Opinion & Analysis
The Wedge Guy: Random thoughts on the Masters
The first major of the year is history now, and true to form, it did not disappoint. Augusta National so often seems to find a way to deliver real drama and so many storylines right out of fantasy.
Tiger Woods has long been a polarizing figure in the game, it seems. But there is no denying that he combined shotmaking skills and steadiness under pressure …and more than just a bit of Augusta National savvy to earn this victory.
His shot to No. 12 showed that more than just about any other. How many times have we witnessed Masters rookies and relative rookies dunk their tee shot there by going at that right pin position? So Tiger watches Molinari, Koepka, and Finau make that mistake and takes the water completely out of play with his approach.
But what impressed me more about Tiger (or failed to impress by the others) was his ability to hit quality golf shots when it counted. How many of the others just could not put their drives in the fairway to give themselves good looks with their approaches? And how many hit below-average-to-poor approach shots to take birdie out of the picture and put bogey in it?
True to Masters form, we witnessed the drama of those who fired and fell back, giving us thrills and heartache along the way — Cantlay, Schauffele, Koepka. As is so often the case, the Masters is as much about who lost it as who won it.
Kudos to Tiger Woods for clawing his way back to the top of the heap in professional golf. Whether you like him or not, there’s no denying he played the golf course better than all the others. He never made the big mistakes and he hit the shots he needed too when he had to hit them. That’s the mark of a champion, right?
I read last night that he led the field in greens-in-regulation and was T1 in fairways. What a concept — hitting quality golf shots to beat a golf course!! He also stated that he had finally gotten his driver to where he could work it both ways with confidence. He always was a phenomenal iron player, with a scary short game and deadly putter. If he is feeling that way about his driver, the rest of this PGA Tour season might be one for the ages.
So now for some questions.
Watching this Masters for so many hours continued to punctuate how different the professional game is today than in the past, and how completely different it is from the one we recreational golfers play. Let me offer some observations as I watched the Masters unfold once again.
Understand, I’ve been watching this first major on the same course for well over 50 years, so I have a pretty deep pool of reference. With that in mind, might I ask some questions for us all to ponder?
- What really defines a “par 5” hole? Historically, it meant a “three shotter,” but strategically-placed reachable par fives have always delivered drama. Bobby Jones said courses should have one or two of those, but that they should require a perfect high-risk drive to give the player that option. I really don’t think he envisioned “par 5s” that were reachable by the majority of the field with a medium to short iron. With players routinely hitting those to #13 and #15, can they really still be called “par five holes”? And how many true “par 5s” are there on the tour anymore? Aren’t these guys really playing courses that should have a par of 69 or 70?
- Historically, at least through the 1990s, Augusta was a mid-to-long iron golf course. Greg Norman lost to Nicklaus in 1986 by flaring a 4-iron right on 18– when was the last time we saw that club for an approach there, except after a terrible drive? Is it the same challenge to play a course where the majority of approach shots are with a 7-iron or less in the golfers’ hands, as it is when the typical approach is with a 6-iron or longer?
- But then, does that really matter? If you are hitting a 7-iron from 200, is it the same difficulty of a shot as if you have a 4-iron in your hand? What’s y’all’s take on that?
- Just how good are these guys’ short games? It seems like they get up-and-down from everywhere, creating and executing an unimaginable variety of shots. At one point mid-way through the round, Molinari was a perfect 18-for-18 in saves this week! That is unbelievable, isn’t it? Do these short game skills make golf courses essentially defenseless unless they are tricked up? And do we really want to see that happen?
Those are my questions. I hope many of you will sound off with your take on them so I can learn from you.
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
CG
Apr 18, 2019 at 6:23 pm
Raymond Floyd won the Masters in 1975 with 17 under. The course was over 7,000 yards. He was hitting a wood driver and fairway woods that were 2-3 inches shorter (I recall the famous 4 wood). He used wound balata balls that were marshmallows compared to today’s model, and irons that had shorter shafts with less loft throughout the set. Tiger just won with -13 on a course that’s about 400 yards longer today (about 22-23 per hole) and yet players these days hit drivers well over 300 when back then, 275 was a big hit. I think many people are over reacting.
Odie
Apr 18, 2019 at 12:50 pm
Regarding distance, if the PGA Tour (not USGA) wants to do something about it they should have a “tour version” of current balls on the market that go 10-15% shorter. Now the tour pro flies it 270 vs 300. You can bring more “classic” courses back into play and recreational players can better relate to the tour pros they follow.
Bring strategy and shotmaking back to the tour.
golfraven
Apr 18, 2019 at 7:29 am
One question really strikes me. Why were there three guys with leaf blowers and referees suddenly on the 12the green when Tiger was about to hit his putt? Have not seen this on any other tournament since I can remember watching golf? What did they discuss? Nobody seem to be mentioning this scenario?
Why is the 12th such a myth? Folks seem to be dropping balls into water more in the last round. Can someone clarify this for me please?
Ace
Apr 18, 2019 at 8:35 am
This happens all the time, clearing sand or debris from the green from previous players or if a gust of wind brought stuff onto the green. Tour events are meticulously maintained for the pros.
Daniel Kidd
Apr 18, 2019 at 6:32 am
I’ll comment on the distance players are hitting it and how that gives the player a shorter iron into the green. Golf is always changing and technology causes much of that change. The players used to play hickory shafts and some felt like it was cheating to use steel. This change completely changed the game. How much has the ball changed since the days of stuffing it full of feathers?
Technology has always changed the game and it will continue to. I don’t know what the answer to this is…do we stop innovation so it all stays the same? I’m glad I’m not swinging hickory shafts and putting on furry greens that require mostly luck to bounce a long putt into the hole. But at the same time, I don’t want to hit driver lob wedge into every par 4. Obviously we can’t make all courses longer to accommodate distance gains.
To me, the distance problem is really only a problem at the professional level. Most of the guys I play with struggle to reach a 400 yd par 4.
Joseph Greenberg
Apr 17, 2019 at 6:01 pm
Augusta mows the green surrounds so that contestants almost always have to hit into the grain. The greens are recognized as the most challenging to putt in the world. So if Francesco and his ilk go 18 for 18 in saves, bless and praise them. Also recognize that the greens couldn’t firm up, that your wedge gurus are making pros smarter by the month (DJ competing with Rickie, Jordan and Justin with a wedge in his mitts is Exhibit 1), and that metrics guys are pushing for concentrating more and more practice time around the green
Mardukes
Apr 17, 2019 at 11:02 pm
The pond next to the 11th green. When was the last time someone put s ball in it? IIRC it used to cause problems.
Pelling
Apr 18, 2019 at 8:29 am
It seemed like Tiger and Phil hit it way right off #11 tee and always ending up on that hard pan with a clear shot to the green! What’s up with that?
IAIN HUTCHINSON
Apr 18, 2019 at 3:40 am
I am not sure if I agree with this statement. I read an article just before this years masters which said that the greens are amongst the highest in first putt success but also the highest is 3 putts. So if the read is right they are true and will hole out. But if you miss they are very difficult to stop and produce the greatest number of 3 putts. Would be interested is hearing what the pro’s say about this interesting statistical conundrum
Mario B
Apr 18, 2019 at 6:12 pm
Mostly because the holes are often in a small depression and all shots on the right side of a ridge will feed towards it but shots reaching the wrong part of the green will get a strong slope on the last few yards making 3 putts quite common (13, 14, 16, 18 for example)
Bob Jones
Apr 17, 2019 at 5:24 pm
Augusta National is becoming obsolete, just like St. Andrews Old is. In his book, Golf is My Game, Bobby Jones described how to play the course during tournament time. For example, No. 16 was a 2, 3, or 4-iron. I remember seeing that on TV. Today it’s a 7, 8, or 9-iron. No. 13 used to be a 3-shotter because few players wanted to risk going for it in two. Now, who doesn’t do that, which is why the club bought land from neighboring Augusta CC to lengthen it, and they hit the green easily in two. Etc. In 10-15 years, if that long, ANGC will be exposed beyond fixing.
As for the hole values, you could call every hole a par 4 and the total scores would be the same. Like they say, par is just a number.
Gary Maxwell
Apr 17, 2019 at 6:08 pm
I don’t think Augusta is obsolete. I do think they should acknowledge the fact that there are no par 5s on the course during the tournament.
just a thought
Apr 17, 2019 at 5:03 pm
I don’t want the technology or equipment advances taken away… the advancement of the game is not decided by the 150 best in the world.
At 250 yds begin tightening the fairway till it is no more 20-25 steps wide at 300… reward the long straight tee shot but punish the hell out of the player that isn’t so straight.
When it’s all said and done their greatest skill arrives from 100 yards in….they are phenomenal
Howard Clark
Apr 17, 2019 at 4:40 pm
The “second cut”, as the inane announcers continue to call it, was fairway height at many courses. No rough, no golf.
Brad
Apr 17, 2019 at 3:09 pm
The Masters and the Open should be played with drivers having a maximum size of 275cc or made of actual wood. Let’s see how the pros play these courses without the massive boom stick in their hands…
Rev G
Apr 17, 2019 at 8:23 am
I think there is some truth to saying that a 200 yard shot with a 4 iron in the past is similar to a 200 yard shot with a 7 iron in today’s game. Especially when you consider that the lofts of today’s 7 iron is between a 5 iron and 6 iron of the past. And then you factor in today’s ball that spins so much less, you need more loft to get the ball up in the air.
Augusta is so perfectly manicured, the greens are so smooth – it really makes it much easier for the pros – and as noted above, the fairways roll out so much, giving the pros even more length.
One of the other golf websites, showed a statistic saying that the pros putt much better at Augusta from inside of ten feet than at the average tour stop. That can only be accounted for by the fact that the greens are so smooth and true. They do tend to have on average more 3 putts, but that is not surprising considering the large slopes on the Augusta greens. But the pin placements are usually in relatively flatter spots.
I think if you slowed the fairways and greens, grew up some more rough you could definitely make it longer and tougher.
But should they make it tougher, it sure is fun to watch, and the best golfer for the week won. Tiger hit the most fairways and greens and simply out smarted the rest. It was great theatre.
Pelling
Apr 18, 2019 at 8:34 am
If you look at the conditioning of today’s golfers (Tiger, DJ, Adam Scott, etc.) and compare it with players in years past, there is no mystery why the ball goes farther…
John
Apr 16, 2019 at 9:25 pm
One word. “Merion”. Pros were torched at that too short of US Open ourse
Bob Jones
Apr 17, 2019 at 5:14 pm
Yes, because the USGA had it unbelievable tricked up with really narrow fairways and rough the height of which hadn’t been seen before. It was an admission that unless the course was later beyond recognition it wouldn’t stand up to the modern player.
lee kocanda
Apr 16, 2019 at 8:47 pm
I totally agree.coursesfor tour players are to easy for todays pros .tighten fairway landing areas and grow the rough. make these guys grind .myself and my golfing buddies love u,s.opens where par is good. it seems to me that the tour hierarchy think people like seeing a bob hope birdie fest .
Lash
Apr 16, 2019 at 7:10 pm
Everyone always talks about what Bobby Jones envisioned…what club should be hit into which green. And if that is still the goal, there is a solution. The fairways back in the day, didn’t have 50 yard roll outs, and the greens weren’t 11-13 on the stimpmeter either. Yeah, a 4 iron into the green is a great shot, but back in his day a green would hold the shot because it was more receptive. They have added slope and made them faster that what Mr. Jones also envisioned. If you want the players hitting longer irons in, take the course back to the way it was….a little slower, and a little furrier. Also pinch in the landing areas and grow the rough. Things can be done without adding more length.
But you can’t have it both ways….folks like the long ball, and a lot of folks don’t want to see pros embarrassed ( hear me USGA). They want to see great golf, great towering shots, great approach shots rewarded, no courses tricked up, and golfer rewarded for great shots, creativity, and for getting g hot at the right time.
Jeff Baldwin
Apr 16, 2019 at 4:57 pm
Good questions!
My opinions only:
1. “Par” is just a number. To win, you shoot a lower score than everyone else. I would say that right now the par 5 holes are more like the difficult par 4s, but does it matter? then again, 13 under isn’t a demolition of the course, and not a new low score, even though the course was soft. True, there have been adjustments over the years, but I don’t see a problem.
2. Obviously, the equipment has changed the game. But the old 4 iron isn’t that much different from today’s 6, so perhaps the difference is not as much as it sounds like. Sticking an approach from 200 still isn’t an easy task, is it? Which leads to…
3. To me it doesn’t really matter. They still have to make the shot. They can’t hit 12 from 150, so…
4. Yes, their short games are crazy. I think that emphasis on the short game has really gone up as more statistics have been available, rather than just “feeling”. I sure hope people don’t see that as a driver to trick things up. Perhaps a little fluffier rough, and things like that, but if you are near, but not on the green, you should not be penalized more than if you were farther out, right? I think the amazing and imaginative short game shots are the most fun to watch! It’s not a totally recent thing, Watson’s Open, Tiger a bunch of times over two decades, Seve, the list does go on. Bottom line is that, yes, these guys are good!
Hrannar
Apr 17, 2019 at 5:54 am
Well in most tour pros bag are blades with traditional lofts. My guess is that Tigers 7 iron is not much different than a 30 year old 7 iron blade. Similar design and same loft. It still is a stroke play game and the best score wins. It however doesn’t make discussion of how the course plays and is set up mute. They do drive 40-50 yards longer and have shorter approach shots as a result. Why not make the par 5 holes play a 5 like they were meant to in the beginning. I also think the second cut was too short, almost no penalty not hitting the fairway. The Majors should be hard.
DB
Apr 16, 2019 at 2:49 pm
If they wanted to make the Par 5s harder all they would have to do is narrow the fairways and let the rough grow longer. They didn’t do that so obviously they like the way it’s going.
Also I’m not terribly concerned about players hitting 7-iron instead of 4-iron. Like you said, in the old days 4-iron was a 200-yard shot. Now for most players that is 6 or even 7-iron. But also the old irons were lofted weak. A 4-iron was probably 26+ degrees. Ironically it seems like the only person still playing the older lofts is Tiger.
Lance
Apr 16, 2019 at 10:04 pm
Generally the older long irons were 2 iron at 18 degrees 3 iron at 21 degrees 4 iron 24 degrees
dat
Apr 16, 2019 at 2:30 pm
I get that everyone is in shape, better ball, better equipment – but these courses are just too short for these guys. Look at #5, where they lengthened the hole – and it played at par. That’s about how all the holes should be, but not every course has the kind of money AGNC has. And that’s part of the problem. If one course can arbitrarily extend a hole or two, but others cannot, the only equalizer then is the golf ball.
Steven M
Apr 17, 2019 at 7:16 am
No it isn’t. This drives me mad. The ball isn’t the problem. Grow the grass longer, make the course tighter. People understand how to hit it longer thanks to TM/GC Quad. Along with a change in approach as to how they play golf now. They’re not tickling it around like the days of Faldo who plotted his way around. They go for broke and hit it hard.
Tighten the course up, and watch people plot they’re way round again.
Ben
Apr 16, 2019 at 2:02 pm
I guess you have to look at it from two points of view. Course design or competition. Yes the course is designed in relation to par and for pros that is mostly a non factor. They shoot under par everywhere. But they are competing for the lowest score, so the score is in relation to each other not designated par. Stress of competition becomes the course they are playing. As we all seen on Sunday and past masters hole 12, a short iron par 3 closed the door on many. That’s a relatively simple shot on any other day of the year. I wouldn’t get too caught up on how long the courses are, what clubs are being played or what par is. Lowest score wins.
PSG
Apr 16, 2019 at 1:48 pm
Its silly to adjust the “par” of holes to the score average. Wait, #12 at TPC Louisiana plays to a score average of 4.67 during the Zurich Classic. Make it a par 5! You’ll never get it 100% right, so don’t try. Its fine the way it is.
And given that the scoring average on tour is 71.57, par 72 seems exactly right.
Ace
Apr 18, 2019 at 8:33 am
Get outta here with your facts and data!
Good point though, sometimes the players get hot at the right time like Tiger winning majors by over 12 strokes or Rory winning by a ton while the rest of the field is struggling for par.
percy freeman
Apr 16, 2019 at 11:41 am
Terry,
If they don’t change the ball for the pros then the only defense Augusta could have would be to grow REAL ROUGH and tighten the landing areas (see US Open rough).
what else is there? they are out of real estate…..
Johnny Penso
Apr 16, 2019 at 2:11 pm
Longer par 5’s and riskier tee shots are what is needed to bring a bit more of the challenge back to golf tournaments. Laying it out there 320 with little fear of trouble, getting a 30 yard roll and hitting a 9 iron in, is a par 4 not a par 5. Narrow the fairway at 280-350, put in some trees and bunkers and make the tee shot risky. Some par 5’s should have smaller greens with a narrow path to roll the ball up if necessary. No par 5 should be under 550 yards these days, making even a perfect tee shot leave at least a 200 yard approach and the player who plays safe off the tee not able to reach the green in two. The whole idea of risk/reward is gone on most par 5s these days.