[A.G._Crockett]

There is an article on PGATour.com concerning the final standings at the Masters as they correlate to driving distance.  The contention by many (here and elsewhere) has been that the changes to the course gave only a handful of players an opportunity to win, but the results of the tournament don't seem to support this, especially given how wet the course was.

Of the top 12 finishers, only Mickelson (3rd) Els (6th) and Singh (7th) are among the tour's driving distance leaders.  Below are last year's driving distance ranking of the other nine top finishers.

Weir            100th
Mattiace      130th
Furyk           173rd
Maggert       150th
Verplank       189th
O'Meara       145th
Toms           114th
Olazabal       181st

This seems, at least on the face of it, to be a stark refutation of the requirement of length to win at Augusta.

Any speculation as to the meaning of these numbers?  For instance, does this mean that ANGC over-reacted to increased driving distances and didn't need to make the changes in the first place?  Or, alternatively, does this mean that the changes somehow put an even higher premium on accuracy and a great short game, and were thus successful?

[Gary_Smith]

I'm inclined to believe the changes were successful, and needed in light of a ball that goes longer and straighter. I do think the jury will be in when we see how the course plays under hard and fast conditions in the Masters.


"You must have the courage to change."

algore.

 

[Mike Hendren]

Historically, AGNC has mowed its fairways exclusively down-hole.  The result is extremely fast fairways with a uniform appearance with no visible pattern.  I've witnessed them mowing after a round and they mowed from tee to green and returned through the rough.  

I seem to recall on the telecast the appearanced that they had mowed half of the fairways in one direction and the other half in the opposite direction, though the aerials did not reflect that.  

A change to more traditional mowing patterns could effectively lengthen the course.

BTW, anyone attending a future Masters should hang around late in the day and watch their maintenance practices.  Fascinating to say the least.  

Am I imagining things (again)?

Mike

[John_Conley]

A.G.:

Good insight.  My rule is that when they say, "the short-hitters don't have a chance," short-hitters will rule the day.

The longest course ever for a Major was Atlanta when Toms won.  This year's Masters is an example.  Hazeltine was almost 7400 yards, but Funk was right there and players were calling it short!

My theory?  None of the golfers like Toms, Weir, and Furyk are really THAT short.  They may have a disadvantage of some yards on the straight driving holes, but the game is still golf and you have to do so much more.  It isn't like these guys fly it 250.

Moreover, some players are mislabeled as short hitters because of their slight stature.  When playing well, guys like Weir and Quigley absolutely kill it.  Published reports of golf being a game for big athletes going forward are off the mark; did you see Chanin Puntawong just shot his (inverted   ) age!!  Guy was about 125 lbs. when he shot 63 at Champions Gate in a junior event.  I don't know how much bigger he is now, but I think he's small.

[ChasLawler]

John brings up a good point about the driving distance of some of these "short hitters". Below is a link to the PGA Tour driving distance stats.

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/r_101.html

Billy Andrade is #100 and he averages 283 yards. Sure he's spotting Daly some significant yardage, but it's not as if he can't get it out there.

[Brad Klein]

Mike Hendren,

just a parenthetic note; there's no effect on driving distance/roll/overall distance by mowing fairways one way or the other. They might do it to reduce grain, thatch, and more effective mowing, but the ball doesn't get influenced at impact from the air differentially as a result.

[BCrosby]

Yes, "short" hitters aren't so short any more. It's hard to fathom just how far everyone hits it these days. I noted on the PGA.com site that Any Bean was no. 1 in distance in 1985 at 174 yards. For 2003, his number isn't in the top 150. Average distances are 25 to 30 yards farther than the average just 10 years or so ago.

Another factor this year was that ANGC played very wet. Though that cost everybody roll on the drive, the greens were far more receptive to long iron approaches. Even middle/long irons would hit and stick. In most years there was no chance you could hold the 17th green with a five iron. This year it was no problem.

Bob  

[A.G._Crockett]

My question is not whether or not the shortest hitters today are longer than in years past.  They are.

I wondered why there seems to be a inverse relationship between the top 12 finishers and driving distance at a course where length was believed to be at a premium, and which was playing even longer due to rain.  What does this mean, especially in light of the changes to the course?

[John_Conley]

A.G.:

I think it means:

*add'l length affects ALL golfers and not just the short hitters
*adding length in some places (like #8) actually reverses the advantage for many long hitters
*media commentary before the event is played isn't necessarily any more accurate than the weather forecast

[A.G._Crockett]

John Conley,
If you get a minute, detail what you mean when you write that "adding length on some holes actually reverses the advantage of long hitters."

I'm trying to understand why there is such a stark disconnect between driving distance and the top finishers at Augusta, given the course changes and the course conditions.  It may be that none of us quite know what to make of this.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A G Crockett,

Short hitters on the PGATour is a myth, there are no short hitters.

Some guys are just longer than others.

A short while ago Weir ranked 64th with a driving AVERAGE of
291.5 yards.  I repeat 291.5 yards.

Does anybody think someone who averages 291.5 yards off the tee is a short hitter

At the same time, the 15th ranked player AVERAGED 299.5 yards off the tee, an 8 yard differential.

I repeat, there are NO SHORT HITTERS on the PGA Tour,
some guys are just longer than others.  

[A.G._Crockett]

Pat Mucci,
Agreed.

Given that "short" on tour is all relative, my question is still the same.  Conventional wisdom here, among the many of the players themselves, as well as in the media, prior to the tournament was that the changes to the course gave only a handful of players a chance to win.  However, the actual results seemingly show an inverse relationship between driving distance and results in the tournament.  This surprises me, because even an 8-yd. difference, which is a club or two less for the longer hitters into greens, should show up over the course of 4 days, shouldn't it?  It didn't, and I don't understand why.

It begs the question to say that even the short hitters on tour are long.  Even though that's obviously true, these results are not what anybody seemed to expect, myself included.

[A.G._Crockett]

Redanman,
Now that makes sense to me.  I had not heard that as a Player quote, and that may be what John Conley was referring to as well.  Thanks.

[BCrosby]

A thought experiment:

Let's say that modern pro's hit it (roughly) 10% longer than they did in 1985. That's (roughly) 25+ yards.

A typical major venue in 1985 measured (roughly) 7000 yards. If you lengthened those venues to match the 10% increase in player distance, your course must be 7700 yards.

That's how long a course needs to be today in order to play the same way courses played in 1985.

Lesson:

In 1985 scratch amateurs could play and enjoy courses at 7000 yards.

Scratch amateurs today can not deal with courses at 7700 yards.

The game has become bifurcated. Pros and amateurs play different games. Q.E.D.

Bob

[noonan]

Historically, AGNC has mowed its fairways exclusively down-hole.  The result is extremely fast fairways with a uniform appearance with no visible pattern.  I've witnessed them mowing after a round and they mowed from tee to green and returned through the rough.  

I seem to recall on the telecast the appearanced that they had mowed half of the fairways in one direction and the other half in the opposite direction, though the aerials did not reflect that.  

A change to more traditional mowing patterns could effectively lengthen the course.

BTW, anyone attending a future Masters should hang around late in the day and watch their maintenance practices.  Fascinating to say the least.  

Am I imagining things (again)?

Mike

With all due respect.....when watching on TV from the green to tee view.....the fairways looked cut in half.....light green dark green to me.....with the middle of the fairway the dividing line.

Jerry

[BCrosby]

Another thought experitment.

Based on historical increases in pro distances, playing a major today on a course at 7300 yards is (roughly) the equivalent of playing a major in 1985 on a course at 6600 yards.

In other words, playing ANGC in 2003 at 7300 yards was (roughly) the equivalent of playing a Merion in 1985 at 6600 yards.

If ANGC is supposed to be long, it ain't.

It needs to add 400 MORE yards just to play as a typical major venue did in 1985.

Bob

[Mike Hendren]

Jerry,

Thanks for the respect - I don't get any very often (respect, I mean)  Your observation confirmed what I was thinking but did not articulate well.  Instead of one direction or up and back, like I mow the yard, one side of the fairway was mowed in one direction and the other half in the opposite direction.

At least no one can blame the tartan mowing patterns so prevalent today on ANGC.

Regards,

Mike

[A.G._Crockett]

Bob Crosby,
Your last post implies that everyone, this website included, over-estimated the impact of the changes to the golf course.  This may well have been the case.  That doesn't make the changes good or bad, just not as significant as we expected them to be.  Thanks for crunching the numbers.

By the way, I supposed to play at the Capital City Club this afternoon.  I've read your comments about it, and am very curious to see it.

[BCrosby]

A.G. -

Exactly. Given the distances the pros now hit it, we have grossly overestimated the impact of the added length at Augusta. What Fazio and Hootie added was woefully short of what was needed if the concern is defending the course against the length of the modern pros. They didn't come close to adding enough length. AGNC needs about 400 more yards.

If my numbers are right, ANGC now plays like one of the shorter major venues played circa 1985. Like Merion, for example.

Astounding. Truly astounding.

Bob

[Robert Kimball]

But, alas, I believe they have run out of room . . .

[Patrick_Mucci]

BCrosby,

I believe the driving distances recorded at last year's NCAA were longer than the PGA Tour averages.

These kids are as long or longer, and can handle 7700 yard golf courses.

I know guys in their 60's who handle 7200+ golf courses fairly well, and the younger kids outhit them by 40+++ yards on their drives.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

You think the college kids are long? I played with three guys on a local high school team last month. They all automatically went for the green on a 300 yard par 4. Which wouldn't be a big deal except that the green is fronted by water (no. 18 at Port Armour) at 290 yards. All three carried the water easily. They thought nothing of it. And these were just average high school players. I couldn't believe my eyes.

It is amazing - given the distances people hit it these days - at how far you have to extend course length just to get courses to play the way they did only 10 years ago.

As noted above, when you do the math, the new Fazio/Hootie ANGC isn't even close to being long enough to play the way it did, say, in 1990.

The takeaway from this isn't that we should find ways to radically extend these older courses.

The point is that we have a real mess on our hands. Bifurcation has happened. That ain't good. And I don't have any easy answers.

Bob  

[Patrick_Mucci]

BCrosby,

The telling factor is that an AMATEUR led the ENTIRE MASTERS FIELD in driving distance.

Mahan was # 1, at 296 yards, under extremely wet conditions,
Barnes was at 288.6 yards and Moore at 286.4.

All three were in the TOP TEN in driving distance.

And, as you stated, the next group appears to be even longer.

If this isn't waking people up, I don't know what will.

[John_Conley]

John Conley,
If you get a minute, detail what you mean when you write that "adding length on some holes actually reverses the advantage of long hitters."

I'm trying to understand why there is such a stark disconnect between driving distance and the top finishers at Augusta, given the course changes and the course conditions.  It may be that none of us quite know what to make of this.

A.G.:

Sorry to be so long in responding.  I don't access the site on weekends.  

The course changes that you mention are interesting in one regard - they negate the advantage some really long hitters have on certain holes.

Go back to Hazeltine #3 last year and you saw the hole long enough that nobody was taking a go at the green with their second shots.  Guys had as little as 70 yards and as much as 140.  With a tricky hole location, par was a good score and birdie only possible with very precise short iron play.  Contrast that with a "normal" par 5 on Tour where your woods realize the easy birdie.

When I see even the longest hitters swinging a pretty full wedge on #8 on Sunday, it tells me that the days when the longest hitters set up their back 9 run with one last birdie on the "reachable" 550 yard (uphill, I'm told) par 5.  The lengthening of holes like these are taking away some of the birdies a long hitter could "count" on as a result of their length.

Looking at #15, I think a similar result has been reached in a different way.  It used to be that everyone had to go for the green in two after a good drive, whether they wanted to or not.  225 yards out?  A shot you COULD pull off?  Well, Tiger is hitting WEDGE from 150.  (His actual shot every day in 1997.)  Harder to lay up every day, so it "tricks" players into going for it who may otherwise be better laying up.

Taking this tee back has pulled a lot of the longest guys back to that "danger zone" and made it very easy to lay back for guys like Weir, Toms, Maggert, Mattiace, and whoever else you want to throw in there.  "I'll lay back every day and let those other guys take their chances at washing their ball."

I don't have data, but it sure looked like it wasn't as easy to reach in two.  Couples hit 7i the year he won.  Tiger hit four wedges in 1997.  Weir hit PW for his third, no?

A solid wedge player like Weir must love it when the set-up encourages more wedges.  My wedge against your greenside chip isn't as good of a proposition for him as my wedge against your wedge.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()