The Only Problem with the 1997 version of 15 at ANGC is it was too short

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
It was never wide open according to Pat    He has still failed to admit that back around that time the primary landing area was massive!  But then again, he is always right and the rest of us wrong   

Having been at the Masters many times, I love to watch those guys stand there and stress out over going for that green in two vs. laying up.  As smart as most of them are, very few will make the prudent play when they know they can reach with a good shot.  And if they do knock it on and make three, there is a deafening and distinctive roar that everyone knows. 

By the way, all the new trees that have been added over the years didn't make the hole any shorter.  I keep hearing about people saying "who wants to see guys hit 8I's into par fives for their second shot".  The trees just dramatically limited the number of guys going for the green in two.  The distance is what it is! 

[JESII]

Mark,

Do the quality of the shots leading to those thunderous eagles matter? Or is it just the idea of an eagle? You have said that the fans do not care if a 3 wood or a 6 iron result in an eagle putt, it's the eagle putt they want to see...do you honestly think that?

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
In all honestly, the roar of the crowd for a three foot putt for birdie vs. a three foot putt for eagle is VERY different at Augusta National.  Others who have been there, especially those who go often will attest, as you walk the course, you can tell what is happening by the roars of the crowd.  Furthermore, as Sunday rolls around, this all magnifies as the leaders approach the back nine.  It is quite unique in all of golf.  If you know where the leaders are, you don't even need to see a scoreboard to know how they are playing and what they are shooting.  You can tell by the roars or groans, (or lack there of).  It is sooooo much different than other golf tournaments. 

[JESII]

So why not just call the par fours par fives?

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
What you call the par isn't the point (unless you start messing with the yardage even more).  You play the hole for what it is not for what it says on the card and THE ISSUE that at least some of us are trying to make (with little success) is that #15 has narrowed considerably over the years to the point where far less golfers are going for the green in two and having the pitch out from trees    The hole has not designed in this manner and the change has not done the hole much good.  I suggested eliminating the trees (for many reasons) and replacing them with a Mackenzine-style bunker. This would restore the openness and some of the temptation and excitment that has been mitigated with the tree plantings. 
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Matt,
It was never wide open according to Pat   


Mark, that's NOT true and you know it's not true, so why make a false allegation ?

He has still failed to admit that back around that time the primary landing area was massive! 


That's also NOT true.

But then again, he is always right and the rest of us wrong   


That IS true.

Having been at the Masters many times, I love to watch those guys stand there and stress out over going for that green in two vs. laying up.  As smart as most of them are, very few will make the prudent play when they know they can reach with a good shot.  And if they do knock it on and make three, there is a deafening and distinctive roar that everyone knows. 

By the way, all the new trees that have been added over the years didn't make the hole any shorter.  I keep hearing about people saying "who wants to see guys hit 8I's into par fives for their second shot".  The trees just dramatically limited the number of guys going for the green in two.  The distance is what it is! 

The trees on the left have inhibited golfers from going for the green in two for decades upon decades.  Those trees are anything but new.

I provided a chrono of play at # 15 starting with Sarazen's 4-wood, to Nicklaus's one iron, to Seve's 4 iron, to the field's 7-irons to Tiger's wedge.

It's clear that the hole couldn't keep up with technology and the intended challenge had become woefully obsolete.
 

[Pete Lavallee]

It's clear that the hole couldn't keep up with technology and the intended challenge had become woefully obsolete.[/b]
 

Pat,

Do you contend that the hole as it stands today, for todays players, fulfills Bobby Jones and the Good Dr.'s vision?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

It's clear that the hole couldn't keep up with technology and the intended challenge had become woefully obsolete.[/b]
 

Pat,

Do you contend that the hole as it stands today, for todays players, fulfills Bobby Jones and the Good Dr.'s vision?

Pete,

I don't believe that it does.

They're hitting mid to short irons into that green.

What many fail to realize is that it's not just the higher number on the iron that they're hitting, it's the ball flight.

That green is an especially intimidating looking target if the flight of your approach is low, with a long iron or 3-wood.

With a 5, 7 or 9 iron, the higher ball flight defeats the challenge presented by the architecture.

[Pete Lavallee]

Pat,

What hole are you watching? Yesterday Chad Cambell hit a fairway wood, not a hybrid. Zach Johnson hit a fairway wood also. Tiger and Hunter Mahan hit long irons, not mid to short.

[Kalen Braley]

I was watching today via the webcast and most were hitting hybrids and woods into 15.

[Charlie Goerges]

I'd posted this on the other thread, I was confused about who said what, so my apologies. Here it is again.

Original image:





Same image with what I believe to be #15 circled in green:

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,

What hole are you watching? Yesterday Chad Cambell hit a fairway wood, not a hybrid. Zach Johnson hit a fairway wood also. Tiger and Hunter Mahan hit long irons, not mid to short.

What was the direction and velocity of the wind when they hit ?

Others hit shorter clubs.

Without the wind, a good drive will leave those players a mid to short iron.

[Pete Lavallee]

Pat,

The wind was difficult to judge from the fairway; Feherty said it appeared to be against but was actually helping by the green. Everyone but Johnson went through the green and chipped or putted from 10 - 20 feet over. Now what do you have to say?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,

The wind was difficult to judge from the fairway; Feherty said it appeared to be against but was actually helping by the green. Everyone but Johnson went through the green and chipped or putted from 10 - 20 feet over. Now what do you have to say?

Pete,

Didn't Sergio and Phil hit 9-irons into that green today ?

[Doug Siebert]

Dunno about 9 irons, I think Phil had 165 into 13 when he almost holed on the fly, wasn't 15 more like 180 for him?  Obviously it was enough of a test for Phil since he airmailed it (but what a shot from behind the green, was it that amazing or is it an easier shot than it appears on TV?)

Granted today 15 appeared to play downwind, but can you imagine what a joke it would have been with the 1997 length?  Phil would have been agonizing over whether to hit a SW or a GW into the green.....I guess the "eagle lovers" crowd would enjoy all the 3s on the hole but if they want eagles that bad why not make 10, 11, 17 and 18 par 5s - just think of all the back nine eagles you'd see then!

[Mark_Fine]

Doug,
The added length on #15 is not being debated.  It was 500 yards in 1997 and 530 yards now.  The only thing being debated is the width.  In 1997 the primary landing area was twice as wide as it is now.