[jeffwarne]

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?

 

Ryan,
nice post.
not sure the all changes were necessary,(I'd love to see the old width and no rough but I just don't think it changes that much)
The greens were a bit softer this year-not sure if that's design or weather.(next year maybe they won't be and we can all moan about no roars)

one small point.
the course wasn't browned out in 75(it was rye grass then too-often thin, but never brown), and the greens weren't quite as low as 9's (they were lightning then as well, and way faster than other tour sites) uphill putts may've appeared slow as they were more uphill due to slight slope reduction, and less slope within individual tiers

[JR Potts]

Thanks for the clarification.  I only saw the highlights as I was -2 during that event.

That said, it sure did seem like those guys were hitting their putts hard.

EDIT - if they were to cut down the interior trees, remove the back tees and brown out the course, can you imagine how fa these guys would hit it on 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13,  15 and 17?  Talk about pitch and putt.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ryan,
Classy post.
I agree with your five tour player buddies, if the greens were any harder they would have been unplayable. That Phil and Tiger guy don't know jack.

[Richard Choi]

Ryan, you still don't get it. For you, everythng is either end of the extreme. Just because things could be firmer does not mean that everything has to be brown and rock hard.

When ANGC is playing just a bit firmer, the winners usually post single digits under par (winds being similar). You can argue that the normal firmness to the softer conditions (what we saw this weekend) is worth about 4 to 6 strokes over the course of the tournament.

It is all about how to coax those 4 to 6 strokes.

You can certainly do it by making the greens bit softer.

But I would argue that you can achieve the same results by getting rid of the rough (~1 or 2 stroke difference?) and cutting back some of the new tree plantings (3 to 4 strokes? probably depends on which hole).

I think many of us would argue that that is more desirable way to coax those 4 to 6 strokes because it restores some of the architectural traditions and integrity while not affecting the players that much since they are already used to those firmer green conditions (these softer conditions were surprise to them).

Why do you believe softer green is a better way to go?

[JR Potts]

Richard, I never said that softer greens were the way to go.  Please, go read what you first wrote...I merely responded to what you wrote.

But, I have said that the "set up" was near perfect given the condition of the course.  The pins were appropriately located given the firmness of the greens and that the greens were not soft...maybe they were softER but that's not for me to opine on. I also stated that the course had plenty of width and didn't feel claustrophobic n the slightest.  That's what I said.

I think when challenging the best players in the world your opinion that we should roll the course back just won't work without wholesale changes to all the greens...and I think Tom is a bit misguided here in his opinion as well as both of you are underestimating the skill of the top tier tour professional.  Width, trees..it really doesn't matter much as they hit the ball as high, low, long, shorts, etc as they want...it's truly grotesque.

That's really all I've written...what don't I get?  I'm not the one that said that the set-up makes no sense...for numerous reasons, the best of which was the end result, the set-up made perfect sense.

- Don, good to have you on board.  I'll make sure to cite to Tiger and Phil as the foremost authority on all things golf going forward to placate your interest.

[Alex Miller]

I think I understand where Richard is coming from. He's not calling for a complete overhaul, but is looking at the course in hindsight. He's saying what if Augusta had focused on playing conditions rather than hole length when doing the work there. Does hole 7 NEED to be 440 yards? Are the trees on 15 and 17 good additions? I bet Rich would say no. I can't say myself, but I do think a course that is a little bit firmer could defend itself to a similar degree as a course that is tightened off the tee would.

I've never been to Augusta, but I think all on here would agree that while the course may have changed for the worse in some ways (Mackenzie-style bunkering and some new greens), the changes the course has undergone to provide a test for the games best have been positive overall.

As for this year's set up, I only have one issue, and my good friend (I wish) Luke Donald mentions it above. While watching this week the fairways looked slightly slower than years past. Not just softer, slower. We saw many shots hang on slopes that normally would've allowed the ball to run for 30 yards. Players who hit marginal shots were not punished quite as much as in years past. These slow fairways did not take away any of the roars that made this year's and so many other Masters so great, but they did take away some groans. There is no doubt in my mind that we would've seen some more field separation with tighter mown fairways. Would-be bogeys were pars more often this year, and many would-be doubles were dry thanks to the horrible eyebrows on the banks of the water hazards.

I realize I've just written a lot of negative comments about ANGC, but they are a small part in what otherwise is one of the greatest courses in the world. Personally I think next years tournament has the potential to be even better, with these small changes.

[Richard Choi]

Ryan, I have one more question for you.

You have expounded many times on how talented these PGA Tour players are, and how they would tear the course apart if the width and rough were restored.

But then, you also say that if greens were any firmer, it would have been unplayable. How is that possible when you consider how talented these PGA Tour players are? Don't you think they can manage to get around the course with their boundless talent even if the course was firmer?

Why do you believe the talents of PGA players are so fickle?

[JR Potts]

Ryan, I have one more question for you.

You have expounded many times on how talented these PGA Tour players are, and how they would tear the course apart if the width and rough were restored.

But then, you also say that if greens were any firmer, it would have been unplayable. How is that possible when you consider how talented these PGA Tour players are? Don't you think they can manage to get around the course with their boundless talent even if the course was firmer?

Why do you believe the talents of PGA players are so fickle?

Honestly, I think your question just goes to show how little you know about Augusta National...and that's to be understood as I don't think you can appreciate it or understand it until you see it in person.  At some point, given the undulations and tournament level green speeds, the greens become such that the ball would not be able to stay on the greens.  That's not an issue of skill, it's an issue of physics.  When PGA Tour players can't possibly, under any circumstances, hold the ball on the putting surface (a la 17 at Pebble last year), all the width and length in the world becomes insignificant...it just becomes clown golf.....clown golf that I certainly don't want to watch....and I'm sure the rest of the public doesn't want to watch it either.

If you read what I said (and I'm not sure you actaully read everything but only what you want to read), I think I was quite clear in stating that firmer greens would have been unplayable GIVEN THE SET-UP.  While there are likely other pinnable locations that take into account firmer greens (I wouldn't know as I've only walked the course 3 times), I think I was quite clear that given the pin sites I saw, they were perfect for the greeen fiirmness.  And finally, I think I also spoke to removing the back tees which you and others have espoused when making my comment that the course would turn into a pitch and putt.  Remember, in these "lush" conditions, Rory McIlroy, et. al. were driving the ball 350+ yards ... and many were hitting 3-woods off of a lot of the tees to avoid the trees and "rough."  I suspect that play goes away if they're able to just bomb it at will as 90% of them would rather be out of position from an angle perspective with an 8 or 9 iron than in position with a 4 or 5 iron.  And that's assuming that they don't hit it into position with their driver....which is a big assumption considering the leaders hit 70%+ of their fairways anyways.

And to my comment that these players would tear apart the course if the width, lenghth and rough were restored I would like to direct your attention to the 1997 Master....and take the position that the players, by and through the development of the golf ball and equipment technology, have gotten significantly more dangerous to classical golf courses since that date.

[William_G]

Not just softer, slower. We saw many shots hang on slopes that normally would've allowed the ball to run for 30 yards. Players who hit marginal shots were not punished quite as much as in years past. These slow fairways did not take away any of the roars that made this year's and so many other Masters so great, but they did take away some groans. There is no doubt in my mind that we would've seen some more field separation with tighter mown fairways. Would-be bogeys were pars more often this year, and many would-be doubles were dry thanks to the horrible eyebrows on the banks of the water hazards.

Well said Alex, the course was slower and the fairways and second cut lusher than ever. They took the 99 best golfers and made an exciting Sunday.

The groans mostly came from Rory's play at the 10th, which had nothing to do with the course.

Thanks

[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,

The above question can't be answered until you define "usual"

1986, 1991, 1997, 2002, 2008 ?

What's usual ?

A specific year or period ?

A compliation of a time frame ?

When you can define "usual" then I can address the question.

[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,

The above question can't be answered until you define "usual"

1986, 1991, 1997, 2002, 2008 ?

What's usual ?

A specific year or period ?

A compliation of a time frame ?

When you can define "usual" then I can address the question.

Pat:
How about the average of the last 30 years? 

[Sean Leary]

I am not that sure that the second cut has that big of a affect on scoring. sometimes is seems to help players as much as hurt them by not rolling into more trouble. Also from the second cut, these guys just hit even higher and stop it with trajectory.

[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,

The above question can't be answered until you define "usual"

1986, 1991, 1997, 2002, 2008 ?

What's usual ?

A specific year or period ?

A compliation of a time frame ?

When you can define "usual" then I can address the question.

Pat:
How about the average of the last 30 years? 

That sounds reasonable

Can you quantify the average for the last 30 years for me ?

[William_G]

I am not that sure that the second cut has that big of a affect on scoring. sometimes is seems to help players as much as hurt them by not rolling into more trouble.

exactly, very lush this year

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()