golfrewind.com

Hammered? Certainly no more so than your beloved St. Andrews. Care to match winning scores over the last four times the British Open was held there and the same scores for those years at Augusta?

St. Andrews winners in 2005, 2000, 1995, and 1990 posted a combined score of -57 under par.

Masters winners in 2005, 2000, 1995, and 1990 posted a combined score of -46 under par.

Masters winners the last 4 years posted a combined score of -40 under par.

Now who "hammered" what? You Masterbashers ( that was close) are barking up the wrong tree with this time!

I don't agree with criticism of the course, it has stood the test of time with the recent changes. The best score is still Tiger in '97. No one is breaking 66 regularly.

The lack of credibility is with the fields. Too few players, too many missing players between 50 and 100 on the rankings,too many wasted places on players who used to be good.

Yes we all look forward to the first Major ,a sign that winter has finished. That and the course is why it is everyone 's favourite ,but the weak fields erode its status as a Major.

Larry Mize?

The Masters is hugely self promoted and has degenerated into a putting copmpetition - witness Woods putting into the stream and so on.

There is no point in comparing the Old Course scores with Augusta - unlike Augusta the course was built before 1930 and has stood the test of time without an annual rebuild to contain TW et al. Secondly, it is common cause that the Old Course's main defence is the weather which has been benign for the last few Open's.

Nonsense. The greens are tricky, but the art of Augusta is in your second shot, because it you get the wrong side of the green,you will struggle to three putt. And if you are the wrong side of the fairway, it is more difficult to hit the right side of the green.

The guy who designed the course knew something about golf and shot making in particular.

When I was playing Pro Golf the main difference to either side of the Pond was that US golf was more 'Target Golf'. Well watered courses allowed full carry into difficult greens. In the UK on the other hand courses were only watered to keep them green and you had to find a way into the greens. A number of top US golfers couldn't master this so stayed in the US.

'Fulford' in York (UK) lost a tour event because the "Club" were afraid that someone was going to break 60 and they didn't want that as a course record.

So are courses wanting to 'Tigerproof' themselves or stop someone from shooting 59 or less?

Most Course Records are down to 62 or 63 and have been around there for years. In fact all four "Major" Course Records were 63 up to 2003.

I completely agree with your point here Leaguegolf. If The Open was held at St Andrews every year then The Open would lose `something` too, it would not be regarded as stern a test of golf as the other Open venues.

If Augusta is still as testing as you infer, then why is Hootie even mentioning the Possibility of using a special golf ball for the Masters sometime in the future!!!!...Hootie is not the type to use words/ideas cheaply when it comes to their beloved Augusta

Whether it means "world golfers" or "the world playing golf", it should have several events in different countries. One of my peeves (and I'm not a huge soccer fan before I even get started...) is the elitism of the US. The World Cup is ENORMOUS everywhere on the planet but here, because we didn't invent, perfect or excel in soccer. So it isn't promoted here as our other sports (which we either invented, perfected or excel at) are. Golf as a business we have excelled at and we should take the fruits of that to other places to promote the game. We take football and baseball to other countries (not always to great success, but the effort is there); why shouldn't we take golf? Golf is played globally. I know the revenue stream in Italy may not be the same as California or Ohio, and sponsors may not jump for that, but the game has to be bigger than that. I know - I'm a dreamer - money is everything in business like this. But can't a guy dream?
Also, the Masters' decline is linked in my opinion to the US Open's ascencion as the #1 tourney in the world and the Player's Championship being such a major event. These tourneys have grown with time, while, outside of "Tiger-proofing" Augusta National, the Masters hasn't really changed, except to become a bit more exclusionary, which definitely hurts it's appeal to the masses. Golf has become more an inclusionary sport and Augusta National remains an exclusionary club, from membership restrictions at their club, to badge limits for the tournament, to it's status as an invitational (and revising their invitations to exclude a few more golfers). It's stagnant and not looking to change anytime soon.

As the Jed Bartlett of this forum, you are now officially designated 'the good guy'. Meet Frank o sport, you have both put together the most intelligent of posts I have read here for some time.

Be prepared for some flak from the crowd.

*stands up and applauds this post*

The answer to that is because Hootie is looking to the future. The same way the USGA is looking toward the future by currently testing golf balls that are 15-25 shorter. When courses run out of room at 7500+ yards, it's time to look in other directions.

As a "baby boomer" I've seen the sport of soccer in America go from non-existent when I was a kid, to the sport of choice for millions of America's youth. Soccer has, by far, replaced every other sport in America as the sport played by our youths. This transition has taken time but America is just beginning to reap the rewards of the amazing growth of soccer in this country over the last 15 years or so. I work at a facility that was built as a golf dome with the afterthought of using it as a place to play indoor soccer in the winter. That was 10 years ago. Today there are literally a thousand soccer teams that play there year round. Visit any park in America and you will see the kids, teens, and adults playing soccer at all hours of the day and night. Take a look around.........the face of sport in America is changing.

As for Augusta and the Masters, some of what you say is true and is to be applauded, but I respectfully disagree with your faulting Augusta National for any exclusionary practices. Specifically concerning membership and tournament badge restrictions.......but that's for another thread.

...this pretty much explains the `something` I was waffling on and on about, but in one sentence! So good post TwillDog

...as much as I enjoy The Masters, I think it could be an even better tournament! The emphasis on tradition almost seems contrived at times...and I wish they`d be alot more brave and do more to Augusta, and treat it like a living breathing golf course and not a shrine instead!!! Don`t just lenghten the course... ...use other `tweaks` too!

If anything the Tiger-proofing of the course has played right into Tiger`s hands ...but there again I think I may come across as just a "sour Brit", as Droogy would say .

I guess that means the americans will now be claiming they invented soccer, too. hehe hmm that could be true in a way, it's called football everywhere else, isn't it? :P

And not to disapprove of anything, I do love the Masters! The question here though isn't my opinion of the tournament, but my opinion of why it may not be as popular as it once was. I don't particularly care whether they change a thing or not; one thing I respect about them is their esteemed reverence for tradition. I don't fault them for it. I just think that in the long term, when people look for answers as to why it has begun to pale comparatively, those would be the reasons.

The Masters still puts blue dye in the water, so it is still a bit of a 'bottle blonde' which does not realise it's roots are showing. I love it to, and it is the tournament I love watching most , because of the time of year.

The Brits have been rightly criticised for not knowing when to ditch tradition and move things into the modern era. It's nice to see someone else make the same mistake.