Thrash Talk: 2007 Masters Aftermath

[Thrash13]

With The Masters now in the rear-view mirror, I decided to take one last look at things from the season's first major. This week's Thrash Talk is based on some of the week's most interesting storylines, in my opinion of course. Here are a couple questions to get you started, but be sure to read the entire article in the morning. I figure it will stir up a little controversy as usual.

1. What Grade Would You Give The 2007 Masters?

2. What Was Your Favorite Storyline From This Year's Masters When The Dust Had Settled?

Thanks everyone.

[gt6974a]

I actually watched more than I usually do. I streamed Amen Corner while I was at work on Thursday.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Thrash13

1. What Grade Would You Give The 2007 Masters?

C-, about the same as Tiger's game that week. It wasn't because of the weather (oh boo hoo, it was 50 degrees), but simply the course. Augusta National was not set up to host The Masters this year - and we're finally seeing what a mess the changes they've made over the past few years have brought. The course does not need trees and rough to defend itself. Again, I'll cite the approach into 11. Nobody in their right mind wants to approach that hole from the right side of the "old" fairway. But now there are trees there, all but eliminating the brave/stupid/great "recovery" shot from the right side. Augusta's protection was and always should be its greens and the angles into them, NOT trees, rough, making things rock-hard, or hoping you get chill temps and/or wind.

Originally Posted by Thrash13

2. What Was Your Favorite Storyline From This Year's Masters When The Dust Had Settled?

A good guy winning. Tiger losing is a bad storyline. The course winning is a bad storyline.

[InTheTwenties]

The big story line is that there is no big story line. The anticipated showdown of the century Phil versus Tiger didn't materialez.

About the only story is that the winner played a charmed round. He clearly has faith, and it worked. Especially when Tigers' shot on the 17th (?) went into the water, because of a magical gust of wind, taking him out of contention. Or when Tiger's Tee off was interupted by a bird flying over his ball.

No doubt the winner played a fine round, and deserves the green jacket, but a little help from above never hurt.

PS. I think I'll light a candle before my next round.

[jorruss]

Originally Posted by Thrash13

With The Masters now in the rear-view mirror, I decided to take one last look at things from the season's first major. This week's Thrash Talk is based on some of the week's most interesting storylines, in my opinion of course. Here are a couple questions to get you started, but be sure to read the entire article in the morning. I figure it will stir up a little controversy as usual.

1. What Grade Would You Give The 2007 Masters?

2. What Was Your Favorite Storyline From This Year's Masters When The Dust Had Settled?

Thanks everyone.

I would give this year's Masters a grade of B minus. The tournament comitee tryed to make it a bit tougher for the players, and they actually had the course set up perfect, if not for the weather. If you took away the cold and wind, the course was set up very fair. The CBS coverage was of course locked on Tiger as usual, and all but ignored Zack until he got into the lead on the back nine. Shameful. I guess they thought the masses would rather watch Tiger struggle with his game than watch a "no-name". Oh well.

I think the best storyline was the fact that a good player that was not well known came through in tough conditions to beat the best players in the world. he may not be the longest hitter, or the best putter, or have the best short game, and he may not win another major, but last week he was the best and nobody can ever take it away from him.

The dumbest question of the week came in an interview with Phil about whether the collapse and Winged Foot had anything to do with his performance in the final round here. I don't see how it could have, and Phil didnt see the correlation either. He has already proven that he can win since the Open. Non issue.

[jorruss]

Originally Posted by InTheTwenties

The big story line is that there is no big story line. The anticipated showdown of the century Phil versus Tiger didn't materialez.

About the only story is that the winner played a charmed round. He clearly has faith, and it worked. Especially when Tigers' shot on the 17th (?) went into the water, because of a magical gust of wind, taking him out of contention. Or when Tiger's Tee off was interupted by a bird flying over his ball.

No doubt the winner played a fine round, and deserves the green jacket, but a little help from above never hurt.

PS. I think I'll light a candle before my next round.

So you are saying that God pushed Tiger's ball into the water, and caused Phil's ball to hit the lip on the first hole? That's not a very Christain thing to say.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by jorruss

I would give this year's Masters a grade of B minus. The tournament comitee tryed to make it a bit tougher for the players, and they actually had the course set up perfect, if not for the weather.

The Masters has been played at the same time of year for a looooong time. This was the highest scoring Masters since (IIRC) 1956.

They've had weather this bad and worse - remember the time they got hail? - and scores were still lower and the tournament more exciting.

Blaming the "weather" was, for some players, golferspeak so they didn't have to blame Augusta. Furthermore, the weather conditions were known all week long, ahead of time. Why did they only water the greens Sunday to help balls hold? And even then we only got 69s as the low round.

The "weather" excuse is going too far, IMHO.

Originally Posted by jorruss

The dumbest question of the week came in an interview with Phil about whether the collapse and Winged Foot had anything to do with his performance in the final round here. I don't see how it could have, and Phil didnt see the correlation either. He has already proven that he can win since the Open. Non issue.

He hasn't proven he can win a major or play in the big events. Phil's not exactly been playing great golf since Winged Foot. That includes the Ryder Cup.

So, a very loose correlation, but if Phil never again wins a major - how much of that do you attribute to Winged Foot? He was going for 3 in a row, remember? It's not like he's won 3 spaced out over 20 years. He won 'em in the span of two years. He was HOT, and now he's not. Ever since...

[jorruss]

Originally Posted by iacas

The Masters has been played at the same time of year for a looooong time. This was the highest scoring Masters since (IIRC) 1956.

They've had weather this bad and worse - remember the time they got hail? - and scores were still lower and the tournament more exciting.

Blaming the "weather" was, for some players, golferspeak so they didn't have to blame Augusta. Furthermore, the weather conditions were known all week long, ahead of time. Why did they only water the greens Sunday to help balls hold? And even then we only got 69s as the low round.

The "weather" excuse is going too far, IMHO.



He hasn't proven he can win a major or play in the big events. Phil's not exactly been playing great golf since Winged Foot. That includes the Ryder Cup.

So, a very loose correlation, but if Phil never again wins a major - how much of that do you attribute to Winged Foot? He was going for 3 in a row, remember? It's not like he's won 3 spaced out over 20 years. He won 'em in the span of two years. He was HOT, and now he's not. Ever since...

Phil was most definitely affected by the loss and Winged Foot, but every good player that has been in that position has lost one. Jack Nicklaus won 18 professional majors. He finished second 19 more times, and third nine times. In all, Nicklaus posted 48 Top 3 finishes, 56 Top 5 finishes and 73 Top 10 finishes.That's a pretty good record don't you think?

I guess we'll have to see how Phil ends up doing from here on out. Personally, I don't think his performance at the Masters had anything to do with Winged Foot. He was playing a different course, different weather, and was not in the lead to start the day or ever in a position to give it away.

I think Augusta wanted to try making the course play hard and fast to change things up and "protect the course". The weather was also a contributing factor to the high scores, not simply an excuse. I think the reason Augusta will go back to the old formula for next year is the fan (Sorry - patron) factor. People want to see birdies and eagles on the back nine on Sunday. It adds to the drama and the dynamics of the round. Everybody wants to feel the excitement of Players hearing roars from all over the course, wondering who just made birdie. It makes the television viewing more exciting also...

[iacas]

Originally Posted by jorruss

I guess we'll have to see how Phil ends up doing from here on out.

To clarify the above, I don't think it has much effect either. Perhaps if Phil steps on the tee of the 18th hole with a one-shot lead in a major, we'll see - but never being in contention? That's not related.

But I can understand why the press would ask, and why some people might think it still affects him.

I chalk this Masters up to two things for Phil:
a) He wasn't on his game. He's streaky. This was a down cycle.
b) He's in between, possibly, instructors. Too much input right now is leading to (a).