Question posed off the first tee at Augusta

[Jason Topp]

After watching player after player hit wayward tee shots off number 1, I wondered why no one hit 3 wood off the tee.  Using a 3 wood allowed the player to hit a comfortable tee shot to a very wide fairway, thereby leaving around 185 in to a green with a difficult hole location.  A  professional is going to make 4 nearly every time when facing such an approach.

By contrast, driver forced the player to squeeze the tee shot between the bunker and the trees with the resulting reward being a shorter iron to a very difficult hole location.   Player after player went left off the tee or right into the bunker.  Even those who made 4 went through a lot of stress to do so. 

As far as I could see, one player among the televised leaders hit a 3 wood off #1 - Mickelson.

I have heard the changes to #1 criticized as taking strategy out of the hole.  It seemed to me that Mickelson gained a big advantage over the other leaders by making a better decision off the first tee.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think that was pressure you saw rather than tight landing area.

[Tim_Cronin]

Most top players think power before strategy. Mickelson sometimes overthinks – remember Doral a few years ago? – but he thinks. So did player with power: Nicklaus. The difference is that Mickelson gambles like Palmer at times, and occasionally – today on the 13th – it pays off. Would have been interesting to see Phil and Jack dueling with both in their primes.

That first fairway is very generous before the bunker impinges, and there's enough distance from the edge of the hill as well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

A 3-wood won't get the golfer to the top of the hill, it would leave them with a blind shot into the first green.

If the guys who do this for a living, the best players in the world, the PGA Tour Pros don't do something, you can bet that they're right.

Was the wind in their face on the 1st tee ?

[Jason Topp]

I think that was pressure you saw rather than tight landing area.

It definitely was pressure but that was what made the choice more interesting.  A 3 wood takes nearly all the pressure off the tee shot.

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

A 3-wood won't get the golfer to the top of the hill, it would leave them with a blind shot into the first green.

If the guys who do this for a living, the best players in the world, the PGA Tour Pros don't do something, you can bet that they're right.

Was in their face on the 1st tee ?

Patrick:

You know the hole better than me, but Mickelson left himself with 185.  Even if that shot is blind, I have to think that a player is not going to do much better to that pin from a 145 visible shot than he will from a 185 yard blind shot.

Do you really think that tour pros always make good decisions, particularly under pressure?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

A 3-wood won't get the golfer to the top of the hill, it would leave them with a blind shot into the first green.

If the guys who do this for a living, the best players in the world, the PGA Tour Pros don't do something, you can bet that they're right.

Was in their face on the 1st tee ?

Patrick:

You know the hole better than me, but Mickelson left himself with 185.  Even if that shot is blind, I have to think that a player is not going to do much better to that pin from a 145 visible shot than he will from a 185 yard blind shot.

Do you really think that tour pros always make good decisions, particularly under pressure?

Systemically, absolutely.
But, individual Pros have been known to make mistakes.

But, is the mistake one of planning or execution ?

Crenshaw lays up on # 13 and # 15 and makes birdies.
If he two putted for pars and lost the tournament would it have been the right strategy ?

Do results alone dictate the wisdom of the strategy ?

If so, and two pros from identical locations choose differing methods of approach and one is successful and the other fails due to a poorly hit shot does that mean that THAT strategy was flawed ?

[Sean Leary]

Jason,

A 3-wood won't get the golfer to the top of the hill, it would leave them with a blind shot into the first green.

If the guys who do this for a living, the best players in the world, the PGA Tour Pros don't do something, you can bet that they're right.

Was in their face on the 1st tee ?

Patrick:

You know the hole better than me, but Mickelson left himself with 185.  Even if that shot is blind, I have to think that a player is not going to do much better to that pin from a 145 visible shot than he will from a 185 yard blind shot.

Do you really think that tour pros always make good decisions, particularly under pressure?

Phil is REALLY long with his 3 wood. Many others would have been significantly farther back.

[Jason Topp]

But, is the mistake one of planning or execution ?

[/b][/size][/color]

[/quote]

Both.  You are correct that it is folly to judge a strategic decision in retrospect based solely on the results of one player.  However, a pretty large body of evidence over the last few years demonstrates that hitting driver off that tee carries more risk than it would at first appear and that laying up with a 3 wood might yield better results for the nervous player.

My point, however, was intended to be about the golf hole.  Many have bashed the changes to number 1 as destroying strategic options because long hitters used to be able to carry the bunker on the right in order to obtain a better angle to the green and a short approach.  

It seems to me that the criticism is wrong.  Lengthening of the hole as well as enlarging the bunker has created a different set of options that may be more interesting than the shorter version of the hole.

[John Moore II]

I think that was pressure you saw rather than tight landing area.

It definitely was pressure but that was what made the choice more interesting.  A 3 wood takes nearly all the pressure off the tee shot.

Not really. I've played a pretty high number of tournaments and its not really comforting to hit a 3 wood or an iron off the first tee. That driver up nice and high on a tee looks really good when your hands are shaking. And don't kid yourself, everyone in those last 5 or 6 groups had some shaking and sweaty hands on the first tee. In cases like that, it can seem a lot easier to hit the driver, even if it goes into the timber, at least it got airborne.

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

A 3-wood won't get the golfer to the top of the hill, it would leave them with a blind shot into the first green.

If the guys who do this for a living, the best players in the world, the PGA Tour Pros don't do something, you can bet that they're right.

Was in their face on the 1st tee ?

Patrick:

You know the hole better than me, but Mickelson left himself with 185.  Even if that shot is blind, I have to think that a player is not going to do much better to that pin from a 145 visible shot than he will from a 185 yard blind shot.

Do you really think that tour pros always make good decisions, particularly under pressure?

Phil is REALLY long with his 3 wood. Many others would have been significantly farther back.

Everyone seemed to be able to hit it in the bunker from the tee using driver.

I did some measuring on Google Maps.  It is approximately 165 yards from the back of the bunker to the middle of the green.  Short of the bunker, the fairway is 43 yards wide.  Next to the bunker it is 28 yards with (as I recall) a pretty significant sideslope.  The bunker starts at about 275 yards off the tee (significantly uphill) and it takes 310 to carry it.  

If I were playing, I would consider hitting a club that guarantees me I will not go in that bunker (which appears to be 275 uphill yards from the back of the tee) but gets me within 200 yards of the pin.  I think nearly everyone in the field could hit 3 wood into that area.  I do not recall there being much, if any headwind off that tee.  

[Jason Topp]

I think that was pressure you saw rather than tight landing area.

It definitely was pressure but that was what made the choice more interesting.  A 3 wood takes nearly all the pressure off the tee shot.

Not really. I've played a pretty high number of tournaments and its not really comforting to hit a 3 wood or an iron off the first tee. That driver up nice and high on a tee looks really good when your hands are shaking. And don't kid yourself, everyone in those last 5 or 6 groups had some shaking and sweaty hands on the first tee. In cases like that, it can seem a lot easier to hit the driver, even if it goes into the timber, at least it got airborne.

John:

I understand that perspective, but do you really think players near the lead didn't think they could get a 3 wood airborne?  If not then the hole is only more interesting in its current configuration. 

[John Moore II]

I think that was pressure you saw rather than tight landing area.

It definitely was pressure but that was what made the choice more interesting.  A 3 wood takes nearly all the pressure off the tee shot.

Not really. I've played a pretty high number of tournaments and its not really comforting to hit a 3 wood or an iron off the first tee. That driver up nice and high on a tee looks really good when your hands are shaking. And don't kid yourself, everyone in those last 5 or 6 groups had some shaking and sweaty hands on the first tee. In cases like that, it can seem a lot easier to hit the driver, even if it goes into the timber, at least it got airborne.

John:

I understand that perspective, but do you really think players near the lead didn't think they could get a 3 wood airborne?  If not then the hole is only more interesting in its current configuration. 

I don't think the doubted that they could get the ball in the air, exactly. But with nerves going and hands shaking, etc., like you have on the first tee, a driver is a much easier club to hit. It just takes away another of the poor shots that could result from a bad swing up there. I've seen guys, good players, scratch and better handicaps, who have topped and toe shanked 3 woods off the first tee at US Open and Amateur qualifiers. I've seen a good friend of mine who was playing in the PGA Championship hit a pure hosel shank on a par 3 early in the round. These are all very established players. It happens to everyone. Thats why you see the driver come out a lot when it doesn't need to.

[PCCraig]

IMO #1 would be far more stategic for the pro's if the hole was 30+ yards shorter like it used to be. The bunker on the right is REALLY deep but if you carry it the reward of a much better angle to the green is great. No one tries to carry the bunker anymore in the Masters, which was really the original "intent" of the hole, was it not?

[Kyle Harris]

IMO #1 would be far more stategic for the pro's if the hole was 30+ yards shorter like it used to be. The bunker on the right is REALLY deep but if you carry it the reward of a much better angle to the green is great. No one tries to carry the bunker anymore in the Masters, which was really the original "intent" of the hole, was it not?

It appeared that most everyone was missing left though, and not necessarily to their advantage.

Wasn't Choi in the bunker?

Freddy and Tiger were left of left and most others were in the left cut.

[Jason Topp]

IMO #1 would be far more stategic for the pro's if the hole was 30+ yards shorter like it used to be. The bunker on the right is REALLY deep but if you carry it the reward of a much better angle to the green is great. No one tries to carry the bunker anymore in the Masters, which was really the original "intent" of the hole, was it not?

Pat:

I agree that it was the original intent of the hole to place the bunker at a location where long hitters could sometimes carry the bunker and reap the reward of both a short approach and a superior angle.  Many great holes are set up in a similar fashion. 

The only problem I have with such a design is that it gives a huge reward for carry distance - something that is already amply rewarded on the course.  I also do not think there is much mystery at the tour pro level as to how far a particular player can carry the driver - thus the "strategic" decision is more a question of math with modern equipment than anything else. 

As currently designed the hole reminds me a bit of the Open at Hoylake - where Tiger laid up off the tee and accepted 200 yard approaches in order to avoid the pot bunkers.   

[Sean Leary]

IMO #1 would be far more stategic for the pro's if the hole was 30+ yards shorter like it used to be. The bunker on the right is REALLY deep but if you carry it the reward of a much better angle to the green is great. No one tries to carry the bunker anymore in the Masters, which was really the original "intent" of the hole, was it not?

Pat:

I agree that it was the original intent of the hole to place the bunker at a location where long hitters could sometimes carry the bunker and reap the reward of both a short approach and a superior angle.  Many great holes are set up in a similar fashion. 

The only problem I have with such a design is that it gives a huge reward for carry distance - something that is already amply rewarded on the course.  I also do not think there is much mystery at the tour pro level as to how far a particular player can carry the driver - thus the "strategic" decision is more a question of math with modern equipment than anything else. 

As currently designed the hole reminds me a bit of the Open at Hoylake - where Tiger laid up off the tee and accepted 200 yard approaches in order to avoid the pot bunkers.   

Was that the original intent or what happened eventually over the years before the recent lengthening? I really don't know, just asking. Perhaps with distance gains over the years it became an option to fly the bunker?

[Jason Topp]

Was that the original intent or what happened eventually over the years before the recent lengthening? I really don't know, just asking. Perhaps with distance gains over the years it became an option to fly the bunker?

Sean:

One of the cool things about Augusta is that we actually know the original intent behind the holes and the course in general.  "Alister MacKenzie's Masterpiece - The Augusta National Golf Club" by Stan Byrdy documents the history of changes to each hole and quotes commentary from both MacKenzie and Jones. 

With respect to number 1, the commentary of each individual directly contradicts the other.  Jones commented in 1959 that the fairway bunker should ordinarily not pose a problem to the tournament golfer unless the wind is against or the tee shot is mis-hit.  Jones believed that it was only an advantage to hit a tee ball down the right side when the wind is behind and the hole is cut immediately over the left greenside bunker.  Mackenzie opined that the tee shot should skirt the trees on the right side and that it is difficult to make par from anywhere else.  The book does not quote MacKenzie as mentioning the bunker on the right at all.

[Pat Burke]

I think the first post is great.   I was thinking the same thing.
I've played with a good number of these guys, and the majority of them can get the ball pretty close to the bunkers, unless into the wind.
Left with a 175-190 shot, (again, there would be no wind into), you're talking everything from an 8 iron    to a little 5 iron for mortals.
Seems like a stress free way to avoid the debacles you see.  Which is most likely the exact reason I am sitting on my ass typing, and never qualified for the damn thing!  But I do like this question!