2016 Masters Toonamint Discussion Thread

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Disagree.  Spieth's 2, 1, 2 finishes in his 1st 3 would indicate otherwise, as compared to Tiger's 41, MC, 1.  We'll talk again in 9 years, when Jordan completes his 12th.

Nice of you to count his visits as an amateur.

You could have included his pro starts and still made the same point:

1, T8, T18. But then it starts to get daunting…

5, 1, 1, T15, T22.

And then really daunting considering there's only one win:

1, T3, T2, 2, T6, T4, T4, T40, T4

All that said, Jordan's had about the best start in three years you could hope to have in the Masters.

[Gunther]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Nice of you to count his visits as an amateur.

You could have included his pro starts and still made the same point:

1, T8, T18. But then it starts to get daunting…

5, 1, 1, T15, T22.

And then really daunting considering there's only one win:

1, T3, T2, 2, T6, T4, T4, T40, T4

All that said, Jordan's had about the best start in three years you could hope to have in the Masters.

Hear ya but 1st 3 are the 1st 3 and their ages were similar.  Jordan's making it look pretty easy right now but has a long way to go and as I said, we'll talk again in 9 years.    

"Best you could hope for"?  I like "best ever" a little better.

[Acropo]

18 hours ago, skydog said:

I didn't want to see Spieth run away with it but relative no name winners are not good for the game at this point IMO. Yes, yes, to die hard golf fans he's not a no name, but to 99% of folks he is.

You mean: to 99% of folks in America, I think?

DW has won in S Africa, the Middle East and contended all over the world. He's already got five Ws on the European Tour. He finished runner up in the order of merit (Race to Dubai) last year, second only to a certain R McIlroy. He is already pretty well-known; but I think it is fair to say he has been underestimated.

18 hours ago, Coronagolfman said:

"... not to mention that Willetts had the good fortune to be paired with fellow Englishman Westwood which probably provided him with a less stress-full environment."

Not entirely sure of that argument - Westwood was his closest competitor and was level with him shortly after Spieth finished the 12th. I think they were too busy competing to take much time supporting each other...!

[skydog]

1 hour ago, ScouseJohnny said:

I agree there was drama, and that's good in terms of watching golf as entertainment.

I don't buy this idea of a Spieth "collapse" with some people comparing it to Greg Norman in 1996.

In 1996:

Faldo started his final round at -7 and finished at -12

Norman started his final round at -12 and finished at -7

In 2016:

Willett started his final round at E and finished at -5

Spieth started his final round at -3 and finished at -2

Spieth just had bad three holes mid-round, and then he made headway to recover from that position. It wasn't a consistent collapse.

 

Norman's was a slow bleed style choke....he had lost the lead by #10 (I believe) in 96. Spieth's was an outright collapse that rivals or surpasses the biggest in the game's history (Arnie in '66 US Open, Phil at Winged Foot in '06, Van de Velde, etc.). 

Edited April 11, 2016 by skydog

[ScouseJohnny]

The news about Willett's victory just keeps getting better and better!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/golf/2016/04/11/watch-sir-alex-ferguson-tell-danny-willett-his-masters-triumph-c/

Quote

But it’s likely that Sir Alex Ferguson was also left feeling rather despondent after Spieth's horror on the back nine, after it emerged that the former Manchester United manager had bet the considerable sum of £8,000 on Spieth to win the tournament.

And even more galling was the fact that the man who surged up the leader board during the fourth round to topple Spieth – and to cost Fergie his eight grand – was Danny Willett, who happens to be a die-hard Liverpool supporter.  

Splendid stuff.

[Nosevi]

1 hour ago, pumaAttack said:

Any video of this?

Augusta and CBC have a contract which gives complete control of the coverage to the ANGC. They are very strict about what they will allow. They would be more liberal with the international rights.

 

 

 

They show other views sometimes, with the golfer swinging towards you is sometimes interesting, this was the first I came to though:

 

 

[iacas]

46 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Hear ya but 1st 3 are the 1st 3 and their ages were similar.

Jordan didn't get to play in two before turning pro because he didn't have the amateur career Tiger Woods had. If you want to spin that as a positive for your boy, feel free. We'll see what the future holds - he's off to a good start.

But re: the age thing, they're both a year off. Tiger was either a year younger or a year older depending on whether you start at 1995 or 1997. They're just as similar if you start in 1997 when Tiger was, like Jordan, a full-time and professional golfer.

[nevets88]

Thanks @Nosevi. That yellow Protracer line doesn't look too obtrusive, especially as it matches the yellow graphics.

 

[b101]

A bit to catch up on after last night! 

5 hours ago, newtogolf said:

We have our share of Spieth haters here though, seems being successful isn't "in" these days.  

We do and we don't. There are those who genuinely are Spieth haters - who I can't understand and there are those (like myself) who were either rooting for someone else or didn't want the tournament to be a procession. I'm a big fan of Jordan, but I just felt like he was winning when playing badly, which I don't want to see at Augusta - for me, it's a venue which should require your absolute best to win. He was nowhere near his and Danny Willett was about as good as he can be.

4 hours ago, skydog said:

As an anecdote, I was helping a buddy move yesterday and he had four movers at his house. Not trying to stereotype but they looked like the four last guys in the world who would care about the Masters (one of them had a full gold grill in his mouth)- all four of them were talking about how excited they were to match the final round because of Spieth and Rory (three of them were Spieth fans and one for Rory). No golf doesn't 'need' these general sports fans, but IMO it's pretty cool when the whole sports world cares about golf (like it did with Tiger), and when guys like DW win, it doesn't help that cause. Just my $0.02.

Hard to disagree with this - the three 'big names' being in with a shot (however slim for Rory) did help move the needle and will continue to do so if they keep pushing each other.

3 hours ago, ppine said:

Jordan played 4 really solid rounds except for 3 holes on Sunday coming in.

No, he didn't. He played the first round near-flawlessly, putted and scrambled brilliantly for two rounds to keep himself in contention whilst pushing about 1 in every 2 tee shots (seriously - his Saturday front nine was ridiculous and he got a fair amount of luck with his tee shots). He played the front nine really well on Sunday, but he was riding his luck with the way he was swinging; it was always likely to go when he was really under pressure. 

This isn't a criticism - it's scary how close he was to winning when playing about as badly as I've ever seen from him in a major. If he plays well, he wins.

[Gunther]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

Jordan didn't get to play in two before turning pro because he didn't have the amateur career Tiger Woods had. If you want to spin that as a positive for your boy, feel free. We'll see what the future holds - he's off to a good start.

But re: the age thing, they're both a year off. Tiger was either a year younger or a year older depending on whether you start at 1995 or 1997. They're just as similar if you start in 1997 when Tiger was, like Jordan, a full-time and professional golfer.

I knew the ages:  19-21 for Tiger, 20-22 for Spieth, I called that similar.  And, given Tiger's impressive amateur career vs Jordan's lesser one, I'd have thought their overall seasoning was alike or perhaps Tiger was more seasoned at 19 than Jords at 20?

Anyway, not anything I'd fall on a sword for, just pointing out that whereas someone thought Tiger had made The Masters look easy (against lesser fields), Jordan is far surpassing Tiger (and everyone else) to this point in their careers at The Masters.  Was meant as sort of a witty retort and didn't expect a response.

[pumaAttack]

@Nosevi Wow, very cool.  Thanks for sharing.

Wish we had that on the American telecast.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I knew the ages:  19-21 for Tiger, 20-22 for Spieth, I called that similar.

You called it similar after I said 1997 was the first of his three years. Their ages were equally as similar in 1997. Actually, perhaps more so, given Tiger's late-in-the-year birthday.

10 minutes ago, Gunther said:

And, given Tiger's impressive amateur career vs Jordan's lesser one, I'd have thought their overall seasoning was alike or perhaps Tiger was more seasoned at 19 than Jords at 20?

No. Attending college full-time does not afford one the time that being a full-time professional golfer does.

8 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Anyway, not anything I'd fall on a sword for, just pointing out that whereas someone thought Tiger had made The Masters look easy (against lesser fields), Jordan is far surpassing Tiger (and everyone else) to this point in their careers at The Masters.  Was meant as sort of a witty retort and didn't expect a response.

Tiger made the Masters look easy… because he won by 12. Jordan won once in his first three years (same as Tiger, regardless of when you start the clock), but "only" managed to win by 4.

Then Tiger went to work on his swing… which didn't help him the rest of 1997 or early 1998.

---

Anyway, as his finish positions are higher in the first three years, regardless of which three you choose, Jordan "wins" that point. He didn't, however, win his first time as a pro nor win by 12.

[Nosevi]

43 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Thanks @Nosevi. That yellow Protracer line doesn't look too obtrusive, especially as it matches the yellow graphics.

 

 

34 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

@Nosevi Wow, very cool.  Thanks for sharing.

Wish we had that on the American telecast.

No probs.

[nevets88]

Someone bet on Willett at 150/1. According to the tweet thread, bought it in February.

 

[rehmwa]

3 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

Losing 6 strokes in 3 holes is a HUGE COLLAPSE.   Jordan even said it himself...

Not at this Master's - seemed to be happening to a lot of people - it's not like he 6 putted (ouch).  Expect the water to maybe come in play.  But, IMHO,  the chunked shot was the only real collapse - and those 2 strokes were the final difference.  the sandy was a nice finish to a very bad hole.  Coming in second at the MASTERS with a 6 over deficit on 3 holes....he's pretty good....

Kudos to Willett - Gaining 5 strokes on the last day is a HUGE VICTORY.  And I think a better win than Jordan's loss.  Willett earned it.

(I wanted Rory to get the slam first, then Jordan 2nd in my fan rooting....but this was still a riveting Masters to watch - fun stuff)

3 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

If he just bogeyed 6 holes I would agree.  Making a quad is a collapse. Rushing your second shot and chunking it is a collapse.  He completely lost his control on that drop.  He was twirling the club, pacing, fidgeting, he had lost his mental game completely.  That is the sure fire sign of a collapse.  

yeah....this.  it's the one hole, the quad, and that 2nd swing was the real collapse.  the rest of the tournament?  good enough to win

 

 

Love the overseas graphics

[ChrisP]

What's amazing is Jordan dominated this tournament for 63 holes with his C-game. I don't care what he said on Thursday, he was not playing as well coming into this tournament as he was last year. He put up a high number at Valspar. Put up a high number in Pebble. Was inconsistent in all of his tourneys since Hawaii. He wasn't posting the top-5s like he was last year. And his play at Augusta matched that: Inconsistent.

He played really well Thursday, like the Jordan of '15, but since then, it was very topsy-turvy. His putter bailed him out plenty of times. I wonder if he would have competed if it was like a birdie-fest like last year. I think given the weather conditions, it became more of a scrambling Masters which suited his strength of gut-wrenching pars. But I remember telling my buddy when he was up 5 that given the fact his ball-striking is still of and with water on 11, 12, 13 and 15, it's not over.

If he can clean up his game, in particular his ball-striking, he's the perfect fit to do well at Oakmont. That is a course made for great green-readers, because of the slopes, and those who putt well on fast greens. It's not a power hungry course so it won't be good for Rory or DJ.

Edited April 11, 2016 by ChrisP

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, ChrisP said:

What's amazing is Jordan dominated this tournament for 63 holes with his C-game. I don't care what he said on Thursday, he was not playing as well coming into this tournament as he was last year. He put up a high number at Valspar. Put up a high number in Pebble. Was inconsistent in all of his tourneys since Hawaii. He wasn't posting the top-5s like he was last year. And his play at Augusta matched that: Inconsistent.

He dominate. He was ahead by 1 going into the final round. He only had one round under par. The guy was far from dominating. 

1 hour ago, ChrisP said:

He played really well Thursday, like the Jordan of '15, but since then, it was very topsy-turvy. His putter bailed him out plenty of times. I wonder if he would have competed if it was like a birdie-fest like last year. I think given the weather conditions, it became more of a scrambling Masters which suited his strength of gut-wrenching pars. But I remember telling my buddy when he was up 5 that given the fact his ball-striking is still of and with water on 11, 12, 13 and 15, it's not over.

I say he would have been 6-8 under. I think a lot of those misses were not wind caused. I wouldn't see him getting much more out of the course because of calmer conditions. I think he would have ended up 6-8 strokes back of the winner. 

1 hour ago, ChrisP said:

If he can clean up his game, in particular his ball-striking, he's the perfect fit to do well at Oakmont. That is a course made for great green-readers, because of the slopes, and those who putt well on fast greens. It's not a power hungry course so it won't be good for Rory or DJ.

Oakmont is going to destroy these guys. There was more three putts at the 2007 Oakmont then there was at Chambers last year. With the way the  USGA is setting up the US Open. It's going to be ugly. 

Spieth didn't putt all that well at Chambers compared to other tournaments. 

 

[ChrisP]

26 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

He dominate. He was ahead by 1 going into the final round. He only had one round under par. The guy was far from dominating. 

I didn't say 54, I said 63 holes. He was leading by 5. That's dominating with a C-game. Problem is when you have your C or D-game, eventually it rears its ugly head. His ball striking inconsistency finally caught up to him on 12.

 

Quote

Oakmont is going to destroy these guys. There was more three putts at the 2007 Oakmont then there was at Chambers last year. With the way the  USGA is setting up the US Open. It's going to be ugly. 

 

I have a feeling they're not gonna set it up as brutal as 2007. That year, they grew out the rough and the weather was very dry and also breezy. It was the perfect storm for destruction. Mike Davis hasn't grew out the rough as much since he's taken over. As for Chambers last year, no one putted well on those greens. The ball was bouncing all over the place. But Jordan still made the clutch putts when he had to.

Edited April 11, 2016 by ChrisP