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

[BCrosby]

Shivas -

The strategic interest in positioning a layup on a par 5 is vanishingly small. The risks and rewards don't get anyone's heartbeat up.

You can dumb down the notion of strategy to the point that almost anything becomes strategic. I suppose there is nothing wrong with that. Other than to note that there is such a thing as dull strategy.

The goal on good courses is to provide interesting strategy. Normally that involves choices with wide ranges of scoring consequences.

Though layups on par 5's, bailing to the the right on 11 and chipping for par, might be strategic in some diluted, Goodalian sense, they are not the kinds of choices that generate much excitment. For the player or the fan.

They are not markers of a good, strategic course. 

Bob

[Phil McDade]

Dave:

Thanks for clarifying; I brought up last year's thread to get a sense of how you viewed this year differently than last year, if at all (partly because you went against convention on the board last year).

Here's what I'm wondering. Let's take '86 as the prime example of the kind of excitement that folks here on the board seem to be pining for. Yes, Jack made birdies and an eagle all over the place on the back nine. But the course that day also produced several wild swings throughout the back nine. Norman had a terrific run of birdies on the back nine to catch Nicklaus, only to choke on a 5-iron on 18. Pavin had a back nine eagle followed by a shot in the lake on 16. Kite had a terrific up-and-down (I think) on 17, and a great approach on 18, only to choke on a very makeable putt on the final hole. Seve dumped one in the lake on 15, and also left himself a horrible putt on 17 with a lousy approach (he ended up three-putting) when the tournament was still up for grabs. ('86 was also the year of Price's 63 in the third round, when he went on a birdie run unlikely to be matched again.)

Do you think that kind of up-and-down, roller-coaster of a day is still possible under the current set-up, regardless of weather conditions and fast/firm set-up? You mentioned fairway width and rough; I get the impression that the additional tree plantings are having a big impact on players approaching the course much more conservatively than in the past, along with the lengthening of holes like 7 and 10 that have made them considerably tougher than in past years.

[tlavin]

Pars and bogeys, not birdies and eagles, oh my!  If you want birdies and eagles, make sure to tune in when the tour gets to Warwick Hills or watch the replays from one of the desert stops.  This is the Masters, not the 84 Lumber Classic.  They ought to earn it.  If earning it means watching them puke a little bit, bring on the vomitus.  All of this whining about the lack of roars is also a tad lame.  If it was Tiger in the lead and he was grinding his way to another jacket, you would have had all the roars you could possibly desire.

Let's face it, Immelman has a resume a page long and he doesn't yet inspire anybody.  Heck, even Gary Player didn't stick around for the victory lap; he repaired to the Middle East on some "business". 

I'll agree that some of the changes are artificial and forced and wholly out of the spirit with the original design (#7 in particular), but we have the best players in the world trying to win one of the most coveted titles in sport.  There's nothing wrong with trying to make sure that it ain't easy for them.

[jim_lewis]

Oh my God! The past two Masters have been won by guys who can control their tee shots and make birdies on par fives without having to hit the green in two shots. What's this game coming to?? Why can't the Masters be won by more exciting players like Oglivy, Cabrera, and Harrington?

[Matthew Rose]

Count me as someone who was bored to tears by this year's tournament. Last year's too.

It seems to be like the Masters doesn't know what it wants to be anymore.... it seems like it wants to be the US Open part of the time, but still the Masters the other part of the time, and it constantly waffles back and forth between the two. The result is a half-assed, contrived mess that seems to be rapidly losing the things that makes it unique.

Everyone was shooting 72 or 73 today.... not good enough to excite and not poor enough to be really intriguing in any interesting way. In the US Open you get an occasional 80. In the Open or the PGA you get an occasional 64.

I think #11 is a boring hole now. What's the point of having a pond there if the whole field is going to play 50 yards right of the pin? Symptomatic of the golf course as a whole.

Even #13 is boring now.... everybody lays up.

I feel there's getting less and less incentive for people to attack the golf course and that's really sad.

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

Don't discount the significance of Sunday's very strong wind; I don't ever recall the flags whipping around like they did yesterday. Holes 15 and 13 (the approach) played dead into the wind, from what I heard, making a 2nd shot into the green a very risky proposition. No. 14 played with the wind behind, and the hole played fairly easy, in part because players had much shorter approaches into a green with a pin set back.

[Matthew Rose]

Yeah, that's true.... conditions weren't exactly conducive to attacking golf.

Still, I couldn't help but feel during all four days that the action was flat.

[Sean_A]

While I found the tourny mostly boring, there was still a heck of a lot of strategical merit on offer by Augusta.  Perhaps some of my disappointment comes from the fact that I don't really have a player or two out there I would really like to win.  For the most part, these guys are faceless and not very compelling to watch.  Thats all part of modern golf.  Swashbuckling is really down to Tiger.  He is the only guy out there that gets me shaking my head.  I find it incredible that he can spray that patented block drive out to the right 30 yards off target then find a way to make pars so often.  Many have blamed his putting for losing and to a certain degree, this is nearly always the case.  However, Tiger didn't strike me as being anywhere near Little I's league when it came to driving this week. 

All in all, I was very impressed with the architecture.  Seeing the course on a huge HD tv made a hell of a difference. and really brought back some memories of walking a practice day back in 1982.  There will always be certain things I don't care for.  Architecturally #s 7 & 11 and confused me.  #11 needs a much wider fairway - I don't see anyway around this fact.  But in a more aesthetic sense I strongly dislike the bunkering colour and style and the wierd circles of pine straw around some trees. 

I am no so convinced about the setup.  It seemed to be right on the edge for winds that looked to be 15ish mph - which shouldn't be enough to cause that much concern.

Ciao

[Adam Clayman]

Phil- Under the original design principles of less dictation through narrowness, when strong winds came up the course still would've yielded exciting and heroic play. The changes have created a course that is only acceptable in moderate conditions. Pretty inelastic for the course. and, short sighted by those who've made the ill-conceived changes.

Terry's attitude is clearly a result of the macho Chicago school. It's so self absorbed that it borders on the narcissistic. I'm not picking on you Terry, just the mindset.  

 Well, Dr. Mackenzie understood differently. Bobby Jones, too.

How does the best golfer of his time, upon retiring at the height of his golfing achievements seeks out the best piece of property, to build the finest golf course in the country, only to have others change it almost from inception? Golf's cruelest irony, that's what it is.

[Robert Kimball]

I will paraphrase something I read on Shakelford's blog last year.

"Congratulations to Trevor Immelman, winner of the 2008 U.S. Open @ Augusta National."

[tlavin]

Phil- Under the original design principles of less dictation through narrowness, when strong winds came up the course still would've yielded exciting and heroic play. The changes have created a course that is only acceptable in moderate conditions. Pretty inelastic for the course. and, short sighted by those who've made the ill-conceived changes.

Terry's attitude is clearly a result of the macho Chicago school. It's so self absorbed that it borders on the narcissistic. I'm not picking on you Terry, just the mindset. 

 Well, Dr. Mackenzie understood differently. Bobby Jones, too.

How does the best golfer of his time, upon retiring at the height of his golfing achievements seeks out the best piece of property, to build the finest golf course in the country, only to have others change it almost from inception? Golf's cruelest irony, that's what it is.

Through the lens of history, the scores that were posted this week are hardly a horror to observe.  You can call it macho if you want, but there's nothing wrong with making this golf course tough enough so that the winner winds up somewhere around 8 to 12 under par.  The way these guys hit the ball these days, the winning score could be 20 under par.  I know that they don't care about par at the Open championship, but the people who run the Masters don't want the course to be trivialized by wacky numbers.  Having said that, in the history of the Masters, whether in the vaunted, big-roar days in the not so distant past, there has never been a player with four rounds in the 60's.

If the nostalgia crowd wants to give Bobby Jones back his golf course, you might as well turn it into an architecture museum because you'd have ten guys named Moe with four rounds in the 60's every year.

[George Pazin]

I ended up going out for pizza and watching it on DVR upon return.

Zip, zip, shot, putt, zip, zip, putt, zip, zip, missed putt, zip, zip, zip, zip, zip....

That's probably as good an illustration as anything else.

[Tom Zeni]

Are we ever going to see another round of 65 ever again at Augusta? The Crazy 8 Ball thinks not.  The green jackets have forgotten that the Master's isn't a golf tournament, it's theater. The names moving up and down the scoreboard on the back nine on Sunday.  The one-upsmanship of "take that" on the 13th, only to be outdone with an answer of an eagle on the 15th, and a 'yes sir' on the 17th. And where are the roars as the ball catches the mounding and rolls towards the hole on the 16th? 

I tell you, the theater is gone. A run-of-the-mill golf tournament has taken it's place.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil- Under the original design principles of less dictation through narrowness, when strong winds came up the course still would've yielded exciting and heroic play. The changes have created a course that is only acceptable in moderate conditions. Pretty inelastic for the course. and, short sighted by those who've made the ill-conceived changes.

Terry's attitude is clearly a result of the macho Chicago school. It's so self absorbed that it borders on the narcissistic. I'm not picking on you Terry, just the mindset.  

 Well, Dr. Mackenzie understood differently. Bobby Jones, too.

How does the best golfer of his time, upon retiring at the height of his golfing achievements seeks out the best piece of property, to build the finest golf course in the country, only to have others change it almost from inception? Golf's cruelest irony, that's what it is.

Adam,

The routing is virtually unchanged.

As are most of the holes.

I don't consider tee lengthening of the Master's tees as an alteration,
so, # 7 green, # 9 green, # 10 green and # 16 green are the substantive net changes over 74 years.

As to width, the course remains quite WIDE.
Not as wide as originally intended, but, then again, the ANGC triumvirate never contemplated clubs that prevent balls from having the diverse shot patterns that existed in their day.

I think those that are unfamiliar with ANGC aren't giving proper weight to the conditions of play on Sunday, choosing instead to blame everything on the architecture.

[RJ_Daley]

[...choosing instead to blame everything on the architecture.[/quote]

Well, the remodeled architecture in part.  And, the maintenence presentations.  Are the added connifers architecture?  I choose to say no, not really.  They are a maintenance, grooming, horticulture issue.  And, growing in a rough is purely maintenance meld.  As far as I'm concerned, lengthening, bunker work, altering slopes and green contours, or extending green surfaces is architecture... not trees and mowing, or watering.

[Adam Clayman]

Planting trees, to preclude specific angles of attack that were originally there, is contrary to Mac and Jones written philosophies. Throw in the added length and you have significant changes to the architecture. The routing needn't change to significantly alter the character of the course.
 These guys should be shooting rounds in the fifties, and the tournament would be uber exciting.

[RJ_Daley]

Adam, the way I look at it, it doesn't take a architect so much as a committee gone wild to plant trees.  Yeah, I know it is done to affect playing angles and narrow and all, which narrows the original architect's intended options and corridors and playing style.  But, a monkey can plant the trees without one bit of architectural credentials... so even if an architect supervised the tree plantings and placement, I still think it isn't on "the architectural side of golf' in the pure sense... 

[Sean_A]

Adam, the way I look at it, it doesn't take a architect so much as a committee gone wild to plant trees.  Yeah, I know it is done to affect playing angles and narrow and all, which narrows the original architect's intended options and corridors and playing style.  But, a monkey can plant the trees without one bit of architectural credentials... so even if an architect supervised the tree plantings and placement, I still think it isn't on "the architectural side of golf' in the pure sense... 

RJ

I don't know how you came up with this one.  Because anybody can plant a tree its not architecture?  Anybody can build a course, does that mean its not architecture?  If trees aren't part of the architecture are they part of the maintenance?  If trees alter playing routes then they must be part of the architecture.  Mind you, unlike Wayne and Tom, I believe anything used by an archie (built or not) is part of architecture - so I have a fairly liberal idea of the concept. 

Ciao

[Brett Morris]

I think #11 is a boring hole now. What's the point of having a pond there if the whole field is going to play 50 yards right of the pin? Symptomatic of the golf course as a whole.

Even #13 is boring now.... everybody lays up.

I feel there's getting less and less incentive for people to attack the golf course and that's really sad.

I don't know, I saw many head for the 13th in two, Snedeker (sp?) dumped it in Rae's Creek each day over the weekend having a crack at it.  Tiger attacked from what I saw, 15 and particularly 17 on Friday and Saturday to benefit by almost holing out.

[Dean Stokes]

Gents, I think many of us are blaming the course set up for the lack of patron 'roars' when maybe we should look at the players and the state of the game instead.

Players today are laying up and missing greens on the safeside with clubs that players of yester year were hitting at pins. Watch Faldo hit his 3 iron in the playoff on #11. He didn't bail out right. Watch the number of players years ago hit woods in to #13 and #15. This week players were laying up from 220 - 240 yards - that's an iron for most of these guys.

I think we ought to maybe consider the effect that prize money, head doctors, golf channel analysts and entry into world ranked/point based events is having on the game.

Club for club this course is not much different from years passed - the players may just be playing a different game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

With steady winds of 15+mph and gusts at 25+, you won't hear innumerable roars because the CONDITIONS, not the architecture, will prevent scoring.

[Adam Clayman]

Patrick, Could you explain the relative quietness the other three days of the tourney? Certainly the wind was not blowing 20+ on those days.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam,

What relative quietness ?

When great shots, birdies and eagles were made you heard the roars.

Augusta isn't Phoenix, so perhaps the more sophisticated gallery doesn't go bonkers over less than terrific shots.

Didn't they finish in the dark one day ?

When you follow the leaders, the last ones off the golf course, you have to remember that there's an attrition factor when it comes to the size of the gallery

[Adam Clayman]

I'm sorry, I must've mis-read all those reports about people leaving early in droves. And the camera work must've so bad that they only caught the few great and terrible shots that elicited the groans and the roars. And I must've mis heard the gentleman here in town, who has ANGC pictures hanging in his living room, scream about how this Master's was deadly dull. Perhaps your personal connection to the course has clouded your ability to objectively see the wool through the King's clothing.

Stretching it a bit comparing it to Phoenix only shows how weak your argument is.

[RJ_Daley]

If trees aren't part of the architecture are they part of the maintenance?

Sean, off hand I'd say more trees have been taken down by architects than planted.  More trees have been planted by green, beautification committees, and owners, than archies.  Yes, in my mind, trees are more about and require maintenance more than they are about design.  I think to most architects, when a tree effects strategy or dictates too specific or narrow of a shot range, the archie is inclined to want to take the tree out, knowing full well that trees are not permanent, subject to weather, growth or disease.  I don't think great architects start with a tree as the primary feature of a golf hole design.  When a tree is prominently in an archies primary design concept, it is rare or forced upon him.  IMHO