Masters Running Thread

[TwoGloves]

Tiger gets ripped because he never says anything noteworthy. Then, when he says winning the grand slam is within reason, he gets ripped for that. He wins 13 pro majors, more than anyone not named Nicklaus, but he gets ripped because he didn't come from behind to win any. What if he came from behind to win all 13? Then he'd be somebody who won because the guys ahead of him folded, not because he took charge of the event himself. He can't win no matter what he does.

Was kinda thinking the same thing.

And when he comes from behind to win, people will say that the competition sucked, the course was easy or he wasn't playing lefthanded.

Yes, cuz Lord knows we've never seen or heard any writer/analyst diminish the victory of someone else when Tiger didn't have his "A" game or didn't tee it up that week.

Christ, all the Four Horsemen on Monday's Around the Horn could talk about was how disappointing Immelman's "victory" was because the final-round scores were so high and no one made a back-nine charge...

Blah, blah, blah.

Immelman played incredibly well for three rounds, well enough to build a five- or six-shot lead heading into the final round and that was good enough to allow him a few missteps on Sunday.

So he didn't pull away and crush the field by 10 shots or more. So what. He still won.

He finished at 8-under. It's not like he took home the green jacket with a 1-over or something and he beat the best in the world.

Yet the Four Horsemen didn't think it was good enough.

If they don't invent stories like that, they don't have jobs. Which is why I refuse to watch drivel like that.

 

[Captain_Kirk]

I tend to agree with them.

That's not taking issue with Immelman winning. He played the best 72 hole golf and deserved to win. His victory is not diminished.

But, the tournament could be viewed as disappointing in that no one on Sunday moved forward to contend. Everyone backed up from the leader, the only drama being who was going to have the greatest flame out and be awarded the Greg Norman memorial trophy.

I wonder if the Masters gurus may have outsmarted themselves by making the course too difficult to go low on Sunday with the added distance and the Sunday hole locations. Perhaps not--maybe this is just a one or two year aberration. But, I imagine it will get some serious discussion in the planning for next year's event.

 

[doubledown68]

I tend to agree with them.

That's not taking issue with Immelman winning. He played the best 72 hole golf and deserved to win. His victory is not diminished.

But, the tournament could be viewed as disappointing in that no one on Sunday moved forward to contend. Everyone backed up from the leader, the only drama being who was going to have the greatest flame out and be awarded the Greg Norman memorial trophy.

I wonder if the Masters gurus may have outsmarted themselves by making the course too difficult to go low on Sunday with the added distance and the Sunday hole locations. Perhaps not--maybe this is just a one or two year aberration. But, I imagine it will get some serious discussion in the planning for next year's event.

Tiger rendered old Augusta obselete in 97... and I can agree with some of the changes the green-clad ones made to a point.

But I agree with you... the tweaking needs to stop now. There is nothing wrong with the winning score being anywhere from 8 to 12 under. The Masters was built on back nine heroics... not grinding out 18 pars.

If the wind wasn't blowing as much, I think you'd have seen some more theatrics. As it is, that course is tricked out enough now that anything less than perfect conditions will render what we saw on Sunday... a par-fest galore.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

I tend to agree with them.

That's not taking issue with Immelman winning. He played the best 72 hole golf and deserved to win. His victory is not diminished.

But, the tournament could be viewed as disappointing in that no one on Sunday moved forward to contend. Everyone backed up from the leader, the only drama being who was going to have the greatest flame out and be awarded the Greg Norman memorial trophy.

I wonder if the Masters gurus may have outsmarted themselves by making the course too difficult to go low on Sunday with the added distance and the Sunday hole locations. Perhaps not--maybe this is just a one or two year aberration. But, I imagine it will get some serious discussion in the planning for next year's event.

Tiger rendered old Augusta obselete in 97... and I can agree with some of the changes the green-clad ones made to a point.

But I agree with you... the tweaking needs to stop now. There is nothing wrong with the winning score being anywhere from 8 to 12 under. The Masters was built on back nine heroics... not grinding out 18 pars.

If the wind wasn't blowing as much, I think you'd have seen some more theatrics. As it is, that course is tricked out enough now that anything less than perfect conditions will render what we saw on Sunday... a par-fest galore.

I think the wind Sunday - along with the typical Sunday pin placements - was the biggest factor in scoring.

 

[CollegeJournalist]

The problem with Augusta is obvious -- it's too long. Several of the holes are fine, but they took a lot of the strategy out of Augusta when they lengthened it so dramatically.

Augusta was about guys hitting 3W or 3I off the tee, putting it in the right spot and then hitting the right shot into the green. Now, pretty much everybody has to hit driver on almost every Par 4. Sure, the par 5's are still reachable with good shots and the par 3's are the best in the world.

BUT, they overdid it just a little bit on the par 4's. Something needed to be done; that much is for sure. But as tough as Augusta's greens are, you're asking for high scores when you're forcing guys to hit 4- and 5-iron approach shots all day.

It's turned into a grind fest. That's the U.S. Open. The Masters is supposed to reward great shot-making with possible low scores. It doesn't do that (as much) anymore unless the conditions are absolutely perfect.

 

[Captain_Kirk]

Funny thing is it wasn't really all that windy there Sunday. At least not at ground level. Maybe it was worse up in the air, and yes, I know many of the golfers have talked about the wind, but I've seen much, much worse.

 

[shotglass]

Sure, it is. Golf tournaments are decided by low score of four rounds. Whether you post the lowest round on Thursday or Sunday does not matter.

If you think the same environment exists on Thursday as it does on Sunday on a course at a major, I really can't help you.

Zeke, I gotta agree with him here. Not all 68s are created equal.

 

[Boobie Miles]

Sure, it is. Golf tournaments are decided by low score of four rounds. Whether you post the lowest round on Thursday or Sunday does not matter.

If you think the same environment exists on Thursday as it does on Sunday on a course at a major, I really can't help you.

Zeke, I gotta agree with him here. Not all 68s are created equal.

No but if you're firing three 68s while the rest of the field is shooting 72s, you can't really be blamed for going into Sunday with a 12-shot lead either.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Didn't the Masters end on Sunday?

 

[shotglass]

Sure, it is. Golf tournaments are decided by low score of four rounds. Whether you post the lowest round on Thursday or Sunday does not matter.

If you think the same environment exists on Thursday as it does on Sunday on a course at a major, I really can't help you.

Zeke, I gotta agree with him here. Not all 68s are created equal.

No but if you're firing three 68s while the rest of the field is shooting 72s, you can't really be blamed for going into Sunday with a 12-shot lead either.

Yes, that is true too.

 

[Italian_Stallion]

Didn't the Masters end on Sunday?

That's what I was thinking. But it's just too early for the Iditarod threat.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

My pick for best golf writer in the land nails what I was talking about a few days ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sports/golf/15golf.html?_r=1&ref=golf&oref=slogin