Sam

Well written article. Some claim that the last two years have lacked "excitement." I disagree. Had Tiger made some putts this year, we may have had a different ending. Still, watching the tournament and hoping he would make some putts, is part of the drama.

Secondly, regarding the weather, how often has this happened? I don't remember every seeing the weekend look like this. This has to be a factor as two hitters not known for their length, Snedeker and Zack Johnson, were either in contention or won. Perhaps, to the casual fan, this is boring. To many fans of the game, who play target golf and smart golf, it's a story line.

As for the final round, only two players broke par: Nick Watney and Miguel Angel Jimenez. Perhaps, then, that final round score does not seem so pedestrian?

Just my $.02.

But as a supporter of the game I think that the guys at Augusta National should listen to their customers and perhaps add some mid range tees, etc.

I said it above, too, and I wonder if the answer is really that simple. I wonder if, with some mid-range tees to help "add a dash of excitement," that might not solve 90% of the problems people have (or think they have) with Augusta National.

I still think some holes, like 7 and 17, have greater problems than length, and I still despise the trees right on 11, but with added tees I wonder if that would solve the vast majority of people's (players and viewers) issues. Hmmm.

JP: the gaps didn't concern me, really, but the inclusion of data from before 1971 really helped to level out the best-fit lines. Exclude <1971 and they'd have some slant to them. So much that I'd be curious to see what the best fit line was for every year in these categories from 1965 onward looked like. Oh, well, perhaps a The Numbers Game column waiting to happen next spring…

I gotta agree with you that a large part of the "problem" is today's technology and TV coverage. Tiger's popularity as a celebrity is also a contributing factor - for the average sports fan I think it can be argued that the Masters has lost some of its' appeal compared to other sports.

As you pointed out so well, people today want instant gratification, and major championship golf does not provide that. Selfishly I think that maybe this dissatisfaction with the Masters and TV golf in general might make it easier for me to get a tee time and speed up play overall. But as a supporter of the game I think that the guys at Augusta National should listen to their customers and perhaps add some mid range tees, etc. Sure Tiger hit the shots and just could not putt as well as he normally does, but just think what some mid-range tees could have done for the tourney this year. I would have enjoyed more birdies on the weekend becuase the Masters DOES have a history of back nine charges on the last day. With this course setup that just ain't gonna happen.

Personally, im in favour of limiting driver head technology and the trampoline type measures that are currently being utilised. However, we have to consider the fact that on Sunday of this year's competition the wind was howling making playing conditions treacherous at a course that had been set up in a punitive manner.

The sort of play witnessed this year and the decisions players were making was akin to that of the US Open- players taking high numbers, and damage limitation. However, as i have already mentioned in the forum, a lot of the criticism in my view has been borne out of the fact that Tiger did not win and there was no blistering shot making run from him in any of the rounds.

It was nice to see all the players struggle in a British Open fashion. It was good to see players manage their way around the track with anxiety aforethought. In my opinion, the courses played week in week out on the PGA tour are set up in a Target Golf style- where players can boom drives and attack the pins when they want to- if you re used to seeing that all the time, an intelligent play on a tough course comes as a shock to the system.

Jack Nicklaus' initial concerns relating to technology a decade ago have proven to be legitimate, as we are witnessing a chain reaction in professional golf.

Something else interesting I heard someone say about the defensive play at recent Masters concerned equipment. Increases in distance over the past 8-10 years have made long fairway wood approach shots almost obsolete in golf. Not entirely, no, but certainly there are far fewer holes demanding a feathered 3 or 4 wood shot on today's PGA tour. One person suggested to me that maybe today's player simply isn't as confident with this shot as prior generations were, and is therefore, for the moment anyway, a bit handcuffed by a long course like Augusta with dangerous water features fronting greens, etc.

If this is so, and if PGA Tour courses continue to lengthen, I'd expect players to shore up this potential hole in their shot arsenal over time, and perhaps take a few more chances at Augusta's par 5s.

If you go back and read the article, I point out that yes, Hawkins' commentary is correct. The Masters course is harder, and it's harder to go low. To say the tournament is "dead" is a severe condemnation of the scoring changes, and all I'm saying is I don't agree. I realize there are few people writing on golf to day - me included - who remember much about the Masters before the 1970s. I never accused Hawkins of misinterpreting historical data.

I'm just trying to put the current tournament in broader historical context than what is implied by statements like Hawkins'.

I agree completely with your comments about the finer points of the architecture, including alternate teeing locations, etc. I wasn't writing an architecture design critique per se, but if I did, that's what I'd say.

And while on the subject of architecture, I'll also say that many cork-sniffing architecture people such as Geoff Shackelford like to tell us that the "original intent" of classic designs like ANGC should be preserved, if possible. Obviously, significant length was needed at ANGC to eliminate the drive and pitch par 5s - I know you agree with this part of the changes. We can't add the kind of length necessary to the course and not expect it to play a little harder.

As for the rough, well, I don't know. I know Mackenzie and Jones are on record as detesting rough, but I think they were talking about something more severe than the Masters' "second cut," and I wonder if they ever envisioned that 99.5% of lies on their course would be agronomically perfect. As for the trees, eesh...and fundamental changes to the character of holes like 7, 14, and 17...well, maybe another time.

Furthermore, the past two years have seen some pretty crummy final-round weather, yet it's simply made one of Augusta's flaws all the more evident: they have no tees between the 6400-yard member tees and the 7400-yard toonamint tees. They can't adjust the course to "add a little excitement" on days when the weather isn't cooperating. Some say it's only due to the rains and softer greens that we saw lower scoring going into the final round this year.

Holes like the 17th and the seventh has been "ruined" in the words of many great past Masters champs. The course offers no "let-up," no place to catch your breath. More pros seem to be laying up rather than going for the green on the par fives. A lot of the past pros - and yeah, they can just be grumpy - have talked about the trees, the rough, and so on. Augusta used to be unassailable - now it seems to be a favorite target of criticism.

Recent memory's all we've got - nobody remembers the 50s and 60s - and the trend from 1971 on is pretty clear to me: the Masters is getting increasingly less exciting.

By the way, what happened to 1957, 1966-1970, 1979-1985 and 1994-1996? I realize those dates don't match up with any significant course changes, but if you took the averages instead of total counts, you wouldn't need tidy eight-year blocks for everything. As it is, the graphs are somewhat suspect - how would the missing data change the graphs?