"You don't go to Las Vegas to attend a piano recital, and you don't go to the Masters to see a bunch of pars and bogeys."

Ed Sherman writing in Friday's Chicago Tribune (thanks to reader David for this):

Augusta National never was intended to be a thrasher like those other venues. But in trying to preserve the integrity of the course to combat technology, it appears tournament officials might have stripped the personality of the Masters.

You don't go to Las Vegas to attend a piano recital, and you don't go to the Masters to see a bunch of pars and bogeys. You want the glory, and that means eagles and birdies at Augusta.

You want to see Woods attacking the par-5 13th with his second shot instead of hitting a forgettable layup. The eagle potential on 13 and the par-5 15th were one of the highlights on the back nine. Thursday, there were only two eagles on those holes.

This wasn't Shinnecock silly during the final round of the 2004 U.S. Open, when the rock-hard greens had approach shots bouncing like superballs. But the combination of the added length and the firm greens afforded the players few birdie opportunities.

With the current conditions, it is hard to imagine anybody streaking home Sunday with a 30 on the back nine like Jack Nicklaus did in 1986, or with a 31 like Mickelson did winning in 2004.

Instead, it could come down to a matter of which player can avoid making bogeys. That's a U.S. Open.

Does that sound like fun?

Comments

[Bill Millan]

Jim Murray, the former Sportswriter for the LA Times, would have loved it. He used to say these kind of scores were revenge for the average duffer who got to see the Pros play like him.

[NRH]

Okay, the reaction is officially getting ridiculous. What is it with instant gratification and proclaiming success or failure after 25% of the results are in? This was one day and apparently the wrong people were at the top of leaderboard?

Thursday and Saturday are always set-up tough.
7 under was the winning score last year.
Everybody wanted to see it play hard and fast. Now that it is, we want to go back to a dart throwing putting contest?
If Tiger hit a better drive on 13 maybe he would not have laid up. However, maybe he would have with that hole location.
Added length? Many of the tees were up.
Who gets the blame for the weather?

[Four-putt]

Thursday's play looked no different from Sunday's round last year. It's like trying to play a hockey game in a crystal shop.

If I want to watch boring patience golf, I'll turn on the Golf Infomercial Channel and watch U.S. Open replays.

[Ace]

I t'ink the tooniment committee's done a fine job. More of the same, please.

[LEFTY]

I'm liking the conditions. Remember par is relative and that what really matters is who the setup favors...

because when Goliath beats David by a stroke, it doesn't matter if it was -20 to -19 or -1 to even.

The fast conditions and cold weather are why Tim Clark, Vaughn Taylor, Zach Johnson, and Jerry Kelly are in contention.

The only thing I'm not liking is lack of Ernie and "Shrek" near the top...

And poor Tom Watson missing the cut with a three-putt triple bogey. Ouch.

[Michael]

I'm with 4Putt on this one. Never have had any use for train-wreck golf, or defensive golf if you prefer that term. Once a year, when I watch the US Open, I grit my teeth and try my best to tolerate it with good humor, but twice a year is too much.

Unless they take fire hoses out there over the weekend and hose down those greens beyond the ability of the sub-air systems to get rid of the moisture, we're going to see a Sunday afternoon finish that is closer to a dud than the exciting finishes we've come to love over the years.

[Josh Hoisington]

"because when Goliath beats David by a stroke, it doesn't matter if it was -20 to -19 or -1 to even.

The fast conditions and cold weather are why Tim Clark, Vaughn Taylor, Zach Johnson, and Jerry Kelly are in contention.

The only thing I'm not liking is lack of Ernie and "Shrek" near the top...

And poor Tom Watson missing the cut with a three-putt triple bogey. Ouch."


Except that there is a difference between -20 and -1 in terms of the substance of the tournament. If a result, a winner, was all that mattered then patrons would not be allowed on the grounds nor would the event be televised. It might be nail-biting if it's coming down to 18 and somebody has to hold on to win at -1, but is it entertaining? Not to me.

As for Tim Clark, Vaughn Taylor, Zach Johnson, Jerry Kelly, Ernie, and Shrek, well, are any of them really playing substanitively better or worse golf than anybody else? From what I saw, Phil's round was about the same as anyone else's above him. I mean, I didn't think "Tim Clark is really golfing his ball today".

It's not that conditions are allowing the shorter hitters to contend, the conditions are such that anybody could get lucky. It doesn't matter if you roll off the back of the green with a no. 4-iron or a 9. The cream isn't going to rise to the top. And even if it did, how would we know?