News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


mike_beene

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #50 on: April 14, 2008, 10:19:06 PM »
I am always amazed by the number of greens without spectators.It must be surreal to putt on 12 with the crowd 150 yards away.Are there spectators at 4 and 5 greens?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #51 on: April 14, 2008, 10:22:31 PM »
Tim Bert, et. al.,

You're buying the B.S. from the announcers and Tigerphiles.

I don't think Tiger hit it well on the back nine on Sunday.

His approach on # 10 wasn't good.

Ditto # 11, but, he rolled in a LONG putt.

He hit a terrible shot on # 12 which the announcers declared as good.

He hit a terrible drive at # 13

A bad drive at # 14 leaving him an awkward angle.
An equally bad approach on # 14.

A terrible drive at # 15 which left him stymied for the pin, by the big pines.

A terrible drive at # 18 which could have been in Rae's Creek had it not been for a fortuitous bounce.

So, where did Tiger hit it great on Sunday on the BACK nine ?

Tim Bert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #52 on: April 14, 2008, 10:28:47 PM »
Patrick,

I don't think he hit it great, but I do think he played a pretty good round given the tough conditions.  He shot an even par round with 3-5 missed putts that were makeable (and at least two I pretty much conceded to him though I know there aren't gimmees on Augusta greens.

He definitely had a shot to inject the enthusiasm had a few of those putts fallen.

I was shocked how early Nantz conceded the Masters to Immelman.  I think it was 14 or 15 when he basically said it was over (not in those exact words.)  I'd think the powers that be would be less than ecstatic about those comments even though he was simply stating the obvious. 

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #53 on: April 14, 2008, 10:33:24 PM »
Tim Bert,

Please review my hole by hole commentary on Woods' play of the back nine.

How can anyone say he played it well ?

He got a very lucky bounce on # 18 that resulted in a birdie, when it could have resulted in a double bogey. 

Tim Pitner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #54 on: April 14, 2008, 10:37:40 PM »
Matt,

I don't know what you're saying about Immelman.  You criticized the Masters for producing winners like Johnson and Immelman.  I defended Immelman, saying he was a class player, in the same league as guys like Garcia and Scott.  Now, you're saying Immelman's way beyond Garcia and Scott.  Yes, of course, he's now won a major so his resume is superior, but would you have said the same thing before the Masters?  My only point is that, to people who have watched him, Immelman really isn't that big of a surprise winner--he was a known quantity in world golf. 

I concur with Mr. Flemma--the winning score was -8 and Immelman had it to -11--not exactly U.S. Open-type scoring.   

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it seems like a lot of players are shying away from trying to hit the green in two on #13 and #15 even when inside 220 yards or so.  I'm not exactly sure why players seemingly lay up now more than they used to.  It may have something to do with the fact that Johnson tore up the par 5s using that strategy last year and won the green jacket.  Immelman hit some pretty useful wedges this year.  I don't agree that the 90-100 yard shot is necessarily boring--I love those 3/4 shots that skip up there and then stop dead.  I don't really have that shot. ;)

Tim Bert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #55 on: April 14, 2008, 10:40:04 PM »
I'm not disputing that he hit some sloppy shots on the back nine.  I've seen Tiger hit it sloppy in other rounds as well, but he always then hits the Tiger shots or Tiger putts that make him Tiger.  Those were noticeably lacking Sunday.

I was commenting on the overall quality of his round (and not specifically the back nine.)  Relative to the rest of the field and given the wind, I still think he played a good round.  Not great, not particularly impressive, not without errant shots, but good nonetheless.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #56 on: April 14, 2008, 10:42:25 PM »
Tim Bert,

If history has taught us anything, it's that the Master's doesn't start until the back nine on Sunday.

If you don't have an exceptional back nine on Sunday your chances of winning are minimalized.

Tim Bert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #57 on: April 14, 2008, 10:47:44 PM »
Unless you begin it with a 5 shot lead (or whatever it was on #10) on a day that everyone is struggling to make birdies.   ;D

Tim Bert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #58 on: April 14, 2008, 10:56:26 PM »
By the way, Patrick, I think that Tiger could have finished 1st but actually chose to finish 2nd to help build his case amongst those that discount his career accomplishments because he doesn't have enough 2nd place finishes in Majors.  He figures that he's already on a good glidepath to 18+ wins that he needs to bolster those 2nd place finishes.  I think he was missing those putts on purpose.  That should help silence the critics!

Now he just needs to work on a few Major victories from behind on Sunday.  In this respect, he could probably benefit from not playing as well on Friday and Saturday all the time.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #59 on: April 15, 2008, 04:00:33 AM »
There are one heck of a lot of IFs chucked about on this thread.  Immelman was a comfortable winner - no?  Immelman looked comfortable all week.  Yes, he hiccupped on a hole or two, but he had that luxury and it was to be expected given the circumstances.  Tiger had a day like many we have seen from Tiger when he is trying to win from behind on the last day.  He made a lot of mistakes with no shots to spare.  Its a great credit to him that he still shot par and it was one of the better rounds of the day, but we all know that Tiger needed an exceptional round to win.  The odds were stacked heavily against the man regardless of conditions and altered architecture. 

I did think the tourny was a bit dull, but the more I think about it the more I am convinced that for me, its because I don't have much invested in the current crop of pros.  They are much of a muchness and not the sort of folks I would watch on tv regardless of why they were on tv.  Tiger is rally the only exception. 

Why is it that these guys seem to transform when it comes to Ryder Cup time?  I always considered the Ryder Cup as the 5th event of the year to watch.  It has slowly crept up the ladder and now it is right there with the Open.  The other majors just don't provide the entertainment to keep me fully engaged.  The odd thing is that the Ryder Cup is great entertainment because of the players on the week, how they interact with each other and how they respond to the matchplay scenario.  I watch the Open for a completely different reason.  I like how the players interact with the architecture and I know I will see some awesome shots that will boggle the mind with their creativity.  I just don't get this sense from watching the American majors anymore.  I also like the open aspect of the tourny and how guys come from all walks of life just to try and qualify.  No, doubt, part of my interest lies in the fact that I have at least played all the Open venues and can relate to what is going better.  But then I find it odd that I know Oakland Hills far better than Open course, yet tournys there don't really grab my interest.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Darren_Kilfara

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #60 on: April 15, 2008, 06:45:47 AM »
It seems there are two different viewpoints being espoused: one that the tournament was boring, in large part because of the changes to the course, and the other that it was exciting, because the Masters is always exciting.

Apart from Tiger's blowouts, I found yesterday's final round to be the least exciting viewing experience since Langer won in 1993 (and Chip Beck decided to lay up on 15). But to blame the lack of drama on the golf course somewhat misses the point when one can look at last year's tournament, played on mostly the same course: I really enjoyed last year's final round, which featured some really interesting ebbs and flows and was in the balance until the 71st hole. You can have tremendous drama and excitement in an event dominated by pars and bogeys instead of birdies and pars; otherwise, why would any of us ever watch the US Open?

I'd like for some of the recent "improvements" to the course to be rolled back, but drama is created by the golfers, not the course. The problem with Sunday's leaderboard is that the guys who played the best golf on the first three days - Immelman, Snedeker, Flesch, Casey - were never likely to play sparklingly well on Sunday, regardless of how the course was set up, because they'd never been there before and weren't best-placed to cope with the pressure. Sometimes several of the best golfers in the world all have good weeks during the same major, and the final round is exciting from the beginning because you know that the potential for real fireworks is much greater - that this didn't happen last week is a product of circumstance, not a direct cause-and-effect relationship with the nature of golf course. (Of course, part of the problem is that Woods has been so dominant, it's very hard to look at the rest of the field and identify five or six other golfers who are accomplished enough to have that potential within them - and the one of them that clearly does, Mickelson, flamed out quite badly on Saturday regardless.)

Cheers,
Darren

Bruce Katona

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #61 on: April 15, 2008, 09:36:10 AM »
I really enjoy watching oglf and especially The Masters, but after Tiger parred 15, I took my daughter out so she could practice her pitching......I also had to turn off the Yankee/Red Sox game Sunday night due to the pace of play (or lack of it) and I'm a Yankee fan.....no wonder I've grown to love watching Man U play soccer....2 hours and the game is done....lots of action also.

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #62 on: April 15, 2008, 10:03:46 AM »
I don't see any mystery in what happened and there really wasn't much suspense..

1. Immelman led in fairways hit and GIR after 3 rounds - similar to a US Open - putting is really tough but just avoid 3 putting and take advantage of the par 5s and you've got a winner.

2. Tiger puts himself too far out of the lead after 3 rounds and he makes a heroic charge but doesn't win - so what else is new.  No question he's the best but he can't always say the same thing:  I hit the ball great but the putts didn't drop.  Tiger -  take a hint - you can't put yourself in a position where all you're good putts have to drop in order for you to win. Maybe, just maybe, he doesn't always mange his game as he should in the early rounds of a major. 

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #63 on: April 15, 2008, 10:22:44 AM »
Jerry,

Game management still relies on execution...

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #64 on: April 15, 2008, 10:25:58 AM »
Gentlemen,

Think back to the third round in 1986.

Nick Price broke the course record, a 63, and never hit a par five in two.

Bob

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #65 on: April 15, 2008, 10:28:05 AM »
Maybe the new length identifies the best Masters Champion that week, but the "good old days" when eagles and birdies were flying all over the place and the noise of the fans made for deafening roars, I sure liked that better.

In those days, I couldn't even go to the bathroom for fear of missing something.
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #66 on: April 15, 2008, 11:49:47 AM »
Gentlemen,

Think back to the third round in 1986.

Nick Price broke the course record, a 63, and never hit a par five in two.

Bob

A true and valid point, but the tournament was won by Nicklaus who DID hit par 5's in two.  Again, Nicklaus had to shoot 30 coming in to win that day, AND get help from Kite, Ballesteros, and Norman.  He did shoot 30, and they did help him, and it was arguably the single most exciting round in golf history. 

The great thing about the back nine at ANGC is that both were possible; I question now whether the 30 is a reasonable possibility like it used to be.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #67 on: April 15, 2008, 11:54:39 AM »
I don't see any mystery in what happened and there really wasn't much suspense..

1. Immelman led in fairways hit and GIR after 3 rounds - similar to a US Open - putting is really tough but just avoid 3 putting and take advantage of the par 5s and you've got a winner.

2. Tiger puts himself too far out of the lead after 3 rounds and he makes a heroic charge but doesn't win - so what else is new.  No question he's the best but he can't always say the same thing:  I hit the ball great but the putts didn't drop.  Tiger -  take a hint - you can't put yourself in a position where all you're good putts have to drop in order for you to win. Maybe, just maybe, he doesn't always mange his game as he should in the early rounds of a major. 

Jerry,
Tiger didn't really mount a heroic charge, or any other kind of charge.  He shot 72, which only looked good AFTER the other leaders shot higher scores.  Immelman shot 75, which makes a 72 LOOK like a charge.  But "heroic"?  Not compared to the historic nature of back nine charges at ANGC. 

I can watch 5 hours of golf, no problem.  I can watch 72 being considered a charge and 75 winning, no problem.  But I can't bear to watch 5 hours AND a war of attrition. 
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #68 on: April 15, 2008, 12:22:27 PM »
FWIW, that was US Open scoring - 13 & 15 would be par 4s in a typical US Open, so -8 would be more like even.

Not that that has much bearing on anything....

This whole thread just goes to show how much Tiger drives golf. If it had been him in the lead, people would simply be commenting on how dominant and in control he was. If he had holed a few more putts, they'd be celebrating his stellar play on a tough day.

If even one of the other guys - Snedeker or Flesch - had put together a good round, or if Mickelson hadn't head cased on Saturday, people might be singing a different tune today.

Hats off to Immelman, he was clearly the best golfer Thursday through Sunday.

-----

Observation about Tiger:

Do you think he's as good as in 2000? Better? It's funny to me that his first famous swing changed under Butch was to make him a more consistent golfer. Seems like his second famous swing change has made the highs higher and the lows lower. He may have more shots now, as he claims, but he seemed far more in control of his game in 2000. And the stats - sans scoring! - seem to bear that out.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #69 on: April 15, 2008, 12:47:55 PM »
I'm curious about all these comparisons to US Open style scoring as it relates to the Masters results.  -8 didn't seem like such an unreasonable result this year so I compiled all the winning scores and put em in a spreadsheet.

Turns out the finishing score ended up in the 54th percentile, meaning slight lower relative to par than average.  This being the case why all the griping and low scores and such....the winning score was middle of the range for masters results??


A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #70 on: April 15, 2008, 01:40:28 PM »

Observation about Tiger:

Do you think he's as good as in 2000? Better? It's funny to me that his first famous swing changed under Butch was to make him a more consistent golfer. Seems like his second famous swing change has made the highs higher and the lows lower. He may have more shots now, as he claims, but he seemed far more in control of his game in 2000. And the stats - sans scoring! - seem to bear that out.

George,
I think he is way better, with the exception of his driver.  He seems to remain erratic with that club no matter what he does.  It doesn't look like the same swing that he makes with the other clubs in the bag, and Faldo often mentions that he straightens up out of his swing with the driver.  When he is even close with the driver, he is virtually unbeatable; the other shots just don't vary much week to week from an incredibly high level.  (Putter last week excepted, of course.)  I would suppose that's how he ranks at the top of GIR, despite being way, way down in driving accuracy; he IS better than he used to be, and DOES have more shots.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Mark Bourgeois

Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #71 on: April 15, 2008, 01:54:10 PM »
Kalen

Because he got there via drip, drip, drip, drop. Immelman like Johnson before him was never put in a position where he had to ado anything different than he would have planned at the beginning of the tournament or any round.

Steady as she goes won it. They played their own games and made conservative decisions.

There was little variability in scores, nobody shot anywhere close to 30 on the back nine while those who shot in the mid 40s didn't get to those scores by trying for a 30 or 31.

They just dropped a shot here, a shot there, maybe a double every round or so. US Open stuff.

Both Johnson last year and Immelman this year said they didn't react at all, didn't change their strategies, didn't respond to other golfers' moves. Smart for them because no one pushed them out of their comfort zone and their strategy of solipsistic ignorance was the right one.

Johnson: "What does it take? Part of that was just ignorance."

Immelman: "Obviously its just so damn difficult...I was just trying to play my own game, and I was hoping that it was going to be good enough."

The course took the burden of big thinking off their plates, so they could just do little thinking like trying to decide where to lay up.

Maybe that's one reason why relative newbies have won two years in a row. Mid-round big thinking and gear shifts might be easier for veterans.

Mark

Matt_Ward

Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #72 on: April 15, 2008, 02:16:52 PM »
Jeff W:

Beg to differ partner but there were plenty of situations in the pre #13 and #15 situations (before the changes were made) that didn't automatically transcend in everyone going for it. You might recall the name of Chip Beck as just one clear example. Those who have gone for it also in the past have paid a severe price when execution was off -- just ask Curtis Strange ('85) and Seve ('86).

The turning point on #13 really comes into play from a forward teeing position rather than 510 spot you see now. In the former situation you had to decide how much to really shape the shot. Now, it fairly straightforward -- you crank it long and right and likely will lay-up for that most exciting of shots -- the 90-100 yard shot.

Professionals are not stupid -- you need to bait them in for such second shots. If they think the shot is remotely less than 50/50 they opt for the safer play. No doubt circumstances dictate such thinking but my point, which you seemed to miss / ignore, is that if a preponderance of people are laying up then the nature of what ANGC does provide becomes less so.

Let's talk about Tiger / re: 15th. He had NOTHING to lose by going for it. Do you think Tiger gives a rats ass about finishing 2nd or 3rd. He was looking to jump start something with an eagle.

Many times on GCA -- the nature of holes being even more exciting comes from using a forward tee area -- Augusta did that with the 3rd a few years back. Jeff, check out the total number of eagles / birdies with the old 13th & 15th, compared to what you see today. The results are there to be seen if you really want to look.


Steve L:

Today's Masters is fastly becoming the April version of the US Open. It's more about cautious play to the max and as a result you get this type of situation. The Masters really accentuated offensive play (certainly with risks entailed) but now it's becoming more and more of the plodding style one comes to expect in June.
 
In years past The Masters marched to a beat that was truly special. I find the version one sees today as a direction that is really turning me and countless others off.
 
Darren K:

Wrong take on the idea your notion, "... drama is created by the golfers, not the course." The former ANGC (prior to Tiger proofing) promoted strategic impulses because the core architecture prompted people to take their game and the risks associated with it to a higher level. Now, the course itself has reduced that likelihood and the professionals have responded in kind.

If anything happened this past week -- it's my basic issue with the current Masters -- what was broken that needed to be fixed ?

Cary:

Well said -- now I could leave and go hit ball at the range and return and see the same result on the screen prior to my leaving.

Bring back the ole days ...




Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #73 on: April 15, 2008, 03:04:09 PM »
Matt,

The examples you sight on decision-making at 13 and 15 (Beck, Seve, Curtis) all took place with balatta and wooden drivers.  I guarantee you that in Sunday's condition, if they played 15 with balatta and wooden drivers from the old tees everybody but Tiger would have laid up.  Put another way, if Seve had a modern driver and modern ball in 1986 he would have been hitting a 7-iron or even less to 15, and Curtis Strange would have had irons into 13 and 15 when he messed them up.  They would have been less likely to hit in the water with shorter clubs.

What may be lacking at Augusta particularly on 15 is elasticity as far as where the tee is set up.  With the wind against on Sunday it may have been better to play from the old 500-yard tee.

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Unwatchable Masters of 2008 -- deadly dull !
« Reply #74 on: April 15, 2008, 03:14:34 PM »
Matt:

I'm not sure the data bears you out re. your arguments on 15 and 13.

-- 15 this year played as the easiest hole on the course, at 4.7762 strokes. That's in line with its historic average, both in terms of how easy it played relative to the other 17 holes as well as its average score. No. 15 has historically played as the easiest hole, with an average score of 4.8. See here (course records from 1942-2007):

http://www.masters.org/en_US/history/records/alltimestats.html

-- 13 played a bit tougher, but not by leaps and bounds; the difference is a degree or so. It played as the 15th hardest hole this year with a stroke average of 4.8375; historically it's played as the 17th hardest hole with an average of 4.8. In essence, it was only marginally more difficult this year, and moved up the list because the front-nine par 5s played slightly easier than 13 this year.

-- What's interesting to me is that, in the aggregate, the course's par 4s have become harder relative to the other holes on the course, based on historical averages. Historically, four of the courses par 4s (3, 7, 9 and 17) have been among the nine easiest holes on the course, with the remaining six par 4s (10, 11, 5, 18, 1, and 14) playing among the nine hardest holes. This year, only holes 3 and 14 played as "easy" holes (easiest nine holes on the course). Eight par 4s ranked among the toughest holes to play.

-- Notably, holes 1, 7, 9 and 11 have become more difficult than their historic averages. For instance, no. 7 historically ranks as only the 12th most difficult hole on the course; it ranked 3rd this year, and previous threads have suggested this hole has perhaps been altered more than any other at Augusta. Only one par 4 -- 14 -- played significantly easier this year than its historical average (it used to be the 6th hardest of the course's 10 par 4s; it was the second easiest par 4 this year).

-- Truly interesting, to me, is the evolution of no. 12, maybe the course's most famous hole. It historically averages 3.3 strokes; this year, it played at 3.0939 strokes (in a year when scoring averages were a half-stroke easier than historical averages -- 73.79 this year compared to 74.24 historically). No. 12 historically has ranked as the 2nd most difficult hole on the course; this year, it played as the 13th most difficult hole. Has technology finally caught up to the famed 12th? I think most players were hitting 9-irons into 12 this year; did it used to be 7-irons, and has that made what was once a feared hole into one that is -- for the Masters -- a relatively benign one?

On Matt's point, I'd argue the lengthening and changes to 13 and 15 have kept those holes as premier risk/reward holes, when keeping them at their pre-2002 lengths/features would lead to everyone going at them in two. I enjoyed watching how folks attacked them in different ways.

To me, the main alterations on the course that have affected scoring have come on the par 4s, which in the main have become much more difficult, and made it seemingly more difficult for players to go on a long under-par run of holes.