Hoylake 06 v Augusta 07: Is it all about where Tiger finishes?

[A.G._Crockett]

I think we all know as golfers that the point of the game is to get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes, and that whomever accomplishes that should win.  Zach Johnson is an accomplished golfer who deserved to win, and nothing should detract from that.  He played the best of anyone in the field, and got rewarded.  The finish of the Masters, as is almost always the case, was exciting, and to a great extent the high scores were dictated by the weather conditions.

That said, I regret the apparent loss of the possibility (if not the likelihood) that someone will be able to play the back 9 in 30 shots, and come from behind to win.  Johnson was the first winner in 17 years to NOT be in the last group on Sunday, and he did it by surviving the best, NOT by making a charge.  For those of you who want to see two U.S. Opens a year, that's great.  I don't.  

If Nicklaus had made 9 straight pars in '86, even with other vomiting on themselves, we would have been deprived of one of the greatest moments in golf history.  But he didn't, because the brilliant GCA of that version of ANGC allowed him options that rewarded gambling if it was executed properly.  How many of you expect to see a 30 on the back nine of Sunday on the current version of ANGC?  I don't, and more's the pity, IMO.

[Tim Pitner]

This topic brings to my mind the Open Championship that Ben Curtis won at Royal St. George's.  People sometimes forget what a fantastic leaderboard the tournament had--Woods, Singh, Love, Garcia, Bjorn and even Faldo had opportunities to win.  But, because it was the then unknown Curtis who won, some people dismissed the course as too quirky and as not producing a quality champion.  Silly.  

[Phil Benedict]

That said, I regret the apparent loss of the possibility (if not the likelihood) that someone will be able to play the back 9 in 30 shots

AG,

Mickelson shot 31 on the last nine in '04, playing pretty much the same layout as this year.  It will happen again.

The thing that is striking to me about Augusta is that scoring is so easily manipulatable by where they put the pins.  The best example is 13 but there are plenty of others.  It was easier to get close to the pin from 200 yards on Sunday than it was to get close from 90 yards on Saturday, because the pin was on a low spot on Sunday and a high spot on Saturday.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Terry, It was for affect.

GREAT tyop, Adma!

Yes. A *most* affective one!

Speaking of which, Mr. Farnsworth, is "Rihc" good forever or do we need to go with "Wharf Snort," "Trash Frown," or "Warn Froths"?

thx,
mrak

[Mark Bourgeois]

Phil,

Let's not forget that on 17 Sunday for example they put the pin practically dead center, in a place I cannot recall ever seeing it.  Certainly not on a Sunday.

My point being Princess Leia's in "Star Wars": "Don't you see? They LET us escape!"

Mark

[Phil Benedict]

Phil,

Let's not forget that on 17 Sunday for example they put the pin practically dead center, in a place I cannot recall ever seeing it.  Certainly not on a Sunday.

My point being Princess Leia's in "Star Wars": "Don't you see? They LET us escape!"

Mark

I would characterize the Sunday pins on the back 9 as follows:

10 - neutral
11 - hard
12 - neutral
13 - easy, balls tend to gather where the flag was
14 - easy, balls tend to gather where the flag was
15 - accessible, same place where Jack made eagle in '86
16 - easy, balls tend to gather where the flag was (Goosen got hosed)
17 - accessible
18 - neutral