Is Augusta National golf course fun to play?

[ward peyronnin]

Never played it but I have walked it.
Irrespective of the hallowed ground effect is or was the course fun to play for the non tour competent player or even the less skilled player? I ask because I did play a course I will offer pointed observations for on another thread whose greens seem to be the differentiating feature and with a similar persona but whose greens are not fun to play IMO.

[Lou_Duran]

I used to play a lot with a very good golfer- Monday qualified for a handful of Senior Tour events- who was a large client of a national lumber/building materials company.  He was invited to ANGC two or three times by the company, staying at the property overnight and playing two or more rounds each time.


He was of moderate length, straight, and hit a lot of greens.  His short game was no better than mine, which does not speak well of him.


He said that tee to green the course was not difficult (I assume they played the member's tees), but that the greens were out of this world.  Even after playing the course a handful of times, he still couldn't avoid three or four putting some greens, and that is at considerably slower speeds than we see during the tournament.  He said that the steep slopes have a larger effect than his eyes and feel could gauge, and was generally put on the defensive.  BTW, that is the same feeling I had at Muirfield Village and that is no way to putt.


Did he think the course was "fun"?  Doubt it, but not everyone looks at golf in that way.  I do know that he never turned down an invitation to play there.

[Peter Flory]

Seems like it's all about expectations.  People could have fun 5 putting on a Himalayas putting course, but be miserable doing the same thing on a real golf course. 

[Peter Pallotta]

It's interesting to think that Mr Jones & Dr Mac conceived Augusta as a 'members course' (at least in part), and that the course & greens were designed to provide both members and the day's best golfers with a satisfying and top-flight game of golf, with the only concession to members being the set of regular (as opposed to championship) tees that were some 25 yards further up. Which is to say, if Augusta *isn't* fun it suggests that either the average member back then was a much better golfer than the average golfer/member is now, and/or that our predecessors had a broader conception of 'fun' than we do today.
P

[Kalen Braley]

There's a handful of courses in the world where it probably wouldn't matter....meaning thier reputation proceeds itself to such an extent, it'd be next to impossible to not completely enjoy it. (Much less ANGC with all of its epic history with every great golfer on the planet in the last 80 years or so.) 

Hell the greens could be recently punched,  hazards drained, with off season shaggy dormant grass and i'm sure 99.999% of golfers would still move heaven and earth and hand over their first born to play it.

[Edward Glidewell]

Although I haven't played it myself, I know three people who have -- and all three said it was a blast to play. Of course it's possible that just getting to play the course was such an incredible opportunity that they were going to enjoy it no matter what, but all three said it's not an exceptionally difficult golf course outside of the greens, and even that's mitigated because of the caddies who know where to hit just about every putt.

[Jim Nugent]

It's interesting to think that Mr Jones & Dr Mac conceived Augusta as a 'members course' (at least in part), and that the course & greens were designed to provide both members and the day's best golfers with a satisfying and top-flight game of golf, with the only concession to members being the set of regular (as opposed to championship) tees that were some 25 yards further up. Which is to say, if Augusta *isn't* fun it suggests that either the average member back then was a much better golfer than the average golfer/member is now, and/or that our predecessors had a broader conception of 'fun' than we do today.
P

Peter, the course has changed a fair amount since Dr. Mac's day.  Nearly all those changes had the same goal: to make the course harder for the world's best.  In most cases that must also make it harder for average golfers. 

One example is green speeds.  Mackenzie probably designed the greens to roll no faster than 5 or 6.  Even for member play I bet they now roll 9 or 10.  That speed, on those heavily contoured rolly-polly greens, must make quite an adventure for bogey or even single digit golfers. 

Even so, most guys on the board here who played the course seem to love it.  Not impossible tee to green, with fascinating, challenging greens/greens complexes -- what top modern golf architect who posts on GCA does that remind you of? 

[Ken Moum]

As a crappy ball striker with an above-average short game I think it would be big, dirty fun to play it with the greens at some kind of reasonable speed.  FWIW I have only walked it on three occasions.


But, as I told some friends of mine who are 15 to 20 handicaps, at Masters green speeds they'd probably two-chip 10 times during a round, putt off several greens and end up with more than five three-putt greens.


Actually, what I said was, I could put you on 18 greens in regulation, and you couldn't break 90.


Even with my confidence around the greens, I would only like to have a go at those greens at tournament speeds to see just how ridiculously difficult they are.


K

[Tom_Doak]

Actually, what I said was, I could put you on 18 greens in regulation, and you couldn't break 90.

I've played Augusta three times.  One of the times, our host had recently had surgery, and couldn't make a full swing, so we played a game where he was considered to be "on" in regulation wherever the first of our other three balls was on the green . . . and he had to putt first from there.  I think he still made more pars than bogeys by that method.


However, if you were saying you could put someone in the worst possible spot on each green relative to the hole location, I'd say 54 putts would be entirely possible under that scenario . . . if not more at Masters speeds.


Anyway, I doubt I will get to back there, so I'll be the guy who says Augusta is only fun if you're a pretty good player.  If you can't go for any of the par-5's in two, that removes a lot of the fun of it right there.  I think it's a great course, but I wouldn't even have thought about it if you asked me to name the most fun courses I've played.

[Ken Moum]

Actually, what I said was, I could put you on 18 greens in regulation, and you couldn't break 90.

However, if you were saying you could put someone in the worst possible spot on each green relative to the hole location, I'd say 54 putts would be entirely possible under that scenario . . . if not more at Masters speeds.

That is what I  meant.


I figured that it wouldn't even have to be the worst place. Just a difficult one on each hole.  The first time I was there I watched a pro putt on the back section of the ninth (he wasfrom Japan so probably limited ANGC experience)


The putt was across the slope, and less than five feet. It passed the hole on the high side without catching the lip and ended up 30-40 away.


Most of the guys I play with would putt off the green multiple times.

[Cliff Hamm]

I've often thought that if you put a single digit golfer where the pros are in two (1 on the 3's) , he still couldn't break 90...

[Wade Whitehead]

Everyone I know who's played it says it's an absolute blast.

A number of the holes play shorter than you think from the member tee.

There are lots of variables leaning in favor of "fun" (among them being the fact that a player is even there to begin with).

I know one guy who made a 3 on the first hole but didn't break 100.  He said he faced all kinds of unique shots (mostly from around the greens) and smiled the entire day.

I am excited about the women's amateur event, in part, because we'll get to see how the golf course plays every week outside the toon-a-mint.

WW

[jeffwarne]

Let's assume someone had never heard of The Masters, and that Augusta was no more difficult to access than say Winged Foot or Shinnecock.
and that they played the member tees



Interesting terrain and topography-check
Interesting layout and routing-check
Minimal searching for balls and room and opportunity for creative recovery-check
Minimal bunkers-check
Interesting, challenging and unique greens and surrounds-check
Excellent conditioning-check
Excellent scenery-check
A hacker could get around it-and so many do (especially compared to a Pine Valley, a TPC or almost any links not called TOC)CHECK


What exactly is not fun about that?


Saying most of the fun is removed if you can't go for the par 5's in two-(there went 99% of the golf world)
well I really don't understand that statement

[Edward Glidewell]

I've often thought that if you put a single digit golfer where the pros are in two (1 on the 3's) , he still couldn't break 90...

Nah, it's definitely not that difficult. One of the guys I know that played there was a 5 at the time and shot 80 (there is significant assistance from the Augusta caddies, though). Another guy was probably scratch or better (he was a D1 college golfer at the time) and he shot 74.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I've often thought that if you put a single digit golfer where the pros are in two (1 on the 3's) , he still couldn't break 90...

Not even close. They'd shoot a shot or two higher. PGA Tour players are not the phenomenal putters people think they are.

A scratch golfer out-putts a PGA Tour player over 30% of the time (over the course of 18 holes).

[Jeff Schley]

Let's assume someone had never heard of The Masters, and that Augusta was no more difficult to access than say Winged Foot or Shinnecock.
and that they played the member tees



Interesting terrain and topography-check
Interesting layout and routing-check
Minimal searching for balls and room and opportunity for creative recovery-check
Minimal bunkers-check
Interesting, challenging and unique greens and surrounds-check
Excellent conditioning-check
Excellent scenery-check
A hacker could get around it-and so many do (especially compared to a Pine Valley, a TPC or almost any links not called TOC)CHECK


What exactly is not fun about that?


Saying most of the fun is removed if you can't go for the par 5's in two-(there went 99% of the golf world)
well I really don't understand that statement

Jeff
Agreed.
I would think fun green complexes - check  There is fun in difficult with the slopes.

Also does ANGC have their 2nd cut of rough all season, since they added it 10 or so years ago? Not sure.

[John Kavanaugh]

I do have sympathy for those who have to submit an arbitrary number to an outside agency after the round. The ghost of ratings past must visit you in your sleep for weeks afterwards.

[Tim Martin]

I've often thought that if you put a single digit golfer where the pros are in two (1 on the 3's) , he still couldn't break 90...

A scratch golfer out-putts a PGA Tour player over 30% of the time (over the course of 18 holes).

That’s a curious statistic that I would love to see the backup for.

[Tom_Doak]

I've often thought that if you put a single digit golfer where the pros are in two (1 on the 3's) , he still couldn't break 90...

Not even close. They'd shoot a shot or two higher. PGA Tour players are not the phenomenal putters people think they are.

A scratch golfer out-putts a PGA Tour player over 30% of the time (over the course of 18 holes).

At Augusta?  Holing everything out? 


Those "average" stats don't work across all contingencies.  Augusta's greens are pretty extreme.  It might not be ten shots higher, but it's going to be at least 4 or 5. 


My data set is hosting first-timers at Crystal Downs for many years.  Some of them hang in there pretty well, but many freak out at the tilt of the greens, misread lines of putts by several feet, and putt off a green or two when faced with a tough downhill putt.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

At Augusta?  Holing everything out?

I think you'd be surprised.And that's with golfers playing worse greens than PGA Tour players typically play.

Given enough time to adjust, every class of player (save the absolutely terrible, the 25+ handicappers) putts better on a faster green than a slower green. They three-putt more often, but they one-putt even more often than that. Three main reasons: 1) the ball can be rolling slower at the hole, so capture size is increased, 2) shorter strokes are required, so the player is making a stroke less prone to error, and 3) the ball isn't as likely to bounce offline due to small bumps or imperfections. Faster greens are smoother.

Those "average" stats don't work across all contingencies.  Augusta's greens are pretty extreme.  It might not be ten shots higher, but it's going to be at least 4 or 5.

I'd take that bet (no odds, though - it'd be a pretty fair bet), if the scratch golfers are given a few practice rounds (Tour players get them). And if they're Oakmont members, hell, they might not even need those. 

----------

BTW the source of the 30% is Every Shot Counts. But my own testing with Tour players, average players, etc. shows similar results.

[Cliff Hamm]

 Never said scratch golfers. Said single digit, so assuming five handicap. Also no practice rounds and under tournament conditions.  Also where the average participant hits their second shots not the leaders. I am still not convinced that 90 would be broken.

[Tim Martin]

At Augusta?  Holing everything out?

I think you'd be surprised.And that's with golfers playing worse greens than PGA Tour players typically play.

Given enough time to adjust, every class of player (save the absolutely terrible, the 25+ handicappers) putts better on a faster green than a slower green. They three-putt more often, but they one-putt even more often than that. Three main reasons: 1) the ball can be rolling slower at the hole, so capture size is increased, 2) shorter strokes are required, so the player is making a stroke less prone to error, and 3) the ball isn't as likely to bounce offline due to small bumps or imperfections. Faster greens are smoother.

Those "average" stats don't work across all contingencies.  Augusta's greens are pretty extreme.  It might not be ten shots higher, but it's going to be at least 4 or 5.

I'd take that bet (no odds, though - it'd be a pretty fair bet), if the scratch golfers are given a few practice rounds (Tour players get them). And if they're Oakmont members, hell, they might not even need those. 

----------

BTW the source of the 30% is Every Shot Counts. But my own testing with Tour players, average players, etc. shows similar results.

What is Every Shot Counts?
Googled it after the post. Thanks.

[Andrew Hastie]

Actually, what I said was, I could put you on 18 greens in regulation, and you couldn't break 90.

  I think it's a great course, but I wouldn't even have thought about it if you asked me to name the most fun courses I've played.

Since you mentioned it Tom, what would be the most fun courses you have played?

[Edward Glidewell]

Never said scratch golfers. Said single digit, so assuming five handicap. Also no practice rounds and under tournament conditions.  Also where the average participant hits their second shots not the leaders. I am still not convinced that 90 would be broken.

I already told you I know a 5 handicap who played there and shot 80, so...

[Cliff Hamm]

 Did he play it under tournament conditions?   Weree the pins placed in tournament positions? Also,  A very small sample is not representative of five handicappers.  That being said I could very well be wrong on this.   I am not convinced, however, that even a single digit golfer would not have numerous three putts  and perhaps a few four putts under tournament conditions.