[Phil Benedict]

3). Bring back into play tee boxes that can force the average length hitter to really contemplate going for the green in two at #13 and #15. The added length and narrowing of the fairways has reduced what was once greater theater to nothing more than the exciting of all shots -- the 90-100 yard pitch shot. (zzzzzzz).

Matt,

Would it have been better to keep the old tees at 13 and 15 but make them par 4's rather than push the tees back?

[George Pazin]

Kinda bizarro to learn that I apparently share a birthday with Matt's wife....

Matt, I actually like most of your suggestions, but doubt the club would go back in such a fashion.

In spite of all the supporting research, many of the changes seem ill thought-out. I think #1 has always played tough on the scorecard historically - the change there seems like one born of envy. Likewise the additional length on 18 - heck, it seems like we see more birdies now than before, even when the guys were hitting partial wedges into the green.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I find the Masters boring now, but certainly doesn't seem as fun and exciting as before. It's like the magic is gone.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Sorry to disagree partner.

What was wrong with the old 13th at 465 yards ?

Phil, you missed my point as much as Tiger misses fairways. The key is getting all types of players into the mix where the "go to" second shot option is more likely to happen. Laying up to hit a 90-100 yard pitch shot is a sleep-a-thon for me and countless others.

It worked for many years the previous holes and the yardages they had.

The 15th was fine without the encroachment of trees, second cut and the elmination of the turbo mounds on the right. The power brass got all bent out of shape because they see only Tiger hit 9 or PW with his second shot when the wind was slightly helping when he won in '97. I call that a massive overreaction.

No need to play them as official par-4's -- there were plenty of people who hit the water on them for the length they offered then -- just ask Curtis Strange to name just one prime candidate. You can send a quick post card to Seve for his wonderful approach in the final round in '86.

George:

The only thing about #18 is that most guys now hit driver on the hole. In years past -- when it played 410 yards there were more options in terms of what you could hit off the tee. Adding length to holes doesn't widen the playability of the hole -- it simply caters to the extra long player. That's the ironic part of the so-called Tiger proofing.

[Tim Pitner]

Tim, the grand-high exalted mystice rulers of Augusta are more concerned with how the course holds up rather than understanding the great theater that was a hallmark of the design. No disrespect to Trevor who played the best but if the roster of champs is going to be a parade of Zach Johnson's and Trevor's then I'll be sure to doing something other than watch the telecast.

Matt,

I think you underestimate Immelman (and possibly my fellow Cedar Rapids, IA native Johnson too).  Immelman is a pedigreed player--he's in the same class as the Adam Scotts and Sergio Garcias of world golf.  Immelman will be heard from again. 

I agree with your thoughts on the rough, #1 and #7.  I don't agree re: #13 and #15.  They were becoming too short for Tiger and players of similar length.  I don't think less birdies and eagles make them worse holes--the possibilities for birdie and eagle are still present. 

It also seems like more players are trying the Zach Johnson approach, trying to birdie the par 5s with wedges, rather than risking going for the green.  Lengthening alone hasn't caused this--there's also been a change in strategy.  Remember Faldo in 1996 was debating between 5-wood and 2-iron into #15.  So, in that situation, Faldo (not a long hitter despite his size) took on the challenge but many players today are not. 

[Phil Benedict]

Tim makes some good points.  Players who are within range of 13 and 15 choose to lay up more often now.  That may be a product of better wedge play.

Also, 13 is a three-metal and a 4 or 5 iron for Tiger if he shapes his drive properly.  At 465 it would be a short iron for him and a mid-iron for everyone else with modern technology.

[Art Roselle]

I mentioned this on another thread, but I really think that the green speeds play a large part in the current snore-fest, especially when combined with the other changes.  The fast, challenging greens at ANGC are a huge part of the mystique, but I think it is over the top now and it really takes away some of the excitement.  To see every player have to lag every putt is boring.  Also, I think it brings more luck into the game than it should.  Some rub of the green is fine, but holes should not always be determined by whose lag putt happens to topple in.

Even worse, the chip shots around the green are played so defensively that many players end up short of the green and accept a 20 footer from the fringe.  At least that takes double out of play.  Boring.  Just a shade slower and I think players could play with some of the old aggression (when the greens were much much MUCH slower).  I think they could even handle the changes in layout and still put up some good numbers.

In this year's event, I think Immelman played the best from tee to green and putted well, so the best man won.  Also, Tigers misses were pretty self-inflicted, so I do not question the outcome.  I do think that great shots would be more properly rewarded if players had the chance to be slightly more aggressive with the putter and around the greens.

[Brad Klein]

What do I know? I thought it was, fantastic theater. Sat at Midway Airport for four hours Sunday, nursed one beer (with lunch) and never got off the bar stool. The whole place was transfixed. Had an 8 p.m. flight home and opted not even to stand by on the 5:25 because I didn't want to miss the last four holes.

Nit pick and criticize all sorts of things, but I found the (syrupy) telecast still to be great drama because of the tension, whether Immelman would hold up, Tiger's quasi-charge, his difficulties putting, and the various CBS graphics. I am always amazed how compelling that stuff is. And when one of the players had a long putt on 10, no sooner did I think of Crenshaw's 1984 putt there than they showed it. Would rather have been there watching than any place in golf yesterday afternoon.

[JESII]

ONE BEER???

[Wade Whitehead]

For me, the most excruciating part of the telecast involved pace of play.  The final twosome took over five hours to play.  Absolutely unbelievable...

WW

[Michael Powers]

I must admit I did doze off for a while after Tiger missed his birdie putt on 13.  It was boring, although if Tiger putts just mediocre, the finish would have been fantastic. 

[Brad Klein]

JES II,

I used the term "nursed," as in I-V drip.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Brad

I watched it all and it was fantastic theater- if you like watching NASCAR and are waiting for disaster to happen. I don't. I prefer to hear the sound of the patrons cheering for eagles and birdies instead of the groans for missed putts and dunked tee shots on 16. I realize the weather was a contributing factor for the lack of a charge on the back 9. So, I'll watch it all again next year. I hope the green jackets let up on the course difficulty and/or they install a dome to insure fast and firm conditions.

[jeffwarne]

I was riveted the whole time.
Disappointed,because I was rooting for Tiger.
However, once Tiger failed to birdie 16 I was pulling for Trevor to finish the job.

Yes it wasn't close, but could've been-even as late as 16-aand Tiger had chances on 12-18.

Of course there have been better Masters, but there have been more boring ones too.

Some of you are confusing excitement with risk/reward.
I saw plenty of risk/reward and strategy.

[cary lichtenstein]

I think Matt is was 100% correct, I was bored to death. Perhaps the extended length is a better test of golf, but as for excitement, it was a zero.

[Tim Pitner]

Isn't today's Masters course essentially the same one that saw the great duel between Mickelson and Els, which featured eagles on 13 and 15 by Ernie and a bunch of birdies on the back 9 by Phil?  I think the boredom factor in the eyes of some had more to do with the identity of the competitors (along with difficult conditions) than the course itself. 

[Lloyd_Cole]

Do you think that perhaps the new technology - most particularly the drivers - do not allow them to shape their drives enough to meet the demands of some of the holes?

They don't HAVE to play them, do they?

[Steve Kline]

I was bored to tears as well. As a huge Tiger fan - I will admit that some of the boredom is that Tiger's quest for the Slam this year was over before it began. Once Tiger missed on 13 I started reading some golf magazines and listened to most of the rest of the round. I don't remember him ever putting so poorly for four days. However,  the course does seem to have lost some ability to generate excitement. Tiger seems to be the only golfer who could get himself in position to make birdies the last two final rounds - unfortunately he hasn't sniffed making a putt either of those rounds. I agree with almost all of Matt's suggestions - except the length of 13 and 15.

The Masters is about dramatic swings in fortune and that just doesn't seem to be happening since the course changes.

[Jay Flemma]

Call me crazy, but I had a great time watching it!  Trev was -11 after three days, so all this U.S. Open talk was, IMHO, just talk.  There were eagles and birdies..not as many as normal on Sunday, but 35 MPH winds will do that.

If it was "boring" it was more because Trevor ran away and hid.  Sure, it wasn't 1986, but what is?  Sure, it wasn't 2004, but it was better than last year or better than a "Tiger walk" where he wins by 8.

I have hope for the future and even more hope for when the grooves are rolled back and when Tiger retires.

Look, Augusta has survived changes before.  Yes, she's not the Augusta of the 50s, but I have faith that the powers that be are more in tuned with GCA than we give them credit for, choice of Faz aside.  Augusta will still be Augusta long after we're dead and gone.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

Let's get real -- Trevor is a bit ahead of the Garcia's and Scott's of this world. The other two gents have been touted for a good bit of time and thus far have been shooting big time blanks in the critical events. Frankly, nuff of the free passes for Sergio and Adam. It's time to stand up and be counted.

Tim, do yourself a big time favor -- check out the stats / re: total birdies & eagles post Tiger proof changes and those prior. The idea that long players can easily get home is not always true. People don't realize how much you need to work the ball off the 13th tee -- today's drivers are great for long straight hits but don't work the ball quite as well.

Tim, my issue rests not with the marquee value / or lack thereof concerning the contestants involed over the weekend. It was the nature of the STYLE of play ... players were extremely conservative because of more FEAR / PENAL results than the strategic elements that Augusta used to highlight each spring. Augusta is no longer the wild circus show with stupendous highs and unbelievable crashes -- now it's simply more of the latter. Last I checked we already have such a major -- it's called the US Open.

Tim / Phil B:

Think of this -- players are opting to lay-up because the percentage in going for it in two is in the house favor. Moving up the boxes makes that more tempting to try.

August was smart about this a few years back with pushing up the tee at the 3rd -- Tiger took the bait and paid for it but the concept should be expanded to the par-5's.

Like I said before -- the 90-100 yard pitch shot is a real yawn no matter how everyone dresses it up.

Gents:

Let me rephrase -- keep the length on #15 but bag the trees, second cut and return the mounding scheme that was quite useful for all those past years.

Steve S:

Solid point you made. The course difficulty is becoming the story -- the olden day where strategic plays were rewarded with the potential for low scores is now more about DEFENSIVE play to the max. Sadly, the powers-that-be at Augusta get far too free a ride for most media. What so many people faily to remember is that Jack won in '65 with 271 and the next year was coming home with a 289 total. Same course -- different conditions. No need to throw the baby out with the bath oil as they did / re: Tiger proofing BS.

Jeff W:

Please knock yourself out -- tell me specifically where all the risk / reward plays were? Geeze, I'm simply enthralled with the desire to play the 90-100 pitch shot on such former stellar holes as #13 and #15. I guess such plays really float your boat. So be it.

[jeffwarne]

Matt,
recent changes at Augusta have restored risk in the choice of WHETHER TO GO FOR IT IN TWO  rather than just what club to hit and the execution.
In the 1990's, every player went for the green on 13 and most on 15.
That's not RISK reward-that's penal architecture forcing your hand.
Why shape your drive and challenge the creek on the drive if you can rip it deep straight through and hit mid-short iron in.

Tiger's ball ended up on 13 against a tree that's been there for 30 +years.
 The incredible  second shot he hit was truly risk reward (he could've easily whiffed or hit the trees or creek) in that it set up his excellent wedge which he nearly holed

Tiger waiting on 15 and going for it against Steve's advice WAS risk reward.
And the heated discussion wasn't about what club to hit, but rather if he could clear the water with anything.
Tiger hitting a wedge in in 1997 wasn't risk reward.
Snedeker hiiting driver down the left side on 13 was risk reward.
Immelman playing safe on both holes with the lead was risk reward.

Immelman birdieing 11  2 out of the first  three days and then playing to the right of the green with a 5 shot lead the last day was risk reward.

Very few of those decisions would've been made at the old yardages/setups as all would've gone for it on the par fives and would've had short irons into eleven allowing them to fire at the center right pin on #11.

Wonderful strategy at Augusta-boring finish for the last three holes.
It happens.

I happen to agree with you on 15 -it only neede the length. 11 needs to lose the trees on the right. I like 13, but like everywhere I'd like to see the rough lost.
Also I agree with you about #7- I'd even open it up in front (a bit) and vary the length from 380-320.

[Steve Lang]

   Matt,

You obviously like the long ball, you talk about its strategy impacts on gca, you imply you have it in your bag and can pull it out for play ..  and now you're saying long ball hitters are the only ones you want to see on the par 5 stages..  

hmmm..  don't you see how boring it is watching two long balls and a two putt birdie, too??  knocking the 90 - 100 yard shot ain't playing partner..  and if it wins those boys a green jacket, great for them!

i agree that the masters paradigm is broken.. and we don't need more us open set-ups..  seems like onlyu a year or so ago and everyone was saying how the masters had gotten the set-up right???

p.s. I was making sawdust and building a rolling workbench yesterday pm.. didn't need to see one shot of trevor's on the back nine..  they'll make it as exciting as possible on the highlight reel.. I'll take that distilled version for '08..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt,

I enjoyed the telecast.
I didn't enjoy the pace of play, it was excrutiating and inexcusable.

Five hours for twosomes ?

I think it hurt the telecast, which ran 30 minutes over schedule.

It's interesting that noone thinks that Tiger's tee shot on # 18 could have been in another county, leading to a double or worse.

The results could have been different, with Tiger winning.
If you look at Trevor's par on # 11, Tiger's unexpected missed birdie putt on # 13 and his subsequent bogey on # 14, which I don't believe he makes if he birdies # 13, you have the potential for a completely different finish.

And, if Tiger had won, some would have declared it amongst the greatest of Masters.

I enjoyed every day's coverage, although some of the announcers tried to dismiss and/or reclassify missed shots, such as the SHANK on # 9.

A lot of the excitement was removed when the direction of the STRONG winds on Sunday were in the golfer's face on # 8, # 13 and # 15, thus minimizing the number of golfers going for those greens in two.

And, had Mickelson's approach on # 8 not hit the pin, careening off the green, leading to a three putt and the disruption of his round, who knows what excitement could have been generated on Sunday.

In the end, the strength and direction of the WIND and slow play dampened Sunday.

[J_ Crisham]

For the second year in a row the player who capitilized on the par 5's because of accuracy not length gained immortality as the Masters Champion. If the bombers , Tiger for instance, been able to hit it straight ie properly position the tee ball the tournament may have had a different ending. Tigers tee balls on 13 and 15 were poor by anyone's standards and his  final 3 teeshots on 18 were pretty pathetic . I felt the tourney was quite exciting-but then I was comfortable with the eventual champion.

[mike_beene]

I thought it was one of the best Masters ever.Instead of some hit it in the clowns mouth crapshoot,we got to see a man under intense pressure hang in and perform. Come on,was that 3rd shot into 16 just a little close to home?Also,it was fun to see hybrids and 5 woods hit to 4.

[Tim Bert]

If folks are going to blame lack of excitement, then shouldn't Tiger be blamed?  The roars were missing because there was no run at the leader, which certainly wasn't the courses fault.  Tiger has opportunities to pick up those three missing strokes and then some.

Immelman was at -8 and would have been at -10 if it hadn't been for a bad shot on 16 that wasn't caused by changes at Augusta.  It seems like that winning score is in line with many of the other winning scores throughout the years, so I don't see how the course can be blamed for lack of excitement.

Snedeker hit two amazing putts, got a couple great roars, and if he could have controlled a couple of the bogeys then we might have seen an intense finish with all the excitement that we've come to expect.  It doesn't always work out that way.

No - This year's Masters wasn't as exciting as a down to the wire finish, but I think people are really looking for excuses to blame the course given all the changes.  I think that is a stretch.  Just as people are quick to look for reasons that Tiger was so "off" other than the fact that he was playing in tough conditions with a lot of pressure.  I'm sure a great weight comes with being 5 down at the beginning of a day after you've hinted at a Grand Slam for months.  He played a good round, and putted extremely poorly.  Not usual for Tiger, but not completely surprising given the pressure.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()