Comments about GolfClubAtlas during Masters week

[RJ_Daley]

I have a modest proposal to make: During some major championship to come, we should all wait till the tournament is over to pass judgment on the course setup for it. We should all SAY NOTHING here -- and then, at the conclusion of it, we should all e-mail our views (in brief or in depth) to one "member's" e-mailbox. That "member" could then post all of them in a thread.

Geez, you should have been an anastesiologist.  Give me the gas now...  

[Dan Kelly]

Geez, you should have been an anastesiologist.  Give me the gas now...  

Before you go under, how about reading me my rights?  

I know it's a crazy idea, Dick! So was the original "modest proposal"!

But what the hell; I do think it would be interesting -- as would many other impossible things.

[Rich Goodale]

Book Dano, Dicko

Post only after you think?  How un-GCA.com can one be......?

Farno

[John_Cullum]

 The Masters entertained for 70 holes - not the best, but far from the worst.  

Ciao

What  happened on the other 2?

[Adam Clayman]

 Granted, I am not nearly into the finer aspects of a tree here or there as some om here.  I tend to think much of this talk is a load of hogwash and/or nitpicking over very little.    The Masters entertained for 70 holes - not the best, but far from the worst.  

Sean, One need'nt know the finer aspects. All one needs to know is how Dr. MacKenzie felt about about tree lined holes.

As for the 70 holes, I felt it was closer to only 18 and even then, the entertainment value was much diminished from years gone by. IMO, of course. I'd qualify that with the tourney was exciting, the golf wasn't.

[Dan Kelly]

... the tourney was exciting, the golf wasn't.

Adam --

I don't know what you mean by that.

I'm sincerely curious: When was the last time you found professional golf "exciting"? What was exciting about it then that has vanished now?

Dan

[Jim Nugent]

I've enjoyed the threads, and definitely learned from them.  For those of you who feel the new changes have harmed the course:

What can ANGC do to keep the pro's from hitting wedges into every green, without undermining the angles and wide fairways?  i.e. if the trees have screwed up the course, what do you suggest they do, other than use a Masters ball, to make sure the National tests the pros' entire game, not just drive, pitch and putt?  

[John Kavanaugh]

Those who believe all change is bad change will never change.

[Brent Hutto]

Jim,

I posed that question in another thread yesterday. Would we rather see them buy up half of Augusta and make the course 8,500 yards (but with fewer trees)?

Or dig water hazards alongside each hole? Plant knee-high rough?

Or just let the bigger hitters play wedges into the majority of greens and let the winning score be -16 to -20 unless the weather is brutal?

I know, what we want is for them to leave the course the same except for maybe moving back a couple tees each year and then to complain that the ball goes too far. Perfect!

[Jim Nugent]

Brent, it's the same basic question with nearly all the great classic courses and high tech.  Other than a shorter ball, the solution is not very clear to me.  

[tlavin]

Jim,

I posed that question in another thread yesterday. Would we rather see them buy up half of Augusta and make the course 8,500 yards (but with fewer trees)?

Or dig water hazards alongside each hole? Plant knee-high rough?

Or just let the bigger hitters play wedges into the majority of greens and let the winning score be -16 to -20 unless the weather is brutal?

I know, what we want is for them to leave the course the same except for maybe moving back a couple tees each year and then to complain that the ball goes too far. Perfect!

I suppose there may come a day when ANGC can't be modified/toughened/tricked up enough to have a major championship played there, but I would rue that day.  ANGC and the Masters evoke a primal, visceral reaction in the hearts and minds of true golf fans and I commend the club for doing what it can to attempt to keep up with technology.  In terms of further tinkering, it looks like they may be at the end of their tether.

[Mark Bourgeois]

It is funny that we've gone back and forth on the changes when we all seem to agree the best solution is a masters ball.

Why is ANGC so afraid of that? What would it take for them to do it? (I bet a win next year from another player who hasn't needed years and years to figure out that course might do it.)

Do they really think we would abandon their tournament?

More intriguingly, who would be most likely to win? Would experience again be returned to prominence? One of the great aspects of the tournament is the concept that to win it, with a few exceptions the player has had to go through a learning process.

Does this year's winner indicate that's been lost, or did veterans lose their experience advantage due to the "out of experience" weather?

Mark

[tlavin]

It is funny that we've gone back and forth on the changes when we all seem to agree the best solution is a masters ball.

I'm guessing they would get a howl of protest from the players, not to mention the ball manufacturers.

[Dan Kelly]

I'm guessing they would get a howl of protest from the players, not to mention the ball manufacturers.

To which Augusta National should say: "Screw 'em. We make the rules here."

[Brent Hutto]

Lest my comment be misintepreted, I am in no way interested in seeing the Masters contested with a gimmick  ball. I want to see the players playing their best, not dealing with a one-week adjustment for a piece of equipment to which they are unaccustomed.

I'm not opposed to changes or rollbacks of the ball in general but doing it in a single event is not at all desirable IMHO.

[tlavin]

Here's a link to Tim Rosaforte's sober and thoughtful take on the setup of ANGC for the Masters:

http://www.golfdigest.com/newsandtour/index.ssf?/newsandtour/insider/20070410insider.html

[Andy Troeger]

Lest my comment be misintepreted, I am in no way interested in seeing the Masters contested with a gimmick  ball. I want to see the players playing their best, not dealing with a one-week adjustment for a piece of equipment to which they are unaccustomed.

I'm not opposed to changes or rollbacks of the ball in general but doing it in a single event is not at all desirable IMHO.

I agree with this. Talk about opening up the chance of a fluke winner, having a one week change would just show who figured out the equipment as opposed to the best player. It might still be Tiger, but not necessarily. Talk about standing on #12 tee trying to hit a shot with a ball that does not react like normal...that could get ugly.

[JESII]

If laying up on 13 and 15 is going to be ridiculed, what about laying up on #12...

[Matt_Ward]

Jim N:

The idea you stated that all of the players are hitting wedges into the holes is not accurate by a good bit. See what the players are now hitting into holes like #1, #5 and sadly what they must now hit into #7, to name just three examples.

People also need to be careful in ASSUMING that if Tiger hits some less club into a hole then EVERYONE is doing likewise. That is far from the case and has been demonstrated from years going way back (e.g. see what Nicklaus hit into greens during his record '65 win versus what others played).

Jim, I have no issue with the added length to provide a counterbalance to what technology has done. However, the tree encroachment is both unwise and flies in the face on the strategic greatness that underlines the uniqueness of ANGC prior to Hootie & TF, et al with all the so called "improvements."

To paraphrase what was said about a former President, "Let Augusta be Augusta."

[Rich Goodale]

JESII

Weiskopf tried that and took 13.....

[Tim Pitner]

I generally agree that adding stands of trees is not the best way to improve a golf course.

But, I enjoyed watching the tournament and thought it was one of the most entertaining Masters I've seen in years.  I suppose I should add the caveat that I watched all the coverage on Sunday but very little before then.  

I didn't check out the GCA threads until after the tournament.  While there were some interesting comments, I could do without some of the bitterness and nostalgia.  Pro golf is not about architecture and, although I like to see the pros play on interesting courses, the essence of sports is competition and this Masters was very competitive.  

[Adam Clayman]

Adam --

I don't know what you mean by that.

I'm sincerely curious: When was the last time you found professional golf "exciting"? What was exciting about it then that has vanished now?

Dan

Dan, I felt the golf was border line dull. I suppose the patrons felt that way too by their lack of roaring the first three days.

The tourney was not as dull because of the frequent changes to the leader board.

In the olden days ANGC use to explore not only the mnds of the golfer but their hearts as well. I felt that aspect was mostly absent this year and I place all the blame for that on changing the GC to meet someones definition of exacting tests.

Sean- I know I have read multiple quotes from both Jones and the good doctor that specifically state their disdain for exactly what has been done to ANGC. MacKenzie being dead is moot since his words live on.

[Dan Kelly]

Adam --

Thanks, but you didn't answer this: When was the last time you found professional golf "exciting"?

I'm not sure what my answer would be.

The last time I remember finding professional golf (other than the Ryder Cup) "exciting" (as opposed to just entertaining/interesting) was at Hazeltine, in the final round of the 2002 PGA, with Tiger chasing Beem.

But, then, I was right there for that -- so that may bias me.

What did the course setup have to do with it? The PGA left the greens soft enough and slow enough for a guy (Tiger) to run off a series of birdies, in hot pursuit.

Dan

P.S. to Shivas or Matt or anyone: And speaking of strategic bunkering: Where are the Old Course's center-line bunkers, at Augusta National?

[Adam Clayman]

Dan, I don't know when it was either. I thought Lefties first major was exciting. I also thught John Huston's eagle on the 18th @ ANGC was the last time I recall that course playng as exciting as it was meant to. (Faldo's 3rd jacket) I was also a big fan of Michaud's revenge in '04.

Certainly the Open Championships back pre ridiculous rough added to TOC, such as when JD won, and when Tiger won his first there, was exciting stuff.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I found the 2004 and 2005 Masters exciting; did no one else?