"This tournament has become all about playing defensively and minimizing damage."
They're not throwing snowballs anymore. This is an avalanche.
From John Hawkins' Golf World game story on the 2008 Masters:
Those who have begun comparing the Masters to the U.S. Open in terms of punitive nature aren't thinking clearly,
We'll let you tell that to Tiger and Phil's face...
...since the outrageous homestretch produced by the top of the leader board in 2004, this tournament has become all about playing defensively and minimizing damage. The addition of the second cut (rough), a billion trees and 500-plus yards, all of which occurred during the tenure of former Masters chairman Hootie Johnson, has resulted in a conspicuous subtraction of charm and suspense.
It's easy to blame Hootie and the Blowtorch for the growing pile of late-Sunday snoozers, but the game's sharpest minds failed to foresee the most obvious effect of the changes.
Oh do tell us why you see what the rest of us only saw five years ago...
A competition once weighted heavily to favor power players and good putters has fallen into the hands of the control freaks. You have to hit fairways to even think about winning. Scoring angles have been reduced to direct lines. Certain sections of the course have gotten alarmingly tight, but it's the congestion framing those alleys that has nullified the shotmaking and recovery skills that helped brand the Masters from its inception.
The Seve Ballesteros of the early 1980s couldn't make a cut at Augusta National nowadays.
Okay, that's a bit silly, but we'll let it slide because the point is well-intentioned.
Immelman hit 48 of 56 fairways and won. Zach Johnson averaged 265 yards per measured drive but hit 45 fairways and won. Heck, those guys made a cottage industry out of laying up on par 5s once routinely attacked by anyone with a little pop in his bat and designs on a seat at the Champions Dinner.
Not to indict the last two green jacketeers -- they only did what they could and had to do -- but things have really changed. Good strategy is now conservative strategy at a place where all hell used to break loose on a regular basis. "It usually doesn't turn out too well if you try to be aggressive," said Geoff Ogilvy, who shot six over on the weekend and finished T-39. Not that he needed to finish the thought, but Ogilvy did: "Aggression doesn't work, but the guys four or five back have to be aggressive because you're not going to win parring every hole."
After years of dealing with disadvantages one could trace to his lack of supreme power, a top-tier control player such as Jim Furyk might figure to factor, but even he speaks in somewhat jaded tones. "It's a pretty good test of golf," Furyk said. "I mean, it used to be a lot of fun to play. It's not fun anymore, but it definitely got a lot more difficult." Addressing the notion that people don't hoot and holler over solid pars, Furyk added, "I don't think we have [heard roars] for the last few years. It's obviously a decision they [tournament officials] made. It's their event, a different golf course, and there's a different way to approach it now."
All over a silly little golf ball that no one wanted to roll back. Such a shame.
Meanwhile, even one of the old guard proudly declares its continued love for using course setup ploys to put the flatbellies in their place -- except at the Masters.
John Hopkins writes of the course changes in The Times:
Some of the unique appeal of the Masters has gone as a result.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 07:42 PM
Reader Comments (18)
From the time Augusta opened in 1932 until let's say ten years ago, were most of the changes at Augusta for the better?
Heck if I know!
How about this: the changes prior to the last ten years of stuff, with obvious exceptions that were usually undone as soon as it became apparent they stunk (Cliff Roberts redoing No.8 green) were sensitive to the original design concept. They may not have been what MacKenzie would have been done, but the over all ebb and flow of the course was maintained and the perspective of keeping things fun and playable was clearly on Roberts' mind. And I feel that perspective was lost with Hootie Johnson's reign.
If Sneds had parred every hole Sunday he'd be wearing the green jacket.
Ogilivy must mean over the full tournament.
But what about 1998 (17 eagles)? Or 1988 (13)? Or 1979 (11)? Aere those terrible, awful Masters that bored everyone to tears? I don't think so...and I doubt the columnists wrote that at the time.
One aspect rarely talked about in regard to the Masters is the style of play amongst today's tour pros. As Nicklaus pointed out more than a decade ago, they are of the mind-set that places more importance on consistency and paychecks than winning. Now...when they get to Augusta, are we to expect them to abandon what's been drilled into their heads since they were juniors and all of a sudden become swashbucklers? Sure, there are some...but there are probably many more "don't take chances" players out on tour now than there were 20+ years ago.
That being said, I'd still like to see the 2nd cut lowered a bit. And about half the trees along 11 and half of the newer ones on 7 fairways removed.
From 1997-2005 Tiger's average finish in the Masters was 8th
In 2006, 2007, 2008 Tiger's average finish is 2nd (2.33), with finishes of 3rd, 2nd, and 2nd.
If you take a cummulative score of the last 3 Masters, Tiger is way better than anyone else.
Question for Geoff and all others pondering this: What would the effect be now of eliminating the second cut? Let's say nothing else changed -- not the firmness or speed of the greens, no cutting back of the trees on 11 or 15 or 17, length remaining as it is. What would be different? Would that be enough to bring back the charges, or are the greens just too difficult at these speeds for anyone to hole medium-length putts consistently?
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2008/4/9/i-think-what-has-changed-the-golf-course-immeasurably-is-one.html
If I could advocate for one change, it would be to take 7 back to a flip shot approach for those aggressive off the tee. 7, 8 and 9 would again be a stretch where a player on his game might go -3.
I think that would lead to a greater likelihood of dramatic charges on the later holes.
As it was on Sunday, players limped into the turn and then had to play what were (at one point in the proceedings at least) the 3 toughest holes. I think most were mentally spent before they ever stepped onto 13 tee.
How about:"...all over unnecessary course changes brought about by an irrational fear of increasing distance by tour pros."
I'm with whomever said they should slow the greens down, and probably soften them up a little. This would be a way to maintain the current length (and second cut, if you like it) challenges of the course -the 'modernizations' - yet adjust a bit so that they can occasionally hold approach shots made with long clubs. Slower speed greens would allow new pin placements and allow us to see creativity in dealing with green contours originally designed for much slower speeds. That is, if the greens bear much resemblance to the originals anymore in this regard.
On courses the pros will never see, or that host the weekly exhibition events called "the Tour," those lengthening changes are almost certainly unnecessary. At Augusta -- where it's not like they're pricing us out of our weekly game -- they probably were needed. (The first round of them, anyway.)
You forgot to put in another adjective in one of your lines....that silly little '$1' golf ball.......