Of those who played well this year at the Masters, including the two playoff participants, their most common trait was length off the tee.
The two best golfers of the week -- Oosthuizen and Watson -- were 2nd and 4th in total driving distance for the tournament. Three others with top-10 finishes -- Westwood (T3), Harrington and Rose (both T8) -- are were among the 10 longest drivers of the ball during the four days of the tournament. The man with the lowest round in the tournament -- Van Pelt with a 64 on Sunday -- was 6th in driving distance.
Of the other golfers who finished in the top 10, all were among or near the top half longest players in the field. A total of 62 players made the cut; the other top 10 finishers and their rank in driving distance were: Mickelson (T3, 26th), Hanson (T3, 31st), Kuchar (T3, 34th), Poulter (7, 37th), Scott (T8, 33rd). In essence, if you weren't among the top 60 percent of players in distance off the tee this year, you didn't seriously contend.
There has been a lot of discussion on this board in recent years praising the USGA's approach to setting up the US Open, in that course set-ups have seen options introduced for how to play particular holes, and that the traditional notion of protecting par at all cost at the US Open has been set aside to allow golfers more opportunity for recoveries, and attacking the course more boldly. In short, a desire to eliminate the traditional one-dimensional course set-up (narrow fairways and high rough chief among those) associated with the championship.
Is the Masters now the most one-dimensional major we have? Is length off the tee the primary attribute a golfer must have to contend there? Does Augusta National -- in the main -- prevent the short and even moderate-length hitter off the tee from contending?