Will we ever see the "old" Augusta again? as in: no rough?
#1
Posted 24 March 2009 - 07:12 PM
#2
Posted 24 March 2009 - 07:29 PM
#3
Posted 24 March 2009 - 07:30 PM
#4
Posted 24 March 2009 - 07:42 PM
Keep the length - although there are certain spots, like 7, where it seems they added length just to add it. The golf course is too much of a grind right now.
#5
Posted 24 March 2009 - 07:52 PM
donzo, on Mar 24 2009, 07:29 PM, said:
#6
Posted 24 March 2009 - 08:02 PM
#7
Posted 24 March 2009 - 08:05 PM
.
.
.
.
.
For an LPGA Major!
I'd like to see them pull back some of the changes they've made over the last 4 year for the Masters. Would be nice to give the guys a chance to be able to shoot a 30 on the back nine on Sunday. Hogan shot 14 under in 1953 to win it, Nicklaus shot 17 under in the 60's. What the heck is wrong with being able to shoot 14-17 under?
#8
Posted 24 March 2009 - 08:26 PM
donzo, on Mar 24 2009, 08:29 PM, said:
Asleep, on Mar 24 2009, 08:52 PM, said:
donzo, on Mar 24 2009, 07:29 PM, said:
Yes but you gotta remember, its much more of an issue than in the past.... when there was no rough at all
#10
Posted 24 March 2009 - 10:35 PM
The increased length was overdone. That was beyond predictable.
And #13 and #15 should be 2-shot holes if you manage the tee shot. The change I despise most is trees left on #15, forcing layups if you drive left.
But the one alteration I appreciate is #17. That had become too simple as a penultimate hole. I love it when the drives find tree trouble.
#11
Posted 24 March 2009 - 10:55 PM
But hooo-eee, grab you a Castlebury's BBQ samwich and a co-cola for a buck or two and just be in heaven. Heck with pimento cheese. That's yankee vittles. BBQ for me.
#13
Posted 24 March 2009 - 11:52 PM
the other reason is that the Augusta National membership doesnt want just anyone winning their tournament, forget trying to Tiger proof it they eliminate 3/4 of the field before they even tee it up
#16
Posted 25 March 2009 - 11:19 AM
victor2000, on Mar 24 2009, 08:42 PM, said:
Keep the length - although there are certain spots, like 7, where it seems they added length just to add it. The golf course is too much of a grind right now.
I agree except for the rough. Get rid of it. Oh, I'm sorry...the "second cut". Get rid of it. More balls rolled into the pines off to the sides of 9 and 14, etc. than they do now. The second cut seems to hold the ball up so it doesn't roll under a pine. So it reduces the spin...who cares? They figure out how to make it work.
Keep the length, remove the trees...remove the "second cut". While we're at it, bring back the mounds on the right side of 15.
-mini
#17
Posted 25 March 2009 - 11:33 AM
minitour, on Mar 25 2009, 08:19 AM, said:
victor2000, on Mar 24 2009, 08:42 PM, said:
Keep the length - although there are certain spots, like 7, where it seems they added length just to add it. The golf course is too much of a grind right now.
I agree except for the rough. Get rid of it. Oh, I'm sorry...the "second cut". Get rid of it. More balls rolled into the pines off to the sides of 9 and 14, etc. than they do now. The second cut seems to hold the ball up so it doesn't roll under a pine. So it reduces the spin...who cares? They figure out how to make it work.
Keep the length, remove the trees...remove the "second cut". While we're at it, bring back the mounds on the right side of 15.
-mini
+5 points for you!
I loved the "no rough" masters because peopled ended up in the wierdest spots- the rough, contrary to what you would think, actually makes the tournament more predictable. Without rough, people get all sorts of weird bounces and try all sorts of crazy, entertaining shots.
also, I liked the fact that the masters was usually won with -10, -11 type scores. Now it's even par and hang on like crazy. I want at least one major where you CAN go low, not another carbon copy of the US open.
#18
Posted 25 March 2009 - 12:23 PM
McGuire, on Mar 25 2009, 08:15 AM, said:
Wonder grinders?
It seems they have set up the course to stop the bombers now. all about shotmaking and control.
Weir
Zack
Trevor
Not the very top shelf ppl but very good multiple time PGA tour winners.
Although you have a hard time charging the back nine at Augusta it still makes good golf where making par is a birdie in reality.
#19
Posted 25 March 2009 - 12:23 PM
TheCapedAvenger, on Mar 25 2009, 12:33 PM, said:
minitour, on Mar 25 2009, 08:19 AM, said:
victor2000, on Mar 24 2009, 08:42 PM, said:
Keep the length - although there are certain spots, like 7, where it seems they added length just to add it. The golf course is too much of a grind right now.
I agree except for the rough. Get rid of it. Oh, I'm sorry...the "second cut". Get rid of it. More balls rolled into the pines off to the sides of 9 and 14, etc. than they do now. The second cut seems to hold the ball up so it doesn't roll under a pine. So it reduces the spin...who cares? They figure out how to make it work.
Keep the length, remove the trees...remove the "second cut". While we're at it, bring back the mounds on the right side of 15.
-mini
+5 points for you!
I loved the "no rough" masters because peopled ended up in the wierdest spots- the rough, contrary to what you would think, actually makes the tournament more predictable. Without rough, people get all sorts of weird bounces and try all sorts of crazy, entertaining shots.
also, I liked the fact that the masters was usually won with -10, -11 type scores. Now it's even par and hang on like crazy. I want at least one major where you CAN go low, not another carbon copy of the US open.
While I like the idea of removing the second cut, I think with the length (the 11th is over 500 yards now? YGTBSM!) the scores would be higher. I wouldn't mind seeing -4 to -7 winning every year and I think removing the 2nd cut and some of the trees would allow for that.
Augusta is about the roars on Sunday being heard around the course...not guys having to scramble from the trees right of 15 and 11 to make pars.
-mini
#20
Posted 25 March 2009 - 01:25 PM
I preferred no rough, but I think the firmness of the greens is more of an issue if they keep the rough. (The rough probably came in because of the changes in the grooves and golf ball.) The firmness of the greens caused by (or combined with) some less than ideal weather made the approach shots much more difficult in some of the recent years. (Hopefully they will have good weather this year.) I really think they need to make it worth while to go for the back nine par 5's - 13 & 15. These holes set up the ideal heroic type shots that create the excitement. That has been missing. Not good IMO.
In addition, an exciting Masters tournament is one of the most important things that needs to happen if we want to grow the game of golf. Making this a grind fest is not the way to grow the game in my opinion. Only the hardcore golfers like us here can really appreciate a super tough course. Plus, as others have said, we already have the US Open for that. The Masters needs to be different. Hopefully they will make some necessary adjustments which will bring back the excitement.
I know of a number of people - many of them don't play, or rarely play, golf - but who watch The Masters. This is the only golf tournament many of them watch all year. This was because it was typically an exciting tournament and the course's beauty also was important. (Very few commercial interuptions helps as well.) I know of others, including myself, that watching the Masters as a youngster was key in forming a desire to play the game. I assume I'm not alone on these points?
I agree that they should stop worrying about the winning score and set up the course so that fireworks can happen.
#22
Posted 25 March 2009 - 05:11 PM
#23
Posted 25 March 2009 - 09:06 PM
#24
Posted 25 March 2009 - 09:29 PM
Look at some of the past champions - Arnold and Ballesteros, aggressive players with outstanding recovery capabilities, willing to court the risk of bogey to have a chance at birdie or eagle. Recovery skills have become much less appreciated in recent years with the belief that wayward drives should be punished outright, as opposed to being overcome through skill and daring.
Augusta was the ultimate risk reward course. A player in contention on the back nine on Sunday could post a 30, or a 40. Now, that same player is probably hoping to birdie 13 and 15, and par the rest - and he may well win. I don't begrudge Johnson his championship, but when a guy never feels compelled to hit a par 5 in two, the course is not encouraging going low - it is encouraging conservative play.
The USGA has become obsessed with penal rough, and it has spilled over to the PGA Championship and the Masters. Too many fans think that a major is a feat of endurance, instead of a triumph. I hope Mickelson's charge wasn't the last great one we see.
I like the US Open, and I love the way the Masters used to be. The more they resemble each other, the less I care for either.
#25
Posted 26 March 2009 - 10:52 AM
Giantbear, on Mar 25 2009, 10:06 PM, said:
*ahem* "Second" Nine. Technical term. Augusta for "back nine".
-mini
#27
Posted 26 March 2009 - 11:14 AM
#32
Posted 26 March 2009 - 01:39 PM
#34
Posted 26 March 2009 - 05:45 PM
Simp, on Mar 24 2009, 08:12 PM, said:
I would love to see the old Augusta back.
Redo the tees and greens to specs of the old course and require a reduced flight ball. Either have a ball made just for that tournament by one manufacturer or allow all the manufacturers to submit a reduced flight ball for approval. Nicklaus has said this is not the course he won on. Nicklaus advocates rolling the ball back for distance.
Major League Baseball still mandates wooden bats. If aluminum or composite bats were used it would change the game and records would be not comparable. Even the maple bat has done this to some extent.
I would love to see persimmon come back but that will not happen at the Masters but the redo of the course and restricted flight balls are doable. The reduction in groove volume on irons will bring back the style of the old game to some extent.
#35
Posted 26 March 2009 - 09:26 PM
minitour, on Mar 26 2009, 03:13 PM, said:
Indeed. I'm sure you've been to Augusta before since I've seen your posts, but for anyone else, this picture gives a good idea of how shallow/undulating 7 green is. I remember a practice round from I think 2007 where I was following Ernie really late in the afternoon (with a gallery of about 5 people) before they closed the gates. The last hole I saw him play was 7, or at least saw him tee off. He hit three drives and said he hated the hole.
#37
Posted 27 March 2009 - 10:28 AM
#38
Posted 27 March 2009 - 10:36 AM
Still, there is no tournament I look forward to more than the Masters.
#39
Posted 27 March 2009 - 11:08 AM
masegolf1978, on Mar 26 2009, 10:26 PM, said:
minitour, on Mar 26 2009, 03:13 PM, said:
Indeed. I'm sure you've been to Augusta before since I've seen your posts, but for anyone else, this picture gives a good idea of how shallow/undulating 7 green is. I remember a practice round from I think 2007 where I was following Ernie really late in the afternoon (with a gallery of about 5 people) before they closed the gates. The last hole I saw him play was 7, or at least saw him tee off. He hit three drives and said he hated the hole.
It's a real b*tch now, I'm sure. We were there in '07 and from the crosswalk, I couldn't believe how tough that 2nd shot looked. Then we went up by the green and I almost puked. Make them hit a driver? Okay. But give them an 8 or 9 iron into that green. If they want to hit 2 iron, that's fine...but then hit a 5 into the green.
I think that hole is a little quirky now. Same with 9 and the way the "2nd cut" is laid out. The hole runs right, turns left and the "2nd cut" is pretty tight down there on the right. Seems like they have to "lay back" now on 9 to have a shot from the fairway. I'd like to see that widened out a bit. Give them a chance...
-mini
#40
Posted 04 April 2009 - 11:04 AM
Cheers
Scott





Sign In
Register
Help


Quote



















