Chairman Fred Ridley says 13th hole no longer asks for "a momentous decision"

[Jim Nugent]

When Jones said that, shots were being hit into a green that was, I believe, common bermuda and therefore much more receptive to shots off longer clubs.  Also, if memory serves, old pictures of early ANGC show the creek bank as "shaggy" by comparison with the modern version.  And, of course, I doubt that the overseeded common bermuda fairways of 1940 ran anywhere near the speeds of ANGC today; most of us probably play greens that stimp slower than the 13th fairway.

So putting aside the issue of equipment for a moment, does the change in maintenance and grasses at Augusta make it impossible to return to the "momentous decision" that Jones prized without lengthening the hole to a point where there is no real option for the tee shot?

Just wondering...

I saw a video of the 1960 tournament.  Even then the course was shaggier.  e.g. balls that came up a bit short on 15 held up in the fringe, and there was more space between the green and the pond. 

But maybe this is one way the Masters fights technology and the turbo-distances the ball flies.  What would scores look like today if the margin of error was considerably wider, like it was in earlier years? 

[Kalen Braley]

Jim,


Great thought,


If you put these current guys in a time machine back to the 60s, with thier club and balls, they would make an absolute mockery of the course being much shorter and for more receptive on the approaches...shaggy conditions and slow greens not withstanding...

[A.G._Crockett]

When Jones said that, shots were being hit into a green that was, I believe, common bermuda and therefore much more receptive to shots off longer clubs.  Also, if memory serves, old pictures of early ANGC show the creek bank as "shaggy" by comparison with the modern version.  And, of course, I doubt that the overseeded common bermuda fairways of 1940 ran anywhere near the speeds of ANGC today; most of us probably play greens that stimp slower than the 13th fairway.

So putting aside the issue of equipment for a moment, does the change in maintenance and grasses at Augusta make it impossible to return to the "momentous decision" that Jones prized without lengthening the hole to a point where there is no real option for the tee shot?

Just wondering...

I saw a video of the 1960 tournament.  Even then the course was shaggier.  e.g. balls that came up a bit short on 15 held up in the fringe, and there was more space between the green and the pond. 

But maybe this is one way the Masters fights technology and the turbo-distances the ball flies.  What would scores look like today if the margin of error was considerably wider, like it was in earlier years?

Possibly, but Couples won in 1992, long before the ProV1 made it's debut, and his ball hanging on the bank at 12 was considered to be divine intervention even then.  The green speeds had been like those of today for years by then; the conversion to bent grass was back in 1981.

I think 1992 would have been before the widespread use of titanium drivers, too, but certainly before the 460 cc heads with the lightweight graphite shafts we see now.

[Michael Tamburrini]

The green speeds in 92 were not even close to what they are today. Watch through the old rounds on Youtube - there's a big difference. The fairways - on the other hand - haven't got faster. If anything, I tend to think they're slower as balls don't seem to run as much as they did. Having said that, the first round in 1994 is the only time I remember the banks really being shaved.


Freddie's ball stopped in 92 because the course was soaked - there had been a deluge all of Saturday. 

[A.G._Crockett]

The green speeds in 92 were not even close to what they are today. Watch through the old rounds on Youtube - there's a big difference. The fairways - on the other hand - haven't got faster. If anything, I tend to think they're slower as balls don't seem to run as much as they did. Having said that, the first round in 1994 is the only time I remember the banks really being shaved.


Freddie's ball stopped in 92 because the course was soaked - there had been a deluge all of Saturday.

Not exactly.  Couples ball didn't plug; it hit above the hazard and rolled back below the hazard line before stopping.  Then, as now, balls just didn't stop, but there was (and I think still is?) marginally higher grass inside the hazard line at 12, which I don't think is the case at 13; the bank there is shaved all the way down to the water.  I think Couples felt like he got lucky because he didn't hit the ball any higher up the bank than he did, so it didn't pick up the speed that it would have otherwise.

[Jim Nugent]

Then, as now, balls just didn't stop, but there was (and I think still is?) marginally higher grass inside the hazard line at 12, which I don't think is the case at 13; the bank there is shaved all the way down to the water. 

Shaving the bank at 15 has made a world of difference.  In 1960 Sergio's shot, even if it spun backwards, would have hung up on the front fringe.  i saw that several times in the video.  He'd have putted for birdie. 

[Ronald Montesano]

Fowler and others beg to differ.

[Peter Flory]

I saw a few great players in the creek and one in the flowers.  It doesn't appear automatic to hit the green in 2, even with a back pin placement. 


I guess it would be even more interesting if they were hitting from further back, unless most of the field started laying up. 

[Blake Conant]

Mr. Ridley’s use of original design intent as a motive for change is a bit of cherry-picking. If design intent is truly a reason for change, that philosophy should be applied ubiquitously.  I don’t see that happening. Instead, it’s an argument for change only when it fits an agenda. 

[Charles Lund]

Out of curiosity, what did Patrick Reed hit into #13 and #15 today?


He is now 13 under on the par fives through three rounds. 


Charles Lund

[archie_struthers]

 




Rather than move the tee back 80 yards , which is probably necessary to achieve Jones vision of a "momentous decision" why not change the angle ?


One thing about the new ball is you can't move it left to right as easily , so ? Move the tee further left into the tress and make the pros sling it around the corner . Might make them use three wood to achieve necessary spin , a harder deal than tee it high and bomb it over corner .


I'm not real fond of crazy doglegs but the trajectory change would make shot more difficult for sure . Flipping it causes a myriad of problems , believe me I know 🤓

[A.G._Crockett]

Rather than move the tee back 80 yards , which is probably necessary to achieve Jones vision of a "momentous decision" why not change the angle ?


One thing about the new ball is you can't move it left to right as easily , so ? Move the tee further left into the tress and make the pros sling it around the corner . Might make them use three wood to achieve necessary spin , a harder deal than tee it high and bomb it over corner .


I'm not real fond of crazy doglegs but the trajectory change would make shot more difficult for sure . Flipping it causes a myriad of problems , believe me I know 🤓

I think Duval's point, referenced earlier in the thread, was that the pros already face exactly the situation that you are advocating, with no yardage added, and with the risk that if yardage IS added, the demands on their tee shots will lessen or disappear.

In order to get the much-lamented short iron in right now, the pros have to cut the corner effectively.  Occasionally, we'll see somebody in the azaleas left, more often up in the pine straw on the right; in either case, they have to lay up.

I don't know which way is better, but 13 is almost certainly the best tournament par 5 in the world; my fear would be that added yardage would lessen that.

I also find it interesting that we are discussing this during a week in which the defending champion took a 13 on the hole.  Just sayin"...

[Jim Nugent]

Excellent post AG.  Agree totally with you. 

[Matthew Essig]

I also find it interesting that we are discussing this during a week in which the defending champion took a 13 on the hole.  Just sayin"...

Wrong par 5...

[A.G._Crockett]

I also find it interesting that we are discussing this during a week in which the defending champion took a 13 on the hole.  Just sayin"...

Wrong par 5...

You are correct; thanks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It is interesting that there seem to have been more water balls on both 13 and 15 this year, as if to put egg on Fred's face.


It also seemed as if fewer took a chance to hook it around the dogleg on 13, accepting the side hill lie, which gave a few problems.  Announcers mentioned it when someone went close to creek and got a significantly flatter lie.  Also seemed like the shorter snap dogleg encouraged more 3 Metals of the tee, so the angle theory might hold some water.  For whatever reason, there were a lot of 225 shots into 13, which had to be much like the Hogan era of 250 yard drives and 13 playing at 475 yards.


The one thing that never changes is the pressure, which might be the best defense of all on a gambling hole. 

I remember Jim Colbert telling me that hitting near the creek was easy as pie in practice rounds, medium hard on Th and Fri, and near impossible on Sat or Sun.  The option of a shorter shot vs. a penalty shot for being in the creek was pretty well in balance.  Given most seemed to go far right this year, the extra distance seems to have taken away some of that balance.

[JMEvensky]

It also seemed as if fewer took a chance to hook it around the dogleg on 13, accepting the side hill lie, which gave a few problems.


 

I noticed the same thing--even with the guys hitting 3-wood and/or with the hole cut on the creek side of the green.


Maybe they figure the less risky shot is the long iron from a hanging lie. If so, that seems like a recent change to the risk calculation.

[Kalen Braley]

It also seemed as if fewer took a chance to hook it around the dogleg on 13, accepting the side hill lie, which gave a few problems.


 

I noticed the same thing--even with the guys hitting 3-wood and/or with the hole cut on the creek side of the green.


Maybe they figure the less risky shot is the long iron from a hanging lie. If so, that seems like a recent change to the risk calculation.

It makes all the sense in the world.


 Challenge the creek, and if you go in you're struggling for par with a likely bogey.  Play away from it and you still have an eagle chance with a very realistic shot at birdie and typically no worse than 5. I'm not surprised one bit to see few of them challenge the left especially on Saturday or Sunday

[Jeff Schley]

Great shot by Speith, wow!  Then Reed lucks out and his shot just barely held up.  He had alot of breaks this week, from chipping on off the green to hitting the pin on 17, or even #4 where it was cooking downhill.  All the stars aligned and congrats to Patrick. 

[Jason Topp]

Was the wind different this year?  It did seem like players faced more difficult decisions on their 2nd shots than they have in recent years. 

[Alex Miller]

Anyone see the segment of Ben Crenshaw discussing the 13th with Geoff Shackleford?


He mentions how the green has changed from how it was 30-40 years ago - with more slope and clearly defined flattish areas to put pins. It's a different and smaller target than it used to be and should be considered if we're talking about trying to bring back a momentous decision.


Overall I agree with Duval's point as well - the hole inherently has risk but it's been shifted to the drive instead of the second shot now.


I think moving the tee back 10-20 yards would be enough (not that it needs to change at all). Cutting the corner doesn't have to be impossible, just more improbable than it is now to put the decision on the second shot. Driver/3wood becomes more of a decision as well, and successful 3 woods would have another club or two on the approach, perfectly appropriate for a risk/reward shot to that green.

[Matthew Mollica]

Jack Nicklaus already answered this question on the 13th two years ago, during a press conference at Augusta National what’s more!!


“Change the frigging ball” was his solution.


https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/jack-nicklaus-on-golfs-distance-problem-change-the-frigging-ball/amp


And Blake, totally agree on the cherry picking. Design intent embraced width. 7, 11, 15 & others would look very different if design intent was genuinely important.