The Debate That Cannot Be Won

Scott Michaux writes in the Augusta Chronicle:

Whatever happens this week, the constant changing of the storied golf course will be the primary topic of conversation for the foreseeable future. If it's not the length that is offending players, it is certainly the interpretation of design intents that can spark an argument between players and anyone wearing the members' signature green jacket.

For every talking point quote culled from the Jones and Mackenzie archives that would seemingly support the club's changes, there are plenty of counterpoints that would suggest the original designers would cringe at what has been done to their course.

Case in point, the diabolical par-3 fourth hole. Stretched to 240 yards, Jones reportedly offered dueling perspectives.

The club's preferred context: "The shot is usually a strong iron or even a 4- or 3-wood."

The critic's preferred context: "I have never been convinced that a so-called one-shot hole of 240 or 250 yards is a forthright golfing problem."

Masters Chairman Hootie Johnson has said repeatedly that he is trying to "maintain the integrity of the shot values" envisioned by the designers. Numerous players argue that Jones and Mackenzie never envisioned forests of trees corralling competitors into singular options.

When a quiet and reasonable player such as Stewart Cink contends Augusta National "isn't the architectural gem" it once was, it has to give pause to even the course's most hardened defender.

Who knows yet whether it can be fixed - or whether it even needs to be? All that is known is that players today will certainly get to experience what it was like for players of preceding eras to hit longer irons into greens.

But those forebears never got to know what it was like to hit those irons into firm and wickedly fast greens ill-suited for those approaches.

It's an argument that can never be truly resolved in any context.

Clayton On Masters

Mike Clayton, previewing the Masters:

There have been critics of the changes, most notably Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus, and the objections have centred on the use of great length, narrow fairways and trees in an attempt to maintain the relevance of the course in the face of the debacle of modern technology.

Jones might have been particularly upset by the use of trees to reign in the long bombers of the modern game. 'I see no need for a tree on a golf course' was one of his famous utterances.

The equipment rules were designed to stop exactly what has happened but the minds of the scientific geniuses employed by the equipment companies have run rings around the moribund bureaucrats at the USGA and the R and A who are seemingly still in a case of denial.

Augusta is fortunate to have enough room to be continually moving tees back but our best courses like at Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath have no such luxury and they are in desperate need of preservation by way of a new ball for professionals.

He goes on to look at the struggles of Australian players in the majors and considers possible contenders.

Questions For Hootie Johnson

On Wednesday, Hootie Johnson will enter Augusta National's state-of-the-art press building for his annual no-comment session with the world's leading scribblers. He will probably be joined by the club's Chair of Winter Storm Damage Storage, Will Nicholson, and Question Screening Committee Chair, Billy Payne.

First, a question for Nicholson:

• Last year you said, "There are no top players that I talk to that aren't unanimous that the ball is changing the nature of the game. The ability to move the ball right, or left, as the old timers did, is now out of the game." Have you recommended a change in the ball to your friends at the USGA?

And now, here are a few questions I'd love to ask Hootie:

• Are you concerned that several holes, in their present configuration, will not allow for increases in length.
  
  
• Bobby Jones, while looking out at Augusta National with Alistair Cooke, once remarked that he "didn't see a need for a tree on a golf course." With that in mind, do you really believe he would approve of so much tree planting?

• Have club members and USGA officers Walter Driver and Fred Ridley asked you not to adopt a Masters ball spec?
  

• With ShotLink now being used to collect data, will this information be made available to patrons and media?

• And...Martha Burk:  great woman, or the greatest woman? (With apologies to Colbert.)
  

I'd love to hear what you would like asked.

Alister MacKenzie Dream 18

Now online for subscribers at SI.com is the text for the Alister MacKenzie Dream 18, compiled by yours truly, drawn by Gil Hanse and selected with the help of Tom Doak, Mike DeVries, Mike Clayton, Mike Hurdzan and Nick Faldo.

Phil and Skill?

Is anyone else intrigued by the notion that Phil Mickelson is using two drivers, one to shape the ball right to left (the "gamer"), and another for the opposite shot shape?

Golf World's E. Michael Johnson has the details in this story.

In the "skill" debate, I wonder if this will come up as an example where equipment is supplementing skill? 

More power to Mickelson for doing what he has to do to win within the rules, but I guess this brings me back to Max Behr's quote about the role of equipment:

I do not think we will go far wrong if we define a true sportsman as one who endeavors to adjust his implements down to a point where they will just sustain his skill, in order that upon skill, and skill alone, must depend the decision of the contest.

A strong case could be made that good players used to use drivers with slightly open or closed faces to create a certain ball flight or to offset a swing flaw.

And I suppose you could say there is skill in determining that you get different reactions from different clubs. But it seems that the real skill in this case was in the club fitting?

It was this Telegraph story quoting Colin Montgomerie that left me wondering:

Montgomerie then considered how useful the two clubs would be at, say, the 17th and 18th at Wentworth and, again, at the last two holes at the Belfry. "The best thing about the idea," he continued, "is the way you can do away with the need to come up with two different swings."

Thoughts?

The Ever Expanding ANGC

Ron Sirak looks at Augusta National's purchases (and attempts) to purchase real estate surrounding the club, estimating that they've spent $22.9 million in the process.

David Toms Sighting...

Reader Scott can't explain why he was perusing the Waffle House web site, but his time wasted is our gain since stumbled on this list of individuals who have been caught seen dining at the Waffle House, which appear to be on every other block in Augusta (yet I'm sure Georgians would make fun of our excessive number of Starbucks here in the Home of the Homeless).

Anyhow, David Toms has been seen at the Waffle House, though somehow I have a hard time imagining him going for some of Bert's Chili after a round at Augusta.

Flashback: 2001 Course Changes Preview

Thanks to reader Sean for this enlightening flashback to 2001, in advance of the first wave of significant course changes.

Augusta National Golf Club will undergo a major facelift to make the Masters a tougher test next year, club chairman William "Hootie" Johnson said on Wednesday.

Johnson said four or five of the par-fours on the course would be lengthened and strengthened to respond to improvements in golf ball and club-making technology that have helped players hit longer than ever.

"We do plan to make extensive changes," Johnson said on the eve of the 65th Masters.

"It's just that we think that several of our par-fours are a little weak, and we are going to try to strengthen them."

Bunkers may also be altered or moved and some teeing areas could be shifted to require a more difficult shot off the tee, he said.

Johnson, who would not specify which holes would be changed under the direction of architect Tom Fazio, said the club needed to keep up with technological advancements.

"This equipment is making a huge difference, and we are going to make an attempt, as we always have, to try to keep the golf course current with the times," he said.

A new ball being used extensively on the tour this season has made long hitters out of players regarded as short hitters, noted Johnson, who was worried the trend could render classic courses such as Augusta National obsolete for the professionals.

"I hope that the equipment can be addressed," he said.

No, this is not a late April Fool's post. Why do I have the bad feeling he'll be saying that again in 2008? Sorry...continue:

"We can't go on like we are going. Another decade or two, I don't know where we might be and I don't know the answer to how that is going to be approached."

Johnson said toughening-up Augusta was not in response to scoring, even though Tiger Woods set new standards for low score (18 under par) and margin of victory (12 strokes) with his Masters triumph in 1997.

"It is not in response to scores," the club chairman said. "It's just that we, and I think any of us, probably hate to see people hitting sand wedges to 425-yard par-fours."

Ah, and the comments from players:

Six times Masters champion Jack Nicklaus and 1976 winner Raymond Floyd said changes were necessary.

"You need to make changes if people are hitting nine-irons and wedges into the par-fours," said Floyd.

"They've always made changes and have tried to stay ahead of the curve. But this time I think the curve got ahead of them."

Nicklaus said tournament officials have to do something because the new balls being used are changing the face of the game.

But Nicklaus said he wished restrictions would be placed on the balls instead so that classic courses like Augusta National would not have to alter their design.

"It's absurd," said Nicklaus. "It's so simple to just restrict the golf ball. If they don't change it soon, they'll have us teeing off from downtown somewhere and hitting up to here.

"There is nothing wrong with Augusta National. It shouldn't be diminished by a golf ball."

Short hitters have benefited from the technological advances by drawing closer to the big hitters in terms of distance, but stretching Augusta National further could put them at a distinct disadvantage.

"I think it will only benefit the longer hitters," said Loren Roberts.

Gee, where would he get an idea like that!?

Hal Sutton agreed. "Bobby Jones intended players to hit five-irons into some greens," he said.

Sutton also said that moving back tees, rearranging bunkers and the like would take away one of the charms of the Masters, which has been staged at Augusta National since its inception in 1934.

"If you keep changing the golf course, I'm not sure how you can compare results over time. The course is truly set up for the big hitters."

Rocco Mediate also believed the long hitters would benefit. "It takes a lot of people out of the running because it's just too long. On number one, if you can carry the bunker, 285 yards, you've got a seven-iron in. But guys who can't, have to hit a three-iron. You try going into number one with a three or four-iron and you have no chance."

Where's The (Design) Balance?

John Boyette looks at the impact of the course changes, and considers different players views on whether long hitters will be favored.

Stewart Cink offered this succinct characterization of the changes that fellow Georgia Tech alum Bob Jones might have appreciated:

"Now they've taken the creativity out of it and made it more of an execution-style course, where there's no question where you have to hit it off the tee and what club you have to hit."

Kroichik On Distance, Masters Ball Possibility

Ron Kroichik looks at the possiblity of a ball rollback, a "Masters ball" and offers all sorts of interesting tidbits about a distance rollback:

Sandy Tatum barely hesitates before answering in the affirmative. Tatum, the former United States Golf Association president and patriarch of Harding Park's renovation, joins Jack Nicklaus in suggesting the USGA "roll back" the distance the ball can travel. Woods and his big-hitting colleagues on the PGA Tour routinely smack drives more than 300 yards, taking golf into once-unimaginable frontiers.

It's either a thrilling joyride (many fans), a fundamental affront to the game (traditionalists such as Tatum) or an unwelcome threat to booming business (elite players and golf-ball manufacturers).

Tatum begins his sermon with this premise: The ball goes too far. The faster a player swings, the greater the benefit from technology. Drivers with club heads triple the size they were 15 years ago collide with balls specifically designed to soar into the stratosphere.

"It puts the game seriously out of balance," Tatum recently said. "You get more emphasis on power and less on shot-making. The stats will tell you, accuracy is no longer anywhere near as important as distance."

And...

These kind of numbers help explain why Chairman Hootie Johnson felt compelled to try to keep Augusta National "current with the times." He lengthened the course for the second time in five years, but only after hinting club officials might force players to use a "uniform ball" in the Masters, one unlikely to travel such prodigious distances.

That option still exists for Johnson and his colleagues in Augusta, but even then it would apply only to the Masters. The USGA and Royal & Ancient Golf Club, the game's governing bodies and rules makers, do not favor the idea of a uniform ball.

"That's not in the cards, for the same reason a baseball player doesn't have the same bat as any other player," said Dick Rugge, the USGA's senior technical director. "It's personal equipment suited to each player."

Rugge nonetheless elevated this long-simmering debate into another realm in April 2005, on the day after Woods won the Masters. Rugge sent an e-mail to manufacturers, inviting them to participate in a research project by making balls that travel 15 and 25 yards shorter than current models.

This would not be a uniform ball, because players still could arrange their own specifications (launch angle, spin rate, etc.). But the ball would not fly as far, exactly the kind of rollback Nicklaus and Tatum are advocating.

Rugge, in a phone interview last week, said the USGA expects to receive prototype, reduced-distance balls from manufacturers "very soon." Rugge and his staff -- 18 people in all, including six engineers -- will then embark on extensive research to determine how those balls would affect the game.

"To some people, it's as simple as a shorter ball," Rugge said. "I can tell you from our research, it's a much more complex issue than that."

 And...

Top players, not surprisingly, are cool to the idea of limits on technology. Woods, asked earlier this year about the ongoing chatter about a uniform ball, practically scoffed, saying, "I don't think it's realistic at all. Do you realize what that would do to the golf-ball industry?"

Gee, think he has a lucrative endorsement contract?

Mickelson similarly downplayed the possibility of a uniform ball. As for rolling back the ball, he said, "I don't think we'll ever get to that point," though the USGA's impending research project suggests it's possible. Woods, interestingly, seems open to rolling back the ball.

For now, technology rolls forward on several fronts. The USGA recently proposed a "liberal limit" on so-called moment of inertia, to address the modern drivers that create good shots even with imperfect contact. Rugge said a final decision will be made in the coming months.

In the coming days, all eyes will turn to Augusta and the stretched-out course awaiting Woods, Mickelson and their brethren. They will arrive armed with the finest equipment available, ready to tackle the beast. There will be much talk about those 4-plus miles of Georgia landscape -- and not as much talk about the little white balls at the center of the action.

"Properly Restored The Hole To That Which Jones Intended"

Augusta Chronicle sports editor John Boyette got club chairman Hootie Johnson to "answer questions" on the eve of the 70th Masters. Interruptions supplied by yours truly.

Question: Are you satisfied that the course changes reflect what the club set out to do, which you said was to maintain the integrity and shot values of the golf course?

Mr. Johnson: We are satisfied that the changes made this year, together with those made in recent years, are appropriate for today's game. I think we met our objective of maintaining the integrity and shot values of the golf course as envisioned by Bobby Jones and Alister Mackenzie. We also continued our goal of placing a premium on accuracy off the tee. I think one example is No. 4, where in 1959 Bobby Jones said that this shot is usually a strong iron or even a 4- or 3-wood. I do think we have returned the hole to the way it was meant to be played.

For a review of Jones's comments not taken out of context by Mr. Johnson, head here or here.

Q: Was there one shot or particular moment that prompted the latest changes (i.e., Phil Mickelson's drive on No. 11 a few years ago)?

Mr. Johnson: No, there really wasn't one specific shot. We evaluate the performance of every hole every year. I do think it's telling that in two of the last three Masters an amateur has led the field in driving. We strongly believe this is the future of the game.

Ugh...

Q: Player reaction has been critical of some of the changes, particularly Nos. 7 and 11. Are the players overreacting?

Mr. Johnson: These are the best players in the world, and I'm certain they will figure out a way to play the holes that have changed.

Like they have a choice? Ah, choices are bad, I forgot.

Q: No. 11 has been changed three times in the last five years, with numerous trees planted and the hole lengthened. Are you satisfied you have it right now?

Mr. Johnson: Originally, No. 11 was a drive followed by a relatively easy pitch shot. In the early 1950s, Bobby Jones added a pond and moved the tee adding 35 yards to the scorecard. Later, in Golf Is My Game (written in 1960), Bob described the second shot on 11 as one "... usually played with a 3-iron or a stronger club" when the pin is to the rear of the green. We think that the recent changes to the 11th have properly restored the hole to that which Jones intended - a demanding tee shot followed by a long-iron second, played to a well-guarded green.

Halftime intermission here. If you own The Making of The Masters by David Owen (and if you don't, check out the link on the left of this page...Amazon is selling it cheap), you know Jones originally placed a blind pot bunker in the middle of the fairway and it remained for a long time. You also know that there was always water next to the green, they simply changed it from an extension of the river to a pond.

And if you own Golf is My Game, you know that Jones wrote of No. 11:

The tee shot to this hole is blind in that the fairway upon which the ball is to land is not visible from the tee. Nevertheless, the limits of the fairway are sufficiently well defined by the trees on either side. A drive down the left side provides better visibility of the forward portions of the green, but slightly to the right of center is better should the pin be located on the promontory of the green extending into the water hazard on the left. The pin location on this projection of the green is often reserved for the final round of the tournament. The second shot is usually played with a three iron or a stronger club, and a player must be bold and confident indeed to go for the pin when it is in this location.

I can see the length helping on the properly restored part, but the narrowness aspect? Hmmm...

Q: If conditions are firm and dry this year, what range would you expect for the winning score?

Mr. Johnson: I wouldn't want to guess on a score, but it is important to remember that we have never been worried about scores. As Bobby Jones said, "...we are quite willing to have low scores made during the tournament. ... It is our feeling that there is something wrong with a golf course which will not yield a score in the sixties to a player who has played well enough to deserve it." Our greatest concern has always been that the course be kept current with the times.

Ah maybe this was done via email!

Q: Fourteen holes have changed under your watch as chairman. What can we expect for Nos. 3, 6, 12 and 16 in the future?

Mr. Johnson: The golf course is the way we want it to be this year. We will continue to study possible improvements.

Early Augusta Previews: Jack and Arnie's Comments

The recent changes to Augusta National pale compared to 2002's massive overhaul, yet on the eve of the 2006 Masters the hits just keep on coming. The difference this time around? 

Several past champions bemoaned the latest work, and more importantly, questioned how the work reflects the Jones-MacKenzie design vision that the club says they are maintaining.

The Sunday previews from the British Isles provide more evidence that Augusta National's fall media offensive may have backfired.

First, John Huggan in his Sunday column:

Although arrogant beyond imagination, Johnson is no fool. He could see the outrage coming. Which is why a series of no doubt carefully-selected golf writers have been invited to visit the hallowed grounds over the past few months.

Their brief, at least ostensibly, was to form an opinion on the sagacity or otherwise of the course changes. But the reality was simply Johnson looking for public validation. He was spinning more than a crisply-struck Tiger Woods wedge from a tight lie.

Disappointingly, but expectedly, most of the resulting articles have been a mixture of ignorance and/or forelock-tugging. Obviously flattered by their being summoned from 'above', the chosen few behaved more like paid flunkies than free thinkers.

James Corrigan in the Independent reviewed the pre-tournament criticism while Andy Farrell made an important point in the lead to his story reviewing the comments of Nicklaus and Palmer:

It used to be a Masters tradition for players and caddies to arrive for their first practice round at Augusta National and wonder whether the first tee had been moved - or the clubhouse. The evolution of the course was constant, if often undeclared. Under the chairmanship of Hootie Johnson, the pace of change has increased dramatically, and everyone knows about it.

Update on 2006-04-02 18:26 by Geoff

Stan Awtrey in the Atlanta Journal Constitution provides an American perspective and includes a few quotes I haven't seen elsewhere.

"I'm buddies with Chris DiMarco, but I feel sorry for him," Scott Verplank said. "He should have won last year. If they use all these new tees, a guy like that will never have a chance again."

 And...

"It's difficult, but it's supposed to be difficult and should be difficult, and we all enjoy that, that difficulty."
--- Colin Montgomerie

"Freddie [Couples] told me I'd love it. I could hit 5-wood on every hole."
--- David Toms

O'Meara...Rough or No Rough?

Mark O'Meara jumps on the Augusta National criticism bandwagon while bemoaning the power game in a guest commentary for Scotland on Sunday:

The game is changing. Creativity doesn't seem to be as important as it once was.

The power game is more dominant than it has ever been. And guys who hit the ball as far as me have little or no chance to beat the bombers.

While I think the ability to hit long drives should always be rewarded, any advantage gained should not be overwhelming.

More length and more rough at Augusta National - so far, at least - hasn't really scared any of the big-hitters. The rough isn't so deep that you can't play out of it and it also has the effect of slowing the course down. Where wayward tee-shots used to run into the trees, they are now more often stopped from doing so by the longer grass. To me, that runs contrary to the way the course was originally designed.

Specifically, I think holes like the first and the now not so-short fourth would have been better left alone. Now, our opening tee-shot has to fly more than 330-yards just to make it over the bunker at the top of the hill. So a guy who carries the ball about 275 yards has really been taken out of the equation. That's just one example of where the power player 'who already has an in-built edge' has his advantage multiplied by the extra course yardage.

The sad thing is, I'm not sure any of the changes were really necessary. If I was in charge at Augusta I would have kept the course at around 7,100 yards and I would have eliminated any and all rough.

Instead, I'd cut the fairways tight, all the way to the tree lines, where the ball would run onto the pine needles. You'd either be in the fairway or on the pine needles under the trees. That would neutralise the power player enough that the shorter-hitter could compete.

Or you could just address the equipment that has helped fuel the distance disparity?

The Champions Dinner Transcript

My latest Golfobserver.com column is now posted.

The Peper Files

Another gem from the "When Good Editors Move To St. Andrews and Don't Care Anymore" Files, has Links Magazine columnist George Peper dismantling the claim that Jones and MacKenzie would approve of recent Augusta National changes.

This appears to be another sign that the club's pre-tournament media offensive has backfired.

Let’s face it. If Jones and Mackenzie had been cryogenically preserved and brought back to life, they’d take one look at what has happened to their course and head straight back to the freezer. Augusta National is no longer a Jones/Mackenzie course—it’s a Jones/Mackenzie/Clifford Roberts/Perry Maxwell/ Robert Trent Jones/George Cobb/John LaFoy/George Fazio/Joe Finger/Byron Nelson/Jay Morrish/Bob Cupp/Jack Nicklaus/Tom Fazio course—and in the process of all that revision the guys at the wheel have, to borrow a Scot’s expression, lost the plot.

Hootie, if you think your founding architects would approve of what you and your predecessor chairmen have wrought, it’s time you started reading something other than putts. Pick up a copy of Mackenzie’s The Spirit of St. Andrews, written in 1932, the year he completed Augusta National.

Peper goes on to look at various holes, contrasting the changes that have taken place with MacKenzie's own writings.