Phil needs to fly Brian in this time

[Tball88]

Seriously, guys were hitting it all over the planet today and getting good scores.

Tiger hits in in the woods on 11, hits a damn tree on his second shot and is still in the woods, and if he wouldn't have missed a four footer he would have par'd.

I don't know what it is with pro courses, but you miss that far right on my course, you're in a creek, thick brush or ob. I guess they have to make them wide open to fit in the crowds.

 

[Richie3Jack]

I don't know what it is with pro courses, but you miss that far right on my course, you're in a creek, thick brush or ob. I guess they have to make them wide open to fit in the crowds.

Sometimes I think that these guys would hit it right of the water on #3 and find the #4 fairway and then do the same thing on #4 at Woodmont. Of course they could cook it 340 yards and flip 9-irons in.





3JACK

 

[mgranato]

Sometimes I think that these guys would hit it right of the water on #3 and find the #4 fairway and then do the same thing on #4 at Woodmont. Of course they could cook it 340 yards and flip 9-irons in.





3JACK

LOL. At Woodmont, that just means they would be playing those greens from the best angles.

 

[rogerdodger]

Mickelson drove the well enough today. He was missing them the same way, usually over drawn. His iron play was fantastic. He hit great irons on 12,13,15 and 18. Those were pressure shots. His swing held up better than anyone else, his misses were acceptable, especially on the second shots. I thought his swing looked great, especially his footwork and balance.

 

[gmbtempe]

I'm not asking for straight driving. I'm asking for penalizing off the grid shots. I generally am a fan for the US Open, but sometimes it can go overboard and guys aren't hitting drivers which isn't good either.

This is a MAJOR. It should be a tournament that doesn't favor a particular style of golfer, but the golfer who plays the best.





3JACK

but what your saying would be contrary to 50 years + of history at that tourney, the penalty is you have to be precise with your approaches, chips or putts.

 

[mjstrong]

but what your saying would be contrary to 50 years + of history at that tourney, the penalty is you have to be precise with your approaches, chips or putts.

Yeah, I like the variety (less so than it used to be) of the different majors. Each has its own personality. The Masters has always been more about bombing it (not necessarily straight), hitting your approaches precise, and putting.

 

[Richie3Jack]

but what your saying would be contrary to 50 years + of history at that tourney, the penalty is you have to be precise with your approaches, chips or putts.

50 years ago they were hitting 3 and 4-woods into #13 and #15. Now they are hitting 6-irons.

After awhile, there's only so much you can lengthen the course.





3JACK

 

[gmbtempe]

50 years ago they were hitting 3 and 4-woods into #13 and #15. Now they are hitting 6-irons.

After awhile, there's only so much you can lengthen the course.





3JACK

Nicklaus hit 3 iron with a persimmon wood a steel shaft on 15...that same 3 iron is 5 iron loft for Mickelson's club specs...I just don't see much difference say from when a great like Nicklaus and Watson won, some but not much, and the greens are even crazier now.

 

[btp]

I like it when they set up the course so guys can have a chance of making some Eagles. Who wants to see Zach Johnson lay up every time on 13 and 15 and win. A little risk reward makes it more interesting to watch.

Phil is uber talented. If he would have won a major earlier in his career, he would have probably won 3-5 more.

 

[Jared Willerson]

The Masters is a tournament set up so golfers demonstrate their artistry. Being an artist and creating shots was Bobby Jones. The Masters still provides players with a chance to be a creative genius with golf clubs.

The Open Championship does much the same thing. Players can hit lots of different shots and play lots of different ways.

The US Open and PGA are where golfers must display their technical acumen to be successful. Personally, I like the balance displayed in the 4 major championships. Two that are "art" oriented and two that are "technical" oriented.

It is odd though, that one of the most technical players of all time, Nick Faldo, only won the the two artful majors.

 

[mgranato]

50 years ago they were hitting 3 and 4-woods into #13 and #15. Now they are hitting 6-irons.

After awhile, there's only so much you can lengthen the course.





3JACK

50 years ago they were also playing on slow bumpy bermuda greens that could hold those clubs. I still recall this week a lot of fairways, hybrids, and 3irons hit into 11, 13, and 15.

 

[nwb]

The Masters is a tournament set up so golfers demonstrate their artistry. Being an artist and creating shots was Bobby Jones. The Masters still provides players with a chance to be a creative genius with golf clubs.

The Open Championship does much the same thing. Players can hit lots of different shots and play lots of different ways.

The US Open and PGA are where golfers must display their technical acumen to be successful. Personally, I like the balance displayed in the 4 major championships. Two that are "art" oriented and two that are "technical" oriented.

It is odd though, that one of the most technical players of all time, Nick Faldo, only won the the two artful majors.

That's a little unfair on Faldo actually. He was mechanical in some respects but he was a brilliant shot maker and talks about it in his (very good) instructional books.

NWB

PS i am an old Faldo fan though!

 

[Richie3Jack]

Faldo played in a time when the bombers didn't have such a better chance to win the Masters as they do now. THAT is my gripe.

You point out Nicklaus, he was the best driver of the golf ball for close to 2 decades! He wasn't missing the grid. He was hitting it deep and straight. That's a big reason why he was so great.

Ian Woosnam won by bombing it left, well over the bunkers on 18. Making that hole easy for him. Shortly after they made sure to lengthen 18 so he or another bomber couldn't just carelessly bomb one out there. Augusta doesn't do that anymore. Now they just bomb the crap out of it, miss the fairway by a mile and wind up in pretty good shape.

Crenshaw won the Masters as well, again in a period where the course didn't completely and unabashedly favor the bombers. Olazabal wasn't a bomber either. Nor was Langer or Faldo. Or Tom Watson (although he hit it a good ways) or Gary Player who won 3 jackets.

Hey, I dig watching the bombers. But I also dig watching the short knockers who can putt and the great all around ballstrikers, too. Take a look at the list of Masters champions...plenty of non-bombers won the Green Jacket. Now look at the recent winners and the way it was played this past weekend, it's basically a long drive and trick shot competition.

I'd be disappointed in a Major if it only favored the short but extremely accurate golfer. Although, I'd rather see a tournament where guys are not hitting shots off the map and taking really noticeably awful golf swings than one where the best bomber wins.






3JACK

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Masters is a bombers course, Zach was a fluke and had an awesome week. Check out this post i made 4 years ago:

http://www.brianmanzella.com/forum/golfing-discussions/6310-looks-like-tiger-all-set-masters.html

If you aren't bombing it 290 or better, don't really have a chance there. I don't have the time but it would be nice for someone to do what i did 4 years ago with the top 5 or 10 and their driving distance.

 

[GPM1985]

As is the case with athletes of every other sport, golfers are becoming stronger and more athletic. The dominance of big hitters at Augusta and other courses is simply part of a natural progression which affects every sport.

Skill and finesse still have their place though. Tom Watson finished far ahead of many players half his age and younger. Conversely, Alvaro Quiros hit driver-six iron into the 8th hole all week and he was never a factor.

I think Phil played brilliantly. Yes, he missed some fairways, but they can be a little hard to hit sometimes when the ball is carrying 310+. His recoveries from missed drives were spectacular and every bit as impressive and skillful as the relentless precision of a shorter player like K.J. Choi. Maybe even more so. That shot from the pine straw on 13 will go down as one of the best of all time.

My point is that the best player, not bomber, won the Masters.

 

[gmbtempe]

Is the US Open a course for accurate players or for bombers?

 

[Richie3Jack]

Is the US Open a course for accurate players or for bombers?

Depends. Last year at Bethpage is certainly favored the bombers. Other times at say Olympic Club, it favored accuracy.

Cabrera won at Oakmont. Lucas Glover is a top driver on Tour and won it last year at Bethpage. I remember this crazy time and place when Tiger was really accurate, even with his driver. And he won the US Open as well.

I don't like it when the US Open forces golfers to hit long irons off the tee, but not every US Open course is like that. Certainly not the past few years at the US Open.

More golfers have a chance there then at Augusta right now. And I believe that thinking that Augusta was always like it is now, is not correct. And the past champions prove it. Gary Player was not a bomber, and won 3 jackets. Same with Faldo. Olazabal won 2 jackets. Langer and Crenshaw won a couple of jackets as well....neither bombers.

If those guys were playing in today's game, they wouldn't stand a chance at Augusta. Not long enough. IMO, that's a shame to see.

Not trying to take away from Phil. If there's anybody out of the group I wanted to see win Sunday, it was him.

I remember when Woosnam kept blasting it well over the bunkers on 18 and missing the fairway by a mile, but still having a clear and rather easy shot into the green. I remember the committee being disgusted by it and quickly moving the tees further back the very next year. They weren't going to allow that crap to happen again.

Like I said in the other thread, this is more about Tiger than Phil. Tiger took some swings I don't see 2 handicappers make and he finished 4th and well under par. Last year Cabrera hit it all over the lot, even hitting a shank. He badly missed 18 fairway, hits a tree SQUARE and still comes up with a par. Happens once, okay. Happens a lot of times, then the course starts looking bad. Happens a few years in a row, then the integrity of the course becomes comprimised.







3JACK

 

[Bigwill]

Depends. Last year at Bethpage is certainly favored the bombers. Other times at say Olympic Club, it favored accuracy.

Cabrera won at Oakmont. Lucas Glover is a top driver on Tour and won it last year at Bethpage. I remember this crazy time and place when Tiger was really accurate, even with his driver. And he won the US Open as well.

I don't like it when the US Open forces golfers to hit long irons off the tee, but not every US Open course is like that. Certainly not the past few years at the US Open.

More golfers have a chance there then at Augusta right now. And I believe that thinking that Augusta was always like it is now, is not correct. And the past champions prove it. Gary Player was not a bomber, and won 3 jackets. Same with Faldo. Olazabal won 2 jackets. Langer and Crenshaw won a couple of jackets as well....neither bombers.

If those guys were playing in today's game, they wouldn't stand a chance at Augusta. Not long enough. IMO, that's a shame to see.

Not trying to take away from Phil. If there's anybody out of the group I wanted to see win Sunday, it was him.

I remember when Woosnam kept blasting it well over the bunkers on 18 and missing the fairway by a mile, but still having a clear and rather easy shot into the green. I remember the committee being disgusted by it and quickly moving the tees further back the very next year. They weren't going to allow that crap to happen again.

Like I said in the other thread, this is more about Tiger than Phil. Tiger took some swings I don't see 2 handicappers make and he finished 4th and well under par. Last year Cabrera hit it all over the lot, even hitting a shank. He badly missed 18 fairway, hits a tree SQUARE and still comes up with a par. Happens once, okay. Happens a lot of times, then the course starts looking bad. Happens a few years in a row, then the integrity of the course becomes comprimised.







3JACK

I disagree. Conditions were ideal for scoring this week, for starters. Besides, I think that it's less an indictment of the course, and more of an indication of Phil and Tiger's powers of recovery. My understanding is that Augusta National is designed as a second shot course. The leaders still had to play exceptionally well to shoot those scores. It rewarded good shots and good play. And it gave up rounds near 80 to some really good players who weren't playing well. Besides, except for that stretch where he hooked 3 in a row, Phil drove it pretty well, for Phil. And Tiger is, well, Tiger. Besides, they were saving par after bad drives, and they were good par saves. I could understand your reservations better if they were making birdies on the holes where they hit marginal/bad tee shots.

 

[Richie3Jack]

I could understand your reservations better if they were making birdies on the holes where they hit marginal/bad tee shots.

They were making birdies on bad tee shots.

There's a few things I remember about Augusta. I remember one year they discussed that they believed the firmness of the greens should be such that they nicely compressed shot from the fairway shot be able to hold onto the green. I remember when Woosie blasted it over those bunkers on 18 each day when he won it, they moved the tees way back because that wasn't what they thought golf was about. I remember when Tiger destroyed the course in '97, they 'Tiger proofed' it.

I always thought that it was a sign that the Masters committee really had a keen eye for what a golf course and a golf major should be about. The US Open is my favorite major (just something about it that is dear to me), but there have been course setups that I think were poorly done in the past and I always thought that the USGA wasn't as keen to the game and keeping the integrity of a great golf tournament as the Masters Committee was.

Now I see the Masters in a different light.

I also believe that if in the 80's the scores were like they were this past tournament, you can rest assured they'd find ways get higher scores the very next Masters. Now, I'm not sure they care to do that and just keep letting it be a long drive and trick shot competition.





3JACK

 

[savydan]

I think it's fair to say, though, that the cream rises to the top in the Masters more than the US Open and perhaps the other two as well.

Coincidence, or the set-up, the US Open produces some winners with head-scratching stories:

Andy North - wins 2 Opens but not thought of a as favorite otherwise. See Lee Janzen.
Scott Simpson - seemed to play well only in Opens.
Curtis Strange - wins back to back Opens in his early 30's then disappears.
Lee Janzen - wins two Opens in the 90's but is never really considered a favorite for other tournaments. Kinda Andy North of the 90's.
Steve Jones - wins, then basically disappears
Michael Campbell - wins, then really disappears