Augusta National is way too easy...

[Jason Thurman]

Paul, you think US Opens reflect "the very fundamental nature of golf in its purest and original form"? Did you find Martin Kaymer's US Open win at Pinehurst to be an entertaining tournament?

Let's be honest. The Pinehurst Open in 2014 stunk. I don't know whether that was random or whether it was the result of a silly setup, but it was possibly the most boring major of my lifetime. This year's Masters wasn't a great one either, but it at least offered an extraordinary leaderboard with a lot of great and even legendary players playing excellent golf and one young guy decimating the field.

[Brent Hutto]

Perhaps it's because I tend to use my putter from just about *everywhere*, no matter what course I play. And not surprisingly when forced to chip instead of putt I stub my fair share and then some.

But in comparing the Pinehurst 2014 to Augusta 2015 setups one way in which the latter was superior is that putting from well off the green sometimes was a poor choice. And even the runaway winner had one occasion on Saturday where being forced to pitch (17th hole) allowed him to flub the shot. There was another case on Sunday where he opted to putt and in retrospect says he could have pitched the ball instead.

Martin Kymer tiptoed his way around the notorious Pinehurst #2 green complexes by virtually always putting. And obviously when executed correctly it was a great plan. I do not thing this year's Masters setup would have allowed someone to chickens--- their way through 72 holes like that even if they wanted to.

P.S. I love the fact that Jordan distinguishes between "pitch" and "chip" shots in his description of specific situations during a round.

[George Pazin]

It's always interesting to see what people consider boring and exciting. I'll admit to greatly preferring the nail biting that goes along with bone dry courses - Sandwich 03, Shinney 04, #2 last year. It's not at all that I enjoy watching the pros struggle, it's just that I find when they are really pushed, that's what really separates superior play. I enjoyed watching parts yesterday, but I watched in spurts sandwiched around family events, and didn't much care that I missed a few holes, deleting the round from my DVR as soon as I got home, without even bothering to watch what I missed. It just wasn't compelling to me.

It's also what separates records. Imho, the records established by the other guy are notable not so much by how low he went, but by the fact that almost no one else did (-18 vs, -6 2nd place, -12 vs. +3 2nd place). We'll never know if Jordan's superior play would have resulted in an even bigger victory, but he almost certainly wouldn't have gone as low.

Of course, I am well known as one of the biggest supporters of that other guy, so maybe I'm experiencing what my friend Brent might call confirmation bias.

[Philippe Binette]

two things I noticed and Faldo talked about it

1) the greens were not as firm as previous years..

2) the grass was in such a good shape, was lusher than normal so the ball was stopping quickly around the greens, so misses were stopping 15 feet from the green instead of running another 15- 20 feet further

[JESII]

Philliipe,

I wonder if that was down to lushness, or a slightly high mower blade?

I have no idea, but have a hard time believing the surrounds have been less than lush in recent years...

[Carl Johnson]

Paul, you think US Opens reflect "the very fundamental nature of golf in its purest and original form"? . . . .

Not Paul, but right now I'm happy with the variety of courses and the different ways one can play them, the different skills and the different amounts of chance from course to course, the weather differences, and so on.  In fact, I'm not sure what "the very fundamental nature of golf in its purest and original form" means.  Does it mean using the same pure, original equipment?  Personally, I like firm, fast and linksy best, but I'm not going to impose that as the uniform best for everyone.  

[William_G]

Philliipe,

I wonder if that was down to lushness, or a slightly high mower blade?

I have no idea, but have a hard time believing the surrounds have been less than lush in recent years...

I agree the mowing height appeared to be higher this year than my other recent practice round visits

[PThomas]

you're right , it was too easy

[Mike Hendren]

Interesting thread.

I doubt there's a single member of this website that could break 80 under Sunday's conditions.   Perhaps a dozen who could break 90. 

You guys beat all.

Mike

[John Kavanaugh]

Interesting thread.

I doubt there's a single member of this website that could break 80 under Sunday's conditions.   Perhaps a dozen who could break 90.  

You guys beat all.

Mike

Michael,

Only because of the length. Soft greens beget back tees.

[Mike Hendren]

Barney, you really think so?

I continue to suspect we underrate how difficult that golf course is even when a tad moist.  Did you see those approaches to 14 migrate to the right Sunday?  I think even the best among us would be hard pressed to avoid a little de-greening of putts or Annie Over of pitches.

Even wet, the course doesn't suffer fools and we have fools in abundance around these parts.

None of the six amateurs made the cut and they averaged 77 during the first two days.  

Michael

[John Kavanaugh]

The only way to defend soft greens is to reduce trajectory and spin on approach shots. This is most easily done through length or more trees. We are on dangerous ground defending these conditions.

[George Pazin]

Barney, you really think so?

I continue to suspect we underrate how difficult that golf course is even when a tad moist.  Did you see those approaches to 14 migrate to the right Sunday?  I think even the best among us would be hard pressed to avoid a little de-greening of putts or Annie Over of pitches.

Even wet, the course doesn't suffer fools and we have fools in abundance around these parts.

None of the six amateurs made the cut and they averaged 77 during the first two days.  

Michael

Why does any of that matter? Do you think the members play The Masters setup?

When you are trying to identify the best golfers in the world, you change the test. What anyone on this site would shoot is completely immaterial. Heck, what anyone on this site THINKS is completely immaterial. The fact is that a bunch of guys went very low.

Postgame analysis and Monday morning quarterbacking kept saying "-14 and -12 would win most Masters".

Not if they keep it softER than other years. (emphasis intentional - it's relative softness, not overall softness.

The only reason I'm not completely buying "The sky is falling" is that I think they will fix it next year. Masters conditions are always a pendulum of sorts.

[Brent Hutto]

Confirmation biases aside...

I have no disagreement with the notion that the Masters is a better, more enjoyable tournament when it is firmER rather than softER.

But I stand by my earlier point that at least with Augusta National, the tournament remains very interesting under softER than usual conditions. And surely nobody can fault the course for this year's results, given the quality of individuals identified in the top echelon of the leaderboard.

[JMEvensky]

When you are trying to identify the best golfers in the world, you change the test. What anyone on this site would shoot is completely immaterial. Heck, what anyone on this site THINKS is completely immaterial. The fact is that a bunch of guys went very low.

I agree. I think the issue is peoples' perspectives--some watch the Masters to see the golf course,most watch to see the golf tournament.

[noonan]

It was left soft and easy for Tiger's return.

[archie_struthers]

 


And he bitched about it all weekend ,   Lol

[Duncan Cheslett]

In the UK Masters coverage Ken Brown mentioned a couple of times that a policy had been introduced of mowing all fairways away from the greens to slow them down. He showed quite clearly that the grass lay like cats' fur and that to run the ball was like stroking a cat the wrong way. A lob onto the green was pretty much the only option.

The other thought I have is that such is the Pros' familiarity with Augusta that low scores are inevitable. They play there every year and doubtless have the opportunity for ample practice rounds. Former winners like Mickelson presumably treat it as their home course. Not only that, but the pin placements are completely predictable. Every golfer in the world knows exactly where these guys have to land their approach shot on the 2nd to give them the chance of a tap-in eagle or even an an albatross when the pin is in its Sunday position! Why not have far more random pin placements?

[Sean_A]

Barney, you really think so?

I continue to suspect we underrate how difficult that golf course is even when a tad moist.  Did you see those approaches to 14 migrate to the right Sunday?  I think even the best among us would be hard pressed to avoid a little de-greening of putts or Annie Over of pitches.

Even wet, the course doesn't suffer fools and we have fools in abundance around these parts.

None of the six amateurs made the cut and they averaged 77 during the first two days.  

Michael

Why does any of that matter? Do you think the members play The Masters setup?

When you are trying to identify the best golfers in the world, you change the test. What anyone on this site would shoot is completely immaterial. Heck, what anyone on this site THINKS is completely immaterial. The fact is that a bunch of guys went very low.

Postgame analysis and Monday morning quarterbacking kept saying "-14 and -12 would win most Masters".

Not if they keep it softER than other years. (emphasis intentional - it's relative softness, not overall softness.

The only reason I'm not completely buying "The sky is falling" is that I think they will fix it next year. Masters conditions are always a pendulum of sorts.

George

I agree with you so long as the course resembles the daily play version.  I also agree that the Masters cannot be judged on one year...each year things are different enough to create an individual character to be remembered by those keen enough to bother.

I wonder if the thought that handicap players couldn't beat a certain a score has any connection to the growing disparity of length between handicap players and touring pros?  I can't honestly think why what a 10 capper may shoot has any bearing on the Masters.

Ciao

[Carl Rogers]

Paul, you think US Opens reflect "the very fundamental nature of golf in its purest and original form"? Did you find Martin Kaymer's US Open win at Pinehurst to be an entertaining tournament?
Let's be honest. The Pinehurst Open in 2014 stunk. I don't know whether that was random or whether it was the result of a silly setup, but it was possibly the most boring major of my lifetime. This year's Masters wasn't a great one either, but it at least offered an extraordinary leaderboard with a lot of great and even legendary players playing excellent golf and one young guy decimating the field.
[/quote
]In hindsight the last Pinehurst Open could be seen as boring, it may be viewed as boring, but who knows what can happen between the, let's say, 68th to the 72nd holes.
At the Masters, I don't think JS decimated the field.  He made putts he could have missed and others missed putts thay could have made.  In 1997, TW decimated the field and the course.

[David Federman]

In 1965 Jack (-17) won by 9 shots, with a total of 9 players finishing under par.
In 1976 Ray Floyd (-17) won by 8 shots, with a total of 7 players finishing under par.
In 1997 Tiger (-18) won by 12 shots, with a total of 15 players finishing under par.
In 2015 Jordan (-18) won by 4 shots, with a total of 31 players finishing under par.

No question the course played easier this year than in years' past. Due to both softness and lack of wind. The commentators and players seem to agree that the greens had no "fire."

All kudos to young Jordan, he played the course in front of him, played wonderfully and never let anyone get close. As a contrarian, I do think his lack of Augusta experience was an asset to him as he did not have to shed imbedded memories of lightening greens, with long  run-outs, etc. Although none of his opponents was able to sustain a charge sufficient to put serious pressure on  him on Sunday, the course, itself, did not put up much of a fight, either, removing a significant "fear" factor. As examples, his three putt double on 17 Saturday was a result of a lack of concentration which he was able to remedy by pulling off that great flop shot on 18 to within 10 feet and saving par. Ordinarily, I would suspect that flop shot on its best day under ordinary Masters conditions would have still run out at least 20 feet, making par doubtful and bringing possible double bogey into play. Making bogey from that position would have been considered a good save.

[Phil McDade]

In 1965 Jack (-17) won by 9 shots, with a total of 9 players finishing under par.
In 1976 Ray Floyd (-17) won by 8 shots, with a total of 7 players finishing under par.
In 1997 Tiger (-18) won by 12 shots, with a total of 15 players finishing under par.
In 2015 Jordan (-18) won by 4 shots, with a total of 31 players finishing under par.

Finally, a GCA poster after my own heart -- someone who brings data into the debate, instead of dismissive arguments about the course set-up or drivel about whether any GCAers could score well there. Who cares -- it's a golf architecture site!

Does Spieth's record-tying score and large numbers of under-par scores (relative to past years with impressively low scores by the winner) foretell more architectural changes for America's most famous course? One wonders if the committee thinks this year's version maintained the "integrity and shot values of the golf course as envisioned by Bobby Jones and Alister Mackenzie?"

http://www.augusta.com/masters/story/history/integrity-course-kept-johnson-says

[JESII]

Phil,

I see three courses of action for all courses worried about this sort of thing:

1 - lengthen and tighten in hopes of keeping scores within some range
2 - Hope and pray the ruling bodies decide to downgrade equipment to a standard which will keep today's scoring intact
3 - Let the Tour guys winning scores improve slowly on the course as presented today

I think 3 is a pretty good course of action for all comers...

[John Kavanaugh]

What is so damn hard about firm?

[Phil McDade]

Phil,

I see three courses of action for all courses worried about this sort of thing:

1 - lengthen and tighten in hopes of keeping scores within some range
2 - Hope and pray the ruling bodies decide to downgrade equipment to a standard which will keep today's scoring intact
3 - Let the Tour guys winning scores improve slowly on the course as presented today

I think 3 is a pretty good course of action for all comers...

Jim:

I guess I keep raising Augusta National's role in all of this because I believe it was the one organization -- perhaps even moreso than the USGA and R&A -- that could've done something about the technology improvements in equipment and altered (perhaps detoured) where we are headed, which is inexorably toward lengthening/tightening/altering classic-era courses that host majors in order to protect a given course's "integrity," or "par," or "resistance to scoring," or some other phrase that's important to those running the game these days.

Sadly, I think the genie's out of the bottle; I fear for the future of Augusta Country Club.