[Jim Nugent]

Start with the notion the main goal of The Masters and the USGA is that winning scores be at or around par.

I wonder if that's true at the Masters.  In the entire history of the event, the winning score has been over par only three times (each +1) and even par once.  Winning scores have been under par 67 times, by my count.  

The winner finished double digits under 22 times.  In the 1970's the average was 9.6 under...the 1980's it was 7.4 under...the 1990's it was 11.5 under.  So far this decade the average is 9 under.  In other words the average since 1970 has been in the 270's.  

If the Masters' goal is to keep scores at or around par, they've failed for the past four decades.    

My sense is they don't want the event turned into a slam/pitch/putt contest, where players hit the par 5's with mid to short irons and the par 4's with sand wedges.  Other than stretching ANGC to 8000+ yards, what options do they have?  

[BCrosby]

Jim -

The most recent round of changes to ANGC were triggered by Woods' '97 winning score. People saw more of that coming. Frankly, I think they freaked out.

If you start with the assumption that the USGA is paralyzed in the face of technological changes (which seems a safe assumption), I am not suggesting that classic major venues do nothing. The easy, least bad option is to lengthen tees. You can still play the course from member tees, the physical changes are minimal, etc.

Making permanent changes are, however a different issue. When you narrow playing corridors on a course where one of its most important design features was wide playing corridors, things have gone badly wrong.

For what purpose has the course paid that price? To keep winning scores at The Masters at or around par.

To repeat myself, most people in the US believe such views are self evident. Beyond debate. But they should not compel assent atomatically. There is, for example, at least one very old golf organization that believes otherwise. Maybe they are on to something over there. One thing is clear. That old organization does not have a tack record of mauling great classic courses.

Bob

[Matt_Ward]

Bob C:

I concur ... maybe you should be the next chairman of ANGC !

Jim N:

The issue with score kicked-into over drive with the arrival of Woods and the day when Hootie saw Phil hit PW into #11. In years past The Masters would have years when scores could be very low -- see Jack's total in '65 and then the next year when he won by being immediately near the 288 figure.

What's so funny is that the powers-that-be there realize they are in the entertainment business when they "soften" the pins for more scoring opportunities for the weekend telecasts -- particularly Sunday -- I mean has anyone NOT seen the pin in the "traditional" collection area in the left rear on #16, to name just one example?

[JESII]

Matt and Bob,

With all due respect, you guys are tripping over yourselves with the R&A argument...they have done plenty to the golf courses over there...I'll bet not an Open has gone by in years that did not feature some modification to that year's venue...therein lies part of the problem...Augusta is the host every year. We are so much more familiar with the course than any other major venue.


Matt,

Your statements here are strangely contradictory to those you made on Rich Goodale's "Member's Courses" thread...unless you don't think a major venue should be a "Championship Course" that is...

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

There's nothing contradictory -- the folks at ANGC always had a superb layout until the Hootie invasion. Most of all, the former course -- the one prior to the Tiger period was able to accomodate the championship and membership side to a high degree of success.

Wake up and smell the coffee my good man -- a tweak here and there is one thing -- I have no issue with that and ANGC has successfully included a variety of them over the years -- RTJ's inclusion of improvements at #11 and #16, are just two quick examples.  

I also made it a point to illustrate an R&A failure with Carnoustie in '99. The broader implications is turning the course into something it was not meant to be -- see the examples of #7, #11 and #15, to name just three.

One other thing -- ANGC is premised by Jones / Mackenzie to be a parksland version of TOC. Too many people genuflect because the name is AUGUSTA and the connections tied to it.

For all the classic defenders on this site it's time to show a bit more bravery when charging the high walls of the almighty course castles that have willingly thrown their heritage under the bus. Nuff said.

[BCrosby]

JES -

I can think of no courses in the UK that underwent changes on the same scale as those made to ANGC over the last several years. I include the '99 changes to Carnoustie, which were dramatic but also undone the week after the Open.

Beyond that, what my man Matt said.

Let 'em go low. Save the golf course.

Bob

[JESII]

Maybe not too scale...but adding tees off the property sure seems an effort to "PROTECT PAR" to me...sorry boys. Just because the R&A haven't gone as far as Augusta does not mean they are not in the same ball park.

Matt,

The contradiction is very clear...in the Member's Course thread you stated that the difference between Member's Courses and Championship COurses is usually the ball striking demands...with an emphasis on length. I'll go pull a quote.

[BCrosby]

JES, JES -

I know of no - as in zero - changes to Open rota courses that were of a permanent nature.

No one disputes that tees need to be pushed back. But I don't have to play those tees. In fact, they aren't available to play on Open rota courses except in tournies.

All things being equal, of course governing bodies would like to see winning scores somewhere near par. The relevant question is how big of a concern it is. I think any honest observer would conclude that it matters a lot less to the R&A than it does to US governing bodies. In fact we can measure how much less. They have elected to change their rota courses only in very limited ways to deal with it.

Bob

[JESII]

Bob,

As you have seen...trees are not as permanent as once thought...

Also, I would contend that Open rota courses are not set up to the extremes because of the biggest variable in the game...weather...they have a much wider variance in weather than we do so they must buffer the set up accordingly.

I am not arguing that they go as far as the USGA or ANGC do, but they are in the game of changing their courses for the big guys...

[Matt_Ward]

Adding length alone is not the issue at hand in this topic.

The real issue is the inherent turning on its head from what ANGC symbolized to the inane bastardization that has gone full speed ahead since the rule of Hootie. The "second cut", the narrowing of fairways, the addition of sherwood forest in a number of spots, etc, etc, -- all of that reflects an abandonment of the core principles Jones & Mackenzie wanted to see with ANGC as their parksland rendition of TOC.

You can certainly increase the demands of ANGC and do so without gutting the core ingredients that made the course so very special.

The biggest joke is that the people who should be stewards of the course have opted to include just about any element --whether appropriate or not.

When governing bodies / lead courses have "score-itis" on the brain you get this sort of knee-jerk reaction.

[Jim Nugent]

Matt and Bob, I agree with much of what you say.  Still, the question remains: how does ANGC keep the pro's from turning the course into a pitch and putt affair?  

Pete Dye asks the same question about his courses, about all courses, in Jay Flemma's excellent interview.  

[Chip Gaskins]

I am playing Augusta in a few weeks.  I will let you know about the tree removal on 11.  The first year I walked the course was 91' and have been half a dozen times since.  So I have seen the course before all the rough and tree planting.  I will let you guys know what the new "undoing" looks like.  Wish me luck!

Chip

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Adding length on a number of the holes -- just not the 7th -- is not a bad equation.

I have no issue with making a few of the holes longer (e.g. 5th, 8th, 9th, 18th, to name a few). However, the silly nonsense at the 1st has gone way too far. Unless you are really strong -- and I mean in Tiger's world -- climbing that hill into a prevailing headwind which is not out of the ordinary during spring time can be quite demanding. You want to present a challenge opportunity that is appropriate.

Augusta ALWAYS favored the long hitter -- the wider fairways encouraged that kind of player to go full bore. But other players have at times broken through the winner's circle.

The reforms have simply indicated to me what so many people have said already -- there has been a mega knee-jerk reaction to scoring.

Candidly, if Augusta played around 7,200 yards with no "second cut" and silly tree invasion the results would better suit what the course was meant to be.

When people worry about score you will get a gross over reaction. What's so funny is that the folks at Augusta make the players play the FRANKENSTEIN VERSION of Augusta for the first two days then modify the tees and pin placements to encourage scoring for the weekend telecasts.

I could not illuminate a more telling circumstance from such actions that bolsters my case.

[tlavin]

Adding length alone is not the issue at hand in this topic.

The real issue is the inherent turning on its head from what ANGC symbolized to the inane bastardization that has gone full speed ahead since the rule of Hootie. The "second cut", the narrowing of fairways, the addition of sherwood forest in a number of spots, etc, etc, -- all of that reflects an abandonment of the core principles Jones & Mackenzie wanted to see with ANGC as their parksland rendition of TOC.

You can certainly increase the demands of ANGC and do so without gutting the core ingredients that made the course so very special.

The biggest joke is that the people who should be stewards of the course have opted to include just about any element --whether appropriate or not.

When governing bodies / lead courses have "score-itis" on the brain you get this sort of knee-jerk reaction.

It strikes me as a tad early to start the insanity, but I'll jump in the pool:  ANGC IS A TOURNAMENT COURSE FIRST AND FOREMOST.  Those of you who want it to be a shrine to Jones and MacKenzie in the way that other old courses are architectural shrines are wasting the wear and tear on your finger pads.

Whine all you want about the bastardization of the vision of MacKenzie and Jones.  If Jones were alive, he would do whatever he could to keep the pros from eating the course alive.  If they played the Masters on a facsimile of the "vision" of Mac and Jones, the event would lose its cachet.

Let the fur fly.

[BCrosby]

Terry says:

"If Jones were alive, he would do whatever he could to keep the pros from eating the course alive."

Have you read what Jones said about that very topic?

It always helps to know what Jones actually said before concocting Jones hypotheticals.

Bob

[Matt_Ward]

Terry:

Beg your pardon --

Jones envisioned ANGC FIRST AND FOREMOST to be a course where his friends could play given the amount of play he was forced to deal with at East Lake.

The idea for a tournament followed that premise -- it did not come before it.

Keep in mind -- in case you have amnesia that ANGC is a parksland version of TOC. The so-called improvements from Hootie and the gand that can't shoot straight have simply jettisoned their heritage for the sake of ego tied to what scores are shot.

[JESII]

Bob,

What did Jones write on that topic?

[tlavin]

Terry:

Beg your pardon --

Jones envisioned ANGC FIRST AND FOREMOST to be a course where his friends could play given the amount of play he was forced to deal with at East Lake.

The idea for a tournament followed that premise -- it did not come before it.

Keep in mind -- in case you have amnesia that ANGC is a parksland version of TOC. The so-called improvements from Hootie and the gand that can't shoot straight have simply jettisoned their heritage for the sake of ego tied to what scores are shot.

My point is that Jones would want the Masters to be a pre-eminent event and would likely sanction changes that would make it a difficult test for the touring pros.  I recognize that this is rank speculation, but there's a lot of it going around.  There's no doubt that Jones was very proud of the Masters, as he was proud of the golf course and I'm betting that he would change the course to accomodate the tournament.

I know that purists love to bash the lengthening, the rough growing and the tree planting, but they still hold the event every year at ANGC, don't they.  It's no Black Mesa, but it's still in the top ten of most people's lists.

[Matt_Ward]

Terry:

The fanfare at Augusta, for most golfers and general sports fans, is tied to the actual tournament. The brand name of The Masters is what rings loud and clear whether they play the event with the previous emphasis on design elements or include the most recent changes. Save for the architectural addicts on this site and a few others note there's little real probing of what has been done to the golf course.

I have no issue with appropriate lengthening of the layout. If you think a "second cut," tree invasion, and narrowing down fairway angles is in keeping with the spirit of what ANGC was meant to be -- so be it.

I don't -- as do many others.

[Doug Siebert]

Tim P:

By the way check out the TV ratings when such superstar players win major events. Zach Johnson is a fine golfer and I salute his win -- but I can tell you this -- have more wins from Johnsons and his ilk and The Masters becomes more like Quad Cities than a major in my book.

Do you really think that the Masters ratings suffered because Zach Johnson won?  Seriously, on a day where Tiger was in it until near the end because he tried to do a bit too much on 15 and fell a bit short in the end with his attempted charge?  I'll bet the ratings are higher in that scenario than they would be if Vijay won a close duel with Els, with Tiger starting the day 9 strokes back.  With Tiger out of it, a lot of people simply wouldn't have watched at all.

The fickle masses just want to watch Tiger win or have a shot at winning, some of them would be willing to settle for Phil.  For those "fans" there's not much difference between a Zach Johnson and an Ernie Els winning the Masters.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()