[Jay Flemma]

After my thread last year about Tom Fazio's thoughts on architecture met with mixed reviews, I took Rob Thompson's advice and since the group didn't want to open a dialogue with Mr. Fazio about his insights on architecture and the good and welfare of the game, I interviewed him myself.  (I still have another session coming, but that's beside the point.)

In a forthcoming Masters preview for a publication, I asked Tom Fazio a question about a strange quirk regarding the Masters:

Of the four majors, there are fewer one-time winners of majors that claimed the Masters than any other major.  What I mean is this:  only 14 people have won the Masters once, and then no other major - example, Mike Weir, Larry Mize and Craig Stadler only won one major - the Masters.

By contrast, 21 people have won only one U.S. Open, but no other majors, (for example, Scott Simpson, Michael campbell) 22 people have won only one British Open but no other majors, (Todd Hamilton, Bill Rogers), and a whopping 31 have won just a lone PGA, (Jeff Sluman, David Toms, Shaun Micheel, Rich Beem, Mark Brooks, Steve Elkington, Wayne Grady, (WAYNE GRADY!), Bob Tway, and Jerry Barber.)

I thought the architecture had something to do with it - that the ability to hit a wide variety of recovery shots around the greens and the width off the tee gave the best players, the swashbucklers who have talent and get more birdies accordingly and therefore, that's why more seasoned players succeed and the marginal players fall a little short more often than not.

Fazio rejected the notion.  Instead, he cited the limited nature of this invitational tournament and the players’ familiarity with the course.  “It was an invitational for a long time” he explained, “a limited field.  To qualify for Masters, you had to be tournament winner.  I don’t think it has to do with architecture, I think it’s the importance of the event and that great champions are more familiar with the course since it’s played every year.  If they played the other majors on the same course all the time, the same effect might take place because the golfers are more familiar with the venue and there are more opportunities for the best players to win.”

I think there is a little truth to what he says, but I still think the architecture has a great deal to do with this phenomenon, much more than the argument he proffered.  I think he has a valid point, just not the BEST reason.

Your thoughts?  Also, do you think with the changes - which narrow the landing areas and make the ball run into trouble more - that we might see more unexpected, one-time winners than we have in the past?

[Phil_the_Author]

Jay,

I agree with Fazio. Limited fields that are routinely filled by those who have played it in the past allow them the opportunity to gain an intimate knowledge of the course.

Examine the criteria for invitation and you will see that since the very first championship held that it was populated by the best and most successful players of their time. Even the single major winners consistently have shown themselves to be players who both win on the regular PGA Tour and often contend in other major championships.

When you also consider that Masters winners get an automatic invitation to play again every year until they are 65, and that this is no longer true of any other major, I believe the number of single-major winners of the Masters, incomparison tothe others, will go down...

[Ally Mcintosh]

Aside from the "Smaller Invitational Field" comment which I agree with, consider this:

There have been 69 US Masters held with 14 one-time Major winners = 20.3 %

There have been 136 British Opens held with 22 one-time Major winners = 16.2 %

So I think we are looking a 0% Architectural influence

[Matthew Mollica]

In what may be the only instance i my life where I use these four words consecutively -

"I agree with Fazio".

Almost all of the one time winners you listed had one hot wek, and are what we Aussies would call Bolters.
At Augusta, it's very hard for a bolter to win, primarily because there's barely any invited.

MM

[Mark Bourgeois]

I agree with Fazio. The deck is completely rigged. There's a quote un fact somewhere from Jones or Roberts saying this.

The architectural angle does exist, though: for a long time the course favored a certain game. Johnny Miller used to call it the "Augusta Spring Putting Championship" and Lee Trevino said a low ball fader like him had no shot.

Another aspect architecturally the would be interesting to analyze is the value of experience. Historically and to an extent still today, it was supposed to take a while to decipher putts. Also the NLE course that was strategic demanded both the knowledge of knowing where to hit (and in Amen Corner, when to hit - although Tiger got caught out last year on his approach to 17) and knowing when and where to step on the gas.

Players weren't supposed to win by laying up on every single par 5.

I am curious to know whether the changes may have degraded the value of experience. For example, by removing decisions off the tee and by removing some high risk high reward recovery shots.

As luck would have it last night I had started in on this. With luck something will come out of this and I will be happy to share!

Mark

[Kalen Braley]

Aside from the "Smaller Invitational Field" comment which I agree with, consider this:

There have been 69 US Masters held with 14 one-time Major winners = 20.3 %

There have been 136 British Opens held with 22 one-time Major winners = 16.2 %

So I think we are looking a 0% Architectural influence

Ally hit this right on the head...I don't think there is anything to be read into this.  If anything, the %'s show its easier to win your only major at Augusta.  While the field is more experienced on that course, its also vastly less deep than the average major.  All those previous winners turn into non-contendors, if your name isn't Jack Nicklaus, once they hit 50.

Here is the % for US Open:

106 events with 21 one time major winners = 19.8%

[tlavin]

Fazio's reasoning seems solid, even though Zach Johnson was last year's winner and he surely didn't have a lot of familiarity with the golf course.  I think the main issue at Augusta is one of preparation, execution and nerves.  What keen insight, huh?  But, really, in order to compete and win at Augusta more than at other courses and at other majors, one has to have a game plan.  And one has to stick with it. 

The golf course can jump up and bite a golfer in a heartbeat and if the response is to ditch the game plan and get more or less aggressive, the player can quickly lose control of the tournament.  Johnson's performance last year illustrates this quite well, especially when you look at the way he laid up at all of the par 5's all week.  I don't know how many times I've yelled at the television, imploring a player to do just that, in order to get a great shot at a birdie rather than a longshot at an eagle.

Familiarity with the golf course, it seems to me, is also key, especially when it comes to the greens.  The veterans know where to miss on the greens.  They know when to try to jar a 30 footer and when to cozy it up to the hole.  In my addled judgment, the architecture here is the key, since the Mackenzie greens have been bewitching competitors since the very beginning.

Finally, there is the issue of nerves.  To a man, every winner of the Masters has been able, for four days, to go into a trance-like state, only to awaken when the jacket is slipped on his shoulders.

So I'm not certain that there is a meaninful nexus between the architecture and the winners, but I am certain of this: there is no golf event in America with more emotion and more visceral power than the Masters.  Maybe it's because it's first on the calendar.  Maybe it's because of the history.  Maybe it's the sheer surreal beauty of the place. 

I don't know what it is, but I do know that I'm ready for Arnie to hit the first shot.

[Craig Sweet]

Lee Travino played it a lot and hated the architecture of Augusta...it didn't suit his game....

INVITE MONTY!!!!

[David_Tepper]

While I do agree with the premise that the limited field at the Masters does reduce the odds of an "out of left field" winner, there is some substance to the notion that the design of the course (at least as it used to be) sets the course up better for some players than others.

The fact that Crenshaw and Olazabal each won the Masters twice (and won no other majors) certainly reinforces the notion that a great short game is far more important than length and accuracy off the tee at AGNC.         

[David Stamm]

To me, there is nothing cryptic about this. It's the youngest of the 4 majors by a wide margin and by far the smallest field.

[JESII]

Jay,

Perhaps you should have asked him why, if a played is going to win just one major in their career is it more likely to be The Masters than either of the Opens...

Just a thought...

[David Stamm]

  In my addled judgment, the architecture here is the key, since the Mackenzie greens have been bewitching competitors since the very beginning.

 

Unfortunately, Terry, almost all of them have been changed to where very little of MacK is left. Yes, they have been bewitching players for years, but if they still had his greens with the speeds they insist on running today, they would be unplayable, IMHO.

[Matt_Cohn]

Fazio's reasoning seems solid, even though Zach Johnson was last year's winner and he surely didn't have a lot of familiarity with the golf course.

Nobody really had familiarity with the way the course played last year. Hopefully we won't be getting any more familiar with it in the future.

[Andrew Mitchell]

Lee Travino played it a lot and hated the architecture of Augusta...it didn't suit his game....

INVITE MONTY!!!!

The press conferences will be less interesting without him but I think Monty's blown invites for this year and the foreseeable future after this outburst
www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2008/4/1/it-is-a-strange-way-to-make-up-a-field-for-a-major-champions.html

[Jay Flemma]

Well, the PGA still leads the field with more one-hit wonders. 

I see what you're saying about the limited field, but there are still a fair number of other ways in (yes, I know Monty didn't get in), but plenty of rank-and-file players start.  Zach Johnson is a good example...he only made the 2006 Ryder Cup team by being 9th on the money list and then the 3 tour challenge, (wait for laughter), and then...ZANG!  Lightning.

[Matthew Mollica]

Zach Johnson was last year's winner and he surely didn't have a lot of familiarity with the golf course.

Nobody really had familiarity with the way the course played last year.

I concur with the comments above, especially in light of the way the course has been altered in the previous decade. Not just through addition of trees, and continued narrowing due to tree growth, but added length and second cut AND IMPORTANTLY re-laying of some greens.  Each year seems to give players a look at a slightly tweaked course that bears resemblence to the layout of previous years. Yet, Augusta National is not static. A little googling will reveal a Tiger quote reinforcing this view. One could mount a reasonable argument that past years playing experience has counted for less and less at Augusta since 2000.

Matthew

[Andrew Summerell]

 Wayne Grady, (WAYNE GRADY!)

 

[tlavin]

Fazio's reasoning seems solid, even though Zach Johnson was last year's winner and he surely didn't have a lot of familiarity with the golf course.

Nobody really had familiarity with the way the course played last year. Hopefully we won't be getting any more familiar with it in the future.

Matt,

Since you obviously won't be watching, I'll send you an IM and let you know who wins!

[Peter Pallotta]

Jay -

a little sidebar to a good question. For me, just as impressive as Mr. Nicklaus' win in 1986 was his finish in 1998 - I think he finished in 5th or 6th, at 58 years old and not long after he'd had an artificial hip replacement. I think he could've done even better, but (unlike in 1986, when he still really believed he could win) he got demoralized after a bogie at #12. Anyway, I remember being impressed by two things in particular - that his iron play was simply outstanding, and that he took so much advantage of that iron play play because he'd learned where best to put the ball on the green (or at least where NOT to hit it). Of course, some of that has to do with being Jack Nicklaus and some with his years playing Augusta....but yes, I'd imagine some of it was 'enabled' by the architecture itself.

Peter   

[Mark Bourgeois]

Hi Terry - you're starting the rumble early this year!
 (Or in the words of John McClane, "Welcome to the party, pal.")

BTW Have Shivas, Pat, and you aligned your posting strategy for this year or do you all plan to run it like a confederacy / franchise?

You know, like al Queda!

Jay,

I think there are ways the architecture has an influence, I just don't think you devised the right test.

For example, wouldn't a better way to test your premise be to:
A, Take everyone who played in each year's Masters.
B, Compile the record of this field in each subsequent major of that year.
C, Calculate where each top finisher in these pools rank within these cohorts in terms of the number of times they have played in that major. To adjust for different sizes / populations of the cohorts, you probably should calculate the rank in percentile terms.
D, Also, eliminate everyone from each cohort who is making an appearance in that major beyond his, say, 20th. These are field fillers.
E, Calculate averages over a reasonable amount of time, say from 1960 onwards.
F, To see if recent changes have had an impact, you also could calculate by decade, or do a 1960 - 1998 vs 1999 - 2007 comparison.

If your hypothesis is correct, then Masters winners should on average have a statistically significant lead in experience over those as nearly identical as possible cohorts in the other majors.

The good thing about this approach is that there actually are numbers out there you could use.

Mark

[Phil McDade]

Jay:

This is a good question, one I've always pondered as someone keen on golf history and records.

At first glance, I'd argue the nature of AN's design has a lot to do with winning the Masters:

-- It disproportionately favors drivers who can draw the ball. The majority of driving holes favor a draw, and the holes where you really need to score, or avoid a bad score (all of its par 5s, 10 and 11) really favor a draw.

-- It rewards high approaches into many of its greens (all of the par 3s, especially, 13, 15, 17).

-- It (used to, still does, but perhaps in a lesser way) favors length, because the penalty for wayward length was disporportionately benign, compared to, say, the US Open.

So, to me, it's no surprise that players like Nicklaus, Tiger, Palmer, Seve and even Norman had great success (Norman has a better overall record at AN than many of its winners) at the Masters.

And it has also favored folks who may not necessarily have all of those abilities, and even are known for their wayward driving esp., but are superb putters and have good short games. Which explains why guys like Olazabal, Crenshaw, Watson and even an O'Meara have won and done well there.

But to me what's interesting about Augusta is that it also seems to reward what I'd call a "precision" player -- not necessarily a short player, but someone who can sort of cut up a course with an exacto knife throughly simply making very few mistakes. Which explains the success of Faldo, Langer, Player. and Zach Johnson -- all have won there and had great histories.

Having said all that, I do think the limited field -- relative to the other majors -- has a lot to do with who has won there. And I've always though Trevino's lack of success there had more to do with his disdain of the culture of the club, and not necessarily the course.

[tlavin]

Hi Terry - you're starting the rumble early this year!
 (Or in the words of John McClane, "Welcome to the party, pal.")

BTW Have Shivas, Pat, and you aligned your posting strategy for this year or do you all plan to run it like a confederacy / franchise?

You know, like al Queda!

Jay,

I think there are ways the architecture has an influence, I just don't think you devised the right test.

For example, wouldn't a better way to test your premise be to:
A, Take everyone who played in each year's Masters.
B, Compile the record of this field in each subsequent major of that year.
C, Calculate where each top finisher in these pools rank within these cohorts in terms of the number of times they have played in that major. To adjust for different sizes / populations of the cohorts, you probably should calculate the rank in percentile terms.
D, Also, eliminate everyone from each cohort who is making an appearance in that major beyond his, say, 20th. These are field fillers.
E, Calculate averages over a reasonable amount of time, say from 1960 onwards.
F, To see if recent changes have had an impact, you also could calculate by decade, or do a 1960 - 1998 vs 1999 - 2007 comparison.

If your hypothesis is correct, then Masters winners should on average have a statistically significant lead in experience over those as nearly identical as possible cohorts in the other majors.

The good thing about this approach is that there actually are numbers out there you could use.

Mark

It's never too early to incite the cacophany of whining!

And it's never too late to restate my "take" on the changes:  Augusta National is a private club, not a golf architecture museum.  If its owners think that they have to alter the shrine to keep the course as "competitive" as they want it to be, it's entirely within their province to do so.  Personally, I would rather see it left alone and let the pros go low, but this is an internationally televised event of huge financial proportions, so I can understand their rationale.  On the other side of the coin, if the purists think that the changes have ruined the golf course, I say let 'em watch tennis.

[Mark Bourgeois]

What!

Terry, you're entitled to change your position (just like Ron Whitten!) but I recall last year's position was to savor the suffering of the pros, US Open-style.

My position: I don't care whether the changes have ruined the architecture, either.  But I do care whether the changes ruin the *tournament*.

BTW I re-viewed last year's final round the other day to see if it was as awful as I recalled.  Yep, it sure was -- although an "assist" needs to go to Lance Barrow. I think we viewers were saved from an even-worse fate by Stuart Appleby's interminable dithering.  It forced Barrow to go "Chirkinian-lite" and throw us patron dogs a few quick-cut bones.

That aside aside, watching Zach lay up again and again, watching Tiger wrap a club around a tree, watching Padraig pitch over the trees to 17 green...ugh.

And if the first few rounds this year look like a repeat of last year, then, no, I won't be watching, for the first time in forever.  Anybody know where the PTA is next week?

Mark

[Will MacEwen]

Should the Masters and TPC switch dates for weather reasons?  The Masters seems to have been bogged down in the last 8 or so years, and I don't think that helps anything.

[tlavin]

What!

Terry, you're entitled to change your position (just like Ron Whitten!) but I recall last year's position was to savor the suffering of the pros, US Open-style.

My position: I don't care whether the changes have ruined the architecture, either.  But I do care whether the changes ruin the *tournament*.

BTW I re-viewed last year's final round the other day to see if it was as awful as I recalled.  Yep, it sure was -- although an "assist" needs to go to Lance Barrow. I think we viewers were saved from an even-worse fate by Stuart Appleby's interminable dithering.  It forced Barrow to go "Chirkinian-lite" and throw us patron dogs a few quick-cut bones.

That aside aside, watching Zach lay up again and again, watching Tiger wrap a club around a tree, watching Padraig pitch over the trees to 17 green...ugh.

And if the first few rounds this year look like a repeat of last year, then, no, I won't be watching, for the first time in forever.  Anybody know where the PTA is next week?

Mark

I don't mind seeing the pros suffer, not that I advocate girdling the fairways and growing crazy rough, since the course is primarily just an outdoor television set for a tournament.  Personally, I would like to see the course the way it was way back when, because I greatly prefer classic courses to the newly altered versions.  I say this as if I ever really had a chance to play it!  My game doesn't need the new tee boxes and it surely doesn't need more trees to tighten a driving area (as if I'd hit it that far anyway). 

The analysis is simply different if the course is going to host a major.  For example, I wish we didn't have to build back tee boxes and alter greens at Olympia, but we wanted the Open and you have to pay the piper, so I'm willing to sacrifice my quainter view for the purpose of accommodating the tour.  One's personal preferences can be set aside unless one is a bit of a zealot.

My beef with the ANGC whining is that it ignores the business and sporting realities of the event itself.  But from what you say, you won't be watching, so you're a man of principle.

I almost believe you!!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()