Why not just move the tee on #13 to the left?

[King_Slender]

Ridley was talking about seeing what the governing bodies would do (presumably shortening the golf ball) before deciding to move the tee on #13 back. But looking at the hole, why not just move the tee to the left maybe 15 yards (assuming the land is there). It would take away the ability of guy just bombing it over the left corner and would force a significant draw if you wanted to get around that corner. Instead, more guys would end up in the narrow part of the fairway or risk going into the trees if they couldn't draw it. No need to make the hole longer.

 

[gvogel]

Huh? Bubba hits it over the trees now. Move the tee to the left, and it makes the hole effectively shorter for the lefties who can bomb it.

 

Look, if the 5th hole has been lengthened to 495, and the 11th hole is 495, the 13th has to play a lot longer than its current length to be a par 5 - even a par 5 that has to make a player think about going for the green in two shots. Fred Ridley acknowledged that there is no decision any more: if you hav a decent drive and a decent lie, it is effectively a par 4. Moving the tee a little to the left will not change that dynamic.

 

They can move the tee 20 or 30 yards back into what was Augusta CC, and the bombers are still going to be able to get to the green, no problem. The guys are long now. And getting longer.

[bladehunter]

Or.... do the smart thing and make the ball spin more and lower the driver size to 360cc.

 

Guys will still hit it a mile. Just not as straight . They will throttle back and play golf again.

[Vespar]

By moving the tee left, I believe you are going into a hill ( been there once), but if you could it would certainly change the lay out and angles righty or lefty. Typical of ANGC though I think they are more likely to plant full size trees, re-route the creek, or bringing in more straw.....

[Mitchell]

> @bladehunter said:

> Or.... do the smart thing and make the ball spin more and lower the driver size to 360cc.

>

> Guys will still hit it a mile. Just not as straight . They will throttle back and play golf again.

390 cc should be the choice...and these are not the droids you are looking for?

Definitely agree in principle with the rest, just unfortunately won't happen, trying to implement change now is like shutting barn door after horses have already bolted.?

[Hawkeye77]

Left = maybe a giant circus hook. Would ruin the design IMO. Only a guess but tee looks to need to go back to make over the trees a no no and add length and a little right to compensate for the back?

[Whiskey_fire]

Why not just leave it alone. It’s perfect the way it is.

[Shilgy]

It raises the question.... To be a great hole does a hole need to be "hard" as in difficult? Or is a great championship hole one that creates the widest range of scores?

Just shoot any hole can raise scores by moving the tees back. So what?

Historically 13's Masters scoring average is a hair over 4.70. That is not low on tour for a par 5.

[bladehunter]

> @Mitchell said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Or.... do the smart thing and make the ball spin more and lower the driver size to 360cc.

> >

> > Guys will still hit it a mile. Just not as straight . They will throttle back and play golf again.

> 390 cc should be the choice...and these are not the droids you are looking for?

> Definitely agree in principle with the rest, just unfortunately won't happen, trying to implement change now is like shutting barn door after horses have already bolted.?

 

Yes yes. These are not the droids I am looking for

 

.... lol

 

Yea. I hear that. And I doubt seriously that they do anything. Too much $ in that equation.

 

[deadsolid...shank]

> @Shilgy said:

> It raises the question.... To be a great hole does a hole need to be "hard" as in difficult? Or is a great championship hole one that creates the widest range of scores?

> Just shoot any hole can raise scores by moving the tees back. So what?

> Historically 13's Masters scoring average is a hair over 4.70. That is not low on tour for a par 5.

 

I agree, it’s a great hole right now, just the way it is. If you make it harder and a three shotter, it loses so much of the drama. Guys can make anything there right now, just ask Sergio!

 

[Man_O_War]

> @Whiskey_fire said:

> Why not just leave it alone. It’s perfect the way it is.

 

especially since every one in the field keeps eagling the hole...not

[BrianMcG]

Just turn it into a par 4. Done.

[tiderider]

> @bladehunter said:

> Or.... do the smart thing and make the ball spin more and lower the driver size to 360cc.

>

> Guys will still hit it a mile. Just not as straight . They will throttle back and play golf again.

 

have thought and will always think the size of the driver must be reduced ... make it out of diamond if you want, but reduce the size ... maybe fiddle with the design so that there's no compensation for a toe/heel hit the way there is now ...

[Potatohead]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > It raises the question.... To be a great hole does a hole need to be "hard" as in difficult? Or is a great championship hole one that creates the widest range of scores?

> > Just shoot any hole can raise scores by moving the tees back. So what?

> > Historically 13's Masters scoring average is a hair over 4.70. That is not low on tour for a par 5.

>

> I agree, it’s a great hole right now, just the way it is. If you make it harder and a three shotter, it loses so much of the drama. Guys can make anything there right now, just ask Sergio!

>

 

I don’t think you’re thinking of the right hole.

[deadsolid...shank]

> @Potatohead said:

> > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > It raises the question.... To be a great hole does a hole need to be "hard" as in difficult? Or is a great championship hole one that creates the widest range of scores?

> > > Just shoot any hole can raise scores by moving the tees back. So what?

> > > Historically 13's Masters scoring average is a hair over 4.70. That is not low on tour for a par 5.

> >

> > I agree, it’s a great hole right now, just the way it is. If you make it harder and a three shotter, it loses so much of the drama. Guys can make anything there right now, just ask Sergio!

> >

>

> I don’t think you’re thinking of the right hole.

 

> @Potatohead said:

> > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > It raises the question.... To be a great hole does a hole need to be "hard" as in difficult? Or is a great championship hole one that creates the widest range of scores?

> > > Just shoot any hole can raise scores by moving the tees back. So what?

> > > Historically 13's Masters scoring average is a hair over 4.70. That is not low on tour for a par 5.

> >

> > I agree, it’s a great hole right now, just the way it is. If you make it harder and a three shotter, it loses so much of the drama. Guys can make anything there right now, just ask Sergio!

> >

>

> I don’t think you’re thinking of the right hole.

 

Oops, that was15 wasn’t it? Thanks for the catch.

[CobbTiger]

They should make the 13th a par four hole under. All of a sudden you will have a monster par four that strikes fear into the players when they come to the teebox, instead of a hole where players are looking to gain on the field. Majors mentality at work here.

[JaNelson38]

I dont understand the need to change 13 at all. Yeah, most players who put it in the fairway at 13 can get to the green in two. But its still not a guarantee by any means - plenty of guys find the creek or the bunkers long, resulting in par or worse - and we've seen some fantastic shots that go a long way to determining the winner on that hole. And the scoring average for that hole last year was 4.6, so its not like everyone is making eagle...heck, 4.6 is a pretty good scoring average on the whole for par-5's on the PGA Tour. I believe there were 9 eagles there last year - hardly a huge amount. But having 13 be a legitimate chance for eagle for most players is one of the things that make the back 9 at Augusta great.

 

I'd be disappointed if they changed 13. Its not needed. In the grand scheme of things, 13 is the first true scoring opportunity for players after they walk off the 8th green.

[dpb5031]

> @CobbTiger said:

> They should make the 13th a par four hole under. All of a sudden you will have a monster par four that strikes fear into the players when they come to the teebox, instead of a hole where players are looking to gain on the field. Majors mentality at work here.

 

What's the difference whether you label it a par 4 or a 5? It is what it is, and I'm sure everyone is trying to make the lowest score they can each time through.

[gvogel]

The Chairman stated yesterday that the hole does not present the challenge that it did formerly. However, they are not going to lengthen the hole until they know what the USGA and R&A are going to do after the distance report is issued. If the USGA and R&A decide to leave the equipment specs alone, you can be sure that the tee will be moved back; and perhaps the green will be recreated with the stream farther back as well. They have room behind the green to move it back.

 

At some point, they will put some teeth back into the hole, one way or another.

[Ferguson]

Dr. Hadden advises:

"Some things are better left untouched."

 

 

 

 

[3jacker]

Why does it need to be lengthened at all. Make it a par 4. Or don't.

Par is an imaginary number and has no bearing on who wins or loses.

[Llortamaisey]

Moving it left makes it nearly impossible to hit driver off the tee without a huge hook or slice, thus making it nearly impossible to go for the green in two. It would be a boring three shot par 5. They want to make the hole challenging but they don’t want to get rid of the possibility of hitting it in two. Moving the tee back accomplishes just that. Or limiting the ball/equipment.

[North Texas]

I think what Fred Ridley said last year in his press conference pretty much nails it.

 

“There’s a great quote from Bobby Jones dealing specifically with the 13th hole, which has been lengthened over time, and he said that the decision to go for the green in two should be a momentous one,” Riley said. “And I would have to say that our observations of these great players hitting middle and even short irons into that hole is not a momentous decision.”

 

[leejohnkieh]

Like they've mentioned quite a bit, it should be lengthened but not 40 or 50 yards, more like 20 to 25 yards.

They are wanting players to still reach the green in 2 but have a long iron in their hands rather than a short iron they are hitting now.

[3jacker]

I think 30 yds was the number in mind. That seems about right.

Long hitters would go from a 8/9 iron to 5/6 iron. And they should be rewarded for that extra ability - this is a physical undertaking and distance is good. Medium hitters would go from a 6/7 iron approach to hybrid/3/4, which is perfect and in line w/orginal play. Short hitters would be hitting woods, if they so chose.

[tiderider]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > It raises the question.... To be a great hole does a hole need to be "hard" as in difficult? Or is a great championship hole one that creates the widest range of scores?

> > Just shoot any hole can raise scores by moving the tees back. So what?

> > Historically 13's Masters scoring average is a hair over 4.70. That is not low on tour for a par 5.

>

> I agree, it’s a great hole right now, just the way it is. If you make it harder and a three shotter, it loses so much of the drama. Guys can make anything there right now, just ask Sergio!

>

 

i keep thinking it needs to be lengthened, but then watching tiger & rahm leave themselves 40 ft putts for eagle that are not certain 2-putts makes me want to keep it the way it is ... the slope of the fairway and the green make it very difficult to get close on just about any hole location ... still think it needs a bit of length added ... i think ...

[QuigleyDU]

I don't understand the need to stretch every course to the breaking point. To me that shows just how unimaginative these guys are. There are so many ways to make any hole, any course, any where play more difficult. With the masters it matters even less. It is pretty much a putting contest.

[3jacker]

> @tiderider said:

> > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > It raises the question.... To be a great hole does a hole need to be "hard" as in difficult? Or is a great championship hole one that creates the widest range of scores?

> > > Just shoot any hole can raise scores by moving the tees back. So what?

> > > Historically 13's Masters scoring average is a hair over 4.70. That is not low on tour for a par 5.

> >

> > I agree, it’s a great hole right now, just the way it is. If you make it harder and a three shotter, it loses so much of the drama. Guys can make anything there right now, just ask Sergio!

> >

>

> i keep thinking it needs to be lengthened, but then watching tiger & rahm leave themselves 40 ft putts for eagle that are not certain 2-putts makes me want to keep it the way it is ... the slope of the fairway and the green make it very difficult to get close on just about any hole location ... still think it needs a bit of length added ... i think ...

 

Good point. I'm not seeing more 6 ft eagle putts than in yesteryear.

I guess Shotlink could prove the validity of that.

[QuigleyDU]

> @3jacker said:

> > @tiderider said:

> > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > It raises the question.... To be a great hole does a hole need to be "hard" as in difficult? Or is a great championship hole one that creates the widest range of scores?

> > > > Just shoot any hole can raise scores by moving the tees back. So what?

> > > > Historically 13's Masters scoring average is a hair over 4.70. That is not low on tour for a par 5.

> > >

> > > I agree, it’s a great hole right now, just the way it is. If you make it harder and a three shotter, it loses so much of the drama. Guys can make anything there right now, just ask Sergio!

> > >

> >

> > i keep thinking it needs to be lengthened, but then watching tiger & rahm leave themselves 40 ft putts for eagle that are not certain 2-putts makes me want to keep it the way it is ... the slope of the fairway and the green make it very difficult to get close on just about any hole location ... still think it needs a bit of length added ... i think ...

>

> Good point. I'm not seeing more 6 ft eagle putts than in yesteryear.

> I guess Shotlink could prove the validity of that.

 

 

The course at this point is playing pretty soft. The players are not getting any roll. This is as simple a solution as there is. Just add a touch of moister and you are good. I thought there may be a really low round out there but it does not appear to be happening. the course is playing extra long due to the softness.

 

[3jacker]

The greens didn't get the memo I guess.