I think I enjoyed watching the layout and difficulty of the course for this Open as much as the ability of the players. Yeah, it was tough, but it also was fair. While asthetically it certainly was no Augusta, it did demand and often produce some amazing skill from the participants. Found it very interesting to see the dichotomy of results exhibited by those on and those off of their game. Cases in point, the slow play exhibited by Appelby and Baddeley near the end while Cabrera and Tiger were still performing nicely. Very nicely set up if you ask me.
I agree with those who state that it is wrong to denigrate the accomplishments of the winner by saying the courses are tricked up. Everyone plays the same course, everyone has the same oportunity. The fact that some have primed their game to hit it as far as possible and the consequences be damned does not mean that those who hit it shorter and straighter are inferior players. Lee trevino is famous for saying that it is a waste of time for him to play the masters tournament since he cannot win on a layout of that type. Is he an inferior player? Are those who have won the Masters multiple times inferior players?
As for the rough: Golf judgment is a skill that must be honed along with the ability to putt, chip and drive the ball. If you are in 6 feet of rough and know that it will be near impossible to get the club on the ball - consider taking an unplayable lie, but for god’s sake, whatever you do, stop crying about it. You have been there before, you know how hard it is to hit out of, you know your own strengths and weaknesses. If you can’t ever bring yourself to “play it safe” then don’t whine about the results.
All in all, a great tournament and the best man won, as he almost always does unless he is Roberto di Vicenzo.
The Masters is an odd tournament because it didcates that you hit a draw (for right-handed folks) on many holes. A lot of Tour players hit a fade because it’s easier to control and an overcooked draw quickly turns into a hook and can tun you into some naughty places. That’s one of the reasons Trevino said he could never win the Masters.
Now, with all the added length…and gasp! rough, Trevino still prolly wouldn’t have liked it.
Story of my golfing life lately :mad:
Me, too. It was a great tournament, though. Congrats to Angel. My buddies and I were tempted to hop on a plane to Buenos Aires last night-- they must have been partying like mo-fos down there!!
Tiger really blew it on #3. I swear he must’ve skulled that first chip shot, and then he flubbed the second one and made a terrible putt after that. Double bogey after a perfect drive. Bummer.
I was really hoping David Toms would sink that eagle putt on 17.
All in all a very exciting tournament-- it wasn’t clear who was going to win until the very end. Can’t wait for the British Open!!
So what can we learn from the last 2 Opens?
They are only worth 2 pages on the SDMB! 
Did it strike anyone else as minimally odd the way he pointed to the PING on his cap? I guess it is not uncommon for successful folk to thank their sponsors/backers. But the darn hat was right there for anyone to see. Just not sure I can readily recall someone miming his thanks like that before. Not sure if it was a reflection on his lack of English, as there was no audio at that time.
Also, does anyone know how common it is for an international athlete to not speak English? iu didn’t hear any of his interviews, but my understanding was that they were done (almost?) exclusively thru interpreters. I guess it may be inapt to compare him to Europeans like Ballesteros, Olazabal, Langer …, tho he does compete on the Euro tour. And at 37 he is not a kid.
I would just think that learning English would open up a bunch of opportunities for someone in that situation, and to not do so would almost reflect an intentional choice. Not sure how common a lack of English is among tennis players, soccer players, etc.
WHAT??? Most tour players hit a draw, not a fade.
An overcooked draw turns into a hook and an overcooked fade just as easily turns into a slice.
Precisely my point. It isn’t that I’m complaining about who will win the Open (hey, really, Cabrera? He can’t even win much on the EUROPEAN tour!), so much as I’m pointing out that the USGA’s assertion that the setup for the Open is designed to define the best champions isn’t supported by the actual results. Keep in mind, it never managed to identify Sam Snead. :rolleyes:
You make an interesting point, DSY, and one I hadn’t thought of before.
Why do you think “less-skilled” players are able to bottle lightning at the Open and, conversely, the creme of the crop falter on “tricked up” Open courses?
Are you sure about that? I’d say the majority of Tour players are rocking a fade off the tee. If you’ve got a fade grooved in your swing, you can usually swing as hard as you want and it’ll just come out with your little fade, or sometimes a little more. Overcooked draws do turn into hooks. Fades are easier to control because the spin a fade produces backspin.(left-to-right for a right handed golfer) It doesn’t roll as much as a draw does when it hits the ground. A hook produces topspin, which gets the ball rolling and running.
That’s the reason beginning golfers, who don’t get through the ball and don’t get through the swing and produce slices get a big, nasty banana ball that doesn’t go anywhere.
Most pros use the fade as their “go to” shot for these exact reasons. A fade also gets airborne quicker and lands softer, due to the spin.
Cite and Cite
My guess is that he understand English pretty well and can express himself if he has to, but just prefers to be interviewed in Spanish. He may be embarrassed by his non-fluency and/or heavy accent.
It’s golf. Sounds like you play enough to understand that. 
But, what you said originally was that players hit a fade because it’s easier to control (spin? distance? direction?) and because “an overcooked draw quickly turns into a hook”.
I don’t think either of those is a reason the pros would hit a fade.
Anyway, we’re sort of talking at cross-purposes here.
Off the tee (which is what I was thinking of), most pros will hit a draw if the course is set up to allow them to hit either one. It gives you more distance for the reasons outlined in your second cite.
Still, I’ve never heard anyone say that the Masters is odd because it dictates that you hit a draw on many holes. It’s tough for a lot of reasons, but I didn’t think that was one of them.
I have heard it said, tho, that Augusta National was set up as it is because Bobby Jones liked hitting a pronounced draw, and that the relatively few number of players who prefer to fade it - or perhaps lefties, do not care for that aspect of the course.
I agree that more players hit a draw than a fade - at least off the tee. I’m far from an expert on swing mechanics (either my own or proper!), but I believe that the most desireable, flatter, inside-out swingplane will result in a draw. Overswinging, too upright of a plane, coming from the outside-in will result in a fade/slice.
Of course, any pro can work the ball both ways.
Although many decent golfers can get the ball to move one way or the other, say exaggerate their swing to hook or slice if they are behind a tree, IME even most decent golfers generally hit a straight ball, or one consistently predictable ball flight.
Earlier this year I played with a scratch golfer who could really work the ball. It was pretty impressive, seeing the lines he would take on the same holes as me. He’d start the ball way out over the trees, and it would come back into the fairway or onto the green. Really opened up some targets being able to bring the ball in from such different angles. Yeah, he took my money that day.
Just looked at an aerial view of Augusta. To my eye, of the holes that “bend” significantly, 7 (2,5,7,9,10,13,14) go to the left, and only 2 (11,18) to the right. I considered the remaining 5 driving holes (excluding the 4 par 3s) more-or-less straight.
Just for comparison, I checked out Oakmont. To my eye, a greater percentage of Oakmont’s holes appear significantly straighter than Augusta’s, and certainly don’t have 3 times as many turning one way over the other.
A lot of pros can work the ball either way, but they’re very comfortable with their shot shape (see Lehman, Tom for a hook and Calcavecchia, Mark for a banana ball and Kite, Tom for dead frickin’ straight). That’s a double edged sword. They’re very comfortable when things set up for them. For example, Lehman, for his lifetime, is under par at the 17th at the TPC of Sawgrass. That’s not a coincidence. Since he knows what shape is coming out of his shot without thinking about it, he can play it into the wind and hit the green virtually every time. I say"virtually" because when Roger Maltbie pointed it out last time that Lehman has never hit it in the drink at 17, Lehman then hit it into the drink.
Because a pro can work the ball doesn’t mean they’re comfortable going against their natural shot. I can produce a fade when I need to, but I don’t want to have extra swing thoughts bouncing around my cranium just before I hit. There are enough in there as it is.
Dinsdale, is that before or after the Big Changes? I assume it’s after. If that’s the case, then some of the bunkers and trees get in the way if you aren’t playing a nice draw that day.
To which course? I know they recently tore a ton of trees from Oakmont, but they make changes large and small to Augusta nearly every year.
I’m not terribly familiar with either course, tho I naturally have seen Augusta more often than Oakont. I was essentially just going from how the general outline of the holes appeared from an aerial view. I agree entirely that bunkers and such can make a hole that appears straight play one way or the other.
Just before the Masters I read 2 books about the Masters, Bobby Jones, and Cliff Robertson. One attempted to portray Cliff Robertson as a total bastard, the other as a saint. I suspect the truth may lie somewhere between. But they were both very clear on the influence Bobby Jones had on the design of the course. And I’m pretty certain that from them - as well as other things I’ve read and heard over time - I got the impression that a greater number of holes at Augusta suit a long draw than at many other courses. I may well be mistaken.
I just chose Oakmont for comparison because it was in my mind, and I figured the web would have a good aerial map. My initial thought had been to look at Pebble, the TPC Sawgrass, or Cog Hill or Medinah here in Chicago.
Oh , I was talking about Agusta after the first “Tiger-proofing”.
Checked out past majors’ winners, and am not sure they bear out what I understand to be your suggestion - that the “best” golfer tend to win the US Open less frequently than the other majors.
To make things easier on myself, I looked at winners since 1975. I looked at 2 things, majors where certain golfers had multiple major victories in a single event, and number of times a major is a player’s sole major victory.
The Masters boasts Langer and Olazabal as two-time winners - neither of them have won another major. I’m not sure whether I’d say they are clearly better or worse than the Open’s Goosen/North. Probably slightly better based on victories throughout long careers, but just saying the Masters and the US Open have that in common.
Now here’s a question whose answer surprised me. Which of the 4 majors has had the greatest number of winners who have only won a single major since '75?
Master’s 5 (6 including this year)
US Open 9 (10 including this year)
British Open 9
PGA 13!
The “stat” that most surprised me from this weekend was that including this year’s winner, the last 4 winners of the Open have been from the southern hemisphere. Wow!
Hogan…I vomit when I see a hook. It is like having a snake in your pocket.
Travino…You can talk to a fade but a hook wont listen
Mickelson-went from an unhappy hooker to Darth Fader and won the masters.
Lee Trevino’s aversion to Augusta National was well-known, and it rested primarily on the fact that almost all doglegs at the course are draws, whereas Lee was a pronounced fader (hell, actually a controlled slicer) of the ball. Lee had other things he didn’t like about the Masters (he tended to think they treated non-Anglo players less cordially, which rankled him, for example), but his major complaint had to do with the difficulty of playing the course as a fader of the ball.
Personally, I always found this to be a stupid excuse for poor performance. Jack Nicklaus preferred high cuts with his shots because they are more controllable. However, that never seemed to cause him much trouble at Augusta National. :rolleyes: