Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jason Topp on April 07, 2022, 02:38:37 PM
-
1. Two green is one of my favorites. It appears as if they just mowed the ground as it existed. The slopes lead to so many interesting shots.
2. I have seen several people replace divots. I thought that was a bad thing to do on overseeded rye. Any turf types have a comment?
3. I am a bit confused by the three trees they left on the right side of 11. The bailout near the green looks impossible. It seems that if you want to bail out you need to leave it short.
-
I'm curious whether Augusta is still considered the supremely conditioned golf course relative to all others. I mean, it's obviously in the top 1% or whatever. And certainly the attention to detail, especially around the periphery, is way beyond what other courses are able to achieve. But are the tees, fairways, and greens better than all other PGA Tour courses? Or are all those courses at such a high standard now that the playing conditions at Augusta aren't significantly better than what they are at those other venues?
And does this answer change for Masters week vs. the rest of the year at Augusta, compared to the rest of the year at other places?
-
Is the pond on #11 bigger? It sure looks like it.
I also feel like the second cut is less prominent than past years.
-
Worth a read - https://dfmodern.com/blogs/community/the-grass-isn-t-always-greener-and-it-shouldn-t-be
atb
-
Is the pond on #11 bigger? It sure looks like it.
I also feel like the second cut is less prominent than past years.
Fred Ridley mentioned something about minimizing the second cut going forward to help balls hit offline run further offline. Not sure about the lake on #11 but I know the right side of the green was deepened about 2’ to make an up and down more difficult from that bailout area.
-
I think Rory commented the pond on 11 used to end at the edge of the green but now extends past and into the fairway.
-
I'm curious whether Augusta is still considered the supremely conditioned golf course relative to all others. I mean, it's obviously in the top 1% or whatever. And certainly the attention to detail, especially around the periphery, is way beyond what other courses are able to achieve. But are the tees, fairways, and greens better than all other PGA Tour courses? Or are all those courses at such a high standard now that the playing conditions at Augusta aren't significantly better than what they are at those other venues?
And does this answer change for Masters week vs. the rest of the year at Augusta, compared to the rest of the year at other places?
Conditioning-wise there are a lot of courses that are right there. The only thing I've seen that really sets them apart is the size of their nursery/landscape staff. I think people overlook just how much time, money, and expertise goes into maintaining their landscape.
ANGC looks a little different in the summertime. ;)
https://golf.com/travel/augusta-national-dormant-photos-masters-course/ (https://golf.com/travel/augusta-national-dormant-photos-masters-course/)
-
I don’t understand how the “trees = bad architecture” crowd can explain the greatness of Augusta. And please don’t say money can overcome anything. Trees are probably the most important (not only, obviously) defense the course offers
-
I don’t understand how the “trees = bad architecture” crowd can explain the greatness of Augusta. And please don’t say money can overcome anything. Trees are probably the most important (not only, obviously) defense the course offers
The greens (and their pace) are the main defense.
-
I'm curious whether Augusta is still considered the supremely conditioned golf course relative to all others. I mean, it's obviously in the top 1% or whatever. And certainly the attention to detail, especially around the periphery, is way beyond what other courses are able to achieve. But are the tees, fairways, and greens better than all other PGA Tour courses? Or are all those courses at such a high standard now that the playing conditions at Augusta aren't significantly better than what they are at those other venues?
And does this answer change for Masters week vs. the rest of the year at Augusta, compared to the rest of the year at other places?
Conditioning-wise there are a lot of courses that are right there. The only thing I've seen that really sets them apart is the size of their nursery/landscape staff. I think people overlook just how much time, money, and expertise goes into maintaining their landscape.
ANGC looks a little different in the summertime. ;)
https://golf.com/travel/augusta-national-dormant-photos-masters-course/ (https://golf.com/travel/augusta-national-dormant-photos-masters-course/)
I also think maintaining the course as a winter course means that it plays pretty soft most of the year. A guy from Minnesota qualified one year and panicked on his first visit because of how long it played Mid-Winter. He went out and bought hybrids that he did not need when the course firmed up for the event.
-
I don’t understand how the “trees = bad architecture” crowd can explain the greatness of Augusta. And please don’t say money can overcome anything. Trees are probably the most important (not only, obviously) defense the course offers
The greens (and their pace) are the main defense.
I have to agree with Cal here, the green complexes are not only very tough to hit and hold, but those undulations to put on are frightening downhill.
-
I don’t understand how the “trees = bad architecture” crowd can explain the greatness of Augusta. And please don’t say money can overcome anything. Trees are probably the most important (not only, obviously) defense the course offers
Jim,
I have never heard anyone suggest trees are the most important defense Augusta offers. Can you explain why you believe this? Specifically, can you explain why you believe trees are more important than Augusta’s greens?
-
I think on some holes like 7 yes the trees are the primary defense.
But if I was ranking the deterrents to scoring at Augusta, it would be something like this:
1) Undulating greens
2) Undulating property in general with sidehill, uphill, downhill lies
3) The length from the back tees.
4) Hitting shots from the pine straw
5) Ponds/water
.
.
.
6) Trees
-
I don’t understand how the “trees = bad architecture” crowd can explain the greatness of Augusta. And please don’t say money can overcome anything. Trees are probably the most important (not only, obviously) defense the course offers
Jim,
I have never heard anyone suggest trees are the most important defense Augusta offers. Can you explain why you believe this? Specifically, can you explain why you believe trees are more important than Augusta’s greens?
A few years ago I measured the fairway widths at Augusta at an average of 40 yards wide. With the mowing line changes for this year they are even wider. At times trees can come into play, but I can't see how they would be considered the most important defense.
-
Watching the players hit shots into four and six makes me wonder where the pins are for everyday play. Shots that are off just a bit are punished. I can't imagine members would like shots that are online but ten feet short of the hole repelled and end up forty feet away.
-
Watching the players hit shots into four and six makes me wonder where the pins are for everyday play. Shots that are off just a bit are punished. I can't imagine members would like shots that are online but ten feet short of the hole repelled and end up forty feet away.
How much of that is a function of green speeds. At slower speeds and slightly softer surfaces I'd imagine that the repelling/run out is significantly less.
-
Of course the greens are incredible and are the one thing that distinguishes Augusta from most courses. But missing the fairway is death, and it’s death because of trees, not rough. I wonder if they have a statistic for in what percentage of bogeys a tree affected a second shot. Greater than 50% I would guess.
I suspect if they removed most of the trees to open up vistas, provide more air and light, and offer more opportunities for saving shots (the usual anti tree mantra), many would call the before and after pictures beautiful and praise the wonderful changes. But I think scores would drop and Augusta wouldn’t be Augusta. Trees had little or nothing to do with Oakmont’s architecture; they very much do with Augusta’s.
-
Aren't most (all?) of the holes at Augusta named after species of trees? That would seem to support the importance of trees to the identity of the course.
-
Of course the greens are incredible and are the one thing that distinguishes Augusta from most courses. But missing the fairway is death, and it’s death because of trees, not rough. I wonder if they have a statistic for in what percentage of bogeys a tree affected a second shot. Greater than 50% I would guess.
I suspect if they removed most of the trees to open up vistas, provide more air and light, and offer more opportunities for saving shots (the usual anti tree mantra), many would call the before and after pictures beautiful and praise the wonderful changes. But I think scores would drop and Augusta wouldn’t be Augusta. Trees had little or nothing to do with Oakmont’s architecture; they very much do with Augusta’s.
Jim,
your comment assumes that if the trees were not there the play into the green would have little to no increase in challenge than a shot from the current fairway. And the addition of the trees is what makes it death. Watching players navigate the course day by day, regulating their driving lines and distances strictly to better play at certain pin positions, it seems clear that Augusta is a course that still demands the use of proper approach angles by the worlds best to score well. If angles are still critical when playing into a 40 yard wide fairway, wouldn't it be safe to assume that they would be even more critical when playing from 10 yard off of the fairway?
Oakmont's fairways are 10+ yards more narrow than Augusta. When a missed fairway at Oakmont may still be a hit fairway at Augusta, how are trees impacting either drive?
-
I do like seeing these guys face approaches from over 200 yards into par 4s. It seems exceedingly rare for the long guys to face such shots.
-
How critical is the balance between the undulation on and around the green and the pace the greens and surrounds are cut, in relationship to the overall design effectiveness an challenge of the course?
If the greens and surrounds were cut to roll 2' less, would the undulations be able to hold up the design and challenge? If the course is slower are there new pin positions that could be used to keep the challenge up? Or does the modern formula of the course begin to fall apart if the course is not kept as fast?
-
I am always amused by the argument that removing trees doesn’t increase difficulty because the angle of approach presents comparable challenge. Of course it’s better to hit into a green from a fairway. But it’s also always better to hit into a green when you don’t have to negotiate a shot around a tree.
-
Topp, are you sure you've seen divots replaced? Is it possible they're just picking them up and keeping the joint looking pristine?
-
I am always amused by the argument that removing trees doesn’t increase difficulty because the angle of approach presents comparable challenge. Of course it’s better to hit into a green from a fairway. But it’s also always better to hit into a green when you don’t have to negotiate a shot around a tree.
Jim,
Reread my comment. I did not say that the angle presented a comparable challenge. You hypothesized that the presents of trees in a players second at Augusta would account for more than 50% of bogeys recorded. But you did not specify what other elements of increase challenge may be there. If angles at Augusta did not matter from the fairway, then it may be safe to say that trees were the only factor to an increase bogey percentage from the trees. But since they do, wouldn't you need to know the impact of an improper angle on scoring to understand the impact of the trees?
-
Ben: I suppose some questions don’t have answers. But I have heard on more than one occasion that removing trees does not necessarily make a hole easier. I respectfully disagree and believe trees play an important part in golf architecture, particularly for parkland courses.
-
Topp, are you sure you've seen divots replaced? Is it possible they're just picking them up and keeping the joint looking pristine?
You could be right.
-
Ben: I suppose some questions don’t have answers. But I have heard on more than one occasion that removing trees does not necessarily make a hole easier. I respectfully disagree and believe trees play an important part in golf architecture, particularly for parkland courses.
It will be interesting to see how this era - when so many trees have been ripped out - will be viewed in 25 years. 90% of the time I believe the courses have improved. I still think it is fun to decipher how to navigate a tree. I would rather have trees than navigate un-mowed areas on parkland courses.
-
Ben: I suppose some questions don’t have answers. But I have heard on more than one occasion that removing trees does not necessarily make a hole easier. I respectfully disagree and believe trees play an important part in golf architecture, particularly for parkland courses.
It will be interesting to see how this era - when so many trees have been ripped out - will be viewed in 25 years. 90% of the time I believe the courses have improved. I still think it is fun to decipher how to navigate a tree. I would rather have trees than navigate un-mowed areas on parkland courses.
-Jason
I’ll agree with you there, as most un-mowed areas on parkland courses are so thick and lush that they may as well be a water hazards.
-Cal
-
Since the early coverage was of holes 4 through 6 I got to thinking how much I like a par three than different par followed by another par three. I think that is a fun routing.
-
Mike: This can’t be that unusual a feature, as the two courses at which I play my most golf - Rolling Green (14-16) and Teeth of the Dog (5-7) - both have it. I suspect it’s just what the routing happened to bring rather than a thing.
-
Ben: I suppose some questions don’t have answers. But I have heard on more than one occasion that removing trees does not necessarily make a hole easier. I respectfully disagree and believe trees play an important part in golf architecture, particularly for parkland courses.
It will be interesting to see how this era - when so many trees have been ripped out - will be viewed in 25 years. 90% of the time I believe the courses have improved. I still think it is fun to decipher how to navigate a tree. I would rather have trees than navigate un-mowed areas on parkland courses.
Why either/or? Why can't there be less trees and wider playing corridors with playable rough?
Ciao
-
Ben: I suppose some questions don’t have answers. But I have heard on more than one occasion that removing trees does not necessarily make a hole easier. I respectfully disagree and believe trees play an important part in golf architecture, particularly for parkland courses.
It will be interesting to see how this era - when so many trees have been ripped out - will be viewed in 25 years. 90% of the time I believe the courses have improved. I still think it is fun to decipher how to navigate a tree. I would rather have trees than navigate un-mowed areas on parkland courses.
Why either/or? Why can't there be less trees and wider playing corridors with playable rough?
Ciao
Sean your Augusta invite has been withdrawn by the Chairman! It is not rough, it is the 2nd cut. ;)
-
Ben: I suppose some questions don’t have answers. But I have heard on more than one occasion that removing trees does not necessarily make a hole easier. I respectfully disagree and believe trees play an important part in golf architecture, particularly for parkland courses.
It will be interesting to see how this era - when so many trees have been ripped out - will be viewed in 25 years. 90% of the time I believe the courses have improved. I still think it is fun to decipher how to navigate a tree. I would rather have trees than navigate un-mowed areas on parkland courses.
Why either/or? Why can't there be less trees and wider playing corridors with playable rough?
Ciao
Sean your Augusta invite has been withdrawn by the Chairman! It is not rough, it is the 2nd cut. ;)
The invite must have been lost in the post . It has been 4 1 years since I set foot on the grounds. Still one of the two best pro golf viewing times of my life. Watson won over Jack, J Miller and Norman. Proper leaderboard back then .
Ciao
-
Did they make 15 too long?
-
Mike: This can’t be that unusual a feature, as the two courses at which I play my most golf - Rolling Green (14-16) and Teeth of the Dog (5-7) - both have it. I suspect it’s just what the routing happened to bring rather than a thing.
Don’t recall saying it was unusual. I just like it.
-
Ben: I suppose some questions don’t have answers. But I have heard on more than one occasion that removing trees does not necessarily make a hole easier. I respectfully disagree and believe trees play an important part in golf architecture, particularly for parkland courses.
It will be interesting to see how this era - when so many trees have been ripped out - will be viewed in 25 years. 90% of the time I believe the courses have improved. I still think it is fun to decipher how to navigate a tree. I would rather have trees than navigate un-mowed areas on parkland courses.
Why either/or? Why can't there be less trees and wider playing corridors with playable rough?
Ciao
It certainly could be that way but typically that is not the approach taken on US Parkland courses where trees have been removed.
-
Did they make 15 too long?
Interesting......
I watched from the bleachers part of two days, and it seemed like 90% of players laid up, but a few hit the green with as little as 9 iron. The wind was strongly in their face, at least Thursday and Friday.
If I recall, the original idea of ANGC was to have one par 5 nearly everyone can reach (13), one almost no one can reach (8) and two that were tweeners (2 and 15). I think 2 is pretty reachable by all now, and 15 with new length is one of the tweeners, even at "only" 550 yards. So, I think it served its purpose, no?
-
Did they make 15 too long?
Interesting......
I watched from the bleachers part of two days, and it seemed like 90% of players laid up, but a few hit the green with as little as 9 iron. The wind was strongly in their face, at least Thursday and Friday.
If I recall, the original idea of ANGC was to have one par 5 nearly everyone can reach (13), one almost no one can reach ( 8) and two that were tweeners (2 and 15). I think 2 is pretty reachable by all now, and 15 with new length is one of the tweeners, even at "only" 550 yards. So, I think it served its purpose, no?
Jeff,
This is a pretty solid observation. More than any recent Masters, I noticed the change in mindset among the players on certain holes due to their universal ability to get it out there a long way. Smith—all 170lbs of him—had an 8 iron into #2 yesterday. #15 was playing considerably different than it has in years past. I saw that no one eagled it for the entire tournament, which has to be very rare.
I surmise that a strong westerly wind at ANGC is likely the hardest wind to score on for the modern player, and it showed for much of the tournament. The most interesting thing to me is that lots and lots of players commented on how the greens are so tricky that flighted shots have no chance. Even with the wind, the best play was to still hit it sky high and hope for the best.
-
Did they make 15 too long?
I think so. Part of the magic of Sunday at Augusta is the thrill of a possible charge on the back 9. The wind Friday/Saturday was strong into the players, which may be unusual, but no eagles on the hole is a disappointment for me. Risk/reward is the name of the game for that hole. Easy par isn't too exciting on 15 on Sunday. Scoring average on Sunday was under par, however.
-
I thought to myself that, in the context of professional tournament golf, Augusta-Ridley-Fazio-Weather got it absolutely right for four straight days; and that both in absolute terms and certainly relative to other championship courses-and-set ups over these past many years, the National played this week as the absolute ideal venue for a major. That was my 'thought'.
-
Did they make 15 too long?
I think so. Part of the magic of Sunday at Augusta is the thrill of a possible charge on the back 9. The wind Friday/Saturday was strong into the players, which may be unusual, but no eagles on the hole is a disappointment for me. Risk/reward is the name of the game for that hole. Easy par isn't too exciting on 15 on Sunday. Scoring average on Sunday was under par, however.
It is historically the 17 handicap hole of the course and while no eagles weren't in the cards, it still played as the 15th handicapped hole. I'm thinking 11 is the hole which has been tinkered with maybe a tad much. Keeping the 3 lone trees down the right and digging up dirt right of the green to create a more difficult approach I don't think was needed. It was clearly the 1 handicap this week and will overtake 10 as the historical 1 handicap by next year most likely. Always a hard hole.
-
IMO I think the weather had more to do with all the layups on par-fives - it was cold, it was windy and the ball wasn't flying. I feel like I saw more layups on 13 than I have seen in years.
I loved seeing guys go at them with 5 woods and 7 woods when they wouldn't lay up.
-
I'm thinking The MOTM (Men of The Masters) conspired with the weather gnomes to get the wind they wanted to dry the course out and get it to the exact standard they wanted.
We'll have to see if The MOTH share their elixir with the R&A to dial up the wind for The 150th Open Championship @ St. Andrews in a few months.
it would be great fun to see some breeze whistling through the Old Town to freshen up the air on the links..
-
I gotta think Scheffler was hitting 6 iron on that second shot at 15 that went just over the green yesterday, right? Not 9 iron...
Either way... if he had hit 7i/PW instead so that he finished a little under the hole and could give a real run instead of the defensive one he had to make, and then made the putt for eagle... then the hole wouldn't be too long anymore, right?
Do y'all see how the logic doesn't add up at all there?
-
I gotta think Scheffler was hitting 6 iron on that second shot at 15 that went just over the green yesterday, right? Not 9 iron...
Either way... if he had hit 7i/PW instead so that he finished a little under the hole and could give a real run instead of the defensive one he had to make, and then made the putt for eagle... then the hole wouldn't be too long anymore, right?
Do y'all see how the logic doesn't add up at all there?
Most likely 4 vs 9. Caddie signal mix-up, four fingers up is a 4, four fingers down is a 9.
-
I gotta think Scheffler was hitting 6 iron on that second shot at 15 that went just over the green yesterday, right? Not 9 iron...
Either way... if he had hit 7i/PW instead so that he finished a little under the hole and could give a real run instead of the defensive one he had to make, and then made the putt for eagle... then the hole wouldn't be too long anymore, right?
Do y'all see how the logic doesn't add up at all there?
Didn't Cam Smith have like 45 feet for eagle on 15? He didn't make it, but it's not like no one even had a chance.
-
This year’s tournament reminded me of the one in 2007 that Zach Johnson won. Not much scoring that year, but that’s because the weather was like it was on Saturday, only it was all four days. I don’t think Johnson had an eagle on any hole during the entire tournament.
Not really sure how many eagles were made on 15 that year, but it couldn’t have been many. I had to have my wife FedEx my winter coat and gloves.
-
This year’s tournament reminded me of the one in 2007 that Zach Johnson won. Not much scoring that year, but that’s because the weather was like it was on Saturday, only it was all four days. I don’t think Johnson had an eagle on any hole during the entire tournament.
Not really sure how many eagles were made on 15 that year, but it couldn’t have been many. I had to have my wife FedEx my winter coat and gloves.
2007:- 22 Total Eagles
- 3 Eagles on 15
- 2 Eagles on 15 on Sunday
2022:- 17 Total Eagles
- 0 Eagles on 15
Past Years Eagles on 15:- 2021: 1
- 2020: 7
- 2019: 15
- 2018: 7
- 2017: 5
- 2016: 3
-
There were added length and fewer eagles it also felt like I saw fewer balls in the water on 15 this year. Is that true?
-
Jim, There is one sure way to tell the impact of tree removal on resistance to scoring, if that is a significant concern.. Compare scores year against year for a reasonable period to remove outliers due to weather etc. At our club which has had a moderate tree removal program the cry went up that the course had become too easy. When we compared scores there was a moderate increase in difficulty. As to the issue regarding the growth of unplayable rough in lieu of trees it is a complicated problem. If the playable areas are reasonably wide, courses often plant fescue which many feel is a nice "look" but which also cuts down on maintenance costs once established. Unfortunately, on rich soils fescue usually comes in much thicker than it does on links courses. So the balance between cost and playability becomes important. Here the width of the fairways and traditional rough is a significant consideration. Finally, don't underestimate the impact of trees on the ability to grow and maintain turf and the cost attendant thereto. The impact can extend far beyond the canopy.
-
Good column here on the use of fescue in the rough or to grow in areas where trees used to be. As noted above, it can grow and get out of hand quickly on rich/non-links soils.
https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/fescue-fine-or-foe
-
I did not think 15 was too long. Weather and the trees on the left took away a fair amount of temptation.
Is the tee shot on thirteen still a good one? When I saw it in person I was surprised at how pinched it looked off the tee. However, I do like a tee shot that rewards the ability to curve the ball and control it.
I also enjoyed that low spinning chip that Scheffler used to great advantage. My experience with overseeded rye grass is that it is so sticky you have to hit the ball hard if you are going to land it short of the putting surface but he seemed to have the formula down. The course gave him the opportunity to showcase that shot.
-
I did not think 15 was too long. Weather and the trees on the left took away a fair amount of temptation.
Is the tee shot on thirteen still a good one? When I saw it in person I was surprised at how pinched it looked off the tee. However, I do like a tee shot that rewards the ability to curve the ball and control it.
I also enjoyed that low spinning chip that Scheffler used to great advantage. My experience with overseeded rye grass is that it is so sticky you have to hit the ball hard if you are going to land it short of the putting surface but he seemed to have the formula down. The course gave him the opportunity to showcase that shot.
I think 15 is great now -- Scheffler said somewhere that he wanted no part of that chip into 15 so he went for it on Sunday.
I was there Friday and watched quite a few groups go through 15 and nobody looked comfortable hitting their third into that green.
-
I dumped my wedge into the pond on the 15th green, you have to stay down with the shot, I came out of it too quickly. I still remember this 14 years later
-
I think on some holes like 7 yes the trees are the primary defense.
But if I was ranking the deterrents to scoring at Augusta, it would be something like this:
1) Undulating greens
2) Undulating property in general with sidehill, uphill, downhill lies
3) The length from the back tees.
4) Hitting shots from the pine straw
5) Ponds/water
.
.
.
6) Trees
Ask Jordan and Rory about your putting trees at a distant 6th. Length and pine straw may be a bugaboo for you, but it causes very little concern for tour pros. Length only becomes a problem when the tee ball hits a tree and gets stopped well short of where it was headed.
:P