Augusta National golf club - 2023

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, MUNIGRIT said:

ZJ win at Augusta was a bit of anomaly. Bad weather and really high scores. We saw first hand last year how 15 plays boring now at Augusta as a 3 shot hole.

 

Was there something preventing the other players in the field from laying up and then making birdie on the par fives?

 

What's the saying, when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.  If "power golf" is not getting the job done, might not be a bad idea to get the ball in a position to score another way right?

 

48 minutes ago, Duct Tape said:

Meh again.  I’ve made my feelings known on page one. Another of the most exciting holes, along with 15,  in golf reduced to a three shotter for most. 
 

Just like no on , other than maybe some WRX fanatics here, can recall any memorable shot of Zach Johnson’s journey through Augusta’s par fives on his winning year, there are none of the spine tingling, wave-like roars of the crowd on Sunday for a par. Even a birdie on 13 or 15 seems just a little anticlimactic.  
 

You’ll never hear a “better than most” call for a perfect layup to wedge distance. 
 

(might be a good thing)😀

 

It's almost like they are out there on the course trying to play golf in a manner that gives the best chance to win with absolutely no regard for our level of entertainment and enjoyment.  Pretty selfish of those guys if you ask me.

[Duct Tape]

44 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Was there something preventing the other players in the field from laying up and then making birdie on the par fives?

 

What's the saying, when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.  If "power golf" is not getting the job done, might not be a bad idea to get the ball in a position to score another way right?

 

 

It's almost like they are out there on the course trying to play golf in a manner that gives the best chance to win with absolutely no regard for our level of entertainment and enjoyment.  Pretty selfish of those guys if you ask me.

My post says nothing about what a player should do or decide. They owe nothing to us. Of course they should choose their best option to increase chances of winning. 
 

Rather it’s directed to the club and any architects or other advisors who have mandated these course changes in their, I believe misguided, belief it will improve the event. 

[smashdn]

56 minutes ago, Duct Tape said:

Rather it’s directed to the club and any architects or other advisors who have mandated these course changes in their, I believe misguided, belief it will improve the event. 

 

Do you think, in this particular case, ANGC is more concerned with ANGC the course or The Masters? 

 

Are architects and advisors misguided in these particular changes or in general, moving tees back to "retain certain shot values" as they say?

 

They could have left it at 465 yards if they wished.  Nearly everything that made the hole difficult is now largely rendered moot due to both distances and spin (at the pro level).  maybe they would have been better served to have stayed the same, the scores become laughable, and perhaps that would have forced the ruling bodies' hand?

[Duct Tape]

56 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Do you think, in this particular case, ANGC is more concerned with ANGC the course or The Masters? 

 

Are architects and advisors misguided in these particular changes or in general, moving tees back to "retain certain shot values" as they say?

 

They could have left it at 465 yards if they wished.  Nearly everything that made the hole difficult is now largely rendered moot due to both distances and spin (at the pro level).  maybe they would have been better served to have stayed the same, the scores become laughable, and perhaps that would have forced the ruling bodies' hand?

Don’t know, you’ll need to ask them.
 

As a player I couldn’t reach it but I never had a great chance. A little too pumped off the tee each time. Either too far away,  in the right woods, or left creek. The same is prob true for 80+% of non tournament play, which might address your “ANGC the course” perspective. It’s not an issue from October through May, other than possibly two weeks in April. 
 

Speaking of “the Masters”, and as a 40 year fan of my favorite event, the only times I didn’t watch most of the last two days was Zach Johnson’s year and when Norman melted down in 96. Left both times to walk 9 holes which seemed more fun. 
 

I love the US Open too, but mostly for the great courses. The Masters ultimately is entertainment and if it becomes less so, some fans, including me, may vote with their feet. 
 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Duct Tape

[MUNIGRIT]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Was there something preventing the other players in the field from laying up and then making birdie on the par fives?

 

What's the saying, when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.  If "power golf" is not getting the job done, might not be a bad idea to get the ball in a position to score another way right?

 

 

 

I'm going to guess what draws on tee times you got in first couple rounds made a big difference. 3 shot par 5 are boring IMO and many others.

[smashdn]

6 minutes ago, MUNIGRIT said:

I'm going to guess what draws on tee times you got in first couple rounds made a big difference. 3 shot par 5 are boring IMO and many others.

 

So that extra one iron shot not intending to hit the green kills the whole vibe?

[MUNIGRIT]

1 minute ago, smashdn said:

 

So that extra one iron shot not intending to hit the green kills the whole vibe?

Yep when you make the 2 great holes play in 3 shots very boring. They used to give you an eagle chance to make a charge that has happened many times.

[smashdn]

15 minutes ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Yep when you make the 2 great holes play in 3 shots very boring. They used to give you an eagle chance to make a charge that has happened many times.

 

Are you speaking specifically of Augusta here?  With regards to 13 I wouldn't say they have made it play as a definite three shot hole.  Moving the tee back is going to force them to be more exacting with their drives.  You may find less of them going for it in two however because they cannot just go over trees or just sling a big draw around the corner with no regard for how high up the hill they go.  A sidehill lie with a 6 iron is a different animal than a sidehill lie with a 3 iron or 5 five wood. Maybe, just maybe it will make the hole better, but I generally don't find that to be the case when they "just move the tee back."

 

Also, 13 was always supposed to play as a half par hole.  I don't think the intention was to ever take the eagle opportunity away but rather to make them think a bit more on the tee about how best to make that happen.

 

It would also go against Bobby Jones' personal philosophy that all par fives should be reachable in two by better players to intentionally make the holes three shot holes.  All the par fives play about 1/4 shot under par per The Masters website.

 

Holes 13 through 16 are the easiest stretch along with holes 8 and 9 in relation to par.

Edited November 28, 2022 by smashdn

[MUNIGRIT]

Yes I dont like the length to the 2 holes. Makes them play 3 shots more often. I like risk reward holes and 15 was very boring last year vs being a great hole before.

[Golferpaul]

On 11/27/2022 at 11:57 AM, Cali_Stinger77 said:

It was time to add some length to 13. 3 wood 6 iron is not how that par 5 was meant to be played

Then change it to a par 4.  No need to lengthen the hole.  Ignore par and it already delivers high drama with scores from 3 to 7.

[tiderider]

1 hour ago, Golferpaul said:

Then change it to a par 4.  No need to lengthen the hole.  Ignore par and it already delivers high drama with scores from 3 to 7.

no ... par fives invite risk with the ability to gain a stroke over birdie, or two strokes over par ... everyone is making a 4 at the 13th now  ... a few make a 3 ... making it a hard decision to go for the possibility of a 3 is what makes a great par 5 ... par 4s don't offer that ... 

[Cali_Stinger77]

4 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

Then change it to a par 4.  No need to lengthen the hole.  Ignore par and it already delivers high drama with scores from 3 to 7.

Nah changing par would ruin the hole. Lengthening it a bit would bring back the risk/reward aspect to it. As a par 4 that hole would be boring

[rukahs]

Par 4 would be birdie every time. MAKE IT A PAR 3, LEAVE THE TEE WHERE IT IS/WAS. 😄 

[smashdn]

16 hours ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Yes I dont like the length to the 2 holes. Makes them play 3 shots more often. I like risk reward holes and 15 was very boring last year vs being a great hole before.

 

So you like long par fours then?

[MUNIGRIT]

46 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

So you like long par fours then?

Par is irrelevant. I like holes that have scores that have a wide range of outcomes from 3 to 7. When you make it your 3rd shot to the green it takes out a lot of variance to the hole. 

Edited November 29, 2022 by MUNIGRIT

[smashdn]

The ambiguity of the lie in the fairway (plus potentially wind if there is any) dictates the decision to go for the green in two or not.  The bunkers are largely out of play.  The uncertainty of a sidehill lie is muted with a short iron in your hand.  Adding distance for the tee shot is going to force guys to find that flat spot off the tee nearer the creek on the right.  Distance is still very important but this also injects some emphasize on placement as well.  Guys who hit a two good shots are still going to be on in two.  Guys who who hit indifferent shots are either not going to be in a position to go at the green in two or they are going to have to hit a really good long iron or wood to get it on while flirting with the creek front.

 

I get what they are doing.  I am just interested to see what unintended consequences come about due to the added length.  Not just not tempting players to attempt the green in two but does the added length so thoroughly discourage the thought that the tee shots too become blah.

 

Even in it's previous length both Scheffler and Smith played short of the creek (Smith dangerously short) and pitched on in round 4.  Their position on the leaderboard may also dictate that to an extent.

 

The par fives as a whole play about a 1/4 shot under par.  The par fours a 1/4 shot above par and the par threes about 1/5 above par.  The field average (keeping mind you got some past champions in the mix) plays the course 2.10 shots over par (74.1 to a par of 72).

 

As a whole the course is an easy driving course off the tee.  It has some of the highest fairways hit percentages of any regular tour stop course.  But then, as we know, the real challenge is around the greens and the greens themselves.

[smashdn]

https://datagolf.com/important-holes-at-augusta/

 

Unless you make a hole long enough/hard enough to average around 5.5 strokes.  You can get your variability going the other direction as well.  But double bogey is not as entertaining as eagle.

 

  

23 minutes ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Oar is irrelevant. I like holes that have scores that have a wide range of outcomes from 3 to 7. When you make it your 3rd shot to the green it takes out a lot of variance to the hole. 

 

Length adds variance.  More shots = more opportunity to screw up and add variance generally speaking.  13 did have the most variance in relation to par.  7 was another with high variance to par.  (Par in this instance does matter as it is the constant to what the variance/deviation is measured.)

Edited November 29, 2022 by smashdn

[RedWings1]

17 minutes ago, smashdn said:

https://datagolf.com/important-holes-at-augusta/

 

Unless you make a hole long enough/hard enough to average around 5.5 strokes.  You can get your variability going the other direction as well.  But double bogey is not as entertaining as eagle.

 

  

 

Length adds variance.  More shots = more opportunity to screw up and add variance generally speaking.  13 did have the most variance in relation to par.  7 was another with high variance to par.  (Par in this instance does matter as it is the constant to what the variance/deviation is measured.)

Double Bogie is definitely "Not" as entertaining as an Eagle but...
The shake up on the leader board by that double bogie and or an eagle is very interesting.
 

[MUNIGRIT]

20 minutes ago, smashdn said:

https://datagolf.com/important-holes-at-augusta/

 

Unless you make a hole long enough/hard enough to average around 5.5 strokes.  You can get your variability going the other direction as well.  But double bogey is not as entertaining as eagle.

 

  

 

Length adds variance.  More shots = more opportunity to screw up and add variance generally speaking.  13 did have the most variance in relation to par.  7 was another with high variance to par.  (Par in this instance does matter as it is the constant to what the variance/deviation is measured.)

Explain why those who went for green on 15 on their 3rd shot had a lower scoring average of 5.0 vs 5.2 for those going for it in two last year? There is more variance with the risk reward of a 3. Now everyone just plays for par and hope to make a 15 footer for a 4. You can try and explain it anyway you want but 3 shot par 5 are boring holes.

Edited November 29, 2022 by MUNIGRIT

[smashdn]

2 minutes ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Explain why those who went for green on 15 on their 3rd shot had a lower scoring average of 5.0 vs 5.2 for those going for it in two last year? There is more variance with the risk reward of a 3. Now everyone just plays for par and hope to make a 15 footer for a 4. You can try and explain it anyway you want but 3 shot par 5 are boring holes.

 

That's your opinion and I can't nor will I attempt to explain it in a way to change it.  I get what you are saying and if you are measuring outcome based upon score it likely holds true for you.  I am just pointing out that our entertainment may not factor in to what ANGC is trying to accomplish with the changes.  A bet if we took the time to check it out that Sawgrass 17 has more variance than any of the par threes at ANGC.  I don't see them making changes to them to increase the scoring variance though.

[billyspan]

On 11/27/2022 at 5:41 AM, mat562 said:

The only worry I have with the new tee is that it potentially takes the straight tee shot that goes through the fairway into the pine straw out of play, and removes the requirement to shape the ball from the tee to fit into the driving area. Like the bunkers on 18 which went from being real hazards to effectively being out of play when the tees were pushed right back, it may actually make the tee shot easier - even if it takes a driver to get to the corner instead of a 3-wood.

 

 

Check out some of the old Masters final rounds on YouTube.  I believe more trees and definitely the pinestraw were added in late 90s / early 00s.  That area was rather open with fluffy rough!

[jonsnow]

I think #13 is one of the most exciting holes in tournament golf as is. I hope the changes don't take that aspect away. If a player is in contention there is pressure to birdie #13 or they feel like they are losing a shot to the field. A lot of players have felt forced to go for the green in two even when their tee shot didn't leave them in a good spot to do so. Some have pulled it off (Mickelson in 2010), some haven't (Strange in 1985). 

[Hankshank]

1 hour ago, jonsnow said:

I think #13 is one of the most exciting holes in tournament golf as is. I hope the changes don't take that aspect away. If a player is in contention there is pressure to birdie #13 or they feel like they are losing a shot to the field. A lot of players have felt forced to go for the green in two even when their tee shot didn't leave them in a good spot to do so. Some have pulled it off (Mickelson in 2010), some haven't (Strange in 1985). 

I agree wholeheartedly, but the extra yards will will do it good. Or rather - we'll see!

 

[tiderider]

On 11/28/2022 at 11:52 AM, smashdn said:

 

Was there something preventing the other players in the field from laying up and then making birdie on the par fives?

 

What's the saying, when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.  If "power golf" is not getting the job done, might not be a bad idea to get the ball in a position to score another way right?

 

 

It's almost like they are out there on the course trying to play golf in a manner that gives the best chance to win with absolutely no regard for our level of entertainment and enjoyment.  Pretty selfish of those guys if you ask me.

yeah, think i remember zj birdied the par fives 12/16 times that week, or something close to that ... 

[Golferpaul]

On 11/28/2022 at 6:32 PM, tiderider said:

no ... par fives invite risk with the ability to gain a stroke over birdie, or two strokes over par ... everyone is making a 4 at the 13th now  ... a few make a 3 ... making it a hard decision to go for the possibility of a 3 is what makes a great par 5 ... par 4s don't offer that ... 

"Everyone is making a 4 at the 13th". NO, not even close.

 

Forget par.  It's meaningless to me (but not to the USGA).

 

I think what makes holes exciting is the variety of scores.  Boring holes are where everybody makes par or birdie.  Exciting holes have scores from eagle to double bogey.

 

So, let's look at last year's Masters.

 

I only looked at the top ten finishers.  Here are their stats;

 

4 threes

13 fours

20 fives

2 sixes

1 seven

 

The longest hitter (Champ) only birdied it one time.

 

I would say that with such a wide variety of scores just among the top ten that #13 has remained a very exciting hole.  It could have produced a five-stroke swing.

 

 

[Golferpaul]

On 11/29/2022 at 8:06 AM, MUNIGRIT said:

Par is irrelevant. I like holes that have scores that have a wide range of outcomes from 3 to 7. When you make it your 3rd shot to the green it takes out a lot of variance to the hole. 

I agree, and #13 delivered that result last year.

[Hankshank]

Saw that old topographical sketch of the course again, and yes, there seems to have been a creek running in the holes 9+18 valley before the course was built… could have done wonders to holes 17, 18 and 9…

 

Anxious looks from players, thrills and reactions from patrons, that is what makes amen corner and holes 15-16 great. That creek could, with my ideas and the careful hands of say Hanse introduce that to the two holes that ought to have the most drama on every televised course, namely the last two. And the 9th could be SO much more exciting. And more important, the CEO’s would have to show the stamina that made them CEO’s, making the approach to last for everyone to see. A shank there should really, really hurt. That’s what persons becoming a CEO ought to love.
 

Only problem, Players and patrons, and on other times of the year, the CEO”s would be probably exhaused by excitement. 
 

Besides, more generally, and this is what is the case on many a good golf course I have played, including the Old Course at St Andrews - the first shot on the first tee, and the whole last hole should be played with people ready to see a possible failure. This is why I love golf, played by my own or watched played by others. It should always be hard and honestly exciting.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by Hankshank

[cardia10]

On 11/28/2022 at 2:48 PM, smashdn said:

 

Do you think, in this particular case, ANGC is more concerned with ANGC the course or The Masters? 

 

Are architects and advisors misguided in these particular changes or in general, moving tees back to "retain certain shot values" as they say?

 

They could have left it at 465 yards if they wished.  Nearly everything that made the hole difficult is now largely rendered moot due to both distances and spin (at the pro level).  maybe they would have been better served to have stayed the same, the scores become laughable, and perhaps that would have forced the ruling bodies' hand?

100% the Masters and trying to keep the perception that it is a difficult course. Knowing many that have played it and shot under 80 as 5-10 handicaps, they all say the difficulty is around the greens and from the members tees, the rough and tree area is so well manicured, you can hit it off the map and it still be playable. I think the added yards will hurt maybe half the field but the bombers will still do what they always do.

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, cardia10 said:

100% the Masters and trying to keep the perception that it is a difficult course. 

 

Why would they be intent then to continue the Bobby Jones position regarding half par holes, especially the par fives?  If difficulty were the intention couldn't they just add some bunkering or other hazards/features into the driving areas?

 

I agree with you regarding the added distance and the bombers.  There was data published a few years back during the "Tiger-proofing" days that courses that added distance didn't combat distance but rather increased the advantage of those who could hit it farther.

 

Back to Bobby Jones' mantras, he also contended that all par fives should be reachable in two by the longer hitters provided they execute.  Setting up a hole in a way that doesn't allow that, under most conditions, runs counter to his wishes I would think.

[Golferpaul]

On 11/29/2022 at 8:14 AM, smashdn said:

The ambiguity of the lie in the fairway (plus potentially wind if there is any) dictates the decision to go for the green in two or not.  The bunkers are largely out of play.  The uncertainty of a sidehill lie is muted with a short iron in your hand.  Adding distance for the tee shot is going to force guys to find that flat spot off the tee nearer the creek on the right.  Distance is still very important but this also injects some emphasize on placement as well.  Guys who hit a two good shots are still going to be on in two.  Guys who who hit indifferent shots are either not going to be in a position to go at the green in two or they are going to have to hit a really good long iron or wood to get it on while flirting with the creek front.

 

I get what they are doing.  I am just interested to see what unintended consequences come about due to the added length.  Not just not tempting players to attempt the green in two but does the added length so thoroughly discourage the thought that the tee shots too become blah.

 

Even in it's previous length both Scheffler and Smith played short of the creek (Smith dangerously short) and pitched on in round 4.  Their position on the leaderboard may also dictate that to an extent.

 

The par fives as a whole play about a 1/4 shot under par.  The par fours a 1/4 shot above par and the par threes about 1/5 above par.  The field average (keeping mind you got some past champions in the mix) plays the course 2.10 shots over par (74.1 to a par of 72).

 

As a whole the course is an easy driving course off the tee.  It has some of the highest fairways hit percentages of any regular tour stop course.  But then, as we know, the real challenge is around the greens and the greens themselves.

With the best players in the world making 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, I think #13 offers some of the most excitement in golf.  A four-stroke swing is possible.  What other holes offer such excitement?