With full appreciation (which I share) that most GCAers think Augusta National has been "ruined" by the changes over the past few years since Tiger's 1997 win, I think this year's tournament may have redeemed the decisions that created those changes.

The reality is that these guys really ARE good.  The added length has them hitting shots into greens not seen for years.  Scoring well still requires great creativity, but now strength and courage are also required.  

Seeing Zach Johnson the most likely winner (he's in at +1, Tiger missed at 16, Justin Rose has blown up on 17) means that a relatively short hitter can still win.  The scores are as high this year as they are in large part because of the cold weather, the wind and the very firm golf course.  The relative lack of rough has made a lot of exciting recoveries possible.

The final round has been as entertaining and exciting as I can remember.  So has Hootie been redeemed?

I'm perfectly fine with Zach Johnson coming out on top. He's a good player and he played the best golf today.

But how is Hootie redeemed by the world's #56 player winning the Masters?

I dont mind the added length...it is the trees I find abominable!  I think with these firm and fast conditions, ANGC would have been a beast in any era, with any equipment.

Congrats Zach....you played the best and deserved it!  

Tommy, what about Devil's Advocacy don't you understand?

Protecting our ass..are we?

Quote from: Shivas Schmidt on April 08, 2007, 10:08:04 PM

Tommy, what about Devil's Advocacy don't you understand?

Protecting our ass..are we?

I don't understand....First Tommy, now you somehow are insinuating that Shiv has been naughty. For once in a long while on here, there's a lot of discussion concerning architecture. If the premises that Shiv is presenting is a bunch of hooey, won't well thought discussion bear that out? Tell me, why the remarks? John? Tommy?

Joe

Terry,
You and about three or four others on this website think that. The rest of the world thinks that Tom Fazio has ruined one of the great championship courses the sport has ever known. I think you of all people should realize that.

Honestly, I think the mindset of those three or four describe your length of golf architectural knowledge or intellect. I think you need to all get over yourselves.

I can understand, everyone should have their opinion, but frankly after reading some of the mindset--it would seem that you have some other sort of agenda. What kind of agenda, I don't know, nor want to.

I was glued to the TV all afternoon, really enjoyed the lead changes, loved the way risk has been re-introduced to risk-reward holes that were on the verge of becoming pushovers, heard roars from all over the course all afternoon, watched a good young player make the shots and the putts he needed to make when others could not/did not, and now I find I'm intellectually deficient, should get over myself and have some other agenda.

Man, I gotta stop enjoying myself.

Golf Course design aside, Zach Johnson overtook an impressive leaderboard on Sunday. It was not filled with a bunch of no-names.

Rick

I enjoyed it too.  What is wrong with me?

Can't wait to see what Geoff Shack says--I'm sure he'll have found a way to be depressed by yesterday's events.....

I've never been one to give Shack must respect so let me say this...His live blog of the Masters is a delight to read.  I believe he was having fun watching the tournament.  I didn't go to his site until after the tournament was over because as usual I was monitoring the goings on here.  Shacks place looked like more fun for a guy who loves great golf to spend his time and next year I will give it a go in real time.

Terry,
You and about three or four others on this website think that. The rest of the world thinks that Tom Fazio has ruined one of the great championship courses the sport has ever known. I think you of all people should realize that.

Honestly, I think the mindset of those three or four describe your length of golf architectural knowledge or intellect. I think you need to all get over yourselves.

I can understand, everyone should have their opinion, but frankly after reading some of the mindset--it would seem that you have some other sort of agenda. What kind of agenda, I don't know, nor want to.

I'll take that as a shot across the bow and tell you that I have no agenda whatsoever.  I personally am not a fan of what Fazio did at Augusta.  It offends my personal sensibilities, especially the tree planting.  It goes against everything that I know (admittedly limited, my friend) about golf course architecture.  You don't know it, but I have successfully advocated the removal of nearly 1.000 trees from Beverly and Olympia Fields in order to open up the golf course, for play and agronomic purposes.

My issue vis a vis the Masters is that ANGC is a different breed of cat.  While I would like to share your "Augusta is a shrine" point of view, there is no doubt that those in control of the club view it as a grass-bound television studio on which they host a major championship that brings in maybe $100 million (I have no idea, really) of revenue.  THIS IS ABOUT MONEY.  THIS IS ABOUT MONEY.  

Shinnecock, Chicago Golf, Shoreacres and the other shrines of golf are not in the same situation as Augusta National.  You might think it's a shame that they would hire Fazio to desecrate those hallowed grounds, and you know what, you might be right.  But it is THEIR GOLF COURSE AND THEIR TOURNAMENT.  This is a business decision and they don't want their brand damaged by scoring that goes lower and lower.  In the absence of any arrest of technology, they hired Fazio and he put up the goalpost Georgia pines and extended the tee boxes.  

My whole point on this issue this past weekend is that I believed that the golf course was still great theater on television.  I believe that there is nothing wrong with making it hard for professionals to win the most coveted blazer in humanity.  Since it is undeniably the goal of those in control of the masters (the captains of industry as Tom Wolfe would call them) to stiffen the golf course and keep the scores down, I wanted to see what it would be like if their plan actually succeeded.  This weekend, they finally got the weather that one needs if you want to really test the professionals.  If the weather is balmy next year, you'll get all the birdies and eagles you want, but this year it was like a US Open and I'm okay with that.

So, no, I don't have a Fazio agenda.  If anything, I'm a Doak guy.  My favorite designs are Pacific Dunes and Sand Hills.  My favorites in your neck of the woods are LACC and the Riv.  I love classic golf, but the Masters isn't classic golf.  It's big business.  To draw a sporting comparison, I would prefer the Final Four to be staged in Cameron Indoor Fieldhouse, but the economics bring it to a football stadium every year.

ANGC is a shrine to many, but to those in control of the Masters, it is the money making machinery that allows the captains of industry to belong to a shrine for virtually no money.

No, Mark, it is nothing like a US Open course and if it ever becomes so it will be because the USGA starts to choose and set up its courses like Augusta and not vice versa!

To me, the USGA set-up is defined by (in approximate order of significance):  heavy rough lining the fairways; heavy rough surrounding the greens; smallish, flattish greens; long forced carries off the tee; and narrow fairways.  Augusta doesn't have that, and is unlikely to ever do so, IMHO.

Vis a vis the fairway to green part, my opinion is that many on this site grossly over-value the concept of fairway width and alternative playing corridors.  The latter are few and far between, even on the Old Course.  There are preferred playing channels there just as there are and alwyas have been at Augusta.  Most of the changes that bring about apolplexy on this site (i.e. trees, semi-rough) are minor ones which tend to affect bailout areas rather than the strategic options available to the player.  They give fractional penalties to the weak of mind or physical ability, which is good.

Thanks for supplying a voice of reason and not hysteria.

Was the original concept of ANGC on that piece of land - a fertile former nursery a bad idea doomed to fail?  It seems that the antithesis of the needed land to encourage a ground-game enhancing course like the concept behind TOC may have been chosen yielding an unsustainable idea.

Just musing.  
After snoozing this past weekend.

Terry:

How is the "brand name" of Augusta diminished with "lower and lower" scores? I can understand certain people have egos and are upset when a very small handul of players hit 9-iron or PW to the former 11th hole. Over reaction is clearly what motivated such drastic changes.

Frankly, the club has overreacted to what took place. When Nicklaus won in '65 with 271 the winning score in '66 was even par. The club didn't turn itself upside down because of one year.

Terry -- when you say the course / event is business -- you're right to an extent -- but I remind you the nature of any situation is to always remember and celebrate the spirit the place is supposed to be about. People at Augusta have gotten all bent out of shape because of certain people scoring at certain times. Nothing was wrong to justify the wholesale changes made by Hootie and company. The course worked fine when Jack won six times -- ditto Arnold with his four wins.

If the only purpose at ANGC as you surmise is to make $$$, then all this wax poetice from the club about "a tradtion like no other" is simply BS and clearly a distortion on who and what Bobby Jones was about.

Frankly, if anyone (that includes my good friend Richard Farnsworth Goodale) thinks the insertion of trees and second cuts is only "minor" then let us do no less with TOC and have trees protrude out of the ground on such hallowed turf. The holes where trees have been inserted is a MEGA CHANGE.

The "strategic options" which Richard believes are still relevant must need to order a new pair of glasses because they have been relegated to the march down the middle tee ball philosophy that the US Open is about.

Like I said before -- I don't mind a US Open -- just save it for the month of June.

Matt,

You have to remember that a lot of this involves speculation, particularly speculating about the mindset of those in charge at ANGC.  But there is no doubt that the lower scores experienced a number of years back led to discussions of "Tiger proofing" the course.  Obviously they think that the golf course had gotten too easy for their liking.  They must have felt that they should do something to toughen it up.  And it's their decision, it's their course, it's their money, it's their brand, it's their image.  People always blather about Masters tradition and how the prices are low for a fricking pimento and cheese sandwich or a draft beer, but there's no doubt that the merchandise tent, the commercials, the television deal and the many other ways that ANGC sells the Masters means that this is a big business decision.  

If ANGC didn't host this kind of event every year, I would be jumping up and down in protest at the installation of the Georgia pine groves and the insane lengthening of some holes.  But this isn't a golf museum or a "normal" private club.  Far from it, so a different analysis should obtain.

In terms of the relative significance of the tree planting, I really don't know since I've never played the course.  I went there last year for the first time and I was like a slack-jawed rookie and didn't really try any sort of a critical analysis of the changes.  But I will accept Pat Mucci's comment on this site a week or so ago.  Pat said that the changes do not materially affect the playability of the golf course from the members' tees.  He knows of what he speaks, so I'll take that as gospel.  If that is true, then we're only talking about the affect on the pros.   To me, if the changes make it tougher to be in play on 13 and 17 off the tee and if they make the first hole really hard and the 7th hole really hard, God Bless America.

That doesn't offend my sensibilities.  And I'm sure that when I play Augusta I won't look at the tree planting with revulsion.  I think I'll understand the thought process.

Having said all that, it's been nice sparring with you and others on these issues.  Passion is an amazing thing, isn't it?

Mark,

I disagree with those last two sentences of yours. I think the majors are determined by the players, and which tournaments they would most like to play in and win. That'll change for the others sooner than The Masters would be my bet...