Fazio Responds To Criticism

From Ed Sherman in the Chicago Tribune:

Tom Fazio, the architect who oversaw the latest changes at Augusta, said there are options.

But the first seems to be pushing back the tee markers.

"How many times do you hear, `You want a player to hit every club in the bag?'" Fazio said. "Well, if you want to see a player hit a 5-iron, what length par-4 would you make it for Vijay Singh to hit a 5-iron? I remember growing up as a kid where 440 yards was a long golf hole."

Herb Gould in the Chicago Sun-Times: 

"It's normal. There's always controversy when changes are made to old courses,'' said Fazio, citing Chris DiMarco's duel with Woods last year as evidence that shorter hitters still can compete at Augusta National.

"Who almost won the tournament last year?'' Fazio said. "Do you consider [DiMarco] to be a medium-length or short hitter? After the tournament, look at the list, the players and their lengths.''

And if claims that only the longest hitters can compete prove to be true?

"How many times has Jack Nicklaus won here?'' Fazio said. "Was he considered the longest hitter of his era?''

Told yes, Fazio said, "Things haven't changed much.''

 From Damon Hack in the New York Times:

In one area of the shade, Tom Fazio, the course architect who oversaw the lengthening of Augusta National to 7,445 yards, was being grilled by reporters, including one who bluntly told Fazio that he did not like the changes.

"I've been doing this for a long time," Fazio said. "I'm used to hearing criticism."

 And who was the berator? Hank Gola in the NY Daily News has the details:

Tom Fazio has not been the most popular man at Augusta National this week. He is the designer, who, under directives from club chairman Hootie Johnson, stretched Bobby Jones' old backyard to what many feel is over the edge.

Yesterday, for instance, he calmly stood under the 150-year-old oak tree outside the clubhouse while current BBC commentator and former European Tour player Ken Brown berated his work to his face.

"I think there was a Rembrandt here, a masterpiece and (abstract expressionist painter) Jackson Pollack has gone around the edges painting," Brown said passionately. "I don't any longer see (Bobby) Jones' and (Alistair) Mackenzie's signature here. I see someone else's."

"I submit to you that it is," Fazio countered. "You are entitled to your opinion."

He really needs to get a new line. 

Successively Navigating Amen's Corner

Phil Blackmar, on the "Amen Corner Live" coverage after Fred Couples holed out on 13: "he successively navigates Amen's corner."

Update on 2006-04-06 18:54 by Geoff

Blackmar: "Nice par from the ..... Tournament Players Champion" (referring to Stephen Ames, who got up and down from the bunker on 12).

Anderson: Without Real Rough...

Dave Anderson in the New York Times writes: "It's not the Masters anymore. It's a driving contest at a driving range."

And he says, "Without real rough, lengthening a hole anywhere from 15 to 35 yards will not make much difference to the big hitters."

Yes, I know what you are thinking. The Masters never had rough until a few years ago, so how would it be the Masters again with "real rough" lining the fairways?

The Writers Picks...

Steve Elling polls the scribblers on their predicted winner.

Be Careful What You Wish For...

For years now we've heard that you can't judge Augusta National's added rough, trees and length because the conditions have been soft. Naturally, that prevailing theory hasn't stopped many from bemoaning the desertion of Jones and MacKenzie's primary design idea: width that promotes strategic tee shot placement to attack varying hole locations.

As Lawrence Donegan reports in this overview of Wednesday's final tournament preparations, the stage is set for firm, fast conditions.

In such conditions, Augusta's width is not only imperative if the players are to be given a chance to attack the course strategically, but also is necessary because of Augusta National's severely sloped fairways.

Other than the seemingly excessive additions of yardage to Nos. 4 and 7, the length added to the course has allowed the course to stay fairly current with the professional game during a period of remarkable change.

But now that it's fast and firm, we'll get to see how much of an impact the "second cut" and trees have. It may not be pretty. Consider No. 15, a hole long in need of extra yardage. Yet there is a swarm of trees right where an ideal drive once needed to be placed. Will we see many eagles there this year? Doubtful.

Anyhow, we're just minutes away from our first Bobby Clampett reference to "Hogan's Bridge." Yes, it's the still the Masters!

Enjoy.
 

"If Hogan Was Hitting A Damn Pitching Wedge..."

When he was standoffish and gruff during 2003's Martha Burk media session, you could understand Hootie Johnson's angry tone.  At the time he was locked in a tough fight and the pressure was intense.

But it's another thing to actually hear an almost angry tone when discussing what the players are doing today. After all, the course changes he has made have been driven by changes in equipment, a situation out of his control.  (And more importantly, largely out of the player' s control, too.)

This mess boils down to this: Hootie Johnson has brought a banker's approach to this work of art known as Augusta National, and the result, at least from the golf architecture perspective, is not pretty.

A banker likes black numbers. Red numbers are bad.

A banker's job, while important to sustain our way of life, is lucrative but not particularly exciting. And after watching Wednesday's Q&A session with the press, it seems that Hootie believes the players should not enjoy their lucrative "job" either.

Bobby Jones wanted people to enjoy his golf course. He wrote at length about testing good players but not strictly through sheer physical demands that asked them to hit the ball down an imaginary center line. He wanted elite players to deal with intense strategic decisions that may seem taxing, but in hindsight were great fun for players to deal with and incredible fun for "patrons" to watch.

With that in mind, here we go...with Hootie Johnson joined by Will Nicholson and Billy Payne:

Q. Mr. Johnson, I'm wondering, how close are you to saying, we've stretched the golf course as far as we're willing; it's time to regulate the golf ball we use here.

HOOTIE JOHNSON: Would you repeat the question? (Laughter).

Q. How close are you to saying we have stretched the golf course as far as we are willing and it's time to regulate the golf ball we use here.

HOOTIE JOHNSON: I don't think we're ready to say that.

Q. How close are you to saying that?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: Well, you know, you're asking about two things there. We don't want to take the golf ball off the table but we don't have any serious -- we're not giving that any serious consideration right now. But as far as the golf course is concerned, we'll have to continue to evaluate that.

Why do something about the ball? We're having too much fun changing the course. What a far cry from a few years ago when Hootie seemed close to pulling the trigger on a Masters ball spec.

Q. We've had a lot of players come in here all week and some of them have loved the changes and some loved them a bit less. What do you say to those who say you've taken the fun out of this tournament?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: I don't know. I didn't know that a tough golf course was supposed to be a lot of fun.

Q. They are saying that 20 years ago it was more fun.

HOOTIE JOHNSON: Well, I don't know that hitting a 6-iron on No. 1 would be any more fun today than it was 20 years ago.

Yes, the banker stuff I was referring to. Oh, but it gets worse.

I want to say something about the changes and about bombers. We think that at 280 to 300 yards, say, at 1, and outside of some other holes, there's all the room in the world. There's 290 yards to the bunker. And if someone wants to swing from the heels and hit it 330 or 340 or something like that, he'd better be accurate.

Okay, time for a visit from Dr. MacKenzie: "…long driving is not a crime--it is a virtue and is more frequently by skill and grace of motion than by mere force. Long drivers should be rewarded, and as a general rule they should have greater latitude, and not less, than short drivers." Thanks Doc. Now back to Hootie who says he's restoring your "shot values."

At 7, there's a lot of talk about 7. There's plenty of room at 280 to 300 yards. But if somebody wants to pull a driver out and wants a flip wedge to the green, he'd better hit it straight.

Bobby Jones writing about No. 7: "The second shot is normally a steep pitch, often with a wedge..." Thanks Mr. Jones. Now, in a Hootie Johnson translation, that would mean you "intended" for a wedge to be hit there? Guess Johnson is missing that page in his copy of Golf is My Game!

11, if he wants to really rip it, then he's going to take the risk of -- he's hitting a power fade, he's going to take the risk of getting too far right.

A lot of talk about 11. I mean, the hole was intended to be played with, according to Bobby Jones, with a 3-iron or stronger club.

Sorry, Mr. Jones again: "The second shot is usually played with a three iron or a stronger club..." Yes, "usually" is a far cry from "intended." Unless you are looking at this like a banker.

I'm sure many of you remember, I think it was in the '98 tournament that I was out there, behind the ropes and Phil Mickelson hit a big driver, power fade down there and had a pitching wedge to the green. The hole wasn't intended to play like that.

I believe Hogan is quoted as saying, "If you ever see me on that green, you know I've missed my shot." Well, if Hogan was hitting a damn pitching wedge, he'd have been -- he wouldn't have been to the right of the green; he'd have been within three feet of the cup.

I saw this on the video feed and it was, well, awkward. The "if Hogan was hitting a damn pitching wedge" was said with a mix of frustration, bitterness and envy.

But whose fault is it that the players can do this today? The players? Or the USGA's fault?

And if I'm not mistaking, the current USGA president, a longtime proponent of not regulating equipment as General Counsel and USGA officer, is also an Augusta National member?

Q. From your view, is the game of golf itself at a bit of a crossroads over this issue?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: Well, Christine,

...you  big Martha supporter you...oh sorry...

I don't know if we're at a crossroads. It looks like it's just a gradual thing that keeps moving out on us. The club head gets bigger, the ball goes farther. And like Jack Nicklaus said, I don't know that anyone has the answer. I hope the governing bodies, they are addressing it. You've got a big head driver, you've got a lively golf ball, you've got grooves, and it doesn't seem to, for the big hitters, if they are talking about four-inch rough, they don't worry about it too much with those grooves if they are within 110 yards of the green.

So the idea is to get close and you know you're going to get it on the green with powering that wedge out of that grass with those grooves. And if you happen to hit the fairway, you know you're going to knock it in there about four or five feet and get a birdie.

I don't know if I answered your question. I got to rambling.

No, the rambling speaks volumes. Again, the players are to blame for non-existent equipment regulation by many Augusta members, and they must be stopped.

And then it was time for Lawrence Donegan to earn himself a place in our Hall of Fame, and on Hootie's #@!& list...

Q. The list of people who have criticized the changes is long and very, very distinguished; Nicklaus, Palmer, Faldo, Woods; these are really, really great players. At no point have you considered that any of these people might have actually said something that is correct? Are they all wrong and you are right?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: That's a loaded question. (Laughing).

We are comfortable with what we are doing with the golf course for the Masters tournament.

Q. So none of these people have a point?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: I said we're comfortable. They are entitled to their opinion. I said we are comfortable with what we are doing.

Our first "entitled to their opinion" of the day!

Q. Two parts to this. Is the club in a defensive mode in terms of reacting to changes and equipment, and you always invoke the spirit of Bobby Jones and what he would do. Do you have a target year, what kind of clubs you're looking at, what distances you're looking at to bring the course back to? And in the process of stretching of the golf course, you've also narrowed the golf course dramatically in terms of the trees, and that affects member play. How do you reconcile the strategic variety for members during the other 25, 30 weeks that you're open?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: We keep that in mind. We don't think we have penalized our members. They would holler if we did.

If you were a member, would you holler to this man about the course not being fun anymore? I didn't think so!

Q. Just curious, what do you think this course will look like for the Masters in ten years?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: Wow. I don't know what it's going to look like next year. (Laughter).

Q. How will you determine whether or not these changes are successful, is it going to be the score, is it going to be the kind of clubs that the players are hitting into the greens for their approaches?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: Some of both.

The banker thing again.

Q. Phil Mickelson had talked a moment about four or five years ago when you were watching him on 11 - I don't know if you saw that anecdote or not - when he ripped one down the hill and had a wedge in, and he was joking that he was sorry that he hit that shot in front of you. Do you recall that moment?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: Yes.

Q. What kind of effect did that have on you?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: It had a big effect on me and I recall the moment. I went under the ropes and I looked at the marker, the yardage marker and he was 94 yards in front of the green. Coincidentally, Tom Fazio was a few yards away and I didn't know he was there. But that's when we started talking about 11.

And look at it now (courtesy of Golf World).

Q. Will you ever change 12?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: Not while I'm Chairman.

Q. What is the size, height of your rough?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: An inch and 3/8ths.

Q. I mean, that's not really rough.

HOOTIE JOHNSON: The fairway is--

Q. That's fairway at a lot of places I play. (Laughter)

HOOTIE JOHNSON: It's not much. It doesn't do much more than define the golf course.

Ah, definition. Take another spin Mr. Jones.

Q. Missing the fairway with that little rough really isn't a penalty.

HOOTIE JOHNSON: Not much of one. Not really.

Q. Mr. Johnson, so is your reasons for the changes to make the players now hit the same clubs that they were hitting 20 years ago?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: We'd like something like that or maybe 30 years ago, 20 or 30. Something other than a pitching wedge.

I think Hootie needs a less on today's club lofts. Eh, no, you're right. He wouldn't be interested.

Q. Mr. Johnson, regarding the rough, some players have actually said that the rough that you have put in has actually helped them because it's helped stopped balls, slow balls that would have rolled into the pine straw. If it doesn't serve much of a purpose, is there any thought of getting rid of it and bringing it back to what the golf course used to be?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: Well, I haven't thought about that really. Haven't thought about that.

Q. Do they have a point as far as the golf course may have been more difficult?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: Yeah, I think that it probably does slow some shots that might otherwise go into a stand of pine trees.

Good to know they are really giving this architecture stuff a lot of thought.

Q. With the big hitters who do hit it 310 or whatever it may be, you say they will have a problem, but if there's only this much rough, how much of a problem can it be?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: Well, it would be the trees, Dave. Like at 7 or at 17.

How is the tree planting really any different than introducing protective netting? Really? One is a living thing, one is made of some synthetic material. But both would be placed for the same reason: prevent birdies, prevent players from having the freedom to play.

Q. Mr. Johnson, Nick Price said a couple of weeks ago, I asked Jack the same question, that he was surprised that Nicklaus and Palmer, who are both members of this club, and obviously design golf courses now full-time, were not consulted about the changes. Is there any reason why you don't consult past champions about changes to the golf course?

HOOTIE JOHNSON: Well, we have engaged someone that's been working with us, Tom Fazio, for a long time. You know, if we had six opinions, we really wouldn't know which way to go, and they would all be good, I'm sure.

Or not.

Handicapping the Field

Not that any of you engage in illegal gambling or office pools (perish the thought!), therefore, the following predictions are offered strictly for your amusement.

Brian Wacker looks at who's hot and who's not, Gary Van Sickle handicaps the field, Tim Rosaforte factors in the firm and fast conditions and John Antonini offers a performance index. And here's what they are thinking in Las Vegas.

Champions Dinner Stories

Phil Richards in the Indianapolis Star shares some classic Champions Dinner lore.

Jack's Masters Q&A

The scribblers asked some fine questions of 6-time Masters Champion Jack Nicklaus during a short session prior to today's par-3 contest.

Q. Do you have any opinion about Mickelson's plan to use two different drivers to get the ball around?

JACK NICKLAUS: Well, you know, here I go with golf ball again. With the golf ball, they only need about five clubs. And so if he wants to add another driver, he's got plenty of space in there because he's not going to use a lot of them.

Probably a pretty good plan on this golf course. This golf course is a golf course that I always felt like, I mean, I always played my 1‑iron around here. But it was a golf course that guys, first golf course they started using 5‑woods because of the par 5s, because of 13, because of ‑‑ well, there's other par 5s, I can't remember what they were anymore of course ‑‑ (laughter) 15, or downhill lie on 2. This one they started using those kind of clubs. They went to 5‑woods to the small head wood clubs.

And here he talks about how much the game has changed, and how he tried to explain to Hootie that he wasn't realy criticizing the changes to the course in Golf Digest.

Q. Golf is such a comparison game between the individuals, where do you think what you did, what you accomplished ten (sic) years ago ranks? (20 years ago)

JACK NICKLAUS: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. (Laughter).

You know, I would like to have it be a comparison.

I think that the game from about, I suppose, right around early '40s, late '30s, to about '95, the game didn't change very much. And the game in the last ten years has changed dramatically. So your ten years was probably correct.

I think that with what's happened with the golf clubs and the golf equipment we have today, what's happened with the golf ball, you didn't see Augusta National change dramatically during that period of time. The only thing that Augusta did was during about the mid '60s when I was winning quite often, they added a few bunkers because they just put it out in some different places. I thought those were fine. They were all right. Probably should have been there anyway, like the ones at 18 and the ones at 3, those kind of things.

You know, it just very difficult to compare the game today with the game that I played and guys who played in the generation prior to this simply because of today, the game is 90 percent power. What they have tried to do here at Augusta, and I think they are trying to do the right thing, I mean, Hootie and I talked last night a little about it. I said, "Hootie, our company, we have over 50 golf courses we're working on right now and I haven't figured out how in the world what's the right thing to do." I said, "You're trying to corral the long player, somewhat, yet you allow his abilities to still come out, and yet make it fair where an average length player still has a way to play the game."

I haven't figured that out. Because there's such a great difference between the long hitter and the average hitter today that it just doesn't make a lot of sense anymore.

So to try to compare the game of today versus the game that I played ‑‑ I mean, I was the longest when we played and everybody said, gee, Jack hits it so far. But I hit it so far but I hit it 10 or 15 yards, maybe 20 yards, really, by the next guy. The difference today may be 100 yards between a good player, a long hitter and a short hitter. It's such a great difference, it's just so difficult to compare.

And here's an intriguing question:

Q. I wonder, Nick Price was saying a couple of weeks ago at THE PLAYERS that he was surprised you and Arnold, being members, were not consulted about the changes; if you were consulted what would you have told them?

JACK NICKLAUS: That's not my call. Maybe 20 years ago or 25 years ago, we were consulted, or I was, we did a lot of the changes on the golf course in those days, and probably maybe shouldn't have since I was still competing.

And today, it seems as though, you know, if you go into the Masters Champions Room, which is probably the guys they consult with, there's probably 20 of them that are in the golf course design business. How do you pick one from the other? I'm sure that some are more involved than others.

It's a difficult call. It's not my call. So should we have been consulted? Not necessarily. Could we have been consulted? I suppose. But I think that the intention here is to do what is right for the game and what is right for, what is best for Augusta. You know, do I think that it is exactly what I would have done? Probably not. Is it the same that maybe Arnold would have done or Gary or Watson or somebody else who is involved? Probably not. But it might have been. I don't know.

Ah, here comes the music to manufacturers ears...

Q. It's been suggested that you could solve the golf ball problem by making it bigger. Would you subscribe to that?

JACK NICKLAUS: There's quite a few ways to solve it. I would think the simplest way is, why change what they are playing with. In other words, I think that, you know, Titleist makes a golf ball a certain way, Nike makes the golf ball a certain way, Callaway makes the golf ball a certain way. Everybody is used to those characteristics. They play different golf balls because of the characteristics they play. Each company makes several balls and they pick the one they like.

I promise you, it's very simple to bring that ball back ten percent and still keep the same characteristics. That's not a big deal. Why do you need to change the size of it? Let everybody play what they normally play. They don't have to change their drivers, they don't have to change their irons. You don't have to do anything. If the golf ball goes shorter you don't have to come out every year and have the same conversation, what did we do to Augusta to combat what happened to the golf ball last year? Why would they do that?

During the period of 1934 and up to about two, three years ago, there really wasn't much done to this golf course. Why all of a sudden do we have to have a new golf course? Because we've got new equipment that doesn't fit this golf course or even fit the game anymore. That's why.

And my favorite question:

Q. Just to follow up on the golf ball, what is your take on how the Ohio Golf Association is adopting a ball for one of it's events?

JACK NICKLAUS: I don't know really much of what they have done, and what they are going to play, but I think that's one step in the right direction. You know, I think that we talked about Augusta, it was probably the only tournament in golf who could have adopted that kind of a policy five years ago or so, which is probably an option and probably the only place that could have done that and got away with it. And they took the position that they didn't want to be above the game of golf, and I think they probably made the right choice. So they had to try to combat it in another fashion.

I think the Ohio Golf Association, not saying they are above the game of golf, but what they are doing is they are going and playing an event for testing. I think that's probably a good thing. I can't see anything bad about it.

Regarding this critical comments in Golf Digest, it seems Nicklaus may not have heard the question correctly...

Q. In Golf Digest recently you were critical of the changes. Do you still feel that way?

JACK NICKLAUS: Not necessarily critical of the changes. I don't remember what Golf Digest said. I don't have any idea what they said because I didn't read it.

What I've said all along is ‑‑ I said that I felt like, matter of fact, I think that was taken from ‑‑ I went down to Orlando for the golf panelists and they asked me that question. I said from a tournament standpoint, I thought they made it ‑‑ I didn't think it was a very good thing to do. But I said, my feeling is exactly what I've been saying every press conference. I think their intention is to do exactly what they did with the last thing is to try to end up having the players play similar clubs to what they were playing, you know, 20 years ago in the same places. Their intentions are correct.

And then I continued to have said, is what we have done and this like talking about the 50 golf courses I'm designing, we have not figured out what to do yet. I don't think anybody has figured out. I think Carnoustie did probably the most logical thing from a tournament standpoint. You take it to a certain length, you take it down to 12 yards, give them a place to walk down, and if you've got to hit it in this area, take the driver out of your hand and go. That's probably the most logical thing to do, okay.

However, most people like to try to keep the driver somewhat in your hands. Once you keep the driver in your hands, then you try to figure out, how do you combat that. It's very difficult. I don't know that there is a way.

Michaux On Possible Future Changes

I wrote a column in this month's Golfdom (not posted yet) spoofing Augusta, circa 2012. It's my usual sarcastic nonsense about how the course will be expanding into the surrounding neighborhoods to accomodate the ball while taking on corporate sponsors to fund the changes. (Think Titleist Skybox in The Big Oak and you some idea what a serious piece of writing this is.)

Since hitting the send button, I've wondered if I went over the top. Then I get to read this column from Scott Michaux:

Those are words that strike fear in the hearts of purists. Consider the potential "improvements" that have been bandied about by players this week:

- Stretching the devilishly short par-4 third hole from 350 yards closer to 400.

- A 230-yard par-3 sixth.

- A bunkerless 14th hole backed up 20 or so yards more.

- A rebuilt fifth hole, after the uncompromising impediment of Berckmans Road is eliminated.

- A par-3 12th tee box that, heaven forbid, extends a little closer to the bleachers.

Why wait to imagine the screaming from players when we can start kvetching now?

"Once they buy up all the roads and the houses, they'll get it to 9,000 yards," said three-time winner Nick Faldo. "We'll start down I-20."

When it comes to touching up the Sistine Chapel of major venues, this isn't a joke. And neither are these ideas. Some folks believe most, if not all, of these concepts will actually happen someday soon.

Oh yes, he's serious. Check out this stat:

When you see a course where the growth rate jumped from 3.6 yards annually through the first 64 years to 65 yards per year in the past eight, you can understand the concern.

Then Michaux looks at the par-4 3rd, which has not been touched since Nicklaus added those silly looking egg bunkers in down the left side.

At only 350 yards, No. 3 is one of the greatest short par-4s in the world, and the lure of trying to power it close to the green is rarely rewarding.

But with players often laying up short of the fairway bunker complex with easy irons, the thought of putting at least a 3-wood in their hands might be attractive to club officials.

Not so to players.

"I don't think making No. 3 longer would make it any better," Lyle said.

"It would be a shame," Faldo said. "That one stands up."

So did No. 7, but that didn't stop it from receiving nearly a football field of length.

And then Michaux drops this bombshell:

Although the 12th hole might be iconic enough to be spared, No. 6 is vulnerable to the whims of stewards with a limitless budget.

The removal of maintenance structures near the new seventh tee has freed up space for bold possibilities of reconstructing the sixth hole. Players say it has been studied and sighted - to completely reconstruct the sixth green left of its current site and moving and realigning the tee box back and right of where it sits today.

Faldo understands that one day it will cease being an issue - at least for him.

"I'll be smiling and laughing in another 10 years' time, when all these pine trees have grown up," he said. "It will be a scream sitting up here drinking pina coladas and watching them thread it through the Augusta needle."

The Big Oak=Almost A Vitamin B-12 Shot

T.J. Auclair at PGA.com writes about the big names converging under Augusta's "Big Oak."

"This is always where you get a chance to catch up with the world of golf," a weary but gracious [Jim] Nantz said of the area around the oak tree. "Everyone hangs out here. I'm coming in just a few hours after covering the national championship game last night, trying to get my bearings straight and really walking around -- it's almost like a vitamin B-12 shot for me. I'm getting my energy back just being here, seeing the old friends and acquaintances while looking out at the course. It's a thrill to be back. It's my 21st time."

Shapiro On USGA-Augusta Ties

The Washington Posts's Leonard Shapiro looks at the unusual relationship between Augusta National and the USGA, as well as other organizations. Warning, I'm quoted.

When former U.S. Golf Association executive director Sandy Tatum read in 2002 that Augusta National Chairman William "Hootie" Johnson had spoken publicly about the possibility of some day using a scaled back golf ball for the Masters, Tatum said he was thrilled. Finally, he thought, one of the game's major power brokers was preparing to take a stand to protect the sanctity of a storied golf course against club and ball technology providing the game's finest players more and more distance seemingly by the day.

But in the intervening years since Johnson made those comments, Tatum and many other advocates of the less lively "tournament ball" -- Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Tom Watson, among others -- have been disappointed that Johnson has instead decided to twice lengthen the course (now at 7,445 yards) rather than mandate the use of a restricted Masters ball that would fly about 15 to 25 yards shorter.

"Without any ifs, ands or buts, if Hootie had decided to pursue the thought publicly that the Masters course was becoming obsolete and he thought the governing bodies weren't doing anything, he might have had a huge influence on those governing bodies," Tatum said in an interview. "There is so much concern about what is happening to that golf course, he could have used the power and the influence the club has to take the game back once and for all. Sadly, he didn't do it."

And this from Nick Price:

Only Johnson knows for sure why he chose not to take that step. Instead, he chose to lengthen the course by 155 yards from last year and make other changes without even consulting six-time champion Jack Nicklaus and four-time winner Arnold Palmer, both honorary members of the club and highly successful course designers.

"It's sad, really," said veteran PGA Tour player Nick Price, playing in his 21st Masters this week. "You've got Jack and Arnie there, two of the greatest players of all time. They live and breathe Augusta National, consider it like their own back yard. They helped make the Masters what it is, and they don't even think about asking those guys?"

Johnson, the retired South Carolina banker who has been chairman of the club since 1998, declined to be interviewed for this article. An Augusta National spokesman wrote in an e-mail, "We have decided we have nothing to add for your story."

So modest!

Johnson's reluctance to take a stance on the scaled-back ball speaks volumes about the Masters' stature in the U.S. golf establishment and the unique position of Augusta National as the most powerful golf club in America. In recent years, it has maintained its all-male membership despite a challenge from some of the nation's most influential women's organizations. It also remains the only private golf club that runs one of the game's four major championships independently of any of the main governing bodies of the sport.

Some believe that Johnson's reluctance to adapt a tournament ball stemmed from lobbying from the U.S. Golf Association, which is conducting a technical study of the golf ball. Several USGA officers, past and present, are members of Augusta National, including Atlanta attorney Walter Driver, the association's new president. Augusta member Fred Ridley, a Tampa attorney and former U.S. Amateur champion, is the USGA's most recent past president. Current USGA secretary James Reinhart, a Wisconsin-based financial adviser and seemingly on the fast track to the USGA presidency, also belongs, as do past USGA presidents Will Nicholson and Buzz Taylor.

All declined to comment about the club's relationship with the USGA, as did USGA Executive Director David Fay, who said his organization's rules specifically prohibited him from speaking about the inner workings of any USGA member club.

Oh, we might have to do some flashbacks!

The USGA last year asked manufacturers to submit balls that would fly 15 to 25 yards less than current models. There has been speculation Ridley and Driver, among others, may have asked the Masters chairman to hold off until it is completed.
"For some mysterious reason, Hootie keeps changing the golf course," said Geoff Shackelford, author of "The Future of Golf" and a longtime USGA critic. "It seems clear someone is influencing him. I don't want to call it a cabal, but there's a great deal of power there on both sides, and maybe what we're seeing is just a power struggle. For now, it really does look like the USGA side is managing Hootie, which is just fascinating."

And this from Frank Hannigan:

"Roberts understood power and how to use it and how to get it better than anybody I ever knew," said Frank Hannigan, a former USGA executive director who has done extensive research on the club over the years. "Cliff assumed that 'the game' would be taken care of by the USGA. Cliff wanted the USGA luminaries as members of Augusta to enhance Augusta and the tournament."

Eleven of 18 USGA presidents were Augusta National members between 1946 and 1980, according to Golf Digest. In 1965, more than half of the USGA's executive committee were members.

Ernie Els Masters Q&A

Ernie Els attempted to talk about the course changes and the impact of technology, but seemed to be holding back.  His Masters Tuesday session with the intrepid inkslingers:

Q. What's the most extreme of the course changes out there, which hole do you think is the most extreme change, and which of the changes do you possibly disagree with the most?

ERNIE ELS: You know, I think that the changes have been made, we've all talked about technology, it's changed so much, and I think Augusta National has made the biggest changes to compensate that, basically.

We haven't really played many Masters with dry conditions yet. We might find it this week.

I think with technology, with all of these golf courses changing, I think we just hold back and see where it goes. See how we play the game on this new Augusta National. I think we've just got to give it some time and see where it goes. I don't think anything should be rushed now with technology or anything. Let's see where it goes.

 With all due respect Ernie, we've been doing that for about 10 years now, and look where it's gotten us.

I think the changes they have made, I've played with Gary Player this morning and he was saying that they were playing certain clubs into certain holes, and we're basically playing the same clubs into those holes 20, 30 years later. So I guess that's where Augusta National is trying to go, is to make us play a 5 iron into 11 where they were playing 5 irons into 11 in the '60s, '70s. So that's what we're doing now.

They have a couple more trees to look out for, but we're playing those clubs into these holes now. No. 4, Gary was saying that he was playing a lot with Jack, who was the No. 1 player back then, same as Tiger now with us and Jack was hitting 3 irons back then. I'm sure you're going to see Tiger is only hitting 3 iron at 4. That's basically their plan is to bring back the course where they used to play the shots into the greens back then.

 And...

Q. Do you think the fact that they have lengthened the course has reduced the number of people that can win here?

ERNIE ELS: Yeah, it's a tough one. You know, I think with technology, I've got a 5 wood out this week, I can hit that club 245 and hit it quite high. So I can stop it on the greens from that distance.

I think a lot of guys have got those kind of clubs, 7 woods, and all kind of different stuff. I think technology will help a lot of players like myself. It's difficult to say. As I say, we haven't really played Augusta the last five, six years in very firm, fast conditions. We haven't played a new course, so to speak in firm, fast conditions.

I think the players are so good, there's going to be a mix of players in there.

Monty: If The Ball Doesn't Change, The Courses Have To

Monty at the Masters...

The one big change is 11, that's the big change that I find. That's become a very, very difficult hole. If it was hard before, now it's become very difficult. But the rest of the course, I agree with the changes. I think we have to keep going, provided that if we never change the golf ball, we have to keep changing the course and if we change the golf ball, we'll have to change courses. Wish we had done this 15 years ago in 1990 that you found a ball that was good but you can't go backward in this world, you have go forward. If the golf ball doesn't change, the courses have to.

Q. Specifically, what's the difficulty on 11 for you?

COLIN MONTGOMERIE: Generally holes that start with a 5 and it says par 4, are generally the problem, yeah. (Laughter) So that tends to be that one.

And...

Q. Phil Mickelson is using two drivers in his bag this week.

COLIN MONTGOMERIE: Yes, he is, yes.

Q. What's your reaction to that?

COLIN MONTGOMERIE: Well, I think with the manufacturers now being able to do that, I think it's sensible. He's sort of caught everybody on the hot, really, I think and good luck to him. He tried it last week as an experiment and it certainly worked. Won by, what was it 14 or something crazy. I think you'll find, and not just on this course, you'll find a lot of people using two drivers now. Why try and change one swing to accommodate a hole. Why not if the club is designed to go left or right or whatever, why not use that? We have a number of courses that you can think of immediately that would favor both and certainly used more than a 3 iron or 4 iron in a round of golf. There's no reason why that can't be the same. It will give him an advantage of hitting the fairways around here which we all know is crucial. The rough isn't long, but we need control from the fairways and distance.

Tiger's Q&A

Lawrence Donegan in The Guardian: "If Hootie Johnson, the chairman of Augusta National golf club, did not already know the wholesale changes to the most familiar golf course in the world were unpopular with those who have to play it at the Masters this week, he knows now.The defending champion Tiger Woods, in a breach of his lifelong vow of public blandness, yesterday delivered a devastating critique of the decision to lengthen six holes, narrow fairways and plant dozens of new trees around the Augusta National course."

Yes, Tiger sat down for his annual Masters Q&A, and as Donegan writes, there was little of nuance in his take on the course changes:

Q. As you go around the course after the changes have been made, what spots do you say, wow, this really is different?

TIGER WOODS: Well, every one they have changed. (Laughter).

4, I've never hit lumber.

4, I've never hit lumber into 4, that's different. Yesterday I hit 3 wood. My buddy, O'Meara, hit driver. That's a tough hole now. Like it wasn't an easy hole before; now it's even harder.

First interruption here...driver? Oh lordy.

Bobby Jones is too shocked to spin in his grave.

7 is totally different. That's one of the it's one of the narrowest holes on the golf course, if not the narrowest. At that length, the trees they have added on both sides makes it very interesting.

No. 11 is extremely long. By shifting the fairway over to the left, it adds to the length and now it's a little bit of a dog leg.

Q. Do you agree with the changes and why or why not?

TIGER WOODS: Not necessarily. I didn't think you need to mess with 4. I thought 4 was one of the cool holes as it was. It was pretty tough, and you know, I thought it was fine just the way it was. I thought 7 was a great risk/reward hole where you could hit driver, you could hit fairway wood or even iron off the tee, depending on what you feel like you could do. You can try and drive it on the upslope where you had an advantage to be able to spin the golf ball. But then again, it narrows up way down there. It's the narrowest tee shot down there if you decide to hit driver down there. Now you're hitting driver, where usually we're hitting 3 woods or 2 iron. Playing totally different now.

You see, that strategy stuff, that those "so-called" Golden Age architects practiced? Who has time for that!?

Q. How much of a factor will the narrowness of the trees be?

TIGER WOODS: It's a big factor because they have made a concerted effort to make driving part of the game. Here I always thought that you could get some angles to some of the pins and now those angles have been taken away from you. It doesn't make any sense to try to put yourself in those positions now, because if you did, you would be either in the trees or in that new second cut. So it's totally different.

Q. Just 7 and 11?

TIGER WOODS: Well, 9, 1, 2. You name it, there's a bunch of holes like that; 17, 18.

So much for options.

Q. Some players are saying that the course changes have played right into your hands, there's only a dozen or so players who can win here this week; would you agree with that?

TIGER WOODS: I certainly agree that it's narrowed up the field a little bit. Seeing some of the guys at their length, they have what they have to hit into some of the holes, they are having a hard time holding greens. So some of the shorter hitters are definitely going to struggle.

And you are thinking, okay, here comes the follow up, is that a good thing for the Masters?

Q. David Duval is a great buddy of yours, are you secretly pulling for him? I know you want to win but are you pulling for him deep down and what's the progress on his game?

Sigh.

Q. How much aspirations do you have toward golf architecture and if so, what sort of what would be the characteristics of the course you would design?

TIGER WOODS: Well, I certainly would love to get into course design. That's something that I'm looking forward to in the future.

I think some of the greats golf courses in the world are right down there in Melbourne, that sand belt. I absolutely love the face of the bunkers and the shape of the greens. I think that's how the game should be played. I just enjoy that type of golf to me. I don't enjoy elephant burial grounds out there.

Amen Tiger.

Q. How long would your course be?

TIGER WOODS: Depends, actually what the people there want it. It's up to them and my job and my responsibility is to provide a product that suits their needs.

If I were paying $10 million for Tiger, I'd want him to do what he thinks is best. Right?

And...

Q. Players used to shape shots before and now they carry two drivers. What do you think of the technology?

TIGER WOODS: The faces have become faster and the balls have become less spiny and all that means is that you can't shape the ball anymore because you need spin to shape shots. With that, it's hard to maneuver the golf ball. You have to change your plane a lot to make the ball move either way. It's totally different because the ball used to go out there and if you hit a draw, you used to go out there and fall left, now it draws early and it straightens out. So it's certainly changed.

Guys, even some of the more powerful players, have put in 5 woods or 7 woods because it's hard to get the ball in the air with a 2 iron or 1 iron. A 1 iron is obsolete now and 2 iron is kind of headed that way.

Back to the butchery at No. 11:

Q. What about No. 11, you haven't said anything about that.

TIGER WOODS: Yes, it's a tough hole now. It's 505 yards.

Q. Par 5.

TIGER WOODS: It's a short par 5, yeah. As I said, what makes it longer is because now the fairway is being shifted over to the left, which makes it a dog leg and just adds a little bit of extra length. If they would have kept it straight ahead, then it would have played a little bit shorter. But now moving the fairway to the left, it makes it a little bit harder.

Lovely.

Q. Not that this will happen, but if Hootie Johnson were to ask you about the changes, which ones you think were the biggest mistakes, what without him (laughter)?

TIGER WOODS: Is Hootie listening to this? (Laughter) I think Hootie would probably say we're going to have a private conversation. I'm just going to say, leave it at that. I want to be invited back (laughter).

And finally, for the question of the day, maybe the year...

Q. What would you name a son?

TIGER WOODS: I don't know. That's a good question. I don't know. Honestly, I couldn't tell you.