Restore the Roars: For All the Haterz

As I said in my interview with Scotland on Sunday's John Huggan on The 19th Hole podcast, criticizing Augusta National has almost become a cliche in the past couple of years. 

Writers and players alike are attacking the course's changes since 2002 without remorse or fear of reprisal.  The Cam Cole piece that I linked to yesterday was particularly harsh toward Hootie Johnson, the former Masters chairman.  Cole was perhaps squares too much blame on Johnson for the changes.  After all, Augusta National is more than a one man golf club.  Though the Chairman is almost like the Pope of Augusta National (the Pope is the chosen successor to St. Peter in the Catholic Church), he does not likely have complete control over the changes made.

The membership approved the changes proposed to them by Tom Fazio.  Fazio, therefore, has some of the blame - or credit - for the changes made to Augusta.

I mention credit because a number of readers here have defended the changes to the National.  They have defended the lengthening of the course.  They are ok with the planting of trees that eliminate a vast number of options in how to play many of Augusta's most famous holes. 

Their claim is that courses change over time.  Some will cite Zach Johnson's performance on the par 5s en route to his 2007 Masters win.  Others will blame the weather for the difficult scoring in each of the last two Masters and advise that good weather will yield low scores.

I'd like to respond with my own rendition of what I feel has gone wrong at Augusta National.

Bobby Jones is President Emeritus of Augusta National for a reason.  He, along with Alister MacKenzie, had such an influence on the formation of the club and the legend of the course that he was to be etched for eternity at the head of the club.  His influence should remain today.

The great thing about his influence is that much of it pertaining to the design of Augusta National is recorded in writing.  The design philosophy that guided the course, how certain holes were intended to be played, and the vision for the future of the Masters tournament is all recorded.

Borrowing from Fox Sports' 2007 Masters preview, here is the design philosophy of Augusta National:

1. The course should be pleasurable to as many people as possible.
2. The course should require strategy and skill, or it would not stand the test of time.
3. The course should give average players a fair chance, while demanding the most out of experts who wish to break par.
4. The course should preserve the natural beauty, make use of natural hazards and use a minimum of artificiality.

Obviously, the interpretation of these four principles can vary wildly.  But, it should be under these four principles that anyone - including Tom Fazio - make changes to this course.  If these four principles were not supposed to be used, Jones would lose his presidency at the club.

Each of the major championships has a setup philosophy that guides how they transform their host courses.  The USGA has a fourteen point plan for the US Open.  The Royal & Ancient under Peter Dawson has two major - yet unpublished tenets - lengthen courses or reposition bunkers, and then let the weather control scoring.  The PGA Championship, I'm sure, has one but it isn't particularly relevant to the discussion since it seems inconsistent from one year to the next.

For the Masters, they can transform their own course, every year, how they want to suit the Championship.  The place is closed half of the year, so sweeping changes can be made quickly.  Still, they should always be made keeping the design principles and stated aims of the course in mind. 

That said, how do the changes from 2002 onward align with these principles?

The lengthening of the course from 6925 yards to 7435 yards this year is, really, not the biggest issue.  Technology - primarily the golf ball - has made most championship courses under 7100 yards into a joke for players without deep rough, tight fairways, and absurd pin placements.  Rather than going completely like the US Open, Augusta opted for length.

The length really only hurts the course in a handful of places.  The par 3 4th hole is one of the most lengthened holes.  It was lengthened by 35 yards to turn the hole from a mid to long iron into a long iron to hybrid. 

That alteration is not nearly as egregious, though, as what happened at the 7th hole.  It was lengthened 40 yards from 410 to 450 yards.  Originally, Jones and MacKenzie intended the approach to the hole to be played with a wedge or short iron and leave the diabolical green complex.  Now, with the green essentially the same, players hit mid and long irons into the hole.  It is practically a par 5 now.

The lengthening of the back nine par 5s have essentially taken away the strategy principle from Jones' design.  Thirteen and fifteen were intended to be risk-reward par 5s - not the lay up holes that they are today.  When Zach Johnson won the Masters in 2007, he did so by laying up on every par 5.  It worked out brilliantly for him, but it muted the golf course when the tournament turned into a wedge contest.  They already have one of those every Wednesday during Masters Week.

As the Sand Trap pointed out in 2005, Fazio's redesign has taken the risk options out of play.  In effect, he has turned those options into prescription.  The players have responded by swallowing their gusto and laying up.  The charges are possible, but players have responded to the lengthening and tree planting on these holes by playing the odds instead of trying to defy them.  Shortening these two holes by 15 or 20 yards would restore the opportunity to go for these holes in two.  You can read more about this idea from Daniel Wexler, who did a great commentary on the subject in the LA Times this week.

My biggest personal gripe is #11.  The hole was intended to allow players to take the risk of hitting a massive fade to the right in order to get a better angle to the green which is guarded by a pond.  Tree planting and the "first cut" have all but eliminated that option for the field.  It leaves players in a forced bailout short and right of the putting surface.  Players will not challenge the pond from the left side - the "bad play."  They can't get far enough to the right to make #11 into a birdie hole without holing a 40 footer.  There is no strategy involved in this hole.

That said, some will say that Augusta National doesn't care what you, I, or anyone else thinks of their course.  That's not true.  I know that from Billy Payne's comments to the media.  He blames the weather and very firm conditions for the scoring woes at the last two Masters.  He remains optimistic that this year will be different.  In Payne's own words:

I would be quick to add that this week is an important test. Since the most recent, substantial changes to the course in 2006, we have not had good weather over the weekend. The players have not, in fact, had the opportunity to demonstrate their skills against the competitive test of the course.

It looks like we are going to have some pretty good weather this weekend, and so I think we will continue to look at that. But I think we are going to see some good scores shot this week, and we are going to see the course played as it was designed to be played when those changes were made. I think we are going to be pleased with the results.

He has heard the criticism.  The course responded with a paltry 10 yard reduction of the official course length and some additional teeing options on several holes.  More than anything, Augusta needs to restore the concept of options in either setup or player choice.  Either would be greatly appreciated and it appears that the Chairman recognizes that point.

Chariman Payne wants solid - but not out of control - scoring.  In other words, he too wants to Restore the Roars.