Masters Setup Makes No Sense...

[Terry Lavin]

For what its worth, the Masters Setup makes perfect sense to me now.

It makes the event a bit less interesting for me. But I understand I am not a normal Masters viewer and the vast majority of the TV watchers and patrons are quite happy with this setup.

Yes, Richard, you are exceptional, because you are a Golfweek Rater.

[Sean_A]

Regardless of the state of the greens, there was a heck of a lot of strategy from what I could see.  Much of it is defensive strategy in playing away from holes and hoping to get the good kick/spin in - if not there is still a chance of two putting from a nasty spot.  Still, guys had to hit fairways to take full advantage of of spin kick ins.  Even that short rough makes a big difference to options for the approach.  Sure, I would like to see the greens firmer, but f&f has never been what The Masters is about.  Plus, we always have to consider the relative differences of f&f.  There can't be an across the board definition.  F&f is largely determined by the climate and weather.  One can't expect Augusta to be as firm as TOC during any time of year - its all relative.  That said, I think the goal of every major should be to get the course as firm as can be reasonably expected.  Its better to err on the side of too firm rather than too receptive because usually its only a hole or two in which a big problem occur and this is VERY rare.  

Ciao  

[David Camponi]

Patrick,On every single hole you mention the slopes are used to get the ball closer to the pin, your definition of the ground game does not apply to any US courses; I consider ground game the ability to use contour to get the ball closer to the pin.

Calling the greens soft is beyond stupid; you people have no idea what you are talking about.

[jeffwarne]

Regardless of the state of the greens, there was a heck of a lot of strategy from what I could see.  Much of it is defensive strategy in playing away from holes and hoping to get the good kick/spin in - if not there is still a chance of two putting from a nasty spot.  Still, guys had to hit fairways to take full advantage of of spin kick ins.  Even that short rough makes a big difference to options for the approach.  Sure, I would like to see the greens firmer, but f&f has never been what The Masters is about.  Plus, we always have to consider the relative differences of f&f.  There can't be an across the board definition.  F&f is largely determined by the climate and weather.  One can't expect Augusta to be as firm as TOC during any time of year - its all relative.  That said, I think the goal of every major should be to get the course as firm as can be reasonably expected.  Its better to err on the side of too firm rather than too receptive because usually its only a hole or two in which a big problem occur and this is VERY rare.  

Ciao  

Sean agreed for the most part.

Lots of different factors here.
Winter rye is a sticky grass and this year it is compounded by a base of bermuda underneath which has been growing since february so the turf was thicker than I've ever seen it. (very unusual to be that warm prior to the event)
It's clay based as well.

Augusta's greens at times have been so firm that there was very little distinction between a good shot and a bad shot, and a lot of luck gets involved.(the slopes are so severe that it's all compounded if they get too firm)
The greens this year were such that the players knew what was a good shot and what wasn't after they struck the ball.
Could they have been a tich firmer-maybe, but it was in the low 90's and they've got to avoid it getting away from them.
Anyone saying there's not a ground game isn't watching-many/most of the approaches have to allow for caroms, AND placement for the next shot.

I think, after watching what was argueably one of the best events ever in golf, that I would quietly rename this thread.

perhaps they should call the set-up guy for Pebble's Open last year (or just fire the Super and grounds staff at Augusta a month before the event so we could watch the ball RANDOMLY bounce around on the greens-and certain greens be hit by no one -thus not distinguishing at all between a good shot and a bad shot)

[Niall C]

I haven't read all of this thread so maybe this point has already been made but for me the most influential thing this year was that the fringes and bank edges were that wee bit hairier and held the ball up. I suspect a lot of players were a good bit more agressive with some of their shots on the basis that they knew they wouldn't necessarily spin off the greens into trouble the way they have in previous years.

Niall

[Terry Lavin]

I think, after watching what was arguably one of the best events ever in golf, that I would quietly rename this thread.

Do ya think?  Maybe he'll ask Ran to delete it.

[Richard Choi]

I think, after watching what was argueably one of the best events ever in golf, that I would quietly rename this thread.

Jeff, the outcome of the event does not change the fact that the greens were soft and left me puzzled as to why.

The end does not always justify the means.

[jeffwarne]

I think, after watching what was argueably one of the best events ever in golf, that I would quietly rename this thread.

Jeff, the outcome of the event does not change the fact that the greens were soft and left me puzzled as to why.

The end does not always justify the means.

Really?
As far as i know, no animals were harmed during the filming

[Richard Choi]

I don't think some random discussion on this site is harming anyone either.

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't think some random discussion on this site is harming anyone either.

Take it from me, ignorant opinions can only harm yourself.

[JR Potts]

I think, after watching what was argueably one of the best events ever in golf, that I would quietly rename this thread.

Jeff, the outcome of the event does not change the fact that the greens were soft and left me puzzled as to why.

The end does not always justify the means.

Funny, I walked the course Wed-Friday and watched all day on Saturday and Sunday.....not for a second would I have or will I classify the greens as soft.  Were they receptive to good shots?  Yes.   Soft?  No way.

In fact, at the speeds the greens were running and locations of the pins, it would have been nearly unplayable if the greens were any firmer.

I'm glad Richard isn't letting the facts get in the way of a perfectly good rant.

[Richard Choi]

Ryan, both Tiger and Mickelson mentioned that these greens were as "receptive" as they have ever been. If that is not a code word for soft, you can explain to me what they meant.

Perhaps, those guys have the facts wrong?

[JR Potts]

And if I have to read the word "ground game" used again when discussing PGA Tour players playing major championships, I may just lose it.  

The ground game....we're talking about the best players in the world playing a parkland course.  Nobody wants to watch these guys play the ground game in the majors other than 25 20+ handicappers on this site.

[Richard Choi]

So, Ryan, do care to guess what Tiger and Phil meant if the greens were not soft?

[JR Potts]

Ryan, both Tiger and Mickelson mentioned that these greens were as "receptive" as they have ever been. If that is not a code word for soft, you can explain to me what they meant.

Perhaps, those guys have the facts wrong?

Well Richard, before you go spouting off in an effort to make yourself look more foolish, consider the fact that I was there and that I had dinner on Thursday and Friday with 5 Tour pros who played in the event.  Not one called the greens soft.

So, what did Phil Mickelsen mean....I will take him at his word and opine that he meant what he said....that the greens were receptive.  (Apparently not receptive enough to play his way into the lead)

Again, being at the course and seeing where the pins were positioned, the greens would have been nearly unplayable if they were much firmer.

[JR Potts]

So, Ryan, do care to guess what Tiger and Phil meant if the greens were not soft?

A code word for soft....please.

I'll let you deal with code words and your interpretations.  If anyone who is actaully equipped with real world, on the ground, facts would like to opine, I'll listen.

[Richard Choi]

Talk about playing with facts...

Phil calls it the most receptive greens he has ever seen here and you say that green would have been unplayable if they were firmer??? By that logic every other year Phil has played were unplayable!??? They use pretty much same pins year in and year out. Were they unplayable until this year?

Or are you saying that Tiger and Phil have no idea about the Masters setup?

[JR Potts]

No Richard, I'm saying you have no idea.

You cling onto two comments like they're edict from above. 

Given the pin positions (you know, an element of set-up taking into account the firmness of the greens, green speeds, distance, etc.) the greens (given the location of the pins) would have been unplayable.

Yes, they could have significantly firmed up the greens, but then everything else would have had to change.  Given the results of the tournament, the drama, the final score, I don't think they would have changed a thing.  And I'm glad for that.

[Matthew Petersen]

I think the biggest thing this year was the relative lack of wind on any of the days. All four days were quite calm, it seemed. You didn't see gusts of wind playing havoc with shots on 12 or anywhere else on the course.

In such conditions, why would you expect the best players in the world to do anything except hit it high and land it soft? That's not necessarily a failing of the course. We hardly got a chance to see anyone even try the ground game. Maybe it would have worked in certain places, we don't know because there was no need for any of the players in the field to try it.

Yes, the grass was lush and thick and softer than normal, but a lot of that would have been negated in a hurry if anything more than a gentle breeze had ever kicked up.

[Richard Choi]

I am going by the opinions of the people who should know best. If I have to decide how soft the greens are playing by either Phil's or Tiger's comments or a comment from someone who walked the course, I will go with Phil and Tiger.

If that is wrong, I can live with that.

[JR Potts]

Of course you'll live with it.  It's your right to believe whatever you wish given the snipets of what you've read from thousands of miles away just as it's my right to believe what I believe given what I saw with my own eyes and what I heard through conversations with those who played the course.

[JR Potts]

Richard, what they were saying was that they were as receptive as they've ever been.  That does not mean that they were soft.  What it means is that they were as un-rock hard as they've ever been. 

It's not worth the discussion Shivas.

Ignorance knows no bounds.

[David Camponi]

Played 2 weeks ago; course was as firm as you could want it; somehow doubt they watered down the greens in the 2 weeks before.  Softer than previous Masters...sure; firmer than the firmest day at your home course...most likely.

[Sean_A]

firmer than the firmest day at your home course...most likely.

...not by a long shot.

Ciao

[Terry Lavin]

Richard,

The meaning of "soft"?  Hmmm, let me think...

I'd say that anybody who thought that the Masters setup made no "sense" is "soft", because people who actually know what they're talking about when they opine on such a subject have publicly declared that the setup for this year's Masters was the best in memory.  But then again, Geoff Shackelford may not be a GW rater!

I mean, seriously, get over yourself.  Just because the greens were receptive doesn't mean that they blew it on the setup.  Just because Furyk had a plugged lie on 12 green, which I believe is the lowest portion of the course, doesn't mean that they should have put the sub-air on for another three hours so you could get the pool table bounces you apparently desire.

There's nothing wrong with admitting you're wrong.  Try it some time.