OT: Masters course is too easy for the pros now

[kapyoche]

The tournament is great but the course has become a joke.

The courses on the regular tour play more difficult than the Masters course.

Mickelson and Woods can't even make the cut on the regular tour, but they were in the hunt on Sunday.

Spieth shot -18 after the course was lengthened. Not sure what more they can do to make the course any tougher.

I would rank Masters as the fourth among the majors in golf.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

Originally posted by kapyoche:

The tournament is great but the course has become a joke.

The courses on the regular tour play more difficult than the Masters course.

Mickelson and Woods can't even make the cut on the regular tour, but they were in the hunt on Sunday.

Spieth shot -18 after the course was lengthened. Not sure what more they can do to make the course any tougher.

I would rank Masters as the fourth among the majors in golf.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume you aren't someone who watches golf most weekends?

 

[Abro1975]

Scores were low this week because of :

1. Weather, humidity kept the greens softer than usual, for some reason the Sub Airs couldnt' make the greens as fast as usual

2. Little high rough

3. Little wind this week

4. Pin positions could have been more challenging

5. The Masters IS NOT the US Open, they don't look to have a winning score around par, they look to have a beautiful, exciting tournament. And they usually accomplish that. Mickelson and Woods ramp up their games for the majors. Just look at their records.

6. Tiger won in 2001 at 16 under, Phil in 2010 at 16 under, Spieth this year at 18 under. It all depends on the weather, the speed of greens , and wind. The rough is little to none every year.

 

[Veiox]

Originally posted by Abro1975:
Scores were low this week because of :

1. Weather, humidity kept the greens softer than usual, for some reason the Sub Airs couldnt' make the greens as fast as usual

2. Little high rough

3. Little wind this week

4. Pin positions could have been more challenging

5. The Masters IS NOT the US Open, they don't look to have a winning score around par, they look to have a beautiful, exciting tournament. And they usually accomplish that. Mickelson and Woods ramp up their games for the majors. Just look at their records.

6. Tiger won in 2001 at 16 under, Phil in 2010 at 16 under, Spieth this year at 18 under. It all depends on the weather, the speed of greens , and wind. The rough is little to none every year.

Could not have said it better than this.

 

[krup]

Originally posted by Abro1975:
Scores were low this week because of :

1. Weather, humidity kept the greens softer than usual, for some reason the Sub Airs couldnt' make the greens as fast as usual

2. Little high rough

3. Little wind this week

4. Pin positions could have been more challenging

5. The Masters IS NOT the US Open, they don't look to have a winning score around par, they look to have a beautiful, exciting tournament. And they usually accomplish that. Mickelson and Woods ramp up their games for the majors. Just look at their records.

6. Tiger won in 2001 at 16 under, Phil in 2010 at 16 under, Spieth this year at 18 under. It all depends on the weather, the speed of greens , and wind. The rough is little to none every year.

Is it logistically possible for a tournament like this to grow the rough to a certain length, then only cut it back a few days before the tournament if the greens are setting up to be as tough as expected?

People are saying Tiger is back, but I think the soft greens and no rough you mentioned covered up the fact he only hit about half of the fairways and wasn't penalized for it.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Maybe it is time to drop the par 72 OR lengthen the par 5s. 510 yd par 5s are a joke.

My list
1. US Open
2. PGA Championship
3. Masters
4. British Open

 

[WhiteBus]

The par 5s were designed as risk/reward holes. And thankfully they have kept them that way. The Masters is the best venue for a Major and they make it fun to watch.

 

[superfan01]

Distance is meaningless to a pro. Merion played less then 7000yards for the U.S. open in 2013 and the players struggled to break. People saying add length don't get the pro game. Also, higher rough and narrower fairways while a nuance for pros won't change the scores that much.
For pros, it's all about the greens. As long as they can stop the ball on the greens and get good looks at the hole they will make birdies regardless of whether the course is 7700 yards or 7300 yards. You want them to shoot higher scores, make the greens hard so balls don't stop on it and tougher pin locations (remember shinnecock in 2004).

 

[RU4Real]

I knew this was a kapydouche thread just by the title.The pros are all playing the same course - the ease or difficulty or that course is largely irrelevant. It's the very definition of "level playing field".

 

[WhiteBus]

Originally posted by RU4Real:


I knew this was a kapydouche thread just by the title.
The pros are all playing the same course - the ease or difficulty or that course is largely irrelevant. It's the very definition of "level playing field".

Forget that we watched greatness yesterday. Someone just has to bitch!

If you don't understand a sport don't ask to make changes. Learn about it instead. People are just too lazy and self centered.

 

[Veiox]

Originally posted by WhiteBus:

Originally posted by RU4Real:


I knew this was a kapydouche thread just by the title. The pros are all playing the same course - the ease or difficulty or that course is largely irrelevant. It's the very definition of "level playing field".

People are just too lazy and self centered.

America in a nutshell

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

Originally posted by Greene Rice FIG:
Maybe it is time to drop the par 72 OR lengthen the par 5s. 510 yd par 5s are a joke.

My list
1. US Open
2. PGA Championship
3. Masters
4. British Open

If that is your list, then you just prefer a certain style of golf course that features very difficult rough. Other than that, it is nonsensical to say you like the US Open better than the PGA when both are played at various courses.

 

[knightfan7]

Average Masters Champion winning score....

2006-2015 (including Spieth's -18)....-10

1996-2005....-11

1986-1995....-9

Yes Spieth ate the course up but being he tied Tiger (1997) for the lowest 72 hole score and beat Ray Floyd (1976) by one, I don't think it's a trend.

 

[RUScrew85]

Originally posted by krup:

Originally posted by Abro1975:
Scores were low this week because of :

1. Weather, humidity kept the greens softer than usual, for some reason the Sub Airs couldnt' make the greens as fast as usual

2. Little high rough

3. Little wind this week

4. Pin positions could have been more challenging

5. The Masters IS NOT the US Open, they don't look to have a winning score around par, they look to have a beautiful, exciting tournament. And they usually accomplish that. Mickelson and Woods ramp up their games for the majors. Just look at their records.

6. Tiger won in 2001 at 16 under, Phil in 2010 at 16 under, Spieth this year at 18 under. It all depends on the weather, the speed of greens , and wind. The rough is little to none every year.

Is it logistically possible for a tournament like this to grow the rough to a certain length, then only cut it back a few days before the tournament if the greens are setting up to be as tough as expected?

People are saying Tiger is back, but I think the soft greens and no rough you mentioned covered up the fact he only hit about half of the fairways and wasn't penalized for it.

The greens did not seem as fast as they have been in the past. But yeah kapy is a retard.

 

[RU85inFla]

You know that long shitty winter you guys had this year, well we had the same crap in the south - just not as extreme. The growing season started much later - especially in Georgian and the Carolinas. I know the bermuda in North Florida needs the weather to not drop below 60 degrees over night for it to start growing and that didn't happen until just recently which was much later than normal. At Augusta I believe they have Bermuda grass in the fairways and bent grass on the greens, overseeded by ryegrass all over the course.

Additionally, January thru March are often very dry down here but this year we got a ton of rain. That might have had something to do with the overall softness of the course even though its been dry lately.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by RU4Real:
I knew this was a kapydouche thread just by the title.The pros are all playing the same course - the ease or difficulty or that course is largely irrelevant. It's the very definition of "level playing field".

It makes no difference to them. It might make a difference to a viewer in some way or to the tournament organizers, who might not want to be seen as having a course that is too easy (not sure this applies to the Masters. Certainly applies to the US Open.)

This post was edited on 4/13 11:15 AM by derleider

 

[RU at the shore]

Although Spieth ran away this year, I much prefer the usual high scoring Masters where guys are making birdie and eagle runs to the usual US Open where the leaders wilt away with bogey and doubles on the last day.

 

[ClassOf02]

I can appreciate a tough US Open where even par could be a winning score, but what makes the Masters great is that a very good shot can be rewarded and a slightly off shot will not be. It's a course that almost always rewards those playing best.

Also, having opportunities for birdie and eagle on the back nine make for very good theater. If you hear some "Augusta roars" happening ahead of you during the back nine on Sunday, that tests your mental game as well. When Phil holed out yesterday from the bunker on 15 for eagle, Spieth had to be thinking "man, what the hell did Phil just do?" Then Spieth drained a testy par put on 14 and proceeded to birdie 15. That is a hell of a response.



This post was edited on 4/13 12:34 PM by ClassOf02

This post was edited on 4/13 12:44 PM by ClassOf02

 

[RUBubba]

I love the Masters. Easily my favorite tournament to watch. Unlike the US Opens, British Opens ("THE Open" if you are ever there), you know the course. There might be a few tweeks, but by and large, you know what the holes look like.

I believe the hole locations have remained the same every year (at least recently) as well. The "Sunday Location" is always the same.

I agree that greens did not seem as icy as in the past. Also, there were several predictions for heavy weather which could have skewed things as well. Rae's Creek was a non-factor, but some rain earlier would have brought it more into play and made that "Risk vs. Reward" shot a bigger issue.

 

[BigLou]

Originally posted by Ole Cabbagehead:

Originally posted by Greene Rice FIG:
Maybe it is time to drop the par 72 OR lengthen the par 5s. 510 yd par 5s are a joke.

My list
1. US Open
2. PGA Championship
3. Masters
4. British Open

If that is your list, then you just prefer a certain style of golf course that features very difficult rough. Other than that, it is nonsensical to say you like the US Open better than the PGA when both are played at various courses.

Don't agree. To me, each of the majors has their own personality, due to factors such as field determination, preferred course conditions and other traditions. A course selected by the USGA for the open is set up differently than the same course selected by the PGA for their championship. So you can prefer one over the other.

 

[letterhead6]

The US open is the best of all because the setup - narrow fairways, very high rough, fast greens - puts a premium on shot values and shot making, so it does not disproportionately favor the long hitter. The British with its varying weather, fairway bunkers and rock hard surface requires creativity and thought on every shot. The PGA is typically set up the longest and will favor the big hitters. The Masters, and I agree to an extent with the OP, has a problem with its par 5s in that they pretty much play like par 4s now. The reasons the scores have stayed somewhat similar over the years is that Augusta has toughened its par 4 and par 3s so that if you look at, let's say Tiger's scores over the years he is way over par on the 3s and 4s and way, way under par on the 5s. Basically, they are par fives in name only. Irrespective, I love the tourney. Also, the way Spieth plays is perfect for the US Open as he is as accurate as he is long, and of course a great putter. I could see him winning another two majors this year.

 

[JPhoboken]

Originally posted by kapyoche:

The tournament is great but the course has become a joke.

The courses on the regular tour play more difficult than the Masters course.

Mickelson and Woods can't even make the cut on the regular tour, but they were in the hunt on Sunday.

Spieth shot -18 after the course was lengthened. Not sure what more they can do to make the course any tougher.

I would rank Masters as the fourth among the majors in golf.

Your teasing right? THe course is spectacular and definitely not too easy. The course has the right length now where most guys are not hitting W and 9 into greens anymore (except guys like Bubba and Dustin)

This week the greens were not as fast as usual due to wetter conditions, and the weekend pin placements were conducive to scoring, which is what the masters and CBS wants. Masters Roars on Sunday is what makes it fun. If the Masters wanted to make the course harder without adding any more length it would be no problem, they could raise the height of the Rough (sorry 1st cut!!!!!) and add some small bushes and trees in those pines along the fairways. THe only beef I have with the course is the fact the even when they hit errant shots in the trees, there always seems to be a way to get the ball up by the green. I would like to see more severe penalties. For example, when you hit it left on 13 into the trees, you are dead, right
, and almost everybody has a shot toward the green.

Perhaps better scoring is also a result of better play. Guys like Phil, Rory, Justin and Jordan played great. Jordan was holing every putt in sight and rarely missing a green. Does he get no credit for his score? Its just about an easy course? Huh?

Granted it is more fun than when a number of players are battling it out on Sunday afternoon, but The masters is still one of the best sporting events in the world. Ranking the Masters below the PGA championship is crazy.

This post was edited on 4/13 1:53 PM by JPhoboken

This post was edited on 4/13 2:07 PM by JPhoboken

This post was edited on 4/13 3:26 PM by JPhoboken

 

[derleider]

I wonder which favors the random non-star winning - a really easy course, or a really hard one.? It would seem at first thought tht a hard one would (lets exclude weather like the British often has, which can just sink anyone).

In other words - if you took the average rank of the Masters winner since they redid it after Tiger won in that blowout, and the average rank of the US Open winner, which is higher?

Turns out that the US open has a higher average rank (24.3 vs 19.7). But that might be due to familiarity (i.e. the more experienced pros have played Augusta Many times under Masters circumstances, but not the others.) The PGA has an average ranking of 50.7 for 1998-2014 winners, but also has a lower average winning score (-10.2 vs -9.8 vs -2.9) compared to the Masters and US open.

 

[ClassOf02]

This is completely just a gut feel for me, but my hunch is that Masters winners tend to be top golfers, big names, etc. I feel like you'll more often see a "random" guy win the US Open. like Geoff Ogilvy, Lucas Glover, Michael Campbell, Steve Jones, etc.

 

[RUtah]

Well, I'm just a casual golf fan and a hack on the course, but I look forward to the British Open more than the Masters. US Open sometimes too, depending on the course. It's at a coastal links course in Washington state this year, should be good.

 

[RU85inFla]

Der - rankings of golf courses are like ranking of colleges - they sell magazines. All of the majors basically play different formats and those formats favor different players. Augusta is wide open with no rough to speak of. So a bomber with a great short game has a tremendous advantage. Guys like Phil, Bubba, Tiger, Jack etc.

The British obviously has the links course effect which takes a ton of creativity. The weather is the deciding factor. If its not bad, the bombers can overpower all of the courses. If it is bad, the shorter hitters that can really control the ball have a huge advantage.

The US Open is always set up to reward the guys that can keep in in the fairway. Many US Open champs have not been super long but stay out of trouble. Guys like Furyk, Pavin, McDowell, Janzen.

The PGA is the weird one. The are the step child and bounce the tournament around from venue to venue. But the bottom line is that the advantage is established by the setup of the course. In a couple of years the PGA Championship will be played at Bethpage Black, the same course that held the US Open a few years ago. The PGA will set it up differently - the length of the rough, the speed of the greens, the width of the fairways, the pin positions, etc. and at the end of the day a different group of players will have a different advantage during this tournament than last.

 

[greenknight]

Green rice if you ever went there you would understand a whole lot more They caught a break this week there aren't many tougher greens around. There is no such thing as rough there the rough is almost as tight as some courses fairways Even when you are in trouble under the pine trees there is usually a shot to be made as branches are cut high but the intent is to make you make shots and penalize you around the greens. The course is by far the nicest you will ever step on in your lifetime

 

[JPhoboken]

Originally posted by ClassOf02:
This is completely just a gut feel for me, but my hunch is that Masters winners tend to be top golfers, big names, etc. I feel like you'll more often see a "random" guy win the US Open. like Geoff Ogilvy, Lucas Glover, Michael Campbell, Steve Jones, etc.

I agree.

The masters has been played 78 times and in 47 of those years the Masters has been won by Great players with 2 or more masters victories. Even Masters winners with one major win like Schwartzel, Scott, Z. Johnson, T. Immelman, Weir and even Spieth had multiple wins on the PGA or European tours before winning at Augusta.

THe average number of wins on the PGA and European tour for Schwartzel, Scott, Johnson, Immelman, Weir and Spieth (only 21! and starting career) is 10. These are accomplished players.

Winning at Augusta National is not for first time winners or Journeymen.

 

[greenknight]

Also as a side note sure they can lengthen to 600 yds but when no one can reach it and you have everyone wedging it in....well that will be 10 times more boring than guys having to make a solid shot in for 2 and finding a straight putt. Many of those shots would have rolled to the back of green or off with hard greens

 

[RU848789]

Originally posted by WhiteBus:

The par 5s were designed as risk/reward holes. And thankfully they have kept them that way. The Masters is the best venue for a Major and they make it fun to watch.

This is the reason the Masters is so much fun to watch. With difficult rough in the US Open and sometimes in the PGA, the risk is so great that people simply play conservatively, which makes for boring, target golf. In the Masters, though, the risk on the par 5's is not quite as great (atlhough we've all seen 6's and 7's on those holes), which allows players to attempt great shots, with occasionally great results, which is a helluva lot of fun to watch.

And since most of the time the winning score is more like -8 to -12, we shouldn't let an outlier like yesterday concern us - there have only been 8 Masters in 78 tourneys with winning scores of -14 or lower. Also, the Masters folks could easily make winning scores more in the -3 to -7 range by simply making the pins tougher - but that would be a bit less fun, as players would then mostly play to a safe spot and attempt 2 putts for pars, which is a lot less exciting than "going for it" and either making birdie or bogey. The Masters really does reward great shots. My only complaint, as others have said, is that being way off the fairway ought to be a little more penal than it is - maybe some shrubs are needed.

 

[Ty Webb]

You are not allowed to call it "rough" around there. It's called the "first cut" and apparently Augusta National, as part of the CBS deal, requires that the announcers refer to the rough as the "first cut". Thinking back, I don't recall hearing the word "rough" the entire time.

Also, CBS is required to call the fans "patrons". The word "gallary" is not acceptable as well.

 

[RUtah]

Originally posted by Ty Webb:

You are not allowed to call it "rough" around there. It's called the "first cut" and apparently Augusta National, as part of the CBS deal, requires that the announcers refer to the rough as the "first cut". Thinking back, I don't recall hearing the word "rough" the entire time.

Also, CBS is required to call the fans "patrons". The word "gallary" is not acceptable as well.

This probably partially explains why the Masters act has worn a little thin for me. It's a bit smug and glosses over some unsavory historical elements.

 

[JPhoboken]

Originally posted by RUtah:

Originally posted by Ty Webb:

You are not allowed to call it "rough" around there. It's called the "first cut" and apparently Augusta National, as part of the CBS deal, requires that the announcers refer to the rough as the "first cut". Thinking back, I don't recall hearing the word "rough" the entire time.

Also, CBS is required to call the fans "patrons". The word "gallary" is not acceptable as well.

This probably partially explains why the Masters act has worn a little thin for me. It's a bit smug and glosses over some unsavory historical elements.

I agree about the smugness, and to me banning McCord and Jack Whitaker for saying something the Members didn't like shows how small minded they can be. How about a warning, and an apology? Are Masters Members perfect? Lets not forget their racial and gender bias for many years.


THere has not been a Masters where Tiger Woods didn't yell the f_ _k on the air, including this year. How about banning players who swear? F bombing is way worse than Whitaker calling the fans the "mob" or Mcord's "bikini wax" and "body bags" references.

Even though I agree and am annoyed by the stuff shirts who run the tournament, it is their tournament and club, has great tradition, and is really fun to watch on Sunday with many players in contention which will compel me to keep watching.




This post was edited on 4/13 4:12 PM by JPhoboken

This post was edited on 4/13 4:27 PM by JPhoboken

 

[vandalen1]

Abro, spot on. Lots of shots to the green this year that held and didn't go back down the false front were because of weather. This OP obviously has never seen that course in person.

 

[greenknight]

I'm dying to get back to Augusta. Man did I have a blast there in 2010. That place was incredible

 

[Rutgers1976]

I was there on Wednesday. It had rained on Tuesday and the course in general was soft. The walkways for the "patrons" were damp, covered with green cinders and in some places downright muddy.

The conditions were indeed humid and with little wind to speak of, there was only so much that could have been done to dry out the greens more. The players didn't have to battle windy conditions, which is what makes it so much more challenging to hit their targets. This course, perhaps more than any other, requires very accurate target golf, especially on the greens. Miss by a couple of feet and the ball falls back off a false front or rolls away from the hole, changing a 10-12 ft. put into a bitch of a 40+foot putt.

Even soft, those greens have so many obvious and subtle undulations, they're ridiculously fast. But because they were soft, the players could take aim at the flags with less risk of the ball bouncing off the green. Shots like so many had into 13 and 15 would not have left so many eagle opportunities and birdie tap-ins had the greens been more dry and firm, or if the wind was kicking up enough that the balls' course were altered.

That course is the most beautiful piece of landscape anywhere. While Augusta National's heritage is that of the ultimate in Old South and stuffed shirts, this place, this tournament is all about tradition. Their tradition. They don't charge for parking. The food is ridiculously inexpensive. If you don't like their way, that's OK with them. Don't go there, don't watch. They'll welcome you there very politely if you do go and you'll be treated with good cheer and manners. They could not care less if you don't, but have a nice day anyway.

BTW, if you want to know how they are--last year I had practice round tickets for Monday. A line of severe thunderstorms forced the course to close and kick everybody out at about 10:30 AM. Within 3 hours, I received an e-mail from them announcing that they would be issuing me a refund of the cost of my tickets AND a guaranteed opportunity to buy tickets for this year. Tell me another major sporting event which would do that.
This post was edited on 4/13 9:29 PM by Rutgers1976

 

[RUnTime]

Disagree. Just because "Tiger" or other? big name did not master do not assume the course has changed much or has become a weaker challenge. Did not appear to be much wind during any of the rounds which helped the players scores.

Recognize talent. The kid was a bulldog the last round. Did not flinch under the pressure. Impressive

 

[njdirt]

As have not played it myself in 30 years and only watch when when nothing else on I think JB hit a hole in one with his comment in above post "This week the greens were not as fast as usual due
to wetter conditions, and the weekend pin placements were conducive to
scoring, which is what the masters and CBS wants." Another thing thats all about the TV $$$$$$$

 

[billhobo]

Conditions this year were more conducive to scoring than I can recall, but what makes the Masters tops for me among the majors is a hole like Golden Bell (#12), where even the best players in the world have the most difficult time scoring (e.g. Phil something like +16 for his career there) and it plays just 130-150 yards. There's zero need to lengthen the course; Spieth isn't even really long off the tee -- he just made every shot. There's really not much club technology to help the players. It's about knowing the course and making shots, common to folks like us that probably have a home course and know its ins and outs.

The USGA, on the other hand, would put that tee box another 100 yards back, stock the pond with alligators and piranha, and turn the fringe into 6" rough and pave the green, simply for the enjoyment of watching players go quadruple bogey. That's what I hate about the U.S. Open at times -- too focused on demoralizing players with gimmicks instead of promoting watchable golf.

For me, it's Masters, the Open, and coin toss for 3rd and 4th between PGA and U.S. Open.

This post was edited on 4/14 1:27 PM by billhobo

 

[beaced]

The Masters: A beautiful venue,great tradition,outstanding players and crowds ,crowds,crowds.Makes for very pleasant viewing.Thoroughly enjoyed the Tournament.