[Jon Wiggett]

This years was not one of the most thrilling that I have seen. My question is will it be seen as a triumph for the changes made to the course in the recent past that no one shot low on the final day or as a wake up call that the back nine on sunday didn't deliver the excitement?

Is the phrase 'the tournament doesn't begin until the back nine on sunday' no longer relevant?

[Mark Pearce]

If it was a wake up call it didn't work.  My wife, who religiously watches the final round of the Masters, US Open and the Open fell asleep around 10.30 and despite numerous efforts was unable to stay awake for any significant period thereafter.

[Bill_McBride]

Mark, that's because it was past her bedtime!  It's late there in England!

We, on the other hand, had five adults who watched the whole thing, pretty much enthralled.  It's like watching NASCAR; sometime, somewhere, somebody's wheels are going to fall off.  It's the Masters!  How many 1986 Masters have there been? A lot of these have been dull but it's still fascinating.  In large measure I think that's because we all know the course so well.

[Jon Wiggett]

Don't agree with you Bill. Most masters pre 2000 were not decided until the last 2 or 3 holes. By this I mean it was not so clear cut. On sunday how close was the nearest player when the leader was playing 15, 16, 17 ? 4 shots, 5 shots? Are you sure you were not watching highlights from an earlier Masters? What was so interesting.

Interesting Masters since 1986.

1987 play off
1988 up and down on the last
1989 play off
1990 play off

need I go on Bill?

[David Whitmer]

The phrase "the tournament doesn't begin until the back nine on Sunday" was only applicable back when they only showed the back nine! I really enjoyed yesterday's broadcast. Immelman hit many great shots, and to watch a young guy come through on Sunday and win his first major, in those weather conditions, was very exciting to me.

His up-and-down on #4; his second shot to 2 feet on #5; his great up-and-down on #9; his great putt on #11; his tremendous birdie from 90 yards on #13 (something Tiger could not do); and his up-and-down on #17 were all very cool moments. Conversely, Flesch's tee ball on #12, Tiger's missed putts, and Snedeker's missed putts were equally exciting and dramatic (not that I like watching guys fail). I personally don't need birdies to be entertained. I need drama, and the weather + Tiger in the hunt + Immelman, Snedeker, and Flesch going for their first majors gave me that drama.

Plus, judging from the scores through 3 rounds, I think there would have been more birdies around yesterday if the wind had not been so strong. Therefore, I don't think the back nine failed to deliver; I think the weather caused the drama to come in a different form.

[Dan Herrmann]

I watched the "Eighties at the Masters" show tonight.

Wow - I had forgotten just how exciting tournaments at ANGC used to be.  Bring it back - please!

[Jon Wiggett]

David,

I am also of the opinion that the weather played a role but that was also the case in the past. The difference now is there seems to be less chance of hitting a great recovery shot. This in turn makes the player opt for the safer option.

I think that Immelman hit a lot of good shots but that didn't make the tounament one to remember. I want the golf to be entertaining. A good comparison I think is taking Tigers 15 stroke win at Pebble and comparing it to the 77 Turnberry Open with Jack and Tom. Tiger produced one of the finest displays of golf seen in a major championship but the tournamant itself was quite boring to watch unless you were a big Tiger fan. Jack and Tom also produced one of the finest displays ever seen in major golf which was probably on par with Tigers, no better no worse. The 77 Open however is one of, if not the greatest spectacle in major championship history.

Why is the Masters the most well known tournament in the world? Is it in danger of losing the reason why it is?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()