After the last 2 years at ANGC, are you happy with GCA there?

[RJ_Daley]

Well, I figured someone else would start a thread by now.  I'll try...

Have we formed or confirmed any opinions on the design and set-up changes after the last two Masters, regarding the wisdom of the changes?  Are you happy with a tournament that demonstrated a course forcing players not to throw up on themselves, as opposed to reaching out for the swaxhbuckler shot making, scoring big mentality?  Is the Masters just the second American Open, only invitational rather than open?  Survivor or Amdrican Idol? 

[David Stamm]

I'll I will say is this. It's been awfully quiet and dull recently at ANGC. I'm not asking for -30, but hearing the roars echo through the TV on another hole and you just knew something cool just happened. I think Sandy Lyle comments earlier this week sum it up well. The "old" course would dangle a cherry in front of you and you were agonizing about whether to go for the high risk shot. Now, it's a quassi US Open tourney...

[Phil McDade]

RJ:

On another thread (Masters statistics), I suggest the past two winners -- Johnson and Immelman -- were distinguished by their ability to put the ball in the fairway off the tee. Driving accuracy seems to have emerged as a pretty potent indicator of winning.

Caveat: last year for most of the tournament, and this year on the final round, the Masters featured pretty unusual April weather conditions -- cool and breezy -- that may have lent themselves to the driving accuracy conclusion. We probably need a few more years to really tie certain course statistics for any given year to the tourney's outcome. But it does seem to be a course now that favors the accurate driver.

[Adam Clayman]

Hell No!
 
The Masters use to be special every year. The course use to look unique, now it is less so.
IMO, They have hurt their brand, whether the bottom line reflects it or not.

[Mike_Cirba]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Jim Thompson]

I think one of the major issues that seems to impact all of the majors is set-up plan versus weather the week of the event.  Although I prefer the old mow plan and pine straw hazards, I appreciate that this current approach may be influencing the player’s preferred ball specs.  If the fairways are limiting the angles, then a spin ball has to be in the bag to shape the ball into the greens.  This may be one of the few ways to limit the ball arms race.  I often wonder if the competition committee has a plan for foul weather days and what the limits are to enact something along the lines of “high wind” pin placements or the like.   I think today the wind combined with the Sunday pins really limited the potential for a charge or the excitement we all remember.  Further, the flyer 1st and 2nd cuts require players to play it very safe.

[jeffwarne]

I completely agree with this sentement.

The roars are gone.  That sucks.   

They need to get rid of the rough, first and foremost.  Then, they need to move the par 3 and 5 tees up on Sundays.  I have no objection to then making Saturday hard.  But Sunday needs roars. 

Yeah, and get rid of that pesky wind, low temperature and humidity too

[Phil McDade]

I completely agree with this sentement.

The roars are gone.  That sucks.   

They need to get rid of the rough, first and foremost.  Then, they need to move the par 3 and 5 tees up on Sundays.  I have no objection to then making Saturday hard.  But Sunday needs roars. 

Shivas' views on the 2007 Masters, which he really seemed to enjoy with the firm and fast and hard conditions (eerily similar to this year's final round) can be found here:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,28677.35.html

[David Stamm]

If a course is too hard to be reasonably scored on just because there is a little wind, a few guys need to wear sweatervests and nobody is sweating through their shirts, then, in my view, the course is simply too hard, period, Jeff.

They've gone overboard with this setup.  Apparently, it takes hot, humid conditions, with no wind, and easy pin placements, for the best players in the world to be able to break 70.

As an aside to David's point here, the tee's were moved up and the course played significanly shorter than what it could have played. Tiger said after his round today that if the tee's were set up where they normally have been, over par would've won.

[jeffwarne]

If a course is too hard to be reasonably scored on just because there is a little wind, a few guys need to wear sweatervests and nobody is sweating through their shirts, then, in my view, the course is simply too hard, period, Jeff.

They've gone overboard with this setup.  Apparently, it takes hot, humid conditions, with no wind, and easy pin placements, for the best players in the world to be able to break 70.

Wasn't Immelman bidding to become the first player to shoot four rounds in the 60's?
I know you're from the windy city, but 20 mph sustained with gusts to 30 is pretty windy with with swirling unpredictable tunnels and corridors through the valleys and pines.
particularly on the most difficult greens in the world.
That said, I'd like to get rid of the rough for aesthetic and ball runoff issues as well as thin out many of the new pines.

[jeffwarne]

with multiple double doglegs

[Mike Benham]

I think the TV shots of empty seats in the grandstands for the final groups on Saturday is telling enough, either that or some of the patrons are so old they look like green seats ...

[Phil McDade]

Dave:

Your goal -- tough on Saturday, roars on Sunday -- seemed to be negated (in fact, reversed) by the weather, mostly, no? I didn't see any diabolical pin positions today (Sunday), and the fast/firm conditions of this year's final round seemed to result in a pretty dull day, really (Immelman's brief interlude at 16 notwithstanding), with no true run at the leader through the kind of swashbuckling play of year's past. I mean, the biggest roar of the day came from Tiger's monster putt, which was truly the exception to his putting the rest of the round (and tourney).

I think the biggest difference between last year's final round in fast/firm conditions and this year's final round in fast/firm conditions is that last year, several players played a whole lot better than this year (par being irrelevant to the point of this discussion). I mean, everyone folded their tent this year -- last year Johnson Sabbatini, Goosen, Woods and Kelly all made runs at the overnight leaders, and all but Tiger shot under par for the day.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I am afraid it has simply become just another golf tournament.   No longer for the go for the gusto crowd the Masters has become just aohter golf tournament.  Had it not been for the HD I would not have found any interest in the tournament, as it was withe great new camera angles CBS was really able to show the dramatic putting surfaces.  

Time to shorten up the par fives and let em have a go!!  The long par 4's don't bother as much.

[Phil McDade]

W.H.:

The par 5s are really where most of the birdies are coming from, at least in this year's tourney. Of the nine hardest holes in this year's Masters, eight are par 4s (10, 11, 7, 1, 5, 9, 18, and 17, with only the very tough par 3 4th holding a spot among the nine hardest holes this year at Augusta). That suggests the evolution of a course in which the only place to make a move is on the par 5s, with the run of birdies/eagles seen in previous Masters made more difficult by the challenge of hard par 4s every few holes (note that the eight par 4s referenced above are balanced evenly between front and back nines).

[Jason Connor]

I miss the roars.

Even on TV you'd hear a roar from another hole and think "Who was that!?"

Now it's just a "Hold on to win" tournament.

The 10 players in the last 5 groups shot  Even, +1, +5, +5, Even, Even, +6, +7, +3, +5.

That's not quite Nicklaus in '86.  It's just so hard to "charge".   Even last year when Tiger had a shot, he didn't try to charge.  He hung on waiting for Johnson to make a mistake and shot 72 to Johnson's 69.

Since the winner shot +3 to win, I didn't feel too bad about my nap.

It's just another major to me now, all thanks to the architectural changes that removed the strategy.

[jeffwarne]

Jason,
Can you explain how Jack Nicklaus would've played the course differently now(if he were in his prime) from how he played it in the 70's?
Was Seve using strategy?-because I remember watching him play the 5th hole from the 6th fairway-didn't seem like a good angle to me (although I'm unable to hit a slice 3 iron 220 over 100 foot pines up a 60 foot hill)

Was Tiger's 3 (the only one of the day) on 11 any less exciting than a 3 on 13 would've been-both second shots involve considerable risk reward-in fact I might argue 11 has more from where they approach now. (in that there is tempting room to bail) 13 you either go or you don't

[Eric Olsen]

My brother and I were talking about the lack of roars, and how we are probably just going to stop watching these tournaments altogether. We could have been out playing 36 holes instead of sitting in front of a boring tournament.

[BCrosby]

Eric is right.

As Immelman and Tiger said, par has become a good score on the back nine on Sunday at ANGC.

Jeff -

The thrill is not watching Tiger hole a 65 foot no-brainer. The thrill is watching players agonize over strategic choices and then try to pull them off. That's not happening very often.

And that is why the roars have disappeared.

I was there Saturday and most of yesterday. It was almost a morgue.

Bob

[Jason Connor]

My brother and I were talking about the lack of roars, and how we are probably just going to stop watching these tournaments altogether. We could have been out playing 36 holes instead of sitting in front of a boring tournament.

This is a key point, I think.  We all have alternatives.  Once upon a time, I wouldn't think of missing Sunday at the Masters or the US Open on TV.  The ebb and flow of momentum was fantastic at Augusta.  Particularly with the possibility of a big or small number on so many of the holes on the back nine at Augusta.  Now though, I'm far more likely to go out and play a match instead.

Maybe I'm a grizzled old man at 33.  I'm not typically the "It was better back in my day type."  But Jim Nance used to say something like "The Master's truly begins at the back nine on Sunday" ad nauseum.  That just seems less true anymore.

Winners at -30 at Phoenix aren't the most fun.  But a guy shooting +3 to hang on to win isn't the most thrilling theatre either.

Basically it seems the risk is now so great, too few players are challenging the risk-reward holes at Augusta.

[Andy Troeger]

I don't think the architecture was much of a factor by the back nine Sunday. To me the reason the tournament was rather boring this year was that a bunch of guys with little/no major pressure experience were near the top when the weather got tricky. When all the challengers folded Immelman didn't have to anything exciting to hold on.

Not every Masters in the 90's was exciting either, albeit probably better than this one. The guys in contention still have to execute shots to make things fun, I'd put some blame on them for a lackluster finish.

[jeffwarne]

Eric,
it ended up boring-no question. but don't you think there's of been a few more roars if Tiger could make a 7 footer or less? (he missed four at least)

or drive it in the fairway on 13-The tree he was stymied against has been there for many years.
Or hit the 3 wood straight at 15-he cleared the water by 40 yards.

or if Snedeker hadn't chunked a 5 IRON from inside 200 on 13?

I just don't think course setup would've changed things on Sunday-we're reading way too much into one day

[Dan Herrmann]

boring, boring, boring.

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

There would have been a few more roars if any number of things had happened. I can think of 20 or 30 off the top of my head.

The fact of the matter is that they didn't happen. And they haven't happed for several years now.

At some point you have to wonder....

Bob

[TEPaul]

RJ:

The thing that fascinates me about the likes of ANGC at the Masters and the USGA at the Open is how good they are at day to day set-ups to influence various types of play and scoring outcome.

I, for one, think they are remarkably good at influencing those things from day to day but for my part I'm not much of a fan of their DESIRED OUTCOME and RESULT of that SETUP INFLUENCE from time to time.

I think last year ANGC produced a pretty exciting Sunday setup and they did it even better the year Mickelson won but yesterday they got way too severe on their Sunday setup and the results were distinctly contrary to the ultra exciting "roars through the pines" super "ups and downs/Make or Break", "the Tournament Starts on the Back Nine on Sunday" kind of excitement that the Masters is so famous for.

Yesterday's scores reflected that lack of that Masters Sunday excitement in spades.