A non event?

[toonarmy]

I think things are getting out of hand with the length; one possibility would be to utilise a forward, middle and back tee and rotate according to the conditions.

Rubbish. The winning score was -8 and players shot sub-70 rounds on the final day. It is utterly irrelevant what the actual score in relation to par is, only the score in relation to the rest of the field.

Given that Augusta do not want proper rough, they rely on the greens for defence. With ball advances, the course was reduced to whale 'n' wedge - hence Mr Pitch 'n' Putt doing well. His control with wedges is excellent, thereby minimising the protection the greens can provide.

Yes, it's a long course, but it's not like they are hitting 3w into par 4s is it? Bottom line is, modern pros have it cushy and the one time they get shown up is when the wind blows a bit.

Anything that has a champion that leads from day 1 and who hits 90+% of fairways has been won by someone playing fine golf. Woods pouting about it being set up like a US Open was miles off the mark.

 

[haplesshacker]

Immelman deserved the win no doubt 'bout it. As for being boring etc, have you ever seen an interview with F1s Kimi Raikkenian, talk about dull! I thought that Immelman conducted himself very profesionally, almost in awe of the whole situation, almost humble about it all. Thank god there were no Oscar type moments.

 

[RGuk]

I think things are getting out of hand with the length; one possibility would be to utilise a forward, middle and back tee and rotate according to the conditions.

Rubbish. The winning score was -8 and players shot sub-70 rounds on the final day. It is utterly irrelevant what the actual score in relation to par is, only the score in relation to the rest of the field.

Whoa....who rattled your cage. I never said anything about scores "to par" or anything. I simply stated that it's a monster.....some players were taking fairway woods to par 4s and the poor scoring on 11 was down to length. It's 300 to the crest and then 205 to the green....505 yds.
If you think this is good for golf and the art of shot-making, then you've gone down in my estimation. Sorry, but if the courses get longer golf will just become like tennis and all the other power sports.

 

[benny]

Second that Dave. 11 was a stupid hole for a par 4. It'd be 3 wood, Rescue club, 5 iron just to get to the green for me.

 

[medwayjon]

Making courses longer is definately not the answer in my eyes.

It is hardly like Augusta was ripped apart with low scoring so having ridiculously long holes makes no sense whatsoever.

If scores are becoming detrimental to any course the simple answer is narrower fairways, more punishing rough, evil bunkers and tough greens with devilish pin placements.

All making courses longer does is encourage ways to get the ball further down the hole, it no way improves shot-making and does nothing for the viewing delights of those who watch golf.

 

[benny]

Good call. More hazards and penal rough/pin placements is the way for me. A spot of water too - that never fails to turn even the whitest of pants a pale brown when masters final day rolls round. Without ruining Augusta they could add some hidden water hazards just to tighten things up and force people to hit from the same sort of areas.

 

[haplesshacker]

Pardon the pun, but it shouldn't be about length. Not that I'm taking away from the skill of hitting the ball a damn long way, but this length thing is going to kill off some good courses that can't extend their tees. Nick Faldo dislaikes the whole length thing 'an all. As for rough, you couldn't call that stuff at Augusta as rough. Admittadly a beautiful course, but rough that ain't! Narrow the fairways to place a premium on hitting the fairways, lenghten the rough, add more water etc. It'll also make better TV, especially as we the telly watching public can't tell if these pros are hitting 300 or 250 yards.

 

[medwayjon]

It is too easy to hit the ball a long way. This time of year I drive the ball 260 yards comfortably, in summer with a bounce and a roll what will it be then?

Bear in mind I am an average golfer it can only be bad for the game when you see how far decent golfers can hit the ball accurately.

 

[toonarmy]

Whoa....who rattled your cage.

Moi?

some players were taking fairway woods to par 4s and the poor scoring on 11 was down to length. It's 300 to the crest and then 205 to the green....505 yds.

Yes but it's half a mile downhill! Most were taking a mid-iron in. The high scoring was mainly due to a) pros seem to think that the wind is an unfair intrusion and b) it's a really hard hole with a really tough green. Having 200yds for your second to the likes of us is a nightmare, but to a pro is a 5/6i and nothing to worry about.

If you think this is good for golf and the art of shot-making, then you've gone down in my estimation.

For my money, I want to see pros facing the same difficulties we do. For them, that means having approach shots that are not p155 easy wedges and have to use 4/5/6i like we do. The fact that they can hit them 40-60yds further than we can is the difference and that's why the course needs to be longer.

That, or they can make the ball manufacturers go back to making balls that don't go as far - and how would we like that?

Shot-making is about using all the clubs in the bag and playing a variety of shots. The PGA is, with the exception of par 5s, all whale 'n' wedge. That isn't shot-making.

I remember when reaching par 5s in two for pros was not a given and only happened if the hole was short-ish or the pro was a monster hitter.

What would we rather? Winning the Masters at -8 or winning it at -18? Personally, I think the Masters was spot-on this year and it's only the weather conditions that kept the scoring down a bit. Had they had good conditions on all 4 days, the scores would have been another 3-5 shots better off.

Anything that has Woods whining, not winning is fine by me!

 

[Basher]

Immelman won cos he was the best player throughout the competition. Nuff said!

 

[rgs]

Agree Immelman was a worthy winner-but in my youth watching the masters it was all about players making charges on the back nine with birdies and eagles to challenge the leaders-Who can forget 46 yr Nicklaus in 1986 coming home in 30 shots(i think) to grab his 6th Jacket.

The current course does not lend itself to this type of golf hence the last few masters have been less than exciting.

 

[shanker]

I agree that the Masters may have lost some its appeal. It used to be so entertaining (63 from Nick Price and Greg Norman, 64 from Maurice Bembridge and lots of 65 and 66)
It's just not the same watching the leader take 75 to ''hang on and win''. Nothing against Immelman except his slow play. I realise that the committee don't want 60s and 61s at Augusta but golf fans deserve to be entertained.

 

[viscount17]

Was Immelmann all that slow? I seem to recall he and Snedecker doing an awful lot of waiting on tees, (please tell me TV is not doing to golf what it's done to every other sport in the US - can't putt or tee-off in an ad break!). I think it was as much a snowball effect from games ahead. Yes, in contrast to Snedecker he's slow but then I don't know anyone who wouldn't be.
At one point Alliss said that they (the players in general)were having to wait while the greens were cleared of catkins with leaf blowers! Since when were they part of a golf bag.