Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: ward peyronnin on January 11, 2019, 04:06:55 PM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...
-
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.
-
My friend played there twice. He’s about an 8 or 7 handicap, he shot I think an 84 but second time he shot a 76 from the members tees. He’s told me about it several times, lol
I think it’s a lot easier from the members tees, like 15 shots or more. Having a wedge as opposed to a 4 iron into the 11th for example... completely different hole.
He said it was a total blast to play too.
I have played CD and the greens there might be comparable. The first, fifth, eleventh and thirteenth are incredible. How I imagine ANGC’s greens to be.
-
I've played 6 times playing to about a 12....member tee's and member green speeds....I'm not hitting par 5's in two anywhere....its fun, great fun, interesting humps and bumps bouncing the ball, greens are fun as they make you think...great staff and member's who enjoy showing the course...RHE
-
...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.
I think it would be very hard for all but the longest hitting ams to go for the par 5s in 2 - unless the members tees make the holes play well under 500 yards. 13 and 15 have water hazards just short of the greens that make it a very dicey proposition. #2 might be possible but unless you can fly it onto the green it is a pretty narrow aperture between the bunkers fronting the green. That leaves #8 which is so steely uphill that I doubt amateurs could reach it.
-
To hopefully prove my last post.
Does anyone know anyone who has played it and said "It was just OK" or "it was good but not great" afterwards?
The course is only part of the equation. The grounds, the history, the cabins, the ambiance, etc....it is what it is and I don't know how anyone could possibly separate that from actually just playing the course.
-
Never said scratch golfers. Said single digit, so assuming five handicap.
An 80s shooter out-putts a PGA Tour player about 20% of the time.
Also no practice rounds and under tournament conditions.
No practice rounds now? C'mon, even the pros get those. Next thing you're gonna say they don't even get to putt on the practice green. :P
Also where the average participant hits their second shots not the leaders. I am still not convinced that 90 would be broken.
I'd take that bet with 3:1 odds against and bet you 1/3 of my life's savings today, even WITH your goofy "no practice rounds" thing.
It's not like EVERY putt they're gonna hit is from a poor spot, and PGA Tour players still miss a few greens and chip to 2-10'. You're drastically under-rating the ability of players to putt, or drastically over-rating the putting ability of PGA Tour players.
I already told you I know a 5 handicap who played there and shot 80, so...
And that's SHOT 80, not just putting from where a Tour player puts his shots.
-
Anecdotally, when I was at the top of my game a number of years ago putting was by far and away my best skill. On courses I had played a few times to get a feel for the greens, I rarely 3 jacked, even when I was 50+ feet from the pin.
And after watching guys like Adam Scott and Vijay struggle so much, I recall thinking, I could putt better than them! And Erik at least would seem to back me on this... ;D
-
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).
It would be interesting to know where these stats come from ..
-
To hopefully prove my last post.
Does anyone know anyone who has played it and said "It was just OK" or "it was good but not great" afterwards?
The course is only part of the equation. The grounds, the history, the cabins, the ambiance, etc....it is what it is and I don't know how anyone could possibly separate that from actually just playing the course.
I know many people who have played it. Most everyone gushes about it. However, I did have one buddy respond uniquely when I asked him, "Was it incredible"!? He paused and looked at me and then said, "It was a great experience, but I will say that best part about playing Augusta is the anticipation leading up to it. Once, I was there, it was just another golf course".
Needless to say, I was floored.
Also needless to say, I PRAY for that anticipation one day. :-)
-
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).
It would be interesting to know where these stats come from ..
If you have ever played a tour pro for money you quickly learn that the one thing they can do is putt. As a matter of fact the only thing they can do better than hundreds of thousands of other golfers is get the ball in the hole.
Do you guys have any idea how bad a scratch golfer is compared to a touring pro? Scratch is around 20 over par for any given tournament.
-
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.
After seeing the green structures first hand....I find it hard to believe there are that many more hole locations then what we see during tournament week. Forget elephants....they buried humpbacks in them greens.
-
Do you guys have any idea how bad a scratch golfer is compared to a touring pro? Scratch is around 20 over par for any given tournament.
Exactly and a point worth remembering that your club champ is maybe a plus handicap 2 or 3. For example, Tiger Woods's handicap in 2000 was said to never drop below +10! Remember this is every round, so if he took on your +3 club champ he would have beat him by 28 strokes over the course of the tournament.
I'd still like to see the super marker Jeff Knox on the Champions Tour but I think he is only a +2 or 3 himself so probably wouldn't fare as well as I would think. However at ANGC he is a stud.
-
...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.
I think it would be very hard for all but the longest hitting ams to go for the par 5s in 2 - unless the members tees make the holes play well under 500 yards. 13 and 15 have water hazards just short of the greens that make it a very dicey proposition. #2 might be possible but unless you can fly it onto the green it is a pretty narrow aperture between the bunkers fronting the green. That leaves #8 which is so steely uphill that I doubt amateurs could reach it.
To quote one of my former interns while playing Firestone South from the tournament tees....
"Every hole is a par 5 for me."
-
Yes, it is a fun course to play, at least for the average handicapper from the member tees. I played in tournament conditions with tough pins and the fun and challenge of the course is around the greens, chipping and putting. Especially underrated are holes you don't see as much on television like the 340 yard par four 3rd and the killer 170 yard par 3 4th.
If you don't have fun playing Amen Corner then you probably should't play the game.
-
As you may have heard Whisper Rock keep handicaps for all of their tour pro members (around 30), their handicaps range from +4 to +8.
+4 doesn’t sound great but remember each of the counting rounds are tournament rounds with pins hidden, back tees, greens shaved etc.
-
It's not like EVERY putt they're gonna hit is from a poor spot, and PGA Tour players still miss a few greens and chip to 2-10'. You're drastically under-rating the ability of players to putt, or drastically over-rating the putting ability of PGA Tour players.
Erik,
I'm sure you actually have the data, but this argument surprises me a lot. It doesn't surprise me that most people don't appreciate that the vast majority of the difference between every level of golfer is from tee to green. That said, just based on the sheer amount of practice a pro does on putting vs your average scratch golfer, I can't imagine putting better than a tour pro 30% of the time.
That said, it seems much more possible for a scratch golfer with unlimited practice and instruction to putt like a pro than strike the ball like a pro.
-
Just to add a bit of levity to this thread...
The greens will be considerably easier moving forward now that you can leave the flag stick in! ;D
-
An 80s shooter out-putts a PGA Tour player about 20% of the time.
What do the stats show for the short game? I would think in that category the 80s shooter out-shorts the pro close to 0% over 18 holes.
-
It would be interesting to know where these stats come from ..
Thousands and thousands of rounds of actual data.
If you have ever played a tour pro for money you quickly learn that the one thing they can do is putt. As a matter of fact the only thing they can do better than hundreds of thousands of other golfers is get the ball in the hole.
The statistics do not agree with you John.
Do you guys have any idea how bad a scratch golfer is compared to a touring pro? Scratch is around 20 over par for any given tournament.
And the vast majority of those strokes come from the driver and approach shots.
I'm sure you actually have the data, but this argument surprises me a lot. It doesn't surprise me that most people don't appreciate that the vast majority of the difference between every level of golfer is from tee to green. That said, just based on the sheer amount of practice a pro does on putting vs your average scratch golfer, I can't imagine putting better than a tour pro 30% of the time.
Tour pros are on the Tour because of their ballstriking, and putting is not a difficult skill - it's far, far simpler than the other skills in golf, and putting involves a high amount of variability. One standard deviation in SG Putting round to round is +/- 1.7. That's huge. (Also, pros don't practice their putting as much as you might think.)
I'm trying to answer briefly as I don't want to get off topic, but I also want to answer questions posed to me and respond to things I believe to have been shown incorrect. This stuff is in my wheelhouse. Architecture is not; I try to listen more re: architecture than speak.
-
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.
Tom,
I partially disagree and I think this depends on your home course and how tough it is. At ANGC I played by the rules for 3 rounds. Each round I scored better than some of my best rounds at my home course and had my share of birdies. I have played to 8-12 handicap past 20 years and dont play much.
I found ANGC to be an extremely fun course, probably the most fun I have had on a course. It is wide off the tee, which suits me. I could let loose the driver without any problem (except #1 where I could not feel my body). It is tough to loose a ball and get in trouble. Recovery is always possible (assuming your handicap allows for a bogey). It is not long off members tees and you get the chance to play some of the same approach shots the pros play. Greens in regulation were most likely than not.
I could not reach #8 in 2, nor did I get realistic chances to go for the green on #2. But #13 and #15 are reachable, and you can go for them, if probably not smart. I birdied #8 and #15, both times laying up.
I agree greens are TOUGH and 4-5 putts are possible if you do not listen to caddie and if you cant putt well. Distance control is key. Listening to caddie should start at the tee or fairway. You need to be below the flagstick on most holes (#4 comes to mind). You need to be on the right section of the green to avoid the putts (#6 comes to mind).
Members know how to play those greens. Experience counts. You have to listen to them. They are of course all proud to be members for many reasons, but I know they have fun on the course. Lots of fun.
-
Nice summation Mike..... curious what you thought of:
Tee shots4, 12, 18
Approach shot11, 15
Putting on 9
-
Nice summation Mike..... curious what you thought of:
Tee shots4, 12, 18
Approach shot11, 15
Putting on 9
Not Mike, but will give you my opinion...
4 is tough for us amateurs because of length. And you do not, cannot be long, on or off the green.
12 is a precise little shot, but I had no issues on 12. Not windy, might make the difference.
18 is no issue from the member tee. #9 is much tougher in that you want to reach the dogleg and have a good angle.
The approach shot on 11 is by far the toughest and I found the pond. Probably the toughest shot for the amateur.
There is a long thread on 15 with strong opinions. I did not find laying up on 15 an issue, gives you a nice sand wedge shot onto green off a perfect fairway. You must not be afraid of tight lies but at least outside Masters week it was not a problem.
Putting on 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 is all really tough. Tons of 3 putt greens for me. Again I think depending on where pins are placed you might get an easier or really difficult experience.
-
Great feedback and can almost picture myself there. )
Sorry, thought your first name was Mike.
Did you play the par 3? It doesn't look like very much undulation in those greens.
-
Great feedback and can almost picture myself there. )
Sorry, thought your first name was Mike.
Did you play the par 3? It doesn't look like very much undulation in those greens.
I had been to the Masters and got to see the par 3 tournament. My host was kind enough to allow me to decide we play an extra round on the big course rather than the par 3 course. I do not regret it.
-
It would be interesting to know where these stats come from ..
Thousands and thousands of rounds of actual data.
Gotcha. I'm interested to know what kind of rounds compose those thousands of rounds. To be blunt, I get statistics, but it's going to get dicey when comparing amateurs and pros and the situations each putt are under. For example, a 6 footer to win a tournament .. with people watching ... I'm taking the worst statistical putter on tour vs. just about any amateur.
Thought to get stats based on the situation, pressure, etc. Maybe you have them, I don't know ..
-
For example, a 6 footer to win a tournament .. with people watching ... I'm taking the worst statistical putter on tour vs. just about any amateur.
PGA Tour players are not the only people capable of dealing with pressure. Millions deal with pressure every day.
-
For example, a 6 footer to win a tournament .. with people watching ... I'm taking the worst statistical putter on tour vs. just about any amateur.
PGA Tour players are not the only people capable of dealing with pressure. Millions deal with pressure every day.
I wasn't trying to argue .. was only asking where the data comes from. I get where you're coming from, but I will argue all day long that tour players ARE actually that good of putters day in and day out. I get it .. some days I can out putt them too, but not over the long haul, and quite frankly, my A days are their B days. And their bad putts are, for the most part, better than my bad putts. You wrote about stats and I asked where they came from is all .. situational differences are the only differences that matter (to me).
I can only assume millions deal with pressure every day - I'll take your word for it. They just don't perform as well (as tour players) over 5 footers when the lights are on.
-
At the end of last year I also had the very special opportunity of playing a couple rounds for the first time at ANGC, we did also play the 9 hole course.
I can only repeat the sentiments about the experience and it being incredibly unique. Realize the course from the members tees is about 1000 yds shorter than what's played for the Masters. I don't by any means consider myself long, probably more wide than long off the tee but all the par 5's were definitely reachable for me and there was literally no roll when we played so that says a fair bit about the distances which only made it fun, going for them and managing a few easy birdies. (relatively speaking).
It was my first visit to ANGC having never attended The Masters or walked the course. The biggest surprises for me were definitely how open everything was, how much width there is, how much elevation change there is to deal with (naturally I had also been warned about this but still) and perhaps more than anything else how small the greens were compared to what I expected.
The one part of my game that I was really really successful with on weekend I was there was my short game and chipping/pitching. I putted average (which is my favorite part of the game) I didn't make any long putts but also didn't have more than perhaps 4 or 5 really semi crazy putts after approaching into a less than ideal positions. While I didn't make any longer putts the greens were not running at lightening speeds, maybe 10.5 - 11, though they said faster but I didn't feel that. What I did decently with putting was lagging the ball near the hole to be able to tap in. I think that's where you can really get into trouble, at least if you are putting out there. You can have 2-3 footers that really are breaking a lot and a poor or unconfident putter could be out there all day trying to finish.
They put a real stress factor on trying to play in 3.5 hours which is very cool although at the same time I think on your first visit the time goes so fast you almost wish it could just take a lot more time so you can soak everything up. At least that was my feeling. I was also kind of nervous, more so than during other rounds but it was a really special occasion. I usually play better when I feel that way but notice that the time goes by so much faster. Blink and it's already over. The weekend for me went by way way too fast.
I was lucky and hit some very good shots on key holes which certainly doesn't always happen when you play a new course for the first time. I've had more than my share of days at really cool places where if it weren't for enjoying the walk so much and the company I could of better stayed in bed.
In this vain I managed a truly ridiculous bogey (that could of been a disaster) when my chip out of the trees on 11 switched sports to pinball. Then I threw up a Hail Mary slicing a 5 iron off the pine straw over the water onto the green. Like I said that could of been bad.
The other was really the luckiest (and look I realize nobody cares really what I did - just sharing the fun). On 16 to a bottom left pin I missed right of the green on my tee shot. Just short of the bunker however. The caddies started laughing, as they do, and said it was going to be fun. My caddy told me I needed to chip across the length of the upper section of the green and kill the ball into the fringe 1/3 the way down the left side. Then and only then would I be able to get the ball close. Pin was close to Tiger's famous hole out position when he chipped from the left rough. An out of body experience later and I had a tap in over.
The other real playing highlight was a 2 on 12 to a back right pin that looked in the hole going by. Admittedly that felt cool.
For me by far the hardest holes were 11 and 18. 11 really requires a perfectly executed cut (with driver) from the members tees or you risk running out of fairway. 3 wood is a safe option but the result is a butt clenching hook lie of an approach with a mid to long iron and water left, of course. The bail out to the right leaves a ridiculously hard chip with water behind. For me nothing about that hole felt comfortable, not once.
18 was the other hole that really felt awkward. The drive is tight compared to most and again it really requires a well executed cut from the members tees. I hit 3 wood in both rounds, both times into trouble. One on the edge of the bunker the caddy assured me I could not reach. He was right, I still had 1 inch to go but no play at all since that bunker is so deep. If I was playing multiple rounds again there and not controlling my tee shots well enough I might just hit 4 iron off that tee and lay up if I could reach the green just to stay out of trouble. Some holes just don't feel like they suit you.
In any case, yes, amazing experience. I also think that everyone would have fun there, regardless of whether you thought it was the best course on the planet or not, there are simply a lot of fun shots. No lost balls (well very few, but some water hazards of course). Quick pace of play, fun approaches and great fun chipping and putting. Even with all the changes that many of us might like to see done differently or even restored to something similar to the amazing original photos there is really a lot to like there even for the most picky of us. The best part might be the brilliance of the routing which sure makes the most of that crazy property.
-
I do not believe there is a better golf course in the world than Augusta National Golf Club's, though there are likely several equals. I'm also not surprised that the course is somewhat accommodating for membership play.
Conditioning for member play likely includes much slower green speeds and fairway lies that slightly less tight. Generally, hole locations will be more liberal as well. That said, I've always thought the ability to hit greens frequently from 150 yards in is the true test of a golfer, regardless of handicap. With that criterion, no less than eight of the fourteen one and two shotters should be approached with no more than the player's typical 150 yards club (including the 6th which plays a club shorter than the 165 yards on the card - with all bets off if the hole location is on the micro-plateau back right) with two more - the 9th and 18th a possibility. The caveat is that the course might play longer than the yardages during the season it is open.
I can't think of a great course where 3 of the par fives cover less than 500 yards each, and the 2nd plays much shorter than its 515 yardage on the card given the dramatic downhill second shot. Conversely the 8th at 480 yards plays effectively longer with the intimidating second that feels like you're staring at Fenway's Green Monster.
I can't think of a single par-plus-a-half hole on the premises, other than the 5th - still "only" 400 yards and the 10th if one fails to turn the ball over from the tee. The flip side is there aren't any par-minus-a-half holes on the course notwithstanding the relatively modest distances - 455 and 475 of the par fives on the second nine.
Perhaps the course is more likely to make a fool out of the player than it is to beat him up. I find the first scenario funny, the second not so much.
A final anecdote. West Tennessee amateur Danny Green first participated in the Masters in 1990 based up his runner-up finish to Chris Patton the previous year in the U. S. Amateur at Merion. I suspect he had the ugliest golf swing ever to grace the tournament but was a putting fiend. Challenged for distance, I saw him his a wood from the 4th tee. Of Green, Patton stated that if he had to bet his life on someone making a putt he'd pick Green over anyone else in the world. Legend has it that Green was involved in some serious off-course wagering at a Chattanooga club on his way down and offered the losers the opportunity to recoup their money if he could not shoot 160 or better in the first two rounds of the Masters. His scores: 80 and 80.
-
I can't think of a single par-plus-a-half hole on the premises, other than the 5th - still "only" 400 yards and the 10th if one fails to turn the ball over from the tee. The flip side is there aren't any par-minus-a-half holes on the course notwithstanding the relatively modest distances - 455 and 475 of the par fives on the second nine.
How about 11? 9 if you don't leave your drive out and can't carry it onto the green with your 2nd, that green is TOUGH.
-
The 11th plays at 400 yards with the second significantly downhill and plenty of room right. A drive of 230 yards leaves 170 yards in playing a club shorter. The approach must be smart, not precise.
Your point is well taken nonetheless.
Bogey
-
Nothing against Erik B, but I don't believe his stats. I doubt they are recorded under remotely similar conditions. But hey, have at it if you like. Dave Pelz has plenty of stats, he worked for NASA, yet I doubt his as well. I never worked for NASA, but my dad taught me how to knock holes in people's stats...
Regarding ANGC, members adapt. I haven't played there, doubt I ever will, but I think members learn how to score there, as they do everywhere. Oakmont is as hard as any course in the world on a day to day basis, but members learn how to play it. I doubt anyone has posted as much about Oakmont on here as yours truly, so people tend to send me messages after they've played it. The overwhelming majority fit this pattern: after one play, they say it's a great course, but wouldn't want to play it on a regular basis. After a few plays, they start to see the genius and learn how to score. I'd guess ANGC is similar, though most would skip the first part of that, given its history.
I simply can't imagine Augusta isn't fun to play. I can't even imagine it's not one of the most fun to play courses in the world, given its history. But I sure can see someone posting that, as playing the contrarian still speaks to some. Not me, but some.
As an aside, it's funny how people accept anecdotal evidence if it supports them, but dismiss it if it refutes them.
-
Nothing against Erik B, but I don't believe his stats.
Fine by me. Keep clinging to old (wrong) ideas.
I doubt they are recorded under remotely similar conditions.
You're right - if anything, amateurs are hurt by the generally poorer conditions on which they putt. Put all players on identical conditions and the gap narrows even further.
As an aside, it's funny how people accept anecdotal evidence if it supports them, but dismiss it if it refutes them.
I base my decisions, approach, opinions, etc. on actual data, not anecdotes.
--------
To the actual topic… I imagine Augusta National would be very fun to play. I listed Oakmont on my "fun to play" list, and was surprised to see others list it as well. But obviously I can agree.
-
As an aside, it's funny how people accept anecdotal evidence if it supports them, but dismiss it if it refutes them.
I base my decisions, approach, opinions, etc. on actual data, not anecdotes.
It would be interesting to see the actual data.
-
I base my decisions, approach, opinions, etc. on actual data, not anecdotes.
As long as you understand your decisions, approaches, opinions, are actual opinions and not facts, I don't have a problem with your thoughts at all. I find them interesting, actually. I'm just not accepting them as fact. How one compiles data is easily the most important - and vexing - part of any study.
And, as Mike says, it would be nice to see the actual data.
-
As long as you understand your decisions, approaches, opinions, are actual opinions and not facts
My decisions, etc. are based on the facts. Fact: the world is not flat. Decision: I won't fall off the edge of the earth if I sail west past Hawaii. I'll just end up in Japan (or Australia or something).
A simple fact:
- The separation between a scratch golfer and a PGA Tour player is higher off the putting green than on the putting green.
These things aren't complex, you simply have to be open to a new understanding.
How one compiles data is easily the most important - and vexing - part of any study.
And, as Mike says, it would be nice to see the actual data.
Then go look at it. Go buy yourself a copy of ESC or LSW or both. Or borrow one from the people who have already bought one, which includes Tour players (including major winners and Ryder Cup contestants), Tour coaches, instructors at every level, top (and bottom) college programs, and a bunch of regular golfers, too.
Could we get back to the topic now?
-
Could we get back to the topic now?
I already weighed in on that, you simply chose to ignore it. :)
An opinion based on fact is still an opinion.
Have a good one!
-
Erik,
Interesting you mentioned flat-earthers, I've bumped into a few online (who at least claimed to be).
I told them to start a gofundme where we put a bunch of em on a boat and and set sail to the "edges" of the earth...with cameras in tow and a live sat feed. I would definitely chip in to make that happen!
P.S. I tell them about my trip years ago when I flew west to India on a work trip and then continued to fly west to return home...brain baked! ;D
-
An opinion based on fact is still an opinion.
The only opinion I've expressed here is that I'd bet you, even at 3:1 odds, whatever the bet was a few pages ago.
That's it. That's the only opinion here. The rest are facts: amateurs are better putters than you seem to think (or pros are not as great as you seem to think).
You want to see the data? Go get it, George.
-
As long as you understand your decisions, approaches, opinions, are actual opinions and not facts
My decisions, etc. are based on the facts. Fact: the world is not flat. Decision: I won't fall off the edge of the earth if I sail west past Hawaii. I'll just end up in Japan (or Australia or something).
A simple fact:
- The separation between a scratch golfer and a PGA Tour player is higher off the putting green than on the putting green.
These things aren't complex, you simply have to be open to a new understanding.
How one compiles data is easily the most important - and vexing - part of any study.
And, as Mike says, it would be nice to see the actual data.
Then go look at it. Go buy yourself a copy of ESC or LSW or both. Or borrow one from the people who have already bought one, which includes Tour players (including major winners and Ryder Cup contestants), Tour coaches, instructors at every level, top (and bottom) college programs, and a bunch of regular golfers, too.
Could we get back to the topic now?
This was the only part of the thread that was interesting. I mean, really?? Is it even a question that Augusta would be fun to play ... seriously??
-
As long as you understand your decisions, approaches, opinions, are actual opinions and not facts
My decisions, etc. are based on the facts. Fact: the world is not flat. Decision: I won't fall off the edge of the earth if I sail west past Hawaii. I'll just end up in Japan (or Australia or something).
A simple fact:
- The separation between a scratch golfer and a PGA Tour player is higher off the putting green than on the putting green.
These things aren't complex, you simply have to be open to a new understanding.
How one compiles data is easily the most important - and vexing - part of any study.
And, as Mike says, it would be nice to see the actual data.
Then go look at it. Go buy yourself a copy of ESC or LSW or both. Or borrow one from the people who have already bought one, which includes Tour players (including major winners and Ryder Cup contestants), Tour coaches, instructors at every level, top (and bottom) college programs, and a bunch of regular golfers, too.
Could we get back to the topic now?
This was the only part of the thread that was interesting. I mean, really?? Is it even a question that Augusta would be fun to play ... seriously??
I thought the only interesting part of the thread is where Tom says he doubts he’ll ever get to play there again....
-
:)
Ah, Augusta - just about the only golf course on the planet that exemplifies the old Taoist adage: "Those who know don't talk; those who talk don't know"
Funny to think of the couple of dozen posters around here who actually know the answer to this question, but who aren't posting!
-
This was the only part of the thread that was interesting. I mean, really?? Is it even a question that Augusta would be fun to play ... seriously??
True. How about Oakmont? Maybe that would make a better discussion. :)
I love playing at Oakmont, and have "fun," but it's a different kind of fun for sure. (But yeah, that too is off topic for this one…)
-
You're certainly right about Oakmont, Erik. It's a truly special place, and I simply can't Augusta to be otherwise as well.
And I thought about it last night, and you're right, I was wrong to call you out for your study without seeing the data myself. I apologize to you for that. I'm still a bit skeptical, but someday I will look into it. Thanks for your contributions to the thread.
Have a good one!