My Thoughts on the Masters
When I think of the Masters, I few things have always come to mind. First, the majesty and coverage of the tournament is different. Referring to Patrons instead of fans, the 2nd cut instead of the rough, never discussing the prize money, never showing the trophy presentation but just Butler Cabin where the winner receives his green jacket, these are all things that are different about the Masters. Second, the commercial coverage is very small, so CBS has the ability to show a ton of golf coverage. (56 minutes per hour) Third, the Masters has always been known for its back nine finishes or collapses. Jack in '86. Norman in '96.
However, over the past few years, the Augusta National Golf Club has been attempting to "update" the golf course so players will play the course as it was meant to be played. It has been well documented of the changes to Augusta and whether a "short" hitter could beat the "long" ballers. Regardless of whether Augusta National has now been "Tiger-proofed" or "updated", this year, there was one thing that was truly missing. The back 9 finish.
As Young Tom Morris has discussed in some of his comments, I think the "Tiger-proofing" the golf course has taken away from the Masters experience instead of adding to it. As Young Tom Morris and I discussed last night, the Masters has always been fun because the players "go low" and you can see a back nine 30 to win. However, this year, the best I could find, on quick inspection, was a 33 on the back nine in the final round. Also, the excitement of Augusta was almost there when Olazabal got it to 5 under after 15, but that soon died when he bogied 16.
As we discussed, if we wanted to watch people struggle, we'd wait till the US Open. If we wanted to watch players play on golf courses which are "links" style in crazy weather conditions, the Open Championship is where it is at. And, the PGA is always fun because of the club pros involved. But, the Masters was always the way to start of the Majors. Low scoring, beautiful landscapes, and did I mention birdies all over the place.
Yes, Augusta National might have gotten what it wanted, someone not shooting 20-under par, but this year, the tournament was set up for "greatness." And, because of the additional yardage, trees, and other adjustments to the golf course, the patrons at the course and patrons watching at home were deprived of something that makes the Masters special: The ability to go low, the ability to watch someone make a Sunday back nine charge, and the ability to not watch someone make bogey to win the tournament!!
14 Comments:
I have to agree with Jason. The great thing about the Masters was always the ability to see some great golf on the back 9 in the final round. I personally think that the "tradition unlike any other" is a somewhat corny (come on, just call them fans and admit that there is rough on the course). But all that aside, the Masters is, or was, great because you can have a Jack Nicklaus or Phil Mickelson make a back 9 charge on Sunday. Regrettably, that is no longer the case.
With the new changes to the course, the Masters has effectively become the least prestigious of the four majors. Maybe you disagree with me, but consider the following: (a) it is always played on the same course, (b) there are no more exciting charges, only disasters on the back 9, and (c) it has the absolute weakest field of all the majors (most important). The excitement of the golf was always what made the Masters, but that has been taken away with the new course changes.
The US Open has always been known as a grueling test of golf and the player who wins is the one who survives by making the fewest mistakes. The PGA is the younger cousin of the US Open, but often has the strongest field (despite the club pros) and plays a big role in deciding the Ryder Cup. In addition, the PGA setup has encouraged good scoring in recent years (setting aside the tournament at Whistling Straits). And, in my mind, The Open Championship is the one with the most history and is the most unique because of the courses and varying playing conditions.
I think the R&A has the correct mindset when it comes to setting up the course for the tournament. The way the course plays depends on the weather. If the summer has been dry, the Open plays firm and fast and scoring can be great (e.g., Turnberry in 1977 or St. Andrews last year). If the weather is poor, the course can be a monster (e.g., Carnoustie in 1999 or Tiger's 84 from a few years back). The Masters decided to take a great course and make it play like a US Open course (not necessarily a bad thing) but that's not what makes it such a great tournament.
So I think a terrible mistake has been made and we will see less great golf as a result.
Unlike most golfers, the contrived atmosphere and phony-baloney traditions of the Masters tournament make me puke. Yes they've held a fun tournament there for many years and Bobby Jones was a founder, but this isn't the Sistine Chapel, it's a golf tournament run by a bunch of boring old elitists who have convinced themselves they are the true keepers of the game. As far as I'm concerned, the people with old golf shoes and their dad's old clubs playing the local 9-holer for ten bucks represent the real soul of the game.
The people running the Masters have an obsessive need to exert control. They even resort to ramming their own vocabulary down the throats of all involved:
Patron: Fifty-percent smug Southern geezers fresh from the mausoleum, fifty-percent smug corporate yahoos.
First-cut / Second-cut: apparently the word 'rough' is too base and profane for people of such refined tastes.
Green Jacket: silly outfit guaranteed to look horrible with any other clothes a person chooses to wear.
Member: Super-rich, completely delusional 36 handicapper. Even Hootie admitted recently that most of the members were hackers.
Other than the golf itself, the tournament coverage is boring and repetitive. Each year we are treated to the same old stuff about the drive up Magnolia Lane and we're told about how remarkable it is that the cheese sandwiches are still a buck-and-a-quarter. That thing about the sandwiches...that's just remarkable isn't it?
The threat: during the 'no female member controversy', poor old Hootie even threatened to stop televising the tournament, like a spoiled and petulant brat telling his playmates that if they didn't shut-up, he'd take his ball home and then nobody could play! He even went so far as to remind everyone that the membership is very rich and doesn't even need the mountains of money the tournament generates. Gee, I never realized they were rich folk, that changes everything! Of course this is a hollow threat, they would never cancel the television because it gives them status, which is the one thing these elitists care about more than anything. Is there any more humorless person than Hootie? He makes John Ashcroft look like a comedian. Maybe it's his silly name that made him that way.
At least they stopped dumping tons of blue dye in the water hazards on the back-nine like they did in the past. That looked about as real as the Gilligan's Island set.
I know that people may wonder: if this guy doesn't like the Masters why does he watch it? I watch some of it because I like golf. It's the golf I'm interested in, not all of the hype about the silly traditions and the delusional paranoia of those running the tournament.
I agree with your theme in that the Masters is too contrived and I've had enough of the "tradition unlike any other" but do you need to regurgitate the same comments over and over? This was nearly verbatim one of your previous comments.
Sorry YTM, forgot I posted that here already. It's part of my expansive Hootie series of writings.
i think the only thing that makes golf exciting at all is a person with an ability to beat 150 of the best players int he world consistently, and thoroughly. Before tiger there was jack nicklaus. Golf has grown huge in the past ten years because of tiger. The fact is, tiger is what makes winning any major today a big deal. A major is really an artificial term, it's another golf tournament. Tiger has won the masters as many times as he has won any other tournament. Imagine if tiger's dad earl dies the week of the us open, and tiger withdraws. How much weight do you think would be placed on a mickelson win if tiger were to be absent from the field at the us open. Majors are nothing but tournaments with smaller fields (therefore less competition) and alot of buzz. Tiger woods has won about 10 different events in the past 16 months, he has smoked mickelson totally, except for one day basically. If tiger were to retire now, and mickelson won 18 majors, no1 would ever think he was as good as jack nicklaus, or even close
Thanks for the rant, Sir Spangler. Much of that needed to be said. Thank God for the mute button on the TV. Surely there is nothing more miserable than the syrupy violin soaked psuedo scriptural cant Jim Nantz spews out every year.
I don't recall ever seeing so many blown 2-5 footers by so many excellent putters. My question is this: have they tricked up the greeens at Augusta? If so, why not just decide the winner with a coin toss at 18. Then everybody can bow down to Old Man Par and go home.
Jason. Nice comments.
If you don't appreciate the tradition or the landscape architechture, than you do not have a pulse. Don't be jealous of Jim Nantz...because he could take you one-on-one in an arm-wrestling match. Embrace the Masters. To me it is some heavenly place somewhere high in the clouds, where pesticides are not needed, and the ponds are naturally that blue. For those that think that the Masters is not a tradition, compare it with a Daytona 500 or Wrestlemania XXIII...now what is tradition. Tradition is the maintenance of key identifiers that differentiate one golf tournament from another, and Jason painted that picture well. Respect my friend for a great post.
I don't comment much this time of year because April 15th (you make the connection), but I have to at least throw my two cents in.
I can't honestly say the Masters is my favorite major, but I do miss the opportunity to watch it without sitting at home at midnight watching the coverage on high speed on TIVO. But all in all, I love the tournament. For several reasons:
First, it is the only major palyed on the same course. Obviously this gives an advantage to the veterans, but considering the lifetime exemption, I don't see it as a bad thing. Every major should have its niche, and the Masters has many, but this one makes it special. As for whether the course is worth playing every year, I'll get to that further on.
Second, it does not have the toughest field for majors (that easily goes to the British Open), but it is possibly the hardest major for a "young gun" to compete on. and in that, it helps that the final day usually is a competition of veterans to take the jacket, and the scenario of a Curtis winning the tournament is a seldom occurance (not saying it has never happened).
Third, if you have ever been to Augusta, whether to watch the tournament or walk the course, it is a sight to behold. It has hardly any play, and the conditions are so miraculous day to day, you have to see it to believe it. I find the course, design despite the changes, and atmosphere despite the long-winded commentary on the sandwiches, well worth playing on a yearly basis for one of the most prestigeous prizes in golf.
Lastly, I have friends that work on producing the coverage. Even they admit the coverage was sub-par this year and that the changes have hurt the dramatic finishes of yore with a string of birdies and miraculous scoring. But the tournament is the one major that solely caters to the public viewers. The television coverage and the treatment of the "patrons," is the best in any major i have seen or attended (and I have been to them all). Visit the course, and you may have a different opinion, but that is merely my two cents.
It seems dangerous to read too much into one particular Masters experience. Phil won by 13 strokes the previous week. Obviously the guy is on fire right now, and that was the real reason for his easy win, not any flaws in the Masters setup. If he hadn't been in the field, the finish would have been very close and exciting. These things happen sometimes.
All the points made about why the Masters is a great golf tournament are on the mark.
Spangler was just making the comment that the guys that put on the tournamnet take themselves way too seriously. It is a game, after all. It should be fun. You can respect the traditions involved without turning the event into a somber religious ceremony. The only thing I find intolerable are the network introductions and the little Dick Enberg Olympic minute smaltzfests. I think the Masters deserves better journalism. TV journalism is just awful. That's what's made the Daily Show popular. They do a terrific job sending it up.
i'm glad the '06 Masters is over. everybody talking about the 20-year anniversary of jack in '86 was great, but thinking about '96 kills me. I stood to win $700 in my Calcutta if Norman held on---what a disaster. i was all ready to go buy some new irons with my winnings that day, too.
I don't know why but I found it boring and watched very little of it this year. I did get to see that 2 shot on #14 by Tiger. The people who run it do seem to have a strange outlook but as long as they stay away…..
I had a premonition the golf at Masters would be boring this year, which led me to think the winner would be...Goosen!
Much of the time, it did have that US Open Death March sort of vibe didn't it?
What I found most interesting is that they didn't oversaturate the green (as in red, green, blue) from a video processing perspective as they have in the past. You'd tune into the Masters in all the years past that I remember and the course would just LOOK better than any other on the planet (all due to crafty technicians). This year the course was missing that magical oversaturation.
Post a Comment
<< Home