Paul,

He did hit driver on 3. That's what was so odd, especially with his history there. Meanwhile, Stuart hit 3-wood and was able to go right at the hole even though he was in the rough because he could take a full swing. Tiger was chipping from the front and had to play away from the hole. Seemed like a lot of risk for very little (if any) reward.

Retief Goosen has been hitting his driver sideways for at least a year. That surely is why he did what he did off the 13th tee. If you look at his recent form, the fact that he finished 2nd, shooting 139 over the weekend (better than anyone else by three) is astonishing. People always go on about what Tiger achieves without his A game. Well here is another example.

In general, he is quite an aggressive golfer (without looking at the stats, I am pretty sure that among the top golfers he probably has more birdies, and more bogeys than most) so I don't think anyone need read too much into that particular decision.

Couple of quick retorts to the most recent posts:

1). Tiger going for the 3rd with driver made no sense. Unless one can drive the green the end result is being stuck "in-between" only reduced his proability in making birdie there.

2). The Goose needed to attack the 13th hole. After a three-putt bogey at the 12th Retief needed to quickly turn things around in his favor. For a guy who is world renown with the putter -- the sad result is that he could not buy a key putt after the 11th hole.

In a major championship, architecture will never (and should never) trump execution. It's one thing to note that Zach Johnson laid up on all sixteen Par 5's but the other part of that observation is that he executed well enough to birdie 11 of those 16 (69%) chances.

Consider the opposite possibility. If someone tried to go for every green in two and made a two doubles and a two bogeys but also made five eagles and finished 11-under for the Par 5's I guess some people would might say that it meant the Par 5's were too easy to reach. But in reality, it was the fact that he executed the strategy so well that lead to dominating those holes.

I'd say if several of the top five players had used the layup strategy and going for it almost always lead to lower scores then the course was set up in an un-Masters-like way. But you can't extrapolate from one man's nigh-perfect execution to any general conclusion. You need to look at all the results throughout the field.

For a big hitter to trying to go for 13 and 15 most of the time can pay off even if you mess up once or twice during the tournament. Risk and reward works that way. Zach Johnson's strategy (like David Toms with his "layup major") requires consistently excellent wedge shots and putting or else it costs strokes relative to the field. Give him credit for making so many good swings and good strokes under pressure.

Mark

Hogwash - What about the "new" design of 13 has changed such that Billy Joe Patton leading the Masters at the time was compelled to hit a 4 wood off a hanging lie and Zack Johnson is a very similar spot lays up?

What has changed on 15 such that a drive INTO THE FAIRWAY with a clear view of the green and no trees to curve around compelled Curtis Strange to hit a wood from a downhill lie and Zack Johnson is a similar spot lays up?  

You are extrapolating the narrow fairways on 7, 11, 15 and 17 with decisions made from the fairway 13 and 15 where heroic shots were required to hit the greens but perhaps heroic shots were not required to WIN the Masters for those players.  Is that questionable tactics and decision making or the architecture?

Gj

But that's exactly what made the old masters so much fun. The design out those players in a position where they felt absolutely compelled to go for it. It was like they couldn't help it.

The new design reversed this. I suspect that's why tigers second on 15 generated so much discussion. Clearly he felt compelled to go for it, despite the new normal - well, let's hope that wasn't a fin de siecle type of shot, framed against the winners strategy of going for zero par fives.

Mark

All of this nostalgic logorrhea reminds me of a book about faulty backward thinking called, "The Way We Never Were".  Trying to slam the changes to the golf course and claim that they have forever ruined the Masters with no hope of revival on the basis of a cold and windy weekend is the same as trying to deny global climate change on the basis of a cold Chicago June afternoon.

The golf course is different.  The distances on some holes have dramatically changed the clubs that the players have to use.  But weren't all of us tired of seeing driver/wedge golf?  Weren't we all sick of the dumbing down of great designs by the technology changes in the ball and equipment?  

I didn't hear anybody complaining that loudly about the negative effect of the changes on the toonamint last year.  And if the weather is warm next year, the mute button will probably be reapplied.

As to being a weak or fluke winner I say - BUNK.  He dominated each professional level that he tackled be it the Hooters Tour or the Nationwide Tour (player of the year in both). He came to the PGA Tour and won a tournament quickly and played well enough to earn his way onto the Ryder Cup Team.  That puts him in the Top 10 US players from a statistical measurement. He's more of a winner then Chris Dimarco within the same time frame and lets not forget that the great Tom Lehman has won a TOTAL of five tournaments in his career including that one (fluke??) Open Championship.

He certainly is the player with the weakest resume prior to winning at Augusta since Mize.  That doesn't mean that he won't win a whole bunch of tournaments and majors in the future but he hasn't so far and it's not like he's only 21 - he's the same age as Tiger.  If he has had such a stellar career then how come many people on this web site don't even know how to spell his first name - it is Zach, not Zack!

Lehman a great player?  Says whom?  Arguably John Daly has a stronger career record and is younger.  What about Bob Tway - is he a "great" player?  He has the same number of majors as Lehman, more other tournament victories but is a wee bit behind in career earnings.

And I'll stand up for Mike Weir here -- he hasn't played well as of late, but he did have six wins going into the 2003 Masters. And many of those -- like the Nissan -- were strong events.

I don't think Mize, or even Lehman, can be considered his equal. Zach Johnson is a similar player to Weir -- short off the tee, strong with his putter, quite accurate.

Quote from: GJChilds on April 09, 2007, 10:43:42 AM

As to being a weak or fluke winner I say - BUNK.  He dominated each professional level that he tackled be it the Hooters Tour or the Nationwide Tour (player of the year in both). He came to the PGA Tour and won a tournament quickly and played well enough to earn his way onto the Ryder Cup Team.  That puts him in the Top 10 US players from a statistical measurement. He's more of a winner then Chris Dimarco within the same time frame and lets not forget that the great Tom Lehman has won a TOTAL of five tournaments in his career including that one (fluke??) Open Championship.

He certainly is the player with the weakest resume prior to winning at Augusta since Mize.  That doesn't mean that he won't win a whole bunch of tournaments and majors in the future but he hasn't so far and it's not like he's only 21 - he's the same age as Tiger.  If he has had such a stellar career then how come many people on this web site don't even know how to spell his first name - it is Zach, not Zack!

Lehman a great player?  Says whom?  Arguably John Daly has a stronger career record and is younger.  What about Bob Tway - is he a "great" player?  He has the same number of majors as Lehman, more other tournament victories but is a wee bit behind in career earnings.

Wayne

You are making up things here.  Who said ZacH had a stellar career? He has however done everything well by dominating the two tours he played prior to the US PGA tour and in winning an event early in his PGA tour career.  Making the Ryder Cup team and playing well in the event is a good indication of his toughness.  I think it is a shame he wins a major and he is labeled as weak as if somehow unworthy. That is disrespectful.

MANY have labeled Tom Lehman a great player with a career worthy of being selected as a Ryder Cup Captain.  I am not one who agrees with that assessment. As nice a man as he might be he is way over rated.

GCA as a whole (with exceptions) has a terribly negative attitude about golf courses and players. I think we need to emulate Ran a bit more and emphasize the positive a bit more.  Let's give ZacH his due as a start.

Mark,
"the old design" (on 13 and 15) you refer to was only a recent phenomena brought on by technology's march.

Gene Sarazen made a heroic and desperate choice to go for 15 in 1935 with a bounce up wood shot.
Had he holed out with a wedge or 9 iron for a double eagle, it would've been an incredibly timely shot, but it hardly would've been a heroic choice.

Plenty of players have laid up or faced 1 irons and woods to 13 and 15, making the decision to go for it quite bold off a downhill or sidehill lie.
In recent years, the same lie with a middle or short iron eliminated the decision.

As you state, the players felt "compelled to" go for 13 and 15 in the past decade.
Doesn't that make them par 4's of the penal school, rather than the truly great STRATEGIC par 5's they were intended to be?
Shouldn't Tiger Woods with a huge, accurate drive have an option not available to Zach Johnson on a well built strategic par five?
If they both can successfully consistently go for it, where's the choice and strategy?

The holes once again involve a strategic approach involving choices and playing to one's strengths, as they did when originally designed.

The weather leading up to the tournament and during the tournament were the reason for the scoring issues.
I'd say they got the mix just about right, given that they got similar winning scores under similar conditions in 1954, 1956, and 1967.

It was a great tournament.
Augusta is a 9.
If they eliminated 10-20 of the new trees on 7 and particularly 11, and limbed up a couple more (which don't affect strategy but rather inhibit recovery)

and eliminated the rough (which just looks messy and keeps ball from rolling off)
it would again be a 10.

Jeff, I agree with GJ those are thoughtful questions, and I don't have all the facts.

One fact that would help is if anyone can tell us when the club decided to make the hole fundamentally penal in nature and not strategic by letting the water flow freely down the tributary, particularly in front of the green, and set up the banks to make sure balls rolled down into the water.

I recall that for at least one tournament in the last 15 years or so they got back to the ethos of the original design and kept the water low.

Perhaps the former compulsion is down to a different risk reward equation from this year.

Weaker than Sandy Lyle? Weaker than Ian Woosnam? Weaker than Mike Wier? Maybe, but like the opinions offered on the ANGC setup this week, I think it's premature to make that evaluation.

What Johnson's win does say is that shorter hitters CAN still win at Augusta.

Hey, the mollydookers on this site say lay off Mike Wier. If that Woods guy could win as often at Riviera as Mike has, then we might think that Woods guy is OK even though he plays from the non-right side of the ball.