Frank Thomas: 10 Clubs and More Rough

/

I'm not sure what's more disappointing: that former USGA technical director is advocating more rough and 10 clubs, or that the New York Times continues to print his pieces, even putting the latest column on the main Op-Ed page. 

In an email sent out to his subscribers, the headline read "THOMAS PROPOSES TEN CLUB SOLUTION FOR TOUR," and the subheader said, "Limiting club selection and focus on course set up can help allay technology fears."

In "Golf's Power Failure," Thomas writes:

Now officers and elders of the golf association — which, along with the Royal and Ancient Golf Association of St. Andrews, Scotland, writes the game's rules — have asked manufacturers to study the feasibility of a ball that would travel on average 25 yards less than those used now.

This idea is wrongheaded in several ways. To begin with, mandating such a ball would affect all players, and the vast majority of golfers don't hit the ball too far. (Nor do we hit the ball nearly as far as we think we do; well-supported data indicates that the average golfer hits a driver 192 yards — while thinking that he hits it approximately 230.) It's safe to say that for most of us the great layouts created a century ago still provide plenty of challenge.

Which is why Thomas is advocating change, but not before questioning recent action taken by the USGA to mop up for many of the things that got by his watch:

Even before addressing the ball, the rule-making bodies took several foolish steps. They instituted limits that allowed some spring-like effect from the club faces of high-tech titanium drivers (a phenomenon that let the club itself enhance the ball speed at impact for the first time), while restricting both the length of a driver (which will affect few players) and the permissible height of a tee (which is downright silly). They have also explored limits on how much a club can resist twisting at impact; such a change, like the reduced-distance ball, would have a much greater effect on the average golfer than on those who play for prize money.

Ah, so since this debate has always been part of the game and we should relax a bit, Thomas suggests doing something about it:

The goal should be to keep professionals from mindlessly bombing away while not unnecessarily hurting the average player. I have two suggestions. First, tournament courses should be set up to punish long but wayward hitters by narrowing fairways and growing higher rough (the longer grass along the margins of the hole).

Yes, it's worked so well and cures many sleep disorders. And really, when you consider that fairways are now 20-25 yars, they have so much room to get narrower. I saw the width of a ball would be fair.

The other major change would address the imbalance that today seems to favor power so strongly over touch and finesse. To place greater emphasis on the old skills required to work the ball and to hit less-than-full shots, professional players should be restricted to 10 clubs in their bags instead of the current 14.

What do you think manufacturers would hate more, a ball rollback that doesn't impact anyone under 110 mph, or Tour pros only uh, "branding" 10 clubs instead of 14?

And they say I'm anti-technology!

Rubenstein On Augusta's 3rd

/

Lorne Rubenstein looks at one of the only holes not lengthened at Augusta, and includes this classic line from Nick Faldo:

Three-time Masters winner Nick Faldo was dead on when he said, "All the great holes in the world are the twitchy ones."

He also writes:

"There are three or four options on the hole," Stephen Ames said yesterday before going out to play the par-three contest. "It all depends on where the pin is." His brother and caddy, Robert, said: "It would be nice if we had three or four of these types of holes on every course. All the classic courses have that kind of hole."

Meanwhile, told that Augusta National could find 40 yards behind the third hole to lengthen it, Ames, the recent Players Championship winner, said with his characteristic, and appealing, bluntness, "I'm surprised they haven't done that yet."

Let's hope they never do.

Crenshaw On Augusta's Architecture

/

From Jerry Potter's course redesign feature in the USA Today:

Ben Crenshaw, a two-time Masters champion, says the Augusta National that Jones built after winning the Grand Slam in 1930 was "revolutionary in American golf course design at that time."

"It was completely different architecture," says Crenshaw, a golf historian when he isn't designing courses or playing senior golf. "The course Jones wanted had as many options to play a hole as was necessary to keep any golfer's fascination."

Jones wanted a course that was a pleasure for a recreational player and a challenge for a skilled player. It wasn't too long, it wasn't too narrow and it had no rough. It did have undulating greens that placed a premium on the second shot at each hole.

"There was a safe way and a dangerous way to play each hole," Crenshaw says. "It set itself apart from other courses."

 

Crenshaw's Post Round Q&A

/

Ben Crenshaw, after his stellar opening round 71, talking about Augusta National's design prior to the recent changes:

It was anything but prescribed.

So in that respect, it's changed quite a bit.
And, regarding No. 11:
11 has been lengthened quite a bit, but there again, it can take a long shot coming into the green. That is what to me is so fascinating about the two great mounds that are in front of that green. They are built there for a reason. Dr. Mackenzie put those there to bring in a second shot for a lesser player.

And to help the ball kick in towards the green. So, yes, we are playing much longer clubs in there, but it's there. It's a very it's just a completely different tee ball, though. It's such a tight tee ball now whereas before, you had plenty of latitude to play with. There was always a debate whether to go down the right side or down the left and to gain an angle to the green but you must play on a center line now.

 

Some of the clubs he had for approaches today:

BEN CRENSHAW: I made a nice par on the first hole. I hit a 3 iron in the front bunker, left it out about 20 feet and made that putt for par. So that was a nice start.

Saw a nice birdie go in on No. 2 from about I'd say 13, 14 feet past the hole, good breaking putt right to left down the hill.

Wonderful par at 4. I missed my 3 wood short of the right bunker, really a tough shot there and pitched it down there about four feet, I think. Very good 2 putt from the front part of No. 5. Never an easy task.

I bogeyed 6 and 7. I had a terrible position at 6. I couldn't figure out a shot there. And 7, I hit two good shots, I hit them just over the green. Missed the putt coming back from about seven feet or so.

10, I made a beautiful birdie there, a nice 5 iron in about I'd say 10 or 11 feet. That was nice.

Up and down, I didn't hit a very good shot at 12. I hit an 8 iron, came off of it, hit it in the bunker, a really nice bunker shot about a foot and a half.

Nice birdie at 13. Laid up. Nice pitch about five, six feet. Made that birdie.

Really good 2 putt on 14, really good 2 putt there from the front. It putted up about two, two and a half feet there.

16, I made a bomb. I made a bomb there. It was about 50 feet I guess up the hill. You know, that was a huge bonus there.

Up and down at 17, a really good drive, not so good of a 5 iron, front bunker. Blasted out about probably 20 feet and made that putt coming down the hill.

And 18, I got it up and down. I had to chip out. I blocked my drive just a bit short of the bunker. Beautiful pitch about six feet and made that.

 

Fazio Responds To Criticism

/

From Ed Sherman in the Chicago Tribune:

Tom Fazio, the architect who oversaw the latest changes at Augusta, said there are options.

But the first seems to be pushing back the tee markers.

"How many times do you hear, `You want a player to hit every club in the bag?'" Fazio said. "Well, if you want to see a player hit a 5-iron, what length par-4 would you make it for Vijay Singh to hit a 5-iron? I remember growing up as a kid where 440 yards was a long golf hole."
Herb Gould in the Chicago Sun-Times: 

"It's normal. There's always controversy when changes are made to old courses,'' said Fazio, citing Chris DiMarco's duel with Woods last year as evidence that shorter hitters still can compete at Augusta National.

"Who almost won the tournament last year?'' Fazio said. "Do you consider [DiMarco] to be a medium-length or short hitter? After the tournament, look at the list, the players and their lengths.''

And if claims that only the longest hitters can compete prove to be true?

"How many times has Jack Nicklaus won here?'' Fazio said. "Was he considered the longest hitter of his era?''

Told yes, Fazio said, "Things haven't changed much.''

 From Damon Hack in the New York Times:

In one area of the shade, Tom Fazio, the course architect who oversaw the lengthening of Augusta National to 7,445 yards, was being grilled by reporters, including one who bluntly told Fazio that he did not like the changes.

"I've been doing this for a long time," Fazio said. "I'm used to hearing criticism."

 And who was the berator? Hank Gola in the NY Daily News has the details:

Tom Fazio has not been the most popular man at Augusta National this week. He is the designer, who, under directives from club chairman Hootie Johnson, stretched Bobby Jones' old backyard to what many feel is over the edge.

Yesterday, for instance, he calmly stood under the 150-year-old oak tree outside the clubhouse while current BBC commentator and former European Tour player Ken Brown berated his work to his face.

"I think there was a Rembrandt here, a masterpiece and (abstract expressionist painter) Jackson Pollack has gone around the edges painting," Brown said passionately. "I don't any longer see (Bobby) Jones' and (Alistair) Mackenzie's signature here. I see someone else's."

"I submit to you that it is," Fazio countered. "You are entitled to your opinion."

He really needs to get a new line. 

Anderson: Without Real Rough...

/

Dave Anderson in the New York Times writes: "It's not the Masters anymore. It's a driving contest at a driving range."

And he says, "Without real rough, lengthening a hole anywhere from 15 to 35 yards will not make much difference to the big hitters."

Yes, I know what you are thinking. The Masters never had rough until a few years ago, so how would it be the Masters again with "real rough" lining the fairways?

Be Careful What You Wish For...

/

masterslogo2.gifFor years now we've heard that you can't judge Augusta National's added rough, trees and length because the conditions have been soft. Naturally, that prevailing theory hasn't stopped many from bemoaning the desertion of Jones and MacKenzie's primary design idea: width that promotes strategic tee shot placement to attack varying hole locations.

As Lawrence Donegan reports in this overview of Wednesday's final tournament preparations, the stage is set for firm, fast conditions.

In such conditions, Augusta's width is not only imperative if the players are to be given a chance to attack the course strategically, but also is necessary because of Augusta National's severely sloped fairways.

Other than the seemingly excessive additions of yardage to Nos. 4 and 7, the length added to the course has allowed the course to stay fairly current with the professional game during a period of remarkable change.

But now that it's fast and firm, we'll get to see how much of an impact the "second cut" and trees have. It may not be pretty. Consider No. 15, a hole long in need of extra yardage. Yet there is a swarm of trees right where an ideal drive once needed to be placed. Will we see many eagles there this year? Doubtful.

Anyhow, we're just minutes away from our first Bobby Clampett reference to "Hogan's Bridge." Yes, it's the still the Masters!

Enjoy.