Shouldn't the ANGC Committee be delighted?

[Rip Van Winkle]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Jamie_Duffner]

The added length was inevitable with which I did not have an issue. I enjoyed watching the approaches to 11 with something other than a PW.  8 was more interesting, Tiger actually drove it into the bunker.  Not being able to drive it to the bottom of 9 makes the approach from really awkward lies challenging.  

But cut down those trees!!!  The tree plantings is the real problem, not the added length, other than 18, where the fairway bunkers are not in play.  I like 18 playing at about 440, not 460, then there might be a little decision making on the tee.

So what's next?  More trees? I hear 5 is on the slate.  I hope they leave 3 alone, is that the lone Mac hole left?

[Matt_Ward]

What a BIG WASTE OF TIME watching Sunday's "THRILLING" conclusion to an event usually was steeped in such things. No longer.

Give Tiger credit no doubt but can someone tell me how Chico, Groucho and Zeppo (also known as Phil, Vijay and Els) mangaed to toss the hot potato around.

The changes made to the course are a big zero -- all it has done is take the majesty of the course and reduced it to a US Open motif. Once Tiger took the lead the rest of his competitors (should they be called that  ) the ballgame was over. Boring par followed boring par. I can handle this for the US Open but the Masters

Tiger is a superb player and deserves the accolades, but you have to ask are his contemporary rivals worthy of so much ink? I mean do they really compare to the likes that Nicklaus faced in the likes of Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Floyd and Irwin, to name just a few. When Kostis interviewed Mickelson all you hear from Phil was some blather about he thought he had done well and 3rd was basically OK? What nonsense? Dos anyone believe Watson or the above names I just mentioned would buy into that "spin."

I mean do you think any of Tiger's competitors have the quinones to do what Watson did to Nicklaus at the '77 Masters and BO?

As far as the changes are concerned consider that Tiger can use a 3-wood on #18 and still hit a mid-to-short iron and still make birdie -- the bulk of the field is hitting driver FLAT-OUT to get the opportunity to play a long to maybe mid-iron to the target.

The par-5's on the back nine are now a snooooze sequence of holes. When I have to watch pros play PW or SW third shots to holes where the past meant playing to the green in just about any "green-light" situation you have a real letdown.

CALL THE GIFT WRAPPING DEPARTMENT AT MACYS BECAUSE THE ANGC COMMITTEE HAS JUST GIVEN TIGER A FULL CLOSET OF GREEN JACKETS.

[RJ_Daley]

The committee?  Can anyone say who really is the committee there at ANGC.  I was amused at the award ceremony when other committee and association men and woman were announced from various countries.  I think I heard that the golfer's union of Vanu Tuvu had their man on the scene.  As for the committee of ANGC, the guys Hootie had stand for recognition had to be lifted up out of their chairs and set back down again gently.  Did I see Tiger roll his eyes a time or two during the introductions?

I have long since put thoughts aside of ANGC in any category similar to the concept of a discussion of anything old and classic.  It is a toon-a-mint course pure and simple.  If we speak of it only in those terms we can still talk about golf course architecture or design, just not with any false reverence for Dr MacKenzie and his design ideals.  It is a tricked up track that is a show piece or stage for their little toon-a-mint and as it has evolved it is good fodder for endless discussion. With that in mind, I still like to watch the shots and putting.  

Tom Paul, you were wondering about the new back right pin on 18.  I believe they said that about 300 sq ft was added to the green back there allowing for that new pin.

But the question of the committee's delights... I think they are just delighted to be here with not much work to do, leaving it up to Hootie to take care of the details.  I'd love to see the presentation of Tom Fazio to the committee with all the fellows there in the grand hall falling asleep in their soup as the Faz goes through his slide show and telling them about his thoughts on framing the tee shot and challenging for accuracy with narrowing the LZ with use of rough, blah blah blah.  From the looks of the committee that was introduced, can any of them hit it past the forward tee or care?  :-/

[Tony Ristola]

I haven't really seen a Masters since the Norman/Faldo debacle in 96? 97?...only a few clips here and there, but got my hands on highlights of the last three rounds of this years tournament.

Questions for those who have been there...the fairways still seem wide...there is the cut of light rough, but it doesn't seem like they eliminated the Garden Spots or other great lines of attack by narrowing the fairways... so it doesn't bother me...yes the cut of light rough helps define the landing areas, but are the Garden Spots really a mystery to these guys?  Nope.  The one negative is golf lost its most visible proponent of inland golf with wide corridors and no rough...but did anyone really notice this during the past 20 years with the target golf mania everyone was building...Nope.  Did anyone sing its virtues?  Nope?  

With all the cumulative improvements in technology, and the USGA doing nothing about this...why blame ANGC for taking the initiative...the course is nowhere near the same test it once was, 20 under, a typical score for a lot of Tour events is what the club would have been looking at...approaches were with mid-irons and short-irons (into par-5's too) which is a joke for a major...a major which should test all the skills of a player...mental and physical...to the max.  Augusta was failing here.  The course does eliminate the shorter hitter, but how many won The Master's in the past?  Few.  

I think the short rough does create more challenging shots  for those who haven't found the fairway...failed to execute...and in firm conditions I bet we'll see a bunch more bounced in approaches, something I'd rarely seen when it was wall to wall fairway.  

The added length also means guys will miss more greens, which means recoveries, the short game is elevated in status...not just putting.

I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary or new around the greens...it's still short around the greens, and the contours are basically the same as they've been for years.

As for 18, it was always blind and uphill, now it's long blind and uphill.  Guys surely won't be going into the hole expecting birdie, so they might just force it more coming home, try harder...and end up misfiring and making doules and triples.  

The game has changed, the ruling bodies have failed at what should be one of their primary tasks, so ANGC has accepted the changes to the game (what choice did they have...stick their heads in the sand) and changed with the game...as George Thomas Jr. said...courses would need to.
 

[RJ_Daley]

Would you be delighted as a committee man about the changes to 18?  I think it is a mixed bag.  Besides lengthening by moving back the tee, they reportedly increased the fairway bunker sizes by 10%.  I don't think I saw anyone in those bunkers in the bits and pieces of the telecasts I saw over the four days.  Does anyone know how many if any players got themselves into one of those bunkers all week?  If that is the case, then why not just have an aiming pole out there?  Seriously, I think they could have gotten away with only a slight lengthening of moving back the tee, and DECREASED the bunkers size considerably and placed it closer to the tee so that it would be some 280-90 out there.  I would have the bunkers reduced in size by a considerable amount, or just have one bunker with room on both sides and even beyond the bunker.  Open up the tee ball and put some chance and challenge into that tee shot instead of just the danger of short, off line overcooked slice-fade or hooked out and in trees either left or right.  That chute through the trees off the tee now is sort of goofy golf in my view demanding a set flight off the tee confined to about 15 yards opening and a power fade in just the right trajectory and angle or a straight shot leaving a much longer approach.  But nothing going so far as the oversized aiming bunkers.  But, I could be wrong...I never saw it in person nor will ever play it with my sharp tongued irreverent critique of various aspects of their toon-a-mint.  I'd probably be banned for life for calling the fans a mob and running to the next tee too .

[Tim_Weiman]

Growing rough, narrowing the fairways, planting trees and positioning tees to require specific shape shots - what Geoff Shackelford calls the "authoritarian" school - simply takes the Masters in the direction of USGA style US open setups.  

The ANGC Committee may be delighted, I don't know.  But, I say, they just don't get it.  What makes sense for the US Open does not make sense at Augusta.

And......Tom Paul is right.  That rough at Augusta LOOKS dumb!

[Tony Ristola]

What are the fairways widths?  They look far from US Open conditions, as is the rough nowhere near US Open conditions.

Some shots may be called for today, but was a fade on 10, 13 or 15 ever the play?  Did the course strongly suggest shots before?  Oh Si.

The comparison of ANGC to a US Open setup is a weak one.

[Tony Ristola]

RJ.  

The bunkers were an addition some 35 years ago or so to prevent Nicklaus (please correct me if I'm wrong) from launching it through the fairway.  If they don't come into play, perhaps they can be removed.  The course was wet for this years tournament...perhaps the bunker will be in play next year.  Hey, with the tech improvements maybe they'll be flying it in there next year!

[Noah Webster]

I mean do you think any of Tiger's competitors have the quinones (cojones?) to do what Watson did to Nicklaus ?

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I had always thought that the US Open was for the plodding straight hitters, the British for the shot makers, the PGA for the power hitters, and the Masters for the swashbucklers.  

The great players can adjust their game for the course and conditions.  What makes the Grandslam such a compelling achievment is the qualities required in a player to win each of the events with its required game.  

I wanted the Masters to end with the winner having risked and won rather risked and walked away with snowman or worse.  Unfortunately, the field played so poorly that I wasn't sure whether the course and changes made the risks too great or the players simply played poorly.  What we do know is that if a player has a lead and plays to the middle of the putting surfaces he seems pretty safe.  

The result is that the changes made to Augusta National have created a second tournament requiring the same skills as the USGA's US Open.  similar to a student being given a second chance at the same test.  BORING.  

Give me the swashbucklers and the risk takers!

[Bob_Huntley]

It is interesting to note that one of the greatest rounds played at Augusta was Nick Price's 63 in the 3rd round in 1986. I followed him all the way. He bogied No.1 and then had ten birdies. He never hit a five par in two! So much for the need to be a monstrous driver of the ball.

[Rick Shefchik]

I belive it's too early to judge the changes at ANGC, based on one tournament (or toon-a-mint, in R.J.'s wonderful term.)

The two most significant factors at this year's Masters, in my mind, were:

1. Rain.
2. Tiger Woods' record when he's in the lead.

Neither of these factors may be present next year.

If the greens are harder next year, the Committee might decide to move the tees up and set some more accessible hole locations on Sunday, thus bringing more of the swashbuckling back into the tournament. Firm greens would allow them to do that. And if the tournament were more exciting under those conditions, maybe a couple trees could go, too.

But even so, if Tiger is in the lead again next year, we're unlikely to see the kind of Sunday back 9 charges we think we remember at Augusta (the last 12 winners have come from the final group, so charges from the pack aren't quite as prevalant as the tournament's reputation suggests.) I believe the stat I heard was that he's won 28 out of 30 times he's had the lead going into the final round. What happened yesterday, in that light, was predictable -- and predictable translates into boring, if you don't enjoy a master playing smart, unbelievably skillful golf.

Rick

[Matt_Ward]

Noah Webster:

Mea culpa ... you have more cojones than any of Tiger's rivals. Thanks for the correction ... now let's see what these talented competitors do at Bethpage.

[Jim_Kennedy]

These are a few comments by players, Faldo included, about the rough at Augusta.
 
The rough is only 1 3/8 inches, not to be confused with the shaggy grass in a U.S. Open. Still, it can be just as penalizing considering the slopes on the firm greens. "The changes are fine," three-time champion Nick Faldo said after a practice round

Lee Westwood said the rough, while not punishing, was long enough to make approach shots much more difficult because there is just enough grass to get between the clubface and the ball.
"You need as much control as you can get with these greens, they're so hard to hold," he said. "But it's tough for everybody."

Raymond Floyd- "The rough is subtly prepared and they tightened it up," he said of the less-generous fairways.

"Every time you missed the green it was a guessing game," said Scott McCarron. "I know of one bogey I had because I hit a flier over the green. The rough is difficult to judge."

No players seem to like the rough at Augusta and there are a variety of reasons given. No player likes to hit from it.

[JakaB]

shivas,

I can always tell when you've been drinking because you type in small case and mention "flyer strips" ... have another tottie on me.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
1967 for the bunker on 18.

shivas,
That may be good enough in TEPaul's opinion for other courses but it "looks dumb" at the Masters. Why that is I don't know.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tony Ristola:

Can you explain what you meant by your statement "the comparison of ANGC to a US Open setup is weak one"?

Are you saying words of caution against Augusta's current trend toward narrow fairways, rough, trees and tees dictating specific shots are inappropriate?

How far would you let things go before raising a flag?

[Wayne_Freedman]

Delighted?

What kind of word is delighted?

I've had Chicken Delight and Deli Delight, but never a Design Delight, completely ruling out the possibility of any
Re-Design Delights.

They might be pleased, but not rightly so, and certainly not 'greatly so', as the definition implies---at least, not unless they're delightfully oblivious to some of the criticisms on this board.

In fact, I cannot imagine hearing the word 'delight', or
'delighted' from anyone with a southern drawl.
It just isn't......American.
 

[Dan Kelly]

Rick Shefchik --

Points very well taken, and well worth considering -- especially your note that the last 12 winners have come from the final group ... which suggests that we somewhat fool ourselves when we think of come-from-behind dramas at Augusta.

I would add -- to elaborate on (and possibly contradict) that observation:

What I have loved about The Masters, as a golf tournament, and about Augusta National, as a tournament golf course, is that the tournament and the course virtually PROMISED high drama in the home stretch.

You knew, every April, that someone would have the lead as he stood on the tee at No. 12, trying to decide just how conservatively to play it.

And you knew, every April, that four or five other guys -- at least -- could IMAGINE shooting 30 on the back side and coming from behind to catch and pass the leader, or at the very least to challenge him.

You knew that the leader would play conservatively -- lest he turn into Curtis Strange. And you knew that the challengers would play boldly -- lest they turn into Chip Beck. And you could guess, if not know, that of the four or five or more guys who could imagine going low, one of them would likely do it ... and put that wonderful pressure on the leader, who, at least by the time he stood over his 2nd on 15, would KNOW that the game was afoot! What now?

It's pretty clear, if the last 12 winners have come from the last group, that hardly anyone ever pulls off one of these big comebacks and actually WINS the tournament, the way Jack did in '86.

But it's equally clear, unless I completely deceive myself (a possibility), that in most years, there have been roars in the pines, excitement on the golf course, someone making a bold -- even if, ultimately, insufficient -- move forward.

No one can deny that that was missing this year -- maybe because Tiger is the Man of All Men; maybe because his competition is not only less skilled, less intelligent, and less "courageous" on the golf course than Tiger is, but less skilled, less intelligent, and less "courageous" than Snead's and Hogan's and Palmer's and Nicklaus's and Watson's fellow-competitors were; maybe because Hootie, Fazio & Co. have systematically destroyed the very characteristics of the golf course that made it such a marvelous tournament site.

Maybe all of those things.

A few more years should tell us.

By then, if we're lucky, the Greencoats will have unveiled to the world the Competition Ball -- and some lucky architect will be given the plum assignment to undo work that need never have been done, and The Committee won't feel the need to hide the flags. (Oops. Sorry. The "holes.")

[Tony Ristola]

Tim:

"Can you explain what you meant by your statement "the comparison of ANGC to a US Open setup is weak one"?"

OK...here it goes:

How many 1-irons did you see hit off the tee?  I saw guys hitting drivers 285 to 305 consistently (Tiger hit 3-wood on 18)...in wet conditions.  I never saw anyone pitch out because the rough didn't allow them to attack.  Everyone who hit it in the rough went for the green, except on par-5's, and from those positions,...would they have been in position to go for it?  The rough prevented a clean contact...nothing more.  Made it more difficult to control the ball...didn't penalize anyone in the US Open sense  The greens were free of rough...saw a lot of Texas wedges, and can't recall many at a US Open except for at Pinehurst...though the bellied wedge is a popular US Open shot from a few feet off the green, where fringe meets a wall of rough.   The comparisons to what ANGC has done and a US Open setup doesn't wash with me...unless you want to compare it to how Pinehurst No.2 was maintained...an that was an anomaly.

From the couple hours of highlights I've been looking at, the only questionable cut I could find was on 15.  It looks like a no-go zone with the combo of trees and light rough.  Had it been fairways, something creative could perhaps be done after a poorly placed drive.  Where do the fairways get near US Open width?

You just can't bomb it anywhere and still make birdie...and today they do bomb it, and this left only short irons into the green before the changes. They can still bomb it, the fairways are wide (does anyone know how narrow they've gotten...actual numbers?)

Augusta has always suggested the tee shot...it strongly favors the right to left sling.  It has always favored power.  What other US course which hosts majors with regularity is as or more one sided...to the point of strongly favoring a specific shot?

I'd say they got it about right...hell they could go back and cut it all fairway...it would be an interesting exercise, and being Augusta they probably will one day...as for how far should this go...I don't expect Augusta to do anything drastic, though this seems to be in many's eyes.  It's was far from an original work when Fazio got involved, and the course was playing like a muni except for their greens...and this their last line of defense needed to get stupid fast to prevent the course from getting thrashed like a Indian Wells, or some other Hope course.  I was skeptical, but having now watched it...I surely won't be crying about The Changes.

I expect the tournament to be more interesting, with more interesting approach shots, and more recoveries. Only time will tell, but that's my prediction.  I would have preferred the USGA making a move on the ball...bringing it back to early 1980's or late 70's distances, allowing courses like Augusta to remain as they were, but that hasn't happened, and doesn't look promising for the near future.  If I were a director of a club, and had no real use for the profits a National Championship brings, I'd publicly announce the course would no longer be available for consideration until something was done to the ball, because our membership isn't going to alter the course.  That we are waiting for the USGA to do something about the ball.  If enough did this, and the US Open loses its upper crust courses...a strong message could be sent.