A Commentary on the Setup of Augusta for the 2009 Masters

by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 13, 2009 12:53 AM EDT

After the Thursday opening round of the 2009 Masters, I was convinced that the Masters' tournament committee buoyed the scoring average by presenting the field with an absurd set of hole locations that artificially produced lower scores.

via img.timeinc.net

With a record number of rounds under par and under 70 on day one, it seemed that Chariman Billy Payne instructed the grounds crew to make sure his course would pass the self-described scoring test this weekend.

Then, on the second day, the Committee struck back with a much tougher gauntlet of hole locations. Combined with some swirling winds in Amen Corner, the course was a tougher animal to tame. The scoring average went up 1.5 strokes. It seemingly proved that the committee could make Augusta play to whatever number they felt like.

The weekend proved to be great for scoring. The course played 0.28 strokes under par on average for the final two rounds. Obviously, the players that made the cut are playing the best and would improve the average score. Still, for the course to play under par for two rounds at the Masters seemed improbably given the scoring of the last several tournaments.

The final round setup, in particular, was reminiscent of the Masters that you and I know and love. According to Steve Elling's reporting, the players were filled with excitement at the Sunday hole locations. They were the traditional pins - that is to say that they were accessible and designed to promote birdies.

A new pin placement on the par 3 sixth helped make the hole play under par on Sunday. The traditional pin at 16 yielded chances at birdies. Thirteen and fifteen were practically automatic birdies. Still, there were respectable pins around the course on Sunday. It was the appropriate mix of hole cuts in keeping with tradition of the tournament.

Despite the generous pins on many holes, the players still had to execute the shots. The quality of play leading into the playoff was excellent. The course did not decide the champion. The players did. And the players did it with birdies and eagles (and bogeys, too). The examination was inside the head of the players - as it should be.

This does not mean that I am backing down from my critique of Augusta National from an architectural standpoint. Those gripes still remain.

I walk away from this Masters feeling that Chairman Payne is dead set on taking the Augusta that he has inherited in this role and restoring the roars. The greens were softened and slightly modified in places to improve scoring. He was not afraid to move up the tees.

Payne had very small changes made to Augusta National. More may come over time during his Chairmanship. What he did, though, was take advantage of the underground irrigation control system to create conditions more conducive to scoring. For that, he has my respect and gratitude.

I missed the roars.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

What a great Masters Tuna-mint...

Using only players making the cut, the scoring average only increased 1.14 strokes on the 2nd day and decreased (71.60, 71.46) both days on the weekend. You cannot include Gary Player, Floyd and others.

Remember, when it is YOUR course, not the PGA’s, the R&A’s or the USGA’s, you can do what you want to YOUR course. They decide whether to move the tee boxes up or back, how to mow each day, whether to sprinkle or not and where to cut the holes. And, unless we pay dues to that club, it is none of our business how they set it up.

by One-Eyed Golfer Guy on Apr 13, 2009 7:06 AM EDT reply actions

Correction

The actual weekend average scores were 72.12, 71.60…

by One-Eyed Golfer Guy on Apr 13, 2009 7:09 AM EDT reply actions

That’s ok – don’t worry about it on the numbers. I should’ve included those to explain my under par average number.

I really don’t buy into this argument that outsiders cannot criticize ANGC. They can, and they can do so because ANGC presents a tournament to the public every year. They present a tournament that is great, but do so in a fashion that attempts to highlight the genius of the Jones/Mackenzie design. When that design was dramatically altered in 2002, they opened themselves to criticism. If you present a tournament to the public, then the public has the right to comment.

If Rolling Road put on a tournament for the public and people didn’t like the course, they would have a right to comment. If the Masters was just a private invitational held without TV cameras and the pomp and circumstance, then I would agree that I have no real right to complain. (I’m not going to try to make a long argument about how public support of the Masters over the years gives me some kind of extra right to complain. That cannot be won.)

by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 13, 2009 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions

The public is invited to watch the Masters on TV. The public is invited to attend the tournament in person. Every year, the current chairman thanks the public for tuning in and traveling to Georgia.

I have never been invited to attend a meeting of either the golf or green committee at Augusta National. Therefore, Vince and everyone else not present at those meetings do not know the precise rationale for any modifications made to the golf course since 1934. (For example, was the real reason they reversed the front and back nines in 1935 the explanation the public received 74 years ago? Were the golf media and golf course architects incensed?) Also, we are not privy to the logic utilized to determine the daily set up of tee boxes and where the cups are placed.

Augusta National made it perfectly clear during the Martha Burk controversy they did not need sponsorship. They have made it perfectly clear they do not care what CBS thinks, either. There are more than one or two ex-CBS announcers on the outside looking in for comments deemed un-Augusta like. They welcome comments, suggestions and opinions from former players and others. For all we know, the setup this week was altered by recent criticism by Shackelford and others. Or, maybe they did not.

Virtually every other worldwide tournament of any consequence is set up by others. Either the appropriate tour or it’s ruling body for that tournament (PGA, USGA, R&A, etc.)

In my opinion, how they set up Augusta National is none of our business. And Augusta National agrees with me.

by One-Eyed Golfer Guy on Apr 13, 2009 10:42 AM EDT reply actions

Billy Payne made that abundantly clear in his press conference before the tournament. He said that this course was undergoing a test this week. That test was to see how scoring would hold up using the minor changes he made and the setup changes he intended to spread out over the course of the week. He has also made veiled criticism of the decisions made under Hootie Johnson’s leadership. Payne would not say these things in public if he didn’t think the public cared or if he didn’t care what the public thought of the Masters.

by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 13, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions