Masters 2017

I don’t feel one bit sorry for Lexi Thompson. There is an SOP to marking a golfball that I was taught playing junior golf 40+ years go. You mark the ball by keeping your ball between yourself and the hole. You don’t mark the ball from the side like Lexi did. Its a routine that simple, not time consuming and Lexi simply did not do it.

As far as Chris DiMarco being cost the most majors by Tiger Woods because he finished solo 2nd to him twice. Well I guess that it true if you only want to pull one layer of the onion. But IMO, golf strategy is lot more than that. Phil, Sergio, Ernie and the World Class Elite golfers play to win and not Solo 2nd places. I am confident that Tiger on the leaderboard changed the strategies of the contenders, perhaps forcing to take more riskier chances than they normally would.

As far as the Lexi Thompson thing goes (and with it the “controversy” someone phoned in to The Masters about Sergio’s ball on 13):

I’ve played golf since 1968. I know I am responsible for following the rules. I take that very seriously. I think most golfers do.

But as a Mathematician, I know that it’s impossible to truly follow some of the rules. For example, Rule 20-3 (a) requires me as a player to replace a ball I have lifted after marking it “on the spot from which it was lifted…” But it is entirely impossible to replace it in precisely the same spot. If I were able to measure the location of the ball with sufficient precision, I would find that the ball after replacement would be some small amount of distance from where I picked it up. Thus, the rule cannot be followed to the letter.

Now, engineers know that this sort of thing is true. So they set parameters within which they must be accurate. Golf, too, has such parameters. When I replace a marked ball on the green, I try to put it back where I recall seeing it when I lifted it. If it’s a quarter-inch one side or the other, I probably don’t notice. As with anyone in the US after Jane Blaylock, I make darn certain it’s not any significant amount closer to the hole than where I lifted it from! But I am aware that it’s simply not possible to be precise in this.

Modern video changes the game in this regard. It has the ability to capture rules “violations” that no one would notice. Pull your club back in the bunker and touch five grains of sand on the way? That’s a technical violation of Rule 13-4 (touching the ground in the hazard with your club). Did you see it or notice it? Probably not. Did the video camera in Ultra-HD zoomed in on your club and the ball? Yep. Is some yutz sitting on a couch watching you going to call it in? Yep.

Golf itself realizes that this situation is untenable. Starting in 2019, assuming that the current proposals are adopted, a golfer cannot be penalized by later video if he/she did what could be “reasonably expected.” In other words, you won’t be penalized for not perceiving what a super-high-definition camera, running in super-slo-motion can perceive (or, more accurately, what a couch potato can perceive watching such a camera on his 85" Ultra-HD TV).

With this in mind, let’s talk about Lexi and her situation:

Lexi probably violated the Rule 20-3. I’ve yet to hear her defend herself by saying that she didn’t violate the rule. Phil Mickelson came out during the Masters and said that officials needed to start cracking down on what Lexi did, because it’s become a generally accepted “loose” (Phil’s word!) practice on the tours. BUT, the point is that no one in Lexi’s group viewed her as having violated the rule, nor did the officials observing the group. Indeed, apparently no one saw it who was watching on Saturday when she DID it. So we have to accept that, if it was a violation, it must have been relatively trivial.

With this in mind, is it truly fair to assess a penalty for the violation, solely because someone somewhere watching on TV managed to see it? Can you imagine if a football game’s score could be changed because someone calls in two quarters later and points out that there was a marginal holding call that didn’t get seen? Seriously? What happens if someone combs back through everything shown on Thursday, and sees it? Would Lexi have been penalized for the infraction THREE days later?? And if not, why not? How would the situation be any different?

As for the absurdity of penalizing her additionally for turning in a wrongly scored card, that’s just completely ridiculous. That penalty is intended for people who mis-score the round, based upon what everyone knows they did. How is she supposed to properly score her card, given that no one involved realized she “truly” scored two strokes more on the 17th? She should be told the penalty was applied, and given the opportunity to re-sign the card, with the penalty added to her score. Anything else is so stupid a result as to put into question for ever the legitimacy of the victory that Ms. Ryu “won”.

As far as Tiger and Sergio goes:

Tiger isn’t the reason Sergio has failed to win a major over the years. I don’t view it as particularly relevant whether or not (and how many times) Sergio finished second to Tiger. Who cares who finished second to Tiger at the 2000 US Open at Pebble Beach? The whole field ended up playing for money after the second day of that tournament. What story line would have emerged had Tiger not played an entirely different course than everyone else was? Maybe that year Sergio would have caught fire, rather than finishing T46.

The reason I don’t put the explanation of Sergio’s failures on Tiger is that Sergio himself has placed the blame for his failures where that blame squarely lies: on Sergio. Too much pressure on himself. Too much negativity in this thinking, especially if something went slightly wrong. Not enough mental fortitude, as it were. I posted yesterday that his missed putt on 16 was typical Sergio, and it was. A putt that he needed, but failed to convert because, when the money is on the line at a major, he’s not “money.”

I don’t think anyone “phoned in” in the ball moving for Sergio. Geoff Shackleford tweeted that “Masters Live” internet coverage at Amen Corner noted that the ball possibly moved.

I don’t think CBS coverage actually showed the possible violation at the time that it happened.

Like I said, I was watching some of it at FFx1. But there were times down the stretch that I feared Sergio was falling back into his grip-and-regrip ways!

My opinion is that Serg has long been a great golfer, who just had problems getting out of his own head.

Agreed. I watched a documentary on Nicklaus last night and he clearly said that they were all playing for money in the 60’s and 70’s. If they felt they weren’t likely to win, they played for second. Sergio has made $10M before he ever picks up a club. He can afford to go for the miracle shot for a chance to win a major. The $200K between second and fourth is pocket change to him.

They say every Tour golfer is a millionaire between endorsements and prize money.

Pretty tough to compare economics BTE w/ AT (Before Tiger Era…)

Note that Sergio has a fine Ryder Cup record and seems to have the opposite mindset that he has in Majors… at the Ryder he is a tough as nails and is clutch when he needs to be. His all-time record is 19-11-7

Pretty much the opposite to Tiger Woods who dominated in the majors but is poor in the Ryder with a 13-17-3 record

That’s kind of the point. Trevino and Weiskopf and Miller and Crampton needed that second place money to make a decent living. They weren’t getting endorsement deals from manufacturers. They might get free shoes and gloves and the Top 20 might get clubs but they lived off prize money. After Tiger almost everyone makes more in endorsements than in prize money. Second place doesn’t mean much post-Tiger.

By whom have you been assured this?

It’s a serious understatement to say the view that Tiger was the greatest of his time - and possibly the GOAT (or perhaps second to Jack) - is mainstream.

(Strawman indeed.)

I totally agree with this! Tiger was like the Mike Tyson of golf. Career carefully managed, direct threats to his supremacy avoided through careful and strategic opponent and product placement, etc.

Way overrated, that guy.

Oh man. You almost got me. Props!

Until we see something, I think you’d have a hard time establishing that Tiger is currently anywhere near “the best.”