Augusta for Me

« **on:** April 04, 2006, 12:21:34 PM »

I know that I may not agree with some changes at Augusta. Then again, they may be awesome forthe course, I am just not sure. Having never played the course I cannot say whether the added length or tree additions is good, bad, or whatever. I cannot say those those things, but I can say this.

I was just watching the Golf Channel, and for one hour I had my eyes glued on Masters Highlights. Every year the one tournament I want to watch is the Masters. And I think to myself, can a course so beautiful as Augusta National ever really go wrong? No matter the trees, the length, the whatever, Augusta could quite possibly be the most beautiful course I have ever seen and no matter what happens to the course it is always my favorite tournament to watch by far. I wish I could watch the Masters every week, because I simply love to see that course. To me, at least, it is a piece of artwork and extremely beautiful course, and I truly believe that no matter the changes the course makes, no other course presents so much beauty to my eyes (maybe tied with CPC but still).

« **Reply #1 on:** April 04, 2006, 12:40:24 PM »

Jordan,

Having been to the Masters in '96 I can say that it is a tournament that will always be special. While I don't necessarily agree with some of the tinkering of the course in recent years (i.e. growing of rough, tree planting, tee angle changes, etc.), I do think the aura of the tournament and club is far from losing its mystique.

Even with the changes the tournament provides excitement. Yes, some of the changes have changed some of the risk/reward elements which I wish were still there, but some shots like on #12 and the 2nd shot on #13 (I could list many more) are still relevant and exciting.

Don't let the powers at be on this website take your awe and love for the tournament away, Jordan. Like you, I have a fascination with the place. I can remember practicing so many shots on the range and putting green as a kid imagining it was to win the Masters or an important shot on the course. The Masters is responsible for me, at 32, still trying to play professionally. Had it not been for Nicklaus in '86, I might have never took to the sport competitively like I did.

Jeff F.

« **Reply #2 on:** April 04, 2006, 04:35:26 PM »

I think the golf course is more hype that Michelle Wie.

Personally, I would rather they renovate the course back to its original intent, and build a new course for the tournament.

« **Reply #3 on:** April 04, 2006, 04:44:51 PM »

Quote from: Jeff_Fortson on April 04, 2006, 12:40:24 PM

Jordan,

Having been to the Masters in '96 I can say that it is a tournament that will always be special. While I don't necessarily agree with some of the tinkering of the course in recent years (i.e. growing of rough, tree planting, tee angle changes, etc.), I do think the aura of the tournament and club is far from losing its mystique.

Even with the changes the tournament provides excitement. Yes, some of the changes have changed some of the risk/reward elements which I wish were still there, but some shots like on #12 and the 2nd shot on #13 (I could list many more) are still relevant and exciting.

Don't let the powers at be on this website take your awe and love for the tournament away, Jordan. Like you, I have a fascination with the place. I can remember practicing so many shots on the range and putting green as a kid imagining it was to win the Masters or an important shot on the course. The Masters is responsible for me, at 32, still trying to play professionally. Had it not been for Nicklaus in '86, I might have never took to the sport competitively like I did.

[size=8x]

DITTO[/COLOR][/SIZE]

« **Reply #4 on:** April 04, 2006, 04:46:52 PM »

Quote from: Craig Sweet on April 04, 2006, 04:35:26 PM

I think the golf course is more hype that Michelle Wie.

Upon what personal experienece do you base the above comment ?

Personally, I would rather they renovate the course back to its original intent,

What was that intent ?

and build a new course for the tournament.

WHERE ?

« **Reply #5 on:** April 04, 2006, 05:01:44 PM »

Jordan, I agree with you. I look forward to the Masters in a way that surpasses any of the other majors. It is just special somehow.

I think this year will tell the tale on the course changes once and for all, because things in GA are much, much drier than they have been for the past 3 or 4 springs. The weather forecast for the next few days is tremendous; conditions should be absolutely perfect, and really, really fast!

The Masters is about spring, the beginning of the real golf year, and great expectations. I think the guys that run that club are smart enough to realize that. I am worried that they have compromised the ability to make up ground on the back nine on Sunday to protect par, but I don't know that. I'd prefer that the trees and rough not be there so that the original angles of play would still be there, but that's not my call.

If somebody can shoot 30 coming in, then the great drama of the tournament will still be there, and everything will be fine. If it isn't, I think that the powers that be will be bright enough to back off at least some of the changes. They change the place constantly anyway. Trees can come out, and rough can be mown.

« **Reply #6 on:** April 04, 2006, 05:06:14 PM »

Quote from: A.G._Crockett on April 04, 2006, 05:01:44 PM

If somebody can shoot 30 coming in, then the great drama of the tournament will still be there, and everything will be fine. If it isn't, I think that the powers that be will be bright enough to back off at least some of the changes. They change the place constantly anyway. Trees can come out, and rough can be mown.

Have any of the birdie holes on the back been changed so much that they are no longer birdie holes? 17 maybe?

« **Reply #7 on:** April 04, 2006, 05:38:21 PM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on April 04, 2006, 12:21:34 PM

...No matter the trees, the length, the whatever, Augusta could quite possibly be the most beautiful course I have ever seen and no matter what happens to the course it is always my favorite tournament to watch by far. I wish I could watch the Masters every week, because I simply love to see that course. To me, at least, it is a piece of artwork and extremely beautiful course, and I truly believe that no matter the changes the course makes, no other course presents so much beauty to my eyes (maybe tied with CPC but still).

IMHO, the course is not particularly beautiful. The plantings of rhodies, azaleas, camellias, etc. are beautiful, but the course looks somewhat unnatural (RTJ, I'm talking about you) and lacking in beauty. So the surrounds are beautiful, but the course no. Look at the fantastic pictures of Friar's Head on this site for course beauty. I would love to go see Friar's Head. Many of the pictures coming out of the Bandon Resort easily surpass ANGC in beauty. There are many such examples that far surpass ANGC.

« **Reply #8 on:** April 04, 2006, 05:49:13 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on April 04, 2006, 05:38:21 PM

Quote from: Jordan Wall on April 04, 2006, 12:21:34 PM
...No matter the trees, the length, the whatever, Augusta could quite possibly be the most beautiful course I have ever seen and no matter what happens to the course it is always my favorite tournament to watch by far. I wish I could watch the Masters every week, because I simply love to see that course. To me, at least, it is a piece of artwork and extremely beautiful course, and I truly believe that no matter the changes the course makes, no other course presents so much beauty to my eyes (maybe tied with CPC but still).
IMHO, the course is not particularly beautiful. The plantings of rhodies, azaleas, camellias, etc. are beautiful, but the course looks somewhat unnatural (RTJ, I'm talking about you) and lacking in beauty. So the surrounds are beautiful, but the course no. Look at the fantastic pictures of Friar's Head on this site for course beauty. I would love to go see Friar's Head. Many of the pictures coming out of the Bandon Resort easily surpass ANGC in beauty. There are many such examples that far surpass ANGC.

Garland,

Have you ever been there?

« **Reply #9 on:** April 04, 2006, 06:00:57 PM »

I have been to none of the places I mentioned. Therefore, I am comparing them by the pictures. I have seen far more of ANGC in pictures (and of course on TV) than I have of the other two.

I guess I could clarify further. I have been to all three geographic locations, but have not been on any of the courses. Bandon wins hands down for the beauty of its location, but then I'm from Oregon.

« **Reply #10 on:** April 04, 2006, 06:09:58 PM »

Quote from: Sean Leary on April 04, 2006, 05:06:14 PM

Quote from: A.G._Crockett on April 04, 2006, 05:01:44 PM
If somebody can shoot 30 coming in, then the great drama of the tournament will still be there, and everything will be fine. If it isn't, I think that the powers that be will be bright enough to back off at least some of the changes. They change the place constantly anyway. Trees can come out, and rough can be mown.

Have any of the birdie holes on the back been changed so much that they are no longer birdie holes? 17 maybe?

13 and 15 have been changed so they are now no longer Eagle holes.

« **Reply #11 on:** April 04, 2006, 06:15:53 PM »

Ryan,

At 510 and 530 yards you don't think players will be going for it in two?

« **Reply #12 on:** April 04, 2006, 06:19:12 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on April 04, 2006, 05:38:21 PM

IMHO, the course is not particularly beautiful. The plantings of rhodies, azaleas, camellias, etc. are beautiful, but the course looks somewhat unnatural (RTJ, I'm talking about you) and lacking in beauty. So the surrounds are beautiful, but the course no. Look at the fantastic pictures of Friar's Head on this site for course beauty. I would love to go see Friar's Head. Many of the pictures coming out of the Bandon Resort easily surpass ANGC in beauty. There are many such examples that far surpass ANGC.

Quote

It's like discussing whether an apple tastes better than an orange (or which is more beautiful).

« **Reply #13 on:** April 04, 2006, 06:21:31 PM »

Bill -

I'm VERY interested to see the guys play this year assuming the conditions stay dry, but I was disappointed to see how many players were laying up in last year's event (most notably on 13...15 not as much)

Tiger with a wedge in 1997 was a bit much, sure...but where are the images of Ernie Els coming up short on 13?

« **Reply #14 on:** April 04, 2006, 06:32:06 PM »

Quote from: Voytek Wilczak on April 04, 2006, 06:19:12 PM

It's like discussing whether an apple tastes better than an orange (or which is more beautiful).

Not quite. It is like discussing whether an apple hanging naturally on a tree looks more attractive than a watermelon being grown in a box so it will pack and ship better.
Think of those butt ugly bunkers at ANGC as being the watermelons in the box.

« **Reply #15 on:** April 04, 2006, 06:44:08 PM »

I don't understand how people can think that 13 and 15 will play that much differently. I think too many people have short memories. Back in the '80's, players would have to hit a good tee shot to have a reasonable go at them. In '85, how can you forget Curtis Strange banging his cleek into both of those greens and coming up short. I remember Andy Bean telling a story about having to make a decision between 1 iron and 3 wood into 15. Didn't Nicklaus hit 1-iron into 15 in 1986? Wake up people, 20-25 years ago, players had to hit decent tee shots to have the decision, and they weren't regularly banging mid-irons into those greens.

Let's take a look at driving distance stats in the last 25 years. Dan Pohl leading around 275 in the mid-80's, and the top guys today being around 300+ (or an increase of about 10%). #13 played at 465 for most of those years (I just double checked that with a pairing sheet from 1985). 465 plus 10% is 511.50 yards. Seems pretty reasonable to me to keep it playing the same.

Before you condemn them, can't we agree that they've changed some of the yardages to keep players hitting the same clubs into holes that they did in the past? Did we complain that there weren't enough eagles back in the 1980's? I think we may see more drama because players will have more difficult shots into those greens with longer clubs. Think of Billy Joe Patton, Curtis Strange, Seve Ballesteros, et al having their hopes dashed because of relatively long shots into those holes.

Hopefully we'll thank them on Sunday for giving us back a little bit of the past.

« **Reply #16 on:** April 04, 2006, 06:53:19 PM »

Doug,

I think it is a gross error in justification if we accept that just because they are keeping the same clubs in the golfers hands, that it's the right thing to do.

By that logic, any hole that was Driver-4 iron for the tour guys 30 years ago (at perhaps 440 yards) should now be lengthened to 525 yards in order to maintain the same club.

Don't get me wrong, I still look forward to the Masters more than any other golf telecast, and I will always love it...but when the best way to create excitement is to set the pins in the accessible spots and let the boys take target practice, then it becomes a bit more predictable.

I don't mind seeing Tiger going after 15 with a 6 iron if that means I can see Luke Donald sweating over a 3 wood down by 2 on Sunday. Unfortunately, Luke's laying up.

« **Reply #17 on:** April 04, 2006, 07:17:19 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on April 04, 2006, 06:32:06 PM

Quote from: Voytek Wilczak on April 04, 2006, 06:19:12 PM
It's like discussing whether an apple tastes better than an orange (or which is more beautiful).
Not quite. It is like discussing whether an apple hanging naturally on a tree looks more attractive than a watermelon being grown in a box so it will pack and ship better.
Think of those butt ugly bunkers at ANGC as being the watermelons in the box.

Following this logic, I can make an argument that the sod-walled pot bunkers on many Scottish courses are unnatural and butt-ugly.

And guess what?

It would be a TRUE statement!

« **Reply #18 on:** April 04, 2006, 07:20:33 PM »

Quote from: Ryan Simper on April 04, 2006, 06:53:19 PM

I don't mind seeing Tiger going after 15 with a 6 iron if that means I can see Luke Donald sweating over a 3 wood down by 2 on Sunday. Unfortunately, Luke's laying up.

IMHO, being able to go for a par-5 in two should be a privelege and not a right. It is a reward for having the athletic ability to hit the ball farther than most and negotiate more potential hazards due to one's length. I think going for 13 and 15 at ANGC shouldn't be a forgone conclusion for everyone.

Jeff F.

« **Reply #19 on:** April 04, 2006, 07:27:12 PM »

Quote from: Jeff_Fortson on April 04, 2006, 07:20:33 PM

Quote from: Ryan Simper on April 04, 2006, 06:53:19 PM

I don't mind seeing Tiger going after 15 with a 6 iron if that means I can see Luke Donald sweating over a 3 wood down by 2 on Sunday. Unfortunately, Luke's laying up.

IMHO, being able to go for a par-5 in two should be a privelege and not a right. It is a reward for having the athletic ability to hit the ball farther than most and negotiate more potential hazards due to one's length. I think going for 13 and 15 at ANGC shouldn't be a forgone conclusion for everyone.

Jeff F.

As a general rule to apply across ALL golf courses, I agree with you. But, one thing that always made the back nine at ANGC in the Masters so special and exciting to me was the fact that truly ANYTHING could happen. Not so much the case anymore. Even at 485 yards on 13 (1997 length) if you dont hit the fairway, you're not getting there in two. Same with 15.

I doubt we'd be hearing any of the "How far do you think a 3 would go here?" 46 year old Nicklaus '86 stories if the 15th in two was only a privilege reserved for the longest straightest hitters.

As with those that call this now the US Open, I just loved so much the fact that it was different, and now it's not so much the case.

« **Reply #20 on:** April 04, 2006, 07:27:48 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on April 04, 2006, 05:38:21 PM

Quote from: Jordan Wall on April 04, 2006, 12:21:34 PM
...No matter the trees, the length, the whatever, Augusta could quite possibly be the most beautiful course I have ever seen and no matter what happens to the course it is always my favorite tournament to watch by far. I wish I could watch the Masters every week, because I simply love to see that course. To me, at least, it is a piece of artwork and extremely beautiful course, and I truly believe that no matter the changes the course makes, no other course presents so much beauty to my eyes (maybe tied with CPC but still).
IMHO, the course is not particularly beautiful. The plantings of rhodies, azaleas, camellias, etc. are beautiful, but the course looks somewhat unnatural (RTJ, I'm talking about you) and lacking in beauty. So the surrounds are beautiful, but the course no. Look at the fantastic pictures of Friar's Head on this site for course beauty. I would love to go see Friar's Head. Many of the pictures coming out of the Bandon Resort easily surpass ANGC in beauty. There are many such examples that far surpass ANGC.

Garland,
I know it's hard to believe, but Augusta is a manicured version of how the South looks in April and May. It really is. It is a completely different climate than Bandon or Friars Head, and it is lush and thick and green and beautiful. The only way to make the course less beautiful would be to NOT overseed, which would be absurd given the club's calendar.

I know it is strange to say this, but in the South in April, that golf course IS natural to whatever extent that can be said about any golf course. It is at least as natural to its surroundings as the others you mention, and I'd bet that less dirt was moved to shape ANGC than 90% of the courses on the planet. (What has happened SINCE the course was built is a different matter, of course.

)

« **Reply #21 on:** April 04, 2006, 07:45:48 PM »

A.G.,

Does the south have patches of unnaturally white sand spread throughout? The locations for Friar's Head and Bandon Dunes do. If the south had patches of and spread throughout, would they look anything like the bunkers at ANGC? I think not, whereas the patches of sand at Friar's Head and Bandon Dunes resemble the natural environment. Does the pond on 16 at ANGC look anything like a natural pond in that region of the country? I think not. Do the natural pine groves in the south look anything like the sterile looking ones at ANGC? I think not.

I grew up in the country. Perhaps you grew up in the man made surrounds of a city. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we are different beholders.

« **Reply #22 on:** April 04, 2006, 07:56:04 PM »

Quote from: Voytek Wilczak on April 04, 2006, 07:17:19 PM

Quote from: Garland Bayley on April 04, 2006, 06:32:06 PM
Quote from: Voytek Wilczak on April 04, 2006, 06:19:12 PM
It's like discussing whether an apple tastes better than an orange (or which is more beautiful).
Not quite. It is like discussing whether an apple hanging naturally on a tree looks more attractive than a watermelon being grown in a box so it will pack and ship better.
Think of those butt ugly bunkers at ANGC as being the watermelons in the box.

Following this logic, I can make an argument that the sod-walled pot bunkers on many Scottish courses are unnatural and butt-ugly.

And guess what?

It would be a TRUE statement!

Of course they are butt-ugly, but quaint.

« **Reply #23 on:** April 04, 2006, 07:57:44 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on April 04, 2006, 07:45:48 PM

A.G.,

Does the south have patches of unnaturally white sand spread throughout? The locations for Friar's Head and Bandon Dunes do. If the south had patches of and spread throughout, would they look anything like the bunkers at ANGC? I think not, whereas the patches of sand at Friar's Head and Bandon Dunes resemble the natural environment. Does the pond on 16 at ANGC look anything like a natural pond in that region of the country? I think not. Do the natural pine groves in the south look anything like the sterile looking ones at ANGC? I think not.

I grew up in the country. Perhaps you grew up in the man made surrounds of a city. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we are different beholders.

Garland,
I concede the sand. Georgia is a red clay place, so much so that the sand at Cuscowilla is colored to look like clay. Given that the sand in any bunker away from the coast was brought there, I'm not sure how natural it could possibly be.

As to the pond in front of 16, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I think that pond, like most golf course ponds, is man-made, so again I'll concede it isn't natural. I will say that I took my son fishing on Monday in a golf course pond in GA, and we could see the bottom out to 5 or 6 feet. The fish wouldn't bite, but we could see 'em!

I WILL vouch for the pine groves. We actually use pine straw as mulch to keep prevent weeds in flower beds, etc., in the South; in a pine grove, there really isn't any vegetation to speak of on the floor of the grove. That's a fact.

As to my background, I not only grew up and lived most of my life in relatively rural areas, they were all here in the South! I feel like I have a pretty good handle on what things look like down here, but I could be wrong.

« **Reply #24 on:** April 04, 2006, 08:00:45 PM »

The natural pine groves I've seen in GA always have at least some vegetation growing in them besides the pines.

News:

Jordan Wall

Jeff Fortson

Craig Sweet

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

A.G._Crockett

Sean Leary

Garland Bayley

Sean Leary

Garland Bayley

rjsimper

Bill Gayne

Voytek Wilczak

rjsimper

Garland Bayley

Doug Sobieski

rjsimper

Voytek Wilczak

Jeff Fortson

rjsimper

A.G._Crockett

Garland Bayley

Garland Bayley

A.G._Crockett

Garland Bayley