Is Augusta—set up for The Masters—a good test of golf
- Thread starter Dariusz J.
- Start date
- Status
Dariusz J.
New member
Slowly ahead, thank you.
Dustin Johnson...Dustin Johnson...Dustin...who the hell is Dustin Johnson....ahhh, the guy playing the Rain Man ! Loved that movie !
Cheers
duckjr78
New
Bubba put it in the fairway bunker on 8, couldn't get home in two, but made his par
"Mr. Watson, are you ready for your fitting?"
He also hit a ball in the left trees on another hole on the front side and had to play his punchout with a Georgia pine tree up his backside. Almost holes his wedge, tap in for par.
"This one's a bit tight under the arms."
He missed the fairway on 17, left. Hits a wedge over the trees on the green.
"42 long, please."
He got a lucky break after hitting it right in the playoff, and he hit a wonderful recovery.
"Are you sure this is the right shade of green?"
And he, per Granato's example, hit the ball further than anyone which in reality, required more precision than anyone that week.
"Ah yes, this is the one. I'll take it. What do you mean I can't do donuts in the General Lee with it on!?!?"
Where are these birdies after errant tee shots that you abhor so much?
THE Bobby Jones and Alastair Mackenzie both agreed that golf was not about searching for lost balls. (I'll find the quotes, if you'd like) It was about who could display the most skill in hitting ALL the shots. I'm sorry, because you seem like a decent chap, but you and I, Dariuz, will disagree about this until the day we pass on.
"Mr. Watson, are you ready for your fitting?"
He also hit a ball in the left trees on another hole on the front side and had to play his punchout with a Georgia pine tree up his backside. Almost holes his wedge, tap in for par.
"This one's a bit tight under the arms."
He missed the fairway on 17, left. Hits a wedge over the trees on the green.
"42 long, please."
He got a lucky break after hitting it right in the playoff, and he hit a wonderful recovery.
"Are you sure this is the right shade of green?"
And he, per Granato's example, hit the ball further than anyone which in reality, required more precision than anyone that week.
"Ah yes, this is the one. I'll take it. What do you mean I can't do donuts in the General Lee with it on!?!?"
Where are these birdies after errant tee shots that you abhor so much?
THE Bobby Jones and Alastair Mackenzie both agreed that golf was not about searching for lost balls. (I'll find the quotes, if you'd like) It was about who could display the most skill in hitting ALL the shots. I'm sorry, because you seem like a decent chap, but you and I, Dariuz, will disagree about this until the day we pass on.
Dariusz J.
New member
If one of skills is not sufficient, however, ball might be tough to find. It is that easy.
Cheers
BrendanC
New
I say Oliver1, you really rather do ruddy well write like a chap in one of those odd WWII movies.
Tally ho!
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Three best tests of golf I've ever played:
Chicago Golf Club
San Francisco Golf CLub
Pacific Dunes
But the 1990 era Augusta National Golf Club was something to behold. I never got to play it, some kid made a million putts in a row in '97.....
rats.
Chicago Golf Club
San Francisco Golf CLub
Pacific Dunes
But the 1990 era Augusta National Golf Club was something to behold. I never got to play it, some kid made a million putts in a row in '97.....
rats.
duckjr78
New
So, we get to the root of the problem. You believe that you should be allowed to deem when a skill is not sufficient. Not the great course designers, not the PGA, not the USGA, not the RNA, not Augusta National, and certainly not the majority of the public who loves to watch the long ball. Not any of those bodies, but Dariuz J. You are the one allowed to deem when a specific skill is deficient.
And I thought I had a superiority complex.
This is all tongue in cheek, by the way. Sort of.....
Dariusz J.
New member
Should I write in every post IMO or IMHO ? Who am I to decide something ? I am just expressing my personal opinions and beliefs. If there are no counterarguments to my opinions, of course it is the best to change the friggin subject.
And to decide what skill is sufficient one would need a 10-years old boy's eyes and brain. Not saying anything pejorative to 10-years old boys.
BTW, USGA/R&A kills golf and IMHO IMO this is the last institution that should be allowed to decide anything important.
Cheers
Last edited:
Having rough that is so long that lost balls would occur often is not good course architecture.
Penal long rough anywhere on the course does not contribute to a course being considered
a good test of golf. That has been proven many times in US Open Championships. Long hitters
have an advantage on everyone. Make the fairways tough to hit and they just club down. Most
Tour pros I have known and played with over the years that are truly long, have no problem
hitting long irons or hybrids off the tee to minimize otherwise wild shots with a driver.
In fact, the shorter accurate players lose some advantage when they have to hit driver on a
tight hole versus a player hitting a hybrid the same distance or slightly shorter. Easier to hit
hybrids than drivers, especially when the fairways are narrow and penal rough awaits. Even
if the long hitters lose distance off the tee & end up 20/30 yards farther from the green, they
still have the power to hit the same club into the green that the shorter player who hit driver
farther off the tee. Long penal rough off the fairways rarely levels the playing field between
short and long hitters these days. Also, good luck to those short accurate hitters when they
do find that long penal rough!! lol
Dariusz, you are wrong about tee shots should be as important as approach shots. It really
depends on the hole design. Some fairways are generous and the approach is difficult and
vice versa. Ideally, there should be a nice mix of tough tee shots and tough approaches. But
that always is not a criteria for what constitutes a good test of golf.
There are so many, but, here's a few courses I've played often that I consider a good test...
Oakland Hills
Muirfield Village
Inverness
Oakmont
Riviera
Pasatiempo
Pebble Beach
Spyglass Hill
Penal long rough anywhere on the course does not contribute to a course being considered
a good test of golf. That has been proven many times in US Open Championships. Long hitters
have an advantage on everyone. Make the fairways tough to hit and they just club down. Most
Tour pros I have known and played with over the years that are truly long, have no problem
hitting long irons or hybrids off the tee to minimize otherwise wild shots with a driver.
In fact, the shorter accurate players lose some advantage when they have to hit driver on a
tight hole versus a player hitting a hybrid the same distance or slightly shorter. Easier to hit
hybrids than drivers, especially when the fairways are narrow and penal rough awaits. Even
if the long hitters lose distance off the tee & end up 20/30 yards farther from the green, they
still have the power to hit the same club into the green that the shorter player who hit driver
farther off the tee. Long penal rough off the fairways rarely levels the playing field between
short and long hitters these days. Also, good luck to those short accurate hitters when they
do find that long penal rough!! lol
Dariusz, you are wrong about tee shots should be as important as approach shots. It really
depends on the hole design. Some fairways are generous and the approach is difficult and
vice versa. Ideally, there should be a nice mix of tough tee shots and tough approaches. But
that always is not a criteria for what constitutes a good test of golf.
There are so many, but, here's a few courses I've played often that I consider a good test...
Oakland Hills
Muirfield Village
Inverness
Oakmont
Riviera
Pasatiempo
Pebble Beach
Spyglass Hill
Dariusz J.
New member
Interesting. Even 40-50 yards off the fairway ? Ridiculous.
Again, good thinking at first glance, but totally misguided when analyzed correctly. You need to think about human way of thinking. Why these long hitters do not use hybrids only ? Because it is human brain weakness, misjudging own abilities and skills, tendencies to take risk and reward games.
The reality is that woods are full of long hitters, as someone wise said before. Why ? Because they hit drivers not having good enough skills -- and should be punished. Period.
No. It is you who is wrong. When the best ballstriker that ever lived was asked what are three most important clubs in the bag, he answered: DRIVER, putter and wedge. Tee shots are equally important if not more important shots in real golf.
Cheers
Long rough is not the answer Dariusz. NEVER!! It doesn't prove anything. Just slows the game down.
It's obvious you do not have a good understanding of golf at the highest levels. Long hitters will use
driver where the penalty for a miss is minimal and the distance advantage is great. Those who have
poor judgement and lack skills are rarely contending and/or don't hang onto their playing privileges
for very long. Top long hitting tour pros are smarter than you think. You underestimate their ability to
get out of trouble and to analyze how much trouble they can handle.
I am not wrong Dariusz. I knew that best ball striker and watched him play and practice many times.
He spent a lot of time hitting irons and wedges on the practice tee. Much more than his driver. Get a
clue Dariusz.
Here's three letters you should study and analyze...GIR!! It's where it's at from tee to green.
It's obvious you do not have a good understanding of golf at the highest levels. Long hitters will use
driver where the penalty for a miss is minimal and the distance advantage is great. Those who have
poor judgement and lack skills are rarely contending and/or don't hang onto their playing privileges
for very long. Top long hitting tour pros are smarter than you think. You underestimate their ability to
get out of trouble and to analyze how much trouble they can handle.
I am not wrong Dariusz. I knew that best ball striker and watched him play and practice many times.
He spent a lot of time hitting irons and wedges on the practice tee. Much more than his driver. Get a
clue Dariusz.
Here's three letters you should study and analyze...GIR!! It's where it's at from tee to green.
Dariusz J.
New member
Yeah, because of poor balstrikers that misjudge their skills.
Yeah, must have underestimated Mickelson's ability to analyze how much trouble he could handle in both cases of his triples. ROFL. Your argumentation is just a personal attack and no logical arguments, Mr. Knowing-Golf-at-Highest-Levels.
Before one hits green, one needs to prepare the best position to attack the pin in a given day. How one can do it ? By accurate driving not only on fairway, but also on a given part of the fairway.
Using soccer analogy - a forwarder scores goals because someone else worked out the situation for him. Someone must have cheated defenders of the other team and pass the ball accurately to the scorer. What you want is soccer without defenders.
BTW, you saw Hogan play and practice many times ? Maybe we shall better talk about it -- I will listen, you will talk.
Cheers
How many tour pros do you know that are poor ball strikers and misjudge their skills??
Mickelson is a great player. Won multiple majors and a boat load of tournaments. Whatever
you think you can argue about his poor driving is irrelevant at best. You're talking foolishly.
No personal attack Dariusz, just reality. I know you have a hard time with that. lol
This is golf not soccer. Lousy analogy IMO. As for overly penal long grass, it has already been
proven many times over that it does not deter the longer hitters from winning. Being able to hit
the ball long distances with all clubs is an advantage over those who can't. Always!! Accurate
players better putt well and to do that they better hit the ball close to the hole. How do they do
that?? Good approach shots. Long hitters can have 36 putts and shoot 68. Think about it.
It doesn't matter how you do it, just hit the green in regulation as many times as you can. The
closer the proximity to hole, the more putts you'll make in the long run. You're overstating the
obvious Dariusz talking about hitting fairways and in the right spots. Anyone knows that.
You're probably right with that last statement. I first saw Hogan play in the '62 Masters, first round.
He barely broke 80. I have watched him miss many fairways and shoot many rounds over par. Of
course, I've also watched him play to perfection, especially the back nine at Augusta in '67. That's
the best I've ever seen him play. His practice sessions were a treat to watch. But, most great pros
hit it great in practice. Ever watch Tiger hit balls. WOW!!
Mickelson is a great player. Won multiple majors and a boat load of tournaments. Whatever
you think you can argue about his poor driving is irrelevant at best. You're talking foolishly.
No personal attack Dariusz, just reality. I know you have a hard time with that. lol
This is golf not soccer. Lousy analogy IMO. As for overly penal long grass, it has already been
proven many times over that it does not deter the longer hitters from winning. Being able to hit
the ball long distances with all clubs is an advantage over those who can't. Always!! Accurate
players better putt well and to do that they better hit the ball close to the hole. How do they do
that?? Good approach shots. Long hitters can have 36 putts and shoot 68. Think about it.
It doesn't matter how you do it, just hit the green in regulation as many times as you can. The
closer the proximity to hole, the more putts you'll make in the long run. You're overstating the
obvious Dariusz talking about hitting fairways and in the right spots. Anyone knows that.
You're probably right with that last statement. I first saw Hogan play in the '62 Masters, first round.
He barely broke 80. I have watched him miss many fairways and shoot many rounds over par. Of
course, I've also watched him play to perfection, especially the back nine at Augusta in '67. That's
the best I've ever seen him play. His practice sessions were a treat to watch. But, most great pros
hit it great in practice. Ever watch Tiger hit balls. WOW!!
Dariusz J.
New member
Quite a few. Mickelson is one of them while being an overally great player and winner. Woods is the next, while being the 2nd best after the guy in your avatar in history of golf. Should I go further ? I guess not.
I have said he's a great player/winner. Great ballstriker ? Rather not in my classifications. Is his poor driving irrevelant ? I do not think so -- I bet he even now wishes he was better off the tee a week ago.
Actually, this is the first time you struck me with a good argument that I have no good answer to. It is true that the longer the player the better player/winner (not necessarily ballstriker !!) he is on the average. Two best ballstrikers Hogan and Moe -- Hogan won a lot (and would have probably surpassed Nicklaus if he could putt) while Moe won nothing important being rather short off the tee.
I must agree that length is equally important. You're right.
Great ! Too bad that you couldn't see him in his prime between 1948 and 1953, but listening to an eye-witness of his famous '67 round in Augusta (that Johnny Miller said was the best he ever saw -- except putting LOL) is an honour.
I suppose everyone will be happy for such a threadjack -- I am shutting up, you talk, please.
Cheers
Last edited:
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Thanks for the thoughtful posts Nitro.
tongzilla
New
I hope not.
magicmarker
New
Dariusz, your opinions make it sound like you think things are set up so that anyone who can drive it as long as bubba has an easier time moving up the leaderboard. Fact is Oostheizen got caught from behind and beat in a playoff. If you told me I had to play from bubbas drives all day or Oostheizen drives all day, which one would I be able to shoot a lower score from? I would say Oostheizen hands down. But he didn't win. Don't underestimate bubba watson's creativity and balls. If his last shot from the trees didn't hook he would've been ridiculed for trying something so ridiculous when an easy bogey could've kept the match going. I prefer to see a chance at recovery over strict punishment. What if some dingleberry faints and an even bigger dingleberry screams like there is an axe murderer running around the gallery DURING YOUR DOWNSWING and you push slice or pull hook the ball? Should you be punished severely or given an opportunity to recover for par.
Last edited:
Dariusz J.
New member
Well, it is not about punishing these who HAVE TALENT to drive long. I've already agreed to Nitro and admitted I underestimated this virtue. I am wholeheartedly against ERRANT SHOTS, i.e. shots so wide off the target that it is unfair to other players not to punish for such. Since I am against any internal OB stakes for the reasons I explained before in the thread, I have found nothing better than severe rough to introduce again an element of fairness.
BTW, correct me if I am wrong -- wasn't it Schwartzel who lost his ball as Mickelson did ? If yes, he was punished and Watson was not for the same quality of shots (or better said, lack of quality). Am I right here ?
Lastly, I have already said that recovery shots from Tour pros are often magical. Woods was great in here, Watson's playoff shot was even better. I can understand people prefer this circus than boring solid golf tee-fairway-green-2 or sometimes 1 putt. I can understand I am in minority.
Cheers
You do realize that having enough extremely deep rough on the course to penalize errant drives will lead to many
balls being lost, right? Judging from your attitude about the penalty for OB, I would think you would make an effort
to avoid lost balls as well, since the penalty is the same as OB. Based on your criteria of OB being illogical for that
reason....guess what?
This thread is about Augusta's setup for the Masters being a good test of golf. As Brian pointed out, they may have
overdone it with the planting of new trees and I agree with him on that, but, that aside, it is definitely a great test
of golf. In the playoff, on #10, both players hit errant tee shots. Oosthuizen's drive hit a tree and bounced back in
the edge of the rough with a good lie and a wide open shot to the green. Watson's ball ended up with a decent lie
(pine straw is NOT easy to hit off of) and an alleyway back to the fairway. Who got the better break? Oosthuizen
hit a weak thin shot short of the green and Watson hit a great shot onto the green. How is any of that unfair to
anyone? There are many places down that right side that Watson could have ended up dead with nothing more
than an unplayable lie. Golf is not a fair game and sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. In this instance
Watson was lucky and good. Or should I say exceptional.
Don't know if you've ever been to Augusta National, but, I have a feeling you haven't, because no way would
you agree to screw it up with severe rough all over the place. The course lends itself to great shots, splendid
risk/reward situations. The place is awe-inspiring, I can't imagine players hacking out of deep rough sideways
back to the fairway. It would be obscene.
- Status