News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Robert Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« on: March 02, 2006, 07:26:25 PM »
Breaking with the rules of the ASGCA, Nicklaus said the work work done by Fazio and co. at Augusta looked like it was done "by somebody who doesn't know how to play golf."

Is that a legitimate jab at Tom, or is Jack just getting cranky in his old age and was disappointed he isn't the consulting architect?
Terrorizing Toronto Since 1997

Read me at Canadiangolfer.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2006, 09:18:29 PM »
Robert:  What constitutes a "legitimate jab"?   :)

Robert Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2006, 09:40:45 PM »
I guess I'm asking whether Jack has a point or whether he's just unhappy Hootie and co. didn't ask him for the job, so he's dumping on Fazio.
Interestingly, it reminded me of a comment from the Confidential Guide. Maybe Jack did learn something from your time in Long Island.... ;)
Terrorizing Toronto Since 1997

Read me at Canadiangolfer.com

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2006, 09:41:04 PM »
What changes was Nicklaus referring to? The course seems to be getting more one-dimensional with each year's changes, but I don't think it has been ruined yet, but they seem hellbent on going too far. Sort of like Joan River's plastic surgery. ;)
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2006, 11:42:54 PM »
I think you have to look at it from the standpoint that Jack won five major championships there.  With that background, he isn't any more likely to approve of changes there than Crenshaw is.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2006, 11:49:29 PM »
It wouldn't be so bad if they were just uniformly lengthening all the holes, but to change #7 from a 355 yd par 4 short 4 to a 450 yd par 4 into the same green size is ridiculous.  A hole designed for a short iron pitch shouldn't have to be approached with a mid iron or hybrid.  Have they messed with #3 the same way?

Nicklaus mentioned that closing in the fairways and taking away the angles were anti-Jones design ideas, but I believe the course was originally meant to be Dr. MacKenzie's salute to the Old Course.  You'd have thought Jack would have mentioned that, except Dr. MacKenzie didn't win 13 majors!

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2006, 11:59:10 PM »
Jack also knows that the Augusta people are more sensitive to the memory of Jones than to that of MacKenzie.  There are lots of MacKenzie courses by comparison.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2006, 12:20:44 AM »
Hard to argue with that!  What are your thoughts on sacrificing a half par hole, #7, to the "Tiger-proofing" of Augusta?  (As if more length is "Tiger-proofing!")

Jim Nugent

Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2006, 01:53:15 AM »
It wouldn't be so bad if they were just uniformly lengthening all the holes, but to change #7 from a 355 yd par 4 short 4 to a 450 yd par 4 into the same green size is ridiculous.  A hole designed for a short iron pitch shouldn't have to be approached with a mid iron or hybrid.

I don't know how far the drives will go on number 4, but I'm guessing 300+ for many players.  That will leave less than 150 yards into the green.  Sounds like anywhere from a lob wedge to an easy 9 iron for lots of pro's.  In almost no case should it take more than a short iron.  Am I wrong?

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2006, 02:18:41 AM »
I'd have to agree with you there Jim, I had the same thought. Except I don't know how many of the invitees can hit it that far, though I would imagine it is a majority.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2006, 06:44:39 AM »
Jim -

No. 4 is a par 3. Do you mean no. 5?

Nicklaus's comments are spot on. They were needed after ANGC carpet bombed the media with talk about how Fazio's changes preserved the "shot values" that MacK and Jone intended for the course.

Hootie and Fazio aren't just a little wrong about the "shot value" thing. They are 180 degrees wrong. Nicklaus was the first to call their bluff. (Unless you count wingnuts like us and Shackelford.)

So a hat tip to Jack.

Bob

P.S. The more interesting question is whether ANGC really believes what they are saying (in which event they can know almost nothing about the history of their own course) or whether they are just making this "shot value" suff up from thin air.

But it's not just ANGC. A veteran architect like Fazio also ought to know bettter. But then again, Fazio's lack of interest in both his architectural forefathers and the history of the courses he works on never ceases to amaze.  
« Last Edit: March 03, 2006, 07:18:32 AM by BCrosby »

Craig Van Egmond

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2006, 07:56:46 AM »

"I think you have to look at it from the standpoint that Jack won five major championships there.  With that background, he isn't any more likely to approve of changes there than Crenshaw is."
                                                                   Tom Doak


Not to be be picky, but Jack won the Masters 6 times.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2006, 07:57:36 AM by Craig Edgmand »

Jim Nugent

Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2006, 09:18:48 AM »
Jim -

No. 4 is a par 3. Do you mean no. 5?

Nicklaus's comments are spot on. They were needed after ANGC carpet bombed the media with talk about how Fazio's changes preserved the "shot values" that MacK and Jone intended for the course.

Hootie and Fazio aren't just a little wrong about the "shot value" thing. They are 180 degrees wrong. Nicklaus was the first to call their bluff. (Unless you count wingnuts like us and Shackelford.)

So a hat tip to Jack.


Bob, I meant number seven.  Thanks for pointing out my error.

As for Nicklaus' point, I don't have an opinion.  What do you make of the fact that Norman gave the new changes his enthusiastic support?

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2006, 09:21:26 AM »
What do you make of the fact that Norman gave the new changes his enthusiastic support?

a good point Jim...the 6-time champ doesn't like what they've done to the place, but the man with the most heartbreak does ???
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Robert Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2006, 09:33:14 AM »
But it's not just ANGC. A veteran architect like Fazio also ought to know bettter. But then again, Fazio's lack of interest in both his architectural forefathers and the history of the courses he works on never ceases to amaze.  

Do you think Fazio actually isn't interested, or is this just posturing? I really think Tom feels he is a better golf architect than most that came before him, though it is hard not to see that as an arrogant position.
In many ways, I'm surprised Augusta has not asked Jack to consult with the course -- but maybe they just wouldn't like what he has to say.
Interesting, as well, that Arnie and Jack are aligned on several issues -- like the ball -- and now their mutual dislike of the changes to Augusta.
Terrorizing Toronto Since 1997

Read me at Canadiangolfer.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2006, 09:36:57 AM »
Craig E.:  Thanks for correcting me.  It was late, and I couldn't remember for sure whether Jack had won five or six, but since I was taking his side I thought it was better to understate than overstate.  I can't believe it has been twenty years since he won!

Bill M.:  Every pro golfer speaks from the perspective of his own game.  For Jack, seeing #7 at 450 yards is absurd -- he might have had to hit a 5-iron to that green in his prime, and he might still today, and the green clearly wasn't designed for that.  But half the field will have a 9-iron in their hands and it doesn't bother them too much.  This is why I don't buy the rationalization of "shot values" too much, because I believe golf holes should have "shot values" which make sense for someone other than the best 100 players in the game.

(Lest we forget, Dr. MacKenzie did not believe in that either.  The current seventh green is not his at all ... MacKenzie's seventh green was based on the 18th at St. Andrews, without any bunkering.)

This by the way is one of the best arguments for doing something about equipment -- the gap is getting so big that it's phasing Jack Nicklaus out of the game.


Scott Stearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2006, 09:42:13 AM »
i'll put my head on the shopping block and say that the changes at Augusta are good, not because they produce a golf course with the challenges that the 1960's augusta provided, but because they are the best of bad alternatives.

long players were hitting wedges to all the par fours and irons in two to all the par fives prior to the start of the changes.

the AVERAGE drive on tour was 290 yards on 2005,  thats joe journeyman, not just tiger and phil.

there is no way to move the tees back on all the holes to cause the players to hit the same clubs that players hit in the '60s to these greens.  Nobody is ever going to hit a hybrid or 1 iron to 15 for example--the only alternative is to insist on some degree of accuracy off the tee.  i HATE it, but without it 15 is a mid-length par four.  its wrong to argue that the trees on 15 "take away options"--with th trees, players have to choose to be accurate and hit a longer club in, or hit driver and hope they dont wing it into the woods.  without the trees, everybody hits driver and a 6-8 iron.  whats to choose there?

Augusta is the best example of what technology has whrougt (sp) but i think we pillory the club for changes that are better than the alternative.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2006, 09:44:25 AM »
Jim -

What do I make of Norman's support for the changes?

Nothing, other than I think he is wrong. As wrong as the people that decided to make the changes.

The weight of authority seems to be on the side of the angels on this issue. Which is a refreshing change. It's nice to have Jack, Arnie, Crenshaw, Doak, Whitten, GeoffShack, Wexler and distinguished others all on the same team. Doesn't happen very often.

Bob


 

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2006, 09:57:19 AM »
To be clear, there are two types of changes people are objecting to.

The first is added length. Some like it, some don't. I have mixed feelings about it. Moving back the tees on some holes at ANGC makes sense. At least for world class players. The 4th comes to mind. OTOH, stretching the 7th to 450 yards seems borderline goofy.

The second and far more troubling change is the narrowing of the playing corridors. That change undermines one of the central design goals of MacK and Jones and is at the heart of Whitten's recent (and excellent) GD piece.

Worse, narrowing the course is the kind of change that affects all players all the time. Bogey golfers can move up to shorter tees, but they can't take out the new trees.

We can quibble about lengthening Augusta. But people who know anything about the history of ANGC are pretty unanimous in their opposition to the narrowing of the fairways.

Bob    
« Last Edit: March 03, 2006, 01:30:18 PM by BCrosby »

Justin_Zook

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2006, 01:49:28 PM »
BCrosby, that was a well thought post.

I think people don't know that Augusta has ALWAYS put a premium on accuracy off the tee.  I think it does so in a way that's more subtle than a golf course set up for say, the US Open.  

A US Open set up says, "Hit it in our 25 yard wide fairway and go from there.  If you should happen to get a little off course on a par 4, just chop it out of the rough somewhere, maybe 100 yards from the green, and play the hole like a par 5.  If you make a four, its a birdie-net par.  

Now getting back to Augusta.  I've heard touring pros, people from the Masters Tournament Committee, commentators and so on, saying things like "Now Augusta puts a premium on driving accuracy...it's the complete test."  

These comments are simply a manifestation of a skewed perspective of what real accuracy is.  I just read on, Masters.org, Nick Faldo's description of Firethorn, Augusta's 15th, and he talked about how one year, he laid up in the second cut to decrease his chances of being able to spin the ball back off the green.  

In contrast to a US Open set-up, Augusta says this...

"Look, here's a fairway thats 50+ yards wide...you can hit it anywhere you want...we don't care where, but when you get up to your ball, and realize there's absolutely no way to go for the pin or even put the ball in a spot that gives you an easy up and in, don't complain.  We give you all the options in the world when it comes to playing this hole, but it's up to you to choose the best line and cope with risk/reward trade-offs given your own natural imperfection."  

Augusta perhaps tests the mind in ways that it spurs on creativity.  That is what is so great.  

So getting to the underlying point.  I think most of us agree that Augusta has changed.  My remarks about the uniqueness that is Augusta were true maybe 10 years ago.  Are they true now?  Perhaps.  

What is certain is that players are driving the ball longer now than they were 10 years ago.  I read Tiger's teleconference transcript on Masters.org and he is well aware of the sacrifice he has to make when it comes to the increased dispersion in outcomes with a driver (i.e. trees on the right, rough on the right, fairway, rough on the left, trees on the left) and the  decreased dispersions in outcomes with a wedge, or 9 iron or so (i.e. 10 feet right of the pin, dead on, or 10 feet left).

Apparently the Augusta Tournament committee feels that this change is threatening the difficulty of the tournament.  They know they want great competition, but they don't want this thing to become another tour event wth a winner at 23 under on Sunday afternoon.  I agree that it hurts the image that the Masters, as a major, is trying to convey.  

To them, players aren't forced to play to a certain side of the fairway if all they have is a wedge into the green.  It might be different if they had to hit 6 iron.  So how do you accomplish the task of getting players to back off?  I don't know if a long term solution is increasing the length of the hole because the longer you make the hole, the more players will want the distance to make the hole easier over time.  ...and they somehow will find it.

If you think about a fairway as being a "playing channel," Augusta seems to believe that by reducing the width of the playing channel, and increasing the severity of punishment if a player is to find himself outside of the playing channel deemed by the tournament committee, they will find the recipe for success...which is a difficult hole.

An example is on 11.  15 years ago, a great tee shot on 11 was down the right side eliminating the need to go over the lake on your 2nd shot.  What is there now?  Trees.

(Oh goodness, this post is becoming a theses or something.)

Anyway, last and final point.  All I know is that I love golf that is exciting, but also gruelling, but requiresome of intellect.  Maybe the tournamet committee is on the ball, who knows.  Is it possible that they went overboard like on the narrowness of 7 and the length of 4?  Probably.  

Excluding these holes, what other options do they have?  This is not rhetorical, and this is not in defense of ANGC.  What is the real solver of their problem?  Is it the comp. ball?  How do you allow for deviations with this ball to suit each players individual styles?  Do you think that increasing the fairway width would decrease scores that much?  I personally think not.  

I want to hear what this body of knowledge thinks.
We make a living by what we get...we make a life by what we give.

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #20 on: March 03, 2006, 01:59:18 PM »
...or will Jack and Arnold will resign in protest...

THAT would make headlines and help get the technology debate a LOT MORE publicity
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #21 on: March 03, 2006, 02:02:51 PM »
Does anyone think that Mackenzie and Jones stood around, thinking, okay, we want a 5 iron approach here, a 3 iron approach here, a wedge here, etc.?

I think they wanted interesting holes. The holes play well pretty much regardless of the approach club, because the green complexes are outstanding and reward approaches from the right angle. Even when guys were hitting 65 yard shots into 18, they still weren't birdieing it all that often. Heck, the last two years, the long beast 18th has yielded the winning birdie!

The best thing to do to combat the additional length guys are hitting it would be nothing. One of two things would happen:

- We'd see if Augusta is truly as ingenious as I think it is;

or

- We'd see what damage the never ending quest for distance has done.



BCrosby, that was a well thought post.

All of Bob's posts are, especially the Augusta posts - you're just noticing? :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2006, 02:39:59 PM »
"This by the way is one of the best arguments for doing something about equipment -- the gap is getting so big that it's phasing Jack Nicklaus out of the game."

That's what age will do.

Had equipment not rocketed so far forward, he probably would have been phased out sooner. Even though he was coming down from the biggest mountain.



Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #23 on: March 03, 2006, 02:52:03 PM »
One the interesting things that Ron Whitten brings up is that Augusta has just two sets of tees - one at 7500 yards for the top 100 players in the world (in Tom Doak's words) and the other at around 6300 yards, which basically works for a membership with an average age of over 70 (at least).  I think the changes to the course reflect this dictotomy.  The members are mostly past their golfing primes and usually have other places to play, so why not focus on protecting par against the best players in the world?  All those trees they've added are there to protect the dignity of the course, which I'll bet is more important to the members than shot values or adherence to some dead architect's design principals.  Plus, the course probably hasn't changed that much from 6300 yards.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Nicklaus on Fazio's changes at Augusta
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2006, 02:55:08 PM »
Phil,

Actually, most 70 year olds would be best served playing at 5800 yards, no matter what the scorecard says.  Even reasonably good golfers are comfy at 6350-6400, and get to hit the clubs that their faves (ie Jack, Arnie) hit to greens.  A smaller % of lower handicap males would be good near the old 6925 yds, if the tees were near the front of that segment and it really played at 6800.

I wonder if some of the older members have even climbed up the hills to see the new tees.....to them, they might still be a rumor!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach