Oostie's Albatross vs. Bubba's Winner

Which was more impressive?

Obviously the double eagle is the rarest thing in golf, and his shot was incredible.

However, given the setting, the pressure, and circumstances, I'm leaning towards Bubba's shot.  To be able to drop it to 10 feet from that lie with that much pressure is amazing.

What are your thoughts?

No contest. Albatross. Bubba didn't even make the putt, so anywhere he could get up and down from would have been just as good.

Louis hit a 260y 4-iron into the opening on the 2nd green, which was impressive for sure, but from there it was basically luck that it rolled 100+ feet into the hole. And it was also the 2nd hole, meaning it was early into the round.

Bubba's was in the playoff & his back was basically against the wall & hit a 155y wedge with 40y of hook to 12 feet.

Given the situations, I'd go with Bubba's shot.

Sure it would have been just as good, but that's hindsight.  At the time he hit that shot, Oostie was sitting in front of the green, with a very good chance of getting up and down for his par.  If he puts that in the bunker, or shanks it, it's over.

Like Jamo said, an albatross is an incredible feat, but it's still 50% skill and 50% luck.  You would have a hard time putting from where his ball landed and rolled to the hole.  Sure it was a hell of a shot and he was certainly aiming for that area, but there's no way from 250 yards out to pick that precise spot, and that precise line, at that precise speed to roll that thing in.  It was skill up until the ball landed, then the golf gods took over.  Still incredible, but there was also no pressure at that point.

Why would you even think to compare them?

Both amazing shots.

for the sake of discussion? two very impressive shots but very different scenarios. Considering that they are going to be the most memorable shots of the 2012 Masters, I don't see why it would be odd to compare the two.

Bandwidth?

I've got to lean toward Bubba's shot.  It just reeked of pure skill.  A double eagle is an amazing thing, but it does take a tremendous amount of luck.  Bubba turned that shot 40 yards to the right through a tube of trees and galler... er... patrons.

Bubba, due to the timing. I hit a simular shot off the tee box this weekend, except I was trying hit it straight.

I think its simple....

One resulted in a Green Jacket, one did not.....

However I am totally biased being a UGA guy myself!

The albatros was 50/50 luck and skill.  Aim the ball at the green in a precise area, (which he did perfectly) and then luck took the ball the rest of the way across the green into the hole.

Bubba's shot was pure skill and given the pressure he was under, pretty amazing.  Even Faldo said he'd be lucky to get the ball into a position in front of the green.  Bubba did that one better and then some.

Does anyone happen to have links to videos of these two shots?

Edit: Added video links above...

Type in
"Oosthuizen double eagle"

in Youtube

This is the same thing people said about Mickelson's shot out of the pine trees in 2010, and it's as illogical a response to this question now as it was then. (See my last paragraph before you respond, though; I don't think it's a bad observation at all.) The putt doesn't even enter in to the discussion of the shot to hit the green. The shot was a difficult shot in a high-pressure situation, and he pulled it off.

While the albatross was rarer, it was a stock shot that was executed well and got lucky. It wasn't really any better of a shot than an approach that winds up 6 feet or less from the hole on any of the par 5s on Sunday, which is probably what it'd have been if it had happened to land a couple inches from where it did.

Certainly Oosthuizen's shot was more accurate and a better result than Watson's, but it didn't involve the touch or the pressure: it wasn't making a routine par or better out of what, by all rights, was a completely blown play-off hole for the Masters.

The putt is relevant if we're talking about the most impressive moments or performances. Watson did come up short of the miracle birdie to win the Masters "with force." Had Oosthuizen come up with a better pitch, there'd have been another hole and Watson's shot would have been an interesting footnote. So I think the shot itself would be in the top few shots, but the overall win was less impressive than it would have been had it not relied on the good fortune of a poor pitch from the opponent. Still... don't get me wrong, the guy still won a major with it, so this is just a relative comment---in absolute terms, it's impressive as all get-out.