2014 Masters Discussion Thread

[Rick Martin]

I think the real story of this years Masters was how many big names didn't make the cut.  Luke Donald, Sergio, Els, Phil, Charl, Webb, Zach Johnson, DJ, Keegan, Dufner, Reed to only name a few.  Looking at only the Top 10 you'd never guess this was a Major.

what's your explanation? pretty odd that so many big names fail to make the cut in a major in the same event.......

btw, check this link out - overhead of Augusta National - ---noteworthy is the entire neighborhood west of Berckmann's Road has been bought up by Augusta National for their use later on - not sure if it'll be parking or course lengthening (most probably the former, but seeing how golf technology is making courses shorter, they may need the extra room for their first nine (joking, of course).

http://www.golfdigest.com/special-sections/masters-augusta-national-golf-club

[ChrisP]

The Masters was due for a bit of a boring ending. Almost every year since 2009 this tournament has had thrilling finishes, the last three years in particular. As much as I hate to admit it, the Masters had a different feel without Tiger and Phil in it there at the end. The game misses them.

[jamo]

I agree. I think all the 3-putt stat means, if it is higher than normal, is that there are certain areas on the green that are much harder to putt from than other areas. But I still want to know what it is out if curiosity.

I haven't been able to find an aggregate total, but the numbers are all here on this web page if you'd like to do the work: http://www.masters.com/en_US/scores/stats/putts.html Add up all of the numbers in parentheses in the far right column. That's just total 3-putts, so there would be a few steps you'd need to go through to put the number in context if you want to compare it to other events. You'd probably need to get a final number per player (because of the small field) and per hole (because some players get cut), so you'd have to divide the total player-holes out.

[tmac20]

I haven't been able to find an aggregate total, but the numbers are all here on this web page if you'd like to do the work: http://www.masters.com/en_US/scores/stats/putts.html Add up all of the numbers in parentheses in the far right column. That's just total 3-putts, so there would be a few steps you'd need to go through to put the number in context if you want to compare it to other events. You'd probably need to get a final number per player (because of the small field) and per hole (because some players get cut), so you'd have to divide the total player-holes out.

I already found out there was 294 3 putts at the Masters, I was just wondering how that compared to other weeks on tour. 294 sounds like a lot, but it might not be compared to other events. But I'm not going to do what you suggested because it would be too much work. :-P

[iacas]

I already found out there was 294 3 putts at the Masters, I was just wondering how that compared to other weeks on tour. 294 sounds like a lot, but it might not be compared to other events. But I'm not going to do what you suggested because it would be too much work.

I did it quickly but got 284, fwiw.

[tmac20]

I did it quickly but got 284, fwiw.

I did it as well and got 284.

[newtogolf]

what's your explanation? pretty odd that so many big names fail to make the cut in a major in the same event.......

btw, check this link out - overhead of Augusta National - ---noteworthy is the entire neighborhood west of Berckmann's Road has been bought up by Augusta National for their use later on - not sure if it'll be parking or course lengthening (most probably the former, but seeing how golf technology is making courses shorter, they may need the extra room for their first nine (joking, of course).

http://www.golfdigest.com/special-sections/masters-augusta-national-golf-club

After seeing Bubba destroy the course they might be considering making some of the holes longer.   Given it's Augusta National and they set the rules for the tournament, I'd think it would be interesting if they did a technology rollback on the ball.

Haney and others stated that winning a Major is about putting and that when Tiger didn't three putt he'd win.  While I'm not going to dispute or support the theory, it seems to only tell part of the story.   Bubba was hitting at least one or two clubs less than most of his competitors because of his long drives, especially on Par 4's.  I know from my own stats that when I can hit an approach shot close to the hole I'm going to have less putts than when I just land on the fringe.  I also typically can hit a GW closer to the hole than a 7i so there is a direct correlation between the distance of my approach shot and number of putts, assuming I don't mishit.

The question is, how much more accurate is hitting an approach shot with a PW compared to an 8i for the pro's?  Was Bubba's putting that good this week or was it his approach shots that made his putting stats look so good?

[iacas]

After seeing Bubba destroy the course they might be considering making some of the holes longer.

Seriously? He shot -8. Tiger shot -18 when he actually "destroyed" the course in 1997.

Haney and others stated that winning a Major is about putting and that when Tiger didn't three putt he'd win.

Haney and others are wrong. Ball striking matters quite a bit. Which is exactly WHY Tiger won so many majors.

I also typically can hit a GW closer to the hole than a 7i so there is a direct correlation between the distance of my approach shot and number of putts, assuming I don't mishit.

Strongest correlation to how close a ball finishes to the hole is how far away it was before the stroke. By a wide margin.

The question is, how much more accurate is hitting an approach shot with a PW compared to an 8i for the pro's?  Was Bubba's putting that good this week or was it his approach shots that made his putting stats look so good?

2013 Median Proximity from 125-150: 23'

2013 Median Proximity from 150-175: 27'7" (and guess who led this category last year… the player of the year, at 22').

[Golfingdad]

After seeing Bubba destroy the course they might be considering making some of the holes longer.

Seriously? He shot -8. Tiger shot -18 when he actually "destroyed" the course in 1997.

Yeah, he played good, but "destroyed" is not a word that comes to mind.

Note that the average winning score of the tournament over the last 25 years is 10.56 under par.  The median score was -10.  Bubba is below average. ;)

P.S.  Tiger shot -18 when he "destroyed" the couse in 1997.  He also shot -16 when he destroyed it again 3 years later.  Phil matched that in 2010.

[newtogolf]

Yeah, he played good, but "destroyed" is not a word that comes to mind.

Note that the average winning score of the tournament over the last 25 years is 10.56 under par.  The median score was -10.  Bubba is below average. ;)

P.S.  Tiger shot -18 when he "destroyed" the couse in 1997.  He also shot -16 when he destroyed it again 3 years later.  Phil matched that in 2010.

Agreed, with regards to the score, I didn't do my research.  I was referring more to what I saw and how his distance off the tee made it look pretty simple.

[mvmac]

Jordan Spieth "destroyed" the course after a few club slams on Sunday

[Ernest Jones]

Jordan Spieth "destroyed" the course after a few club slams on Sunday

Lol, remember how pissed @Shorty would get whenever some talked about "decimating the field".

[Wally Fairway]

Haney and others are wrong. Ball striking matters quite a bit. Which is exactly WHY Tiger won so many majors.

You are correct - putting, especially on a small sample size (like one tournament) is much related to how close approach shots are. If you can average 20' instead of 25', then your putting will be much improved.

BTW - you need to footnote your comparing 1997 to the current year scores, buy noting that the course has changed between those years; longer, added 1st and 2nd cut of rough, etc. Not saying 1997 wasn't awesome, but it isn't the same.

[newtogolf]

Haney and others are wrong. Ball striking matters quite a bit. Which is exactly WHY Tiger won so many majors.

I'm not attempting to defend Haney, but I wasn't fair in my citing of what he said.  His contention was that at the Majors level, they are all very good ball strikers but that when he looked back at Tigers best rounds when he won, he had zero 3 putts for the tournament.

Obviously you can mess up a short putt and end up 3 putting, but overall it would seem logical that there would be more 3 putts when approach shots land far from the hole and the golfer doesn't get the first putt close enough to the hole to have a simple tap in for the 2nd.

[iacas]

I'm not attempting to defend Haney, but I wasn't fair in my citing of what he said.  His contention was that at the Majors level, they are all very good ball strikers but that when he looked back at Tigers best rounds when he won, he had zero 3 putts for the tournament.

I'm cynical, but I doubt that. Perhaps it depends on his definition of "his best rounds" too. No, when he shoots 65, he probably didn't three-putt. But Tiger didn't need to shoot 65 many times in majors, no? Often 68s got the job done, or even 70s. Tiger certainly won several majors that included a three-putt.

Obviously you can mess up a short putt and end up 3 putting, but overall it would seem logical that there would be more 3 putts when approach shots land far from the hole and the golfer doesn't get the first putt close enough to the hole to have a simple tap in for the 2nd.

Or hit a par five in two and settle for a three-putt par.

[jefkve]

Interesting read on the Masters. Guess I'll just leave it here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-12/the-masters-a-sponsorship-tradition-unlike-any-other