The Official 2019 Masters Thread (Mod note post#1)

prawnsambo

Augusta is definitely in Rory's head. Previous years, there was always another factor that could explain it, but this year it's showing imo. I'm no sports psychologist, but I've seen this in other sports where mental barriers are preventing success. It's not as though he can't deal with the favourite's tag, but Augusta is becoming a bigger and bigger mountain. His natural skill is keeping him from complete disaster, but I fear he'll never conquer the Masters without assistance from a sports psychologist.

Dav010

I know this has been mentioned earlier, it’s a very limited field where some very good golfers are excluded due to ranking, but having so many old winners “competing” is going to be a big problem as golfers remain fitter as they age. Look at the cut, these guys have more chance of winning the lotto than competing here. I think they should limit it to 10 year exemption if you win and let more competitive guys play.


Molinari is some boy, what a player.

Dav010

prawnsambo wrote: »

Augusta is definitely in Rory's head. Previous years, there was always another factor that could explain it, but this year it's showing imo. I'm no sports psychologist, but I've seen this in other sports where mental barriers are preventing success. It's not as though he can't deal with the favourite's tag, but Augusta is becoming a bigger and bigger mountain. His natural skill is keeping him from complete disaster, but I fear he'll never conquer the Masters without assistance from a sports psychologist.

Agree with you on this, but in ironic role reversal, I was impressed with Rory last night, a few years ago when mistakes like these were made, this round could have ended up a 78. He kept it together better and is still in with a chance rather than crashing out early.

bmay529

prawnsambo wrote: »

Augusta is definitely in Rory's head. Previous years, there was always another factor that could explain it, but this year it's showing imo. I'm no sports psychologist, but I've seen this in other sports where mental barriers are preventing success. It's not as though he can't deal with the favourite's tag, but Augusta is becoming a bigger and bigger mountain. His natural skill is keeping him from complete disaster, but I fear he'll never conquer the Masters without assistance from a sports psychologist.

Very frustrating to watch. He wastes so many shots for someone with his skill level yet somehow seems to hang in there. I would be surprised if he did not have a sports psychologist. His interviews before the masters looked as if he was trying to take the pressure off himself by saying he didn't have to win the masters though would like to. Definitely needs someone to get inside his head and get him thinking in the right way.

TCM

Gwynplaine wrote:

Tiger doing very well. I'd love to see him win it.

I dont think he'll have 4 rounds in him. In fairness he did look somthing like Tiger of old.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

I know this has been mentioned earlier, it’s a very limited field where some very good golfers are excluded due to ranking, but having so many old winners “competing” is going to be a big problem as golfers remain fitter as they age. Look at the cut, these guys have more chance of winning the lotto than competing here. I think they should limit it to 10 year exemption if you win and let more competitive guys play.


Molinari is some boy, what a player.

Anything going on longer than ten years in the US is "tradition" and because they are short on that and history it must never be changed and can only be talked about in revered tones.

Pissartist

bmay529 wrote: »

Very frustrating to watch. He wastes so many shots for someone with his skill level yet somehow seems to hang in there. I would be surprised if he did not have a sports psychologist. His interviews before the masters looked as if he was trying to take the pressure off himself by saying he didn't have to win the masters though would like to. Definitely needs someone to get inside his head and get him thinking in the right way.

I agree I'd say he has a few psychologists, but he is what he is, best swing on tour but fragile mentally if he's not at 100% and a truly awful putter, what leaderboard though so many with a chance, hope the expected bad weather doesn't ruin it

TomasMacR

Anyone here been to the Masters? Whats it like to pick up tickets outside either from other fans or touts? Considering going next year without a ticket.

I’ve easily been applying to the lottery at least ten years and not a hope. Has anyone even been successful in at least a ticket offer?

Whiplash85

Is there not a separate thread to talk about Mcilroy. The true elite of the world game as things stand is reflected on that leader board. Augusta is a proper all round test and it could be that it's just one of those courses that doesn't particularly suit his eye. It's shaping up to be the best Masters in recent memory and you could make a legitimate case for any one of 14 or 15 players to win it. Great to see Tiger and Phil up there amongst their younger rivals.

Pissartist

Can't wait to see the poulter and tiger group tonight I'd say it'll be tense

MattressRick

It's a pity McIlroy isn't a few shots closer. At this rate 14 under or thereabouts will probably win it so best he can hope for is a top ten finish. Pressures off now though as he's too far back.

If he had only won two of the 4 majors he'd be under less pressure, but he looks like every time he hits a bad shot he's thinking it'll be another year until he can win there.

Degag

Dav010 wrote: »

I know this has been mentioned earlier, it’s a very limited field where some very good golfers are excluded due to ranking, but having so many old winners “competing” is going to be a big problem as golfers remain fitter as they age. Look at the cut, these guys have more chance of winning the lotto than competing here. I think they should limit it to 10 year exemption if you win and let more competitive guys play.


Molinari is some boy, what a player.

Disagree totally. The number of ex champions competing has no impact of the number of qualifiers making it through to Augusta - ie some years there could be 93 players playing, other years there could be 96 etc - its not like the US Open for example where *i think* it's limited to 156 players - I'd actually argue that percentage wise, there are more players who can legitimately win the Masters than win the US Open.

Looking at the ex-champions, it's not like before where there were players going out there shooting scores in the late 80s. The age exemption now is 65 and players in and around that age bracket have been putting in some very credible performances for years now - Couples, Langer, Watson, Singh etc. While, 11 of the 20 ex champions missed the cut this year, only 5 missed by over 2 shots!

It is in my opinion something that makes the Masters as special as it is. For people who have wached this tournament for years and years it is great watching and seeing past champions and especially nice when they play well and make a run for it.

Roger_007

glasso wrote: »

Anything going on longer than ten years in the US is "tradition" and because they are short on that and history it must never be changed and can only be talked about in revered tones.

The Masters seems to have more 'traditions' than any other golf tournament in the world. It comes across to me as excessively stuffy and elitist. The use of the term 'patrons' rather than fans and the ridiculous boiler suits worn by the caddies are a throwback to the not-so-good old days of class distinction and racial discrimination. The co-founder of the club, Clifford Roberts, once stated that "as long as I'm alive, all the golfers will be male and white and all the caddies will be black". The boilersuits were the caddies 'uniform'. I think it's time that particular 'tradition' was discontinued.

Roger_007

Roger_007 wrote: »

The Masters seems to have more 'traditions' than any other golf tournament in the world. It comes across to me as excessively stuffy and elitist. The use of the term 'patrons' rather than fans and the ridiculous boiler suits worn by the caddies are a throwback to the not-so-good old days of class distinction and racial discrimination. The co-founder of the club, Clifford Roberts, once stated that "as long as I'm alive, all the golfers will be male and white and all the caddies will be black". The boilersuits were the caddies 'uniform'. I think it's time that particular 'tradition' was discontinued.

they are up-their-own-arse a bit for sure and the media willingly buys into the whole thing to perpetuate it.

nevermind the continuous references to the flowers and assorted shrubbery - the Azaleas, the Azaleas, the Azaleas......

TomasMacR

Roger_007 wrote: »

The Masters seems to have more 'traditions' than any other golf tournament in the world. It comes across to me as excessively stuffy and elitist. The use of the term 'patrons' rather than fans and the ridiculous boiler suits worn by the caddies are a throwback to the not-so-good old days of class distinction and racial discrimination. The co-founder of the club, Clifford Roberts, once stated that "as long as I'm alive, all the golfers will be male and white and all the caddies will be black". The boilersuits were the caddies 'uniform'. I think it's time that particular 'tradition' was discontinued.

It’s just a unique selling point and an opportunity to try and make it stand out from the prestige of ‘The Open’ which in fairness also partakes in its own fair share of bollocks. It’s novelty nonsense not to be taken too seriously...wish they’d stop ****ing on about the azaleas more than anything being honest. I wouldn’t get too hung up on the boiler suits and the black lads that wore them, it’s not exactly comparable to pulling down confederate statues. surely all their descendants must take some joy in seeing all the white lads walking around in them looking like idiots now.

All this nonsense definitely contributes to demand and viewership figures which is more money, which is all that matters.

Clifford sounds like he was a right cnut.

eagle eye

Dav010 wrote:

I know this has been mentioned earlier, it’s a very limited field where some very good golfers are excluded due to ranking, but having so many old winners “competing†is going to be a big problem as golfers remain fitter as they age. Look at the cut, these guys have more chance of winning the lotto than competing here. I think they should limit it to 10 year exemption if you win and let more competitive guys play.

I disagree, love to see the greats of yesteryear teeing it up once a year. Amazing to watch the wonderful swing of Freddy Couples still as good as ever.
This is one tournament that should never change.

eagle eye

I think Koepka is the man, turned a 75 into a 71 yesterday. Justin Thomas is the one I could see getting himself right into the mix today.

Dav010

eagle eye wrote: »

I disagree, love to see the greats of yesteryear teeing it up once a year. Amazing to watch the wonderful swing of Freddy Couples still as good as ever.
This is one tournament that should never change.

You can watch seniors tournaments most weekends, lots of greats playing there and the coverage of their play will be much better than a couple of seconds on masters weekend.

I don’t want to do away with them completely, just after say 10 years. Take Mike Weir for example, he won in 2003 and can tee it up at the Masters for 17 more years, he made the cut once in the last 10 years.

Loafing Oaf

eagle eye wrote: »

I think Koepka is the man, turned a 75 into a 71 yesterday. Justin Thomas is the one I could see getting himself right into the mix today.

I'm leaning towards Oosthuizen. So many second places in majors, might just need a small break to land another big one.

strassenwo!f

There were 20 players who qualified and played in the competition based on being an ex-champion, and 12 players only qualified on that criterion. (Patrick Reed, for example, would have qualified on several criteria).

Of those 12, 10 missed the cut - only Immelman and Langer made it - which amounts to a colossal 45% of all the players who were cut. Woosnam, for example, cut for the 11th time in a row, during which his best score has been a 73.

As was said above, there's the seniors tour for those who want to see these ex-champions - though that admittedly doesn't yet help Danny Willett, and heaven knows what his game is going to be like if this pantomime continues and he's allowed to 'grace' the hallowed turf at the same age as Woosie or Sandy are now.

Remind me

Dav010 wrote: »

You can watch seniors tournaments most weekends, lots of greats playing there and the coverage of their play will be much better than a couple of seconds on masters weekend.

I don’t want to do away with them completely, just after say 10 years. Take Mike Weir for example, he won in 2003 and can tee it up at the Masters for 17 more years, he made the cut once in the last 10 years.

Weir missed it by 1

What about longer? Or Immelmann who has no status but made the cut.

Why is there a problem with the older winners playing, without them or the amatuers it'd just be another WGC event held at Augusta, its not like they dominate the TV time or anything it really doesn't/shouldn't matter one iota to a persons enjoyment of the tournament.

RikkFlair

Just saw the Zach Johnson incident, WTF....didn't he have another incident a few years ago when the rain delay hooter blew in the middle of his putt and he jumped 3 feet into the air with fright

TCM

glasso wrote:

wtf mcilroy? in the drink under no pressure.

That was an incredibly bad shot with mid iron. It was the shot if a mid handicap amateur.

CalamariFritti

Dav010 wrote: »

I know this has been mentioned earlier, it’s a very limited field where some very good golfers are excluded due to ranking, but having so many old winners “competing” is going to be a big problem as golfers remain fitter as they age. Look at the cut, these guys have more chance of winning the lotto than competing here. I think they should limit it to 10 year exemption if you win and let more competitive guys play.

I think it's simply one of those things that make the Masters different from all the other tournaments. I know they're probably a bunch of old codgers doing their 'tradition' thing, but there's also something classy about it.

Besides that, look at Langer...

Roger_007

The Masters is a bit of an anachronism of a 'major' golf tournament where it is effective run by the members of one golf club . It is an invitational event where the committee of Augusta can invite or refuse to invite whomsoever they like, or don't like. The other 'majors' are, at least, each run by a body which is representative of the generality of golfers.
Of course, by convention, Augusta choose to invite the top ranked 50 golfers. That gives the event the prestige it needs. After that they can invite whoever they like. This means that there are many gifted golfers around the world who may never get the chance to play in Augusta.
Golf is a world game and there is no good reason why tournaments recognised as majors shouldn't be played in other countries around the world. Why should there be 3 in the US, 1 in the U.K. and none anywhere else.
The Masters will live on but it's time to stop recognising it as a major. It is the plaything of just one elitist and exclusive golf club.

Degag

strassenwo!f wrote: »

doesn't yet help Danny Willett, and heaven knows what his game is going to be like if this pantomime continues and he's allowed to 'grace' the hallowed turf at the same age as Woosie or Sandy are now.

It doesn't matter what his game is going to be like. He is a former winner and like all others he can go out every year and play as is his right to do so.

Roger_007 wrote: »

Of course, by convention, Augusta choose to invite the top ranked 50 golfers. That gives the event the prestige it needs. After that they can invite whoever they like. This means that there are many gifted golfers around the world who may never get the chance to play in Augusta.

There are 19 different criteria in how someone can qualify for Augusta. If these "gifted" golfers can not qualify though these means, perhaps they are not so gifted after all?

Roger_007

Degag wrote: »

It doesn't matter what his game is going to be like. He is a former winner and like all others he can go out every year and play as is his right to do so.



There are 19 different criteria in how someone can qualify for Augusta. If these "gifted" golfers can not qualify though these means, perhaps they are not so gifted after all?

The criteria are decided by the committee of Augusta National. They represent nobody except themselves. They can change the criteria any time they like.
I just think it's wrong that a tournament which is regarded as a major is entirely controlled by one very elitist golf club.

fullstop

If the traditions of the masters bother you so much, you don’t have to watch it.

IAMAMORON

Link for Amen Corner Coverage.