2016 Masters Toonamint Discussion Thread

[saevel25]

25 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

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.

Lets say he pars that 12th intead of quadrupling it. He ends up at 6 under. He wins by one stroke. He did not dominate that tournament. Just because he got on a 4 hole stretch then regressed to how he should have been playing because of his lack luster ball striking doesn't mean he was dominating the field. His game showed no signs of dominating the field. 

[Gunther]

15 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Lets say he pars that 12th intead of quadrupling it. He ends up at 6 under. He wins by one stroke. He did not dominate that tournament. Just because he got on a 4 hole stretch then regressed to how he should have been playing because of his lack luster ball striking doesn't mean he was dominating the field. His game showed no signs of dominating the field. 

Through 63 holes, he was -7, next closest was -2.  That was domination, to that point.  

He called it his B- game, not C, but still, to lead the Masters through 65 holes with your B- game was Tiger-like.  Now he just has to learn to close the deal when it's not all there.  I believe he will.

[Avalanche]

Anyone else notice a slight resemblance between Danny Willett and Theon Greyjoy? (Game of Thrones).  LOL  

 

Danny Willett (somebody I'd like to be)

 

Theon Greyjoy (Game of Thones -- somebody I really, really would *not* want to be)

 

[saevel25]

16 minutes ago, Avalanche said:

Anyone else notice a slight resemblance between Danny Willett and Theon Greyjoy? (Game of Thrones).  LOL  

I thought so as well 

[ppine]

I think people under estimate Augusta by a lot.  Spieth was leading for 3 1/2 rounds because he played solid golf.  It is easy to forget how narrow the fairways are, how long it is and how impossible some of the greens are. Ask Phil or Ernie.

Any small mistake gets amplified.  No one leads the Masters for 7 1/2 rounds without playing well.   The whole discussion about leading without playing well is ridiculous.

 

[The Recreational Golfer]

O.K. Willett won because he shot the lowest score. I know that. But Spieth was -7 at one point. It would have felt like "more of a win" if Willett had finished at least -8. Not doing so makes it just a bit unsatisfying. I'm not saying that Willett "backed in" to the title, or that he merely had it handed to him. He played better than everyone else, period. That got him the win he deserves, and you never second-guess a win. But still ...

[ChrisP]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Lets say he pars that 12th intead of quadrupling it. He ends up at 6 under. He wins by one stroke. He did not dominate that tournament. Just because he got on a 4 hole stretch then regressed to how he should have been playing because of his lack luster ball striking doesn't mean he was dominating the field. His game showed no signs of dominating the field. 

Maybe instead of "dominating", I'll use the word "in full control." The entrire tournament, he never was tied. His lead for most of the way was 3-4 strokes. Very rarely was his lead 1 or sometimes 2. Credit to Danny Willett for getting hot on the back 9 and making that run to make him have to "go for it" on 12, but with a par on 12, Spieth still wins like you said. Point was he didn't play his best. It was amazing he was leading for 65 straight holes with what I would call a D-ball striking game. He needs to clean that up before Oakmont.

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, The Recreational Golfer said:

O.K. Willett won because he shot the lowest score. I know that. But Spieth was -7 at one point. It would have felt like "more of a win" if Willett had finished at least -8. 

No it wouldn't a win is a win. Golf is HARD! Spieth's game was not sharp. He had a miss right that was plaguing him. Spieth only shot one round under par the whole week. If he didn't come out guns blazing on the Thursday he would have ended up over par for the week and not even contending. He was lucky he had that Thursday of no-issue with his swing. 

Willett played a bogey free final round. He deserved to win that tournament. 

 

[jamo]

6 minutes ago, The Recreational Golfer said:

O.K. Willett won because he shot the lowest score. I know that. But Spieth was -7 at one point. It would have felt like "more of a win" if Willett had finished at least -8. Not doing so makes it just a bit unsatisfying. I'm not saying that Willett "backed in" to the title, or that he merely had it handed to him. He played better than everyone else, period. That got him the win he deserves, and you never second-guess a win. But still ...

Still, everyone has to play the same 72 holes.

[natureboy]

 

6 hours ago, Nosevi said:

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

I definitely like the shot tracer. I think the green slope animation on Augusta's shot tracker system was actually better than the 3D animation. If I was them I'd add some vertical exaggeration to the model to make the contours pop visually.

The 3D player is interesting, but Butch really didn't seem able to point to things right there or mark points with a marker for emphasis. Interactive holograms still a ways off.

6 hours ago, b101 said:

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..

I'd kind of agree with this. His swing wasn't as sharp as last year and his strengths kept him in it.

4 hours 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.

I'd agree with that except that I don't think he dominated the tournament. He scored well in spite of a slightly off long game that I also saw on some of high score days at tournaments earlier this year.

3 hours ago, saevel25 said:

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

<formatting issue: But how well did he putt compared to the field at Chambers?>

Edited April 12, 2016 by natureboy

[Howling Coyote]

1 hour ago, ppine said:

I think people under estimate Augusta by a lot.  Spieth was leading for 3 1/2 rounds because he played solid golf.  It is easy to forget how narrow the fairways are, how long it is and how impossible some of the greens are. Ask Phil or Ernie.

Any small mistake gets amplified.  No one leads the Masters for 7 1/2 rounds without playing well.   The whole discussion about leading without playing well is ridiculous.

 

Oh Augusta!  It's beauty leads all golfers into a state of complacency.  It just doesn't look that treacherous.

 

[jamo]

This is addicting. 

[nevets88]

SBNation recap of 12. 

http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2016/4/11/11404640/jordan-spieth-masters-12th-hole-augusta

That supercut sounds like some martial arts guy practicing on a wooden stake. 

[newtogolf]

11 hours ago, The Recreational Golfer said:

O.K. Willett won because he shot the lowest score. I know that. But Spieth was -7 at one point. It would have felt like "more of a win" if Willett had finished at least -8. Not doing so makes it just a bit unsatisfying. I'm not saying that Willett "backed in" to the title, or that he merely had it handed to him. He played better than everyone else, period. That got him the win he deserves, and you never second-guess a win. But still ...

I felt the same way, I'm not taking any credit away from Willett, he played very well on Sunday, shooting a 67.  What's difficult to resolve is that It took an extraordinary screw up on Spieths part for Willett to win.  Had Speith not blown up on 12 but instead shot bogeys on 3 more holes it would have felt to me more like Willett won it versus Spieth handed it to him.  

I get golf is hard, and Augusta is a really challenging course but you don't expect a tournament like that to be decided on a quad on the 12th hole.    

[boogielicious]

17 hours ago, ScouseJohnny said:

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/

Splendid stuff.

I gather you are not a Ferguson fan! 

[jbishop15]

10 hours ago, jamo said:

This is addicting. 

The "aw, shit" towards the end made me burst out laughing

[iacas]

56 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I felt the same way, I'm not taking any credit away from Willett, he played very well on Sunday, shooting a 67.  What's difficult to resolve is that It took an extraordinary screw up on Spieths part for Willett to win.  Had Speith not blown up on 12 but instead shot bogeys on 3 more holes it would have felt to me more like Willett won it versus Spieth handed it to him.  

I get golf is hard, and Augusta is a really challenging course but you don't expect a tournament like that to be decided on a quad on the 12th hole.    

I'll quote something here with which I agree:

Quote

• For anyone who watched the Masters’ wild finish Sunday and was more engrossed in Jordan Spieth’s collapse than Danny Willett’s stirring rise up the back nine … man, I’m sure there are generic happy pills for that somewhere. I’ll always focus on the athlete doing something special, like marching through Augusta with five birdies in 11 holes, than the one having a bad day.

[newtogolf]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

I'll quote something here with which I agree:

• For anyone who watched the Masters’ wild finish Sunday and was more engrossed in Jordan Spieth’s collapse than Danny Willett’s stirring rise up the back nine … man, I’m sure there are generic happy pills for that somewhere. I’ll always focus on the athlete doing something special, like marching through Augusta with five birdies in 11 holes, than the one having a bad day.

I agree with that statement but Spieth, by my definition, didn't have a bad day (7 birdies, 5 on the front 9 in the final round) he had a bad hole.