Course Changes Verdict Watch

Should be fun to see how many writers/players declare the course changes:

A) to have been validated by a Phil Mickelson win/Tim Clark 2nd place finish

B) confirmation that only bombers can win

C) that it rained and therefore it was still too wet to judge

D) that the winning score was 7-under-par, therefore it was a success (always such a nuanced take on things!)

The lengthening of the course has been "validated" because Augusta National would have been terribly outdated had they not responded in some way to the recent optimization boom. 

As far as restoring club's that Bobby Jones intended players to hit, there are serious problems with that logic. Not only are lofts different today than when Jones wrote about what players hit into holes, anyone who has read his descriptions knows he was not trying to lay down the law on proper approach clubs. It just wasn't his style.

(click to enlarge, though I don't know why you would want to)The narrowness and tree planting designed to force players into less bold tee-shot play (as Hootie Johnson described earlier in the week), has severely impacted that old sense that it was only the players, the design and the Golf Gods dictating the outcome.

Now it feels like a battle between committee and player, with the potential for excitement at the mercy of the committee. That may provide an ego boost for them, but the desire to keep winning scores in check makes it boring for fans.

If they had just added length over the last 8 years but did not add the second cut and trees that eliminate options, would there be any criticism of the changes?

I say no.

Comments

[Brett]

Can you post Tim Clark's Driving Distance, GIR, and putts per round for the week. In my opinion he defyed the odds with extremely superb ball striking and deft putting to get there.

[OldSchool]

Geoff,
When was the last time someone with Crenshaw's distance, actually won? Oh sorry, that would be comparing apples to oranges today wouldn't it.

[J.P.]

I agree with you Geoff, why not create long 587 yard par 4's with no rough, so that players like J.B. Holmes can begin to use all the clubs in his bag. Like a simple Driver 4iron into such a hole as the 15th at this years Phoenix Open. I would love to see golf go in this direction because I really hate rough. Just despise rough.

Sounds fair to me. Only what would we do with the players having to play such a hole with Driver, 3wood, wedge? I guess we could just tell these players that have been at the professional level for some time to start swinging faster or go get a club job because you and I aren't interested in watching that kind of golf anymore.

[tbrown]

Geoff - well said.
Tiger did have 172 into #11 today - what is that 8 iron for him?

[Etienne]

Geoff,

When Nicklaus shot 17 under, Jones didn't bring out the bulldozer the next week. He complemented him on playing a game with which he was unfamiliar. Had Jones been around today, I can see him having no problems with pushing tees back to enable the shots into the greens to resemble those of the initial design ideas. What I wouldn't see him condoning, would be the introduction of the "second cut." Had the club lengthened the course step by step over the last few years to find the correct balance in combating technology and the design integrity of Jones and Mackenzie, this second cut stuff would not have been necessary. Jones' philosophy of golf (and Augusta) being a second shot game would have held true. The second cut should be removed now, but as we know the Masters leadership, the mere thought of going back on previous decisions is never going to happen. This is a great shame as I think the course at 7,440 yards with no rough is closer to Jones' legacy than the cross polinated approach of rough and length which more closely resembles the other two US-based majors than the distinctive look that Jones cretaed all those years ago.