SECOND CUT (ROUGH) IN 1960!

« **on:** April 09, 2007, 09:25:32 AM »

I only caught the last hole of the 1960 tape yesterday and guess what...there was rough...not high, and not everywhere, but there was rough...Guess what else...Bobby Jones was right there watching the whole thing...did he forget Alister MacKenzie's "intent"?

Give me a break guys, this thing has been changing since day one and you all that spent the last week in apoplectic delusion about the demise of the golf course...what gives?

« **Reply #1 on:** April 09, 2007, 09:30:35 AM »

Quote from: JES II on April 09, 2007, 09:25:32 AM

I only caught the last hole of the 1960 tape yesterday and guess what...there was rough...not high, and not everywhere, but there was rough...Guess what else...Bobby Jones was right there watching the whole thing...did he forget Alister MacKenzie's "intent"?

Give me a break guys, this thing has been changing since day one and you all that spent the last week in apoplectic delusion about the demise of the golf course...what gives?

Amen!

« **Reply #2 on:** April 09, 2007, 09:31:35 AM »

I did not notice the rough, but did notice the lack of trees and bunkers on #18.

« **Reply #3 on:** April 09, 2007, 09:35:37 AM »

Along those same lines Jim...early last week, or the week before, I explained the philosophic similarities of inserting those two bunkers on 18 to Matt Ward (to rein in the longhitters not playing the hole down the intended path) to the recent tree insertions at various points...he fell back on the age old rationalization that I was wrong "because I had never been there".

The bunkers were added in '66 or '67, the year following Jack playing out into the old practice field to stay away from all the trees to the right. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Jones was around then as well...

« **Reply #4 on:** April 09, 2007, 10:36:09 AM »

JES II:

Let's get it straight OK.

The insertion of the "second cut" was not needed. Please knock yourself out and tell me what was SO WRONG with the Augusta National prior to Tiger's win in '97 ? Ditto the silly addition of trees to the 11th and the added lengths to such unique holes as the 7th.

I'll wait awhile for that answer as you and others play the usual game of tap dancing and dodge ball around it.

If you think insertion of bunkers is the equivalent of inserting trees then you are certainly on AM while I'm on FM.

You see I'm of the opinion you don't fix something when it's not broken. The E-X-C-I-T-I-N-G ending of this year's tournament had me fast to zzzzzzzzz !!!

How nice that Jim Nantz reminded everyone of the 20th anniversary of Mize's win at Augusta -- an appropriate reminder for a return to journeyman celebrations.

« **Reply #5 on:** April 09, 2007, 10:46:05 AM »

Quote from: Matt_Ward on April 09, 2007, 10:36:09 AM

How nice that Jim Nantz reminded everyone of the 20th anniversary of Mize's win at Augusta -- an appropriate reminder for a return to journeyman celebrations.

Matt,

Would you consider yourself a journeyman journalist? Only time will tell for Zach Johnson.

Mike
Journeyman Banker

« **Reply #6 on:** April 09, 2007, 10:51:41 AM »

I am always amazed by the phrase "journeyman" Why does one of the Big 6 have to win the Masters to make it a worthy tournament?

Some complain the field at Augusta is too small, but it seems like some would it rather have about 8 participants.

FWIW, when I saw Phil triple #1, and Tiger in the lead after the first hour, I was ready for snoozing, but instead I thought the tournament was great.

Maybe the members and people setting up the course know a little more than we give them credit for.

« **Reply #7 on:** April 09, 2007, 10:52:49 AM »

I was surprised to see the rough in the old footage. I hadn't realized it used to be that way. What was really surprising was the bunker depth I saw on 18 in those old clips. Looked like they were ankle to knee deep. When did the bunkers get so much deeper?

I thought it was an exciting finish in general. I don't know if it was from watering the greens or the golfers stepping up, but it was fun to watch.

« **Reply #8 on:** April 09, 2007, 10:55:58 AM »

Mike H:

You can call me anything you want -- how bout we stay on topic?

I will say this about Mize -- he won on an Augusta course that was fun to watch and made for great TV -- he also slayed two giants in Ballesteros and Norman in their primes.

« **Reply #9 on:** April 09, 2007, 10:59:02 AM »

Matt,

It seems "RESTORATION" of the second cut would be the appropriate usage...my mistake, I'll go correct it now.

What was so wrong about it before they removed it?

« **Reply #10 on:** April 09, 2007, 11:02:19 AM »

Do yourself a huge favor and see the comments from people like Nicklaus, Palmer and the beloved Crenshaw regarding what has happened to Augusta. Of course, what the hell does any of them know compared to you and I.

« **Reply #11 on:** April 09, 2007, 11:04:15 AM »

That is as weak as your last effort to answer some of my questions...didn't realize I could do it twice...you just made my day.

« **Reply #12 on:** April 09, 2007, 11:12:07 AM »

Weak my foot.

Each of the champions has stated clearly how the nature of what made Augusta great has been changed dramatically. Sure - who cares what they think -- particularly if it doesn't dove tail with your thoughts.

Also, check out the corridors of today versus your claim of second cut in 1960. Very different indeed.

Oh, by the way -- you seem to have developed convenient amnesia on the TREES. Ditto the silly addition of length to the 7th, among just one example. Of course, when one is called on the carpet for the totality of the situation we simply revert to cherry picking off a singular item we believe give credence to one's statements.

Please knock yourself out and defend the well done "new & improved" Augusta. Only one thing though -- I may be still zzzzzzzzzzzzz !

« **Reply #13 on:** April 09, 2007, 11:17:53 AM »

It's a mindset Matt, one which you seem to think began in 1997. You couldn't be further from the truth, but I guess seeing as you're still asleep it's understandable.

The mindset of protecting par and modifying the course for the tournament's sake has been in force from day #1, and you know it, but choose to "cherry-pick" the time horizon that fits your argument.

« **Reply #14 on:** April 09, 2007, 11:50:23 AM »

Talk about weak.

When asked to defend the changes (from Hootie onwards) made at Augusta National you fire blanks. Do you love the trees being INSERTED? Still waiting for an answer on that one. Do you love the idea holes that meant to be short iron approaches (e.g. 7th) have been bastardized to the point of stupidity? Ditto the idea that holes like #13 and #15 which at one time could be eagled by a great many people in the field are now played as three-shot holes as being a good thing?

You seem to forgotten -- or simply don't wish to acknowledge that the original intent of ANGC was to pattern itself after TOC. Hence Jones and Mackenzie both loving the course in Scotland.

I was hoping you would have been game to hit the TOTAL target in two blows -- guess you prefer to play the ho-hum wedge approach to greens as plenty did this past weekend.

Predictable but hardly exciting. So be it.

« **Reply #15 on:** April 09, 2007, 12:05:18 PM »

Matt,

Are you suggesting there is a player in the field that could not have eagled 13 or 15 if they hit the right shots at the right time? Didn't think so, seems you're just blowing hot air again...I thought the blimp was down and didn't your help staying afloat...

If a hole is 450 and the fairway is firm, what do those guys hit into the green after a good drive? Oh, I'm sorry they have to hit a good drive to answer that one...

Matt,

When was the first adjustment to the golf course that evolved out of a desire to affect the golf tournament in some way?

« **Reply #16 on:** April 09, 2007, 12:20:09 PM »

JES II:

I always love the idea about the use of the word "if." Frankly, if the queen had b*lls she'd be the king. Compare the numbers of total eagles from recent times with the past. You may have missed the graph that CBS provided on such scoring tendencies.

You have gained a certain amount of dodge-ball proficiency. When asked questions -- you avoid them and ask me several more. Frankly, I get tired of such silliness.

Do you DEFEND the insertion of TREES at the course ?

The answer is a simple - yes or no. Got it.

Ditto the added length to certain holes (e.g. the 7th, to name just one).

The answer again is a simple -- yes or no.

Do you see the inclusion of a post '97 second cut as being a valid addition to the course? If so -- why?

When you answer my questions directly I'll be sure to answer yours. Got it.

In regards to the question you asked me about a 450-yd hole -- it would depend upon the land elevation (if any) and if wind were a factor. It could be as little as a PW or SW from the strongest players. But guess what -- Jack hit as little as 8-iron into the 15th when he won in '65. They didn't plant trees the next years to the degree one sees today as an over reaction.

« **Reply #17 on:** April 09, 2007, 12:31:31 PM »

The reduced number of eagles had more to do with firm conditions, wind and cold than it had to do with trees. The firmness of the approaches and greens were much more a factor of conservative play than trees as I witnessed conservative play on holes without an encroachment of trees. In this case, firm and fast in cold temperatures may have reduced strategies on Thur-Sat. With slightly less firm greens on Sunday, wasn't there was a bit more margin for error and a few more chances being taken, even though it was the last day of a major?

« **Reply #18 on:** April 09, 2007, 12:37:24 PM »

JES II -

Lighten up. What's with this eagerness for the gotcha?

Jones and MacK never talked about there being no rough. They talked about there being very little of it. Nobody that has seen or played ANGC over the last 25 years or so has ever said there was no rough. Or if they did, they were wrong. There's always been some. There is, however, a lot more now.

Bob

« **Reply #19 on:** April 09, 2007, 12:41:35 PM »

Quote from: JES II on April 09, 2007, 09:25:32 AM

I only caught the last hole of the 1960 tape yesterday and guess what...there was rough...not high, and not everywhere, but there was rough...Guess what else...Bobby Jones was right there watching the whole thing...did he forget Alister MacKenzie's "intent"?

Give me a break guys, this thing has been changing since day one and you all that spent the last week in apoplectic delusion about the demise of the golf course...what gives?

JES II,

Photos circa 1934 seem to confirm the existence of rough throughout the golf course, and one can see the numerous saplings that were planted with the intent that one day, they too would be tall, majestic pines.

« **Reply #20 on:** April 09, 2007, 01:53:39 PM »

Quote from: Matt_Ward on April 09, 2007, 12:20:09 PM

JES II:

I always love the idea about the use of the word "if." Frankly, if the queen had b*lls she'd be the king. Compare the numbers of total eagles from recent times with the past. You may have missed the graph that CBS provided on such scoring tendencies.

You have gained a certain amount of dodge-ball proficiency. When asked questions -- you avoid them and ask me several more. Frankly, I get tired of such silliness.

(1)Do you DEFEND the insertion of TREES at the course ?

The answer is a simple - yes or no. Got it.

(2)Ditto the added length to certain holes (e.g. the 7th, to name just one).

The answer again is a simple -- yes or no.

(3)Do you see the inclusion of a post '97 second cut as being a valid addition to the course? If so -- why?

When you answer my questions directly I'll be sure to answer yours. Got it.

In regards to the question you asked me about a 450-yd hole -- it would depend upon the land elevation (if any) and if wind were a factor. It could be as little as a PW or SW from the strongest players. But guess what -- Jack hit as little as 8-iron into the 15th when he won in '65. They didn't plant trees the next years to the degree one sees today as an over reaction.

1 - Yes

2 - Yes

3 - Yes - In part because it has been a part of the golf course in its past...also because the goal each year is for the course to be presented as firm as possible. When it's soft, angles and options do not matter. These guys can get to the back left pin on 17 from the left corner or the right...doesn't matter. These guys are that good. Architecturally dictated "shot values" are non-existent for a PGA tour caliber player when the maintenance preparation does not comply. Considering there is no known guarantor of firm and fast conditions, the powers that be have decided that a second cut can add uncertainty to distance control on iron shots from that area.

« **Reply #21 on:** April 09, 2007, 04:54:57 PM »

Quote from: JES II on April 09, 2007, 01:53:39 PM

Considering there is no known guarantor of firm and fast conditions, the powers that be have decided that a second cut can add uncertainty to distance control on iron shots from that area.

Maybe when they know they've GOT Firm and Fast, they could go out and mow the "second cut."

« **Reply #22 on:** April 09, 2007, 05:05:34 PM »

Dan,

I'll assume that was not sarcasm because the sentence ended with one dot instead of three, so, when would you suggest that decision be made?

« **Reply #23 on:** April 09, 2007, 05:17:09 PM »

Quote from: JES II on April 09, 2007, 05:05:34 PM

Dan,

I'll assume that was not sarcasm because the sentence ended with one dot instead of three, so, when would you suggest that decision be made?

As late as possible. Wednesday evening?

(Emoticon AND ellipsis opponent.)

I'm just being silly -- as usual. Let's return, now, to the main event: JES II vs. MW I -- assuming you're both awake! (I do love exclamation points. They're so darned versatile!)

Oh, and by the way, since we're discussing Augusta National's preference for a second cut (as opposed to a rough):

Has "championship" always been a verboten expression at The Masters? I heard the announcers retract it, in favor of "tournament," several times this weekend -- sometimes mid-word!

« **Reply #24 on:** April 09, 2007, 05:25:52 PM »

Shouldn't that be MW#1...

News:

JESII

Mike Hendren

Jim Franklin

JESII

Matt_Ward

Mike Hendren

Dale_McCallon

ed_getka

Matt_Ward

JESII

Matt_Ward

JESII

Matt_Ward

JESII

Matt_Ward

JESII

Matt_Ward

wsmorrison

BCrosby

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

JESII

Dan Kelly

JESII

Dan Kelly

JESII