nicklaus and palmer critical of the masters

[kugino]

i'm watching "golf central" on TGC and they report that the april masters issue of "golf digest" has an interview with both nicklaus and palmer, both of whom were critical of the latest (and some earlier) changes to the course. they were also critical of augusta national for not consulting them about those changes. hootie johnson, as expected, only commented that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

so, are these the ramblings of two old fogeys reminiscing about the glory days? or are they justified in thinking that they should at least have been consulted about the changes? they are, after all, members there.

[The Undaunted Duffer]

True that! They are old fogeys!

But they're not only members, they're course designers too. I would have at least asked for some imput from the two if I was Hootie. I may not have taken it, but nevertheless, come on.

[iacas]

Their main complaints were, if I understand things correctly, with a few very specific things. Actually, a little research and I found

the article . Some quotes:

He says some changes, which were supervised by consulting golf architect Tom Fazio and his team, looked as if they were done "by somebody who doesn't know how to play golf."

But sheer yardage is not what has gotten Jack, Arnie and others of the Old Guard riled up. They're mostly upset about the tightening of many holes, through the use of expanded bunkering, transplanted trees and the introduction of rough, what Augusta National calls, in delusional parlance, "a second cut of fairway." This is where Jack and Arnie are absolutely right. Far from maintaining the integrity of the design that Jones and Mackenzie envisioned, the changes undertaken since 1998 have abandoned their philosophy of multiple options and different lines of attack. "They've totally eliminated what Bobby Jones tried to do in the game of golf," Nicklaus says. "Bobby Jones believed golf was primarily a second-shot game. He believed that you should have enough room to drive the ball onto the fairway, but if you put it on the correct side of the fairway, you had an advantage to put the ball toward the hole. He wanted to give you a chance to do that shot." Gone are Augusta's wide corridors that allowed every competitor to play his own game off the tee, to pick the spot he thought provided the best angle of approach for his trajectory and shot shape. Squeezed-in fairways now dictate the manner of play on every hole. It's as if the Masters Committee thinks it's now running the U.S. Open. Which makes one wonder just how much research Augusta National has really done regarding the original Mackenzie-Jones design. Mackenzie believed that if a good player hitting good shots couldn't post a good score on one of his courses, then there was something wrong with his design. Jones once wrote that he never intended Augusta National to be a punishing golf course. Jones and Mackenzie believed in rewarding risk on the golf course. Most of that is gone now. Consider the par-4 first. The optimum angle, particularly when the flag was on the left, had long been from the far right of the wide fairway. Today, that area is rough--not particularly nasty stuff, but enough to affect the spin of the ball.

[Thrash13]

As long as the winning scores are in the 6-under to 12-under range, I'll be happy. Also, as long as guys like Chris DiMarco and Luke Donald are finishing near the top, I'll be happy.

The course is still awesome, and until the rough is six inches, it won't be anything like a U.S. Open.

I can see where Nicklaus and Palmer would be upset, but as a fan, the changes haven't pissed me off very much at all. And the tournament is still very competitive. That's all I ask for. It seems to me the more changes they make, the better the tournament gets. The past two years should be examples of that.

[Baynative]

I absolutely agree with the second quote about allowing every competitor to play his own game off the tee. What seems to be going on is more of that "Tiger Proofing", as they called it.

I don't think a score of 20 under means the course has been defeated. On the contrary, I think an anomoly like the USGA created at Bethpage or with the Olympic Club greens a few years back defeats the purpose of the game which should be about style, management and shot making.

In cycling's Tour de France the course is redesigned each year, partially to exploit the current champion's vulnerabilities. If he was attacked or beaten in mountain stages, they may add more high category climbs.

It doesn't work for golf - and shouldn't.

One argument is always going to be that tradition is served when today's players are competing on the same course as yesterdays champions. But equipment technology has rendered that point moot. Some of these changes (not only in Augusta) seem as rediculous as limiting what clubs can be used in certain situations.

Can you imagine the 8th hole at Pebble Beach restricting the tee shot to irons only? Or Royal St. Andrews passing a rule that putters may not be used unless you are on the green?

[kugino]

wow, that first quote put up by erik is hilarious. i guess course designers are just as pissy with one another as supermodels, eh?