I think the powers that be at Augusta National got exactly what they wanted. They don't want Fred Funk, plucky as he may be, to win at their course. Or any other average hitting, average player who just got hot that week. They want the "Big 5" to win their tournament because it validates their tournament. And going into the final round Sunday, all of the "Big 5" were within reach of the golden ring. It's not so much that they want to eliminate the shorter hitter, they just want to eliminate people who don't "deserve" to win their tournament - those guys 30 and below on the money list who got the invite, but should just be happy to be there. Funny thing is that even before the changes, the big guys were still the ones winning, save for a Mike Weir here and there.
I think the powers that be at Augusta National got exactly what they wanted. They don't want Fred Funk, plucky as he may be, to win at their course. Or any other average hitting, average player who just got hot that week.
I seriously doubt the powers that be at Augusta prefer any player over another. I'm sure they couldn't care less who wins The Masters. They know the best players will fare the best and the great players will win more often. And this has been the case throughout Masters history.
That's basically my point; but that really limits the chances of most golfers to win, which is the addition to my point. Maybe I shouldn't say they don't want certain people to win, and say they ONLY want certain people to win. Yes, the Weirs and Olazabals will still have their day because they are good ball strikers and has been noted several times, if the course is dry, it kind of evens the field a bit for the shorter hitters. But by and large, the top 10 in the world are the guys this course is now set up for. Is that bad? Not necessarily; you now force guys who are also-rans to amp up their game to be able to win there. But even for a limited field event, the likelihood of any non top 10 guy winning is remote.
...but that really limits the chances of most golfers to win...But by and large, the top 10 in the world are the guys this course is now set up for.
If, by this, you mean that Augusta is such a brilliant course, with such excellent shot values, set up and presented in such a way that a golfer must have an exceedingly high level of skill and nerve to merely contend, then I agree.
And this, I would assert, is the essence of major championship golf. And nowhere in the world is it more discernible than at Augusta National Golf Club.
I think my point is coming across wrong. I'm not trying to argue a fact - I'm agreeing with the facts. Yes, majors are supposed to identify the best players in the world. Yes, the best players are supposed to win those events. My only issue is if that is the case, why even invite anyone else? You can't have a t-ball player hit at Yankee Stadium and expect a home run. I don't know - I think I'm talking myself in circles, and maybe contradicting myself. I do want to see courses identify the best golfers, but the fact is the "best" in the field don't always win. Ernie Els was the best golfer in the field this past week, but he didn't win. Does that mean the course didn't do a good job identifying the best player? No, it just means either he didn't play his best or someone else was better than him this week. However, this course setup allowed more people to play and compete. There's nothing wrong with that either way, because it's ok that the Masters wants to truly identify the "best" golfer and other tournaments aren't the Masters. Once again talking in circles - I'm making myself crazy!!!! Anyway, I'm out of here before you guys start on me!!!!! LOL!
You can't put the Yankee line-up on a softball field either (maybe you can the way they're hitting lately). Do you think professional tour courses should be short enough to make the Pavin's of the world competitive? The harder the course the more the cream rises to the top.
Understood and agreed. But is Pavin bad just because he's not long? And what is his option - get longer or face the fact that you just can't win there. Again, I see everyone's argument and agree completely. Just can't help feeling a bit sorry for the Funks of the golf world who have the game but not the length. That being said, Funk ain't Phil...
If the Pavin/Funk types were baseball players that couldn't hit the fastball anymore would teams throw them change-ups so they could compete?
Why does everyone pick on Funk in these examples ? Give him a break. He turns 50 in a couple of months and has had some of his best seasons in recent years(Players, Ryder & President Cupper, PGA 2nd, a couple of Top 15s on the money list) while the layouts have grown longer.
Why does everyone pick on Funk in these examples ? Give him a break. He turns 50 in a couple of months and has had some of his best seasons in recent years(Players, Ryder & President Cupper, PGA 2nd, a couple of Top 15s on the money list) while the layouts have grown longer.
No problem with Funk here...he can still compete on the shorter, tighter layouts. Plus, I like his animated style.
But is Pavin bad just because he's not long? And what is his option - get longer or face the fact that you just can't win there...Just can't help feeling a bit sorry for the Funks of the golf world who have the game but not the length.
TwillDog,
I think it is very important to remember that skilled players can compete...and win...anywhere and anytime...no matter how much length they may be lacking.
An excellent example of this is South Africa's Tim Clark. Tim, you may remember, finished tied 3rd at last year's U.S. Open, and runner-up at this year's Masters. He could've easily won either championship. Mr. Clark is currently ranked 164th, out of 183 ranked players, in the PGA TOUR's Driving Distance category.
Guys like short-hitting Corey Pavin are failing to contend in major championships not because of their lack of length, but because they are greatly lacking in many other important areas of their golf games.
Actually Clark is just one of a number of guys who don't bomb it but contend thanks to their all round skill.
Luke Donald is another, Olazabal (although he is getting longer), Jim Furyk, Arron Oberholser are all short(ish) drivers who are making money on Tour this year. Mike Weir is tied with Tim Clark in driving distance but has won a Major and nearly $1M this year already. Furyk is even lower on the driving distance list than Clark and Weir.
If you look at these guys, what they do have is rock-solid games, especially in the irons. Weir in particular is one of the best putters on Tour.
I think it is very important to remember that skilled players can compete...and win...anywhere and anytime...no matter how much length they may be lacking.
An excellent example of this is South Africa's Tim Clark. Tim, you may remember, finished tied 3rd at last year's U.S. Open, and runner-up at this year's Masters. He could've easily won either championship. Mr. Clark is currently ranked 164th, out of 183 ranked players, in the PGA TOUR's Driving Distance category.
Guys like short-hitting Corey Pavin are failing to contend in major championships not because of their lack of length, but because they are greatly lacking in many other important areas of their golf games.
Your basic premise is right droogy33, but I think Pavin is a special case. He's in last place in driving distance by quite a bit. I think he's around 250 per drive. There aren't many places where that will be good enough over 4 days regardless of how good the rest of his game is.
Jumping back into the fire because the point I was trying to make was reaffirmed by Frank Thomas, for 26 years the Technical Director for the USGA. He used better phrasing than I did, but this was exactly the point I wanted to make, in this article done just before the Masters for the New York Times. He goes on to propose a 10 club limit, which is highly interesting and quite the novel idea as opposed to changing a ball, club, or lengthening courses. It would make shotmaking part of the game again. I may be a golf purist, but to me that's always been the essence of the game - play the course as it lays out for you. Here's the website for that article...
Interesting article, but I do not appreciate the idea of reducing the number of clubs a pro may use; and I doubt the pros would favor such an idea.
If you want to see an increased emphasis on shot-making skills the answer is golf course architecture. We need a bold new era of course-building which forces pros to hit a myriad of shots.
Interesting article, but I do not appreciate the idea of reducing the number of clubs a pro may use; and I doubt the pros would favor such an idea.
If you want to see an increased emphasis on shot-making skills the answer is golf course architecture. We need a bold new era of course-building which forces pros to hit a myriad of shots.
The pros hate change period, and while I don't necessarily agree with that drastic a change, I do love the outside the box thought process. I just appreciate that someone had the guts to promote a change that doesn't require changing the golf ball.
I agree on the course-building idea. Also, I believe Mr. Thomas did mention designing courses differently to allow for more creative shot making.
The issue of technology has been with us for well over 70 years. You should listen to Bobby Jones in the 30's talk about Course Architecture challenges with technology. He built the masters greens and surrounding areas to fight bombers.
Phil, Tiger, Vijay are long hitters, but they also have compelling short games and certainly capable approach shot games. They win because they are the best players.
I think what Fred Funk and others feel bad about is the "over emphasis" of distance on the major courses. Just look at the TPC and see how a course does not need to lengthen to defend par.
New courses must demand placement and should make the surrounding green areas the main challenge. This will always make the course difficult. Bobby J came to this conclusion 70 years ago and I think he is right. The negative of this approach is that the "regulars" who play the course would watch their scores go up and would probably join a different club. You can't win as a golf course architect.
April 15th, 2006, 06:20 AM
). Do you think professional tour courses should be short enough to make the Pavin's of the world competitive? The harder the course the more the cream rises to the top.
Give him a break. He turns 50 in a couple of months and has had some of his best seasons in recent years(Players, Ryder & President Cupper, PGA 2nd, a couple of Top 15s on the money list) while the layouts have grown longer.
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
