Oostie's Albatross vs. Bubba's Winner

[newtogolf]

Albatross was a fun shot to see but I doubt Louis would say he meant to do that.   He hit a great shot and got a lucky roll right to the hole.

Bubba had the pressure of the entire 4 days on his back and knew the shot he had to make to stay in it and he made it from a horrible position and lie.  I go with the shot Bubba made, but my hats off to Louis for making Masters history with his shot.

[brocks]

Everybody is saying Oostie's shot was lucky, but that's kind of the point. It had to be perfectly struck, plus it had to be magical after it landed, all after a perfect drive. Bubba was almost as lucky, but he got his luck before he hit the shot, in having a good lie, no trees or branches or roots hindering his swing, and a nice wide corridor to hit the shot, all after a horrendous drive. Of course it took a lot of skill to bend it the way he did, but it didn't have to be perfectly struck; it just had to be good enough. All he needed was to be able to get up and down from where it landed. It seems simple to me. Could I make the shot Bubba made? Yes. It was a 150-yard snap hook. I do that all the time;, without even trying :-). I realize there's no comparison to doing it at will with the Masters on the line, but I find it very difficult to believe that there weren't 50 players in the field who could get down in three from where Bubba was. Not every time, of course, but maybe 50-50, and surely one time in three or four. The fact that it helped him win the Masters makes it maybe the most *important* shot of the tournament, but IMO any of several monster drives he hit were more impressive. Could I make the shot Oostie made? Not a chance in hell. It was a 260-yard four iron that was perfectly struck. If I stood there hitting balls for the rest of my life, I could never hole out from there --- not even if I teed it up and hit driver, and certainly not with a four-iron. A pro could, but it would be like one time in a few hundred, not one time in three or four. It was by far the best shot of Oostie's life. He has never hit a better shot, and he never will. Bubba's shot wasn't even the best has hit in the last month. He hit the same type of shot at Doral, but it was much longer, had a much narrower corridor, had to go over water, and stopped closer to the hole. And he made the putt. Oostie's shot was perfect, and only the best players in the world could have come close to what he did. Bubba's shot was good enough, and millions of golfers could have come close to what he did. There were probably a dozen shots similar to Bubba's hit on 18 this week. Nobody else in the history of the Masters has ever made a double eagle on two.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by brocks

Everybody is saying Oostie's shot was lucky, but that's kind of the point. It had to be perfectly struck, plus it had to be magical after it landed, all after a perfect drive. Bubba was almost as lucky, but he got his luck before he hit the shot, in having a good lie, no trees or branches or roots hindering his swing, and a nice wide corridor to hit the shot, all after a horrendous drive. Of course it took a lot of skill to bend it the way he did, but it didn't have to be perfectly struck; it just had to be good enough. All he needed was to be able to get up and down from where it landed.

It seems simple to me. Could I make the shot Bubba made? Yes. It was a 150-yard snap hook. I do that all the time;, without even trying . I realize there's no comparison to doing it at will with the Masters on the line, but I find it very difficult to believe that there weren't 50 players in the field who could get down in three from where Bubba was. Not every time, of course, but maybe 50-50, and surely one time in three or four.

The fact that it helped him win the Masters makes it maybe the most *important* shot of the tournament, but IMO any of several monster drives he hit were more impressive.

Could I make the shot Oostie made? Not a chance in hell. It was a 260-yard four iron that was perfectly struck. If I stood there hitting balls for the rest of my life, I could never hole out from there --- not even if I teed it up and hit driver, and certainly not with a four-iron. A pro could, but it would be like one time in a few hundred, not one time in three or four.

It was by far the best shot of Oostie's life. He has never hit a better shot, and he never will.

Bubba's shot wasn't even the best has hit in the last month. He hit the same type of shot at Doral, but it was much longer, had a much narrower corridor, had to go over water, and stopped closer to the hole. And he made the putt.

Oostie's shot was perfect, and only the best players in the world could have come close to what he did. Bubba's shot was good enough, and millions of golfers could have come close to what he did.

There were probably a dozen shots similar to Bubba's hit on 18 this week. Nobody else in the history of the Masters has ever made a double eagle on two.

First off, it's irrelevant whether you or I could pull the shot off.

And in terms of percentages, you have a point. Holing out from 260y is far far less probable than hooking a wedge from 150y to 10 feet.

But what you don't seem to be factoring in is the situations for each - you just seem to be saying the DE was the better shot cuz it's much harder to get a DE. But when you factor the situations into it, this is where I think bubba's shot wins out - Oost's was on the 2nd hole & simply put him in the lead. Bubba's essentially won the tournament for him. In other words, Oost's was a great shot whether it was the first round or final round - it was a DE...the rarest of shots.

So I would put it like this: Oost's DE was the more spectacular shot, but Bubba's was the better shot because of the situation & what it resulted in.

[Nole77]

What he said.  Especially since Bubba knew Oost was just off the green.  He had to stick it.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

First off, it's irrelevant whether you or I could pull the shot off.

And in terms of percentages, you have a point. Holing out from 260y is far far less probable than hooking a wedge from 150y to 10 feet.

But what you don't seem to be factoring in is the situations for each - you just seem to be saying the DE was the better shot cuz it's much harder to get a DE. But when you factor the situations into it, this is where I think bubba's shot wins out - Oost's was on the 2nd hole & simply put him in the lead. Bubba's essentially won the tournament for him. In other words, Oost's was a great shot whether it was the first round or final round - it was a DE...the rarest of shots.

So I would put it like this: Oost's DE was the more spectacular shot, but Bubba's was the better shot because of the situation & what it resulted in.

[brocks]

First off, it's irrelevant whether you or I could pull the shot off. ... So I would put it like this: Oost's DE was the more spectacular shot, but Bubba's was the better shot because of the situation & what it resulted in.

Well, the OP's question was, which shot was more impressive? Whether I could do it is relevant to me, at least, because I'm more impressed by people doing things I can't do on my best day. And yes, it's fair to say I'm easily impressed :-) For your last sentence, I'd agree that Bubba's shot was more crucial, important, clutch, all kinds of things like that. But I don't see how you can get better than perfect, which is what Oostie's shot was. And I will just note, in another thread, I posted a link to an article about ANGC officials lying in wait for the guy Oostie threw his ball to, and "negotiating" for him to give it to the club. I assume that his children were released unharmed. But I couldn't find anything about them trying to get the ball Bubba used.

[saevel25]

I have to go with Bubba's Shot. Louis shot was pure luck. If it hits just an inch left or right, or have a bit less speed, he wouldn't have holed out. He wasn't even trying for it, just trying to get it on the green. If the greens were on a different stemp, or maybe a bit slower. Its just to much going on to say its anything but luck. He hit a great shot, knowing he would get the kick and roll, from there its pure luck. Also being the 2nd hole, knowing you got 16 holes left, its not that impressive compared to pulling something off in a playoff, after spraying your drive in the trees. Also, Bubba had 150 yards, a wedge, which is very very hard to curve due to the higher loft. The fact that bubba curved that ball 40 yards, and got that with in 15 feet of the pin, in that situtation, under that pressure, after missing that putt and mis hitting that drive. That shows just how much talent that guy has. To me Bubba's shot, in that moment, was way more impressive due to the intangeables of the shot.

[eich41]

Originally Posted by brocks

Well, the OP's question was, which shot was more impressive? Whether I could do it is relevant to me, at least, because I'm more impressed by people doing things I can't do on my best day. And yes, it's fair to say I'm easily impressed

For your last sentence, I'd agree that Bubba's shot was more crucial, important, clutch, all kinds of things like that. But I don't see how you can get better than perfect, which is what Oostie's shot was.

And I will just note, in another thread, I posted a link to an article about ANGC officials lying in wait for the guy Oostie threw his ball to, and "negotiating" for him to give it to the club. I assume that his children were released unharmed. But I couldn't find anything about them trying to get the ball Bubba used.

I don't remember Bubba throwing his ball into the gallery, so that's probably why you couldn't find anything about trying to get the ball.  They aren't going to strongarm a Masters champ for his winning ball.

I think both sides have made good points, but I still think that with the outside factors (the pressure) on Bubba's shot puts him over the top.  Sure he missed the putt (but of course he wasn't going to get over agressive, as he knew he had two to win).  Hell Oostie couldn't get inside of Bubba's shot from 30 feet in front of the green.  That says something right there.

Hole in ones and DE require great shots, but again, after the ball hits the ground, it's mostly luck.  That's why there are touring pros who've never hit a hole in one while Joe Duffer has four.  DEs and HIO aren't the same I understand, but the point is that other than hitting it to an area on the front of the green, his shot could have just as easily rolled to within 6 feet instead of in the cup.  The slightest breeze would have blown it off the line.  An incredible feat no doubt, but it could have just as easily had been a 5 foot eagle putt as it was a DE, just based on the "luck" factors outside of his control.

Again I wouldn't take anything away from either shot, but given the context of Bubba's I have give him the edge.  IMPO of course.

[brocks]

Again I wouldn't take anything away from either shot, but given the context of Bubba's I have give him the edge.  IMPO of course.

Well, this is one of those cases where I will freely concede that there is no right or wrong. I'm just giving my opinion, and I seem to be alone on this one, but that's what these forums are for.

[MSchott]

I think we are all forgetting that if Oosthuizen had hit a better second shot on 10 or a better chip and made par Bubba's great wedge would have been for naught. Bubba hit a great shot but he's not the only one that can do that (see Sergio, Tiger, Phil and others). Certainly there was luck in Oosthuizen's Double Eagle but he had to land it where he aimed which is where you need to one the second hole.

There's a lot of what if's here but Oostie's shot was once in a lifetime and Bubba's was not.

[Paradox]

who says that Louie hit it where he wanted to?  Maybe he came up a little bit shorter than he wanted?  Maybe he was right or left by a yard or two?  I bet you could put him back at that same spot on that fairway and he won't make an albatross again in maybe 500 shots.  If the ground was that much harder or softer, it wouldn't have been on the same line.  A spike mark on the green or another divot could have knocked the ball off-line, so on and so forth.  I'm sure that if you got him to tell the truth, the thought of the ball rolling like it did was never even a possibility.

They are both incredible golf shots but I think that hooking a wedge that much from that lie in that situation...its more impressive and I would love to see video of anyone on here hitting a shot like that with a wedge.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by saevel25

I have to go with Bubba's Shot. Louis shot was pure luck. If it hits just an inch left or right, or have a bit less speed, he wouldn't have holed out. He wasn't even trying for it, just trying to get it on the green. If the greens were on a different stemp, or maybe a bit slower. Its just to much going on to say its anything but luck. He hit a great shot, knowing he would get the kick and roll, from there its pure luck. Also being the 2nd hole, knowing you got 16 holes left, its not that impressive compared to pulling something off in a playoff, after spraying your drive in the trees. Also, Bubba had 150 yards, a wedge, which is very very hard to curve due to the higher loft. The fact that bubba curved that ball 40 yards, and got that with in 15 feet of the pin, in that situtation, under that pressure, after missing that putt and mis hitting that drive. That shows just how much talent that guy has. To me Bubba's shot, in that moment, was way more impressive due to the intangeables of the shot.

There was a lot of luck in Oostie's actual result but getting it close is not a matter of luck, and Bubba's shot was comparatively much, much easier.

But the bold part above is simply not true. That's how you play that pin position on the second hole - you run it up through that gap and the ball funnels alllllll thheeeeeee waaaaayyyyyy over to the hole location. It's how you play the hole - he wasn't just trying to "get it on the green" he was trying to get it on the green with roughly the right amount of speed that it'd funnel down close to the hole. There are usually a few near-albatrosses on that hole in the final round because that's how you play that shot.

[Nole77]

I was actually thinking about this too.  I was surprised he landed it off the green and had it bounce up.  At first I thought he'd missed his mark, but then it went in the hole.  Who knows.

Originally Posted by Paradox

who says that Louie hit it where he wanted to?  Maybe he came up a little bit shorter than he wanted?  Maybe he was right or left by a yard or two?  I bet you could put him back at that same spot on that fairway and he won't make an albatross again in maybe 500 shots.  If the ground was that much harder or softer, it wouldn't have been on the same line.  A spike mark on the green or another divot could have knocked the ball off-line, so on and so forth.  I'm sure that if you got him to tell the truth, the thought of the ball rolling like it did was never even a possibility.

They are both incredible golf shots but I think that hooking a wedge that much from that lie in that situation...its more impressive and I would love to see video of anyone on here hitting a shot like that with a wedge.

[eich41]

Originally Posted by MSchott

I think we are all forgetting that if Oosthuizen had hit a better second shot on 10 or a better chip and made par Bubba's great wedge would have been for naught. Bubba hit a great shot but he's not the only one that can do that (see Sergio, Tiger, Phil and others). Certainly there was luck in Oosthuizen's Double Eagle but he had to land it where he aimed which is where you need to one the second hole.

There's a lot of what if's here but Oostie's shot was once in a lifetime and Bubba's was not.

If by "for naught" you mean to force a third playoff hole when he should have already lost the tournament, then I agree.

Bubba hit a snap hook wedge from 155 yards out, 50 yards into the trees, off the pine straw, through a small gap in the trees to 10 feet of the pin.... to WIN THE MASTERS.  I don't think he'll do that ever again in his lifetime.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by iacas

There was a lot of luck in Oostie's actual result but getting it close is not a matter of luck, and Bubba's shot was comparatively much, much easier.

Not sure I agree that Watson's shot was "much, much easier." As I recall, Oosthuizen's shot was basically just a 210-yard straight shot (modulo usual amounts of draw or fade) to a target that is well-known to be the right play, whereas Watson's was a rather unusual long, shaped wedge.

I don't see there as being anything more technically impressive with Oosthuizen's shot than any of those other near-albatrosses, since there's just no way that even a pro can claim he picked out that landing point and shot shape knowing if he hit it perfectly it'd trickle in. It was well-executed, but the fact that it's the only albatross on that hole is just a matter of hitting the lottery among all the other equally good shots.

Obviously similar things can be said of Watson's shot, as luck is an element of every shot out there. IMO, the situation is the deciding factor in the end.

[k-troop]

1. Louis's shot was a stock 4-iron; Bubba's was a "stock" shot only for him.

2. Louis's shot was on the 2nd hole; he obviously wanted to get it close, but it was just one shot of many for him that day.  Bubba's was do or die.

Bubba wins by 314.8 yards.

[MizunoPez]

Depends what angle you come at it from. Given the situation and pressure bubbas wins. Playing a round myself, I'd rather take the double eagle.

[k-troop]

Which was more amazing:  Bubba's hook wedge in the playoff at the Masters, or Bubba's slice 8-iron against the wind from the trees on 18 at Doral?  I think the Doral shot was one of the most amazing pressure shots of the year.

[brocks]

Which was more amazing:  Bubba's hook wedge in the playoff at the Masters, or Bubba's slice 8-iron against the wind from the trees on 18 at Doral?  I think the Doral shot was one of the most amazing pressure shots of the year.

That's what I had in mind when I said earlier that Bubba's shot at the Masters wasn't even the best he'd hit in the last month. Except I thought that was a hook, too.