planted pines I dislike take it from incredibly wide to really wide)
I will grant that 18 and 11 now look ridiculous on TV and are a bit scary from the way back tees as the left side of both is not a good place to go:
but that said, there ar at least 10 holes at TPC that play tighter and more penal.

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry Jeff,

But I get 30 yards by placing the ends of the measurement on what is clearly vegetation on the trees. I suspect that it is in reality narrower, because I believe there are branches in the shadows that would narrow the distance. The point I measured would be 220 yards from what might be a typical location for the tees to be set for member play. Therefore, right in the wheel house of a player with a 250 yard carry. It would seem that for the normal guy the best strategy may be a tee shot that is a layup to get the best angle through the trees, followed by a position play to set up the approach. (Actually, the effective width is narrower, because the ball has to turn some to have the full 30 yard clearance.)

One thing that gets tiring about discussing how ANGC plays on this website is that everyone references how 0.000001 % (an exaggeration) of the golfing population plays it. How about the other 99.999999% of the population?

You are correct about 6. I made a measurement there on the narrowest part, not the truly in play part.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
I'm saying that how wide the course PLAYS matters. You could be measuring trees based on their height at 70 feet when they are 280 yards (or 20) off the tee. I wonder if any golfer has ever hit one of those leaves up there? Unless you can figure out a way to measure playable width, I'm going to call your statistics rather meaningless. You can't do that from Google Earth. I absolutely can tell a lot more from playing a course and deciding whether a tree is really in the way than from some statistic you're throwing out there based on an aerial.
...

Here are some more "meaningless" statistics for you. In an admittedly rather quick survey of the parkland course Bandon Trails, I could not find any point remotely in play that was less than 80 yards between the trees. In general the width is more like 120 yards. Now if you care to maintain that ANGC plays anywhere as wide as Bandon Trails then you are clearly drinking the kool-aid served by the green jackets.




Dick and I will regale in playing Bandon Trails over ANGC.

[Andy Troeger]

Garland,
Bandon Trails is actually my favorite modern course and #4 overall, so you won't get any argument from me about wanting to play there. Although, given my previous comments, if you like it that much I may need to rethink my placement... 

I still managed to hit it in the trees on #6 on the right. Took quite the right-handed block to keep it on the hill.

[Ken Moum]

One simply can't ignore the fine illustrations demonstrated by the above link to show the progression of this parkification tree and corridor definition over the years 1935 to present.  But, I accept that it is what it is as a matter of decision by the ANGC to remain competitive in the sense of a major test in context with the modern equipment and modern player strength and training.  I just know, I am not one to get fired up to ever actually play there (never happen anyway)  because I seek the sort of venue it once was, which most importantly would be a design that players/members of diverse skills can engage and have fun playing.

Although I haven't played it, I have spent three days looking at the golf course, the last time was last Tuesday for a practice round. Because it was cold and windy there were almost no players on the course, so my friend and I walked it from 1 through 18 so he could take photos of every hole.

While doing that, I tried to get behind each tee for a look at the drive, and I also got as close as possible to the member's tees so I could see how different they were.

My conclusion was that I agree with you for the most part.  ANGC even from the member's tees doesn't look like a lot of fun for someone like me. I am a short-hitting 63-year-old who relies on his short game to score in the mid-80s.  At ANGC circa 2011, I would find myself hitting from the trees a LOT, and too often would catch a branch not far off the tee, creating no chance to get near the green in regulation.

While I would really, really enjoy the challenge of getting up and down from around those greens, I am sure that hitting fairway woods into the green wouldn't be a path to a fun day.

Open it up a bit, slow it down a bit around the greens and I would change my opinion.

[JC Jones]

The fairway at 15, at the point of the crosswalk, is 65 paces wide.

[RJ_Daley]

I know it would never happen, but I'd laugh if a fellow like Ben Crenshaw would say he could think of XXX number of golf courses he'd "prefer" to play over ANGC from the standpoint of pure enjoyment.   

Some of you guys really are way too focused on my statement of what I'd prefer, but I understand it is a jumping off place to discuss if the changes have really dramatically narrowed the course, and diminished ANGC or enhanced it.  I really can't understand those who seem to be saying that the tree planting (perhaps a 1000 more trees...) and the introduction of defined FW to rough lines, along with the mulched areas, on top of the lengthening, hasn't diminished the playing options by forcing narrower playing corridors for shot imagination and diversity of play.  There are enough quotes by distinguished past champions to verify that the course has dramatically changed and narrowed the diversity of playing styles, along with having muted the fun factor.  It has been enhanced for competition and increased resistance to scoring.  A number of the quotes by Crenshaw and Nicklaus lamenting the narrowing are from back in 2006.  And, those trees have grown even wider since then! 

But, I will offer this concession to those arguing that ANGC is still not dramatically narrowed and there is still room to play out there.  I did a fast look at 2011 tour stats in driving accuracy- %FWs hit off tee, and GIR, for the competitors at the Masters this year VS their year up until now, and they most all had better stats at ANGC!  So, while none arguing on the other side used that to argue their point, I'm still sticking with my statement;  I can think of 100 courses I'd rather play than ANGC. 

[David Camponi]

Jeff,

PERFECTLY SAID;

Bandon Trails is a linksland type course on fescue grasses bordering the Pacific ocean; comparing it to Augusta is fitting for a guy who judges golf courses via google earth, you must be a rater.

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

PERFECTLY SAID;

Bandon Trails is a linksland type course on fescue grasses bordering the Pacific ocean; comparing it to Augusta is fitting for a guy who judges golf courses via google earth, you must be a rater.

"A linksland type course" What is that? Obviously it is not a links, or you would have called it a links. Is it a mountain course? Well, probably not since it is not in the mountains. But, then again, what is ANGC? Bobby wanted it to have the characteristics of The Old Course, which is a links. So, I guess that must mean that ANGC is "a linksland type course".

And what's the deal about fescue grasses? When Tom Doak used fescue grasses to build his very first course High Pointe, did that automatically disqualify it from being a parkland course, and turn it into this new category "a linksland type course"?

Now since Bandon Trails is in all likely hood more enclosed by trees than Augusta National it must be on the edge of linksland type courses in fear of toppling off.

Any and all are welcome to chime in on whether Bandon Trails is an appropriate comparison to ANGC.
Any and all are welcome to chime in on whether or not these two are parkland.
What say yee?

[Mark Bourgeois]

• How come everyone is harping on trees when trees are only part of how the club has chosen to narrow the tournament course?
  
  
• What is the relationship of the second cut to forestation?
  
  
• Do the mowing lines correspond to green complexes, hole locations, weather conditions of the day, and, generally, strategies for playing specific holes?
  
  
• If not, what has been lost, specific to holes as well as to the impact of the architecture on the tournament including what types of golfers benefit / lose out?
  
  
• Does experience count as much as it used to? What do experience levels of Hoozio Era winners suggest in this regard?
  
  
• If the tournament course is still a "wide" course, then what has the club accomplished? What's the point of narrowing a course in order to make it "wide"?
  
  

David C., topics and posters alike sometimes get under our skin but ad hominem attacks are very unbecoming. I urge you to restrict your argument to the merits.

[JMEvensky]

• Does experience count as much as it used to? What do experience levels of Hoozio Era winners suggest in this regard?
  
  
  

To me,this is the most interesting question.You always heard how difficult it was to pick up the nuances and how it took years to learn how to play the golf course.

I don't know how this gets answered though--absent hearing from guys who've played in the toonamint for a number of years.I doubt if many of them post here.