After the last 2 years at ANGC, are you happy with GCA there?

[Doug Siebert]

Gents, I think many of us are blaming the course set up for the lack of patron 'roars' when maybe we should look at the players and the state of the game instead.

Players today are laying up and missing greens on the safeside with clubs that players of yester year were hitting at pins. Watch Faldo hit his 3 iron in the playoff on #11. He didn't bail out right. Watch the number of players years ago hit woods in to #13 and #15. This week players were laying up from 220 - 240 yards - that's an iron for most of these guys.

I think we ought to maybe consider the effect that prize money, head doctors, golf channel analysts and entry into world ranked/point based events is having on the game.

Club for club this course is not much different from years passed - the players may just be playing a different game.

Or perhaps all that prize money has more pros spending more time practicing their wedge game, so they can hit shots like the one Immelman hit used several times over the weekend that came in low, skipped twice and then stopped dead exactly pin high.

Man I wish I had that shot, it is 100x cooler than hitting a normal high wedge and spinning it back a bit and would be 100x more useful on tiered greens!

Given that reaching the green is only rarely going to lead to an eagle and if you put yourself in the wrong part of the green could lead to a three putt, reducing your potential scoring range from 3-6 to 4-5 is probably a good thing.  Especially for guys who don't have the mental game of a Tiger or Nicklaus and aren't able to easily overcome it when a birdie turns into a bogey (see Mickelson et al for good examples of this)

[Sean_A]

If trees aren't part of the architecture are they part of the maintenance?

Sean, off hand I'd say more trees have been taken down by architects than planted.  More trees have been planted by green, beautification committees, and owners, than archies.  Yes, in my mind, trees are more about and require maintenance more than they are about design.  I think to most architects, when a tree effects strategy or dictates too specific or narrow of a shot range, the archie is inclined to want to take the tree out, knowing full well that trees are not permanent, subject to weather, growth or disease.  I don't think great architects start with a tree as the primary feature of a golf hole design.  When a tree is prominently in an archies primary design concept, it is rare or forced upon him.  IMHO 

RJ

Perhaps we are looking at this from opposite angles.  I am not necesarily talking about what archies do.  It doesn't take an archie to change architecture.  Over the years loads of guys who would not call themselves archies have had a go on countless courses.  I spose we have long reached the stage where it can be difficult to determine what is architecture, what is maintenance and what is agronomy.  These days, all of these things can be altered relatively easily compared to the old days and these changes can radically alter how a course plays and why players make the decisions they do.  To my way of thinking, maintenance and agronomy are in a way sub sets of architecture.  These elements can enhance (even make a course) or detract from the architecture.  If a tree effects how a course plays (especially if it was intended to effect play by whoever planted it) then it is part and parcel of architecture.  That doesn't mean that the tree isn't a maintenance worry or that it bears no relationship to agronomy, but it does mean that the main reason for the tree is to serve some form of architectural function -   be it beauty (which often times includes screening) and/or strategically. 

This is why the controversy over trees will never be settled - we all have different ideas of beauty and what has architectural merit so far as the strategy of a hole is concerned.  So, how do folks get around it?  They attack the issue from the agronomy angle - which is legit, but I often wonder how many trees are pulled down with the "problem" trees.  Don't get me wrong, I am not a big fan of the vast majority of trees I see on courses and the ones put in for safety reasons tend to be the ones I especially despise.  I would feel safer if I could see who and what was coming rather than being blinded by what are usually hideous trees.   

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam,

Apparently, I'm not alone in thinking it was a terrific tournament.
Other contributors to this site felt the same way.

One also can't discount the "Tiger" factor and the fact that when he's not there or out of the running, audiences disappear.

After double bogeying # 16, if Trevor doesn't get it up and down on # 17, the excitement would have increased dramatically.

Did you see the expression on his face after he struck his tee shot on # 18 ?

It was one of GREAT relief.

A bogey on # 17 and an errant tee shot on # 18 would have had viewers riveted to their chairs.

Which was more exciting, Tiger's 12 shot romp, or this years tournament ?

[Phil Benedict]

I find myself in the somewhat disconcerting position of agreeing with Patrick.  The scoring was excellent through 3 rounds; had the weather held, the winner would more than likely have shot double digits under par and others would have ended up at around 280.  The Sunday conditions were a bear and scores ballooned as a result.

Certainly through 3 rounds the architecture permitted decent scoring, although no one went really low during a single round.  The conditions prohibited low scoring on Sunday.

I think Augusta went too far with the trees, particularly on 11, 15 and 17; the lenghthening of 7 is an abomination because it disrupts the flow of the round in tournament play; and the first cut is stupid.  These are not small sins but good scoring is still possible in benign conditions, as Trevor and others demonstrated for 3 rounds this year.

[Adam Clayman]

Pat, You are not alone, but, there are also many who feel the opposite. More so this year than any year in the past.

The excitement created by the game is inherent. My gist (and I believe others) is that in years past, the architecture added another dimension to the excitement which is now lacking, or missing.

In the old days, the excitement of golf course would've held up to any weather thrown at the players. Now, if it's too soft or too windy the best golfers in the world struggle to break par. How do you justify that with Dr. Mackenzie's philosophy that a great course allows players, who play well, to shoot very low rounds?
 

[Doug Spets]

Let's go to the record book. This year, there were 19 eagles for the toonamint. Most, if not all the write-ups for the toonamint that I have read, bring up 1997 (32 eagles), 1999 (29) and 2004 (30) as examples of the way "Augusta used to play".

But what about 1998 (17 eagles)? Or 1988 (13)? Or 1979 (11)? Were those terrible, awful Masters that bored everyone to tears? I don't think so...and I doubt the columnists wrote that at the time.

One aspect rarely talked about in regard to the Masters is the style of play amongst today's tour pros. As Nicklaus pointed out more than a decade ago, they are of the mind-set that places more importance on consistency and paychecks than winning. Now...when they get to Augusta, are we to expect them to abandon what's been drilled into their heads since they were juniors and all of a sudden become swashbucklers? Sure, there are some...but there are probably many more "don't take chances" players out on tour now than there were 20+ years ago.

Maybe we are all a little more bored than we used to because our attention spans get smaller and smaller every year.   Or am I just speaking for myself?

[Brent Hutto]

Doug,

Was Nicklaus a swashbuckler? I didn't watch him in his prime but I seem to recall him preaching the value of hitting fairways and the proper (safe) sections of greens and letting your putter decide the rest. That could just as easily describe Trevor Immelman's game.

[Doug Spets]

Brent.....

I guess I was referring more to the fiery Spaniard with the swashbuckler analogy.

I wasn't referring to Nicklaus as a swashbuckler...but was using his old quote about players brought up with the mindset that doesn't always include a huge thirst to win, particularly when it means taking more risks.  That mindset, if it exists as Nicklaus postulated, has probably changed the face of major tournament golf as much, if not more, than changes in architecture in the last 20 years.

Plodders win, gamblers win, bombers win, and short hitters win at ANGC. The weather changes from year to year, as does the course.  The Masters is the Masters...and people who think pros are going to start wanting to win the Players rather than the Masters due to the changes in the golf course are smokin some real good stuff.

[tlavin]

Brent.....

I guess I was referring more to the fiery Spaniard with the swashbuckler analogy.

I wasn't referring to Nicklaus as a swashbuckler...but was using his old quote about players brought up with the mindset that doesn't always include a huge thirst to win, particularly when it means taking more risks.  That mindset, if it exists as Nicklaus postulated, has probably changed the face of major tournament golf as much, if not more, than changes in architecture in the last 20 years.

Plodders win, gamblers win, bombers win, and short hitters win at ANGC. The weather changes from year to year, as does the course.  The Masters is the Masters...and people who think pros are going to start wanting to win the Players rather than the Masters due to the changes in the golf course are smokin some real good stuff.

Doug,

You best be careful.  You don't want to gain a reputation for clear thinking when it comes to the shrine in Georgia.

[Lou_Duran]

I ended up going out for pizza and watching it on DVR upon return.

Zip, zip, shot, putt, zip, zip, putt, zip, zip, missed putt, zip, zip, zip, zip, zip....

That's probably as good an illustration as anything else.

GP,

Are you bitter or something, you bible thumpin', gun totin' Pennsylvanian?    It is unfortunate that you don't possess the necessities to perceive the complexities and nuances of the modernized ANGC; changes which were instituted with the greatest sensitivities and progressive conciousness of its highly educated, experienced leadership acting solely in the selfless interest of what is best for the game.          

RJD,

I loved the tournament.  It was a nice respite from doing taxes; watched all four days of it.  Young Trevor hit some really great short shots and drove the ball so well.  Too bad no one pushed him.  Neither Tiger or Phil putted to their standards or it may have been a very exciting last nine.

As to the gca, this is a shameless solicitation to anyone who can arrange a round for me at Augusta National.  Any time.  Reward offered!  There are only two other courses in the world I can think of that I would drop everything and incur major $$$$$ to play.

If I was a member, I would be concerned that some of the "old" back tees were not saved.  But, I suspect, most members don't play the back tees anyways so perhaps this too is a moot point.
 
   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam,

I justify it by saying that AM never envisioned golfers hitting the ball 350 yards with their driver.

Nor did he envision golfers hitting wedges into # 15 or # 18, and, that's after those holes were lengthened from their original yardage.

You have to context AM's thoughts on design in the era he was familiar with, not an era that he never dreamed of in his wildest imagination.

And, ANGC is still a WIDE golf course.

I don't think you can make a comprehensive judgement based on a day where unusual conditions prevailed.