Debating Augusta National’s 15th Green

The 15th green at Augusta National has fallen under scrutiny after the first round of the 2025 Masters. Jospeh LaMagna and Garrett Morrison have some thoughts.

Joseph: While I refuse to invoke the word “fair,” some people have called into question the severity of the slope and runoff area guarding the front of the green. The line between a good shot and a penalty shot is extremely thin. Too thin?

On Thursday afternoon, Rory McIlroy misplayed a chip shot from over the back of the 15th green that never had much of a chance of staying on the green and ultimately found the water hazard over the front of the green. Shortly before McIlroy, Patrick Cantlay made a mess of No. 15, finding the water twice after misjudging the front slope. I should note that the 15th green was rebuilt in advance of this year’s Masters Tournament, increasing the firmness of the green and decreasing the effective size of the landing area.

Our colleague Brendan Porath posted a quote from esteemed architect Tom Doak, in which Doak is critical of these types of runoffs — both for how they play and the dangers they impose to maintenance crews. Doak specifically criticizes the 15th green at Augusta in that quote.

What say you? How does the 15th green play for the best golfers in the world? Is it an excellent challenge of mental fortitude and precision? Or is it a gimmick?

{{content-block-debating-angc-15-001}}

Garrett: Someday I need to write an article about how the word “gimmick” is applied to golf architecture. It’s typically used to describe something that feels unnatural, ill-fitting, or unfair — but how do you differentiate between a gimmick and a bold, exciting architectural flourish? Not easy. Plus, I’m not sure the “g”-word has had a healthy influence on golf course design. If architects walk around in fear of being accused of gimmickry, their courses will probably turn out pretty bland. We should encourage risk-taking in design and not be too zealous about policing the boundaries of convention.

Anyway, I definitely see how the shaved banks on the 12th and 15th holes at Augusta National might look gimmicky to a trained eye like Tom Doak’s. It’s very difficult to keep short grass on steep slopes next to water hazards, and since Doak is aware of that effort, it’s understandable that he’d roll his eyes.

But make no mistake, if those areas weren’t closely mown, the tee shot on No. 12 and the approach to No. 15 wouldn’t be nearly as tense and dramatic as they are. Or as mentally harrowing for players.

So to answer your question, Joseph, I think the 15th green is both a gimmick and an excellent (or at least entertaining) challenge of mental fortitude and precision. It’s part of the fabric of the modern Masters, and I have a hard time imagining the tournament without it.

Now, as you mention, the green was rebuilt before this year’s tournament and is therefore playing firmer than it usually does. In my opinion, it was slightly too firm on Thursday. We saw a lot of good strikes — both long irons from the fairway and wedges from the layup zone — take a big first bounce and hurtle through the green. Call me a prude, but I’d rather see skill rewarded a bit more consistently. Next year, when the turf has had a chance to settle in, things will likely go back to normal. So I’m not concerned.

What’s your take on the 15th green? You’re probably more tuned into how it plays for the pros than I am.

Joseph: You’ve touched on the piece that is crucial to include in this conversation: the effective playing size of the green. In discussing the severity of the front slope, you have to consider the entire green. Like you, I believe there’s a case to be made that the green played too firmly on Thursday. Given the danger of the front slope, the result of a firm green that plays small is most players bounding long-iron shots over the back of the green and then essentially laying up on their chip shot back to the flag.

If every year were going to play as firm as this year, I don’t think it’s crazy to suggest that slightly expanding the back of the green would improve the playability of the hole. It would allow more approach shots to hold the green and for players to be a little less defensive on chip shots that go over the back of the green. However, as you’ve mentioned, future tournaments won’t play as firmly as this year did on a rebuilt green. Plus, I cringe a little bit at the notion of suggesting alterations to the greens at Augusta National, especially in reaction to a handful of shots hit on a rebuilt green.  

All in all, I’m in favor of the runoff at the front of the green that bleeds into the water, with the caveat that the safety of the maintenance crew isn’t part of my calculus there. Far too often in pro golf, buffers of rough prevent shots from finding hazards in a sport already strained to test the best players in the world. If we’re trying to strike a balance between danger and reward, I have no issue erring on the side of danger. Professional golf is far more demanding — and entertaining — that way.

No. 15 is fine. Don’t hit it there!

Garrett: And for Rory specifically: leave that chip way short! Take the 5!