2019 Masters Tournament hosted by ANGC (merged)

[gatorpedsMD]

Masters 2019: The most memorable rules issues in Masters history

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/masters-2019-the-most-memorable-rules-of-golf-issues-in-masters-history/amp

[gatorpedsMD]

The ultimate hole-by-hole guide to Augusta National

http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/26437399/the-ultimate-hole-hole-guide-augusta-national

 

hit the fairway, yeah no shiatttttt

[gatorpedsMD]

1. How much does it cost?

 

The membership costs at Augusta are relatively low for a club of its stature. The initiation fee is estimated to be in the range of $40,000. And the yearly dues are estimated at “a few thousand” dollars per year. There are other costs involved, whether for guest fees or on-site lodging, but those are also relatively low.

 

An original membership stake in Augusta cost $350, which is still less than $5,000 in today’s dollars.

https://www.golf.com/news/2019/04/04/augusta-national-members-masters/

 

u gotta be kidding me. shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

[cardoustie]

Neat that the Chairman has actually played in the event

[smashdn]

> @gatorMD said:

> 1. How much does it cost?

>

> The membership costs at Augusta are relatively low for a club of its stature. The initiation fee is estimated to be in the range of $40,000. And the yearly dues are estimated at “a few thousand” dollars per year. There are other costs involved, whether for guest fees or on-site lodging, but those are also relatively low.

>

> An original membership stake in Augusta cost $350, which is still less than $5,000 in today’s dollars.

> https://www.golf.com/news/2019/04/04/augusta-national-members-masters/

>

> u gotta be kidding me. shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

 

CBS is basically subsidizing the membership dues. Makes good sense.

 

I have read before however (take that for what it's worth) that if there is a "need" for capital for a capital project, you are assessed adn you should be prepared to pay. That being said, I can't envision something not being covered by the tv money.

[gatorpedsMD]

> @smashdn said:

> > @gatorMD said:

> > 1. How much does it cost?

> >

> > The membership costs at Augusta are relatively low for a club of its stature. The initiation fee is estimated to be in the range of $40,000. And the yearly dues are estimated at “a few thousand” dollars per year. There are other costs involved, whether for guest fees or on-site lodging, but those are also relatively low.

> >

> > An original membership stake in Augusta cost $350, which is still less than $5,000 in today’s dollars.

> > https://www.golf.com/news/2019/04/04/augusta-national-members-masters/

> >

> > u gotta be kidding me. shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

>

> CBS is basically subsidizing the membership dues. Makes good sense.

>

> I have read before however (take that for what it's worth) that if there is a "need" for capital for a capital project, you are assessed adn you should be prepared to pay. That being said, I can't envision something not being covered by the tv money.

 

 

that makes sense.

[dlygrisse]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > > @dalehead said:

> > > > @MilkyButterCuts said:

> > > > I was watching the 1986 masters episode last night. They keep saying, "this would be jacks 20th major title if he wins today". What are they referring to? Did the players used to count? US Amateur?

> > >

> > > Jack always considered the US Amateur a major since his and his Dad's hero was Bobby Jones. The rest of the golfing world at that time accepted it also. That's why MacGregor named a model of Nicklaus irons "Muirfield 20th" after his 1986 Masters win. In more recent times we have talked about "professional majors" like Jack's 18 or Tiger's 14.

> >

> > Not just Jack but most everyone did back then. All the golf magazines, writers, and journalists counted the US and British Am's. For whatever reason this fell out of favor about the time Tiger came along, even though he won 3 of them. So if you want to make that argument, Tiger is one closer to Jack than is commonly discussed.

> >

> > The US amatuer was a HIGHLY regarded tournament for many years, it was won by several career amateurs, including Jay Sigel, and several others. Money probably changed the game more than anything.

> My recollection is that it fell off the major list long before Tiger arrived.

 

I lost all my old Golf Digest's in a basement flood, but I know they were listing it into the 1990's. For those who weren't around Golf Digest was pretty much the main source of golf info for many years, pre-internet forums.

[Darth Putter]

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > > @dalehead said:

> > > > > @MilkyButterCuts said:

> > > > > I was watching the 1986 masters episode last night. They keep saying, "this would be jacks 20th major title if he wins today". What are they referring to? Did the players used to count? US Amateur?

> > > >

> > > > Jack always considered the US Amateur a major since his and his Dad's hero was Bobby Jones. The rest of the golfing world at that time accepted it also. That's why MacGregor named a model of Nicklaus irons "Muirfield 20th" after his 1986 Masters win. In more recent times we have talked about "professional majors" like Jack's 18 or Tiger's 14.

> > >

> > > Not just Jack but most everyone did back then. All the golf magazines, writers, and journalists counted the US and British Am's. For whatever reason this fell out of favor about the time Tiger came along, even though he won 3 of them. So if you want to make that argument, Tiger is one closer to Jack than is commonly discussed.

> > >

> > > The US amatuer was a HIGHLY regarded tournament for many years, it was won by several career amateurs, including Jay Sigel, and several others. Money probably changed the game more than anything.

> > My recollection is that it fell off the major list long before Tiger arrived.

>

> I lost all my old Golf Digest's in a basement flood, but I know they were listing it into the 1990's. For those who weren't around Golf Digest was pretty much the main source of golf info for many years, pre-internet forums.

 

Sports Illustrated refers to 20 in this article in 1998.

 

https://www.si.com/vault/1998/07/20/8099566/golden-ruler-with-a-streak-of-154-majors-jack-nicklaus-set-a-mark-that-may-stand-forever

[Hawkeye77]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > > > @dalehead said:

> > > > > > @MilkyButterCuts said:

> > > > > > I was watching the 1986 masters episode last night. They keep saying, "this would be jacks 20th major title if he wins today". What are they referring to? Did the players used to count? US Amateur?

> > > > >

> > > > > Jack always considered the US Amateur a major since his and his Dad's hero was Bobby Jones. The rest of the golfing world at that time accepted it also. That's why MacGregor named a model of Nicklaus irons "Muirfield 20th" after his 1986 Masters win. In more recent times we have talked about "professional majors" like Jack's 18 or Tiger's 14.

> > > >

> > > > Not just Jack but most everyone did back then. All the golf magazines, writers, and journalists counted the US and British Am's. For whatever reason this fell out of favor about the time Tiger came along, even though he won 3 of them. So if you want to make that argument, Tiger is one closer to Jack than is commonly discussed.

> > > >

> > > > The US amatuer was a HIGHLY regarded tournament for many years, it was won by several career amateurs, including Jay Sigel, and several others. Money probably changed the game more than anything.

> > > My recollection is that it fell off the major list long before Tiger arrived.

> >

> > I lost all my old Golf Digest's in a basement flood, but I know they were listing it into the 1990's. For those who weren't around Golf Digest was pretty much the main source of golf info for many years, pre-internet forums.

>

> Sports Illustrated refers to 20 in this article in 1998.

>

> https://www.si.com/vault/1998/07/20/8099566/golden-ruler-with-a-streak-of-154-majors-jack-nicklaus-set-a-mark-that-may-stand-forever

 

Good get!

[cougarthesecond]

@dlygrisse "I lost all my old Golf Digest's in a basement flood,"

I quit paying for Golf Digest years ago, but they keep sending it to me for free. lol

I know Conde Nast is trying to sell it but don't know if they found a buyer.

[Hankshank]

> @cougarthesecond said:

> HankShank..."But from a TV spectators view I have never heard a comment about 17 or 18 that even remotely compares to the comments about the more epic holes." Stand and look down the fairway from the 18th tee in person and you will hear lots of comments.

The tee shot view is decent. But make the same with the approach shot. And compare it to almost any other course. East Lake even changed a great finish to a lukewarm finish to have a great view of the club house from the approach. The approach on Augusta 18 is a slope, and you only see a slope. 9th offered more spectacular views. Think the CEO’s enjoy it that way. If Gates makes a shank on his approach he can quietly sneak in without anyone seeing. If you have the ordinary club house terrace view from your approach shot you have to take sh*t shots like a Man...

 

More seriously, I feel like the young guy in the Hans Christian Anderssen saga about the nude emperor. Am I the only one thinking that 17 and 18 do not measure up against the fantastic holes before #17? And that 17 and 18 are holes you normally expect to be among the best on a golf course? At least from a TV spectators point of view?

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/hRnnxubZZvJxLGTj8

 

 

[BNGL]

Fun fact of the day:

 

The nines were originally designed in reverse...today’s tenth hole was the original first hole.

 

 

[grm24]

BTW Augusta National is up to 6 female members. Here is hoping there is not an argument here on the order these women were admitted. No more need for another thread that resembles a dog chasing its tail again. Unfortunately it will continue.

 

https://golfweek.com/2019/04/05/golf-heidi-ueberroth-augusta-national-sixth-female-member-masters/

[Steele47]

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > > @dalehead said:

> > > > > @MilkyButterCuts said:

> > > > > I was watching the 1986 masters episode last night. They keep saying, "this would be jacks 20th major title if he wins today". What are they referring to? Did the players used to count? US Amateur?

> > > >

> > > > Jack always considered the US Amateur a major since his and his Dad's hero was Bobby Jones. The rest of the golfing world at that time accepted it also. That's why MacGregor named a model of Nicklaus irons "Muirfield 20th" after his 1986 Masters win. In more recent times we have talked about "professional majors" like Jack's 18 or Tiger's 14.

> > >

> > > Not just Jack but most everyone did back then. All the golf magazines, writers, and journalists counted the US and British Am's. For whatever reason this fell out of favor about the time Tiger came along, even though he won 3 of them. So if you want to make that argument, Tiger is one closer to Jack than is commonly discussed.

> > >

> > > The US amatuer was a HIGHLY regarded tournament for many years, it was won by several career amateurs, including Jay Sigel, and several others. Money probably changed the game more than anything.

> > My recollection is that it fell off the major list long before Tiger arrived.

>

> I lost all my old Golf Digest's in a basement flood, but I know they were listing it into the 1990's. For those who weren't around Golf Digest was pretty much the main source of golf info for many years, pre-internet forums.

 

 

 

LOL Dlygrisse you made me laugh. I feel very old now with the, "For those who weren't around............main source of golf info...........pre internet forums." Awesome!

[gatorpedsMD]

damn they are doing a ceremonial start: Se Ri, Annaka, Lorena, and Nancy. That's awesome.

[gatorpedsMD]

> @grm24 said:

> BTW Augusta National is up to 6 female members. Here is hoping there is not an argument here on the order these women were admitted. No more need for another thread that resembles a dog chasing its tail again. Unfortunately it will continue.

>

> https://golfweek.com/2019/04/05/golf-heidi-ueberroth-augusta-national-sixth-female-member-masters/

 

 

yeah arguing over the order is dumb. But having women members is def great for the sport! Cheers to ANGC getting outta the 1800s.

[gatorpedsMD]

Come on Brooks!!!! GO GATORS!

[gatorpedsMD]

Man ANGC knows how to do it right

 

[BNGL]

> @gatorMD said:

> > @grm24 said:

> > BTW Augusta National is up to 6 female members. Here is hoping there is not an argument here on the order these women were admitted. No more need for another thread that resembles a dog chasing its tail again. Unfortunately it will continue.

> >

> > https://golfweek.com/2019/04/05/golf-heidi-ueberroth-augusta-national-sixth-female-member-masters/

>

>

> yeah arguing over the order is dumb. But having women members is def great for the sport! Cheers to ANGC getting outta the 1800s.

 

Dumb is continuing to let false information be spread as truth. When you’re wrong, and I know you’re wrong, I will destroy you.

 

 

[BrianMcG]

> @Hankshank said:

> > @cougarthesecond said:

> > HankShank..."But from a TV spectators view I have never heard a comment about 17 or 18 that even remotely compares to the comments about the more epic holes." Stand and look down the fairway from the 18th tee in person and you will hear lots of comments.

> The tee shot view is decent. But make the same with the approach shot. And compare it to almost any other course. East Lake even changed a great finish to a lukewarm finish to have a great view of the club house from the approach. The approach on Augusta 18 is a slope, and you only see a slope. 9th offered more spectacular views. Think the CEO’s enjoy it that way. If Gates makes a shank on his approach he can quietly sneak in without anyone seeing. If you have the ordinary club house terrace view from your approach shot you have to take sh*t shots like a Man...

>

> More seriously, I feel like the young guy in the Hans Christian Anderssen saga about the nude emperor. Am I the only one thinking that 17 and 18 do not measure up against the fantastic holes before #17? And that 17 and 18 are holes you normally expect to be among the best on a golf course? At least from a TV spectators point of view?

>

> https://images.app.goo.gl/hRnnxubZZvJxLGTj8

>

>

 

I feel the same way about 17 and 18. Two ho hum par 4s to finish the tournament. It is a bit anticlimactic after 15,16. Maybe those holes are just too exciting and it just make 17,18 seem dull in comparison.

[cardoustie]

I agree on 17 and 18

The course is so incredible and unique from 10-16

[The Mad Bomber]

> @cardoustie said:

> I agree on 17 and 18

> The course is so incredible and unique from 10-16

 

I can't remember how much disaster I've seen unfold on 18 in the last 30 years, but it's been a lot. I think 18 is a very good finishing hole. I would agree that 17 is pretty bland in comparison to the rest of the course. I think the Eisenhower tree made that hole a lot more challenging in the past. It would be cool if they re-planted it.

[gatorpedsMD]

wow this coverage is terrible. I dont wont to hear BC. Geez failllllllll.

[Hawkeye77]

Lots of incredible moments at 18 throughout the history - tournament truly won, or secured or lost by so many different players. No clown's mouth, but really - what's the real beef? Challenging tee shot you can't fake, challenging uphill approach and you better find the right spot on the green or miss in the right spot. Wonderful amphitheater for the patrons to watch it all unfold from the top of the hill around the green and looking down the hill. Geez, you have to actually earn a birdie and unless you really hit it bad, you aren't automatically looking at double or triple. So get that birdie you need (good luck and when did a relatively easy chance at birdie become the standard for excitement, lol), get that par you need - bogey not a bad score, but bogey won't be good enough most of the time. Sounds like a great golf hole.

I was recently given a really good book (The Masters, A Hole By Hole History . . .; David Sowell, 3rd ed. 2019). I've always enjoyed 18 and respected 17 (and yes, it is the hole everyone loves to "dog" so there may be something to it, lol, but . . .). I wish the book was twice or three times as long, but as it is, it's fun to read about each hole and how various holes figured in various tournament rounds over time. If you've been watching The Masters for 50+ years, the stories of much of the back 9 will likely be familiar (not there yet), but lots of the others we just never heard so much about.

Whatever you think of the course, this book is chock full of anecdotes/stories and and easy and fun read. I've only read through the first couple holes so far. Saving some for perusing during the DC&P and the Par 3!

[BNGL]

http://www.augusta.com/masters/story/news/early-decision-set-stage-drama

 

Interesting facts and opines from Master’s Champions

[Hankshank]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> Lots of incredible moments at 18 throughout the history - tournament truly won, or secured or lost by so many different players. No clown's mouth, but really - what's the real beef? Challenging tee shot you can't fake, challenging uphill approach and you better find the right spot on the green or miss in the right spot. Wonderful amphitheater for the patrons to watch it all unfold from the top of the hill around the green and looking down the hill. Geez, you have to actually earn a birdie and unless you really hit it bad, you aren't automatically looking at double or triple. So get that birdie you need (good luck and when did a relatively easy chance at birdie become the standard for excitement, lol), get that par you need - bogey not a bad score, but bogey won't be good enough most of the time. Sounds like a great golf hole.

> I was recently given a really good book (The Masters, A Hole By Hole History . . .; David Sowell, 3rd ed. 2019). I've always enjoyed 18 and respected 17 (and yes, it is the hole everyone loves to "dog" so there may be something to it, lol, but . . .). I wish the book was twice or three times as long, but as it is, it's fun to read about each hole and how various holes figured in various tournament rounds over time. If you've been watching The Masters for 50+ years, the stories of much of the back 9 will likely be familiar (not there yet), but lots of the others we just never heard so much about.

> Whatever you think of the course, this book is chock full of anecdotes/stories and and easy and fun read. I've only read through the first couple holes so far. Saving some for perusing during the DC&P and the Par 3!

I do not disagree, really. But I am absolutely convinced that 17, 18 and 9 could be so much better. Think 18th tee as it is, but 18th ending up slightly above where 9th are now. Maybe a reachable par 5. And move the greens of 17 and 9 to make those holes more risky-rewardy from the tee. Short par fours are the sh*t.

[gatorpedsMD]

Man Kudos has a great swing

 

[gatorpedsMD]

And ANGC LOOKS MINT AS TIGERS MINTY ARSE SWING!

[Darth Putter]

I think #9 and #18 are great as is. The last even gives a chance for a memorable birdie with the traditional front pin. Someone has to be the worst hole on the second nine and that is the hard #17. I think it's a better championship hole now than it was when it was a driver and a pitch.

 

If you want a great course with a weak finishing hole, that would be another Mackenzie classic, Cypress Point.

[Hawkeye77]

> @Hankshank said:

> > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > Lots of incredible moments at 18 throughout the history - tournament truly won, or secured or lost by so many different players. No clown's mouth, but really - what's the real beef? Challenging tee shot you can't fake, challenging uphill approach and you better find the right spot on the green or miss in the right spot. Wonderful amphitheater for the patrons to watch it all unfold from the top of the hill around the green and looking down the hill. Geez, you have to actually earn a birdie and unless you really hit it bad, you aren't automatically looking at double or triple. So get that birdie you need (good luck and when did a relatively easy chance at birdie become the standard for excitement, lol), get that par you need - bogey not a bad score, but bogey won't be good enough most of the time. Sounds like a great golf hole.

> > I was recently given a really good book (The Masters, A Hole By Hole History . . .; David Sowell, 3rd ed. 2019). I've always enjoyed 18 and respected 17 (and yes, it is the hole everyone loves to "dog" so there may be something to it, lol, but . . .). I wish the book was twice or three times as long, but as it is, it's fun to read about each hole and how various holes figured in various tournament rounds over time. If you've been watching The Masters for 50+ years, the stories of much of the back 9 will likely be familiar (not there yet), but lots of the others we just never heard so much about.

> > Whatever you think of the course, this book is chock full of anecdotes/stories and and easy and fun read. I've only read through the first couple holes so far. Saving some for perusing during the DC&P and the Par 3!

> I do not disagree, really. But I am absolutely convinced that 17, 18 and 9 could be so much better. Think 18th tee as it is, but 18th ending up slightly above where 9th are now. Maybe a reachable par 5. And move the greens of 17 and 9 to make those holes more risky-rewardy from the tee. Short par fours are the sh*t.

 

Hank, it's around 70 yards from off the back of 18 green to where the members sit under umbrellas outside the clubhouse and that entire area is consumed with patron traffic and chairs near the 18 green and on and on. Nowhere else for it to go. They aren't moving the clubhouse to make 18 a par 5 and have 3 par 5s on the back nine, lol. Proximity of 18 green to 9 green and then turning 18 green into fairway? Again, lol. Look at 18 tee box, look around it, it's been lengthened to the max right now. Anyway, sorry, but terrible idea man.

 

There is more to risk-reward than just having a hole be a short par 4. Take a look at 17, take a look at 9, read up on them, study them, there are presently some significant risk-reward elements. Lots of changes over the years, fun to discuss, but they aren't moving green complexes to shorten par fours just because people love that hole in L.A. and some driveable or short par 4 are all the rage.