2017 Masters Tournament

[Scotsclaff]

[Hategolf]

3 hours ago, Hazsa said:

What makes/ made you think that about him?

im not being argumentative, I'm genuinely intrigued. In Britain I can probably safely say that he's universally loved, certainly at the Opens and Euro Tour events I've been to. That's in no small part down to his RC exploits- maybe we simply don't see what you guys do. 

Im with other posters from the UK on the Rose vs Garcia conundrum as it played out. It seemed incredible that an Englishman was in contention for the Masters, but it was Sergio I was rooting for. I'm so happy for him. I hope I can get to Birkdale this year and cheer on the Masters Champion 

This is an old article but there is quite a bit of truth.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-america-hates-sergio-garcia-2013-5

 

[boogielicious]

11 hours ago, Hategolf said:

This is an old article but there is quite a bit of truth.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-america-hates-sergio-garcia-2013-5

 

He has matured, so I give him a pass now.

[skydog]

I had never really thought about this before because it's the way it's always been but I like the intensity that sudden death creates. I understand that if you're trying to be the most fair and judicious with crowning a champion it's not the way to go, but the drama of sudden death and the theater that we had Sunday night can't be beat IMO.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2017/4/11/one-little-2017-masters-quibble-sudden-death.html

[Kalnoky]

I watched Sat/Sun and my wife joined me on Sunday.. what a great show. You don't need to be a golfer to appreciate and enjoy the competition out there. Absolutely riveting. 

For me, the Masters is one of the only tournaments where even as I watch every shot I can feel a phantom club in my own hands, and vicariously live the experience.   

[1badbadger]

26 minutes ago, skydog said:

I had never really thought about this before because it's the way it's always been but I like the intensity that sudden death creates. I understand that if you're trying to be the most fair and judicious with crowning a champion it's not the way to go, but the drama of sudden death and the theater that we had Sunday night can't be beat IMO.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2017/4/11/one-little-2017-masters-quibble-sudden-death.html

The different playoff methods each have their good and bad aspects, but Shackelford said a couple of things I don't think hold much weight...

In making his stance against sudden death, he said the players go through so much all week long, and it comes down to one tee shot.  The way I see it, the players had a chance to hit 72 other tee shots before that one, and they could have sewn it up to avoid sudden death, but didn't.

His argument for changing to an aggregate playoff system, which he suggested even just 2 holes would be better than sudden death, if the players have the same score on the first playoff hole, then it turns into sudden death anyway!  You're right back in the same situation.

Having said that, I like that the U.S. Open does an 18 hole playoff, even if it is sometimes anti-climatic on Mon.

[skydog]

1 minute ago, 1badbadger said:

The way I see it, the players had a chance to hit 72 other tee shots before that one, and they could have sewn it up to avoid sudden death, but didn't.

I was thinking the same thing when he was talking.

2 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

Having said that, I like that the U.S. Open does an 18 hole playoff, even if it is sometimes anti-climatic on Mon.

I'm only luke warm on the 18 hole playoff (too drawn out and anticlimactic on Monday IMO) but I like that every major has a different format.

[krupa]

7 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

The different playoff methods each have their good and bad aspects, but Shackelford said a couple of things I don't think hold much weight...

In making his stance against sudden death, he said the players go through so much all week long, and it comes down to one tee shot.  The way I see it, the players had a chance to hit 72 other tee shots before that one, and they could have sewn it up to avoid sudden death, but didn't.

His argument for changing to an aggregate playoff system, which he suggested even just 2 holes would be better than sudden death, if the players have the same score on the first playoff hole, then it turns into sudden death anyway!  You're right back in the same situation.

I agree.  As they went to tee off on the 72nd hole, I thought "4 days and it's down to one hole."   When Sergio was over his putt to win in regulation I thought, jeebus, now it's down to one putt.    They could have had an 18 hole playoff and still get to the 18th tee with the score tied.  

How about 9 hole match play to break ties?

[DeadMan]

I think a 9 hole playoff on the back 9 would be amazing for the Masters. It will never happen because you'd have to do that playoff on Monday, but that would be the coolest thing in golf.

[rehmwa]

 

2 hours ago, krupa said:

I agree.  As they went to tee off on the 72nd hole, I thought "4 days and it's down to one hole."

But it really wasn't "down to one hole" was it?  It was down to 73 holes........the previous holes counted just as much as the last one.  (  but I know what you mean, I'm just trying to make a point)

 

I don't think a sudden death playoff is any more or less fair than 18 more holes, or 9, or 3, or 22, or whatever.

So what if that (considered) single stroke that wins it happens on the 3rd hole of 72, or the 73rd hole of the 72.  Every stroke counts as one.  As far as I'm concerned the single stroke that won it came from the hole where Sergio had to take a drop.  That hole turned the tide (which was turned at the 63rd hole, which was turned at the 55th hole, etc).

The nice part of it on the 73rd hole is that Sergio made the putt for birdie.  That's a lot better that it feels like he 'won' the hole rather than Justin feeling like he 'lost it' due to an errant drive and resulting bogie.

Edited April 12, 2017 by rehmwa

[krupa]

29 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

But it really wasn't "down to one hole" was it?  It was down to 73 holes........the previous holes counted just as much as the last one.  (  but I know what you mean, I'm just trying to make a point)

And I agree with your point and tried to make it in a different way... it doesn't matter how many play-off holes they have if the players go into the last one tied, it could be viewed as "coming down to one hole."

The more I think about it, the more I think I'd like to see match play used to decide play-offs.  At least as an experiment... or how about a Big Break style competition?  "Whoever breaks all the glass out of this frame first, wins the US Open!" 

[rehmwa]

At least players get to play to win.  With the convoluted rules of golf we could have just as easily had some dumb form of tie breaking criteria:  imagine how painful that would be....some criteria that factors in which player, after 72 holes, had the least number of penalty strokes, or the earliest birdie, or the most pars vs the birdies that were balanced by bogies, or something goofy.  Or the player with the most bland outfit.....or the most regulation pars vs scrambled pars.  (Actually, I'd appreciate the criteria to playing more holes in regulation vs recovery......it would reflect who was most steady or pure to the course - think Henrik vs Phil in The Open, for example)

Heck, it could even come down to how many viewers call in and vote for him.....  it seems the number is very available

The winner could be the best hitter, of the golf ball.  or the best driver,....of the golf cart....

Or a trick shot playoff.

I think that's more than enough.....

Edited April 12, 2017 by rehmwa

[1badbadger]

3 hours ago, rehmwa said:

At least players get to play to win.  With the convoluted rules of golf we could have just as easily had some dumb form of tie breaking criteria:  imagine how painful that would be....some criteria that factors in which player, after 72 holes, had the least number of penalty strokes, or the earliest birdie, or the most pars vs the birdies that were balanced by bogies, or something goofy.  Or the player with the most bland outfit.....or the most regulation pars vs scrambled pars.  (Actually, I'd appreciate the criteria to playing more holes in regulation vs recovery......it would reflect who was most steady or pure to the course - think Henrik vs Phil in The Open, for example)

Heck, it could even come down to how many viewers call in and vote for him.....  it seems the number is very available

The winner could be the best hitter, of the golf ball.  or the best driver,....of the golf cart....

Or a trick shot playoff.

I think that's more than enough.....

They're just lucky they don't use the United Airlines method of choosing who loses...

[Scotsclaff]

Just watched Sergio's back nine again.

What balls he should going round Amen corner when I thought"shit,that's the wheels off again"

How fitting to birdie the play off hole,well deserved.

[MuniGrit]

13 hours ago, skydog said:

I had never really thought about this before because it's the way it's always been but I like the intensity that sudden death creates. I understand that if you're trying to be the most fair and judicious with crowning a champion it's not the way to go, but the drama of sudden death and the theater that we had Sunday night can't be beat IMO.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2017/4/11/one-little-2017-masters-quibble-sudden-death.html

The argument against sudden death is obsurd. If he thinks Rose drive lost him the masters, what about the other 275 shots he took? If he made a bad swing on any of those and hit it OB he loses. Each player had a putt to win it on 18. 

[Shorty]

3 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

The argument against sudden death is obsurd. If he thinks Rose drive lost him the masters, what about the other 275 shots he took? If he made a bad swing on any of those and hit it OB he loses. Each player had a putt to win it on 18. 

Each player except Rose. He putted before Garcia.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Shorty

[Scotsclaff]

6 hours ago, Shorty said:

Each player except Rose. He putted before Garcia.

That's right his putt wasn't to win it.

Regarding play offs,at the The Open they have a 4 hole stroke play scenario which makes sense because they have daylight until 10pm at night and the fans who paid their tickets get to enjoy it.

Any play off on Monday sees empty stands and the poor ****ers who paid their money go away with a bitter taste in their mouths due to not seeing the conclusion .

So many play offs at the Masters sees the best player come through apart from Larry Mize.

An 18 hole play off works for me,as I can watch it live on TV,**** the poor fans who have taken time off work,saved money and organised babysitters to go to the event.

To my friend Iacas,thanks for banning me again for voicing an opinion.I would have loved to join the banter during the final round of the Masters...unfortunately you are a snowflake panderer. UH OH !! banned gain.

[MuniGrit]

5 hours ago, Shorty said:

Each player except Rose. He putted before Garcia.

Point being is they had plenty of chances to win the tournament in the first 72 holes. Why do we need 2-18 more holes? Rose makes his putt on 18 he probably wins. Sergio played a straight putt outside the hole and was never going to make that. Rose could have easily hit the bad tee shot on 18 too. Sudden death is just fine.