Augusta's length . . . and its defenders

[stevencollins]

It's been a long time since I've posted something here, mostly because I simply lack the experience that most of the regulars here have in playing all the courses in the world.  Like many, I lack the ability and the income, frankly, to play anywhere often or certainly play the vast majority of great courses that regularly gain comment on this page.  I'm not complaining.  It's just a fact.  But every once in a while a topic will come up that I think I can at least ask an intelligent question and because I respect the opinions of people on this site so much, I thought I would give it a shot here.  By the way, if someone has already asked this question or commented on it, please direct me to it so I won't take up too much wasted space!

Here's my question:

Lots of comments this week have been made about Augusta's newish length and how that may or may not take away from the "purity" of the Masters as we know it.  One statement made often is that the new length makes the "average" PGA player have to use mid-irons or so to many greens and that "the greens aren't designed to hold those kind of clubs."

Then the defenders, usually those involved with the course or the history of the event, will pipe up with the refrain that, "these are the same shots that were played by Snead and Hogan and Nelson and Nicklaus and . . . ."  You get the idea.

Now, I'm still a fairly young pup (35), but the first thing that popped into my mind when I hear these statements is, "true, those guys were playing 5-irons then before the lengthening they were only playing 9-irons or wedges, BUT, weren't those older guys playing to Bermuda greens and not the super-fast bent greens of today?"

I'd like any of you to comment on this.  It seems to me that the mid-iron shot to a Bermuda Augusta green would behave much differently than a mid-iron shot to a fast Bent Augusta green.  I still remember, back when I was a young kid, reading Golf Magazine articles about the first year Augusta went to Bent and how incredibly evil most thought it was.  

So:  are the calls to tradition and history off the mark, or are they legitimate?  I'm never going to have the possibility to play Augusta in my life, but I'm sure some on this board either have or will.  What do you think?

Thanks,

steve

[ChasLawler]

Steven,

I'm pretty new here myself, so I'm not sure if it's my opinion you'd be looking for, but I believe that changes were necessary at Augusta to maintain the course’s strategic integrity, but that Hootie & Co. took it too far.

There's no doubt the bent greens are faster now than they used to be, but I'd venture to guess the old bermuda greens may have been consistently firmer, and in fact harder to hold. I'm relatively young myself, and never witnessed Snead or Hogan play the course in the respective primes, but I don't think either of those guys were hitting as many 1, 2 and 3 irons into holes as Fazio, Hootie and some others would lead us to believe. I'm almost positive Nicklaus wasn't - maybe on some 5 pars, but not into many par 4's.

Maybe someone else on the board can shed some light on this, but my opinion is that those guys are full of crap. All Hootie is concerned about is his beloved par, and Fazio is just putting whatever spin on it he feels makes the most sense. But back to your point, I don't think the problem lies in the ability to hold greens, but more in the likelihood of a lot of guys being on the wrong parts of the greens, and facing a multitude of super fast 80 foot putts. The greens at ANGC are pretty big and lately, very soft; and if these guys aren’t hitting out of some new diabolical fairway bunker, they’re good enough to at least get it on the green in most cases - even with a long iron.

They've made it so long now, that the only guys who have a chance are those same guys who can fly the ball 300 in the air. Like many have said here before, the course has lost a lot of its strategic value. IMO they should have never grown in the rough, only added about 150 - 200 yards in length, and should have actually tried to make the greens a tad bit firmer. With those changes I believe it would be an excellent test of golf, holding truer to the original strategic intent of the design.

[Jamie_Duffner]

ANGC was all about angles of play.  There was a time not so long ago that course had lots of width.  This allowed tee ball placement to certain areas of the fairway that provided the best angle of attack.  This was Bobby Jones and MacK's intention.  It was never meant to provide an overly stern test off the tee, but it was meant to require thought off the tee for the proper line of play.  Those greens are frightening and there are many greens within a green, meaning that you'd better place your approach on the proper side of the hole, thus the need to place the tee ball on the proper side of the fairway.  

Now I don't mind some lengthening, the course was being turned into a 3 - wood, wedge game and that was certainly not Jones and Mack's intention.  However, Fazio and Hootie have deliberately narrowed the course with multiple tree plantings, not just to the right side of 15, and growing rough, albeit not too high, in attempts to raise scores.  IMHO, this has stripped a lot of the strategic integrity of the course and goes completely against the philosophy of Jones and MacK.

[Jeff Goldman]

I recall several players, especially Arnold Palmer and Gary Player, stating in numerous interviews that while the bent greens are faster, the bermuda was much harder, and that a lot of shots they saw these days would end up bouncing over the green bigtime.

Jeff Goldman

[hhuffines]

Jamie,

Great answer.  I heard Ben Crenshaw say the exact same
last night on the Golf Channel.  I guess the Seve I grew up
watching at Augusta would have little chance to win
with the course as it plays now.

[Gary_Smith]

This is only the second tournament since the Fazio changes, and unfortunately both of them will have been played on a wet course.

But I guess that is enough time for the armchair critics to make their judgments.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Gary;

If the issue under debate is the decreasing "width" at ANGC, then what do wet conditions have to do with it?

If the issue is "length", then can't tournament officials move the tee markers forward a bit to account for reduced roll due to wetness if they feel the course is playing longer than they'd like?

Fazio hasn't altered the greens (other than #11, to my knowledge), right?  So why should wet conditions be a factor on whether anyone thinks that either reduced width and/or increased length are undesirable and tend to "flatten" scoring variations on the holes as has not historically been the case?

[ChasLawler]

Gary,

I still think it is an incredible golf course, but it can't be denied that, with the recent changes (length & rough mainly), the course plays far differently than it ever has before.

The tournament will always be a pleasure to watch, and a round at Augusta will be just as treasured as it ever has been, but FOR ME part of the charm of the course was how different it was from the other major championship venues, and the thought it required to get around it.

I'm sure next year will be dry as a bone and Justin Leonard will win by 3 strokes, and you'll have your "I told you so's". But regardless if that happens or not, it's not the same course it once was...still a great course; but let the rough grow, and you could have the U.S. Open there as well.

[Tim_Weiman]

Steven Collins:

I won't comment on Augusta, but do want to say that you are not alone. Studying golf course architecture does take time and money. I've been fortunate to travel a fair amount and see many of the world's best. But, it really involves a life long commitment - if I can use that word for something which is usually so much fun.

When I was younger, single and without children I got around a lot trying to visit as many places as I could. These days I only make a few trips a year. If I can see 3-4 new things a year, that is pretty good. I just try to be more selective. This year I've only seen one new site and that is just a raw piece of land, quite spectacular but one those associated with the potential development would prefer I not write about.

Hang in there and slowly build a collection of memories.

[Justin_Zook]

This is a fantastic thread

I too don't post that often.

I love the Spirit of St. Andrews.  To those who don't know it was written by MacK.  It sheds much light on his philosophies about architecture and golf in general.

I love reading it.  Everytime I go back just to reference something I learn something that I never knew before.

Anyway, your thread stimulated me to take a look at the book and actually see what Alister's philosophies on architecture were and here are some things I found.  

**The Line of Charm**

There are many leading players who condemn the strategic aspect of golf.  They only see one line to the hole, and that is usually the direct one.  They cannot see why they should, as in dog-legged holes, be ever compelled to play to one of the other side of the direct line.  A bunker in the direct line at the distance of their long drives is invariably condemned by them, because they do not realize that the correct line is to the one or the other side.  

Analyze the holes on the Old Course at St. Andrews.  There is hardly a hole where the correct line is direct from tee to green.  We have pointed out before that Max Behr says the direct line is the line of instinct and if we wish to make a hole interesting we must break up that line and create the line of charm.  It is true that in the best dog-legged holes, the longer a player drives, the more direct his route, but nevertheless there is usually a considerable risk with its accompanying thrill in going the straightest line to the hole.  Dog-legged holes require judgment and hardwork.  The short and straight player can often overcome a longer driver by greater skill.  

The difficulties that make a hole really interesting are usually those in which a great advantage can be gained in successfully accomplishing heroic carries over hazards of an impressive appearance, or in taking great risks to place a shot so as to gain a big advantage for the next.  

In an ideal long hole, there should not only be a big advantage from negotiating successfully a long carry for the tee shot, but the longer the drive, the greater should be the advantage.  A shorter driver should also, by extreme accuracy, be able to gain an advantage over a long hitting but less accurate opponent.

An idea hole should provide an infinite variety of shots acording to the varying positions of the tee, the situation of the flag, the direction and strength of the wind, etc.  It should also at times give full advantage for the voluntary pull or slice, one of the most finished shots in golf, and one that few champions are able to carry out with any great degree of accuracy.

Those are just a few paragraphs I found.  Alister seems to like wide open fairways, or at least many different angles to approach the green from.  Jones felt the same way as he appreciated very much St. Andrews, the golf course that Alister loved dearly, the course Alister tried to emulate in strategic ways, and the course that was the inspiration for Augusta.  

They both wanted the golf course to cater towards the thinking man, the one who knew how difficult a certain pin was, and knew how to place his tee shot in the best position to approach that pin.  

So, with all this in mind, a player would have to play the angles at Augusta if he wanted to be successful on the bermuda greens, assuming that there was a severe amount of bounce off of those surfaces.    

[Matt_Ward]

Old Augusta R.I.P

Anyone reading Brad Klein's excellent analysis on ANGC in GW will come to understand how the greatness of what Jones / Mackenzie has been bastardized.

Jamie hit the nail right on the head -- Augusta was about angles -- look, I enjoy seeing power golf when done in concert with what Augusta used to be -- it's nothing more than a US Open set-up. The premise for the Masters has been abandoned simply because of Tiger. A tweak and tuck here and there is one thing but I yearn for Augusta when the gambles and swash buckling made Sunday viewing an absolute must. Like I said old Augusta R.I.P.  

[Gary_Smith]

Mike and Cabell,

Don't mind me, I'm probably just overly sensitive to all the bashing that my favorite tournaments gets here every year.  

Last year, through the first 3 rounds, the Masters produced arguably the greatest leaderboard in major championship history, with lots of birdies. The critics here were very quiet. On Sunday, Tiger's rivals went into full faint, Tiger won on automatic pilot, and there wasn't much drama. All the critics came out of the woodwork blasting the changes as taking all the excitement out of the course, yada, yada, yada. The pretenders, and their belly up attitude ruined the day, not the course, IMO. Well, maybe the pins were excessively tucked.    I'm just saying give the changes a chance, especially under hard and fast conditions. Mike, it just seems to me we need to see hard and fast to really see how the changes work in regards to the length and width issues.

[Carlyle Rood]

Pete Dye made an interesting comment about fast greens.  (I think he may have been referring to Oakmont?  Help me out here.)  Now I'll paraphrase, and therefore introduce the likelihood of misinterpreting; however, Dye suggested that dramatically sloping greens were just as treacherous AND MAYBE MORE SO with bermuda than with bent.

His explanation?  He suggested that the grain would exaggerate the slopes.  A downhill, downgrain putt would be dramatically different than an uphill, upgrain putt.  So while the stimpmeter on a course might be an 8, it was because it averaged a 12 and a 4 instead of a 10 and a 6.  So the deviation in the two putts created greater difficulty.

That being said, I'm guessing the putting was a lot more compelling in the 1960s; however, without the grain, the approach shots are likely more difficult.  (Did I just reveal that I'm a hypocrite?)

[Carlyle Rood]

Given that Augusta National was intended to emulate the conditions of the Old Course at St. Andrews, wouldn't the additional length be making the course MORE playable?  After all, the course was designed to be receptive to shots played along the ground.  It seems to me like a 5-iron would be allowed to chase along the slopes to the desired pin, whereas a pitching wedge would just trickle from the landing area.

Of course, this might be the appropriate time to trim the rough and let these fellows celebrate shotmaking for us.

[stevencollins]

Thank you, everyone, for your wonderful responses to my original post.  I have received some great insight and critiques.  You know how to make a guy feel welcome.

I knew the bermuda greens here in Texas can be awfully hard, but I hadn't heard about that at Augusta: thanks for the news.  I also appreciate the point about the grain making the greens even tougher.  I can understand that from experience!  I grew up in Colorado with mostly bent greens.  I remember as a kid when I was first learning to play, I would go to the library and check out all these books, devouring how-to knowledge and history.  I would go to the course and look for the grain like the books told me to, and I could never find it.  Or, when I thought I had, the putt didn't behave the way it "should" have.  But then, when I moved to Texas, putting was, for a number of years, a case of "what the hell was that?"  Suddenly, my trusted old Hogan blade couldn't get me five feet from the hole.  I still always putt better when I'm home visiting the folks!

steve

[ForkaB]

steve

Now we know why Hogan could never putt--he spent too much time in Texas!

I'm with Gary on this one.  Let's give the changes a chance.  Just because the "B" list of the world's greatest players choked en masse last year on Sunday doesn't mean all is doom and gloom.  Let's see how ANGC plays when it is firm and fast (assuming that global warming hasn't already turned Georgia into a permanent Rain Forest).

As the Brooklyn Dodgers fans used to say:

"Wait'll Next Year!"

[stevencollins]

Thanks, Rich,

I don't know much about Hogan's putting, but I love my old blade putter.  I miss the old putters on tour--now all you see are all these weird looking contraptions that undoubtably are better at striking the ball.  But I'm an aesthetic purist, I guess.  I still play with my Dad's old 1960 Wilson Pro Staffs, with the real-wood Woods and the forged irons.  I just feel comfy with them and figure if I can hit them, when the day comes I can afford a new set I should be able to really kill them.  Then again, I'm getting old enough that by the time I can buy those clubs I may be too old to really benefit from them as I might!  And the old Hogan blade--I just love the aesthetics of it and the feel.  At least on bent grass greens.  The blade doesn't seem to have the proper oomph on bermuda, which makes me wish I hadn't traded my original Ping with my dad.   But I love the look--today's putters seem so much uglier than they used to be.

steve

[Phil_the_Author]

I too feel very unqualified to debate the merits of the changes at Augusta, as I too have only had the privilege of walking once around the course during a Tuesday practice round a few years back.

I do though feel compelled to ask a question that I believe has merit. Aren't there actually 2 courses at Augusta, the one that is played from the Masters tees and the one that is played from the Members?

I ask this because I was under the impression that the fortunate few who get invited to play with a member, along with the member himself, are NOT ALLOWED to play from the Masters tee. Am I wrong in this?

The reason I feel this to be pertinent is that the changes to the course over the last decade have been almost exclusively one of lengthening it for play for the Masters. How then is this "bastardizing" or ruining the course?

Changes done over the years, in my opinion, have improved the course on many an occasion. An example of this was the moving of the green from its original location on #16 to where it is now. This includes making the lake as well. This green site has an amazing variety of shots that can be played into it depending on hole location. It offers incredible risk/reward shots that rise in their intensity depending on how the player may stand in either their match or during the Masters. That is why we love the Sunday traditional pin position so much (as well as the ones on other holes). I still am amazed at the shot that Davis Love played up the bank & above the hole from the rough left and long several years ago. Many times in golf, "imagination" is really the by-product that can only be found by hitting a bad shot on a great course. Davis' shot could not have been played on too many other courses.    

[ChasLawler]

Phil_the_Author,

I'm not 100% sure, but my grandfather has played ANGC every year for the last 25 or so, and I know in his younger days he played from the back tees. I think you still can, it's just not the norm.

And for the record, I would never bash ANGC, changes or no changes. It's still an excellent course, and it's probably a better test for the "modern" golfer now than it was 5 years ago.

I think there are some on this board who believe that technology and poor architecture (or architectural changes) have led to the demise of the strategic golf game. While I do agree that technology has certainly contributed. The majority of that demise falls on the modern golfer. Pro V1 or no Pro-V1, the professionals hit the ball further now than they used to, and ANGC wants to provide a fair test for the modern professional. It just may be a touch ahead of its time - in 5 years, there probably won't be a "short hitter" on tour.

But I would still rather play the ANGC of 1997 than the ANGC of 2003, mainly because it would probably suit my game a lot better.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carlyle Rood,

Given that Augusta National was intended to emulate the conditions of the Old Course at St. Andrews......

I've heard that, but I don't accept it.

Augusta Georgia in the Summer is a far cry from St Andrews at any time of year, and the course is closed when the conditions would most likely promote a dry environment with fast and firm conditions.

With the course only open from October to May, I don't see how anyone could draw the conclusion that the conditions at ANGC were meant to emulate the conditions at St Andrews, especially when wind isn't the same factor at both courses.

I think this may be a perpetuation of the myth that attempts to join the two courses like Siamese or identical twins.