Is ANGC narrowing justified?

[Garland Bayley]

According to GD, ANGC believes they are justified in narrowing ANGC for the Masters, because the new technology has the players hitting the ball straighter.

Jack and Arnie take issue with this, because they are ruining the angles of attack that Bobby Jones and Alister McKenzie worked so hard to create.

Answers

Yes 2
The public(as represented by JN), SS

Qualified yes 2
TG, DS

Qualified no 1
JM

No 1
JT

[Jeff_Mingay]

FORCING specific shots is the antithesis of MacKenzie's and Jones' original architecture at Augusta National. Period. And, narrow courses FORCE specific shots.

If anything, I'd like to see Hootie stop claiming that the changes are actually restoring the original architectural intent at certain holes, because that's clearly not the case.

Take the 11th hole for example...

Look at the orientation of the green there. It's clear that an advantage is gained by driving down the right side of the hole. (I recall that shortly after the "second cut" was introduced, shifting the fairway WAY left, Woods purposely drove into the rough down the right side.)

From the right side, the approach is played into the length of the green surface. And, aside from that big bump just in front of the green, the entrance to the putting surface is open from that angle. Problem now is, with the additional of those goofy little pine trees, there is no right side of the eleventh hole!  

That forest of absurd looking trees FORCES the tee shot left. There's nowhere else to drive it. In turn, players are FORCED to play over the pond and across the green surface. There's no other option.

MacKenzie and Jones weren't into FORCING specific shots. We know that.

Is the narrowing of the course justified in response to the way the best players in the game are golfing these days? I guess the powers-that-be at Augusta National can do whatever they want. It's their course. And their tournament.

Just stop with the rhetoric about restoring MacKenzie's and Jones' original intent.

[Tim Gavrich]

The Men of the Masters just want to defend par, for fear of having their tournament thought of as the lowest-scoring major.  Though I've never played the course, I am inclined to agree that some of the playing angles have been removed, but it might have been inevitable.  In order to leave the playing angles, the Masters people would be automatically sacrificing shots to the entire field.

But, call me crazy, what if instead of adding trees on the sides of some holes, they put one or two in the middles of a couple fairways, to encourage risk taking.  Case in point, #11.  Say we get rid of all the trees they've added on the right.  Then, we put a small group of tall trees in the fairway, leaving roughly one-third on the right, one sixth taken up by the trees, and the other half to the left.  This way, we preserve the playing angles, and present a decision.

Would Mackenzie compromise with something like this in order to keep the intended strategy of many of the holes?  As I see it, it's a better option than just pinching all the corridors.

[redanman]

As posted elsewhere:

Is The Masters® still relevant?

Should ANGC® still be considered a Classical course?

Meet Dr. Fronk-en-steen, 2006® edition.

Am I alone in finding The Masters® less compelling each year. (I'm serious on this one question.)

[Garland Bayley]

Does what I am reading here say that if we don't bifurcate with the ball, we will end up bifucating the golf courses into those for pro tour events and those for the rest of us?

[Doug Siebert]

I'm starting to think that the more they screw up ANGC and the Masters, the better!

It will just serve to drive home the point about how much technology is changing the game.

Its not as though they can't chop down the trees, mow the rough, and restore the old tees the day the USGA rolls back the ball or Hootie decides to do it on his own.

[Jim Nugent]

I'm starting to think that the more they screw up ANGC and the Masters, the better!

It will just serve to drive home the point about how much technology is changing the game.

Its not as though they can't chop down the trees, mow the rough, and restore the old tees the day the USGA rolls back the ball or Hootie decides to do it on his own.

I wonder how much of the golfing public or audience thinks ANGC  and the Masters are getting screwed up.  My guess is not much.  They are more concerned with how well Tiger Woods is doing than finer points of GCA.  

More generally, how much does runaway technology really bother the masses?  My hunch is they see longer straigther drives, and bless the new balls and shafts.  

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

In that case, it really doesn't matter what Jack and Arnie think. Hootie has bigger fish to fry (or perhaps indoctrinate).

[Jason Topp]

I found both Golf Digest articles on the course changes to be very well thought out and well written.  Ron Whitten attacks the changes using the same themes we have talked about many times and does so effectively.  

Another author wrote a thoughtful article defending the changes.  He recognizes all of the criticisms we raise, but argues that the changes are necessary to identify the best player in the field, given todays technology and increased accuracy.  He argues that it is necessary to narrow fairways to make driving accuracy an important test in todays game and that angles to the pin no longer matter because of the ability of players to hit high long shots that stop.  He acknowledges the negative impact the changes have on the average player and the departure the current changes are from the design intent of Mackenzie and Jones.  Nonetheless, he argues that, as a test for major championship golf, the changes are largely a good thing.

I encourage all to read both articles.  It is refreshing to read a defense of the changes that is honest and well thought out, even if I disagree with the conclusion.

[Bryan Drennon]

I'd just be happy if the referred to changes as "the-rest-of-the-field proofing" instead of "Tiger proofing". If they keep backing it up, he'll win it every other year until he retires. If they want "Tiger proof" it, play the tournament from the member tees. Then he'd only win it every 3rd year .

[Scott Stearns]

Guys, if the field averages 319 yards/drive, how many choices are there?

without the trees, the only choice is where the player wants to hit wedge from---left or right.

to those who think the tournament is less compelling--have you been watching the past two years?  a playoff and a one shot victory--not bad.  and oh, Els shot 67 on 2004 the last day to finish second

[Jim Nugent]

to those who think the tournament is less compelling--have you been watching the past two years?  a playoff and a one shot victory--not bad.  and oh, Els shot 67 on 2004 the last day to finish second

That's right, Scott, and Phil played his last nine in 2004 in 31, supposedly impossible with the course changes.  And in 2003 Weir also won in a playoff.  And two years in a row now a 15+ foot birdie putt on the final hole has won the tournament.