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.