[George Pazin]

In years past #1 has played as the toughest hole - prior to the extreme lengthening there -- no need for the overkill in my mind.

Couldn't agree more with this. (Did I surprise you with that, Matt? ).

And their reasoning (if you can call it that) - guys aren't hitting the same approach clubs.

In my mind, that simply underscores the brilliance of the original design.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Agreed.

The folly of the people at Augusta is simply believing a hole is weak because of the club selection made by a very, very small handful of players.

The real issue is the scoring result. I don't see players automatically penciling in birdie on any hole simply because of a shorter club in their hand. The skill needed to get to certain pin placements at Augusta has long been a strength of the design and minus the surge by Tiger during one year ('97) you didn't see major assaults on the 18-hole or 72-hole championship scoring records.

Increasing difficulty has simply diluted the entertainment value which Jones and Mackenzie both wanted to add and steer far away from the one dimensional penal style that dominated many of the key courses that Jones played during his prime years.

[Matt_Ward]

Just a few quotes to ponder ...

"Narrow hole (18th), uphill, dogleg right, through a chute of trees, sidehill lie on your approach. I like every one of those qualities in a golf hole." (Tom Fazio / Golf World August 17, 2001)

"They're eliminating 80 percent of the field." (Nick Price / same source)

"What they've done is completely change the golf course. This is not the Augusta National everybody grew up to love." (Greg Norman / same source).

"But if the winner next year, or in future years, comes home in a hard fought 35 or 36 for the last nine holes, I'm afraid the Masters will lose some of its flavor. (see what Trevor had for the final nine this year!). Augusta National has always challenged us to take chances." (Ben Crenshaw / same source).

"... I wonder whether it won't change players' strategies and result in a more methodical tournament. We think of the US Open as an event where, very often, par is a good score. But you don't think Augusta National as a place where you grind it out, or at least you didn't used to. I do worry that it will become less exciting for spectators and players." (Ben Crenshaw / same source).

"... a huge overreaction to technology. If the times in the 100-meter dash go down, do the people in charge change the distance to 110 meters?" (Jeff Sluman / same source).

"It sounds pretty drastic considering people haven't been shooting 61s or 63s." (Mark O'Meara / same source).

How prophetic that these comments came seven years ago. They could not be anymore true when one sees what is happening now with what used to be one of the greatest places in watching such stunning & mesmermizing play -- especially on the final nine holes on Sundays.

[Wade Whitehead]

I didn't truly realize how boring this year's Masters Sunday was until I watch The Players last weekend.  It was night and day.

WW

[Mark Bourgeois]

Wonder what The Masters apologistas would think if ANGC decided to put in a third set of tees on the par 5s, in other words a second, shorter set of Masters tees.
 (Or even if they just lengthened The Masters tees towards the greens....six of one....)

Pure conjecture, of course!

[Peter Pallotta]

"Augusta National has always challenged us to take chances." (Ben Crenshaw / same source).

This is an obvious and often repeated point, but it never struck me so clearly as just now, reading that quote.  The genius of the Mackenzie-Jones design was that it didn't "challenge" the best players in the world but instead "challenged them to take chances"...which goal/ideal made it possible for Mackenzie-Jones to also provide playability to the widest range of golfers, and that in a most interesting and fun way....   

Peter

[BCrosby]

Peter -

Exactly. The best hazards are at the same time terrifying, elective and tempting. That's not easy to pull off.

Bob

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Just a few quotes to ponder ...

"Narrow hole (18th), uphill, dogleg right, through a chute of trees, sidehill lie on your approach. I like every one of those qualities in a golf hole." (Tom Fazio / Golf World August 17, 2001)

"They're eliminating 80 percent of the field." (Nick Price / same source)

"What they've done is completely change the golf course. This is not the Augusta National everybody grew up to love." (Greg Norman / same source).

"But if the winner next year, or in future years, comes home in a hard fought 35 or 36 for the last nine holes, I'm afraid the Masters will lose some of its flavor. (see what Trevor had for the final nine this year!). Augusta National has always challenged us to take chances." (Ben Crenshaw / same source).

"... I wonder whether it won't change players' strategies and result in a more methodical tournament. We think of the US Open as an event where, very often, par is a good score. But you don't think Augusta National as a place where you grind it out, or at least you didn't used to. I do worry that it will become less exciting for spectators and players." (Ben Crenshaw / same source).

"... a huge overreaction to technology. If the times in the 100-meter dash go down, do the people in charge change the distance to 110 meters?" (Jeff Sluman / same source).

"It sounds pretty drastic considering people haven't been shooting 61s or 63s." (Mark O'Meara / same source).

How prophetic that these comments came seven years ago. They could not be anymore true when one sees what is happening now with what used to be one of the greatest places in watching such stunning & mesmermizing play -- especially on the final nine holes on Sundays.

Well it looks like they were able to fix this in two short years!

[jeffwarne]

Just a few quotes to ponder ...

"Narrow hole (18th), uphill, dogleg right, through a chute of trees, sidehill lie on your approach. I like every one of those qualities in a golf hole." (Tom Fazio / Golf World August 17, 2001)

"They're eliminating 80 percent of the field." (Nick Price / same source)

"What they've done is completely change the golf course. This is not the Augusta National everybody grew up to love." (Greg Norman / same source).

"But if the winner next year, or in future years, comes home in a hard fought 35 or 36 for the last nine holes, I'm afraid the Masters will lose some of its flavor. (see what Trevor had for the final nine this year!). Augusta National has always challenged us to take chances." (Ben Crenshaw / same source).

"... I wonder whether it won't change players' strategies and result in a more methodical tournament. We think of the US Open as an event where, very often, par is a good score. But you don't think Augusta National as a place where you grind it out, or at least you didn't used to. I do worry that it will become less exciting for spectators and players." (Ben Crenshaw / same source).

"... a huge overreaction to technology. If the times in the 100-meter dash go down, do the people in charge change the distance to 110 meters?" (Jeff Sluman / same source).

"It sounds pretty drastic considering people haven't been shooting 61s or 63s." (Mark O'Meara / same source).

How prophetic that these comments came seven years ago. They could not be anymore true when one sees what is happening now with what used to be one of the greatest places in watching such stunning & mesmermizing play -- especially on the final nine holes on Sundays.

Well it looks like they were able to fix this in two short years!

Paging Matt Ward
amazing what decent weather can produce

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()