Masters Setup Makes No Sense...

[Jim Nugent]

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.[/b][/size][/color]

Are you sure Roberts and Jones approached the USGA?  I thought it was the other way around.  i.e. the USGA approached ANGC about the Open, but ANGC turned them down because they wanted to hold their own event. 

[Mark Pearce]

Nobody wants to watch these guys play the ground game in the majors other than 25 20+ handicappers on this site.

Now that is utter rubbish.  Woods at Hoylake was a masterful display of golf.  Only someone with no feel for the game would have been unable to appreciate that.  Should ANGC be set up like Hoylake?  Of course not and no-one is saying it should.  To say the ground game has no place in any Major is an even more ridiculous suggestion, though.

[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  

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)

Jeff

At Augusta it seems to be an unusually fine line between too firm and too soft.  I always prefer the too firm be pushed because I think the best shots and best strategy are usually better rewarded compared to other lesser shots and strategy.  If anybody doubts this get the tape of Tiger at Hoylake.  Now I am not suggesting browning Augusta out, just pushing the course a bit more.  One of the advantages Augusta has is that they have greens which accomodate differing conditions quite well.  Hole locations can be used to suit soft or firm conditions.  Perhaps Augusta is getting a bit stale in following pretty closely the pin locations of of recent history.  Is it possible the firmness of the course is being dictated by those pin locations and might it be interesting if instead the conditions dictated the pin locations? 

Ciao   

[JC Jones]

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.

Agreed.  While there has been some flattening in some places to accommodate a few more pin positions, I was actually surprised at how wild some of those greens are.  More so than I ever imagined watching it on TV.  #5,6,10(though not internal),9,14 and 16 come to mind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.[/b][/size][/color]

Are you sure Roberts and Jones approached the USGA?

YES

I thought it was the other way around.  i.e. the USGA approached ANGC about the Open, but ANGC turned them down because they wanted to hold their own event.  

Nope,
In late 1932, Roberts wrote that he suggested the idea prior to the January 1933 invite extended to Prescott Bush.
In February of 1933, Prescott Bush, Chairman of the Tournament Committee of the USGA visited, and played two rounds at the invite/request of Cliff Roberts

Roberts wanted the 1934 Open for a number of reasons, some financial.

He lobbied vigorously, and enlisted Grantland Rice to help

In April 1933 The President of the USGA wrote and told ANGC that it wasn't practical to hold the Open at ANGC in 1934

[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 ?

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.
 
That's some cop-out or lame excuse not to have to support your position.
If you provide valid examples, I'll accept them.
But, you've failed to do so.

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.

Why wouldn't a well struck, high trajectory shot not stop within 15 feet of its landing spot ?

I noticed on # 16 that all of the balls hit and rolled quite quite a bit after impact.
How do you account for that ?

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.

Would you cite specifics ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JC Jones,

One of the things that shocked me the most about the greens were the upper tiers on # 13 and # 16.

Watching on TV for all of these years, I always thought that those upper tiers were rather flat.

They aren't, they're sloped toward the lower tier and water.

They're very difficult locations to hit with approaches.
AND, they're very difficult locations to have to putt to.

Sunday's position on # 16 is much easier to get close to, with a reasonable putt, then when the hole is cut on the upper tier, front or back.

[Richard Choi]

Pat, sorry to disappoint you. But perhaps I can just turn this around. Can you show me a single instance where a ball hit the middle of the green and bounced off the back of the green. I can only think of that happening on #8 where they were hitting sweeping 3 woods from 240-270 away. Saw a few at #13 roll to the back, but those were landing towards the back half of the left side green.

I saw plenty of balls hit and stick on #4, which is 220 yards.

And if well struck high shots are supposed to stick within 10 to 15 feet, then the setup would not be much different than many PGA Tour stops.

You can listen to the flattening of the green comment yourself by going to http://www.masters.com/en_US/news/interviews/index.html and listening to Tiger's Friday interview. He mentions how 11th hole has been flattened since last year (around 5:45 mark).

[John Shimp]

Richard,
I've chimed in a couple of times here to make a few frank comments on the course since ive been there a lot and have played going back to 1997.

  Soft and flat isnt  even close to how anyone would describe those greens.  You haven't been there or seen them but they are not close to flat or soft.  If you got to experience them yourself you would likely walk off shell shocked by how dynamic the greens are.  By that I mean fast, sloped, and not accepting of anything other than a really well struck shot or pitch.  A few of the greens have lost some slope to allow 13 stimp but not much and they are still crazy interesting.

What I can't get is why you keep arguing about something about which you have no first hand experience?   

[William_G]

Richard,
What I can't get is why you keep arguing about something about which you have no first hand experience?   

amen to that, albeit this behavior is common

[Kalen Braley]

Richard,
What I can't get is why you keep arguing about something about which you have no first hand experience?    

amen to that, albeit this behavior is common

I'd like to go to bat for Richard in this thread.

I liken this to a scientific discovery.  When they fire up the Accelerator at Stanford and measure, observe, create postulates, test some more, and then create theories that the "professional" scientific community proof reads and peer reviews..... do we just discount it because "we" weren't there to actually see it?  Or because we may not understand the results? Who here has access to that facility?  I'm guessing its more exclusive than ANGC itself.

So when the best professionals and experts in the game postulate from hundreds of years of cumulative experience, and they assert the course plays different because the greens are indeed softer, then why is it such a stretch to believe them?  After all, its not like we have to become an expert in every imaginable field/trade/niche before we can present a well constructed opinion on something.  Often times we rely on those who do this for a living to base our opinions.

So if Pat has played 5 rounds at Augusta and the collective PGA players have played thousands, whose opinion would be more valuable/credible?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, sorry to disappoint you. But perhaps I can just turn this around. Can you show me a single instance where a ball hit the middle of the green and bounced off the back of the green. I can only think of that happening on #8 where they were hitting sweeping 3 woods from 240-270 away. Saw a few at #13 roll to the back, but those were landing towards the back half of the left side green.


Richard,

What's one of the things that attendees and participants have noted ?
It's how far these guys hit the ball.
Didn't someone comment that Charl hit a wedge into # 18.
With the best golfers in the world hitting high short to medium irons with spin,into the greens, why would you expect a ball hit to the midpoint of a green to bound over the green ?  That's insane

I saw plenty of balls hit and stick on #4, which is 220 yards.

There's a reason for that.
This is where your lack of knowledge hurts you.
The 4th tee is elevated WELL above the 4th green.
AND, in addition, the 4th green is pitched, severley from the back to the front.

Why would a ball, hit from a highly elevated tee to a lower green, that's pitched, substantially, from back to front, do anything but stop ?

And if well struck high shots are supposed to stick within 10 to 15 feet, then the setup would not be much different than many PGA Tour stops.

What are you talking about ?
Are you aware of how many greens are pitched from back to front ?

You can listen to the flattening of the green comment yourself by going to http://www.masters.com/en_US/news/interviews/index.html and listening to Tiger's Friday interview. He mentions how 11th hole has been flattened since last year (around 5:45 mark).

That's a joke.
The 11th green was flat to begin with.
It had no substantive contour and a very mild slope.

The real problem is, You don't know what you're talking about.

[Richard Choi]

Richard,
I've chimed in a couple of times here to make a few frank comments on the course since ive been there a lot and have played going back to 1997.

  Soft and flat isnt  even close to how anyone would describe those greens.  You haven't been there or seen them but they are not close to flat or soft.  If you got to experience them yourself you would likely walk off shell shocked by how dynamic the greens are.  By that I mean fast, sloped, and not accepting of anything other than a really well struck shot or pitch.  A few of the greens have lost some slope to allow 13 stimp but not much and they are still crazy interesting.

What I can't get is why you keep arguing about something about which you have no first hand experience?    

John, if that is what you get out of my postings on this thread, I need to go back and read it again, because that is NOT what I am trying to convey.

Let me see if I can put my position in the clearest way possible.

First, when I say the greens are "soft", I don't mean that they are soft like what you see at a typical daily fee resort course. What I mean is that they look like they are softer than what you would normally see at a major. It is probably firmer than what you would see at a normal PGA Tour event, but they are softer than you would see at a normal US Open or even Masters events of the recent past.

This is not just me observing the telecast, this is also coming from the players. Even Phil Mickelson said that "these are the most receptive greens I have ever seen here". I trust that he knows what he is talking about.

My original question was, if the greens are indeed softer than what they usually are, why are they? My guess is that they wanted to bring back the excitement and roars back by providing more eagle and birdie opportunities. Which, based on the tournament results, I believe is the correct assessment.

However, you have options if you want to give players more opportunities at birdies and eagles.

One way to do it is to do exactly what this year's Masters did - soften the greens a bit and make it more receptive so that you have more reasonable birdie tries.

But as I and others (including Tom Doak) believe there is another way to increase birdie/eagle opportunities - widen the fairways back to what it was before and get rid of the 2nd cut. This way you can leave the greens the same firmness as Masters events of the past and still allow players to have more birdie and eagle opportunities.

What made no sense to me was why the Masters organization would choose the first option over the second.

That is my quandry. And that is what I was asking for; why the first option is superior to the second.

I have NEVER claimed that the greens at ANGC are flat. I have to be an idiot of the first order to claim that. What I have said was that the players have mentioned that some greens were flattened (I have an example of that posted above). I have no idea how much it was flattened or how much supposed flattening of the greens have changed the strategies, since I have never played the course.

As you can see, I am not spouting any opinions about the specific strategies or layout of the course. I wouldn't do that about a course that I have never played. I am strictly talking about the setup of the course based on what I saw on TV and what I heard from the players.

I hope that clears up some of the confusions.

P.S. Pat, there you go with your handwaving again. I gave you a specific example of Tiger saying that 11th green was flattened and you just wave it off. I am not the one saying it, as you said, I don't have clue since I have never played there. I give up...

[Patrick_Mucci]

So if Pat has played 5 rounds at Augusta and the collective PGA players have played thousands, whose opinion would be more valuable/credible?

Mine, for several reasons.

# 1, the collective PGA players NEVER said the greens were soft.  That's a complete fabrication on your part.
       One player, Phil Mickelson said that the greens were receptive.
       You're erroneously attempting to expand that one statement to a collective, a universal statement that the greens were soft,
       when there's nothing to support that opinion..

# 2  If you watched the telecast and witnessed ball after ball hitting greens and releasing, UNDERSTANDING the nature of
       that green and the nature of the approach shot, you'd know that the greens weren't soft.

[Kalen Braley]

So if Pat has played 5 rounds at Augusta and the collective PGA players have played thousands, whose opinion would be more valuable/credible?

Mine, for several reasons.

# 1, the collective PGA players NEVER said the greens were soft.  That's a complete fabrication on your part.
       One player, Phil Mickelson said that the greens were receptive.
       You're erroneously attempting to expand that one statement to a collective, a universal statement that the greens were soft,
       when there's nothing to support that opinion..

# 2  If you watched the telecast and witnessed ball after ball hitting greens and releasing, UNDERSTANDING the nature of
       that green and the nature of the approach shot, you'd know that the greens weren't soft.

Pat,

Here are a few cquotes.  Just own up to it... You are owned on this one!!  


Woods ""A lot of guys went low. The greens are soft," Woods said. "They're quick, yeah, but they're soft."

http://postbulletin.com/news/stories/display.php?id=1450547


Hoffman "I don’t know if people know how much easier it is when it’s actually warm in the morning and the greens are soft"

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/08/charley-hoffmans-masters-diary-i-played-great/


Toms "“It’s going to be a tough golf course this week; it’s long and it’s soft,”

http://www.nola.com/golf/index.ssf/2011/04/david_toms_looking_it_put_it_a.html


Donald ""It's soft, and I don't think they mowed the fairways because it was so wet," Donald said. "The rough is a little bit lusher, the fairways are lusher, and the greens are not as fast."

http://www.augusta.com/stories/2011/04/06/mas_611746.shtml


Donald "The greens are still receptive so you can get birdies if you hit good shots"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/article-1374789/Masters-2011-Live-day-Augusta-National.html


etc,
etc,
etc.

[Patrick_Mucci]

P.S. Pat, there you go with your handwaving again. I gave you a specific example of Tiger saying that 11th green was flattened and you just wave it off. I am not the one saying it, as you said, I don't have clue since I have never played there. I give up...

Richard, did you hear him say that he had to make a signficant allowance for the wind ?

He did say they flattened the green, but, he clarified the statement by saying that they made it less steep, as opposed to removing contour.
# 11 was never steep.  It did have some back to front elevation change, but, if was always a fairly flat green.
Ask anyone who's ever played or walked the course if # 11 was always pretty flat.

Tiger also said he was a good husband  

The problem is: because you're not in any way familiar with the course, you tend to take things out of context or are lacking the proper context.

Your reference to lack of ball response after impact on the 4th green is a perfect example

[Carl Nichols]

Kalen-
Don't you think they mean softer than usual for the Masters?

Pat-
Wouldn't you agree that the greens were softer than usual for the Masters, even if that still makes them firmer than most, if not all, PGA Tour venues?

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen-
Don't you think they mean softer than usual for the Masters?

Pat-
Wouldn't you agree that the greens were softer than usual for the Masters, even if that still makes them firmer than most, if not all, PGA Tour venues?

All I can comment on is what they say.  They all said soft so I take them at their word... not by putting words in their mouth and speculating what they "meant" to say.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl,

Mother Nature still has a great deal of influence over course conditions, at ANGC and elsewhere.

With substantial rain in the last week of March and a half inch on Tuesday, I'm sure the greens weren't as firm as they could have been without the rain.

With the "Stimpmeter" we have a universal way of gaging speed.

How does anyone suggest we universally gage "firmness' ?

The other issue is as follows, if it hadn't rained, and the greens were rock hard with great shots bounding over the greens, you'd all be complaining that the course was over the top, like Shinnecock in the Open.

You expect perfection from a living organism, and, unless you just get lucky and the stars line up right, it ain't gonna happen.

But, for all of you "soft" complainers, how much firmer would you want the greens ?

Please quantify it, specifically

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen-
Don't you think they mean softer than usual for the Masters?

Pat-
Wouldn't you agree that the greens were softer than usual for the Masters, even if that still makes them firmer than most, if not all, PGA Tour venues?

All I can comment on is what they say.  They all said soft so I take them at their word... not by putting words in their mouth and speculating what they "meant" to say.

Kalen, you said, "They ALL said "soft"
Who is they ?
And, where did you find the citation where they "all" said "soft" ?

[JR Potts]

And just to add my two cents after being there just this year....the greens may ave been softER than usual....but they certainly weren't soft.

And to bring thisfull circle with my comments, set-up is a hybrid of a lot of different factors.  I commend the organizers for setting up the course to yield an entertaining score, not out of line with the past, and an entertaining and enjoyable event that showcased the best golfers in the world.

I presume that the organizers, knowing that the greens were softER than in years past, put then pins in locations that tested the field given the firmness of the putting surface.  I know, given what I saw on Thursday and Friday, that certain pin positions would have been impossible if the greens were any firmer.

Going back to the title of the thread, the set-up made perfect sense and yielded one of the best events in history.

[Richard Choi]

Ryan, you still don't get it.

The question is not whether or not "softER" greens can produce a great event/theater by producing lots of birdies. "softER" greens have tendency to do that.

The question is whether or not featuring "softER" greens is the better way to produce an exciting event than taking the course back closer to the original configuration with "firmER" greens, which would also produce more birdies.

[Carl Nichols]

Pat-
You didn't answer my question.

[Chris Cupit]

Carl,


With the "Stimpmeter" we have a universal way of gaging speed.

How does anyone suggest we universally gage "firmness' ?

Pat,

Several years ago the USGA developed  device called the "Thumper" specifically to be able to objectively measure a green's firmness.  A link to the USGA website briefly describing this tool is here:  http://www.usga.org/news.aspx?id=24844

I do agree with much of what you are saying and I agree that previous rains were significant.  I am not sure to what extent they could or would try and mitigate the moisture.  I do not know for sure the tools at their disposal so I can't speak to what they could or couldn't do.

Anyway, the thumper has certainly been used at recent USGA championships to try and measure firmness with an objective number.  I don't know if ANGC avail themselves of this device.

[JR Potts]

Ryan, you still don't get it.

The question is not whether or not "softER" greens can produce a great event/theater by producing lots of birdies. "softER" greens have tendency to do that.

The question is whether or not featuring "softER" greens is the better way to produce an exciting event than taking the course back closer to the original configuration with "firmER" greens, which would also produce more birdies.

No Richard, I get it.  We all get your point.  But it is you who is out to lunch.

I understand that you would like to cut down all the trees, fill in the water hazards on 15 and 16, bulldoze the back tees, brown out the course and go from there.  I get that....but I think you're nuts and don't have any concept of reality.  I think your kind are just as damaging to the game of golf as those who are out to merely lengthen and tree every course in sight.

I truly don't think that you have the first clue about what you're talking about and what it takes to challenge the best players in the world.  Have you ever seen a PGA Tour event and what these guys can do with a golf ball?

The reality is, most places, a la Augusta, have made changes because they were NECESSARY to fairly test the best players in the world AND entertain the TV audience that makes these tournaments possible.   While I'm sure you and your other group thinkers on here would love to see all the trees torn up, the green browned out and guys totally unable to stop the ball on any putting surface (that is, at today's green speeds), I don't think that anyone else would enjoy that.

I guess we could brown out the course a la 75 and run the greens a 9 but I certainly enjoyed watching the 2011 Masters much more than the 75 highlights.

And, I guess since I just don't get it, I must be in the unenlightened group.....but at least I'm unenlightened enough to have seen, with my own eyes and not on TV, a great golf course with a perfect set-up for entertainment and assessing the games of the best players in the world.

One final comment though, you stated in your first post that the set-up makes no sense....besides ripping down the trees, filling water hazards, bulldozing back tees and slowing the greens to 9, what doesn't make sense about it?  It can't just be the firmness of the greens....because if it was, then the rest of your concerns don't matter.  What is it?