It is very easy to complain but it is much more difficult to come up with a solution.

Quote from: Mike Cirba on April 04, 2006, 01:01:24 PM

Quote from: Jerry Kluger on April 04, 2006, 11:01:45 AM

Which holes have they changed so much that the strategy of the hole as originally designed has been destroyed?

As originally designed, or as it was 20 years ago?

In the case of the latter, 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18.

I suspect the answer to the former would be virtually all of them.

I'm not sure I'd used the word "destroyed".  Instead, I'll go with "significantly altered".  

Mike,

Could you tell us how the strategy on the holes you listed has been destroyed or significantly altered ?

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on April 04, 2006, 01:52:40 PM

Quote from: Mike Cirba on April 04, 2006, 01:01:24 PM

Patrick,

It's been documented by others here and elsewhere but just to state a few obvious examples, on #11 people used to use the right side to attack a left hand pin.  Now it's in the trees.

On #15, people used to use the hill on the right side to sling a drive further down the fairway.  Now it's in the trees.

Mike, the hill on # 15 was not an original feature.  
It was added long after the golf course opened, in 1969.
Why would you object to a restoration vis a vis removing the hill ?

On #7, it used to be a choice of long iron or driver off the tee, trying to get to about 80-100 yards to have a wedge to that sliver of a green.  Now, it's driver off the tee (probably into the new trees), followed by at least 8-iron for all of the field at 450+ yards.

Were long irons used because improvement in I&B allowed golfers to hit the ball longer and as such they could play conservatively and not have to hit a driver ?

On #1 the aggressive play from the tee used to be to challenge the right hand bunker for position, or even carry it.  Now, except for perhaps 2-3 players, that option no longer exists.

That's nonsense.  If I could carry that bunker less than 6 years ago, it's proof positive that it was no longer functional for the best golfers in the world, and, I was told that the bunker had been lengthened, made into a longer carry, when I first played it.

The bunker isn't there for the sole purpose of being a carry option, it's there for the risk-reward with respect to placement of the drive and to penalize an errant drive, not disimilar to the bunker on # 8.[/color]

I could go on but I think you get my point.

I understand your points, but some of them are erroneous, especially # 15 for example.  I'm shocked you didn't applaud the removal of the hill constructed in 1969 on# 15.
But, then again, maybe it's because you're so much younger then I am that you weren't around when the golf course was changed, hence you think that's how it was originally designed  [/color]

Besides, I'm too busy working on re-routing the course.  


I'd be interested to see what you come up with.
I think the routing of the holes is brilliant.
How do you think I'll categorize your version ? [/color]

Patrick: I'm not trying to make a political statement rather I'm asking the question of those who aren't happy with the changes what they would do in order to deal with what technology has done to ANGC and the Masters.  

I was kidding you.

My approach would have been to deal with the technology and not the course.  The Masters is unique as it can call its own shots and if they decided to require drivers with wooden heads and steel shafts there might be complaints but with Arnie and Jack cheering - I don't think you'd see a boycott.

Do you remember when the Pros started hitting 3-woods over the corner of the dogleg on # 13, leaving them 8 irons into that green ?

That act alone justified lengthening the hole to prevent that type of play.

It's not ANGC's fault that hi-tech overwhelmed the architecture, they responded to the reality as best they could, and that's invariably through lengthening as the first step.