ANGC 1938 v 2013 aerial comparison

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

The bulk of your argument seems to be that players would never intentionally make what is (in your mind) a poor tactical decision on a golf course, i.e., playing down the 1st fairway to a position that would ostensibly lead to a more difficult second shot.  You say it is simply not "prudent." Yet golfers, even skilled golfers, make poor decisions on a daily basis.  John Daly has quite nearly made a career of bad decisions on a golf course.  

Or how about an example from off the golf course?  Smoking cigarettes is a terrible personal decision, one that can negatively affect one's health and physical appearance.  It is far from "prudent" to actively participate in this practice.  Yet literally millions of people make this decision everyday.  The point is that people don't always make the most "prudent" decisions in their daily life.  Surely you must concede that?  

The same is certainly true on a golf course.  And whereas there is no Shotlink data available for 1934-1938, and perhaps no written documentation corroborating the idea of people intentionally playing down the 1st fairway, that does not necessarily mean it didn't happen.  I suspect more actions and activities have happened through the ages that are NOT in the historical record that those things that ARE in the historical record.

[Sven Nilsen]

Jim:

The play only really makes sense if the pin was on the left of the old green.  Its been surmised that players still kept utilizing this strategy even after the green was changed, with the thought being that the bunkers in front of the green were softened between the late 30's and the 50's making the approach a little less daunting.  Perhaps the shortening of the hole was the difference they were looking for, and it was possible to hit to certain areas of the new green despite the angle not being ideal.  As you note, I'd rather be hitting an 8 or 9 iron (or perhaps even a wedge) from just about anywhere on the short grass than a shot of 160 plus.

I've had folks IM over the last week saying that they've had to play the shot from the first fairway and were able to both hit and hold the green (in particular when the pin was in the back).

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

The bulk of your argument seems to be that players would never intentionally make what is (in your mind) a poor tactical decision on a golf course, i.e., playing down the 1st fairway to a position that would ostensibly lead to a more difficult second shot.  You say it is simply not "prudent." Yet golfers, even skilled golfers, make poor decisions on a daily basis.  John Daly has quite nearly made a career of bad decisions on a golf course.  

Steve,

If there's one thing I've learned, it's that the PGA Tour Pros understand and play the percentages.
They are not reckless in their approach to their livelihood.
John Daly is in a class of his own.

Or how about an example from off the golf course?  Smoking cigarettes is a terrible personal decision, one that can negatively affect one's health and physical appearance.  It is far from "prudent" to actively participate in this practice.  Yet literally millions of people make this decision everyday.  The point is that people don't always make the most "prudent" decisions in their daily life.  Surely you must concede that?  

Cigarette smoking is highly addictive.
Driving down the wrong fairway isn't.
Thought, prudent thought, is overridden by addiction.
Surely, you must concede that ?

The same is certainly true on a golf course.  And whereas there is no Shotlink data available for 1934-1938, and perhaps no written documentation corroborating the idea of people intentionally playing down the 1st fairway, that does not necessarily mean it didn't happen.

It doesn't mean that it did, either. 

I suspect more actions and activities have happened through the ages that are NOT in the historical record that those things that ARE in the historical record.

I would challenge that when it comes to The Masters.
The record is pretty well documented.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven, I just read a fair amount of the thread you linked.  One photo really jumped out:

Jim, it jumps out at me too.  First, angles can be deceiving, but take a closer look at the photo.
The golfer is driving from behind the four dark trees in the backround.
He has to avoid the tall pines on the left in the photo, and avoid the large, deep bunker on the right in the photo.
In addition, he's left with a downhill/sidehill lie, over a bunker, to a green that slopes away from him.
If you were familiar with the terrain and play down # 9, you wouldn't risk the perils presented by playing down # 1.
The fairway and general DZ on # 9 was flatter and wider and left you with a short iron into the hole

Jim, look at the width of the 9th fairway in comparison to the 1st.
It's about twice as wide.
And, no bunkers and no creek.
It's the prudent choice.



In the first photo, I'm 99.99% sure the 9th tee is behind that clump of 4 small tree/bushes on the left side of the 1st fairway, going up towards the first green.  This shows driving down the 1st fairway was a straight line towards the 9th green, especially for a left side pin.  Just like the TW game shows, and other photos indicate as well.  

The 1st fairway looks plenty wide for a drive off the 9th tee.  The trees on the one side look sparse, and the bunker on the other side looks quite far off the line of play.  In any case the bunker looks close enough to the 9th tee that it didn't come into play much.  

You can't have it both ways.

If the bunker on # 1 was too close to the 9th tee, then the creek would come into play.
And then the golfer playing # 9 would almost have a straight shot from a great angle to the 9th green, without fear of the bunker and trees and creek

If the creek was 300 yards out, very few players could reach it.  

More failed logic.
The hole was measured as a dogleg.
And, more importantly, the fairway slopes steeply into the bunker.
If the fairway bunker on # 1 didn't come into play as you maintain, then the creek would.
You can't have it both ways, so which is it ?

Those who could would quickly learn in practice what club to hit off the tee.  Getting to hit an 8 iron into the green, instead of a 5 or 6 iron, would make this a very tempting drive.  

Jim, you and others are fabricating situations that didn't exist in order to predispose a conclusion.
Why would anyone hit a 5 or 6 iron into that green ?
Didn't MacKenzie himself tell you that it was an easy second shot into the green ?  ?  ?

This does raise the question.  With this seemingly big benefit, why didn't all the players in the Masters play down #1, all the time?  

Was it because of the golfers playing #1 themselves?  

The field was limited to 72 golfers, so it wouldn't be because of golfers playing down # 1
More than half the field would have cleared the first fairway by the time more than half the field arrived on the 9th tee.
24 Threesomes, ten minutes apart, 15 minutes for each hole, two hours to get to the 9th tee. when 13 groups had already teed off.
Hence, after 9 more groups teed off, or an hour and a half later, the first fairway is wide open.


Or was the drive riskier than it seems?  

AHHH, now you might be onto something    

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

Don't obfuscate.  MacKenzie said it was an easy second shot if you hit far down the right side.  The key being the ability to negate the distance.  Perhaps you can peruse that well documented historical record and tell us how far guys were driving the ball on 9 back in the 1930's.  I'll concede that an odd few may have been able to reach that coveted position off of the tee, but the majority (including the majority of members) were getting nowhere near the bottom of the hill.

In addition, take a look at the contour numbers of the old green in Neil's green sketch.  On the angle from the first fairway to a left pin, the green was not running away from you.

There was 40 yards or more of space between the trees and the bunker in the first fairway.  Once you're past the bunker the gap is even wider.  Plus, the ground slopes in such a way that it would feed a ball back to the direct line to the hole.

With respect to the creek, there was approximately 60 to 80 yards of distance between the fairway bunker and the creek.  That is plenty of room to fit a tee shot without being overly concerned about the creek, which lay at a distance of 300 or more yards from the tee.  Even if they could reach the creek, there was plenty of room to avoid it.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

Don't obfuscate.  MacKenzie said it was an easy second shot if you hit far down the right side. 

Look at the width of # 9 fairway, it's twice the width of # 1 fairway and it has NO fairway bunker and no creek.
Hitting down the right is duck soup especially when you factor in the terrain on the hole, but, you wouldn't know that because you've never played that hole.

The key being the ability to negate the distance. 

There is no need to negate the distance, the slope does that for you.
In addition, MacKenzie's comments weren't meant for the best players in the world, they were meant for the members and guests.
Surely, PGA professionals, the best golfers in the world could drive the ball as well, if not far better than MacKenzie described.

Perhaps you can peruse that well documented historical record and tell us how far guys were driving the ball on 9 back in the 1930's. 

Alot further than the members

I'll concede that an odd few may have been able to reach that coveted position off of the tee, but the majority (including the majority of members) were getting nowhere near the bottom of the hill.

You can't have it both ways.
If they could reach the bottom of the hill, and they could, then they could reach the bottom of the hill on # 1, which you claim was the shorter route, ergo, they'd be in the creek.

In addition, take a look at the contour numbers of the old green in Neil's green sketch.  On the angle from the first fairway to a left pin, the green was not running away from you.

As you pointed out, the green wasn't built as drawn.
And, photos from # 1 fairway clearly show the green sloping away from you, from high left to low right, as you approach from # 1 fairway.
Haven't you ever been there and seen the slope of the land in that area ?

There was 40 yards or more of space between the trees and the bunker in the first fairway.  Once you're past the bunker the gap is even wider.  Plus, the ground slopes in such a way that it would feed a ball back to the direct line to the hole.

How would you know, have you walked that fairway to see how it slopes or are you basing your erroneous opinion on your biased interpretations of the photos, ignoring the angles from which they're taken ?

With respect to the creek, there was approximately 60 to 80 yards of distance between the fairway bunker and the creek.  That is plenty of room to fit a tee shot without being overly concerned about the creek, which lay at a distance of 300 or more yards from the tee.  Even if they could reach the creek, there was plenty of room to avoid it.

Sven, again, you're so out of your league on this issue.
What about the tall trees seperating # 1 and # 9 fairway, didn't they have to contend with them.
How about the large deep fairway bunker on # 1 fairway, didn't they have to contend with it.
So, they had to thread the needle, and they had to do it by hitting over those four trees in the backround, and they had to either end up
on a steep sidehill/downhill slope or the creek.

Versus, hitting down a fairway with a level plateau in the slope, or beyond that slope at the bottom of the hill leaving them an easy approach.

But, where is the documented record ?  Who played the hole this way ?  What year ?   What round ?
You can't produce a single documented incident, yet you insist that # 9 was intentionally played down # 1.

What, based upon your interpretation of a few photos from fixed angles ?

Who is your source that you allege alleged that about 80 years ago golfers intentionally played down # 1.

[Steve Burrows]

I suspect more actions and activities have happened through the ages that are NOT in the historical record that those things that ARE in the historical record.

I would challenge that when it comes to The Masters.
The record is pretty well documented.

Then by all means please produce for us information pertaining to the distance and club selection of a player of your choosing for the back nine at the inaugural Augusta National Invitational Tournament in 1934.  You claim that "the record is pretty well documented."  If that is the case, then in the same way that you require others to show their evidence, you will have no problem providing such detailed information to back up your claim.

Unless, of course, that your phrase "pretty well documented" really means that not everything is documented, even when it comes to The Masters and Augusta National. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

Don't obfuscate.  MacKenzie said it was an easy second shot if you hit far down the right side.

Look at the width of # 9 fairway, it's twice the width of # 1 fairway and it has NO fairway bunker and no creek.
Hitting down the right is duck soup especially when you factor in the terrain on the hole, but, you wouldn't know that because you've never played that hole.

You must be going blind.  Look at all the evidence you want, the gap for the 9th fairway was nowhere close to being twice as wide as that for the 1st, and in places the width of the 1st appears to be wider.

The key being the ability to negate the distance.

There is no need to negate the distance, the slope does that for you.
In addition, MacKenzie's comments weren't meant for the best players in the world, they were meant for the members and guests.
Surely, PGA professionals, the best golfers in the world could drive the ball as well, if not far better than MacKenzie described.


Perhaps you can peruse that well documented historical record and tell us how far guys were driving the ball on 9 back in the 1930's.  

Alot further than the members

I'll concede that an odd few may have been able to reach that coveted position off of the tee, but the majority (including the majority of members) were getting nowhere near the bottom of the hill.

You can't have it both ways.
If they could reach the bottom of the hill, and they could, then they could reach the bottom of the hill on # 1, which you claim was the shorter route, ergo, they'd be in the creek.

Perhaps it was the guys who couldn't reach the bottom of the hill that were the ones looking for a way to shorten the hole.  You really need to expand the universe of ideas that are allowed to wander through your muddled brain.

In addition, take a look at the contour numbers of the old green in Neil's green sketch.  On the angle from the first fairway to a left pin, the green was not running away from you.

As you pointed out, the green wasn't built as drawn.

What was discussed was that the bunker wasn't built as drawn.  The green is in the same location, and the contouring was as I described it.
And, photos from # 1 fairway clearly show the green sloping away from you, from high left to low right, as you approach from # 1 fairway.
Haven't you ever been there and seen the slope of the land in that area ?

If that's the case, why isn't the bunker short left of the current green above the level of the green?  You're wrong on this.

There was 40 yards or more of space between the trees and the bunker in the first fairway.  Once you're past the bunker the gap is even wider.  Plus, the ground slopes in such a way that it would feed a ball back to the direct line to the hole.

How would you know, have you walked that fairway to see how it slopes or are you basing your erroneous opinion on your biased interpretations of the photos, ignoring the angles from which they're taken ?

Seeing as neither of us where there in the 1930's, we're both relying on the numerous photos and detailed maps and plans of the course.  Only an unreasonable man would argue with this description.

With respect to the creek, there was approximately 60 to 80 yards of distance between the fairway bunker and the creek.  That is plenty of room to fit a tee shot without being overly concerned about the creek, which lay at a distance of 300 or more yards from the tee.  Even if they could reach the creek, there was plenty of room to avoid it.

Sven, again, you're so out of your league on this issue.
What about the tall trees seperating # 1 and # 9 fairway, didn't they have to contend with them.
How about the large deep fairway bunker on # 1 fairway, didn't they have to contend with it.
So, they had to thread the needle, and they had to do it by hitting over those four trees in the backround, and they had to either end up
on a steep sidehill/downhill slope or the creek.

It wasn't a needle, the trees were negligible and there was plenty of room before the bunker came into play.  All of this has been discussed before, yet you keep dragging it back up.

Versus, hitting down a fairway with a level plateau in the slope, or beyond that slope at the bottom of the hill leaving them an easy approach.

It wasn't an easy approach to a left pin, and that's the point.

But, where is the documented record ?  Who played the hole this way ?  What year ?   What round ?
You can't produce a single documented incident, yet you insist that # 9 was intentionally played down # 1.

What, based upon your interpretation of a few photos from fixed angles ?

Who is your source that you allege alleged that about 80 years ago golfers intentionally played down # 1.

I told you I would discuss this offline.  Feel free to contact me.

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

Part of the reason why trying to hold a reasonable conversation with you is an impossibility is due to your inability to focus on one issue at a time.

I'd suggest we attack this conversation on a step by step basis.  To start, I'd like to list the principle reasons you've laid out for why a player would not intentionally play down the 1st fairway.  I'd then like to address those points one at a time, and if needed we can then address the issue in general after having examined the particulars.

Here's what you've noted so far:

1.  The angle is not better.
2.  The green slopes away from the player.
3.  The creek is in play.
4.  Getting in the bunker is too risky of an outcome.
5.  The gap between the bunker and the trees is too narrow.
6.  The contours in the DZ are too severe.

Let me know if you'd like to add to this list or expand on any of the noted items.

Sven

[Tim_Cronin]

Walking up the left side of the first hole on Wednesday – outside the ropes, of course! – I looked back at the ninth green from the top of the hill. Take away almost 80 years of tree growth and plantings, and it's possible to make the case that you could try to play a second shot to the original ninth green from the first fairway. But the falloff to the front and right of the green from that angle would make a mis-hit shot bound down the hill forever and ever. I'd think there would be more risk than reward.

Logically, the only ones contemplating this would have been those in contention in the final round of 1934, the only year the course's nines were reversed for the competition. Contemporary reports on Horton Smith's win (which I have studied in depth for another project) don't indicate than anyone in contention did so. That's not to say nobody did, whether in contention or not, only that it wasn't noted.

Playing a shot to the ninth green from the slope of the hill would bring about a downhill lie to a green on a downhill sidehill slope, a real recipe for disaster. (Love the video game views Matthew posted, but like most shots of Augusta, they fail to display the elevation changes that enliven so many shots there.)

Conversely, a mis-hit shot from the ninth fairway, whether from the flattened landing area Mr. M writes of or not, would be less penal, since the shot would be running against the lay or the land rather than with it. I'd play down No. 9, myself.

That's based on my firsthand observations, and all I have to say on the topic. Carry on, all.

[Matthew Essig]

Pat:

Part of the reason why trying to hold a reasonable conversation with you is an impossibility is due to your inability to focus on one issue at a time.

I'd suggest we attack this conversation on a step by step basis.  To start, I'd like to list the principle reasons you've laid out for why a player would not intentionally play down the 1st fairway.  I'd then like to address those points one at a time, and if needed we can then address the issue in general after having examined the particulars.

Here's what you've noted so far:

1.  The angle is not better.
2.  The green slopes away from the player.
3.  The creek is in play.
4.  Getting in the bunker is too risky of an outcome.
5.  The gap between the bunker and the trees is too narrow.
6.  The contours in the DZ are too severe.

Let me know if you'd like to add to this list or expand on any of the noted items.

Sven

But....

1. Angle is better from #1 to the left side of the boomerang.. One doesn't have to carry a bunker from the 1st fairway.
2. The green would slope left to right from #1. One could say the inverse of #3. Additionally, one would have a kick slope left to feed it on left to right.
3. The creek wouldn't be in play for A LOT of the players at the time. Plus this is a dumb argument because there is something called the 3 wood if one could reach the creek.
4 is a fair argument.
5. The fairway was wider than it is now. It wasn't that tight.
6. There is room to run the ball up onto the green. One could hit a worm burner off the the STEEP downslope and still end up on the green.

Add me to the list of people who think players would possibly try to play down 1 to the left side of the 9th green.

[Tags:]

Tags: