EarthGolf

(Note: I put this article together prior to the Masters - March 28th to be exact - and am just now publishing it. I’m using it more as a “test” blog to see what an article looks like on the new website.)

I’ll be attending a practice round again this year at Augusta National Golf Club for the 2007 edition of the Masters. Below is a piece meal blog that I’ve been working on for the better part of two weeks.

March 15, 2007

The Masters to me, like many folks who love golf, is by far the most entertaining and exciting sporting event of the year. However, I fear that may change sooner rather than later. And it’s all about the course changes. While the great courses are removing trees, Augusta is adding more and making holes that used to be interesting, boring.

Brad Klein talks about Augusta’s fall from grace - down to the 10th best course in the country.

It’s sad, because after walking the course, I just can’t believe how good the routing of the course is. I’ve walked or played a lot of courses that are considered “great”, but nothing I’ve been on tops Augusta’s routing.

The sad part is that it is being ruined by tree planting and course changes. I can’t tell you how ugly and out of character the trees to the right of 11 are.

I’ll be making a return to trip to Augusta this year - and I know I’ll still be in awe of the place. But I fear for the future of the course. As courses like Oakmont become better with the removal of trees that restore the original sight lines and options, Augusta is going to opposite way. Why? Hootie said because he wants to restore the “shot values” that Bobby Jones and Alister MacKenzie originally designed. I’ve read enough about both men to know they’d be spinning in their graves at what’s happened to their course.

So what is the solution - how do we go about getting the emphasis away from being concerned over the winning score’s relation to par? Let’s be honest - the changes at Augusta aren’t being done to restore shot values - it’s the fear of the course becoming embarrassingly easy for the pros.

In my opinion, there are two solutions:

1. Play a tournament ball. Force all players to use the same ball that is rolled back to pre-1995 technology.
2. Get rid of the score relative to par and simply make scoring by total strokes.

Then get rid of the trees. Of all the changes at Augusta, the addition of trees to 7, 11, 15 and 17 are really the only ones that bother me. (Well, that and the “second cut”.) Remove the trees and second cut and Augusta can not only regain it’s top 3 ranking, it can become the exciting and interesting course that Jones and MacKenzie intended to be.

March 23, 2007

When I say “save Augusta”, I’m talking about saving it from itself. Keeping Fazio from totally destroying what was once a highly unique inland course. Now, as Geoff Shackelford put it so well, it looks like any other golf course you’d see when you’re flying into O’Hare.

March 24, 2007

Well, right on cue, from Tim Rosaforte in this week’s (3/23/07) Golf World:

If Billy Payne wants to “Tigerproof” Augusta National GC, he shouldn’t lengthen the course as Hootie Johnson did, he should shorten it and change the 13th and 15th holes from par 5s to par 4s.

First, let’s define “Tigerproof”: There is not such thing.

But consider for one second the 13th and 15th holes at Augusta as par 4s - and even worse still - shortening them. How disastrous would this be? This is EXACTLY why I’m advocating either doing away with scoring relative to par (If you don’t think it’s a big deal - you’re wrong. Check out “Making the conversion” in the March 23rd edition of Golf World, also by Rosaforte.) or, better still, going to a tournament ball.

The 13th at Augusta is arguably the best golf hole in the world - and, without a doubt, in professional tournament play. The 15th is a very good par 5 coming at an important time in the tournament - it provides for miracle comebacks (1998, final round, Fred Couples) and signs death warrants with eerie regularity. Converting either of these holes into par 4s would suck the life out of the Masters. It would have ZERO impact on Tiger Woods. It is drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa - only worse.

I certainly hope that Rosaforte was being flippant with his comment, but I know he wasn’t. To suggest the ultimate disgracing of Augusta National, after all it has been nearly pockmarked to death already, shows a total lack of understanding of why Augusta National and the Masters is golf’s best tournament at best and zero knowledge of the game of golf at worst.

March 27, 2007

Geoff Ogilvy, the winner of the 2006 US Open, is probably the most interesting golfer to come along in some time. He continues to provide interesting and frank commentary on a number of subjects related to golf - he’s a guy who “gets it”.

You don’t need an array of shots any more, and that’s not good for spectators. Who wants to watch us drive into the rough, chip out to 80 yards, and try to get up and down? There is no excitement in that, no imagination or strategy. One day, somebody will realise that the score relative to par does not reflect the quality of a golf tournament.

March 28, 2007

The April 2007 edition of “Links” magazine’s (which isn’t online yet) cover story is “What’s Next: A new leader, future champions, architects’ ideas for course changes”. The focus is on what changes architects would make to Augusta National to restore MacKenzie and Jones’ original design philosophy to ANGC. The magazine features an article written by Geoff Shackelford - which means it’s excellent - titled “Masters Plan” and has many excellent tidbits.

A few highlights:

Great golf courses may be considered works of art, but their owners hardly treat them as such. While adding even a single bruch stroke to the Mona Lisa or building another Taj Mahal would be considered unthinkable, their counterparts in golf are constantly undergoing revisions, redesigns and restorations.

…most of the architects polled recommenced that instead of changing the course, the Masters should develop a tournament ball to prevent future obsolescence.

Augusta National’s recent installation of the “second cut” along with liberal pine-tree planting led all of the architects we questioned to unanimously recommend that the club restore the design to the wider, less cluttered look that could be found during Tiger Woods’ 1997 victory.

Mike Clayton, a former Tom Doak associate, berated the addition of trees to 11 and 15. The money quote:

The holes are harder, but are they better?

The magazine also features drawings from four architects on changes to the course in the article titled, “Drawing Interest”. Below are my thoughts and grades on what the architects suggested:

Michael Benkusky: Benkusky suggests restoring the bunkers to the original MacKenzie style (ala the not in play bunker at the 10th), widening the fairways and pine straw areas, additional mounding and larger, lobed greens. All excellent suggestions.

Mike DeVries: DeVries suggests only changes to the 11th and it doesn’t include removal of the newly planted trees. Rather, he suggests adding more trees, bringing Rae’s Creek more into play behind the green, reconfiguring the green and greenside bunker to a larger, more irregular shape. The addition of still more trees to the 11th is absurd. His suggestion to move the creek into play is a good one - but the way he lays it out in his drawing actually shows little change to where Rae’s Creek currently is located. The irregular shaped green and bunker are nice, but are purely aesthetic changes that really don’t add anything to the strategic interest of the hole.

Kelly Blake Moran: Moran suggests changes to the 11th and 15th. On the 11th, he removes all of the trees that have been added and then some. He also adds a bunker to the middle of the fairway, reconfigures the creek to bring it into play (in the correct fashion), and expands the green adding more pin placements. Here’s the really cool part (I don’t know if he knew this or not), the 11th actually had a bunker in the middle of the fairway as late as WWII, so he’s actually restoring a bunker that Bobby Jones put in the original design. The 15th sees similar changes to the 11th, except he returns the strategic value of the trees that existed at the 15th prior to the tree nursery being added. He also connects the pond in front of the 15th to the pond in front of the 16th. Moran’s suggestions are excellent and exactly what the good Doctor would have ordered.

David Esler: Esler’s only suggestion was restoration of the bunkers to rugged edges and darker sand. Both good ideas, but relatively unimaginative.

Hopefully these articles will be online soon.

(Image Credit: EarthGolf) 

Popularity: 7% [?]