Is Augusta—set up for The Masters—a good test of golf

[spktho]

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 Schwartzel got caught from behind and beat in a playoff. If you told me I had to play from bubbas drives all day or schwartzels drives all day, which one would I be able to shoot a lower score from? I would say schwartzel 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.

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 ?

Ummm, what tournament are you guys arguing about now? Schwartzel ended +8 at this year's Masters.

 

[Dariusz J.]

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.

Nitro, of course I haven't been there. And I am not so sure now if I wanted to grow rough there. It might be looking strange and, yes, obscene. But other courses is a different situation.

However, mind you, I have never said I want penal rough to be so high that it is always impossible to find balls. Penal rough means it is practically impossible to reach green, period. Besides, there is very small probability to lose a ball on Tour with all those people around. They even sometimes block the ball to go further from the target which is pathetic from our amateur point of view. We amateurs play in MUCH MORE DEMANDING conditions. We often cannot find balls in penal rough but noone is standing close and looking where it drops.

I agree to your description: lucky and good. Often people forget the first word and say how good are the pros (which they are, but they get lucky often as well).

Ummm, what tournament are you guys arguing about now? Schwartzel ended +8 at this year's Masters.

I think Magicmarker has just mentioned Schwartzel as a hypothetical example in this context. Not claiming that he had any chances to win the 2012 Masters.

Cheers

 

[mjstrong]

The last time I played Whistling Straits, I made 2 birdies, 2 bogeys, and 11 pars...

....three triples and a quad.

Was the quad on the 19th hole? I've made several "course management" errors there myself...

 

[magicmarker]

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

So you want golf to be (even more) boring to watch... At least you know you're in the minority.

Edited my last post to reflect the name I intended to be using, turns out that forgoing sleep entirely is not a great idea...

 

[Dariusz J.]

So you want golf to be (even more) boring to watch... At least you know you're in the minority.

Edited my last post to reflect the name I intended to be using, turns out that forgoing sleep entirely is not a great idea...

Yes. What is boring for masses is usually fascinating for connosaires. Same with soccer -- a great 0:0 match can sometimes be much better than matches with multiple goals.
I do not pretend to be a connosaire, but I find solid ballstriking much more fascinating than best recovery shots. Probably because I know very well how tough is solid ballstriking.

Cheers

P.S. Edited the name, but still wrongly written

 

[Dustin]

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.

Wow...haven't read this whole thread yet, but those are 3 coures that reside firmly in my top 7. I Love Chicago GC, even though some I played with were confused when we stepped out on the property w/ so few trees and flat landscape. They just don't get it!

 

[birly-shirly]

Nitro, of course I haven't been there. And I am not so sure now if I wanted to grow rough there. It might be looking strange and, yes, obscene. But other courses is a different situation.

However, mind you, I have never said I want penal rough to be so high that it is always impossible to find balls. Penal rough means it is practically impossible to reach green, period. Besides, there is very small probability to lose a ball on Tour with all those people around. They even sometimes block the ball to go further from the target which is pathetic from our amateur point of view. We amateurs play in MUCH MORE DEMANDING conditions. We often cannot find balls in penal rough but noone is standing close and looking where it drops.

The problem is Dariusz - you're trying to legislate OUTCOMES. You want a length of rough where you won't necessarily lose your ball, but you're not able to recover to make the green. I think that long grass is far too unruly to behave in the way that you'd like. And every time you see a great recovery shot from a wild drive, you conclude that the set up is too easy - because the outcome shouldn't be allowed...

Add to that, a lie in the rough that makes it all but impossible to take on the green with a 5 iron, might be much more playable if you have the length to drive it 20 or 30 yards nearer the green and get home with a short iron. So I guess you're always going to see longer hitting players with an advantage out of any sort of rough.

As for amateurs playing under "much more demanding conditions" - well, yes, I've often thought that it would be handy to have a watching gallery help me find my ball, but apart from that, I can't think of what else in a major tournament set-up that would make my life easier.

Green-speed? Nope.

Pin positions? Nope.

Championship tees? Nope.

Bunker faces? Nope.

Put it this way, I've never heard of a venue being softened up (fairways widened or rough cut back) in preparation for a major tournament.

 

[Dariusz J.]

The problem is Dariusz - you're trying to legislate OUTCOMES. You want a length of rough where you won't necessarily lose your ball, but you're not able to recover to make the green. I think that long grass is far too unruly to behave in the way that you'd like. And every time you see a great recovery shot from a wild drive, you conclude that the set up is too easy - because the outcome shouldn't be allowed... .

Well, I must sorta agree to you now. I am thinking about outcomes more than it should be. I just want to make the game more FAIR for accurate drivers off the tee. Until now, noone in this thread proposed something better.

Add to that, a lie in the rough that makes it all but impossible to take on the green with a 5 iron, might be much more playable if you have the length to drive it 20 or 30 yards nearer the green and get home with a short iron. So I guess you're always going to see longer hitting players with an advantage out of any sort of rough.

True. And this should be like that. Length is a virtue, I have already admitted. But I will be as broken record -- errant length should be punished, or better said, tried to be punished. Say, 10% of chances to reach the green with something longer than #6 iron, 50% chances of doing it with a short iron.

As for amateurs playing under "much more demanding conditions" - well, yes, I've often thought that it would be handy to have a watching gallery help me find my ball, but apart from that, I can't think of what else in a major tournament set-up that would make my life easier.

True again, but I am not a guy who does nothing in his life but hitting golf balls. And I would like to play a Tour event just to not worry about anything more but shooting balls no matter where I hit. I would be almost always near green ROFL.

Cheers

 

[BrendanC]

Dariusz, I think the quickest way to achieve what you want would be MUCH smaller greens.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz, I think the quickest way to achieve what you want would be MUCH smaller greens.

Yes, but only for par3's and 2nd shots. It would not separate accurate drivers from erroneous ones though. I know such scenario very well since I play mainly on very small greens.

Cheers

 

[Nitro7]

However, mind you, I have never said I want penal rough to be so high that it is always impossible to find balls. Penal rough means it is practically impossible to reach green, period. Besides, there is very small probability to lose a ball on Tour with all those people around. They even sometimes block the ball to go further from the target which is pathetic from our amateur point of view. We amateurs play in MUCH MORE DEMANDING conditions. We often cannot find balls in penal rough but noone is standing close and looking where it drops.

Cheers

Good to see you're softening your stance on severe rough. If you look closely, you will se many times in
PGA Tour events the rough is demanding, especially the farther off the fairway you get. Many tourneys
have different length cuts with the primary rough being thick and long making it very difficult for players
to hit the green. I was busting your chops about lost ball and OB. They are the same penalty, saying one
is more illogical than the other doesn't make much sense IMO.

Play on a PGA Tour course setup and you might change your mind about ams playing in more demanding
conditions. The rough is tougher than you think, the fairways are narrow, the greens are fast and FIRM,
and the pin placements can be demonic. Dariusz, players on Tour are really good, and the elite players
on Tour are incomparable.

They sure do make it look easy and when one of them bombs it way off line and ends up with a decent
shot to the green it can challenge the sensibilities of a die hard amateur golfer like you. In truth, many
pros have suffered awful fates because of severe rough over the years, so there really is no need to
make rough worse. The accurate straight hitters will win their share and the long powerful hitters will
win the most. If you want ball shaping skill to be more of an advantage than power, change the ball.
Be well D!

 

[Dariusz J.]

Good to see you're softening your stance on severe rough. If you look closely, you will se many times in
PGA Tour events the rough is demanding, especially the farther off the fairway you get. Many tourneys
have different length cuts with the primary rough being thick and long making it very difficult for players
to hit the green. I was busting your chops about lost ball and OB. They are the same penalty, saying one
is more illogical than the other doesn't make much sense IMO.

Play on a PGA Tour course setup and you might change your mind about ams playing in more demanding
conditions. The rough is tougher than you think, the fairways are narrow, the greens are fast and FIRM,
and the pin placements can be demonic. Dariusz, players on Tour are really good, and the elite players
on Tour are incomparable.

They sure do make it look easy and when one of them bombs it way off line and ends up with a decent
shot to the green it can challenge the sensibilities of a die hard amateur golfer like you. In truth, many
pros have suffered awful fates because of severe rough over the years, so there really is no need to
make rough worse. The accurate straight hitters will win their share and the long powerful hitters will
win the most. If you want ball shaping skill to be more of an advantage than power, change the ball.
Be well D!

Well, I wouldn't be so sure about the rough that I see on TV or computer screen that difficult (when the majority of the ball is visible); 95% of shots from this rough are on or near green; I would believe in a tale that rough is hard and this is because Tour players are sooooooo good....but, unfortunately for this theory, we have/had US Opens when I see that 90% of second shots from this real rough cannot be placed near greens and sometimes I can see only the top of the ball. This is what rough means.

Lastly, traditional names "rough" and "fairway" should indicate how the game shouldn't and should be played.

Cheers

 

[mgranato]

If I could pick a course to play the rest of my golf on or watch the rest of my golf on, I would want it to test these areas in this order...

1. Putting
2. Distance
3. Recovery/wedge play
4. Accuracy into the green
5. Strategy
6. Accuracy off the tee

I can think of one course 2-1/2 hours East of me that fits this description pretty well, and a couple off the Southern coast of Oregon.

 

[Nitro7]

Well, I wouldn't be so sure about the rough that I see on TV or computer screen that difficult (when the majority of the ball is visible); 95% of shots from this rough are on or near green; I would believe in a tale that rough is hard and this is because Tour players are sooooooo good....but, unfortunately for this theory, we have/had US Opens when I see that 90% of second shots from this real rough cannot be placed near greens and sometimes I can see only the top of the ball. This is what rough means.

Lastly, traditional names "rough" and "fairway" should indicate how the game shouldn't and should be played.

Cheers

You're just overgeneralizing. You haven't attended any of these tournaments or spent any time with
the players, yet you make these claims about the courses and players because you saw it on TV. It's
hard for me to take you seriously when you're so lacking in experience with this subject.

Come to FLA and play in the Honda Pro-Am and then tell me what you think about the rough at PGA
National. Or, head up to Ohio and play Firestone or Miurfield Village when they are setup in tour trim
and see if it is a cake walk hitting shots out of that thick rye grass. I think your percentages are way
off and you have no real data to back those numbers. Most 50 yard errant tee shots are punished in
a way that par will be hard to come by and you have no real proof otherwise.

 

[Dariusz J.]

You're just overgeneralizing. You haven't attended any of these tournaments or spent any time with
the players, yet you make these claims about the courses and players because you saw it on TV. It's
hard for me to take you seriously when you're so lacking in experience with this subject.

Come to FLA and play in the Honda Pro-Am and then tell me what you think about the rough at PGA
National. Or, head up to Ohio and play Firestone or Miurfield Village when they are setup in tour trim
and see if it is a cake walk hitting shots out of that thick rye grass. I think your percentages are way
off and you have no real data to back those numbers. Most 50 yard errant tee shots are punished in
a way that par will be hard to come by and you have no real proof otherwise.

Maybe that day will come once and I will have a chance to test it. Judging from what European players say US Tour setups are easier than European Tour setups and it is much easier to end up with a sort of ridiculously low -20 or -25 after 4 days of play. You know, I read a lot and base my opinions not only on my experiences.

I base my presumptions on common logics and, this time, my personal experiences. I have a lot to do with real thick both shorter and longer and I guess I can easily differ a thick short rough (where balls are clearily visible) from a thick and long one, where it is hard to find a ball. Do you want to tell me that what I see is just an optical illusion ? That I cannot make assumptions based on what I see ?

Cheers

 

[Nitro7]

Do you want to tell me that what I see is just an optical illusion ? That I cannot make assumptions based on what I see ?

Cheers

Yeah, courses are very different in person than what you see on TV. That's why I mentioned
PGA National, Firestone, and Miurfield Village. Tough rough on all three. That's a fact. I guess
you can't see it on your TV.

You want to assume things, go right ahead. I prefer factual proof and first hand knowledge.
Otherwise you're just speculating. Common logic rarely relates well to the game of golf.

It's been a thrill Dariusz, but for me, this exchange has gone as far as it's going to go.

SeeeeYa in another thread.

 

[mgranato]

Maybe that day will come once and I will have a chance to test it. Judging from what European players say US Tour setups are easier than European Tour setups and it is much easier to end up with a sort of ridiculously low -20 or -25 after 4 days of play. You know, I read a lot and base my opinions not only on my experiences.

I base my presumptions on common logics and, this time, my personal experiences. I have a lot to do with real thick both shorter and longer and I guess I can easily differ a thick short rough (where balls are clearily visible) from a thick and long one, where it is hard to find a ball. Do you want to tell me that what I see is just an optical illusion ? That I cannot make assumptions based on what I see ?

Cheers

Fact Check:

2011 Euro Tour average winning score = -15
2011 US Tour average winning score = -14

Just saying'...

 

[duckjr78]

Fact Check:

2011 Euro Tour average winning score = -15
2011 US Tour average winning score = -14

Just saying'...

Bah to you and your facts! We'll have none of that here. Good day sir.

BTW, I wholeheartedly agree with your list of course "requirements." I played an Old Course one time that tested those very same skills in the same order.

 

[ms1170]

One of the few things I don't like about Augusta is the "Chute" tee shot on 18. I think it's enough of a demand to hit a 30 yard fairway at 275 yards. I don't think the first 50 yards of a hole should take away from the player his options for different types of shots.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Yeah, courses are very different in person than what you see on TV. That's why I mentioned
PGA National, Firestone, and Miurfield Village. Tough rough on all three. That's a fact. I guess
you can't see it on your TV.

You want to assume things, go right ahead. I prefer factual proof and first hand knowledge.
Otherwise you're just speculating. Common logic rarely relates well to the game of golf.

It's been a thrill Dariusz, but for me, this exchange has gone as far as it's going to go.

SeeeeYa in another thread.

Yeah, I see no point in further discussion. I asked if it is an optical illusion when I see almost a whole ball in the rough and you revert to your three courses. You did not answer my question at all, not the first time in this thread.

Fact Check:

2011 Euro Tour average winning score = -15
2011 US Tour average winning score = -14

Just saying'...

OK...please a link to these facts; moreover, please a link to, at least, 10 years of comparison. I assume that this would be real facts.

Cheers