[RJ_Daley]

Pat, I can agree with some of the stuff you pointed out, simply because I haven't actually been there and you have some facts that are solid.  

But, some of the stuff you say makes me wonder if you don't need to take one-eye to the optomitrist!  

"See the tree, how big it's grown,
but friend, it hasn't been too long it wasn't big."
                                 Bobby Goldsboro, "HONEY"

 

[Phil Benedict]

I hesitate to reopen old wounds but there is one more point I wish to make about the current setup at Augusta.  Looking at the changes in totality, there is so much more trouble to the right of the fairway off the tee - ie where Tiger tends to miss - than the pre-2000 setup.  Here is the list:

1.  The extention of the fairway bunker on 1 to 327 yards;
2.  The addition of the fairway bunker on 8;
3.  The trees on 11;
4.  The trees on 15 (which are also in play on the tee shot on 17 coming from the other direction).

All of these features (hazards) are on the right side.  Each in its own way affected Tiger's play this year.  The positioning of these features in the sweet spot for Tiger's misses is probably coincidental, but it may explain why he has only won 1 of the last 5 Masters.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Phil,

The bunker on # 1 gets extended almost every year

What fairway bunker on # 8 ?

The trees on 15 have now been there for a few years.

That they affected Tiger's play this year is probably random luck.

The cold and wind probably affected play more.

[Mark Bourgeois]

"Random luck"

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick. Luck is the residue of design!

The biggest "wound to lick" should be our collective failure to consolidate into one thread. We would have beaten the tar out of that Michelle Wie thread and Cigar Afficianado wouldn't need an asterisk.

Mark

PS Happy anniversary to Jack Nicklaus's win...

[Phil Benedict]

Pat,

The bunker on 8 is the one Tiger hit a 3-wood on Sunday to avoid.  It wasn't there in'97.  My point is that cumulatively since '97 Augusta has added a lot of trouble to the right off the tee.  I think it's a coincidence that this intersects with Tiger's miss pattern, but it has made the course tougher for Tiger.

[Steve Curry]

Is it really the added trees or maybe the length?  

Didn't Tiger's charge end with a shot into a water hazard?  

The impact of these trees to golf is superseded by the need to Tiger or Phil proof a Major Venue?  Not in my eyes, I like turf and amazing shots from different angles!

Steve

[BCrosby]

Phil -

The fw bunker on the 8th has been there since 1933. It was once more of a c/l bunker, then it migrated to the right side of the fw. It's been there from opening day.

That bunker (as well as the fw bunker on the 1st) have doubled in size (that is, they protrude much farther out into the fw) in the last couple of years. Think of them as part of the larger plan to narrow playing corridors. (That spinning sound you hear is MacK in his grave.)

The fw bunker on the 8th is impossible to carry from the new back tees and is now so large that it narrows the 8th fw considerably.

Tiger hits a 3w off the tee to stay short. And thus two things were eliminated in one design change. Great driving options. Poof. One of the greatest risk reward second shots in golf. Adios.

Sorta like a double homicide using only one bullet.

The magnificent mounds around the 8th green serve no function now. Everyone is hitting little wedge thirds from the front of the green. The Zach Johnson's of the world can now play the hole on an equal footing with Tiger.

The 8th was a great, unheralded par 5. Elegant, simple and with many, many playing options. Those options - as evidenced by this year's Masters - have disappeared.

Oddly, what's happened to the 8th has been largely unnoticed. But it is part of the larger plan.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Phil,

The reason that I asked you, "what bunker on # 8 ?" is because that bunker has always been there, and was puzzled by your referencing it as a new bunker.  Where did you hear that the bunker on # 8 was added after 1997, or 2000, which is what you first alluded to ?

I would disagree on your "right side" theory.

The bunker on # 1 has been there for ages, as has the bunker on # 2.  # 3 and # 5 have trouble left.  # 9 and # 10 no trouble on either side.

When you play the golf course, it's fairly balanced, but, according to Lee Trevino, in his days, it favored a draw.

I'd have to agree with that.

Bob,

I'm not so sure that the driving options on # 8 have been limited.
Don't forget that a strong, cold head wind confronted golfers playing # 8 this year.

I think one of the neat features of the fairway bunkers on # 1 and # 8 is that their immense size makes them appear closer, and therefore, easily drivable.

In the entire field, I wonder if Tiger was the ONLY, or one of a few or many players to elect 3-wood off of the 8th tee.  If so, that would seem to indicate more, not less options off the 8th tee.

With respect to "what's happened to # 8", I recall players hitting mid-irons into that hole, not to long ago.  Moving the tee back seemed to make sense to me.

The question is, in the context of the tournament, how do you present a challenge on the 3rd shot when the Pros are hitting lob and sand wedges to that green, certainly one of the least challenging putting surfaces on that golf course ?

As you know the area around the 8th green has undergone many changes over time, however, many on GCA.com only complain about the recent changes that they're aware of, and not understanding that the altered feature that they are complaining about was NOT an original feature.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

The 8th green was restored to the original MacK design in 1978. Roberts had made some egregious changes in the '50's. After his death Jones had them undone by Finger and Nelson. The 8th green is in fact the only green at ANGC that has been restored. As you know, it has no bunkers. It is one of my favorites.

I was at the Masters Thurs, Fri. and Saturday. The wind on the 8th was quartering from the left. (To orient you, they played into direct headwinds on 1, 3, 13 (once you got around the corner) and 15.

Tiger's hitting a 3w was a concession to the size of the bunker and the narrowed fw on the left. And the cold. There was no chance he could carry the bunker.

I think they needed to move the tee back. But that in conjunction with the expanded bunker lobotomize the hole. I saw no one go for the 8th in two until Sunday. That's not how it's supposed to play or how I want to watch the best players in the world play it.

Yes it was cold. Very cold. And in other years there may be a number of players larger than -0- who go for the green. But my guess is that it won't be very many. Not as long as the fw bunker retains its current dimensions. What was once a strategic bunker has morphed into a penal bunker.

I very much disagree with you about the green. Did you see the break on Sabatini's putt? The green is on a flat area but it has remarkable internal contours. Some are quite extreme. Try chipping from the right side. It is so good that I had thought for years that Maxwell must have done it. Take another look next time you are there.  

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Bob,

With # 13, # 15 and # 2 usually reachable in two, I'm not so sure that there shouldn't be a green on a par 5 that isn't reachable in two, and, with the uphill nature of the hole, perhaps # 8 is the ideal choice.

As to the green, while is has contours like # 1, it's not a severely contoured or sloped green like many of the others.

Chipping from the right side is made more difficult due to the downslope coming from the 8th tee area combined with the slight rise of the green along the right flank.  I wouldn't call the putting surface a severe challenge like I would at # 2, # 3, # 4, # 5, # 6, # 7 or # 9.

The really unfortunate thing about ANGC is that it's discussed and analyzed in the sole context of the Masters 99 % of the time.  From the Members tees, it's a shorter, sporty course that's quite enjoyable.

[Scott Szabo]

Phil -

The fw bunker on the 8th is impossible to carry from the new back tees and is now so large that it narrows the 8th fw considerably.

Bob

"Phil really was ready when he got to Augusta and, of course, he did win.  The biggest key, I think, was the two-driver strategy.  Some of the tee shots he hit with the "draw" driver were just unbelievable.  I've worked for Phil a long time, and he never was longer.  On No. 8 it was basically assumed that nobody could carry the fairway bunker.  He not only carried the bunker, he had only a 6-iron left to the green..."

Jim "Bones" McKay
2007 Masters Journal

[BCrosby]

BCrosby slap downs. Two of them -

- first, Jones was dead by 1978. I should have written that Jones objected to Roberts' changes to the 8th green, but given that Roberts was Roberts, no one dared restore it until after Roberts had died.

Roberts had the 8th green changed to look a lot like a MacD Short Hole green. It was awful and everyone except Roberts seemed to think so. I think it was Nelson who pushed to restore it. Another reason Nelson is one of my heroes.

- I did not know anyone had cleared the fw bunker on the 8th. It must have been on Sunday. I'm guessing that Sabbatini also did so on Sunday. That's one hell of a poke.

But you know what? That's ok. There ought to be a payoff for length. It took guts to try to clear it, because if you don't recoveries from it are tough and usually leave a very long, blind, uphill third shot. As MAcK and Jones said, the par 5's at ANGC were designed to yield birdies for daring, good play.

The problem is that with the new tees and the new mammoth dimensions of the bunker there will be a lot fewer people doing that and trying for the 8th in two. Even among the best golfers in the world. And that would not have been what MacK or Jones wanted. More to the point, it's not something we should want either.

The 8th green is a great, great green. I has plenty of quite adequate problems to offer anyone trying to hit it in two. But if fewer people are trying, the point of the design is lost. The genius of ANGC is to tempt players to take risks. As those temptations are taken off the table, so goes the uniqueness of the course.

Pat - We do talk about ANGC in the context of the Masters most of the time. ANGC does remain a delightful course for normal golfers from the member tees. On most holes. But even from the member tees you see too many weaker golfers play bumper pool down the 7th, 11th, 15th and 17th fw's. It used to be that only happened on the 7th. Notwithstanding the thrill of playing the course, I'm not sure they were having very much fun at those moments. I think that too would have concerned MacK and Jones.

Bob  

 

 

[Phil Benedict]

Pat,

I was obviously wrong about the origin of the bunker on 8, but as Bob Crosby points out, it's become more of a factor since '97 due to enlargement and lengthening of the hole.  A similar evolution has occurred to the fairway bunker on 1, which has been there forever but affects play more dramatically now than pre-Fazio.

I hope Oakmont provides interesting topics in June.  

Phil B

[Scott Szabo]

I think you're over-reacting to this event and its long-term implications for the tournament and its excitement factor. In weather and ground conditions like this week, the risks go up exponentially. The tree work seemed to have very little to do with it.

I think someone finally nailed it here!  Cold weather and wind limited most players from even attempting to go after many of the par fives in two.  I say let's give it another couple of years and see what happens.

Remember, driving the golf ball long AND straight is still a critical component in playing good golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob,

I'd agree with you that the tightening of some holes has adversely affected member play.

I've always favored the theory of horizontal elasticity with the rough.  It would seem easy to do.  The trees present another problem.

Don't you think that misses to the right on # 8 provide a more advantageous recovery angle than misses to the left off the tee ?

[TEPaul]

Bob Crosby:

You know you made such an interesting observation at the Masters about how much the firmness of the greens on Thursday, Friday and Saturday almost completely shut down the temptation laden theme of what ANGC was designed to be and cast the hole by hole scoring spectrum into an unusually narrow band---eg not enough birdies and eagles with the muting of temptation.

I know this thread is about the trees at ANGC which were not part of the original intent of the strategy of the course but the trees aside it just occured to me that the Masters could've preserved a lot of that temptation to be aggressive on those first three days by simply realizing how firm those greens really were to approach shots and moving the tees up accordingly.

What do you think about that for the future?

[BCrosby]

Pat -

Agreed about horizontal flexibility. Trees and flexibility don't mix.

As for playing the 8th, misses to the right of the 8th fw bunker offer a much better angle to the green, but anything over there has big tree issues. I watched Adam Scott put his drive there on Saturday. He clipped a tree and left himself a 3rd of about 190 uphill to a blind green.

Anything left side of the fw (it's even worse in the left rough) has to hit a big hook to a green tucked diagonally behind pines at the corner. But, as you know, the much bigger issue is the little mound fronting the left side of the green. (I love that mound.) It's pure genius. Left side of the fw is just a really difficult angle to go at the green from.

Before the enlargement of the fw bunker, the perfect drive was to play as close as possible to the left edge of the bunker. A textbook strategic bunker. You were right center in the fw and the green opened up beautifully from there. That old spot doesn't exist anymore.

The new capacious bunker forces more play to the left side of the fw, which - as described above - is not the way to go at the green. Again, with the extended tee and the extended bunker, there are going to be dramatically more players laying up. I think that is a bad development.

TEP -

Yes, the scoring spreads seemed to have narrowed considerably. Especially on the par 5's. On 13 and 15 there were dramaticlly fewer eagles. There were also dramatically fewer doubles and triples. Even though the overall scoring average for those holes stayed roughly the same.

All of which suggests that the best players in the world stopped challenging the par 5's. Weather had something to do with it. The hard greens had something to do with it. But structural changes to the course had the most to do with it.

Tempting players to take risks that are purely elective (that is, risks not dictated by the course itself) seems to me to be one of the highest callings of good gca. When temptations no longer tempt, you are cutting out the heart of a course.

People were pretty unanimous that ANGC is moving toward a US Open type venue. They aren't saying that because of conditions that prevailed the Spring of '07. There are more permanent reasons for thinking that.

That's a shame, because a US Open type course is precisely what MacK and Jone designed ANGC not to be.

Bob  

[Sean_A]

Bob,

There is a great Q&A quote attributed to Ben Hogan from his days around Augusta.

In the locker Room after a particular round, a young guy says "Hey Ben, I was in the same spot as you there on 13 and knocked it right on the green, I saw that you laid up. What gives?"

Hogan: "I didn't need a three!"

I think you're over-reacting to this event and its long-term implications for the tournament and its excitement factor. In weather and ground conditions like this week, the risks go up exponentially. The tree work seemed to have very little to do with it.

Sully

Bingo!  Saying Augusta is no longer strategic based on the play of the winner or practically anybody in that field is a step beyond.  Just because the guy layed up when it was reachable means exactly what?

Despite all the grousing, ANGC is still a fairly wide course.  The difficulty wasn't the trees, but the green complexes.  

Ciao

[Doug Siebert]

Tiger hits a 3w off the tee to stay short. And thus two things were eliminated in one design change. Great driving options. Poof. One of the greatest risk reward second shots in golf. Adios.

Sorta like a double homicide using only one bullet.

The magnificent mounds around the 8th green serve no function now. Everyone is hitting little wedge thirds from the front of the green. The Zach Johnson's of the world can now play the hole on an equal footing with Tiger.

The 8th was a great, unheralded par 5. Elegant, simple and with many, many playing options. Those options - as evidenced by this year's Masters - have disappeared.

Oddly, what's happened to the 8th has been largely unnoticed. But it is part of the larger plan.

Bob

So because Tiger feels the hole is too narrow to hit a driver on it has been ruined?  No, Tiger just sucks with his driver, most of the other golfers were hitting driver there, and I don't recall seeing a bunch of guys driving in the bunker.  Shouldn't the tee shot be a challenge to those who would wish to go for the green in two, or would you rather they filled in that bunker so they can swing away with driver as hard as they want on an 80 yard wide fairway?

There were certainly fewer going for 8 in two, but it is, after all, 575 yards uphill, and in the cold air played more like 620.  Give them 79 degrees next year and you'll find many more of them going for it in two, even if absolutely nothing is changed.

The mounds will be back in play next year when more players go for it in two.  They did come into play a bit on Sunday when Sabbatini went for it in two and missed it left onto the mounds but got very lucky and had it roll right off the mounds onto the green, from where he made that incredible eagle putt.  Anyway, you sure as hell can't argue that MacKenzie created those mounds on an uphill par 5 to bother those who would go for it in two.  It wasn't 575 back then, but I'll bet it was out of reach for just about everyone on the planet in 1934.

BTW, Zach's chip in on #8 was his FOURTH shot, he had laid well back in 3 rather than adopt Tiger's strategy of trying to get it within 30 yards.  Tiger had poor strategy and execution on that hole, and he paid the price by getting a par on a hole he should be able to birdie when he's playing and thinking well.

[TEPaul]

"Tempting players to take risks that are purely elective (that is, risks not dictated by the course itself) seems to me to be one of the highest callings of good gca."

Bob:

That could have the potential to be one of the most incisive remarks about good gca ever made on here but I think I need to know what exactly you mean by 'elective' and how the idea of elective may not interact with or overlap with risks dictated by the course itself.

[BCrosby]

Doug -

There is a chasm as wide as the ocean between a hard hole and an interesting hole.

TEP -

What I mean to say is that one of the highest callings of gca is to tempt players to take risks that they don't need to take. It's not a terribly original thought. It's another way of describing what a good strategic hole ought to be about.

Take the 11th at ANGC. Standing on the tee, you see a slit in a thick pine forest at the landing zone. The hole now dictates that I risk the trees. There is no other way to play the hole. If I don't hit it dead straight, I am dead.

The current structure of the 11th imposes risks on players. They have no choice but to engage them.

Now take the old 8th. It had a much smaller fw bunker located on the right side of the fw. Given the orientation of the green and its wonderful little mounds, that bunker sat in the line of instinct. That bunker is where you would want to put your drive to go for the green with your second.

There was plenty of room to bail left, but a second to that green is virtually impossible from there.

So the hole presented to the player a risk that was purely voluntary. That is, the best angle for the second was to hit his drive as close to the left side of that bunker as he could. You don't have to play the hole that way. Pars were readily available from the left side of the fw. But birdies weren't.

But when the riskier option ceases to tempt players; when that option becomes too risky or too hard and players cease to see it as a viable option - that's when gca fails of one of its essential purposes.

That's what I'm trying to get at.

Bob

   

[TEPaul]

"Tempting players to take risks that are purely elective (that is, risks not dictated by the course itself) seems to me to be one of the highest callings of good gca."

Bob:

Thank you, post #102 explains very well what you meant by the above remark.

I think your analysis of what the bunker change (enlarging) and lengthening has done on #8 regarding muting the temptation of a second shot to that green is excellent too. It sounds like that newly expanded FW bunker's left side now occupies what used to be the ideal FW risk/reward spot that once existed to tempt players to go at that green in two as well.

So I completely understand what you mean by the original ideal tee shot fw risk/reward spot just to the left of the old bunker for the tempting second shot being taken away. However, and despite that, I have to ask if you think it would've been productive given the cold weather and such if that hole was set up with a shorter tee placement to try to tempt the long player to just fly that bunker and get to the right side on the tee shot? It looked to me like that 8th tee is pretty long.

Your detailed knowledge of the design evolution of the golf course over the years is very impressive.

Would you feel comfortable trying to write a comprehensive "design evolution" report from beginning to date for the golf course for you know what?

I must also say that despite being there in person there was a ton of stuff I just couldn't pick up on with some of those holes due to all the people and not being able to get close enough to various things. I think the only holes I got a good sense of in their entirety were #6, #7, #10, #14, #15, #16 and #18. And I'm very glad I got behind the tee on #11. That tee shot compared to what must have been originally intended looks to be a real travesty today. BTW, the green and green end that surprised me most down there for being way more strategically cool than I've ever realized is #15. And I know #16 green and green-end is RTJ but that thing is pretty brilliant, in my opinion.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Perhaps I see this too much from a players stand point, and as a player who generally is a very accurate driver of the ball, but not that long....
but...
what can be possibly wrong with changing a course slightly to encourage the staight hitter to be rewarded at weeks end?

Is not hitting the ball on line an integral part of the game?
It at least used to be when I was growing up...I am a huge Tiger fan, but do not believe he deserved to win because he was unable to keep the ball in play...that should result in non victory..plain and simple

[tlavin]

Perhaps I see this too much from a players stand point, and as a player who generally is a very accurate driver of the ball, but not that long....
but...
what can be possibly wrong with changing a course slightly to encourage the staight hitter to be rewarded at weeks end?

Is not hitting the ball on line an integral part of the game?
It at least used to be when I was growing up...I am a huge Tiger fan, but do not believe he deserved to win because he was unable to keep the ball in play...that should result in non victory..plain and simple

This strikes me as an inarguably correct position.  While one would not want to endorse the absolute requirement of a dead straight drive on 14 holes in order to have a shot at the green, there surely is nothing wrong with designing a golf course for professionals that requires accuracy and length off the tee, even with some precision, on several holes.  It seems to me that ANGC does require this of the professionals on several holes, maybe four at the most, and that strikes me as fair.

After all, the next major is at Oakmont, and we're going to see a lot of holes that require precision and length off the tee, especially where both sides of the fairways are protected in the landing areas with bunkers.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()