Preference: Masters wnning score?

[Clubswinger21]

I dont think any major should be in double digits.. that said, I would've liked to see the winning score at Augusta be between 0-5 under par. I like to see the pros struggle as much as anyone but would prefer it to be around those numbers. You?..

[nogoodhacker]

I dont think any major should be in double digits.. that said, I would've liked to see the winning score at Augusta be between 0-5 under par. I like to see the pros struggle as much as anyone but would prefer it to be around those numbers. You?..

I agree. Its not that I like seeing them struggle. Its more like I enjoy seeing them challenged and having to think about their shots; instead of just banging away with their longest clubs. Maybe that is the samething you are saying just different verbage.

If someone can post 0-10 under during four rounds that is a challenge. It could be the winner went 2 under for each of the four rounds or just blew away the field for a round. Does not matter how it plays out; but 15 or more under for all four rounds should be left for the nationwide and mini tours; not the PGA majors that is for sure.

[Cleveland Gunmetal]

I love watching major championship golf when the conditions are tough and the scores are high. I don't necessarily have a certain winning score in mind when watching though. The weather had a lot to do with that. I like it to be a challenge and I like it to be close going to the end like that.

[elivate]

I don't think that the actual score is such a big deal either, I like to see the pros play tough courses but I do not like to see them play unfair courses... Not that I am saying that this weekend was unfair, it was tough, but fair...

[iacas]

The score doesn't matter. They're all playing the same course. Pretend Augusta was a par 74 and the winner was -7. Pretend it was par 70 like most U.S. Open courses of late and the winner shot +9 - five shots higher than at Winged Foot!

Augusta National hasn't been set up "properly" as defined by Bobby Jones and Alistair MacKenzie. Had it been, once again, all competitors would have played the same course. The actual winning score is irrelevant.

How the course is set up, however, factors into the excitement. It used to be that this was the case:

Masters - Huge risk/rewards, massive lead changes on one or two or three holes.

U.S. Open - Pure grind. Par every hole and you've got about a 1 in 3 chance of winning. Misery loves company.

British Open - Golf played differently. Bump and runs, fescue, little burns, and pot bunkers.

PGA - Perhaps the most "fair" setup - a good blend of the Masters and the U.S. Open. It's been leaning towards the latter lately, but still isn't quite as severe.

The Masters is no longer The Masters.

[CanadaGolf]

I am glad the winning score was over par, but I would not like to see it happen every year. I would much rather see about 4 or 5 guys batteling for the win than a runaway low score while everyone else is shotting over par.

[Jarno]

The Masters should be won between 5-15 under par, this creates the "Augusta Roar".

[Cleveland Gunmetal]

The score doesn't matter. They're all playing the same course. Pretend Augusta was a par 74 and the winner was -7. Pretend it was par 70 like most U.S. Open courses of late and the winner shot +9 - five shots higher than at Winged Foot!

Those are dead on! However I wouldn't necessarily say the Masters is no longer The Masters. It wasn't this year but they usually get some sort of precipitation. This is the first year they didn't and it played like a US Open. Who knows, maybe they'll get a lot of rain or calm winds next year and the winning score will be -10.

[golfchief]

First I would'nt like to see it like that every year but I enjoyed it this year. The cold was probaly the biggest factor this year with the higer than normal winds. The risk/reward holes were all risk this week and Zack had the best plan for playing them all this time. He new how he was going to play the holes before he got to them so he did not have to rethink his plan of the hole.