[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

I am not some sort of mind doctor that can precisely say what the motivation is. Send a note to Hootie and maybe he can answer you question.

What I can say is that the RESULT and its IMPACT ON THE ORIGINAL FORMULA for the course have been doctored to the point in which Augusta is no longer the kind of course that was unique to American golf and what The Masters became identified with.

In my speculation I can only say that in years past the motivation was not to throw the baby out with the bath oil. The post 1997 efforts have done that and more -- like I said -- I judge the results and they speak for themselves. Break down and get the latest issue of Digest -- compare the recent past (pre 1997) and with what happened after that time frame.

I guess Crenshaw and Nicklaus are two mediocre sources in regards to what the course was and is today.

[tlavin]

There's no doubt that the new length, the bunkering and the tree planting at Augusta has altered and probably "harmed" MacKenzie's architectural vision, but so what?  Augusta is nothing more than a tournament golf course anyway.  Its historical significance is largely moot, based on what they've done to the course.  They will do whatever they can to make sure that the pros don't shoot more than 20 under par, even if they have to pave the fairways with concrete and make the greens out of sand, just so long as they can make their millions every year on the toonamint.

[JESII]

I am not some sort of mind doctor that can precisely say what the motivation is.

Nice cop out...not what I expected from you...

[Matt_Ward]

Terry:

You miss the larger point.

Augusta has stood up well with gentle tweakings that were carefully applied over the years. The architectural character of the course was maintained (e.g. the wide fairways, the absence of rough, the minimal role trees could / would play, etc, etc).

The folks there have gotten all caught up with what the players score. Check out Arnie's desire to cut down on rounds under-par at Bay Hill in changing two previous par-5's into par-4's.

Heck, Augusta should do likewise and change the 13th and 15th into par-4's.

The issue often raised on this site is what should be done to weigh the role of "improvements" and how they tie to the hand of those who originally created them.

Lenthening some holes is fine -- save for the 7th which is simpyl horrendous -- but the other elements are manifestations of simple panic on the part of the folks running the show there.

[JESII]

Matt,

I just looked through Golf Digest...unless I missed something, there was no comparatives from 97 to today.

Just so we are clear, I am in no way defending anything they have done, just trying to help you see it in the proper perspective...WHY IT HAPPENED!

That you cannot comprehend the effective similarities of the recent tree work to the bunkers on 18 is odd, you sure you don't see it?

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

Open up some serious golf books that show pictures of the holes at Augusta pre '97 and post and you can see the differences -- I presume your eyes will be open.

I didn't address the motivations of the people at Augusta for the simple reason I don't know what their motivations were in the post '97 Tiger time frame. It's not a cop out -- it's simply statement of fact from my perspective. Clearly, they opined in front of the media and golf world what they were seeking to do -- the net result has been a horrific hodge-podge that has no relationship to the fundamental elements that for such a long time separated Augusta from the non-descipt other courses on the world stage.

You keep harping about the "WHY" -- my answer is a simple one -- WHAT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN TO START WITH ?

Again, I repeat again -- you need to walk the grounds and get the feel of the place before telling me what I'm missing. You operating in the dark would be the same if someone were discussing Merion and Pine Valley without ever being there to see firsthand what the hype is about. If you could have walked what was there prior to '97 and see what has happened since you would be in likely lock step agreement with what I have said.

Unfortunately, people get all hooked up on score. The reality is that Nicklaus when he won in 1965 with -17 and when he won the next year with even par are proof positive that the course has the wherewithal to rebound when circumstances allow.

I have no issue with lengthening a few of the holes -- but the bastardization of the 7th and 11th holes, to name just two, is clearly a mega over reach of historic proportions.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()