Ongoing Changes to Augusta National (11, 15, 13)

[mchepp]

I wonder how it looks from the tee. Looks awfully tight from that angle. 

[boogielicious]

13 hours ago, mchepp said:

I wonder how it looks from the tee. Looks awfully tight from that angle. 

Agree. It will look more of a shoot to hit through than 18. And no way will they be able to hit over the left side.

[Big Lex]

Just gotta vent a little. 

It's very odd to me, these continuous changes. I understand it, I think I "get" what they are doing: If a par 5 hole was "intended" to play as a three shot, or at the least a drive and a long iron or FW, and players are routinely hitting 6-8 iron into it, then I guess it "makes sense" to lengthen the hole so it's harder to reach. 

I just find this kind of thinking a little rigid and bordering on silly. Nothing is frozen in time. It's a different game, in many more ways than just the distance the players hit the ball. If we shorten the ball and/or lengthen the courses such that, distance wise, golf plays EXACTLY like it did in some arbitrary past index year, say 1980, the players will STILL be way better than they were then. They have better technique, know how to swing harder but still control the ball, know their games better, know how to manage the courses better, have better conditions to play in, etc. etc. etc.

I suppose it's possible to change equipment radically, such that it's much, MUCH harder to hit the sweet spot and make it fly straight..make the clubs smaller, make the ball spin alot more. Players might have to swing easier or put an extreme priority on control, because the ball had such a tendency to curve and the clubs are so unforgiving. This would make the pro game harder, make scores go up, and make golf look more like it did in the 1960s maybe. Fine. I just think that would be a terrible idea. Even for elite players. What is the point of it? The game is still hard, even for them. The impression that the game is out of control and "too easy" is based on a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the world's golfers, and among those, a tiny subset who happen to be playing well and leading tournaments or having a good year. Alot of guys make it to the tour and fail after a couple of years. What happens to them? They don't go on shooting 63 and making golf courses irrelevant wherever they go, I don't think. 

And what is all this about what the "intent" of the designer was? I don't think The Almighty carved any tablets proscribing that Golf Shall Hath 1, 2, and 3 shot holes, in such and such proportions, etc. I think they had a big field by the ocean and started hitting the ball for fun, and it just so happened that with the tools they had, they had 1, 2, and 3 shot holes. It's what, 150 years since then? We've moved from horses to cars to electric cars, typewriters to computers...is it really so bad that on these great golf courses, the best players in the world can easily hit the 13th hole with a 3 wood and a 7 iron? 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Big Lex

[boogielicious]

4 hours ago, Big Lex said:

Just gotta vent a little. 

It's very odd to me, these continuous changes. I understand it, I think I "get" what they are doing: If a par 5 hole was "intended" to play as a three shot, or at the least a drive and a long iron or FW, and players are routinely hitting 6-8 iron into it, then I guess it "makes sense" to lengthen the hole so it's harder to reach. 

I just find this kind of thinking a little rigid and bordering on silly. Nothing is frozen in time. It's a different game, in many more ways than just the distance the players hit the ball. If we shorten the ball and/or lengthen the courses such that, distance wise, golf plays EXACTLY like it did in some arbitrary past index year, say 1980, the players will STILL be way better than they were then. They have better technique, know how to swing harder but still control the ball, know their games better, know how to manage the courses better, have better conditions to play in, etc. etc. etc.

I suppose it's possible to change equipment radically, such that it's much, MUCH harder to hit the sweet spot and make it fly straight..make the clubs smaller, make the ball spin alot more. Players might have to swing easier or put an extreme priority on control, because the ball had such a tendency to curve and the clubs are so unforgiving. This would make the pro game harder, make scores go up, and make golf look more like it did in the 1960s maybe. Fine. I just think that would be a terrible idea. Even for elite players. What is the point of it? The game is still hard, even for them. The impression that the game is out of control and "too easy" is based on a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the world's golfers, and among those, a tiny subset who happen to be playing well and leading tournaments or having a good year. Alot of guys make it to the tour and fail after a couple of years. What happens to them? They don't go on shooting 63 and making golf courses irrelevant wherever they go, I don't think. 

And what is all this about what the "intent" of the designer was? I don't think The Almighty carved any tablets proscribing that Golf Shall Hath 1, 2, and 3 shot holes, in such and such proportions, etc. I think they had a big field by the ocean and started hitting the ball for fun, and it just so happened that with the tools they had, they had 1, 2, and 3 shot holes. It's what, 150 years since then? We've moved from horses to cars to electric cars, typewriters to computers...is it really so bad that on these great golf courses, the best players in the world can easily hit the 13th hole with a 3 wood and a 7 iron? 

I agree to a point, but 13 was getting to be more like a long par 4. I think Bubba Watson hit a fade with his driver then a short iron when he won the Masters in one round. With these changes, they can still hit driver and a long iron or wood and hit the green with two good shots. That’s what a par 5 should be. 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, boogielicious said:

I agree to a point, but 13 was getting to be more like a long par 4. I think Bubba Watson hit a fade with his driver then a short iron when he won the Masters in one round. With these changes, they can still hit driver and a long iron or wood and hit the green with two good shots. That’s what a par 5 should be. 

The scoring average disagrees.

[iacas]

2023 - Complete Changes to Augusta National

This is an incredible tool.

[TourSpoon]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

2023 - Complete Changes to Augusta National

This is an incredible tool.

This was a great find! No limits on geeking out! 

[Vinsk]

Damn it @iacas…I gotta lot to get done and you post this….😄

[iacas]

39 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Damn it @iacas…I gotta lot to get done and you post this….😄

I got through six holes in about 45 minutes. 😄 

[Bucki1968]

Hopefully it doesn't take away the "back 9 charges" on Sunday. I think that's what's always made the Marsters the most fun to watch. Someone could always shoot a 30 on the back and come from behind and win. I'll be curious to see 13 next week. I couldn't appreciate the 11th hole until I saw it in person (when they moved that tee back). 

[p1n9183]

2 hours ago, Bucki1968 said:

Hopefully it doesn't take away the "back 9 charges" on Sunday. I think that's what's always made the Marsters the most fun to watch. Someone could always shoot a 30 on the back and come from behind and win.

This is always going to be a possibility no matter the course. 
People that go out and shoot 8..9 strokes less than the average of the field (and are not that far back) can easily win the tournament. This can be with an outstanding 64 on a soft steady day or a simple 70 when you are out there with hard rock greens and 50 m/H winds. 
The first one is going to look like a "Sunday charge" an the the second one is going to look like everybody is falling apart and you are emerging from the dead bodies to claim the victory. 

Both of them in reality is the same guy scoring way less than the leaders in an easier or harder course.     

Edited March 28, 2023 by p1n9183

[dennyjones]

That is so cool. Thanks for sharing!