[PThomas]

3 is the hole where Steve pushed him to driver once in the final round, he decided to, hit in the trees, and made 6, I think ...so maybe that's why he didn't there

[Dan_Callahan]

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.

[Phil McDade]

Paul:

Tiger did hit driver there on Sunday, which -- given the history you recall (was that in '04, Mickelson's first win? I think so...) -- made it seem like an odd choice. Again, I think there is a place for driver there, but Tiger by that time was at or only one stroke off the lead, and had just hit a wonderful approach shot into 2 after a poor drive. His choice of driver on 3 left him with an awkward chip and a play away from the hole, as Dan pointed out. It seemed an odd strategic choice for someone at/near the lead, with lots of the round left to play. I can see using the driver, and maybe he hit it in the wrong place. But that's said to be a pretty nasty green for getting up and down around the green -- a few spots, yes, but not that many.

[Philip Gawith]

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.

[PThomas]

oops, my mistake...I thought Tiger hit 3wood there Sunday

[Matt_Ward]

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.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Tough crowd here on GCA.

I say congratulations to Zack.  He had every reason to be thankful to whomever or whatever he thought helped him to the height of his professional success.

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.

As mentioned, Curtis Strange would love to go back in time and layup on 13 and 15.  He'd be a Masters Champion I think twice.  Billy Joe Patton would probably like to take his "heroic" 4 wood play on 13 back too.  He would be an amateur Masters Champion too. If Zack Johnson had the cool head to play to his strengths and come out on top then I say he has what it takes to be a winner.

[Brent Hutto]

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 Bourgeois]

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

[Geoffrey Childs]

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?

[Tim Pitner]

I'm a late comer to this thread so permit me a few thoughts:

Zach Johnson grew up in my hometown of Cedar Rapids, Iowa and played at Elmcrest Country Club where my wife's father and brother belong so I'm obviously quite pleased with his victory.  By all accounts, he's a great guy.  I'm not a religious person so I can't relate to his thanking Jesus, but . . . Zach's a very religious person.  I'm sure he believes that his faith helped him win.  Let's not go overboard criticizing him on that.  

As to whether he's a worthy champion, he played a stellar Sunday round--what's to complain about?  I wouldn't put him in the same category of Ben Curtis or Shaun Micheel-type surprise winners.  He played on the U.S. Ryder Cup team and is a very solid, if not particularly long, player.  

I too was surprised by Goosen's shot selection on 13.  But, Goosen's miss, particularly with the driver, is a slightly over the top hook.  Goosen's long with the driver but his strength is his iron game and his short game.  He probably felt that things were going well and he didn't want to risk a big number.  I'm not sure I agree with the strategy but given his history on the hole and the fact that he thought +2 was going to be the winning score, I can understand it.  

[tlavin]

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.

[Bob_Huntley]

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,

I am not saying that Zach is weak but you might want to look up the the resume of Lyle and Woosnam, they were never chopped liver.

Bob

[Wayne_Kozun]

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.

[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.

Rick,

I am not saying that Zach is weak but you might want to look up the the resume of Lyle and Woosnam, they were never chopped liver.

Bob

I know they weren't Bob. I phrased that badly, but I had no intention of calling Woosnam, Lyle or Wier chopped liver. I don't think Zach Johnson is chopped liver, either.

[Robert Thompson]

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.

[Wayne_Kozun]

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.

As I pointed out way above - two of the wins were "near-majors" a WGC event at Valderrama and the Tour Championship.

[Geoffrey Childs]

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.

[Mike Hendren]

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.

Hear, hear!

[jeffwarne]

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.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Great post Jeff - I agree with your evaluation.

[Mark Bourgeois]

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.

[Wayne_Kozun]

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.

I am not saying that he is unworthy, just that he is the weakest winner since Larry Mize.  Anyone who qualifies to play in the Masters is worthy.  My opinion is that the setup of the course this week allowed a weaker player to come through.  Note the similarity to Car-Nasty where two flukes made the playoff (Lawrie and VdV) plus Justin Leonard.  Lawrie and VdV have done nothing since then to say that what they did there was not a fluke - I hope Zach does!

[Garland Bayley]

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.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

I hope you understand that the reason you get fewer unexpected winners at the Masters is not because it is a superior tournament to the two opens and the pga. It is simply because you eliminate most of the possible unexpected winners before the tournament even begins. Some would say that the masters is a joke as far as being a major is concerned. The lack of real competition is astounding.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()