[Dan Kelly]

See http://tinyurl.com/9eud7

No mention of a Masters Ball.

[Jfaspen]

I'm not sure if this is the same article, but the one I read yesterday described the "expansion of the small forest on the right side of 11."

Think they're trying to make players take 3 wood and then be faced with a 180 yard shot that's dead if it's left and in trouble if it's right (i think the green is severely sloped towards the water).

jf

[ForkaB]

Can't believe that this DG is letting another 155 yards at Augusta go by unslagged.

All you members of "Save the Swales" please come out of hibernation!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

I think ANGC has transitioned and now serves but one Master/s

[Bill_McBride]

Who cares?  It's one week a year, the members will never play those tees.  It's sad #7 will never again be a short par 4 with that diabolical green and bunkering.  450 yards?  It's a joke.

But who cares?  It's only one week a year!

[Philippe Binette]

It's the third time in the last six years that Augusta National has strengthened its golf course -- 520 yards since 1999 -- each an attempt to restore the rhythm and shot value the way Bobby Jones and Alister MacKenzie designed it.


Who wrote THAT ?

[Philippe Binette]

No. 11 is now 505 yards, with a tee pushed even farther back into the woods. Again, it's not strictly about length. The club has added 17 additional pines down the right side, bringing the small forest to 43 trees and making the right side -- a BAILOUT area when the pin was back left -- no longer a safe alternative.

Was it a bailout or strategy return to the previous quote

[BCrosby]

ANGC has become a US Open venue.

It has become the exact opposite of the revolutionary, subtle and even satiric course Mack and Jones built in 1933.

Their wonderful experiment is dead. It's been dead for several years now.

Bob

[Darren_Kilfara]

Re: ANGC as a US Open venue, any bets on:

1) when the powers-that-be will decide to grow US Open rough at Augusta;

2) how long the rough will last before outrage causes a rethink; and

3) what the average winning score in the Masters would be with thick rough guarding the fairways?

Cheers,
Darren

[Jim Nugent]

ANGC has become a US Open venue.

It has become the exact opposite of the revolutionary, subtle and even satiric course Mack and Jones built in 1933.

Their wonderful experiment is dead. It's been dead for several years now.

Bob

What other choice does Augusta have?  I don't have answers, but sympathize with the problem.

[Rick Shefchik]

Masters ball...Masters ball...Masters ball...

[JESII]

Different expectations.....different expectations.....different expectations.

[BCrosby]

Jim -

There are two solutions:

1. have the courage to rein in the technology that is wrecking classic courses like ANGC,

or, if governing bodies lack the courage to do that,

2. get used to lower winning scores.

"Fixing" the golf course is the worst of all possible solutions.

B. Jones and MacK said repeatedly that they had no problem with good play yielding low numbers. So why is it that the governing bodies at ANGC today feel like they need to defend par against the best players of our era when Jones and Mack didn't feel that way about the best players of their era? Especialy when it comes at the cost of mauling one of the most important designs in the history of golf architecture.

None of this is brain surgery. Especially in the case of ANGC, an independent, private club that has almost unlimited freedom to set conditions of play for its own invitational tournament.

Bob

[A.G._Crockett]

Jim -

There are two solutions:

1. have the courage to rein in the technology that is wrecking classic courses like ANGC,

or, if governing bodies lack the courage to do that,

2. get used to lower winning scores.

"Fixing" the golf course is the worst of all possible solutions.

B. Jones and MacK said repeatedly that they had no problem with good play yielding low numbers. So why is it that the governing bodies at ANGC today feel like they need to defend par against the best players of our era when Jones and Mack didn't feel that way about the best players of their era? Especialy when it comes at the cost of mauling one of the most important designs in the history of golf architecture.

None of this is brain surgery. Especially in the case of ANGC, an independent, private club that has almost unlimited freedom to set conditions of play for its own invitational tournament.

Bob

This is an excellent post in every respect.

[JESII]

Agree, A.G. that Bob makes great points, but tell me, would it effect your opinion of the course, the tournament, or anything if 20 under par were the regular winning score? Would it be better (from a GCA perspective) to simply call two of the par 5's par 4'sand make the 72 hole par 8 strokes lower?

[A.G._Crockett]

Agree, A.G. that Bob makes great points, but tell me, would it effect your opinion of the course, the tournament, or anything if 20 under par were the regular winning score? Would it be better (from a GCA perspective) to simply call two of the par 5's par 4'sand make the 72 hole par 8 strokes lower?

Not one bit.  The thrill of the Masters on Sunday has always been the possibility of somebody running the table on the back nine, or blowing chunks trying to run the table.  That doesn't happen at the U.S. Open, and I'm not sure that it can happen at ANGC now, at least not in the way it could have before.

As to the winning score, I have no idea what won this past year.  I can remember virtually every shot by DiMarco and Woods down the stretch, but I truly don't know what they were relative to par.  Who cares?

[JESII]

Who cares?

Obviously the guys at Augusta do.

I think I'm on your side as far as scoring at the Masters, and viewing the Masters but think about it. If nothing were done to #15 in the last 10 years do you think that hole would have any teeth? It would be a par four, and not necissarily a long one. Admittedly, the green presents a significant challenge and risk/reward proposition, but the guys would approach with anything from 7 iron to wedge. The issue would have migrated from "how do you carry the front apron while staying short of the back?" to "how do I stop the ball from spinning back into the water".

All courses evolve, perhaps this one could have evolved in a different way that would better preserve the intent of Jones and MacKenzie. What would your recommendations along those lines be?

[A.G._Crockett]

One wish I would have would be to go back to no rough, as the course was designed, so that shots to the wrong part of the fairway would run into much bigger trouble.  Crenshaw talked about this a couple of years ago from a GCA standpoint, and it was eloquent.  The addition of a "first cut" is a bigger departure from the intent of the course than additonal length is, I think.

[Rick Shefchik]

I think the idea of a Masters Ball -- for the Masters, not necessarily for you, me or Hootie -- makes so much more sense than continuing to stretch the course that I'm baffled by the opposition. But opposition there is, and neither side seems to understand the other, so how about this:

Pot bunkers.

Jones and MacKenzie were great admirers of St. Andrews, and as I understand it, they attempted to incorporate features of that course into the design of Augusta National. Would pot bunkers be so much more out of character for Augusta National than stretching it to 7900 and making it all about length, rather than strategy?

[Dan Kelly]

Rick --

I love your thinking -- but I'm afraid the answer is: Yes. Pot bunkers would *seem* more out of character than more and more and more length, year after year, seems.

[Kirk Gill]

How hard would it be to resurrect the Henry Fownes bunker rake?

They'd still look all white and pristine on tv...........

[Andrew Summerell]

Who cares?  It's one week a year, the members will never play those tees.  It's sad #7 will never again be a short par 4 with that diabolical green and bunkering.  450 yards?  It's a joke.

But who cares?  It's only one week a year!

Everyone should, because everyone watches The Masters - including greens committees & developers all over the world who want their course (quite wrongly) to be as close to A.N. as it can. Every change by Hootie is another nail in the coffin of committees & developers who have a realistic idea.

[Jason Topp]

I've never been there, but it seems to me that they would go a long ways towards restoring the character of the place simply by chopping down the trees that they have planted and getting rid of the rough.  

It seems to me that the length was necessary in most cases, given technology.  15 had become so short that it was not interesting and 13 seems like a better hole with the little bit of yardage they added.  5 seems like a much better hole and I kind of like the idea of 4 playing as a 3 wood or 2 iron.  

Add the length and keep the width, I say.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

AGCrockett,

The potential for a wide scoring spectrum on sunday afternoon intriques us all.

It is the architecture that makes that possible.

The difficulty of # 10
The difficulty and water on # 11.
The seeming innocence and water on # 12.
The deceiving yardage and potential for 3 or 6 on # 13
The potential for a three putt on # 14
The risk-reward and water on # 15.
The devilish green and water on # 16
The TREE on # 17
The difficult drive and approach on # 18

All combine to present exciting theatre.

It's the reckless abandon in playing the back nine that excites us and produces under par scores, OR, the fickle finger of fate that frustrates and foils contenders year after year.

I'd prefer to see the back nine as it's always been. A "Masters" ball would seem the better way to retain that atmosphere and the playing conditions that generate risk-reward and excitement.

[PThomas]

Hootie has hinted about a Masters Ball in the past...but it seems like just talk......

I wonder just how much protest there would be.....too much?  maybe you won't get invited back??

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()