Feherty: The Benefit Of This New Planting

David Feherty during round 2's USA Network telecast:

DAVID FEHERTY: And the golf course has changed so much over the years Lanny, it really is a work in progress. It's a living, breathing organism in many ways. And one thing that strikes me walking on the grounds again this morning: it's become more beautiful over the years. I don't think there is any doubt about that. And we're going to see the benefit of this new planting and shaping as it matures.

LANNY WADKINS: I don't think there's any question. 

Maybe they cut down some of the dead trees too. They aren't living and breathing anymore.

Crenshaw's 2nd Round Q&A

Highlights from Ben Crenshaw's news conference following his 2nd round 72:

Q. I know you talked about this just moments ago, but 17, the putt on 17, because you were in trouble off the tee.

BEN CRENSHAW: That was unbelievable. I hit Eisenhower's tree, first of all, bounced way back. Then I half-topped a 4-wood out there and hit a full 9-iron and just a really difficult putt. It went right in the cup. I did a number of those things yesterday, but to see that at that time was just spectacular.

So I've done a few of those this week. I've got to play better, but it's attainable. Something is attainable. I'm just elated I made the cut. It's the first time I've made this in a long time.

Q. When I asked you a moment ago outside, what does it mean to you, you almost seemed non-plussed. But now I'm getting more of a sense; what does it mean to you to make the cut at this place after the last 11 years?

BEN CRENSHAW: Well, I've never made a secret of the fact that this is my favorite place. It's a fascinating place to me. There's nothing like it. Nothing like this place. And I've been lucky to win it on two occasions and contended on many of them.

I just enjoy it. It's a great challenge. It's a mental challenge. That's what Bobby Jones had in mind when he built the course, he and Dr. Mackenzie. It's different and I like that. It's not straightforward golf by any means.

But it's imaginative. You have to imagine things out there.

Q. Obviously you're putting terrifically, but in order to get into the positions you need to be in to get at those spots, you've got to have control over your golf swing. Have you been doing anything in the last couple of months?

BEN CRENSHAW: You do. You just, you know, the test here now is much more solid driving. You must hit it very straight. You know, the course has changed just considerably in that regard. You can't get away with something that's too much off-line.

You know, so many people had said before that it's allowable. All those years that were played, it was allowable for a loose drive. Well, you know, the point is, the point is, that we were trying to hit a certain spot, given that much room. And you certainly could keep, you know, keep playing, but you had a tough angle, many, many times. We were always trying to gain angles.

So the predicament is different. The way it played, it was much different as it does now. It's a more prescribed way to play the course now. I suppose that's okay. If you guys are hitting the ball, you're carrying the ball 310 or 320 yards, you must ask, I suppose, for not only a test of length, but a test of accuracy.

But your options, you don't have any options anymore in a lot of different ways. I think maybe, you know, I must say that some of my objections have been that way because it was just vastly different before. But, you know, then again, I think they have done a hell of a job of setting up the course the way that people hit the ball these days. You know, we're running out of things to do.

So I don't know the answer, but they have made a heck of a test here.

Q. There's been so much said this year about statistics and analyzing this, that and something else and we're not even to Sunday. But given a man of your experiences, when this is over, what should be analyzed and what should be meaningful for us to decide the pluses and minuses of the changes?

BEN CRENSHAW: I think, Jerry, that there's no doubt that the whole, to me, to my mind, the whole golf course from the first opening tee ball to the 18th green is a much tougher examination now. We're seeing a drier week, anyway, which let's a few more people contend.

As I said earlier, length is always going to get it's due. Playing shorter clubs to these greens, it makes a huge difference, I can assure you. But, you know, really no matter how long or short the course plays, you have to deal with these greens. They have been the main defense of this course and they always will be. I hope they never change because they are fascinatingly complex.

So I suppose in that regard, the greens have always had a beautiful defense of this place.

Feherty: He Has All Of The Talent, All Of The Technology

David Feherty, as Tiger stood in 15 fairway preparing to go for the green during the 2nd round telecast:

This is the sort of shot very few players in the world would be capable of hitting close here but he has all the talent, all of the technology to hoist this really high and let it land right of the flag and let it curl down to the hole.

Lanny: "It's Chip Out City"

That was Lanny Wadkins talking about the 15th, which long needed to be lengthened, but unfortunately, did not see any of the newly planted trees taken out. "Chip out city" just doesn't ring a bell in the writings of Jones, or any other decent architect.

It was nice to hear Wadkins and Nantz talk about how hard it is to hit No. 15 fairway not. Of all the changes, I don't think many have realized that players have a 10-yard wide window to land their tee shots in if they hope to avoid dealing with the Christmas trees on the right, and the tall pine down the left. 

Bisher: "What They've Taken Away From Spectators"

The legendary Furman Bisher blogs (yes!) on the course changes, only he looks at it from the point of view of spectators patrons:

What I’m rumbling about here at Augusta National is what they’ve taken away from spectators. Take the 11th hole, for instance. I don’t care if they’ve put the tee in the CBS compound and create unplayable angles; if you’re a spectator you wouldn’t be able to see it anyway. They’ve planted a black forest between you and the fairway, maybe 60-70 feet wide. You don’t catch an uncluttered view of the player until he comes out of the woods at the foot of the hill.

Now, the fourth hole, that’s OK by me. It’s just long, but to do that, they had to gobble up more spectator space. Most of the players I watched hit irons or one of those unisex clubs. There was a bunch of bogeys, including Tiger Woods’, and only three birdies on my watch.

The seventh hole, all that need be said here is that Gene Sarazen once said, “That is the best golf hole on the course, what a golf hole should be. You have to hit two perfect shots, 3-iron or wood off the tee, then an approach that gives you a putting chance.”

They ignored him. They’ve stretched it out, but that’s not it. Once again spectator space and access have been shrunk, and sometimes you get trapped in one of these vacuums and you don’t get out until every player you’ve been chasing disappears. And sometimes, you can’t get there from here.

That’s it. You know that I’m coming to you from the choir of the aged. (And let me say this about Amen Corner: Every small-town church I’ve ever been too had an “amen corner,” where the husbands gathered while the mamas sat with the kids, and the husbands gave the pastor a loud, “A-men!”)

I guess that’s enough dyspepsia for one day.

Whitten: Augusta...19 Holes, Par 72

I had to read it twice to believe it. Yes, that's what he's advocating. Add a hole, introduce par 4 1/2's, etc...

Golf writers have gone to many lengths to not write that equipment needs regulating. This takes it to a different, uh, level. 

Amen Corner Live...

...has to be the best thing Hootie has ever green-lit (in spite of the Blackmar-Hulbert hillbilly hour). Thankfully, Peter Oosterhuis dropped by to bring some dignity to the proceedings.

It also helps that Gentle Ben just hit an unbelievable shot into 11 and parred 12 like it was 1984!

Oh, and did I hear that right, Adam Scott had 159 yards into No. 13!? 

Boswell: US Open On Magnolia Lane

Thomas Boswell in the Washington Post column (thanks reader Tim):

Welcome to the U.S. Open on Magnolia Lane. Gentlemen, check your charisma at the gate. Hit it straight, but not too far. Aim away from the flags. Think pure thoughts. Don't make the Masters galleries cheer too loudly. And win a green jacket.

They've finally done it. They're taken the "Ahhhhh" out of Amen Corner. They've Tiger-and-Phil-proofed the Masters. They've transformed Augusta National, the home of imagination, channeled recklessness and swashbuckling recoveries, into a golf penal colony. Think bad thoughts -- like "make eagle" -- and end up in jail. It's April in Georgia. Get ready to yawn?

For the past five years, Augusta National has been messing with Bobby Jones's masterwork, trying to adapt it to a new golf world where every ambulatory male crushes his tee shot half a football field farther thanks to a trampoline-faced driver and a ball designed for space travel. No additional talent required. Just buy that extra 50 yards at the pro shop. Credit cards accepted.

The Masters has found itself precisely at the center of this battle between golf equipment commerce and classic golf course architecture. So, to defend its layout from strategic obsolescence, the Masters has added almost 500 yards of length, narrowed fairways, added forests of magically mature pines, put its sand traps on steroids and built mountainous mounds.

Ogilvy Talks About Augusta

Cameron Morfit talks to Geoff Ogilvy about some of the course changes.

 All of which begs the question: Can a man win on a course where he sees glaring flaws around every corner, even Amen Corner?

"I think 11 is terrible, to be honest with you," Ogilvy said as he waited to play in the par-3 contest with Scott and K.J. Choi on Wednesday. "They've halved the width of the fairway. It's not the length. A lot of guys hit it over 300 yards now and the ball is going to run, so most guys out here are going to have only 180, 190 yards downhill to the green. That's only a 7-iron so that's not bad. But the narrowness—it's almost a dogleg to the right now. I don't think it's what Bobby Jones wanted. I don't like it at all. The narrowness is stupid."

Maybe so, but Ogilvy, who is something of a golf course architecture buff in addition to being a heavy-metal guitarist, was blunt about other changes, as well. Of the lengthened, 240-yard par-3 fourth hole, he said, "It's longer than it needs to be." Of the narrow, uphill, 450-hard seventh: "They took away all the choice off the tee, which is what was intended when it was designed. There's no option. You have to hit it hard and straight. I don't like it."

Lead of the Week?

Tim Kawakami writing in the San Jose Mercury News:

It's surprising to hear Hootie Johnson and Co. describe the lengthening and strengthening of this fabled golf course as a necessary evolution, because I had assumed they didn't believe in it.

Evolution, that is.

Green Sr.: Hard To Be Heroic

Ron Green Sr., not the first writer you'd look to for a skeptical take on Augusta National, after round 1: "The way the course is now, it's hard to be heroic. It's not a good thing, but as Tiger kept reminding us, 'It is what it is.'"

The Phil and Mike Show

Doing their best to impersonate a bad podcast, Phil Blackmar and Mike Hulbert are doing their best to make CBS Senior Horticulturist Bobby Clampett sound good.

I've been listening for three minutes today and the brilliant commentary has already begun.

Hulbert on Charles Coody, an amazing 1 under through 12: "he's right there where he wants to be" and a moment later, "in his mind, he's got it going."

Hawkins Blog Takes A Shot

After this post, I don't think Golf World's John Hawkins and SI's Alan Shipnuck will be sharing a pimento cheese sandwich this week.

Two Masters Round 1 Game Stories

Just two of the early game stories filed from round 1.

Lawrence Donegan in The Guardian provides the European take, while Damon Hack in The New York Times offers an American point of view.
 

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!