If you truly believe thick rough and trees worked fine for the best 10% of golfers, would you please let everyone know that. People listen to you. The game is changing quickly in front of our eyes at the top level, and letting the USGA know there is nothing wrong with trees, rough, and tight fairways on courses meant for the best players in the world would be huge in bringing a balance back into golf at the highest level.
That is a complete misunderstanding of my sentiments and I can think you know that.
Yes, length is a bigger factor today than ever before, BECAUSE IT IS SO MUCH EASIER TO HIT THE DRIVER STRAIGHT WHILE SWINGING AT 100% than it used to be. Architecture cannot correct for that. Setup can, somewhat, but it is a terrible price to pay when they narrow a place like Shinnecock Hills to uncomfortable levels just so they can host a tournament once every ten years.
Also, note that Augusta National has narrowed its fairways and planted more trees in the past 25 years, but it hasn't much changed the impact of long driving on tournament success.
I don't know why so many people pine for the days when Scott Simpson and Curtis Strange hit it straight and made a bunch of pars. If you think that was the epitome of golf, we don't have much in common.
Tom,
You are correct, Augusta National has done a fantastic job over the past 25 years of preserving the impact on long driving on tournament success. But Augusta has never been a bombers paradise. it is, and always has been, a 2nds shot course that favors ball striking.
Just look at this list of past champions, both old and new, is there a bomber among them? (Gary Player, Ben Crenshaw, Nick Faldo, Ian Woosnam, Bernard Langer, José María Olazábal, Mark O'Meara, Mike Weir, Trevor Immelman, Zach Johnson, Jordan Spieth, Patrick Reed, etc...)
The great part about the Masters, as you mentioned, For as much as the course has evolved, it has not impacted the type of champions it produces. Looking at the most recent run of Masters winners, Over the last 10 Masters a player ranked outside the top 25 in driving distance have won 6 of them, 5 of those 6 ranked outside the top 50.
There are plenty of winners there that don't rank at the top in terms of length. Length helps, but it's not everything. While the US Open has become almost entirely about length, the Masters has been able to keep the importance of the approach game at least equal to length over the years. Their changes have worked. The skills need to win there are still balanced, and you don't have to be a bomber to win.
If we compare the US Open and Masters using Strokes Gained. We find that that from 2004 until today the average winner of the Masters ranks 29th off the tee and 30th in approach. Nearly identical, neither dominates, the skill's needed to win are balanced.
The US Open on the other hand is greatly imbalanced. Over the same period of time, the average winner of the US Open ranks 20th off the tee and 57th in approach. The tournament significantly favors driving and driving distance over approach play.
The Masters is at least trying to keep the game from being dominated by bombers, and fighting to make sure golf's other skills are not drowned out by power and length. And their efforts are actually working.
So yes, Augusta National is a perfect example of a club looking at what's going on and doing what they can to make sure players like Ben Crenshaw and Nick Faldo have a chance to win there again in the future. I applaud them for it, and wish the USGA would take note.