At what point do they just skip the Masters?

[RJ_Daley]

Going into Sunday and look at the the players that are even par or better.  Only three by my reckoning could be considered players with average to just under average length.  Sluman, Faxon, Faldo.  It seems to me everyone else at par or better can reach back and rip it 285+ when they need to.  If you look at the field that made the cut, I count 6 or 7 that are only average length.  Look at who isn't in top 17 places down to even par.  I know he is now 50 but, Ben Crenshaw at +14 tied with G. Player???  

If this is to become a long drive and long iron contest, is it possible that those with only average length will come to the conclusion it is futile and skip the event, even if they qualify by having gotten lucky at one of the few tournaments on the schedule where a shorter hitter and good putter and shot maker can still win, like Milwaukee GMO?  If they go ahead with more length to 5 and move back 13 yet another few yards as speculated, why would anyone of shorter length bother to spend a bundle just to go down to Georgia for the big week of hoopla with no chance to win?  Maybe only 25 or so players need even show up? :-/

[TEPaul]

Good topic R.J.

Seems to me there are a ton of different ways of looking at this year's Masters, what the tournament is producing this week in the way of a leaderboard with some kind of specific meaning as to what the course, its architecture, setup, weather conditions etc are contributing to this weeks leaderboard and also what all those things are doing to other types of players.

And additionally how ANGC might react next year or in the future to that leaderboard and most particularly the scores being shot.

To start with the last point first, I, for one, am hoping that ANGC will react next year and in the future intelligently to the scores being shot and the expected winning score. The expected scores appear to be much lower, and will be, than they expected and obviously hoped for. I believe it will take  very intelligent analyses from ANGC (and its architect) to even think to refrain from additional chances simply because the scores are going to be lower than expected.

I think you yourself said that may be largely a factor of the weather and softer than hoped for conditions on the course. And I very much agree with that. It would be poor judgement on ANGC's part, in my opinion, to fail to see why this year's scores will be lower than if the course was much firmer, as you mentioned.

I think a lot of people fail to see exactly what various conditions do to tournament scores at the Tour pro level. Even extremely long courses that are soft "through the green" with relatively receptive greens are a scoring dream to the Tour pros! This is a real indication to me exactly how much longer they are than in the past, both with their drivers and 3 woods and how far they fly them, but particularly the increased distances they can consistently fly every other club in their bag now is what really makes even long and soft courses vulnerable to low scores at the Tour Pro level. I hope ANGC does not fail to truly appreciate the latter fact (increased distance with clubs other than the driver!!).

This fact is interesting because the effect on scoring on every other level of player on long and soft courses is actually the opposite---it always increases expected scores.

So it seems really apparent to me that firm and fast conditions both "through the green" and particularly on the greens and their receptiveness (or lack of it) is by far the best way, and maybe the only way today to control scoring or prevent low scoring at the Tour level! I hope ANGC recognizes this and does not feel the need to get into additional increased lengthening or more architectural changes as a result of this year's scoring alone.

I completely agree with you that if the golf course this year was as firm "through the green" and on the green as was hoped for the scores going into today's last round probably would be just a bit under par for even the leaders.

I'm not a big fan of super micro-managing scoring (or expected scoring) but if a club is going to try to do it, as ANGC is obviously wont to do, it has to be analyzed very carefully and intellengtly, and I hope they will do that.

But back to your point about whether the "new" ANGC will make players who are not bombers stay away in the future--I doubt it!

If the course could have been the ideal firmness both "through the green" and on the greens, I think you would see many more of the shorter, super course managing type of player with good and creative short games coming into contention this week.

The ideal "maintenance meld" did not really happen this week not because of anything ANGC did or didn't do but because Mother Nature just didn't cooperate.

I hope ANGC does not fail to see this and understand what the effects were and why this year.

[John_McMillan]

How does Olazabal come out in your distance measure?

Before the tournament, he was quoted, and noted on this board, as saying the added length to Augusta would make him no longer competitive at the tournament.  At -6, he seems to be finding a way.

[TEPaul]

Whether Olazabal is short or long off the tee at any particular time seems to be somewhat meaningless. He (his career) has already proven that he can win anywhere and certainly on a long course and not even trying to use length off the tee! His win at Firestone (possibly even a scoring record) using only a driving iron should prove that.

Olazabal has already won at the Masters, and a couple of hundred yards is probably not going to take him out of the equation. Most of the secret to ANGC is playing approaches into those greens and recovering really well from semi-mistakes (that everyone will make anyway).

And that is definitely Olazabal's game--always has been! Venturi said yesterday that no one below -7 has a realistic chance of winning. If the players behind Olazabal stumble at all though don't count Olazabal (-6) out yet. He can certainly light it up in last rounds--his career has shown that too!

This could be a fun last round to watch. Olazabal will be out ahead (maybe in the fourth/fifth to last group) and if he lights it up on the front nine and we see when the telecast comes on that's he's going low, he could set something early that might be the number to beat.

[Jeff Fortson]

While I sympathize for the short hitter the harsh reality is that golf has evolved and people must evolve with it.  

The traditions are still there and the history of the game is etched in concrete but the cold hard fact is that to compete at the top level now it is a HUGE advantage to hit the ball over 285 yards.  

Both fitness and techology (equipment and swing technology) have changed the game.  The length of many of the worlds top players is punishing some great courses with wedge into every green.  I believe in putting a cap on how far equipment technology can go but the game of golf, the players, and the plethora of great courses endangered by the long hitter MUST adapt or be rendered obsolete.  

We all like to see little change in things we love, such as golf, but I think that with the proper decisions being made to put a cap on technology, the adjustment of players' fitness, and lengthening of courses to meet the tidal wave of the long ball, the game will be better than ever.  Remember CHANGE can be good!

Jeff F.

[A_Clay_Man]

Doesn't the lengthening give the equip manufactureres a higher bar to attempt to hurdle? In others words, the longer you build em' the better the tech has to become. Like the chicken and the egg, debate it on for millenia.

I still disagree on fundamental principles, restraining the evolution of technology is a negative response. The only substanative solution rests on the builders and designers who create the future courses.

[Ran Morrissett]

RJ,

To quote MacKenzie, "Long driving is not a crime - it is a virtue and is more frequently by skill and grace of motion than by mere force. Long drivers should be rewarded, and as a general rule they should have greater latitude, and not less, than the short drivers."

Thus, while I don't think MacKenzie would be happy with much else there (i.e. how the 17th fairway is narrower at the 300y mark than the 260y mark) , I do think he would be delighted with the leaderboard.

The ability to hit the ball a long way is a great, great talent and one that should be encouraged (within the tight guidelines of equip. restrictions). The rub these days is that the big hitters also possess as good or better short games than the medium/short hitters, which means the medium/short hitters are SOL.

Cheers,

[RJ_Daley]

Would you fellows say that in the universe of the top 200 players now, that more than half are basically incapable of hitting the ball 285+ when they need to?  If so, does that criteria simply bifurcate the pool to the extent that we may have to have the PGA, the Senior PGA and something in the middle, say the SOLPGA?  Perhaps a new right of spring toon-a-mint held at a suitably classic old course dripping with tradition, where special invitations are sent out and the top amatuers are held in esteem and given the invitation to play with the SOLPGA best shot makers.  Any pros with an average driving distance over 280 are disinvited.  :-/

I am being somewhat facecious, but I return to the long range question; where do the large percentage of great players go who will never be able to hit it 285+?  I just think that at some point they give up on the Masters, to the loss of a deep field of contenders.

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

Mark Huxford,

In my humble opinion, you made a very good post!

[Tim_Weiman]

A Clayman:

Do you actually support a never ending process in which equipment manufuacturers and golf course developers keep making the playing field bigger and more expensive?

Can you explain why absolute length is more important than relative length?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

ANGC has always favored the long hitter, especially the long hitter who could putt. But because of the nature of the design - not particularly long - with combination of long, medium and short par-4s, par-5s and par-3s, it was possible for the modest length player to compete. That ballance has been effected by the recent changes. Add the narrowing and a more penal set up - a greater emphasis on trees and rough - and I believe the length gap is magnified. The key to a course like ANGC with such severe green complexes is greens in regualtion, it doesn't matter how good your short game is if you are constantly missing greens you can't win.

Could the 1986 Masters happen today? I have my doubts.

[John_McMillan]

Tim,

I'm not defending it, but the reason absolute vs relative length works from a marketing point of view (sells club and puts $$ on the manufacturer's bottom line), is that absolute length hides a player's ability, and makes him feel he is a better player than he is.  Heck, I can probably drive it nearly as far as Ben Hogan could in his prime.  There's probably some psychological level at which I really enjoy this.

[Tim_Weiman]

John,

I understand the marketing perspective, but I'd rather speak up for the average guy.  He wants to play more not pay more.