"What Hootie Got Right"

There are many points worth looking at in Ron Whitten's biennial reversal of his previous take on Augusta National's changes (we still love ya Ron!), so let's start with something that illustrates the club's approach to recent course changes.

Whitten writes:

To us, Hootie seemed haughty. Asked if players or architects were consulted before any course changes were implemented, he answered, "No, no players were consulted. Only Tom Fazio. We didn't consult him; we worked with him."

Then, later on in the story:

Fazio, consulting architect to Augusta National in recent decades, usually declines to speak on the record about any changes to the course. But last year, when told of Jones' article -- and about the specific language regarding approach angles -- Fazio couldn't resist."Why would we redesign a course for a game that nobody plays anymore?" he said. "Nobody hits fades or draws to certain spots in a fairway. They bomb it. They hit it very long, they hit it very straight."

Now, we could focus on the fact that Fazio and Hootie resist consulting the players, yet seem to know that they no longer play a certain game. Some might call it arrogance, from my perspective it's simple incompetence. If you see my story in Golf World this week, it includes many player comments that shed some different light on this.

But this is what I found most interesting:

Hootie Johnson, no doubt in deference to Payne, declined to comment, and in response to questions for Payne, the club replied, "The changes made to the golf course, including the addition and subtraction of trees and the defined second cut have not eliminated preferable angles for the players. The state of golf today must be taken into consideration. Historically, bump-and-run shots, balls hit with low trajectory and Bermuda greens made playing the angles more prevalent. Today, the game is different. Ball flight, how it spins, its trajectory and grooves on clubs have changed how people play this golf course. Players don't play the angles anymore to the same degree that was done in Jones' day. It's also important to remember that this course has always had some rough and that trees have been planted for a very long time." 

So let's say they are right. The players no longer attack the course strategically. They no longer play the angles.

So you take them away?

Now I could understand reducing fairway corridors if the club was trying to cut costs and reduce maintenance. But we know that's not the case.

I'm struggling to understand why you would take away options that believe players don't use. What's wrong with leaving them just in case say, temperatures drop and the course firms up and the options do become relevant again? I know, a stretch.

Furthermore, how do you know that they don't use those options if you do not play like them, or if you are not actually speaking to them about how they play the course?