Disappointing Golf Digest Articles

[Tim_Weiman]

Golf Digest’s annual Masters’ Preview has arrived and for me the magazine is a complete disappointment, thanks to articles by noted writers Jamie Diaz and Ron Whitten.

Diaz and Whitten each did articles about the changes made to Augusta in the past year, with both expressing a great deal of sympathy.  They presented the many changes made to Augusta as necessary in light of changing technology and appropriate to improve the annual Masters “test”.

Ron Whitten went even further than Diaz.  He suggested that more changes may be coming, changes that might even include such things as tearing up the 13th green and moving it 40 yards back to add more length to this hole.  Technology, Whitten assured us, would allow an exact duplicate of this green complex to be created.  How wonderful!

What Diaz and Whitten left out of their articles was sufficient context.  They failed to offer enough background on what is going on in the golf industry or comment on whether the never ending pursuit of absolute length makes any sense for the game of golf.  Instead, they used their privileged position to encourage the idea that spending ever increasing amounts of money to lengthen golf courses is natural and appropriate.

Augusta National is a private club and it has every right to do whatever it wants to its golf course.  But, Diaz and Whitten are journalists and, as such, they should be held to a different standard.  They, and/or the Editors of Golf Digest, should have displayed more courage.  They should have addressed the unfortunate direction Augusta National is encouraging.

I'm still hopeful Hootie Johnson might lead Augusta National to play a more constructive role, but the Golf Digest articles are a step in the wrong direction.

[Geoff Shackelford]

Tim,
In case you missed it, there was some discussion on this issue regarding the fourth hole and it's original intent. And the laughable idea that they think they can replicate #13. It's basic arrogance and ignorance in my view.

Jaime's article has me perplexed for the reasons you mentioned, because it only encourages addressing the problems by changing courses instead of the equipment. But Jerry Tarde wrote an editorial late last year that encouraged the same concept, so Golf Digest is making sure to protect its relationship with its advertisers, which is understandable, but it sure seems like they could at least try and present an alternative view.

What I find more bizarre are the references by Jaime and many others (add Ernie Els in today's Atlanta Journal) that "now" Augusta is finally a major championship test of golf. So does this mean all of the past events are tainted? Did all of the former winners not survive a grueling test, or not receive a full test of golf? Again, some form of revisionist history seems to be the order of the day to justify going above and beyond the Bobby Jones philosophy.

I've always been amazed by the spin that Augusta is not a full test or did not put a "premium on accuracy." There is a big difference between accuracy and straightness. The new Augusta puts an emphasis on long and straight, not necessarily accurate shotmaking and length used at the appropriate places. Furthermore, wasn't it great that the Masters had it's own setup, golf's Wimbledon of sorts, while the other majors presented different types of golf? And whether you liked the other ones or not, the variety presented many possibilities and made players adapt to the different venues and setups. Now the venues are adapting to the players and equipment?
Geoff

[Justin_Zook]

"I've always been amazed by the spin that Augusta is not a full test or did not put a "premium on accuracy." There is a big difference between accuracy and straightness. The new Augusta puts an emphasis on long and straight, not necessarily accurate shotmaking and length used at the appropriate places. Furthermore, wasn't it great that the Masters had it's own setup, golf's Wimbledon of sorts, while the other majors presented different types of golf? And whether you liked the other ones or not, the variety presented many possibilities and made players adapt to the different venues and setups. Now the venues are adapting to the players and equipment?"

May God Bless Geoff!!!

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

You fellows are undoubtedly right about the long term aspects of not addressing the technology issues, but I'm still REALLY looking forward to seeing how the lengthened 13th and 18th, and the other hole changes made, play out this year.

[Justin_Zook]

Exactly Gary!!!   I am wondering if a potential competition ball would ever decrease the length of the course, or is there no turning back?  I will especially interested in how 13 plays now that it is longer.  The one thing that is annoying is, I loved how 10 and 13 were the same yardage at 485, yet one is a par 4 and the other is a par 5.  That was so cool.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Gary:

You want to see #13 and #18 play longer?  Fine.  Why not simply adjust the ball?  Wouldn't that be far more efficient?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

It's mostly rhetoric to justify and reinforce their direction and efforts !

[Tim_Weiman]

Geoff,

I'm guessing that Ron Whitten and, presumably Tom Fazio, are correct that technology can be used to duplicate #13.

But, with my oil industry background, I just don't see the point.  The golf industry seems stuck with the backward notion that technology should be used to increase the cost of playing the game.

We obviously need to be more vocal that technology should be used for a better purpose.  It should be used to lower costs.  

[Justin_Zook]

Clarification about what I was saying, just to make sure its not misinterpreted: The added length will certainly change the way the hole was played a year ago.  Driver, 8 iron is rediculous.  I agree a competition ball should be used.  While a competition ball would have been much more economical, the deed is done.  The holes have been lengthened.  Out of plain, old curiosity, I am interested to see how the changes made, will effect play.  

[Justin_Zook]

"We obviously need to be more vocal that technology should be used for a better purpose.  It should be used to lower costs"

Great point Tim!

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

Tim,

Would adjusting the ball be more efficient than constantly revising holes? You're damn straight it would be!, and I don't believe I was suggesting otherwise in my first post!

Over a year ago, I raised the point of an tournament ball being implemented by Augusta, since it is their party and therefore their rules! I recall the post being ridiculed by one of the well known regulars here as being ludicrous!

Since the tournament ball isn't happening this year, do you mind if I still look forward to how the changes at ANGC play out?

[Tim_Weiman]

Gary,

Sorry about that.  

Do I mind?  Of course not.  I'm pretty bored with the driver and short iron thing.......I just want to push for the most efficient solution.

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

Tim,

No problem, and I think we're on the page. BTW, I was joking on the "do you mind" remark, but feared you might think I was being a smart aleck after rereading my post. A guest cannot edit his posts, so I couldn't go back.

I'm very tired of the short iron 2nd shots also, and that is why I'm hoping to see some long iron shots at ANGC this year. 18th is going to be interesting this year, if they play that strongly uphill hole from the back at 460 yards. I'm guessing they won't play the tips though, at least in the first 2 rounds, so as not to embarrass Palmer, Player, etc.

Hootie apparently isn't scared to try things, and who knows, ANGC may just one day lead the way in bringing about a competition ball.

[Dan Kelly]

Would someone care to start a thread called "Not Disappointing Golf Digest Articles."

That one should, if it has no other virtues, be considerably shorter.

[TEPaul]

This is going to be a hard one to say and explain on here but ANGC's latest lengthening revision (app. 300yds total!?) was just explained to me in a most interesting way by an architect who was down there (and spoke with the stewards of ANGC) and whose opinions as one who has great knowledge and respect for classic courses and their preservation and is an architect I happen to have great respect for (not the least of which is because I have seen him really back up his feelings on the distance/classic course issue very publicly)!

Anyway, his take on ANGC's position on this distance issue is very interesting! He believes they are not at all happy about what is happening technologically and what the ruling bodies are failing to do about it! I believe he feels that the message they are trying to send to the ruling bodies would be something like this; "You guys are asleep at the controls! If you don't do something about distance increases for the future we're going to push out our course which is not the way this should play out but we're going to do it anyway because we're not going to let your inaction make a joke out of our test of golf!"

Couple that with Hootie's recent statement about the need for a competition ball (so this kind of lengthening wouldn't need to happen) and the fact that he may try to do something about it (although he appears to have retracted his statement).

There are some curious mixed messages here but I suppse it all comes down to how ANGC couches this whole distance issue in what they just did about lengthening their course!

I mean think about it! If they get it across to the golfing world that they're going to do this to protect their golf course but also state that it's a real dumb thing to have to do because of the inaction of the regulatory bodies, then I guess they are sending a pretty interesting message.

I hope this isn't like a politician voting for a piece of legislation to satisfy his consituency when he knows its going to lose anyway when in fact personally he would have preferred to vote against it, but anyway.....!

This is interesting the way ANGC is reacting to all this and again, I really do have respect for this architect who explained it this way, so stay tuned and see how the issue is couched by the various parties around Masters time, particularly ANGC!

He also said something I was not at all aware of; that ANGC actually has some bigtime "elasticity" (for future back tees) here and there! Personally that to me is the least obnoxious way to redesign because at least you aren't getting into redesigning the body of holes--but the idea of moving #13 green out another 40yds would certainly seem to scotch that "good" elasticity theory of only moving tees back! Also  moving tees back (good elasticity) can have a way of "disconnecting" the basic strategies and design intent of a golf hole too, unless done very intelligently by an architect!

So I don't know, it sounds like an atmosphere for some mixed messages! I'll be interested to see how ANGC presents this lengthening and what they say about the distance issue too, both now and for the future!

[Lou Duran]

TomP,

I don't find the analysis of your architect friend to be very compelling.  One doesn't allow his child to be disfigured to protest the actions (or lack of) of others (rules makers, manufacturers).  ANGC will have the opportunity to clearly state its views in about a month.  It controls the TV coverage and can address the technology issue directly and succintly.  To me, this approach would be far superior than continuing to adapt the course to a new style of play which they supposedly abhor.  The technology issue has been around for 120 years, and like so many other things, the answer is not in black and white.  I suspect that like many of us, ANGC is conflicted.  Unlike most, it can impose its own rules and restrictions.  Requiring a toned-down tournament ball, in my opinion, is a better solution than making wholesale changes to the course.  If ANGC would take the lead in this issue, perhaps the USGA and the R&A would be encouraged or prodded to do their part.  I am looking forward to the Masters this year with added interest, not only to witness the effect of the various changes, but also to see if its officials choose to address this important issue with some courage.  

[Bob_Huntley]

Forty years ago we had a club tournament held at scratch where all the low handicappers had to tee off with a nine iron. The hackers could bash it around with which-ever club they chose.

Until the ball is changed, think of the challenge at ANGC when the players are left with some fairly lengthy shots into 5,11,13 and fifteen. A dumb idea with some merit.

[TEPaul]

Lou:

You're probably right but don't try to couch ANGC as something that suddenly is conflicted and concludes; "Oh my God, we have to decide between disfiguring our "child" or some other God aweful dilemma (Dan Kelly, take note, no "n")!

Afterall ANGC described as the "Michael Jackson of golf architecture" is pretty damn apropos and has been for a good long and ongoing time! So after all the disfiguring they've  done to the "child" they probably aren't all that conflicted if they decide to add about six inches to the bottom of the "kid's" feet this year!

They do seem to be concerned and maybe even serious about the distance issue though. Let's see what they say and how they say it in a couple of weeks!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

This topic is not only depressing, it just shows how un-informed some journalists can really be. Especially the ones that don't know about golf architecture (Diaz-A very nice man with not a clue on the art, nor pretends to know anything about it in person) and the ones who supposedly do. (Whitten)

Let us not forget Ron's humble attempt at remodeling ANGC a few years ago. It certainly was laughable and I took the article for its worth--the attempt to create humour of this entire situation. (Which of course, it wasn't meant to be that way at all--Just shows the mindset of this construction trash mentality eh Ron?)

Hope someone gets a lot of pictures of it so someday, some Master's Chairman without ego restores the course back to 1934.

Excuse me now, I have to regurgitate.

[Ron_Whitten]

Hey, guys. Sorry you were disappointed that I didn't use Golf Digest as a soap box for ranting against technology.  But if anybody thinks they can put this genie back in its bottle, they're crazy.  Frankly, most of what I read from you guys is what was said at the advent of the Haskell ball (It's ruin the game!) and the steel shaft.  It's call progress, and even if we may not like it, it's happening.  So how do golf courses adjust?  Demand a rollback of the club and ball distances? It ain't gonna happen. Period.  Has nothing to do with whether manufacturers advertise in Golf Digest. It's that most golfers wanna hit the ball longer, or at least think they're hitting it longer, and have been willing to pay for all this new fangled technology.  

As to my suggestion that Augusta could replicate the 13th hole, what, I ask you, is wrong with trying to return one of the grand old gambling par 5s to the days of yore?  But the only way to get them to fire at the green with a 4-wood second shot (like Jack and Arnie used to do in the 1960s), is to lengthen the hole. Can't do it from the tee end of things. Only way is at the green end of things. What, exactly, would we be preserving if we don't (and duplicating if we did)?  A Jack Nicklaus green circa 1983.  Hey, I'd love to see them push that green way back  and restyle it into a great old Mackenzie green again. But the mantra at Augusta right now is steath architecture, rebuild without letting on that things have changed.  

Laugh at the suggestion if you like, but that's the only way the 13th will ever become anything more than the drive and six-iron that it's become.

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

Ron Whitten,

So what do you do when you move the 13th green back 40 yards, 10-15 years roll by, and it becomes a drive and 6 or 7 iron again?

BTW, I doubt very seriously that Nicklaus ever regularly used a fairway wood into 13 green.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree with Ron in many respects.  First, golf distance is a lot like taxes ( in that we want the OTHER guy to pay through the nose, but leave our money/distance alone)  

Also, the sky has been falling as long as I can remember (oh my god, what if a black man played in the masters, for one.  It was one of the all time great moments in sports, thank you)  You get the idea.  How do we know we are "right" this time, when the prophets of doom have been proven wrong so many times before?  And, if you guys really do have the secrets of the universe, why has no one told me?

Speaking entirely architecturally, I know all you guys shout the mantra of "preserving original intent" at all costs, but I always imagine a scene from the Woody Allen movie, where the patrons are discussing the deep meaning of a directors intent in the lobby.  Of course, he appears and tells them he was drunk and stuck for an ending so an assistant put it in!

And I guarantee you, if this was a Rees Jones design, the text here would go "Oh, another boomerang green on nine at Augusta.  We are getting SO sick of seeing that green from one of the most popular architects of the day.  Why can't he do something ORIGINAL, rather than copying past successes?"

Even if all the "lost shots" like the putt around the corner on nine were restored, who would play them?  As I recall, most changes were made with input of the "target audience" - guys with names like Hogan, Nicklaus and Palmer, who probably knew something about the game being played, no?  Certainly, problems were encountered that the prime audience didn't like.  A large green that produces, shall we say, unusual shots, was frowned upon by the greatest minds of the time.  Are we so cock sure that we have those minds beat, hands down, in our current philosophical thinking?  If so, I could probably cite several large historical blunders caused by similar arrogance.

I only know two things about those "dissapointing" articles.  First, while we are goofy enough to put our opinions up here for free, at least someone thinks enough of Ron's opinion to actually pay him for it and second, the changes aren't gonna stop, just like my getting older isn't going to stop, so the best way to deal with it is a personal "attitude adjustment".

Frankly, anyone calling for pure restoration of this course in particular would probably sleep better just thinking of it as an architecture museum, rather than a one time piece of artwork that was ripped from the walls of a museum and damaged.

[Tim_Weiman]

Ron Whitten:

Prior to reading your post I was prepared to cut you some slack.  I figured that the commercial pressures of your position made it nearly impossible for you to take on the question of whether the never ending pursuit of absolute length makes any sense for the game of golf.

But, now I see you actually believe moving toward 8,000 golf courses makes sense.  "Progress" is what you called it.

To my mind, you have fallen victim to golf industry "groupthink".

When it comes to the issue of length, there is "relative length" and "absolute length".

Relative length is really what the game is about.  It is about the ability of one man to hit the ball further than the other.  To reach par fives in two when the other man can't.  To clear a hazard when the other man can't.  To use less club for an approach than the other man.

Absolute length is something different all together.  It involves the actual distance a ball flies.  It implies that the game is somehow improved when it is played on a bigger playing field.  It suggests that playing an 8,000 yard course is inherently more rewarding than playing a 7,000 yard course.

Reference to the Haskell ball is clever, but, in truth, all it does is confuse people about the difference between relative length and absolute length.

The golf industry should be doing what we expect other industries to do: use technology to lower costs and make the game more affordable.

That's what we expect of Bill Gates.  Why don't we push golf industry leaders to do the same?

The simple truth is that making the playing field ever bigger has no inherent value.  It doesn't improve the game.  It only makes playing the game more expensive.

Ron, you occupy a privileged position among golf journalists.  I hope in the future you will give more thought to this issue.  Think about the little guy.  They want to play more, not pay more.

Jeff Brauer:

A couple points:

It is not clear to me where you stand on "original intent".  Whitten & Co seem to be using this very argument to support the notion of relocating the 13th green at Augusta.  

I'm with Ron on the value of original intent and maintaining the risk vs reward element of this hole.  Where we disagree, is how to get there.  My position is that a competition ball is a far more efficient way to accomplish this objective than relocating greens.

Second, if you meant to imply that Ron's opinion should be given more weight because he gets paid to express it, I couldn't disagree more.  By virtue of his position, his opinions will get more attention and influence far more people than anyone writing here at Golfclubatlas.  But, that only means he - and his Editors - have more responsibility to question the golf industry groupthink mentality.  That is where they failed in their latest issue.

Finally, I really don't think I need an "attitude adjustment".  When I go to places like Dooks or Prestwick everyone sems to be doing just fine.  They are great testimony to the fact that we don't need 8,000 yard golf courses.

[TEPaul]

JeffB & RonW:

The Haskell ball did seem surprising to the Old Guys although  golf architecture did incorporate its apparent leap in distance back then, but how many classic venues were there and how many famous greens did they push back 40yds because of it back then?

And what kind of an ODS was there back then? None, that's what kind! But we have an ODS now, we've had an ODS for a number of years now and something has gone wrong with it! Why would that be and what could that be? What could have happened? Is this no more than what people call technology and progress? NO WAY!

The USGA appears to have been outflanked somehow (quite obvious how) by the manufacturers or to have outflanked themselves by their own inability of foresight or lack of  forethought to test for future distance considerations and the realities involved in future distance potential.

The ODS is a joke! It doesn't seem to be acheiving what even the USGA intended it to acheive! It should do that! Possibly---probably, a constant test swing speed (109MPH) was not the proper way, the best way or the only way to test distance or the possibilities of it! The USGA's ODS standards or at least the USGA's concept of ODS should have done that, don't you think?

And if for some reason, you think that might be so, then why don't you consider the possibilities of it happening now instead of avoiding the issue, recommending the pushing back of ANGC's #13 and just rationalizing that nothing can ever be done about this in the future?

Citing something like the "Haskell Ball" as an analogy to 2002 is not particular accurate anyway and is really not much more than an easy rationalization on your part.

We all realize that figuring out a SOlUTION to the distance problem may not be an easy solution but your statement of  the acceptability of pushing #13 green by using the example of the Haskell as synonymous with progress in 2002 is a rationalization and a real failure on your part to even recognize that there just may be a PROBLEM!

It may sound logical to cite such an analogy but it's no more than a not particularly thoughtful RATIONALIZATION on your part, in my opinon.

[Mike O'Neill]

Tim,

Ron is correct to mention the Haskell ball for the simple reason that it highlights what MacDonald said in defense of the longer ball--that nine-tenths of the golfers would not be content to go back in time (paraphrase). He was against standardization. I too think it is sad that Augusta will someday have to move the 13th green. But I am beginning to worry that Bobby Jones set this in motion or stood by while the tone for change was set in motion at least--in order to make the Masters tournament the focus of the golf course intead of the golf course the focus of the golf course. I am going to try to find out if he ever protested the changes that took place while he was alive. And it seems like there were many. I am ignorant of the history unfortunately. So ignore me if I am way off base.

In the meantime, while I applaud your desire to protect a work of art (long since painted over a couple of times), unless you are hitting a gutta-percha (or the 1970 equivalent) you can understand all those on the Pro V1 thread talking about how much they like the ball (or other balls like it). Any one of us hitting a ball from the last two years is part of the problem not part of the solution, if you see it as a problem.

As I have said here before, once the professionals have ruined Augusta, it will be their loss. I don't plan on ever getting to play it anyway.