The Genius of The Masters, By Design

[Tom_Doak]

Certainly, it was not Jones and MacKenzie's original design of Augusta National which makes The Masters so exciting.  After all, they got the nines backwards.  But Jones eventually figured it out.

Every time there is a great tournament such as this year's, we hear how it's the greatest Masters ever, and we don't really think much about why it seemed that way.  It seems that way because of the pacing of the course.  Here's how it works:

Holes 7, 8 and 9 offer the potential for birdie or even eagle, as Tiger Woods demonstrated yesterday.  These are the holes which allow contenders to jump up the leader board while the leaders are playing some of the most difficult holes on the course [4, 5 and 6].

Holes 10, 11 and 12 are the toughest stretch of holes at Augusta.  Here, the guys who are trying to mount a challenge may struggle, especially in comparison to leaders who are playing 7, 8 and 9.  But here again, the leaders have to navigate this stretch of holes while the contenders are eliciting roars up ahead on holes 13-16, and it's tough to keep your focus under those circumstances, as Rory McIlroy proved again this year.

Holes 13, 14 and 15 (and 16 when the flag is back left in the now-traditional Sunday spot) are, like 7 through 9, holes where birdie and eagle are again a factor, and contenders playing ahead can put pressure on the leaders, which makes the leader board look like it's changing more than it really is.  [In fact, if you just look at the big Masters scoreboard on a hole-by-hole basis and compare where every player was at the same point in their rounds, you'll usually see that the lead was not changing nearly as much as it seemed to be.  I am going to go look at this right now and report back.]

Holes 17 and 18 are tough finishing holes where someone can make a birdie, but a player trying to hold on can easily make a bogey, too.  That's what you need from finishing holes.  If they are all just par-or-bogey holes, the finishes will be much less exciting, and the course will get a reputation for producing leaders who choke down the stretch.

None of that would really matter for anything but tournament play, but in a tournament, it is by far the most exciting recipe for drama.

[Matthew Petersen]

This is very well noted. Even the same holes in a different order would be much less dramatic as watching someone go birdie-bogey-par-birdie-bogey is much less dramatic than, say, par-bogey-bogey-birdie-birdie. It's the way the holes clump together that provides much of the drama.

[Tom_Doak]

Here are the leaders after every three holes.  Apologies for not including McIlroy, who was not on the final leaderboard so I don't have his hole by hole status; I guess he was still right there through #9.

After 3 holes:  Schwartzel -11
After 6 holes:  Schwartzel -10
After 9 holes:  Schwartzel, Woods, Cabrera and Choi all -10
After 12 holes:  Schwartzel, Scott -10
After 15 holes:  Schwartzel, Scott -11, but five others at -10

Schwartzel and Scott were still tied at -12 through 16 holes, then Schwartzel birdied the last two.  But much of the rest was just noise, amplified by the pacing of the course.

[JR Potts]

This is very interesting.  I never really thought of this.

Tom, if you were to design/redesign a course that was known/built/dedesigned to host major championships, would this pacing be a consideration in your design?

Should it be?

[Tom_Doak]

Note:

I should credit Tom Weiskopf with clueing me in to this years ago.  I was working on an article about the course for GOLF Magazine, and Tom was the first to remark on how hard it was to play 10-11-12 while other guys were making birdies up ahead.

In the same interview, he explained how several on several holes you have to land your approach shot within 2-5 feet of where you want in order to set up an uphill birdie putt ... someone else remarked on that in the main Masters thread, and it's dead on.  But, I should note that the interview was done in the late 1980's, when the original T.W. had the benefit of hindsight.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, if you were to design/redesign a course that was known/built/dedesigned to host major championships, would this pacing be a consideration in your design?

Should it be?

If somebody wanted an exciting tournament course, it is the first thing I would think of.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I dont know if it is by design really. Grouping the leaders together is quite a modern thing.

[Patrick Hodgdon]

I don't have much to add to this in terms of discussion but just wanted to +1 that this is extremely interesting idea to me and want to thank Tom for sharing the insight passed on from Weiskopf.

My initial thought is to wonder if there are any other courses that have/could have the same effect in a major tournament?

Tom, which of your courses (assuming none of them had this intent in the design) would best emulate this pacing effect for a major tournament?

[Matthew Petersen]

Note:

I should credit Tom Weiskopf with clueing me in to this years ago.  I was working on an article about the course for GOLF Magazine, and Tom was the first to remark on how hard it was to play 10-11-12 while other guys were making birdies up ahead.

In the same interview, he explained how several on several holes you have to land your approach shot within 2-5 feet of where you want in order to set up an uphill birdie putt ... someone else remarked on that in the main Masters thread, and it's dead on.  But, I should note that the interview was done in the late 1980's, when the original T.W. had the benefit of hindsight.

This kind of seemed to be McIlroy's real undoing yesterday.

Even after his disaster at 10 he was potentially in it, but he started pressing far too early. He took a foolish line on his second shot at 11 and yet it turned out perfect--but then he got over-aggressive with his birdie putt and ended up with another bogey. After that, by the time he got to 12 he was pretty clearly brain dead. Two pars at 11 and 12 might have put him in a position where he could have made some birdies coming in, but he was definitely rattled by the noise others were making in front of him. Even his decision to hit driver off the tee on 10 might have been a part of that.

[Wade Whitehead]

This thread illustrates: Great courses aren't made of great holes.  They're made of great stretches of holes.

Such stretches best occur in threes.

WW

[Tom_Doak]

I dont know if it is by design really. Grouping the leaders together is quite a modern thing.

Adrian:

That's an excellent point.  In Bob Jones' years, a young final-round leader like McIlroy would have been paired with a veteran and former champion who would have been something of a steadying influence ... most likely Fred Couples.  I wonder how he would have fared with that pairing?

However, I did note that the phenomenon I noted is not really Jones' or MacKenzie's design, because they had the nines reversed to begin with.  But it is certainly worth noting if you were going to design a tournament venue.

[Matthew Petersen]

Tom,

It's interesting you say that because I though Rory was hurt by his pairing with Angel yesterday. He seemed so comfortable playing with the younger guys in his first three rounds and had Jason day made birdie on 18 on Saturday, and the two been paired together for the final round ... I strongly suspect one of the two of them would have come out on top. Day ultimately benefited from his pairing in the first three rounds, but also by being with his countryman on Sunday.

[Jerry Kluger]

I would agree with you except for perhaps 18 - I believe that a number of players did not hit driver and they had an uphill shot where they knew that right of the pin would roll toward the hole and it was possible to spin the ball back if it went beyond the hole. 

Am I incorrect in my recollection that they used to put the hole in the back right on 18 on Sunday?

This certainly leaves no doubt that the USGA is wrong in their course setups.

[Padraig Dooley]

One interesting aspect is even with the potential for the chasers to put pressure on the final group by posting birdies very few of the recent winners have come from outside the final group. Is it 2 in the last 20?

[Chris Buie]

It certainly is always a privilege to have Mr. Doak's perspective. 
I always thought one of the main keys why the tournament is so exciting is because you have two half-par holes (13 and 15, of course) in the closing stretch.  I suppose 15 is more a 3/4 par hole - but I think you know what I mean. Half-par holes are inherently dramatic and exciting - particularly so when you've got several super gifted guys seriously battling it out.
I love the drama of the tournament and think the course is essentially fine for that.  I would not be too keen on it as a day to day course for myself.  It's too hard - even from the members tees - especially with the addition of Hootie's trees and rough.  As we have all seen many times over, you can miss a shot by just a bit and end up with extremely difficult situations.  That IMHO is not a recipe for a great members course.  Challenging is good - but extreme difficulty - for a slight miss - all day long?

[V. Kmetz]

TD,

I think you're spot on with the descriptions of the the "testing" "difficult" stretches of 4,5,6 and 10,11,12.  To the latter and your Weiskopf note, I would add that the effect of those holes (10-12) lingers in the pressure a players puts on himself to take advantage of 13-15, especially if he's tainted his score with poor play in that stretch.

I do, however, think that the other 12 holes at Augusta beyond those two trios are really a product of tournament pin as much as design and/or routing effect.  Were not 7, 14, 15 and 16 pinned the way they have been (15 used to get some center pins on Sunday - Jack 86 notoriously) these dynamics would change enormously.

Additionally, if 8 and 13 were pinned differently, (8 on center crown, 13 left on tier) the eagles would evaporate and less birdies would be made in conjunction.

And in the current and VERY permanent Sunday pin position on #9, I would not call that a birdie hole.  I've seen more fretful pars and lost tournaments on that Sunday pin as I have attacking birdies.  I couldn't include it with the properties of 7 and 8 (as currently pinned)

I hope this isn't taken as a diminishment of TD's analysis, because a four round experience on such a great routing/design will encompass an average  tournament pressure almost exactly as he describes; I'm really just talking about the Sunday-Excitement-Leader Board effect which is as much owing to the pins as the fantastic routing pace.

I would have everyone consider that the only hole stretch TD or anyone did not mention is 1,2, 3.  While #1 is sterner than #14 (as pinned on Sundays) I still consider the opening trio to be just as fine a chance to go 3 under in three holes as is 13, 14 and 15. And with equally generous pins as 13-15 (currently, 1,2 and 3 are not pinned "easy" on Sunday) it might be even superior.

Lastly, just an aesthetic point:  I somehow like a routing that presents opportunity immediately off the bat, in the first stretchwith notorious difficulties ahead, where you had better get skins in your pelt right off the bat.  I'm not thinking "easy" so much as "attainable rewards for being poised in the opening act."

cheers

vk

[Michael Whitaker]

One of the beauties of playing this major on the same course every year is the wealth of information available to the tournament committee. They have very detailed stats on pin locations and the average score yielded from that position. The Masters committee can just about dial in the score the want by choosing the pin locations that will potentially deliver the desired result. This year it really paid off!

[Tom_Doak]

V. Kmetz:

I agree with most of what you said.  The now-traditional set-up of 14, 15, and 16 [and even 17] provides more scoring opportunities than these holes do with other hole locations.  Nicklaus' birdie on #16 in 1975 is in another class from all of the stuff we've seen recently.

I am not so sure about your analysis of holes 1-3.  I used to disrespect the second hole [because it's ugly], but it is a terrific green which allows chances for eagle, birdie, and bogey.  However, the first hole was NEVER easy, even before the changes to the tee shot, and the third hole seems to give modern players fits much more than its length would suggest.
io
As for #9, it can certainly go either way, and I used to think it was the key to the tournament.  When Crenshaw birdied it in '84, I thought he was going to finally win.  When Nicklaus birdied it in '86, I thought, holy crap, he has a chance.  [Same with Tiger this year.]  You can certainly blow the tournament there, as Greg Norman knows, but players who can put a birdie in their pocket seem much more likely to survive the pressure of 10-11-12 and then step on the gas.  In fact, if you looked at 9-12 as a longer stretch, I would say that going even par from 9-12 is essential to winning The Masters.

Incidentally, the original routing for the course had those three tough holes [10-11-12] right at the start ... although neither 10 or 11 was anywhere near as hard as it is now.  That is one thing that people talking about the restoration of the course conveniently forget.

[Carl Rogers]

The course set-up was, on some previous threads, not warmly embraced.  I think that with this thread, the design and the set-up meshed well.

Off line shots penalized but not severely.  The front bank on 15 would be my example.  I do not think that all shots that come up short should get wet.

[Rick Shefchik]

I would agree with you except for perhaps 18 - I believe that a number of players did not hit driver and they had an uphill shot where they knew that right of the pin would roll toward the hole and it was possible to spin the ball back if it went beyond the hole. 

Am I incorrect in my recollection that they used to put the hole in the back right on 18 on Sunday?

This certainly leaves no doubt that the USGA is wrong in their course setups.

Jerry, that depends on what the USGA wants. My guess is they really don't care much about whether the crowd is roaring on the back nine on Sunday. They're an organization with a different set of marching orders, which they appear to take very seriously: test the world's best golfers to the limit of their ability. I love the Masters, but I'm glad the Open is different.

[Bill_McBride]

I would agree with you except for perhaps 18 - I believe that a number of players did not hit driver and they had an uphill shot where they knew that right of the pin would roll toward the hole and it was possible to spin the ball back if it went beyond the hole. 

Am I incorrect in my recollection that they used to put the hole in the back right on 18 on Sunday?

This certainly leaves no doubt that the USGA is wrong in their course setups.

Jerry, that depends on what the USGA wants. My guess is they really don't care much about whether the crowd is roaring on the back nine on Sunday. They're an organization with a different set of marching orders, which they appear to take very seriously: test the world's best golfers to the limit of their ability. I love the Masters, but I'm glad the Open is different.

I thought Billy Payne was quoted as saying the club wanted the roars back!

It certainly worked this year.

[Bill_McBride]

Certainly, it was not Jones and MacKenzie's original design of Augusta National which makes The Masters so exciting.  After all, they got the nines backwards.  But Jones eventually figured it out.

I think I've read that the reason for switching the nine was pretty much the topo where the 10th green through the first holes of the then front nine were much lower than the other nine and there was a frost delay problem.

In the case the switching of the nine was for frost rather than strategic considerations.

[V. Kmetz]

TD (and all)

Thank you for those follow ups.

Just to brush in my par putts regarding #s 1 - 3. 

1. I fully agree that #1 (whether it was 10 or not) was something of a beast, I merely want to suggest that in comparison of the scoring stretches, an easier Sunday pin on #1 (right center perhaps?), would bring it into balance with #14 if it contained a difficult pin (left center perhaps?).

#2 - I never thought it was so much ugly as it was that the tee shot seems disconnected from the best character of the hole - that is, everything from the top of the hill down to the green which I like both in pictures of the original iteration or now. Especially, with the tee pushed back and the bunker fuller and more pinching there's something inadequate to the "bowling alley" start of that hole.  Certainly the pros are up to it, but in an everygolfer's sense.

#3 - It's my favorite hole to behold on the course for the reasons you describe and more.  Like #1, I only mean that if the pin were placed in the gentle flats of the back right and you toughened up #15 (with a front left center) the birdie thing would increase on #3 and decrease the excitement at #15 - in fair proportion.

Yet I love it as is.  Isn't that in the end one of the summary virtues of this course and its development?  You can shake it around, play the nines differently, imagine old iterations, wish things were as they were or not, and still the character of the course is largely the same.

These are some great holes on well-chosen land for their application, expertly balanced, thoughtfully routed, in vistas, demands and strategy.

Last thing, open to anyone...Is there any decisive - even shared, decisive - provenance on the early reversal of the nines?  I have heard that it was frequent frost in the part of the course now known as Amen Corner at the hour of the day when it was the second and third and fourth hole.  A warming sun does not get down there until roughly 9-9:30.  Yet I have also heard it attributed to just a recognition of tournament values that we experience today.  Is there one that is more true, and if it is the latter - just realizing its better - how much did Sarazen's heroics cement the current routing of the nines?

cheers

vk

[Tom_Doak]

Isn't that in the end one of the summary virtues of this course and its development?  You can shake it around, play the nines differently, imagine old iterations, wish things were as they were or not, and still the character of the course is largely the same.

These are some great holes on well-chosen land for their application, expertly balanced, thoughtfully routed, in vistas, demands and strategy.

Last thing, open to anyone...Is there any decisive - even shared, decisive - provenance on the early reversal of the nines?  I have heard that it was frequent frost in the part of the course now known as Amen Corner at the hour of the day when it was the second and third and fourth hole.  A warming sun does not get down there until roughly 9-9:30.  Yet I have also heard it attributed to just a recognition of tournament values that we experience today.  Is there one that is more true, and if it is the latter - just realizing its better - how much did Sarazen's heroics cement the current routing of the nines?

cheers

vk

Amen to the first part.

As to the second, you've got to ask someone more qualified on the history than me.  Perhaps David Owen?

Certainly, Sarazen's double eagle CEMENTED the routing.  You are not going to change hole numbers after something like that.  Really, there is only one chance to switch the nines on a course, and that's right near the beginning.  After a few years, it doesn't make any sense, and my experience with courses that have done it after more than a few years is that they wind up switching back eventually.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

ANGC was created with a purpose, that of hosting an Invitational for the best golfers.
At one point, they solicited the USGA for an Open.

One of the old pairing formats had the third round leader paired with Bryon Nelson.
Remember when Venturi was leading after the third round, they changed his pairing to Sam Snead because some felt that Bryon was Ken's mentor and they didn't want to have Ken's potential victory tarnished in any way by Bryon's potential influence on him during the round.  Bryon Nelson was aware of the rules regarding advice and pleaded his case to be allowed to play with Venturi with both Jones and Roberts, but, to no avail.  Sam Snead was chosen as Venturi's playing partner.  Nelson indicated that he felt that he would have been a calming influence on Venturi, sans any advice regarding play, and as such, Venturi would have won that Masters.

While Venturi never indicated that Sam was unpleasant in any way, I can't imagine that Sam or any Tour player would have a calming or encouraging influence on a fellow competitor, especially an amateur

The course does have a unique ebb and flow to it.
And, the water on the back nine certainly increases the chances of high scores.
Many golfer's dreams have ended on 11 or 12 or 13 or 15 or 16.

7 and 17 used to be much shorter/easier holes.

I wonder, if Rory had gotten past #'s 10 and 11, would his mindset have been such that he could have eased his way home?

As to Weiskopf giving you that idea, he got it from me in 1966 when we played together and again in 1967 at the US Open at Baltusrol;D