Third Masters Question: Has The Telecast Style Altered Our Perspective?

There were so many great posts on the first two Masters "questions" posed (here and here), including Mark B's "rant" about changes to the presentation of the event and the impact the coverage window expansion has had.

And while there is clearly disagreement about whether the last two events are an aberration or the inevitable result of letting golf architecture's Jackson Pollock restore one of its Monet's, I wonder if we underestimate how much the lack of excitement for television viewers has been impacted by the pace of play and director Lance Barrow's different approach to the telecast.

Some of you noted that the high water mark for Masters telecasts came in 1986, which was followed by several more great finishes. Having grown up a student of that great stretch (and still owning them on VHS), I remember that the shorter telecast window and Frank Chirkinian's preference to show as many shots as possible lent a sense of urgency to the proceedings that seems to be missing today. There was also a sense of extreme control over the entire telecast back then, something noted in this Richard Sandomir piece from 1995 that's worth reading.

In Barrow's defense, the broadcast window has expanded, play has slowed, fans expect a graphic for each player's shot and the opportunity for a birdie run three or four in a row has disappeared.

But I'm wondering if we are unfairly judging the event based on a presentation style that went out with Chirkinian's retirement?

Has the length and pacing of the telecast exaggerated the negative reaction to the last two events? 

'08 Masters Cool Stat Of The Week...

Yes, there will never be another like the '86 Masters, we know. Yes, the wind was tough on Sunday. But how can you not notice the difference between what scorign was possible during the weekend then versus now?

From Brett Avery's Golf World stat package, the "Cool Stat of the Week"...

 

"This tournament has become all about playing defensively and minimizing damage."

They're not throwing snowballs anymore. This is an avalanche.

From John Hawkins' Golf World game story on the 2008 Masters:

Those who have begun comparing the Masters to the U.S. Open in terms of punitive nature aren't thinking clearly,

We'll let you tell that to Tiger and Phil's face...

...since the outrageous homestretch produced by the top of the leader board in 2004, this tournament has become all about playing defensively and minimizing damage. The addition of the second cut (rough), a billion trees and 500-plus yards, all of which occurred during the tenure of former Masters chairman Hootie Johnson, has resulted in a conspicuous subtraction of charm and suspense.

It's easy to blame Hootie and the Blowtorch for the growing pile of late-Sunday snoozers, but the game's sharpest minds failed to foresee the most obvious effect of the changes.

Oh do tell us why you see what the rest of us only saw five years ago...

A competition once weighted heavily to favor power players and good putters has fallen into the hands of the control freaks. You have to hit fairways to even think about winning. Scoring angles have been reduced to direct lines. Certain sections of the course have gotten alarmingly tight, but it's the congestion framing those alleys that has nullified the shotmaking and recovery skills that helped brand the Masters from its inception.

The Seve Ballesteros of the early 1980s couldn't make a cut at Augusta National nowadays.

Okay, that's a bit silly, but we'll let it slide because the point is well-intentioned.

Immelman hit 48 of 56 fairways and won. Zach Johnson averaged 265 yards per measured drive but hit 45 fairways and won. Heck, those guys made a cottage industry out of laying up on par 5s once routinely attacked by anyone with a little pop in his bat and designs on a seat at the Champions Dinner.

Not to indict the last two green jacketeers -- they only did what they could and had to do -- but things have really changed. Good strategy is now conservative strategy at a place where all hell used to break loose on a regular basis. "It usually doesn't turn out too well if you try to be aggressive," said Geoff Ogilvy, who shot six over on the weekend and finished T-39. Not that he needed to finish the thought, but Ogilvy did: "Aggression doesn't work, but the guys four or five back have to be aggressive because you're not going to win parring every hole."

After years of dealing with disadvantages one could trace to his lack of supreme power, a top-tier control player such as Jim Furyk might figure to factor, but even he speaks in somewhat jaded tones. "It's a pretty good test of golf," Furyk said. "I mean, it used to be a lot of fun to play. It's not fun anymore, but it definitely got a lot more difficult." Addressing the notion that people don't hoot and holler over solid pars, Furyk added, "I don't think we have [heard roars] for the last few years. It's obviously a decision they [tournament officials] made. It's their event, a different golf course, and there's a different way to approach it now."

All over a silly little golf ball that no one wanted to roll back. Such a shame.

Meanwhile, even one of the old guard proudly declares its continued love for using course setup ploys to put the flatbellies in their place -- except at the Masters. 

John Hopkins writes of the course changes in The Times:

Some of the unique appeal of the Masters has gone as a result.

Incoming!

Check out this great shot by J.D. Cuban Dom Furore accompanying John Hawkins' Golf World Masters game story.

 

 
See, there is a positive behind all of that tree planting. We get cool images like this. 

"Whatever happened to subtlety?"

Richard Sandomir in the New York Times isn't a fan of the Masters theme music (I love it!). He also offers several telecast notes, including this about the maudlin father-son themed opening.

...the script was fattened with phrases — “imbued with a towering source of inspiration,” “simply the circle of life at Augusta” and “walking in the green jacket footsteps of his hero” — that made my blood sugar spike. Whatever happened to subtlety?

Nantz ended the 2-minute-50-second piece by saying, “Bobby Jones built the foundation, a journey borne at the heart, from a father to a son, always by their side.” (It’s TV English, not Webster’s.) The final four words sounded like a subliminal nod to his new memoir, “Always By My Side: A Father’s Grace and A Sports Journey Unlike Any Other,” about his relationship with his father, who has Alzheimer’s disease.

Immelman On Letterman

Two out of ten decent jokes seems to be about the batting average for these Letterman top ten lists...

“Those trees were not there. He could not make the shot today."

Larry Dorman probably hasn't helped the healing process between ANGC and the New York Times with this assessment of the course changes and their impact on play.

There can be no doubt that the 1-inch fuzz on the face of Augusta has reduced the ability of long hitters to bomb drives into spots on the edges of holes that used to set up better angles into greens. The freedom that came from not worrying about the penalty the second cut exacted — reducing the spin on iron shots, thus reducing control — is gone.

I wonder if the club understands how important that sense of freedom was in making the players more aggressive and therefore, more likely to play freely? (And with that comes not only better play, but also big numbers when they get greedy.)

And the addition of trees to the left of the 17th hole has taken away the opening that led to the greatest charge in the past 25 years at Augusta. It has cut off the opening Nicklaus found during the final round in 1986, when he punched his ball onto the green and made the final birdie in his closing 65 to win his sixth and final green jacket.

Visiting the spot last Wednesday from which his father had made his great escape, Jack Nicklaus II pointed to some new pines and said: “Those trees were not there. He could not make the shot today. There’s no way.”

Come on, a Tom Kite win that year would have been just as memorable! 

Second Masters Question: What's The State Of The Masters "Brand"

I heard from a few folks today and all were bemoaning another less-than-fulfilling Masters. The callers ranged from a golf course superintendent to a guy manning a phone bank in Canada who had to tell me how dull it was after I revealed I was a golf writer.

However, the most surprising was a Southerner who has attended many Masters and respects Billy Payne.

This avid golfer excitedly attended Thursday for the first time in a few years. He and his buds arrived at noon and said they got bored and gone by 4 o'clock.

His main gripe was that a certain tension and sense of looming possibilities was gone. The sound of excitement has disappeared and the atmosphere altered beyond recognition. I asked why people were leaving in droves in the late afternoon (at least to us TV viewers), even with so many great names still on the course.

Boredom, was his reply. And then he said the words that you know make me wince for a number of reasons: "The Masters brand has been tainted."

Now you know how I feel about branding, and we can argue about the course changes.

So leave your architectural views behind for a moment, consider the last few Masters and what your friends are saying and tell us, has the "brand" has been tainted?

"There's more scoring in soccer."

Steve Elling joins the chorus calling for Augusta National to turn back the clock. Several fine points:

It's irrelevant what the television ratings will say, because history has proven people will watch the Masters no matter the conditions or leaderboard. But has there ever been a more dreadful two-year period in modern history with regard to excitement and goosebumps?

Short answer: No.

And...

We watch the Masters for birdies and crazy rallies, like those managed over the past quarter-century by Jack Nicklaus and Phil Mickelson. Masters memories were not intended to be nightmarish, even for the winner.

And this quote, which I didn't see anywhere else from the former USGA President:

 "We've got them all in the honey holes," said Fred Ridley, chief of the ANGC competition committee, shortly before the leaders teed off Sunday.

Yeah, but the course itself was still a bear. Ridley, it has been sarcastically noted elsewhere, was once the president of the USGA, where extreme course set-ups that cross the line have become the stuff of legend over the years. But in fairness, the changes to Augusta pre-date Ridley's arrival.

But let's never forget just how closely tied the USGA and Augusta National have been in recent years. If it weren't Ridley, it'd be someone else protecting par.

As a final plea to the club for a return to moderation, consider the performance of arguably the greatest player in the history of the game over his past three-plus seasons at Augusta. Over his most recent 13 rounds, Woods has posted exactly one round in the 60s and broken par a total of five times.

Funny that the club has initiated a program last week to allow kids into the tournament for free. Had I watched Sunday's play as a teenager, I would have bought a soccer ball the very next day.

After all, there's more scoring in soccer.

Could Billy Payne's global initiative actually be opening the door for unprecedented criticism of the course? We'll see... 

Sunday Masters Overnight Rating Down Slightly

From AP, courtesy of GolfBrief.com:

Sunday's coverage on CBS drew an overnight rating of 8.9 and an 18 share. That's down two percent from a 9.1/21 in 2007.

Of course, they ran 40 minutes into 60 Minutes and gave it a strong number, so the tournament accomplished its most important task.

First Masters Question: Did The Weather Really Deprive Us Of Excitement?

I thought CBS's Peter Kostis offered excellent commentary from his outpost on No. 13 and ably handled the awkward situation of having his prized pupil in contention (and then having to interview him...).

However, I'm curious what everyone thinks of this golf.com column remark:

For the second year in a row, the weather denied us a back-nine shootout, something we haven't seen since Tiger's win in 2005 over Chris DiMarco. The wind on Sunday forced players to be defensive or risk making big numbers. If the conditions had stayed as soft as they were Saturday, there would have been a lot more roars.

I'm wondering if the wind was really the reason we didn't get a shootout.

The ebb and flow of the week felt more to me like a U.S. Open, where the course has beaten the players down to a point where by Sunday they were so used to being on the defensive that even had weather cooperated,  sharp, aggressive play would have been scarce.

Also, isn't there something amiss when, despite being set up in such a forgiving a way (all tees forward, reasonable hole locations), it is still so unyielding in some wind?

"The only glimpse of nerves came on the 17th"

In writing about Trevor Immelman's win, the New York Times' William Rhoden says:

The only glimpse of nerves came on the 17th, where his tee shot landed in the bunker. Immelman clasped his hands behind his head and grimaced.

Now, as I recall it, Immelman hit it in the water on the previous hole. And on 17, that would have been his second shot that landed in the bunker, as there are no fairway bunkers. Other than that, it was a great observation. 

Dateline Augusta: April 14, 2008

The final installment of the Dateline Augusta blog is up with the final round stories. You can also view the posts from the entire week here.

"His aura is also propagated by the American media, for whom the word sycophantic barely scratches the surface."

Martin Johnson on Tiger's relationship with the U.S. media...tough, but funny!

His aura is also propagated by the American media, for whom the word sycophantic barely scratches the surface. When a fellow golfer (Phil Mickelson, Rory Sabbatini, Fuzzy Zoeller, Ian Poulter, Sergio Garcia) says something Woods doesn't much care for, they are all sentenced to a spell of 'purdah' on the back of Woods' intolerance of any kind of inference that he might be mortal.

He is never criticised for this by the American press, some of whom are handpicked for having their own egos massaged by the man himself. Those reporters who are onside with Woods are rewarded by being addressed by name at a press conference. To those that are not, he finds a way of conveying that the question is being asked by someone a couple of clubs short of a full set.

"Mr. Payne is a wonderful gentleman; he sees that, he's listening, he knows."

Anthony Cotton writes about the quiet at Augusta National, and quotes Mark O'Meara extensively:

"It's definitely different," said Mark O'Meara, the 1998 Masters champ.

"If you hear Tiger Woods say that, the No. 1 player in the world and one of the most powerful players in the world, then, yeah, something's changed.

"People want to hear roars. That's what I think is so great about the (British) Open Championship. They really don't mess with the course that much. The weather and conditions dictate what the scoring's going to be like."

"I'm 51 now and I've had my day in the sun, but I'd rather see it to where some of the holes like 7, and a couple of others, where maybe they back off a little bit. Where you can see a guy post a 31 on Sunday, or make a couple of eagles and birdies," O'Meara said. "I think Mr. Payne is a wonderful gentleman; he sees that, he's listening, he knows."

I interviewed O'Meara recently for Golf World and he really made the point about how much less the course is "running." Boy was that evident this week.

"I wouldn't be surprised if in the future they back off on some of the length and try to make it a little bit faster.

"Speed the course up and it's always going to play tougher — even if it's short, it doesn't matter. If it's firm and fast, I don't care what the length is, it's going to play difficult. I don't think it's going to be back to where it was when I won in '98, but I do think they're going to make the players think a little bit more."