Does the Masters need low scoring to be exciting?

[Chris_Clouser]

I agree with Tom in the second post on the thread.  He mentions the other players that would have contended with Nicklaus.  I don't know if anyone saw the program before hand about Bobby Jones, but there was an interview with Gene Sarazen about him and he talked about the comparison between periods.  I think this applies to the Nicklaus era as well.  Today we have quantity, but not quality.  We have more good players on the tour, but fewer great players than during any other era.  Aside from Tiger, who can stand up and challenge consistently for a major.  In Nicklaus' era you had Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino, Miller etc.  I think this is the reason the tournament this weekend and almost every weekend is lackluster anymore.  You either have a birdie barage on an unchallenging course or a drudgery where par is the best you can hope for sometimes.  The Masters has always seemed to be in between those two and I think that is where the appeal lies.  You knew a player could always get a birdie or bogey on any hole.  Now that is eliminated on most holes.  I can understand Tiger, because he didn't have to, but everyone else was playing with a lack of course management.  Maybe these guys can't play on courses where they actually have to think their way around, so maybe Pete Dye is right after all.  Aside from Tiger, I wonder if any of them get it.  Aside from Mickelson, no one was even shooting at the pins.  That's why I don't mind him playing the way he does sometimes, because at least he will try to make something happen.  If he just makes some of those putts maybe we aren't having this thread today.  I think everyone is intimidated by Tiger and they are happy to get third because they still get a nice check.  Until someone has the same attitude he has it isn't going to stop.  

[Ken_Cotner]

I haven't read through any of the other threads in the last few days, but glanced at this one.  Seems a little premature to me to proclaim the changes "bad" for the tournament after one abnormally wet year.  Let a couple years with drier conditions come along, then analyze.

By the way, I don't buy the argument that the changes inhibited attacking play.  13 and 15 still offered plenty of opportunity for eagles; not the holes' fault if the leaders on Sunday couldn't drive it anywhere near the planet Earth.  Lots of disaster potential -- witness Els and Vijay.

I thought 11 was more interesting -- seemed to be longer clubs, and more big bailouts to the right.

Everyone was just playing awful on Sunday, and I don't see where the changes had a whole lot to do with it.

Of course, that's my opinion blah, blah, blah...

KC

[Darrin]

Chris Clouser:

Bravo on all points.

Yes, yesterday's final round was a snoozer, but many of Tiger's wins are snoozers.  Obviously, it's going to be more entertaining to see a shoot-out coming down the back nine than an ugly "train wreck".

Think for a moment about Tiger's 7 majors -- easily the 2 most EXCITING victories were '99 PGA (duel with Sergio) and '00 PGA (duel with Bob May).  Hmmm, now where did those 2 championships take place?  Medinah and Valhalla.  Anyone care to start a round table discussion on the wonders of those 2 architectural greats?  His other 5 majors?  3 field-embarrassing romps, and the last 2 Masters (which, by the way, last years' was another case of Duval/Mickelson flopping at the end.

History seems to tell us that when Tiger wins he either laps the field or everyone else kinda chokes (this happens in plenty of regular tour events as well).  Maybe we should set up the majors at mediocre sites to give Bob May another run?  I don't think so.  

My point is, I frankly don't see yesterday's debacle a direct result of the course changes.  I see yesterday as a microcosm of the state of today's PGA Tour.  Think about it:  at Doral, Ernie Els had a Sunday meltdown that saw him coming within a whisker of blowing 8 strokes to Tiger, and then a couple of weeks later we know about Phil at Bay Hill.  Add in a cup of Sergio, a pinch of Vijay, and a bit of Retief, and you see what happens when the whole gang gets together and collapses all at the same time.  That's what made the scene so gruesome.

Make me a liar.  Does anyone really think in their heart of hearts that any one of those players would have turned to the back nine yesterday, and made a Tiger-crushing charge, even if the course had been set up the "old" way?  Vijay shot 30 on the back nine on Friday!  Els and Goosen torched it on Saturday morning!  Was the course THAT different Sunday afternoon???

My humble opinion is that Tiger played quite well this week and would have won anyway, regardless of set-up.  Given the unbelievably calm and damp conditions, if the course had been exactly the same as previous years, he probably would have challenged his own tournament record.

Trust me on this:  If Tiger continues to win tourneys this way, it will continue to get more and more boring.  Someday (hopefully soon) someone's gonna step forward and challenge him, and then things will become exciting again.  Don't blame the course -- it doesn't matter.

[TEPaul]

Darrin:

You asked if anyone in their heart of hearts thinks that any of those players would have turned to the back nine and mounted a "Tiger crushing" charge, even if the course was setup the "old way"?

I assume by old way you mean no changes at all in the last year. And if that's what you mean, then yes, I do if you just take out the "Tiger crushing" part. If they had mounted a charge he probably would have too.

It's really amusing to read all these post mortem threads about ANGC and what so many people think actually happened. Those top ranked pros did have an unusually bad back nine (Tiger wasn't that much better but he could clearly see he didn't have to be!) but clearly the changes in the golf course made a difference from the "old way".

But the consensus is definitely that these pros today are a bunch of weak competitors to not be able to stand up to Tiger better or more often.

Personally, I have a much different take on this tournament and many others in the last five years. My take is that Tiger Woods is basically a true hybrid if I've ever seen one in the sport of golf. I don't really even think he's some kind of prototype for the future.

I believe he's the best golfer who ever lived no questions asked! I also believe he's the best golfer any of us will ever see in our lifetimes, or maybe any other lifetime.

And I think the changes did make a difference on the back nine--just enough of a difference to explain some of the miscues, but I admit probably not all of them. Some of you guys can go on week after week accusing these pros of making excuses or of offering incorrect analyses week after week of what happened to them or the tournament. But I listen to them carefully.

Mickelson did not say that 3rd place was OK to settle for as someone on here said he said. He said of course he was trying to win, he was dying to win his first major, but it didn't happen this week and that 3rd place was nothing to be ashamed of and that he felt he played well but not enough putts went down. I think these guys are mature about their games these days--they don't sit there in post mortem interviews and beat the sh... out of themselves as you all do to them!

Goosen's interview was right on too. He said he just couldn't stop pulling his irons and if you do that at Augusta you aren't going to make birdies and you have a damn good chance of 3 putting. Goosen actually got it  back some on the back nine!

VJ Singh just hit a bad shot on #15 and obviously lost his concentration and collapsed. That has happened year after year in the past from all kinds of champions--there's nothing much different about VJ--just that this year unfortunately it happened to him!

Els's interview was the most precisely accurate of all of them. He blew the whole thing on #13 and in my opinon he explained exactly why in detail. He knew the hole was just enough longer from the tee that he could not get greedy with that tee shot. He explained his week's game plan was not to do that but he did it anyway and took the blame and made no excuses! He just got greedy, he made a mistake in judgement and paid for it dearly and admitted it. Had he not Els might have had a real chance.

But I do believe in my heart of hearts Darrin, that what we're seeing here is the best f... golfer ever--and maybe he really will be the best ever! None of us can look into the future but we sure can look accurately at what's happening now. These tour pros aren't really giving up! Entire fields don't just collapse. The architectural changes made a difference this year to all of them--even including Tiger Woods.

They know what they're talking about, they aren't all making excuses and they damn sure know what they're talking about better than we do!

After five or more years no one should seriously consider it a fluke or even weak competition and competitors that this Woods has done what he's done. You don't win major championships by 9 shots, then 15 shots, then 12 shots, then every single other possible combination by it being a fluke or everyone else collapsing all the time!

I'm not in the slightest bored by it either. I understand that occasionally very exciting tournments will take place, and Woods will very likely be part of them for a good long time to come. But we can't have the drama that happened in '86 at the Masters every year. Sure we can have more birdies and eagles and even "others" and more drama but that's different and for wholly different reasons--likely architectural reasons!

And the changes to ANGC this year clearly did take some of the potential drama of the past out of some of the holes. I think that ANGC should realize that and leave the place alone, just like many of us think. I don't care what the winning score is, like ANGC seems to care so desperately.

But don't delude yourselves into thinking that Woods's fellow competitors are not up to the standards of today or some of the competitors of the past! They are, but they are not going to be able to raise themselves consistently to his level!

Why? Because no matter what they do they just aren't as good as he is in almost every single facet of the game!

I'm not bored at all by what's going on--I'm basically fascinated. I feel lucky to watch a talent like this who's firing on all 8 cylinders in every aspect of the game all the time. I love to watch the truly unusual and unique.

If nothing dramatic changes with him and he continues as he has I'm just going to sit back and watch probably an otherworldly career unfold of a golfer who I believe to be far better than any of the past, any of those today are capable of being and very likely better than anyone ever will be!

[Darrin]

TEPaul:

I still maintain that course changes (which is what the crux of this thread was about) had very little to do with yesterday's  debacle.  Every one of those top players proved thru 3 rounds that this course could be had, given the conditions.  I distinctly remember what was going thru my mind when the back nine started:  "Singh ripped thru this nine in 30 on Friday", "Els and Goosen showed Saturday morning that they could fire birdie after birdie on the back nine", "Maybe this is the time Mickelson will step up and be heard".  And then all of a sudden I snapped myself back into consciousness and thought "Who am I kidding?  No one is catching Tiger Woods, because when Tiger leads on Sunday, NO ONE takes it to him."


Tiger, is the greatest.  There's no debate, whatsoever.  I am in COMPLETE agreement with you.  But, unlike you, I've grown weary of predictable finishes.  I'm no longer excited by his dominance.  

*Here's a good one:  Have you ever noticed that Tiger has NEVER won a major from behind?  All 7 wins have come when he's on top come Saturday night.  Now, that might be exciting:  Tiger 4 or 5 shots behind making a Sunday charge! (Hey, at least it would be different!)  

[TEPaul]

Darrin:

That's an interesting stat that Woods has never won a major coming from behind. That could say a number of interesting things or maybe nothing at all.

It could certain say that when he really is not on his game he hasn't figured out how to turn it around in a tournament with whatever is causing the problem. It could also show something else I would prefer to get into on another post or thread. That does shows though that he can be beaten anytime but maybe very rarely when he truly is playing well in all facets of his game.

I'm convinced that most casual observers of the Tour and the Tour pros assume that a really good player like Woods should or does play well all the time. That's just so far from truth or reality and that's something about Woods which has always impressed me the most--that he seems to be as ready as he has been so often.

That very much gets into scheduling and I believe Woods took a page out of Nicklaus's book on that one certainly considering how intensely he studied all things about Nicklaus and his career as both a kid and later.

But I also think that you assuming that because Singh shot a 30 on the back nine in one of the rounds that he or some of the others would do it again on Sunday, could be a bit off.

On that it would be interesting to talk to a touring pro to see how they look at that sort of thing. I think I can tell you that because they did it one day or someone did they don't necessarily assume they can or will do it again on another day. It's almost a cliche on tour that it's virtually impossible to follow one really hot round with another one the next day!

So many things can make such a difference--wind, pins,  whatever. And Woods did talk about how the wind  differences made the course play quite different than he expected on a particular day and actually took him a bit out of his game plan off some tees.

I'm certainly not trying to say that all this explains why the back nine or even the last round failed throughout the field to create a challenge to Woods. I'm not trying to make excuses for any of those tour pros either but you can almost bet when an entire field of the best players in the world fails to break 70 with the exception of one player there is an awful lot more going on than just fear of and intimidation by Tiger Woods.

I think some of us should just listen a bit more carefully to what some of these tour pros actually say because some of their interviews are very good and very thoughtful with much to learn if we listen. It's better to do that, in my opinion, than us just assuming we know better than they do what's going on!

It would be really interesting to get a well known tour pro to come on here sometime and tell us what it really is like out there and what they think about. The commentators are OK sometimes but not all that informative probably because they feel the public would not really tune into some of the minutae.

So we probably disagree on this subject Darrin. There may be some of what you say in the Master and the Sunday round and the back nine but if you think weak competitors who cannot stand up to Woods is the sum and substance of it, I really do disagree with you---there's just a lot more to it than that, in my opinion, and I think the architecture has something to do with it too!

[TEPaul]

Darrin:

I forgot about the stat of Woods never coming from behind to win a major on the final day. Again, that's interesting but I'm sure that will change too. Did you know that in his three straight USGA Junior Amateur wins and his three straight regular Amateur wins in each final he came from behind after 18 holes to win each one of them?

[Darrin]

TEPaul:

If you really want to talk about freakish stats, I think there is one number that amazes me more than Tiger having already won 7 Majors:  He has 0, zero, zilch, zippo 2nd place finishes in a major!  This is probably a stat that no one gives a damn about, but I'm absolutely fascinated.  Frankly, from a statistical point of view, it's quite hard to believe.

Much is made about Nicklaus: 18 major wins, 19(!) major 2nd's.  To me, that stat is more in line with what you'd expect.  What it means is that Jack had about 37 golden, primo opportunities to win a major.  He cashed in 18 times.  Did he choke away 19 of them?  Of course not.  In fact, many of his runner-up finishes were at the hand of a guy who took it from Jack down the stretch.  

It gives me goose bumps to think of a Phil Mickelson chipping in from off 17 green at Pebble to take an Open while Tiger sits in the clubhouse watching on a monitor.  Or Duval and Woods going head-to-head at Turnberry lapping the field by 10 strokes.  Or Els outdueling Tiger at Merion in an 18-hole Monday playoff.  We'll see.  

Regarding his inability to come from behind:  that is odd.  But it'll will happen sooner or later.

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

There is a Jack Fleck out there waiting for Tiger. I thought Bob May at Valhalla was him.

I don't think it would really slow his momentum, but I am curious to see what would happen if someone pulled something out of their butt to beat Tiger at a major, like Mize did to Norman in '87.  If Tway and Mize don't happen to Norman in back to back majors, I think he wins 8 to 10 majors and becomes one of the real all-timers. Tiger is a different breed of cat, however, and getting beat by a flukish shot would probably reenergize him.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I'm delighted to see you coming around to my point of view on the Majors.

Why in the world anyone would want these events to resemble each other I just can't imagine.

Hopefully we can keep the two major Opens and the Masters to be as different as possible........and figure out something unique for the PGA.

I'd like to see the Masters revert back to its more traditional set up, encourage the USGA to stick with very penal setups and pretty much leave the British Open alone (though carefully avoiding a repeat of Carnoustie).  The PGA should move away from the classic courses and focus more on introducing quality modern designs.

[Darrin]

Tim:

I agree.  I'm really looking forward to '04 PGA at Whistling Straits.  I actually wished the PGA of America had other newer designs in their upcoming schedule, but except for 2004 it looks like the usual suspects.  I notice 2007 is currently open.  Here's hoping they pick a goodie.  

I'd love to see the PGA go to Kiawah, but I'm sure the SC coast in mid-August would be tempting fate.