Adam Scott - comments on ANGC

[Kevin_D]

I thought the treehouse would nod with approval at this Q&A session with Adam Scott:

What course changes would you make to Augusta National?
I never played it until 2002 so I'm not the best judge, but there seemed to be many more angles. It was much more wide open. They've tree-lined a lot of holes that have greens that sit perpendicular to the fairways, where you could have created angles before, and now you can't. That's toughened the course up but robbed it of some of its character. The only thing I'd say is I'd love to see them do away with the rough or the first... cut? Is that what they call it?

That's correct. "First cut," not "rough." You'd better brush up on your lingo. You're an honorary member now.
I'll get a rap over the knuckles for calling it rough. [Laughs] But that's where I'd start. Do away with the rough and get it as firm and fast as you can and see some balls running into the trees and the pine straw. That would be fun, because that was an amazing feature of the course for so long.

Add the fact that he set the course record at Shinnecock and attended the Walker Cup just for the fun of it, and I think Adam Scott may become the new tour favorite on GCA.com!

Full interview:
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/adam-scott-golf-magazine-interview

[RJ_Daley]

Hmmm,  I'm thinking he is going to show up big and like Pinehurst.   

[Philip Caccamise]

Hard not to like Adam Scott. Before, or after, Augusta 2013.

[Dean Stokes]

He uses a long putter and his caddie is Steve Williams. Easy to dislike

[Kevin_D]

He uses a long putter and his caddie is Steve Williams. Easy to dislike

This is too funny. Scott was a favorite of my non-golfer wife (no idea why!) until she saw him using that "contraption" (her words) at Augusta. Without knowing anything about the subject, she intuitively said "that has to be cheating". 

In all seriousness, I am a little surprised people aren't more impressed with these comments. Maybe there's just nothing to add. Or maybe people enjoy complaining how awful the pros are and how they have no clue about course design? 

[Paul Jones]

Hmmm,  I'm thinking he is going to show up big and like Pinehurst.   

Phil or Adam Scott for the US Open?

[Jason Thurman]

It’s a pretty uneventful interview. When you make as many airtight arguments as I do every day, you get pretty accustomed to people agreeing with you. There’s nothing all that exciting about it.

I’ve also grown a bit weary of all the GCAers who know how to “fix” Augusta National, as though there’s anything wrong with being one of the world’s truly exceptional courses. The fact that most of the people with the strongest opinions have also never seen the course in person doesn’t seem coincidental.

A pro asking for trees to be removed and rough to be eliminated is a lot like a pro asking for contours to be flattened, and it’s not surprising that one of the world’s great ballstrikers would want the only two things on the course that can get in his way to be removed. The guy wants to score lower and he’s using the GCA Augusta Argument Boilerplate against you. He’s playing the average GCAer for a sucker, and he would’ve gotten away with it if Billy Payne was a rube. He’s not though, so no worries.

Isn’t it odd, though, how Augusta has become such a fluid course and undergone so many alterations that the question “What would you change?” is almost always asked when someone knowledgeable about the course is interviewed on the topic? Augusta must surely have done more good for renovation architects than any other club in the world.

[Kevin_D]

Jason,

I agree that he didn't say anything monumental, but I totally disagree with this statement

A pro asking for trees to be removed and rough to be eliminated is a lot like a pro asking for contours to be flattened, and it’s not surprising that one of the world’s great ballstrikers would want the only two things on the course that can get in his way to be removed. The guy wants to score lower and he’s using the GCA Augusta Argument Boilerplate against you. He’s playing the average GCAer for a sucker, and he would’ve gotten away with it if Billy Payne was a rube. He’s not though, so no worries.

If Doak or Coore made the same comment, people would be fawning. He was asked a question and answered in a way that essentially is saying, why not do a semi-restoration.  But somehow now he is "playing the average GCAer for a sucker"  Not sure how you make that leap. (and he did ok on the course as-is, not sure he needs any changes)

My broader point is that, you know, some of those pros might not be the enemy after all.

But I guess it's fun just hating all the pros for some reason, and to think they have some hidden agenda.

Kevin

PS - I've never been to Augusta and am not arguing for "fixing" anything, but I have certainly read on here (and elsewhere) about the changes made over the years. I would think ideas like eliminating the "first cut", opening it up a little, and letting the course play as F&F as possible would be embraced here. They are essentially the exact same concepts Coore & Crenshaw have said they were hoping to achieve at Pinehurst #2.

[Jason Thurman]

Quite the contrary, Kevin. I don’t see the pros as the “enemy.” I don’t even know what that means. I’ve never understood this trench-warfare, us vs. them mindset that so many seem to have against PGA pros, Augusta National, the color green, the retail golfer, golf carts, or plenty of other topics. I love the pros, and even if I didn’t, I hate haters. So you won’t hear me bashing a pro for trying to serve his interests. You just also won’t hear me fawning because he says a few things that seem generally in line with what the average GCAer believes. That would only reinforce the perception that we’re all a bunch of groupthinkers.

It’s also hard for me to give a crap about the improvements suggested by some honorary member of a club I don’t belong to. If Billy Payne doesn’t care, I’m not going to waste my time caring.

I also think you’re giving Tom Doak, Bill Coore, and Ben Crenshaw far too little credit for their intelligence. We’ve heard them say far more significant things than this. If we fawned every time Tom Doak suggested a tree could go or a fairway could be widened, this whole site would be one endless <EDITED – NOT SAFE FOR WORK>.

[Kevin_D]

Sigh.

I remember now why I don't post frequently.

[Brent Hutto]

Well all righty then!

[jeffwarne]

I thought Scott's suggestions were quite courageous, given he's the defending champion.
Nothing too radical, just a few of the newer trees, and the second cut-pretty sane advice to make a course that's great, a little better.

Sounds like he understands strategy, course design and of course the pro game.
And it's not like this is sour grapes of a guy who has been frustrated here-he's the DEFENDING champion.
Scott is a class act, and it seems like his comments could potentially at least get a conversation going.

If we don't care(don't need to agree with them ,but certainly be aware) what the best players in the world say about our most famous, iconic, and familiar historic courses.......
then I'd say we deserve the fate our classic courses get,and there's not a lot of point in our discussions.... which don't carry nearly the weight of a Master's champion's.

[Brian Finn]

I thought Scott's comments were refreshing, particularly his observation that there seemed to be more angles before the most recent spate of tree plantings.  He just won the Masters on a course that he considers tougher, but robbed of some of its character.  As a great ballstriker, I would think his probability of winning another Masters is higher with trees and rough present, no?  With rough and trees present, Scott led the field in GIR.  Eliminating trees and rough would reduce his odds of winning, as his relative advantage over the rest of the field would drop.  So, I find the interview fairly notable.  I've personally never been to Augusta, so I don't have a very strong view on which iteration of the golf course is best, but I can appreciate the views of someone that has played it 50-100 times, especially when he has played many of the other top courses around the world, and has provided sound reasoning for why he would like to see the changes.  Thanks for sharing the article, Kevin.  I had not seen it until I clicked here this morning.

[jeffwarne]

I thought Scott's comments were refreshing, particularly his observation that there seemed to be more angles before the most recent spate of tree plantings.  He just won the Masters on a course that he considers tougher, but robbed of some of its character.  As a great ballstriker, I would think his probability of winning another Masters is higher with trees and rough present, no?  With rough and trees present, Scott led the field in GIR.  Eliminating trees and rough would reduce his odds of winning, as his relative advantage over the rest of the field would drop.  So, I find the interview fairly notable.  I've personally never been to Augusta, so I don't have a very strong view on which iteration of the golf course is best, but I can appreciate the views of someone that has played it 50-100 times, especially when he has played many of the other top courses around the world, and has provided sound reasoning for why he would like to see the changes.  Thanks for sharing the article, Kevin.  I had not seen it until I clicked here this morning.

+1

[Kevin_D]

Jeff and Brian, thank you for articulating my thoughts better than I could have 

[Kevin Lynch]

It’s also hard for me to give a crap about the improvements suggested by some honorary member of a club I don’t belong to. If Billy Payne doesn’t care, I’m not going to waste my time caring.

If that's really the case, what on earth are you doing on a discussion board that, for the most part, discusses courses that you're not a member of?  Your assumption of Scott's self-serving motivation or "playing us as suckers" probably reveals more about cynicism than anything else.  

Scott made some interesting comments about course set-up at one of America's iconic courses, and he's probably more qualified to make them than anyone else on this board.  Add in his first hand experience with MacKenzie's work in Australia, and it's safe to say he's commenting beyond mere self-interest.  Also, given the rarity of any tour pros criticizing ANGC (beyond the greens are too fast), it's noteworthy.

Of course every member of the Treehouse doesn't necessarily think the same, but there's no denying that certain themes / preferences arise.  But just because some members express their preferences strongly, doesn't mean there's pure groupthink.  Look at the tree-removal threads.  Some want every tree removed, while many commenters had a more moderate stance, depending on the situation.  When I go to GCA gatherings, I find most members are usually moderate about carts, retail golf, Fazio and all the other topics you mentioned as "us vs them."  Sure many have preferences for walking or firm conditions, but I don't think they're as intolerant of other versions as you may perceive.

[JESII]

For starters...these comments are not self serving.

As one of the premier drivers in the game, he benefits the most the narrower the golf course is.

Eliminating the second cut would tighten the course, but removing trees would widen it.

[Garland Bayley]

...When you make as many airtight arguments as I do every day, you get pretty accustomed to people agreeing with you. ...

...
A pro asking for trees to be removed and rough to be eliminated is a lot like a pro asking for contours to be flattened, ...

Step away from the keyboard son. Once again you are in too deep.

[Josh Tarble]

I believe I've read of his appreciation of Royal Melbourne.  Perhaps he sees enough of RM in Augusta to know what it could be.

[RJ_Daley]

I think the posters who are bringing in the notion of Scott understanding the MacKenzie architecture as an Australian who has played the more faithful retention of AM's original design principles, are the ones on the right track.  Heck, maybe like his fellow countryman Ogilvy, Scott actually has read the various books about AM's body of work, and AM's book, and his love of the game and it's field of play is in accord with many of the posters and contributors of this site.  Perhaps Scott is sympathetic with the notions expressed for over a decade now by writers like Geoff Shackelford, who took on the changes ANGC Masters Committee instituted to 'toughen up' the course with all the tree additions, instituting a 'second cut', and all the rest, because he knows that while this was done to bring the course more in line with professional tour player challenge, it isn't in accord with the pleasurable excitement and game that golf course architecture as AM practiced, was intended to serve.... the wide range of golfers.  Maybe Scott knows that this ANGC approach is not for everyman's club to emulate and should be 'cryit doon'.  I'll just bet Adam Scott and Geoff Ogilvy have shared a nice bottle of Australian red over a relaxing meal at home and discussed these issues.  Maybe Mike Clayton has insight into the potential that this is a prevailing Australian golfer mindset.

I was recently told of an historic club dinner that Scott attended and then spoke to the members at RM this winter.  I don't know the specifics of those remarks, but was told of his lingering with the members there for the evening, and perhaps these matters came up.  If you were the reigning champ of the Masters, and had the opportunity to have an evening with the proud and knowledgeable of their history members of RM, what would you discuss that ties those two things together. 

[Bill Brightly]

I thought Scott's suggestions were quite courageous, given he's the defending champion.
Nothing too radical, just a few of the newer trees, and the second cut-pretty sane advice to make a course that's great, a little better.

Sounds like he understands strategy, course design and of course the pro game.
And it's not like this is sour grapes of a guy who has been frustrated here-he's the DEFENDING champion.
Scott is a class act, and it seems like his comments could potentially at least get a conversation going.

If we don't care(don't need to agree with them ,but certainly be aware) what the best players in the world say about our most famous, iconic, and familiar historic courses.......
then I'd say we deserve the fate our classic courses get,and there's not a lot of point in our discussions.... which don't carry nearly the weight of a Master's champion's.

I agree Jeff, well said. Given that he is from Australia, is it reasonable to assume that he is quite familiar with Mackenzie's Royal Melbourne? If yes, Scott's comments on width and playing angles have added merit, and I commend  him for speaking up.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bill,

Not all of them are familiar with Mackenzie but you can tell right off the bat those who are.

At the risk of stereotyping, the Aussies as a group tend to provide very interesting comments when it comes to Augusta. My favorite one came a while back when Stuart Appleby first competed in the Masters. He said he didn't think the greens were all that fast, certainly not as fast as he'd been led to believe they were. (He grew up on the greens of Yarra Yarra and other Sandbelt courses.)

Adam Scott's comments were thoughtful and spot on.

[Joshua Pettit]

The only thing I'd say is I'd love to see them do away with the rough or the first... cut? Is that what they call it?

That's correct. "First cut," not "rough." You'd better brush up on your lingo. You're an honorary member now.
I'll get a rap over the knuckles for calling it rough. [Laughs] But that's where I'd start. Do away with the rough and get it as firm and fast as you can and see some balls running into the trees and the pine straw. That would be fun, because that was an amazing feature of the course for so long.

Mr. Scott is in good company:

[Bill Brightly]

Joshua, can you expand on this letter? Miller was Mackenzie's construction manager at Augusta, right? Who was he writing to?

I guess your point is that Mackenzie and Jones wanted fairway height up to the pine straw and trees. How was it first built?

[Tom_Doak]

Joshua, can you expand on this letter? Miller was Mackenzie's construction manager at Augusta, right? Who was he writing to?

I guess your point is that Mackenzie and Jones wanted fairway height up to the pine straw and trees. How was it first built?

Wendell Miller was the contractor.  MacKenzie picked his company to do the work, but that doesn't make Miller the architect's representative. It would be unwise for a person in that position to recommend opposite of what the designers had told him specifically!

The thing about mowing lines is that they are fluid ... when the grass types of fairway and rough [if there is any ] are the same, they are not "built" but established by mowing, usually 2-3 months after the grass is planted ... and often when the architect is not around to supervise.