In the ANGC thread, Jim Thompson replied:
"How 'bout because it is a one dimensional, ultra linear, non-strategic, execution based, over dressed, over greened, pimped out, tree riddle, over grown pine grove which, now serves to remind us that great greens cannot carry the full burden of a golf course!"
I understand the sentiment, especially when all those factors are put together, but wonder what great tournament course isn't mostly "execution based?" And, does ANGC have less strategy now than say, Pine Valley, rightfully held up as a great course?
Three questions:
1. - What percent of a courses quality should be related to executing various shots? Golly, wouldn't it be about 90% skill and 10% strategy almost anywhere? And isn't strategy successful ONLY when accompanied by execution? (How many times have you hit an iron off the tee, only to hit that OB?)
2. - Has the ANGC strategy changed for the worse? Cases in point -
a) Playing to the right part of the green has always been the major thing at Augusta. What has added length changed about that?
b) The openess led to one strategy off the tee - bomb it, and the long hitters (almost) always win. Does the new rough and narrowness actually introduce tee shot strategies over what the course once was, in tempting players to throttle back a few tee shots and giving better design balance to rewarding accuracy? Isn't that a better thing for a tournament based course?
c) Some changes now balance the reward of fade and draw more than before. Isn't that a better thing for a tournament based course?
3 - Can a "strategy" be restored to match today's technology while substantially changing the original design elements/physcal features of the hole?
Case in point is the addition of rough and trees on the right of 13 at ANGC. When designed as a sub 500 yard par 5, players had a strategic tee shot choice -
a) Draw near the creek to shorten to a 450 or so par 4, reachable with a long iron, or
b) Play safe, well wide of the creek to a 50 yard fw, with an extra 25 yards or so left to green that made it questionable whether you could get there, esp. with the hanging lie.
Fast forward to 2005, with a 535 yard 13th with the green and creek substantially the same.
The tee shot offers a bit less choice.
a)The draw around the corner still flirts with the creek and leaves about 200 yards - which is now a six iron or so.
b) With a hanging lie rough and trees now on the right side, there is less "option" to "play safe" other than guarding against an overdraw.
So what would be the results if no trees were added right?
1 - The hanging lie is probably gone, since lower fw cuts allow the ball to roll back down the hill. Some players might use the contour as part of strategy to hit a "safe draw" using contours to get more distance.
2- The shot will still be an iron of only 210 - 225 yds for todays pros. Playing safe away from the creek adds 10-20 yards and 1-2 clubs, and possibly no strokes, while taking a two stroke penalty out of play.
That sounds like too much reward for taking the hazard out of play to me.
The possible results with rough, hanging lie and a few trees possibly ie to "restore" a reduced chance of getting to the green in two, esp. if a tree forces a layup. The net result is that the risk of playing near the creek with a draw around the corner is rewarded more. This is as the hole was strategically intended to play, no?
Aside from a dream that the ball never went further than it did in (you pick the year) and that no course ever deviates from its original (or ultimate form in (you pick the year)), do some of the changes at Augusta - the one course in the world that should be designed for a tournament event exclusively, and the one with a heritage of almost constant change- make any sense?
Do the changes on this hole "restore" the intent of Jones and MacKenzie even while altering its form? If not, what would?