[John Kavanaugh]

I have been amazed at Reed going to the far right of the tee box on most holes and hitting a helicopter fade. It's not the modern monster balloon shot that I thought was the go to drive of the young pros. On 14 when he caught a Georgia Pine and was forced to hit a hard draw to reach the green I thought it was the beginning of the end. I simply can not recall a tournament where I have seen so many golfers working the ball both ways. Thank you trees.


Phil on 9 on the second round was hitting a recovery from the trees and hit what we like to call the aim at the tree you can't hit it shot. Boing, unplayable..triple bogey, maybe next year kind of shot. How much longer can Nicklaus be the oldest guy to ever win a Masters? Thank you trees.

[mike_malone]

Trees that form doglegs are appealing and make for interesting shots but once you are under them you need a chance to hit a full recovery shot and not just some silly punch out.

[Greg Chambers]

Trees that form doglegs are appealing and make for interesting shots but once you are under them you need a chance to hit a full recovery shot and not just some silly punch out.

Every one of the guys I watched hitting out from under the trees had a full recovery option.  I don’t recall any silly punch outs.  What’s your point?

[Jason Topp]

I love watching players shape shots around trees but when you plant trees in the ideal portion of the fairway from which to approach the green as they did on 11 you hurt, rather than help the course.  The 11th was at one time the prototype of a strategic golf hole.  It now is simply a difficult golf hole. 

[Matthew Sander]

I'm not sure I can argue wth the premise of John's original post. That said, in person, the trees on 11 and 15 look plain weird.

[mike_malone]

It would not be a borefest without the trees. Coming into those greens from the wrong angle would be the highlight of the tournament.

[Kalen Braley]

Trees that form doglegs are appealing and make for interesting shots but once you are under them you need a chance to hit a full recovery shot and not just some silly punch out.

Every one of the guys I watched hitting out from under the trees had a full recovery option.  I don’t recall any silly punch outs.  What’s your point?

Greg,


I saw 2-3 on Thursday on TV, most notably Speith on 18 when he had to punch straight out to the start of 18 fairway.  Still managed to save bogey with a fantastic chip...

[Jason Thurman]

Sometimes you're in a fairway bunker and have a play at the green, and sometimes you just have to blast out and do your best on the next shot. I see no problem with that, nor with the same being true from the trees.

[mike_malone]

Sometimes you're in a fairway bunker and have a play at the green, and sometimes you just have to blast out and do your best on the next shot. I see no problem with that, nor with the same being true from the trees.

Sounds like a good argument against bunkers.

[Edward Glidewell]

They are the best players in the world. I have no problem with them needing to avoid certain areas. And trees are vastly preferable to water; they still have a chance at recovery from the trees.


I also don't think the angles matter nearly as much to the professionals at they do to any of us posting here. They can hit the ball so high with so much spin that when they are on they can often still make birdies and pars even when out of position.

[mike_malone]

I don’t think this course needs any tricking up. When they start posting 20+under let’s talk.

[mike_malone]

I’m finding the shots not in the trees more exciting than those from the trees. These shots “ make Augusta “.  It’s not even close.


If you want to say the trees test the pros here then fine but they aren’t the shots that define the course or the tournament. C’mon man! 

[John Kavanaugh]

I guess you didn't see Spieth's shot off the pine straw on 13. No trees, no pine straw. Oh, and no shadows.

[mike_malone]

I guess you didn't see Spieth's shot off the pine straw on 13. No trees, no pine straw. Oh, and no shadows.

That’s one shot. They could have pine straw without the trees.

[John Kavanaugh]

Wait for it.

[John Kavanaugh]

That didn't take long.

[John Kavanaugh]

Trees can not choose who they throw shade upon. Don't blame them if your favorite didn't win.

[jeffwarne]

I guess you didn't see Spieth's shot off the pine straw on 13. No trees, no pine straw. Oh, and no shadows.

That’s one shot. They could have pine straw without the trees.

Trees have ALWAYS been a part of the lore or Augusta-and angles have been virtually obsoleted by technology in drive length and reduced undulations on the greens.
Doglegs without trees aren't doglegs UNLESS either super firm ground, reverse cambers, or wind are factors. Augusta is built on clay and wind is not routine in Augusta, and actually made trickier BT the trees, rather than a predictable 5-7.


[size=78%]Could they lose a few trees? absolutely-and definitely quite a few lower limbs, but even as they were building the course there were stands of freshly planted pine trees in many places.[/size]

[Sean_A]

Augusta never had trees like it does now...things have gone too far imo.  To me the concept of trees at Augusta should be in terms of copse....not fairways lined with trees.  I also saw some issues with the best players in the world unable to go at a green when less than five yards off the fairway due to low limbs...thats just silly. 

When one really looks at the design Augusta should be considered quite a penal course.  Between water carries, forced bunker carries at greens and playing between at greens Augusta is as penal as Oakland Hills and Oakmont.  Yet, at least for the best players, Augusta doesn't seem to feel that way while watching.  Anyway, that is my main reason for disliking too many trees at Augusta...there is already plenty going to add to the penal side of the ledger.  So no, the trees do not make Augusta.  Sometimes they enhance the design, sometimes not so much.

For heaven sake...whatever one thinks about the trees...those poxy circles of needles around some trees is one of the most ridiculous things I have seen on a golf course.  If I had to get rid rid of every single tree to eliminate that feature I would happily do so.   

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

The Old Course at St. Andrews is one of my favorites but if every course looked and played like that we would get bored to death and sure wouldn't bother traveling all over the country/world to play "different venues".  Embrace the diversity that golf has to offer. 

[Mike Schott]

I don’t think this course needs any tricking up. When they start posting 20+under let’s talk.

They trick it up with green speeds. The players started to eat up the course once the greens became wet. 

[Jim Nugent]

When one really looks at the design Augusta should be considered quite a penal course.  Between water carries, forced bunker carries at greens and playing between at greens Augusta is as penal as Oakland Hills and Oakmont.

Sean, several people on this forum who played or visited ANGC said that, appearances notwithstanding, it has a great deal of width.  Very few bunkers compared to most tournament courses.  12 is the only water you have to carry with a full club, and that's a wedge or 9-iron.  On 13 and 15 you can lay up, leaving only a pitch shot onto the green. 

A lot of the challenge there seems to me the topography.  It creates all manner of uneven/downhill/sidehill lies.  You have to hit to the right places (same with your misses), especially at the green complexes.  That often requires you to plan your drive to the right spot as well. 

ANGC seems to me an outstanding strategic course more than a penal one.   

[Sean_A]

The Old Course at St. Andrews is one of my favorites but if every course looked and played like that we would get bored to death and sure wouldn't bother traveling all over the country/world to play "different venues".  Embrace the diversity that golf has to offer.

That is part of my issue with the trees.  Augusta actually loses some of its identity as an unusual parkland course with too many trees.


Jim


Augusta is a bit different because so much of its evolution is tied to professional golf where the spectrum of penal to strategic can largely be meaningless...but that is also largely true of Oakmont and Oakland Hills...which are deemed penal courses. From the regular golfer PoV there is no question there are several forced shots at Augusta. I would say at least 9 holes are of the penal type in this regard...a few more than in the 1930s.  But that is the story over and over when design for pros becomes paramount...penal architecture takes a more prominent role.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

S -
if "penal architecture [has taken] a more prominent role" on a golf course that consistently/annually produces both 65s and 75s and that allows short-hitting 60 year olds to compete against flat-bellied bombers, the main conclusion I draw is that the term "penal architecture" has become virtually meaningless. 

As Louis Armstrong once said to a jazz-centric and label-loving critic (who'd been surprised to hear Louis praise the Guy Lombardo band): "There are only two types of music -- good and bad". Augusta - as per above -- must be one of the exceptionally good ones.

[Sean_A]

Pietro


Sure, for pros the distinction between the strategic/penal continuum is meaningless other than to note that generally pros need more penal architecture to properly impact their decision-making.  Just to put this in context...generally, if a course has half its holes requiring a penal element the course is deemed penal...if the classic Oakland Hills example is anything to go by.  My point is how does granny play the hole...that is where the idea of laying up to cross a hazard a play over the next shot is a non-starter....the hazard still must be crossed. Not that I am saying that granny has to be accounted for all the time and I am certainly not saying one extreme or the other is good or bad...both ends are necessary for architecture to be flourish.   


The real problem is we continually see architecture through professional eyes rather than through the eyes of Joe Blow.  In the case of Augusta thats fine because if there is a course that is identified with pro golf it is Augusta.  However, in the case of other well known championship venues, they have been made more penal over time and something has been lost for the rank and file player in accomodating pros.  Its not merely a matter of added yards...the issue goes much deeper.  That said, the memberships of the Oakland Hills and Oakmonts of this world control their own destiny and if professionalizing their courses is what they feel is best...they can have at it....its mostly their loss anyway.  However, when places like TOC are professionalized (see #s 16 & 17) it really is an issue for which all golfers should feel they have an equal say. 


Ciao 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()