Augusta - future course changes?

[Hawkeye77]

4 hours ago, MattyO1984 said:

I don't want to offend @cardoustie but lengthening the 16th might just be the most horrific thing I have read on here today. I would accept that adding 20 yards to make it 190 still really does not make it a long par 3 but why mess with a gem? The excitement that 16 provides during the week and particularly with the funnel pin on Sunday should make it untouchable as a hole. 

 

Agree re the tree on 17. Overall, for what is obvious a spectacular course, the last couple of holes for me are a little bit meh. Nowhere near as visually stunning as the holes that go before them which has always struck me as odd. Getting a tree back on 17 would definitely add something. 

 

Actually the tournament tees are at 190, at least that's what I'm finding, articles are all over the place, lol.  So maybe my call for lengthening is simply make 'em play it back further more often.  The green was redone and is supposed to be tougher so maybe it's not as receptive to a longer iron and maybe I'm underestimating the hole for that reason.  

 

But for comparison sake - Nicklaus hit 5i in '86, Faldo appeared to hit 5 in '97 (Norman tried to "hook a 6" in there).  Now 8i seems the club of choice or often less (again, the tees can move around a bit).  Yes lofts may be a tad stronger even for the pros, but ball goes further, etc. 

 

It's still a challenging hole - but 8i/9i is not what was intended after the 1947 lengthening.  The idea was to require significantly different irons than No. 12.

 

I'm going to search for its average scores over the years - that probably tells the tale - if it's holding steady I withdraw my call to lengthen, lol.  If it's going down - make it a little longer, IMO - heck even 200 vs. 190.

 

Edit:  seems to be a little easier in recent years, but what sticks out to me is looking at the averages of the holes in one over time and those have gone down in a big way the last 10-20 years at 16.  Seems to be set up to play shorter more often.

Edited April 3 by Hawkeye77

[stinger_gc]

1 hour ago, woahnelly said:

 

They should put a plaque of Louies face on the #2 fairway from where he made his albatross. 

The tee boxes on 2 should be Louis on his John Deere tractor 

[cardoustie]

5 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Actually the tournament tees are at 190, at least that's what I'm finding, articles are all over the place, lol.  So maybe my call for lengthening is simply make 'em play it back further more often.  The green was redone and is supposed to be tougher so maybe it's not as receptive to a longer iron and maybe I'm underestimating the hole for that reason.  

 

But for comparison sake - Nicklaus hit 5i in '86, Faldo appeared to hit 5 in '97 (Norman tried to "hook a 6" in there).  Now 8i seems the club of choice or often less (again, the tees can move around a bit).  Yes lofts may be a tad stronger even for the pros, but ball goes further, etc. 

 

It's still a challenging hole - but 8i/9i is not what was intended after the 1947 lengthening.  The idea was to require significantly different irons than No. 12.

 

I'm going to search for its average scores over the years - that probably tells the tale - if it's holding steady I withdraw my call to lengthen, lol.  If it's going down - make it a little longer, IMO - heck even 200 vs. 190.

 

Edit:  seems to be a little easier in recent years, but what sticks out to me is looking at the averages of the holes in one over time and those have gone down in a big way the last 10-20 years at 16.  Seems to be set up to play shorter more often.

Flying a nine iron back left way easier than a 6

 

the other change was it used to be in a way harder spot on Sundays .. top of back right shelf 

 

would love to see it 2 hundo and I am sure Fazio had said the same 

[3whacker]

you cant just add distance to a golf course, the greens werent designed for the shots the guys are hitting today, I watched a video of 86 Jack N @ 15 and he took 4 iron into that hole from 200 yds...you put a four iron in the guys hands from 200 and they are going to fly the green and land in the water behind the hole, they have all but eliminated the long and mid iron at ANGC

[cardoustie]

5 minutes ago, 3whacker said:

you cant just add distance to a golf course, the greens werent designed for the shots the guys are hitting today, I watched a video of 86 Jack N @ 15 and he took 4 iron into that hole from 200 yds...you put a four iron in the guys hands from 200 and they are going to fly the green and land in the water behind the hole, they have all but eliminated the long and mid iron at ANGC

They are going to hit a 6 .. guess what, it’s the same club as a 1986 four iron, length and loft wise 

[ode]

On 4/2/2024 at 10:24 AM, Ferguson said:

tongue

First thing I noticed.....also makes it look much more intimidating as it appears REALLY narrow!

[Potatohead]

1 - It's ok, maybe make the right side of the green fall off further and more penal

2 - Perfect

3 - Great hole, especially the left pin placements

4 - It's meh and I can't think of how to make it much better without butchering it

5 - Good hole, could shallow out the left side of the fairway maybe

6 - Needs something... Maybe less severity on the green for the back right pins but make over the green or right absolutely dead

7 - Shorten it 20 yards and keep it narrow

8 - Good hole, I'd like to see the trees pinch in on the left towards the green more, then make the right bail out area a very difficult shot into the green, like the large mounds currently on the left, make those on the right too

9 - Like #4, just kind of meh, can't think of much to make it better. Maybe 20 yards longer so guys can't always drive to the bottom of the hill. That sidehill lie uphill shot across the greenside bunkers is very difficult

10 - Leave it

11 - Bring in the trees on the right a touch making it more of a dogleg

12 - Leave

13 - Tee 20-30 yards back and a bit left, maybe remove a few trees on the through/right side

14 - see #4

15 - 30 yards longer so drives end up on the uphill slope, would require making over the green a little less dead especially on the left side if guys are going to hit woods into there

16 - Agree with OP, 20-25 yards longer, can move the tee up for the front right and back right pin locations

17 - Put the tree back

18 - Put another bunker on the left out about 280 out pinching the left side of the fairway a bit more

[MJC0522]

Greatest par 3's in the world are short irons. ANGC can easily make 16 harder by firming it up and changing pins to near impossible spots. I don't think length is the answer. Plus nobody really enjoys seeing a 4 iron into a par 3, it takes the strategy out as they all just aim for the middle of the green and take par. 16 is meant to be a very birdie-able hole, with risk being there as well. Just look at 2005 and 2019. I could be wrong but I don't think we'll ever see them change one of the most iconic par 3's into a dull 4 iron.

[Potatohead]

1 minute ago, MJC0522 said:

Greatest par 3's in the world are short irons. ANGC can easily make 16 harder by firming it up and changing pins to near impossible spots. I don't think length is the answer. Plus nobody really enjoys seeing a 4 iron into a par 3, it takes the strategy out as they all just aim for the middle of the green and take par. 16 is meant to be a very birdie-able hole, with risk being there as well. Just look at 2005 and 2019. I could be wrong but I don't think we'll ever see them change one of the most iconic par 3's into a dull 4 iron.

 

It used to be a six iron, now it is mainly eight or even nine. 

[MJC0522]

Just now, Potatohead said:

 

It used to be a six iron, now it is mainly eight or even nine. 

Yes, but the loft of those 6 irons were much weaker back then, the equivalent of 7 irons and some 8 irons now. 190 yards is 190 yards when it comes to hitting an iron. If a hole doesn't require a driver then distance changes are minimal IMO. I just love watching short par 3's. I thought the LACC short hole was brilliant this year and I hate to see the character lost just because these guys are so good. 

[Avidswampthing66]

11 hours ago, stinger_gc said:

I’d like to see the 16th hole have a stadium around it and watch the caddies race. 

Racing caddies?!! 🤣 😂

 

[chillybilly]

14 hours ago, Potatohead said:

15 - 30 yards longer so drives end up on the uphill slope, would require making over the green a little less dead especially on the left side if guys are going to hit woods into there

 

 

Apologies for truncating your list but on this particular item...I wondered where the tee might be moved but an aerial view shows there might be some room behind the tee going back to the property line.

 

It's actually quite crowded/busy in that area (note the group playing 10 when the satellite flew over - the bastards 😉).

 

Foot traffic management already seems tricky to say nothing of golf balls hit by the world's best players whizzing about!

 

I suppose this is ANGC's ongoing challenge vis-a-vis distance and preserving the spirit of the course & holes.

 

This overhead view also demonstrates what we already knew ie ANGC are VERY particular about camera and drone angles making it appear that each hole stands alone and apart when, in reality, there are some very tightly-packed spaces on the property.

 

Drone HEIGHT also seems to be tightly controlled ie the drones go no higher than the treetops, making it look as if the course is surrounded by miles of woods.

 

As Jack Nicklaus said of the lengthening of #1 (by shifting the tee back) - 'Eventually they might have us tee off from downtown.'

 

In addition to seeing the sheer beauty of the place and the steepness of the slopes, attending the Masters makes one realize just how different in-person and TV views/perspectives really are.

 

 

 

Edited April 4 by chillybilly

[EagleAteBirdie]

ANGC would be better off asking ChatGPT what Bobby Jones would do.

[Hawkeye77]

15 hours ago, 3whacker said:

you cant just add distance to a golf course, the greens werent designed for the shots the guys are hitting today, I watched a video of 86 Jack N @ 15 and he took 4 iron into that hole from 200 yds...you put a four iron in the guys hands from 200 and they are going to fly the green and land in the water behind the hole, they have all but eliminated the long and mid iron at ANGC

Only if you look at the number on the club.

 

I agree you just can't add distance every time as an answer, but he is right, modern 6 vs. old 4 as an example and they've done work on the greens on several holes over the years to account for changes in the game, etc.

Edited April 4 by Hawkeye77

[Hawkeye77]

15 hours ago, Potatohead said:

 

It used to be a six iron, now it is mainly eight or even nine. 

Actually at least a 5 for most and plenty of good and famous shots hit into 16, but the pin was in a different place on Sunday and the green was contoured differently.

[Hawkeye77]

15 hours ago, cardoustie said:

They are going to hit a 6 .. guess what, it’s the same club as a 1986 four iron, length and loft wise 

And differences in the golf ball distance wise and otherwise - so even an easier shot than with an old 4!

[hammersia]

On 4/3/2024 at 2:01 PM, cardoustie said:

Matty, it takes more to offend me sir

 

I agree with you, 17 and 18 are a terrible let down after 11-16

17 and 18 are for the connoisseurs like me, after the rufty tufty ness of 11 to 16 which are for the masses.

 

I always find the first unattractive, clear out a lot of the trees on the right so you can see all the hole from the elevated tee and have a flat landing area at a somewhat sensible distance. It's a ridiculous lottery of a hole at the moment. 

[Hawkeye77]

5 minutes ago, hammersia said:

17 and 18 are for the connoisseurs like me, after the rufty tufty ness of 11 to 16 which are for the masses.

 

I always find the first unattractive, clear out a lot of the trees on the right so you can see all the hole from the elevated tee and have a flat landing area at a somewhat sensible distance. It's a ridiculous lottery of a hole at the moment. 

 

I've always liked 17 - has provided plenty of drama over the years and the positioning to approach the green and more so the approach itself to a pretty interesting green is a fun watch for me.  Long miss on and left, short miss over and so forth - tricky.

[mat562]

5 hours ago, chillybilly said:

 

...attending the Masters makes one realize just how different in-person and TV views/perspectives really are.

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree. 

 

I was amazed at the severity of some of the slopes and, as someone who always drew the ball, and imagined that the 10th and 14th would be easy tee shots for me, just how acute some of the angles actually are.

 

It was Google Earth that really opened my eyes, not my first visit to the course, but I had also always imagined the trees behind the 13th to be the edge of a large and ancient forest. In actual fact they're just a screen that separates the hole from some sort of industrial estate. It's still amazing to me that you re-watch Faldo rifling in that 2-iron, and Mickelson firing away from behind that tree, and someone could have been loading up a van with scrap metal just behind where the balls landed. As someone from Sheffield, it's also amusing to me that the road's evidently called Yorkshire Drive.

Edited April 4 by mat562

[Socrates]

16 minutes ago, mat562 said:

 

I wholeheartedly agree. 

 

I was amazed at the severity of some of the slopes and, as someone who always drew the ball, and imagined that the 10th and 14th would be easy tee shots for me, just how acute some of the angles actually are.

 

It was Google Earth that really opened my eyes, not my first visit to the course, but I had always imaged the trees behind the 13th to be the edge of a large and ancient forest. In actual fact they're just a screen that separates the hole from some sort of industrial estate. It's still amazing to me that you re-watch Faldo rifling in that 2-iron, and Mickelson firing away from behind that tree, and someone could have been loading up a van with scrap metal just behind where the balls landed. As someone from Sheffield, it's also amusing to me that the road's evidently called Yorkshire Drive.

That "industrial estate" is Berkmans Place and building that I assume is a merchandise centre.  Bermans Place is where the golf "royalty" go to hobnob and ask if they have any Grey Poupon?

Edited April 4 by Socrates

[Hawkeye77]

34 minutes ago, mat562 said:

 

I wholeheartedly agree. 

 

I was amazed at the severity of some of the slopes and, as someone who always drew the ball, and imagined that the 10th and 14th would be easy tee shots for me, just how acute some of the angles actually are.

 

It was Google Earth that really opened my eyes, not my first visit to the course, but I had always imaged the trees behind the 13th to be the edge of a large and ancient forest. In actual fact they're just a screen that separates the hole from some sort of industrial estate. It's still amazing to me that you re-watch Faldo rifling in that 2-iron, and Mickelson firing away from behind that tree, and someone could have been loading up a van with scrap metal just behind where the balls landed. As someone from Sheffield, it's also amusing to me that the road's evidently called Yorkshire Drive.

It’s amazing! My daughter had to tell me to stop looking for weeds, lol. 

[Socrates]

53 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

It’s amazing! My daughter had to tell me to stop looking for weeds, lol. 

When I was first there, I looked a little deeper into the foliage on a couple of holes.  Most courses you wouldn't see anything pruned beyond the outside edge.  I think you could go as deep into the trees as you wanted and they would still be pruned for optimal growth.  They missed nothing.

[Nard_S]

I always find myself wondering why the greens are not faster in 1st few rounds. The course becomes something else when hitting away and lagging up to challenging pins. Always seems things are too receptive for that till maybe last 1/3 of tournament. 

[PedronNiall]

19 hours ago, 3whacker said:

you cant just add distance to a golf course, the greens werent designed for the shots the guys are hitting today, I watched a video of 86 Jack N @ 15 and he took 4 iron into that hole from 200 yds...you put a four iron in the guys hands from 200 and they are going to fly the green and land in the water behind the hole, they have all but eliminated the long and mid iron at ANGC

 

This still seems to be missed in some of the arguments below. Putting the 'equivalent' modern iron in players' hands and calling it a day isn't going to work. Putting aside that not all sets are loft jacked out the wazoo, if you compare loft for loft, as beautifully as AN was maintained in Jack's day, the improvements in agronomy since have changed what those greens will hold. Loft for loft, some of the shots of old are not staying on those greens or getting nearly as close. 

 

Tossing distance on for iron shots only makes sense if the complex will still allow a payoff for well-struck shots in the same way they used to--since nostalgic comparisons are the goal here. I'm seeing a lot of claiming it needs to happen without reasoning showing shots into those greens will still play out in ways the players & fans can get excited about.

 

ANGC is supposed to be about a premium on understanding the course and the risk & reward of different landing locations for each day's tees & pin placements. That's not going to be preserved by tossing even more distance at every hole simply because players are now longer. 

[Socrates]

6 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

This still seems to be missed in some of the arguments below. Putting the 'equivalent' modern iron in players' hands and calling it a day isn't going to work. Putting aside that not all sets are loft jacked out the wazoo, if you compare loft for loft, as beautifully as AN was maintained in Jack's day, the improvements in agronomy since have changed what those greens will hold. Loft for loft, some of the shots of old are not staying on those greens or getting nearly as close. 

 

Tossing distance on for iron shots only makes sense if the complex will still allow a payoff for well-struck shots in the same way they used to--since nostalgic comparisons are the goal here. I'm seeing a lot of claiming it needs to happen without reasoning showing shots into those greens will still play out in ways the players & fans can get excited about.

 

ANGC is supposed to be about a premium on understanding the course and the risk & reward of different landing locations for each day's tees & pin placements. That's not going to be preserved by tossing even more distance at every hole simply because players are now longer. 

In that vein, they have gone to great lengths to preserve the greens (slopes etc...) to exactly what they were in the past, no matter what renovations take place.  If they want to make the criteria for shots become more important, they could easily change the green structure.  Doesn't need crazy changes, but I'm sure they could change things so that different slopes come into play and put even a greater emphasis on shot placement.  You don't need a "clown's nose" or anything, but since they easily tear greens down regularly, subtle changes could be made to them.

[Hawkeye77]

9 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

This still seems to be missed in some of the arguments below. Putting the 'equivalent' modern iron in players' hands and calling it a day isn't going to work. Putting aside that not all sets are loft jacked out the wazoo, if you compare loft for loft, as beautifully as AN was maintained in Jack's day, the improvements in agronomy since have changed what those greens will hold. Loft for loft, some of the shots of old are not staying on those greens or getting nearly as close. 

 

Tossing distance on for iron shots only makes sense if the complex will still allow a payoff for well-struck shots in the same way they used to--since nostalgic comparisons are the goal here. I'm seeing a lot of claiming it needs to happen without reasoning showing shots into those greens will still play out in ways the players & fans can get excited about.

 

ANGC is supposed to be about a premium on understanding the course and the risk & reward of different landing locations for each day's tees & pin placements. That's not going to be preserved by tossing even more distance at every hole simply because players are now longer. 

Not missed at all in the discussion - nobody is suggesting merely “tossing” in distance as an end itself. The comment you are quoting was WAY off - nobody is suggesting the modern player hit 4i from 200 - it was a complete non sequitur.

[MJC0522]

48 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

This still seems to be missed in some of the arguments below. Putting the 'equivalent' modern iron in players' hands and calling it a day isn't going to work. Putting aside that not all sets are loft jacked out the wazoo, if you compare loft for loft, as beautifully as AN was maintained in Jack's day, the improvements in agronomy since have changed what those greens will hold. Loft for loft, some of the shots of old are not staying on those greens or getting nearly as close. 

 

Tossing distance on for iron shots only makes sense if the complex will still allow a payoff for well-struck shots in the same way they used to--since nostalgic comparisons are the goal here. I'm seeing a lot of claiming it needs to happen without reasoning showing shots into those greens will still play out in ways the players & fans can get excited about.

 

ANGC is supposed to be about a premium on understanding the course and the risk & reward of different landing locations for each day's tees & pin placements. That's not going to be preserved by tossing even more distance at every hole simply because players are now longer. 

I agree. I don't think we are accounting for how hard that hole can play on Sunday (190 and breezy). They don't want a 215 yrd par 3 that is a long iron to the middle of the green and a lag up. They want risk and reward, they want birdies if you play the slope right. That was Bobby Jones intention. If they miss that slope to the right on Sunday they have an awful putt down that slope that's near impossible to 2 putt. IMO it's one of the greatest Par 3's in the world. If you want to make the scoring avg harder on Sunday Firm the greens up a hair and tuck a few pins. They could make that place play over par easy if they wished without adding a yard.

 

[3whacker]

4 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Only if you look at the number on the club.

 

I agree you just can't add distance every time as an answer, but he is right, modern 6 vs. old 4 as an example and they've done work on the greens on several holes over the years to account for changes in the game, etc.

in 1986  I lived in DFW and I was given a set of brand new Hogan PC's and I remember the 5 iron was 37.5 in and 30 degrees in loft and that was BH standard at the time, so my 4 iron had to be 26 degrees...I know Yonex used to jack their standard lofts which is why they had a #10 iron, but please tell me who has a factory 26 degree six iron besides BDC

[gvogel]

On 4/2/2024 at 3:08 PM, StoutKing said:

THankfully that's not the original 8th.  I think someone at the club went rogue.

I think that it was Clifford Roberts who came up with that green.  Thankfully it was restored with the humps on both sides.

[gvogel]

I would like to see the original creek in front of 12 and 16, instead of the ponds.  The ponds are artificial.  The creek was always there.  Jones, in one of his books, describes getting to the 12th green by going over stepping stones in the creek.  Now that's original!

 

Other than that, get rid of the trees that Hootie planted, and put up with lower scores.