Grouchy Golf Blog

Monday, April 09, 2007 at 11:42 PM

The Tiger-Proofed Masters

This seems to be the consensus opinion on the 2007 Masters:

1. “Tiger-proofing” has made Augusta National too difficult
2. As a result, birdies and eagles were rare, taking the excitement out of the event
3. Bottom Line: It was a borefest

I must be in the minority, but I thoroughly enjoyed the 71st Masters. Maybe the setup was too difficult for a traditional Masters, but when it comes to tournament golf, I prefer attrition warfare over shootouts. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that a course can be too difficult. The 2004 U.S. Open at Shinnecock was a prime example of the silliness that can arise from a sadist greenskeeper gone wild. But as long as a golf course is fair, I think that it’s fine. After all, everyone plays on the same course.

The difficult conditions left a wide-open Masters for the final round. On Sunday, Stuart Appleby, Rory Sabbatini, Retief Goosen, Zach Johnson and Tiger Woods all owned a piece of the lead at some point. Call me crazy, but I find such a “neck and neck” competition much more interesting than someone trouncing the field by 5 strokes the entire day.

Unfortunately, there was one key ingredient missing from this year’s Masters that would have made it magical: a classic Tiger charge. We all expected it, but it never came. Uncharacteristically, Tiger lost a final-round lead! However, don’t blame the course for that, Tiger clearly didn’t have his A, B or even C game. But take nothing away from Zach Johnson. He did not fold under the pressure and instead played brilliant golf. Unlike many winners this year, Zach won this tournament.

But imagine if Tiger was his usual self and forced Zach Johnson into a playoff ala Bob May in the PGA Championship circa 2000. Wouldn’t that have been exciting? All of a sudden, this Masters goes down in the history books as one of the best ever. Oh well, I guess Tiger is indeed human. It's either that or the Masters has truly been "Tiger-Proofed." Regardless, I'm just glad that I watched it all unfold on CBS in 100% high def, unlike that NBC "HD-lite" treatment.

Labels: CBS, Courses, Masters, Tiger Woods

 MyDailySlice said...

I'm in the same camp as you. I really enjoy when the mental game is on display versus brawn.
Last weekend is what Hootie had in mind when he redesigned the course. Not to "Tiger-proof it, but rather to make it a brutal test...worthy of a major. That is exactly what was delivered.  

~

 Anonymous said...

I would call the Masters this year "Crappy driver-proofed". It depends on what you envision GOLF to be about. If you just want guys bombing it into the rough and chipping on in regulation, then you're talking a different game than what I want to see. I've long thought the Masters to be a long-driving contest with some putting tests and nothing else. Forget shotmaking. This year at least the Masters acquitted itself of that. Funny how everyone complains about "Tiger-proofing". It certainly wasn't "Zack Johnson-proofed."  

~

 Anonymous said...

I thought it was a tremendous Masters. Many players had a real chance to win. No matter how a fan wants to spin it - golf is just a game of getting from A to B in the fewest strokes with many interesting choices to make and we did see a few strange choices. Remember when Chip Beck layed up on 15 and didn't win - he was crucified. Zack lays up and he's a hero.

Why is it that Woods is the only player that we allow to have an A, B, or C game?  

~

 Anonymous said...

Amen to that. "Woods played his C game" means "If Tiger had played his best he would've won." You could say that for a LOT of guys. People forget that Potential doesn't mean a thing if you don't bring the game on the day you need it.  

~

 Jo said...

I happen to think it was a very interesting masters. With everyone having a chance at it, it was refreshing and unpredictable. :)

It was fun seeing Tiger Woods having to chase after the leader for once. I think he crumbled a little under the pressure (he blamed the wind or something) at the 17th hole when his ball landed in the bunker. :p

It's more boring to see other guys chase him. Anyway, I was more surprised Ernie Els didn't make the cut. o.o  

~

 Anonymous said...

i read somewhere that bobby jones intended the masters to be a "second-shot" tournament and test of true putting. this was truly what bobby originally designed this course to be. all and all, it was a great tournament! did anyone notice that there were a lot more commercials in the last hour than the slated 4-minute allocated time per hour??!?!?  

~

 Aidan said...

Yes....a great Masters indeed....but would have been nice to hear a lot more "roar" from the gallery - something you only get during a charge....which was unfortunately missing from this one.  

~

 Doc B said...

Okay, first your previous (funny and pointed) comments about the phony gentility and genuine pomposity of the Masters and its CBS lackeys have almost ruined the thing for me. Almost. Second, about "Tiger-proofing." The idea seems to be that because Tiger hits longer and more accurately than anyone with any given club that the course should be lengthened so that his distance advantage will be negated. But surely this only increases his advantage since he's the only one who can handle such a setup. Wouldn't Tiger-proofing really mean shortening the course, negating Tiger's advantage, and bringing more players into contention?  

~

 Golf Grouch said...

Doc,

You are absolutely correct. These long setups are really "Pavin Proofing". Thanks for your great comments!  

~

Post a Comment

© Golf Grouch 2006