Zach Attack: What does his win say about the architecture?

[tlavin]

Does it vindicate one side or the other in the ongoing argument about whether the "new" ANGC is the equal, the inferior or the superior of its predecessor?

[Wayne_Kozun]

It says bad things.  One of the good things about Augusta is that you generally didn't get fluke winners, unlike other majors but this is a fluke, or at least darn near a fluke.

ZJ is the weakest winner of the Masters since Larry Mize 20 years ago.  I don't think that is what ANGC wants.

[Michael Christensen]

before we call Zach a fluke winner...lets see what he does the rest of his career!  Jeez....way to denigrate a 69 on the final day?

[Rick Shefchik]

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.

[jeffwarne]

Cut down all the trees so Tiger can hit it ANYWHERE (in search of the proper angle of course) and win his fifth Masters, followed by twenty more.

I mean why reward Johnson who was merely controlling his ball best all week.

[noonan]

Yawn

Plodders rejoice everywhere.

[Tim Bert]

I think Zach is a wonderful champion.  

I think his comment, "I didn't go for a single par 5 in 2 all week" says more than the fact that he is the guy that won.

I think Wayne's comments are out of line.  Zach is very early in his career.  He's the first guy to go from Q-school to Ryder Cup in the same year.  He won his first year on tour.  He's probably not going ti give Tiger a run for world #1, but he is a fine champion.

[JohnV]

It does show you can be a relatively short hitter (157th on tour) and still win at Augusta in spite of what all the so-called experts have said about only big hitters can win.

[Michael Christensen]

my only complaint about Zach....cream blue with the green doesn't go!

and nice shades at the green ceremony Billy

[tlavin]

He is a short hitter, but there's no doubt that he's a grinder and a terrific putter.  I think his win says that you can compete at Augusta if you control your ball and putt exceptionally well.  He certainly did that.  Woods and Appleby, to name just two contenders had difficulty controlling their ball, particularly off the tee, and they lost to a relatively unproven player.  It says you don't have to be a bomber.  I think it says good things about the revamped Augusta.

[Brad Klein]

It says he's a smart player who had the good sense to lay up when he didn't want to force a shot against the terrain.

Anyone who dismisses a set up or a course because some PGA Tour guy (a Ryder Cupper!) wins the event overlooks the fact that every one of these guys is a phenomenal player with incredible imagination and touch. Otherwise they wouldn't be there. Some obviously have more than others, but Zach Johnson is in the Chad Campbell school, and I could watch that every day.

[Wayne_Kozun]

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.

Rick - do your research Lyle had already won the British!

Yes Johnson was weaker than those guys.  Prior to today ZJ had one win - the 04 Bell South Classic which helped him make the Ryder Cup team.  I believe that is the tournie that was played the week before the Masters so it had a weak field.

Prior to winning at Augusta Weir had won 5 tournies, including 2 tournies that are just one notch below majors - a WGC tournie and the Tour Championship.  The Masters was also his third victory of the 2003 season.  ZJ is not even close to that.

Prior to winning his Masters in 91 Woosie had played on 4 Ryder Cup teams and had won about 13 European tournies.

And calling Lyle a fluke is complete balderdash.  Lyle had won the British, TPC and three other US tournies before the Masters, including at least one tournie in 88 just before his Masters victory.  Add to that 5 Ryder Cup appearances before his Masters victory in 88 plus a bunch of European Tour victories.

[Kalen Braley]

If nothing else, after watching his interview in Butlers Cabin, we finally found out which golfer that Jesus prefers the most.  Seeing how Tiger has oddles more major wins, does this mean that Tiger is the anti-christ??

[Tom Birkert]

It might be a British thing, but I despise the continual thanking of Him, does that mean that He wanted to inflict pain and misery on the likes of Rose, Goosen, Woods etc?

It really, really annoys me.

With regards to Johnson, I think it's pretty sad that he didn't go for any par 5 in two (including laying up from 213 out on 13 today). I love seeing attacking, exciting golf, and I firmly believe that is what has made the Masters special (Nicklaus' back nine charge in '86 being a prime example).

Johnson certainly is a weaker player than Lyle, Woosnam and Weir were when they won at Augusta.

[Wayne_Kozun]

before we call Zach a fluke winner...lets see what he does the rest of his career!  Jeez....way to denigrate a 69 on the final day?

OK, replace fluke with weakest credentials of any winner since at least Larry Mize.

[Wayne_Kozun]

It might be a British thing, but I despise the continual thanking of Him, does that mean that He wanted to inflict pain and misery on the likes of Rose, Goosen, Woods etc?

It really, really annoys me.

From a Canadian perspective I agree 100%.  I instantly lose respect for any athlete who credits Jesus (or Mohammed or Buddha or some other diety) for his/her victory.

[Brent Hutto]

I think the recent parallel that's most apt is Mike Weir. Two little guys who tacked their way around the course with finesse instead of power and putted like demons to win the tournament. Although I don't think Weir had a three-putt as heinous as Zach's monstrosity at sixteen yesterday. Yikes!

[Kalen Braley]

It might be a British thing, but I despise the continual thanking of Him, does that mean that He wanted to inflict pain and misery on the likes of Rose, Goosen, Woods etc?

It really, really annoys me.

With regards to Johnson, I think it's pretty sad that he didn't go for any par 5 in two (including laying up from 213 out on 13 today). I love seeing attacking, exciting golf, and I firmly believe that is what has made the Masters special (Nicklaus' back nine charge in '86 being a prime example).

Johnson certainly is a weaker player than Lyle, Woosnam and Weir were when they won at Augusta.

Tom,

This sort of nonsense has been going on in American sports for quite awhile, but usually only in the team sports like baseball, football, and basketball.  This is the first time however I've heard it used by a golfer in a major like this.

And yes I am quite tired of it too.  To suggest that "He" gives a damn is laughable at best, if "He" is even watching...

[Doug Siebert]

Wayne,

I think you need to wait more than five minutes after his victory to declare him an unworthy winner.  If this is his only major victory in his career, then you can try to make that argument, but he's younger than Tiger and has yet to peak.

It is a tradition in the Masters that someone you have never heard of gets atop the leaderboard on Friday, and after realizing where he is and that he doesn't belong there, chokes himself to oblivion.  Zach took the lead on Friday, hit it a few feet away on 16, three jacked it, then proceeded to bogey 17 and 18.  But he didn't disappear, he had the mental toughness to come back from that and wrote himself a different history on 16, 17, and 18 this year.  You gotta give the guy a little credit, he shot 69 today, won at ANGC from behind the lead group and behind Tiger, and today the conditions and greens were much more receptive to scoring so you can't argue he just outlasted everyone today when birdies and eagles were flying all over the place!

Don't overlook the fact he was #56 on the world rankings entering the tournament, so its not like he's a Van De Velde coming out of nowhere.  If he wins a US Open, British Open or PGA in the next few years, will that vindicate him, or will you feel the setup of that course is flawed and created another unworthy winner?  If he went on to win several more majors, would you revisit your assessment of the setup of ANGC this week if it turns out in hindsight to have produced a most worthy winner after all?  I mean, a multiple major winner has to have a first major somewhere, and not everyone is Tiger where you wonder "how many is he going to win?" or Mickelson where you wonder "is the guy going to go down in history as the best non-major winner in history?"

Maybe its just my state pride talking, but care to make a gentleman's bet that Zach Johnson never wins another major?  I think he's got a very good game for say the US Open since he keeps it in the fairway and plays the percentages.  Now that's won once, that'll only help him next time he's in contention.

And it does prove that you don't need to be as long as Tiger or Phil to win at Augusta.  I played a couple times with Zach around 2000 or so and I was outdriving him a bit.  So I guess I must have the length to play ANGC from the Masters tees.  Just not the accuracy, consistency, short game or putting

Honestly though, if you told me he'd win the Masters someday, or even that he'd be capable of playing the tour well enough to keep a card, I'd have been willing to bet a lot against it.  Not because he wasn't long enough but because he just wasn't good enough.  He's obviously got a LOT better since then, so he may still have more room for improvement.

[Lloyd_Cole]

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.

Rick

Woosie was world ranked #1 when he won, Sandy had just won the Open was ranked #2 in '88. Johnson may go on to great things but , compared to those two one would have to say - yes, relatively weak.

[Rick Shefchik]

before we call Zach a fluke winner...lets see what he does the rest of his career!  Jeez....way to denigrate a 69 on the final day?

OK, replace fluke with weakest credentials of any winner since at least Larry Mize.

Wayne, that I will grant you. Then again, a lot of first-time major winners have relatively weak credentials, and go on to outstanding careers.

[Doug Siebert]

Yeah, I definitely agree with the thanking Jesus thing, that is annoying.  I guess its an American thing that people with strong religion seem to enjoy wearing it on their sleeve.  I think it seems to be a competitive thing amongst born agains, just like want to look better than the guy next door by having a bigger house or nicer car they also want look better by appearing to have a stronger faith.

The world would be a lot better place if Christianity and Islam had died out like Zoroastrianism, or at least if persecuted Buddists had founded the US

[Wayne_Kozun]

Wayne, ...

Don't overlook the fact he was #56 on the world rankings entering the tournament, so its not like he's a Van De Velde coming out of nowhere.  If he wins a US Open, British Open or PGA in the next few years, will that vindicate him, or will you feel the setup of that course is flawed and created another unworthy winner?

He may go on to great things, but so far he has not shown himself to be of the upper echelon of golfers.  I hope this is the beginning of great things, but my point is that generally the person who wins the Masters has already shown himself to be a very strong player, unlike the occasional unexpected winners that you get at the other Majors (Micheel, Beem, Curtis, Lawrie, Jones, etc.)

But we may be catching Zach at the beginning of his upswing.

[David_Elvins]

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.

Rick

Woosie was world ranked #1 when he won, Sandy had just won the Open was ranked #2 in '88. Johnson may go on to great things but , compared to those two one would have to say - yes, relatively weak.

Can't blame Rick for not knowing anything about them.  Neither were American.

[Wayne_Kozun]

before we call Zach a fluke winner...lets see what he does the rest of his career!  Jeez....way to denigrate a 69 on the final day?

OK, replace fluke with weakest credentials of any winner since at least Larry Mize.

Wayne, that I will grant you. Then again, a lot of first-time major winners have relatively weak credentials, and go on to outstanding careers.

Yes, but many of them have already had several victories before that first major, not just one.