[Tony Ristola]

The course had been turned into a pitch and putt course in the last 15 years.

With that in mind, would you be OK with the lengthening of the course, had they not added all the pines, and rough?

[T_MacWood]

Tony
I don't have a problem with lenghtening a course as a rule. Although it is unfortunate that some older courses don't have that option and are not able to keep up.

[BCrosby]

If you are going to stage a major on a Golden Age course, you don't have much choice. You have to lengthen it. We can quibble about this hole or that, but basically there's no choice.

But changing things like playing corridors, green contours, bunkering schemes, etc. are very different things with very different consequences. It's a different analysis.

Bob

[Ian Andrew]

Bob,

Please explain to me why a major must have a final score of par?

I was fine when the Masters was won with scores of 15 and 16 under, at least it was thrilling to see who could go low on Sunday under all that pressure. Now it's who will hang on - one US Open is enough for me - although the PGA aspires for the same thing too. Which leaves only The Open that is fun to watch.

[BCrosby]

Ian -

I have no problem with low scores. Indeed, it was something that MacK and Jones were both prepared to see at ANGC. One of the goals of their design was to produce a wide range of scores, both at the low end and the high end.

My post began with the baseline assumption that people believe low scores were a sign of a weak course. Hootie, the USGA and their minions certainly believe that. That's the world in which these discussions tend to take place. I don't buy into that assumption, but it's Hootie's and Fazio's world. We just live in it.

So if we live in a world in which low scoring will not be tolerated, purely as a matter of expedience I take the view that lengthening historic courses is a less bad alternative to doing other things to them.

I am eager to challenge the assumption that low scoring means the course was "beaten".

But in a debate with Hootie or the USGA or their lap dog architects, challenging that assumption is a non-starter.

They won't hear you.

Bob    

[Tony Ristola]

Ian:

To answer the question you asked Bob.

Par doesn't have to be the goal.
I don't believe it is the goal.

I think the lengthening is an attempt to reintroduce a variety of shots.  Variety that has taken a beating. The end result will be higher scores, but the scores at Augusta were never really low until recent years anyways. Those rounds of 14 under by Hogan in 1953, 17 under by Nicklaus in 1965 and Floyd in 1976 were celebrated for being mind blowing performances; Going deeper than 10 under wasn't the norm until 15 years ago.

Today, without the added length they'd be the norm. Is that good? I don't think so.
 
With that in mind, plus the obvious, Augusta is on solid grounds to do lengthen. (The trees and rough... ?)

So long as nobody runs away with it, I believe, down the stretch, guys will be a little more confused, and perhaps willing to risk more.  There will be more happening, and more interesting, thrilling, high pressure shots.

Any guesses about the winning score?
I'd guess 10 under will win it, and wouldn't be surprised to see someone shoot as deep as 14 under. Let's say firm, fast and breezy conditions.

For the Record:
Pre 1990 only 10 winning scores were better; post 1990, 9 of 15 winning totals have been lower than 10 under.

[Gary Daughters]

Did Jones not sign off on rearranging the bunkers at 18 to stop Nicklaus from going around them?

That may be immaterial, but I cannot fathom either Jones or MacKenzie not intervening when players started hitting 8-irons into #15, wedges to #9 and sand wedges to #18.  Etc.

Going low is one thing, making a mockery of ANGC is something else.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tony
I get nostalgic sometimes, and I like things to remain the same, but because I tend to believe that the ethos of the professional game has never been of such interest/importance to the amatuer game as (unfortunately) it is today, I think Augusta (and other professional venues) are right to lengthen the course, and I think that doing so is good for the game as a whole. You mentioned the need to bring back a variety of shots, and you're right. When players,  across the board, are hitting wedge after wedge into green after green, courses seem always to do 2 things: increase green speeds and grow the rough. What happens next: millions of amatuer and casual golfers see the best players in the world playing the finest courses in the world and the message is hammered home: "great courses" and "great golf" means lightning fast greens and perfect fairways and absurdly high rough. Is it any wonder that they then start demanding that "look" from their public and resort courses, and that costs keep going up, and that golf gets pricier and pricer? This adding of length year after year is no great shakes either, but better than the alternative, IMHO.

Besides, for anyone who loves to play golf and watch great golf played, the variety of shots is key to the pleasure. I can't seem to get around the idea that the best player that week should have to prove it by doing everything well, including shaping 3 and 4 irons into an occasional green.

Peter  

[Doug Siebert]

Ian,

It doesn't have anything to do with going low, it has to do with requiring golfers to demonstrate mastery of a variety of shots.  If they can bomb away with their straight hitting drivers and balls, then hit a precise wedge to where they want on the green, controlling spin as necessary, it reduces the skill requirements.

The winner still needs to be tremendously talented, saying "precise wedge to where you want on the green, controlling spin as necessary" is easy for me sitting here behind my keyboard, doing it is a very different matter as I well know from my distinct lack of under par scores on major championship calibre layouts!  Its just that the strategy on those wonderful greens is greatly diminished if guys are hitting sand wedges at them.

The winning score is pretty irrelevant to me, I'd rather see them having to hit mid irons into some of the par 4s and actually have to think a bit before going for 13 and 15 and go -20 than see them hit sand wedges at everything but have -4 be the winning number.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Please explain to me why a major must have a final score of par?

Because the purpose of a MAJOR is to CHALLENGE the best players in the world, and as such, making a par should be a challenge.

I was fine when the Masters was won with scores of 15 and 16 under, at least it was thrilling to see who could go low on Sunday under all that pressure. Now it's who will hang on - one US Open is enough for me - although the PGA aspires for the same thing too. Which leaves only The Open that is fun to watch.

If they didn't make the changes 24 or more under par would be
the norm.

Desert golf in Georgia isn't a Major.

The Masters has and will continue to be fun to watch.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

If par is made the main challenge, then you have limited the kinds of courses and the kinds of set ups suitable to a major championship. You can take comfort that ANGC, the USGA and the PGA now all seem to agree with you on that.

I don't agree. (Nor did MacK or Jones) I think it results in majors that look and play much too similarly. And by everything I hear, it is only going to get worse.

I thought the goal of a major is to identify the best players in the world. What a priori principle says that a score of 24 under will fail to do that?

Bob

 

[TEPaul]

"But changing things like playing corridors, green contours, bunkering schemes, etc. are very different things with very different consequences. It's a different analysis."

Bob:

Amen to that. Adding length to any golf hole is OK in my book if the hole is fortunate enough to have the right kind of elasticity but if any hole doesn't have that trying to change the hole for the long player once you step off the tee box can be sad and fraught with architectural danger.

[noonan]

I would make more money.

The next week I would stage a tournament with Persimmon woods and small blades and old designed dimpled balls.

Just as many people would tune it to watch them go +10 to win.

[jeffwarne]

except they'd be -10
these guys are good,even hitting it 10-15% shorter

[George Pazin]

"But changing things like playing corridors, green contours, bunkering schemes, etc. are very different things with very different consequences. It's a different analysis."

Bob:

Amen to that. Adding length to any golf hole is OK in my book if the hole is fortunate enough to have the right kind of elasticity but if any hole doesn't have that trying to change the hole for the long player once you step off the tee box can be sad and fraught with architectural danger.

I differ a bit from the opinions offered thus far, at least as far as adding length goes.

I think it matters where one adds length as well. Turning shortish par 4s into brutes so that all of your par 4s play extra tough is downright silly to me. If anything, I think a hole like 7 might actually become more interesting as the drives really get out there. I'd rather someone have a half wedge shot that yet another driver 7 iron hole.

It seems if the current ANGC management team had it's way, they'd tack 180 yards onto the 10th at Riviera, because it's too short.

[Ian Andrew]

It used to be:
The Masters rewarded a player who could score under pressure.
The US Open rewarded patience and management.
The Open rewarded imagination and creative shotmaking
The PGA once rewarded gamesmanship.

To win mutiple majors, you had to be a very well rounded player.

[Tony Ristola]

George: I agree, it does matter where they add length. That goes right back to the variety argument.

The perverse thing is a 450 yard hole in firm, fast conditions with the average pro running on all cylinders turns the hole into a 9-iron approach. Contrast that to Bobby Jones perfect round at Sunningdale (33 shots and 33putts); he hit 4-irons into 420 yard holes.  That round had meaning, is historic, and that was a qualifying round.

To reintroduce that meaning today, to have 4-irons pouring off the expert player's clubs you're looking at 500+ yard holes.

Augusta's lengthening doesn't bother me. They've got little choice if they want to identify the best, most complete golfer that week; otherwise you're identifying the best wedge player.
With the added length, there will be more examination of the short game too.

What does bother me is the USGA and R&A. The stewards/protectors not fulfilling their roles.

An aside:
Anyone watch how many guys tried to drive the 10th, to the front, at Riviera this year?
I remember watching guys on that hole in 1985, and the only two guys that went for it were Joey Sindelar and Davis Love III. Both got it to the front of the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If par is made the main challenge, then you have limited the kinds of courses and the kinds of set ups suitable to a major championship. You can take comfort that ANGC, the USGA and the PGA now all seem to agree with you on that.

If you view a championship in the context of an examination of all of the golfers skills, you can't hold it on a pitch and putt golf course.

I don't agree. (Nor did MacK or Jones)

That's not true.
Both believed in testing players at the highest level.
You can't view that test, today, in the context of golfers circa 1934.   Jones's comments regarding Nicklaus's game give some insight into his views, and if Jones were alive today, I'm sure he'd view Tiger's game as one on yet another level

I think it results in majors that look and play much too similarly. And by everything I hear, it is only going to get worse.

How else would you prepare a course so that it will present a thorough examination of the best players in the world's game ?

I thought the goal of a major is to identify the best players in the world. What a priori principle says that a score of 24 under will fail to do that?

Because it would fail to test every element of a players game, super low scores are indicative of a lack of challenge, or an incomplete examination

 

[Tony Ristola]

Pat,
I agree with everything you say, with the exception of set-up.
I believe they could restore the minimal-no rough premise to Augusta, so long as they restored the variety in approaches by pushing the tees back.

If a par-4 has to be 515 yard to restore its original intent (and if they can), I have no problems should they do it; the numbers to achieve the goals are irrelevant (a sort of psychological barrier), as it's about creating shots, variety and testing players. It's the reality of the day. Perverse as it maysound. It's the gift given to golf by the neglect of its governing bodies.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony Ristola,

The first year Tiger won he never hit more than a 7-iron into any par 4.

That was never the intention of Dr M and RTJ.

Firm and fast conditions tend to favor the long ball, so I'm not so sure that widening the fairways and eliminating the rough will accomplish the desired effect.

The answer doesn't lie with the golf course it lies with the equipment.

The OHIO GOLF ASSOCIATION has taken a step in the right direction.

[Tony Ristola]

Pat:

"The first year Tiger won he never hit more than a 7-iron into any par 4."
I agree.
"That was never the intention of Dr M and RTJ."
I'd be surprised if it was.
"Firm and fast conditions tend to favor the long ball, so I'm not so sure that widening the fairways and eliminating the rough will accomplish the desired effect."
So long as the shots are restored, hence the example of 515 yard par-4's, with firm and fast greens and surrounds, I can't see why not. It may take a little while to get over the psychological barrier of par-4's at such lengths, but it's be a good tonic to pour into the ears of the governing bodies.

The answer doesn't lie with the golf course it lies with the equipment.
I agree, and have believed this for years.
I wasn't for a Tournament ball before, there is no need, but today I'd be for it. It'd be a step towards sanity. Finchem threatened it some 4 years ago. Hollow threats. (What do you expect from a Democrat )

The OHIO GOLF ASSOCIATION has taken a step in the right direction.
Aye.
Hats off to them.
I suggested they use the Magna.
Then reduce the set to 11 clubs.
That'll identify the best golfer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony Ristola,

The problem with the concept of restoring shot values or the intended approach is that you don't have the room.

Every hole doesn't have the luxury of unlimited tee space.

As to reducing the number of clubs, I don't think that will happen in this century.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

I don't follow why the final score of a major has any bearing on how well that major selects for the best golfer.

There is no empirical evidence that harder courses are better  at separating out the best golfers. At least in majors.

To make that argument, you have to argue that the best players of an era win a higher percentage of tournaments played on hard courses than on easy courses. My instincts tell me that the percentage of wins for top players on easy v. hard courses are about the same.

If you want to find the best players, hard courses aren't a magic filter. They aren't any better than less hard courses in weeding out the best. The best players win on both.

The real issue here is personal preferences as to the kind of golf people like to watch. Me, I like the idea that someone might shoot a loopy low score like a 29 on the last nine to steal a tournament. That's not likely to happen anymore.

Bob  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't follow why the final score of a major has any bearing on how well that major selects for the best golfer.

Would  you say that a golf course that yields a four round score of - 28 presented a thorough examination of the golfers game ?

That it tested his ability to drive well, play superior fairway woods and long irons, or is it more likely that mid to short irons were all that were needed.

There is no empirical evidence that harder courses are better  at separating out the best golfers. At least in majors.

The USGA would dispute that, and I would agree with them.
Historically, the majority of US Open winners have been superior golfers.  Anyone can win the "Desert Open", only the best can win the US Open

To make that argument, you have to argue that the best players of an era win a higher percentage of tournaments played on hard courses than on easy courses. My instincts tell me that the percentage of wins for top players on easy v. hard courses are about the same.

Look at the names of those who have won US Opens.

Look at the names of those who have won more than one US Open.

Look at the names of those who have won the four Majors.

They are the players for the ages, not flukes.

If you want to find the best players, hard courses aren't a magic filter. They aren't any better than less hard courses in weeding out the best. The best players win on both.

History tells us otherwise

The real issue here is personal preferences as to the kind of golf people like to watch. Me, I like the idea that someone might shoot a loopy low score like a 29 on the last nine to steal a tournament. That's not likely to happen anymore.

Could you cite five examples where someone shot 29, seven under par on the back nine to win a tournament ?

[Bill_McBride]

I agree with Bob that the excitement of Augusta has been the possibility that a player could catch fire and shoot 30 on the back nine and win the tournament (Nicklaus 1986).  The recent changes have seemed to minimize a player doing this, although the recent fourth rounds have produced excitement.  

My disappointment with those in charge centers around strategic changes to the course, particularly changing #7 from a short par 4  (355 yards) to a long par 4 (450 yards) which still has a tunnel of a fairway and a green designed to be approached with wedges which must now be approached with mid irons.  Nothing wrong with mid iron approaches, but the concept of the hole has been completely changed.  I can see pushing tee balls back 50 yards to take into account 330 yard drives but ultimately, what's the point?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()