[Don_Mahaffey]

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.

Firmest day at my home course? Not even in the same hemisphere. But what do I know, according to this thread I'm beyond stupid and ignorant. Oh yeah, no way they watered those greens in the last two weeks. Its beyond stupid of me to think they put any moisture on them at all.

And yeah, receptive in no way means soft, it means they put a magic elixir of Georgia Peach juice mixed with crayfish guts and the remnants of the left over Arnold Palmers from around the course. Its an organic mixture that makes 'em sticky so those 225 yard shots take a 6 inch hop and then spin back 30 feet. On top of that they have them sub air machines set up with radar to detect incoming golf balls, they turn 'em on real quick and suck the ball in, then shut down. I know that's the reason they have them because they sure don't use 'em to dry the greens down.   (psst, no matter what you do don't agree with me, the black suburbans might show up at your door to confiscate your tickets and when you mail a Christmas card to that member you know it may come back return to sender)

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Oh thanks Don, I wondered how they could make those greens like that and produce all that excitement..
Now I get it...you are the man!!!!

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

(psst, no matter what you do don't agree with me, the black suburbans might show up at your door to confiscate your tickets and when you mail a Christmas card to that member you know it may come back return to sender)



Hmmmmmmm
i think I know that feeling this week

[jeffwarne]

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.

Matthew-the wind was blowing quite a bit-I'd say 10-15 mph -certainly on Friday and saturday

[Carl Nichols]

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.

Maybe I'm misreading what he's trying to say, but I read Richard's point to be that if Augusta wanted a winning score of about -14 with the right mix of birdies/eagles and others, they could've either:  (1) not made various changes, such as additional trees and the second cut, i.e., kept it the way it used to be, while having a setup with really firm greens; or (2) added the trees and the second cut, but kept the greens *relatively* soft [with the fringes and other surrounds somewhat more forgiving], i.e., set it up the way it was this weekend.  His question is why do (2), which requires changes to both the width of the course and the setup, when (1) would've been a less dramatic change.  You don't have to say that (2) sucks in order to argue that it would've been better to stick with (1). [And you don't have to argue that the greens were soft this weekend, which they weren't!]  In fact, I believe that was Tom Doak's very point when he wrote:

"I am not in favor of making the course impossibly difficult to protect par -- not at all.  I agree that birdies and eagles make for excitement.  But there are two ways to get there, and this is not the better of the two."

[Brent Hutto]

So fewer trees, less rough and rock-hard greens would produce as many eagles as "receptive" greens?

[Carl Nichols]

Brent:
I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of every Masters, but I recall lots of exciting Masters where the greens were firm -- guys used to hit it in the water behind 15, that never happens anymore -- and there were still plenty of eagles.  And it's not just eagles but the swings between eagles/birdies vs. others.

I'm not saying that Richard is right -- in fact, I really liked the setup this weekend (and I'm on record on another thread questioning whether ANGC should really drop out of the top 10 in the U.S.).  But Richard doesn't seem as wrong on his core point as others are suggesting.  On some of the other points, well, he is wrong.....

[JR Potts]

The problem with Richard and his supporters' position is that they're only looking at one factor of the set-up.  Yes, maybe the greens have been firmer, but, the greens have also been slower, the pin positions more benign and length of the course much shorter.

The set-up, a combination of all these (and others) factors was clearly top-rate this week.  On Thursday and Friday the pin positions were in locations that, given the firmness of the greens, rewarded shots hit with the appropriate location and spin with birdie opportunities and punished those shots hits with a wrong combination of either.  It was masterful and the results indicated such.

While the weekend looked similar, I was not there to see it in person and opine.

[Brent Hutto]

The set-up, a combination of all these (and others) factors was clearly top-rate this week.

That's the bottom line...unless you're evaluating this from the perspective of a True Believer in some silly, idealized model of "firm-n-fast" to the exclusion of all else. A tournament can achieve precisely the intended result with its setup and by the True Believers outlook that means nothing. Because apparently ANGC were suppose to achieve St. Andrews In Georgia links-like conditions and let the golf chips fall where they may. Watch the Open in a few weeks for a dose of that good old firm-n-fast religion. I enjoyed the Masters for exactly what it was.

[Richard Choi]

Because apparently ANGC were suppose to achieve St. Andrews In Georgia links-like conditions and let the golf chips fall where they may.

Hmmm... I always thought the original aim of Augusta National was to create an inland golf course that featured links-like play.

Perhaps following excerpt is wrong?

"Seeking to create the "ideal course" (referring to Augusta National), the question naturally arises as to just what the "ideal" course should be.... Doubt may be expressed as to the possibility of making a course pleasurable to everyone, but it may be pointed out that the "Old Course" at St. Andrews, Scotland, which Bob likes best of all, very nearly approaches this ideal."

You can argue that the today's tournament organizers have moved away so far from the original intention of the founders that this no longer applies. However, to reject it out right is a bit premature, I believe...

[jeffwarne]

Because apparently ANGC were suppose to achieve St. Andrews In Georgia links-like conditions and let the golf chips fall where they may.

Hmmm... I always thought the original aim of Augusta National was to create an inland golf course that featured links-like play.

Perhaps following excerpt is wrong?

"Seeking to create the "ideal course" (referring to Augusta National), the question naturally arises as to just what the "ideal" course should be.... Doubt may be expressed as to the possibility of making a course pleasurable to everyone, but it may be pointed out that the "Old Course" at St. Andrews, Scotland, which Bob likes best of all, very nearly approaches this ideal."

You can argue that the today's tournament organizers have moved away so far from the original intention of the founders that this no longer applies. However, to reject it out right is a bit premature, I believe...

I'd say when the ponds moved in (under Jones' watch) that ideal was already in question

[Richard Choi]

Jeff, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you on that point.

But answer me this.

Would it be fair to say that if you enjoyed this year's Masters and you believe that the setup was perfect, you cannot argue against narrowing of the fairways over the years? I mean, wouldn't that be intellectually consistent?

[David Kelly]

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.

Sorry, no.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you on that point.

But answer me this.

Would it be fair to say that if you enjoyed this year's Masters and you believe that the setup was perfect, you cannot argue against narrowing of the fairways over the years? I mean, wouldn't that be intellectually consistent?

If they wouldn't have built those pesky cabins so close to 10 fairway Rory may have made par and we would have a different champion today.

[John Shimp]

Those greens were not SOFT  They are receptive to a well struck shot by a pro using a top of the line ball, with clean grooves, off a tight lie.  They will spin back because of the slopes and 13 green speed.  They will not spin back to a flat lie with a medium to long club.   The greens also are not HARD where a ball bounces up into the air like they did at shinnecock.  Angc would be completely unplayable if the greens were hard.

When playing those greens, the slightest mishit whether fat or thin is gone over the green.  The slightest clanky chip or pitch or bunker shot is gone.  The greens play very firm up close and provide little margin for error unlike soft greens.   The course did play slower around the greens.  The grass was left higher below the greens at 13 and 15 for instance.  The rain also kept the surrounds softer than usual. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Funny how Baby Titleist made all those birdies at perfect Chambers.  As all people who love a course do, Dick will rue the day a major arrives on his blessed site.  It's gonna be set-up hell.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you on that point.

But answer me this.

Would it be fair to say that if you enjoyed this year's Masters and you believe that the setup was perfect, you cannot argue against narrowing of the fairways over the years? I mean, wouldn't that be intellectually consistent?

first of all, how could I (or anyone) not have enjoyed this year's Masters?
I didn't say the setup was perfect, but it certainly is quite good.
I'd prefer no rough(I realy don't think of the fairways as being narrowed though as the second cut is virtual fairway), and I'd also like to lose many of the smaller pines
I also think my preferred setup would have no effect on the outcome of the event, just fit my aesthetics better (thus making my opinion quite irrelevent)

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm not surprised you misinterpreted everything I wrote. It's akin to how my grandparents don't get a lot of things they see on TV. It gets tiresome having to explain things to them. And if I agreed with your opinion, then we'd both be wrong


Doug,

So that you understand, landing your ball on the green, so that it avoids a bad outcome, or favors a good outcome is NOT the ground game.

Why do you think they call it the "GROUND" game ?

Or, do you think they should rename it the "GREEN" game ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The changes to the green contours over the years has made the putting much less exciting. I saw so many over reads this week it actually made some pros look silly. I ASSUME this flattening has made it very difficult to read how a putt will continue on it's decaying orbit. This observation is not limited to watching the Masters on TV but also the playing of many courses built by high profile modern archies. There's no question that this year tyhe outcome was exciting and the maintenace of the course was no different than most definitions of The Augusta Syndrome

Adam,

What flattening ?

ANGC's greens remain amongst the most sloped/contoured greens you'll ever play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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

Richard,

You watched the telecast.

How could you declare the greens were soft when you saw so many balls hit the green and bounce over the green ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Richard,

You stated:

You can argue that the today's tournament organizers have moved away so far from the original intention of the founders that this no longer applies. However, to reject it out right is a bit premature, I believe...[/u[

That's just not true.

The founders intended the course to be the venue for a tournament.

They approached the USGA and attempted to get an Open.

When that didn't work, the started their own tournament, the National Invitational.

They ALWAYS intended ANGC to be a course to host member and tour competitions.
[/quote]

[Tom_Doak]

The changes to the green contours over the years has made the putting much less exciting. I saw so many over reads this week it actually made some pros look silly. I ASSUME this flattening has made it very difficult to read how a putt will continue on it's decaying orbit. This observation is not limited to watching the Masters on TV but also the playing of many courses built by high profile modern archies. There's no question that this year tyhe outcome was exciting and the maintenace of the course was no different than most definitions of The Augusta Syndrome

Adam,

What flattening ?

ANGC's greens remain amongst the most sloped/contoured greens you'll ever play.

Patrick:

The second half of your comment may be true, as long as you put Oakmont and Crystal Downs and Oakland Hills right up there with Augusta on the severity scale.

The first half?  Just since I can remember, Augusta has changed the slopes on the greens at holes 5, 9, 13, and 18.  I don't agree with Adam that it made any difference this year as compared with the last five or ten, but they have changed a number of greens, and they aren't making them steeper.

[jeffwarne]

7 looked changed to me as well...

[Richard Choi]

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

Richard,

You watched the telecast.

How could you declare the greens were soft when you saw so many balls hit the green and bounce over the green ?

Pat, I will respectfully decline. I have played this game a few times, and even when I give you specific examples, you just wave your hand away. I have a recording of the tournament on my DVR and I am sure you can view your recordings as well. I saw plenty of shots that stayed within 10, 15 feet of where it landed.

BTW, I hate to keep bringing this up, but I have listened to a bunch of player press conferences and there were many mentions of how veteran players were fooled by the green because they have flattened the greens from the last time they played the same pins.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

I'm aware of the changes, but I doubt one could categorize those greens as flat.

Most are severely canted and/or contoured.

#'s 5, 9, 13 and 18 still have plenty of movement.

But, when you get those greens to 11+ they start getting too severe.

I think courses like AGNC can get away with softening their greens to accomodate higher speeds because their greens tend to be large enough to accomodate tiers and slopes and they can still retain the putting challenge at those speeds.

Getting on the wrong or high side of a hole almost always spells disaster, even for the best golfers in the world.

One of the things I don't quite understand is the front bunker location on # 18.
One would think that the closer a golfer came to the left side fairway bunkers, the better the shot into # 18 green, but, it's just the opposite.  Especially on a course that seems to unduely favor a draw.  Your thoughts ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()