"Bobby Jones wouldn't have approved....."

[DMoriarty]

"Generally speaking, the greens at Augusta are quite large, rolling, and with carefully contrived undulations, the effect of which is magnified as the speed is increased.  We are quite willing to have low scores made during the tournament.  It is not our intention to right the golf course so as to make it tricky.  It is our feeling that there is something wrong with a golf course which will not yield a score in the sixties to a player who has played well enough to deserve it."

Of the 300 rounds this year there were only 18 rounds in the sixties. Six percent.  Three of the rounds in the sixties were by Watson.

It is a matter of opinion whether only 6% of the rounds were played well enough "to deserve" a "score in the sixties."

[Gib_Papazian]

One of the problems with everyone weighing in with theoretical conjecture is the gap in experience - beyond simply observing something on television or in the gallery.

I've played three different Open courses numerous times - either just before or after the event. There is absolutely no way to describe the speed and texture of the greens in these conditions - and with some devilish pin placements, the challenge is every bit Augusta and more.

Has anybody on this board (aside from Mucci) ever played WF West when the greens were running 12-plus? How about Pebble with a nice dry wind coming out of the south? Wanna try Olympic Lake just before the Open? Get above the hole and you get an instant Payne Steward, just add the USGA's borderline malicious set-up.

How about Oakmont? My first go-round, the putting surfaces were shrieking past 12. Don't forget three of those greens actually slope away from the line of play, like putting downhill on a frozen lake - and that is for member play!

Never mind the nutbag pins at Torrey Pines. At least a Augusta you have a shot from the short grass. Try chopping a 7-iron out of the cabbage and stopping it on an airport runway.

Now, in the interest of disclosure, I have never been to Augusta - but I've seen most everything else twice and covered five U.S. Opens inside the ropes. Acting like Augusta's green speeds and contours are singular is twaddle. Sure, they are terribly severe, but the result demands razor-thin margins for error in distance control and shot placement. The same thing can be said for WF West, which was too hard for me even back when the game seemed easy. Not sure if I could endure it these days without a morphine drip and tourniquet.  

All that stated - and the one thing nobody ever seems to mention - is that wickedly fast putting surfaces usually putt absolutely true. If the ball leaves the putterhead on the correct line, chances are, its going in. You ever see a spike mark nudge a ball off line at Augusta since they converted away from Bermuda?

Would anybody like to go back to the old days - watching Palmer have to give the ball a nasty whack to reach the hole? I think not laddie. I think not.            

[Niall C]

Yes, I think Mr. Jones would continue to approve. As Jack Nicklaus recently said in comparing the Masters to the other majors: it was always meant to be a "tournament" first and foremost, while the others are "championships". The practice of inviting past winners back, the easy bogie/hard par mantra, and the ongoing reality of golfers like Langer being able to hold their own suggest to me that  Mr. Jones would be happy with the way the tournament played out, including the challenges presented by the greens. After he'd retired from competitive golf, Jones himself struggled year after year to shoot good scores at the tournament/course he started, so I think he would see as a positive the fact that, at the Masters, if you're not at the top of your game you'll struggle.  

Peter

Peter

What's the difference between a tournament and a championship and does it have anything to do with course design and about the particular design element the thread refers to ? As for the oldies, if you continue to put enough of them in the field is it not likely that some of them are going to make it to last day given the limited field to start with ? It seems to me its a matter of stats rather than design.

Niall

[Sean_A]

Bobby Jones was VERY capable of spelling out his own thoughts, and he wrote about Augusta National's design clearly and concisely in his book, GOLF IS MY GAME.  This was written in 1959, not 1934, so many of the changes to the course had already been made.  Here's what he had to say about the greens:

"Generally speaking, the greens at Augusta are quite large, rolling, and with carefully contrived undulations, the effect of which is magnified as the speed is increased.  We are quite willing to have low scores made during the tournament.  It is not our intention to right the golf course so as to make it tricky.  It is our feeling that there is something wrong with a golf course which will not yield a score in the sixties to a player who has played well enough to deserve it.

On the other hand, we do not believe that birdies should be made too easily.  We think that to play two good shots to a par four hole and then to hole a ten-foot putt on a dead-level green is not enough.  If the player is to beat par, we should like to ask him to hit a truly fine second shot right up against the flag or to hole a putt of more than a little difficulty.  We therefore place the holes on tournament days in such locations on the greens as to require a really fine shot in order to get close.  With the greens fast and undulating, the putts from medium distances are difficult and the player who leaves his ball on the outer reaches has a real problem to get down in par figures.

The contours of the greens at Augusta have been very carefully designed."  


I suppose there's some meat there for either side of the argument, but that next-to-last line about "a real problem to get down in par figures" is still pretty much what the golf course gives, that is the basis of this thread.


I do note one other quote from Jones, a page or two later:

"I believe it is true that with modern equipment and modern players, we cannot make a golf course more difficult or more testing simply by adding length.  The players of today are about as accurate with medium or long irons as with their pitching clubs.  The only way to stir them up is by the introduction of subtleties around the greens."

And you wonder where I get this stuff.  

P.S.  Also, don't forget, Peter Alliss is a great commentator and a wonderful man, but he was never a very good putter.

So I guess the question comes down to greens stimping an alleged 13: is it tricked up or putting of more than a little difficulty?

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

ANGC did make tons of changes, almost from the start, through the years and decades -- and Bobby Jones was there for a whole lot of them.  Unless Roberts totally ran the show, Jones did approve of many of them.  Always, it seems to me, to keep the course a challenge to the world's top golfers. 

So my hunch is he would not object to the green speeds either, even given the contours. 

There is zero evidence that Jones would change a thing with the possible exception of televising the event so clueless morons could question his taste.

He approved televising it for decades.  That brought in millions of dollars a year to the club.  It would shock me if his view about that would ever change. 

Media has changed to the point since 71 that Jones would no longer embrace television as he once did.  During Jone's lifetime television was hardly the medium enjoyed by the ignorant masses.  The Masters would better be served as a subscriber service.  As evidenced by the multiple threads on this social media site most people have not earned the right to enjoy this great gathering of the best things the game has to offer.  

You will see the first step taken once Arnie passes as the Golf Channel will be shown the door.

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, I think Mr. Jones would continue to approve. As Jack Nicklaus recently said in comparing the Masters to the other majors: it was always meant to be a "tournament" first and foremost, while the others are "championships". The practice of inviting past winners back, the easy bogie/hard par mantra, and the ongoing reality of golfers like Langer being able to hold their own suggest to me that  Mr. Jones would be happy with the way the tournament played out, including the challenges presented by the greens. After he'd retired from competitive golf, Jones himself struggled year after year to shoot good scores at the tournament/course he started, so I think he would see as a positive the fact that, at the Masters, if you're not at the top of your game you'll struggle.  

Peter

Peter

What's the difference between a tournament and a championship and does it have anything to do with course design and about the particular design element the thread refers to ? As for the oldies, if you continue to put enough of them in the field is it not likely that some of them are going to make it to last day given the limited field to start with ? It seems to me its a matter of stats rather than design.

Niall

Niall - I think Tom D's quote from Jones' himself probably addresses your OP best. But I did a bit of math, and found that over the last ten years the average winning score at the Masters was about -9 (with most of the scores bunched in around there).  Meanwhile, the average winning score at the US Open over the last 10 years, played on a variety of courses, was -2 (but that was heavily influenced by Rory's -16 , which was way outside the norm; take that out and the averge winning score is just a smidge above even par).

Both those who run Augusta and those who run the USGA have the means and will to control/adjust playing conditons and maintenance practices and design elements to try to 'influence' the winning score. And just looking at those scores, it seems clear that those who run the Masters aren't nearly as determined to make it a 'championship test' as the USGA is the US Open. I think JN's comments may have been pointing to the fact that, in a sense, that has always been the case at Augusta; despite all the changes in design and maintenance practices over the years, no one who runs the Masters -- back then or now -- could ever be accused of trying to embarrass its golfers.

The greens are very fast and very heavily contoured, and yet they are just one element in the overall 'presentation' and design 'package' that for years and years has allowed for a wonderful "tournament" to be played, just as Jones intended. I think he wanted golfers to go out and 'win the tournament' instead of merely 'survive the championship'. I think the greens speed/contours for today's game and golfers were just about right for the best golfer that week to go out and win it.

 

[BCowan]

''Would anybody like to go back to the old days - watching Palmer have to give the ball a nasty whack to reach the hole? I think not laddie. I think not.''

   Well according to Arnie they don't play as firm as they did with bermuda.  So UD would be the answer IMHO. 

[Dwight Phelps]

"Generally speaking, the greens at Augusta are quite large, rolling, and with carefully contrived undulations, the effect of which is magnified as the speed is increased.  We are quite willing to have low scores made during the tournament.  It is not our intention to right the golf course so as to make it tricky.  It is our feeling that there is something wrong with a golf course which will not yield a score in the sixties to a player who has played well enough to deserve it."

Of the 300 rounds this year there were only 18 rounds in the sixties. Six percent.  Three of the rounds in the sixties were by Watson.

It is a matter of opinion whether only 6% of the rounds were played well enough "to deserve" a "score in the sixties."

From what I can find (in a quick Google search), the 1934 Masters featured 3 rounds in the 60's out of 240 rounds - 1.25%.  The 1958 Masters (before publication of his book that TD quotes above) had 13 rounds out of 168 in the 60's - 7.7%.  6% sounds right about in range.

[DMoriarty]

On the other end of the spectrum . . . In 1992, seventy (61) out of 252 rounds were in the 60's.  About 24%.  



(Edited bc I miscounted.)

[Dwight Phelps]

On the other end of the spectrum . . . In 1992, seventy (61) out of 252 rounds were in the 60's.  About 24%.  



(Edited bc I miscounted.)

I think it would be interesting to see this broken down for every year (but I'm not willing to put in the effort to make that happen).  I would hypothesize that this percentage was higher in the early 90's but that, post-1998, this percentage would go down.

And I really haven't watched enough Masters to make a call on this, but what percentage did your (or anyone's) 'favorite' Masters have?  Is there an ideal percentage of rounds in the 60's purely from a spectator's perspective?

[Patrick_Mucci]

So I guess the question comes down to greens stimping an alleged 13: is it tricked up or putting of more than a little difficulty?

Sean,

Who alleged that the greens were stimping at 13 ?

Arthur Weber's treatise on green speeds and slope would seem to contradict that claim.

At a stimp of 13, a ball will NOT stop rolling when the slope is 4 degrees or more, and that doesn't account for any wind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib,

Your remark,

Would anybody like to go back to the old days - watching Palmer have to give the ball a nasty whack to reach the hole? I think not laddie. I think not.

is so true.

And, how could the morons on this site forget the pride some took in claiming that Oakmont SLOWED their greens down for the U.S. Open, versus daily member play.

I didn't think that the greens were excessively fast this year.
How else do you explain Bubba leaving almost every putt short on Saturday and Sunday on occassion ?

[Bill Brightly]

Gib,

Your remark,

Would anybody like to go back to the old days - watching Palmer have to give the ball a nasty whack to reach the hole? I think not laddie. I think not.

is so true.

And, how could the morons on this site forget the pride some took in claiming that Oakmont SLOWED their greens down for the U.S. Open, versus daily member play.

I didn't think that the greens were excessively fast this year.
How else do you explain Bubba leaving almost every putt short on Saturday and Sunday on occassion ?

Hey Mr. Longputter, you know better than most that you are FAR more likely to leave a fast putt short when you want no part of a 4 foot comeback!

[DMoriarty]

And I really haven't watched enough Masters to make a call on this, but what percentage did your (or anyone's) 'favorite' Masters have?  Is there an ideal percentage of rounds in the 60's purely from a spectator's perspective?

I don't really have an ideal year, nor do I think there is an ideal percentage.  But as golfers/equipment have gotten better they seem to be manipulating the course to try to push down the scores, and I think that some of the manipulation makes for less entertaining golf.  The changes to 11 and 15, for example, and the extreme green speeds. I don't know whether Jones would see this as "tricky" or not, but the golfers seem to be have to take an attitude that, except for on the par fives and perhaps on certain occasional pins, they just want to try to survive with pars.  Like the US Open only with more par fives and more pretty flowers.  

[Bill Brightly]

David makes pretty good point.

If you were a top pro hoping to win the Masters on Sunday, wouldn't you think about the pin positions on Sunday and plan your tournament this way?

"I hope to hit it long and in the fairway on 13 so that I can hit the green in two and putt for eagle. Ditto on 15. I hope to catch the ridge on 16 and let it feed to the hole for a short putt for birdie.  I'll play the other holes conservatively and hope to contend."

[BCowan]

''And, how could the morons on this site forget the pride some took in claiming that Oakmont SLOWED their greens down for the U.S. Open, versus daily member play.''

    Could it be that the greens were much much firmer for the Open then everyday play .  I would of thought Senior Moron could have figured that out?  Do you prefer using half as many hole locations to claim your course has the fastest greens, now that seems pretty Moronic to me???

[Gib_Papazian]

BCowan,

It is a fair point the putting surfaces were firmer at Augusta in the monochrome era, but you logic falls apart once we take the reasoning a step further. While the surface tension of the greens were more prone to a bounce on landing (watch some replays from the early 60s), Bermuda grass varieties at that time had thick leafs that would today be called extremely grainy.

Since most putting surfaces tilt back-to-front in some measure - and the older Bermuda grasses tended to grow towards the water, down the drain line - approach shots may not have grabbed like today, but once landed, balls rolling into the grain looked like dragsters popping their chutes.

Finding yourself above the pin in that era may have been every bit the challenge as today because gauging the speed down-grain, down a hard slope is a capricious adventure. The new varieties are extremely consistent - regardless of whether you are putting up, down or sidehill. Once you get the speed down, it is all a matter of nerve control.

When Arnie was stalking Augusta, it was harder to roll the ball with any consistency because Bermuda grass does not behave the same way. Many times - when playing on old-fashioned surfaces - a putt would break a certain way, and then a second try would yield a far different result.

If you were to give the boys on the big Tours a choice, 99% would vote for what we have today - no matter how frightening.  

P.S. You ever play Oakmont? For member play, the greens are wickedly firm. Try holding your approach shot on #1, #10 and #12. Good luck.                      

[BCowan]

BCowan,

It is a fair point the putting surfaces were firmer at Augusta in the monochrome era, but you logic falls apart once we take the reasoning a step further. While the surface tension of the greens were more prone to a bounce on landing (watch some replays from the early 60s), Bermuda grass varieties at that time had thick leafs that encouraged what would today be called extremely grainy.

Since most putting surfaces tilt back-to-front in some measure - and the older Bermuda grasses tended to grow towards the water, down the drain line - approach shots may not have grabbed like today, but once landed, balls rolling into the grain looked like dragsters popping their chutes.

Finding yourself above the pin in that era may have been every bit the challenge as today because gauging the speed down-grain, down a hard slope is a capricious adventure. The new varieties are extremely consistent - regardless of whether you are putting up, down or sidehill. Once you get the speed down, it is all a matter of nerve control.

When Arnie was stalking Augusta, it was harder to roll the ball with any consistency because Bermuda grass does not behave the same way. Many times - when playing on old-fashioned surfaces - a putt would break a certain way, and then a second try would yield a far different result.

If you were to give the boys on the big Tours a choice, 99% would vote for what we have today - no matter how frightening.  

P.S. You ever play Oakmont? For member play, the greens a wickedly firm. Try holding your approach shot on #1, #10 and #12. Good luck.                      

Gib,

    Dr Mack designed other courses on northern bent.  The old bermuda was very grainy i know.  The guys on tour like softer and fast, they don't want any curve balls.  The 80's tour pro were more creative and better shot makers mostly due to technology.(of course there is bubba) Then why would Arnie make the comment he preferred bermuda at Augusta (not sure if UD was perfected when he said that)?    

    The greens complex contours aren't designed for 12, they limited hole spots and lead to putt putt like golf.  I disagree it takes skill out for if you hit your 2nd shot in the wrong spot, a perfectly stroked 1st putt has no chance of being holed or rewarded.  Have you played a Dr Mack course on bent grass at 12? I haven't and wouldn't want to.  I'd rather the keeper keep the greens at 9 and hold off water as long as he could.  harder, more slope, and slower but rolled.  

PS- I have been on the ground at Oakmont.  Also Oakmont drains very well for the heavy clay soil that the course sits on.

[jeffwarne]

BCowan,

It is a fair point the putting surfaces were firmer at Augusta in the monochrome era, but you logic falls apart once we take the reasoning a step further. While the surface tension of the greens were more prone to a bounce on landing (watch some replays from the early 60s), Bermuda grass varieties at that time had thick leafs that encouraged what would today be called extremely grainy.

Since most putting surfaces tilt back-to-front in some measure - and the older Bermuda grasses tended to grow towards the water, down the drain line - approach shots may not have grabbed like today, but once landed, balls rolling into the grain looked like dragsters popping their chutes.

Finding yourself above the pin in that era may have been every bit the challenge as today because gauging the speed down-grain, down a hard slope is a capricious adventure. The new varieties are extremely consistent - regardless of whether you are putting up, down or sidehill. Once you get the speed down, it is all a matter of nerve control.

When Arnie was stalking Augusta, it was harder to roll the ball with any consistency because Bermuda grass does not behave the same way. Many times - when playing on old-fashioned surfaces - a putt would break a certain way, and then a second try would yield a far different result.

If you were to give the boys on the big Tours a choice, 99% would vote for what we have today - no matter how frightening.  

P.S. You ever play Oakmont? For member play, the greens a wickedly firm. Try holding your approach shot on #1, #10 and #12. Good luck.                     

Gib,

    Dr Mack designed other courses on northern bent.  The old bermuda was very grainy i know.  I was speaking of Bent which i implied in an earlier post.  The guys on tour like softer and fast, they don't want any curve balls.  The 80's tour pro were more creative and better shot makers mostly due to technology.(of course there is bubba) Then why would Arnie make the comment he preferred bermuda at Augusta (not sure if UD was perfected when he said that)?   

    The greens complex contours aren't designed for 12, they limited hole spots and lead to putt putt like golf.  I disagree it takes skill out for if you hit your 2nd shot in the wrong spot, a perfectly stroked 1st putt has no chance of being holed or rewarded.  Have you played a Dr Mack course on bent grass at 12? I haven't and wouldn't want to.  I'd rather the keeper keep the greens at 9 and hold off water as long as he could.  harder, more slope, and slower but rolled.   

PS- I have been on the ground at Oakmont.  Also Oakmont drains very well for the heavy clay soil that the course sits on.

Though Augusta's greens were bermuda till 1980, they were overseeded with rye in the winter months, which coupled with winter dormancy rendered most of the effects of the grain moot.
Augusta's greens were quite fast historically and Snead used to talk about hearing the ball rolling on the crusty greens.


The heat at this years Masters seemed to bring the underlying bermuda out of dormancy on the fairways, and they looked a bit stickier around the greens.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib,

Your remark,

Would anybody like to go back to the old days - watching Palmer have to give the ball a nasty whack to reach the hole? I think not laddie. I think not.

is so true.

And, how could the morons on this site forget the pride some took in claiming that Oakmont SLOWED their greens down for the U.S. Open, versus daily member play.

I didn't think that the greens were excessively fast this year.
How else do you explain Bubba leaving almost every putt short on Saturday and Sunday on occassion ?

Hey Mr. Longputter, you know better than most that you are FAR more likely to leave a fast putt short when you want no part of a 4 foot comeback!

Bill,

I put the long putter in the garage last year (note, not the basement or attic) and am using my old "shorty"
My alignment stinks but my stroke is decent.

Bubba left both dead flat putts and uphill putts short, time after time.

[Gib_Papazian]

I've played both Cypress Point and Pasatiempo with the greens shrieking at 12. With the exception of #8 at Pasa (I will throw myself in front of the tractors if they so much as move a blade of grass), they are perfectly fair. Just don't hit it in the wrong spot.

The same could be said for #1 at NGLA, where poor placement on the approach shot can result in what Goodale calls "Infinite Putting."

And yes, there are places on the putting surface where you simply cannot putt the ball close for certain pin positions, but so what?

There is no law demanding that putting surface contours must be arranged in such a manner as to give idiots who hit to the wrong spot an opportunity to lag it dead to the hole.    

[BCowan]

I've played both Cypress Point and Pasatiempo with the greens shrieking at 12. With the exception of #8 at Pasa (I will throw myself in front of the tractors if they so much as move a blade of grass), they are perfectly fair. Just don't hit it in the wrong spot.

The same could be said for #1 at NGLA, where poor placement on the approach shot can result in what Goodale calls "Infinite Putting."

And yes, there are places on the putting surface where you simply cannot putt the ball close for certain pin positions, but so what?

There is no law demanding that putting surface contours must be arranged in such a manner as to give idiots who hit to the wrong spot an opportunity to lag it dead to the hole.    

So you would rather have greens stemping at 12 then have them granite top hard?  So you think that CP and Pas could have had more fun hole locations had the greens run at 9 or 10?  I like granite top, requires more precision and thought from the fairway IMHO.  It is very difficult to get both (there are some exceptions).  What did the greens run at NGLA when it was designed?  Muirfield played very soft on the weekend so they could get the greens running at 12+.  Phil's 6 iron released 3 feet from 200 yards on 18 on Sunday.  I don't think it was into the wind.  

I agree with your 3rd sentence.

I never meant to imply a law.  Just as people bellyache about high rough and not being able to make a great recovery for their 2nd shot, but a precise ''Ben Crenshaw'' like first put isn't rewarded.  Gib, explain a front pin placement and the golfer leaves himself an uphill putt and putts up the hill and the ball comes back to him for the greens were designed for 7 or 8 and at 12 the golfer keeps putting up the hill over and over.  Then the golfer screams to take slope off at the next board meeting.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib & Ben,

I've played a fair number of courses and a good number of them under tournament conditions, such as WFW, NGLA, Baltusrol, GCGC and others, and I never encountered "granite hard" greens.

I've putted on a good number of greens at 11, 12 and maybe 13, but no granite hard greens.

So, I'd like to know, who's played "granite hard" greens ?
Which course and at what time of year ?

Let's not also forget, as we type, that members and guests played ANGC today and the week before the tournament, as they do every year

[BCowan]

Pat,

   I haven't teed it in the US Open, did you play in the US Open at Baltusrol or WFW?  Do you consider the US Amatuer as having greens as firm as the US Open?  I don't. 

  I haven't played granite hard top greens, I long too.  With advancement in technology we seem more worried about green speed. 

   So you think greens running at 12 (Oakmont slowed down the greens at the US Open from everyday member play u stated) for everyday member play is okay, but US Open like firmness isn't okay for everyday play?  I understand everyday member play at Championship courses (Caddied at them). 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I haven't teed it in the US Open

did you play in the US Open at Baltusrol or WFW? 

No, but I played both course right before and right after U.S. Opens

Do you consider the US Amatuer as having greens as firm as the US Open?  I don't. 

How would you know, you never played in either ?

Firm greens are only achievable if Mother Nature cooperates, and Mother Nature rarely cooperates in Mid-June

I haven't played granite hard top greens, I long too. 

Doesn't that make you question their very existence ?
I suspect they're more a myth than reality, whereas very fast greens are almost common place at local clubs these days..... Mother Nature permitting.

With advancement in technology we seem more worried about green speed. 

You're forgetting the most important issue........ Mother Nature

So you think greens running at 12 (Oakmont slowed down the greens at the US Open from everyday member play u stated) for everyday member play is okay, but US Open like firmness isn't okay for everyday play? 

Green speeds of 11-12 are common place, even at local tournaments and local clubs.

As I stated, I think "U.S. Open like firmness" is far less common, if it exists at all, especially at the local level