April 2, 2006

Didn't they 'Tiger-proof' Valderrama in Spain a few years ago for the Ryder Cup? Only there they did it by narrowing the fairways, introducing more dog legs, and taking length off the tee out of the game.

And it worked.

posted by owlhouse at 6:11 PM CDT on April 2

I don't think it's about Tiger. He's just seen as symptomatic of all that's wrong with modern golf and the obsession with new technology. It's about a number of things running in parallel:

- trying to limit the effect of advances in club and ball manufacture, which have added tens of metres to the length of shots
- the old power versus skill debate, putting length up against course management, or (more simply) brawn against brains

Naturally, things aren't quite that simple in real life, and there are more complex motivations at work. Equipment manufacturers, TV networks and 'old timers' at your local club all have an opinion.

posted by owlhouse at 7:13 PM CDT on April 2

Jack is correct. It has been ruined from a tournament standpoint. When people say this is the only Major played on the same course every year, they are wrong. The course has changed almost every year since it's inception for the tournament. In the past the original spirit of the design was maintained or enhanced. In recent years they have turned it into a US Open style course. This does play into Tiger's hands. The argument is old, but worth making again. The longer players are able to hit shorter irons into the greens from the newly grown rough. This is not US Open type rough either, the players have more control of the shots, they rarely have to play sideways as they do in the Open.

The committee at Augusta have taken away the numerous options that used to exist. I will still watch and probably enjoy the tournament. I hope they are willing to make changes back to the spirit of the original layout, to bring some of the excitement back to the Masters. In the past there was a chance for a whole number of players to make a comeback and win the tournament. There are now a limited number of players who can win. They used to say the Masters doesn't start until the back nine on Sunday. That is no longer the case.

posted by chuck'n'duck at 7:50 PM CDT on April 2

Jack is correct. It has been ruined from a tournament standpoint.

I think such a comment (from Nicklaus or chuck'n'duck) cannot really be backed up until we see a tournament played on it.

bring some of the excitement back to the Masters... They used to say the Masters doesn't start until the back nine on Sunday. That is no longer the case.

What Masters have you been watching recently? Last year, Woods beat DiMarco in a playoff with both of them going at each other hammer and tongs for the whole of the back nine (and Woods holing that chip on 16). The year before, the tournament was won with a birdie on the final hole from a player in the final group for only the fourth time ever (Mickelson joined Palmer '60, Lyle '88 and O'Meara '98), and that after Mickelson blitzed the back nine to come through the field. In 2003, no one in the top four shot worse than 68 in the final round and Len Mattiace shot 65 to get into a playoff. 2002 comes closest to confirming what you said - no one in the top ten at the end had shot better than 70 on Sunday and Tiger lead with ease all the way through. In 2001, Woods won also, but in doing so he had to fend off Duval (who shot 67), Mickelson (who shot 70) and Els (who bottled it and shot 72).

I'm not out and out disagreeing with Nicklaus and Palmer and... well, everyone else except Hootie - I'm just saying let's wait and see how the tournament pans out before we say they've ruined it.

jknemo - the problem with converting everyone to the same equipment is that, paradoxically, it wouldn't make it the same for everyone. Even if they just changed the ball - a ball that would reduce Darren Clarke's tee shots by 30% might reduce another player's tee shots by only 10%, and another's by even less (or more).

posted by JJ at 7:30 AM CDT on April 3

Let's not forget that Jack was the Tiger of his day. He always held an advantage because of his length.

That's right, and tournaments didn't go around "Jack-proofing" their courses.

Also, while Tiger is the one you hear about, other guys are constantly hitting it as long as Tiger.

Also correct. Tiger is the one that's focused on because of everything he has done in and for golf. When another highly dominant player comes along and Tiger is no longer the "face" of the PGA, are the courses going to try to change to make it more difficult for that particular player, too?

posted by Rino23 at 11:05 AM CDT on April 3

as always he can't win them all I'm a tiger fan and over the last few years he has proven he's human he is not a superman golfer how do you tiger proof a golf course by making it longer you still have to putt it in on the green go john daly

posted by luther70 at 1:08 PM CDT on April 3

go out and measure how far tiger is going to hit it and put a series of those British bunkers out thjere and don't tell him they are there...maybe give him a bye and let him play the top ten finishers with him playing the field...that would be challenge...it is still too easy...leave him alone and don't get him mad

posted by lshlarry at 2:14 PM CDT on April 3

JJ- It seems to me that in the mid-80's through the early 90's there was a lot more drama. With as many as five or six guys having the chance to win late on Sunday. Obviously the 86 Masters with Jack winning; many others had the chance but didn't grab it and Jack won #6. 85 Strange and Ballesteros faltering down the stretch.

Basically, 85 to 91 was a great run in exciting finishes. I hope that clarifies things for you.

posted by chuck'n'duck at 6:27 PM CDT on April 3

Well, of course he says it like that - it's so much more lyrical than "going at each other like Woods and DiMarco". I find it hard to resist a bit of blacksmith imagery when writing sex scenes myself. Fortunately, I seldom write sex scenes, but when I do, there's invariably an anvil involved.

posted by JJ at 7:06 PM CDT on April 3

chuck'n'duck - there was a lot of what I remember as vintage stuff going on in there for sure (even if a couple of them had essentially dull final days livened up with very exciting playoffs - '87 and '90 for example).

I was thinking about it the other night - about how majors for me went through a spell of being quite dull to watch. I think part of the problem was having Sky TV and being able to watch every week - when you only have BBC, you only get to see the Masters and the Open; if you want the US Open and USPGA you have to find a friend with Sky! - consequently, when a major rolled around, it didn't feel all that different from some of the other tournaments. Now I don't have Sky, I love the majors madly.

Actually, now that I think about it more, I suppose that "majors are dull" period correlates quite closely to a relevant period in my life. Going home and watching majors would be the equivalent today of me going home and watching Gordon Brown's budget four times a year.

Did I mention that I've not been sleeping much recently?

posted by JJ at 7:39 PM CDT on April 3

Long after everyone has probably left this thread, and from a ridiculously sideways source (my old man quoting a book he has been reading by Herb Warren Wind; specifically a section describing Nicklaus' win at Augusta in 1965 - when the course was considered very long at 6,700 yards):

"... in one round he hit nothing longer than 8 iron on any of the par 4's and on 8 of them he hit wedge or sand wedge. Not sure what all that proves, but perhaps plus ca change..."

posted by JJ at 4:00 AM CDT on April 5